Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP.

[andysays]

Yeah I agreed that it's flawed. But it's a bit of a leap from "flawed view of racism from someone who has personally experienced a great deal of it" to "anti-semitic monster who basically supports the holocaust" which is how it seems to be portrayed in some quarters.

Whether or not it's been portrayed like that in some quarters, and regardless of the cynical way it's been used by Starmer, it should still be possible for those of us who want to discuss the flaws to do so without constant references to how terribly poor old Diane has been treated over this.

She may be seen as an icon by some, but her ideas and her expression of them aren't above criticism and proper discussion.

 

[Pickman's model]

bimble above somewhere couldn't decide if the comment was racist or stupid. It is well to remember that racism is a subset of stupidity, and the latter can take many forms.

Academics distinguish between racism, which is fundamental to a particular society, and prejudice, which any member of any group can display towards any other. How much merit there is in this distinction can be debated, but it is spectacularly unwise for a politician to get involved in this debate. What you say isn't as important as what people hear, and she should realise that a lot of people are going to take away from this 'Diane Abbott said that only white people are bad, black people are angels'.

Sadly racism is not a subset of stupidity, and in a hierarchical society it is really very very stupid to say it is. Lots of very intelligent and lots of very stupid people have subscribed to racist notions - the problem isn't that the likes of Galton and Pearson were stupid, quite the contrary.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The letter was a stupid thing to say, but I think it is far more likely that she had UK and America in mind (and a lot of online discussions of race are very US-centric these days) and didn't think through the full implications of what she was talking about than that she is secretly anti-semitic.

I don’t buy that she was thinking about the US. She was replying to an article in the Guardian that specifically addressed race in the UK.

The article argues against a specific view (one presumably held by Abbot), citing detailed research findings, that “Anyone who is white is privileged, we are told, and racism only affects people of colour. The problem with this view is that there are certain minorities who are seen as white and yet experience prejudice. In fact, the two groups most likely to say they have experienced racist abuse, according to the survey, are Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities and Jewish people”.

In my view this is what Abbot was seeking to dismiss in her letter. In other words she was denying the lived experience of those communities and those who participated in the research.

The attempts to portray this as a political battle within labour elide how badly and dangerously wrong Abbot’s arguement is/was. No doubt traveller and Jewish people reading the letter would put it more bluntly than I have.

 

[ouirdeaux]

Lots of very intelligent and lots of very stupid people have subscribed to racist notions - the problem isn't that the likes of Galton and Pearson were stupid, quite the contrary.

Lots of very intelligent people are capable of being stupid in various ways. Quite possible all of them are.

 

[bimble]

i dont know if there's any sort of proper discussion to be had from this tbh, maybe if she hadn't brought redheads into it there'd be a conversation to be had but yeah.
She could have said let’s look at the different impacts of different racisms, eg health outcomes educational and economic and police treatment housing etc how structural / institutional racism impacts some minorities much more than others, and that would be a conversation, but she didn’t, letter was just stupid.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don’t buy that she was thinking about the US. She was replying to an article in the Guardian that specifically addressed race in the UK.

The article argues against a specific view (one presumably held by Abbot), citing detailed research findings, that “Anyone who is white is privileged, we are told, and racism only affects people of colour. The problem with this view is that there are certain minorities who are seen as white and yet experience prejudice. In fact, the two groups most likely to say they have experienced racist abuse, according to the survey, are Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities and Jewish people”.

In my view this is what Abbot was seeking to dismiss in her letter. The attempts to portray this as a political battle within labour elide how badly and dangerously wrong Abbot is/was.

Tbh there is a difference between most likely to have experienced and most likely to say they have experienced. Recently on a thread Magnus McGinty said he thought some poc he works with would have told him about racist harassment from cops; I wasn't so sure. And tbh I'm not so sure the survey quoted is the Truth as polls so often are taken to be. And there's a difference again between racist abuse and being treated differently by authorities because of your perceived race - which can be done very politely but is of course racism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Lots of very intelligent people are capable of being stupid in various ways. Quite possible all of them are.

How are you stupid then?

 

[andysays]

i dont know if there's any sort of proper discussion to be had from this tbh, maybe if she hadn't brought redheads into it there'd be a conversation to be had but yeah.
She could have said let’s look at the different impacts of different racisms, health outcomes educational and economic and police treatment housing etc impact some minorities much more than others, and that would be a conversation, but she didn’t, letter was just stupid.

Again, it's not "just stupid", it's a reflection of how she, and some others in the Black community, see racism.

That's why it's important beyond the personal effect on Diane Abbott's career or the internal battles of the Labour party.

 

[bimble]

yeah fair enough.

 

[bimble]

maybe i'm clinging to the idea that it was 'just stupid' because otherwise i have to admit that it is really fecking depressing, after everything that happened a few years ago. That period was pretty horrendous, as a jew, having every twit on all sides banging on endlessly about teh joos one way or the other for their own political ends (i buggered off from here for some time because could not deal with it) and that she of all people wrote this letter now looks like nothing was learned from all that.

 

[ouirdeaux]

How are you stupid then?

By definition, I wouldn't know it, would I?

I don't see what's so controversial in saying that racism is a subset of stupidity. It's not looking at people as individuals, but expecting them to correspond to particular stereotypes that you hold because of what you have been told about people of a certain skin colour or genetic origin. This is stupid. Of course it can be used to enforce a particular hierarchy, as was done to provide a philosophical basis enslaving Africans. But it's not essential to hierarchy, as can be seen from other cultures like classical antiquity where those who'd been defeated in war were enslaved, whatever colour they happened to be.

 

[Rimbaud]

Whether or not it's been portrayed like that in some quarters, and regardless of the cynical way it's been used by Starmer, it should still be possible for those of us who want to discuss the flaws to do so without constant references to how terribly poor old Diane has been treated over this.

She may be seen as an icon by some, but her ideas and her expression of them aren't above criticism and proper discussion.

Yeah I agree, but I just think expelling her from the Party for anti-semitism is a bit much.

 

[planetgeli]

Racism isn't a subset of stupidity it's an ideology designed to further divide and rule, an ideology used by people sometimes aimed at stupid people to give them simplistic (and wrong) answers to their problems in order to further the cause of those seeking power.

Abbott is not an antisemitic monster and those playing this card are using it deliberately, politically, to further their own ends (like Starmer). Abbott was incredibly stupid in sending the letter. Wtf did she hope to gain from this?

 

[Rimbaud]

I don’t buy that she was thinking about the US. She was replying to an article in the Guardian that specifically addressed race in the UK.

The article argues against a specific view (one presumably held by Abbot), citing detailed research findings, that “Anyone who is white is privileged, we are told, and racism only affects people of colour. The problem with this view is that there are certain minorities who are seen as white and yet experience prejudice. In fact, the two groups most likely to say they have experienced racist abuse, according to the survey, are Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities and Jewish people”.

In my view this is what Abbot was seeking to dismiss in her letter. In other words she was denying the lived experience of those communities and those who participated in the research.

The attempts to portray this as a political battle within labour elide how badly and dangerously wrong Abbot’s arguement is/was. No doubt traveller and Jewish people reading the letter would put it more bluntly than I have.

I highly doubt she was writing with malicious intent towards Travellers, Roma and Jews. Far more likely she was just being defensive over black experiences of racism. Yes, I agree it is wrong, but I don't think it is right to ascribe sinister motivations based on extrapolating the logic used. It is enough to point out that the logic could lead there and that's why it is wrong.

 

[bimble]

I highly doubt she was writing with malicious intent towards Travellers, Roma and Jews. Far more likely she was just being defensive over black experiences of racism. Yes, I agree it is wrong, but I don't think it is right to ascribe sinister motivations based on extrapolating the logic used. It is enough to point out that the logic could lead there and that's why it is wrong.

Well yeah, of course. But thats where the real stupidity lies how could she not have known how her enemies would leap at that letter which she chose to send to the newspapers?

 

[Pickman's model]

By definition, I wouldn't know it, would I?

I don't see what's so controversial in saying that racism is a subset of stupidity. It's not looking at people as individuals, but expecting them to correspond to particular stereotypes that you hold because of what you have been told about people of a certain skin colour or genetic origin. This is stupid. Of course it can be used to enforce a particular hierarchy, as was done to provide a philosophical basis enslaving Africans. But it's not essential to hierarchy, as can be seen from other cultures like classical antiquity where those who'd been defeated in war were enslaved, whatever colour they happened to be.

post up this definition, because from my pov you're talking utter bollocks. and i didn't say anything about racism being essential to hierarchy, but that's a fabulous straw man: also, people who were defeated in war in the ancient world might or might not be enslaved - for instance, the legions of mark antony and pompey weren't enslaved after their defeat by octavian and caesar respectively.

 

[teqniq]

Well yeah, of course. But thats where the real stupidity lies how could she not have known how her enemies would leap at that letter which she chose to send to the newspapers?

A political suicide note really.

 

[ouirdeaux]

Racism isn't a subset of stupidity it's an ideology designed to further divide and rule, an ideology used by people sometimes aimed at stupid people to give them simplistic (and wrong) answers to their problems in order to further the cause of those seeking power.

You could say the same of religion, and some do. I believe them to be wrong in both cases. Both religion and racism can be used to bolster hierarchy. But the impulse to be religious is rooted in our various desires to seek explanations for natural phenomena, find consolation for and purpose in current misfortune, assuage the fear of death by positing something beyond it. It is fantastically useful to reinforce hierarchy, because if people think you've got a hotline to the Big Kahuna, there's no arguing the point. But I don't believe that a bunch of calculating people sat down and decided to invent religions for this purpose.

Similarly with racism. People are wont to blame others for their misfortune. You have your family or your neighbours or your tribe or your nation, and that's your identity, so some other group you don't know very well and will believe anything of are convenient scapegoats. The groups vary, the stereotypes vary, and of course there will be certain categories of people that are ingrained in particular societies, but it's all the same basic impulse. Your identity is X, and however bad it gets, you're not Y, thank fuck.

 

[A380]

I'll still bet a small amount of money she's in the Lords within six years.

 

[Gramsci]

To be clear, I don't think Diane Abbott is anti semitic, but I do think her conception of racism is flawed.

She appears to be suggesting that only Black people experience "proper" racism, that any other other discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, etc is merely prejudice similar to that experienced by people with red hair.

This view, as mentioned above by Gramsci, reflects how some in the Black community see race, but IMO it's a view which is outdated, parochial and divisive.

Agree that is how some in Black community see it.

I also agree it's divisive.

I was not saying in my original post I agree with this view.

I've also criticised aspects of it in previous posts.

I'm trying to understand where this view is coming from. As it's prevalent.

 

[andysays]

Agree that is how some in Black community see it.

I also agree it's divisive.

I was not saying in my original post I agree with this view.

I've also criticised aspects of it in previous posts.

I'm trying to understand where this view is coming from. As it's prevalent.

OK, I may have taken part of your post out of its wider context.

Rereading your various posts I can see that you were describing a view rather than proposing it yourself and I apologise if I misrepresented your position.

 

[Pickman's model]

You could say the same of religion, and some do. I believe them to be wrong in both cases. Both religion and racism can be used to bolster hierarchy. But the impulse to be religious is rooted in our various desires to seek explanations for natural phenomena, find consolation for and purpose in current misfortune, assuage the fear of death by positing something beyond it. It is fantastically useful to reinforce hierarchy, because if people think you've got a hotline to the Big Kahuna, there's no arguing the point. But I don't believe that a bunch of calculating people sat down and decided to invent religions for this purpose.

Similarly with racism. People are wont to blame others for their misfortune. You have your family or your neighbours or your tribe or your nation, and that's your identity, so some other group you don't know very well and will believe anything of are convenient scapegoats. The groups vary, the stereotypes vary, and of course there will be certain categories of people that are ingrained in particular societies, but it's all the same basic impulse. Your identity is X, and however bad it gets, you're not Y, thank fuck.

racism isn't solely about blaming others for their misfortunes. it's not solely about scapegoats. it's about thinking some people are 'better' than others, some people are more human than others. you're describing one aspect of racism, not the whole of the thing.

 

[not a trot]

racism isn't solely about blaming others for their misfortunes. it's not solely about scapegoats. it's about thinking some people are 'better' than others, some people are more human than others. you're describing one aspect of racism, not the whole of the thing.

"There is only on race, the human race." Michael Holding.

 

[Pickman's model]

"There is only on race, the human race." Michael Holding.

If only that was the case. There is nonetheless a range of people elevated or otherwise by the hue of their skin or their national origin or their ancestry by many other people.

 

[LDC]

I don't see what's so controversial in saying that racism is a subset of stupidity.

It's a Guardian reader's sub-par 'analysis' of racism devoid of history and ideologies that explains nothing and paints people as not as intelligent as the speaker. Problematic on every level.

Probably something that belongs on a Brexit thread...

 

[Pickman's model]

It's a Guardian reader's sub-par 'analysis' of racism devoid of history and ideologies.

it's worse than that, it's a sub-par guardian reader's sub-par 'analysis'

 

[Dom Traynor]

I've always wondered whether the support Diane Abbott gets from white lefties is in itself racist, because they don't know (and can't be bothered to know) any of the other Black British leaders who are far more articulate, thoughtful and successful at moving towards the goal than her.

Tbh I sympathize, I will not be criticising her anywhere other than here. But still.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've always wondered whether the support Diane Abbott gets from white lefties is in itself racist, because they don't know (and can't be bothered to know) any of the other Black British leaders who are far more articulate, thoughtful and successful at moving towards the goal than her.

Tbh I sympathize, I will not be criticising her anywhere other than here. But still.

what is 'the goal'?

 

[krtek a houby]

Is there a difference between Guardian readers and people who read the Guardian regularly?

 

[LDC]

Is there a difference between Guardian readers and people who read the Guardian regularly?

Yes. HTH.