Posted on 02/28/2019 3:58:43 PM PST by blueplum
Bare-faced and clad in jeans, clutching a rather uncertain-looking black toddler on her hip, Stacey Dooley stands beaming in the dust of a parched African landscape. At first glance you could mistake it for a gap year snapshot, destined to be pinned up somewhere in a student bedroom. Dooley is, of course, one of the breakout stars of this year’s Strictly Come Dancing, and the picture was taken in Uganda, where she is making a film for the upcoming Comic Relief...(snip)
Which is perhaps why the Labour MP David Lammy touched such a nerve when he responded to the image by tweeting that “the world doesn’t need any more white saviours”, or western do-gooders flying in, believing they are solving the developing world’s problems while blissfully ignorant of the colonial baggage they carry...(snip)
... the campaign group No White Saviors, which in criticising the Dooley picture made it clear it doesn’t want to stop white people coming to Africa, merely to stop white people making themselves the hero of the story. What makes that so difficult for some to take is that it isn’t just about asking one presenter to take a back seat, but also all those viewers who unconsciously identify with her.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
+1,000
No more aid to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East FOREVER!
Feed, and clothe your own kind. Build for yourselves and don’t ask Whitey to save you - ever again.
Don’t ask to come to our countries either - RACISTS....
China owns half of Africa & Latin America already by the defaults of their massive infrastructure projects.
They’ll be colonizing those nations soon once the next world war starts too.
Your test for that question is Scotland.
They painted themselves blue and lived in mud-huts until at least the 13th century.
I know China has global ambitions, but they’re already hitting their population collapse in mainland China. What manpower they’ll have for the colonies remains to be seen.
I think the 13th Century blue-painting was revivalism.
You’re right, there is a short window of opportunity. It’ll probably be an option for at least the next 20 years though. By then AI will be so advanced (if we make it that far - we won’t IMHO) that there might not even be a need for people.
I think the potential of AI is vastly overimagined.
LOL!
O-Kay...then the Native Americans painted themselves, lived in mud-huts all the way into the 1870s.
Some groups of people just aren’t ambitious enough. It’s considered racist to point that out these days though.
Ambitious for what, is the question.
I don’t, there are plenty of academics out there who literally state what I just posted. People will not be needed.
The dumb people in our society are already being replaced.
That self check-out line at your local grocery store is AI.
The conveyor belts and automated inventory scanners and housing are replacing forklift drivers, packers, counters, and supervisors.
Smart Meters are replacing meter readers.
Automated Robo Calls are replacing collectors.
Call Center Employees are being outsourced by “self-help” web services.
Your question in 12
What would we gain?
could send all the libtards on “vacation” to the colonies
There are plenty of academics who literally state all sorts of utter nincompoopery.
You can’t make ‘em go, and if they go, you can’t make ‘em stay gone.
You are correct about that, but AI isn’t one of those subjects. AI is technology and it’s here already. The “smart home” is considered hip and cool and is literally a dang robot system controlling everything from your thermostat to your coffee maker in the house. Home Security system, phone, computer, lights, tv’s, oven, stove-top. You name it, it’s controlled by AI if you’ve got the Nest/Alexa systems.
20 years ago, who’d have thought you could hold a computer in the palm of your hand. Now, that same computer listens to you and sends you nice little ads based on what you’ve said to promote products & services.
We could start by not allowing legal immigrants from those countries.Importing leftist voters.
“What technology can do” and “what people really need” are quite distinct categories, in my opinion. The money is going to be in personal services, because the Top People won’t trust the technology for care.
Not talking personal services so much, but manufacturing, warehousing, food plants, production assemblies. What would businesses rather pay for?
An almost minimum wage HS drop-out who destroys $26k worth of equipment for being clumsy, can’t get to work on time, work work all the time, and has chip on his shoulder about his boss.
OR....
A computer that moves the product, does all the work, flawlessly, on time, every time, 24/7, for free, without the lip service and attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.