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

No. There were Africans in Europe as well as people of many races and backgrounds. Pre-contact as in pre-conquest of the Americas.

Do I seem like I would be unaware of the history of African people in Europe? Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

You said the Irish were viewed as “not white” which isn’t correct. Even when they were dehumanised and called white chimpanzees- they retained their whiteness.

No, the working class are not “excluded from whiteness” by being called classist slurs like “chav”. You might as well claim that the classist slur toff is “excluding from whiteness” the rich elite.

Your class doesn’t affect your race. You can’t be “less white” by being poor.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘they weren’t considered white’. It makes no sense.

I know that paleness was considered posh because labouring outside tans the skin, but I don’t think that’s what you mean.

No just trying to clarify your points. You said that in the pre-contact medieval period racism was based solely on religion and not skin colour. Since I’ve now clarified you are fully aware that Europe was a multi-ethnic region prior to 1492, can I ask did you really mean that there was no racism at all other than your race=your religion assertion? No racism at all based on ethnicity in all of Europe?

Yes, they are white. Just as, say, Butch women are women. Yet we have terms that police who is a woman and suggest some women aren’t properly women (not talking about TW here.). In the same way, whiteness is policed and some people are seen as not properly white. They ARE white just as a gender non-conforming women IS a woman, or a gay man is a man. Just as women who don’t perform femininity are seen as lesser women or feminine men are seen as not truly men, white people who are seen as undesirable viewed as “lesser” white people. Class and race are also connected - in the same way, educated, professional, wealthy Black people will be accused of being not really black, acting white and so forth. When you create categories you then police their boundaries.

There’s a difference between prejudice based on difference and racism. Would an African person in Europe in 1200 be noticed as different? Yes. Would there have been discrimination? No doubt. Would they have been admitted to guilds etc? Likely not. Was there an entire legal, economic and social system based around that difference? Was race codified? That’s the difference.

the working class are not “excluded from whiteness” by being called classist slurs

I find this lens of viewing “whiteness” as some sort of elitist club, as nonsensical as saying that “womanhood” is an elitist club and women are the gatekeepers.

Really dubious reasoning at the heart of it.

I have to go do things can’t keep typing essays already typing too fast for accuracy. Got to go.

Your construct of whiteness is nonsense. It never existed. It only exists now because you and others have built it.

No. We’ve not assumed it. We were struggling to understand your particular
construct and and responded based on how you said Black people are always seen as the opposite pole from white humanity. The structure of race itself rests on this supposed fundamental opposition of Blackness to white humanity. In the hierarchy, Blackness rests firmly at the bottom.

I dont automatically see blackness as the opposite pole of whiteness. You do. You wrote it. I was critiquing your concept and if the Irish were “not white” and “became white” then according to your initial post, by your logic, then they would be Black. Now you are saying they were not Black either. If they were not white, and not black in the paradigm you initially posited of white or black, then what were they?

That whole post is non stop ludicrous generalisations.

Like this Just as women who don’t perform femininity are seen as lesser women

Seen by who? Less than who? Who fucking cares, surely all that crap disappeared out of the window the moment we all started wearing jeans and tracksuits about fifty fucking years ago.

Right. Herodotus didn’t write Athens vs Sparta. He wrote about Europeans, Indians, Asians, Africans. I was addressing you assertion that race is a modern concept to which you have quoted Kants opinions on French seeking beauty and English the sublime, on Africans oppressing women. Read Herodotus abd Tacitus and you get much the same sort of commentary 2,000yrs earlier in ancient times. Race is not a modern concept.

No, chattel slavery is a type of slavery and it long predates the transatlantic slave trade. Chattel slavery ALSO existed through history and across civilisation. ALSO codified in laws. ALSO with social and economic constructs. ALSO for life and generational. And so on. The slavery was not much different historically.

“Locke specifically writes that a master has “absolute” power over a slave, an important shift in ideas around chattel slavery.” No. That isn’t a shift. The master or mistress always had absolute power over his/her slaves in chattel slavery. That absolute power is also not unique to chattel slavery by the way. It was also the case in serfdom.

I know you just said

I have to go do things can’t keep typing essays already typing too fast for accuracy. Got to go.

fair enough… however

This is not how it works logically.

Because sex is binary and gender roles/stereotypes are grafted onto the sexes, people who don’t conform to the expected sex role stereotypes are said to belong to the opposite sex.

There’s no equivalent code of behaviour for ‘whiteness’ where non-conformity to white stereotypes would make someone be called ‘black’.

The class system has nothing to do with ‘whiteness’.

I can see how it could be for enslaved Africans, where the paler skinned children of the plantation owners would receive better accommodation and treatment, to the genetically unrelated people in the field. It would look like ‘paler skin = higher status’.

Not all racism is systemic or institutional.

Me too, and there’s no historical evidence for it. That’s what bothers me the most the assertion that this construct of “whiteness” was built during and since the “Enlightenment.” Literally no one wrote about race like that.

I’m glad we’re all having this conversation though. It’s all extremely pertinent to the OP and giving me insight into DAs thinking.

I keep coming back to this thread thinking that might actually be something of relevance to the issue in hand ie the practice of politics in the UK here and now.

And without being rude even if any of what has been posted by basically 2 or 3 people it isn't relevant because the Labour party and the media aren't interested, nor are DA constituents.

But this seems to happen often mumsnet threads that get taken over by 2 or 3 posters having a private conversation about something that is only tantental to the origins of the thread.

Stop being so controlling.

Yes. One commentary on her letter said that Diane Abbot was viewing racism through the lens of her own personal experience. I think that makes a lot of sense really, because I do agree that British racism against Black British has unique aspects to it, as does all flows of racism between ethnicities in each time and place. I can see how if you experience racism mostly due to being Black British, it can be hard to conceive of others experiencing racism due to something else visible that sets off a racist attack on a person- language, accent, different facial features, dress, etc.

I know we have slightly differing views on what is a race vs ethnicity vs tribe, but really we have a lot of common ground.

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

We’ve been discussing this matter. You set the snowball in motion. If you wanted a thread about “the practice of politics in the U.K. here and now” you might have wanted to at least hint at it in your OP.

I think she isn’t just seeing it through the lens of her own experience. I think she is viewing it through the lens of imported American CRT and hearing the stuff wacky stuff about ‘whiteness’ is very illuminating.

Apols for the extra ‘stuff’

I've just been an onlooker to this thread but actually think it has taken a very interesting turn. And to be honest it is very relevant to your OP. Shame you can't see that.

OP often complains about conversions flowing naturally according to the people who have the time and interest to post on a thread.

I’ve found this discussion really meaty and satisfying. Ideas thrashed out. Taking things deep and feeling I’ve learned something from everyone. You can only do this on a forum like mumsnet. It’s the best thing about it.

Yes I agree, her letter is completely based on US CRT. I have a feeling she has binge watched “Dear White People” on Netflix as that show widely disseminated the whole pseudo science meme of prejudice + power = racism and whiteness/blackness being a construct that is a simple word swap of the binary of Marxist oppressor and oppressed.

white= oppressor
black= oppressed

So with racism being prejudice + power, and white always, always having the power (white=oppressor) they can only experience prejudice, not racism.

It’s so reductive.

Might be more appropriate to apologise for using “wacky”’to describe CRT.