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.

She might have darker skin than I do

You know something? There have been posts on here advocating an apartheid era South Africa system of racial categories to determine who is and who is not permitted to discuss their experience of racism. Priti Patel has been depicted as a cow with a ring through her nose in the Guardian. She has been called a conut. But that's okay because she's a Conservative. She hasn't really experienced racism, her experiences are not authentic. Her family had the great privilege of being expelled from Uganda because of racism. But she is privileged. It is suggested that both her and Rishi Sunak are racist but don't know it. Zero evidence to support this accusation, except a snide insinuation that they carry collective guilt for Britain's imperial history. Some of the people clapping like seals at this are some of the most privileged 0.0001 percent on the planet. This is a narrative which seeks to divide and entrench, not improve and advance. It's quite astonishing.

I admire the way Priti Patel will not bend to the pressure of the 'only accepted response' at this time. She is receiving vile abuse for it, and yet she is persisting.

I see parallels with the TRAs and BLM movements, in that there is a a 'right think' which must be parroted exactly, and even to raise a question is heresy, and people must be shamed and the fear of that shame, keeps people quiet and obedient.

And confused: thinking 'but I never had anything against Trans people or black people, I just had a few questions of what seemed a complex issue, and now I'm a TERF and/or a racist.

It's dangerous stuff, because those silenced people will take their suppressed anger to the ballot box.

Good to at least see the discussion on this thread though. IRL I'm finding no open discussion.

@mungrymutt but do you think an Irish Catholic from wherever has more likely lived the experience of anti Irish feeling than a Nigerian? If you think differently I can only say I'm surprised.

I don't tend to follow things like twitter or fb so I only hear what is on TV and I don't think she actually gets more abuse than some of the men. I think Dominic Cummings is probably the most hated and abuse, he's a white man, Matt Hancock seems to get ridiculed and he's also a white man. I'm only going on MN as I said I don't actually see anything else other than on TV. The cartoon isn't great but then I don't know what the artists work is typically like, might be way out of line for his normal work or extreme. Judging things in the abstract isn't very reliable. If she finds it offensive then I think it is reasonable to get an apology just like I think Boris Johnson should apologise for things like water melon smiles even if he didn't mean to be offensive.

If you think being BAME means you know as much about another ethnic groups experience as they do I can only say I disagree.

In other words you take a certain situation and twist it to what you want it to be. Social hierarchy is important until its when it's one you fall foul of 🙄Feminism good. Anti-racism bad. Trans people bad. Men bad.

?

I would think that it's pretty generally accepted that not all social hierarchies are the same. Can you not think of two systems of government or social structures that differ significantly in their fairness or how they treat their citizens.

@BovaryX yes take things out of context and twist them how you will. She isn't of the ethnic group that is descended from slaves, neither am I, neither of us has the right to tell the descendants of slaves how they should feel or behave anymore than they should tell her how she should feel about her family being forced out of Uganda. Different experiences, both horrible but she is connected to one and not the other.

The making of BAME as a catch all isn't helpful.

Actually Bovary if you are suggesting I'd favour apartheid you are being very offensive. My husband is black, I am white, my children are mixed. Under apartheid my marriage would be a crime and I wouldn't be able to live with my husband or my children. So yes accuse me of lots of things but don't you bloody dare accuse me of that.

I will leave you all to your support of Priti.

@1forsorrow

I am calling out the idea that there should be an apartheid era South Africa criteria to determine who is and isn't allowed to speak about racism. If you are incapable of seeing the racism against Priti Patel and the attempt to delegitimise her response to that? So be it.

Not in that post I wasnt, no.

@Iforsorrow

You are attempting to categorize people in terms of colour as to whether we can discuss the racism we have experienced. I find that offensive. You are the only person in this thread who has used the n word.

I used the abusive word that was used offensively to members of my family. Sorry if you are too sensitive for that, some of us experience it in real life. But let's pussy foot around, pretend that anyone BAME has an equal connection to slavery and slave traders cos you know someone might feel left out.

I haven't said people can't discuss it, twisting again? I've said not everyone who is BAME has the same connection to slavery, the same emotional response and we should listen to the people who have and not try to tell them what they should feel and not let others dominate the debate.

cos you know someone might feel left out

It's great that you, a white woman, can sneer at the experience of Priti Patel and those from her background. Your opposition to racism is admirable.

I will leave you all to your support of Priti

I can’t see anyone supporting Priti’s policies. People are arguing that opposition to her policies should be based on substance, and not on the race or sex of the person who holds them.

The cartoon isn't great but

Says it all really.

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.

I'm not sure this is true, I would say that they may tend to see the causes of structural racism as somewhat different and emphasise them less.

I think the disconnect may be that progressives tend to say that looking for the causes or mechanisms underlying structural racism is denying the reality of racism.

Bovary I didn't sneer, why do you make things up? I think a black woman, descended from slaves has a different relationship with the history of slavery than I have or Priti Patel has. As I said, but obviously didn't suit your agenda, Priti Patel will have a different relationship to the expulsion of Asians from Uganda. Unless you think people have no right to their own history I can't see what is wrong with that. Personally I think I am likely to have a more visceral reaction to the Potato Famine and the failures of the British govt than Princess Anne would have. We are both white women, we are both Christian, we are similar ages so no racism, ageism, sectarianism but I think it will mean something more to me than her.

As I've said you can view it differently that's your right and it is my right to think what I think. I deny no one their opinion, I don't judge anyone on race, religion or anything else.

@BovaryX Priti's family were in Uganda due to racism so trying to make out her family were victims doesn't wash with Ugandans and other Africans who had Indians as their administrators, police and put in other positions of power over them in their own countries during colonial times.

As I posted before she was tone deaf. Your response seems the same as you don't appear to understand the complexities of British history and how it has been white-washed.

She is being targeted by Labour because she’s a Hindu female politician who isn’t perceived as particularly popular (even though she is). Labour thought they found an easy target but all their letter has resulted in, is her popularity increasing. They need to remember she was raised in the 70s / 80s by Indo-Ugandan parents who were scapegoated when a similar black centric protest movement came to East Africa - she was never going to keep quiet about her racism.

As I posted before she was tone deaf

@BeforeIPutOnMyMakeup

Translation: She refuses to conform to how the left wing expects her to respond. By the way? It's interesting that you are blaming Priti Patel for Britain's imperial past. Presumably, you think the expulsion of Asians like Priti Patel's family from Uganda was justified?

I've said not everyone who is BAME has the same connection to slavery, the same emotional response and we should listen to the people who have and not try to tell them what they should feel and not let others dominate the debate.

This is true 1forsorrow and I see the logic of your argument against the BAME label which suggests some shared experience of all BAME people.
But the logic of your argument can then be extended to highlight the problem of all identity politics; can all black people be said to have the same experiences? Would someone afro caribbean feel the same way about slavery as someone from a privileged Ugandan family for instance? Will all black people have experienced racism in the same way? will they all have the same view on it, how to deal with it? Is a black american raised in a wealthy family in LA have the same experience of oppression as a black american raised in poverty in Alabama?
I'd have thought obviously no. And that to suggest yes to any of those would be racist in itself.

It is useful and necessary to do class analysis of issues to gain a general understanding of any issue common within groups, but once you start to suggest only some individuals can talk on behalf of a group the whole thing quickly falls apart as everyone in any group is an individual with their own experiences.

@BovaryX Where am I blaming Priti for Britain's imperial past? I'm pointing out Priti, you and many other people ignore that British history is complex.

You are also trying to portray Priti's family as victims when if you talk to some Ugandans they would argue Asians in their country were aggressors themselves, brought their by the British and so deserved to be kicked out.

In fact you are doing exactly what BLM movement are campaigning about - ignoring that black experiences matter.

[quote BeforeIPutOnMyMakeup]@BovaryX Priti's family were in Uganda due to racism so trying to make out her family were victims doesn't wash with Ugandans and other Africans who had Indians as their administrators, police and put in other positions of power over them in their own countries during colonial times.

As I posted before she was tone deaf. Your response seems the same as you don't appear to understand the complexities of British history and how it has been white-washed.[/quote]
@BeforeIPutOnMyMakeUp

This is your post. You stated

Priti Patel was in Uganda because of racism, so she isn't a "victim.' I asked you if you thought the expulsion of Asians from East Africa was justified because that seems to be what you are suggesting from your comments above. Do you imagine Priti Patel does not understand that the UK's imperial history is complex? Who is suggesting it isn't? Certainly not those of us with family from Uganda. Or Kenya.

You are also trying to portray Priti's family as victims when if you talk to some Ugandans they would argue Asians in their country were aggressors themselves, brought their by the British and so deserved to be kicked out.

Indians were initially brought to Uganda by the British as indentured labourers to work on the railways. Others went over later to set up shops serving the needs of this Asian population. They came from quite specific parts of India where there was lack of employment and food shortages. The British put some into an administrative class, yes, but they did not constitute a majority of the Asian population in East Africa.

As you said, History is complex, more complex than your characterisation as “aggressors” suggests.

@BabyItsAWildWorld talking to family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances if you are male, black or simply look black enough to the police then you will have been stopped while driving. This is regardless of whether your family originates from the West Indies, West Africa, East Africa, Sri Lanka or anywhere else. This is regardless of class.

There are shared experiences that are just based solely on the colour of your skin but this doesn't affect everyone who is BAME.

Difficulty in the job market due to not having a western European name will affect some people who are BAME but not others. Again this goes across all social classes.

The type of hair styles those with Afro hair can have at school and in employment will affect some people especially some women who are BAME but not others. This also goes across social classes.

There are others which I have not listed.

@BovaryX I guess then you aren't black as I have met black Ugandans who have said that to me.

@beforeIputonmymakeup
Yes, I agree, judgements on the colour of your skin will be universal to all black people, but the extent and type of experience will vary dependent on a host of other factors, some which will increase oppression some will decrease.
In the same way, female biology impacts on the experience of all women, but some women are much less affected due to their circumstances.

The name factor will effect white non euorpeans but not some black British people.

I agree that there is a commonality within grousp and it is necessary to analyse and address this, but the insistence on a homogenous level of oppression, and that any individuals experience must represent the groups is dangerous and untrue.

If you go down this road, you'll find you'll have to just keep making the groups identities smaller and smaller. Until all you have is the individuals with a shared characteristic.