Aibu to think Mumsnet has issues with black women

[Ghanagirl]

Just that really, I’ve read really horrible comments about Meghan Markle, Alexandra Burke, Serena Williams talented and hardworking individuals who seem to offend some Mumsnetters simply by being beautiful and successful.
I’m not surprised as happens in RL but I guess it’s disappointing as Mumsnet touts itself as a more educated network than netmums

I came upon this interesting article whilst reading this thread. There was something uncomfortable about the constant demands for evidence and proof which i felt was unfair as posters cannot provide this (and those asking know this, although I did my best) all we can offer is our experiences. This article sums it up far more eloquently and succinctly.
Asking for evidence is in itself, racist

AnnaHindrer
Yes that article sums up things perfectly

If there is no proof you can still look for evidence. I am sure there is a lot of racism and sexism around but wanting proof of things is not wrong. As soon as we move away from proof - A is male because of their biology, B has a white father and a black mother, C is 20 stone or 6 stone, D earns £100k, more women than men work less when babies come - then we find it harder to argue things. So if people want to convince others there is racism on MN then it is not unreasonable to say can you just show us a few of the posts that are racist.

However I accept that plenty of people mess around with statistics - there are lies, damned lies and statistics as they say.

Proof Assad used chemical weapons, that Russia used biological weapons in the UK, that Saudis etc downs the twin towers - all these are very important issues; proof a mother is the real mother of the baby she is claiming is hers. I don't think we can really say proof is a bad thing. However I agree people can tamper with or not gather evidence.

Every time I come across such messages that are vague but can be misconstrued or deemed racist I will post it here. This is one one them.

"I know a guy who looks completely and totally typically jewish. But he totally and completely isn't. It's weird actually how he simultaneously manages to look like a dodgy type from the middle east. He always gets stopped at customs and dragged over the coals...but he's just a very nice guy and a musician :)"

It's comments like this one where the writer is oblivious to there stereotypes and negative judgments they place on people.

Given the 2011 census says the UK population is 87% white it's not surprising MN might be the same %. 3% were black. Of course the overwhelming preference is going to be white. How is that racist? I would re-read this one. What you are saying here is that races only has preference for only its race.
What is interesting is that half or more of the people who will be mentioned with be non British and not from the. The majority will be Americans and that is for both men and women. What does that say about your point?

I saw that comment too @quencher interestingly no-one has picked up on it.

No, quencher I wasn't saying that. Statistically I would say most people have a preference for their own race. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Assuming the people on MN follow the UK census population figures a lot will be white and probably fancy white people. I don't know. I don't think that is racist though. You fancy who you fancy.

I don't understand your sentences: "What is interesting is that half or more of the people who will be mentioned with be non British and not from the. The majority will be Americans and that is for both men and women." Where do Americans come into it?

And of course some people fancy people from other races but statistically on the whole I would say it's less otherwise the white population would be less than 87%.

A few years old but this article says mixed race is the fastest growing minority group in the country:

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11205165/Mixed-race-in-the-UK-am-I-the-future-face-of-this-country.html]

And of course percentage wise there are more white celebrities over here, in terms of actors anyway.

Have you pointed out what you say about the comment on the Jewish thread or reported it perhaps? - this comment below:

"I know a guy who looks completely and totally typically jewish. But he totally and completely isn't. It's weird actually how he simultaneously manages to look like a dodgy type from the middle east. He always gets stopped at customs and dragged over the coals...but he's just a very nice guy and a musician smile"

I don't understand your sentences: "What is interesting is that half or more of the people who will be mentioned with be non British and not from the. The majority will be Americans and that is for both men and women." Where do Americans come into it? I was doing something else while posting it.
What I meant was, "half or more of the celebs that will be posted on those 'likes threads' will be non British and mostly Americans. Which will include, both men and women. To say that the population of the uk reflects how many white celebrities gets mention is rubbish. What it actually means is that is that the preference for the 80 something percentage you mentioned is white. That is more societal and probably the amount of exposure they get through the media. But also, let's not kid ourselves that preferences do not reflect race and racism and how the media sells and portrays different groups, because it does. Sometimes, it's not just about our choices we makes but about outside influences.

About the other thread, it was the second one I read when I came on Mn earlier. It's not unusual to come across such comments after two three threads. There is always some idiotic comment based racism. I will probably go back and report it.

quencher-Every time I come across such messages that are vague but can be misconstrued or deemed racist I will post it here. This is one one them."I know a guy who looks completely and totally typically jewish. But he totally and completely isn't. It's weird actually how he simultaneously manages to look like a dodgy type from the middle east. He always gets stopped at customs and dragged over the coals...but he's just a very nice guy and a musician smile" It's comments like this one where the writer is oblivious to there stereotypes and negative judgments they place on people*

The comment could have been worded better but I don't think the intention behind it is racist. Jewish people are replying to the post and as far as I can see, they haven't objected to it. The person making the OP comment might also have Jewish heritage for all you know

I don't think the intention behind it is racist. Jewish people are replying to the post and as far as I can see, they haven't objected to it. The person making the OP comment might also have Jewish heritage for all you know

Does it matter if the intention is there or not? Many racist (or other ists) comments are not intentional. That is the point. Many of us make such comments without even realising we are being something ist (including racist).

The racism in the comment wasn't really aimed at jews, more muslims (which are your stereotypical "middle eastern" type).
But, many people don't complain about these (unintentional) racist (or other ists) comments because otherwise they'd be complaining non-stop. Or it's so ingrained that we don't notice it. Which takes us back to the beginning of the thread when people say they don't notice such comments. They're there. We just don't register them.

Lweji-Does it matter if the intention is there or not?

Yes I think it does. It's called context.
A work colleague of mine once made a comment on a photograph of my great grandparent (I was taking it to be restored that day). It might have been seen by some as racist. But I don't believe the person who made the comment is a racist. They just spoke without thinking and it all came out wrong. I just shrugged it off, because I know she isn't the most articulate person abouts and that she didn't mean to be offensive.
I was pleased she took an interest in the photo and my family roots more than anything and the convesation became about that and I was able to explain the ethnicity of my family. Racist language is always wrong but the problem with tightly restricting speech further is that people then end up saying nothing at all to each other for feqr of causing offence. Apart from overt racism, isn't it better to let people speak, make a small mistake and then have a discussion about it?

edit
fear

isn't it better to let people speak, make a small mistake and then have a discussion about it?

Sure. Just as long as it's not considered racist because there was no intention. It still is.
It's great if it can be discussed and the person who made the comment doesn't dismiss it.

That is the interesting point - how you decide what is racist and what is sexist and what is not? I agree it is not necessarily an issue of whether someone intended it to be racist or if they are nasty people or they knew it was racist - although if they don't then it is probably best not to cause a fuss over it, whereas every time I have ever been in a taxi with a racist driver (sadly far too often) I have always picked them up on it (just as I never witnessed a parent smacking a child without commenting on it - as I also believe smacking is wrong). One asked if I were jewish before launching into his anti Jewish tirade (he was afghan) and the usual ones are some of the white black cab drivers who think because they have someone white in their taxi they can launch forth with racist views.

Alpine's example is a good example -clearly it is racist - it says people are dodgy middle east types and without evidence that there is more of XYZ in the middle east than the UK then the comment is highly likely to be racist.

I do think we tolerate a lot more sexism than racism in the UK although that does mean we should be complacent over racism.

Xenia-That is the interesting point - how you decide what is racist and what is sexist and what is not?

What is acceptable conversation in a mixed working class area, or on a building site might not be acceptable conversation at a middle class Guardian reader dinner party.

Then there is the generation gap. Do elderly people know all the latest politically correct terms? They may think they are using the right words and being polite, but someone else might see it as racist.

There are also differences between the language used by American POC and Black British people.

People in the USA might see criticism of MM in comments from the UK, and be confused that a lot of it comes from people with left wing views, but not understand that a lot of people here , on both the left and the right, who simply don't like the royal family. It isn't personal, it isn't her. It's what she is about to become.

Claudia rankin writes well on this, her piece on serena williams in 'citizen, an American lyric' is breathtaking

Alpine, some of them don't want a back person in the royal family

And indeed Princess Diana had to have a virginity test before marriage whereas Mrs Rachel Engleson (to use the correct English etiquette format for a divorce woman I think) is a virgin and an actress to boot - which in British history meant you were a bit loose, wore ugh wait for it - make up - and if you go back far enough were often involved in prostitution in the English London theatres. It was not the kind of career that was acceptable and we know our earlier monarch who gave up his crown in order to married a divorced woman. So there are those objecting on various levels and I doubt skin colour is top of anyone's list but instead most of us wish them well and these days it is a role about wearing clothes and acting so who could be better at that than an actress?

On the different terminologies - yes they can be hard to keep up with and there are US and Uk differences. My mother in the 1940s said "coloured" and I think at the time that was the police PC up to date correct term just as they used down's syndrome about my sister, not mongol. My parents always tried very hard to use the correct and most acceptable language and that was a useful early lesson for me in trying to do the same.

It is one reason threads about racism and sexism are useful - we can learn what is the best way to describe things.

Missingstreetlife-Alpine, some of them don't want a back person in the royal family

I don't think it's that, because I don't think Europeans, of any class, are as preoccupied by someones race or ethnic origin as much as Americans are.
Being an American might have something to do with it though, which is still wrong of course. Also that she might be a social climber. A big no no here
I quite like her, at least for the moment. I especially like that she has said that she refuses to identify as being black or white.
I'm not a monarchist but will watch to see what her wedding dress is like, flowers, decor at Windsor etc, but apart from that, couldn't care less. I think that's how a lot of people see the royals and always have really.

Terminology is a minefield because it changes. It can be easy to make mistakes when meanings change or have recently changed.

But I'd be more concerned with stereotyping and generalised instead of personal criticism, or criticism that wouldn't be made about a person from another ethnic group.

Or even benign(?) racism.
As an example, my own mother comes from a largely white community. I went to live in London. When DS was born the health visitor came by when she was visiting. After she left, my mother commented, rather patronisingly, that it was good that she had done something with her life. My mother had never met the woman, who was black.