I did before I replied to you, and I didn’t see anything matching that description
It’s is quite clear from the thread who I was responding to on the subject of Diane Abbott’s comments and was simply expressing a view that I find it disappointing people are seeking to justify her comments and actions, and portraying her as the victim in all this. As per my original post above, James O’Brien, who can hardly be considered biased in this regard, summed it up perfectly by saying she is either a liar or stupid.
Calling out racism apologists so bravely that you’re not even willing to say who you’re calling out.
1 Like
So you’re saying Diane Abbott made racist remarks?
Yes, and Diane Abbott acknowledged this herself by issuing an apology and by withdrawing the comments she previously made which enabled her to stand at the last General Election.
Did I miss her apologising for being racist?
How exactly was she racist, in your opinion specifically?
It’s insensitive absolutely, but racist? Come on. That wasn’t even your original statement either (‘Caused offence’)
Yes. She issued an apology and said she wholly and unreservedly withdrew her remarks. She also tried to suggest the incident was down to sending an initial draft of her article in error. This meant she was reinstated as a candidate for Labour at the General Election.
By issuing an apology and by wholly and unreservedly withdrawing her comments, Diane Abbott acknowledged this herself. For the record, I also think her comments were racist. I also object to the suggestion that there is a hierarchy of racism - any form of racism is unacceptable, full stop.
She never suggested that the letter she wrote was, itself, racist.
You can imply that if you wish, but that doesn’t make it true.
She equated antisemitism with the prejudice experienced by people with ginger hair…
You may want to take a look at our country’s history…
Perhaps you would like to elaborate
You keep saying this as if people here are suggesting that one kind of racism is greater than the other.
That’s not the case - Abbott & others are saying certain groups can’t escape racism because their race is quite visible on their skin while other groups can blend in by virtue of having white skin and can thereby escape overt racism.
That doesn’t mean there is a hierarchy (unless I missed some quote) and one group’s racism is more acceptable.
You have essentially argued against the point you were trying to make
The British Empire enslaved mostly africans, while the British Empire also engaged in indentured servitude, this system mostly effected Indians, Chinese and White Europeans (Notably the Irish). Indentured servants were much more frequent post-slavery but it existed also during slavery.
This was very notable in the Caribbean, In Barbados the British wrote code of law around slaves which made a clear distinction not only how they should be managed but that they weren’t even human, just pure property. No such thing like this existed for indentured servants.
Now, we should be really clear the indentured servants (particularly the Indians) were treated horrifically, in most cases it wasn’t even voluntary, they were threatened for coerced into this. But it’s really clear who got the worse end of the stick here. Doesn’t make what happened to indentured servants acceptable in anyway but one should ask why Black people got the worse end of it? Might have something to do with how they were viewed…
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that I am not going to defend any of the examples you refer to above, and nor was I seeking to defend of any this within any of my previous posts.
I wasn’t asking nor expecting you to defend it. You objected to a concept that existed in history. I gave you an example.
And the past should never be used to justify people’s actions or comments today.
What in the bumbaclart are you talking about now?
Seriously, you’re stressing me out.