Current Affairs The Labour Party

[davek]

Some of the comments in response to that tweet are absolutely nuts.

Some calling him an anti-semite while simultaneously conflating Israel with anti-Semitism, some asking why he doesn't condemn selling weapons to the Saudis (he has), some arguing that the UNHRC is anti - Israeli while conflating that with Anti - Semitism.

That's the name of the game here: makes sure no LP leader who supports a two state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict ever takes power...someone REALLY committed to it, that is.

These LP MPs in the "Labour Friends of Israel" (in reality Labour Friends of Genocide) group are the ones pushing this anti-semitism line and the rest of the neo-Blairites are piling in behind them adding their tuppenceworth in order to force Corbyn to become a centre-ground politician...because they cant openly oppose him after losing twice already in elections to him.

It's a soft coup in all but name.

Momentum need to be massing people out on the streets to protect the gains they made. It's the only way Corbyn / the left project in the LP survives: draw on the huge support they have in the half million strong membership and the overwhelming support of the trade unions. If he doesn't call on them, he's gone.

 

[abelard]

He has singled out a persons' skin colour as an issue.

The definition of racism is prejudice based solely on race/the colour of their skin. In that tweet, Lammy is doing exactly that by portraying the 'white saviour' as morally inferior.

It is textbook racism. He wouldn't have wrote 'black saviour' for Lenny Henry. Ask yourself why.

it's almost as though for thousands of years the relationship between white people and black people has been unequal.

what if Trevor Phillips alone wasn't enough to suddenly make all that go away?

huh.

 

[Jebus_lives]

He has singled out a persons' skin colour as an issue.

The definition of racism is prejudice based solely on race/the colour of their skin. In that tweet, Lammy is doing exactly that by portraying the 'white saviour' as morally inferior.

It is textbook racism. He wouldn't have wrote 'black saviour' for Lenny Henry. Ask yourself why.

No it is not.

That is entirely your own definition of racism, which would make what he said racist.

Ask yourself why anti-Semitism doesn't apply to your definition.

 

[Tubey]

No it is not.

That is entirely your own definition of racism, which would make what he said racist.

Ask yourself why anti-Semitism doesn't apply to your definition.

Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

Explore Oxford Languages, the home of world-renowned language data.

en.oxforddictionaries.com

It literally is.

It's using the modifier of 'white' to adapt the negative connotation of 'saviour' in this context as morally wrong that makes what he said racist. It is a prejudice against Dooley for being white and doing what she has done.

That is racism.

 

[Tubey]

it's almost as though for thousands of years the relationship between white people and black people has been unequal.

what if Trevor Phillips alone wasn't enough to suddenly make all that go away?

huh.

You should have been taught this in school, but two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't 'fix' racism by being racist right back.

You can have a problem with historical racism without being a racist in 2019. For example, you can certainly have a problem with Comic Relief fundraising methods without attacking someone based on the colour of their skin.

Lammy hasn't understood that, because he is a racist.

 

[dholliday]

or to put it more simply, stop pretending you haven't been caught spewing rubbish about something you know nothing about (and not for the first time either), and next time, first spend a minute or two checking if what you "hear" (whatever that means) about the "the African people" is actually true.

in this case, it is not.

how do you know it's not? do you personally know Afrikan folk who live there and work with the chinese, who have also had experience of working with westerners? or do you get all your wisdom from google?

 

[Jebus_lives]

Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

Explore Oxford Languages, the home of world-renowned language data.

en.oxforddictionaries.com

It literally is.

It's using the modifier of 'white' to adapt the negative connotation of 'saviour' in this context as morally wrong that makes what he said racist. It is a prejudice against Dooley for being white and doing what she has done.

That is racism.

It literally isn't.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

is literally different from

racism is prejudice based solely on race/the colour of their skin.

 

[orchard]

 

[Tubey]

It literally isn't.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

is literally different from

racism is prejudice based solely on race/the colour of their skin.

Oh, so you have nothing to say. Sound.

 

[dholliday]

it's almost as though for thousands of years the relationship between white people and black people has been unequal.

what if Trevor Phillips alone wasn't enough to suddenly make all that go away?

huh.

thousands of years? lol

ifya know yer history and all that...different groups of humans have always been unequal to each other, but you are implying the white man has held unfair power over the non-white for thousands of years, which is one of the most fantastically-ridiculous things i've ever heard in the already-ridiculous contemporary racism debate.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Oh, so you have nothing to say. Sound.

That's not nothing to say.

I've just told you that you are using the incorrect definition of Racism to illustrate your point - which I think is wrong.

Using skin colour, as you have in your definition, is a simplistic method of determining race.

I think you are accusing him of racism, when prescisely the opposite is true. The perpetuation of Africans (not necessarily black people) in only one context (as needy and victims) serves only to reduce their status to one of inferiority.

Which falls much better into this definition:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

[abelard]

You should have been taught this in school, but two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't 'fix' racism by being racist right back.

You can have a problem with historical racism without being a racist in 2019. For example, you can certainly have a problem with Comic Relief fundraising methods without attacking someone based on the colour of their skin.

Lammy hasn't understood that, because he is a racist.

You also don't 'fix' racism by pretending that it doesn't have a legacy or that it no longer has an impact, just because you suddenly say so.

It is not for you to decide that the slate has suddenly been wiped clean, just because history makes you uncomfortable.

The White Saviour trope has a long and pernicious history, and it continues to resonate, whether fair in the case of Intrepid Ditz Stacey Dooley or otherwise.

Lammy is simply pointing this out. It is not a matter of racism - that's preposterous. He is describing things as they are (whereas you are insisting on a fantasy of how you want the world to be).

And he is also approaching the issue from a much more informed and less shrill and defensive position than you are.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

He has singled out a persons' skin colour as an issue.

The definition of racism is prejudice based solely on race/the colour of their skin. In that tweet, Lammy is doing exactly that by portraying the 'white saviour' as morally inferior.

It is textbook racism. He wouldn't have wrote 'black saviour' for Lenny Henry. Ask yourself why.

Because there isn't a few hundred years worth of history of black folk going to 'civilize' Africa? I've said to you before that much of the colonial period was typified by Kipling's 'white man's burden', whereby it was beholden upon the white European to save the backward colonies. That was explicit, but people like William Easterly suggest that this implicit 'white European knows best' attitude has pervaded throughout the aid community for much of the latter half of the 20th century.

Compare that to approaches such as CK Prahalad's fortune at the bottom of the pyramid or Muhammad Yunus' microfinance work and it's a very different approach. This feels a bit like the difficulty some folk had in grasping why we shouldn't sing songs about the size of Mina's penis. It shouldn't really be that hard to grasp, should it?

 

[abelard]

how do you know it's not? do you personally know Afrikan folk who live there and work with the chinese, who have also had experience of working with westerners? or do you get all your wisdom from google?

between your one token black friend and journalism, i trust journalism

 

[Jebus_lives]

Because there isn't a few hundred years worth of history of black folk going to 'civilize' Africa? I've said to you before that much of the colonial period was typified by Kipling's 'white man's burden', whereby it was beholden upon the white European to save the backward colonies. That was explicit, but people like William Easterly suggest that this implicit 'white European knows best' attitude has pervaded the aid community for much of the latter half of the 20th century.

Compare that to approaches such as CK Prahalad's fortune at the bottom of the pyramid or Muhammad Yunus' microfinance work and it's a very different approach. This feels a bit like the difficulty some folk had in grasping why we shouldn't sing songs about the size of Mina's penis. It shouldn't really be that hard to grasp, should it?

It's only 'Textbook Racism' if the definition of Racism is 'The Tubey Guide to Racism'