Priti Patel

[VeganFeminism]

I'm not sure if feminism is the right place for this, but, at the same time, I think that the treatment of Priti Patel has a lot to do with her sex, so...

Firstly, i'm not really a fan of Patel's politics. Whilst I am politically homeless, I am not a Tory.

However, I find the treatment of Priti Patel to be quite unique, and not in a good way. A few months ago, there were countless stories about her being a "bully". I'm not sure if she is or not, but i do know hat her male counterparts rarely get the same insults thrown at them.

Yesterday, she received a letter from several Labour members (twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1271075607955288064). The letter criticises the way that Patel has discussed her experiences of racism in the UK. It asks her to reflect on her words and impact. I found this letter incredibly patronising. Again, I doubt it would have been sent to her if she were male.

@Needmoresleep

I was referring to the whole democratic process. There will have been a whole bunch of Oxford Old Etonians lining up for Priti's safe seat. And plenty on the party wanting to be Home Secretary.

She is there because they think she will appeal to Tory voters including the Red Wall voters who feel ignored by Labour. Some of those will be BAME.

Part of the reaction to her is because she's a woman, but part is probably because she is a threat. As she is an outlier, not one of Boris' boys, the hope will be that she can be toppled.

Oh you mean her being selected for the seat in the first place, not the elections thereafter? I don't know enough about who she was chosen ahead of to have an informed opinion.

She was returned to ministerial office because she's a loyalist, which Johnson prioritised over experience or competence. And she has plenty of company there.

The Daily Mail has been very, very hostile towards immigrants and I felt uncomfortable reading her DM article. It feels like she is being used as a political tool to distract from other issues at the moment. I dont know much about her but how constructive has she been towards issues such as Windrush etc?

@1forsorrow I think that's a slippery slope. Do Indian men not get conflated with Pakistani men & get racially profiled & seen as terrorists?

@CLCB07

The Daily Mail has been very, very hostile towards immigrants and I felt uncomfortable reading her DM article. It feels like she is being used as a political tool to distract from other issues at the moment. I dont know much about her but how constructive has she been towards issues such as Windrush etc?

She's not been even slightly constructive, and of course there are people attempting to use her as a political tool. But that's a separate issue from her being entitled to say what she likes and from her right not to be treated less favourably because of her sex and skin colour.

@mungrymutt, they might well do now but I don't think so when Priti Patel was growing up, the assuming all muslims are Pakistani's and all Asians are Pakistanis is a fairly new thing. Well it is to me, I grew up in a very multi cultural area and the Indian/Pakistani/Arab and Hindu/Sikh/Muslim communities were quite separate and distinctive maybe less so now.

But if you are right then if Priti Patel's male relative were being wrongly profiled as Muslim terrorists would it be reasonable for Diane Abbot to say, "Well I'm BAME and I don't have that problem." The dumping of anyone with a slightly different complexion to native British into one group is ridiculous. I've heard people say, "Well Boris can't be prejudiced as he has Patel and Sunak in his cabinet." So two British born people whose parents came from East Africa and grandparents came from India proves he isn't prejudiced against anyone? He could still be prejudiced against West Indians, gypsies, Martians or whatever.

I'm not keen on the BAME label for that reason.

I've heard people say, "Well Boris can't be prejudiced as he has Patel and Sunak in his cabinet." So two British born people whose parents came from East Africa and grandparents came from India proves he isn't prejudiced against anyone? He could still be prejudiced against West Indians, gypsies, Martians or whatever.

Yes, absolutely. It's entirely possible to not be white and to also be antiblack, and plenty of black people have said as much.

they might well do now but I don't think so when Priti Patel was growing up, the assuming all muslims are Pakistani's and all Asians are Pakistanis is a fairly new thing. Well it is to me, I grew up in a very multi cultural area and the Indian/Pakistani/Arab and Hindu/Sikh/Muslim communities were quite separate and distinctive maybe less so now

I still vividly remember one of my school friends being called P* by a group of yobs and yelling back that she was a Hindu. This would have been about 1980.

(The rest of the conversation was brilliant... Yob: "Well, you're black...", friend: "you need your eyes testing mate, I'm brown..." Yobs sloped off, tails between legs. She rocked! Mind you, I suppose when you'd been kicked out of your birth country by a totalitarian regime - Uganda under Amin - a bunch of spotty youths on a street corner were small fry.)

@mungrymutt If nothing else there is a difference between say Diane Abbot and Priti Patel when talking about the damage done by the transatlantic slave trade as Diane Abbot has a personal connection to that and Priti Patel doesn't. I don't either it is just a fact so I'm not being critical of her on that, just stating the reality.

The Daily Mail has been very, very hostile towards immigrants

Yes but they are fairly consistent and include all immigrants including white Eastern European immigrants.

I also don’t think you should conflate being anti-immigration with racism. A venn diagram of the two would probably have a lot of overlap but they are different issues.

they might well do now but I don't think so when Priti Patel was growing up, the assuming all muslims are Pakistani's and all Asians are Pakistanis is a fairly new thing. Well it is to me, I grew up in a very multi cultural area and the Indian/Pakistani/Arab and Hindu/Sikh/Muslim communities were quite separate and distinctive maybe less so now.

I doubt that there are many people of Indian origin who lived in the U.K. in the 70s and 80s who didn’t have the “P*” insult shouted at them in the street or playground. I remember my dad being quite bemused by it, as he couldn’t understand where the assumption that he was Pakistani came from or why this was the preferred term of abuse over one that highlighted Indian origin.

@PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock

I've heard people say, "Well Boris can't be prejudiced as he has Patel and Sunak in his cabinet." So two British born people whose parents came from East Africa and grandparents came from India proves he isn't prejudiced against anyone? He could still be prejudiced against West Indians, gypsies, Martians or whatever.

Yes, absolutely. It's entirely possible to not be white and to also be antiblack, and plenty of black people have said as much.

@PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock

Are you suggesting that Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak are 'antiblack?'

When I was at school in the 70s "Paki" was the generic insult for anyone looking as though they were from India or Pakistan. At my school ex Ugandan Hindus were the commonest non white group. Their parents tended to be strict with a strong work ethic and very pro education. The girls were very protected and not allowed out in mixed sex groups

@1forsorrow my best friend is an Indian Hindu & I lost count the numbers of times she was called a "p word" when we were kids. I grew up in a very diverse area & your right the distinctions were different however that doesn't mean a racist makes those distinctions.
My point is imo racism top trumps is a slippery slope, can something be a little bit racist or is it just racist? Also I'm sure I read that Pakistani & Bangladeshi are most likely to live in the most deprived areas of the UK in terms of ethic groups.

@BovaryX they actually may be but not realise it.

If you know anything about the history of the British Empire Indians particularly Hindus were used in African countries to oppress black people.

There is also colourism within Indian societies with dark skinned people at the bottom.

I had an interesting experience growing up as I was the exception, like my older siblings, as we were clever so we had black and Asian friends whose parents and grandparents came from many countries. There as our less intelligent black friends didn't as they were clearly trouble.

There is also colourism within Indian societies with dark skinned people at the bottom.

Would never dispute this but my point is simply that whatever you think of Priti the Guardian image of her & some of the press directed at her are racist & sexist.

@GCAcademic

I don't like Priti but think it's ridiculous the Guardian saw fit to post that image of her. Racism is racism regardless of who the victim is. Then the letter because she not the right kind of Asian, what is the right kind?

The Left doesn’t like East African Asians. Alongside the cartoon of Patel, the Guardian finds it perfectly acceptable to publish racist articles suggesting that East African Asians are the wrong kind of immigrant because they’re apparently predisposed to Toryism:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/how-did-british-indians-become-so-prominent-in-the-conservative-party

To be fair, the Observer (Nick Cohen) did publish a scathing riposte to this, but the fact that the Guardian is happy to publish such racist provocations because a minority group apparently has the temerity not to think along the lines that everyone with pigmented skin should is very telling.

Post after post demonstrating that GCAcademic was right.

Most of the male members of the cabinet members seem equally incompetent, but the attacks do seem less personal.

I find the incoherence of identity politics
isn't conducive to building solidarity.

Of course everyone's experience of racism will be different, however the humanist / modern approach looks for common ground, trying to empathise with or be sympathetic to someone even if you haven't experienced exactly what they have and so on. It fosters understanding and solidarity in the long-term in spite of backgrounds.

Priti Patel repeatedly responded to questions - she indicated that she was appalled by the death of George Floyd, she understood the public anger and that people have a right to protest. She stressed the point that most of the protesters were peaceful, it was a small minority resorting to violence and causing trouble etc which detracts from people's genuine concerns. And that law and order must be maintained, British police are doing their jobs and she will support them and that the US and UK police forces are different etc. All fairly standard Conservative positions and one that I think the majority of people in the UK tend to agree with.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-06-08/debates/212DD2A6-B810-4FDE-B3BD-1642F5BA1E86/PublicOrder#contribution-1596F6A9-1323-4ADB-9A83-4960615B9099

Then she was asked pointed questions that seemed to challenge whether she understood the anger against discrimination, racism etc. I don't know if the underlying intention of the questions was to imply that she didn't understand these issues on a personal level, or that there was an expectation that she would or should understand these issues because of her ethnic background....

Does the Home Secretary actually understand the anger and frustration felt by so many people? Does the Home Secretary recognise that this protest is being led by young people? Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is structural inequality, discrimination and racism in our country? Does the Home Secretary recognise that people want to see action from the Government?

Which prompted Priti Patel to talk about her own experiences to demonstrate that yes, she did have an understanding of racism and prejudice, and politicians on the left don't have a monopoly on these experiences and issues.

She was then sent the letter of how not all racism is the same and therefore her understanding / experiences don't count in the wider discussions around race and inequality.

This is where identity politics falls flat. It demands people support a cause or a certain oppressed group. Then it tells everyone who is not part of that identity group that they have zero understanding of what their experiences are like. If people who have experienced similar issues offer their perspective, then the emphasis is made that because they don't share the same identity label, therefore the experiences are very different and cannot be compared. If you are from within the identity group and offer a different perspective, you are also ignored or dismissed. Yet there's still an expectation that everyone must continue to offer support for the issue or identity group.

It's more likely to cause people to withdraw or take an apathetic approach. If there's no way I could ever understand an issue faced by an identity group, then there's very little motivation for me to feel solidarity or willingness to look for solutions. After all, my only role is being part of the problem.

@NonnyMouse1337 her response was tone deaf and made it clear she didn't understand the racism she experienced is different to those from other minority groups particularly black people.

Shaun Bailey, the Conservative Mayoral candidate for London, for once hit the right note when he was interviewed on BLM. It probably helps that he is black.

It's more likely to cause people to withdraw or take an apathetic approach. If there's no way I could ever understand an issue faced by an identity group, then there's very little motivation for me to feel solidarity or willingness to look for solutions. After all, my only role is being part of the problem.
Entirely agree, identity politics is nonsensical in practical political terms.

@mungrymutt The Guardian is staffed by white people who are privately educated and Oxbridge graduates, so I'm surprised that people think they can never be racist. I've personally pulled The Guardian up in the past on a photo of Muslim women of colour. The response was to remove the picture and send me a rude email in reply.

When I've pulled the BBC up the response has never been rude.

The Guardian are also completely unaware of the nuances in relations between different ethnicities. It doesn't help that while the BBC does permanently employ a diverse work force The Guardian doesn't.

This is where identity politics falls flat. It demands people support a cause or a certain oppressed group. Then it tells everyone who is not part of that identity group that they have zero understanding of what their experiences are like.

Yes!!!

My point is imo racism top trumps is a slippery slope, can something be a little bit racist or is it just racist? Also I'm sure I read that Pakistani & Bangladeshi are most likely to live in the most deprived areas of the UK in terms of ethic group

Is it top trumps to say my experience, as an Irish Catholic, is different to a school friend who was Jewish, or my husband who is black, or my friend who is Sikh? We all just experience the exact same thing? So in the 70s when I got abuse because of the IRA bombings that was different to my husband's experience, that isn't to say it is better or worse but if you want to know what an Irish Catholic experience looked like it would be much more useful to ask me, if you want to know what it was like growing up as a black child in a very white area in the 1950s I would only be able to tell you what my husband has told me, much better for you to ask him.

So Priti Patel might have a different view than the descendant of slaves when it comes to statues of slave traders. She might have darker skin than I do but I don't think her view is any more relevant than mine and it is less than my husband's or my childrens'. That doesn't mean she isn't entitled to a view or that I'm not entitled to a view but yes if you like top trumps the descendants of slaves win. However, it is important to remember that even the descendants of slaves won't all have the same view. My husband, just as an example, loves Fawlty Towers and doesn't want it censored even if the Major used an offensive word in one episode and even though that word has been used in an offensive way to him.

[quote BeforeIPutOnMyMakeup]@NonnyMouse1337 her response was tone deaf and made it clear she didn't understand the racism she experienced is different to those from other minority groups particularly black people.

Shaun Bailey, the Conservative Mayoral candidate for London, for once hit the right note when he was interviewed on BLM. It probably helps that he is black.[/quote]
Yes, I can imagine a black Conservative would able to strike a better note in such exchanges.

If I understand it correctly, the concept of structural racism is a viewpoint of the Left. I don't think I've come across anyone on the Right (yet) who subscribes to this framework, though I haven't listened to any black British Conservatives.
Therefore the question
Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is structural inequality, discrimination and racism in our country?
feels like a very loaded as misleading one. Many on the Right absolutely acknowledge racism takes place. They however disagree or are less likely to be inclined towards thinking that racism can be structural.
Happy for anyone on the Right to correct me!

@1forsorrow Take an Irish catholic during the Troubles, one who has grown up in Dublin will have different experiences to one who grew up in London. The one who grew up in Belfast will have different experiences to those. Then within that the one who grew up in a working class neighbourhood like Crumlin road will have had a different experience to someone growing up in a more middle class area. Then there will be differences regarding gender. I'm not sure anyone's experience is ever the same as anyone else's. I think top trumps is reductive when is comes to tackling racism.

Do you not think the cartoon & coverage directed at Priti is racist?