The Invisible Black Woman

One can’t help but wonder what exactly was going through her mind as she stood, time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time. If you found reading the phrasing above annoying or exasperating, imagine how it must have felt to stand up to speak about a topic that did not just affect you, but was centered around you. Yet despite that very obvious undisputed fact, no matter how many times she stood up to speak on the matter, she was ignored. Not once, twice, thrice, but 46 times. 46 times. Let that number sink in. Being ignored once is a fluke. Twice is a coincidence. 46 times? I believe we call that a pattern of behavior, folks. She stood up more times than there were minutes in that 35-minute session.

Okay, let me get you up to speed, in case you have no idea what I’m talking about. First, let’s talk about how we got here in the first place. On March 11, 2024, The Guardian, a British news and media organization that covers global news, broke a disturbing story. Frank Hester, a major donor to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, made incendiary offensive remarks about Diane Abbott, the longest-serving—and Black—member of Parliament (MP) in Britain.

During (what he thought was) a private meeting, Hester stated that seeing Abbott on television made him “want to hate all Black women” and doubled down by saying Abbott “should be shot.” I don’t know that I need to hear any more of what was said to know his stance on race or at minimum, toward Black women.

Fast forward to March 13, during the Prime Minister’s Questions at the House of Commons (similar to the US House of Representatives), where discussions naturally revolved around these outrageous remarks. And despite her 46 attempts to get the floor and address these comments made against her, the speaker of the house, Lindsay Hoyle, did not call on her once.

The excuse given by Hoyle was weak AF: there simply wasn’t enough time. So she had time to get up 46 times, others who were not her used their time to speak on the matter, but you couldn’t even give her a minute? Hell, 30 seconds? WOW.

This is what it means to be the epitome of Invisible Black Womanness. To be seen yet unseen. To be heard yet not listened to. To be acknowledged yet grossly misunderstood. Supposedly allegedly, an investigation has been launched into the remarks made by the “I’m not racist, I have Black friends” person who shall not be named from this point forward.

I’ll wait for the findings and prepare my best shocked face (think shocked kitten who puts his paw over his mouth) when they find no wrongdoing…

There is such an intricately sad duality to being an invisible Black woman. Many won’t even acknowledge its existence, even in our own community. And I do not make any of these statements lightly nor am I seeking to pit any of us against the other. But this is the very thing I mean when I decided to name the blog what I named it: The Invisible Black Woman (in case you’re just joining or forgot). Diane Abbott’s experience is the epitome of being a woman, Black, and invisible. To think it is okay to allow anyone but the person who this abhorrent wrong was committed against to speak out speaks volumes. And we were only witness to this tragedy because cameras were rolling. How many more times did she endure similar slights? How many other times did their actions tell her that her accomplishments meant nothing because she was Black first, woman second? I shudder to consider, but I am confident that wasn’t the first and won’t be the last.

It gave me a glimmer of hope to hear others speak out on her behalf during the whole debacle. Individuals like Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, and Stephen Flynn, leader of the Scottish National Party in Westminster, used their questions to raise the issue of the controversial remarks made about Diane Abbott. There were others as well who used their social platform to call out the buffoonery as it was happening, such as Stella Creasy, another MP.

I’d like to believe with all my heart that if this had happened here, in our nation’s capital, in the House, that other members would have ceded their time to Abbott so she could speak. One thing I learned about the House of Commons is that members of Parliament cannot cede the floor to another MP during debates. Instead, MPs have to catch the Speaker’s eye to be called on to speak. The Speaker of the House of Commons controls the order of speaking during debates, and MPs indicate their desire to speak by standing from their seats (which is known as “catching the Speaker’s eye”) or through prior arrangement, particularly during scheduled debates.

We already know that the Speaker did very well see Abbott stand up more than once. He never denied seeing her. He just decided to cop out and say there wasn’t enough time. Even if you’re terrible at math, I think it’s easy to figure out that if someone has stood up 46 times in 35 minutes, they stood up at least once per minute. You really expect anyone with sense to believe that there was no time the first, the second, the third, the fourth, or even the 10th time? No time, yet you called on others that stood up after she did? Sure, George.

And if that didn’t add insult to injury, the apologetics that ensued to cover for and justify what was said was beyond disheartening. The full transcript of the exchange can be found by clicking here, but I want to provide a snippet:

Keir Starmer

Is the Prime Minister proud to be bankrolled by someone using racist and misogynous language when he said that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)

“makes you want to hate all black women”?

The Prime Minister

The alleged comments were wrong, they were racist, and he has now—[Interruption.] As I said, the comments were wrong and they were racist. He has rightly apologised for them and that remorse should be accepted. There is no place for racism in Britain, and the Government that I lead is living proof of that.

Keir Starmer

Mr Speaker, the man bankrolling the Prime Minister also said that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington should be shot. How low would he have to sink, what racist, woman-hating threat of violence would he have to make, before the Prime Minister plucked up the courage to hand back the £10 million that he has taken from him?

The Prime Minister

As I said, the gentleman apologised genuinely for his comments, and that remorse should be accepted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about language. He might want to reflect on the double standards of his deputy Leader calling her opponent “scum”, the shadow Foreign Secretary comparing Conservatives to Nazis, and the man whom he wanted to make Chancellor talking about “lynching” a female Minister. His silence on that speaks volumes.

So instead of addressing the issue, we want to deflect and highlight another wrong to distract from the matter at hand? I have way more emotions than thoughts on the matter above, so I’ll let you come to your own conclusion about it. What I will say is that history has taught us time and again that racists are never sorry for what they say. They’re only sorry they got caught. Second, money talks. We know good and doggone well if the person who said what he said was not the biggest donor to the Conservative Party, they’da been thrown him under the bus and backed him over with it. BUT, I do wonder how much does the fact that the target of his remarks was a Black woman play into this. The consequences are more often than not inconsequential when it comes to wrongs against Black women. A formal investigation has been launched, but if you think I’m going to hold my breath that he’ll be found guilty of any wrongdoing—when the country’s own leader thinks his apology sufficed—you’d be way off the mark on that.

And if that wasn’t enough to be infuriating, the perpetrator’s firm released a statement to the press saying that Mr. Misogynist, “accepts that he was rude about Diane Abbott in a private meeting several years ago but his criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin.” The statement goes on to say that Mr. Racist and Wrong as Two Left Feet “abhorred racism, ‘not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s.’”

If gaslighting and works of fiction were a person, we wouldn’t have to look very far, now would we?

One thing I do want to call out and hopefully end on a bit of a high note—if that is even possible—is to go back to what actually happened. Yes, we absolutely know the facts: Diane Abbott, a well-known political figure, was threatened with bodily harm, had disparaging racist comments made against her, and on the day her job decided to talk about it, she wasn’t allowed to say a single word during the all-hands meeting. Yes, that happened, but can we stop for a moment to just be in awe of the fact that the Right Honourable Diane Abbott stood up to be heard 46 times. 46 times. Have you ever believed in something so deeply you tried that many times?

I sincerely hope that in everything I do, believe, and fight for, I have the persistence and strength it took to very literally keep getting back up in spite of the unspoken but screaming NOs that were doled out, time and time and time again.

Pages: 1 2