Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Baleforce]

It really is not. There is no doubt in my mind racism is more apparent for black people day to day. That was her point. There is nothing in her text that is saying jews don't count, that is all you.

thats a massive generalisation

racism is apparent to the person being racially abused, it's a binary thing, there are not levels here

it may well be unconscious, but thinking one kind of racism is less of a problem, is a problem

"Jews don't count" is the title of David Baddiel's book which details this kind of thing

 

[Baleforce]

Opponents of Labour have become past master of weaponizing antisemistism.

pretty easy to do with so many of them in the party

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

You're better than phrases like that I'm sure.

Getting rid of racism is right and admirable but much like certain lawyers, the were ones like her who seemed to profit from it. Either through money or acclaim. Funny she is now proved to be racist. Bite the hand that feed her.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

The House of Commons has become a bizarre pantomime, where one side is opposed by another, yet both are ideologically identical. The people of Britain are so supine that they just cannot see it.

The is not a huge difference between them.

 

[SpurMeUp]

thats a massive generalisation

racism is apparent to the person being racially abused, it's a binary thing, there are not levels here

it may well be unconscious, but thinking one kind of racism is less of a problem, is a problem

"Jews don't count" is the title of David Baddiel's book which details this kind of thing

That is exactly the point, nowhere has Abbott said "Jews don't count". In fact, in that excerpt, she wrote that there is prejudice against white-skinned people.

In real terms, not a lovie PC reality where anyone can be racially abused if they say so, black people have had tonnes of discrimination to wade through that continues today at a far greater extent than white peoples suffer. As I said previously - "to my mind" - this is just my opinion. But I doubt you'd disagree.

However, the idea that there is a 'suffering index' is nonsense. You can't exactly quantify these things, and it is not a competition - which race has suffered more!? And Abbott is foolish to so much as brush this area with the previous in the Labour Party. Just penning the term "jew" is a danger for her politically, with the 'auto-attention' it brings and guns drawn. Rightly or wrongly there is a pre-judgment (prejudice) against her. Had this been said by someone else, a young new MP, the response wouldn't have been the same. Labour is ready to purge the old and is trying to make itself electable. Abbott is always an easy target.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Although it's been an embarassing episode for the party, Starmer's quick action/zero tolerance of anti-semitism has been a refreshing change

 

[Gutter Boy]

That is exactly the point, nowhere has Abbott said "Jews don't count". In fact, in that excerpt, she wrote that there is prejudice against white-skinned people.

In real terms, not a lovie PC reality where anyone can be racially abused if they say so, black people have had tonnes of discrimination to wade through that continues today at a far greater extent than white peoples suffer. As I said previously - "to my mind" - this is just my opinion. But I doubt you'd disagree.

However, the idea that there is a 'suffering index' is nonsense. You can't exactly quantify these things, and it is not a competition - which race has suffered more!? And Abbott is foolish to so much as brush this area with the previous in the Labour Party. Just penning the term "jew" is a danger for her politically, with the 'auto-attention' it brings and guns drawn. Rightly or wrongly there is a pre-judgment (prejudice) against her. Had this been said by someone else, a young new MP, the response wouldn't have been the same. Labour is ready to purge the old and is trying to make itself electable. Abbott is always an easy target.

I disagree - she knew exactly what she was doing.

If you are in the Labour party, because of recent history, you know the big stick you risk being beaten with is anti-semitism. Therefore the one thing you just have to go out of your way to avoid is...

This is just Prince Philip style mask slipping.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I disagree - she knew exactly what she was doing.

If you are in the Labour party, because of recent history, you know the big stick you risk being beaten with is anti-semitism. Therefore the one thing you just have to go out of your way to avoid is...

This is just Prince Philip style mask slipping.

As the first female black MP I am sure Abbott was trying to stick up for black people. Nothing more, nothing less. The prejudice she suffers personally is shocking. I say this as someone who has met her individually and benefited from her help. As an individual, she is someone we should celebrate; rather than vilify for this supposedly shameful act of asserting black people's rights.

 

[scaramanga]

The is not a huge difference between them.

They're all socialists now.

 

[Gutter Boy]

As the first female black MP I am sure Abbott was trying to stick up for black people. Nothing more, nothing less. The prejudice she suffers personally is shocking. I say this as someone who has met her individually and benefited from her help. As an individual, she is someone we should celebrate; rather than vilify for this supposedly shameful act of asserting black people's rights.

I thought the British Jewish Council (or whatever they are called) called it perfectly. What she has overcome/achieved is unbelievably admirable. But she should be their firmest ally, not trying to alienate them by introducing false 'degrees of persecution'.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I thought the British Jewish Council (or whatever they are called) called it perfectly. What she has overcome/achieved is unbelievably admirable. But she should be their firmest ally, not trying to alienate them by introducing false 'degrees of persecution'.

I would agree with that. Its a criticism of classification then. Abbott has not, and is not saying that discrimination of non-black people is okay. I think we all understand that. So really the criticism amounts to the way she has chosen to classify racism. It's a highly technical qualm. And brings me back to my first question on this: is there an overreaction? To me yes.

It also speaks to the ego-centric nature of jewish analysis. We are not sitting here discussing the Travellers Council response. Or the book on how Gingers are lampooned, and how that is not okay. Why not? I sometimes think, why don't people assert their rights with the same passion as the jews do at this juncture in time. It wasn't always like this. Growing up, jews were often discrete, okay to essentially hide their identity. Where now its more loud and proud. There is a confidence and assertiveness, which probably stems from America and the celebration of Jewishness. But i believe it is churlish to turn Abbotts attempt to represent black rights into a jewish thing. It is not all about the chosen people you know.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I would agree with that. Its a criticism of classification then. Abbott has not, and is not saying that discrimination of non-black people is okay. I think we all understand that. So really the criticism amounts to the way she has chosen to classify racism. It's a highly technical qualm. And brings me back to my first question on this: is there an overreaction? To me yes.

It also speaks to the ego-centric nature of jewish analysis. We are not sitting here discussing the Travellers Council response. Or the book on how Gingers are lampooned, and how that is not okay. Why not? I sometimes think, why don't people assert their rights with the same passion as the jews do at this juncture in time. It wasn't always like this. Growing up, jews were often discrete, okay to essentially hide their identity. Where now its more loud and proud. There is a confidence and assertiveness, which probably stems from America and the celebration of Jewishness. But i believe it is churlish to turn Abbotts attempt to represent black rights into a jewish thing. It is not all about the chosen people you know.

You’ve moved from defending anti-semitism to actual anti-semitism.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You’ve moved from defending anti-semitism to actual anti-semitism.

If you wish to slander, at least try to justify your accusation.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

If you wish to slander. At least try to justify your accusation.

“the ego-centric nature of jewish analysis”
“It is not all about the chosen people, you know”

You don’t see anything wrong with those, do you? Proving Baddiel right, I’m afraid.

It would certainly have been good if Starmer had also called out the anti-ziganism. A point which could easily be made without causing offence.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

The rest of the stuff about Jews suddenly asserting their identity is weird, too. Fortunately, this isn’t the Observer. You can just delete it, without issuing an absurd apology to the effect that you posted an early draft which you unreservedly disassociate yourself from.

@ me if you want my quotes deleted, too.

 

[SpurMeUp]

“the ego-centric nature of jewish analysis”
“It is not all about the chosen people, you know”

You don’t see anything wrong with those, do you? Proving Baddiel right, I’m afraid.

It would certainly have been good if Starmer had also called out the anti-ziganism. A point which could easily be made without causing offence.

In an analysis of black and white racism, somehow it has become about anti-semitism. When Abotts points were more about black people. So yes there is an ego-centric jewish element to this in my opinion. And my point was jewish people now have a greater strength, confidence and assertiveness that maybe other groups don't.

 

[scaramanga]

I would agree with that. Its a criticism of classification then. Abbott has not, and is not saying that discrimination of non-black people is okay. I think we all understand that. So really the criticism amounts to the way she has chosen to classify racism. It's a highly technical qualm. And brings me back to my first question on this: is there an overreaction? To me yes.

It also speaks to the ego-centric nature of jewish analysis. We are not sitting here discussing the Travellers Council response. Or the book on how Gingers are lampooned, and how that is not okay. Why not? I sometimes think, why don't people assert their rights with the same passion as the jews do at this juncture in time. It wasn't always like this. Growing up, jews were often discrete, okay to essentially hide their identity. Where now its more loud and proud. There is a confidence and assertiveness, which probably stems from America and the celebration of Jewishness. But i believe it is churlish to turn Abbotts attempt to represent black rights into a jewish thing. It is not all about the chosen people you know.

Far better that those Jews just hide away and keep to themselves. Wouldn't want them getting all uppity, would we?

 

[Robspur12]

That would be you imposing your narrative. Or you are suggesting Abbott is a holocaust denier?

Not at all. But she appears to be belittling it at the very least.

 

[Robspur12]

Is there? Who are they?

All those who benefited from and protected Putin's oligarchs before it became politically unacceptable to do so. In fact iirc, Boris himself gave a speech after the annexation of Crimea not blaming Putin but rather the EU.

 

[Grays_1890]

In an analysis of black and white racism, somehow it has become about anti-semitism. When Abotts points were more about black people. So yes there is an ego-centric jewish element to this in my opinion. And my point was jewish people now have a greater strength, confidence and assertiveness that maybe other groups don't.

They also have scores of schools and synagogues in North London protected by security because of attacks. To make such a generic comment, likening the prejudice more to a white person with red hair is ridiculous and baffling at the very least.

I can't work out the motivation for her to respond to an article highlighting the hate that the specific groups mentioned received. She has decided to wade in on an argument you could argue she had no right to do

Honestly, why?