Diane Abbott

[Scrote]

This is a problem when you choose a leader from too far from the centre of a party.

You mean the PLP rather than the party. Or are you saying that the members don't count?

Hitler didn’t look up their religious history , he used their features to determine if they were Jewish.

I'm fairly sure they went deep-diving into birth records and the like, which is why plenty of people who didn't either know they were Jewish, or weren't practising Jews, were rounded up.

They certainly didn't just wander the streets looking for stereotypical Jewishness.

I’m surprised a few on here are sticking up for Abbott. When you read what she wrote she deserves the suspension.

You've pushed this line a few times now trying to get a bite. No-one is defending what she wrote. People are using empathy to try and figure out why she wrote it. They're also using logic and history to try and work out what she meant. If you aren't interested in anything other than her being punished then why get involved? And why aren't you posting threads about the other Labour figures that have been antisemitic, anti-islamic etc. if it means so much to you? It's almost as if you just don't like Diane Abbott...

 

[MolteniArcore]

You've pushed this line a few times now trying to get a bite. No-one is defending what she wrote. People are using empathy to try and figure out why she wrote it. They're also using logic and history to try and work out what she meant. If you aren't interested in anything other than her being punished then why get involved? And why aren't you posting threads about the other Labour figures that have been antisemitic, anti-islamic etc. if it means so much to you? It's almost as if you just don't like Diane Abbott...

Why did she write it? What did she mean? Come on man, it’s not hard…. We don’t analyse it to this degree when someone else says it!!! It’s like you are looking for an excuse to give her a pass!!

 

[r00fie1]

Tony Greenstein's Blog

azvsas.blogspot.com

By Tony Greenstein
24th April.

Tony describesa himself as: "Socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist".

He is also Jewish.

There is no doubt that Diane Abbot’s letter to the Observer could have been better worded. Pigmentation or colour isn’t the cause of racism though in Britain, because of our colonial heritage, being Black and being victims of racism are synonymous. By racism I mean institutionalised and state racism not prejudice. But nothing in her letter was in any way racist or anti-Semitic.

Follow the link above to read his full article.

 

[Scrote]

Why did she write it? What did she mean? Come on man, it’s not hard…. We don’t analyse it to this degree when someone else says it!!! It’s like you are looking for an excuse to give her a pass!!

We don't have this many column inches devoted to it or this Ievel of outcry when someone else says it.

She is obviously not a racist. She wrote something that needed a lot of extra words to give a more precise meaning. She was limited to 250.

Trying to write anything political with that limitation was dumb. Attempting a treatise on racial discrimination was political suicide.

 

[Muttley]

Trying to write anything political with that limitation was dumb. Attempting a treatise on racial discrimination was political suicide.

Exactly. What someone else said about something else at a different time in a different context is simply whataboutery.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

Exactly. What someone else said about something else at a different time in a different context is simply whataboutery.

Except it’s not because I don’t really see anyone saying this wasn’t a stupid thing to do, or done in a possibly crass or crack-handed or even just unwise way. I think everyone on this thread acknowledges that she has left herself wide open for criticism with her remarks, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

What some are asking is why this ‘zero approach to racism’ isn’t consistently applied to everyone and everything. How can some people say genuinely offensive stuff and be allowed to continue while some are singled out for the most brutal treatment and potentially kicked out of the party.

This is the issue IMO. It sets a very dangerous precedent. You can’t expel one person for something but not someone else, someone who’s literally done the same or worse than Abbott, and say you’re serious about tackling racism or discrimination with any sort of credibility. It actually shows your approach the opposite of that.

If they’re kicking out Abbot then fine, do it. But you MUST apply the same rules and processes to everyone otherwise it’s just a free for all and a really damning indictment of both your party and politics in a wider sense.

It’s not whataboutery to ask where the consistency is.

 

[MolteniArcore]

So it transpires that Abbott sent the email a week before publication, then sent a second email 3 hours later with the same wording. Kinda kicks the idea that it was a ‘first draft’ out of the window as she had a week to send an amended version.


So, what I have learned on here is:

She’s not a racist but has written racist things (I’ve never understood this one)

Abbott really isn’t the issue, it’s how Labour deal with other people when they have been racist (Hmmm, ok)

Abbott has been ”brutally treated” but others aren’t (Labour have suspended her and launched an investigation - it is out of their control that it has made headline news… maybe because it‘s that she was shadow HC and a big campaigner against racism?)

Abbott’s letter could have been worded better… (like not being racist?)


The letter was abhorrent. What on earth was she doing sending it, or even considering sending it? This isn’t the first time she has caused controversy with the Jewish community either.

Abbott was the first black MP and a trailblazer. It is sad that her time as a Labour MP may end in such a fashion as she has done a lot of good. Maybe she would be better as an independent MP anyway? She has a big majority that has increased from 8k to upwards of 30k so she must be doing something right in her constituency. But then again she has a big Jewish contingent so that majority might decline if she did stand as an independent.

I look forward to the outcome of the investigation. It will be interesting to hear why she sent two copies of the same email a week before publication. I also hope that she is treated fairly based on what is uncovered during the investigation.

On this thread there does seem to be a few Abbott apologists but it’s like they can’t bring themselves to go whole hog, they are holding back. From these people there hasn’t been a real condemnation of what she wrote or an acceptance that it is obviously racist. Or maybe I have missed that? It is concerning.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

On this thread there does seem to be a few Abbott apologists but it’s like they can’t bring themselves to go whole hog, they are holding back. From these people there hasn’t been a real condemnation of what she wrote or an acceptance that it is obviously racist. Or maybe I have missed that? It is concerning.

What Abbott said was clumsily worded but it was not racist or anti-Semitic, although it is being twisted as such.
As the MP who has been on the end of more racism than any other, (including from the Labour Party NEC as demonstrated by the Forde report and the Labour leaks) I have seen more coverage of what she wrote than of all the infractions that she has had to endure put together.

And do not presume that the Jewish people leveling criticism at her speak for all Jews, because there are many Jewish people out there who are defending her and what she said.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

I mat be misunderstanding this, but hasn’t she said that the racism and prejudice Black people experience is different to that experienced by Jewish, Irish and Traveller people? She’s saying people can and do experience prejudice all the time but it’s different, a different form, to the racism suffered by Black people.

It’s clumsily worded but is there enough in those sentiments to warrant this type of coverage and reaction? If you think there is then fair enough. I would disagree. I would say it’s clumsy but definitely worth debating and discussing and hearing from all sides. Maybe we could use it to inform our political discourse?

And at the risk of being accused of whataboutery, a Tory councillor said “all white men should have a Black slave” last week and the reaction to that was absolutely nothing like what we’ve had since Sunday.

In fact if you Google ‘Tory councillor racism’ you’ll see over 300,000 returns. Most of those on the first few pages involve some disgusting racism and prejudice, and most of them have barely raised an eyebrow.

So why has what Abbot said caused such a stir? Is it because she’s a prominent MP? An outspoken critic of the government? Is it because it turns out that, despite years of standing up to racists and campaigning against racism and discrimination and always voting in favour of those with the least, it turns out she’s actually a massive racist after all? Because if she was racist, with racist views, who hated Jewish people or Travellers, she’d have been seen off decades ago by the gutter press who’ll have spent 20 or 30 years going through her bins or combing her emails and hacking her phone.

It’s just my opinion, obviously. As I say, if you think her comments are abhorrent or hateful or racist then go after her by all means. But it means nothing if you don’t go after all of them.

 

[TeaCider]

I mat be misunderstanding this, but hasn’t she said that the racism and prejudice Black people experience is different to that experienced by Jewish, Irish and Traveller people? She’s saying people can and do experience prejudice all the time but it’s different, a different form, to the racism suffered by Black people.

She said that what they experienced is not racism.

When Labour has been under attack for years for problems with antisemitism, having one of your most prominent MPs come out to refute an article with "Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people suffer from "racism"..." and then say that they don't, they suffer from prejudice is bound to cause a fuss.
The quote marks around racism is in itself is a red flag.

She refers to slavery, apartheid and pre-Civil Rights America as examples of how "white people" have never had to suffer with racism all their lives, which is ludicrous, especially in the case of Jewish people and Travellers given millions of them were systematically exterminated specifically because of their ethnicity less than 80 years ago.

It was a letter deliberately written and sent seemingly just because of her own personal definition of the word racism differing from the author of an article, an author who presumably is also black from the name, she wasn't pushed in to responding to it, she chose to.

Sending it twice from her personal email account hours apart would also seem to contradict her weak defence that it was just errors in a draft.
Not that it made sense as a defence to begin with, given the word limit.

She's since completely refuted the sole point of her letter in her apology.

I agree with the issue of the examples of other MPs not being punished for their own behaviour, there have been far worse incidents which have been brushed under the carpet, but what Dianne Abbott did here was idiotic and entirely self inflicted.

 

[SuperStu]

On this thread there does seem to be a few Abbott apologists but it’s like they can’t bring themselves to go whole hog, they are holding back. From these people there hasn’t been a real condemnation of what she wrote or an acceptance that it is obviously racist. Or maybe I have missed that? It is concerning.

Who do you mean by this Molteni?

 

[MolteniArcore]

What Abbott said was clumsily worded but it was not racist or anti-Semitic, although it is being twisted as such.
As the MP who has been on the end of more racism than any other, (including from the Labour Party NEC as demonstrated by the Forde report and the Labour leaks) I have seen more coverage of what she wrote than of all the infractions that she has had to endure put together.

And do not presume that the Jewish people leveling criticism at her speak for all Jews, because there are many Jewish people out there who are defending her and what she said.

It was antisemitic and as such racist.

Here you go @SuperStu, an example.

 

[coluka]

And do not presume that the Jewish people leveling criticism at her speak for all Jews, because there are many Jewish people out there who are defending her and what she said.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything? I am sure Diane Abbott does not speak for all Black people either and that some will have criticised her for her comments.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

It was antisemitic and as such racist.

Many, many Jewish people (but not all) including those who edit the Anne Frank House website disagree that racism and anti-Semitism are the same. It offends them that Hitler regarded the Jews not only as a race with physical, behavioral and cultural attributes but also as an inferior race. There is a debate to be had but as Diane Abbott was being neither critical or insulting toward Judaism she was not being anti-Semitic or racist. She does however have as much right as anyone else to take part in the racism/prejudice debate.

She refers to slavery, apartheid and pre-Civil Rights America as examples of how "white people" have never had to suffer with racism all their lives, which is ludicrous, especially in the case of Jewish people and Travellers given millions of them were systematically exterminated specifically because of their ethnicity less than 80 years ago.

Ethnicity and race are not interchangeable. Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Many, many Jewish people (but not all) including those who edit the Anne Frank House website disagree that racism and anti-Semitism are the same. It offends them that Hitler regarded the Jews not only as a race with physical, behavioral and cultural attributes but also as an inferior race. There is a debate to be had but as Diane Abbott was being neither critical or insulting toward Judaism she was not being anti-Semitic or racist. She does however have as much right as anyone else to take part in the racism/prejudice debate.

Ethnicity and race are not interchangeable. Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture.

I have heard many Jews on the radio over the past couple of days describing themselves as a race and what she wrote was racist and antisemitic.

I agree with them. And if her email wasn’t racist or antisemitic why did she apologise for it?

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

I am not sure what this has to do with anything? I am sure Diane Abbott does not speak for all Black people either and that some will have criticised her for her comments.

Yes of course, it's part of an ongoing debate which she has every right to join, but the attention that this black woman has attracted compared to the silence around those who were definitely racist toward her - including members of the NEC of her own party - is alarming.

 

[TeaCider]

Ethnicity and race are not interchangeable. Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture.

When did I say they were?

Not really sure what you're trying to refute here, unless you're trying to say you agree with the intent of Abbott's letter.

Racism is not restricted to targeting people of a different skin colour, even your own definition of race there makes that clear.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

You said:

She said that what they experienced is not racism.

and then qualified it with

She refers to slavery, apartheid and pre-Civil Rights America as examples of how "white people" have never had to suffer with racism all their lives, which is ludicrous, especially in the case of Jewish people and Travellers given millions of them were systematically exterminated specifically because of their ethnicity less than 80 years ago.

There is an ongoing debate over the differences between racism and prejudice and Abbott's point was that Jews, Irish and Travellers were not singled out for their physical attributes, appearance or skin colour. She is describing the difference between the two when she says that they didn't have to sit at the back of the bus in the US and they weren't denied the vote in South Africa. She didn't criticise Jews or deny the holocaust but she is receiving more attention than the people from her own party who were openly racist toward her. Starmer is yet to address this.

 

[TeaCider]

You said:



and then qualified it with



There is an ongoing debate over the differences between racism and prejudice and Abbott's point was that Jews, Irish and Travellers were not singled out for their physical attributes, appearance or skin colour. She is describing the difference between the two when she says that they didn't have to sit at the back of the bus in the US and they weren't denied the vote in South Africa. She didn't criticise Jews or deny the holocaust but she is receiving more attention than the people from her own party who were openly racist toward her. Starmer is yet to address this.

No, the main point of her letter was that it wasn't racism in the first place, it's just prejudice.

That's why she's apologised and disavowed what she said, and admitted that they do and have suffered from racism.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

No, the main point of her letter was that it wasn't racism in the first place, it's just prejudice.

I've been saying all along that there is a debate over racism/prejudice but Dianne never said it was just prejudice, and saying so makes her words sound worse than they actually were.

From the "My Jewish Learning" website"

Are Jews a race?

The short answer is no — Jews are not a race. People who identify as Jewish include individuals of enormously diverse geographic origins and physical appearances, making the idea that Jews could easily be designated a race in the sense of shared physical or biological characteristics implausible.

From Judaism 101:

The idea of Jews as a race brings to mind nightmarish visions of Nazi Germany, where Jews were declared to be not just a race, but an inferior race that had to be rounded up into ghettos and exterminated like vermin.

But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

To reiterate, there is a debate to be had and you and Diane are on opposite sides, but among those on this thread who are criticising Abbott there is a lack of people stressing the importance that the racism she has suffered at the hands of her own party, and the hierarchy of racism that exists in the party should be dealt with.