Guest Mrs Bradley Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 This is about as racist as you can get..... Black and Asian MPs should not vote for Di-Russ Abbott on the basis that she is a buffoon.. Anyway, they just got rid of a Brown they did not like Leave it Quorky!! Topical quip Nice to see you back, Bosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 No. Why? Just thinking about printing it on a t-shirt, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boynamedsue Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Just thinking about printing it on a t-shirt, that's all. I'd be careful with that if I were you. It's not racist to say that the worst African Leaders have been black (just inaccurate); but if I saw a middle-aged white bloke with a beer gut wearing a t-shirt saying that and thinking he was oh-so-clever, I'd assume he was racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dissident junk Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Yes, this kind of thinking is prejudicial: both racially and in terms of gender. Nominating someone for leadership based solely on gender and race is prejudicial thinking: it assumes that someone is appropriate to represent a group because they have the same skin colour and/or genitalia as that group, rather than having had similar life experiences, opinions or values. The argument used in this case to nominate Abbott is similar to arguing that a working-class woman should vote for, say, the last Mitford sister, the Duchess of Devonshire, if she were to stand as an MP in their area because the Duchess is female and "we need more women in politics" -- it is a totally ludicrous political argument. I find it astonishing that still, in this day and age, there is this assumption that people are politically, socially, culturally and economically similar in their political opinions, attitudes and outlook just because they share a similar skin tone, ethnic heritage, gender or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadoube Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 They're basically asking for all BME Labour MP's to show "solidarity" and vote for somebody simply due to the colour of her skin, regardless if they agree with her on policy grounds. If you walked into a job interview and told the panel they should award you the job on the basis that you too have brown hair, just like them, then you'd be laughed out of the room. MP's will be asked to show "solidarity" in their votes all the time purely for being part of a "party grouping" and nobody goes around claiming that is wrong. Voters generally elect people based on "solidarity", irrespective of whether or not they agree with, or even know, the candidates personal views, and nobody says that is discrimination. Maggie is said to have selected governement ministers and other employees based on their being "one of us" and so on. No doubt some people did disguise their personal views/policies and say 'award me the job, I'm one of you'. And nobody laughed them out of the room. I've no doubt Blair did similar. Either all such "one of us" groupings are wrong, or none of them are. Saying this OK most of the time but you're not allowed when a group of the same race would seem discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Saying this OK most of the time but you're not allowed when a group of the same race would seem discriminatory. You see no moral hazard in actively seeking the "black vote"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel stallion Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Yes, this kind of thinking is prejudicial: both racially and in terms of gender. Nominating someone for leadership based solely on gender and race is prejudicial thinking: it assumes that someone is appropriate to represent a group because they have the same skin colour and/or genitalia as that group, rather than having had similar life experiences, opinions or values. The argument used in this case to nominate Abbott is similar to arguing that a working-class woman should vote for, say, the last Mitford sister, the Duchess of Devonshire, if she were to stand as an MP in their area because the Duchess is female and "we need more women in politics" -- it is a totally ludicrous political argument. I find it astonishing that still, in this day and age, there is this assumption that people are politically, socially, culturally and economically similar in their political opinions, attitudes and outlook just because they share a similar skin tone, ethnic heritage, gender or religion. I find it astonishing that you think that is the motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.