I have always maintained that liberation is total and inclusive or it is meaningless. The fact that colour has different levels of significance for different people is not the same as the accusation that ‘group A’ has a wilfully myopic attitude to ‘group B’.

I have black friends. I know that their colour is significant to them in a way it is not to me. Neither I nor they regard our own view of this level of significance as being absolute. We regard each other’s view as contributing to a greater overview. Each other’s view informs us rather than creating a barrier or a problem. Knowing what to do with the information isn’t easy, but we sure as hell don’t do nothing with it.

I see the writer of the above article – a person with genuine grievances and an experience of something I can only guess at – veering too close, with his list of six loaded questions and his slogans, to setting up an aunt sally just to knock over by himself. To me that seems futile.

There is a level, an important level, where the identifiable problems of an identifiable group are vitally important to consider. I am a woman and recognise the particular struggles of women. But I can’t divorce those problems and that struggle from the overall struggle. One group can’t be liberated on its own; none of us is free as long as someone else is at a disadvantage.

What we are trying to deal with is a complex kyriarchy. It’s lumpy, it’s uneven, it’s often contradictory. Pointing at the lumps and hurling accusations isn’t going to make things any better.