... and what's more

Diane Abbott is in the news today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278).

In a multi-tweet commencing quite reasonably (whether correctly or not) "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better" she went on to say: "white people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game", highlighting "#tacticasoldascolonialism" as a relevant topic.

She's in trouble as you might expect, with at least one Tory MP saying Abbot has made a racist comment and should resign. A Tory would say that, wouldn't they, but on the other hand...

We can flip Abbott's comment, imagining it was a white person talking about black people. Would anyone doubt that would be a racist comment? Or how about "black people love playing the victim"? It's a racist generalisation, no question, so surely Aboott's comment is as well.

I think Abbott knows she is in trouble. She later tweeted: "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."

But unfortunately for Abbott she originally said "love" and "their game", not "loved" and "the game of 19th century European colonialism". Despite the pitfalls of Twitter, it is hard to see how a comment intended to be exclusively about 19th century empire became "white people love". And even if it did (which seems highly unlikley), why would the past tense and a focus on certain aspects of Europe of the 19th century make it OK? "Black colonised people loved playing the victim." Is that OK?