Diane Abbott

Hmm, I dunno. Twitter seems to be the root of all evil. If she'd have said it in a general conversation amongst friends, then I doubt anyone would have batted an eye. But because it was on Twitter, everyone's seen it and *probably* taken it out of context.

*Flippant comment alert*

Is it racist if it's true?

Yes.

WSS

I don't know about sacking but surely she should have more sense than to make any kind of comment like that on something so public as twitter?

And racism works both ways, it's not just the ethnic minoritys that find it offensive. It would be a different story had that been written by a white MP.

The difference between a white person making a disparaging comment about black people and a black person doing the same about white people is that there is an entire history of oppression of black people by white people. I'm not saying anti-white comments are ok, but they are different in that they're not part of a spectrum of abuse and oppression in the same way that anti-black statements are.

That said, Diane Abbot is an MP and should not be making that sort of comment at all; she should be setting an example of harmony and cooperation between all areas of the community, regardless of skin colour or ethnicity. In that she has failed and I think it would be appropriate for her to step down.

Agree CO.

I understand what you're saying but if we are ever going to move on from racism surely it needs to stop from all sides?

Of course it does, and that's why I said she should step down. But I maintain that her comment was of a different species to the sort of anti-black/anti-Muslim, White supremacist stuff that's floating around far more prevalently than her opinion. It's still not right and certainly not from someone in a position of political influence.

Agree, in principle. It's the type of thing you can easily say in a pub conversation without anyone bothering. I think had she said "White people in a ruling party have traditionally used a 'divide and rule' system to oppress minorities and gain power", nobody could have argued. You only have to look at the history of the British Empire to see that that statement has basis in fact.

Saying, in the present tense, "White people love..." means that she is (albeit flippantly) saying that I, many of us here, are those white people who love to "divide and rule" against a minority (implicitly, black people, in this context). That's quite offensive to me. Whether I think it racist or not is actually separate to that. It doesn't activate my "racism radar" because I understand what she meant (British Empire, colonialism, slavery etc). But when you think "Hang on, she means me as part of that group* ", it makes me feel bad.

*However that group is defined, by colour, job, religion whatever. You see enough headlines where people talk about how scientists are amoral, animal-killing, human cloning, loose cannons. That offends me but nobody cares about that.

Things like this really grate me, nothing will be said as she is black, and as we all know the rules are VERY different, if you are racist towards white people nothing will be done about it, only the other way round.

Its a joke.

And dont get me started on how those two were conviced this time round based on such shoddy evidence. Biggest fit up for a long while....

Don't comments like this keep that oppression and racism alive though?

How can the recognition that there may be different social and cultural implications between two opposing but equivalent "racist" statements be keeping oppression alive? Isn't it part of trying to deal with it?

How do you mean?

Do you think minorities keep the hatred alive by teaching and preaching about "what white people did"? I remember when we had German visitors at school and some of the lads being really hateful about them, referring back to WW2 etc. We weren't even alive back then and although some German's may have harmed my ancestors, the ones alive now didn't hurt anyone and my ancestors are long gone, so why hold on to such grudges? I agree we need to learn from history, but move forward rather than hanging on to bitterness which is pretty irrelevant in todays world.

I think the problem with this statement is that the historical activities of the "white" empires still has HUGE repercussions. It's not irrelevant in today's world, it's still shaping it.

Diane Abbot's tweet comment, as a standalone quote taken out of context, does indeed seem to be very bitter and quite honestly a stupid thing to say. Whether or not that's the message she intended to convey, I don't know but she should accept that it's not acceptable to make a statement like that when she is in a position of political influence.

"What white people did" in terms of colonialism and the slave trade was pretty horrific and I think it's very, very important that this is talked about and learned from by all parties today and beyond. I also think that continuing race hate crimes are a critical topic that should be discussed in schools as a means of combating intolerance. You can't bury this sort of thing and pretend it never happened.

I don't mean to bury it, I just mean that the majority of white people (that I know at least) are not racist and would not behave in the way that their ancestors did and I wondered whether some black people may hold onto the history and use it as a reason to hate white people? I don't know what it's like to be black so i don't know how much racism a black person might come across on a day to day basis so maybe I am completely wrong, it was just a thought than ran through my mind.

So you think they were innocent?

Just to give some context to what I mean, do you think that genocide should not be taught and talked about? Rwanda, the Holocaust, Congo, Cambodia, the Native Americans - enormous groups of people killed and continually oppressed by another ethnic group based on one aspect of their phylogeny. I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who says the Holocaust shouldn't be commemorated or discussed because it will increase tensions between Jewish people and the Germans, and the same logic is true of discussing the oppression of black people by white people.

That still doesn't make Diane Abbot's comment anywhere near acceptable and I'm still hugely upset by any implication that I could be part of an oppressive regime purely because I'm white, but I wouldn't ever say it's wrong for people to refer to "what white people did" in the past when discussing conflicts between ethnic groups.

Based on the evidence from this trial, I dont think they should have been found guilty.

So that would mean not guilty then which is innocent?

Without realising it, that is a fairly contentious comment to make and pretty much the other side of the coin to what Diane Abbot is in trouble for saying.

You & I grew up in an area of pretty intense racism problems. I encountered a lot of it living in Abbey Hulton where the council sent out regular letters in conjunction with the police outlining what they were doing to combat the number of race hate crimes in the area. You could walk from one end of the estate to the other and not see a single ethnic minority person, purely because the council refused to house any there owing to the danger to their safety. When my Indian friend came to visit and asked where the nearest shop was, I had to beg him to stay in my house while I went to the shop for him because I knew how much trouble he'd get purely because of the colour of his skin. White-instigated racism is still a HUGE problem in some pockets of the country, so I think there's still good reason for examining the history behind it.

It's not wrong to teach as long as doesn't then incite hatred towards other ethnic groups. You are right, they are things to learn from but also to move forward from, not only learning what happened but why it happened and how things have changed. This is something I never remember learning at school, why people followed what Hitler said and why those people went along with killing all of the Jews. I just learned that it happened. Maybe it's changed now?

If I was on the jury, I would have given a not guilty verdict.

But I think that's the whole point, she didn't say what they 'loved' doing, she said what they 'love'. It may just be a slip of words, but it changes the whole context.

I would never suggest that past events are not discussed, they are an important part of history. But I think they need to be treated as history if it's ever going to move forward.

What makes you think they are innocent?

Do you feel that Diane Abbott's comments incited racial hatred against white people?

I don't agree, but I understand what Chippers is saying.

Just because you don't find someone guilty it doesn't necessarilly mean you think they are innocent. Just that you are not 100% certain of their guilt.

ETA Wow that's a big quote - sorry!

Trickers, - based on the evidence from this trial, its a complete fit up, I'm not doubting in any shape or form that the original trial should have been dealt with differently and the police incompetence is clear for all to see here.

Yeah, I think what Chippers is trying to say is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove the guys guilty.

I just want to say before anyone jumps on me !! (its happened before where I've said something and its been taken in a different context)

I am saddened that its taken so long for a family to be happy with the outcome of their son being murdered, no one in the world should have to go through that pain, I would not wish this on anyone. But there are a lot more questions being raised from this, its not just a clear cut 'racist white men murder innocent church going black man'.

Its been said by a lot of people that Stephen Lawerence was a drug dealer, his best friend is certainly no stranger to the police, I think his last arrest (of many) was for sexual assault and rape.