David Lammy’s attack on Stacey Dooley exposes the troubled relationship between fame and charity
If it’s overdue (and it is) to crash the patronising, self-serving western narrative of the “white saviour” in Africa and elsewhere, then isn’t it also important to ensure that all charitable white-on-black endeavours aren’t automatically dismissed as condescending and offensive?
The latest white saviour row is a rerun of what has become a cyclical, increasingly heated debate, turning on charity and race. Documentary maker and Strictly Come Dancing winner Stacey Dooley appeared in photographs holding a child in Uganda, for a Comic Relief film.
David Lammy responded that the last thing the world needed was another white saviour. Lammy was then accused of turning down an opportunity to work with Comic Relief, which he denies. And so it goes on.
The white saviour debate is complex and valuable, going far beyond, but also including, charity. Just as a gap-year stint in troubled areas shouldn’t be (only) a way for middle-class kids to boost their CVs, starvation and despair shouldn’t be “good PR” for halo-polishing celebrities. No one is arguing with that. However, in 2009, Ricky Gervais’s spoof of such visits (for Comic Relief) got widely slammed as tasteless. As far as I could tell, Gervais was making the point about how crass such appeals could sometimes be and Comic Relief was allowing him to do so. I thought then, as I do now, if even self-awareness ends up criticised, then where is any charity supposed to go from there?
While it’s good to learn that experts and locals are to feature more prominently in on-the-ground charity appeals, in the UK and abroad, could cynicism about the use of celebrities be taken too far? It’s as though they must be kept away from affected regions in case they invalidate the appeal. The brutal truth is that celebrities are there for a reason. Presumably people are aware of how difficult it is for charities to raise awareness and funds. That, with someone such as Dooley, it’s about using a celebrity, black or white, to draw people in.
Then there’s the issue of celebrity motivation. Sure, some celebrities might be egomaniacal monsters, whose only concern is that they look hot in cargo pants, but with most, the basic human instinct would be to want to help. If that’s your motivation, then why the grim rush to question theirs?
That Africa needs white saviours is a dangerous, insulting, shabby narrative. However, there are also issues with the idea that white westerners visibly helping black people must be instantly slammed for… what, exactly? Colluding in the warped sociohistorical continuum? Is that always true, every single time – or is there a danger in being overly cynical?
(Source: The Guardian)
If it’s overdue (and it is) to crash the patronising, self-serving western narrative of the “white saviour” in Africa and elsewhere, then isn’t it also important to ensure that all charitable white-on-black endeavours aren’t automatically dismissed as condescending and offensive?
The latest white saviour row is a rerun of what has become a cyclical, increasingly heated debate, turning on charity and race. Documentary maker and Strictly Come Dancing winner Stacey Dooley appeared in photographs holding a child in Uganda, for a Comic Relief film.
David Lammy responded that the last thing the world needed was another white saviour. Lammy was then accused of turning down an opportunity to work with Comic Relief, which he denies. And so it goes on.
 | |
| In the line of fire: Stacey Dooley in Uganda for Comic Relief. Photograph: @sjdooley Instagram |
While it’s good to learn that experts and locals are to feature more prominently in on-the-ground charity appeals, in the UK and abroad, could cynicism about the use of celebrities be taken too far? It’s as though they must be kept away from affected regions in case they invalidate the appeal. The brutal truth is that celebrities are there for a reason. Presumably people are aware of how difficult it is for charities to raise awareness and funds. That, with someone such as Dooley, it’s about using a celebrity, black or white, to draw people in.
Then there’s the issue of celebrity motivation. Sure, some celebrities might be egomaniacal monsters, whose only concern is that they look hot in cargo pants, but with most, the basic human instinct would be to want to help. If that’s your motivation, then why the grim rush to question theirs?
That Africa needs white saviours is a dangerous, insulting, shabby narrative. However, there are also issues with the idea that white westerners visibly helping black people must be instantly slammed for… what, exactly? Colluding in the warped sociohistorical continuum? Is that always true, every single time – or is there a danger in being overly cynical?
(Source: The Guardian)
No comments:
Post a Comment