THE ABBOTT AFFAIR

THE ABBOTT AFFAIR

by 

 REGINALD YOUNG

General / Sociology / Politics

 For  Nazma, Mo, Tatiana and Liberty.

 Copyright  ©   Reginald Young   1999.

All rights reserved.

 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

 A catalogue record for this book is available

 from the British Library.

 First Published in the United Kingdom

 by  Reginald  Young 

 July 1999

 Printed in the UK

 ISBN    1  899968  07  5

KEY IDEAS

Race, racialisation, racism, sexism, fascism, nationalism, environmentalism, biological determinism, afrocentrism and essentialism.

INTRODUCTION

This article was written as an analytical project. It was not intended to represent, convert or defend the views, ideology or political interests of any individual, political party or  social movement.

The themes discussed in the first part of this essay were taken from the real life experiences of the writer and an article written in a local newspaper by a Labour Party MP Miss Diane Abbott and which was later reprinted in the national press.

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that although the MP's quoted statements presents conceptual, theoretical and political controversies her views appear to be given legitimacy by some members of the "racial" or "ethnic" minority communities.

 The second part the paper refers to some incidents taken from the press and the social world of crime as examples to illustrate the tension, confusion and abuse involved when the unscientific term "race", concepts such as "racism" and "race relations" are employed as  means to explain the behaviour of individuals participating in a changing complex dynamic socioeconomic  process with serious implications for health, safety and security issues.

 Also an analysis  will be made the concepts of "race", "racism" and "racialisation" as ideological constructs thereby defining "racism" not  as an ingrained factor in the human personality but as an ideological form conditioned by history, language, socioeconomic processes and employed as the justification for the unrefined attempts which individuals adopt in their everyday survival strategies.   

THEME:-

[1]  THE RECRUITMENT OF 30 FINNISH NURSES AT HOMERTON HOSPITAL IN HACKNEY AND MISS DIANE ABBOTT'S REMARKS.

 My  experience  

Last week (week beginning on Monday 25th of November 1996) there were reports in the national and local press on an article written by Diane Abbot who is (still) presently a Labour MP for Hackney north and Stoke Newington.

As you know she is celebrated  as a "hard left radical", "black socialist", "black MP"  a member of the "black section "  of the Labour Party and other  understood ethnic or "racial" identities relating to an afrocentric nature.

I must confess that I am not a devout reader of the national newspapers therefore I have not read all the statements and reports connected to this affair.

It was brought to my attention by a casual acquaintance on Saturday 30th of November who showed me an article entitled "RACE ROW MP SORRY" in the 'Daily Mirror' dated Friday 29th of November.

I subsequently took the article to 'Speaker's Corner' with the intention of raising the issue of "racism" as covered in the press.

Unfortunately, I was not given an opportunity to make any form of analysis.

Eventually I was compelled to closed the meeting because of the interruptions, accusations, and aggressive abuses made by hecklers  to members of the audience who were interested in what I had to say.

I was called a "reversed racist" for not accepting, identifying, liking and legitimizing individuals who identified themselves with or belonging to racialised, racist and racial groupings called "blacks".

Before I stepped down from the platform I had the opportunity to listen and observe the rantings of a "black skinned" speaker who flew the Jamaican national flag and defended Diane Abbott and declared the superiority of the "black race".

He had the largest number of listeners most of the audience was not "black" and equal as he repeatedly reminded them.

I raised my voice in protest at the xenophobia, bigotry and hate of his speech but the audience just turned their heads in disgust in my direction as if I was being abusive. There was no opposition from the audience.

The other speakers including Christians of all "ethnic" or "racial" specification did not protest even a so-called "leftist" speaker did not challenge the "black fascist" speaker. In fact the hecklers who aggressively disrupted my meeting were the regulars who would claim to be "anti-racist" did not even dare voice any protest against the racist assertions of the speaker.

Only one male tourist came to me and asked whether I agree with what the speaker with the Jamaican flag was saying about "whites". I told Him that I am on my own in Speaker's Corner and it is not fair for anyone to associate me other speakers.

I left Speaker's Corner early by 4 pm.

I tried to forget the goings on at Speaker's Corner when I left on Sunday afternoon only to be reminded by an encounter at the local public launderette in the early afternoon on Tuesday  3rd of November.

 A character born in Britain with West Indian parentage he alleges. (I have had some "polite" confrontations with him before)

He described himself as "black" and advocates the superiority of "black peoples" in history, the evil conspiracy of the "white races" against the "blacks" and the "whites" as "British" who gives weapons and caused the "blacks" in Africa to fight each other.

(He once told me I had a funny accent and then asked me which Island in the West Indies I am from. I told him I have no Identity I am a British citizen.)

As I sat looking at my clothes spinning and tumbling on the machine he entered the launderette and an idea occurred to me  that he would be an ideal sample of the "ordinary man on the street" in touch with the general moods of his associates. After all he is working for the local council in a public laundry where he meets individuals in a  "multicultural" environment.

As I greeted him and asked him what he thought about the fuss made about Diane Abbot, he then interrupted me by urging me to accompany him into the back room where "we" will be able to talk without "them" listening to "us" ("Them" of course was referring to the three English females of pensionable age who were using the washing machines at the time )

For a moment I thought he was paranoid  but  later it transpired that he categorized me as "black" and the rest of the laundry users as "white" and separated me from the public space to express his racist views privately to me.

 I decided not to object for the elderly females might be afraid at the sight of two young "black" males arguing, they might think he is a nice guy because he smiles and helps them to lift their laundry bags or they might feel intimidated by his authority as a council worker in charge of the laundry.

He sat himself down behind the desk and began to  declare that the newspapers twisted Diane Abbot's words. He claimed he knew what she meant because being of the same "colour" ("black", "race") as Diane Abbott no "blue-eyed blonde" has never touched him and he added that he expected me to feel the same.

 At this moment I felt uncomfortable for I was not sure whether he was threatening me for not sharing his racist views or whether he was appealing for racial solidarity and support.

I began to explain my position to him as an observer.
"I don't know Diane Abbott. I have never met her. I understand she is a successful MP, a Cambridge university graduate".
Suddenly he got up and began to fiddle with the tuning knob of his radio cassette murmuring "I have to find LBC radio station".

After failing to obtain LBC he sat down at his desk and told me to carry on. I asked him to define racism, fascism and fundamentalism he answered Racism is hatred against somebody, Fascism is hatred and forcing someone to change their views and fundamentalism is sticking to fundamentals.

 As I began to define the terms he interrupted and said "It's only your opinion".
I replied "Opinions causes arguments, theory  promotes discussion. There is a big difference between an argument and a discussion and those who argue often do not know what they are arguing about".
I stood up and walked out the door to tend my laundry.

On my way home I began to reflect on my experiences with the two "black skinned" males in and outside Speaker's Corner who defended and supported the racist views of the MP Diane Abbott.

QUOTES FROM DIANE ABBOTT

1)  "The issue  is not one of colour. The issue is  that people should not  be recruited from overseas  in an area of mass unemployment."

2) "I am sure that these women  are charming. Bur they are basically here to  improve their English  and are unlikely to give the British health  service a  lifetime's commitment"

3) "I am surprised  that they choose  to bring in blonde, blue-eyed girls from Finland, instead of nurses from the Caribbean  who know the  language and understand British culture and

institutions".

4) "And are Finnish girls, who may never  have met a black person before, let alone touch one,

best suited to nursing in multi-cultural Hackney?"

5) "I do not care what colour hair the nurses have. My concern is  that in the inner city, big local

employers should make an effort to recruit  locally.  Hommerton makes no special effort, though it is the second largest employer in the area."

6) Miss Abbott insisted that her words had been "twisted"  and she had nothing to apologise

for.( Quotes 1-6 from the 'Daily Mail' 28/11/96 )

            COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS

Yes, Miss Abbott's quoted statements contain references that can be qualified as discriminatory, preferential treatment and sexist, racist, nationalist, fascist or exclusionary in manner.

Quote  1)  

                 -  "The issue is not one of colour"

How many times have this cliché been stated by pseudo-intellectuals within the full range of the ideological and political spectrum from far right  to liberals and the extreme left trying to justify their so-called "holier-than-thou" anti-racist position.

But what does it mean?

More important, specifically, what  meaning is Miss Abbott trying to convey?

What are the implications or possible repercussions?

What theoretical models can best interpret, analyze and scrutinize this issue?

Can "race" or "racism" explains this phenomenon?

Well, this depends on how race or racism is defined.

What is race or racism depends on the kind of criteria and parameters and how these criteria and parameters are employed in defining, constructing and legitimizing race or racism.

In terms of "race" construction  the following mechanisms are used:-

a)  Biology both Genotype (gene and blood pool) and phenotype (Skin, hair or eye colour, size of

face, nose, feet, hands and hips ) are employed.

b) Culture ( religion, language, dress, accent behavior, dances and music etc.

c) Ideology  ( commonsense reified racialised and essentialised concepts, categories and

terminologies that have been accepted, legitimized and  granted scientific status within the social

sciences by some so-called social scientists.

Indirect mechanisms.

The indirect mechanisms are more or less understood in terms of objectives.

Some objectives that are pursued to:

                        1)  differentiate,

                        2) evaluate

                        3)  exclude

                        4) discriminate

                        4) degrade

                        6) abuse

                        7) manipulate

                        8) dominate

                        9) exploit

                        10) depend

                        11) blame

                        12) accuse

                        13) justify etc.

In terms of classifying individuals as if they were  discrete entities to negatively exclude, the terms, concepts and categories of race and  racism are not epiphenomenal.

Other "ISM's" serve the same goal.

 In short ism's are  skism's  that legitimises sadism's.

For example: sexism, nationalism, environmentalism, tribalism, casteism, familism, fascism and regionalism etc.                                                                             

In other words to appreciate Miss Abbott's use of terminologies one must understand the objectives concealed in her assertions whether "she had nothing to apologise for", she is aware of these objectives and their consequences or not.

Concerning "race" and "racism" and the use of language.

A racist is anyone who constructs, categorizes and defines human population groupings as discrete entities with fixed unchanging characteristics that are determined by superficial external biological specifications of a phenotypical description.

For example: "Black people", "Blonde blue-eyed girls from Finland", "White people". Here the terms "black", "white", "blonde" and "blue-eyed" are used by making references to the colour of skin, hair and eyes to further infer that the dynamic creative changing personality, intelligence and behavior of the individuals categorized is tainted, affected, shaped and determined or correspond to the essentialised stereotyped racialised perceptions connotated by  use of the phenotypical racist terms such as "black", "white", "blonde", and "blue-eyed".

But Miss Abbott is more subtle and attempts to deviate any accusation or criticism of "race" or "racism" in her statements by declaring "The issue is not one of colour"  

Yes, she appears to be logical by  asserting that  the issue is not one of "colour"("race") when or if race/racism is defined by using "colour" or more appropriately the term "colour" as a criterion of race perception, construction, signification justification or exclusion.

As explained above there are many other mechanisms (terminologies) to choose besides colour to identify, define and construct "race/racism".

In other words her theoretical understanding  of race/racism is too narrow, limited and one-sided for it is based on the nineteenth century colonial paradigm that has influenced commonsense notions of contemporary "race/racism".

This commonsense notion of race/racism  excludes or  does not take into account the post-World War.
Two cultural criterion as advocated by Dr. Fanon and developed in the early eighties by Martin  Barker(1981) who claimed to have identified a "new racism" fabricated by the new right during the Thatcher years.

The colonial paradigm is dichotomous, white/black, strong/weak, rich/poor oppressor/oppressed.

It is dominated by trans-historical grand narratives which upholds the misguided view that all individuals including MP Miss Abbott (irrespective of income, status and power) that are labeled "black" are therefore impotent, helpless passive victims of past and present structural and human social factors perceived as or labeled "white".

Or the reverse which implies that all individuals perceived as or labeled "white"  including the babies, houseless, unemployed and disabled (irrespective of income, status and power) are  superior omnipotent conspiratoral  evil  oppressive forces that excludes and inferiorises all individuals including Miss Abbott as "blacks" without their consent, participation or legitimisation.

Now the new racism according to Barker does not use the term race or the colonial superior/inferior  criterion to define race/racism. It simply uses cultural differences.

 Martin Barker asserts:

 [This, then, is the character of New Racism. It is a theory that I shall call biological or better, pseudo biological culturalism. Nations in this view are not built out of politics and economics, but out of human nature. It is in our biology, our instincts, to defend our way of life, traditions and customs against outsiders - not because they are inferior but because they are part of different cultures. This is a non-rational process; and none the worse for it. For we are soaked in, made up out of, our traditions and our culture.]    -  Barker 1981 pp. 23                                                                  

"It is equally wrong not to recognise  that racial selectivity - a natural human preference for one's own kind - is deeply engrained in all peoples, whatever their colour or creed".

 -   ('Daily Express editorial on 20/4/81 )

[That is an awful lot, and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people of a different culture. The British  character  has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped, then people are going to be rather hostile to those coming in.]   -   Mrs Thatcher February 1978 0n TV )

So far, this  affair is strange to a point of ridiculous laughter that the above quotations (1to 5) of Miss Abbott contain details that are similar to Mrs Thatcher's speech, the editorial comment of the 'Daily Express' (1981) and the "New Racism" defined by Martin Barker in 1981.

It's interesting to observe how extremes converge.

A "Black left-wing socialist of the Labour Party" advocating racist (Blonde blue-eyed girls), nationalist (British), nationalist and sexist  (Finnish girls instead of professional nurses) and environmentalist ( inner-city, area of mass unemployment) and fascist (anti-working class interests) judgements to exclude and negatively evaluate members of the potential "international" worker's movement (nurses) that all so-called socialists pretend to represent, defend and support.

The ideological enemies of the so-called socialists - the "new right" and their ideological voice the  'Daily Mail' couldn't believe their luck and are probably laughing all the way right now to an eminent election victory  when they read Miss Abbott bigoted remarks targeting the members of the working classes and Hormerton Hospital's administration that is under structural stress and strain due to overall under funding of the National health Service by a "Conservative" government.

 Altogether the significance of the bigoted remarks by the Labour MP Miss Diane Abbott  can be exploited for scoring political goals for any honest, anti-fascist, vigilant politically competent contending political  party campaigning or preparing  for legitimate government in the forthcoming  general election. 

Race & racism have definite limitations.

Race & racism are not epiphenomenal or trans-historical.

Race & racism are not the only terms that can be employed from  the arsenal of exclusionary vocabulary  to define, label, discriminate  and exclude  individuals.

I have already discussed above that to negatively evaluate, exclude and abuse an individual, race (phenotype-"skin colour" as criterion of race construction) is not necessary nor is it the only conceptual device (Martin Barker's thesis on New Racism).

So  Miss Abbott clever remark that "The issue is not one of colour"  is obviously inappropriate in terms of the ideology of racism employed to justify exclusion.

From Quote 1) we learn that according to Miss Abbott  "The issue is not one of colour".

In this case what is the issue?

On the surface it appears that her statement "The issue is not one of colour"   is anti-racist and does not imply any idea of exclusion but by earnest scrutiny clearly what is being suggested is "The issue is not only one of colour"  to exclude, discriminate and evaluate but the employment of multi-"isms" to exclude.

The exclusionary notions implicated in Miss Abbott's assertions  are open to scrutiny by examining or employing the following variables to justify excluding the "other".

(a) Class? (nurses), 
(b) gender? (Finish girls, these women, blue-eyed girls), 
(c) race/racism? (Phenotype, blue-eyed girls),
(d) nation/nationalism? (Finnish, Finland, Finnish girls), 
(e) environmentalism? (Inner city, local),
(f) Culture,  (non-British, "here to improve their English"),
(g) regionalism? (Overseas, recruit locally), 
(h) preferential treatment? (Hommerton makes no special effort) 
or (i) xenophobia?

Miss Abbott attempts to make the issue a mystery at best and an insidious denial at worst.

"I do not care what colour hair the nurses have"" writes Miss Abbott but goes on to care enough to use colour of skin  ("black person") to label a non-Finnish person in her statement (quotation 4 ) "...Finnish girls, who may never met a black person before".

In quote 4) Miss Abbott made an amazing turn around by using the racist, racialised, essentialised, biological determined, phenotype (skin colour ) phrase "black person".

    The treatment of the "issue"  when referring to "Finnish girls"  is not one of colour but becomes discriminatory  and colour defined as "black person"  when referring to non-Finnish, local, inner city or Caribbean persons. This anomaly, apparent contradiction and ambiguity can be described at best as blatant hypocrisy or at worst as  a manifestation schizophrenia.

For blaming, negatively evaluating and disregarding professional nurses from Finland who committed no crime as employees in the "National Health Service", is equivalent to psychological abuse.

In fact the nouns and adjectives of Miss Abbott's (non-Finnish) British cultural English statements are heavily connotated with all the negative meanings of an exclusionary nature.

So far there are biological determinism (black person), cultural chauvinism, essentialism, environmentalism, nationalism, racism, sexism, fascism and xenophobia.

Miss Abbott continues to amaze.  She asserts in (quote 1) that "The issue is that people should not be recruited from overseas in an area of mass unemployment". She further explains in quote 3) what or whom she means or refers to by using the word "overseas". "I am surprised that they choose to bring in blonde blue-eyed girls from Finland, instead of nurses from the Caribbean . . ."

The following points are implicated:-

a)  Aren't Finland and the Caribbean located overseas? If so, why discriminate in terms of preferential treatment for nurses from the Caribbean?

b) Why as a make-believe member of the so-called socialist Labour Party does Miss Abbott divide and discriminate the workers (nurses) along national, racial, ethnic and employment status boundaries and to add more insult to injury by  contemptuously labeling professionally trained nurses "from Finland" as "blonde blue-eyed girls" on one hand and describing those elsewhere as "nurses" from the Caribbean?"

c) As a so-called left wing member of a socialist political party  which side of the industrial relations conflict does Miss Abbott pledges her allegiance?

Is it on the side of the employers by instructing them where or who to recruit?

Is it on the side of the  employees by educating, organizing, uniting and promoting their interests irrespective of biological specification, nationality and occupational status?

The pioneer socialists who  have fought, made tremendous sacrifices  and dreamed of liberating the oppressed and exploited from slavery would be saddened to learn that their axiom "Workers of the world unite,  you have nothing to lose but your chains" has been ridiculed at the eve of the Twenty First Century by Miss Abbott A Labour Party socialist and descendant of a slave colony who is "surprised"  by the employer's ability to recruit  employees from anywhere  and simultaneously aimed her guns at the powerless, propertyless wage slaves' ability to create opportunity to be employed anywhere  by being geographically mobile.                                                                       

d) As a labour MP how does she justify excluding the working classes from Europe while at the same time pretending to follow her party leader's pro-European policy  of freedom of movement of human capital resources?

The answer is simple.

As a  neo-Fascist Miss Abbott does not object to the unity, freedom of movement and employment of the commercial and financial capital managed and controlled by the "blonde blue-eyed" capital barons of the EEC and the world but is consistent in fulfilling the fascist policy of undermining the potential freedom of the democratic united working class ability to be flexible and mobile to develop a viable movement within Europe.

"Race/racism" or "anti-racism" are unable as explanatory models to analyze comprehensively the quotations from Miss Abbott simply because the "blonde blue-eyed" individuals that are members of right wing conservative parties, neo-fascist organizations, neo-nazi, anti-Semitic, racist and nationalist social movements were not the targets of Miss Abbott's offensive statements.

I suggest theories of fascism would be more appropriate as an analytical explanatory model to explain the confusion, indecisiveness and behavior of some so-called socialists who are unable to fulfill their professed anti-racist policies to deal effectively with "race", "racism" and "race relations" within the labour movement, merely because the "blonde blue eyed"  persons whom Miss Abbott's remarks were aimed at  are members of the global working class movement that is striving to make the world a healthier, safer and happier place to live.

In other words as a socialist Miss Abbott betrayed all "blonde blue-eyed"  socialists, liberals and anti-fascists who have been martyred challenging totalitarianism, imperialism, fascism, nazism and anti-semitism during World War Two and beyond.

I must end now for I do not have the energy, time nor space to respond justly  to the increasing numerous negative forces that are abusing, degrading and destroying the hope and dreams of suffering humanity.

[2]  THE IMPOTENCE OF "RACE", "RACIALISATION" AND "RACIAL EXPLANATIONS".

-  (nevertheless, there is no black epistemology)

Can "race" explain why a "black" female MP whose mother was recruited from "overseas" (Jamaica) attacks (criticises) the recruitment of alleged "blonde blue-eyed" nurses from Finland, while in the UK Liza Potts a 21-year-old "blonde blue-eyed" nurse and several children at St Lukes Infant School at Blakenhall, Wolverhampton  were savagely attacked  by  a "black skinned" male Horrett Gambell with a machete?

Miss Abbott was campaigning for justice in the case of a "black skinned male", Wayne Douglas, an aggravated burglar who died in police custody.

Why didn't Miss Abbott demand equal justice for the "blonde blue-eyed" nurse Liza Potts who risked her life and limb caring for innocent children playing in a nursery school by  condemning the heartless attack by a mad "black skinned" male?

Why was Commissioner Condon's policy statement controversial?

Operation "Eagle Eye" was a policing campaign to tackle street crime with particular attention given to mugging.                                                                    

In his public statement Commissioner Condon identified some variables to describe his crime statistics on street muggings. A paraphrase of his statement would read "The majority of muggers were  unemployed, young black and  male".

Likewise why was the "black" variable selected and exaggerated to disproportionate significance relative to the other variables mentioned in Commissioner Condon's statement on street crime

The following inferences are possible :-
(a)    The critics of Commissioner Condon's anti-crime policy statement highlighted  the skin colour
("race") of the criminal to such an exaggerated extent so as to  neglect the actions of the criminal and
the unfair treatment of the tormented  victims.
(b)    The unmentioned variables such as the "male", "young" and "unemployed" were
contemptuously excluded,  discriminated and marginalised.
(c)    Racism  appears to be more potent, dreadful, agreeable and  exploitable  to the logic of some
prominent members of the judiciary, government, press and  members of the so-called "ethnic/racial"
minority communities than the prevailing issues associated with casteism, tribalism, sexism, ageism,
elitism, fascism and nationalism.
(d)    As  citizens, the critics that misconstrued  Commissioner Condom's anti-crime  policy statement

were reckless at best and morally depraved at worst.
Answer:
a)     Commissioner Condon used the term "black" in a descriptive sense to identify the individuals
committing the crime of mugging.
What was meant practically was the mugger wore a "black-skin".
Unfortunately, when the word "black" is used to describe an individual's colour of skin the suffix
"skin" is left out or is implied. The term "black" is also used to describe the  colour"black" and
simultaneously "black-skin" or the numerous "other" connotative meanings of a "racialised" nature.

          In other words the statement should have contained "black-skin" instead of the word "black". In this way an allowance is made  for the individual wearing a "black" coloured skin to perceive, identify or buy into the idea of "black"  as "race", "ethnic group" or "community".

Should this be the case, then the individual is guilty of "racialising", "race construction" or simply being a "racist".( here the colour of the individual's "black-skin" is used as a criterion to construct the idea of a "black race")                                                            

         Alternatively, if an individual wearing a "black skin" does not use the colour of his or her skin as an object of "race" construction, "racial awareness", "racialisation" or "racial identification", then the term "black" as used by Commissioner Condon would simply be perceived by the individual as a descriptive category without any negative inferences to personality, "racial" perception, group labeling or life style.

      In other words an individual who possesses a "black" skin and is not  "black" (perceiving or identifying with the concept of a "black race")  is not a  "racist" nor an ally, defender and apologist for a mugger wearing a "black" skin.                                                               

            The advantage of this policy (using the term "black skin" instead of the word "black") is when the police describe the suspect as wearing a "black" "brown", "yellow", "White", "olive" or what ever coloured skin it will not be confused with the subjective racialised meanings that is open to manipulation by unscrupulous racists, fascists and opportunist politicians.

            This is why when Commissioner Condon used the term "black " in a descriptive sense it was contradicted by the "black "MPs and others who used  the word "black"  in a totally different  one-sided "racist" way  to define the "race" consciousness, "racial identities", "racialised" subjective feelings,  cultures and communities. Commissioner's Condon statement was further distorted to mean that "blacks " are muggers instead of muggers are "black"    (wore "black-skins"} as stated by the commissioner.

            Why do "black"  MPs Bernie Grant and Diane Abbott (who are not muggers)
attack the police for clamping down on muggers who wore a "black skin"?

Answer:

            "Blood is thicker than water?".  "Race  is thicker  than justice?"

            Universal justice  becomes "racial" justice?

The implication here is "race" or "colour" determines character thereby

disregarding the depraved actions or lifestyle the mugger.

For Bernie Grant and Diane Abbot the racial identity and solidarity  are more important than the act of mugging hence the unjust policy of defending the "black" skinned muggers by attacking or blaming the police as "racist" for targeting the act of mugging as a crime.

            In other words the "black" identity or skin colour of the mugger is assumed to be a wrapping of "special values" (presumably only known to the imagination Miss Abbott and Bernie Grant)  to veil the sins of the mugger.

Why don't the so-called "black" MP's condemn muggings?

Why don't the so-called members of the "black" or "ethnic" communities condemn the actions of the muggers by revealing their whereabouts to the police?

Why don't the "black skinned"  muggers demonstrate and make clear signals that they do not represent and do not want to be seen or identified as members of  the "black" or "ethnic" communities?

Answer:

             a)  Some  muggers (if not all) being "race" conscious (as individuals they perceive, imagine , believe, accept, identify with and belong to the so-called "black race" or "non-white race") are also aware that  the Police image in the public eye is very sensitive to P.C. (Political Correctness) and "good  race relations".

            Now since "race relations" does not recognize the behavior  of/or relations  among or between  individuals, the individuals who intends to embark on a career of muggings count as blessings of encouragement the messages from their "black" MP's (brothers and sisters) who blames the police as "racists" for arresting street criminals, instead of condemning mugging as a crime and the individuals who mugs defenseless citizens.                           

            In other words in the minds of the "race conscious" criminals and their     sympathisers Policing does  not  mean  pursuing the criminals as individuals  but members of  "victimised" "racial', "ethnic" or "non-white" communities.

 Policing, combating crime or Police public relations policy with the community is or becomes "race relations" policy.

Crime and criminal investigations become a "race relations" exercise.

The Criminal becomes camouflaged, invisible and veiled as he or she opportunistically and expediently uses their "racial" identities or "ethnic" communities and their corresponding identities, thus simultaneously transforming the "inner cities" into "safe areas" or "buffer zones" to escape arrest, hide and make victims of the so-called "innocent" who blindly  identifies, accepts and participates  in the shared "racial" or "ethnic"  group identities as the muggers.

In short, the criminals (including muggers) always find it advantageous to play the "race card"   to avoid detection and arrest by the police, who "have  to" appease  so-called "anti-racist" campaigners to achieve "good race relations" in an environment where the general public have a  misguided    "commonsense" understanding of "race", "racism" and "race relations".

            b)  The "race/racism" and "race relations"  paradigm within  the  Liberal multi-cultural,
multi-racial and multi-ethnic parameter is dominated with  commonsense notions of "race" and "race relations" which has evolved from the Nineteenth Century and revived during the Cold War Era.

 Furthermore, the "binary" construction of "racialised" human social relations  do not appreciate any grey areas.

In other words the binary constructs of the "colonial paradigm" such as white/black, rich/poor, coloniser/colonised, oppressor/oppressed,     powerful/powerless, them/us and racism/anti-racism imposes limitations on the definition of the concept of "race/racism" to such an extent  that a common  sense understanding of racism  has been popularised with the perception that "racism" is only perpetuated by "white" people, "blacks" are victims of  "racism" or more crudely asserted as "racism" is what so-called "whites" do to so-called "blacks".

 This biased, racialised and one-sided common sense notion  of "racism" creates an absurd situation whereby individuals who perceive, adopt or legitimise the belonging to or identifying with one side of the "race", "racialised", or "racist" binary divide decry "other" individuals of the binary divide as
an  enemy, victimiser and perpetuator of "racism".

In this case it is the "whites" ("white skins") who are labeled "racist". Therefore, as the sun moves
across the sky, it follows "naturally" in "common sense" terms that to be so-called "black", "anti-white" or supportive of "blacks" unconditionally is assumed to be "anti-racist", just and fair.
So "racism" becomes a "white" issue not a "non-white" problem. 
"Anti-racism" becomes "anti-white", "pro-black" and "non-white".
Individuals "belonging" to the so-called "white race" are perceived, labelled and condemned as "racists"and evil but individuals "belonging" to a "black"or "non-white race" are not perceived, labelled nor condemned as "racists".
Moreover "blacks" ("black skins")  are looked upon as impotent "victims" of a "white racist
conspiracy". 
Even in circumstances where the real victims are "whites" ("white skins") or individuals

wearing  "white" or "non-black" skins  who are being abused, gang raped, oppressed, exploited and
mugged by "other" individuals wearing "black" or "non-white" skins who identify with "non-white", "non-Christian" and "non-European cultures."

This ridiculous dilemma is not only fabricated by individuals using a "common sense" interpretation
of "race/racism" but by policy makers, journalists, social workers, political and social movement activists, professional politicians and  some so-called social scientists who have attempted to institute "race" (a discredited non-scientific concept) to a pseudo-scientific status within the social sciences.
Through the "binary" lens of "commomsense" the world is perceived, interpreted and believed

to be divided between "black" and "white".

"Blacks" are seen as good, innocent powerless, helpless victims of "whites" who are seen as "evil", "guilty", "powerful" and "conspiratorial oppressors".

"Race/Racism" is defined as all "blacks" (including "black" MPs, lunatics and muggers despite

their acceptance, participation and compliance  in their socio-economic relationship with ("whites"), are impotent victims.
So policing the "inner cities" in an environment restricted by P.C. and  misguided "race relations" policy officials, become a self-fulfilling prophesy  at best and a self-defeating policy at worst.

The Police are perceived by the press, opportunist politicians,  so-called leaders of "racial" and "ethnic" communities, political parties and fringe interest groups as representing  the  so-called "white evil racist powerful  establishment"(Babylon) mistreating  "black innocent victims of racism" including MPs, muggers and other criminals.

The Police is  not seen as doing their duties in protecting the law abiding citizens from lawlessness and crime.

c)  With (a) and (b) established and legitimized the Police now have become the target, scapegoat and  the enemy of all the self righteous opportunist political worms who emerging from the can of irresponsible antisocial hatreds to have a "holy" war, a "just" war, a "race" war and an "anti-police" riot.
The muggers, criminals and the insane partake in this fiasco, for this is the time to settle past grievances, make sweet revenge and hateful lust for blood.
In fact some muggers do justify their crimes by alleging it is because they are "black victims"

of "white history and society".

Amazingly if not sadly some so-called sociologists and "black" MP's legitimize this view.
Political blackmailers begin to organise their list of demands  and compensations from the Police and the Liberal minded public administrators with a low self-esteem who are scared, ready to please and believe if they give in to threats of violence, "race riots" or "inner city unrest", the muggers, "racists" (posing as "anti-racists" to justify "anti-white" resentment, guilt, rage and hate) and psychopaths will become peace lovers.
 Finally the "victims" are celebrating their new role as the "victinisers".
This is the moment of total betrayal. The "good blacks" have retreated into whimpish  fear.

The "good whites" have been silenced into guilt and humiliation in their "own country" by the

voices of apologetics and misguided "liberal anti-racists" politicians.

The general public at this stage is experiencing utter confusion, bewilderment, dispair, and

hopelessness for the dominant discourse on "race" "racism" and so-called "race relations" are

defined, manipulated and controlled above their heads by politicians, journalists and social

engineers whose  gobbledygook The general public is not even trained to understand nor how  to negotiate  effectively.                                                     

     d)       The Police by now are in a no win situation.

Confronted by a melodramatic media, naive, gullible and misguided public opinion that is demanding "justice" thereby consequently  compelling the police to solve the rising "crime" rate. (Perceived as deteriorating "race relations".
The Police know how to do their job but their hands are tied by anti-police prejudices, scapegoating, "racialisation" of the statistics on crime, misguided public opinion, political opportunists concerned about their public image and  diminishing resourses due to public expenditure cuts resulting from the expediency of party political rivalries and legitimised by public opinion
manipulated to accept the social policy of "the virtues of low taxation".
The muggers and criminals are probably laughing on their way to the bank with the idea  that in order for the police to succeed in their duties, the police must behave "politically correctly" in the public's eye for multiculturalism("racial", "racialised" or "racist") justice must be seen to be done.
Any overacting on the part of the police (despite the risks involved to life of the police Officers or patriotic members of the public) will be met with public condemnation and scrutiny that may even affect the prestige and credibility of the Police force nationally and globally.
This pattern of abusive behavior, unfair treatment and their subsequent excuses appear to be a constant feature that permeates the geography of social relations from the ecological, personal, ideological, family, community,  industrial,  to international relations.

SUMMARY

Ultimately the following factors will continue to stimulate further theoretical debates and   

 research within the  social sciences :

(a)   The significance of a comprehensive dialectical class analysis (including a Marxian and Weberian perspective) in contributing to a multi-theoretical model that ultimately aims to encourage the necessary changing processes required to redeem the self esteem of individuals made wretched by the negative features (such as inequalities, insecurity, deprivation, hunger, ignorance, alienation, fear and unhappiness) of the socioeconomic structures influencing the geography of human social relations.

(b)   The introduction, acceptance and legitimacy of the non-scientific concept of "race" as an

explanatory device within the social sciences, the judiciary and political discourse.

(c) "Racism" as an ideological construct.

(d) The limitations, ambiguities and vagueness of the sociology of "race relations" in identifying, interpreting and distinguishing the various variables punctuating  socioeconomic relations such as ageism,  sexism, elitism, fascism, familism, casteism, tribalism, environmentalism, nationalism, afrocentrism, anthropocentrism and androcentrism.

KEY  IDEAS:

Exclusion/Inclusion

                                    Is a  dialectical process. (I.e. practice inclusion is to practice exclusion simultaneously)

The process of constructing a category, label and identity to implement a policy of  discrimination (preferential treatment, segregation and victimisation) to manage differences among individuals, groups, environments, regions, cultures, ideologies, lifestyles, status, social classes and social relationships etc.

E.g.. The employment of ideological forms such as "racism",

"sexism", "elitism", "nationalism", "fascism", "casteism", "tribalism" and other "isms" to justify unequal, unfair, unjust, degrading treatment of individuals, communities, environment and other forms of life in the galaxy.                                                                                     

Race (a)

a) Word -scientifically discredited term

b) Idea  - imaginary.

 - The concept was introduced into the English language since the 16th century. ("Of the Way and Race

of Saints"  - John Bunyan, 1678).

 - The changing perceptions about the nature of physical  and cultural differences over time have

modify  the meanings of race many times usually referring to the make-up of the body (blood, eye,

hair and skin  colour) and  cultural differences  (language, dress and religion) which individuals,

human population groups and nations  are  perceived, categorised, defined and identified.

c) Ideology - the concept of race is exploited to justify abuse,  exploitation and  the prevailing

inequalities of the socio-economic relations within a given society  or globally.

d) Socially constructed category  - used to identify, distinguish, label or/and exclude differences

based on physical characteristics (hair type, colour of skin and eyes, stature etc.

e) Social group - people with common ancestry.

f) Social class  - people sharing the same interests and  characteristics  (e.g.. the race of authors}

g) Collective - human race

h) Biological type - animals or plants with common traits that classify them from other members of

the same species, forming a geographically isolated group or sub species:

Race: (b)

            Since the idea of "race" was first introduced in the English Language during the early sixteenth century, it has adopted several meanings usually referring to the make-up of the body (blood, eye, hair and skin colour) and cultural differences (language, dress and religion) which individuals, human population groups and nations  are perceived, categorised, defined and identified. For example; "black", "black man" and "black woman", "black people", "blacks", "black nation" and "black  society", "black culture", "white", "white man" and "white  woman", "white people", "whites", "white nation" and "white society"  and "white culture".                      

 Racist

            Any individual, group, culture, value, discourse, institution and act that legitimise the       perception, construction, identification, reproduction on the idea of "race" as an inherent, essential and  determinant factor within the geography of human social relations.

  (E.g.. I am not a racist for I do not imagine, identify, belong, defend, promote, prefer, nor legitimise any individual, community, lifestyle or idea that is racially constructed. In short I am not black.(I am not a member of the black race)

The colour of my skin does not determine nor represent my consciousness, feelings, or actions

Racialisation

                        The reification, essentialisation and legitimisation of the unscientific biological  notion of "race" as an intellectual tool to categorise, interpret and analyse human social        relations.

A process by which individuals assume, perceive, rationalise, interpret, evaluate and  conclude that the events, actions, relationships, personalities, movements, groups  and identities are determined, fixed, separated and perverted by the imaginary notion of "race".

More to do with how "race" is used rather than what it means.                                                                

Black / Black skin

                               The term "black" can defined as the following categories:

a) Colour

Without light. Completely dark.                                                                    

b) Code

Used as a substitute for an imaginary unscientific construction of the idea race.

c) Concept.

Used as a reified object of consciousness to construct an over simplified ideal type as a real object imbued with inherent natural quality

d) Race

Ideologically constructed and used to categorise, label or justify a biologically determined concept of population grouping identified by phenotypical characteristics (colour of hair, eyes or skin)

e) Skin complexion

A descriptive term describing the complexion of the skin of the individual an not to any subjective

meanings constructed by the subject being described or the observer.

f)  Black skin as a terminology

              This article employs the term "black skin instead of "black" to make the distinction between individuals wearing black coloured skins who do not use the colour of the skin to construct, identify or justify an imagined "race" (non-racists) and those individuals wearing black coloured skins who do buy into racialised subjective models (racists). In this way allowance is made for individuals to be responsible for voluntarily constructing  their own identity, racialised or otherwise, without the risk of stereotyping or labelling by the observer or writer.

In other words when an individual defines his or her identity as "black", meaning  a member of a racialised entity  called or labelled the "black community", this implies the legitimisation of race construction. Such an individual is subscribing to a racist perception, ideology of racism or is in fact a racist. Not all individuals wearing black coloured skins identify themselves as "black", meaning members of a so-called "black race".

Since it is possible for individuals to construct the idea of race. It is equally possible for individuals to deconstruct racialised conceptions.

Racism is not an inbred feature of the human personality.                                        

So with the descriptive discourse when the term "black skin" is used the skin is allowed speaks for itself.

With the conceptual discourse the term "black" or "blacks" is employed as an ideological construction consequently alienating the dynamic creative history making potential of the individual.              

g) common sense

                             In common sense usage no distinction is made between the above defined categories. Instead the term "black" is essentialised, reified, racialised  and codified simultaneously to describe, explain or analyse changing complex dynamic dialectical social relationships with the inevitable consequences of stereotyping, justifying biological determinism, circular arguments or  problematising by creating ambiguities.                                                                                      

Racism:

            An ideology which upholds various (awful or falsified) notions of "race", "racial classification" and "racialised" or "race" defined emotional expressions that is employed by individuals to perceive, analyse, evaluate, rationalise and justify  their prejudices, actions and policies in relationships with other human individuals, identified with, belonging to different social groups  classes, status and environments or experiencing unequal, unfair, degraded and inferior treatment.                                                                                

Sexism

            An ideology which upholds numerous ideas, attitudes, assumptions and prejudices by making references to the body (sex) and culture (gender, dress) that is used to describe, define, judge and justify the unequal, unfair and degrading treatment of individuals.                            

Fascism

                An ideology which promotes perceptions, ideas and attitudes that describes, define and justifies blind acceptance to a bossy personality, hateful, aggressive and dreadful treatment of an individual's nature (disability, sex, or race), group, (occupation, class or ethnicity) life style and country (nation).

Nationalism

                     An ideology that supports the perception, ideas and beliefs employed by individuals to create an imaginary sense of belonging to a distinctive group to exclude, judge and degrade  the "other" as individuals identified as belonging a different crowd.

Afrocentrism

                        Ideas, beliefs and assumptions that the outlook, history, culture and institutions of Africa are superior to those elsewhere. For example, "We are Africans!", "We are superior to you!", "You would not be able to get away with this rubbish in Africa!".

Essentialism

                        The assumption, belief or idea that things have an ingrained fixed, sameness, unchanging and  eternal life. For example, "You are black", "They are black", "Why do you argue with blacks?".  Here the term "black" implies that the individuals described, defined and categorised as "black" are supposed to have the same ideas, regardless of their unequal life styles, creeds and changing movements.                                                                                                                               

Biological determinism.

                                       Ideas supporting the view that the perceptions, behaviour, personality, condition and fate of an individual is ruled by or compared to the parts  of the human body (colour of skin). For example, "I am white", "You are black", "Whites are rich", "Blacks are poor", "black culture", "Blacks are oppressed because they're black".

++++