Diane Abbott. Is she racist?

neiltb

surely there is a difference from saying something rash without thinking it through and being racist.

Have none of you said something and had to take it back as it embarrassed you?

I'd be more concerned if she maintained what she said was true and that all whiteys look the same.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

R
Rick: I see that you read Western European Guilt at degree level. No wonder you're so fcuked up.

It's not guilt.

I'm not even British.

I just don't rate brutal rule very highly!

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

FWIW, I don't think racism was 'invented' by Europeans in the 17th century - if you read some of the Roman writings about 'barbarians' it suggests that the same thing was going on 2000-odd years ago.

It's different though.

The racial element isn't there, not in the form we know it anyway. It's cultural then. It's certainly not darwinian.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

I'm afraid I don't go in for Empire-bashing. The Industrial Revolution moved the world forward by a considerable step. That's not a bad thing. And in something like 18 of the last 20 centuries the dominant economic nation has been China. England and the US get one each. Again, not something to be ashamed of.

Rick: I see that you read Western European Guilt at degree level. No wonder you're so fcuked up.

The big difference is that unlike the other empires referenced elsewhere in this thread the British Empire was a much more recent happening and it's after effects are still being felt today.

I don't think you need to feel guilty about it though any more than today's Germany should feel guilt about the Holocaust.

Anyway it's all over now. We sent you Louis Walsh and Jedward, you took our spuds....we'll call it evens

tailwindhome

...

Stone Glider

If you were to look for a Colonial Empire which still retains much of it's real estate and most of it's influence, how about the U S A? The Monroe Doctrine (1823) is still alive & well and living on Pennsylvania Avenue. That is a working example of 19th Century Colonialism still in operation today. There is an argument to be made that an empire will vitiate the conqueror by the demands of maintaining a stance where the economic logic for acquisition has lapsed.

Although I feel Britain suffered when the middle classes we exported to run the Empire had nowhere to go after WW2 and we were stuck with the twerps back home.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

FWIW, I don't think racism was 'invented' by Europeans in the 17th century - if you read some of the Roman writings about 'barbarians' it suggests that the same thing was going on 2000-odd years ago.

It's different though.

The racial element isn't there, not in the form we know it anyway. It's cultural then. It's certainly not darwinian.

The British Empire far predates the idea of Darwinian evolution. The pre-Darwinian view of creation allows for a hierarchy of species, so all you have to do is claim that different races are different species, and you have racial element. I'm pretty sure if you read up on classical history, you'll find that there was plenty of racism in the Greek or Roman empires. Have a look at The Dying Gaul.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

FWIW, I don't think racism was 'invented' by Europeans in the 17th century - if you read some of the Roman writings about 'barbarians' it suggests that the same thing was going on 2000-odd years ago.

It's different though.

The racial element isn't there, not in the form we know it anyway. It's cultural then. It's certainly not darwinian.

The British Empire far predates the idea of Darwinian evolution. The pre-Darwinian view of creation allows for a hierarchy of species, so all you have to do is claim that different races are different species, and you have racial element. I'm pretty sure if you read up on classical history, you'll find that there was plenty of racism in the Greek or Roman empires. Have a look at The Dying Gaul.

It's different.

You're right, at the beginning of the Empire the racial discourse hadn't really been developed. Like I said, it hits its stride from 1870 onwards.

rick_chasey

Anyway, she going to go?

Me thinks not. Office verdict? That she will.

sketchley

Diane quiet rightly pointed out in the first tweet that the instant you define a group based on ethnicity and then make a generalisations about a group as it can lead to those outside of the group viewing that group as whole. This is big problem and why I often take issue with positive discrimination. She then goes on to completely screw up a very good point by doing exactly that in the second tweet, at best it is an unfortunate choice of words, at worst it shows an underlying opinion that she believes the battle against racism is a battle of whites against blacks rather than a problem with racism and racists regardless of colour.

She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

In 1996, she commented that at her local hospital "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable as nurses because they had "never met a black person before".[37] The secretary of the all-party Finland group of MPs, Conservative Ian Bruce responded by accusing her of "using racial stereotypes", adding: "All Scandinavian countries have people from African and Caribbean countries living there. It shows ignorance to make such remarks."[38] She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

In 1988, at a Black Studies conference in the United States of America, she gave a speech, in which she said, "the British invented racism."[40]

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyway, she going to go?

Me thinks not. Office verdict? That she will.

I don't particularly care what she tweeted, but I still think she's a terrible politician and her token presence in the shadow cabinet makes it hard to take Labour seriously at the moment. They should bring Oona King back in from the wilderness imo.

I don't think she's going to go.

EKE_38BPM

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

sketchley

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

tailwindhome

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

By Eke's logic Terry may not have been wrong about Ferdinand. Nor was Suarez wrong about Evra.

Ben6899

Sketchley via Wiki wrote:

In 1996, she commented that at her local hospital "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable as nurses because they had "never met a black person before".[37] The secretary of the all-party Finland group of MPs, Conservative Ian Bruce responded by accusing her of "using racial stereotypes", adding: "All Scandinavian countries have people from African and Caribbean countries living there. It shows ignorance to make such remarks."[38] She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

In 1988, at a Black Studies conference in the United States of America, she gave a speech, in which she said, "the British invented racism."[40]

Yep. She's a fuck1ng d1ck. As well as racist.

EKE_38BPM

TailWindHome wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

By Eke's logic Terry may not have been wrong about Ferdinand. Nor was Suarez wrong about Evra.

As I said, it was unnecessary for her to point out their race. She didn't say white to insult them, but as she was talking about the head of the coalition and the comment was (probably) aimed at a UK audience (who know who they are), then it was unnecessary to point out their race.
In the Terry and Suarez incidents, their race was used as an insult, which is racist.

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

Wasn't that a comment on the political elite though? And it is a bit of a problem though don't you think? I mean, that our representatives tend to be upper class and very rich by independent means. The implication is that they lack empathy with the general populace because they can't directly relate to the experience of being on average or below average salaries. I think thats an interesting point.

Paul E

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

Wasn't that a comment on the political elite though? And it is a bit of a problem though don't you think? I mean, that our representatives tend to be upper class and very rich by independent means. The implication is that they lack empathy with the general populace because they can't directly relate to the experience of being on average or below average salaries. I think thats an interesting point.

She isn't exactly poor either, and I thinik there was an element of intending an insult by mentioning they are white in the sentence which wasn't needed so why say it if you don't intend it to mean something

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

Wasn't that a comment on the political elite though? And it is a bit of a problem though don't you think? I mean, that our representatives tend to be upper class and very rich by independent means. The implication is that they lack empathy with the general populace because they can't directly relate to the experience of being on average or below average salaries. I think thats an interesting point.

The implication you are making is that because of social and ethnic background they lack the skill set to do their job correctly? Or do you mean that your assumption of them being privilege means it ok to discriminate against them? If I said about a possible future PM and chancellor that are not fit to do the job as they "are two, poor black men" and therefore could not relate to real world of business and finance you would understandably jump down my throat for it. When it comes to this discrimination of all kinds you cannot have it one rule for one and one rule for another simply because it fits your political view, which is what I think Abbot did, which is a shame as her first point I agreed with completely.

Monkeypump

notsoblue wrote:

...I still think she's a terrible politician and her token presence in the shadow cabinet makes it hard to take Labour seriously at the moment.

Couldn't agree more.

notsoblue wrote:

I don't think she's going to go.

And unfortunately have to agree with this too.

roger_merriman

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

Wasn't that a comment on the political elite though? And it is a bit of a problem though don't you think? I mean, that our representatives tend to be upper class and very rich by independent means. The implication is that they lack empathy with the general populace because they can't directly relate to the experience of being on average or below average salaries. I think thats an interesting point.

I suspect that she is less representative than they are to be honest.

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

I suspect that she is less representative than they are to be honest.

Of whome?

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

I suspect that she is less representative than they are to be honest.

Of whome?

uk population.

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

I suspect that she is less representative than they are to be honest.

Of whome?

uk population.

Class wise she is. For sure.

Clegg is pretty blue blooded, and Cameron's hardly a man of the people, and to be honest, he doesn't really make efforts to be either. He just says stuff like " I get it" after talking about stuff that affects poor people.

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...
She also has some previous form. From wikipedia

...She referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys" in May 2010.[39]

Its unnecessary to point out their race, but she's not wrong though, is she?
There are two of them, they are both posh, they are white and they have external genetalia (I assume).

Correct she was not wrong.

However, in the context of what she was saying on twitter it does reflect a double standard, in so much that she was pointing out on twitter to not use the term "black community" generically as it creates division when viewed by those outside the community, but has done exactly the same in reverse a number of occasional including the "two posh white boys" comments and that twitter post.

By Eke's logic Terry may not have been wrong about Ferdinand. Nor was Suarez wrong about Evra.

As I said, it was unnecessary for her to point out their race. She didn't say white to insult them, but as she was talking about the head of the coalition and the comment was (probably) aimed at a UK audience (who know who they are), then it was unnecessary to point out their race.
In the Terry and Suarez incidents, their race was used as an insult, which is racist.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course she intended it as an insult.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Don't be ridiculous. Of course she intended it as an insult.

A little into semantics here but white isn't a derogatory term afaik. She wasn't being positive in the comment for sure, but she isn't 'doing a Suarez' or Terry. It's a sneery comment about privilege, and, like it or not, race is a part of that > especially for her.

The UK could do with more representation of minorities in parliament, and in senior positions. I don't mind her particularly - though I don't know much about her.

LeicesterLad

Its just typical Diane Abbott isn't it? She basically sits around making controversial comments for the most part of her job. I don't think i have ever seen her on telly without reminding the host, audience, viewer that she is Black and underprivileged.

sketchley

LeicesterLad wrote:

Its just typical Diane Abbott isn't it? She basically sits around making controversial comments for the most part of her job. I don't think i have ever seen her on telly without reminding the host, audience, viewer that she is Black and underprivileged.

In 2010, the left-winger was criticised by broadcaster Andrew Neil for sending her son to the £12,700-a-year City of London School.

Name me one underprivileged person that can afford £12,700 a year school fees for their son.

notsoblue

Paul E wrote:

She isn't exactly poor either, and I thinik there was an element of intending an insult by mentioning they are white in the sentence which wasn't needed so why say it if you don't intend it to mean something

Well don't get me wrong, I don't support her in the slightest. I think she's gotten to where she has now partly because of her race and gender. Both of which are unrepresented, and for whom she claims she speaks. Despite still being part of the same elite she is criticising for popular support. Its hard to not call hypocrite when she sent her son to a fee paying school.

I still don't think it was meant as an insult, I think she was just pandering to the group she is seen amongst her peers to represent.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

I suspect that she is less representative than they are to be honest.

Of whome?

uk population.

Class wise she is. For sure.

Clegg is pretty blue blooded, and Cameron's hardly a man of the people, and to be honest, he doesn't really make efforts to be either. He just says stuff like " I get it" after talking about stuff that affects poor people.

look at her life, and think how many other women let alone her ethnic background have had simular paths.

blue blooded filthy rich middle aged men are not uncommon.