Dianne Abbott

I'm With Stupid said:
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.
Click to expand...

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”?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
blue cigar said:
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
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if this is a serious point but why is waving a Union Jack and supporting the royal family racist?
 
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.
 
BrianW said:
She seems to be arguing for a hierarchy of racism and is not the first to do so.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Corbyn, or left wing politics.

This ridiculous letter exposes the lie at the centre of BLM. The fallacy that racism is a simple matter of the struggle between oppressed blacks against oppressor whites, hence white guilt, and everything else is just gradations of oppression, right down to the nastiness shown to redheads.

This argument is not just naive and stupid, it's very dangerous, taken to its conclusion two extremes collide. In the United States it is not unknown for blacks to express hostility towards Jews because of the belief that Jews are the chief white oppressor, what with secretly running the world and what not. Which bizarrely dove tails with white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us", coz they know Jews are out to destroy the white world order, that would be the same white world order some blacks believe is run by Jews! Coz every true Aryan knows the "tribe" is out to dilute all those pure white bloodlines.

Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place. In such circumstances, given the terrible consequences of complacency, is it any wonder that establishment Jewish groups trashed Corbyn? Even hounding "unacceptable" Jews who dissented! Many Jewish groups and publications behaved appallingly during the Corbyn era, they lied and dissembled and you're still doing it now, but if I were in your place I'd probably do the same.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
This has nothing to do with Corbyn, or left wing politics.

This ridiculous letter exposes the lie at the centre of BLM. The fallacy that racism is a simple matter of the struggle between oppressed blacks against oppressor whites, hence white guilt, and everything else is just gradations of oppression, right down to the nastiness shown to redheads.

This argument is not just naive and stupid, it's very dangerous, taken to its conclusion two extremes collide. In the United States it is not unknown for blacks to express hostility towards Jews because of the belief that Jews are the chief white oppressor, what with secretly running the world and what not. Which bizarrely dove tails with white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us", coz they know Jews are out to destroy the white world order, that would be the same white world order some blacks believe is run by Jews! Coz every true Aryan knows the "tribe" is out to dilute all those pure white bloodlines.

Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place. In such circumstances, given the terrible consequences of complacency, is it any wonder that establishment Jewish groups trashed Corbyn? Even hounding "unacceptable" Jews who dissented! Many Jewish Groups and publications behaved appallingly during the Corbyn era, they lied and dissembled and you're still doing it now, but if I were in your situation I'd probably do the same.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your first line. The hard left that Corbyn is a key proponent of is awash with antisemitism. Individually Corbyn and other lefties may not be antisemitic but to say its a recurring theme is an understatement. A quick dip in to hard left social media and antisemitism is easily uncovered, it's no surprise to me Corbyn had 'liked' a clearly antisemitic image, there are lots on there.

Their reluctance to acknowledge it is a clear problem and leads to the almost non existence of efforts to address it. They refuse to enter into the debate, but will happily discuss the oppression of the Palestinians from dawn to dusk. Abbot is clearly influenced by these views, it's a shame as she was a very good and moderate Labour MP for the main part of her career. She is ruining her legacy.
 
BrianW said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed it’s complicated
I’m struggling to understand how Braverman is still in office with sending people to Rwanda against their will detaining them instead of processing applications
If it’s about the murder of innocents “Jewish” people then I understand but a special word for it “anti semite“ why ?
The Irish we wanted to rule Ireland so ”parliament“ starved the people to death it carried over to “no Irish or blacks here”
As you say “mind bogglingly complicated” divide and rule
 
Gaudion M said:
I don't agree with your first line. The hard left that Corbyn is a key proponent of is awash with antisemitism. Individually Corbyn and other lefties may not be antisemitic but to say its a recurring theme is an understatement. A quick dip in to hard left social media and antisemitism is easily uncovered, it's no surprise to me Corbyn had 'liked' a clearly antisemitic image, there are lots on there.

Their reluctance to acknowledge it is a clear problem and leads to the almost non existence of efforts to address it. They refuse to enter into the debate, but will happily discuss the oppression of the Palestinians from dawn to dusk. Abbot is clearly influenced by these views, it's a shame as she was a very good and moderate Labour MP for the main part of her career. She is ruining her legacy.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want to believe, it's fashionable.
 
Interesting comment just now on LBC

Has she done it to undermine Starmer in the upcoming local elections. Starmer has ostracised the left, maybe it is payback for the treatment of her pal Jeremy.
 
Giovinco said:
I’m not sure if this is a serious point but why is waving a Union Jack and supporting the royal family racist?
Click to expand...

The thinking behind it is thus....

The Union flag is a symbol of the establishment and the monarchy is at the pinnacle of that establishment, the white establishment, whose wealth and power is derived from the exploitation of black slave labour.

To support the monarchy and salute the flag is to condone the actions of the white establishment and is therefore an overtly racist act.

Suffice it to say this view is fundamentally flawed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top