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

15-05-2015 7:17am

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Ok. So I have finally listened to the video, researched the context of the video and looked into who the person them self is.

As it turns out they are a queer, disabled person from a BME (Black/Minority Ethnic, it's a term used by the government in the UK to describe non white/non European people) working class background.

They are basically using the definition of racism used by people like Hooks, Giddens and other eminent sociologists. In that sense they are right.

In the context of the UK (where Mustafa lives) if you understand racism to be structural, historical oppression of people of ethnic minorities and sexism to be structural, historical oppression of women, then Mustafa is 100% correct, it is impossible for Mustafa (a queer person of colour) to be racist or sexist.

As has been side in this thread, the idea of "reserve racism" is frankly ridiculous. People of colour are a minority in the UK, are under represented in parliament, the legal profession, the civil service and so on. The idea that they are somehow banding together to "oppress" white people or that women are banding together to "oppress" men is, without exception, laughable.

It's entirely possible for minorities or women to be prejudiced, to be bigoted, to be stupid and more.

But from a purely academic, theoretical point of view, in the context of the UK (and most of the world, to be frank), it is in fact impossible for women to be sexist or for people of colour to be racist.

Now if your understanding of racism is "not liking people from other races" and you understanding of sexism is "not liking people of the opposite sex" then sure, she's wrong, but the truth is your understanding of racism and sexism are extremely limited and you'd do well to read a bit more.

Now that is one good post.

And the Diversity Officer makes a very interesting point. But suspect many will just switch on that "but what about anti white racism" mode and just won't get it.

UCDVet · 15-05-2015 7:20am

As a white man, I can't be a criminal or a sex offender.

***but in this context, I'm not referring to 'criminal' or 'sex offender' as the words that you know them. Instead, I'm using them to mean something else! Where, in my unique definition, they can't apply to white men!

15-05-2015 7:24am

UCDVet wrote: »

As a white man, I can't be a criminal or a sex offender.

***but in this context, I'm not referring to 'criminal' or 'sex offender' as the words that you know them. Instead, I'm using them to mean something else! Where, in my unique definition, they can't apply to white men!

You can.

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

se02orqua5xz9v · 15-05-2015 7:50am

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Ok. So I have finally listened to the video, researched the context of the video and looked into who the person them self is.

As it turns out they are a queer, disabled person from a BME (Black/Minority Ethnic, it's a term used by the government in the UK to describe non white/non European people) working class background.

They are basically using the definition of racism used by people like Hooks, Giddens and other eminent sociologists. In that sense they are right.

In the context of the UK (where Mustafa lives) if you understand racism to be structural, historical oppression of people of ethnic minorities and sexism to be structural, historical oppression of women, then Mustafa is 100% correct, it is impossible for Mustafa (a queer person of colour) to be racist or sexist.

As has been side in this thread, the idea of "reserve racism" is frankly ridiculous. People of colour are a minority in the UK, are under represented in parliament, the legal profession, the civil service and so on. The idea that they are somehow banding together to "oppress" white people or that women are banding together to "oppress" men is, without exception, laughable.

It's entirely possible for minorities or women to be prejudiced, to be bigoted, to be stupid and more.

But from a purely academic, theoretical point of view, in the context of the UK (and most of the world, to be frank), it is in fact impossible for women to be sexist or for people of colour to be racist.

Now if your understanding of racism is "not liking people from other races" and you understanding of sexism is "not liking people of the opposite sex" then sure, she's wrong, but the truth is your understanding of racism and sexism are extremely limited and you'd do well to read a bit more.

So if you're a single white working class male on minimum wage in the UK, are you privileged?

Carlos Orange · 15-05-2015 9:09am

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

So if you're a single white working class male on minimum wage in the UK, are you privileged?

Still part of the patriarchy.

Dravokivich · 15-05-2015 9:21am

Just a little Samba wrote: »

In the context of the UK (where Mustafa lives) if you understand racism to be structural, historical oppression of people of ethnic minorities and sexism to be structural, historical oppression of women, then Mustafa is 100% correct, it is impossible for Mustafa (a queer person of colour) to be racist or sexist.

Pot calling kettle black.

Or... kettle calling pot white even.

Carlos Orange · 15-05-2015 9:24am

Just a little Samba wrote: »

People of colour are a minority in the UK, are under represented in parliament

Any time I see people make that claim they are comparing the UK population to MPs.
MPs don't represent the UK population. They represent adults who can vote in parliamentary elections (presumably only UK citizens).
How do they compare on that basis?

Wibbs · 15-05-2015 9:45am

Just a little Samba wrote:

But from a purely academic, theoretical point of view, in the context of the UK (and most of the world, to be frank), it is in fact impossible for women to be sexist or for people of colour to be racist.

hahahahah…. oh wait, you're being serious.

Chloris wrote: »

Only 16 of 1200+ female billionaires in the world are self-made;
i.e. Daddy sorted the rest of them out.
I think that says it all really, and I'm not even a feminist.

It says little enough, or may tell a more complex story. Self made billionaires are a vanishingly tiny percentage of human beings, male or female. They're extreme outliers. A goodly chunk of male billionaires came from existing money/comfortable backgrounds. Few enough were rags to riches. But just maybe these outliers and the personality traits that make being a billionaire more likely has a gender influence. In general terms men are more likely to take risks, even extremely dangerous risks, they're more likely to be focused to the point of obsession, they're much more likely to be found on the autism spectrum, more likely to have ADHD. They're also far more likely to be psychopaths or exhibit psychopathic tendencies.

Those traits make for much more violence and criminal behaviour coming from a minority of men, but with a slight twist those traits could also make a minority of men more likely to become billionaires compared a smaller minority of women that would have similar traits. We're usually quite happy to go along with the idea that men are far more likely to be violent and involved in anti social and criminal behaviour, but the blinkers come on when a similar gender slant appears to be advantageous.

15-05-2015 9:51am

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

So if you're a single white working class male on minimum wage in the UK, are you privileged?

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.

Dravokivich · 15-05-2015 9:56am

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.

Huh?

SeanW · 15-05-2015 9:57am

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.

That doesn't make any sense. If you're in, for example, Kentucky or Oklahoma, what's the difference between being a black kid in da hood, and a white kid in a trailer park? They're both up sh1t creek!

4zn76tysfajdxp · 15-05-2015 10:05am

SeanW wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. If you're in, for example, Kentucky or Oklahoma, what's the difference between being a black kid in da hood, and a white kid in a trailer park? They're both up sh1t creek!

Ah, I spent many a summer swimming with my pals in Shit Creek. Very smelly place.

FTA69 · 15-05-2015 3:18pm

LDN_Irish wrote: »

.

Not to inflate his already massive ego, but check out FTA69s posts on this subject, he's bang on the money with every one of them.

Inflated ego, what are you on about? If I wasn't a total f*cking legend I'd be annoyed.

Paramite Pie · 15-05-2015 4:49pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

As it turns out they are a queer, disabled person from a BME (Black/Minority Ethnic, it's a term used by the government in the UK to describe non white/non European people) working class background.

They are basically using the definition of racism used by people like Hooks, Giddens and other eminent sociologists. In that sense they are right.

Well then, as it turns out, under UK definition I too am a BME (Mixed Race grandfather, i have mixed features), I'm also queer and I am from a working class/welfare background. So that the system tells me that I must be a victim because statistics!! Just because I may statisically be more likely to be under-privillaged doesn't mean I am in real life. Someone who scores higher than me probably struggles more.

I took the 'Check your Privilege' test and I scored quite low/at risk. But personally I feel that I've had a good life. Statistics generalise and sometimes you have to look at things from a case to case basis. Sarcastic comments about white tears don't help things either, especially as there are many white people in the poverty trap in Britain.

But if a definition decides that I cannot be racist against the majority population, then that definition is wrong.
Was it impossible for Irish Catholics in NI to be anti-British or anti-Protestant during the Troubles considering there was a proven system of oppression working against them? That's a dangerous carte blanche to give anyone.

Just a little Samba wrote: »

The idea that they are somehow banding together to "oppress" white people or that women are banding together to "oppress" men is, without exception, laughable.

No, it's the idea that white people are banding against minorities to oppress them is what we find offensive. Money is the greatest obstacle to equality and opportunity. Immigrant communities are less likely to have established networks of extended families in their new home country, and are more likely to be unskilled upon arrival. These is a prominent reason why BME's are continuing to struggle more proportionally and this limits the opportunities of their children, many of whom are adults themselves now.

Racism is another very complex problem intertwined with this but is not the sole reason.

Just a little Samba wrote: »

but the truth is your understanding of racism and sexism are extremely limited and you'd do well to read a bit more.

Your post was rather articulate until you finished it with that smug ****e.:rolleyes: The definition given is limited, simple as.

MathDebater · 15-05-2015 5:07pm

I think it was Aristotle who said; "The poor do not overthrow the rich in order to benefit the poor, they overthrow the rich in order to become the rich".

Very few folk are truly out to divide the wealth, raise the general standard of living and level the playing field for everyone. What most of the people who say they are after that want, is just to get themselves higher up the ladder. Mustafa and her cohorts are a perfect example of this.

pablomakaveli · 15-05-2015 6:02pm

awec wrote: »

As a relatively recent student myself (5 years ago) I found that a lot of students are actually insufferable dickheads.

Student Unions attract the most annoying of these, they swarm to their SU like flies swarm around a freshly laid shite.

If you are capable of annoying people every time you make a sound then you'll probably get elected to these positions within the SU and then might walk around with the delusion that you are actually important. Election also depends on what clubs or societies you attend and how many of your mates will bother getting out of bed in the morning to go and vote for you.

Bang on. I couldn't ever take the SU seriously. Every year there'd be a new election and the candidates would stick up nonsense posters everywhere, hand out sweets and have their female friends put on a tight t-shirt asking people to vote.

The SU is basically a popularity contest for dickheads.

ScumLord · 15-05-2015 6:40pm

MathDebater wrote: »

I think it was Aristotle who said; "The poor do not overthrow the rich in order to benefit the poor, they overthrow the rich in order to become the rich".

Very few folk are truly out to divide the wealth, raise the general standard of living and level the playing field for everyone. What most of the people who say they are after that want, is just to get themselves higher up the ladder. Mustafa and her cohorts are a perfect example of this.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who start out trying to make a level playing field, and in their naivety they go into things like politics thinking everyone in charge is just trying to maintain the status quo. But then they get in and see the reality of the situation and have to accept the fact that it's not an easy thing to do. Once you start pulling threads out there's the potential for many systems to fall apart and they'll find opposition from quarters they never expected to find opposition.

Letree · 15-05-2015 6:47pm

I remember this story when it came out. Has this wagon still got her job as 'diversity officer'?

Letree · 15-05-2015 7:42pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

But from a purely academic, theoretical point of view, in the context of the UK (and most of the world, to be frank), it is in fact impossible for women to be sexist or for people of colour to be racist.

Nonsense, take a workplace where men are in a significant minority. Interviews for a job comes up and there was an all women panel interviewing. Two of the women on the panel decide to favour a women getting the job. Is that not sexist? Or is it not possible for women to be sexist.

tritium · 15-05-2015 8:24pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Ok. So I have finally listened to the video, researched the context of the video and looked into who the person them self is.

As it turns out they are a queer, disabled person from a BME (Black/Minority Ethnic, it's a term used by the government in the UK to describe non white/non European people) working class background.

They are basically using the definition of racism used by people like Hooks, Giddens and other eminent sociologists. In that sense they are right.

In the context of the UK (where Mustafa lives) if you understand racism to be structural, historical oppression of people of ethnic minorities and sexism to be structural, historical oppression of women, then Mustafa is 100% correct, it is impossible for Mustafa (a queer person of colour) to be racist or sexist.

That argument us little more than the old "I'm not racist but....." refrain of the gob****e, dressed up in wooly academic apologism.

As has been side in this thread, the idea of "reserve racism" is frankly ridiculous. People of colour are a minority in the UK, are under represented in parliament, the legal profession, the civil service and so on. The idea that they are somehow banding together to "oppress" white people or that women are banding together to "oppress" men is, without exception, laughable.

Its not reverse racism, its just plain old racism. Based on the above you don't appear to understand the meaning of the term.

It's entirely possible for minorities or women to be prejudiced, to be bigoted, to be stupid and more.

But from a purely academic, theoretical point of view, in the context of the UK (and most of the world, to be frank), it is in fact impossible for women to be sexist or for people of colour to be racist.

A good thing most of us live in the real world rather than the academic theoretical one so. In the real world you don't get to redefine well understood words just to peddle your latest research paper....

Now if your understanding of racism is "not liking people from other races" and you understanding of sexism is "not liking people of the opposite sex" .

Well that would be part of most peoples understanding, there's a bit more to it though that you might want to read up on....

stan larsen · 15-05-2015 8:57pm

tritium wrote: »

Its not reverse racism, its just plain old racism. Based on the above you don't appear to understand the meaning of the term.

But why do we need the word racism?

If you were to say assault somebody because they were had a different skin colour to yours we could call you a thug and a racist.

If you were to assault someone because they were say an Arsenal supporter, or because they had red hair we would just call you a thug. We wouldn’t need to expand our vocabulary to include new words, Arsenalism or Gingerism.

We need our racisms and other isms (in my opinion

) to draw attention to the fact that a particular xxx-ist incident is one of many that had led to a diminished quality of life for xxx people.

Yes, your understanding of the definition of racism is probably the one most would have. And under it, if a black person assaults a white person because they are white then they would be deemed a thug and a racist.

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

Carlos Orange · 16-05-2015 12:43am

Letree wrote: »

I remember this story when it came out. Has this wagon still got her job as 'diversity officer'?

The people who elected her believe her nonsense. Why wouldn't she still have her position.

wakka12 · 16-05-2015 1:11am

stan larsen wrote: »

But why do we need the word racism?

If you were to say assault somebody because they were had a different skin colour to yours we could call you a thug and a racist.

If you were to assault someone because they were say an Arsenal supporter, or because they had red hair we would just call you a thug. We wouldn’t need to expand our vocabulary to include new words, Arsenalism or Gingerism.

We need our racisms and other isms (in my opinion ) to draw attention to the fact that a particular xxx-ist incident is one of many that had led to a diminished quality of life for xxx people.

Yes, your understanding of the definition of racism is probably the one most would have. And under it, if a black person assaults a white person because they are white then they would be deemed a thug and a racist.

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

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

se02orqua5xz9v · 16-05-2015 1:49am

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

So if you're a single white working class male on minimum wage in the UK, are you privileged?

psinno wrote: »

Still part of the patriarchy.

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.

Can you name one thing a white working class male on minimum wage in the UK has that is denied to all those who are not white males?

silverfeather · 16-05-2015 4:21am

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

Can you name one thing a white working class male on minimum wage in the UK has that is denied to all those who are not white males?

Less frequently stopped and searched?

16-05-2015 4:44am

Dravokivich wrote: »

Huh?

I think some people are being deliberately obtuse. It was a very simple point.

One can say a race is privileged. For example, take Caucasian Australians and Aborigines, we can all agree the former are more privileged.

Does that mean every individual white Australian is privileged in terms of their individual circumstances? Well obviously not, that would be a patently silly idea.

People are confusing class privilege with individual privilege.

silverfeather · 16-05-2015 4:47am

Deleted User wrote: »

I think some people are being deliberately obtuse. It was a very simple point.

One can say a race is privileged. For example, take Caucasian Australians and Aborigines, we can all agree the former are more privileged.

Does that mean every individual white Australian is privileged in terms of their individual circumstances? Well obviously not, that would be a patently silly idea.

People are confusing class privilege with individual privilege.

Eruditely explained, well done.

se02orqua5xz9v · 16-05-2015 5:27am

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

Can you name one thing a white working class male on minimum wage in the UK has that is denied to all those who are not white males?

silverfeather wrote: »

Less frequently stopped and searched?

That isn't what I asked. I asked for something white working class males have that is denied to all who are not white males.

The absence of something disadvantageous is not the same as the presence of something advantageous.

silverfeather · 16-05-2015 5:32am

Ronald Brave Nutmeg wrote: »

That isn't what I asked. I asked for something white working class males have that is denied to all who are not white males.

The absence of something disadvantageous is not the same as the presence of something advantageous.

Peace of mind of lacking that thing is present.

stan larsen · 16-05-2015 7:58am

wakka12 wrote: »

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

In Ireland? It wouldn’t really be necessary unless you believe racism as opposed to “racist” incidents is an issue in Ireland.

But then the terms racist / racism are not used out of necessity in practice but because they are such potent terms - much like homophobia.

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

Comments