AIBU to agree with Diane Abbott

I don’t think the amount of criticism DA gets for sending her son to private school when compared to Tony Blair who did the same is justifiable.

This comment doesn't actually make sense.

I cannot stand Diane Abbott, she has a lazy, patronising manner which riles me, but she has said that people visiblybof a different race (e.g. black people) experience a different sort of racism than those who’s race is not visually obvious (travellers, Jewish people etc). She has a point, doesn’t she? Am I missing something here?

Obviously all types of racism are utterly abhorrent.

I’m quoting the letter. ‘Abbott wrote that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience prejudice”. “This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable,” she said.’

So me saying black people are the victims of structural, institutional and systemic racism is setting up a hierarchy but you saying that Jews are is not setting up a hierarchy?

It’s due to a recent interview where she doubled down on it.

Why is pointing out that the black community are often victims of structural, institutional and systemic racism ‘setting up a hierarchy’ but pointing to statistics isn’t?

You: "It’s possible to see the black community as the most targeted and disenfranchised and as the victims of structural, institutional and systemic racism AND know that racism toward Jews, Muslims, Asians exists as well. The two are not mutually exclusive"

My reply: "The Black community are not the most targeted. Jewish people are the most disproportionately targeted"

You were trying to create a hierarchy of racism, I was just correcting a false statement in your post.

Hopefully @SharonEllis will be along to ask you why you are setting up a hierarchy of racism.

Looking at statistics is not setting up a hierarchy, is one measure for understanding experience. It is in response to Abbott minimising racism against Jews and others and using different criteria. Its the criteria that is the key bit in setting up the hieratchy.

This is from a long time ago. Why bring it up now?

Hopefully @SharonEllis will be along to ask you why you are setting up a hierarchy of racism.

This is from a long time ago. Why bring it up now?

Hopefully @SharonEllis will be along to ask you why you are setting up a hierarchy of racism.

The Black community are not the most targeted. Jewish people are the most disproportionately targeted. Abbott encourages this distorted picture.

What a fantastic article, thank you for sharing.

What I find hard to believe about a woman who's been in politics with an emphasis on racial justice, who attended Cambridge and must be well informed could possible say the things she says.

"Jews were not put at the back of the bus in segregationist America"

What a staggering thing to say. Starting with the fact that Jews weren’t segregated on buses in 1950s Alabama because by then, millions had just been gassed, shot, or starved in camps across Europe.

Jews were subject to forced ghettoisation across Europe for centuries, bans from owning land, holding professions, or living among Christians, expulsions from dozens of countries, pogroms, blood libels, mass killings - long before the Nazis. That's segregation and worse.

Then, in the 20th century: the Holocaust, the single most industrialised genocide in history which included Nuremberg style laws throughout most of Europe as well and those appearing in the middle east through the 40s and 50s.

How can she have such historical amnesia?

The subtext is that Jews were "white enough" to avoid real racism - a modern twist that ignores how Jews were explicitly excluded from whiteness in Western society until very recently (and still are, in many contexts). Nazis didn’t consider Jews “white.” Neither did many in America or Europe.

What makes me feel so deeply sad about it, and about the other POC who share her views is that Jews were deeply involved in the American civil rights movement and were among the most committed non-Black allies.

Jewish lawyers helped fight landmark cases, Jewish activists made up a significant portion of white volunteers in the South. Two Jewish men were murdered alongside a Black activist during Freedom Summer. Rabbis marched with Dr. King, Jewish organisations also provided financial support to the NAACP and other civil rights groups.

To now claim that Jews aren’t worth aligning with erases this long, principled history of solidarity.

Tomiwa Owolade today

Two years ago I wrote a column for The Observer. It was, I thought then, one of the more uncontroversial columns I have written in my career. It had two general points. The first is that Jews can be victims of racism; the second is that any definition of racism that excludes them is worthless and sinister.
Advertisement

Who could possibly object to these points? They are almost so basic as to be not even w8orth expressing. The middle of the twentieth century was indelibly marked by one of the most gruesome acts of inhumanity ever perpetrated: the annihilation of European Jewry. And the people who committed this crime – the Nazis and the regimes who collaborated with them – saw Jews not simply as a religious group. They were demonised as a race; atheist Jews were also slaughtered in the gas chambers.
I ask who could object to such a point, but what I really mean is which figure would stoop so low to do so. There are cranks in academia and the media, of course, who may reiterate the nonsense argument that only black and brown people could be victims of racism. But I was astonished, a week after I wrote my column, to learn that a member of Parliament would object to the main points I made. And not just any member of Parliament, but someone as experienced and well-respected as Diane Abbott.
Jews can experience prejudice like “redheads”, she wrote in a letter, but they can’t experience racism. She apologised soon after and was suspended from the Labour Party. But it seems her apology meant nothing in the end, and she has just been suspended again by the Labour Party. The reason? According to Abbott, in a recent interview with the BBC’s James Naughtie, she doesn’t regret her letter from 2023. She added that: “Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism, because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don’t know.”
That Jews cannot be recognised simply by looking at them would be news to those who are verbally and physically abused on the streets.
But there’s something else going on here that needs to be unpacked: it is the notion of a hierarchy of racism. In her original letter to The Observer, Abbott argued that Jews were not put at the back of the bus in segregationist America. Nor were they oppressed in apartheid South Africa. That they were oppressed and victimised in other ways is beside the point; Jews are white, according to this logic, so they can evade the prejudice against black and brown people
have no personal animosity towards Abbott. I sympathise with the racist and misogynistic abuse she has suffered. And I thought her recent stand against assisted dying was brave and principled. More than anything else, I feel sad that someone so ostensibly committed to the cause of anti-racism can embarrass herself in this way. This doesn’t mean I have changed my mind on the article I wrote. In fact I stand by it even more fiercely than before. The piece was written 6 months before October 7, the greatest massacre of Jews since the Second World War, and since then the subsequent orgy of anti-Semitic abuse and violence throughout the world has reinforced the necessity of speaking out against anti-Jewish racism. And it has made it even more important to call out people like Abbott who spread untruths about what constitutes racism.

The first thing people should remember is that it’s up to those who experience antisemitism to determine the language and reality of that.

It’s not the place for anyone else to determine.

Because of the hierarchy of racism that she and others have constructed I suppose

I think Jewish people confuse. Antisemitism sometimes differs in that Jews can be perceived as both "privileged" and "other" simultaneously, and in some contexts, white-passing Jews may not face the same immediate forms of exclusion that visibly racialised groups do. However, historically In many societies, antisemitism has had both structural and systemic components, such as:

• Historical legal discrimination: Jews were excluded from owning land, entering certain professions, or accessing education in many countries.
• Social and institutional exclusion: Jewish communities have been scapegoated, segregated, and expelled, with long-standing myths and stereotypes shaping public policy and opinion.
• State-sponsored violence: Pogroms, the Holocaust, and other acts of mass violence were facilitated by institutions, laws, and governments.
• Cultural narratives and conspiracy theories: Persistent antisemitic tropes—like claims of Jewish control over finance, media, or global affairs—still influence political rhetoric and public discourse.
• Disparities in safety and representation: Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centres often require high levels of security due to persistent threats of violence.

It’s not for Dianne Abbott to decide experiences and language for Jewish people. I wonder why she has continued to try to do that.

What she went to to say is the crucial bit and it follows a well worn path when it comes to anti racists minimising hatred towrads Jewish people.

'But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus.
“In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.”

To say they are not all their lives subject to racism is blatantly untrue.