As a published expert on online community racial stereotypes and as someone who has actually read the Stephen Lawrence Report, I think those who condemn Diane Abbott are racist bigots.
By bigots not accepting there are differences between ‘Black’ and ‘White’ people, they are proving nothing has been learned since the Stephen Lawrence Report, which said by not accepting there are differences between races, ethnicities, colours, creeds, etc., persons are being ‘Institutionally Racist’. Because the police in the Stephen Lawrence case refused to accept that Black people have different needs and characteristics to White people they were institutionally racist – and the people criticising Diane Abbot are just as bad as them!
I recently had an Op-Ed published titled, ‘Is White Culture Crippling Disabled People. In this, I discuss the media representations of what Diane calls ‘White people’ and how this affects the way I see ‘Black Culture’ and ‘White Culture’ and the differences between them.
This has led me to describe my race as Caucasian and my ethnicity is ‘Mixed – Black and White’. Because I enjoy Black Music as much as I enjoy White Music, I have both Black Culture and White Culture in me. The reason I call myself ‘Black and White’ and not ‘White and Black’ as is on all ethnic monitoring forms, is because it also reflects my autistic tenancies, which is to find the shades of grey and make them ‘black and white’.
Commendable effort at a response Jonathan, but try again. You haven’t addressed all of Adam’s points.
I can see you perceive yourself as a master of spin, well done, you show some promise
Giboff, when you’ve been at university as long as me, reading academic journals rather than just newspapers, and thinking in terms of evidence and not ideology, then it may be a bit difficult for others to see things the way I see it. If you consider that I was able to go to a specialist private school because of Margaret Thatcher’s SEN reforms, where I had an individual learning plan, then one can only expect me to fit my own ‘mould’ rather than other peoples’
I think if you were to actually read the Stephen Lawrence Report, you would see that rather than what I’m saying being ‘spin’ it comes from holding a ‘social model’ worldview. For instance: White people are not more intelligent or able than Black people, but IQ tests are biased towards White Culture more than Black Culture, and the education system favours White Culture more than Black Culture, which is why Black Inner-City Kids don’t do as well in many cases.
So in essence, any inequality between men and women, people with a medical condition, or people without, or people with a particular racial characteristic different from others, etc. is not as a result of that person’s inability or whatever, but a product of the social environment they are in not taking account of their differences. So, anyone who says, ‘I’m not racist – I don’t see colour’ IS racist, because they are not taking account of the fact that people of different ‘colour’ have distinct genetic or cultural differences that need to be recognised to treat them equally. The Stephen Lawrence Report says not accepting that there is a difference between ‘White’ people and those of other racial backgrounds is ‘institutionally racist’.
You presuppose, without further evidence, that there is this “white culture” and “black culture” and a dichotomy between the two without defining your terms – though I accept you may have defined them more in your Op-Ed though the link to this does not work. By “white culture are you simply meaning anything which is not Afro-carribean? Or not “Afro-American? If not, then what makes an upper class white person culturally similar to a working class white person? Where are the common threads? Is it useful at all to recognise the differences in culture where all people in our society have equal access to the two and can all describe ourselves as ethnically white and black as you have argued? Doesn’t this just relegate the terms to simply that, “terms”?
Assuming there is one “white culture”, are IQ tests more skewed towards white culture? They use very basic verbal reasoning and mainly spatial awareness or psychometric responses – which are not culturally specific. If you have an academic point to make here then make it, and give evidence (I can see how one may be able to argue that any verbal reasoning is culture specific, but certainly not race specific), in any event the distribution of IQ scores between social classes (which have, arguably, a greater cultural divergence) is actually quite even.
Finally, as an academic, I would have hoped for a stronger conclusion that “it is right because the Stephen Lawrence report says so, and anyone who disagrees is a racist bigot”.
Got to go, the kettle has boiled.
Put simply, I am a post-modernist and not a sociologist who believes there is a collective whole called society which everyone in a particular geography identifies to – especially with mass global media allowing us to share in other cultures. As far as I’m concerned each person has their own interpretation of what is part of ‘Black culture’ and what is part of ‘White culture’. Some may base it on their experiences, which may result in prejudice in some people if their had a less than favourable reaction to someone of a different race to. My person concept of what is ‘White culture’ and what is ‘Black culture’ is based on stereotypical representation in popular culture, especially popular music – as in most cases Black musicians have some editorial control over them, so it is likely to be a fair representation of who they are, as it is unlikely to be as imposed on them as in the newsmedia.
With regards to IQ test, I based my view on the premise that the average IQ for a particular population must be 100. So I’d argue that if an IQ test resulted in the average person in that population who were Black getting less than 100 then it would be biased and discriminatory, as I think the average IQ among people of all crisp protected characteristics – race, sex – needs to be 100.
Sorry Jonathan, whilst you are clearly well meaning, you are wrong to state that anyone criticising Diane Abbott means that they are “racist bigots”. I think her comments were wholly unacceptable and as someone who has black cousins and a neice sharing my surname, I do not consider myself a bigot. Whilst as you rightly state there are cultural and historical differences that should be acknowledged, what is wrong is the generalisation of white people. To do this to any group is in itself a form of racism however mild. How about those white people in history who gave bravely fought against racial oppression only to be ignored and generalised in such a manner by someone whose job it is is to speak for all peoples fairly regardless of race. No one with any knowledge of history or current affairs can deny that specific peoples have had harder struggles for self determination in the development of the human race, however the racism argument in order to move forward must be applicable fairly to peoples of all race. My concern is that Diane Abbott had perhaps shown another form of, to use a term, “institionalised” racism?
Hi Adam,
Thanks you very much for taking the time to give me your comments. If you could let me elaborate.
I define wrong as ‘Regardless of the conclusion where the premise is based on prejudice’. So as my premise was based on the fact that the people complaining were ignoring the fact that there are differences between people of different races, then even if I’m incorrect about them being ‘racist bigots’ I am not wrong in this context.
So, if you look at Diane Abbot, her premise was that there are differences between Black and White people, and her conclusion was that because historically White people discriminated against other races, such as the indigenous Americans and Africans, then it must still ‘be in their blood’ today. This is completely refutable through Darwinism.
So, on this basis, her conclusion is bigoted, whereas those who are attacking her, it is their premise that is bigoted.