Diane Abbott - Was it a racist comment? Should she go?

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,987
Location
South East, UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278

I think it was a racist comment, especially because I've heard her use the word "white" in describing people when using the word "black" would have drawn criticism (her description of Tweedledum and Tweedledee for one).

Should she go? Tougher one, but given she came out with the seemingly-on-speed-dial-lie of all politicians caught saying something naughty i.e. the criticisms come from taking it out of context I'd say she should go.
 
Last edited:
Whilst an idiotic comment I don't see how "white people" are harmed by her comments.

I think she should be censured for it (and stand up and admit when she's done something bloody idiotic instead of hiding then trying to squirm out of it by blatant bull ********) but fired? Difficult. Especially when she has a few centuries of history on her side to support her argument.

Perhaps if she'd said "majorities" instead of white people, but then that doesn't work in regard to apartheid Seth Efrika, does it?
 
We expect politicians to lie and exaggerate, to shamelessly used rhetoric.

Perhaps the test ought to be whether someone else in public life would be under pressure to resign in similar circumstances

What if it were a:

policeman,
football player,
teacher,
A-list actor
or
(the Planet-X choice) Prince Philip?
 
I'm in agreement with what both of you seem to be saying. It was a bloody stupid thing to say and the outrage is entirely justified, but "go" - from where? I think she need to be forcibly re-educated, that's all.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm in agreement with what both of you seem to be saying. It was a bloody stupid thing to say and the outrage is entirely justified, but "go" - from where? I think she need to be forcibly re-educated, that's all.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Ah yes I didn't make "go from" very clear did I. I was meaning from the shadow cabinet.
 
I think it's racist because it's denegrating people on the basis of their skin colour. It's pretty much the definition of verbal racism. But I can't say I'm particularly offended.

One half of me would like to see her go just because I perceive that the slightest slip of the tongue is often taken as racist and seems to result in the resignation of white public figures and I'd like to see it cut both ways. However what I'd really like to see is everyone getting off their high horse in general re: perceived racist comments. So overall I think she should say it if she believes it. People have the right not to vote for her.
 
Skepticemea said:
Whilst an idiotic comment I don't see how "white people" are harmed by her comments.
Click to expand...

As a white person I can't say I was upset, offended, shocked or traumatised by her comments. At the same time I can't see how they can be characterised as anything other than racist, and I'm not sure that "Harm" needs to enter into the equation. Whether she should be fired for the comment is another matter, but I do think the double-standard is there; if the situation was reversed the fuss would be quite considerable.
 
NeilC said:
I think it's racist because it's denegrating people on the basis of their skin colour. It's pretty much the definition of verbal racism. But I can't say I'm particularly offended.

One half of me would like to see her go just because I perceive that the slightest slip of the tongue that can be perceived as racist seems to result in the resignation of white public figures and I'd like to see it work both ways. However what I'd really like to see is everyone getting off their high horse in general re: perceived racist comments. So overall I think she should say it if she believes it. People have the right not to vote for her.
Click to expand...
Not sure I'd agree that saying a powerful majority have been successful by being complete and utter bastards denegrates anyone, but I entirely agree with your last point. Just wait and see see all those white people vote her out in Haring...ey.... ahhhhh...

I think it was pandering to her constituents more than anything, and I might just be changing my mind as to whether that's harmful or not.
 
richardm said:
As a white person I can't say I was upset, offended, shocked or traumatised by her comments. At the same time I can't see how they can be characterised as anything other than racist, and I'm not sure that "Harm" needs to enter into the equation. Whether she should be fired for the comment is another matter, but I do think the double-standard is there; if the situation was reversed the fuss would be quite considerable.
Click to expand...
Is she saying that non-white people are superior to whites because they themselves do not use "divide and conquer" tactics?
 
Skepticemea said:
Is she saying that non-white people are superior to whites because they themselves do not use "divide and conquer" tactics?
Click to expand...

Really, what's she effectively said was "You can't expect better behaviour from whites" which, if you had replaced "white" with "black" could have come straight from the mouth of Alf Garnett. But without the irony.

Meanwhile, I invite you to become famous then announce on Twitter that "Blacks use Divide and Conquer tactics" and see where it gets you. I'll hold your coat ;)

Edit: I suppose the acid test is to ask two questions -

1. Is this a racist statement: "Blacks use Divide and Conquer tactics"
2. Is this a racist statement: "Whites use Divide and Conquer tactics"

If the answer is different for 1 and 2 - why?


Edit again: Diane Abbot Interview. At 39 seconds the Millibot calls in and Abbott has it away on her heels* :D

*I would say it was a "brown trouser moment" but under the circumstances I thought it better not to bring up 200 year old colonialist legwear.
 
Last edited:
richardm said:
Really, what's she effectively said was "You can't expect better behaviour from whites" which, if you had replaced "white" with "black" could have come straight from the mouth of Alf Garnett. But without the irony.

Meanwhile, I invite you to become famous then announce on Twitter that "Blacks use Divide and Conquer tactics" and see where it gets you. I'll hold your coat ;)

Edit: I suppose the acid test is to ask two questions -

1. Is this a racist statement: "Blacks use Divide and Conquer tactics"
2. Is this a racist statement: "Whites use Divide and Conquer tactics"

If the answer is different for 1 and 2 - why?
Click to expand...
Neither statement is literally "racist". Prejudiced, yes, racist, no. Semantics were made for this type of argument. :D

Racism, to my mind (and some dictionaries), implies a perceived inferiority/superiority based on race. I don't see that here. Considering Britain's and America's activities all over the world, historic and recent, does she not have a point?

I entirely object to her use of the word "love", however.
 
If you're seeing a prejudice then surely you're seeing that, in some way, she's saying that one race is inferior or superior. Otherwise, how is it a prejudice rather than a preference?

Anyway. Semantics, yeah ;)

What she's done is ascribe a pattern of behaviour to a group based purely on the colour of their skin. It's hard to imagine a better definition of racism than that, I think.
 
Skepticemea said:
Perhaps if she were in a position of power... :p
Click to expand...


I wasn't sure if she was in the Shadow Cabinet, or if it was being suggested she should resign her seat. No to the latter, but out of the Shadow Cabinet is arguable.

Rolfe.
 
richardm said:
If you're seeing a prejudice then surely you're seeing that, in some way, she's saying that one race is inferior or superior. Otherwise, how is it a prejudice rather than a preference?

Anyway. Semantics, yeah ;)

What she's done is ascribe a pattern of behaviour to a group based purely on the colour of their skin. It's hard to imagine a better definition of racism than that, I think.
Click to expand...

Well, considering "whites" have subjugated people of other skin colours by their use of "divide and conquer", attributing any inferiority to that tactic seems a little strange.

I mean, it worked for a while, didn't it?

She's acted foolishly, but if members of a minority that have been oppressed for centuries (and to some extent still are) occasionally bring out the verbal then I think applying the criteria of whether the statement is harmful to the target of the statement should apply.

After all, a native American might state that white Americans stole their land and continue to institute racist policies towards them. Isn't that also a racist statement?
 
I think arguably saying "Whites oppressed Indians" is a reasonable historical perspective, not unlike saying "Whites enslaved blacks", even though the reality is probably a bit more complex and I'd expect to be called on both of them to be honest.

However, saying "White Americans are instituting racist policies" I'd consider racist yes, because it's ascribing behaviour to a group based on skin colour. If they said "The American Government is instituting racist policies" then no, because it's ascribing behaviour to a group based on it being a group.
 
IMO, her comments are racist and her apology is insincere. Diane Abbot has previous form for this kind of thing. In the past she has suggested that black (if memory serves actually Jamaican) mothers were better than other mothers.

From : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278

Diane Abbott: White people love playing "divide & rule" We should not play their game #tacticasoldascolonialism
Click to expand...

She is clearly a very bitter person who hates white people and despite her privileged position considers herself to be struggling under the yoke of colonialism.

I believe that voters should take that into account at the next election.
 
richardm said:
I think arguably saying "Whites oppressed Indians" is a reasonable historical perspective, not unlike saying "Whites enslaved blacks", even though the reality is probably a bit more complex and I'd expect to be called on both of them to be honest.

However, saying "White Americans are instituting racist policies" I'd consider racist yes, because it's ascribing behaviour to a group based on skin colour. If they said "The American Government is instituting racist policies" then no, because it's ascribing behaviour to a group based on it being a group.
Click to expand...

That's why I think it's a crass generalisation rather than a racist comment. As I said, this sort of discussion is made for semantic wrestling.

There's a little too much "doubtrage" over this. White people getting annoyed at being generalised about, eh?
 
The Don said:
IMO, her comments are racist and her apology is insincere. Diane Abbot has previous form for this kind of thing. In the past she has suggested that black (if memory serves actually Jamaican) mothers were better than other mothers.

From : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278



She is clearly a very bitter person who hates white people and despite her privileged position considers herself to be struggling under the yoke of colonialism.

I believe that voters should take that into account at the next election.
Click to expand...

Hates? I believe that her comments re Jamaican mothers was about disciplining their children more severely than English ones. My limited experience on this would bear her out (seeing that several of my school friends got away with a hell of a lot less than I did with their Afro-Caribbean folks).
 
Skepticemea said:
There's a little too much "doubtrage" over this. White people getting annoyed at being generalised about, eh?
Click to expand...

I think there's definitely more than a hint of "What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander" about it. And why not, indeed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom