What she said is so obviously true that her comments biggest flaw is it’s redundancy. She’s talking about Tomiwa Owolade’s words on racism in Britain. A copper isn’t going to spot you from 50 yards away and stop you based on the fact that you’re Irish or Jewish because they can’t see that. Security isn’t going to follow you around a shop and hurry you out the door because you’re Irish or Jewish because they can’t see that.
I hate identity politics and hierarchies of oppression and language pedantry and all that more than the next person. But when you pretend to not understand an argument which is so obvious and valid, it’s hard to believe you’re here with honest intent.
She’s talking about Tomiwa Owolade’s words on racism in Britain.
She gives three, and only three, examples of racism to illustrate her point:
In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
Pre-civil rights America, the American slave trade, and Apartheid South Africa are all explicitly not about racism in Britain.
Tomiwa Owolade’s points may have been more focused (and more valid), but her own commentary takes it in a wildly unhelpful direction. And it’s her commentary that’s being criticised, not Owolade’s.
I’m not here with honest intent? Abbott was suspended from the Labour Party for what she said. Multiple organisations called them disgraceful. She herself retracted her words, hamfistedly blaming them on a drafting error, and apologised for them. But I’mm, random internet man, am the one who’s arguing in bad faith?
Now she has said that she doesn’t regret that period and clearly her apology was not in any way genuine contrition. She offered empty platitudes to crawl back into the party she claims to love while not in any way actually reflecting on the things she’s said.
What she said is so obviously true that her comments biggest flaw is it’s redundancy. She’s talking about Tomiwa Owolade’s words on racism in Britain. A copper isn’t going to spot you from 50 yards away and stop you based on the fact that you’re Irish or Jewish because they can’t see that. Security isn’t going to follow you around a shop and hurry you out the door because you’re Irish or Jewish because they can’t see that.
I hate identity politics and hierarchies of oppression and language pedantry and all that more than the next person. But when you pretend to not understand an argument which is so obvious and valid, it’s hard to believe you’re here with honest intent.
She gives three, and only three, examples of racism to illustrate her point:
Pre-civil rights America, the American slave trade, and Apartheid South Africa are all explicitly not about racism in Britain.
Tomiwa Owolade’s points may have been more focused (and more valid), but her own commentary takes it in a wildly unhelpful direction. And it’s her commentary that’s being criticised, not Owolade’s.
I’m not here with honest intent? Abbott was suspended from the Labour Party for what she said. Multiple organisations called them disgraceful. She herself retracted her words, hamfistedly blaming them on a drafting error, and apologised for them. But I’mm, random internet man, am the one who’s arguing in bad faith?
Now she has said that she doesn’t regret that period and clearly her apology was not in any way genuine contrition. She offered empty platitudes to crawl back into the party she claims to love while not in any way actually reflecting on the things she’s said.