Diversity officer in UK - "Women of colour can't be racist or sexist"

Just Be Yourself

Scary to think that people like her will be ruling us in 20-30 years time.

wakka12

silverfeather wrote: »

Less frequently stopped and searched?

Id like to see some statistics on that in europe and Ireland. Id say the number of coloured males who get stopped more than white males in Ireland is extremely marginal, if even. People need to remember that this is not america as much as everyone seems to want it to be, 'white privilege' doesn't exist here, we never owned colonies, we aren't like other europeans

P. Breathnach

wakka12 wrote: »

So if a white person attacks somebody black in ireland then why would they be a racist thug not just a thug..

If the black person was attacked because of the colour of his or her skin, then the attacker is a racist thug.

purplepanda

silverfeather wrote: »

Less frequently stopped and searched?

Due to exact racial quotas for stop & searches, young white males are searched just as much as their peers from other backgrounds in inner North London.

My son has been stopped & asked by police can he be searched because he is white & the officers need to balance their quotas presumably because they have previously searched too many from other backgrounds!

He has never been in trouble yet this happens frequently with him & his friends over the last four / five years.

It doesn't seem matter which of his friends he is with, nor even what race or background his friends are.

It's just a waste of police time & resources IMO!

Cold War Kid

If skin colour (including white) is the reason for an assault, then it is of course a racially based assault. Sometimes though, an attack on someone isn't due to their skin colour, it's just due to their attacker being a scum-bucket.

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

Scary to think that people like her will be ruling us in 20-30 years time.

I dunno that they will be? Way too much scaremongering about these types, when all I see is them being ridiculed. There is more of a backlash than ever against them. I think there used to be perhaps a bit more of a grudging respect for the academia bubble, but people are more questioning of it now, including myself. I studied a lot of "intellectual" stuff at university - and it was interesting and it was beneficial because it taught you how to be more critically thinking and to hold a mirror up to things you'd taken for granted... but some of it was right twaddle too, and was completely biased in a leftist direction - whereas I'd more of a centrist.

LDN_Irish

stan larsen wrote: »

But why not just call them a thug? What purpose is served by calling them racist as well?

Funnily enough, I was wondering what benefit to individuals or society is gained from using the definition of racism that the woman in the OP uses. If someone who isn't white is discriminating based on race, why not call then racist? What's the point?

Just different ways of looking at it I suppose.

Cats fur sale

Most black women I've encountered here in Ireland are bad mannered and very mistrusting.

Yurt2

Cats fur sale wrote: »

Most black women I've encountered here in Ireland are bad mannered and very mistrusting.

Yeah, and them Jews with their shifty eyes and pockets full of ill gotten gold.

:rolleyes:

wakka12

Cats fur sale wrote: »

Most black women I've encountered here in Ireland are bad mannered and very mistrusting.

My mother worked as a midwife and said that practically every nigerian mother she worked with was extremely rude and aggressive towards her, much more so than any women of any other background. And Not black women in general, just women of nigerian nationality she said. Maybe healthcare staff aren't treated well in nigeria i don't know

Cats fur sale

Black men are the salt of the earth and any of my interactions with them have been very positive and friendly. It's the women that seem to be uncouth. I'm sure this generalisation is not a true reflection but my experience is that the ladies need to relax more. They seem very uptight.

wakka12

Cats fur sale wrote: »

Black men are the salt of the earth and any of my interactions with them have been very positive and friendly. It's the women that seem to be uncouth. I'm sure this generalisation is not a true reflection but my experience is that the ladies need to relax more. They seem very uptight.

Well there was a large number of nigerians in my old school and they just seemed like everyone else really..I can't say the same about the women as you, they all seemed pleasant imo. The guys too..but some were often quite disrespectful to women in our classes. Whistling at them from the back of the class, sometimes saying sexual things..only did it to non nigerian women

Cats fur sale

wakka12 wrote: »

Well there was a large number of nigerians in my old school and they just seemed like everyone else really..I can't say the same about the women as you, they all seemed pleasant imo. The guys too..but some were often quite disrespectful to women in our classes. Whistling at them from the back of the class, sometimes saying sexual things..only did it to non nigerian women

Those lads will grow out of it wakka.

It's so easy to sit back and pick out faults in others. God only knows what black women have to put up with behind closed doors.
In general black people are beautiful, hard working, friendly, honest, trustworthy, decent people.

looking_around

Cats fur sale wrote: »

Those lads will grow out of it wakka.

It's so easy to sit back and pick out faults in others. God only knows what black women have to put up with behind closed doors.
In general black people are beautiful, hard working, friendly, honest, trustworthy, decent people.

In general...., black people are people.

and all people can be beautiful, hard working, friendly, honest, trustworthy, decent, ugly, lazy, cruel, lying, thieving, betraying, or/and indecent.

In general, most people are decent, regardless of their race or religion.

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In terms of race, yes. Individuals within that race may not be, or their circumstances may not be privileged. But that's a bit like saying lots of rich people may not be happy, yet we still talk about "the rich" and "the poor" in dealing with class issues.

A lot of rich people may be gay, black or even women. All rich people are privileged. By definition. You can't ask questions like "what about the rich homeless", what about the "rich unemployed". That's nonsense.

Saying the British working classes are "privileged" makes no sense. All privilege is based on class, nationality ( I.e all Americans are culturally dominant including blacks, Browns and yellows), and region (England dominates the UK, London dominates England). Within those power groups there may be slight differences but why should those of us outside the elites worry whether American women are unrepresented in Hollywood, it's Hollywood that's the dominant culture. Or why people of colour are not represented in parliament when there are pretty much no workers in parliament. ( With the exception of the SNP which actually has a leader who is from a council house, and female, but is most importantly Scottish -- a regionally discriminated group. That's who she represents primarily not American type 3rd wave feminism, in fact she hasn't been eulogised as a feminist by the "trigger alert" oppressed Oxbridge graduates is telling).

UCDVet

Deleted User wrote: »

You can.

The wrong of racism is not the same as the wrong of sexual assault.

It's not about racism or sexual assault. It's about misusing words. The definition of racism is:

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

That is what THE WORD MEANS. If you use the word racism, THAT is what people are going to think you mean. Using the DEFINITION OF THE WORD - women of colour *can* certainly be racist. I won't bother posting the definition, but I assure you, any dictionary will contain a definition of sexist that does not preclude women of colour from being sexit.

What we have here is a person misusing words. They have an alternative definition - where 'racism' is defined *as something else* in their head, than what is in the dictionary.

That's it, plain and simple. ANYONE CAN BE RACIST. Arguing otherwise is stupid and *pointless*. What you mean to say is 'Women of colour can't be ______ or ________' where those blanks are new words you want to create. Until those words are in the dictionary though, nobody will know wtf you are talking about. It's much better to explain *what you mean* rather than use another word. When you use another word, you're simply wrong.

Anyone can be racist.

This is not an opinion. This is not something to be debated. It's *clearly* wrong. Anyone can be sexist. Anyone can be racist. Those words MEAN THINGS.

Eugene Norman

wakka12 wrote: »

Id like to see some statistics on that in europe and Ireland. Id say the number of coloured males who get stopped more than white males in Ireland is extremely marginal, if even. People need to remember that this is not america as much as everyone seems to want it to be, 'white privilege' doesn't exist here, we never owned colonies, we aren't like other europeans

Yeh. It's all adopted from America. America is the dominant culture telling us to ignore their national domination and class domination in general ( often dominated by an American bourgeoisie ) and concentrate instead on cis gender privilege.

Ulysses Gaze

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

“I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”

This is what Bahar Mustafa, a students' union diversity officer in the UK, said this week. She had organised an event on Facebook for black and minority ethnic (BME) students, but posted a comment saying.

“Also, if you've been invited and you're a man and/or white PLEASE DON’T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only.”

She was accused of being racist and sexist, and responding with the comment at the top of this post.

I have a few questions about this.



(a) Who decided that racism “describes structures of privileges”? And why are they more of an authority on the subject than anyone else?

(b) What's wrong with the traditional understanding of racism, which is treating people in a different (usually negative) way because of their skin-colour or background?

Having lived in the UK for 4 years up until recently, the UK Public Service is full of people like Bahar Mustafa.

They have all these nice made-up job titles and get to interfere in every aspect of public service business. That is why the UK is a divided mess at the moment.

And even if we accept that she is not "racist"....she is at the very least prejudiced and thus should lose her job as a diversity officer.

Eugene Norman

I was looking at a parliamentary report ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/142/14205.htm#a13) on the educational achievements of the bottom 20% ( those who get free school meals) in the UK. White males worst. White females second worst. By far.

Even controlling for class amongst the poor there is clear anti white privilege. Luckily they won't get to the kind of universities where they can be further discriminated against.

Kermit.de.frog

Getting that poor black girl to hold the microphone for her - racist!

OneArt

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Persian and South Asian people are considered "Caucasian" too, but you'd have to have a fairly strange mind to deny the fact that they are not white Europeans.

Therefore going to show how silly race classification is in the first place.

stan larsen

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Funnily enough, I was wondering what benefit to individuals or society is gained from using the definition of racism that the woman in the OP uses. If someone who isn't white is discriminating based on race, why not call then racist? What's the point?

Certainly is it true that black people can discriminate against white people in the basis of skin colour just as white people can against black people. And such discrimination, in either direction, is wrong and we have civil law to counter such behaviour.

But there is an additional consideration when the historically disadvantaged person is the victim that extend beyond the immediate consequences of the discriminatory act. Which is that such acts, having gone unchecked in the past, have led to a lower quality of life for the group of which the victim is a member.

Or to put it another way there is a further reason why we should counter such discrimination

Presumably most would agree that racism / sexist was (is?) a real problem and all races / both sexes did not suffer equally?

Thus it is not unreasonable that there be words that would be used to highlight these additional considerations. The words that are used (by most) are racism and sexism.

The counter argument being put here is essentially a semantic one (i.e. defining racism to be discrimination on the basis of skin colour, which permits any race to be either a victim or a perpetrator of racism). This may be a proper definition / understanding of the term racism, which just means that racist / racism are not really the proper words to use.

But it is useful that there be some word. I would say that the continued use of the term racism is the best way to go - even if it is the wrong word.

Lemming

stan larsen wrote: »

But there is an additional consideration when the historically disadvantaged person is the victim that extend beyond the immediate consequences of the discriminatory act. Which is that such acts, having gone unchecked in the past, have led to a lower quality of life for the group of which the victim is a member.

Tell me, does it matter if they've been victimised based on one of the seven (??) criteria that define an act of racism, or that they've been victimised based on one of the seven (??) criteria that define an act of racism?

Unless I've read what you've written wrong, what you have attempted to argue is psuedo-babble-pop-culture tripe. Racism is racism, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, and "oh but well y'see" about it.

Regards Bahar Mustaphar, if you have done any additional reading on this "fine upstanding" citizen, you'll note that she has espoused such charming hate-speech as #killallmen, #killallwhitemen, and a few other equally sexist and/or racist comments. That's on top of carrying out "acts of protest" on campus that have been so ill thought out as to directly affect students suffering disability, denying them access to support services that they rely on and denying students practicing for music examinations the facilities they need. The irony of her position and what she has done should not be lost on anyone.

wakka12

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Having lived in the UK for 4 years up until recently, the UK Public Service is full of people like Bahar Mustafa.

They have all these nice made-up job titles and get to interfere in every aspect of public service business. That is why the UK is a divided mess at the moment.

And even if we accept that she is not "racist"....she is at the very least prejudiced and thus should lose her job as a diversity officer.

What a stupid wagon. She's an embarrassment to any minority activist with their head screwed on right.

The J Stands for Jay

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

“Also, if you've been invited and you're a man and/or white PLEASE DON’T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only.”
]

So, it's BME, so no whites. Then she doesn't want men. Then says it's non-binary. I'm taking non-binary to mean she doesn't want anyone who identifies as male or female. Pretty small potential group, and possibly barring herself from attending.

UCDVet

stan larsen wrote: »

Certainly is it true that black people can discriminate against white people in the basis of skin colour just as white people can against black people. And such discrimination, in either direction, is wrong and we have civil law to counter such behaviour.

But there is an additional consideration when the historically disadvantaged person is the victim that extend beyond the immediate consequences of the discriminatory act. Which is that such acts, having gone unchecked in the past, have led to a lower quality of life for the group of which the victim is a member.

Or to put it another way there is a further reason why we should counter such discrimination

Presumably most would agree that racism / sexist was (is?) a real problem and all races / both sexes did not suffer equally?

Thus it is not unreasonable that there be words that would be used to highlight these additional considerations. The words that are used (by most) are racism and sexism.

The counter argument being put here is essentially a semantic one (i.e. defining racism to be discrimination on the basis of skin colour, which permits any race to be either a victim or a perpetrator of racism). This may be a proper definition / understanding of the term racism, which just means that racist / racism are not really the proper words to use.

But it is useful that there be some word. I would say that the continued use of the term racism is the best way to go - even if it is the wrong word.

I dunno - my Grandfather was forced into military service on account of him having a penis. My Grandmother wasn't even considered for the job.

My Grandfather died, forced to serve his country.
My Grandmother wasn't able to play 'mens' sports or be taken serious in her desire to pursue certain careers.

I'm not sure there is a clear winner or loser when it comes to things like racism and sexism.

Little CuChulainn

If I'm counting right, only five people on her stage can go to her event. She can't even go herself.

stan larsen

Lemming wrote: »

Tell me, does it matter if they've been victimised based on one of the seven (??) criteria that define an act of racism, or that they've been victimised based on one of the seven (??) criteria that define an act of racism?

Unless I've read what you've written wrong, what you have attempted to argue is psuedo-babble-pop-culture tripe. Racism is racism, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, and "oh but well y'see" about it.

Are you disputing the part of my post that you quoted? That the historical context of racism is irrelevant?

If that is so then why does racism matter at all, much less be the potent phenomena that it is?

If an employer declined to employ the best candidate because he personally disliked people with black hair, most would think at worst, very stupid and a bit eccentric. Change hair to skin and most attitudes would be very different even though the wrong suffered in either case is the same.

Or why is it acceptable to have associations for black police officers when an association for white officers would be viewed very differently, or not tolerated at all?

It is very difficult to see how these attitudes can be reconciled with an understanding of racism that is no more subtle that a view that it is discrimination based on race.

padd b1975

Anyone else notice her poor literacy skills?

suicide_circus

padd b1975 wrote: »

Anyone else notice her poor literacy skills?

Probably the fault of white males

UCDVet

UCDVet wrote: »

It's not about racism or sexual assault. It's about misusing words. The definition of racism is:


That is what THE WORD MEANS. If you use the word racism, THAT is what people are going to think you mean. Using the DEFINITION OF THE WORD - women of colour *can* certainly be racist. I won't bother posting the definition, but I assure you, any dictionary will contain a definition of sexist that does not preclude women of colour from being sexit.

What we have here is a person misusing words. They have an alternative definition - where 'racism' is defined *as something else* in their head, than what is in the dictionary.

That's it, plain and simple. ANYONE CAN BE RACIST. Arguing otherwise is stupid and *pointless*. What you mean to say is 'Women of colour can't be ______ or ________' where those blanks are new words you want to create. Until those words are in the dictionary though, nobody will know wtf you are talking about. It's much better to explain *what you mean* rather than use another word. When you use another word, you're simply wrong.

Anyone can be racist.

This is not an opinion. This is not something to be debated. It's *clearly* wrong. Anyone can be sexist. Anyone can be racist. Those words MEAN THINGS.

If you looked up racism in a dictionary and YOU insist it proved you were right, you didn't need to USE SO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS. Anyway, if you are INSISTENT that you are right, GOOD for YOU. I still THINK your point about SEXUAL ASSAULT was rubbish though...I'm happy with my own position too.

Deleted User wrote: »

The wrong of racism is not the same as the wrong of sexual assault.