bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 11:49 am
Her words were different though, previously she call racism against jews “prejudice” as opposed to black people experiencing racism. From what I’ve read, she now calls both such forms of discrimination racism, but that it was expressed differently for different groups, especially if you were clearly a member of that group because of skin colour.
It was probably not the wisest move politically nor the best way to express what she appears to be trying to say.
Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don’t know.
I just think that it’s silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. I don’t know why people would say that.
The words are different, but it's essentially the same point, that there is more than one quality of racism.
It seems that she must be trying to say - and I'm afraid it does make me think of the Four Yorkshiremen - that a certain group has it harder, and so suffer more than certain others. Is that to try and say, and so we are more deserving of something? Or is it just to communicate to that group, to say, I'm on your side, vote for me?
But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.
Anecdata.
I grew up in Australia in the 70s, I did my damndest to get into a selective school as I used to see my brother beaten up coming home from the local high school for being a “f.cking wog”, along with regularly being told to “go home to your own country” and asked “Don’t you hate being a wog and wouldn’t you like to be an Australian like me?”. It was sh.t, but better than what an Asian would experience and massively better than what an aboriginal Australian had to go through*. Those were all racism, but qualitatively and quantitatively different. Fortunately Oz is much better for most immigrants now (don’t be muslim) but marginally better for Aboriginals.
*Winding up dead in police cells after being arrested on spurious grounds covered in unexplainable bruises.
bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:30 pm
But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.
I agree. Though, for a politician, finding an acceptable way of saying it, we learn, is very difficult. So if you go to the trouble, nevertheless, of saying it, then presumably you had a very good reason for wanting to make that point? You were probably not just making a random list of things you think to be true.
I remain unclear why it seemingly matters so much for Abbott to try and say it. What does she achieve, or think she achieves, by saying it?
Finding acceptable ways of saying things ties politicians up in knots, and is a reason that so many people like Trump - he doesn’t even bother to try and find acceptable ways to say things. It leads to talking in circles and like a robot. Starmer is a prime example of trying to think through every damn thing he says before he says it. It makes him wooden and unrelatable.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:30 pm
But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.
I agree. Though, for a politician, finding an acceptable way of saying it, we learn, is very difficult. So if you go to the trouble, nevertheless, of saying it, then presumably you had a very good reason for wanting to make that point? You were probably not just making a random list of things you think to be true.
I remain unclear why it seemingly matters so much for Abbott to try and say it. What does she achieve, or think she achieves, by saying it?
She's a woman of colour. Why should anyone be surprised by her talking about racism and how she experiences it?
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."
bjn wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 1:30 pm
But different groups do experience racism differently, both by type of discrimination and degree.
I agree. Though, for a politician, finding an acceptable way of saying it, we learn, is very difficult. So if you go to the trouble, nevertheless, of saying it, then presumably you had a very good reason for wanting to make that point? You were probably not just making a random list of things you think to be true.
I remain unclear why it seemingly matters so much for Abbott to try and say it. What does she achieve, or think she achieves, by saying it?
She's a woman of colour. Why should anyone be surprised by her talking about racism and how she experiences it?
It’s her talking about how other people experience racism that’s upsetting people, comparing it with her own experience.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
Media talk of Starmer's damaged authority as Rayner steps down... not sure I see that myself. Seems a lot more plausible as an honest mistake than loads of Tory dodgy dealings (e.g. donations for planning approvals) but hey ho. When you support the nasty party a certain amount of shithousery is priced in, meaning the "good guys" get measured to different standards.
If Farage did something similar intentionally he's probably get lauded for it ("telling HMRC to stick it's unfair stamp duty tax up it's arse").
And the airtime Reform get is startling.
Politics seems to be in the biggest hole I can remember.
Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
Surprised he moved Lammy on from Foreign Sec... would have thought it best to keep stability in that role, he seemed to be able to rub along with Vance. That seems a mistake to me.
Grumble wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 2:14 pm
Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.
Grumble wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 2:14 pm
Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.
I'm surprised to hear that she'd have chosen Clacton as her principal residence.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Grumble wrote: Fri Sep 05, 2025 2:14 pm
Farage has done something very similar, intentionally, and has done it legally because his wife is the owner of his constituency home. Farage also hasn’t been picking on Rayner about it, to be fair.
