# Diane Abbottgate - your verdict



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2012)

Should she go or should she stay?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hite-people-love-playing-divide-and-rule.html



> Miss Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, was responding to a commentator who said she disliked the “lazy” and "monolithic" use of the term “black community” during coverage of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.
> 
> The MP responded to say the comments were “playing into a ‘divide and rule’ agenda” that is as “old as colonialism”. She said black people should not “wash dirty linen in public.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 5, 2012)

Is this about the daft tweet she sent and then retracted about not playing the white peoples divide and rule game or some such ?

Dont see the harm myself. Nobody takes her seriously and she is good for the odd headline. I suppose as a right-wing loon I should be hollering from the roof tops but in the great scheme of things its just tomorrows chip papers so let her be.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2012)

> HackneyAbbott Diane Abbott MP
> 
> Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters.
> 19 minutes ago


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 5, 2012)

LOL. She is good value, I have to give her that 

Even you drongos could not come up with bullshit like that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Seems pretty clear, Bim Adewuni's points implicitly challenged Abbot by suggesting she was one of the blacl 'leaders' who was out of touch with "with the black people they purport to represent.” so she reverted to old school militant sounding tropes to suggest she was onside with this criticism. Just old school puffed up political tricks.


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2012)

Never trusted her (she's my MP, though I didn't vote for her) since I found out she went to school with, and is matey with, Portillo. I don't think MP's should have to resign from anything for making slightly unguarded comments on Twitter though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2012)

maomao said:


> Never trusted her (she's my MP, though I didn't vote for her) since I found out she went to school with, and is matey with, Portillo. I don't think MP's should have to resign from anything for making slightly unguarded comments on Twitter though.


did portillo go to a girls' school?


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> did portillo go to a girls' school?


I'm slightly confused aren't I. They both went to single sex schools in the same area that were twinned with each other for certain activities. Still a fucking mate of Portillo's though.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2012)

I don't really see how she can claim it is being taken out of context.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2012)

maomao said:


> I'm slightly confused aren't I. They both went to single sex schools in the same area that were twinned with each other for certain activities. Still a fucking mate of Portillo's though.


yeh, it's always struck me as a mite strange that someone in the campaign group can be good mates with someone who is/was on the tory right. a bit like anyone sensible being mates with phildwyer - surprising


----------



## spliff (Jan 5, 2012)

maomao said:


> Never trusted her ... .. .


Nor me.
She was our national organiser at the ACTT (as was, now BECTU) and we were at a crucial stage in negotiations with our employers when she upped and left because she'd been selected as a Labour candidate, handing the workload to an out-of-depth although eventually capable assistant.
It set us back 6 months to a year and cost us money.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, it's always struck me as a mite strange that someone in the campaign group can be good mates with someone who is/was on the tory right. a bit like anyone sensible being mates with phildwyer - surprising


 
Aren't personal friendships between MPs on opposing sides (in formal terms) quite common?

Aside from that, don't many people here have friends who fundamentally disagree with them politically?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm struggling to understand what teuchter quoted, let alone see what is offensive about it.


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Aren't personal friendships between MPs on opposing sides (in formal terms) quite common?


 Especially now that class conflict isn't part of UK parlilamentary politics any more. The political class becomes turned inwards and MP on both sides have more in common with each other than with their constituents.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm struggling to understand what teuchter quoted, let alone see what is offensive about it.


Yes, he did rather mess it up - the _outrage_ is caused by this:

'White people love playing divide and rule'


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Especially now that class conflict isn't part of UK parlilamentary politics any more. The political class becomes turned inwards and MP on both sides have more in common with each other than with their constituents.



I think such friendships between MPs were still quite common when class conflict in Parliament was alive and well.

In politics there are always those who take it all highly personally and those who don't. I could never understand those lefties who couldn't stand the company of people who didn't share their views. Gradually, I came to be able to barely tolerate those who did share my views.


----------



## elfman (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, he did rather mess it up - the _outrage_ is caused by this:
> 
> 'White people love playing divide and rule'


Ah right, now I understand. I was thinking that I was just being stupid or unconsciously racist...


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> In politics there are always those who take it all highly personally and those who don't.


 It's not about taking it personally, like some individualistic decision. If you're in real conflict with someone it's hard to also have a friendly relationship with them. Can you go for drinks with a boss who's always trying to push you around? Not really.


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Especially now that class conflict isn't part of UK parlilamentary politics any more. The political class becomes turned inwards and MP on both sides have more in common with each other than with their constituents.



She sells herself as being from the left of the party though so it becomes necessary to state the lack of trust. If it was some shitcunt like Frank Field there'd be no point.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 5, 2012)

I also believe that Ms Abbott also has Jonathan Atkin as Godfather to her son. Which always makes me smile


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 5, 2012)

I object to being called white. I prefer to be called a person of no colour.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I object to being called white. I prefer to be called a person of no colour.


 
Do you think you should get a life?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> It's not about taking it personally, like some individualistic decision. If you're in real conflict with someone it's hard to also have a friendly relationship with them. Can you go for drinks with a boss who's always trying to push you around? Not really.



It depends on the personalities of the individuals concerned and whether or not there are reasons for mutual respect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2012)

It is surprising given abbott's ostensible politics. But when her actions are contrasted with her rhetoric it becomes apparent that for all the seeming gulf between her and portillo they are really closer than you'd assume; a bit like nice cop abbott and nasty cop portillo


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

So no one objects to an MP saying "White people love playing divide and rule. We should not play their game"

Never mind the almighty dollop of irony in her words. Never mind the fact that she's put it in the present tense. Never mind that she's responded to someone who objects to the lumping together of 'the black community' (raising a point that I agree massively with btw) by using the term 'we' presumably to refer to the black community


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2012)

Oh, I object very much to diane abbott. She's a foul auld piece of work


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2012)

salem said:


> So no one objects to an MP saying "White people love playing divide and rule. We should not play their game"



Not really.

She said something dodgy about Finnish nurses not understanding her West Indian constituents too which failed to rile me too. I'm more upset by her fake leftyism.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 5, 2012)

aah, yes, the lefty who is against priviledge, but sent her own son to a fee-paying school.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

were any white people really upset by her comments?
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2012/01/white-people-need-to-shut-up.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> aah, yes, the lefty who is against priviledge, but sent her own son to a fee-paying school.


She's not against privilege.

Found your recently lost harrumphing right-winger hat again have you Lizzy?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> were any white people really upset by her comments?



It's the sort of thing the fash will be all over with "she can get away with saying whites this but we're not allowed to say blacks that" etc.

Although it would probably have been more helpful had she said "The English ruling class like to play divide and rule",  as not all white people are guilty of it, nor is it exclusively a white man's game.


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> were any white people really upset by her comments?
> http://leninology.blogspot.com/2012/01/white-people-need-to-shut-up.html



I don't see why they shouldn't be. Do you like playing 'divide and rule'?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm better at Risk to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> It's the sort of thing the fash will be all over with "she can get away with saying whites this but we're not allowed to say blacks that" etc.


It also shows the root commonality that people who argue for a poliitcs  organised around race share. (Not that Abbot giving a tired old airing of rhetorical radical sounding phrases to scrabble back some lost reputation means that she wants to organise around race).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

salem said:


> I don't see why they shouldn't be. Do you like playing 'divide and rule'?


Why should they be? Who's playing divide and rule?
It's the white people pretending to be offended by her comments the day after two racists are imprisoned for a murder they should have been convicted for 18 years ago if it wasn't for the institutional racism of the police force/establishment


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Aside from that, don't many people here have friends who fundamentally disagree with them politically?



Noooooooooooooooo! Are you _really_ that thick?

Allow me to clarify. People who have different political/philosophical views to you are SCUUUUUUUUUM and if you do not cut them out of your life immediately you learn of their views, then you are an APOLOGIST.... which is probably even worse than being pond-life SCUM.

Also if you ever have a big disagreement with someone on here then you are forever honour-bound to cunt off _every_ post they subsequently make - regardless of whether they are right or not.

At least that is what I have gathered on Urban. hth.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Why should they be? Who's playing divide and rule?
> It's the white people pretending to be offended by her comments the day after two racists are imprisoned for a murder they should have been convicted for 18 years ago if it wasn't for the institutional racism of the police force/establishment



I'm not offended but I do think race-based stereotyping is just what we need the day after that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It also shows the root commonality that people who argue for a poliitcs  organised around race share. (Not that Abbot giving a tired old airing of rhetorical radical sounding phrases to scrabble back some lost reputation means that she wants to organise around race).



I added a bit more in an edit, yes, she chose to frame divide and rule around race rather than class.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 5, 2012)

Sorry I forget when exactly I got to divide and rule the black community ?
 I'm pretty sure I'd remember handing out paintball guns and getting BME peeps to hunt Diane abbot with them.
 ( more fun than live ammo and you can do it time and time again  )

Mp with nothing better to do spouts shit. I am offended by Diane abbots existence but I don't like Scottish midges either and they are not going away anytime soon either.

As the saying goes to the rich all poor peopl look the same


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I added a bit more in an edit, yes, she chose to frame divide and rule around race rather than class.


Exactly! And I wonder why she did that?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> She's not against privilege.
> 
> Found your recently lost harrumphing right-winger hat again have you Lizzy?



she's against privilege in the same way the guardian is. ie not at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2012)

all politicians should be forced to converse in 140 characters on the internet, as it gives them opportunities to make cunts of themselves


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

Why do LiamO and LLETSA keep misunderstanding this to be some sort of philosophical issue? I'm talking about class interests. Now many people are friends with their boss, or their landlord.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

What should she 'go' from anyway? Her position as an MP?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Noooooooooooooooo! Are you _really_ that thick?
> 
> Allow me to clarify. People who have different political/philosophical views to you are SCUUUUUUUUUM and if you do not cut them out of your life immediately you learn of their views, then you are an APOLOGIST.... which is probably even worse than being pond-life SCUM.
> 
> ...



Don't forget that you are also supposed to accuse them of 'having an agenda' (as if this actually means something) for the simple crime of mildly disagreeing with you.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> a bit like anyone sensible being mates with phildwyer - surprising


Don't dredge up irrelevant personal beefs here please.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Why do LiamO and LLETSA keep misunderstanding this to be some sort of philosophical issue? I'm talking about class interests. Now many people are friends with their boss, or their landlord.


 
I'm not, but you'll find that lots of people are.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> She's not against privilege.
> 
> Found your recently lost harrumphing right-winger hat again have you Lizzy?



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...he-wouldn-t-end-up-in-a-gang-115875-22347604/

Quite an interesting interview.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> were any white people really upset by her comments?
> http://leninology.blogspot.com/2012/01/white-people-need-to-shut-up.html


 
Probably, but then many people spend all their time looking for things to get upset about. A few post on here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Should she go or should she stay?



Her comment is accurate as far as it goes, and any analysis of black* British history turns up numerous examples of the "divide and rule" strategy being deployed.
Her use of it wasn't exactly nuanced, but it's hard to twitter nuance, and the Tory MP (a former aide to Jeffrey fucking Archer, for fuck's sake!) calling for her to resign for inciting racial tension, he's indulging in a bit of political opportunism. Anyone with an ounce of perspective knows that though Abbott might be a hack, she isn't stupid, and wouldn't make such a comment unless she was sure it would resonate.

*I mean "black" by it's "traditional" definition in late 20th-century British politics.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Do you think you should get a life?



Do you think you should get a sense of humour?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Do you think you should get a sense of humour?


 
Sorry, I thought you were being serious. After all, it isn't as if plenty of posters don't say similar things and mean them.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Sorry, I thought you were being serious. After all, it isn't as if plenty of posters don't say similar things and mean them.



Really? I must have missed those idiots.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

salem said:


> Exactly! And I wonder why she did that?



To shore up votes from the black community constituents?

- strike through command doesn't work on tapatalk


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Why should they be? Who's playing divide and rule?



White people according to Diane Abbot (you read the offending tweet I assume?) Why should anyone be offended, well she's making a slur against a racial group - ironically enough in a 'them and us' gesture which does nothing but drive a wedge between 'us'.



Orang Utan said:


> It's the white people pretending to be offended by her comments the day after two racists are imprisoned for a murder they should have been convicted for 18 years ago if it wasn't for the institutional racism of the police force/establishment



I'm not sure why you're so sure that people are pretending to be offended? nor what this has to do with the Steven Lawrence trial?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> To shore up votes from the black community constituents?


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> To shore up votes from the black community constituents?
> 
> - strike through command doesn't work on tapatalk



That and if she was to use class instead of race she'd be on the wrong side.


----------



## crusty bloomer (Jan 5, 2012)

When I lived in England her and Michael Portillo used to have a double act on Newsnight and he always came across as the more likable sensible one. He's a pretty nasty piece of work himself by all accounts but at least he has an edit function built into his brain


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Why do LiamO and LLETSA keep misunderstanding this to be some sort of philosophical issue? I'm talking about class interests. Now many people are friends with their boss, or their landlord.



can you expand on this a little. I don't want to make assumptions about what you mean and would prefer you to clarify before I respond.

As for 'how many people are friends with their boss' I would suggest many people are friends with their boss. That's certainly my experience of working on building sites and in pubs. That does not mean I have not absolutely detested some Subbies and pub landlord's I have worked for... I have... many and often... but I also recognise that many of my workmates were often friends and/or extended family of the Subbie/guvnor.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

White people _do_ like to play divide and rule, though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2012)

crusty bloomer said:


> When I lived in England her and Michael Portillo used to have a double act on Newsnight and he always came across as the more likable sensible one. He's a pretty nasty piece of work himself by all accounts but at least he has an edit function built into his brain



they can be seen loving each other a lot on the Daily Politics quite often with lech Andrew Niel and wasp-chinned lady whose name escapes me.

I think the are, y'know..


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Aren't personal friendships between MPs on opposing sides (in formal terms) quite common?
> 
> Aside from that, *don't many people here have friends who fundamentally disagree with them politically*?



I have to agree; I have friends from all walks of life and every bent & our outlook can be very different. Still, I don't have any friends who are racist, at least, not that I'm aware of!

It wasn't a well thought out comment for her to make but it doesn't bother me; after all - I learnt about divide and rule and it did seem to be the sole preserve of the white man in the days of colonialism.

I'm sure the far right will seize this opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill...


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

LiamO said:


> can you expand on this a little. I don't want to make assumptions about what you mean and would prefer you to clarify before I respond.


 Fair enough, if you and LLETSA say that you know lots of people who're friends with their boss/landlord then I'll accept that my own experience isn't universal. Still seems to me to be an unavoidably difficult thing to bridge with friendship, you being screwed by them for money and work.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 5, 2012)

Her political ability was exposed during the Labour leadership circus imo; under pressure - or tiredness - she sometimes lacks that essential skill to think, or rather express, on her feet in party political terms, and instead her thinking freezes (for that moment). Then she goes onto auto-pilot, and jesus....

Her 'black mums' moment being the obv. example then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

salem said:


> I'm not sure why you're so sure that people are pretending to be offended?


as a white person, i would be astonished if anyone truly were.


salem said:


> nor what this has to do with the Steven Lawrence trial?


perhaps because her comments referred to the media coverage of the trial?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 5, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I have to agree; I have friends from all walks of life and every bent & our outlook can be very different. Still, I don't have any friends who are racist, at least, not that I'm aware of!
> 
> It wasn't a well thought out comment for her to make but it doesn't bother me; after all - I learnt about divide and rule and it did seem to be the sole preserve of the white man in the days of colonialism.



Yes, but she was talking in the present tense.  So it certainly comes across as racist.   Her "black mums" thing was racist too.  She was saying that it's okay for black mums to send their kids to private schools but it's dodgy for anyone else to do so.


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> White people _do_ like to play divide and rule, though.


All white people?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Fair enough, if you and LLETSA say that you know lots of people who're friends with their boss/landlord then I'll accept that my own experience isn't universal. Still seems to me to be an unavoidably difficult thing to bridge with friendship, you being screwed by them for money and work.



Class consciousness, especially on the part of those at the shitty end, is quite a lot lower than politicos often assume, particularly nowadays.


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

LLETSA said:


> Class consciousness, especially on the part of those at the shitty end, is quite a lot lower than politicos often assume, particularly nowadays.


Again, it's not about political or philosophical beliefs. It's about teh barriers to friendship that I feel when I'm faced with someone who pushes me around/chases me for money/fails to fix the boiler.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> All white people?


Oh yes, you've got to watch all the whities.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> All white people?



Obviously not all of them get the opportunity.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Again, it's not about political or philosophical beliefs. It's about teh barriers to friendship that I feel when I'm faced with someone who pushes me around/chases me for money/fails to fix the boiler.



Perhaps people are only friendly with the landlord who does fix the boiler.

You're forgetting that there are lots of people, possibly a majority, who don't much care that they're being screwed. Plenty would join in the screwing of others given the chance.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 5, 2012)

Utter non-story surely? Desperate politicing - amazed its getting any coverage at all.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Utter non-story surely? Desperate politicing - amazed its getting any coverage at all.



It's a bit weak even for a 'twitter offenderati tantrum'.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes, but she was talking in the present tense. So it certainly comes across as racist. Her "black mums" thing was racist too. She was saying that it's okay for black mums to send their kids to private schools but it's dodgy for anyone else to do so.



I missed that schools comment. But in all seriousness, does anyone really expect politicians to be in touch and totally gaffe free? I'm marking her as dubious but I would never put her in the same bracket as yer actual BNP etc scum.

I predict a witch hunt in this situation.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 5, 2012)

well done Diane, why not set up an open goal for racists to shoot through


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Again, it's not about political or philosophical beliefs. It's about teh barriers to friendship that I feel when I'm faced with someone who pushes me around/chases me for money/fails to fix the boiler.



Sounds like you've had bad luck with bosses/landlords. May be an idea to be more friendly with them.


----------



## Random (Jan 5, 2012)

salem said:


> Sounds like you've had bad luck with bosses/landlords. May be an idea to be more friendly with them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> White people _do_ like to play divide and rule, though.



Aye. Ask both sides of the sectarian divide in Ireland. They love it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 5, 2012)

Poor whitey getting done down yet again by the forces of privilge


----------



## agricola (Jan 5, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Poor whitey getting done down yet again by the forces of privilge



Which does happen quite a lot to the vast majority of white people, tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

Not because they're white though. (or rather, not usually).


----------



## salem (Jan 5, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Poor whitey getting done down yet again by the forces of privilge



It happens - White boys from poor families do worst in tests


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

LiamO said:


> can you expand on this a little. I don't want to make assumptions about what you mean and would prefer you to clarify before I respond.
> 
> As for 'how many people are friends with their boss' I would suggest many people are friends with their boss. That's certainly my experience of working on building sites and in pubs. That does not mean I have not absolutely detested some Subbies and pub landlord's I have worked for... I have... many and often... but I also recognise that many of my workmates were often friends and/or extended family of the Subbie/guvnor.



From my experience there can be warmness between lads on the tools and a foreman / chargehand; especially if they are not arseholes and have done time on the tools / shop floor themselves. 

But higher management?  My experience is they keep their distance from the men who they hire and fire. Their priority is the running of a business, not forging friendships.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 5, 2012)

if I tweeted "black people are easy to control you just need to get the tribes hating each other "  in any context other than how the empire was run it would be considered stupid racism.

but diane is a professional politicion so knows everything about poor peoples struggles she just asks her office cleaner


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 5, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Utter non-story surely? Desperate politicing - amazed its getting any coverage at all.


It just got about ten minutes on Radio 4, including a lengthy interview with, er, female colleague of Abbott's whose name I missed, where she was being repeatedly pressed to say it was racist (and it was also suggested that this is part of a history of anti-white racism on Abbott's part).

edit: apparently it was Meg Hillier


----------



## agricola (Jan 5, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Not because they're white though. (or rather, not usually).



Indeed, the "forces of privilge" cant really be arsed to come up with a good reason why they should be done down, they just do it.


----------



## crusty bloomer (Jan 5, 2012)

English people from Chinese and Indian descent do better at school and are in less danger of going off the rails than English people from European or African descent


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

crusty bloomer said:


> English people from Chinese and Indian descent do better at school and are in less danger of going off the rails than English people from European or African descent



That's because they are more compliant due to their colonial heritage.  A benefit conferred by whitey.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 5, 2012)

well the The Oppressed White People Group are not happy that's for sure.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/297954723583406/


----------



## crusty bloomer (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> That's because they are more compliant due to their colonial heritage. A benefit conferred by whitey.



It's because they don't have hiphop


----------



## likesfish (Jan 5, 2012)

I d quite like diane abbot to suffer oppresion mainly because she's diane abbot though


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 5, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It just got about ten minutes on Radio 4, including a lengthy interview with, er, female colleague of Abbott's whose name I missed, where she was being repeatedly pressed to say it was racist (and it was also suggested that this is part of a history of anti-white racism on Abbott's part).
> 
> edit: apparently it was Meg Hillier


That was on World At One - and now on the 2pm news, it's top story again, and they play back part of the interview with Hillier.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> well the The Oppressed White People Group are not happy that's for sure.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/297954723583406/



there are only 6 people in that group currently - seems a bit pointless to give them publicity!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 5, 2012)

If someone said 'black people like playing divide and rule' it would not so much be 'racist' as nonsensical, since to make sense it would have to apply to a context where the power in the land was overwhelmingly wielded by people who are black.
Abbots conflating of ruling class with 'white people' is simplistic and potentailly divisive, but thats what happens when you percieve 'race' as the dominant force that determines power within society - rather then a complex interplay of social background (including ethnicity), wealth and status.
But 'offensive'? 'Racist'?

Without taking in account the actaul power relations you end up with stupid simplistic knee jerkery. How come gay people can say 'queer'? How come black people can call each other 'nigger'? etc etc.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 5, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> If someone said 'black people like playing divide and rule' it would not so much be 'racist' as nonsensical, since to make sense it would have to apply to a context where the power in the land was overwhelmingly wielded by people who are black.
> Abbots conflating of ruling class with 'white people' is simplistic and potentailly divisive, but thats what happens when you percieve 'race' as the dominant force that determines power within society - rather then a complex interplay of social background (including ethnicity), wealth and status.
> But 'offensive'? 'Racist'?
> 
> Without taking in account the actaul power relations you end up with stupid simplistic knee jerkery. How come gay people can say 'queer'? How come black people can call each other 'nigger'? etc etc.



I get what you're saying, really I do. But I can't help but feel that always wheeling out the "racism and power" schtick when a black public figure says something dumb does more harm than good. I acknowledge that generalising about "white people" in the way that Abbott did isn't nearly as offensive or damaging as the inverse, but it's still divisive and it's still an open goal for racists, simply because the idea that generalising about some ethnicities is fine, but ethnicities isn't is completely nonsensical.


----------



## gabi (Jan 5, 2012)

prolly a repost but miliband calling her live on sky earlier is pure Thick of It


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 5, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> there are only 6 people in that group currently - seems a bit pointless to give them publicity!



24 now, something must be working


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

http://33revolutionsperminute.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/racism-vs-racism-why-diane-abbott-was-right/


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> there are only 6 people in that group currently - seems a bit pointless to give them publicity!



It's probably another of Bob's Lol groups.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 5, 2012)

It's a serious group taking on serious issues.... FACT


----------



## gosub (Jan 5, 2012)

gabi said:


> prolly a repost but miliband calling her live on sky earlier is pure Thick of It



But somebody had to make the call. There's backsliding and there's getting into a row about black leaders being out of touch and citing as your defense that you are talking about 19th Century Colonialism.

Bim Adewunmi, case proved.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> http://33revolutionsperminute.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/racism-vs-racism-why-diane-abbott-was-right/


Thing is, that defence has now been fatally undermined by Abbott herself saying she was talking about 200+ years ago and not today. It's at odds with her own (shit) explanation.


----------



## Shifter (Jan 5, 2012)

silly comment, although it does serve to illustrate the nature of the individual. I am usually uncomfortable with comments about membership of non-elective groups particularly when they are negative in nature.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Thing is, that defence has now been fatally undermined by Abbott herself saying she was talking about 200+ years ago and not today. It's at odds with her own (shit) explanation.


she certainly hasn't done herself any favours. i'm no fan of abbott, but am annoyed with the people up in arms with her even more.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 5, 2012)

gabi said:


> prolly a repost but miliband calling her live on sky earlier is pure Thick of It




You can almost hear Tucker in the background


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> she certainly hasn't done herself any favours. i'm no fan of abbott, but am annoyed with the people up in arms with her even more.


It makes whoever did that defence look stupid as well was more the point, i expect _her_ to dissemble and bullshit, that's taken for granted.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 5, 2012)

https://twitter.com/#!/search/#whitepeopleblues


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 5, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> I get what you're saying, really I do. But I can't help but feel that always wheeling out the "racism and power" schtick when a black public figure says something dumb does more harm than good. I acknowledge that generalising about "white people" in the way that Abbott did isn't nearly as offensive or damaging as the inverse, but it's still divisive and it's still an open goal for racists, simply because the idea that generalising about some ethnicities is fine, but ethnicities isn't is completely nonsensical.



Dont disagree. Abbot's clumsy blitherings has served to highlight how wrongheaded a lot of identity politics is.

But the 'racist' accusations are pathetic.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 5, 2012)

Stupid woman why don't people realise when they're on twitter they're putting stuff into the public context. She's got form for saying stuff like this, but I can't get too worked up about it.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 5, 2012)

Diane abbot puts foot in mouth.

News at 9 scientists claim waters is mostly wet


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 5, 2012)

Apparently she could get an 8 match ban, but not sure if the rest of the shadow cabinet will appear in t-shirts with her picture on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It just got about ten minutes on Radio 4, including a lengthy interview with, er, female colleague of Abbott's whose name I missed, where she was being repeatedly pressed to say it was racist (and it was also suggested that this is part of a history of anti-white racism on Abbott's part).
> 
> edit: apparently it was Meg Hillier



Or "Meg Hitler" as she would no doubt be branded if she disagreed about the racism of the comment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Excellent lee Jasper tries to pull the same trick as Abbott and looks like a total prick:

_The "good old boys" are saddling up there's goona be a high tech lynching cos "sorry massa"aint good enough - they want blood. _


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent lee Jasper tries to pull the same trick as Abbott and looks like a total prick:
> 
> _The "good old boys" are saddling up there's goona be a high tech lynching cos "sorry massa"aint good enough - they want blood. _



Lee Jasper in "I'm an out-of-touch attention-seeking prick" shocker!


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 5, 2012)

Lenins blog post is the high irony, full of sly jokes about "good whites"  who obviously are not who dianne abbot was referring to. An obvious reference to starkeys comments about good blacks  like David lammy after the riots.
What a card Richard seymour is.


----------



## coley (Jan 5, 2012)

She has had a bollocking off milliband, having to listen to that whiney voiced scrote is more than sufficient punishment.


----------



## fogbat (Jan 5, 2012)

And how come it's never Straight Pride Day?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

gabi said:


> prolly a repost but miliband calling her live on sky earlier is pure Thick of It




Clever bit of media management that, spike the interview without it looking like it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

It's fair enough for a back bencher to say stupid and ill-judged things, but Abbot's not one. Miliband should ask her to resign from the shadow cabinet. He'd look strong, centrist and in touch with middle England if he does, and the reverse of all of these if he doesn't.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

DP.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

Forget Diane Abbott's tweet – let's talk about the Stephen Lawrence case



> If only she'd added the word "some". If only Diane Abbott had begun her tweet with this qualifier, this furore would not have happened, and we might still be talking about the significance of this week's truly momentous event – theconviction of Gary Dobson and David Norrisfor the murder of Stephen's Lawrence. Equally important over these last few days was the revived conversation about how our democratic and civic institutions can deliver better equality for everyone, black and white; about how far we've come in regards to tackling race inequality, and how far we have to go. It felt good.
> 
> Instead, the last few hours have been dominated by claims that Abbott is a racist, with political opportunists piling in to denounce her.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2012)

Just chipping in to express a lol at the lenins tomb blog post.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's fair enough for a back bencher to say stupid and ill-judged things, but Abbot's not one. Miliband should ask her to resign from the shadow cabinet. He'd look strong, centrist and in touch with middle England if he does, and the reverse of all of these if he doesn't.


 
He is likely waiting to see if this minor twitter beef snowballs cos if it doesn't she can ride it out, as she has previous ill judged comments. If it looks to become a Burning Issue in which Many Voices Are Raised she will be thrown under the bus.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

He would do far better to have her shot at dawn before it snowballs. More brownie points. V interesting test, and if he passes, I may stop thinking of him as the wrong Mili.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's fair enough for a back bencher to say stupid and ill-judged things, but Abbot's not one. Miliband should ask her to resign from the shadow cabinet. He'd look strong, centrist and in touch with middle England if he does, and the reverse of all of these if he doesn't.



Haha shows how little you understand politics; there's no way Miliband could sack her or have her resign. The headline would be "Labour meltdown: Miliband loses minister 24 hours after closest aid turns on him" followed by all kinds of headlines, factional infighting, etc.

Far better to weather the storm and than let it go nuclear...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

> closest aid turns on him



Ooh, I missed that. Who's turned Iscariot?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

.


----------



## Dowie (Jan 5, 2012)

I don't think she should resign. She should however perhaps be asked to undergo some diversity training and maybe go and visit some white areas, meet the white community and see that they're not all bad.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 5, 2012)

Just what we need... 'a strong centrist in touch with middle England'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Clever bit of media management that, spike the interview without it looking like it.


Except that's exactly what it looked like


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

Oh, mad Mo Glasman. That's not a problem. Support from Glasman would be more toxic than complaints. He's Labour's John Gray.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

stephj said:


> Just what we need... 'a strong centrist in touch with middle England'.



Glad you're finally coming round.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Except that's exactly what it looked like



Yup and people are talking about that rather than the tweet, job done.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yup and people are talking about that rather than the tweet, job done.


Except they're not


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2012)

Well the statement white peple love playing divide and rule is a racist one, taken at face value. Do I think she should resign? Absolutely not. I'm not a Diann Abbot fan either.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Except they're not



You are.


----------



## JHE (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's fair enough for a back bencher to say stupid and ill-judged things, but Abbot's not one. Miliband should ask her to resign from the shadow cabinet. He'd look strong, centrist and in touch with middle England if he does, and the reverse of all of these if he doesn't.



If Miliband sacks her, he will look like a weak fool who overreacts and can be easily pushed into disloyalty to colleagues by dishonest Tory gits who like to shout that Diane Abbott is racist.  He won't sack her.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You are.


And so are you. Can't believe you have he gall to tell Maurice he knows nothing about politics


----------



## likesfish (Jan 5, 2012)

Anyone know the rules for divide and rule?
 Do you need special shoes?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 5, 2012)

I like Abbott more when she's putting her foot in it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's fair enough for a back bencher to say stupid and ill-judged things, but Abbot's not one. Miliband should ask her to resign from the shadow cabinet. He'd look strong, centrist and in touch with middle England if he does, and the reverse of all of these if he doesn't.



It would certainly be a clean sweep for anti-racism campaigners, first Suarez, then the Lawrence killers and finally Abbott.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> And so are you. Can't believe you have he gall to tell Maurice he knows nothing about politics



Yup because that's a story now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yup because that's a story now.


Get out. Go and play with your iPad


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

An in-depth analysis of social issues via the medium of Twitter. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Get out. Go and play with your iPad



You wanna give me an iPad so I have to play with my ginger friend?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

Go away


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An in-depth analysis of social issues via the medium of Twitter. What could possibly go wrong?



Indeed. Well anyway I'm sure this will have blown over by the weekend...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm quite tempted to join the Oppressed White People Group for a laugh.

I'm notsure whether you have to be 100% white, but I can fake rilly bad splleing which should help compensate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

Having said that, fuck me, this bit is crass.

"Ethnic communities that show more public solidarity and unity than black people do much better"

This has probably been said already, but she's basically blaming black people for the fact that black people are not doing so well. Not all black people, of course - black people like Abbott are doing very well indeed, to the point where they can send their children to schools that are a long way away from any of those underachieving black kids who might drag them down.

Breathtaking hypocrisy.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Having said that, fuck me, this bit is crass.
> 
> "Ethnic communities that show more public solidarity and unity than black people do much better"
> 
> ...



She's a _double racist_!!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> She's a _double racist_!!!


Is that like a double negative. Does it cancel itself out?

Seriously, though, does she see herself as a leader of the 'black community', I wonder? In which case, there's a certain selfish motive to promote the concept.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is that like a double negative. Does it cancel itself out?
> 
> Seriously, though, does she see herself as a leader of the 'black community', I wonder? In which case, there's a certain selfish motive to promote the concept.



Well, (and you may know this already, it's not 100% clear from context), her tweet _was_ a riposte to someone saying they didn't like the term 'black community' and 'black community leaders' because it makes people of similar skin colour appear like some monolithic organised entity rather than just . . . some people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> Well, (and you may know this already, it's not 100% clear from context), her tweet _was_ a riposte to someone saying they didn't like the term 'black community' and 'black community leaders' because it makes people of similar skin colour appear like some monolithic organised entity rather than just . . . some people.


Yeah, I know. But it just struck me that this might have irked Abbott as she thinks she is one of those black community leaders. If there's no black community, she can't lead it.

I have a big problem with the self-appointed 'black community' or 'Muslim community' leaders who are given the ear of mainstream media. The Muslim Council of Great Britain is a good example - its opinion is always sought, yet a very great many Muslims don't recognise its authority at all. And of course, it's in their self-interests to promote the idea that such communities exist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2012)

The ITV news soundbite from Claggnut was particularly nauseating. I think he mentioned integrity at one point, fucking lol. I missed a chunk of it because I was telling him to jump off a cliff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

It appears to be the 'white people' comment that's being picked up in the news, but to me the 'black people' comment is worse.

Anyhoo. It's not a surprise. Abbott is, unfortunately, a terrible lightweight, which is a shame - I always find myself wishing she was just a bit better when I hear her speak.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 5, 2012)

I must admit to being more than disgusted by the reaction of many on the right. Since when did we give a shit what the likes of Abbott thinks of anything ? Trying to get people sacked from their jobs based on nothing more than them expressing an opinion is the sort of the snidey shit the left do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> I must admit to being more than disgusted by the reaction of many on the right. Since when did we give a shit what the likes of Abbott thinks of anything ? Trying to get people sacked from their jobs based on nothing more than them expressing an opinion is the sort of the snidey shit the left do.


Ha. A finely-crafted dig. Well done.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ha. A finely-crafted dig. Well done.



Not really. You either believe in free speech or you do not. I hate the way in which nobody is meant to express an opinion that falls outside of the accepted 'norms' anymore. British politics is just piss-dull given that nobody can upset anybody anymore. Bloody daft.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have a big problem with the self-appointed 'black community' or 'Muslim community' leaders who are given the ear of mainstream media. The Muslim Council of Great Britain is a good example - its opinion is always sought, yet a very great many Muslims don't recognise its authority at all. And of course, it's in their self-interests to promote the idea that such communities exist.



And what would a 'white community leader' look like?

Richard fucking Branson?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> Not really. You either believe in free speech or you do not. I hate the way in which nobody is meant to express an opinion that falls outside of the accepted 'norms' anymore. British politics is just piss-dull given that nobody can upset anybody anymore. Bloody daft.


I agree that calling for her resignation is daft, and it shows the dangers of Twitter as much as anything, particularly when you get into conversations on it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

I've been accepted by the Oppressed White People group - they'll take anyone!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

WTF is that?


----------



## trampie (Jan 5, 2012)

Abbott has form for this type of thing, she sent her son to a private school, she had previously criticed others for sending children to private schools, talking about equality, Abbott tried to defend her position by saying , '_I’m a West Indian mum and West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children'_, which suggested that other non West Indian people wouldn't understand the Afro-Caribean culture of wanting the best for their children.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> WTF is that?



As mentioned by BoB2009 earlier:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/297954723583406/

They are feeling especially oppressed today.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

trampie said:


> Abbott has form for this type of thing, she sent her son to a private school, she had previously criticed others for sending children to private schools, talking about equality, Abbott tried to defend her position by saying , '_I’m a West Indian mum and West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children'_, which suggested that other non West Indian people wouldn't understand the Afro-Caribean culture of wanting the best for their children.


Yes, we know.


----------



## trampie (Jan 5, 2012)

Abbott epitomises NuLabour the hypocrisy, the greed, the me me me culture.
Abbott deserves the right wing party that NuLabour now is and NuLabour deserves Abbott.


----------



## trampie (Jan 5, 2012)

Abbott even by todays low standard of politicians is one of the worst out there, i cringe when i see her on tv, she is hopeless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

trampie said:


> Abbott epitomises NuLabour the hypocrisy, the greed, the me me me culture.
> Abbott deserves the right wing party that NuLabour now is and NuLabour deserves Abbott.


She isn't particularly 'NuLabour'. She'd be just the same in any kind of Labour party, I think. She's a lightweight, and I think she probably knows it too - her leadership campaign exposed a pitiful understanding of many of the issues.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jan 5, 2012)

"One common response in today's news was: “Imagine if a white person had said something like this.” 

Well we’re back in the parallel universe. “If this was a white MP saying black people like dividing white people they’d be out in five minutes,” claimed the opportunistically quick-on-his-feet Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi. It would also make no sense whatsoever, because such a thing doesn’t happen in the real world. 

The meaning of a comment depends on the power dynamic that underpins it. If a black comedian makes a joke about white people, or a gay comedian about straight people, the audience knows that 
(a) they don’t mean everybody and 
(b) they are coming from an underdog position. They are punching up instead of down."

In other news and notwithstanding the above, imho, get shot of her quick, she's both an idiot and a complete liability.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

"IC1 Male"? Somehow, I don't think he'll last terribly long.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

IC1 Male said:


> A perfect summing up of Abbott...
> 
> *The hypocrisy of Diane Abbott, an expert in 'divide and rule' if ever there was one - by Abhijit Pandya*
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ide-rule-tweet-hypocrisy-Shes-expert-one.html


9 posts tops


----------



## JHE (Jan 5, 2012)

There are no doubt many reasonable criticisms that can be made of Abbott, but there are two that are shit.  The personal stuff is unpleasant and unfair.  She seems to be a fairly decent individual.  The accusation of 'racism' is the other bit of shit.  She does not have it in for white people or for any other racial group.

Her comments on Twitter were just an example of how an out-of-date (70s vintage) right-on lefty can respond with a knee-jerk to a sensible doubt about the idea that there is one 'black community'.  Abbott's response spoke from the days when right-on types saw all people subject to racism as 'black'  (I remember earnest twits in the 80s insisting that Turks and Jews were 'black' because they were oppressed by racism) and thought that all such oppressed people should not publicly disagree, but should stick together against white racists who will divide and rule.  To do otherwise is to 'wash dirty linen in public', as if black (and 'black') people would have private black-only meeting where such disagreements could be dealt with in the absence of white oppressors.  It's the world of rubbish right-on student politics from half a lifetime ago.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2012)

It'd be nice if this opened up a debate in the media about the narrowness of identity politics, specifically the sort of identity politics which festers throughout the liberal left and lays claim to anti-racism whilst viewing the world through the prism of race and other sectional interests thereby validating the identity politics of the right.

Abbott is a prime example of this sort of cock.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

It's more like a white person saying 'black people like playing dominoes'.

Partly accurate but some people will find it offensive for some reason they can't quite put their finger on.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 9 posts tops



Might as well have called himself "Aryan Wizard" and gone out with some honour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> *It'd be nice if this opened up a debate in the media* about the narrowness of identity politics, specifically the sort of identity politics which festers throughout the liberal left and lays claim to anti-racism whilst viewing the world through the prism of race and other sectional interests thereby validating the identity politics of the right.


Yeah right. 

I don't disagree, btw. I would counter Abbott's divide and rule comment by pointing out that, for instance, dividing working class people into black/white does the same thing. There are plenty of things that concern black people specifically, such as for instance the underachievement of black boys in school, racism among the police, etc. But there are lots and lots of things that concern just people in general - housing, jobs, health, crime, most things really.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> It's more like a white person saying 'black people like playing dominoes'.
> 
> Partly accurate but some people will find it offensive for some reason they can't quite put their finger on.



It's nothing like that at all. It's Abbot, a shadow cabinet member, talking specifically about an issue where politicians need to tread carefully and getting it horribly wrong. On Twitter.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 5, 2012)

IC1 Male said:


> A perfect summing up of Abbott...
> 
> *The hypocrisy of Diane Abbott, an expert in 'divide and rule' if ever there was one - by Abhijit Pandya*
> 
> ...



Right mind/hustings/silent majority - is that you?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

IC1 Male said:


> I dislike that term, thank you.



Indigenous Fuckwit?

There are lots of good user names still available, that don't rely on people having seen The Bill too often.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

IC1 Male said:


> I dislike that term, thank you.



Dammit, and I went with '8ball'...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's nothing like that at all. It's Abbot, a shadow cabinet member, talking specifically about an issue where politicians need to tread carefully and getting it horribly wrong. On Twitter.



It's only Twitter.  I suspect Twitter have filters scanning for these things and pump up the stories to get their product in the press.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2012)

Also lol at the link to Richard Seymour's bollocks witterings up thread


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

IC1 Male said:


> I dislike that term, thank you.


How about Honky Cracker?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> I suspect Twitter have filters scanning for these things and pump up the stories to get their product in the press.



If you really suspect that, you could probably write a government social media engagement policy doc.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jan 5, 2012)

JHE said:


> There are no doubt many reasonable criticisms that can be made of Abbott, but there are two that are shit. The personal stuff is unpleasant and unfair. *  She seems to be a fairly decent individual.*  The accusation of 'racism' is the other bit of shit. She does not have it in for white people or for any other racial group.



Disagree with that. Having met her on several occasions, (and all accusations of racism aside), she's a self-serving, egotistical twat.

Very like most of her peers in the Commons on both sides.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If you really suspect that, you could probably write a government social media engagement policy doc.



I think they're making most of those people redundant.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> It's only Twitter.  I suspect Twitter have filters scanning for these things and pump up the stories to get their product in the press.


Yes, they're called 'journalists'


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, they're called 'journalists'



Fair point.


----------



## IC1 Male (Jan 5, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Indigenous Fuckwit?
> 
> There are lots of good user names still available, that don't rely on people having seen The Bill too often.



I was going to use 'Frank Burnside'. Legend.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 5, 2012)

IC1 Male said:


> I dislike that term, thank you.



7 post now ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> 7 post now ...


gone now


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> As mentioned by BoB2009 earlier:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/297954723583406/
> 
> They are feeling especially oppressed today.



Have commenced a little gentle naughtiness.  Think I may be found out by my accurate spelling, though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 9 posts tops


7 I think. I'm deleting all of his shite whenever he comes back from now on, by the way.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 5, 2012)

meh...I don't like the stuff about Abbot sending her kids to private (public) school. I mean I don't like the criticism or implied contradiction. It's _one of_ the best ways into the political system and she is on the left so I like left leaners getting into that system and it's reasonable to assume that there will be some leftish colouring of that particular gene pool (is that racist?)

(I also don't like left and right being sinister and dexter, because I'm dexter and I'm quite lefty. Never mind)

Historically she is quite right to say, in relation to the british empire as was, divide and rule was a primary weapon. It's also true of many other cultures but she has the right to say it of white ones, it's not untrue.

I fucking love the idea of MPs tweeting, I want to know what they think, not what the party line is. Tweeting should be a human right, in fact.

(I bet that looks fucking awful, as a pedant I'm concerned about the ending of my first paragraph.)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> Have commenced a little gentle naughtiness. Think I may be found out by my accurate spelling, though.


do white racists blame their poor spelling on the two tier education system that gives asians and chinese the upper hand over the indigenous white folks?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

Wow, that's the first time I've heard that defence. Left wing? Send your kids to private school whenever you can - infiltrate the buggers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Anyone know the rules for divide and rule?
> Do you need special shoes?



It wasn't popular where I grew up so I'm waiting for it to come out on the Xbox.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> do white racists blame their poor spelling on the two tier education system that gives asians and chinese the upper hand over the indigenous white folks?



I'll have to ask...


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> 7 I think. I'm deleting all of his shite whenever he comes back from now on, by the way.



Hustings again?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Historically she is quite right to say, in relation to the british empire as was, divide and rule was a primary weapon. It's also true of many other cultures but she has the right to say it of white ones, it's not untrue.


There's a logic fail on that though with relation to contemporary Britain. Talking about 'black communities' and 'white communities' is itself divide and rule, surely.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 5, 2012)

xenon said:


> Hustings again?


Funnily enough.


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2012)

Divide and rule is not a game inherently linked to skin pigment. That is why it was a stupid and racist remark. Twitter is bollocks. Identity politics is bollocks. Dian Abbott is daytime TV bollocks.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

xenon said:


> Divide and rule is not a game inherently linked to skin pigment. That is why it was a stupid and racist remark. Twitter is bollocks. Identity politics is bollocks. Dian Abbott is daytime TV bollocks.



Testicles?

Bollocks, more like!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow, that's the first time I've heard that defence. Left wing? Send your kids to private school whenever you can - infiltrate the buggers.



This strategy relies on political views being hereditary.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> This strategy relies on political views being hereditary.



Toby Young


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 5, 2012)

Fridgey, I don't suppose the 'Defeat leftists' poster who has just joined might also be hustings?!


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a logic fail on that though with relation to contemporary Britain. Talking about 'black communities' and 'white communities' is itself divide and rule, surely.


I said historical, you said contemporary, there is no fail. The idea of colour-based communities is as you imply, a negative concept, but it's the same for any other 'reason' for d vision between people, especially in a context of control. Open and public discussion of these things informs and educates drip by drip.

Tories want her sacked.    Whilst I'm willing to listen to all sides, I won't deny...that particular fact weighs with me.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 5, 2012)

Oh...I get what you mean about contemporary, sorry.


----------



## Corax (Jan 5, 2012)

The only feeling I've been able to muster about Diane Abbott for some time is that she's just _tiresome_.

I'm more pissed off about the fact it's given Darcus Howe more airtime tbh.  The man's a catalyst for division himself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

Corax said:


> The only feeling I've been able to muster about Diane Abbott for some time is that she's just _tiresome_.
> 
> I'm more pissed off about the fact it's given Darcus Howe more airtime tbh. The man's a catalyst for division himself.


Ah, see I like Darcus Howe. I don't see him as divisive at all, funnily enough.

Dunno what he's been saying about this, but generally, I see him as standing up for black people. Abbott seems more interested in _representing_ black people. There's a difference, imo.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2012)

Darcus Howe is like a slightly batty Uncle.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> Darcus Howe is like a slightly batty Uncle.



More like Beaver Hateman.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2012)

8ball said:


> That's because they are more compliant due to their colonial heritage. A benefit conferred by whitey.



I know some Chinese people. They are not compliant. There "colonial heritage" is the Opium Wars. When they resisted British attempts to make them buy Opium. Also the resisted European powers in the Boxer rebellion. They resisted Japanese imperialism in WW2. Every heard of the Rape of Nanking?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124052/


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I know some Chinese people. They are not compliant. There "colonial heritage" is the Opium Wars. When they resisted British attempts to make them buy Opium. Also the resisted European powers in the Boxer rebellion. They resisted Japanese imperialism in WW2. Every heard of the Rape of Nanking?
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124052/



My argument lies in tatters. 

Maybe it's the MSG, then.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> It'd be nice if this opened up a debate in the media about the narrowness of identity politics, specifically the sort of identity politics which festers throughout the liberal left and lays claim to anti-racism whilst viewing the world through the prism of race and other sectional interests thereby validating the identity politics of the right.
> 
> Abbott is a prime example of this sort of cock.



Quite. And here is article by Malik on that very topic. In response to her comments on Finnish nurses.

http://www.lausti.com/articles/ethnicity/malik.htm

here is background to her comments on Finnish nurses. She reckoned that Finns couldnt nurse Black people. It turned out Miss Finland, at that time, was a Black Finn. 

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20066


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Wow, I missed that Finn controversy at the time. She's a fuckwit.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

My view is that the response in media has meant that the interesting topic of whether there is one Black community, who is representative and is it ok to "wash ones dirty linen in public" got lost.

Here is the lady who started the tweets response in the Guardian:

"They're just two examples of what looks to me like a half-hearted and not very extensive search for guests to add value to a discussion. I hardly ever recognise any of the so-called "community leaders" on these programmes – I doubt many ordinary black people, ie those they purport to represent, ever do. In the aftermath of the UK riots last summer, I heard and saw so many youth workers being interviewed, I began to wonder if it was the workers themselves who had done the looting.It is a lazy media tactic, which does little to move the discourse along, and it is condescending as hell. Sky News presenter Gillian Joseph summed it up perfectly when she tweeted on Wednesday night: "Would be useful if #newsnight sought the views of a black man who isn't an ex gang member. Surprisingly, they do exist.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/05/diane-abbott-twitter-row-racism?newsfeed=true


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Yeah, good article.



> _This article was amended on 5 January 2012. The original mistakenly referred to Steven Norris rather than David Norris._


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow, I missed that Finn controversy at the time. She's a fuckwit.



So did I. I found it by accident when I was googling this subject.

Its one thing to complain the Commonwealth citizens are increasingly finding it difficult to get visas. Its distasteful to take it out on the Finns. Its not there fault.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> So did I. I found it by accident when I was googling this subject.
> 
> Its one thing to complain the Commonwealth citizens are increasingly finding it difficult to get visas. Its distasteful to take it out on the Finns. Its not there fault.


It's more than distasteful. Malik nailed it - she seemed to think that white immigrants wouldn't know how to deal with black patients - exactly the same wrong racist shit that black nurses had to confront when they first came here. Massive fuckwit.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

8ball said:


> My argument lies in tatters.
> 
> Maybe it's the MSG, then.



BTW the film is one of the best war films ive seen.

It also shows the Chinese "Schindler". The German Ambassador who did his best to save many Chinese from the Japanese. Something the Chinese have never forgotten.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

Cameron commented that he does not use Twitter. Wise man. Trouble with Twitter is that it encourages quick short response. Not the first time someone has fallen foul of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's more than distasteful. Malik nailed it - she seemed to think that white immigrants wouldn't know how to deal with black patients - exactly the same wrong racist shit that black nurses had to confront when they first came here. Massive fuckwit.



And this is interesting comment from the other article:

"The Finns are a race whose origins are in Asia - they understand a sense of exclusion and difference. They have never colonised or enslaved anybody, and have been ruled by the Swedes and Russians for 800 years. The Swedes in Viking days used to call them the blacks. In many senses they are ideal Diane Abbott fodder. These are potential allies, not enemies."

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20066


----------



## intersol32 (Jan 6, 2012)

I agree that Abbott has put her foot in it. The kinds of comments that herself, Jasper and Trevor Phillips tend to come out with have such an emphasis on 'race' that it hands the initiative immediately over to the Far Right who'll no doubt be rubbing their hands over such a faux pas.

Abbott and the like constantly avoid lending a deeper analysis to the situation by suggesting how racism is linked to poverty and the class issue, perhaps because the latter draws a line under the existence of a black and Asian underclass that share more in common with their white counterparts than they do with a number of Middle Class Black MP's and other appointed officials.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Should she go or should she stay?



15 hours later:

8 pages of people pompously elaborating on how they are not bothered or offended by Diane Abbott's comment in the slightest.

Exactly as I predicted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 15 hours later:
> 
> 8 pages of people pompously elaborating on how they are not bothered or offended by Diane Abbott's comment in the slightest.
> 
> Exactly as I predicted.


Eh? Have you read it?

Why is it for us to declare whether or not she should go anyway? I see no reason why I should be expected to have an opinion about that. It's a 'how do you want to be kicked' kind of question.


----------



## Corax (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 15 hours later:
> 
> 8 pages of people pompously elaborating on how they are not bothered or offended by Diane Abbott's comment in the slightest.
> 
> Exactly as I predicted.


Oh, the irony.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 6, 2012)

now then teuchter, that's unfair - you are equally pompous


----------



## alfajobrob (Jan 6, 2012)

As are you OU

I know a lot of Scandies and I'm sure they would piss themselves laughing at this...if they laughed....at all.

Finn's seem to be a miserable pragmatic bunch....Swedes' tend to be happier, but more cunt like.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why is it for us to declare whether or not she should go anyway?



It's not, if you don't want to.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Should she go or should she stay?


she'll still be a self serving irrelevance either way.

Though I suspect she'd find a way back on the telly if she quit, so on that basis I reckon she should be forced to stay in the commons where it's easier to ignore her wibbling.


----------



## Corax (Jan 6, 2012)

alfajobrob said:


> As are you OU
> 
> I know a lot of Scandies and I'm sure they would piss themselves laughing at this...if they laughed....at all.
> 
> Finn's seem to be a miserable pragmatic bunch....Swedes' tend to be happier, but more cunt like.


But what are Polish girls like?


----------



## alfajobrob (Jan 6, 2012)

They use toning mist D*rek...notice the words "tend" or "seem"....


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 6, 2012)

alfajobrob said:


> As are you OU


i did not deny that. after all, i have posted on here several times already


----------



## alfajobrob (Jan 6, 2012)

At least you are consistent.


----------



## flutterbye (Jan 6, 2012)

Has one made it when they have a -gate attached to their name?


----------



## flutterbye (Jan 6, 2012)

8ball said:


> White people _do_ like to play divide and rule, though.


 
The media do, politicians do, corporations do, i am not sure its entirely accurate saying "white people do", in fact its a stupid generalisation that plays into the hands of precisely those that _do_. 

However she was being taken out of context and playing into a media invented concept of racial disharmony and difference which has no basis in reality.


----------



## Corax (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> Has one made it when they have a -gate attached to their name?


Nah.  Gareth.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> However she was being taken out of context



What was the context within which it made sense to say that "white people like to play divide and rule"?


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 6, 2012)

It was good to see the smug bitch looking about as comfortable as Ron Atkinson when she was interviewed on Sky News. If it was a white tory saying something similar she would be gloating on TV and talking ten minutes of shit along with that Portillo twat on their crappy programme. In any case it is an insidious comment linking all whites with imperialism. There are afro Caribbeans who do hold this kind of hateful mentality towards whites and they could do without the fat cow encouraging their racist hatred. Put that in your pipes and smoke it you lefty twats.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> What was the context within which it made sense to say that "white people like to play divide and rule"?


Lol, look at the original post and then what you chose to quote and reflect on the concept of out of context.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Lol, look at the original post and then what you chose to quote and reflect on the concept of out of context.



I think you'll find I quoted a Telegraph article entitled "White people love playing divide and rule".


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

Oh Ok. It's just that post 241, which I was referring to, seemed to quote flutterbye.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I think you'll find I quoted a Telegraph article entitled "White people love playing divide and rule".


Anyway, wtf do you read the Telegraph for?


----------



## flutterbye (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I think you'll find I quoted a Telegraph article entitled "White people love playing divide and rule".



It was a discussion about whether the idea of the "black community" holds value
She was clearly saying that its an old colonial tactic to divide and rule and in the colonies it was the white people that did this, so in the context of that debate between two black people it may well have been relevant. Of course for the Telegraph its simply more advertising sales. Kerchiiing. But if you dont give a stuff about things context and relevance keep buying the crap the likes of the daily telegraph dole out.


----------



## flutterbye (Jan 6, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> It was good to see the smug bitch looking about as comfortable as Ron Atkinson when she was interviewed on Sky News. If it was a white tory saying something similar she would be gloating on TV and talking ten minutes of shit along with that Portillo twat on their crappy programme. In any case it is an insidious comment linking all whites with imperialism. There are afro Caribbeans who do hold this kind of hateful mentality towards whites and they could do without the fat cow encouraging their racist hatred. Put that in your pipes and smoke it you lefty twats.



Where are they, name them! and lets see if the views of a few individuals have any kind of power against  the telegraph and its readership of middle class mouth frothing white people which were told only about a racist comment against them regardless of the context and debate that surrounded that.


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> Where are they, name them! and lets see if the views of a few individuals have any kind of power against the telegraph and its readership of middle class mouth frothing white people which were told only about a racist comment against them regardless of the context and debate that surrounded that.



You are an apologist for black racism. You are the BNP!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 15 hours later:
> 
> 8 pages of people pompously elaborating on how they are not bothered or offended by Diane Abbott's comment in the slightest.
> 
> Exactly as I predicted.


Where exactly did you predict this teuchter?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes, but she was talking in the present tense. So it certainly comes across as racist. Her "black mums" thing was racist too. She was saying that it's okay for black mums to send their kids to private schools but it's dodgy for anyone else to do so.



Sorry but you have an odd idea of what the word "racist" means. I take it you are familiar with the phrase "power relations"?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 6, 2012)

Can't she just claim that some of her best friends are 19th Century colonialists and be done with it?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Sorry but you have an odd idea of what the word "racist" means. I take it you are familiar with the phrase "power relations"?



I buy into that but, and I am thinking out loud here so please bear with me, is it perhaps racist to not give a shit what she thinks about anything because she is black ?

I admit to being somewhat taken aback by the backlash against her over this and I certainly have no political drum to bang on her behalf but I have question why I find it almost amusing that anybody could get that het up about what this woman, who has based her entire career on her racial identity, has to say about any and everything.

Maybe the fact that what she says is taken seriously that its actually a step forward and that its my attitude of just bemused contempt is the one best left in the past ?

As I said, just thinking out loud but please can the usual suspects please feel free to accuse me of all sorts. Thanks xxx


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

What?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What?



I suppose it boils down to my attitude of not understanding why anybody gives a shit what a self-identified 'Black' politician has to say about anything because they have so little influence its irrelevant.

And me feeling more than a little uncomfortable with that realisation.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Sorry but you have an odd idea of what the word "racist" means. I take it you are familiar with the phrase "power relations"?



No, I'm not familiar with that phrase.

Why is it odd to think that someone who says that white people are so-and-so is racist?  Why is it odd to think that someone who intimates that it's okay for black parents to send their kids to private school but white parents who do so are dodgy, is racist?


----------



## Corax (Jan 6, 2012)

I _*do*_ love a bit of divide and rule though, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.  Who's with me white folks?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I'm not familiar with that phrase.
> 
> Why is it odd to think that someone who says that white people are so-and-so is racist? Why is it odd to think that someone who intimates that it's okay for black parents to send their kids to private school but white parents who do so are dodgy, is racist?



You don't surprise me. Tell me this, which 'ethnic' group formed the ruling class during the age of empire and which 'ethnic' group continues to form the vast majority of the ruling class?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 6, 2012)

Corax said:


> I _*do*_ love a bit of divide and rule though, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Who's with me white folks?



To be fair its actually the only course of action any sensible Empire builder can take if they are to hold on to their ill-gotten gains.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> I buy into that but, and I am thinking out loud here so please bear with me, is it perhaps racist to not give a shit what she thinks about anything because she is black ?
> 
> I admit to being somewhat taken aback by the backlash against her over this and I certainly have no political drum to bang on her behalf but I have question why I find it almost amusing that anybody could get that het up about what this woman, who has based her entire career on her racial identity, has to say about any and everything.
> 
> ...



I refer you to my reply to EoY.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> It was a discussion about whether the idea of the "black community" holds value
> She was clearly saying that its an old colonial tactic to divide and rule and in the colonies it was the white people that did this, so in the context of that debate between two black people it may well have been relevant.



No, she did not say that white colonialists loved to play divide and rule. She said that white people love to play divide and rule.

If someone said "Germans love to kill Jews" would it be excusable if it was within the context of a discussion about WW2?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2012)

there's something kind of funny about the absurd role reversal here, with lots of liberals scrabbling around making excuses about "mis-interpretation" and "context", while former "pc-gawn-mad" merchants like Toby Young are raising a witch-burning mob.

Almost as if the actual content of these things is irrelevant to the social relations involved. Anyway, I'm off to tell the world I want to shoot white trade unionists in front of their families, to see if that makes all their brains explode.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You don't surprise me. Tell me this, which 'ethnic' group formed the ruling class during the age of empire and which 'ethnic' group continues to form the vast majority of the ruling class?



Diane Abbott quoted in the present tense.  She said "white people love to ...."  Not "white people used to ....."

If I said "black people love to ....."  would that be racist?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

It's good to have some black racists and South American racists to balance out all the white racists and make us feel a bit more content about ourselves.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Diane Abbott quoted in the present tense. She said "white people love to ...." Not "white people used to ....."
> 
> If I said "black people love to ....." would that be racist?


Dunno, are all generalisations about race, racist?
See, I reckon the issue here is a lot of people intellectualising the fact that they don't think black on white racism is an important issue. Which, at the end of the day, it isn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 6, 2012)

I like what Michael Rosen had to say about Abbott (and Suarez and the Lawrence case):
http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/start-of-2012-seems-to-have-put-race-at.html?spref=tw


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Diane Abbott quoted in the present tense. She said "white people love to ...." Not "white people used to ....."
> 
> If I said "black people love to ....." would that be racist?



You need to do some reading. That's all I have to say to you.

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Any reason for that?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You need to do some reading. That's all I have to say to you.
> 
> I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Any reason for that?



You didn't answer mine.  If I said "black people love to ..." would that be racist?

Your question ... the empire was of course ruled by rich white people.  But Diane was speaking in the present tense.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Your question ... the empire was of course ruled by rich white people. But Diane was speaking in the present tense.



You seem to keep missing this part of Nino's post:




			
				nino_savette said:
			
		

> ...
> and which 'ethnic' group continues to form the vast majority of the ruling class?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You didn't answer mine. If I said "black people love to ..." would that be racist?
> 
> Your question ... the empire was of course ruled by rich white people. But Diane was speaking in the present tense.


The tense is immaterial. I'll answer your question with a question: Is Britain less racist than it was 20 years ago? Take your time.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> The tense is immaterial. I'll answer your question with a question: Is Britain less racist than it was 20 years ago? Take your time.



I think it's less racist, yes.

The tense isn't immaterial, surely.  Like someone asked earlier, would it be wrong for someone to say "Germans love to kill Jews" during a discussion about WW2?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2012)

I'd query the received wisdom, btw, that a white politician would get into that much trouble for making a simple generalisation about black people.

I mean the number of actual punishments handed out to people on this list seems to be pretty negligible. Amongst them, councillors saying "gypsies would stab you as soon as look at you", women should walk the streets naked to provoke muslims to suicide and only attractive women should be Tory candidates.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> You seem to keep missing this part of Nino's post:



Obviously the majority of the "ruling class" is white.  Does that mean it's okay to generalise about what white people love to do?


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2012)

intersol32 said:


> I agree that Abbott has put her foot in it. The kinds of comments that herself, Jasper and Trevor Phillips tend to come out with have such an emphasis on 'race' that it hands the initiative immediately over to the Far Right who'll no doubt be rubbing their hands over such a faux pas.
> 
> Abbott and the like constantly avoid lending a deeper analysis to the situation by suggesting how racism is linked to poverty and the class issue, perhaps because the latter draws a line under the existence of a black and Asian underclass that share more in common with their white counterparts than they do with a number of Middle Class Black MP's and other appointed officials.



Andrew Giligan, one of the bete noires of the far left said this on the Paper Review on Sky last night,


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Obviously the majority of the "ruling class" is white. Does that mean it's okay to generalise about what white people love to do?



Nino's point is about power relationships.

Why "ruling class" in quotes btw?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Nino's point is about power relationships.
> 
> Why "ruling class" in quotes btw?



So is it okay to generalise about white people?

In quotes because I'm quoting.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm really not interested in the generalisation shit black or white, I am interested in power relationships.



ElizabethofYork said:


> In quotes because I'm quoting.



So does the ruling class exist yes/no?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> I'm really not interested in the generalisation shit black or white, I am interested in power relationships.
> 
> So does the ruling class exist yes/no?



Errr ... obviously.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Errr ... obviously.



Yes or no.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

Great. Now have a think about Nino's original post/reply to you again.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> The media do, politicians do, corporations do, i am not sure its entirely accurate saying "white people do", in fact its a stupid generalisation that plays into the hands of precisely those that _do_.



Historically it's been a 'white man' speciality and shows little sign of waning, though I agree it has become fashionable for others too.  Obviously only a minority get to play - most white people are also oppressed by (mostly) white people.

I have the gene too - should see me playing poker. 

Anyway, speaking seriously, it wasn't a wise thing for her to say in public, but as I said earlier, it was only bloody Twitter.



flutterbye said:


> However she was being taken out of context and playing into a media invented concept of racial disharmony and difference which has no basis in reality.



There would be very few of these manufactured outrages if people understood the concept of context.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Great. Now have a think about Nino's original post/reply to you again.



Please don't be sarcastic.  My question was is it okay to generalise about white people?  I'd really appreciate an answer.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think it's less racist, yes.
> 
> The tense isn't immaterial, surely. Like someone asked earlier, would it be wrong for someone to say "Germans love to kill Jews" during a discussion about WW2?


Here's another question for you: can a woman be sexist? I say, "no". If you say "yes", then you clearly don't understand power relations.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Hmmm. I don't actually buy the line that racism is necessarily about power relationships. Abbott's comment that she didn't think white Finns would know how to treat black people was racist, imo, regardless of the power relations involved. If a black person shrank back from a white nurse screaming 'keep your white hands off me', that would clearly be racist.

Yes, power relations are crucial, but I have heard it said that black people can't be racist, and that is a silly dogma, which necessitates a weird redefinition of the word.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Please don't be sarcastic. My question was is it okay to generalise about white people? I'd really appreciate an answer.



Like I say, I don't really care about generalisations - they can be used for whatever reason someone wants them to - power relationships are what is important.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

Btw, the same (posh) white men are playing divide and rule with the 'white' working class. They're currently in the process of pitting the public sector against the private sector.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 15 hours later:
> 
> 8 pages of people pompously elaborating on how they are not bothered or offended by Diane Abbott's comment in the slightest.



We can't have read the same thread, then.



> Exactly as I predicted.



Of course you did.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So is it okay to generalise about white people?
> 
> In quotes because I'm quoting.


How many women on programmes like _Loose Women_ generalise about men? Are they being sexist?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's another question for you: can a woman be sexist? I say, "no". If you say "yes", then you clearly don't understand power relations.



Actually, if a woman says "all men are rubbish at looking after children", then yes that would be sexist.

Surely generalising about a gender is sexist.  Generalising about a race or ethnicity is racist.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> How many women on programmes like _Loose Women_ generalise about men? Are they being sexist?



Very.  And is it okay to generalise about white people?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Where exactly did you predict this teuchter?


Why do you care?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> And this is interesting comment from the other article:
> 
> "The Finns are a race whose origins are in Asia - they understand a sense of exclusion and difference. They have never colonised or enslaved anybody, and have been ruled by the Swedes and Russians for 800 years. The Swedes in Viking days used to call them the blacks. In many senses they are ideal Diane Abbott fodder. These are potential allies, not enemies."
> 
> http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20066



IIRC the Finns were called "svarts" by the dark ages Scandinavians because they thought that the Finns were a form of evil or "dark" (hence "svart") elf.
Dark ages Scandinavians - too many hero-tales round the fire, and not enough sense.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Actually, if a woman says "all men are rubbish at looking after children", then yes that would be sexist.
> 
> Surely generalising about a gender is sexist. Generalising about a race or ethnicity is racist.


You're wrong, sexism and racism are exercised by those who have power.

Women are still being objectified and continue to be victims of domestic violence. Women, on average, tend to be paid less than men.

Oh and there's a difference between "gender" and "sex". One is socially constructed, the other one isn't.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Actually, if a woman says "all men are rubbish at looking after children", then yes that would be sexist.
> 
> Surely generalising about a gender is sexist. Generalising about a race or ethnicity is racist.


And yet, in the wider scale of things, you've got to see that the attitude "women are too stupid for anything other than domestic drudgery" has had a far more damaging effect on women than the view that "white people are all whip-cracking slavery enthusiasts" ever has or could have on white people, right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Why do you care?


 I think you may have the remarkable gift of prophesying the past.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Why do you care?



Could it be because you're claiming credit for something you shouldn't?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's another question for you: can a woman be sexist? I say, "no". If you say "yes", then you clearly don't understand power relations.


Nah. You're just taking words to have different meanings. You're disagreeing over semantics, that's all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Why do you care?


why did you start the thread? so you could give yourself an invisible medal for clairvoyance that no one else cares about?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You're wrong, sexism and racism are exercised by those who have power.



Then we disagree.

You think it's okay for a well-off politician to make a derogatory remark about all white people.  I don't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2012)

everyone fell into teuchters elephant trap lol, amazing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Corax said:


> Oh, the irony.



The whole metal part of the table of elements-y, more like!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Then we disagree.
> 
> You think it's okay for a well-off politician to make a derogatory remark about all white people. I don't.



No, you're wrong. End of.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. You're just taking words to have different meanings. You're disagreeing over semantics, that's all.



No I am not. Semantics have fuck all to do with this.

Racism and sexism come from the same place.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You're wrong, sexism and racism are exercised by those who have power.



All you're saying is that your definition of racism is different from other people's definition of racism. And, say, the dictionary definition of racism.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> All you're saying is that your definition of racism is different from other people's definition of racism. And, say, the dictionary definition of racism.


Way to go with the misrepresentations. What "dictionary" definition is that?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think you may have the remarkable gift of prophesying the past.



But why do you care?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> No I am not. Semantics have fuck all to do with this.


Yes you are. And moreover, you are laying claim to your particular definition of the terms as the 'true' one. Personally, I don't think your definitions are particularly helpful. I also doubt that most people would recognise them. There are other ways to make the point you're trying to make.

And by your scheme, we now need at least one new word - for black people who dislike white people because they are white, or are prejudiced against white people in some way.

Your definition also can't apply across cultures - in Angola, it is people with whiter skin who are now discriminated against in many fields, although that wasn't the case in the past of course.

I prefer the simpler definition of racism - discrimination on the basis of race. But whatever, you _are_ disagreeing over semantics here.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> No, you're wrong. End of.



In your opinion.

In my opinion I'm right.

End of.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> But why do you care?


Because i'd like to see you made to look silly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> The media do, politicians do, corporations do...



In other words, as has previously been stated, the ruling classes do.



> ....i am not sure its entirely accurate saying "white people do", in fact its a stupid generalisation that plays into the hands of precisely those that _do_.



It's not entirely accurate, but it *is* generally applicable throughout "the west". The majority of the ruling classes are white, so "white people" in a position of power "do".



> However she was being taken out of context and playing into a media invented concept of racial disharmony and difference which has no basis in reality.



De-contextualisation is a stock-in-trade of both journalists *and* politicians, unfortunately.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes you are. And moreover, you are laying claim to your particular definition of the terms as the 'true' one. Personally, I don't think your definitions are particularly helpful. I also doubt that most people would recognise them. There are other ways to make the point you're trying to make.



Again, I am not. You also seem to have a problem understanding how power relations work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Because i'd like to see you made to look silly.



"Made to look silly"?

Surely it's an already-established fact to anyone reading this thread?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Way to go with the misrepresentations. What "dictionary" definition is that?



eg Oxford Dictionary

*racism*


*Pronunciation:* /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/

*noun*

_ [mass noun]_

 
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:  _ theories of racism_
 
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: _ a programme to combat racism_


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion I'm right.
> 
> End of.


No, this is not an "opinion". My argument is taken from an understanding of how power relations work in society. It's not my fault if you're incapable of understanding that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> It was good to see the smug bitch looking about as comfortable as Ron Atkinson when she was interviewed on Sky News. If it was a white tory saying something similar she would be gloating on TV and talking ten minutes of shit along with that Portillo twat on their crappy programme. In any case it is an insidious comment linking all whites with imperialism. There are afro Caribbeans who do hold this kind of hateful mentality towards whites and they could do without the fat cow encouraging their racist hatred. Put that in your pipes and smoke it you lefty twats.



Mikey, I hesitate to ask, but are you deluded? Abbott is about as "lefty" as a bowl of dead goldfish.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> eg Oxford Dictionary
> 
> *racism*
> 
> ...


Do you need to take up so much space?

If you actually looked at the second definition, then you'd see that it is related to power relationships.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

Yep, that should do it teuchter .


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

I've got a better one. It beats the pants off that wimpish, mealy mouthed definition
http://www.sos-sexisme.org/english/racism.htm


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 6, 2012)

of course there are racially coded slurs used against poor white people that _have_ had an historically damaging impact. Redneck and Chav, to name just two. Both of which have had the effect of degrading people on the margins of society... Must say I've never seen the Torygraph running to the defence of _those_ poor, oppressed white people.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> eg Oxford Dictionary
> 
> *racism*
> 
> ...


 
So power relationships then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Again, I am not. You also seem to have a problem understanding how power relations work.


Right. I disagree with your conception of how we should use the words racist and sexist therefore I do not understand. That's crap nino.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not entirely accurate, but it *is* generally applicable throughout "the west". The majority of the ruling classes are white, so "white people" in a position of power "do".



The majority of x are y, therefore generally y are x?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> of course there are racially coded slurs used against poor white people that _have_ had an historically damaging impact. Redneck and Chav, to name just two. Both of which have had the effect of degrading people on the margins of society... Must say I've never seen the Torygraph running to the defence of _those_ poor, oppressed white people.


Yes and this is the point I was trying to make in a previous post: the posh white men of the Tory party have an interest in dividing white working class people.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

Nino, can you edit your quote of teuchter silliness please?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes and this is the point I was trying to make in a previous post: the posh white men of the Tory party have an interest in dividing white working class people.


They also have an interest in dividing working class people full stop - for instance, into different racial groups.


----------



## Corax (Jan 6, 2012)

Someone needs to finish their post with "fact" now.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right. I disagree with your conception of how we should use the words racist and sexist therefore I do not understand. That's crap nino.


Maybe you should look at this if you think it's "crap".
http://www.sos-sexisme.org/english/racism.htm

Feminists always have a good grasp of these things.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They also have an interest in dividing working class people full stop - for instance, into different racial groups.


No kidding. I made that point earlier.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> So power relationships then.



I take it you are assuming "superior" means "more powerful than", as well as that "especially" is synonymous with "exclusively". Am I going to have to get the dictionary out again?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> No kidding. I made that point earlier.


As did I. If you're going to patronise me, I thought I'd patronise you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I take it you are assuming "superior" means "more powerful than", as well as that "especially" is synonymous with "exclusively". Am I going to have to get the dictionary out again?


You can put your dictionary away; it only offers a cursory definition at best.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I take it you are assuming "superior" means "more powerful than", as well as that "especially" is synonymous with "exclusively". Am I going to have to get the dictionary out again?



How do all these things - racism, sexism, homophobia originate?

Power relationships.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As did I. If you're going to patronise me, I thought I'd patronise you.


Stop being such a child. You didn't even bother to read the relevant post and assumed that I hadn't already made that point.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> No, this is not an "opinion". My argument is taken from an understanding of how power relations work in society. It's not my fault if you're incapable of understanding that.



Okay.  You think it's okay for a middle-class, well-off politician to make offensive remarks about white people, and to express that it's okay for black parents to send their children to fee-paying schools but not okay for white parents to do so.

I don't agree.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2012)

Totally manufactured non-story.  She clearly meant white elites not white people in general.  Clumsy at worst.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Okay. You think it's okay for a middle-class, well-off politician to make offensive remarks about white people, and to express that it's okay for black parents to send their children to fee-paying schools but not okay for white parents to do so.
> 
> I don't agree.


You're just repeating yourself now. I've already dealt with this. Give it a rest.

Perhaps you'd like to read some of the comments on this blog?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...bbott-insulted-black-people-more-than-whites/


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Totally manufactured non-story. She clearly meant white elites not white people in general. Clumsy at worst.


For once, I agree with you.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You can put your dictionary away; it only offers a cursory definition at best.





stephj said:


> How do all these things - racism, sexism, homophobia originate?
> 
> Power relationships.



So like I said, you are simply saying that your definition of racism is different to the dictionary definition; therefore the dictionary definition is wrong.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

Do beliefs of superiority/inferiority have any base in power relationships, teuchter?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I'm not familiar with that phrase.
> 
> Why is it odd to think that someone who says that white people are so-and-so is racist?



As always, the intended meaning resides in both words *and* context. What Abbott was reported to have said, i.e. her words divorced from the context(s) in which she made them, can be construed as racist.  Put the words and context together and you have Abbott's *meaning*, which was about as racist as a bowl of cornflakes.



> Why is it odd to think that someone who intimates that it's okay for black parents to send their kids to private school but white parents who do so are dodgy, is racist?



I don't agree with *anyone* sending their children to a private school, but I can understand (even if I definitely do not sympathise) with Abbott's perspective - she's basically looking for a way to give her son a "hand up" so that his path through life is smoothed somewhat, and private school does that for you, but how much is he going to benefit from it? I'd argue that given the institutionalised nature of racism in many of the workplaces his schooling will suit him for, he'll at best be on an even footing with his white contemporaries.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You're just repeating yourself now. I've already dealt with this. Give it a rest.



You haven't really dealt with it.  You haven't expressly said whether or not you think it's okay for a well-off middle class politician to make an offensive comment about white people.  A yes or no would be good.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Do beliefs of superiority/inferiority have any base in power relationships, teuchter?


The one doesn't necessarily have to only follow from the other, no. Yes, in practice, this is the root of modern racism and sexism in our society. But I see no need to redefine the words in order to make that point.

I would say that the Nation of Islam's teachings would fit the definition of a belief in the superiority of one race over another. And I would certainly say that that was racist. If it isn't racist, what is it?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Do beliefs of superiority/inferiority have any base in power relationships, teuchter?



Not necessarily.

I do not believe myself to be inferior to David Cameron. Do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> I do not believe myself to be inferior to David Cameron. Do you?


I think you are - in certain ways at least. Any news on this prediction?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But I see no need to redefine the words in order to make that point.



That's what this is all about - they are more interested in delivering a patronising lecture on power relationships than what the generally accepted definition of "racism" is.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> in certain ways at least



Ways other than in the sense of relative positions of power?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> why did you start the thread? so you could give yourself an invisible medal for clairvoyance that no one else cares about?



He's more likely giving himself a reach-around after giving himself a dead arm.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> I do not believe myself to be inferior to David Cameron. Do you?



This is the point surely? Whether I think I am inferior or not doesn't really matter. But as power relationships go, I certainly am.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Ways other than in the sense of relative positions of power?


In all sorts of ways i expect. I doubt he'd be daft enough to claim the power of prophesy without having something to back it up for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> All you're saying is that your definition of racism is different from other people's definition of racism. And, say, the dictionary definition of racism.



No, he's saying that racism and sexism, by whatever definition you choose to gauge them, are relational to power and to the needs of those who hold power. That isn't high-flown theory, it's provable historical reality.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would say that the Nation of Islam's teachings would fit the definition of a belief in the superiority of one race over another. And I would certainly say that that was racist. If it isn't racist, what is it?



Not sure that really works given historical context based on power relationships.

And religions don't come from a basis of power relationships?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> And religions don't come from a basis of power relationships?


Where did I say that they didn't. But you're exploring the roots of and reasons for racism, imo, not the concept racism itself. That's why I said that nino was simply arguing over semantics. And I still say that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Not sure that really works without historical context.



I think it does. The Nation of Islam holds racist views. Those views have a historical context, sure, although followers of the Nation of Islam would not agree with you or me about how and why they believe what they believe.

I can only repeat - if the Nation of Islam is not racist, what is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> The majority of x are y, therefore generally y are x?



You need to brush up on your GCSE mathematics.

The majority of x with power are y, and therefore x + y is generalisable to/= "white people".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You need to brush up on your GCSE mathematics.
> 
> The majority of x with power are y, and therefore x + y is generalisable to/= "white people".


No, that wasn't the point teuchter was making. The most usual form of the logical fallacy is: All Spartans are Greeks, therefore all Greeks are Spartans.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it does. The Nation of Islam holds racist views. Those views have a historical context, sure, although followers of the Nation of Islam would not agree with you or me about how and why they believe what they believe.
> 
> I can only repeat - if the Nation of Islam is not racist, what is it?



Whilst some things said by some people in the name of the 'Nation of Islam' might certainly be construed as racist, I always understood the Nation of Islam to be about a movement analysing power relationships and empowering black people to rise up against slavery and oppression caused by white people. I still don't see how that can be seperated from the historical context or power relationships.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it does. The Nation of Islam holds racist views. Those views have a historical context, sure, although followers of the Nation of Islam would not agree with you or me about how and why they believe what they believe.
> 
> I can only repeat - if the Nation of Islam is not racist, what is it?



Following that up, when there was a spate of killings in the 1970s of white people by NOI members in San Francisco, was that not really racist, or merely something that conforms to a dictionary definition of racism that some people seem to have been distracted by?


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes and this is the point I was trying to make in a previous post: the posh white men of the Tory party have an interest in dividing white working class people.


Why only white people?  Who speaks for black or asian working class people? And why do we have to separate them out by race all the time?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Whilst some things said by some people in the name of the 'Nation of Islam' might certainly be construed as racist, I always understood the Nation of Islam to be about a movement analysing power relationships and empowering black people against slavery and oppression caused by white people. I still don't see how that can be seperated from the historical context or power relationships.


Thing is, I'm not asking why it's racist. We would probably agree as to why it is racist. But I'm not asking that. There seems to be a stronger claim here - that it isn't racist. I see no way that it isn't racist - at least the NOI in the form as preached by Elijah Muhammad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, that wasn't the point teuchter was making. The most usual form of the logical fallacy is: All Spartans are Greeks, therefore all Greeks are Spartans.



And yet "all x are y, therefore all y are x" isn't a point either of us have made, is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet "all x are y, therefore all y are x" isn't a point either of us have made, is it?


I thought that was what teuchter was getting at wrt Abbott's comment about white people. Certainly one could construe Abbott's comment as falling into that logical fallacy.

It was just sloppy Twittering, really, imo, although I was more troubled by what she said about black people in her tweets than what she said about white people.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Why only white people? Who speaks for black or asian working class people? And why do we have to separate them out by race all the time?



I think nino meant that they want to divide working class white people since they are the majority of working class people in this country.  To get the working class fighting amongst themselves (ie. the racist wwc vs. non-racist wwc and ethnic minority wc).


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it does. The Nation of Islam holds racist views. Those views have a historical context, sure, although followers of the Nation of Islam would not agree with you or me about how and why they believe what they believe.
> 
> I can only repeat - if the Nation of Islam is not racist, what is it?



of course it's racist but was anyone really arguing that it wasn't? There's an argument that because racism and prejudice hav been bound up so intrinsically with power, that racism by groups such as the noi (which were actually recruiting from - for want of a better word - the more "lumpen" and very lower class sections of black society). doesn't matter so much, or that it would only matter to those white people directly affected by such racism. (Did the noi carry out racist attacks on white people? I don't know.) Of course where this argument becomes problematic is the fact that as mentioned up the thread, white kids from disadvantaged families end up suffering discrimination as well, and frequently little is done to address their needs. I dont want to discuss it in public but i saw a clear example of this when i was serving on a jury and some of the assumptions_ initially_ made about the victims family (that the charges were racially motivated, that they were fash/bnp etc) because of the way they looked, spoke and dressed. It also becomes problematic due to the fact that the (mostly white and bourgeois) "third worldist" apologists in the west for certain post-colonial regimes frequently either deny that those regimes are behaving in a racist manner (or say that because theyr'e led by black people etc, cannot be racist) or blame what they are doing solely on "white people". rather than looking at class and capitalism and how those regimes have interacted with privileged sections of the elite since _i_ndependence as well as with the west.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it does. The Nation of Islam holds racist views. Those views have a historical context, sure, although followers of the Nation of Islam would not agree with you or me about how and why they believe what they believe.
> 
> I can only repeat - if the Nation of Islam is not racist, what is it?



of course it's racist but was anyone really arguing that it wasn't? There's an argument that because racism and prejudice hav been bound up so intrinsically with power, that racism by groups such as the noi (which were actually recruiting from - for want of a better word - the more "lumpen" and very lower class sections of black society). doesn't matter so much, or that it would only matter to those white people directly affected by such racism. (Did the noi carry out racist attacks on white people? I don't know.) Of course where this argument becomes problematic is the fact that as mentioned up the thread, white kids from disadvantaged families end up suffering discrimination as well, and frequently little is done to address their needs. I dont want to discuss it in public but i saw a clear example of this when i was serving on a jury and some of the assumptions_ initially_ made about the victims family (that the charges were racially motivated, that they were fash/bnp etc) because of the way they looked, spoke and dressed. It also becomes problematic due to the fact that the (mostly white and bourgeois) "third worldist" apologists in the west for certain post-colonial regimes frequently either deny that those regimes are behaving in a racist manner (or say that because theyr'e led by black people etc, cannot be racist) or blame what they are doing solely on "white people". rather than looking at class and capitalism and how those regimes have interacted with privileged sections of the elite since _i_ndependence as well as with the west.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> of course it's racist but was anyone really arguing that it wasn't?


Yes. Nino.

And the rest of your post, imo, sums up what is wrong-headed about the kind of politics of identity that Abbott plays.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it does. The Nation of Islam holds racist views. Those views have a historical context, sure, although followers of the Nation of Islam would not agree with you or me about how and why they believe what they believe.
> 
> I can only repeat - if the Nation of Islam is not racist, what is it?



of course it's racist but was anyone really arguing that it wasn't? There's an argument that because racism and prejudice hav been bound up so intrinsically with power, that racism by groups such as the noi (which were actually recruiting from - for want of a better word - the more "lumpen" and very lower class sections of black society). doesn't matter so much, or that it would only matter to those white people directly affected by such racism. (Did the noi carry out racist attacks on white people? I don't know.) Of course where this argument becomes problematic is the fact that as mentioned up the thread, white kids from disadvantaged families end up suffering discrimination as well, and frequently little is done to address their needs. I dont want to discuss it in public but i saw a clear example of this when i was serving on a jury and some of the assumptions_ initially_ made about the victims family (that the charges were racially motivated, that they were fash/bnp etc) because of the way they looked, spoke and dressed. It also becomes problematic due to the fact that the (mostly white and bourgeois) "third worldist" apologists in the west for certain post-colonial regimes frequently either deny that those regimes are behaving in a racist manner (or say that because theyr'e led by black people etc, cannot be racist) or blame what they are doing solely on "white people". rather than looking at class and capitalism and how those regimes have interacted with privileged sections of the elite since _i_ndependence as well as with the west.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, I'm not asking why it's racist. We would probably agree as to why it is racist. But I'm not asking that. There seems to be a stronger claim here - that it isn't racist. I see no way that it isn't racist - at least the NOI in the form as preached by Elijah Muhammad.



Does racism originating from the experience of oppression share all attributes with racism that originates through the subjugation of others for purposes of empire by the ruling classes?

In my opinion it doesn't, and while that doesn't *validate* the racism inherent to the NoI's "foundation myths" and some of their behaviours, it does render those behaviours slightly more intelligible and more contextual to the environment in which they operate, whereas the racism exercised for empire by the ruling classes is only intelligible through reference to a single context - that of colonialism (and its after-effects).


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

wtf has happeeed to my posts?? i did a triple post and now i can't get rid of them


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In all sorts of ways i expect. I doubt he'd be daft enough to claim the power of prophesy without having something to back it up for example.



If David Cameron is superior to me in ways other than in terms of power relationships, then surely this demonstrates that _superiority_ does not necessarily imply a position of relative power.

And if racism is defined in terms of a perception of _superiority_ over another "race", then it also does not necessarily require the perpetrator to be position of power to exist.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Sorry but you have an odd idea of what the word "racist" means. I take it you are familiar with the phrase "power relations"?


Could you actually _be_ any more patronising?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> If David Cameron is superior to me in ways other than in terms of power relationships, then surely this demonstrates that _superiority_ does not necessarily imply a position of relative power.
> 
> And if racism is defined in terms of a perception of _superiority_ over another "race", then it also does not necessarily require the perpetrator to be position of power to exist.


Well then you have to take it up with someone arguing something like that. Not me.

Still after this prediction by the way.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

On a slight tangent, was it one of the Nation of Islam's beliefs/forwards that homosexuality was a white creation to undermine the black people, or does that stem from somewhere else (before I start googling?). It was raised on a pirate radio station before Xmas on one of their black talk shows/phone-ins.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> On a slight tangent, was it one of the Nation of Islam's beliefs/forwards that homosexuality was a white creation to undermine black people, or does that stem from somewhere else (before I start googling?). It was raised on a pirate radio station before Xmas on one of their black talk shows/phone-ins.


How the fuck does that make any sense to anybody? I'm struggling to get my head around it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Does racism originating from the experience of oppression share all attributes with racism that originates through the subjugation of others for purposes of empire by the ruling classes?
> 
> In my opinion it doesn't, and while that doesn't *validate* the racism inherent to the NoI's "foundation myths" and some of their behaviours, it does render those behaviours slightly more intelligible and more contextual to the environment in which they operate, whereas the racism exercised for empire by the ruling classes is only intelligible through reference to a single context - that of colonialism (and its after-effects).


As I said, I wasn't asking why it was racist, but whether it is racist. And we would agree as to why it is racist. Does it share all attributes with other kinds of racism? No. Should it? But it shares enough attributes to be called racism.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> How the fuck does that make any sense to anybody? I'm struggling to get my head around it.



Well quite. Just wondered where its origin lies.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Well quite. Just wondered where its origin lies.



That's right.  The white European devil created homosexuality.  The white devils themselves being the product of a mad (black) scientist who wanted to create a race of minions.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's another question for you: can a woman be sexist? I say, "no". If you say "yes", then you clearly don't understand power relations.



Lol. What a load of shit.

Taking account of power relations - that the drip drip of bigotry from the powerful has a greater impact than the bigotry of reaction of the powerless/less powerful - does not mean women can't be sexist or black people can't be racist.

I thought this shit died out in the 1990s. Get a fucking grip.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> If David Cameron is superior to me in ways other than in terms of power relationships, then surely this demonstrates that _superiority_ does not necessarily imply a position of relative power.
> 
> And if racism is defined in terms of a perception of _superiority_ over another "race", then it also does not necessarily require the perpetrator to be position of power to exist.



Did anyone say that racism exists only if one person is in a position of power over the other? I'm not so sure they did.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

8ball said:


> That's right. The white European devil created homosexuality. The white devils themselves being the product of a mad (black) scientist who wanted to create a race of minions.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Did anyone say that racism exists only if one person is in a position of power over the other? I'm not so sure they did.


Nino seems to be.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

That is exactly what Nino is saying.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Did anyone say that racism exists only if one person is in a position of power over the other? I'm not so sure they did.


I'm pretty sure that Nino Savatte and stephj have said as much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


>


You laugh, but 8ball wasn't joking.



> "The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another, and then act as mediators and rule both sides." -Elijah Muhammad


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I'm pretty sure that Nino Savatte and stephj have said as much.



No I didn't - I said these things were all rooted in power relationships.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You laugh, but 8ball wasn't joking.



Blimey - I need to read up more about the Nation of Islam. I take my first post back then in reply to you about it.

So, this is where the homosexuality as white tool against black people thing derives too?!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> No I didn't - I said these things were all rooted in power relationships.



so you are saying that racism is always rooted in power relationships, but racism can be perpetrated regardless of whether the perpetrator is in a position of power?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

Yeah Steph's position can't be lumped in with Ninos. It is only Nino who had claimed that women can't be sexist (and by implication, minorities can't be racist).

All English people are cunts who should be gassed. Not a bigoted statement cos I'm welsh and therefore oppressed. Fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> I'm pretty sure that Nino Savatte and stephj have said as much.



Then you're pretty wrong.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> so you are saying that racism is always rooted in power relationships, but racism can be perpetrated regardless of whether the perpetrator is in a position of power?



Well yeah.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah Steph's position can't be lumped in with Ninos. It is only Nino who had claimed that women can't be sexist (and by implication, minorities can't be racist).
> 
> All English people are cunts who should be gassed. Not a bigoted statement cos I'm welsh and therefore oppressed. Fact.


You'd be surprised how often this comes up, from people who should know better, too.


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Totally manufactured non-story. She clearly meant white elites not white people in general. Clumsy at worst.


How can you tell?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

[quote="Proper Tidy, post: 10804507"
All English people are cunts who should be gassed. Not a bigoted statement cos I'm welsh and therefore oppressed. Fact.[/quote]

Hey, we're not all Jeremy Clarksons, Morgan Organ.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Well yeah.



so, what exactly do you mean by "rooted in", then? If someone uses racism against someone over whom they do not have a dominant power relationship, then are they only doing it because they once saw someone who did it from a position of relative power?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> so, what exactly do you mean by "rooted in", then? If someone uses racism against someone over whom they do not have a dominant power relationship, then are they only doing it because they once saw someone who did it from a position of relative power?



I've not been talking about individuals at all, I've been talking about how racism/sexism/classism, etc originate - they're all rooted in power relationships - I'm talking historical context. It doesn't stop a black person saying something racist to a white person, or a woman saying something sexist to a man.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> She clearly meant white elites not white people in general.


Forgetting, of course, that she is part of the ruling elite.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

And this only came from some point about generalisations and power relations between Nino and ElizabethofYork - last time I jump into two other poster's discussion


----------



## Zabo (Jan 6, 2012)

The girl's got form.

"Backbench MP Diane Abbott has joined the race for the Labour leadership. The Londoner told the BBC her bid was "serious", saying there was little between the other candidates, who "*all look the same*".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8693687.stm


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:
			
		

> Forgetting, of course, that she is part of the ruling elite.



..and that these sort of displays are one way they divide the working class on racial lines.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> I've not been talking about individuals at all, I've been talking about how racism/sexism/classism, etc originate - they're all rooted in power relationships - I'm talking historical context. It doesn't stop a black person saying something racist to a white person, or a woman saying something sexist to a man.



This implies that there is some kind of causal chain, which can be traced backwards in time from _any_ instance of racism - back to the "roots" you refer to, roots that are a consequence of power relationships.

Which I recognise is different to saying that someone can only be racist if they are in a position of power, but I'm not sure it's true.

Or, if it is true, not any more so than for pretty much any human behaviour really, which makes it a sort of slightly pointless point to make.

If you were to say that the great majority of racism is rooted in power relationships, then I'd have no issue with that.


----------



## Corax (Jan 6, 2012)

8ball said:


> That's right. The white European devil created homosexuality. The white devils themselves being the product of a mad (black) scientist who wanted to create a race of minions.


Finally someone who's prepared to say out loud what everyone's thinking.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Totally manufactured non-story. She clearly meant white elites not white people in general. Clumsy at worst.



Specifically white elites? Not any other elites?

The correct word to miss out from "white elites" would be "white", not "elites".


----------



## Shifter (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> All English people are cunts who should be gassed. Not a bigoted statement cos I'm welsh and therefore oppressed. Fact.



ahhh yes, i remember my childhood growing up and going to school in Wales... as teh fully grown result of being a small blonde English child in the late 70's at a 90% plus Welsh attended school and I can honestly say you lot can be truely vicious.


----------



## maldwyn (Jan 6, 2012)

I was a blonde kid with a Welsh name at an English school and yeah kids can be mosters.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> This implies that there is some kind of causal chain, which can be traced backwards in time from _any_ instance of racism - back to the "roots" you refer to, roots that are a consequence of power relationships.
> 
> Which I recognise is different to saying that someone can only be racist if they are in a position of power, but I'm not sure it's true.
> 
> ...



Again you're talking about individuals and instances of racism, I'm not.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Again you're talking about individuals and instances of racism, I'm not.


What are you talking about then? Racism which exists outside of any actual instances of it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> What are you talking about then? Racism which exists outside of any actual instances of it?


I don't think you and steph are disagreeing about anything important, tbh.

Nino's the one to talk to - but he's buggered off!


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 6, 2012)

I





ViolentPanda said:


> Mikey, I hesitate to ask, but are you deluded? Abbott is about as "lefty" as a bowl of dead goldfish.



I was talking about the lefties on Urban who deny racism even exists if it is against the melanin challenged people of our society. Abbot probably isn't even that extreme.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2012)

so, people you made up in your head


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> so, people you made up in your head


tbf, Nino fits that description.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2012)

Is there already a thread on Ed Milibean's "Blackbusters" typo yet?  You couldn't make it up!  That's what he gets for trying to capitalise on a stupid media witchhunt


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I
> 
> I was talking about the lefties on Urban who deny racism even exists if it is against the melanin challenged people of our society. Abbot probably isn't even that extreme.



Which Urbanites is that, then?
It might seem like I'm badgering you, but every time anyone has said anything like this previously, the only examples they've been able to dig up were the occasional Swappie or other person of the "useful idiot" type, i.e. no-one with an independent thought in their head.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Is there already a thread on Ed Milibean's "Blackbusters" typo yet? You couldn't make it up! That's what he gets for trying to capitalise on a stupid media witchhunt


He said _blah...busters..._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf, Nino fits that description.



I'd hardly describe Nino as a "leftie".


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He said _blah...busters..._



plausible defence - politician's default response is for "blah" to come out when they open their mouths


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which Urbanites is that, then?
> It might seem like I'm badgering you, but every time anyone has said anything like this previously, the only examples they've been able to dig up were the occasional Swappie or other person of the "useful idiot" type, i.e. no-one with an independent thought in their head.



I'm not about to search through the thread, but how about the person who wanted me to cite examples of Afro Caribbeans who hate whites indiscriminately on the basis of Abbot type generalisations, presumably on the basis that if you can't give names then that strand of racism doesn't exist. Also, those who play around with definitions of racism to make it more of a white thing. I don't care to search the forums, but I'm sure if you do you will find plenty of apologists.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd hardly describe Nino as a "leftie".


Really?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I'm not about to search through the thread, but how about the person who wanted me to cite examples of Afro Caribbeans who hate whites indiscriminately on the basis of Abbot type generalisations, presumably on the basis that if you can't give names then that strand of racism doesn't exist.



You mean flutterbye in post 248> That's not quite what they said.



> Also, those who play around with definitions of racism to make it more of a white thing.



The only "playing around" I've seen is by people saying that racism is to do with power-relations, and that's hardly playing around, it's elucidation - racism is most often tied to issues of power, whether that's at a national, a community or a personal level.



> I don't care to search the forums, but I'm sure if you do you will find plenty of apologists.



So you've gone from "lefties on Urban who deny racism" (your words), presumably in an active manner given your wording, to people who compose apologia for racism?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Really?



Yes, really.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, really.


How do you figure that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> How do you figure that?



In general? Because I know him. He's as contemptuous of organised leftwing politics as anyone with any sense.

In this instance? Because in the original context that is referred to, he isn't. LBJ appears to be extrapolating Nino to be (to paraphrase Mikey77) "one of those lefties who doesn't believe in black-on-white racism" based on his remarks about sexism. That's what's commonly known as a "false premise".


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In general? Because I know him. He's as contemptuous of organised leftwing politics as anyone with any sense.
> 
> In this instance? Because in the original context that is referred to, he isn't. LBJ appears to be extrapolating Nino to be (to paraphrase Mikey77) "one of those lefties who doesn't believe in black-on-white racism" based on his remarks about sexism. That's what's commonly known as a "false premise".


Does not being in an organisation make someone not a "lefty". I reckon he's a typical lefty myself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In general? Because I know him. He's as contemptuous of organised leftwing politics as anyone with any sense.
> 
> In this instance? Because in the original context that is referred to, he isn't. LBJ appears to be extrapolating Nino to be (to paraphrase Mikey77) "one of those lefties who doesn't believe in black-on-white racism" based on his remarks about sexism. That's what's commonly known as a "false premise".


Nah, go and reread what nino said. He makes it very clear indeed that his remark about sexism is also to be applied to racism.

Whether or not he's a 'leftie' is a bit of a subjective point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Does not being in an organisation make someone not a "lefty". I reckon he's a typical lefty myself.



I reckon you're confusing "leftie" and "liberal".


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

Shifter said:


> ahhh yes, i remember my childhood growing up and going to school in Wales... as teh fully grown result of being a small blonde English child in the late 70's at a 90% plus Welsh attended school and I can honestly say you lot can be truely vicious.



It's ok though, it was simply the inevitable byproduct of our cultural oppression. You had no right to feel intimidated or put upon you culturally insensitive imperialist pig.

I don't get the blonde bit though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2012)

everyone knows anglo saxons are flaxen haired tall men with big noses whereas the welsh are a small dark haired folk.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I reckon you're confusing "leftie" and "liberal".


He's both!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone knows anglo saxons are flaxen haired tall men with big noses whereas the welsh are a small dark haired folk.



Only those Iberians down south. Proper welsh are tall


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 6, 2012)

Offa's Dyke?

I had no idea he was married.

/aged 7


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean flutterbye in post 248> That's not quite what they said.
> 
> The only "playing around" I've seen is by people saying that racism is to do with power-relations, and that's hardly playing around, it's elucidation - racism is most often tied to issues of power, whether that's at a national, a community or a personal level.
> 
> Gannon then elucidate me, as i am still trying to get my head around this power relations=racism thing, on one hand I get it, apartheid etc, but power relations and the losers of the BNP?


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Only those Iberians down south. Proper welsh are tall


I was married to a Welshwoman, short and dark, traumatising experience


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Only those Iberians down south. Proper welsh are tall



Only in relation to people from south Wales, though.


----------



## Shifter (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's ok though, it was simply the inevitable byproduct of our cultural oppression. You had no right to feel intimidated or put upon you culturally insensitive imperialist pig.
> 
> I don't get the blonde bit though.



heh heh heh, yes of course i will go and adjust my thinking immediately, thank you for putting me straight.

(As a child i was very blonde, it's sort of a light brown with grey bits now)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

coley said:


> Gannon then elucidate me, as i am still trying to get my head around this power relations=racism thing, on one hand I get it, apartheid etc, but power relations and the losers of the BNP?



I could be cruel and say "only once you've learned to use the "quote" function properly, you drongo!".

However, deep down I have a shred of humanity left, so...

1) Power relations don't *exactly* map to racism, and _vice versa_, but they overlap significantly. In their most frequently-experienced forms in the UK, this is because "we" (as a people) are partly products of history.

2) Our history is one of a small ruling class dominating social and economic life, and by "social life" I don't mean going down the pub, I mean how those of us who're not part of the ruling class are allowed to participate in any form of interaction. This means that if, for example, the ruling class fosters a perception (to be allowed to filter down to the lower orders) that "colonials aren't quite as good as native Brits, non-white colonials doubly so" (a common perception prevalent even as recently as the 1970s), then that discourse of inequality will be in play up to and until it is thoroughly refuted, and even then will tend to survive in the minds of people whose opinions aren't amenable to reasoned change.

3) Power-relations, at their simplest, can be looked at as a balance-of-power issue. I, as white working-class have a slightly better balance of power between myself and the ruling classes due to being white - my skin colour is the same as that of the majority of the ruling classes, so there's a small amount of common ground between us, even if it is only acknowledged tacitly or unconsciously. My black neighbour, all other things between us being equal, has a worse balance of power between himself and the ruling classes not only because there is less common ground between him and them, but also because of all the prior-existing assumption that the ruling classes have historically made about people like him, which have all accreted on any discourse like limpets and seaweed on the legs of a pier.

4) The poorer your relation to power is, the less likely you are to be able to reduce that gulf, even if a few of your compatriots have managed to do so.

If you acknowledge that some of thepower of the ruling classes is exercised to present certain discourses as being "natural" (actually, they're institutionalised, not naturalised), and that the balance of power *throughout social life* is with the ruling classes rather than with "us" (although we constantly struggle against it, causing gradual change), then it's easy to conclude that racism is most often an issue of unequal power relations, whether as an artifact of them, or, occasionally, as a reaction to them.

Hope that wasn't too poncy for you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

The most used example, Coley, is slavery. The Romans built an empire on forced labour. But racism didn't play any part - indeed racism didn't exist as we now know it. Roman slaves could be moors or they could be roman. The Romans didn't feel the need to justify slavery. It was the law of power.

However in later times - eg the glorious British empire - the establishment had to justify such blatant economic exploitation. They had to find a hook. The social-Darwinist model of just saying 'survival of the fittest, tough shit if you end up enslaved, that's life suckers' wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't stand so easily for the explicit enslaving of them and theres.

Instead they had to dehumanise those they had enslaved - and 'race' (colour and culture) allowed them to do this. So black people were lazy, insolent, backwards, incapable of not only ruling themselves but of even working for a wage, undisciplined, uncivilised. Slavery was for their own good. It was justified.

That's what people mean about power relations. Racism, sexism, whateverism - it's roots lie in the justification of social, cultural or economic inequality.

For a modern example, see the fad for demonising those sections of the working class that have been left behind by post-industrialism - scum, chavs, pikeys etc. Their position in society isn't out fault, it's there's. It isn't cos of systemic unemployment, deserted broken communities etc, it's cos they are feckless, mollycoddled, they need to pull their socks up and stop breeding. Barely human.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

Excellent post PT.

And this specifically...


Proper Tidy said:


> That's what people mean about power relations. Racism, sexism, whateverism - it's roots lie in the justification of social, cultural or economic inequality.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 6, 2012)

@PT = Spot on - You haven't just killed a man - you have now killed a thread


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 6, 2012)

Good post PT.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

Aw shucks


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Yep. v. good post..


----------



## Mation (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Forgetting, of course, that she is part of the ruling elite.


I'd be interested to know just how much a part of it she really is. Well, not her specifically, but about glass and other ceilings within the 'ruling elite'.

Late to the party, me. Tsk.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Mation said:


> I'd be interested to know just how much a part of it she really is. Well, not her specifically, but about glass and other ceilings within the 'ruling elite'.
> 
> Late to the party, me. Tsk.


She's shadow health secretary. If there were an election tomorrow and Labour won, she would, initially at least, be health secretary. If a cabinet minister isn't part of the 'ruling elite', who is?

But I'm not sure how much individual cases illustrate. Does Obama being US president mean there aren't barriers - hidden or otherwise - that stop black people from getting on in the US? Did Thatcher's rise to PM here mean there were no barriers to women getting on?

It doesn't work like that, I don't think.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She's shadow health secretary. If there were an election tomorrow and Labour won, she would, initially at least, be health secretary. *If a cabinet minister isn't part of the 'ruling elite', who is?*



The interests they serve.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

Mation said:


> I'd be interested to know just how much a part of it she really is. Well, not her specifically, but about glass and other ceilings within the 'ruling elite'.
> 
> Late to the party, me. Tsk.


Her specifically: MP for 25 years. Member of the shadow cabinet. Previously chaired various select committees. Co-presenter of TV news programme The Week until recently,

Attended Harrow and Cambridge. Worked as TV reporter from 1980-1985.

I wasn't generalising any of that.

ETA (NB: It has been pointed out that my knowledge of schools in Harrow is limited, and that Abbott attended one called Harrow County, which isn't the public school).


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I could be cruel and say "only once you've learned to use the "quote" function properly, you drongo!".
> 
> However, deep down I have a shred of humanity left, so...
> 
> ...


 
Not poncy at all and much as I thought it to be, just some of the arguments on here had obsufcated the expression to such a point i couldnt understand what they were going on about. ta muchly


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The interests they serve.


Perhaps so, but my point was to do with the idea of 'glass ceilings'. I've never thought that was the right way to think about it. It's more a case of people starting off at different levels in the building depending on all kinds of factors, such as education, wealth of their parents, etc, and how access to the lift to the next floor can be harder to get according to other factors such as sex, race or lack of the right connections, factors which are often linked to the factors that led to your starting off place. But I see no absolute barriers, and for instance attending Oxbridge is going to trump race in many or even most circumstances - that Abbott got a job as a TV reporter from college being a case in point. Of course, very very very few black people ever get to Oxbridge, but again, there is no absolute barrier there...

sorry, convoluted building analogy.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Only those Iberians down south. Proper welsh are tall



A lot of them bloody Gogs have got plenty of Iberian blood in 'em.

The rest are just displaced scousers.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

8ball said:


> A lot of them bloody Gogs have got plenty of Iberian blood in 'em.
> 
> The rest are just displaced scousers.



As a 6'3 north walian with a Spanish great great grandmother (or something) and a scouse wing of the family, I completely reject your claims.


----------



## Mation (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Her specifically: MP for 25 years. Member of the shadow cabinet. Previously chaired various select committees. Co-presenter of TV news programme The Week until recently,
> 
> Attended Harrow and Cambridge. Worked as TV reporter from 1980-1985.
> 
> I wasn't generalising any of that.


Yep. That's just her CV though. I wonder what that means about her influence within that elite and whether it's 'sufficient' to be considered, again I stress 'internally', as 'one of them'. Not suggesting it's not; just wondering as I don't know, and it might not be.


littlebabyjesus said:


> She's shadow health secretary. If there were an election tomorrow and Labour won, she would, initially at least, be health secretary. If a cabinet minister isn't part of the 'ruling elite', who is?
> 
> But I'm not sure how much individual cases illustrate. Does Obama being US president mean there aren't barriers - hidden or otherwise - that stop black people from getting on in the US? Did Thatcher's rise to PM here mean there were no barriers to women getting on?
> 
> It doesn't work like that, I don't think.


I didn't so much mean the getting on, as in having a visibly high-profile or influential position as seen from the outside; just wondering what criteria the elite use to feel that someone is an equal. Given that they seem to care about heirarchy an that...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Well yeah. I would say that her real influence is close to zero. But then I'd also say that about Milliband at the moment. How much does he lead, and how much is he lead?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

Mation said:


> Yep. That's just her CV though. I wonder what that means about her influence within that elite and whether its 'sufficient' to be considered, again I stress 'internally', as 'one of them'. Not suggesting it's not; just wondering as I don't know, and it might not be.


Well, she _is_ a member of the ruling elite.  She didn't win the Labour leadership vote, but I suggest that that has more to do with her loose-cannon-ness than with race or gender.

I have a longer reply to do with the nature of neoliberalism, but that's perhaps for elsewhere.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 6, 2012)

Seems to me that ultimately Abbott is still part of a neo-liberal ideologied opposition in a political system where all three major parties are locked into neo-liberalism. I suspect if she, or anyone, even as part of the ruling class, was to suddenly start proposing radical departures from their parties wider philosophies, their influence will be soon short-lived and limited.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

stephj said:


> Seems to me that ultimately Abbott is still part of a neo-liberal ideologied opposition in a political system where all three major parties are locked into neo-liberalism. I suspect if she, or anyone, even as part of the ruling class, was to suddenly start proposing radical departures from their parties wider philosophies, they're influence will be soon short-lived and limited.


Indeed so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, she _is_ a member of the ruling elite. She didn't win the Labour leadership vote, but I suggest that that has more to do with her loose-cannon-ness than with race or gender.
> 
> I have a longer reply to do with the nature of neoliberalism, but that's perhaps for elsewhere.


She never expected to win. She wasn't even trying to win. And her performance when interviewed about Afghanistan - 'well, we'll stay until the Americans decide to leave', pretty much admitting that UK foreign policy was determined in the White House - was worse than horrible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2012)

coley said:


> I was married to a Welshwoman, short and dark, traumatising experience


Does the short and dark refer to your wife or the marriage?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She never expected to win.


No, and she wasn't alone in that prediction.


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Does the short and dark refer to your wife or the marriage?



Both


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Her specifically: MP for 25 years. Member of the shadow cabinet.  Previously chaired various select committees.  Co-presenter of TV news programme The Week until recently,
> 
> Attended Harrow and Cambridge.  Worked as TV reporter from 1980-1985.
> 
> I wasn't generalising any of that.


Harrow county not harrow the famous public school. You weren't generalising her education, you were lying about it


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Harrow county not harrow the famous public school. You weren't generalising her education, you were lying about it


Mistaken, not lying.  And thanks for the correction.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

If she's honest, she'll admit that she was a bright kid who had breaks at school that enabled her to get into Cambridge, and that from there she was in a position whereby she had a lot more social capital to get on than most people of whatever race or gender.

But as I said before, that there are a few people who manage to achieve such social mobility doesn't change wider points about the barriers to social mobility that exist.

(And tbh, given that Abbott clearly was once upon a time a bright kid, her general level of debate is sorely disappointing.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Her specifically: MP for 25 years. Member of the shadow cabinet. Previously chaired various select committees. Co-presenter of TV news programme The Week until recently,
> 
> Attended Harrow and Cambridge. Worked as TV reporter from 1980-1985.
> 
> I wasn't generalising any of that.



The only girl at Harrow.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just to correct you, she attended Harrow Grammar School for Girls (Portillo attended harrow Grammar School for Boys), a state school that was a bit up itself. She didn't attended Harrow Public School.


I know (now). Pickman's just pointed that out. I've edited my post to reflect that.

But thanks for the extra info on this school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If she's honest, she'll admit that she was a bright kid who had breaks at school that enabled her to get into Cambridge, and that from there she was in a position whereby she had a lot more social capital to get on than most people of whatever race or gender.
> 
> But as I said before, that there are a few people who manage to achieve such social mobility doesn't change wider points about the barriers to social mobility that exist.
> 
> (And tbh, given that Abbott clearly was once upon a time a bright kid, her general level of debate is sorely disappointing.)



Seems to be more and more evident in Parliament. I suspect the fact that so many of them agree, despite their party divisions, on the core issues of parliamentary politics for so long that the ability to think critically has atrophied.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only girl at Harrow.


The public school is all boys, I take it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The public school is all boys, I take it?



Last time I checked, although some "first tier" public schools take female sixth-formers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Last time I checked, although some "first tier" public schools take female sixth-formers.


I shall have to mug up on Harrow.  Including where the fuck it is.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 6, 2012)

Harrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I shall have to mug up on Harrow. Including where the fuck it is.


North London. Or north of London. Depending on your taste.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Harrow.


 Yes. I had guessed that much. What I don't know is where that is. I'll Google it.

Ah, no need.  LBJ has done the honours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I shall have to mug up on Harrow. Including where the fuck it is.



North London, on the route to Middlesex and south Herts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes. I had guessed that much. What I don't know is where that is. I'll Google it.
> 
> Ah, no need. LBJ has done the honours.


Very leafy suburbia, basically.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

Sorry for the derail, folks.  I am now a little more au fait on Harrow, its schools and its whereabouts.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 6, 2012)

Can be reached by the piccadilly, bakerloo and metropolitan lines.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Can be reached by the piccadilly, bakerloo and metropolitan lines.



Or the bus to Harrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Or the bus to Harrow.


Along the Harrow Road.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 6, 2012)

Taxis will take you there too (it's not saaarf of the river, guv).


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 15 hours later:
> 
> 8 pages of people pompously elaborating on how they are not bothered or offended by Diane Abbott's comment in the slightest.
> 
> Exactly as I predicted.



What are u going on about. I read most of this thread. Most posters here are either bothered or offended. Where is the pompous posts? I dont see them.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

intersol32 said:


> I agree that Abbott has put her foot in it. The kinds of comments that herself, Jasper and Trevor Phillips tend to come out with have such an emphasis on 'race' that it hands the initiative immediately over to the Far Right who'll no doubt be rubbing their hands over such a faux pas.
> 
> Abbott and the like constantly avoid lending a deeper analysis to the situation by suggesting how racism is linked to poverty and the class issue, perhaps because the latter draws a line under the existence of a black and Asian underclass that share more in common with their white counterparts than they do with a number of Middle Class Black MP's and other appointed officials.



Good post. This is the problem I have with Abbotts comments. This is not 81. The UK is going through an economic crisis started by financial elites. This affects both white and black people. The trouble with the politics of race is that it accentuates difference not what can unite people.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very leafy suburbia, basically.


No it's not.
It was...it's not now.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

Corax said:


> But what are Polish girls like?



I know some Polish girls. They are really hot imo. So are the Romanians, Lithuanians and Slovaks I have met. Im all for EU.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> No it's not.
> It was...it's not now.


Really? Not been there in about 10 years, but it was very leafy when I was there, at least the bit I was in.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 6, 2012)

Oddly enough Portillo went to a grammar school here. I think Clive Anderson was a school mate.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? Not been there in about 10 years, but it was very leafy when I was there, at least the bit I was in.


There are bits that are leafy, it's mostly built up now. And it continues to be so.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 6, 2012)

flutterbye said:


> It was a discussion about whether the idea of the "black community" holds value
> She was clearly saying that its an old colonial tactic to divide and rule and in the colonies it was the white people that did this, so in the context of that debate between two black people it may well have been relevant. Of course for the Telegraph its simply more advertising sales. Kerchiiing. But if you dont give a stuff about things context and relevance keep buying the crap the likes of the daily telegraph dole out.



It was not just in the Telegraph that this discussed. See my previous post with link to Guardian article by the woman she was debating with on Twitter.

The colonies were run by white middle class imperialists. Its simply wrong to generalise about white people.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 6, 2012)

Abbott's a tweeting idiot.

Frothfoamers getting 'outraged' and taking her tweet even half seriously are slightly less idiotic but not by much.

<couldn't be arsed to read pages 3-16 of this thread  >


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

I didn't think people like you actually existed William. I thought it was just a Littlejohn trope.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 6, 2012)

Here's my tuppence:

The real issue is the propensity of the 24/7 media to blow up any semi gaffe into a distraction of phone-ins and endless, usually vapid, "debate". It is lazy, insulting and distracting.

The more interesting issue to discuss is Divide and Rule. Perhaps Diane had a chance to say so, but she hasn't taken it. It is a class tactic, not a race tactic. To racialise it is wrong. But she has apologised and that is that.

In the recent parade of gaffes and semi gaffes it is worse than Clarkesons (taken entirely out of context) but far more excusable than Starkey, which wasn't even a gaffe, just nasty ignorant racism. It probably sits in a similar category to the Ken Clarke "rape" saga - an OK point not made very well leading to not even a storm in a teacup, but a tornado in a thimble.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I didn't think people like you actually existed William. I thought it was just a Littlejohn trope.



You're not exactly covering yourself in glory** with that mindless dig are you?

**As one *well* experienced  on here at failing to do that myself, I recognise my own faults in others  

Hope that helps!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 6, 2012)

I think I mostly agree with taffboy on this.
I usually disagree with his output on here, but in the above post, not really.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> You're not exactly covering yourself in glory** with that mindless dig are you?
> 
> **As one *well* experienced  on here at failing to do that myself, I recognise my own faults in others
> 
> Hope that helps!



It wasn't even really a dig, William. Just a slightly incredulous observation


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 6, 2012)

Why thangew


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper Tidy : You're too smart to be incredulous about any of my posts .... 

Taffboy : No probs 

Retiring now, folks ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 6, 2012)

pointless post removed


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 6, 2012)

<pointless post removed>


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2012)

<pointless reply removed>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Good grief. Don't go removing pointless posts. The fabric of Urban will disintegrate.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 7, 2012)

I don't know what was so controversial about what she said, the only mistake she made was missing out the word 'some'.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2012)

Racism is racism is racism. Abbott's a racist and an idiot.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I don't know what was so controversial about what she said, the only mistake she made was missing out the word 'some'.



Some women are slags

Etc


----------



## teuchter (Jan 7, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here's my tuppence:
> 
> The real issue is the propensity of the 24/7 media to blow up any semi gaffe into a distraction of phone-ins and endless, usually vapid, "debate". It is lazy, insulting and distracting.


 
17 pages


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Racism is racism is racism. Abbott's a racist and an idiot.



Idiot granted. Racist not ... just very bad (in this instance) at avoiding _sounding_ like one, which is different.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 17 pages


Found your prediction yet?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Could you actually _be_ any more patronising?



If you think that's "patronising", then you have a rather selective take on the word.

How about a meaningful contribution to the thread? Or would I be "patronising" you by saying that?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol. What a load of shit.
> 
> Taking account of power relations - that the drip drip of bigotry from the powerful has a greater impact than the bigotry of reaction of the powerless/less powerful - does not mean women can't be sexist or black people can't be racist.
> 
> I thought this shit died out in the 1990s. Get a fucking grip.



Nice try. But you're the one who's full of shit. The year may be 2012 but nothing has changed.

When was the last time you had to deal with racism? For me, it was only last week.

Get a grip, son.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You haven't really dealt with it. You haven't expressly said whether or not you think it's okay for a well-off middle class politician to make an offensive comment about white people. A yes or no would be good.



You don't read so well. I wonder why that is?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 7, 2012)

if your a shadow minister dont post on twitter simples


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Nice try. But you're the one who's full of shit. The year may be 2012 but nothing has changed.
> 
> Get a grip, son.



So women can't be sexist, black people can't be racist etc.

Can Irish people be racist Nino?

Can gay people be misogynistic?

This is where your identity wank leads you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Why only white people? Who speaks for black or asian working class people? And why do we have to separate them out by race all the time?


I've already pointed this out: but which 'ethnic' group forms the bulk of the ruling class?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> When was the last time you had to deal with racism? For me, it was only last week.
> 
> Get a grip, son.



My secret Santa present in work was a sexy sheep toy. Does that count?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> So women can't be sexist, black people can't be racist etc.
> 
> Can Irish people be racist Nino?
> 
> ...



You're confusing misogyny with sexism. They are two different things.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> My secret Santa present in work was a sexy sheep toy. Does that count?



Now you're just being silly.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good grief. Don't go removing pointless posts. The fabric of Urban will disintegrate.



Pointless post removed


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You're confusing misogyny with sexism. They are two different things.



No I'm not. I specifically used both prejudices in different contexts.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Now you're just being silly.



Am I?

What about if I was Irish and somebody had given me a bag of potatoes?

Which incidentally is what some wag bought the Irish lad on my team.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> If you think that's "patronising", then you have a rather selective take on the word.
> 
> How about a meaningful contribution to the thread? Or would I be "patronising" you by saying that?


Oh my God, you out do yourself every single time. Yeah you're patronising, and smug.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Oh my God, you out do yourself every single time. Yeah you're patronising, and smug.



And wrong.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You don't read so well. I wonder why that is?



Indulge me.  Do you think it's acceptable for a well-off middle class politician to make an offensive comment about white people?  Yes or No.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Nice try. But you're the one who's full of shit. The year may be 2012 but nothing has changed.
> 
> When was the last time you had to deal with racism? For me, it was only last week.
> 
> Get a grip, son.


Nobody is denying the lived reality that black people are the victims of racism in our society, though - or at least few people are denying that.

But perhaps you can tell me whether or not Nation of Islam is a racist organisation. If it isn't, what is it?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> So women can't be sexist, black people can't be racist etc.
> 
> Can Irish people be racist Nino?
> 
> ...



Power relations exist on multiple axles. In my Marxist influenced opinion, class is the superordinate category at the centre of these power relations, but there are a number of other important categories that are mediated through this class structure - such as race, gender, sexuality, disability, knowledge etc. In making any assessment on how to characterise various attitudes and practices that govern these relations, a concrete assessment of the social position that individuals within these categories occupy is a necessary prerequisite. For example it would seem strange to say that a waste collector could demonstrate snobbery towards a Lord given that we treat snobbery not simply as neutral form of bigotry or prejudice but rather as an assertion of superiority based on preexisting social inequalities.

By the same token, it would be concievable that a waste collector could demonstrate snobbery to an individual that was long term unemployed or homeless. It would also seem absurd to have accused individual Jews of being 'anti-German racists' at the height of the holocuast or African slaves and colonial subjects of being anti-white racists during their subjugation. However, there are multiple axles of identity - one might think it legitimate to label (to use a made up example) German Jews that didn't think that homosexuals should have been saved from the holocaust because they were evil as homophobic. Similiarly African male subjects of colonial oppression that treated African women with contempt could legitimately be labeled as misogynists.

These are extreme examples (and it would be possible to provide more subtle, nuanced examples of these complex interplays operate) but I do this to make an analytic point: when we identify oppressive social discourses (aimed at discrimination, exploitation, marginalisation, dehumanisation etc) we can never treat them simply as individually held prejudices that operate independently of a given social power structure. They can only ever be contingent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> These are extreme examples (and it would be possible to provide more subtle, nuanced examples of these complex interplays operate) but I do this to make an analytic point: when we identify oppressive social discourses (aimed at discrimination, exploitation, marginalisation, dehumanisation etc) we can never treat them simply as individually held prejudices that operate independently of a given social power structure. They can only ever be contingent.


There is a lot of sense in what you're saying, but then the problem comes where the power structure and the identifying feature involved, such as race, are related but not determining. So, for instance, most rich people in Britain are white. The vast majority of the very rich are white. But most of the poor are white too. And that complicates things. As Proper Tidy said earlier, there is even a 'racist' word for poor whites in the UK: Chavs.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a lot of sense in what you're saying, but then the problem comes where the power structure and the identifying feature involved, such as race, are related but not determining. So, for instance, most rich people in Britain are white. The vast majority of the very rich are white. But most of the poor are white too. And that complicates things. As Proper Tidy said earlier, there is even a 'racist' word for poor whites in the UK: Chavs.



That was exactly my point about there being multiple forms of power relations operating intersectionality. I think it is possible to seperate them out to a degree however for analytic reasons. Take for example the term 'chav' - to me the racism of the term is related to its antiziganist orgins but in its every day usage it is best understood as a form of class bigotry or snobbery rather than a form of racism.


----------



## treelover (Jan 7, 2012)

Nino, how would you categorise Mugabe and his cronies in Zimbabwe who use anti-white prejudice to further their political aims and of course enrich themselves?


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 7, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Indulge me. Do you think it's acceptable for a well-off middle class politician to make an offensive comment about white people? Yes or No.


Or about anybody in those general terms.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

What annoys me about Abbott's comments is that it demonstrates her mental way of looking at society as competing blocks of people divided by identity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> That was exactly my point about there being multiple forms of power relations operating intersectionality. I think it is possible to seperate them out however. Take for example the term 'chav' - to me the racism of the term is related to its antiziganist orgins but in its every day usage it is best understood as a form of class bigotry or snobbery rather than a form of racism.


Possibly. I put the 'racism' in inverted commas to show that I didn't think it was actually racism. But I do think it is related to racism. The stereotypes are very similar - stupid, lazy, feckless - and remind me of anti-Irish stereotypes (and I'd remove the inverted commas for anti-Irish racism).

I don't think you can separate them out, though, that's the thing. We don't live in an extreme example where race is a very good indicator of social class. Telling me that someone is white in Britain tells me nothing about where they sit in the social structure.

But I agree with you that 'chav' isn't quite a racist term - a person can stop being a chav by changing how they dress, etc, in a way that a person cannot stop being seen to belong to a particular race. The lack of choice of one's race is an important feature, imo, and what makes racist bigotry a uniquely horrible form of bigotry.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> What annoys me about Abbott's comments is that it demonstrates her mental way of looking at society as competing blocks of people divided by identity.



Exactly.  Her comments show her as being no threat at all to entrenched elites.  Which is why it is the Tories seizing on it as a way of levering her out of her job.  If she had made comments that really did show an antipathy to these elites she would have been immediately sacked by the Labour leadership - no squeaking from the Tories would be required.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But I agree with you that 'chav' isn't quite a racist term - a person can stop being a chav by changing how they dress, etc, in a way that a person cannot stop being seen to belong to a particular race. The lack of choice of one's race is an important feature, imo, and what makes racist bigotry a uniquely horrible form of bigotry.



In my experience the term 'chav' isn't exclusively used about white people.  Almost, but not quite.  I think it is becoming a more general classist term.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

8ball said:


> Exactly. Her comments show her as being no threat at all to entrenched elites. Which is why it is the Tories seizing on it as a way of levering her out of her job. If she had made comments that really did show an antipathy to these elites she would have been immediately sacked by the Labour leadership - no squeaking from the Tories would be required.


And that's a real shame, isn't it? Probably the most prominent black politician in Britain, and she's a joke.


----------



## coley (Jan 7, 2012)

hat was exactly my point about there being multiple forms of power relations operating intersectionality. I think it is possible to seperate them out however. Take for example the term 'chav' - to me the racism of the term is related to its antiziganist orgins but in its every day usage it is best understood as a form of class bigotry or snobbery rather than a form of racism.

Back to the headache inducing stuff I see? racism and bigotry are part of human nature, always have been and always will be, the answer is (imo) education and a set of norms that will ostracize these forms of behaviour, along with dismantling all forms of segregation and  division.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

I agree about people slipping into too much academic shit coley. I disagree bigotry is 'human nature' though. It isn't. It's a product of the inequalities that already exist, it is what justifies these inequalities. That was why I gave the roman example before.

It's about social relations not strictly human relations.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2012)

coley said:


> Back to the headache inducing stuff I see? racism and bigotry are part of human nature, always have been and always will be, the answer is (imo) education and a set of norms that will ostracize these forms of behaviour, along with dismantling all forms of segregation and division.



Disagree about racism and bigotry being just a part of human nature - the exercising and justifying of inequality (through power) is a clear driver. To what effect those inequalities are re-balanced and racism/sexism/classism/etc. reduced/removed comes down to social and economic factors and the desire to do so.

If you want to dismantle segregation and division, then whilst capitalism and class exists this will never be achieved. Education and legislation will only ever achieve 'so much' within that framework.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I agree about people slipping into too much academic shit coley. I disagree bigotry is 'human nature' though. It isn't. It's a product of the inequalities that already exist, it is what justifies these inequalities. That was why I gave the roman example before.
> 
> It's about social relations not strictly human relations.



Human relations involve membership of groups and the necessary identification of 'out groups', though.  Not that that makes bigotry an inevitable outcome, but without that I don't think bigotry would happen at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> What are u going on about. I read most of this thread. Most posters here are either bothered or offended. Where is the pompous posts? I dont see them.



You've obviously read the posts from a real-world perspective, mate, rather than a teuchter Bizarro-world perspective. You really must try harder to accommodate our resident Colonel Blimp-types.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

teuchter said:


> 17 pages



Because, of course, starting a snowballer of a thread is what you planned, isn't it?

You're so pathetically obvious it almost feels wrong to take the piss out of you

Almost.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

8ball said:


> Human relations involve membership of groups and the necessary identification of 'out groups', though.  Not that that makes bigotry an inevitable outcome, but without that I don't think bigotry would happen at all.



I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence tbh, could you re-phrase it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Indulge me. Do you think it's acceptable for a well-off middle class politician to make an offensive comment about white people? Yes or No.



Please demonstrate, perhaps using the full quote of what Abbott twittered, where the offensive comment is, explaining how and why it is offensive.
I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested to see whether you arrived at your conclusion by working through the context(s) in which she twittered, or whether you "bought in" to the version the media are peddling.
Me, I did the former, and I can't see how you'd reach your conclusion without doing the latter.

Please feel free to go off on one about Urban posters oppressing you, and how hard done by you are, by the way. I always like a good laugh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence tbh, could you re-phrase it?


Well, I'd see it as a legacy of our evolution. There's strong evidence to suggest that we're  evolved to be able to closely identify with, irrc, around 120 people - not coincidentally the maximum size of hunter-gatherer groups. We've only started living in significantly larger groups than this in the last few thousand years. In that sense, I see bigotry, racism and many other nasties as simply a legacy of our struggle to cope with the modern world. Our cultural evolution has outpaced our biological evolution, if you like. But we do have a self-reflective consciousness with which to try to figure this stuff out - hence this discussion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence tbh, could you re-phrase it?



All human relations involve a "them" (the out-group) and an "us" (the in-group). If you support Cardiff City the "them" is Swansea. In your local community the "them" might be the wrong'uns from the estate across the way. For many people, the "them" in urban settings is the immigrant communities and/or people of obvious immigrant descent.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence tbh, could you re-phrase it?



Maybe the term 'human relations' wasn't the best for me to use. I mean that human beings are social animals* and define their identity both as individuals and as members of groups, not just one group but different groups depending on the shared characteristics of those groups. People existing outside those groups are the 'out groups' and people form their identities partly on what they are 'not' as well as what they 'are'. When there is a perceived threat from the out group this can enhance group cohesion (see Diane Abbott's comment), but also tends to involve negative characteristics being ascribed to the out group.

This is all coming out of my head so I reserve the right to get all the academic terms wrong. 

* -  at Dwyer


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> My secret Santa present in work was a sexy sheep toy. Does that count?



You weren't complaining about it NYE, as you ploughed the furrow of it's "realistic sheep orifices", were you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Power relations exist on multiple axles.



Power relations are indeed like an articulated lorry. 



> In my Marxist influenced opinion, class is the superordinate category at the centre of these power relations, but there are a number of other important categories that are mediated through this class structure - such as race, gender, sexuality, disability, knowledge etc. In making any assessment on how to characterise various attitudes and practices that govern these relations, a concrete assessment of the social position that individuals within these categories occupy is a necessary prerequisite. For example it would seem strange to say that a waste collector could demonstrate snobbery towards a Lord given that we treat snobbery not simply as neutral form of bigotry or prejudice but rather as an assertion of superiority based on preexisting social inequalities.
> 
> By the same token, it would be concievable that a waste collector could demonstrate snobbery to an individual that was long term unemployed or homeless. It would also seem absurd to have accused individual Jews of being 'anti-German racists' at the height of the holocuast or African slaves and colonial subjects of being anti-white racists during their subjugation. However, there are multiple axles of identity - one might think it legitimate to label (to use a made up example) German Jews that didn't think that homosexuals should have been saved from the holocaust because they were evil as homophobic. Similiarly African male subjects of colonial oppression that treated African women with contempt could legitimately be labeled as misogynists.
> 
> These are extreme examples (and it would be possible to provide more subtle, nuanced examples of these complex interplays operate) but I do this to make an analytic point: when we identify oppressive social discourses (aimed at discrimination, exploitation, marginalisation, dehumanisation etc) we can never treat them simply as individually held prejudices that operate independently of a given social power structure. They can only ever be contingent.



Good post, Jeff. Sorry for the tease at the start, but it was pretty much irresistable.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 7, 2012)

8ball said:


> Maybe the term 'human relations' wasn't the best for me to use. I mean that human beings are social animals* and define their identity both as individuals and as members of groups, not just one group but different groups depending on the shared characteristics of those groups. People existing outside those groups are the 'out groups' and people form their identities partly on what they are 'not' as well as what they 'are'. When there is a perceived threat from the out group this can enhance group cohesion (see Diane Abbott's comment), but also tends to involve negative characteristics being ascribed to the out group.
> 
> This is all coming out of my head so I reserve the right to get all the academic terms wrong.
> 
> * - p at Dwyer)



There's no context that would mean that the sentence "White people love playing "divide and rule" is not racist.

Whether or not it's what she really _meant_ to say is up for grabs.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

Interesting replies there - VP (social theory/footie perspective), LBJ (evolutionary perspective) and me (amateur psychology perspective) all saying the same thing. 

(I'm ignoring the sheep orifice reply for the moment)


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

teuchter said:


> There's no context that would mean that the sentence "White people love playing "divide and rule" is not racist.
> 
> Whether or not it's what she really _meant_ to say is up for grabs.



Did you quote the right post there?  Seems a bit unrelated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> Nino, how would you categorise Mugabe and his cronies in Zimbabwe who use anti-white prejudice to further their political aims and of course enrich themselves?



There's a problem using Mugabe and his cronies as an example, in that their anti-white prejudice has a basis in history. There's also the issue of Mugabe and his inner circle having carried out a war of attrition against the Ndebele in the '80s which while it had political motivations, also carried an element of "tribal" "racism".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a problem using Mugabe and his cronies as an example, in that their anti-white prejudice has a basis in history.


Yes, I agree. And tbh even most white farmers in Zim recognised the iniquity of the situation. Land reform was needed in Zim. The way it was done was disastrous, but that doesn't mean that land reform in and of itself was wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> What annoys me about Abbott's comments is that it demonstrates her mental way of looking at society as competing blocks of people divided by identity.



That's her milieu, though, just as it originally was for Paul Boateng and others of that generation. I'm disappointed she doesn't appear to have refined her analysis since those days, but I'm not over-surprised, because it's always easier to designate people to a _bloc_ than it is to acknowledge that all individuals differ. This shit is the life-blood of party politicians.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

Ah I see what you mean.

But that has no reason to manifest itself in the ways that it does in the modern era, does it? In terms of colour, culture, gender, and even more narrow identity terms? 

VP - You mention football, for example. I've heard plenty of sexism, homophobia, racism, xenophobia etc down the years following my side but all that is dwarfed by sheer hatred for the supporters and indeed residents of Chester, despite in real terms there being few differences between us and them - largely white, culturally similar, at least in terms of Chester's supporters (if not residents) largely working class.

Surely this innate need for us and them has always been based on shared interests and competition? That it is as likely to manifest itself against, in the context of identity politics, 'our own' (whatever that may be) under different social relations.

I also don't want to go to far down the rabbit hole with all this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> But that has no reason to manifest itself in the ways that it does in the modern era, does it? In terms of colour, culture, gender, and even more narrow identity terms?.


There's no inevitability about it, no. And seeing it for what it is is an important step towards changing it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You weren't complaining about it NYE, as you ploughed the furrow of it's "realistic sheep orifices", were you?



Racism 

I gave it to a French bloke and told him to set fire to it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

coley said:


> Back to the headache inducing stuff I see? racism and bigotry are part of human nature, always have been and always will be, the answer is (imo) education and a set of norms that will ostracize these forms of behaviour, along with dismantling all forms of segregation and division.



Put (more) simply:
Most people aren't only subject to a single set of power-relations. They're more often the vector for multiple sets of power relations. For example, my maternal great-grandfather wasn't just poor (and therefore subject to the leverage that the classes "above" him could exercise against him, he was also Jewish. My great-grandmother had the same *plus* being female at a time where being a woman very much made you a "second-class citizen".  Imagine the weight of power that can be exercised on you if you're, for example, black, working class, female, Jewish and a lesbian. You're subject to the exercise of at least five sets of power-relations in which you'd be the lesser party in the relations. You're (to paraphrase Jeff) the site of intersecting power-relations, as opposed to just one set.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> VP - You mention football, for example. I've heard plenty of sexism, homophobia, racism, xenophobia etc down the years following my side but all that is dwarfed by sheer hatred for the supporters and indeed residents of Chester, despite in real terms there being few differences between us and them - largely white, culturally similar, at least in terms of Chester's supporters (if not residents) largely working class.


*warning: speculative evolutionary psychology coming up. This can't be proved...*

Perhaps, given that until recently humans lived in small groups and the only 'out groups' they encountered were neighbouring small groups, local rivalry at this level is that which we are best equipped to understand. Once you get into larger groups, it all becomes a little more abstract and vague.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *warning: speculative evolutionary psychology coming up. This can't be proved...*
> 
> Perhaps, given that until recently humans lived in small groups and the only 'out groups' they encountered were neighbouring small groups, local rivalry at this level is that which we are best equipped to understand. Once you get into larger groups, it all becomes a little more abstract and vague.



I always think this is why people seem to have the most visceral hatred for people who are almost, but not quite, exactly like them.  Mancs and Scousers being the first that springs to mind.

The 'them on the other side of the hill' mentality.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

People from Chester are cunts though


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

8ball said:


> I always think this is why people seem to have the most visceral hatred for people who are almost, but not quite, exactly like them. Mancs and Scousers being the first that springs to mind.
> 
> The 'them on the other side of the hill' mentality.


Yeah. To properly hate someone, you've got to understand them, perhaps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> People from Chester are cunts though


And they're almost just like you Wrexham types.


----------



## grit (Jan 7, 2012)

8ball said:


> I always think this is why people seem to have the most visceral hatred for people who are almost, but not quite, exactly like them. Mancs and Scousers being the first that springs to mind.
> 
> The 'them on the other side of the hill' mentality.



"You hate in others what you most hate about yourself" -- Cant remember the name


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And they're almost just like you Wrexham types.



Just not as good looking


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

grit said:


> "You hate in others what you most hate about yourself" -- Cant remember the name



I hate your massive penis


----------



## grit (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I hate your massive penis



Sigh, its a cross I have to bare


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

The _narcissism of small differences_ on a social level to get back to the jargony wank.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

grit said:


> Sigh, its a cross I have to bare



You're only supposed to have one


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2012)

grit said:


> Sigh, its a cross I have to bare


 
at the school gates


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ah I see what you mean.
> 
> But that has no reason to manifest itself in the ways that it does in the modern era, does it? In terms of colour, culture, gender, and even more narrow identity terms?



Identity politics is always going to have *some* utility, in my opinion, and that's not necessarily a bad thing when it's part of an inclusive analysis that takes into account other modes of representation of self/identity. It's when it's an exclusionary force that invests *entirely* in the idea of difference that it's most harmful. I watched local politics in London get torn apart in the '80s because an exclusionary identity politics became popular with some on the left. I'm in favour of disparate groups having the facility to represent their concerns. That's, after all, part of what any real attempt at democracy should be about. What I'm not in favour of (and what happened all too often back then) is identity as a "key" to acting in local politics, where the more of a "minority"/site of intersecting power-relations) one is (see my reply to coley in post #551 for an explanation of that  ), the more "validity" one's point of view is given.



> VP - You mention football, for example. I've heard plenty of sexism, homophobia, racism, xenophobia etc down the years following my side but all that is dwarfed by sheer hatred for the supporters and indeed residents of Chester, despite in real terms there being few differences between us and them - largely white, culturally similar, at least in terms of Chester's supporters (if not residents) largely working class.



Isn't the Chester thing like the (less well-known) hatred of Shrewsbury - that their city charter allows them to kill "foreigners" outwith the city walls after dark?
Seriously, though, in my own experience (as a long-time WHUFC supporter), every team, and every region, seems to have at least one focus of irrational hatred. IN WHUFC's case it's Millwall.



> Surely this innate need for us and them has always been based on shared interests and competition? That it is as likely to manifest itself against, in the context of identity politics, 'our own' (whatever that may be) under different social relations.
> 
> I also don't want to go to far down the rabbit hole with all this.



It *is* an innate factor, and it's entirely possible for that requirement is subverted into focussing against "our own" rather than focussing outward on a less tangible but more oppressive "out-group" - the ruling classes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Seriously, though, in my own experience (as a long-time WHUFC supporter), every team, and every region, seems to have at least one focus of irrational hatred. IN WHUFC's case it's Millwall.



Indeed. Is Fulham an exception? But then again, people complain of a lack of passion at Fulham.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 7, 2012)

8ball said:


> Did you quote the right post there? Seems a bit unrelated.



yes I did quote the wrong post. Sorry. I think it was replying to VP's post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Indeed. Is Fulham an exception? But then again, people complain of a lack of passion at Fulham.



Back in the late '60s and early '70s when me and my dad used to go to Craven Cottage occasionally, Chelsea fans loathed Fulham. Not sure about nowadays, although Chelsea's recent contempt for Fulham's backer was plain enough (which was rich coming from supporters of a team funded by a wealthy Russian Jew).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Identity politics is always going to have *some* utility, in my opinion, and that's not necessarily a bad thing when it's part of an inclusive analysis that takes into account other modes of representation of self/identity. It's when it's an exclusionary force that invests *entirely* in the idea of difference that it's most harmful. I watched local politics in London get torn apart in the '80s because an exclusionary identity politics became popular with some on the left. I'm in favour of disparate groups having the facility to represent their concerns. That's, after all, part of what any real attempt at democracy should be about. What I'm not in favour of (and what happened all too often back then) is identity as a "key" to acting in local politics, where the more of a "minority"/site of intersecting power-relations) one is (see my reply to coley in post #551 for an explanation of that  ), the more "validity" one's point of view is given.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Wrexham/Chester thing is about all sorts of shit, history (we killed their mayor and burnt their city, they were the base for an army of occupation that errr occupied us on various occasions throughout history, the whole shooting us thing, more old stuff), class, nationality blah. Actually class is the one that rears it's head the most on both sides (snobby fuckers/chav scum), unsurprisingly. Also, town full of tourists/town full of Poles in another popular one.

But mostly it's just football shit. Like you say, all clubs have rivalries, all probably contextualise and justify them in some way.

Shrewsbury are just weird farmer types 

Anyway, enough derail, some good points on identity politics there vp


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back in the late '60s and early '70s when me and my dad used to go to Craven Cottage occasionally, Chelsea fans loathed Fulham. Not sure about nowadays, although Chelsea's recent contempt for Fulham's backer was plain enough (which was rich coming from supporters of a team funded by a wealthy Russian Jew).


But did Fulham fans loathe Chelsea? I used to go and watch Charlton a fair bit, and traditionally Charlton fans have hated Millwall. But the feeling isn't particularly reciprocated - Millwall fans mostly don't give a shit about Charlton.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But did Fulham fans loathe Chelsea? I used to go and watch Charlton a fair bit, and traditionally Charlton fans have hated Millwall. But the feeling isn't particularly reciprocated - Millwall fans mostly don't give a shit about Charlton.



The Fulham fans tended to be a bit blasé about Chelsea loathing them, and seemed to save their ire for whoever they were playing that week.
I know there was a bit of Fuham/Wimbledon aggro once the Dons had got up into the old 2nd division, but that was to be expected - Wimbledon being in the same division cut into Fulham's gate a bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Fulham fans tended to be a bit blasé about Chelsea loathing them, and seemed to save their ire for whoever they were playing that week.
> I know there was a bit of Fuham/Wimbledon aggro once the Dons had got up into the old 2nd division, but that was to be expected - Wimbledon being in the same division cut into Fulham's gate a bit.


Actually thinking about it, there's probably often something of a chain here. Gillingham complain about Charlton poaching fans from their area. I'd guess Gills fans probably hate Charlton. Don't know, though. Leeds fans hate ManU, but I doubt many ManU fans think about Leeds much at all!

Actually, why do Leeds hate ManU? Is there a story there?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Identity politics is always going to have *some* utility, in my opinion, and that's not necessarily a bad thing when it's part of an inclusive analysis that takes into account other modes of representation of self/identity. It's when it's an exclusionary force that invests *entirely* in the idea of difference that it's most harmful. I watched local politics in London get torn apart in the '80s because an exclusionary identity politics became popular with some on the left. I'm in favour of disparate groups having the facility to represent their concerns. That's, after all, part of what any real attempt at democracy should be about. What I'm not in favour of (and what happened all too often back then) is identity as a "key" to acting in local politics, where the more of a "minority"/site of intersecting power-relations) one is (see my reply to coley in post #551 for an explanation of that  ), the more "validity" one's point of view is given.



Totally agree with this VP. And I'm someone who would hold their hand up to having been involved in both feminist and LGBT groups during the 90s, and where identity politics became the overiding way to analyse, organise and effect change. And I think it does have both validity and use, but what made me fall largely away from it was that 1) it so often pushed wider class/capitalism analysis to the side (unless say you were in a specific Marxist/anarcho group); and 2) its not only increasingly exclusionary approach to those outside, but its factionalism even inside it - for e.g. rad fem, various seperatism, etc. where organisation on those identity lines gets even more divided.

And whilst I still belong to some groups along identity politic lines which affect me, they all ultimately serve inside the capitalist/neo-liberalist framework and tend to only effect small and drip-feed changes (which I'm by no means discounting/criticising), when organising primarily along class and anti-capitalist lines provides a means to better change.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Well perhaps here's a way out of this. Identity politics can be useful where you are only concentrating on standing up for the 'in' group and are careful not to be hostile to the 'out' group. That way, alliances between different identities become possible. And that's where the likes of Abbott get it wrong - stand up for black people and speak out about the issues that specifically affect them, but not in a way that even implies hostility towards white people, because that's both unjustified and counterproductive. Surely what you really want is for white people to agree with you too. Identity politics can only be positive, imo, if it works in such a way as to highlight to the 'out' group that the concerns of the 'in' group are legitimate. I would think that the success of various gay groups has been in doing precisely that.

Perhaps that doesn't apply everywhere and in all historical contexts, but I think it does apply in the Britain of today. With regards to racism, it is the Martin Luther King approach as opposed to the Malcolm X approach. If you're combatting racism, your opponents are racists, not white people. If you're combatting homophobia, your opponents are homophobes, not straight people. Etc.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please demonstrate, perhaps using the full quote of what Abbott twittered, where the offensive comment is, explaining how and why it is offensive.
> I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested to see whether you arrived at your conclusion by working through the context(s) in which she twittered, or whether you "bought in" to the version the media are peddling.
> Me, I did the former, and I can't see how you'd reach your conclusion without doing the latter.
> 
> Please feel free to go off on one about Urban posters oppressing you, and how hard done by you are, by the way. I always like a good laugh.


 
"White people love to divide and rule".  It's offensive because it's not true.  She may have meant "some rich white people love to divide and rule poorer white people and other races", but that's not what she said.  Making a generalised sweeping statement about a whole ethnic group is offensive, don't you think?

And what are you on about, Urban posters oppressing me?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> "White people love to divide and rule". It's offensive because it's not true. She may have meant "some rich white people love to divide and rule poorer white people and other races", but that's not what she said. Making a generalised sweeping statement about a whole ethnic group is offensive, don't you think?



So you're quoting part of her twitter, not the whole thing, or the "thread" it was part of, and *choosing* to take offence at a de-contextualised part of the whole. Interesting.



> And what are you on about, Urban posters oppressing me?


You've often had little whines about people who contradict your views.
Not that we can be sure your views even represent your opinions, given your history of trolling.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're quoting part of her twitter, not the whole thing, or the "thread" it was part of, and *choosing* to take offence at a de-contextualised part of the whole. Interesting.
> 
> You've often had little whines about people who contradict your views.
> Not that we can be sure your views even represent your opinions, given your history of trolling.



I find any sort of generalising or stereotyping of races quite offensive.  If you don't, then that's fine.

And I don't "whine" about people who disagree with me - I couldn't give a stuff, to be perfectly frank.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

stephj said:


> Totally agree with this VP. And I'm someone who would hold their hand up to having been involved in both feminist and LGBT groups during the 90s, and where identity politics became the overiding way to analyse, organise and effect change. And I think it does have both validity and use, but what made me fall largely away from it was that 1) it so often pushed wider class/capitalism analysis to the side (unless say you were in a specific Marxist/anarcho group); and 2) its not only increasingly exclusionary approach to those outside, but its factionalism even inside it - for e.g. rad fem, various seperatism, etc. where organisation on those identity lines gets even more divided.



Yep, reducing into ever-smaller component factions based on supposed difference. I used to ask people doing this shit "do you actually remember what socialism is supposed to be about", but a lot of them didn't get my point.



> And whilst I still belong to some groups along identity politic lines which affect me, they all ultimately serve inside the capitalist/neo-liberalist framework and tend to only effect small and drip-feed changes (which I'm by no means discounting/criticising), when organising primarily along class and anti-capitalist lines provides a means to better change.



Class is still currently the best lens through which to analyse power-relations. It doesn't supercede previous considerations (ethnicity, gender etc), it cross-reinforces them. It's a shame the ruling class project (I could say "Conservative", but I'd be fooling myself) to remove class as a valid analytic consideration was so effective. Perhaps we may be fortunate enough to see it being properly taken up again by the current crop of poor bastards being shat on by the P-T-B.


----------



## grit (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're quoting part of her twitter, not the whole thing, or the "thread" it was part of, and *choosing* to take offence at a de-contextualised part of the whole. Interesting.



You have to admit though, that choosing to represent such a complex issue, as she claims, in a form of media that restricts itself to 140 characters may not have been the best choice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I find any sort of generalising or stereotyping of races quite offensive. If you don't, then that's fine.



Yet again you swerve.



> And I don't "whine" about people who disagree with me - I couldn't give a stuff, to be perfectly frank.



Must have been some other ElizabethofYork, eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2012)

twitter still being in its relative infancy many of the great and good are still learning that you can fuck yourself up in 140 characters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

grit said:


> You have to admit though, that choosing to represent such a complex issue, as she claims, in a form of media that restricts itself to 140 characters may not have been the best choice.



I agree. I said as much early on in the thread.


----------



## grit (Jan 7, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> twitter still being in its relative infancy many of the great and good are still learning that you can fuck yourself up in 140 characters.



True, I think many who use it, even regularly, still dont fully understand how the system works tbh.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> But mostly it's just football shit. Like you say, all clubs have rivalries, all probably contextualise and justify them in some way.
> 
> Shrewsbury are just weird farmer types


A relation was manager of there once!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 7, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> I've already pointed this out: but which 'ethnic' group forms the bulk of the ruling class?



Depends where you live. Not many pink skinned people running the show in China for instance.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yet again you swerve.



Swerve?  What do you mean?  It's very straightforward - I find generalising and stereotyping of races offensive.

Yet again?  What do you mean?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually thinking about it, there's probably often something of a chain here. Gillingham complain about Charlton poaching fans from their area. I'd guess Gills fans probably hate Charlton. Don't know, though. Leeds fans hate ManU, but I doubt many ManU fans think about Leeds much at all!
> 
> Actually, why do Leeds hate ManU? Is there a story there?



Yes, it's because Manchester is full of cunts.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> A relation was manager of there once!



 Name and shame


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2012)

grit said:


> True, I think many who use it, even regularly, still dont fully understand how the system works tbh.



I think in a race to be 'with the times' and appear more accountable to their electorate, a lot of politicans joined up and then proceeded to do a 'speak your branes' without even thinking about how such social networking works (cue: lots of deleting tweets frantically before realising it's already too late when they're out there! )


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Depends where you live. Not many pink skinned people running the show in China for instance.


In China, racism manifests itself in the way many Han Chinese consider the Han to be superior. In Japan, white people can get to experience a little of what it is like to be black in Europe with the various attitudes some Japanese have towards gaijin...

And thinking about it, the racism of some Japanese towards non-Japanese is not really rooted in power relations. It's something else. That's why I don't like the idea of putting power relations into the definition of the word racism. I don't think it's helpful. I think we can and should distinguish between racism itself and the reasons it exists.


----------



## grit (Jan 7, 2012)

stephj said:


> I think in a race to be 'with the times' and appear more accountable to their electorate, a lot of politicans joined up and then proceeded to do a 'speak your branes' without even thinking about how such social networking works (cue: lots of deleting tweets frantically before realising it's already too late when they're out there! )



They should all have to do 1000 posts on urban before being let loose on it, to let them understand how it works


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 7, 2012)

i think the whole saga is summat out of nothing , BORING - mind you for a media who's headline story today was ed Millipede spelling a word wrong, who's surprised


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2012)

Who was the MP caught authorising a press leak against his fellow party member via what he thought was a PM but was actually viewable to all?

the specifics i can recall he intimated that the leak was fine if his name was kept out of it....friends like that eh


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Name and shame


Actually it may have been telford but he played there, and for Northern Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_McNally
currently doing something in Wales!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

LIb-dem speed king Chris Huhne.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 7, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> i think the whole saga is summat out of nothing , BORING - mind you for a media who's headline story today was ed Millipede spelling a word wrong, who's surprised



Definitely a block day for Labour although a lot blocker for Bob Holness.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Actually it may have been telford but he played there, and for Northern Ireland.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_McNally
> currently doing something in Wales!!!



My mate used to play for Newtown!

And we just beat Telford home and away 4-0 and 2-1. 

Ace relative to have


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean flutterbye in post 248> That's not quite what they said.



That was the implication. If you talk in general about Chinese racists there is no other reason for my asking you to name individuals than to demonstrate Chinese racists don't exist.



ViolentPanda said:


> The only "playing around" I've seen is by people saying that racism is to do with power-relations, and that's hardly playing around, it's elucidation - racism is most often tied to issues of power, whether that's at a national, a community or a personal level.



Except where it isn't. If someone uses the above idea to propagate the idea that blacks can't be racist then they clearly have an extremist agenda. Ask any white victim of a racist murder about the definition.



ViolentPanda said:


> So you've gone from "lefties on Urban who deny racism" (your words), presumably in an active manner given your wording, to people who compose apologia for racism?



It's easy to do both at the same time. I'm sure there are many examples of BNP supporters doing so all over the internet. And as I am pointing out, it is no different when the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Swerve? What do you mean? It's very straightforward - I find generalising and stereotyping of races offensive.
> 
> Yet again? What do you mean?



Read my original question to you. It's very straightforward. It asks you to take the context in which Abbott twittered into account. You've swerved away from doing so, but have rather favoured reiterating your distaste (a distaste which has little basis if you actually take the context of the twitter into account).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> That was the implication. If you talk in general about Chinese racists there is no other reason for my asking you to name individuals than to demonstrate Chinese racists don't exist.
> 
> Except where it isn't. If someone uses the above idea to propagate the idea that blacks can't be racist then they clearly have an extremist agenda. *Ask any white victim of a racist murder about the definition.*
> 
> It's easy to do both at the same time. I'm sure there are many examples of BNP supporters doing so all over the internet. And as I am pointing out, it is no different when the shoe is on the other foot.


 
I imagine they are pretty silent on the matter


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> LIb-dem speed king Chris Huhne.


 
oh the perverter of the course of justice. What a failure he's proven to be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In China, racism manifests itself in the way many Han Chinese consider the Han to be superior. In Japan, white people can get to experience a little of what it is like to be black in Europe with the various attitudes some Japanese have towards gaijin...
> 
> And thinking about it, the racism of some Japanese towards non-Japanese is not really rooted in power relations. It's something else. That's why I don't like the idea of putting power relations into the definition of the word racism. I don't think it's helpful. I think we can and should distinguish between racism itself and the reasons it exists.



Japanese racism is encapsulated in the centuries-long persecution of the Ainu (the indigenes of the Japanese islands) by the mainland-originating Japanese. Japanese racism towards gaijin is better-explained as old-fashioned xenophobia, IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> That was the implication. If you talk in general about Chinese racists there is no other reason for my asking you to name individuals than to demonstrate Chinese racists don't exist.



Drawing an inference isn't quite as airtight as you appear to believe. The implication could have meant something else. That's the nature of implications - they only imply.



> Except where it isn't. If someone uses the above idea to propagate the idea that blacks can't be racist then they clearly have an extremist agenda.



Clearly they aren't particularly capable of analytical thinking, either.



> Ask any white victim of a racist murder about the definition.



How, by hiring a clairvoyant?



> It's easy to do both at the same time. I'm sure there are many examples of BNP supporters doing so all over the internet. And as I am pointing out, it is no different when the shoe is on the other foot.



It may well be easy to do both at the same time. That wasn't your original point, though, was it?
And after all, it was your original point I was addressing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Japanese racism is encapsulated in the centuries-long persecution of the Ainu (the indigenes of the Japanese islands) by the mainland-originating Japanese. Japanese racism towards gaijin is better-explained as old-fashioned xenophobia, IMO.


Oh racism towards the Ainu is certainly explained by power relations.

I don't think racism towards gaijin is quite as straightforward as simple xenophobia, though. The negative stereotypes - smelly, lazy - are all too familiar. And the practical manifestation - crossing the road to avoid you, for instance - is indistinguishable from racism, imo. If it smells like racism and looks like racism, I think it's fair to call it racism. The reasons for the racism are xenophobia, but that xenophobia manifests itself as racism: as, simply put, the belief that certain races are inferior, and using physical racial characteristics to distinguish the 'out' group.

The problems Japanese people of mixed heritage have highlight this point, I think. There is a strong idea that being Japanese means more than just being born there. It means having Japanese parents, grandparents, etc. It means belonging to a particular racial group, in other words - to be Japanese, you must _look_ Japanese.


----------



## treelover (Jan 7, 2012)

Seems to be a new spate of alleged or proven racist incidents, Suarez, Tom Adeyemi, now Stan Collymore, is there more racism emerging, possibly due to the econonomic climate, social media or just more idiots...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/07/stan-collymore-racist-abuse-twitter


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 7, 2012)

Think it's that there's more reporting of it, racism is at high levels in this country it's just the media chooses to ignore it more often than not.


----------



## thriller (Jan 7, 2012)

Dont know if already posted, but loved seeing her squirm her:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2012)

Cringeworthy to hear someone like Andrew Neil telling her about the problems with black boys, though. He didn't really want to debate that issue.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2012)

Oppressed White People facebook group has disbanded citing artistic differences


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> I hate your massive penis






			
				grit said:
			
		

> It's a cross I have to bare





DotCommunist said:


> at the school gates


----------



## grit (Jan 8, 2012)

thriller said:


> Dont know if already posted, but loved seeing her squirm her:




I dont know who the guy sitting to her left is, but I admire his ability to keep a straight face


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2012)

how the fuck do you not ken the visage of michael fucking portillo, class enemy par excellance, all round nobhead and the friendlier face of toryism. Wake up.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 8, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> how the fuck do you not ken the visage of michael fucking portillo, class enemy par excellance, all round nobhead and the friendlier face of toryism. Wake up.



The son of Spanish republicans on the lam from Franco


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> The son of Spanish republicans on the lam from Franco


Only his dad, I think, was a Spanish republican, but yes, an example of how for some, rebellion means becoming a tory!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2012)

the apple rolled back towards the tree


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 8, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only his dad, I think, was a Spanish republican, but yes, an example of how for some, rebellion means becoming a tory!



His mum's genes must have been well right-wing


----------



## chazegee (Jan 8, 2012)

Blaming social problems on Black mothering skills is fucking outrageous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> His mum's genes must have been well right-wing


Apparently, and I don't remember where I read this, Portillo used to wear a collar and tie to all his lectures and classes at uni. He must have been a rather  weird child, I think.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 8, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Apparently, and I don't remember where I read this, Portillo used to wear a collar and tie to all his lectures and classes at uni. He must have been a rather  weird child, I think.



Aren't they all though. Hague being the obvious example. Weird kids who wear blazers for fun. Go straight from drinking vimto to drinking port. Wrong 'uns.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Aren't they all though. Hague being the obvious example. Weird kids who wear blazers for fun. Go straight from drinking vimto to drinking port. Wrong 'uns.


I dunno who's worse, really. The likes of Hague and Portillo or Cameron and Osborne.

I would think that Cameron and Osborne are worse, but I might be wrong. Thatcher was another grammar school kid...


----------



## grit (Jan 8, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> how the fuck do you not ken the visage of michael fucking portillo, class enemy par excellance, all round nobhead and the friendlier face of toryism. Wake up.



I'm not British, I'm an immigrant. I rarely occupy myself with knowing the dickheads in my own country, why the fuck would I be interested in the cunts in yours?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> The son of Spanish republicans on the lam from Franco



All of his dads family were Francoists though, his dad was the only pro-Republican.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2012)

grit said:


> I'm not British, I'm an immigrant. I rarely occupy myself with knowing the dickheads in my own country, why the fuck would I be interested in the cunts in yours?



you've got to keep your eye on the politics in the polity grit. A beady eye.


----------



## grit (Jan 8, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> you've got to keep your eye on the politics in the polity grit. A beady eye.



I just assume they are all cunts, works for me


----------



## ymu (Jan 8, 2012)

stephj said:


> I've not been talking about individuals at all, I've been talking about how racism/sexism/classism, etc originate - they're all rooted in power relationships - I'm talking historical context. It doesn't stop a black person saying something racist to a white person, or a woman saying something sexist to a man.



This argument has got a bit bogged down in semantics.

It's not the words used to describe an act, it's the import attached. For example, if a bloke finds _Loose Women_ offensive, sexist, tripe then I'll agree with him, but if he decides to frame the argument in terms of men not being allowed to get away with saying the same about women [any more, because men are now the oppressed sex], then I'm not going to accept that he knows what the fuck sexism is.

It's not about the words used - racism and sexism are fine - it's the drawing of an equivalence, usually by those in the more powerful group, between a hurtful experience and the kind of bigotry that fucks people's lives up.


----------



## coley (Jan 8, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> I agree about people slipping into too much academic shit coley. I disagree bigotry is 'human nature' though. It isn't. It's a product of the inequalities that already exist, it is what justifies these inequalities. That was why I gave the roman example before.
> 
> It's about social relations not strictly human relations.



I think far too much time, money and effort is wasted on research, enquirys, commissions, etc, etc, to identify a problem which everyone is aware of but i would disagree that it not human nature, we are genetically programmed to survive and in times of hardship the strong attack and exploit the weak and in doing so come to regard them as 'inferior' I would argue racism in one form and another has existed since we lived in caves and the perception that it is inherently wrong is fairly recent (in historical terms)


----------



## coley (Jan 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Put (more) simply:
> Most people aren't only subject to a single set of power-relations. They're more often the vector for multiple sets of power relations. For example, my maternal great-grandfather wasn't just poor (and therefore subject to the leverage that the classes "above" him could exercise against him, he was also Jewish. My great-grandmother had the same *plus* being female at a time where being a woman very much made you a "second-class citizen". Imagine the weight of power that can be exercised on you if you're, for example, black, working class, female, Jewish and a lesbian. You're subject to the exercise of at least five sets of power-relations in which you'd be the lesser party in the relations. You're (to paraphrase Jeff) the site of intersecting power-relations, as opposed to just one set.



Aye, but where do we draw the line between racism and everyday explotation? thare has always been them and us and a class system and whereas such divisions exist and are obviously a breeding ground for full blown racism I would argue there is a line between snobbery, exploitation and racism. thats why I prefer to 'keep it simple'


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 8, 2012)

coley said:


> I think far too much time, money and effort is wasted on research, enquirys, commissions, etc, etc, to identify a problem which everyone is aware of but i would disagree that it not human nature, we are genetically programmed to survive and in times of hardship the strong attack and exploit the weak and in doing so come to regard them as 'inferior' I would argue racism in one form and another has existed since we lived in caves and the perception that it is inherently wrong is fairly recent (in historical terms)



So to go back to my earlier example, why didn't we see this racism in who the Romans enslaved? Why didn't they give a shit?

Fear of outsiders is not the same thing Coley.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2012)

coley said:


> I think far too much time, money and effort is wasted on research, enquirys, commissions, etc, etc, to identify a problem which everyone is aware of but i would disagree that it not human nature, we are genetically programmed to survive and in times of hardship the strong attack and exploit the weak and in doing so come to regard them as 'inferior' I would argue racism in one form and another has existed since we lived in caves and the perception that it is inherently wrong is fairly recent (in historical terms)



I disagree.
While racism has a footing in the instinctive struggle for survival, as humans we've been assembling in larger and larger communities for at least 8,000 years, and "othering" (as holding unkind views about people who're not part of your community is otherwise known  ) has effectively become more and more of a political choice (as opposed to an instinctive defence mechanism) in that time. Putting everything down to "nature" in general, and genetics in particular, isn't just lazy, it flies in the face of historical experience. In "the modern world" racism resides mostly in irrationally-held prejudice or plain misanthropy far more than it does in any socio-biological imperative to "fear others".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2012)

coley said:


> Aye, but where do we draw the line between racism and everyday explotation? thare has always been them and us and a class system and whereas such divisions exist and are obviously a breeding ground for full blown racism I would argue there is a line between snobbery, exploitation and racism. thats why I prefer to 'keep it simple'



Why would you draw any line except between good and bad practices? If you're pursuing a line that in it's final analysis only serves a tiny minority of the ruling classes, *why* do so (after disregarding possible pysychopathological reasons, anyway)?
All those "dividing lines" - who do they serve?

There is no "simple" to keep to, just the shifting basis by which we're kept divided in order to make us easier to rule.


----------



## coley (Jan 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would you draw any line except between good and bad practices? If you're pursuing a line that in it's final analysis only serves a tiny minority of the ruling classes, *why* do so (after disregarding possible pysychopathological reasons, anyway)?
> All those "dividing lines" - who do they serve?
> 
> There is no "simple" to keep to, just the shifting basis by which we're kept divided in order to make us easier to rule.


 
I would 'draw a line' between snobbery (for instance) and racism, I can laugh at a snob but not a racist, and then you have another line between casual racism and what I would call virulent racism. the difference there, is one is curable the other isnt.
This is what I mean by 'keeping it simple'


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Drawing an inference isn't quite as airtight as you appear to believe. The implication could have meant something else. That's the nature of implications - they only imply.
> 
> Clearly they aren't particularly capable of analytical thinking, either.
> 
> ...



Somewhere between pedantic, bitchy, and downright lame. I'm disappointed with you. If you are going to talk down to people as an "analytical thinker" then at least come up with a reply that doesn't sound like emotionally driven cheerleading. There is a descending pointlessness to every reply you make.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> Somewhere between pedantic, bitchy, and downright lame. I'm disappointed with you. If you are going to talk down to people as an "analytical thinker" then at least come up with a reply that doesn't sound like emotionally driven cheerleading. There is a descending pointlessness to every reply you make.



Nice one, Mikey. Disregard the points in favour of _ad hominem_.

The point about implications is airtight. An implication isn't a fact, it's an opinion you form through your reading of a text.
The point about analytical thinking also holds true. If what you're putting across is extremist and/or irrational, then by its' "nature" it hasn't been subject to it.
The point about a clairvoyant? How else do I communicate with a dead murder victim?
And my point about you veering from your original point is obvious to anyone reading the thread.

Thing is, why expect to be taken seriously if you're not prepared to make sure that what you're saying isn't riddled with flaws?

Oh, and I haven't claimed I'm an analytical thinker, I've said that people with certain irrational views don't appear to indulge in it.
See what I mean by "riddled with flaws"?


----------



## Mikey77 (Jan 8, 2012)

I'm beginning to think you are bored out of your brain. You don't really seem to know what you are defending, but you think there is some thread of argument you are following. I was asked to name afro-Carribean racists to prove they exist. No different to the "cite a statistic / report / example" tactic always made on internet forums (which you have used as well). You are defending this poster for some unknown reason - probably because you feel you share a political view with them.

"Extremist", and "irrational" are your tags, and actually mean very little. As you know my point about communicating with a murder victim was alluding to the fact that the police and society have different ideas of what constitutes racism than the definitions those on here like to indulge themselves with. You have chosen to take it literally to try and be smart - but that is just another example of pettiness.

You are clearly putting yourself forward as something of an "analytical thinker" or something clever. That's what your egotistical drive to argue is all about, but it seems to border on some kind of pugnacious OCD.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2012)

Thanks for that, Mikey. I'll put it on my CV.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 8, 2012)

I just tell him to fuck off, it's better for him in the long run.


----------



## faux pas (Jan 8, 2012)

Mikey77 said:


> I'm beginning to think you are bored out of your brain.


This is his haunt. This is the profile I picture: thirties, lives alone in family home with just his disabled mum. Do you know the film 'The King of Comedy'?



Mikey77 said:


> I was asked to name afro-Carribean racists to prove they exist.


Really! Unbelievable! That reminds me of that joke: How many left wingers does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer.. Define 'light bulb'



Mikey77 said:


> You are defending this poster for some unknown reason - probably because you feel you share a political view with them.


They're the pack hunters. You know, what we would call 'cowards'.



Mikey77 said:


> police and society have different ideas of what constitutes racism than the definitions those on here like to indulge themselves with


So true with this one. Sweeping generalisations about certain groups gets people frothing at the mouth and screaming from rooftops. The abhorrence is in the unfairly tarring of everyone in those groups with the same brush. For most people the principle remains the same when directed at 'whites'. It's at the fringes here where you get the perhaps self-hating 'power relationship' type arguments that exclude white people from the same protection.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The point about a clairvoyant? How else do I communicate with a dead murder victim?


necromancy. clairvoyance is something different.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 9, 2012)

grit said:


> "You hate in others what you most hate about yourself" -- Cant remember the name



Interesting point. Its dealt with by  the" Golden Rule"- which goes back a long way historically.

"According to Simon Blackburn, although the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition", the rule is "sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own".[42] The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).[43] The Golden Rule also has roots in the two old testament edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself"; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

I agree with Little Baby Jesus that evolutionary wise we are made to live in small groups. ( Hunter Gatherers have been discussed by Engels who pointed out they were fairly egalitarian). However as society as developed humans developed the ability to try to transcend this limitation. The monotheistic religions in particular emphasised how we are all equal before God. The idea of the stranger in that lives among you should be loved follows from this. Its Universal values as opposed to Community values.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 9, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps that doesn't apply everywhere and in all historical contexts, but I think it does apply in the Britain of today. With regards to racism, it is the Martin Luther King approach as opposed to the Malcolm X approach. If you're combatting racism, your opponents are racists, not white people. If you're combatting homophobia, your opponents are homophobes, not straight people. Etc.



And I heard on the radio during the celebration of the founding of the ANC one speaker emphasised that the ANC always was a broad church of those who opposed Apartheid. He included White South Africans who opposed Apartheid.

Something Abbot seems to have forgotten.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 9, 2012)

One of the better articles on this issue by Laurie Penny

http://ht.ly/8lPD6

link goes to another blog for some reason. She is on list on right hand side.

"There's a term for that tactic. The term is "divide and rule".

David Cameron denounces industrial action by encouraging low-paid private sector workers to complain that the pensions public sector workers are striking to protect are higher than theirs: divide and rule. David Willetts tells unemployed men that it's all these selfish women in the workplace who have taken their jobs: divide and rule. Ed Miliband and Liam Byrne, not to mention Ian Duncan Smith, defend the dismantling of the welfare state by persuading the working class that those in receipt of housing benefit are scroungers scamming the system. Divide, dismiss -- and rule.

Structural injustice itself cannot be wedged into the story of neoliberalism, which reduces everything to a cloying moral syrup of personal responsibility lectures -- except where the banking sector is involved, of course.

What's missing from the story -- what's always missing -- is power. Defenders of privilege and hierarchy will do anything at all to distract attention from power, and to re-phrase attacks on power as attacks on the powerless. The chorus of faux-outrage over Abbott's tweet isn't just cynical; in a week when structural racism is in the news, it's a classic game of divide and rule."


----------



## Badgers (Jan 9, 2012)

As long as she doesn't make any more tweets about race it should all be fine.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 9, 2012)

Badgers said:


> As long as she doesn't make any more tweets about race it should all be fine.


she ain't tweeted a bare ting since blud


----------



## Badgers (Jan 9, 2012)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> she ain't tweeted a bare ting since blud



TAXI!!!!!


----------



## A380 (Jan 9, 2012)

_"although the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition"                 _I always belived that the Golden Rule means that the people with the gold make the rules. Which certainly holds true in almost every society we have seen so far.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> necromancy. clairvoyance is something different.



I didn't want to mention necromancy, 'cos I knew you'd offer your services if I did.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

faux pas said:


> This is his haunt. This is the profile I picture: thirties, lives alone in family home with just his disabled mum. Do you know the film 'The King of Comedy'?



As usual, wrong on every point.


----------



## Errol's son (Mar 26, 2012)

Can yo





littlebabyjesus said:


> Your definition also can't apply across cultures - in Angola, it is people with whiter skin who are now discriminated against in many fields, although that wasn't the case in the past of course.


 
Can you give some examples of discrimination against whites in Angola?  There is discrimination against foreigners - but I don't see any discrimination against Angola's white community...


----------

