Diane Abbott, antisemitism and an important lesson for journalists

The current furore around Diane Abbott MP and accusations of antisemitism, in which she equated the prejudice Jewish people face with the prejudice faced by redheads, hold important lessons for journalists covering the issues of diversity, inclusion, equality, racism and (of course) antisemitism.

To explain, let me start with a story.

A few years ago I was talking to a young black girl about the prejudice women face. She earnestly turned to me and said “I understand it, it’s like racism against women”. I fought back a laugh and replied, “yes, it’s called 'sexism'.”

The beauty of the English language is that it is incredibly rich with the largest vocabulary of any language.

We have a specific term for the prejudice and bigotry that women face; “sexism”, and that in turn is different from “misogyny”.

We do Jewish people a disservice if we simply refer to the prejudice and bigotry they face as “racism”. It is “antisemitism”.

Race as we understand it is a social construct which was effectively “invented” during colonialism and transatlantic slavery. It was invented long after the long history of the prejudice, persecution and bigotry Jewish people face began, which dates back millennia. Therefore, logically the term “racism” is historically incorrect and doesn’t fully capture what Jewish people experience.

It should be noted at this point that “race” is different from “ethnicity”, that is the beauty of English, it is able to capture these nuances.

“Antisemitism” is different from “Islamophobia”, and both are different from “sectarianism”.

We do the different and difficult issues that different people face a disservice if we describe it all as “racism”. We also do a disservice to the great English language.

Diane Abbott was completely wrong to describe the prejudice that Travellers and Jewish people face as equivalent to the prejudice and bigotry redheaded people face, it was crass, offensive, and it was right for her to apologise.

When I read her original letter to the Observer, what I understood her underlying message to be; that the “racism” black people face and “antisemitism” are not the same, it is a message I have sympathy with, or at the very least one which I believe should be discussed openly and calmly. Saying one is more or less important than the other is not one I have any sympathy with.

And herein lies an important lesson for journalists. We need to be precise in our language. We should not create false equivalence or hierarchies of victimhood, or we end up offending everyone.

When a journalist asks the seemingly simple question; "Are Jewish people white?" it is giving far too much credit, (and logic) to a system to classify people which was born out of prejudice and illogicality. For me the 'racial' status of Jewish people beautifully expose the lie that race actually makes any sense at all.  As one Jewish friend once said to me, when I naively asked the same question; "Jewish people are the Schrödinger's cat of racism, we are both white and not white at the same time".

Antisemitism is terrible and needs to be addressed. Islamophobia is terrible and needs to be addressed. Racism is terrible and needs to be addressed.

But we cannot properly fight them if we think they are all one and the same thing. Or as my young friend, at the beginning of this piece did, using the same lens and framing to understand different forms of prejudice.

The English language gives us the tools to properly describe, understand and analyse the world around us in all its beauty and ugliness.

  

And that is why, as both a journalist and some one who strives to increase media diversity, I love English.