Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 23, 2023, 11:54:35 AM
-
Ooh err
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978
-
Abbott's apology - quite incredible
-
Her original remarks strike me as entirely unexceptional, and correct. She should have stood her ground.
-
Her original remarks strike me as entirely unexceptional, and correct.
She conceded that some ethnic/racial groups suffered discrimination on racial grounds and then suggested that only her particular example was racism, the others were just examples of prejudice - perhaps you can make explicit the distinction in that which she failed to?
You can make a case, arguably, that the expressions of that prejudice are different, you can argue that one or the other is worse or more pervasive or more significant, but you can't suggest that one of them is racism and the other isn't by explaining that they're both examples of prejudice based on race.
She should have stood her ground.
She should have explained the nuances of her case better.
O.
-
She conceded that some ethnic/racial groups suffered discrimination on racial grounds and then suggested that only her particular example was racism, the others were just examples of prejudice - perhaps you can make explicit the distinction in that which she failed to?
You can make a case, arguably, that the expressions of that prejudice are different, you can argue that one or the other is worse or more pervasive or more significant, but you can't suggest that one of them is racism and the other isn't by explaining that they're both examples of prejudice based on race.
She should have explained the nuances of her case better.
O.
And she played down the suffering as less, including the Holocaust, by selectively ignoring it. Anti semitism.
-
And she played down the suffering as less, including the Holocaust, by selectively ignoring it. Anti semitism.
Including, by implication, the Irish potato famines which caused the death and mass emigration of millions. Since such suffering could have been largely avoided were it not for the intransigent non-action of the British (effectively English) government, this could certainly be seen as racism against the Irish, who were seen as inferior human specimens for the most part, useful only for the labour that could be got out of them.
I would hardly call that attitude simply 'prejudice'.
-
Including, by implication, the Irish potato famines which caused the death and mass emigration of millions. Since such suffering could have been largely avoided were it not for the intransigent non-action of the British (effectively English) government, this could certainly be seen as racism against the Irish, who were seen as inferior human specimens for the most part, useful only for the labour that could be got out of them.
I would hardly call that attitude simply 'prejudice'.
No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs
-
Her original remarks strike me as entirely unexceptional, and correct. She should have stood her ground.
It was completely unclear what point she was trying to make, so readers were bound to "fill in" with speculation. As an ageing black female Corbynite complaining of racism she could have expected to be dumped on.
Not much of an apology either, but at least she has withdrawn her comments.