Funk N. Furter wrote:
The Finn wrote:
I come across this all the time: photographs that I call '
poverty porn' -
Why the FUCK would you call it that?
Did you read the link? It discusses the issue fairly well
As I’ve come to believe, poverty porn, also known as development porn or even famine porn, is any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause. Poverty porn is typically associated with black, poverty-stricken Africans, but can be found elsewhere. The subjects are overwhelming children, with the material usually characterized by images or descriptions of suffering, malnourished or otherwise helpless persons. The stereotype of poverty porn is the African child with a swollen belly, staring blankly into the camera, waiting for salvation.
The reason poverty porn is so pervasive is that it promotes a popular stereotype, one that has always existed in Western literature about Africa. Binyavanga Wainaina wrote a brilliant piece several years ago in Granta about this practice called “How to write about Africa:”
Among your characters you must always include The Starving African, who wanders the refugee camp nearly naked, and waits for the benevolence of the West. Her children have flies on their eyelids and pot bellies, and her breasts are flat and empty. She must look utterly helpless. She can have no past, no history; such diversions ruin the dramatic moment. Moans are good. She must never say anything about herself in the dialogue except to speak of her (unspeakable) suffering.
Personally I think such depictions of poor people demeans them: it deprives them of individuality and personality; they become blank, anonymous figures, merely serving to illustrate existing western stereotypes.
Check out that picture, for instance. As Galt asked - who is the person? Where are they? Do we even know what country they are in? Sure, you got it off a youtube video; but in that video, the image is used precisely in the way that Binyavana Wainana objects against. Google that image, and you will get upwards of 140 000 hits - but nowhere that I looked (I trawled through the first 40 hits or so) could I get any clue about who it is and where.
Why not? Because to the people who posted it, it doesn't matter. It's image-fodder. It makes a point. And they use it for all kinds of purposes - to serve in blanket arguments about poverty in Africa, to promote GMO maize - they don't care.
After 40 hits, I have up. I can't bear to look at that image. It distresses and horrifies me even to see it, and it horrifies me more to see the callous way in which people will make use of it without ever apparently wondering about the actual people it portrays.
You know Funken, the funny thing is I don't even disagree with the basic point you were making. I actually do agree that the workings of capitalism make poverty and hunger in Africa worse.
But I hated the use of that image, and I still hate it, and I was making a plea for basic human respect and decency. You can take that thought aboard or not - it's your choice.
.