Diane Abbott. Is she racist?

jds_1981

EKE_38BPM wrote:

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).

Technically it looks like she was playing 'divide and conquer', point out that their backgrounds are somewhat different to much of the populations and claim this means that they are suitable to represent.

DonDaddyD

I think the comparisons to Suarez (confirmed - spen) and Terry (allegedly - spen) are ridiculous.

What she said was offensive, ignorant and poorly put. Similar to ethinicly insensitive gaffs made by Boris and Clarkson. She is in some ways a buffoon just like they are. No I don't think any of the aforementioned should step down/resign etc and I don't think what she said was racist or intentionally racist.

She wasn't wrong in what she was saying, in as much as it is a tactic that is and has been used.

I do however disagree with her position in this conversation and believe the journalist to be correct.

I'm not sure there is anything more to be said on this, though.

rick_chasey

roger merriman wrote:

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.

I'd say it's quite hard to stay 'true' to you 'underprivileged' roots if you are a successful politician by that measure, and proportionally, blue blooded filthy rich middle aged men are pretty uncommon. Maybe not where you live (!) but for the nation, definitely.

DonDaddyD

jds_1981 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

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).

Sorry misquoted: On Cameron and Clegg, she is absolutely right. They are two posh white boys and pointing out that fact is not wrong, incorrect nor is it insulting to identify someone by their race.

How many years over the course of Diane's do you think she's been identified as a Black politician or a Black woman or the First Female Black Politician.

I personally would hate to live in a Country where it becomes wrong to describe someone by their distinguishing aspects i.e. gender, ethnicity, background etc...



Also I disagree with those saying that using the term white was wrong. I think in the context of the conversation it was entirely necessary to point out race.

The discussion was about the use of the phrase "The Black Community". If the media can continually use the colour to describe a demographic within society then why can't a lay person do the same to propose a counter argument?

Diane is an advocate for the phrase "Black Community" as it signifies "Black people" (rightly or wrongly) the counter point of this is the White Community and it's intention to divide and conquer. I don't necessarily agree with the view. But if the arena these terms operates already allows the wide spread use of the term black to identify and group black people while not singling out each individual, then why can you not do the same with the word white?

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

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.

Neither really. What I'm saying is that if you've never had to survive on very little money, its more difficult to empathise with those who have had to do that. This has an effect when a parliament pushes through policy or legislation for stuff like inheritance tax or financial sector regulation. If you, your friends, and your family are all of a level of income or capital that allows you to have heavy investment in the stock market, or put you in a position where you're going to inherit a large sum of money, then you'll be more sensitive to those issues than for example the NHS or housing benefit.

Thats not to say that one way or another is right or wrong, just that at the moment, parliament *is* overrepresented by wealthy white people (emphasis on the wealthy) and that is reflected in the type of society we have. It would be naive to say that Cameron's recent anti-banker rhetoric is anything more than an attempt to disarm the opposition.

sketchley

I've just read more about what was said on Twitter. I had wrongly picked up that it was Diane Abbott talking about using the term "Black Community" leading to more divisiveness. Reading it again it was the Journalist that was arguing this not her. I got that the wrong way round. Nothing Diane said I in fact agree with. The journalist on the other hand comes out of it rather well and making some very good points, worth a read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... sfeed=true

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

I've just read more about what was said on Twitter. I had wrongly picked up that it was Diane Abbott talking about using the term "Black Community" leading to more divisiveness. Reading it again it was the Journalist that was arguing this not her. I got that the wrong way round. Nothing Diane said I in fact agree with. The journalist on the other hand comes out of it rather well and making some very good points, worth a read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... sfeed=true

I prefer this column: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu

More or less where I stand.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

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.

I'd say it's quite hard to stay 'true' to you 'underprivileged' roots if you are a successful politician by that measure, and proportionally, blue blooded filthy rich middle aged men are pretty uncommon. Maybe not where you live (!) but for the nation, definitely.

Since she went to grammer school and then cambridge and thus into the media and no local radio etc, Underprivileged roots I think not.

clearly you don't find blue blooded filthy rich around every street, more likely in the Surrey hills!

But darn sight easier to find than Diane Abbott a likes. there are 2% black people in uk of that how had a Grammar school education, or went to Cambridge university? and so on.

DonDaddyD

Dianne Abbott is 58, do you know how much misogynistic-racism and she must have endured...

It's not determined how her schooling was funded but given her parents were immigrants (1953) and knowing from conversations from my own grandparents how hard life was back then. I think the underpriviledged roots stance holds despite the luck she had along the way.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's not determined how her schooling was funded but given her parents were immigrants (1953) and knowing from conversations from my own grandparents how hard life was back then. I think the underpriviledged roots stance holds despite the luck she had along the way.

I don't know how her schooling was funded either, but its wrong to assume that all immigrants are underprivileged.

W1

She's an absolute gift....to the Tories.

Together with Balls, Milliband, that Harman thing, there is no better advert for voting for anyone other than Labour, if this is how they are lead.

I hope she stays.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue,

I do not know of any black people who would say that they didn't have to struggle when they arrived in England during the Windrush era.

The promise of work wasn't there and if it was then most white people didn't want to give it to a person from another ethnicity.

It's been well documented.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

She's an absolute gift....to the Tories.

Together with Balls, Milliband, that Harman thing, there is no better advert for voting for anyone other than Labour, if this is how they are lead.

I hope she stays.

For the sheer sake of simply keeping the current Government honest, this generation (the successors to Blair and Brown) of infighting egotiscal Labour MPs need to go.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

She's an absolute gift....to the Tories.

Together with Balls, Milliband, that Harman thing, there is no better advert for voting for anyone other than Labour, if this is how they are lead.

I hope she stays.

For the sheer sake of simply keeping the current Government honest, this generation (the successors to Blair and Brown) of infighting egotiscal Labour MPs need to go.

You're right.

But for the reason you cite, they won't.

W1

This lot are are the gift that keeps on giving:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... gaffe.html

LeicesterLad

W1 wrote:

This lot are are the gift that keeps on giving:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... gaffe.html

The Taxi comment is bang out of order and anyway round my way 95% of the cabbies are of an ethnic minority background.

W1

LeicesterLad wrote:

W1 wrote:

This lot are are the gift that keeps on giving:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... gaffe.html

The Taxi comment is bang out of order and anyway round my way 95% of the cabbies are of an ethnic minority background.

You mean this one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/t ... ngers.html

"She might have trouble getting a cab in the future and it won’t be because she’s black, it will be because she is stupid"

A true delight.

bigmat

I think it may be time for her to be moved to the back benches. And as a general point - MPs, twitter, noooo!

LeicesterLad

Backbenches is still too good for her...

LeicesterLad

BigMat wrote:

I think it may be time for her to be moved to the back benches. And as a general point - MPs, twitter, noooo!

Segregation?

LeicesterLad

W1 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

W1 wrote:

This lot are are the gift that keeps on giving:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... gaffe.html

The Taxi comment is bang out of order and anyway round my way 95% of the cabbies are of an ethnic minority background.

You mean this one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/t ... ngers.html

"She might have trouble getting a cab in the future and it won’t be because she’s black, it will be because she is stupid"

A true delight.

That brightened up my sh*t afternoon.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think the comparisons to Suarez (confirmed - spen) and Terry (allegedly - spen) are ridiculous.

All three have referred to another individuals race in an insulting manner.

The difference is of course that with Suarez and Terry what the said was in the heat of a football match.

Also I'm inclined to have some sympathy with Suarez's culural defence.

Interesting piece on that here

Out of interest what are your thoughts on Alan Hansen's use of the word 'coloured'?

DonDaddyD

Right Terry and Suarez: It is assumed that they used actual racist language, i.e. a racist word or a racist phrase.

Diane Abbott simply said white people. That isn't racist. The rest of what she said alongside "white people" could be taken as insulting or offensive.

What she said is not racist as in to 'express hatred towards an entire race' in the same way as calling someone a "f*cking black c*nt" or "Negro" as John Terry and Suarez are alleged to have said.

When I first heard about the Suarez case I did think might be cultural difference.

bigmat

The Suarez case is interesting. I don't really buy the "cultural" defence though, Suarez has been based in Europe for several years. Also, his comments to Evra weren't exactly in the course of a friendly chat. Terry is pretty black and white (ahem), clearly racist and unbelievably arrogant to say that during the course of a match in front of thousands of people, and to an England colleagues brother no less. I can't help thinking that in another life he might have been hanging around with the two in the dock earlier this week - harsh, perhaps, but probably fair.

As for Abbott, she repeatedly makes sweeping comments about the ills of white society. She needs to sort it out - its not acceptable. The really irritating thing is that it often detracts from valid points she is trying to make.

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

Diane Abbott simply said white people. That isn't racist. The rest of what she said alongside "white people" could be taken as insulting or offensive.

Oh please.......as it was insulting to just one race and soley because of that race, it is racist - kind of the definition of racism really!

I've always though DA was racist, not as overtly as many, but racist none the less, in an unguarded moment she has confirmed it, for that I am grateful.

Simon

DonDaddyD

Never watch family guy...

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right Terry and Suarez: It is assumed that they used actual racist language, i.e. a racist word or a racist phrase.

Diane Abbott simply said white people. That isn't racist. The rest of what she said alongside "white people" could be taken as insulting or offensive.

What she said is not racist as in to 'express hatred towards an entire race' in the same way as calling someone a "f*cking black c*nt" or "Negro" as John Terry and Suarez are alleged to have said.

When I first heard about the Suarez case I did think might be cultural difference.

Hehe. Not even sure I was convinced my own argument there...but it's Friday so I gave it a go.

Abbott isn't racist. Greg66 hit the nail on the head many pages ago. Her 'posh white boys' comment was intended to be derogatory, but smacks more of 'class' war than 'race' war.

cornerblock

Do I think Diane Abbot is a racist? No. Is what she said racist? Yes 100%. The only word missing from her offensive tweet was 'all'. You can not make such sweeping generalisations on a whole race of people, not just because it is unacceptable, but because it is wrong, as in not correct. Good and bad in every kind is how I was brought up.

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

Diane Abbott simply said white people. That isn't racist. The rest of what she said alongside "white people" could be taken as insulting or offensive.

Yes it was, don't try and twist it around by trying to seperate the words "white people" from the other part of what she said, what she said was racist pure and simple. It's the very definition of what being racist means.

notsoblue

Paul E wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Diane Abbott simply said white people. That isn't racist. The rest of what she said alongside "white people" could be taken as insulting or offensive.

Yes it was, don't try and twist it around by trying to seperate the words "white people" from the other part of what she said, what she said was racist pure and simple. It's the very definition of what being racist means.

What she said was stupid, but it wasn't racist.