Aditya Chakrabortty |
In 1918 the Spanish flu was slaughtering tens of millions around the world, yet in Paris the highest death rates were concentrated along the richest boulevards. This baffled scientists – until they realised that it wasn’t wealthy people whose eyes were bleeding, whose skin was blackening, whose corpses were piling up. It was their servants.
While les riches enjoyed high ceilings and grand balconies, their domestics were crammed below stairs in dark, dirty, suffocating rooms. They never stood a chance. One out of four women in Paris killed by the outbreak was a maid. As Laura Spinney notes in her history Pale Rider: “The flu may have been democratic … but the society it struck was not.”
Those words came to mind this morning, watching the TV coverage of London commuters going back to work. Here was the metropolitan working class – typically black, Asian, eastern European – squeezing themselves off a packed bus. Meanwhile, their political masters eased themselves out of their ministerial Jags and into Downing Street.
Countries have underlying health conditions too, easily preyed on by a virus.
Continue reading @ The Guardian.
Every single article I read from the Guardian, they bring race into it. You would think Britain didn't have any indigenous working class if you relied on their information.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the ethnicity of people alighting the bus have to do with poorer people being much more exposed? It lessens the article's point in my view when they play identity politics.
David
ReplyDeleteBecause Britain like the USA has a problem with structural racism as the disproportionate amount of black and brown victims of Covid-19 including the disproportionate number of black and brown HHS staff who have died due largely to their lower status in the NHS.
That black and brown people are six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police and the absence of black and brown people in coaching and administrative levels of association football are just two other in dices of structural and institutional racism in British society.
Since the social categorty working classes is supposed to include all people engaged in waged manual and non-manual work including professional, intellectual and artistic workers then why does it have to be exclusively "indigenous"?
Barry,
ReplyDeleteSome times I think you're at the noise up.fair play if you are. I said no such about exclusively indigenous. It's right there above what I said.
Your answer is just more virtue signaling. The point of his article was poor people are more exposed. Why even bring ethnicity into it.? Everyone knows poor people come in every skin pigmentation, we're the majority of the globe.
Black people weren't six times more likely to be stopped by the cops where I grew up. cops were more likely to scoop a white fella then proceed to turn him black with a bit of blue and claret threw in for good measure.
These stats about black and brown staff in the nhs, is that supposed to be profound. Falling to see your point, what do mean their lower status? Should they be promoted to doctors for being black? Or are you saying in 2020 they are saying ' that's a covid ward send in the minorities' be more specific, what's your point?
I've no doubt there's institutional racism in Britain, if your biggest concern is there is no black managers it can't be that big of deal. I'm a Celtic fan, we had a black manager and got rid of him, no pitchforks and white hoods involved though wasn't his suntan that was the problem. The problem was he put Petrov at left back, thought Rafael Schiedht was a player and signed a 36 year old Ian Wright. Not everyone is obsessed with skin colour.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI thought I replied to this but must have not pushed the button, so I'll try and remember what I said.
First off I've no doubt there is structural racism in Britain but if one of the most important ways it manifest itself is few black coaches it is hardly segregation is it? Have you any evidence to suggest it's because of their skin colour coaches aren't being selected?
I'm a Celtic fan we had a black coach and got shot of him, how dark he was, was irrelevant. He wasn't very good at his job. Pitchforks and white hoods weren't required, we seen him as a human being and judged him on his coaching skills, which sadly were not like his playing skills, and said goodbye.
What does lower status in the NHS mean? Should they be promoted to doctors because they are BAME? Or are you implying their superiors said ' that's a covid ward send in the minorities' you need to be more specific.
I said nothing about it being exclusively indigenous, it's right there in black and white, get it? The article was about the poor being more exposed. Poor come in every ethnicity why single out.
David
ReplyDelete25 per cent of professional footballers in England are of black origin but how many black managers are or have there been : Chris Hughton, Paul Ince, Darren Moore, Keith Curle, Keith Alexander, Chris Powell ... I honestly struggle to count on the fingers of one hand, never mind two how many there are. The comments this week by (deservedly) former FA Chair Greg Clark to the Commons Select Committee about "coloured" player and being gay as a "life-choice plus his dismissal in 2017 in front of the same committee of allegations of institutional racism in football as "fluff" gives some idea of the obstacles that black people wishing to scale the football hierarchy face. Recall also the treatment that English women's international Emilia Aluka received from the football establishment after blowing the whistle on the racist comments and slurs from her manager Mark Sampson.
BAME workers are concentrated on the lower rungs of the NHS, Civil Service and so many other public and private sector organisations because they are excluded from the old boys networks that still pervade key sectors of society. I am not advocating that anyone be promoted to being a doctor. Fully qualified BAME clinicians should be enabled to go for posts on the same level playing filed as white clinicians. To return to football, it is long past the time for the FA (and other sporting bodies) to implement a Rooney Rule mechanism to ensure a fully qualified BAME coach is guaranteed an interview for every available post.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteSaying that there is 25 percent black footballers in the league therefore there should be 25 percent managers is an illogical argument. There's only one valid argument and that is evidence of people being rejected on skin pigmentation without that you have no argument.
Is there an unlevel playing field regarding BAME clinicians ability to apply for posts?
Why can't people just be interviewed based on ability?
Is making sure some candidates are ethnic minorities not still judging people by colour.
David
ReplyDeleteYour comments display a seerious misunderstanding around how classed, racialised and gendered old boys networks around public schools, Oxbridge as well as in lower echelons of society still exist in Britain as reproducers of social inequality.
It is the same structural racism that sees higher proportions of particularly Afro-Caribbeans being excluded from school; suffer higher unemployment than other groups; that sees BAME youths being stopped and searched six times more than whites in urban areas all of which leads to young blacks being sucked into gangs and county lines that also causes the absence of black and brown people in executive roles in sport, arts, business etc because of still pervasive negative stereotypes of their abilities at these levels.
I would recommend reading books like Afua Hirsch "BRITish On Race, Identity and Belonging; Akala "Race & Class in the Ruins of Empire" and Reni Eddo-Lodge "Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race" to gain a greater appreciation of how structural racism operates at the macro and micro levels.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI've no misunderstanding about the British state. You made a particular reference to BAME clinicians being barred from certain posts. I was hoping you would educate me but instead you reiterated old points.
BAME might be six times more likely to be stopped in England, I'm not English. I'm merely pointed out That was not the case were I grew up.
You also never explained how a Rooney rule would be fair, if it's fairness you are looking for.
Just an observation here, but is not a lot of your party not from the old boys network?
Society is unjust, always has been. I don't see what your plan is here. Is your party not front and centre with these problems in England? What your structured ideas apart from saying institutions are racist? This is why I struggle to believe people like yourself are genuine. You make these allegations against the state establishment then support people like Biden and Stamer, that doesn't add up to me.
David
ReplyDeleteI never said that BAME clinicians are specifically barred fromn certain posts; anti-discriminations laws would not allow it. The barriers and ceilings to promotion are much more subtle and silent than that.
I specifically said that young BAME people are more likely to be stopped and searched in URBAN areas like London.
A Rooney rule would guarantee that at least one qualified BAME candidate woulld be interviewed for coaching positions as is the case in thde US (I am not sure which sport it is; gridiron football maybe).
Bidcen and Starmer may not have all thde answers but it is better to seek change through democratic elections and using the institutions of liberal representative democracy. The last four years have shown that populism of the right or left is not the answer to complex problems.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteYou said 'fully qualified BAME clinicians should be able enabled to go for posts on the same level playing field as white clinicians' heavily implying discrimination. Then you cite anti discrimination laws which contradict you. There's a hole in your logic.
You didn't, you said 'Britain like the USA' implying widespread discrimination based on skin colour. I merely pointed out far greater discrimination existed where skin colour wasn't an issue.
I understand the concept of the Rooney rule, I'm asking how patronisingly including people on something as immaterial as skin colour creates fairness. Then I implied it wasn't fairness you're after but point scoring.
The establishment remains the establishment whether it's Trump or Biden. If you really support BLM for example, then if anything your protest should amplify as Biden's record on the black community is worse than Trump. If that's not the case then you hijacked these people to score points against an imbecile which makes you a fraud. Time will tell. It'll be interesting to see your reaction against Biden when cops shoot an unarmed black person because it's only a matter of time.
We know Biden's answer to complex problems lock them up and bomb them. He's been here before.
David
ReplyDeleteThe shooting of unarmed black persons by racist cops did not begin with Trump nor will it end with Trump as it is a systemic feature of law enforcement in the US. The difference between Trump and other Presidents is that he has constantly treated race relations on American streets as a law and order issue and has invoked racist police commissioners of the past by saying "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" whereas after the killing of Trayvon Martin which ignited BLM, Barack Obama commented that 35 years previous he could have been Trayvon. Biden is committed to tacking structural racism so there will be a very different reaction from the White House to the next police homicide.
If you wish to throw insults like "fraud" around then be my guest. I am prettty sure of the ground that I stand on when I talk about the Rooney rule and suchlike. I do not believe that anyone should be appointed to a post on skin colour or ethnicity alone; I am merely calling for equal opportunites for all when seeking employment. It seems to me that you deliberately misinterpret what I write because your arguements never go beyond self-serving platitudes like "the establishment remains the establishment" or Biden's answer is "lock them up and bomb them". Where? When? He has acknowledged that the Criminal Reform Act of 1994 did have adverse effects on African-Americans. In 47 years of Congressional experience he would have made mistakes and then learnt from them.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteIt's not an insult. It's a genuine observation. I'll go a step further and say that BLM's endorsement of Biden and Harris is absolutely ridiculous. Both of them where far more detrimental to their community than Trump.
Obama's eloquence is irrelevant, all that matters is his actions. There was no police reform under Obama nor will there be under Biden.
I misinterpret nothing. It's a very simple question. Why would getting someone an interview based on skin colour be fair? Is it fairness you're after? You didn't give a proper answer just bland statements about equal opportunities, who doesn't support that? What are the machinations behind it? How would implement it? Who defines equal opportunities?
My arguments will go as deep as you want. It's you who has a limited range of thinking, Western liberal democracies justified, everybody else, criminal.
Where?,when? You answer your own question with lock them up, the 1994 crime bill, which wrecked communities or had an adverse affect as you put it. As for bomb them, well, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Sudan, Somalia, probably more I can't remember. That wasn't a very hard question.
Well tell me what mistakes has he learned from? Back to the fraud thing, the definition of fraud is a devious trick, what is screaming from the rooftops that all women must be believed when it's Kavuanah and complete silence when the allegations are against your side if not a devious trick. What happens when there's no police reform in the first hundred days? You've made your bed, you have to support protests and ignore any violence.
David
DeleteGranting someone with the qualifications from an ethnic minority or other underrepresented groups an interview is not reverse discrimination as you seem to imply. Have you not seen job adverts encouraging potential candidates from under-represented and marginalised groups to apply.
The OED definition of fraud is (1) "the crime of deceiving someone to gain money or personal advantage. (2) a person who deceives others into believing that they have certain qualities or abilities. It is NOT your strawman around the nomination controversy of SC Brett Kauvanagh. So I would respectfully ask you to withdraw your "fraud" remark.
Laughed at a meme I saw awhile ago.
ReplyDelete" Cops are sexist against men, there are a disproportionate amount of men who are the victims of police brutality"
"That's ridiculous, there's more men arrested because they commit more...................."
On a serious note, you can't have BAME managers in charge of multi-billionaire team just to fill an ethnic quota that's ridiculous. MERIT ONLY!
Steve R
DeleteIt is the experience of many from disadvantaged groups that meritocracy is a sham behind wnich the dominant groups with their connections, entitlements and privileges win out.
Barry,
DeleteYou really think capitalism judges by race? The elite clubs in Europe make their top players rich far beyond the means of the plebs. Do you imagine that a BAME successful manager is going to be obstructed due to the colour of their skin? If they are successful they will be embraced far more readily than most in the current climes! Capitalism and business is colour blind unless the colour is the colour of money.
Steve R
ReplyDeleteWhat I really mean is meritocracy is a total mirage. For it is not talent that enables people to "get on"; it is networks and contacts that enables people to start careers and reach the pinnacles.
This is as true for people of African and Afro-Caribbean origin today and for people with neurodiversity (I am of that tribe) as it was for Catholics in Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland back in the day.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteIt's an aye or no question. Do you think it is fair to give people an opportunity based on skin pigmentation?
It's not a strawman argument. It's very relevant. You and others said Kauvanagh should not be appointed to such high an office with rape allegations hanging over him then a year later supported a man for the highest office in the World with a rape allegation hanging over him.
Expanding definitions won't alter my opinion, therefore I withdraw nothing. Applying principles when it suits is a fraudulent thing to do.
There's no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.
David
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to give people from historically marginalised groups the opportunity (that is the operative word) to go for jobs in occupations and sectors where they are unrepresented. Skin colour/ethnicity should never be the only criteria for appointments.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteSo yes, you believe skin colour should get you an interview. That's what you said there in a more eloquent way, eloquently or not it's still idiotic. The problem is simple, criminalise those caught discriminating. That's opportunity enough. Marginalised people don't need your patronising help, there are very capable.
David
ReplyDeleteDo you believe or do you not believe that structural racism exists in the UK (and the US of course) and if you do how do you think it can best be tackled? The Rooney Rule is just one way of addressing it in one particular walk of life.
Regarding SC Kauvanagh, Professor Ford brought credible evidence of the assaults he had subjected to her at that party and the long lasting psychological effects on her to which SC Kauvanagh replied with bluster and privileged white men's tears. The rape allegation against President-elect Biden has, by contrast, never been substantiated in court.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteNo. I don't see how you can say there is institutional racism when you have anti discrimination laws, that's a contradiction. The Rooney law will address nothing. What you're describing is nepotism and humans being unjust. How can you outlaw such behaviour, why would want to? The ramifications of such state control would be worse than the problem.
Both are free to live their lives as none have been found guilty. Saying one witness is more credible than the other is a strawman argument, of which you accuse me.
I'm reminded of a Richard Pryor joke when discussing this, when speaking with modern black men about the Nazis he said they were saying I'd have told them Nazis this and that and basically the punchline was you wouldn't have told they Nazis shit. The point is, it's easy to be anti facist, when there's none about.