Dianne Abbott

[brazilians hurt]

Remember her infamous police officer number quotas?

Hilarious.

Yep then suggested she was a victim of “Gotcha journalism”

 

[metalblue]

Let's be honest, that's clearly anger about a war. But if those same people sent death threats or bricked the windows of the local Russian shop, yes that would clearly be racist for me. Similarly, it was racist when America rounded up all of the ethnic Japanese in WW2 and held them in camps. It wasn't not racist because they didn't also round up all of the other East-Asian looking people.

Nowt to do with the war fella although easy to make that link for obvious reasons, it’s been long held view that Russians are a pain in the arse on holiday. Like English football fans. Interestingly though, whatever the reasons for this prejudice, it falls under your definition of racism - so when we peel it back your own response is actually, and inadvertently, justify something you see as racist. That’s not a criticism or attack of you in the slightest but rather to illustrate how difficult it is to navigate these waters when the definition becomes broad.

Japanese interment, through todays lens and definition, would probably fall under racism as it was not based solely on nationality but rather ethnicity as well (ie of Japanese descent) - although for a country where “white only” signs were common place at the time they probably thought they were being quite decent about it. It also contrasts with Britain policy on interning Germans and Italians during WW2 which was based on nationality only, not on ethnicity or race.

Racism used to be simple to spot, “whites only”,”only Europeans to apply”, fuck off you [insert race and expletive here], animal noises and so on and so forth - undoubtedly the sort of racism that Abbott herself has faced. It becomes more nuanced when we start to call interning of Japanese (and their descendants) racism as it serves to lesson the word’s impact as the policy itself has some obvious merit and would have sat easy with many - even if it extended too far. When too many prejudices become racism then all of a sudden we are all guilty of it to some extent and so being called a racist starts to carry less stigma, this allows those on the more extreme ends to fit in to the mainstream. This for me is what Abbott was alluding to, she could have worded it an awful lot better..maybe she could have ask is it time for a new word, “prejudism”?

 

[metalblue]

I don't see her comments as antisemitic per se, but they perfectly illustrate the Labour Party's issue with antisemitism, particularly under the previous leadership. Corbyn himself, despite his and his supporters' unshakeable belief that there wasn't a racist bone in his body, came over as antisemitic.

Hence the reaction, which could be seen as excessive but where Starmer needs to make a point. I'd also suggest that Abbott is seen as a risk, and open target for the media, os he's been given the chance to remove that risk.

I think that last paragraph hits the nail on the head. She’d openly criticised the latest ads and always has a gaff or two to offer. It’s also fits Starmer’s MO.

 

[blue cigar]

So, the first black lady in parliament, campaigns for nearly 50 years against racism is disciplined by the labour party wanting to purge all trace of the left wing of the labour movement?? Seems legit.
This brings out the usual blue moon racist types pretending they're not really racist, probably the same clowns that wave union jacks and think the royal family are good for Britain

 

[west didsblue]

I don't see her comments as antisemitic per se, but they perfectly illustrate the Labour Party's issue with antisemitism, particularly under the previous leadership. Corbyn himself, despite his and his supporters' unshakeable belief that there wasn't a racist bone in his body, came over as antisemitic.

Hence the reaction, which could be seen as excessive but where Starmer needs to make a point. I'd also suggest that Abbott is seen as a risk, and open target for the media, os he's been given the chance to remove that risk.

I’m certainly not going to die in a ditch defending her right to retain the whip, and although I still think it’s more about politics than principles I concede that Starmer is in a better position to make the judgment about getting rid of her than I am, and there’s a pretty good chance he’s made the right decision.

 

[Giovinco]

So, the first black lady in parliament, campaigns for nearly 50 years against racism is disciplined by the labour party wanting to purge all trace of the left wing of the labour movement?? Seems legit.
This brings out the usual blue moon racist types pretending they're not really racist, probably the same clowns that wave union jacks and think the royal family are good for Britain

I’m not sure if this is a serious point but why is waving a Union Jack and supporting the royal family racist?

 

[BrianW]

She seems to be arguing for a hierarchy of racism and is not the first to do so.

The question is whether one form of racism is 'better' than another, or whether they are all equally bad. And that in turn brings up awkward questions like why are the Irish seen as more likely to be discriminated against than (say) the Welsh; especially when, if you look at DNA, English Welsh, Irish and Scots are pretty much the same race anyway.

It's mind-bogglingly complicated.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

She seems to be arguing for a hierarchy of racism and is not the first to do so.

No not at all. Interestingly enough some of the people tgat made those kinds of arguments used it as a stick to beat the last Labour leader with and some of them make a living writing books and produce self-pitying documentaries about such nonsense.

 

[Ohrodneyrodney]

She's not very bright is she?

 

[blueinsa]

She's not very bright is she?

Maybe we should stop making this excuse for her and just face the fact aspects of her politics are frankly ugly and disgusting.