What is there left to say?

So, the Tories are in coalition with the Lib Dems, the arguments in favour of Gay and Women's rights have achieved axiomatic status and the central political issue of the time remains the economy, stupid. The long term ambitions of most politicians seem remarkably cohesive; sustainable economic development, a society with progressively increasing levels of equality and a set of liberal social values. Surely, then, the UK's political discourse must be dominated by rational discussion of how best to reach these shared goals? There will be areas of disagreement but also areas of great unity of purpose.

In this environment, there must be no space for the voice of a center-right liberal blogger, someone who quite likes low taxes but hates discrimination, who likes public services but doesn't want the state to dominate the economy, who likes the rule of law but is aware that hanging and flogging doesn't really work. In other words, there should be no room for a Liberal Tory.

And yet, this is not the case. Modern politics is dominated by accusations that each side is evil or mad or both. Indeed, I am constantly struck by the feeling that most politicians (of all political stripes) have been corrupted by the process of opposing each other. Too many have lost their ability to examine and develop a rational argument. Instead they appear pathetically petulant children screaming for the attention of a rather bored public.

This blog is my small contribution to exposing this depressing state of affairs.

Thursday 5 January 2012

Why everyone should ditch the outrage and listen to Diane Abbott

A leader in the Black community makes a comment on Twitter in which she generalises about white people. Cue gleeful outrage from an assortment of right wing commentators gleeful that one of the left's most articulate advocates has opened herself to the accusation of racism. 

Wow. Isn't it time we all grew up?

Abbott's comments were rather clumsy and unhelpful additions to any debate about race. Nevertheless, I cannot be outraged by them. Indeed, the only response I really have can be summed up with the phrase: "Am I bovvered?"

Here's why:

1) I don't have a right not to be offended and would prefer to err on the side of Abbott being able to say whatever the hell she likes.
2) Even if you take her words at their most pernicious meaning, I'm pretty sure they're not true and similarly sure Abbott doesn't believe them herself.
3) 142 characters isn't exactly a recipe for subtle and nuanced debate.
4) If that is a concern some people hold in private, it's probably useful for it to be aired in order to be refuted.
5) Many Black people still get a raw deal in this country and certainly have in the past. Some hyperbole producing anger is probably reasonable/ understandable/ forgivable. Take yer pick.
6) Sometimes people fuck up. Deal with it.
7) I have all the time in the world for Diane Abbott.

Racism is a serious thing. Daft generalisations should be challenged as unwise and unhelpful but to jump on them with quite so much alacrity is pathetic. To describe Abbott's comments as racist associates her with the purveyors of hatred, vitriol and violence. It validates racist views by creating the appearance that everyone is at least a little bit racist and therefore it is ok. It isn't ok and most people aren't racist (thanks, in part to leaders like Diane Abott).

Perhaps it's time we spent a little less time condemning people to score political points and a little more time confronting the issues.

3 comments:

  1. 1) True. However, entirely unhelpful when telling people not to criticise Abbott. Why? Becuase is Dianne Abbott is allowed to say stupid things that offend then equally the "assortment of right wing commentators" are.
    2) One incident of a stupid inarticulate slip is deserving of overlooking. This isn't one inarticulate slip. The West Indian Mums, the Finish nurses, and the remark in question and her latest exploits regarding taxi drivers... the explanation that requires the fewest new postulates with the most explanatory power is that she's just a bit racist.
    3) So don't say it on twitter. Incidentally, if she did mean what she said she posted an utterly irrelevant historical tautology. I mean... why? See 2.
    4) Ok, so we should raise the issue that the institutions of government might be racist to deal with either the substance or appearance of racism. Agreed. However, Diane immediately disavowed her comments, so if she meant to do that she did a terrible job of it. She also disavowed the idea that she was talking about 21st Century Britian when she said it was 19th Century colonialism, an explanation the above post seems to take at face value. She can't be doing both, they're mutually exclusive intentions - point 2) & 4) can't both be true.
    5) That's reasonable. If you aren't an MP and haven't done it several times before.
    6) When our political leaders fuck up that's usually when we decline to re-elect them. It's kind of the medias job to tell them, loudly, when they've got it wrong.
    7) This is a statement fact, not an a priori reason why no offence should be taken by Diane Abbott's comments.

    If Diane Abbott is in fact a bit racist, we shouldn't play it down because it's inconvenient or unpleasant. Just because she's spent a career fighting one type of racism doesn't make it ok for her to indulge in another variant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dianne Abbott clearly made a little bit of a mistake (particularly with her "explanation" - no, Diane, you were not talking about the 19th century) but the manufactured rage is frustrating. After the Suarez and Terry cases, there were a lot of people just waiting for a black person to be racist against "us".

    I happen to think it's very, very difficult for anyone to be racist against white people unless there was a white person in a nation where almost everyone else was black, where the white person's ancestors had most likely either forcibly been moved there as a slave or had come as a manual labourer, where the white person had worse educational and opportunities and would statistically speaking die younger. There is a massive difference between me calling someone who is black a "nigger" and that person calling me "whitey". The first would land me in jail, the second would probably make us both laugh. And me making a statement about "all black people" would most likely lead down a particularly racist cul-de-sac. Any statement starting "Well, white people are..." is not going to cause the same kind of problems, in large part because white people have treated people with skins of different colour so badly over the years that almost everyone who is rich on this earth is white.

    You might even say that white people like to divide and rule. Anyway, Louis CK asks a far more pertinent question which shows what I mean. If there was a time machine, it would only be used by white males. You could be a black billionaire and they would still lynch you at various stops on that time journey. Anyone who equates a black person making generalisations about white people (still not cool by the way) with actual racism needs their head checked.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You lost me with the words "a leader in the black community"

    "The black community"? *REALLY*???

    ReplyDelete