Current Affairs The Labour Party

[dholliday]

You also still do not seem to grasp that Africa is not a country. Even @Tubey knows better.

condescending crap, i mentioned Ghana specifically earlier.

the rest of your post, plus your penchant for viewing afrikan folk as "tokens" makes one think you're part of the problem Lammy clumsily spoke of.

you should attempt less of the aloof arrogance, the africans as well as the chinese will appreciate it.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

You should have expressed your Liberal individualism anyway, after all that is very part of libertarian values.

 

[dead_soft]

Not really. Working class people have been and are being oppressed, and to prevent them objecting to it the ruling classes have always looked to use race (and hatred based on race) to divide the mass of the people - "you are better than the black man, but he is willing to work for less than you" / "these immigrants are taking your benefits, thats why your family can't get social housing" / "these white/black people are all Trump/Clinton supporters, thats why the black/white community must vote for Clinton/Trump " etc etc.

Or to use much a better example, when the great Paul Robeson - the son of a man who had been a slave and who grew up in a US that was far more openly and violently racist than it is now - met a group of striking Welsh miners (who had walked to London to protest how they were being treated during the General Strike of 1926) he recognised almost at once that they were the same sort of people as he was. He supported those men (and many others) because they were the same as him, having suffered differently but having the same sort of experience at the hands of the same sort of people.

Of course after the war was fought his own country attacked him for fifteen years because of saying things like that, as well objecting to lynchings, colonialism and for demanding his rights as an American.

I said that the working class are oppressed but it is not for the colour of their skin. It is an oppression that comes in a different form. It is an odd thing to say 'well this is group is oppressed too' when there is a discussion about the reasons behind another group's oppression. Racism is a real and direct form of oppression - that doesn't stop there being oppression for others based on class, gender, religion, sexuality but not all oppression is the same.

 

[Tubey]

what's the biological difference between peoples of different shaded skin? are you speaking of melanin? that's a chemical process, not technically-speaking biological.

Yes, pretty much specifically that.

Here's a run down.

Ethnicity vs Race - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What's the difference between Ethnicity and Race? The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological and sociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers...

www.diffen.com

 

[neil999]

If course the difference in human ‘races’ is so minor compared to other species that you can barely call them races

 

[dholliday]

If course the difference in human ‘races’ is so minor compared to other species that you can barely call them races

aye. dna research confirms that there is technically-speaking no distinct races like there is with animal races.

we categorise, nature does not.

one interesting exception is regards to peak athleticism among professional runners of certain distances (100-200m, then a gap until we get to 10000m and above...these distances are dominated by black-skinned athletes whose lower leg natural muscle-types better promote 'fast-twitch' athletic processing).

all other differences, other than outward appearance or genetic predispositions, are entirely cultural.

 

[Jacob]

The fact that you are starting the post with a reminder to people that 'comic relief does work in the UK as well' only serves to strengthen the point David Lammy is making - because, having to remind people of that fact, highlights that most see it as 'aid to Africa'

Lenny Henry is entitled to do the promotional videos, as anyone else is, whatever the color of their skin. However, what does it matter if it's Lenny Henry or even David Lammy doing it. They're not African, why not have an African voice giving the narrative? If the prevailing narrative is that Africa is only poverty and corruption, while not recognising it's contribution, then it's a problem.

We spend about 0.7% of our Gross National Income on overseas aid, of which around 50% goes to Africa. Lammy is clearly not saying you shouldn't give aid, he's arguing that you shouldn't give aid with one action while perpetuating a stereotype that all Africans need aid and have nothing else to contribute to the world.

It will be interesting to see if Sir Lenny Henry, in his capacity as Honorary Life President of Comic Relief, can effect root and branch changes to how it promotes the money-grab on the telethon and the Africa based films some critics refer to as "poverty porn". He has yet to comment on the current furore. Perhaps it would be helpful to know how the beneficiaries and hardworking grassroots workers in Africa at a local level feel about the way the current celebrity promotional films are sourced and produced and with whom. Do they, for instance, feel patronised and subjugated by the medium the money is raised...for example by pop groups like One Direction going to visit with, of course, the knock on effect of the massive donations they generate from millions of their young fans here after watching the films. The moralising will rumble on. But simultaneously, the danger persists starkly that people simply wont give anymore if its suggested that by giving to them, it implies they have nothing to offer but being in need. Jesus tonight. Im thinking the many grateful recipients of the funding raised wont give a second thought to the suggestion that theres any playing of Lady Bountiful and stigmatisation towards them. Then again, Im sure someone else will on their behalf.

 

[dead_soft]

It will be interesting to see if Sir Lenny Henry, in his capacity as Honorary Life President of Comic Relief, can effect root and branch changes to how it promotes the money-grab on the telethon and the Africa based films some critics refer to as "poverty porn". He has yet to comment on the current furore. Perhaps it would be helpful to know how the beneficiaries and hardworking grassroots workers in Africa at a local level feel about the way the current celebrity promotional films are sourced and produced and with whom. Do they, for instance, feel patronised and subjugated by the medium the money is raised...for example by pop groups like One Direction going to visit with, of course, the knock on effect of the massive donations they generate from millions of their young fans here after watching the films. The moralising will rumble on. But simultaneously, the danger persists starkly that people simply wont give anymore if its suggested that by giving to them, it implies they have nothing to offer but being in need. Jesus tonight. Im thinking the many grateful recipients of the funding raised wont give a second thought to the suggestion that theres any playing of Lady Bountiful and stigmatisation towards them. Then again, Im sure someone else will on their behalf.

Why do you want Lenny Henry to effect root and branch change? Is there a reason you chose him?
All that is happening is some are instigating a conversation about the realities of the situation and that giving money is a complete good with no other side to it. I don't get why you feel so against this sort of introspection or society in general considering their actions within a more nuanced whole.

 

[tim cahill]

"I like many others are absolutely disgusted at the state of events happening within the Labour Party, the fact that the IHRA is doing exactly what it’s designed to do, is appalling, it is silencing people on the treatment of the lives of the Palestinian people, this is outrageous, this happens with no one else in the world, we are free to speak about atrocities happening in the world, but as soon as we mention about the Israeli government, like Chris Williamson was merely pointing out, we are slapped down and the anti semitism card is played. We all know this is nothing to do with the Jewish community, so let’s not kid ourselves, we are all aware of the corruption smear that is being played out, the very one Chris Williamson spoke about in Parliament, but the government refused to answer the questions put to them on the subject and people are angry, because it is insulting all Party members, it’s pretty clear people are also determined to make sure that Jeremy Corbyn never becomes PM, like Theresa May said, in which I believe sounded more like a threat, we the people are not stupid and we are all full aware of who is behind all these smears, so let’s cut the crap.
If the Labour Party continues on its current path in demonising people for criticism of certain people and the bullying people are receiving if they criticise the Israeli government, then the Labour Party will lose 3/4 of its members at least, we are fed up, there are several MP’s that seem determined to oust certain people in the party, Tom Watson and Louise Ellman being two of them, but this endless smear has to end, it’s being deliberately done to try and whip up hatred and it is posing a serious threat to democracy and the stability of this country as a whole, people are starving and really suffering out there and if these certain people can’t get behind the leader, then they should leave the party, because I believe there is far more at stake than one or two selfish money grabbing politicians here, this country will head for civil unrest, because we have a government that are ripping society apart. You can choose to take note of this letter, or you can choose to ignore, but I and many others didn’t join the Labour Party because of one man, we joined because we are sick of tax dodging people, from politicians to big corporations and we are sick of what is happening to our country, since the Tories have been in power.
I would also like to point out, that I believe Chris Williamson and Marc Wandsworth said nothing wrong, personally I don’t care whether people are Jewish Muslim, or American etc, we are all one person, but if we can’t criticise a state when their governments are needlessly killing people and leaving them stateless, like the Israeli government are doing, then there is some very serious corruption going on in politics around the world and the world will head to a very bad place. I hope I’ve put this clear enough for every Labour MP to understand, just remind them, we the tax payers pay their wages and endless expenses, they need to buck up, or shut up and do the job they are paid to do, the political parties are meant to work for the people, not themselves."
Couldn't have put it better myself.

This probably sums up the attitude of the vast majority of labour supporters right now. Where’s that from?

 

[davids]

This probably sums up the attitude of the vast majority of labour supporters right now. Where’s that from?

Showed up on Facebook this morning.

 

[Jacob]

Why do you want Lenny Henry to effect root and branch change? Is there a reason you chose him?
All that is happening is some are instigating a conversation about the realities of the situation and that giving money is a complete good with no other side to it. I don't get why you feel so against this sort of introspection or society in general considering their actions within a more nuanced whole.

It might help if before questioning some motive on my part so robustly and personally, that you actually read the post and digest what Im saying. ....its fairly straightforward. I chose Lenny Henry because hes the Honorary Life President of Comic Relief....I did say that didn't I ? I don't want root and branch change, David Lammy does. Why am I against introspection and society in general..... by offering another angle to the situation - from the point of view of the African people in need of support ? A bizarre and narky take on a fairly innocent post that is merely one of suggestion.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It will be interesting to see if Sir Lenny Henry, in his capacity as Honorary Life President of Comic Relief, can effect root and branch changes to how it promotes the money-grab on the telethon and the Africa based films some critics refer to as "poverty porn". He has yet to comment on the current furore. Perhaps it would be helpful to know how the beneficiaries and hardworking grassroots workers in Africa at a local level feel about the way the current celebrity promotional films are sourced and produced and with whom. Do they, for instance, feel patronised and subjugated by the medium the money is raised...for example by pop groups like One Direction going to visit with, of course, the knock on effect of the massive donations they generate from millions of their young fans here after watching the films. The moralising will rumble on. But simultaneously, the danger persists starkly that people simply wont give anymore if its suggested that by giving to them, it implies they have nothing to offer but being in need. Jesus tonight. Im thinking the many grateful recipients of the funding raised wont give a second thought to the suggestion that theres any playing of Lady Bountiful and stigmatisation towards them. Then again, Im sure someone else will on their behalf.

Yes it would be helpful to know, which, by in large is the point that David Lammy is trying to highlight.

 

[okellypj]

It will be interesting to see if Sir Lenny Henry, in his capacity as Honorary Life President of Comic Relief, can effect root and branch changes to how it promotes the money-grab on the telethon and the Africa based films some critics refer to as "poverty porn". He has yet to comment on the current furore. Perhaps it would be helpful to know how the beneficiaries and hardworking grassroots workers in Africa at a local level feel about the way the current celebrity promotional films are sourced and produced and with whom. Do they, for instance, feel patronised and subjugated by the medium the money is raised...for example by pop groups like One Direction going to visit with, of course, the knock on effect of the massive donations they generate from millions of their young fans here after watching the films. The moralising will rumble on. But simultaneously, the danger persists starkly that people simply wont give anymore if its suggested that by giving to them, it implies they have nothing to offer but being in need. Jesus tonight. Im thinking the many grateful recipients of the funding raised wont give a second thought to the suggestion that theres any playing of Lady Bountiful and stigmatisation towards them. Then again, Im sure someone else will on their behalf.

I was at the Comic Relief comedy gig last night. He only touched on David Lammy once disparagingly without directly referring to the comments. As to the root and branch changes, Comic Relief are already doing that. For example, the video they played during the interval last night was highlighting that funds raised were going towards the training of local community development workers. It followed one community development worker on her daily work and interviewed all the local people that she helped. The video did not show one 'white face'. Lenny Henry commented that they were moving more and more towards this format - following the people on the ground. Furthermore, they've had a big restructure/strategy review to try and reduce their dependency on the one-off red nose day event. Their main way to raise money over many years was the 'celebrity goes to third world country' attracting viewers and donations. They can't just change that overnight without huge loss of income but they are making progress. No doubt every year something to do with Red Nose Day will offend someone - it's only fair that when criticising, people also acknowledge the work they are doing to address the issues.

 

[tsubaki]

He just can't help himself, can he?

“I have quite a different background from a lot of people in the Labour party – I’m of mixed heritage,” he said. “My father was a black, working-class man who arrived here with no money in his pocket from Nigeria; my mum came from more of a middle-class background, whose father had prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg. We have a really rich and diverse heritage in my family – but I sometimes felt it was a bit of a chain round my neck in the Labour party if truth be told.”

He added that when he briefly stood for the party leadership in 2015, before withdrawing, he was warned that being of BAME background could count against him.

“The team who were helping me organise, were told by quite a few MPs that they weren’t going to support me, because they didn’t think their working-class constituents would ever vote for a black man – and I was quite taken aback by it,” he says, adding that his new TIG colleagues are more representative of modern Britain.

Umunna only joined Labour in the 1990s, after the reforms initiated by Tony Blair, and said perhaps the period up to 2010, when Ed Miliband took over, was a historic aberration, and his old party had now reverted to type.

“Maybe what we’ve seen happen in the Labour party since the late 1990s and through to 2010, was actually exceptional, and wasn’t what the Labour party really is?”

edit: "middle class" in the sense of the word that his maternal grandfather was a privately schooled, Trinity College Cambridge educated QC.

 

[Jebus_lives]

No mate, ethnicity and race aren't the same thing. "Racism" is often used as a catch-all term, but the correct term would be ethnocentrism - to express a belief that one ethnicity is superior to another. It's just not as catchy.

Easiest way to distinguish the two - racism is about biological difference, whereas ethnicity is socio-cultural identity.

I'm.sorry to disagree but racism, as you've defined earlier encompasses a range of different ideas, opinions and concepts, which become a belief.

Ethnocentrism relates to judging someone based on your own culture based on preconceptions that are found in the values and standards of your own culture.

It's nothing to do with biology or race.

I'm not even sure why your are still ignoring the definition of racism that you used earlier, but that's the starting point for deciding if something is racist or not.

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

It's not solely skin colour, it's not solely a difference in biology, it's not solely about the cultural difference it's about if you inherently believe one culture is inferior to your own.

Now if you start, as you must, from the position that Africans have historically been considered inferior both culturally and legally, and it's been an ideology throughout recent history that Africans are impoverished and incapable of managing their own problems (either because of colonialism, corruption or lack of education); you greatly favour that portrayal in the media, documentaries or appeals for aid - fronted largely by white people who only become involved in one context - then you are perpetuating the portayal, no matter how well intentioned to think that you are, as Africans as inferior.

The fact that David Lammy said 'white' does not make it racist, it adds to the specific notion of 'white saviour' in the historic context of the relationship with Africa. The recognition that he should go there as a black person, is even more absurd in the debate as he himself accepts that he's no better placed to contribute than someone who is actually African.

It's not enough to simply say 'well he's black, so he is qualified to talk about African aid'. The whole point he was making is that it should be African people addressing African problems, but also balanced against a different narrative of Africa.