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

[IwantToRetire]

Diane Abbott has been suspended as a Labour MP pending an investigation into a letter she wrote about racism to the Observer, the party has said.

The politician said "many types of white people with points of difference" can experience prejudice, in a letter published on Sunday.

But they are not subject to racism "all their lives", she said.

She later tweeted to say she was withdrawing her remarks and apologised "for any anguish caused".

Labour said the comments were "deeply offensive and wrong".

Suspending the whip means Ms Abbott will not be allowed to represent Labour in the House of Commons, where she will now sit as an independent MP.

In the letter, she wrote that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people "undoubtedly experience prejudice", which she said is "similar to racism".

She continued: "It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice.

"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."

She had been responding to a comment piece in the Guardian questioning the view that racism "only affects people of colour".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978

D'oh! Posted before refreshing the page only to see that the sickle cell anaemia aspect has been covered by posters much more knowledgeable. Apologies!

I am biracial and I hate it when white people claim to be ‘colour blind’ and ‘there is only one race, the human race.’ By denying race, you are not fighting against racism. You are just ignoring it.

There are plenty of medical conditions that are more prevalent in certain races/ethnicities. This is the case even in non-white people who were born in England or spent most of their life here. For example, white pregnant women are not routinely referred for a glucose test unless they are overweight, an older mother, or have a family history etc. Certain ethnic groups are referred based on their ethnicity/race. Sickle cell disease is more prevalent in those with African ethnicity. We have access to the NHS in the UK unlike the US where poor people can’t afford medical insurance.

Yes there are quite a few - I know the effect Ashkenazi Jews, not sure of one affecting Sephardi Jews:

These disorders include cystic fibrosis, Canavan disease, familial dysautonomia, Tay-Sachs disease, Fanconi anemia, Niemann-Pick disease, Bloom syndrome, mucolipidosis type IV, and Gaucher disease, among others.

I think it would be very very interesting to take those people and do some sort of cross-reference with educational background and income.

I don't think it would correlate completely, but I strongly suspect you would see a pattern where social class is very much influencing people's perception. Which raises the question of whether racial abuse sometimes may really be a placeholder for class abuse.

I also think the fact that the mixed group is higher than non-mixed is interesting, and I wonder if it's because they receive abuse from both groups rather than just one.

I think what is really clear is that you simply can't use these very generalized racial categories like white or black or Asian and expect the people in those groups to have similar experiences.

And while this research doesn't touch on it, we also know that other factors play a strong role in people's experience - wealth and education is often more predictive of how people respond than anything else.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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!

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

Every single time she opens her mouth!

Today, Starmer said the Labour party would never accept that there was some sort of hierarchy of racism

And yet, as I said up thread, Starmer has made a hierarchy of racisms by saying that Diane Abbott was anti semitic and so should be suspended, but did not mention or taken any action for her remarks about Irish people or GRT ommunities.

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.

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.

@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

Also wanted to add as someone said much earlier in the thread, although I cant find it, that Jewish people originated from North Africa. (I may be misquoting)

Clearly this isn't true. Jewish people originate from what european countries used to refer to as "The Levant" which covered what was Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine , and Syria.

So (as this thread has taken a rather bizarre turn thought I would add this) being "anti-semitic" could equally apply to being racist towards Arabs from that area. Although in common use today is assumed to mean racist assumptions or actions against Jewish people.

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/

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?

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.

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.

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

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