Susan Hussey, Baroness Hussey of North Bradley, once Lady-inWaiting

[lalame]

I didn’t say it erases anything but I guess I’ll just try to explain what I am saying this way - what is your heritage, where are your ancestors from (albeit still a very personal question to ask a stranger) but those are very different questions than “where are YOU from”. But here, Lady H asked the latter question, expecting the former answer. And, as we both agree, she pushed in an indelicate way.

Here is my honest take on this. “What is your heritage” or “where are your parents from” are very specific, if not stuffy, questions that aren’t as versatile as “where are you from” - this gives the other person a chance to give the answer they most align with in the situation. If I’m in California, I may answer I’m from (ethnic background). If I’m in New York, I may answer I’m from California. If I’m abroad, I may answer America. It leaves more room for the nuances of the situation.

I’m getting really into the weeds but I suppose it’s something I’ve thought about a lot. It’s usually not a big deal unless it becomes a persistent line of questioning like what happened here, which obviously it’s just not normal to keep badgering a stranger as if they owe you this info.

 

[Bagatha Christie]

I have never posted in here, nor have I read the entirety of the thread (I walked away from it a while ago when some racist remarks against some members were made- though I'm sure the mods dealt with that appropriately). I hope the active posters don't mind me sticking my head in to share some thoughts.

With regards to Lady Susan, I didn’t see the discussion that resulted in a new thread, but I imagine there was a lot of disagreement and finger pointing. I happen to think both parties are problematic.
Lady S was entirely wrong, there is no doubt about that. You ask where someone is from as an ice-breaker and then you stop. She got caught out and kept pushing the matter, and I can easily understand why Ngozi felt uncomfortable.
However, Ngozi could have made it simple and given a straight answer, such as the ones many of us give: I’m Turkish-English or I’m multiracial, for instance. She also got caught out and it led to a messy conversation.
Ngozi’s own internalized racism, as many have now said she turned them away from her charity for not being black enough, means that both people in this conversation were disappointing.
The Palace was right, imo, to act swiftly and show that they have a zero tolerance policy. Whether Lady S meant it or not, this was an inappropriate exchange and there must be a message sent that it’s unacceptable.
I don't see why people are disappointed with the existence of the thread, though. Why gatekeep which side of this story is discussed? It is always a good thing to have space for all points of view imo, so long as people are being respectful in their discussion. From what I have seen, there is nothing but a respectful tone.
Edit: I have just been on that thread and the tone has changed markedly. I'm disappointed to see it.

As for MM, that is a whole other kettle of fish. I am not a regular on that thread but tend to pop in there when there is a big bit of news- like the current documentary. I have not witnessed micro aggressions or overt racism, but then I may have been on it at the wrong time...or I may be part of the problem.
Nobody who knows my background and my path in life would call me racist, yet I'm sure some believe my dislike for M&H stems from racism. It is doubly frustrating for me.
I am: mixed-race, English, female. Meg should have been someone I immediately related to. I have experienced colourism and will always have to live with this added layer of "otherness". I have benefited from it in some countries and suffered from it in others. It’s a complex problem.
Meg could have been fighting for people like me from her position of power and privilege. Instead, she focused on herself and she plays race for her own convenience. This is where all my frustration of her comes from.
Nobody should be able to make allegations of racism without providing proof because the consequences are dire. All that H&M have done is vaguebook racism and bait heated discussion. If they want to take a stand, they should provide explicit examples. In fact, their most specific example to date, stating that the British media called her children the n-word, is blatantly false. Not only is that slur an Americanism, but we have laws here against that and if any broadcast or print media dared publish something like that, the entire organization would be shut down by our regulators. Sadly, many took what she said at face value and that story spread like fire.
It is inflammatory and unfounded accusations like this that cause deep damage. If there were actual instances where she experienced racism, then she needs to provide that evidence to the authorities and have it dealt with, rather than use it to cast herself in a sympathetic light in television interviews. By baiting with unfounded claims, they are undermining the very cause they wish to promote and advocate for.
*I am focusing on Meg since the issue of race stems from her, but I have equal frustrations with Haz, whose choices are confounding and utterly disgraceful (I have not forgotten his own racist missteps).

I always think of a comment that @OriginalBalenciaga made a while ago; that sometimes people are angry just to be angry, because anger is addictive. I see that playing out in discussions about H&M. Not so much here (again, I am not active enough to speak on the vibe on that thread), but certainly in other places on the internet. There is snark and then there is hate. She gets hate in a lot of places. People love to hate her, they channel all their vile anger towards her, and they are addicted to the validation they receive from their echo chamber of racists, so it fuels more intense hate. It's ugly.
I despise the cottage industry that has popped up to ridicule her in order to line their pockets. The misogynoir is palpable. All these body language "experts", armchair psychologists and wannabe influencers who rip her to shreds and encourage their following to make horrid comments about M (because they would be deplatformed if they said it themselves) are abhorrent.
I wish H&M would fight against that. That is a valid, provable, disgusting problem. It is a clear example of hate speech and racism, and it is going unaddressed because they'd rather make vague claims against his family. There is no misunderstanding the choice: slandering the BRF brings in money, the youtuber case will not win them any awards or pay for their extravagant lifestyle. So, H&M are using race for convenience again, not to actually address a very real problem. Sigh.
That is disgusting to me. They could make a massive impact by unravelling that cottage industry. Because, make no mistake, the small but incredibly vocal group that flocks to those online platforms to rip apart MM (and who are most certainly proud racists) will rip apart any WoC they see in real life. We have reached a stage where these people feel, for various reasons in our current environment, emboldened to act in the real world as they do in their online echo chambers.

As it stands, it is impossible for me to support H&M because they are fueling the wrong side of the problem with their race-baiting. I don't believe I'm racist for taking this stance. I don't comment on her appearance (I think she's stunning), her hair, her accent or upbringing. I do comment on her convenient use of tanner because if a white person used tanner to go 4 shades darker (heck, if I did it as a mixed person) it would be called blackface. She doesn't get a pass on that. She can't use racism as a currency for clout. It's beyond dangerous and damaging to the people she is supposed to be fighting for. Not all together different from Ngozi turning her back on the people her charity is supposed to uplift.

I'm not sure my thoughts add any value to this complex discussion, but I wanted to weigh in on the assumption that everyone upset on that thread is fueled by unconscious bias or is showing microaggressions. It simply isn't true for the majority, imo. I would hope that being an ally does not equate to labelling everyone on the other side of the discussion racist, because that only furthers division.

You're all welcome to disagree with me and show me if I'm wrong in any way. I am happy to learn. I'm working on reducing my online presence, so I may not pop in frequently to address responses, but I can assure you that I will read them when I'm around and will always reflect on opinions offered with an open mind.

Happy holidays to all.

I think you have provided us with some beautiful and insightful commentary here.
I will say I do disagree one shouldn’t comment on her appearance. If M wants to market herself on her looks with those ridiculous vanity shoots and all the pr calling her ‘beautiful’ (lol) - well we’re allowed not to buy it.
I can’t help but agree the world will be a better place when the H&M cottage industry has died out.

More importantly on lady S- I do think the most telling thing about all of this is that the Royal family cut this elderly retainer and a *family godmother* loose to a media circus without a word in her defence.
A lot of people are feeling sorry for her and I see why but I think the blame is a bit misplaced.

 

[Bag peace]

Thank you to the mods for moving my post to this thread (was it you, @Swanky). I apologize for posting in the wrong place and giving you extra work; I hadn't noticed the discussion had moved into this thread.
_________

I think you have provided us with some beautiful and insightful commentary here.

This is a much kinder reception than I had anticipated to receive for my rambling post, so thank you very much!
Can't believe you read all of that!

More importantly on lady S- I do think the most telling thing about all of this is that the Royal family cut this elderly retainer and a *family godmother* loose to a media circus without a word in her defence.
A lot of people are feeling sorry for her and I see why but I think the blame is a bit misplaced.

Lady S is certainly the sacrificial lamb at the hands of both Ngozi and the palace officials. Which is not to excuse her poor handling of the conversation in any way, but there's no denying that the response was a knee jerk, crisis management move because the netflix documentary was threatening to expose some sort of systemic racism (I'm still waiting).

I actually don't feel sorry for Lady S. I know that she has served the BRF and, in particular, HLMQ, well. This was her last act of service- allowing the palace to get the optics they needed to preserve their reputation and HM's legacy.

I do wonder why there is a need for KC to meet Ngozi now. I think it has been proven she is an anti-monarchist and her charitable works are...questionable. Her immediate media circuit the day after the event also came across as opportunistic. I don't think she needs to be given any more energy and I would hope the palace reconsiders that choice (though this is unlikely).

Seems that I remain firmly on the fence because I can see the right and wrong from both parties here, and I happen to think the palace really did act in the only capacity they could, given the unique circumstances.

_______
While I'm here, @elvisfan4life, I saw a post of yours earlier but I can't for the life of me remember where it was to quote it.
You had mentioned that the heated discussions around this subject are making you consider taking a step away from tpf. I would really hope that you would reconsider that choice.
I personally appreciate the counter perspective and balance you bring to many discussions. It would be so limited if we didn't have people chipping in with alternate viewpoints.
Also, on an unrelated note, I always appreciated how considerate you were of the elderly and vulnerable during (and following) the covid lockdowns. There is a sad trend of the elderly being disregarded and disrespected in some parts of the UK (in my experience), so to see someone care as you did, and take such steps to protect the elderly during that time, was very special to me.
(I hope this is not too far off-topic)

 

[PurseUOut]

Lady S was entirely wrong, there is no doubt about that. You ask where someone is from as an ice-breaker and then you stop. She got caught out and kept pushing the matter, and I can easily understand why Ngozi felt uncomfortable.
However, Ngozi could have made it simple and given a straight answer, such as the ones many of us give: I’m Turkish-English or I’m multiracial, for instance. She also got caught out and it led to a messy conversation.
Ngozi’s own internalized racism, as many have now said she turned them away from her charity for not being black enough, means that both people in this conversation were disappointing.

I am not sure if you read the transcript, but Ms. Fulani answered all of Susan's questions directly and appropriately, as the tone of the event called for. When Susan asked "Where are you from?" Ms. Fulani initially responded with the name of her charity. In the context of that conversation, I am curious when was Ms. Fulani supposed to preemptively bear her complete heritage and ethnic background to a stranger at a domestic abuse awareness function? As a professional herself just entering the event, I am sure she was quite caught off guard as the reason for them being there should not have warranted such an intrusive and brash form of personal questioning outside of her charity work.

*As an aside, I find it very interesting how most can acknowledge that Susan was wrong/inappropriate/unprofessional but somehow should escape the consequences of her choices because she is elderly/a family friend/Ms. Fulani is an instigator, etc. No one is calling for this woman's head on a stake - she was released from her position because of gross misconduct at work, similarly to what would happen in any corporate institution regardless of the employee's age or tenure. To add, President B!den is 80 years old and there is still an expectation that he perform the job, independent of his age*

Back to Ms. Fulani - re: excluding people who are not 'black' enough for her charity. I do not know all of the circumstances behind why someone was excluded but I do not feel those reasons are internalized racism. Any charity seeks to service the most disadvantaged in their target area with the limited resources they have available. Biracial women have completely different experiences, privileges, cultural needs, than monoracial black women of Caribbean or African descent - the demographic her charity serves. Monoracial black women are more disproportionately impacted by domestic violence, sexual abuse, and statistical nonreporting of that abuse than biracial women. Monoracial black women are less likely to obtain protective orders or receive police involvement due to racism, as compared to biracial women who look more like Meghan. In the regard of who would benefit the most from her charity, I think it's appropriate to limit her outreach to those who are most systemically impacted by domestic abuse which are monoracial black women of African or Caribbean heritage.

Nobody should be able to make allegations of racism without providing proof because the consequences are dire.

And, similarly, Kensington Palace went on record stating that a formal investigation into bullying allegations against Meghan by palace staff was being conducted. They have since "buried" the investigation with no release of any findings or corrective actions. Should they equally be made to prove Meghan was a bully (which can be perceived as racially implicit bias) or is the onus only on Meghan to substantiate claims of racism?

Your point about Meghan speaking up more for biracial women is an interesting one. I can't comment because I am not biracial, but it is an interesting perspective I appreciate you sharing.

 

[OriginalBalenciaga]

Thank you to the mods for moving my post to this thread (was it you, @Swanky). I apologize for posting in the wrong place and giving you extra work; I hadn't noticed the discussion had moved into this thread.
_________

This is a much kinder reception than I had anticipated to receive for my rambling post, so thank you very much!
Can't believe you read all of that!

Lady S is certainly the sacrificial lamb at the hands of both Ngozi and the palace officials. Which is not to excuse her poor handling of the conversation in any way, but there's no denying that the response was a knee jerk, crisis management move because the netflix documentary was threatening to expose some sort of systemic racism (I'm still waiting).

I actually don't feel sorry for Lady S. I know that she has served the BRF and, in particular, HLMQ, well. This was her last act of service- allowing the palace to get the optics they needed to preserve their reputation and HM's legacy.

I do wonder why there is a need for KC to meet Ngozi now. I think it has been proven she is an anti-monarchist and her charitable works are...questionable. Her immediate media circuit the day after the event also came across as opportunistic. I don't think she needs to be given any more energy and I would hope the palace reconsiders that choice (though this is unlikely).

Seems that I remain firmly on the fence because I can see the right and wrong from both parties here, and I happen to think the palace really did act in the only capacity they could, given the unique circumstances.

_______
While I'm here, @elvisfan4life, I saw a post of yours earlier but I can't for the life of me remember where it was to quote it.
You had mentioned that the heated discussions around this subject are making you consider taking a step away from tpf. I would really hope that you would reconsider that choice.
I personally appreciate the counter perspective and balance you bring to many discussions. It would be so limited if we didn't have people chipping in with alternate viewpoints.
Also, on an unrelated note, I always appreciated how considerate you were of the elderly and vulnerable during (and following) the covid lockdowns. There is a sad trend of the elderly being disregarded and disrespected in some parts of the UK (in my experience), so to see someone care as you did, and take such steps to protect the elderly during that time, was very special to me.
(I hope this is not too far off-topic)

I’m sorry your post was moved I thought it was appropriate in the other thread. I appreciated your thoughtful and thought provoking perspective!

I had actually replied to @elvisfan4life myself with similar sentiments and now see my post was deleted. I’m not sure why but hope they will decide to remain and continue to engage in these difficult but important conversations.

 

[lalame]

I have some sympathy for lady H and Ngozi both for being part of this big social media storm but I think it’s all a little blown out of proportion. She did act inappropriately, even if it’s not “racist,” and it’s easy to see how any company might not want her to be in this role greeting important people. If I treated a customer or guest like this at my company I would definitely not be put in that position again. If I were in Ngozi’s position I would have lodged a private complaint but not taken it up a notch with social media. Now she’s getting trolled hard. Lesson learned both I assume. It really should just be a private personnel matter. And I don’t think either lady is racist based on what I’ve seen. We all make mistakes.

 

[Bag peace]

I am not sure if you read the transcript,

I have. It is only her version of events. I have not heard the other side. It is also unfortunate that she booked several morning talk shows to air her grievances the very next morning; it gives the impression that she was ready to push her anti-monarchy message out, without giving the other side a fair chance to speak up.

Again, I am not saying Lady S was right. Her approach was decidedly wrong, but I can't trust that the transcript is 100% accurate.

but Ms. Fulani answered all of Susan's questions directly and appropriately

I gave a couple of examples of how else she could have answered in my o.p. I have been in this position, in a professional capacity, and have simply said I'm mixed race. I elaborate if people want me to- not everything is to be taken as an offence, sometimes people are just making small talk or are interested in you.

she was released from her position

Yes. We agree, this was the correct response to the situation. The palace did what any other employer would have done given the circumstances.

Biracial women have completely different experiences, privileges, cultural needs, than monoracial black women of Caribbean or African descent - the demographic her charity serves. Monoracial black women are more disproportionately impacted by domestic violence, sexual abuse, and statistical nonreporting of that abuse than biracial women. Monoracial black women are less likely to obtain protective orders or receive police involvement due to racism, as compared to biracial women who look more like Meghan. In the regard of who would benefit the most from her charity, I think it's appropriate to limit her outreach to those who are most systemically impacted by domestic abuse which are monoracial black women of African or Caribbean heritage.

I'll have to disagree. What you're describing is my definition and experience of colourism. I would argue that biracial women are the most disadvantaged specifically because they face colourism from their own community, as well as the white community. It is internalized racism that black people assume that those with lighter skin tone have these advantages and thus deny them support they need, and this charity is perpetuating this same myth with that ridiculous rule.
I will add that I am extremely familiar with charities and the way they operate. Many fail on a colossal scale, and this one appears to be one of them. You don't discriminate against PoC who need help from DV because they are not the right skin tone, imo. It's inhumane.

Should they equally be made to prove Meghan was a bully (which can be perceived as racially implicit bias) or is the onus only on Meghan to substantiate claims of racism?

I think both sides need to put up or shut up. The palace is shutting up and Meg is crying on camera but not showing receipts.
If it were up to me, both sides would just get on with their purpose: Serve the people. The relationship between the BRF and Meg/Haz was toxic and they have now separated. Move on from the trauma (get whatever therapy you need, on either side) and bloody well start using your extreme privilege to serve the people. Because "service is universal".

Your point about Meghan speaking up more for biracial women is an interesting one. I can't comment because I am not biracial, but it is an interesting perspective I appreciate you sharing.

You're welcome to comment, even if you're not biracial. I am not here to fight with anyone.
I only say that Meg should advocate for WoC because she has made race her focus. If you have a platform like hers, and you are a humanitarian as she claims to be, who is passionate about issues of race...well then, it would make sense to tackle the issue of colourism for the people who aren't living in gated communities with security guards to protect them. Because, that is her role as Duchess- a title she appears happy to hold on to- and it is in line with her proclamations thus far (in as much as her life's goal was to help others and not win an oscar).

I had actually replied to @elvisfan4life myself with similar sentiments and now see my post was deleted. I’m not sure why but hope they will decide to remain and continue to engage in these difficult but important conversations.

Oh, perhaps I'm breaking some rule that I'm unaware of by posting that, then. I hope they see our comments and stick around.

@lalame Love your post and totally agree with you.

 

[sdkitty]

So, it can be quite distressing to be “othered”. White people would never be asked, much less challenged on being British. It sends the message that the person doesn’t belong and they have to identify where they are “truly” from - likely a place they have no personal connection with.

IDK about that. If a white woman was wearing a sari, maybe someone like Susan would have asked her where she was from. I had some middle eastern friends (Persian) who invited me to parties. Most of their friends were dressed in western garb but I recall one woman who looked white wearing a sari.

 

[Bagatha Christie]

Thank you to the mods for moving my post to this thread (was it you, @Swanky). I apologize for posting in the wrong place and giving you extra work; I hadn't noticed the discussion had moved into this thread.
_________

This is a much kinder reception than I had anticipated to receive for my rambling post, so thank you very much!
Can't believe you read all of that!

Lady S is certainly the sacrificial lamb at the hands of both Ngozi and the palace officials. Which is not to excuse her poor handling of the conversation in any way, but there's no denying that the response was a knee jerk, crisis management move because the netflix documentary was threatening to expose some sort of systemic racism (I'm still waiting).

I actually don't feel sorry for Lady S. I know that she has served the BRF and, in particular, HLMQ, well. This was her last act of service- allowing the palace to get the optics they needed to preserve their reputation and HM's legacy.

I do wonder why there is a need for KC to meet Ngozi now. I think it has been proven she is an anti-monarchist and her charitable works are...questionable. Her immediate media circuit the day after the event also came across as opportunistic. I don't think she needs to be given any more energy and I would hope the palace reconsiders that choice (though this is unlikely).

Seems that I remain firmly on the fence because I can see the right and wrong from both parties here, and I happen to think the palace really did act in the only capacity they could, given the unique circumstances.

_______
While I'm here, @elvisfan4life, I saw a post of yours earlier but I can't for the life of me remember where it was to quote it.
You had mentioned that the heated discussions around this subject are making you consider taking a step away from tpf. I would really hope that you would reconsider that choice.
I personally appreciate the counter perspective and balance you bring to many discussions. It would be so limited if we didn't have people chipping in with alternate viewpoints.
Also, on an unrelated note, I always appreciated how considerate you were of the elderly and vulnerable during (and following) the covid lockdowns. There is a sad trend of the elderly being disregarded and disrespected in some parts of the UK (in my experience), so to see someone care as you did, and take such steps to protect the elderly during that time, was very special to me.
(I hope this is not too far off-topic)

That’s very sweet of you and don’t sell yourself short I enjoy reading your posts and it is more interesting when people go into details IMHO.

Yes I’m both sorry for and not sorry for Lady Susan, on one hand I think if you are working a role, especially client-facing, then critique of your performance is more than fair. On the other hand it does startle me that Charles could have asked someone to be a godmother to his kids and then cut her out so brusquely. There is a way of fading her out whilst still defending her character and supporting Fulani and I don’t think they got close.

I also think it’s a long wait on revealing anything but incredibly poor acting skills on that documentary.

 

[Bag peace]

There is a way of fading her out whilst still defending her character and supporting Fulani and I don’t think they got close.

Honestly don't think the palace officials had a chance! Ngozi immediately took it social media without first raising it internally, which resulted in them acting hastily to take a firm stance before the documentary aired. It was a perfect storm and they were on the back foot.

As the public only have one side of this conversation, it's impossible to judge for sure whether a swift cut or a slow fading out was the better option, imo.

 

[PurseUOut]

Charities (at least in the US) can actually be legally quite exclusive, providing the target population receiving aid is statistically underrepresented compared to the population the charity is excluding.

When I was applying for college, there was a sizable scholarship for students who lived and/or grew up in Appalachia. There were certain requirements/interviews to prove residency. Compared to the rest of the degree holders, people hailing from Appalachian towns were statistically underrepresented in higher education, even though the overwhelming majority were white (and poor). Therefore the scholarship is allowed to be exclusive against POC who grew up outside of Appalachia.

Similarly with HBCUs - “minority” scholarships are available to non-black applicants because black students are over represented at HBCUs.

Right down the street from me is a charity that assists Afghan and Ukrainian refugees with housing, education and access to medical care. If a homeless American requests asssitance, they are obligated to point them to charities or social services that can help but do not have to expend their own resources which would take away from a potential refugee in more need.

 

[PurseUOut]

What you're describing is my definition and experience of colourism. I would argue that biracial women are the most disadvantaged specifically because they face colourism from their own community, as well as the white community.

I can respect that biracial women have their own unique challenges especially with identity that I as a monoracial black woman cannot relate to. Without sounding like I am engaging in the oppression olympics - you are aware that monoracial black women (especially of darker skin) experience not only colorism, but featurism and texturism in the black community too? All the while having to face that and racism in the larger white society. I am sure this is not limited to the black community but the Indian one as well.

 

[mrceral]

Charities (at least in the US) can actually be legally quite exclusive, providing the target population receiving aid is statistically underrepresented compared to the population the charity is excluding.

When I was applying for college, there was a sizable scholarship for students who lived and/or grew up in Appalachia. There were certain requirements/interviews to prove residency. Compared to the rest of the degree holders, people hailing from Appalachian towns were statistically underrepresented in higher education, even though the overwhelming majority were white (and poor). Therefore the scholarship is allowed to be exclusive against POC who grew up outside of Appalachia.

Similarly with HBCUs - “minority” scholarships are available to non-black applicants because black students are over represented at HBCUs.

Right down the street from me is a charity that assists Afghan and Ukrainian refugees with housing, education and access to medical care. If a homeless American requests asssitance, they are obligated to point them to charities or social services that can help but do not have to expend their own resources which would take away from a potential refugee in more need.

Right, a charity serving one group and not another doesn’t make it exclusionary, it simply is what they do to stay aligned to their mission.

There is a veterans charity that only serves post-9/11 veterans - no one would say they’re anti-veteran. But suddenly when an organization serves specific races, it’s racist? Make it make sense.

Also I hope everyone who feels sympathetic to Lady Hussey is also sympathetic to the women who the charity can’t serve now because it’s been forced to suspend operations after harassment by Lady Hussey’s defenders.

 

[Bag peace]

Without sounding like I am engaging in the oppression olympics...

Thanks for offering your perspective. Yes, it's a whole host of issues (that everyone in the black community faces) and the misogynoir in the discourse about Meghan is unacceptable and problematic for that reason. It further divides people and that is not right, not for Meg, not for the average person.

There is a veterans charity that only serves post-9/11 veterans - no one would say they’re anti-veteran. But suddenly when an organization serves specific races, it’s racist? Make it make sense.

It's apples an oranges. If, as several domestic violence victims have stated, Ngozi (not the charity, but accounts specify it is the woman herself) turned them away for not being "black enough", then how can it not be racist? Ngozi is doing to others what she claims Lady S did to her: seek out the specific details of where "their people come from" before engaging further.

They are serving one subset of the population, I get it. There's just something profoundly ugly in making someone feel like a "mutt" when they are trying to escape a frightening abuse situation. It is utterly dehumanizing.

Edit: I missed one quote

because it’s been forced to suspend operations after harassment by Lady Hussey’s defenders.

Which is her fault for taking it to social media. She is a grown woman who can see the way issues around this matter (BRF and race) explode on platforms. She wanted the engagement and clout but wasn't mature enough to brace for the fact that once the story is out, you can't control the narrative nor the reaction.
It's awful and, of course, my heart goes out to any DV victims who now can't access resources they need. They're the ones most hurt by all of this now.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It has given me a lot to consider.

 

[sdkitty]

Thanks for offering your perspective. Yes, it's a whole host of issues (that everyone in the black community faces) and the misogynoir in the discourse about Meghan is unacceptable and problematic for that reason. It further divides people and that is not right, not for Meg, not for the average person.

It's apples an oranges. If, as several domestic violence victims have stated, Ngozi (not the charity, but accounts specify it is the woman herself) turned them away for not being "black enough", then how can it not be racist? Ngozi is doing to others what she claims Lady S did to her: seek out the specific details of where "their people come from" before engaging further.

They are serving one subset of the population, I get it. There's just something profoundly ugly in making someone feel like a "mutt" when they are trying to escape a frightening abuse situation. It is utterly dehumanizing.

the whole situation is not good....by going public with this incident, it seems Ngozi has brought strutiny on herself as well as Lady Susan
But since neither of them is that famous or glamorous hopefully this story will go away soon