[Politics] Is it OK to say racist things if you're not racist?

[WATFORD zero]

Indeed.

Having an ‘opinion’ and ‘right to speak’ was considered more valid than fact or being racist (unless you were spouting antisemitism).

Many people were emboldened that they could finally call a spade, a spade. Many people loved the fact Boris Johnson set the tone by calling out Muslim women for looking like letter boxes etc.

At its non-ideological core, Brexit was just plain nasty. It allowed a lot of nasty people to feel good about themselves and their racist ideology.

There were also a lot of extremely naive people taken in by that extremist core. However, as facts have become blindingly obvious, they have dropped away, ignoring it and pretending it didn't happen, or having 'no interest' in politics, leaving that insidious core completely exposed for what it is. Unfortunately, we may still have the best part of another year of this, getting more desperate and more extreme.

Don't forget folks, a vote is for life, not just for Christmas

 

[Is it PotG?]

Don't forget folks, a vote is for life, not just for Christmas

Sorry, but that is absolute rhubarb.

Every 5 years or so you get a chance to vote for whomever, irrespective of last time. Very rarely in December I ought to add.

 

[Zeberdi]

that would be an American acedemics' opinon, not widely shared. what common culture, identity or exeriences do you think there is between a Nigerian, a Briton of mixed African and English heritage, a Rasta in Jamaica or a Professor in California? imagine saying these people are all the same, based on their skin colour!

from your previous point about description, i reckon you dont actually agree with the article.

Ok well I did say most people on NSC would not probably understand the nuances of the issues but please don’t be so presumptuous as to tell me what I believe. I am absolutely NOT saying all people with black skin are the same because of the blackness of their skin - exactly the opposite.

Of course I agree with the article that’s why I posted it because it supports my assertion that people with black skin self-identify as ‘Black’ not as an adjective/description of their skin colour but as a definition of personal indentity and content of character ( as I described above). It is not an American academics opinion, it is how we should see blackness and how Black people self-identify. Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I said that the majority of my immediate family are Black. In fact I am staying with them in London now. and spoke to another relative living in Ghana only last night. Black African culture, specifically Ghanaian is part of my life.

Again you have completely inverted the meaning of my comments. The very fact that you think I am lumping Nigerians ( presumably those living in Africa) ( African), Afro-English, Jamaicans ( Afro-Caribbean) and Afro-Americans ( professors) into one socio-ethnic group because they all have the same skin colour (which they don’t btw) betrays your misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about Black communities and it was the opposite of what I was saying. Of course there are different Black communities but to self-identify as being Black has common narratives. You don’t think discrimination, slavery, Institutionalised racism, Apartheid history, Civil Rights struggle, Black music/the arts etc are shared experiences of what it means to be Black?

Afro-Americans have identified themselves to their African origins for over 200 years. There are numerous Black communities in Africa that have tribal/ethnic and religious differences. There are numerous communities of ‘Black British’ with different ethnicities from either New Commonwealth ie the West Indies like the former British Caribbean colonies ( the Windrush generation) and those with an African heritage.

( Btw As I said earlier, most Afro-Caribbeans in the Caribbean don’t actually self-identify as ‘Black’ )

I am not going to get into an internet argument with someone who has no real experience or working knowledge of the issues my post relates to - I suggest perhaps actually talk to some people from Black communities yourself or at least ask a Black person what self-identifying as a Black person means to them - I can assure you the majority will not say ‘I am just like you, a White person just with black skin’.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Unless you're Michael Jackson, of course.

Did he? Or was it just his face?

PS I don't want to know the answer.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

View attachment 178723

If someone 'emerged' on the scene today, looking like that, I suspect they would be pilloried.

Meanwhile, in new news, Gove has decided to tell us all what extremism means:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68560294

Oh, but:

Communities Secretary Michael Gove has unveiled a new definition of extremism - as "the promotion or advancement of... violence, hatred or intolerance" He tells the BBC the new definition will help the government "choose its friends wisely"

But he declines to say whether alleged comments from Conservative donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott would meet the new definition

Gove says there would need to be a "rigorous process" with "due diligence" before making that judgement

So. let's be clear. Hester is not guilty of anything because it would be unfair to condemn him before a rigorous process of due diligence has been completed.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ok well I did say most people on NSC would not probably understand the nuances of the issues but please don’t be so presumptuous as to tell me what I believe. I am absolutely NOT saying all people with black skin are the same because of the blackness of their skin - exactly the opposite.

Of course I agree with the article that’s why I posted it because it supports my assertion that people with black skin self-identify as ‘Black’ not as an adjective/description of their skin colour but as a definition of personal indentity and content of character ( as I described above). It is not an American academics opinion, it is how we should see blackness and how Black people self-identify. Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I said that the majority of my immediate family are Black. In fact I am staying with them in London now. and spoke to another relative living in Ghana only last night. Black African culture, specifically Ghanaian is part of my life.

Again you have completely inverted the meaning of my comments. The very fact that you think I am lumping Nigerians ( presumably those living in Africa) ( African), Afro-English, Jamaicans ( Afro-Caribbean) and Afro-Americans ( professors) into one socio-ethnic group because they all have the same skin colour (which they don’t btw) betrays your misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about Black communities and it was the opposite of what I was saying. Of course there are different Black communities but to self-identify as being Black has common narratives. You don’t think discrimination, slavery, Institutionalised racism, Apartheid history, Civil Rights struggle, Black music/the arts etc are shared experiences of what it means to be Black?

Afro-Americans have identified themselves to their African origins for over 200 years. There are numerous Black communities in Africa that have tribal/ethnic and religious differences. There are numerous communities of ‘Black British’ with different ethnicities from either New Commonwealth ie the West Indies like the former British Caribbean colonies ( the Windrush generation) and those with an African heritage.

( Btw As I said earlier, most Afro-Caribbeans in the Caribbean don’t actually self-identify as ‘Black’ )

I am not going to get into an internet argument with someone who has no real experience or working knowledge of the issues my post relates to - I suggest perhaps actually talk to some people from Black communities yourself or at least ask a Black person what self-identifying as a Black person means to them - I can assure you the majority will not say ‘I am just like you, a White person just with black skin’.

seem to take criticism of a point as direct at you personally, when its about the subject. the use of "Black" as expressed by the article is lumping many diverse cultures together as one, and not something universally accepted. many would say black is a description of what someone looks like not a definition of who they are...

and dont presume you have exclusivity on links to black family.

 

[raymondo]

If someone 'emerged' on the scene today, looking like that, I suspect they would be pilloried.

Meanwhile, in new news, Gove has decided to tell us all what extremism means:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68560294

Oh, but:

Communities Secretary Michael Gove has unveiled a new definition of extremism - as "the promotion or advancement of... violence, hatred or intolerance" He tells the BBC the new definition will help the government "choose its friends wisely"

But he declines to say whether alleged comments from Conservative donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott would meet the new definition

Gove says there would need to be a "rigorous process" with "due diligence" before making that judgement

So. let's be clear. Hester is not guilty of anything because it would be unfair to condemn him before a rigorous process of due diligence has been completed.

I would say "she should be shot" (or similar) could be promotion of violence...but yes, set up a due diligence committee of Tory MPs to discuss that, Mr Gove.
As has been said before, if the donation had been only 500 squids it would already have been returned.

No doubt Gove's due diligence will somehow include taking account of Hester's sincere remorse , and Hunt's statement to the committee that he 'wouldn't want Hester cancelled'... what does that even mean, Hunt??

I find it hard to maintain the energy to argue cogently against the Tory party (I know, that's what they're counting on)...they are so obviously rotten at the top, and probably a long way down the ladder. They continue to cause immense damage to the fabric of this country and society. I despair...bring on the election.
Keep going, Harry .

 

[keaton]

With the two current stories about the government at the moment, it seems odd that wanting to stab an MP doesn't fit their new definition of extremism

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would say "she should be shot" (or similar) could be promotion of violence...but yes, set up a due diligence committee of Tory MPs to discuss that, Mr Gove.
As has been said before, if the donation had been only 500 squids it would already have been returned.

No doubt Gove's due diligence will somehow include taking account of Hester's sincere remorse , and Hunt's statement to the committee that he 'wouldn't want Hester cancelled'... what does that even mean, Hunt??

I find it hard to maintain the energy to argue cogently against the Tory party (I know, that's what they're counting on)...they are so obviously rotten at the top, and probably a long way down the ladder. They continue to cause immense damage to the fabric of this country and society. I despair...bring on the election.
Keep going, Harry .

To me they are an antichrist version of a gift that keeps on giving. The old school tory grandees of the 80s would be shocked and appalled at the value-free opportunism that exemplifies the tory party today. Chancers in parliament, cheered on by demented blue rinsers living in white enclaves, and vile bigoted gammon who blame all their own shortcomings and failures on illegal transgender Islamic asylum seekers. Burn them all. BURN them. Burn them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

seem to take criticism of a point as direct at you personally, when its about the subject. the use of "Black" as expressed by the article is lumping many diverse cultures together as one, and not something universally accepted. many would say black is a description of what someone looks like not a definition of who they are...

and dont presume you have exclusivity on links to black family.

Your writing style is desiccated and sometimes lacks precision, giving the impression of a lack of accuracy. @Zeberdi is a three decimal places man. Let's call it a misunderstanding and move on shall we?

 

[The Clamp]

If someone 'emerged' on the scene today, looking like that, I suspect they would be pilloried.

Meanwhile, in new news, Gove has decided to tell us all what extremism means:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68560294

Oh, but:

Communities Secretary Michael Gove has unveiled a new definition of extremism - as "the promotion or advancement of... violence, hatred or intolerance" He tells the BBC the new definition will help the government "choose its friends wisely"

But he declines to say whether alleged comments from Conservative donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott would meet the new definition

Gove says there would need to be a "rigorous process" with "due diligence" before making that judgement

So. let's be clear. Hester is not guilty of anything because it would be unfair to condemn him before a rigorous process of due diligence has been completed.

It’s okay, I’ve just done it. He’s racist. Not to be made friends with.

Oh no, hang on. He’s given us £10m. Put him on the Winterval card list.

 

[raymondo]

To me they are an antichrist version of a gift that keeps on giving. The old school tory grandees of the 80s would be shocked and appalled at the value-free opportunism that exemplifies the tory party today. Chancers in parliament, cheered on by demented blue rinsers living in white enclaves, and vile bigoted gammon who blame all their own shortcomings and failures on illegal transgender Islamic asylum seekers. Burn them all. BURN them. Burn them.

Absolutely that. A number of the Tory grandees have indeed spoken out against the current regime...but they receive (or seek, perhaps understandably?) little air time.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ok - end of discussion - you telling me what I agree or disagree with is presumptuous and personal ( I didn’t take it as a criticism just corrected you on the error of how you interpreted my posts vis a vis the article - you misunderstand the article, misunderstood my original post in suggesting I didn’t agree with it and clearly just trying to bait an argument.

It is actually not for anyone that is White to ’Blacksplain’ what Black identity means to Black people because White people can never know what it is like to be a Black person so the whole discussion is problematic anyway and certainly not a topic suitable for discussion on a football forum of predominately white people and I’m ending it here.

yes, i misspoke on that "agree" comment.

 

[rippleman]

He hasn't been exonerated by the old bill yet.

Perhaps Abbot, who was denied a chance to speak in parliament during the debacle/debate today (shameful, but probably in labour's best interest, given what she may have said -blaming Starmer no doubt) may start a private prosecution. Or maybe the DPP may act.

Which would be nice.

So you know what Diane Abbott was intending to say at PMQs yesterday had the Speaker not denied her the opportunity to speak. C'mon then....spill.

It's interesting that your vision of a parliamentary democracy is one where an elected MP should be silenced if it suits the Party that you support. That really isn't the way it needs to work.

She may well have been critical of Starmer; he has dragged out the "enquiry" for 11 months now and increasing numbers of Labour supporters, both inside Parliament and outwith are now calling for the whip to be restored. Mind you, having a racist nutjob and financial supporter of the Tory party calling for her to be shot is more likely to be on her mind at the moment.

How Hester's comments do not constitute "racially aggravated incitement to violence" I really don't understand. I would have liked to think that Inspector Knacker would have given him a tug by now.

*shuffles off onto HWT's lengthy ignore list*

 

[Zeberdi]

Meanwhile, in new news, Gove has decided to tell us all what extremism means:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68560294

Oh, but:

Communities Secretary Michael Gove has unveiled a new definition of extremism - as "the promotion or advancement of... violence, hatred or intolerance" He tells the BBC the new definition will help the government "choose its friends wisely"

But he declines to say whether alleged comments from Conservative donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott would meet the new definition - Gove says there would need to be a "rigorous process" with "due diligence" before making that judgement

Let’s unpack that Michael Gove because it sounds as if you have just labelled the Tory Party as an ’extremist’ organisation…

• Promotion of violence - Sunak, Braverman, dog whistling to far right groups to incite violent protests against pro-Palestinian marches; spreading fear and hatred against British citizens with a Palestinian (or more broadly, Muslim identity in a speech disturbingly reminiscent of Trump’s Jan 6 speech, accusing them of ‘tearing apart our democracy’ - no one is doing more than the Tories to undermine democracy with their attempts to ban or curtail the rights to peaceful demonstration and protest.
• Advancement of violence - supporting a war that is looking more and more like genocide in the making to most impartial observers and accusing anyone criticising the levels of civilians casualties or protesting against the conduct of the war as being ‘extremist’
• Advancement of hatred - in a political party rife with Islamophobes and hard right fundamentalists
• Advancement of intolerance - No one has done more to promote intolerance than the Tories, against homeless people (removing tents and calling it a ‘lifestyle choice’, immigrants by removing safe channels of applying for asylum from outside the UK, and UK Muslims with senior Conservatives making racist remarks about the Muslim Mayor of London.
• ’Choosing one’s friends wisely’ by accepting donations from an alleged racist, misogynist and someone with violent attitudes towards others

Of course there would need to be ‘a rigorous process of due diligence’ before making the judgment that the Tories are ‘extremist’ by Gove’s definition - it’s called a General Election - let the people decide.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Let’s unpack that Michael Gove because it sounds as if you have just labelled the Tory Party as an ’extremist’ organisation…

• Promotion of violence - Sunak, Braverman, dog whistling to far right groups to incite violent protests against pro-Palestinian marches; spreading fear and hatred against British citizens with a Palestinian (or more broadly, Muslims identity in a speech disturbingly reminiscent of Trump’s Jan 6 speech, accusing them of ‘tearing apart our democracy’ - no one is doing more that the Tories to undermine democracy with their attempts to ban or curtail the rights to peaceful demonstration and protest.
• Advancement of violence - supporting a war that is looking more and more like genocide in the making to most impartial observers and accusing anyone criticising the levels of civilians casualties or protesting against the conduct of the war as being ‘extremist’
• Advancement of hatred - in a political party rife with Islamophobes and hard right fundamentalists
• Advancement of intolerance - No one has done more to promote intolerance than the Tories, against homeless people (removing tents and calling it a ‘lifestyle choice’, immigrants by removing safe channels of applying for asylum from outside the UK, and UK Muslims with senior Conservatives making racist remarks about the Muslim Mayor of London.
• ’Choosing one’s friends wisely’ by accepting donations from an alleged racist, misogynist and someone with violent attitudes towards others

Of course there would need to be ‘a rigorous process of due diligence’ before making the judgment that the Tories are ‘extremist’ by Gove’s definition - it’s called a General Election - let the people decide.

The age of satire is dead. I fear that some of these goons watched Chris Morris (The Day Today, in particular) and thought 'I'm having some of that'.

So, they have indeed labelled themselves as extremist.

However, this matters not because they have not explained what constitutes a rigorous process of due diligence. This means that Gove has introduced an element of freedom and flexibility into the resolution process such that the can can be kicked not just down the road, but into oblivion, while Jarndyce and Jarndyce debate at length whether hating all black women and wishing one of them dead is an extremist position. Or not.

And Gove, at a stroke, turns parliament into a bleak house.

 

[Zeberdi]

It's interesting that your vision of a parliamentary democracy is one where an elected MP should be silenced if it suits the Party that you support. That really isn't the way it needs to work.

I have to be honest here, I don’t much like Dianne Abbot, I never have but she did have the whip removed last August for saying that Jews, Irish and travellers haven’t suffered racism ‘all their lives’. She is no longer a Labour MP (but is still a supporting member ) so it is much harder to have a voice during PQT - Independent MPs are at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to the Speaker prioritising who to invite to make oral questions - the Opposition (Labour) will get the lion-share of time to respond. Afterwards apparently Starmer went up to Abbot and asked what he could do to help her and she said ‘restore the whip’.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I have to be honest here, I don’t much like Dianne Abbot, I never have but she did have the whip removed last August for saying that Jews, Irish and travellers haven’t suffered racism ‘all their lives’. She is no longer a Labour MP (but is still a supporting member ) so it is much harder to have a voice during PQT - Independent MPs are at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to the Speaker prioritising who to invite to make oral questions - the Opposition (Labour) will get the lion-share of time to respond. Afterwards apparently Starmer went up to Abbot and asked what he could do to help her and she said ‘restore the whip’.

I have read an explanation of people who spoke yesterday. Seemingly, Ed Davey is allowed to speak at 1 in 6 PMQs and this week was his turn. There is also the SNP etc so there wasn't enough time, and, as you said, Dianne Abbott, is an Independent. It's run on party lines, not subject matter.
It's possible that someone like John Bercow or Betty Boothroyd would've allowed PMQs to run over time, but we'll never know.

 

[lawros left foot]

A good thread to post this absolute beauty from Charles Dale

 

[WestYorkshireSeagull]

Just to clarify in case your post is misinterpreted- it would be offensive to call any one Afro-Caribbean unless they had an Afro-Carribean heritage/identity. Ie they are of African heritage but come from the Caribbean. I don’t know many A-Cs but do know a few and they say the majority of black people in the Caribbean don’t consider themselves black.

’Black’ is perfectly fine to call any black person from Africa or with African descent though when referring to them in conversation if it is relevant ie the fact they are black is pertinent to the discussion or point one wants to make.

It is not racist unless it is used in a way as to intend to cause harm ( psychological or physical) or it would be reasonably be likely to do so.
.
My family on one side is black ( not the side of the family that’s Jewish, that would be too much ) - not only do they strongly self-identify as ‘Black’ ( even though they are mixed race ) but would be offended if people circumvented mentioning their colour as if it were the elephant in the room. (We talk about a lot of ‘Black’ and ‘Jewish’ in our family .)

Absolutely I don't disagree with anything you said here. Sounds like a great family who speak openly about sometimes difficult and pertinent topics, much love to all of you.

From the experience of my significant other being 2nd-gen Windrush it's taught me that the term "Black" is too broad a phrase and doesn't do justice to the rich tapestry of their heritage. It's almost impossible to pigeon-hole someone (especially so from the Carribean) into just "black". Her heritage is a mix of Indian/West Asian and African due to the dark and upsetting side of history that Jamaica bares.

"Afro-carribean heritage" or "person of colour" seems to be our lingo atm. But even the latter seems to sit uneasily with my pretty sugar-coated-fairy-dusted mind