Is Diane Abbott right that only Black people experience racism and other ethnic groups experience prejudice?

Great point!

This.

But the truth isn't always pleasant or acceptable.

DA is not only a racist she doesn’t even know what racism is so she’s ignorant and not particularly intelligent.

“Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group”

Not colour of skin.

Just a point about the genetics, Jewish people in general (sweeping generalization coming) are relatively similar genetically, suggesting they have kept in smaller communities and not inter-married as extensively out of the culture as much as some other groups in the past 600-800 years, it's a complex argument though that even geneticists don't agree on, but there is a genetic coherence there. Icelandic people are also very genetically similar as well.

I've also seen awful racism towards Roma/Romani people in Europe, mainland and Eastern Europe, and non-Roma people in those countries are highly attuned to their looks to be able to spot them as again they have different genetic/ethnic groupings from different areas prior to migration, so it is not true that only black African/Afro-Caribbean groups are identifiable genetically or by their appearance- and I do think that makes groups more vulnerable. Romani people in my husband's country are terribly discriminated against and often live in awful encampments, are openly looked down on and so on.

To that extent, I know what DA was trying to say although she made a pigs ear of it and managed to insult/dismiss racism against other groups as well as drag red-heads into it...

She didn't say that though did she? There's no reason to exaggerate.

I can't think of an example of stupidity on a par with "red heads get discriminated as bad as Jewish people"

Johnson hasn't got away with it scot free if you include the fact that it is now associated with him forever. You mentioned it here for example.

If she's going to make the US her point of reference she might like to consider that many of the original indigenous Americans are no darker skinned than white Europeans. Go and tell them they don't suffer racism.

Stupid women.

I was asking you because I had had the impression you wanted terms like “race” or “ ethnicity” removed from the terms of categorisation for purposes of this discussion.

I don't believe I mentioned the term "ethnicity" at all.

I'm not really in the business of telling people what terminology they should use. I just don't personally believe that it is a good idea to attempt to divide people up into fixed "race" categories. I don't think there is any evidence that humans divide neatly (or even messily) into biological racial groups. I think historically people who sought to divide other people into different types of human based on skin colour and appearance did so because they believed that biologically some people ("races") were superior to other people. This allowed them to treat those who they perceived to be inferior in despicable ways. Personally I think this is an idea we should move away from. In my post I was just stating my surprise that I was possibly in a minority in my thinking.

Out of interest are you using "race" and "ethnicity" as synonyms?

Sorry to hear about that experience.

In terms of the race / redheads angle on this thread, I've heard it claimed that redheads need almost 20% more anaesthetic than people with dark hair, which seems to confirmed by this study (with a very small sample): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1362956/

@Signalbox aren't ALL inherited genetic traits ultimately mutations and evolutions though? I'm not sure how this is in conflict with the statement that different races have different biological traits. White oriole fir example are white because of environmental changes

ScrollingLeaves · Today 18:54

Signalbox · Today 16:47
I'm surprised by the number of people on this thread using the term 'race' and 'races' to describes different peoples. I thought that had died out decades ago and it was common knowledge that humans are one 'race' and ethnicity is a more accurate way to differentiate between people (although even that has blurred edges).

Me too. Categorising people into "races" seems like a bad idea to me. Haven't we done that once before and it didn't work out so well?

I had answered:

“As this thread is about active racism/prejudice practised against certain people - who can be made out as targets by certain persecutors - perhaps you would like to suggest some terms for what it is that makes them able to be picked out for harassment and abuse from the mass of other people?”

Signalbox · Today 19:20
People are targeted by racists for various reasons. Skin colour is probably the most common reason but also facial features, clothing, etc. Not sure why you are asking me though?

I was asking you because I had had the impression you wanted terms like “race” or “ ethnicity” removed from the terms of categorisation for purposes of this discussion.

So I am asking you to suggest alternative terms.

If you talk about skin colour and facial features that is normally taken to mean a description based on race or ethnicity, and clothing often denotes a race, ethnicity, culture or religion.

My experience is 40 years ago. When in labour with my daughter I was accused of being too wedded to the gas and air by a woman doctor who thought I was making a fuss (in transition) and was left on my own for what seemed like hours on end. I am white. Midwives and doctors routinely ignore what labouring women are saying and what colour you are makes little difference. The woman doctor who accused me of using too much gas and air was Asian, as it happens.

Precisely. 'I think what she was trying to say was ...'

Every single time she opens her mouth!

This is my whole issue with Diane Abbot. Basically, everything she says, I'm like 'I think you had a point in there somewhere ... but you made a right pig's ear of it!' However, if she hasn't learnt in 40 years on the job, doesn't seem much hope now!

People are targeted by racists for various reasons. Skin colour is probably the most common reason but also facial features, clothing, etc. Not sure why you are asking me though?

I'm getting quite lost in this whole conversation. Today, Starmer said the Labour party would never accept that there was some sort of hierarchy of racism. But isn't that the whole premise of the privilege concept? That there are hierarchies? People have been cancelled for trying to claim there are no hierarchies. No someone gets cancelled for following this to its logical conclusion?

but I think what she was trying to say is that black people experience racism in a different way than white groups

I don't think many would disagree, but that isn't what she said. She said other groups do not experience racism. Now we can fill in gaps and make assumptions about what she was trying to get at but ultimately the only thing we have is her words and those words completely dismissed other peoples experiences

That is was Signalbox
Me too. Categorising people into "races" seems like a bad idea to me. Haven't we done that once before and it didn't work out so well?

Signalbox · Today 16:47
I'm surprised by the number of people on this thread using the term 'race' and 'races' to describes different peoples. I thought that had died out decades ago and it was common knowledge that humans are one 'race' and ethnicity is a more accurate way to differentiate between people (although even that has blurred edges).

Me too. Categorising people into "races" seems like a bad idea to me. Haven't we done that once before and it didn't work out so well?

As this thread is about active racism/prejudice practised against certain people - who can be made out as targets by certain persecutors - perhaps you would like to suggest some terms for what it is that makes them able to be picked out for harassment and abuse from the mass of other people?

The old "three racial group" concept was shown to be incorrect years ago, although it was held as a scientific theory right up until the late 20th century.

It comes from the idea of trying to divide and identify sub species by taxonomy, cataloguing differences and plotting them to show different sub types to any given species.

The problem was that if you try to do it seriously with humans, even using fairly basic physical features, you don't end up with three groups, you end up with dozens.

Then along comes DNA and further muddies the waters, as humans are proven to be all inter-compatible sexually, and have moved around procreating for thousands of years, unsurprisingly ancestral DNA from someone from Ipswich can turn up in Japan etc.

From a scientific standpoint inter-racial reproduction is no bad thing as it spreads the gene pool nice and wide.

But science is rather a cold blunt object and doesn't scratch the surface of more esoteric things like religious belief and traditional societal behaviours.

Diane has done what she has done before, has form for, tried to explain her view of a particular situation and managed to really mangle it up, which really is a gift to the labour bosses who were no doubt itching to see the back of her before the next election.

I have read DA's letter, and already said it was ill thought out, partly because referencing the civil rights era U S is not relevant to the UK, but I think what she was trying to say is that black people experience racism in a different way than white groups. The red headed comment was daft, but I think she is right that being black ( in the UK, now) comes with a unique set of challenges where assumptions are made instantly about people based solely on being black.
All the twisty turny arguments in the world won't make that simple fact untrue.
I also can't quite believe that Boris Johnson was allowed to be PM, as a known old school racist, and gets away with his comments scot free. Well, I can believe it but I wish it weren't true.