Saying you should ask a black person what they think is racist in itself as black people cannot decide what is racist any more than white people. It is solely down to which white or black person you ask as black people can be as racist as white people.

Just to turn that around:

Saying you should ask a woman what they think is sexist in itself as women cannot decide what is sexist any more than men. It is solely down to which man or woman you ask as women can be as sexist as men.

Do you agree that statement holds true? If not why not?

Lived experience counts for a lot more than hand wringing. I agree choc ice/coconut/whatever are crude and derogatory terms to describe someone who has either never had or chosen to ignore the lived experience of the majority of their peers but racist? I’m not so sure. To flip it in the same way, are the people who criticise Thatcher for her policies that went to the detriment of women in similarly crude terms sexist?

Cool story. Did you take notes at the ‘footy’?

Why would I? I don’t write for the Guardian.

Ctk; can I ask what your ethnicity is? You don’t have to answer, but I thought it might be pertinent to the discussion.

Saying you should ask a black person what they think is racist in itself as black people cannot decide what is racist any more than white people. It is solely down to which white or black person you ask as black people can be as racist as white people. The person asked above though it was fine, the next person may not think it is fine.
I am white, that doesn’t mean I should be asked about what white people would think about something

Thanks for Whitesplaining that to us.

Another poll showing Starmer and Labour struggling to win people over…

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 55% (+11)
CON: 23% (-9)
LDM: 7% (-3)
GRN: 5% (0)
RFM: 3% (-1)
SNP: 5% (+1)

Via @Omnisis, 29-30 Sep.
Changes w/ 23-26 Sep.

— Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) September 30, 2022

Thanks for Whitesplaining that to us.

Absolute bullshit response. Which side of the argument are you on? What type of ‘splaining are your posts?

I don’t know why my ethnicity has anything to do with what I’ve said but I plan on getting my DNA analysed some time soon so I’ll let you know.

I agree choc ice/coconut/whatever are crude and derogatory terms to describe someone who has either never had or chosen to ignore the lived experience of the majority of their peers but racist? I’m not so sure

Of course it’s racist. It’s an insult based on race therefore racist.

Don’t mind me lads and lassies. Im the oppressor in almost all cases. White male of English protestant descent.

Genetically a true brit. 🤣 the usual mix of Dane German and french

Can i just apologise now for everything?

Which side of the argument are you on?

The ‘side’ that wants racism to be treated with the seriousness it needs, and for the discussion to not be obfuscated by ‘crying wolf’.

I don’t know why my ethnicity has anything to do with what I’ve said

You were making a personal judgment on what one Black Person said about another. Or rather, the fact that one person retweeted something someone else had actually said. I think your own ethnicity is rather pertinent in this case. It needs to be pointed out that Rio Ferdinand was not censured for any actual ‘racism’, but for ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. And the context of the retweeting a particular remark, needs to be understood too.

Of course it’s racist. It’s an insult based on race therefore racist.

Again, simply stating your own opinion does not make something fact. For actual racism to have taken place, there needs to be a situation where one party exploits their (or seeks to gain) ‘power’ over the other. In the case of Ferdinand v Cole, this just does not happen. It cannot be Racism, because then Ferdinand himself would have been a ‘victim’ of the slur.

https://www.aclrc.com/racism

By extension, it can also be argued that Huq’s comment about Kwarteng is also not ‘racism’. This is a deeply complex issue, and necessitates an analysis that involves context, both current and historical. If people of one groups see a member of their own ‘kind’ acting in a way they believe is detrimental to themselves, and evocative of historical power abuses, then it’s perfectly understandable that they would be critical. Personally, I feel Huq’s only ‘crime’ is that she opted for a very poor choice of words/phrasing of what she actually meant. Concentrating on just that one ‘offence’ means focus is shifted away from where it actually needs to be. The Conservative party are institutionally racist; having several Brown and Black faces in their cabinet does not erase this fact. Ergo the focus should be on that issue. We had, until recently, a Prime Minister who openly made racist remarks yet never faced any kind of censure. Starmer suspending/expelling Huq would achieve nothing other than virtue signalling. Branding people ‘bigots’ without properly considering matters, is something that has contributed to Labour losing an election. Ignoring the deeper issues at stake, shows yet again just how out of touch they really are.

For actual racism to have taken place, there needs to be a situation where one party exploits their (or seeks to gain) ‘power’ over the other.

A very weird definition and one that would mean that Johnsons racist remarks you refered to were not racist.

It’s not a definition i have ever seen before.

Negative stereotype based on race is a far more normal definition

A very weird definition and one that would mean that Johnsons racist remarks you refered to were not racist.

No I’m afraid you’ve got that wrong. Read the article I linked to.

It’s not a definition i have ever seen before.

It’s the definition that is used throughout academia, and which influences institutional structures such as Law.

To understand it better, think about how Black people using the ‘N-Word’ between themselves, isn’t racist, but how when used by others towards Black people, it is. Ergo; Johnson’s remarks were racist because they referenced a perception of physical attributes ascribed by White colonialists, and reduced items of clothing worn by women of a particular minority group, to a mundane object. Such comments not only reduce people to objects of ridicule and derision, they also dehumanise them. That Johnson has never effectively been brought to task (even though his comments were in breach of UK Law) highlights even more, that structure of privilege and power in our society.

For actual racism to have taken place, there needs to be a situation where one party exploits their (or seeks to gain) ‘power’ over the other.

That doesn’t define racism. Racism is not only about exploiting ‘power’ over another person.

I can be racist when speaking to my wife, with none of the people who I am ‘exploiting power’ over even in the room.

Okay this has been dragging on for a while now so can we agree that instead of calling Kwasi Kwarteng ‘superficially black’, which is apparently so racist that a black woman has been suspended from the Labour Party for having been secretly recorded saying it, that we can call him an ‘Uncle Tom’?

Or at least black people can call him an Uncle Tom, white people probably need to pretend that they haven’t noticed that he is black.

The insinuation from Huq is that somehow his political beliefs make him less black. As if black people should all feel the same way. So I think making any comment about his characteristics based on his race is in fact racist.

And Huq is of a different ethnic background to Kwarteng, by the way.

That doesn’t define racism. Racism is not only about exploiting ‘power’ over another person.

It may not be a definition you agree with, but it’s one that is used extensively throughout academia, and is now accepted as a key philosophy of the analysis of Racism. Again; please read the linked article.

I have just discovered that KK’s real name is ‘Akwasi Addo Alfred Kwarteng’.

I only found out because I wanted to know what his middle name is, I was hoping it was Kevin. I’m not sure if being amused by the thought that his initials might be KKK makes me a racist, I suspect it might.

Although Triple A Kwarteng, or AAA Kwarteng, sounds pretty cool to me.

The insinuation from Huq is that somehow his political beliefs make him less black. As if black people should all feel the same way.

I think you’ve also misunderstood things. Huq’s words were indeed clumsy and inappropriate. But her intention was clearly to imply that Kwarteng, in carrying out Tory policy, was betraying not only his own ‘Blackness’, but many of the very people such policies are designed to discriminate against. This, I feel, should be the focus of this issue, not whether or not a Brown woman is guilty of racism. Yes, she’s an idiot, in the same way Diane Abbot was when she stupidly ascribed certain physical features to people of an entire nation. Neither, however, are guilty of racism. Both comments are racially offensive, for sure. But actual Racism means both women suffer far more prejudice, discrimination, abuse and threats because of the colour of their skin. This is fact. There isn’t a single UK politician who has suffered more racist abuse than Diane Abbot. This is another fact. I think it far more important to concentrate on such facts, than bleating on about what White men think is racist or not. Labour could well have turned this into an opportunity to attack racist Tory policies, instead, they’ve scored yet another spectacular own goal.

Or at least black people can call him an Uncle Tom, white people probably need to pretend that they haven’t noticed that he is black.

🤣

Brilliant.

Labour could well have turned this into an opportunity to attack racist Tory policies, instead, they’ve scored yet another spectacular own goal.

Yup, as well as tackling real racism within the Labour Party instead of harassing and suspending a brown woman for making a daft comment for which she immediately apologized

Ex-Labour councillors mount pressure on Keir Starmer to stamp out racism in party

Senior staff members were found to be embroiled in exchanging WhatsApp messages that contained “undoubted overt and underlying racism and sexism” directed towards black MPs like Diane Abbott.

““I don’t believe for a minute that Keir Starmer has any serious intention of tackling racism within the Labour Party. And the reason I say that is because a lot of black people are on the left of the Labour Party and Keir Starmer is on the right,” she told The Voice.

“The racist bullying of black people which culminated in the attacks aimed at Diane Abbott is simply a useful way of getting rid of people on the Left.””

harassing and suspending a brown woman for making a daft comment for which she immediately apologized

Fixed that for you.

There isn’t a single UK politician who has suffered more racist abuse than Diane Abbot.

Very true. And other abuse as well. All egged on by many voices in the press and media, with no where near enough support from other politicians. Too many kept quiet on Conservative benches especially. The last PM just make jokes, in parliament, about the abuse that she and other MPs received with tacit and explicit support from his supporters in the papers. He did nothing to shut them down.

Fixed that for you.

What you’ve actually done, is crossed out the bit that says ‘brown’. Why? Are you denying Rupa Huq’s ethnicity? Do you believe her ethnicity and cultural heritage have nothing to do with this situation?

I was just suggesting that her language shouldn’t be excused by her not being white. But my key point was that Starmer has not “harassed” her, he has suspended her. That suspension is unlikely to result in further action, because of her swift and unqualified apology. I hope that is the case anyway, she’s a good MP who needs to consider her words far more carefully… it goes with job… especially for Labour MPs who are always held to a far higher standard than others.

The insinuation from Huq is that somehow his political beliefs make him less black. As if black people should all feel the same way. So I think making any comment about his characteristics based on his race is in fact racist.

And Huq is of a different ethnic background to Kwarteng, by the way.

100%

Huq’s words were indeed clumsy and inappropriate. But her intention was clearly to imply that Kwarteng, in carrying out Tory policy, was betraying not only his own ‘Blackness’…

Betraying his ‘blackness’? So there are certain things he should do because he is black? He’s not allowed to be a Tory because he is black? This is racism FFS.

I was just suggesting that her language shouldn’t be excused by her not being white

But doesn’t that have some bearing on why she made such comments? IE; that as a member of a minority which is routinely discriminated against, she felt that the potential negative impact of Kwarteng’s actions warranted criticism? I personally wouldn’t ‘excuse’ her comments, but I at least try to understand where she’s coming from. She could quite easily have made the same point far more eloquently and without resorting to clichéd tropes.

She could quite easily have made the same point far more eloquently and without resorting to clichéd tropes.

Agreed. I hope the suspension is lifted as soon as possible… but that’s not the same as damning Starmer for suspending her. He had little choice but to act swiftly as leader of the Party. The alternative was it drowning out all the attempts made at conference to get the Labour message out to the public. Those chances are few and far between for opposition parties. She nearly blew it and a swift response was politically essential.

Betraying his ‘blackness’? So there are certain things he should do because he is black? He’s not allowed to be a Tory because he is black? This is racism FFS.

No; this is just you totally not understanding something. Nobody has said he’s ‘not allowed to be a Tory because he’s Black’. That’s entirely in your head.

So there are certain things he should do because he is black?

I think many from ethnic minorities might think that someone from their own ‘tribe’ might seek to look out for them, and act favourably, politically. As Kwarteng’s actions will undoubtedly negatively impact many minority groups in this country, I think it’s only reasonable that many people might feel ‘betrayed’.

Okay this has been dragging on for a while now so can we agree that instead of calling Kwasi Kwarteng ‘superficially black’, which is apparently so racist that a black woman has been suspended from the Labour Party for having been secretly recorded saying it, that we can call him an ‘Uncle Tom’?

That’s actually a good comparison.

I think many from ethnic minorities might think that someone from their own ‘tribe’ might seek to look out for them, and act favourably, politically. As Kwarteng’s actions will undoubtedly negatively impact many minority groups in this country, I think it’s only reasonable that many people might feel ‘betrayed’.

Absolutely, that’s what I was getting at.

He had little choice but to act swiftly as leader of the Party. The alternative was it drowning out all the attempts made at conference to get the Labour message out to the public.

I disagree, the alternative was the usual suspects crying RACIST and dragging the party through the mud for not doing anything about it during the conference, afterwards and for however long he remains leader.

But her intention was clearly to imply that Kwarteng, in carrying out Tory policy, was betraying not only his own ‘Blackness’, but many of the very people such policies are designed to discriminate against.

Your words Configuration, then you said this:

No; this is just you totally not understanding something. Nobody has said he’s ‘not allowed to be a Tory because he’s Black’. That’s entirely in your head.

So he’s allowed to be a Tory but not allowed to carry out Tory policy because it betrays his blackness? Being a Tory betrays his blackness? Do you stand by these words? This is racism by your definition or any other definition. FFS it’s you not understanding not me- Do you need me to walk you through it?

To move away from the current debate on race. The Labour canvassers were out today in our marginal ward of a marginal seat. We only saw the deeply flawed Tom Hunt’s representatives last time around as the opposition had lost hope. Could be a busy couple of years answering the door.

Unfortunately the new boy from the ‘left’ looks a bit too fresh-faced for my liking. Hunt’s major drawback was being a career politician parachuted in from Cambridgeshire.

It may not be a definition you agree with, but it’s one that is used extensively throughout academia, and is now accepted as a key philosophy of the analysis of Racism.

Its one definition of many used in acedemia. Thete are others and many would argue the power aspect is superfluous.

I can find you many othet definitions i cluding what is taught in thw nhs.

Your insistance on using such a narrow definition and asserting its the only accepted one shows rigidity of thinking and a closed mind

Uk law for example is much wider in what it considers racism

Being a Tory betrays his blackness? Do you stand by these words?

@ctk he didn’t say that. You’re taking two separate statements that aren’t mutually exclusive and trying to make them so.

Splitting hairs a bit?

But her intention was clearly to imply that Kwarteng, in carrying out Tory policy, was betraying not only his own ‘Blackness’, but many of the very people such policies are designed to discriminate against.

So he can be a Tory as long as he doesn’t carry out policy because if he does he betrays his own blackness- ffs.

Of course he can be a Tory, and of course he carry out Tory policies. He just needs to be criticised for it.

In the same way as Priti Patel was criticized for being a Tory and carrying out Tory policies, especially in Patel’s case immigration policies.

The fact that these politicians are black/brown clearly adds an extra dimension to the criticism. If you want to pretend that you can’t see that then that’s up to you.

On another note more related to the thread’s topic, does anyone else think that Starmer might be spending the weekend perusing wallpaper samples following the opinion polls of the last few days?

Configuration

I really like that definition and it gives a good explanation for some difficult things but it does not cover every eventuality and excludes some things that are racist

I just wanted to add that as my previous post sounded like i was rejecting it. Im not and i like it but its not the whole or only answer

He would be daft if he was. Many a slip twixt cup and lip but im sure he is at least beggining to hope….

The fact that these politicians are black/brown clearly adds an extra dimension to the criticism. If you want to pretend that you can’t see that then that’s up to you

Extra dimension? Are you saying it’s worse when a black person makes tax cuts for the rich because they are black? What is this extra dimension?

FFS it’s you not understanding not me- Do you need me to walk you through it?

No thanks. I have no desire to try to wade through the mire that is your own opinion. You’ve already accused me of making a racist statement; I fear that any ‘discussion’ with you would not conclude positively unless I agreed with you. Which I’m not going to.

@ctk he didn’t say that. You’re taking two separate statements that aren’t mutually exclusive and trying to make them so.

Thank you. Why is it that some people understand, yet others don’t?

Your insistance on using such a narrow definition and asserting its the only accepted one shows rigidity of thinking and a closed min

I never asserted anything of the kind. In this particular context, such a definition is one that works best to try to analyse and explain the situation.

Of course he can be a Tory, and of course he carry out Tory policies. He just needs to be criticised for it.

In the same way as Priti Patel was criticized for being a Tory and carrying out Tory policies, especially in Patel’s case immigration policies.

The fact that these politicians are black/brown clearly adds an extra dimension to the criticism. If you want to pretend that you can’t see that then that’s up to you.

+1.

Come on then chaps explain this extra dimension to an Eton educated black chancellor making tax cuts for the rich.

You’ve shown no willingness to enter into constructive discussion, so I feel people would be wasting their time. If you feel you’ve already made up your mind, and are ‘right’, then all power to you.

I don’t see this discussion going anywhere…

…it’s an impossible situation, and Labour acting fast to stop it dominating all their own interviews was politically astute. They’d still be going around in circles in all interviews about “was it racist” right now if they hadn’t. Did you see the Newsnight one the night before Starmer made his clear statement? A waste of everyone’s time (and one of the few moments in that conference week where the Tory comms team were probably high fiving each other).

Configuration read my post above where i try to explain my thinking a little more ckearly

It certainly read as if you were saying this is the one true and only acceptable definition. Limitations of text based discussion ?