So you would have preferred her to refrain from helping the boy because of their differences in skin color? Isn’t that… wildly racist? Wanting the child to suffer more just because of race? Because it might resemble some cinematic/literary trope?
I suppose this is a decent reminder to limit my social media consumption. This is gross.
I don’t think it matters much to the kids that now have a shot at life. What you are describing is a symptom of the exploitation of the global south. It doesn’t look like the woman exploits them, other than awarness to raise money to save more.
Okay but like if youre gonna have a charity and help people, how else do you expect them to help? Hire black people to send to africa to help africans? That seems pretty fucking racist to me.
I understand where you’re coming from, and it wouldn’t apply in this specific context (where locals had rejected the poor boy), but in a general sense, the idea is to partner or invest in such a way to enable locals to lead the change efforts, or at least have a significant stake and voice.
In the business world, there are often silent investors who back entrepreneurs. Their financial input make a business possible, but leave the operations to the entrepreneur. The investor backs the entrepreneur, and they both profit.
It’s a different model and it takes more time and effort to find local partners to build up their capacity over time, but enabling locals will get stronger long-term results for the recipients of charity. It’s the difference between providing food packages to people and giving people agricultural tools to provide food for themselves in the long run. Obviously, in a situation of dire need, providing food is an immediate need, but only providing food instead of also providing tools keeps the recipients in a dependent situation. If they’re dependent on foreign charity forever, it’s just another form of control and colonialism.
What this woman had done, by caring for this poor boy, was long-term investing in him. Now he has an education and will be able to work and care for himself.
Wee boy was accused of witchcraft and being possessed. You can’t outcash superstition and corruption. Sometimes you need to put your feet on the ground but doing that would be white saviour complex. Fucking clowns
The woman in the top picture giving water to the starving kid actually happened though, she found the abandoned kid in Africa who was called a witch by his village and was on the verge of death so she adopted him from what I remember. You posting about fictional white saviorsin media has nothing to do with her being a human being and saving g that kid’s life.
So… she’s actually in a place where people need help, doing the work herself, but you’re fixated on skin color? Because she’s white, she’s only allowed to help other white people without being mocked?
So you would have preferred her to refrain from helping the boy because of their differences in skin color? Isn’t that… wildly racist? Wanting the child to suffer more just because of race? Because it might resemble some cinematic/literary trope?
I suppose this is a decent reminder to limit my social media consumption. This is gross.
I don’t think it matters much to the kids that now have a shot at life. What you are describing is a symptom of the exploitation of the global south. It doesn’t look like the woman exploits them, other than awarness to raise money to save more.
Okay but like if youre gonna have a charity and help people, how else do you expect them to help? Hire black people to send to africa to help africans? That seems pretty fucking racist to me.
Maybe they could wear masks so nobody could tell their ethnicity?
I understand where you’re coming from, and it wouldn’t apply in this specific context (where locals had rejected the poor boy), but in a general sense, the idea is to partner or invest in such a way to enable locals to lead the change efforts, or at least have a significant stake and voice.
In the business world, there are often silent investors who back entrepreneurs. Their financial input make a business possible, but leave the operations to the entrepreneur. The investor backs the entrepreneur, and they both profit.
It’s a different model and it takes more time and effort to find local partners to build up their capacity over time, but enabling locals will get stronger long-term results for the recipients of charity. It’s the difference between providing food packages to people and giving people agricultural tools to provide food for themselves in the long run. Obviously, in a situation of dire need, providing food is an immediate need, but only providing food instead of also providing tools keeps the recipients in a dependent situation. If they’re dependent on foreign charity forever, it’s just another form of control and colonialism.
What this woman had done, by caring for this poor boy, was long-term investing in him. Now he has an education and will be able to work and care for himself.
Wee boy was accused of witchcraft and being possessed. You can’t outcash superstition and corruption. Sometimes you need to put your feet on the ground but doing that would be white saviour complex. Fucking clowns
The woman in the top picture giving water to the starving kid actually happened though, she found the abandoned kid in Africa who was called a witch by his village and was on the verge of death so she adopted him from what I remember. You posting about fictional white saviorsin media has nothing to do with her being a human being and saving g that kid’s life.
At least it’s not a Shitpost about Trump
🤔 is it even a shitpost at all?
So… she’s actually in a place where people need help, doing the work herself, but you’re fixated on skin color? Because she’s white, she’s only allowed to help other white people without being mocked?
Attitudes like that are part of the problem.
Edit: here’s her website: Land of Hope
You left out the part where it’s a true story.
Not a trope. If only there was google.
TIL real life is cinema