David Lammy vs White Saviours
Earlier in the year, David Lammy criticised Comic Relief and the notion of white saviours when Stacey Dooley went out to somewhere in Africa and was photographed with a young child.
Lammy then on the This Morning program, made a comment about the young black boy not having free agency and had his fingers in his mouth while being held by the beautiful white saviour, Stacey Dooley.
This is all really rather pathetic isn't it?
I quick look at the photograph myself, and, I don't know how people gather so much meaning from a photograph, I just saw a natural looking photograph of what looked like a beautiful healthy boy.
I've been to Malawi with a group of people and I had a fantastic experience.
The people were warm and friendly and the welcome and hospitality was amazing. You saw people struggling and people desperate for money, trying to convince you to buy various things. We saw children at airports wanting anything we could give them. But we also saw people who were trying to make things happen, people who had the joy, the energy and the passion, hard working people who had a real thirst and you just know that they are the future. They have a real desire to improve themselves - they just need the opportunities and that chance.
We've been criticised in the west for our colonialism and invasion of other countries, for living in luxury while the rest of the world suffers.
So I just ask, what's wrong with helping others to achieve their dreams? Just because a white person went to Africa, doesn't make them a white saviour.
I don't think the west is necessarily anything to look up to with it's materialism and consumerism. There are things we can learn from other countries with regards to actually living - including community and faith.
I do understand however, that when it comes to aid, we shouldn't go in with any pre-conceived ideas and imperialistic attitudes thinking that our way is the best. We should simply go with the spirit of brotherhood. Maybe that's what Lammy was trying to say?
Lammy then on the This Morning program, made a comment about the young black boy not having free agency and had his fingers in his mouth while being held by the beautiful white saviour, Stacey Dooley.
This is all really rather pathetic isn't it?
I quick look at the photograph myself, and, I don't know how people gather so much meaning from a photograph, I just saw a natural looking photograph of what looked like a beautiful healthy boy.
I've been to Malawi with a group of people and I had a fantastic experience.
The people were warm and friendly and the welcome and hospitality was amazing. You saw people struggling and people desperate for money, trying to convince you to buy various things. We saw children at airports wanting anything we could give them. But we also saw people who were trying to make things happen, people who had the joy, the energy and the passion, hard working people who had a real thirst and you just know that they are the future. They have a real desire to improve themselves - they just need the opportunities and that chance.
We've been criticised in the west for our colonialism and invasion of other countries, for living in luxury while the rest of the world suffers.
So I just ask, what's wrong with helping others to achieve their dreams? Just because a white person went to Africa, doesn't make them a white saviour.
I don't think the west is necessarily anything to look up to with it's materialism and consumerism. There are things we can learn from other countries with regards to actually living - including community and faith.
I do understand however, that when it comes to aid, we shouldn't go in with any pre-conceived ideas and imperialistic attitudes thinking that our way is the best. We should simply go with the spirit of brotherhood. Maybe that's what Lammy was trying to say?
Comments