Shadow Minister for Public Health. That is the position held by Diane Abbott. I can think of nobody better qualified for this office other than perhaps that other exemplar of healthy living, ‘Lord’ Prescott.
Diane loves the Guardian and the Guardian reciprocates this tender affection. It truly is wonderful to behold such sentiments, for love is a fragile thing in the volatile worlds of politics and journalism. Love though, as they say, is blind, which is just as well when your object of affection is Diane, and this past week the Guardian has proffered its full support to her and her twittering. If only those nasty white people would understand that Diane is simply doing her professionally black best to advance the interests of her ‘people’ groaning under the yoke of English colonial oppression.
For Diane this is after all 1912, and so far as slavery goes it’s 1712. Time and space constitute no barrier for Diane and the Guardian, for the historical ‘ills’ suffered by a fraction of the global black population at the hands of a controlling minority of the English elite would appear to suffice as a pretext for browbeating all English people and all whites for the rest of eternity. The fact that blacks routinely enslaved each other and that Arabs viewed (and often continue to do so) them as akin to sub-humans but nonetheless worthy as enslaving registers neither with Abbott nor the Guardian. Do not such crude generalisations and projections of ‘guilt’ and ‘responsibility’ furnish clear evidence of their deeply ingrained anti-white racism?
For Diane this is after all 1912, and so far as slavery goes it’s 1712. Time and space constitute no barrier for Diane and the Guardian, for the historical ‘ills’ suffered by a fraction of the global black population at the hands of a controlling minority of the English elite would appear to suffice as a pretext for browbeating all English people and all whites for the rest of eternity. The fact that blacks routinely enslaved each other and that Arabs viewed (and often continue to do so) them as akin to sub-humans but nonetheless worthy as enslaving registers neither with Abbott nor the Guardian. Do not such crude generalisations and projections of ‘guilt’ and ‘responsibility’ furnish clear evidence of their deeply ingrained anti-white racism?
I do hope that Diane appreciates the cartoon of her as ‘victim’ penned by Guardian cartoonist Gary Barker. In this she has been somewhat ‘whited up’ and portrayed as an innocent garnering unwarranted attention from a hostile press in front of a memorial to the recently beatified St Stephen. She is you see, such a morally upstanding woman. Oh yes, quite a remarkable woman my dear friends. What will Aardman Ed Miliband do? “More cheese Gromit? Oh, sorry, I meant to say Diane.” Someone call a taxi!
Aardman Ed Miliband (courtesy of Sponge Monkey)
Diane Abbott 'whites up' for The Guardian
A couple of points.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, there have been calls from certain quarters for her resignation. This is disgraceful. There should never have been time for those calls to be made as she should have been sacked immediately.
Her comments about whites playing colonial games, white European nurses, black mothers going further for their children than white mothers and her calls for white males to lose their public sector jobs to safeguard the posts of black people would, if she had been a white male describing the opposites, have been enough to ensure instant dismissal and possibly even prosecution.
Secondly, are Abbott and her mindless supporters even aware of the irony of bleating on about the limited opportunities offered to black people when her skin colour is the one single thing that's kept her employed and has enabled her progression in politics?
I suspect she is smugly aware and couldn't care less.
This is her near counterpart in the US:
ReplyDeletehttp://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/06/hhs-calls-for-health-professionals-to-study-lgbt-cultural-competency-curricula/
All good points Cygnus, and it is also worth us bearing in mind that for the likes of Abbott and the Guardian their peculiar unidirectional flexible definition of 'racism' is framed in such a way as to justify the complete displacement of the indigenous population. Why? For them, it is a 'moral' question, for in the words of a recent Guardian hack "racism is inherently political; it requires the power to contribute to racial oppression." This implies that the only manner in which they will succeed in rooting out what they define as 'racism' will be the ceding of power from the host white society to incoming black colonists, for only then will the question of the current power 'imbalance' and its associated 'racism' be in their eyes resolved.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Juniper. I'll take a look.
ReplyDelete