According to your link it is only a recognised racist trope in the United States, why should it be a problem in the UK?
Where does the article say it's only recognised in the US?
In the first sentence: "portrays Black American women as ill-mannered, belligerent, and ill-tempered"
Diane Abbott is not a Black American woman.
Edit: And that is the term "angry black woman" that the link is specifically talking about btw. Which is not the term that was apparently used.
In the first sentence: “portrays Black American women as ill-mannered, belligerent, and ill-tempered”
I know. Where does it say it's only recognised in the US?
Okay it is recognised all over the world as a racist trope. If that is important to you.
But have you any evidence that anyone has called Diane Abbott an "angry black woman"?
Btw Diane Abbott is definitely not a "Black American woman" which is what the racist trope apparently recognised the world over refers to.
Just to add....Diane Abbott has clearly been the victim of the most appalling and offensive racism, as this latest incident highlights. I have the utmost respect for her and it must be called out and denounced as totally unacceptable.
Most decent people accept that, and the inability of the Tories to defend this latest appalling example proves it.
But the job of fighting racism is not made easier by people trivialising the issue and using as examples things that are not actually said.
All it does is give ammunition to those pushing back and claiming that it is all overblown nonsense.
Someone claimed that Diane Abbott made them hate all back women and that she should be shot, focus on that - it is appalling and damning. Accusing her of being "an angry woman" is not.
Okay it is recognised all over the world as a racist trope. If that is important to you.
But have you any evidence that anyone has called Diane Abbott an “angry black woman”?
All I'm asking you to do is substantiate something you said, which was:
According to your link it is only a recognised racist trope in the United States,
I can't see that stated anywhere in the link, could you point it out for me?
I have already conceded that you have won. Everyone in the world knows that "angry black woman" is a racist trope.
Did anyone call Diane Abbott that?
No, he used 2/3 of the phrase and left the listener open to interpret whether it was a mistake, unintended, or whether actually it was just dog whistley enough. You don't have to use the exact phrase to use the phrase.
It's on that basis that the writer of the article said it was clearly racist. I'm not 'clear' but suspect. You don't, that's ok.
Plausible deniability.
The essential component of any modern racist's toolkit.
You don’t have to use the exact phrase to use the phrase.
Well perhaps they could have left out the reference to her being a woman as well, since they left out the rather critical bit about her being black. And still no doubt it would have been racist?
You realise that most people dismiss all this over-dissection of words as pointless nonsense, don't you? And that it massively helps racists - in fact the Tories love to exploit this pointless nonsense.
Hester's words were clear and unambiguous, it serves no purpose to discuss what a random person meant by a fairly innocuous comment, and whether it was an incomplete phrase.
There’s no need for you to turn it into a battle.
Oh the irony.
Oh the irony
If you say so. It's a shame you felt the need to misrepresent an article to make your point.
it serves no purpose to discuss what a random person meant by a fairly innocuous comment,
The purpose of discussing was because you seemed unaware of why the use of the (incomplete) phrase was felt to be racist.
It's only an innocuous comment if you still think it wasn't intended.
Well perhaps they could have left out the reference to her being a woman as well, since they left out the rather critical bit about her being black. And still no doubt it would have been racist?
Do you know, I can imagine a situation where a black lady is kicking off for some reason (whether justified or not) and a witness/reporter could caption it 'Angry?' and still intend to insinuate the ABW trope.
Thank you for your honesty in confirming that even if there was no reference at all to the person being black, nor being a woman, that you would still consider it to be a racist trope if the comment was made about a black woman.
I think most people would struggle to make that connection.
I think most people would struggle to make that connection.
I didn't find the connection at all difficult to spot, but if you don’t want to see it, I guess you won't. I would in any case have given Gary Younge's opinion more weight than yours, even if you hadn't misrepresented an article to make your point.
I said "most people" would struggle to see the connection, are you doubting that? Whether I see it or not is irrelevant.
even if you hadn’t misrepresented an article
Just to be clear - I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
that you would still consider it to be a racist trope if the comment was made about a black woman.
Since words are important, read mine.
I can imagine a situation where a black lady is kicking off for some reason (whether justified or not) and a witness/reporter could caption it ‘Angry?’ and still intend to insinuate the ABW trope.
Please point out where it says I would consider it racist?
I said someone could INTEND their comment to insinuate it. Because that's all too often what racists do - to create enough space that they can then deny that's what they really meant.
Does it automatically make any reference to 'angry' or 'angry woman' racist? Of course not. Context is important. There's enough context in the incident reported in the article that I am suspicious. Which is all I've ever maintained about the original article.
I said “most people” would struggle to see the connection, are you doubting that?
I wasn't aware that you spoke for most people, when did this happen? As an aside, where do you stand on the wisdom of crowds?
Just to be clear – I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about.
You claimed that an article said something, which it didn't. Just so we're clear.
I don't think that I did but that won't be the only thing that we haven't agreed on.
I’m pretty sure I’ve come across the ABW meme in the UK. I don’t think it’s as foreign to radicalised racists as some of you seem to think it is.
Jesus christ, this is 'jungle drums' all over again isn't it?
Do you lot go apeshit any time someone declares they're heading out to smoke a fag?
I wasn't aware of the angry black woman thing but I am now so this thread has at least achieved something in the last day. I would be wary of anyone saying someone is an angry woman as even that has something implied about it but calling someone who is angry, angry would seem fine to me.
I don’t think that I did but that won’t be the only thing that we haven’t agreed on.
I know, which is why I asked you, more than once, to point out the relevant bit of the article. I'm still waiting.
Do you lot go apeshit any time someone declares they’re heading out to smoke a fag?
Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
Do 'you lot' deny that in some contexts 'smoke a fag' could be intended to be understood as a homophobic slur?
Jesus christ, this is ‘jungle drums’ all over again isn’t it?
Good example. While not specifically racist, if used in a certain context it could be and for that reason I avoid using it now. If the original comment knew the ABW trope they might have chosen not to use or insinuate it. Unless of course they did so specifically to appeal to a certain type of listener?
If they didn't know, then wouldn't you then backpedal from it - apologise for clumsy use of words, whatever?
I don't know either way but I'm a bit suspicious.
I don’t know either way but I’m a bit suspicious.
So you don't actually agree with the article. Apologies, I thought you did.
According the article "angry woman" is "clearly" a racist trope, but you are only "a bit suspicious". I think that I am probably generally less suspicious.
As for question would I apologise if someone took what I said the wrong way it would depend on the circumstances - I would not automatically apologise because someone misunderstood what I have said.
In fact I might expect them to apologise, as I just have to you 😊
calling someone who is angry, angry would seem fine to me.
What about calling someone "hysterical" when that someone is a woman? Isn't it the case that certain words are now loaded with a lot of unpleasant freight that makes using them prejudicial, even though they have a perfectly "innocent" meaning?
So you don’t actually agree with the article. Apologies, I thought you did.
IDK why you'd have that idea, I've always said that it's about the context the comment is/was made in. There's enough context for me to be suspicious that the speaker knew. If the absolute conclusion of someone else is that the speaker absolutely knew then yes, 'angry woman' in that context is a clearly racist trope. That's what Younge has concluded. It's an opinion piece, that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.
Having read and reread the article, I would have phrased it differently.
One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (a clear racist trope)
to something like "One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (creating inference to the racist trope)
so on that I guess I disagree with that line in the article. In general though I agree with the article, that Labour is hardly unblemished in taking the moral high ground. But we know that, I think.
Good example. While not specifically racist, if used in a certain context it could be and
No, that was decided by a bunch of folk who had never heard the phrase that unilaterally decided it was racist because of a misunderstanding. In that debate not one person offered any proof that it had ever been used in a racist context yet here we are.
The article offers no context other than "angry woman" so how is anyone supposed to draw any conclusion from that?
"she can come across as a very angry woman"
"Like all people of her background she has grown into an angry woman"
Innocent vs clearly dog whistling. But without the context we don't know.
This is why the world is ****ed, too many people taking opinion at face value with no facts to back up their claims. And you laugh at the MAGA crowd...
The context is that it was said about Diane Abbot, a black woman who has been subjected to more personal attacks, racist and not, by people inside and outside her party, than any other MP.
IDK if that was the intent of the speaker; it could be. I'm suspicious, Younge is not and has decided it was, you and Ernie have decided it isn't. All opinions.
have decided it isn’t
No, I have decided that saying "angry woman" doesn't sound particularly racist to me, never mind "clearly racist"
And that to be racist "angry black woman" might be more appropriate💡
Although you obviously disagree.
I also think that black women should wear the accusation of being angry as a badge of honour, it is certainly more desirable than being a docile and compliant stepford-wife type.
There is nothing wrong with being angry if there is something to be angry about, and I celebrate the assertiveness of black American women.
And that to be racist “angry black woman” might be more appropriate💡
But the point is that like so many in this sort of incident, they have created plausible deniability. As I suspect was the intent (I called it dog-whistley), as Younge feels definitely was the intent and (OK will concede) you are 'less suspicious' about.
The jungle drums thing and this have one thing in common. The reactions to people saying it is racist are far more telling about people's attitudes than what was originally said.
Being open to having your world view challenged should be an opportunity for a bit of self reflection. If your reaction is instead angry denial and insults then you should really be asking yourself why being challenged provokes such a reaction.
Do ‘you lot’ deny that in some contexts ‘smoke a fag’ could be intended to be understood as a homophobic slur?
That scenario presumably being "America"?
to something like “One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (creating inference to the racist trope)
How on Earth does one "create inference"? Inference is wholly down to the reader, surely. As ably demonstrated by the last couple of pages, up until your most recent post you've been arguing that Ernie's opinion is wrong.
OK, deliberately create the opportunity to infer.
Sort of how I'd define dog whistle comments.
up until your most recent post you’ve been arguing that Ernie’s opinion is wrong.
No, just different to mine (and Younge's). That's the thing about opinions.
No, just different to mine (and Younge’s). That’s the thing about opinions.
Was that ever in doubt? I'd inferred that from the outset. 😁
No, just different to mine (and Younge’s). That’s the thing about opinions.
So what you are saying is that racism is just a matter of opinion? Have you considered joining the Tory party?
In any case, I'm with Ernie here. I've never heard of the "trope" - possibly because it is apparently aimed at Americans? - and even if I had it seems something of a leap to mentally insert "black" into a sentence and then cry racism. That does no-one any favours.
So what you are saying is that racism is just a matter of opinion?
No. Where did I say that?
The question of opinion is on whether when "[a labour party] official called Abbott an “angry woman” " it was meant to be a racial slur, to lead a listener to connect it to the ABW trope or not.
What do you think? Was the listener supposed to connect the two?
In any case, I’m with Ernie here. I’ve never heard of the “trope” – possibly because it is apparently aimed at Americans?
So I linked to it and tried to create understanding that the adjacency was creating the issue. The fact you hadn't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't a trope understood in the UK
– and even if I had it seems something of a leap to mentally insert “black” into a sentence and then cry racism. That does no-one any favours.
I agree, to an extent. If we leap on every potential transgression of language then we get into these circular arguments. But at the same time, I still am suspicious that it was intentional. So what's the correct response? Challenge it or always benefit of the doubt? That's where the context is important. Who said it, who did they say it about, how was it said, etc.
How on Earth does one “create inference”? Inference is wholly down to the reader, surely.
Well I would disagree. Inference is what someone understands to be meant from what they read taken in context. It is not solely down to the reader, though it may be coloured by the reader's own experience and state of knowlege (which are part of the context I guess). The original text and the framing and occasion is highly relevant.
Of course part of that context then becomes the reader's various prejudices and hang-ups and indeed the reader's understanding of the writer's various prejudices and hang-ups. If you are genuinely intent on understanding what the writer is saying, you will of course try to understand where the maker of the statement is coming from whilst doing your best to discount your own prejudices and special knowledge. This approach to interpreting things is rarely found in public discourse, which tends to be all about trying to come up with a plausible interpretation of something that will further your own argument without regard to the message that the person making the statement was actually trying to get across.
Anyway, you create inference by saying something that you know will be interpreted in the intended way, at least by people with particular prejudices and hang-ups, and/or people who (think they) understand what your's are. I have always understood this to be what people mean by the "dog whistle". Making your point in this way introduces an element of deniability which is useful in the case of statements likely to attract criticism or legal problems (although generally the law is not as stupid in this regard as people often think it is).
you create inference by saying something that you know will be interpreted in the intended way,
...
Making your point in this way introduces an element of deniability
Good point, well made.
There are posters on here who do this regularly.
I have always understood this to be what people mean by the “dog whistle”.
I've never understood what it means. I should look it up really.
Wikipedia:
"In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. " So, like a dog whistle, a statement which will only be heard by a select group.
Martin Forde is on the Sangita Myska LBC program talking about his report into the Labour Party, The report identified what it called a “hierarchy of racism”, with antisemitism taken more seriously within the party than other forms of racism ....
Good listening so far, and he's again called for Diane Abbot to reinstalled immediately
The report identified what it called a “hierarchy of racism”
Baddiel was on C4 the other night claiming that he invented that phrase. I wasn't aware that my opinion of him could sink any lower, but apparently it can.
