Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Raggs]

Note also the examples are all from abroad. She knew exactly what she was writing.

She referred to slave ships, who owned the slave ships and indeed the slaves? Who is Abbott descended from?

When West Indians arrived in the UK, they were for the most part middle class well educated people, they were subjected to informal and formal racism (no idea if the UK had any bus seating rules Abbott referred to, there definitely were businesses that used signage to tell them they weren't wanted). This led to this group of people occupying the lowest levels of the employment ladder, and integrating into the underclass (it's an observable fact that older West Indian immigrants to the UK are completely different culturally to younger black British people who have those original immigrants as their grandparents). Ironically and disastrously, their very close cultural proximity to English people (their ancestors having been forced to the West Indies and forced to speak English, the West Indies were English colonies before the UK existed), meant that unlike other immigrants around that time (south Asians) they integrated more fully and completely into the UK, south Asians were much more likely to reject the local UK culture they found themselves in (ultimately to their benefit). Black British people from a West Indian background have basically been stuck at the bottom ever since arriving in the UK, because of this history.

It can be seen in the current day with the Windrush scandal disproportionately impacting black British people from a West Indian background. The reason it did is because UK nationality law was constructed over decades to exclude people who weren't white as the empire ended, it was done on purpose, West Indians being the oldest post-WW2 immigrant group ended up getting hit hardest.

It takes some real disingenuousness to pretend she wasn't getting at all this.

No one is pretending that this hasn't happened. Nor that it was the main thrust of her point. The issue lies in the other history and facts she happily glosses over and acts as though they don't matter.

She was responding to a message that blacks are not the only ones to suffer from racism, and that others also suffer from it. Her response was to claim that whites don't actually suffer racism, and never have within colonial history.

[tabascoboy]

Starmer's problem is that unless he buries her, the media will seize upon it every time he dares to mention the racist rhetoric the Tories are spewing into the public discourse and onto the statute books.

Abbott has suffered appalling treatment down the years for having the audacity to be

a). Black
b). A woman
c). A Socialist
d). Having some position of authority and being the aforementioned

but she has been spectacularly dim in how she has firstly written the letter, and then handled the outcome.

I'm sure that she's been a great MP for her constituency, having been re-elected, what 6+ times (even if it's a shoe-in for Labour)? She's also had to take plenty of abuse and has every right to stand up for what she believes, but the way she has expressed her views over this time which are either clumsy or simply open to wild misinterpretation have led to this.

She's entitled to stand again as an independent, and good luck if she does so; but as of now Starmer apparently believes he has to clear house of any potential weaknesses in the party membership that the media can seize on ( which they generally conveniently and hypocritically ignore for Tories in the same boat). Unfortunately if we want the Tories out then it seems that sacrifices will have to be made.

[sockwithaticket]

Note also the examples are all from abroad. She knew exactly what she was writing.

She referred to slave ships, who owned the slave ships and indeed the slaves? Who is Abbott descended from?

When West Indians arrived in the UK, they were for the most part middle class well educated people, they were subjected to informal and formal racism (no idea if the UK had any bus seating rules Abbott referred to, there definitely were businesses that used signage to tell them they weren't wanted). This led to this group of people occupying the lowest levels of the employment ladder, and integrating into the underclass (it's an observable fact that older West Indian immigrants to the UK are completely different culturally to younger black British people who have those original immigrants as their grandparents). Ironically and disastrously, their very close cultural proximity to English people (their ancestors having been forced to the West Indies and forced to speak English, the West Indies were English colonies before the UK existed), meant that unlike other immigrants around that time (south Asians) they integrated more fully and completely into the UK, south Asians were much more likely to reject the local UK culture they found themselves in (ultimately to their benefit). Black British people from a West Indian background have basically been stuck at the bottom ever since arriving in the UK, because of this history.

It can be seen in the current day with the Windrush scandal disproportionately impacting black British people from a West Indian background. The reason it did is because UK nationality law was constructed over decades to exclude people who weren't white as the empire ended, it was done on purpose, West Indians being the oldest post-WW2 immigrant group ended up getting hit hardest.

It takes some real disingenuousness to pretend she wasn't getting at all this.

No one is pretending that this hasn't happened. Nor that it was the main thrust of her point. The issue lies in the other history and facts she happily glosses over and acts as though they don't matter.

She was responding to a message that blacks are not the only ones to suffer from racism, and that others also suffer from it. Her response was to claim that whites don't actually suffer racism, and never have within colonial history.

To add - those that pass for white under relatively recent definitions. If she wants to invoke historical American examples it cannot be ignored that the Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs and others very much were not considered white and did not benefit from whiteness for significant stretches of American history. Equally in the present day lots of North African and gulf nationalities/ethnicities count as white on the US census, yet I'm pretty sure a bunch of them would have compelling cases to argue that they have been on the receiving end of racist abuse for not being quite the same kind of white as many Americans and having distinctly non- Anglo or Euro names.

White is a concept not entirely tied to skin colour, particularly in areas where the skin colour has been broadly the same for much of history. Unfortunately humanity has a great propensity for creating in and out groups, skin colour just makes that a bit easier, but in it's absence as a differentiator other qualities will be utilised. Her comments on Jews and the Irish in particular are breathtakingly ignorant of their historic treatment and ignore present day realities where many Jewish schools and places of worship have permanent security staff due to the persistence of anti-seimtism.

[Paddington Bear]

Note also the examples are all from abroad. She knew exactly what she was writing.

She referred to slave ships, who owned the slave ships and indeed the slaves? Who is Abbott descended from?

When West Indians arrived in the UK, they were for the most part middle class well educated people, they were subjected to informal and formal racism (no idea if the UK had any bus seating rules Abbott referred to, there definitely were businesses that used signage to tell them they weren't wanted). This led to this group of people occupying the lowest levels of the employment ladder, and integrating into the underclass (it's an observable fact that older West Indian immigrants to the UK are completely different culturally to younger black British people who have those original immigrants as their grandparents). Ironically and disastrously, their very close cultural proximity to English people (their ancestors having been forced to the West Indies and forced to speak English, the West Indies were English colonies before the UK existed), meant that unlike other immigrants around that time (south Asians) they integrated more fully and completely into the UK, south Asians were much more likely to reject the local UK culture they found themselves in (ultimately to their benefit). Black British people from a West Indian background have basically been stuck at the bottom ever since arriving in the UK, because of this history.

It can be seen in the current day with the Windrush scandal disproportionately impacting black British people from a West Indian background. The reason it did is because UK nationality law was constructed over decades to exclude people who weren't white as the empire ended, it was done on purpose, West Indians being the oldest post-WW2 immigrant group ended up getting hit hardest.

It takes some real disingenuousness to pretend she wasn't getting at all this.

Her main thrust was about segregation in the Deep South and Apartheid South Africa, and you know that.
Re: bus seating rules in England, the traditional common law right to freedom of association clashed with the right to not be racially discriminated against, and race relations laws were needed to resolve it in favour of the latter. Whilst under the right to freedom of association there were formal and informal colour bars in some private places and businesses there was no state sanctioned system.
The Battle of Bamber Bridge is a good and fairly amusing example of what happened when the values of the Deep South met the values of the English - US officers demanded the pubs of Bamber Bridge instituted a colour bar and they complied by labelling the pubs 'blacks only', the black servicemen designating the locals to be honorary blacks in return so they could carry on drinking. There's also quite a lot on US Army 'know your ally' videos about life in Britain that makes it clear that US segregation won't be tolerated by the locals, and black servicemen should feel able to take up offers to go for tea/dinner.

Re: Windrush, it isn't true that the majority were well educated middle class, beyond the initial boats that gain romantic coverage but don't represent the average experience of a West Indian immigrant to Britain (these were people who used their rights as British citizens to travel and paid to do so, rather than those later invited to fill labour shortages). Nor is it true that South Asians have succeeded in Britain because they've rejected British culture, the successful groups of that ethnicity are Indians in general and East African Asians specifically who are very, very well integrated into British society and form what could be called a 'model minority'. British Pakistanis have very poor educational, work and health outcomes comparatively, a major factor being their comparative struggles to integrate. Most people of Indian origin who are more culturally distinct are much more recent arrivals, British Indians from second generation really are very westernised on the whole.
None of this was what Abbott was getting at in her article though, of course.

[_Os_]

The big problem with the argument is that it is bullshit though - Travellers are by a street the most discriminated group in the country (and everywhere else in Europe for that matter), like most European countries a huge facet of our history has been inter-European racism (the concept of 'whiteness' may just about work in the US but is just silly in Europe), and of course what the Jews have faced and continue to face needs no introduction. The concept of race well predates the colonial era. So if she has been doing some reading I'd suggest she uses her time out of the Labour Party to do a bit more.

Travellers presumably have Irish passports, no Windrush scandal for them then. They're discriminated against because of how they choose to live their life, it's not because of their race. If they were an Irish person living in a house, the discrimination would magically disappear.

No, the concept of race as we know it now comes from the colonial era. Similar Roman ideas were connected to things like development/civilisation/education, a barbarian could become a Roman (especially if they were young and moved to Rome). There was no fixed hierarchy with whites on the top in those times, the barbarians were usually located in what's now France and Germany because those were the non-Romans that the Romans had most contact with. The term "race" appears from about the 15th century, and is mostly used in Germany and England, but means something closer to nationality (eg "English race" or "German race"). In the early colonial period you get people like Blumenbach (18th century) measuring skulls and skin colour and all the rest of it, as Western European nations explored the world, but he locates the source of racial difference in climate/diet/education (and does not regard black people as inferior). Around the same time there's a similar explanation of race during the French Revolution, the anti-revolution forces describe each class as being a different race, but they don't mean their physical characteristics but something closer to historic legacy (ie the nobility, themselves, being racially superior). Basically up to this point it's the Christian/Roman "all created equal" model. This changes after Darwin proved traits can be inherited (19th century), before it was believed that each person had the same innate qualities and capacities given the same conditions. Race then becomes enmeshed in the power politics of the colonial era, a fixed racial hierarchy is created (using the earlier taxonomy created by Blumenbach and others) to justify large scale crimes against people that aren't white. It's used as an excuse to control the white settlers too (eg the Cape under the Dutch had mixed race governors in the 17th century, by the 19th century the British/Shepstone were creating apartheid in Natal, obviously if segregation is established and there's a constant stream of settlers the colony is more subservient). This modern concept of race was also used to control the losers from industrialisation/wars/history in Europe, eg white Germans were told to take pride in their race and that they were a different and superior race to Jews etc (and unlike past forms of anti-Semitism which were about religion and conspiracy, this was grounded in eugenics).

I could go on, but that paragraph is big enough. Saying "this is Europe it's different here", doesn't really work when we're basically living in a mostly European created world, and about 40% of the UK's population will be descend from the former colonies in our lifetime.

She's trying to say it's only racism when you suffer from it every day, which is a nonsense in and of itself. The suggestion then that white seeming (to use her terms) have not suffered like blacks have, even historically, is a nonsense.

It comes across in the same vein as those britain first types saying "white lives matter". Blacks and Asians suffer from racism on a daily basis, yes, and are easily identifiable, unlike some other groups. But she goes further, in trying to claim that unless you suffer daily, it's not really racism, and the historical stuff, trying to make out that wide ranging systemic racism has only effected non-whites is such an enormous nonsense it's embarrassing, specifically, as Irish, Jewish (and traveller I believe) are the examples used in the letter she was responding to. All 3 groups have been systemically targeted. And all of those groups clearly suffer from racism. Trying to corner the phrase racism, to only apply to non-whites, is a massive red flag for me.

It feels very similar to Corbyn not recognising that mural as clearly anti-semitic.

Whites have not suffered like blacks have specifically because of their race. There's a difference between having a hard time historically, and for the hard time to be visited on you and those that have come before you specifically because of your visible appearance.

I did say I don't agree with her politics. I suspects she may favour some anti-white racism as a corrective measure (which I don't support, because it doesn't work). But a starting point of "whites have suffered the same amount of racism as blacks", seems like an odd place to begin from to me.

[Raggs]

Whites have not suffered like blacks have specifically because of their race. There's a difference between having a hard time historically, and for the hard time to be visited on you and those that have come before you specifically because of your visible appearance.

I did say I don't agree with her politics. I suspects she may favour some anti-white racism as a corrective measure (which I don't support, because it doesn't work). But a starting point of "whites have suffered the same amount of racism as blacks", seems like an odd place to begin from to me.

The idea that "whites" are all the same race is an odd one (just as non-whites aren't).

You are trying to swap visible appearance and race. They are not always the same, and even then, visible appearances and characteristics can absolutely be used between whites as well.

No one is denying blacks haven't and do not suffer racism. Nor are people claiming that the degree of racism suffered by blacks isn't larger than pretty much any other group in recent history. I don't see how you can come up with this. It is Abbott who is stating that whites do not suffer racism. If you want to claim she is correct in her opinion, then please tell me by what definition you wish to describe Jews. Considering there are some very distinctive genetic markers that can clearly show someone to be of Jewish heritage, and to just make that fun, that includes middle eastern, european, and african jews.

[Paddington Bear]

The big problem with the argument is that it is bullshit though - Travellers are by a street the most discriminated group in the country (and everywhere else in Europe for that matter), like most European countries a huge facet of our history has been inter-European racism (the concept of 'whiteness' may just about work in the US but is just silly in Europe), and of course what the Jews have faced and continue to face needs no introduction. The concept of race well predates the colonial era. So if she has been doing some reading I'd suggest she uses her time out of the Labour Party to do a bit more.

Travellers presumably have Irish passports, no Windrush scandal for them then. They're discriminated against because of how they choose to live their life, it's not because of their race. If they were an Irish person living in a house, the discrimination would magically disappear.

No, the concept of race as we know it now comes from the colonial era. Similar Roman ideas were connected to things like development/civilisation/education, a barbarian could become a Roman (especially if they were young and moved to Rome). There was no fixed hierarchy with whites on the top in those times, the barbarians were usually located in what's now France and Germany because those were the non-Romans that the Romans had most contact with. The term "race" appears from about the 15th century, and is mostly used in Germany and England, but means something closer to nationality (eg "English race" or "German race"). In the early colonial period you get people like Blumenbach (18th century) measuring skulls and skin colour and all the rest of it, as Western European nations explored the world, but he locates the source of racial difference in climate/diet/education (and does not regard black people as inferior). Around the same time there's a similar explanation of race during the French Revolution, the anti-revolution forces describe each class as being a different race, but they don't mean their physical characteristics but something closer to historic legacy (ie the nobility, themselves, being racially superior). Basically up to this point it's the Christian/Roman "all created equal" model. This changes after Darwin proved traits can be inherited (19th century), before it was believed that each person had the same innate qualities and capacities given the same conditions. Race then becomes enmeshed in the power politics of the colonial era, a fixed racial hierarchy is created (using the earlier taxonomy created by Blumenbach and others) to justify large scale crimes against people that aren't white. It's used as an excuse to control the white settlers too (eg the Cape under the Dutch had mixed race governors in the 17th century, by the 19th century the British/Shepstone were creating apartheid in Natal, obviously if segregation is established and there's a constant stream of settlers the colony is more subservient). This modern concept of race was also used to control the losers from industrialisation/wars/history in Europe, eg white Germans were told to take pride in their race and that they were a different and superior race to Jews etc (and unlike past forms of anti-Semitism which were about religion and conspiracy, this was grounded in eugenics).

I could go on, but that paragraph is big enough. Saying "this is Europe it's different here", doesn't really work when we're basically living in a mostly European created world, and about 40% of the UK's population will be descend from the former colonies in our lifetime.

She's trying to say it's only racism when you suffer from it every day, which is a nonsense in and of itself. The suggestion then that white seeming (to use her terms) have not suffered like blacks have, even historically, is a nonsense.

It comes across in the same vein as those britain first types saying "white lives matter". Blacks and Asians suffer from racism on a daily basis, yes, and are easily identifiable, unlike some other groups. But she goes further, in trying to claim that unless you suffer daily, it's not really racism, and the historical stuff, trying to make out that wide ranging systemic racism has only effected non-whites is such an enormous nonsense it's embarrassing, specifically, as Irish, Jewish (and traveller I believe) are the examples used in the letter she was responding to. All 3 groups have been systemically targeted. And all of those groups clearly suffer from racism. Trying to corner the phrase racism, to only apply to non-whites, is a massive red flag for me.

It feels very similar to Corbyn not recognising that mural as clearly anti-semitic.

Whites have not suffered like blacks have specifically because of their race. There's a difference between having a hard time historically, and for the hard time to be visited on you and those that have come before you specifically because of your visible appearance.

I did say I don't agree with her politics. I suspects she may favour some anti-white racism as a corrective measure (which I don't support, because it doesn't work). But a starting point of "whites have suffered the same amount of racism as blacks", seems like an odd place to begin from to me.

Os - you're a good poster even if we tend to disagree. However, the first sentence is a good indicator that what follows is going to be complete nonsense, and so it follows with paragraphs of pseudo-history.
But to focus on one element - the idea that white people have never had hard times come before them based upon their visible appearance is utterly laughable and so obviously untrue, a quick google would tell you that.

[_Os_]

The idea that "whites" are all the same race is an odd one (just as non-whites aren't).

You are trying to swap visible appearance and race. They are not always the same, and even then, visible appearances and characteristics can absolutely be used between whites as well.

I'm simply describing how the concept developed and was deployed by European powers. Racial segregation was the norm in every British colony, I've already mentioned Shepstone and Natal, but can go on to places as different as Hong Kong or Kenya if you would like. It's hard to have this conversation when you're denying the basis on which this was all done. If you read what the likes of Milner actually said (ie the people piloting the empire project), you find naked white supremacy.

No one is denying blacks haven't and do not suffer racism. Nor are people claiming that the degree of racism suffered by blacks isn't larger than pretty much any other group in recent history. I don't see how you can come up with this.

What do you think Abbott's point was? because that was her point.

It is Abbott who is stating that whites do not suffer racism. If you want to claim she is correct in her opinion, then please tell me by what definition you wish to describe Jews. Considering there are some very distinctive genetic markers that can clearly show someone to be of Jewish heritage, and to just make that fun, that includes middle eastern, european, and african jews.

Some Jews get a bit upset if they're called white, but anyway. Here's some questions for you, when has Britain legally discriminated against Jews in the UK itself or in its colonies? When Disraeli was PM, what was the UK getting up to in Africa? Post-WW2 when presumably there were Jewish MPs, what was the UK doing in its then colony of Kenya?

This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

[Paddington Bear]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_em ... ed_Kingdom

History students since the year 2000 have often found wikipedia to be a very useful resource for when they haven't done the background reading.

[Raggs]

The idea that "whites" are all the same race is an odd one (just as non-whites aren't).

You are trying to swap visible appearance and race. They are not always the same, and even then, visible appearances and characteristics can absolutely be used between whites as well.

I'm simply describing how the concept developed and was deployed by European powers. Racial segregation was the norm in every British colony, I've already mentioned Shepstone and Natal, but can go on to places as different as Hong Kong or Kenya if you would like. It's hard to have this conversation when you're denying the basis on which this was all done. If you read what the likes of Milner actually said (ie the people piloting the empire project), you find naked white supremacy.

No one is denying blacks haven't and do not suffer racism. Nor are people claiming that the degree of racism suffered by blacks isn't larger than pretty much any other group in recent history. I don't see how you can come up with this.

What do you think Abbott's point was? because that was her point.

It is Abbott who is stating that whites do not suffer racism. If you want to claim she is correct in her opinion, then please tell me by what definition you wish to describe Jews. Considering there are some very distinctive genetic markers that can clearly show someone to be of Jewish heritage, and to just make that fun, that includes middle eastern, european, and african jews.

Some Jews get a bit upset if they're called white, but anyway. Here's some questions for you, when has Britain legally discriminated against Jews in the UK itself or in its colonies? When Disraeli was PM, what was the UK getting up to in Africa? Post-WW2 when presumably there were Jewish MPs, what was the UK doing in its then colony of Kenya?

This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

Abbott's point was made by denying the fact that whites of any background can suffer racism.

[_Os_]

Os - you're a good poster even if we tend to disagree. However, the first sentence is a good indicator that what follows is going to be complete nonsense, and so it follows with paragraphs of pseudo-history.
But to focus on one element - the idea that white people have never had hard times come before them based upon their visible appearance is utterly laughable and so obviously untrue, a quick google would tell you that.

So you're going to ignore it then. Can't see that working out well for the UK long term.

Irish travellers are obviously discriminated against because of how they choose to live and not because of their immutable racial identity/appearance. Pseudo-history? What more do expect in a paragraph on a rugby forum, it's obvious enough the concept of race was changed by colonialism. My "pseudo history", has the historic fact of Simon van der Stel who was a quarter Indian and governor of the Cape in the late 17th century (Stellenbosch and Simon's Town are both named after him), but by the mid 19th century in what is also part of modern SA Shepstone is busily creating racial segregation (and would've happily condemned Van Der Stel to a ghetto). Do you have any explanation of how one became the other?

Yes I could ramble on about exceptions (Irish, Boers). but it does become moronic and more about ignoring the bigger truth. Plenty of whites suffered under apartheid (including decades in solitary on death row), it would be madness to therefore say the purpose of apartheid was to equally harm both whites and blacks. Any thoughtful person who is descended from groups the British did harm to in part because of their identity (Irish, Boers), would be unlikely to say something like "it's totally the same as slavery and therefore British racism has mostly not had black victims, and is in fact equally racist to everyone, and therefore not racist".

[_Os_]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_em ... ed_Kingdom

History students since the year 2000 have often found wikipedia to be a very useful resource for when they haven't done the background reading.

So abroad the UK is oppressing black people during the period that Wiki link mostly covers, because they are black. Including the use of concentration camps and horrific torture (stripped naked, hung up, electrocuted, castrated), this occurring up to the mid-20th century, the descendants of these people being alive in the UK today.

But Abbott is wrong and actually black people have suffered comparable racism to anyone else at the hands of the British state. Something your own Wikipedia link reveals is false.

[Jockaline]

.

[Jockaline]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_em ... ed_Kingdom

History students since the year 2000 have often found wikipedia to be a very useful resource for when they haven't done the background reading.

Could one not argue that a lot of Jewish and Irish 'racism' in some circumstance (not Hitler obviously) is based more on religious prejudice. A hereditary Jew, or an Irish person in days gone by, without any religious identifying features would probably not get a second look by the low life thugs, a black however.. Discrimination, based on colour particularly, is sadly is still too normalised in Britain, and doesn't seem to provoke the same uproar as say what Abbot said, which says something in itself. Language is important, and care is needed when discussing sensitive topics, she also has a responsible position as an MP, however a conversation is needed specifically addressing colour racism.. The sensitives and outrage might be better addressed at ongoing racisms rather than shutting down those speaking out about it.

[fishfoodie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_em ... ed_Kingdom

History students since the year 2000 have often found wikipedia to be a very useful resource for when they haven't done the background reading.

Could one not argue that a lot of Jewish and Irish 'racism' in some circumstance (not Hitler obviously) is based more on religious prejudice. A hereditary Jew, or an Irish person in days gone by, without any religious identifying features would probably not get a second look by the low life thugs, a black however.. Discrimination, based on colour particularly, is sadly is still too normalised in Britain, and doesn't seem to provoke the same uproar as say what Abbot said, which says something in itself. Language is important, and care is needed when discussing sensitive topics, she also has a responsible position as an MP, however a conversation is needed specifically addressing colour racism.. The sensitives and outrage might be better addressed at ongoing racisms rather than shutting down those speaking out about it.

It's always easy for the lazy bigot to be racist against a group they can identify from 20m away, but that doesn't mean that that is the only flavour of racism that exists, or that this is somehow the gold standard of racism; which seems to be what Abbott was implying; she was, as has been pointed out, explicitly replying to an article pointing out that racism occurs to white groups too.

I think Northern Catholics could point to their treatment from the foundation of NI, & the systematic exclusion & discrimination that existed for ~50 years & ask her if that wasn't racism, what is ?

And in answer to your question whether racism against Irish or travellers is religious in nature, I think that's probably the underlying basis, but in the 70's or 80's if you were discriminated against in the UK it was enough to have an Irish accent, they couldn't give a stuff if you were Protestant, Catholic or Atheist

[Jockaline]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_em ... ed_Kingdom

History students since the year 2000 have often found wikipedia to be a very useful resource for when they haven't done the background reading.

Could one not argue that a lot of Jewish and Irish 'racism' in some circumstance (not Hitler obviously) is based more on religious prejudice. A hereditary Jew, or an Irish person in days gone by, without any religious identifying features would probably not get a second look by the low life thugs, a black however.. Discrimination, based on colour particularly, is sadly is still too normalised in Britain, and doesn't seem to provoke the same uproar as say what Abbot said, which says something in itself. Language is important, and care is needed when discussing sensitive topics, she also has a responsible position as an MP, however a conversation is needed specifically addressing colour racism.. The sensitives and outrage might be better addressed at ongoing racisms rather than shutting down those speaking out about it.

It's always easy for the lazy bigot to be racist against a group they can identify from 20m away, but that doesn't mean that that is the only flavour of racism that exists, or that this is somehow the gold standard of racism; which seems to be what Abbott was implying; she was, as has been pointed out, explicitly replying to an article pointing out that racism occurs to white groups too.

I think Northern Catholics could point to their treatment from the foundation of NI, & the systematic exclusion & discrimination that existed for ~50 years & ask her if that wasn't racism, what is ?

And in answer to your question whether racism against Irish or travellers is religious in nature, I think that's probably the underlying basis, but in the 70's or 80's if you were discriminated against in the UK it was enough to have an Irish accent, they couldn't give a stuff if you were Protestant, Catholic or Atheist

Some might make a distinction between racism resulting from genetics where you have not choice in the matter, and choosing to follow a religion, I think she does. Maybe all she was trying to do was bring attention to racism based on the colour of their skin and trying to not have that subject diminished by the a 'whites racism matters' subject matter she perceived as deflecting form the specific current racisms and harms faced by black people in the everyday lives that has been normalised by UK society. In her heart I believe she was trying to do good, but attacked based on her not being intellectuality clever enough, and by some whose motivations were not as altruistic.

[robmatic]

This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

The reason that it's a daft conversation is because you are extending a fairly basic truism (black people have been the most impacted by British racism) to a denial that other ethnic groups, some of them only recently coded as 'white' and including two specifically named ethnic groups that within living memory have been the victims of mass genocide in Europe, can be victims of racism.

[robmatic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_em ... ed_Kingdom

History students since the year 2000 have often found wikipedia to be a very useful resource for when they haven't done the background reading.

Could one not argue that a lot of Jewish and Irish 'racism' in some circumstance (not Hitler obviously) is based more on religious prejudice. A hereditary Jew, or an Irish person in days gone by, without any religious identifying features would probably not get a second look by the low life thugs, a black however.. Discrimination, based on colour particularly, is sadly is still too normalised in Britain, and doesn't seem to provoke the same uproar as say what Abbot said, which says something in itself. Language is important, and care is needed when discussing sensitive topics, she also has a responsible position as an MP, however a conversation is needed specifically addressing colour racism.. The sensitives and outrage might be better addressed at ongoing racisms rather than shutting down those speaking out about it.

It's always easy for the lazy bigot to be racist against a group they can identify from 20m away, but that doesn't mean that that is the only flavour of racism that exists, or that this is somehow the gold standard of racism; which seems to be what Abbott was implying; she was, as has been pointed out, explicitly replying to an article pointing out that racism occurs to white groups too.

I think Northern Catholics could point to their treatment from the foundation of NI, & the systematic exclusion & discrimination that existed for ~50 years & ask her if that wasn't racism, what is ?

And in answer to your question whether racism against Irish or travellers is religious in nature, I think that's probably the underlying basis, but in the 70's or 80's if you were discriminated against in the UK it was enough to have an Irish accent, they couldn't give a stuff if you were Protestant, Catholic or Atheist

Being atheist tends not to protect Jewish people from anti-Semitic prejudice.

[_Os_]

I think Northern Catholics could point to their treatment from the foundation of NI, & the systematic exclusion & discrimination that existed for ~50 years & ask her if that wasn't racism, what is ?

But you can use an example from the same time and see how the British actions in NI differed with actions elsewhere. In the 1950s the British essentially created a gulag system in Kenya and put 100s of thousands through those concentration camps, plenty of innocent people were forced through the system. Millions more were forced into "enclosed villages". Torture was systematic, and included electric shocks, making victims deaf through inserting objects into their ears, sexual assault (women were raped with guns/knives/bottles), cutting off body parts, being beaten to death, castration. Sometimes a police officer didn't bother with the torture and simply killed one person in front of another and asked the next if they wanted to die too. Obama's own grandfather was tortured by having his testicles squeezed by metal rods. The British knew how bad this all was, because a lot of the documentation was disposed of by being pushed out of planes into the Indian Ocean. "Operation Legacy" then applied this policy of document destruction more widely, as the empire ended British colonial officials destroyed documents (implicating Britain in crimes) across the empire.

If NI had been treated the same way, the entire NI Catholic population would've suspected of treason an forced into "enclosed villages" (they would have to live behind barbed wire and armed guard as collective punishment), given the small size of the population most would've been forced through far harsher concentration camps, many men guilty of anything or not would've been severely tortured, some would've been killed. Other NI Catholics would've been paid by the British to help them do all this. Then as much evidence as possible would've been destroyed. And right up to the current day there would be zero political effort to address any of this, no Bloody Sunday inquiry. All there would've been is a court case where the living victims desperately try to get some sort of apology at least before they die of old age.

This was done to blacks but not whites, because blacks were seen as less human, many of the British people responsible for all this simply regarded black people as animals. Not difficult.

[_Os_]

This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

The reason that it's a daft conversation is because you are extending a fairly basic truism (black people have been the most impacted by British racism) to a denial that other ethnic groups, some of them only recently coded as 'white' and including two specifically named ethnic groups that within living memory have been the victims of mass genocide in Europe, can be victims of racism.

Yes Jews have been victims of racism. How is this related to the UK though both historically and currently? Many people in the UK are simply unaware of what the British state did to black people, I doubt Abbott it is.

[robmatic]

This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

The reason that it's a daft conversation is because you are extending a fairly basic truism (black people have been the most impacted by British racism) to a denial that other ethnic groups, some of them only recently coded as 'white' and including two specifically named ethnic groups that within living memory have been the victims of mass genocide in Europe, can be victims of racism.

Yes Jews have been victims of racism. How is this related to the UK though both historically and currently? Many people in the UK are simply unaware of what the British state did to black people, I doubt Abbott it is.

Eh, where do you think Jews in the UK came from? Many of them fled Europe in the 20th Century for some reason.

[Raggs]

This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

The reason that it's a daft conversation is because you are extending a fairly basic truism (black people have been the most impacted by British racism) to a denial that other ethnic groups, some of them only recently coded as 'white' and including two specifically named ethnic groups that within living memory have been the victims of mass genocide in Europe, can be victims of racism.

Yes Jews have been victims of racism. How is this related to the UK though both historically and currently? Many people in the UK are simply unaware of what the British state did to black people, I doubt Abbott it is.

Abbott is the one claiming that they don't suffer from racism in the UK. And that they don't have a history of racism against them (in a variety of historical contexts, not just UK).

[C69]

If she'd stuck purely to the current day, she may have been half right. Even then, it may have been pushing it. However the moment she started trying to pick examples through history to suggest it's only been blacks that have suffered from racism (as she chooses to define it), it became a massive pile of bullshit.

Her wording seemed ham fisted to me, I'm just trying to get at the point she definitely was making and not trying to invent a load of stuff she wasn't saying at all.

It's clearly something she's invested a lot of her life into and done a lot of reading and thinking on. She seems to have forgotten that not everyone has, and randomly selecting stuff without a fuller explanation doesn't really work. I suspect her full argument looks something like: the concept of race in its modern form was constructed during the colonial era to oppress people who weren't white generally and black people particularly, over centuries this led to structural underdevelopment and exploitation of black people, the legacy of this lasting into the current day, and pretending this isn't the case perpetuates racism. It's a well known argument.

It all looks like a bad faith attempt to get rid of her to me. Everyone in the Labour party understand what she's saying, but some are pretending they don't understand. Al Jazeera's multi part documentary on Labour (ignored by the UK media) also showed that Labour officials have a bit of a racism issue, Abbott herself being the subject of abuse in internal communications.

The big problem with the argument is that it is bullshit though - Travellers are by a street the most discriminated group in the country (and everywhere else in Europe for that matter), like most European countries a huge facet of our history has been inter-European racism (the concept of 'whiteness' may just about work in the US but is just silly in Europe), and of course what the Jews have faced and continue to face needs no introduction. The concept of race well predates the colonial era. So if she has been doing some reading I'd suggest she uses her time out of the Labour Party to do a bit more.

This seems like a racism top trump game FFS.
Grow up

[Raggs]

This seems like a racism top trump game FFS.
Grow up

And that's the problem, it's why Abbott has got in trouble. Claiming that whites do not suffer racism.

[C69]

This seems like a racism top trump game FFS.
Grow up

And that's the problem, it's why Abbott has got in trouble. Claiming that whites do not suffer racism.

Agreed the metropolitan London centric.
PB seem like a Public school 6 Form Common room champion though

[_Os_]

Eh, where do you think Jews in the UK came from? Many of them fled Europe in the 20th Century for some reason.

Where did they come from? Some of the first pogroms in Europe were in England, they were all killed by around 1200 (I'm sure Paddington can use his Wiki skills for us), hence there were no Jews in what later became the UK. Hence not much anti-Semitism either. As I've already posted a Jewish person was PM whilst Britain was up to all sorts in its empire in the 19th century.

So what we now have is the following argument: because Jews were oppressed (as you point out, not by the UK and not in the UK), then that means they suffered as much as black people (who were actually oppressed by Britain in a very significant way). For someone to maintain their Labour party membership (a UK political party), it seems they now have to conflate the UK's historic legacy with things that have nothing to do with the UK, and say black people are just as discriminated against as Jews are in the UK. I mean, this just isn't true.

I'm guessing you're cool with conflating Nazi crimes and British colonial crimes, to say there's racism everywhere and perhaps wash your hands of the British crimes in the process. But wouldn't be cool with that conflation if you were asked to take some responsibility for the Nazi crimes as well as the British ones?

Abbott is the one claiming that they don't suffer from racism in the UK. And that they don't have a history of racism against them (in a variety of historical contexts, not just UK).

Abbott in her ham fisted way was saying blacks had suffered more than anyone else from racism. Not that other groups hadn't suffered at all. That's my reading of her initial statement and her apology (no clue how you can get anything else out of it). In the UK context it looks correct.

Good luck to Labour maintaining their 60%+ hold on the racial minority vote if they are going to oppose this position long term.

[Raggs]

"Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable."

She's literally stating that these people don't suffer racism. From her title, the quotation marks around "racism", to the content. It's not ham fisted, it's very clear that she doesn't believe they suffer from racism.

[_Os_]

"Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable."

She's literally stating that these people don't suffer racism. From her title, the quotation marks around "racism", to the content. It's not ham fisted, it's very clear that she doesn't believe they suffer from racism.

The ham fisted part was the next part you didn't quote where she crams in historic examples that don't really work in the space of a letter reply.

The first part that you've quoted, I don't agree with the how she's worded it (yes Jews can suffer racism, her attempt to make a distinction between racism and prejudice doesn't work and doesn't make sense), but taken with the second part she's saying that blacks have suffered more racism historically.

It looks like an attempt to get rid of someone team Starmer doesn't like. You should watch the Al Jazeera Labour Files documentary (all the parts are on Youtube) if you haven't already. A lot of the people Labour has got rid of for anti-Semitism are Jewish.

[Raggs]

"Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable."

She's literally stating that these people don't suffer racism. From her title, the quotation marks around "racism", to the content. It's not ham fisted, it's very clear that she doesn't believe they suffer from racism.

The ham fisted part was the next part you didn't quote where she crams in historic examples that don't really work in the space of a letter reply.

The first part that you've quoted, I don't agree with the how she's worded it (yes Jews can suffer racism, her attempt to make a distinction between racism and prejudice doesn't work and doesn't make sense), but taken with the second part she's saying that blacks have suffered more racism historically.

It looks like an attempt to get rid of someone team Starmer doesn't like. You should watch the Al Jazeera Labour Files documentary (all the parts are on Youtube) if you haven't already. A lot of the people Labour has got rid of for anti-Semitism are Jewish.

"It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships."

You really think that bit changes it from "Whites don't suffer from racism"? The very first sentence just doubles down on the idea that whites don't suffer from racism, just other prejudices. She then talks about all sorts of world events that aren't related to the UK experience, so I don't see why it's a problem for others to raise non UK based facts.

It's apparent enough that all 3 of those groups also suffer from racism in the UK, despite what she's claiming. If she'd wanted to merely claim that blacks have it worse (and in the vast majority of cases, I'd be inclined to agree with that sentiment), she could have very easily said so, without clearly trying to make out that Whites cannot suffer from racism.

EDIT - It starts to come across in the same way as those who try and defend Corbyn on not recognising the mural as anti-semitic, or pretend that Trump isn't deliberately using specific language and phrasing to act as a dog whistle for racists.

Abbott is either thick as two short planks, and remarkably ignorant, to write a letter like that. Or she's the well educated and worldly wise person, who must therefore have been absolutely aware of what she was writing. She cannot have it both ways.

[C69]

"Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable."

She's literally stating that these people don't suffer racism. From her title, the quotation marks around "racism", to the content. It's not ham fisted, it's very clear that she doesn't believe they suffer from racism.

The ham fisted part was the next part you didn't quote where she crams in historic examples that don't really work in the space of a letter reply.

The first part that you've quoted, I don't agree with the how she's worded it (yes Jews can suffer racism, her attempt to make a distinction between racism and prejudice doesn't work and doesn't make sense), but taken with the second part she's saying that blacks have suffered more racism historically.

It looks like an attempt to get rid of someone team Starmer doesn't like. You should watch the Al Jazeera Labour Files documentary (all the parts are on Youtube) if you haven't already. A lot of the people Labour has got rid of for anti-Semitism are Jewish.

"It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships."

You really think that bit changes it from "Whites don't suffer from racism"? The very first sentence just doubles down on the idea that whites don't suffer from racism, just other prejudices. She then talks about all sorts of world events that aren't related to the UK experience, so I don't see why it's a problem for others to raise non UK based facts.

It's apparent enough that all 3 of those groups also suffer from racism in the UK, despite what she's claiming. If she'd wanted to merely claim that blacks have it worse (and in the vast majority of cases, I'd be inclined to agree with that sentiment), she could have very easily said so, without clearly trying to make out that Whites cannot suffer from racism.

EDIT - It starts to come across in the same way as those who try and defend Corbyn on not recognising the mural as anti-semitic, or pretend that Trump isn't deliberately using specific language and phrasing to act as a dog whistle for racists.

Abbott is either thick as two short planks, and remarkably ignorant, to write a letter like that. Or she's the well educated and worldly wise person, who must therefore have been absolutely aware of what she was writing. She cannot have it both ways.

I refer you to my earlier post about Abott and her troubles.
I'll leave it at that.

[Paddington Bear]

Eh, where do you think Jews in the UK came from? Many of them fled Europe in the 20th Century for some reason.

Where did they come from? Some of the first pogroms in Europe were in England, they were all killed by around 1200 (I'm sure Paddington can use his Wiki skills for us), hence there were no Jews in what later became the UK. Hence not much anti-Semitism either. As I've already posted a Jewish person was PM whilst Britain was up to all sorts in its empire in the 19th century.

This is as amusing as it is embarrassing - the Jews weren’t all killed, they were expelled and then later readmitted during the Protectorate (ever wonder why so many British Jews are called Oliver?)
So there were Jews, there was anti-semitism and it was codified in law at various points, Jews requiring emancipation during the Victorian era. Happy to help.
Your approach to being called up on points that are clearly nonsense over this has been to keep throwing shit at the wall in the hope some will stick, just accept you’ve made a poorly thought out point and move on, it happens to all of us.

[_Os_]

"Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable."

She's literally stating that these people don't suffer racism. From her title, the quotation marks around "racism", to the content. It's not ham fisted, it's very clear that she doesn't believe they suffer from racism.

The ham fisted part was the next part you didn't quote where she crams in historic examples that don't really work in the space of a letter reply.

The first part that you've quoted, I don't agree with the how she's worded it (yes Jews can suffer racism, her attempt to make a distinction between racism and prejudice doesn't work and doesn't make sense), but taken with the second part she's saying that blacks have suffered more racism historically.

It looks like an attempt to get rid of someone team Starmer doesn't like. You should watch the Al Jazeera Labour Files documentary (all the parts are on Youtube) if you haven't already. A lot of the people Labour has got rid of for anti-Semitism are Jewish.

"It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships."

You really think that bit changes it from "Whites don't suffer from racism"? The very first sentence just doubles down on the idea that whites don't suffer from racism, just other prejudices. She then talks about all sorts of world events that aren't related to the UK experience, so I don't see why it's a problem for others to raise non UK based facts.

It's apparent enough that all 3 of those groups also suffer from racism in the UK, despite what she's claiming. If she'd wanted to merely claim that blacks have it worse (and in the vast majority of cases, I'd be inclined to agree with that sentiment), she could have very easily said so, without clearly trying to make out that Whites cannot suffer from racism.

EDIT - It starts to come across in the same way as those who try and defend Corbyn on not recognising the mural as anti-semitic, or pretend that Trump isn't deliberately using specific language and phrasing to act as a dog whistle for racists.

Abbott is either thick as two short planks, and remarkably ignorant, to write a letter like that. Or she's the well educated and worldly wise person, who must therefore have been absolutely aware of what she was writing. She cannot have it both ways.

We're going around in circles. You've said before in the chat string that you think black people have suffered the most racism, and do again in this reply. Even with a very critical reading, that's obviously most of what Abbott was getting at too.

How is slavery "all sorts of world events that aren't related to the UK experience", when England had colonies in the West Indies filled with slaves before the UK existed and Abbott is descended from those people? It's madness to claim that's not part of the UK experience.
Apartheid too, has its origins in Shepstone's segregation laws in Natal (who was from the UK/British, and like all colonies ruling over British subjects). and the later segregation on British owned mines. In blunt racial terms, Jews owned the mines, whites were the foremen, blacks were the labourers ... and this was the system the UK created and oversaw in what became SA.

They're ham-fisted examples because it's impossible to explain all this in a letter response, even my extremely brief overview is longer than her letter. The only completely foreign example (to my knowledge) were the American buses.

But there's something else going on in the responses (including from Labour), are non-British examples acceptable yes or no? If "no" then black people have been discriminated against the most by the UK (something you agree with), if "yes" (which is the Labour position it seems) then inevitably any discussion of racism must start by first saying because of the Nazis anti-Semitism is the main concern and Israel must be supported (the Jewish people Labour got rid of for anti-Semitism opposed Israel). My memory may be bad, but I think the UK and colonies fought the Nazis and didn't in fact support them, not sure how the UK and their former colonies then get lumbered with Nazi crimes.

[Raggs]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

[Happyhooker]

I'm sure that she's been a great MP for her constituency, having been re-elected, what 6+ times (even if it's a shoe-in for Labour)?

No. No she hasn't at all.

It's just that they only have to weigh the vote around here, not count it.

When compared to the work done by creasy and hillier, two of her adjoining mps, her constituency work is shameful.

[_Os_]

Eh, where do you think Jews in the UK came from? Many of them fled Europe in the 20th Century for some reason.

Where did they come from? Some of the first pogroms in Europe were in England, they were all killed by around 1200 (I'm sure Paddington can use his Wiki skills for us), hence there were no Jews in what later became the UK. Hence not much anti-Semitism either. As I've already posted a Jewish person was PM whilst Britain was up to all sorts in its empire in the 19th century.

This is as amusing as it is embarrassing - the Jews weren’t all killed, they were expelled and then later readmitted during the Protectorate (ever wonder why so many British Jews are called Oliver?)
So there were Jews, there was anti-semitism and it was codified in law at various points, Jews requiring emancipation during the Victorian era. Happy to help.
Your approach to being called up on points that are clearly nonsense over this has been to keep throwing shit at the wall in the hope some will stick, just accept you’ve made a poorly thought out point and move on, it happens to all of us.

You didn't let me down. Yes I know, but no one reads the large paragraphs (including your good self on your own account), it's easier to give the half a line version and hand it over to you. Of course I knew Jews (and Catholics) had discriminatory laws against them removed in the 19th century, but what is the bigger 19th century British picture?

Is it "clearly nonsense"? You were sure all Abbott's examples were foreign, I'm not in the business of point scoring so didn't bother calling you out on it. Someone cannot be expected to know every aspect of history, nor will you see me directing you to Wikipedia if you were clearly making a rhetorical point and knew what you were talking about (as in I knew laws discriminating against Jews were removed in the 19th century).

[Paddington Bear]

Where did they come from? Some of the first pogroms in Europe were in England, they were all killed by around 1200 (I'm sure Paddington can use his Wiki skills for us), hence there were no Jews in what later became the UK. Hence not much anti-Semitism either. As I've already posted a Jewish person was PM whilst Britain was up to all sorts in its empire in the 19th century.

This is as amusing as it is embarrassing - the Jews weren’t all killed, they were expelled and then later readmitted during the Protectorate (ever wonder why so many British Jews are called Oliver?)
So there were Jews, there was anti-semitism and it was codified in law at various points, Jews requiring emancipation during the Victorian era. Happy to help.
Your approach to being called up on points that are clearly nonsense over this has been to keep throwing shit at the wall in the hope some will stick, just accept you’ve made a poorly thought out point and move on, it happens to all of us.

You didn't let me down. Yes I know, but no one reads the large paragraphs (including your good self on your own account), it's easier to give the half a line version and hand it over to you. Of course I knew Jews (and Catholics) had discriminatory laws against them removed in the 19th century, but what is the bigger 19th century British picture?

Is it "clearly nonsense"? You were sure all Abbott's examples were foreign, I'm not in the business of point scoring so didn't bother calling you out on it. Someone cannot be expected to know every aspect of history, nor will you see me directing you to Wikipedia if you were clearly making a rhetorical point and knew what you were talking about (as in I knew laws discriminating against Jews were removed in the 19th century).

You said:

Here's some questions for you, when has Britain legally discriminated against Jews in the UK itself or in its colonies? When Disraeli was PM, what was the UK getting up to in Africa

Which strongly suggests you didn’t know about legal discrimination against Jews in the UK.

And if you’re not in the interests of point scoring don’t try and score points. This place tends to be pretty good at having good debates without going full PR, but you’ve opted to start posting like a patronising prick because you don’t like being called up on factual errors.
But we’re getting nowhere and I (genuinely) don’t want to get in a days long shitfight, so I’ll leave it there and we can try again on another topic another time. Last word is all yours if you’d like it or you can move on as well, your call.

[fishfoodie]

I think this thread demonstrates why Starmer is absolutely correct in expelling Abbott, when he eventually gets around to it; she's a fucking liability, & her one safe seat isn't enough to compensate of her ability to damage Labours election in every other fucking constituency !

I fundamentally disagree with OS on the Pros & Cons of internal Party discipline versus having a many voices & opinions within the Parliamentary Party.

Labour & the Tories have both had blocks of rebels who wouldn't be whipped, & while it's one thing to have them with a strong leader, it's a fucking disaster when there's a weak leader. If you're in the Party, then you're in the Party, & if you don't agree to vote for what's in the manifesto, fuck off & run as an Independent !

The Labour party has traditionally been far more tolerant of them, & I would say that has been a significant part of why they've been out of power for considerably longer than they've been in power ! The Tories on the other hand might grumble & gripe, but when there's an election, they fall into line, & as long as they do so & stay on message, the Party leaves them alone.

The likes of Corbyn & Hoey voted against their Parties policy on hundreds of occasions, & never saw any consequences; at least with Skinner or Benn you felt there was some kind of principle behind their vote; with the others it was like a five year old refusing to eat their veg, & by Dog does the Tory media know how to activate these knuckle-draggers, & get themselves a quote to damage the prospects of every other Labour candidate !!!

[_Os_]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

Which she then rowed back on in her apology and said racism is the correct term.

Like I've said from the first post, I don't agree with her politics (and that whole not racism but prejudiced thing was clearly political). But if she's got rid of for this, when it's not cut and dried at all. Then it looks a bit bad for a Starmer government. Part of the Labour objection was that the comments were "offensive", well no shit, how does being an MP work if you cannot say things some will find offensive (40% of people will usually disagree with any opinion). Seems like centrally controlled communication, opinion polling every comment beforehand, New Labour mk2. Problem with that is don't expect much meaningful change, it would risk offending too many people.

[Raggs]

Brevity does not explain her clearly ascribing prejudice to one group and racism to another. You were equally brief when you said she just meant blacks suffer from racism to a greater degree as it's on a daily basis. She is the one stating that different terms should be used for white Vs non white.

Which she then rowed back on in her apology and said racism is the correct term.

Like I've said from the first post, I don't agree with her politics (and that whole not racism but prejudiced thing was clearly political). But if she's got rid of for this, when it's not cut and dried at all. Then it looks a bit bad for a Starmer government. Part of the Labour objection was that the comments were "offensive", well no shit, how does being an MP work if you cannot say things some will find offensive (40% of people will usually disagree with any opinion). Seems like centrally controlled communication, opinion polling every comment beforehand, New Labour mk2. Problem with that is don't expect much meaningful change, it would risk offending too many people.

As I said, she's either stupid enough to somehow fuck up that letter badly enough in the first place. Or she's smart enough to know exactly what she wrote, and now just puts an apology together to try and get the clamour to die down.

If she's the first, it makes sense to get rid of her. If she's the second then it's the same deal. It's a letter to a national publication, that she had plenty of time to read and reread, to ensure she was completely happy with it. It's not some private memo she banged out in a rush down to her next meeting.

[_Os_]

[You said:

Here's some questions for you, when has Britain legally discriminated against Jews in the UK itself or in its colonies? When Disraeli was PM, what was the UK getting up to in Africa

Which strongly suggests you didn’t know about legal discrimination against Jews in the UK.

It's a standard debating technique, they're leading questions. The hint is in the question, I obviously know something about Disraeli why else mention him. And just from chatting on this thread it should be obvious I know at least something about how UK democracy developed (eg I've posted about constitutional reform enough, and we've spoken about it before). When someone replies with "you are very wrong etc", I reply "err is this less or more than blacks experienced?". Then get radio silence as I have got.

And if you’re not in the interests of point scoring don’t try and score points. This place tends to be pretty good at having good debates without going full PR, but you’ve opted to start posting like a patronising prick because you don’t like being called up on factual errors.
But we’re getting nowhere and I (genuinely) don’t want to get in a days long shitfight, so I’ll leave it there and we can try again on another topic another time. Last word is all yours if you’d like it or you can move on as well, your call.

I think we have similar views on eachother, there's times when I've thought you're a dick too, but you're clearly well read on what you're interested in and have firm views. We just disagree that's all. Neither of us are "embarrassed" or anything like that, I expect.

The interesting thing would be what we agree on I guess. We only communicate through disagreements.