NPR

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:16 pm 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.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:53 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:03 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:16 pm 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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:16 pm 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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:23 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:37 pm 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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:25 pmWhites 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_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:25 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:23 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:37 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm 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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:07 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:45 pm 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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:18 pm 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.

Jockaline wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:29 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:18 pm 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.

Jockaline wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:29 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:18 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:56 pm

Jockaline wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:29 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:18 pm 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

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:07 pm
This is mad conversation. Of course people that look like Abbott have been the most impacted by British racism.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:56 pm

Jockaline wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:29 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:18 pm 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

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:56 pm 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 ?

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 5:53 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:07 pm
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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:08 pm

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 5:53 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:07 pm
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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:08 pm

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 5:53 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:07 pm
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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:23 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:17 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:52 am

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.

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:55 pm This seems like a racism top trump game FFS.
Grow up

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:57 pm

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:55 pm 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.

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:32 pm Eh, where do you think Jews in the UK came from? Many of them fled Europe in the 20th Century for some reason.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:54 pm 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).

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:35 pm "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_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:57 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:35 pm "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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:05 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:57 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:35 pm "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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:28 pm

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:32 pm 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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:05 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:57 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:35 pm "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.

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:09 pm
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)?

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:53 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:28 pm

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:32 pm 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_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:30 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:53 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:28 pm
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).

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

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:24 pm 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.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:46 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:24 pm 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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:39 pm [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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:39 pm 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.