Jump to content

David Starkey in Trouble Now


Danger-Mouse
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jul/02/david-starkey-widely-criticised-for-saying-slavery-was-not-genocide

Discussing the debate surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement, Starkey told Grimes: “Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”

More cancel culture or deserved critiscism?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched the interview in question, I thought Dr Starkey spoke well as he has on other topics such as the Covid issue. However I did wince when he made that particular remark , I did agree ,but thought his terminology could have been better. We can all make errors in grammar in the presentation and articulations on subjects we feel passionate about,it’s called being human. 

I do take exception to Darren Grimes throwing him under the bus on Twitter, when at the time he was in agreement with David Starkey. Not your best move Darren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black people DO NOT HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON SLAVERY....FACT

the term slavery derives from the word "Slavic"................an area which was regulaly frequented by the Vilkings to capture and deal in slaves..........the word Russia is thought to have come from the Vilkings....i believe the word refers to "boat people"...............

slavery was about a hell of a long while before Africa was involved.........BLM ...**** happens get over it....what dont kill you will make you stronger...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Heron said:

Do not have an opinion nowadays unless it is the same as the pack. 

Correct - though it is more accurate to say "Do not have express an opinion - unless it is the same as the pack" ............ although really it should be "let everyone have their own opinion - it is none of anyone else's business"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the criticism isn't about his opinion of genocide (until the last quote in the article). That's a reasonable statement, whether you agree or not. I agree with him; keep slavery and genocide as individual crimes. Unless there's clear evidence that slavery is used specifically to exterminate a group or race people, then it's not genocide.

It's the phrase 'damn blacks', which is inescapably racist. And he has form for this sort of thing. At the very least it's appallingly ill-judged for someone of apparent intellect. If he's doing it for effect than he's a fool, because this will kill his career and reputation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mice! said:

Morgan Freeman summed it up best, when asked how do we stop all the trouble around racism,  he said stop talking about it. 

The problem there will be allegations that it is being 'brushed under the carpet'.

I do not believe the UK is 'institutionally racist' - and I think we have overall a very tolerant and unbiased 'official stance' ........ even to the point of having some elements of 'positive discrimination' (with which I don't agree) by having priorities for candidates from ethnic minorities etc.  We have a very diverse government (including at cabinet level) with ethnic minorities, various religions represented, others from families who have come here as a result of WW2 etc.

But there will be some 'rotten apples' in (for example) the police - and I think it is right to call them out when they are identified.  Not talking about it could be construed as condoning it - and we don't condone it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

I started watching a video on Facebook last week, Morgan Freeman summed it up best, when asked how do we stop all the trouble around racism,  he said stop talking about it. 

how refreshing...........and the other problem is semi left wing pressure groups

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mice! said:

I started watching a video on Facebook last week, Morgan Freeman summed it up best, when asked how do we stop all the trouble around racism,  he said stop talking about it. 

Didn't he also say something along the lines of - The trouble today is people want everything handed to them, they dont want to put the work in to get it.

And something like - People need to stop blaming others for their own misgivings.

He was speaking a lot of sense. I'm surprised the interview was aired.

Edited by Newbie to this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Didn't he also say something along the lines of - The trouble today is people want everything handed to them, they dont want to put the work in to get it.

And something like - People need to stop blaming others for their own misgivings.

He was speaking a lot of sense. I'm surprised the interview was aired.

I only watched a couple of minutes,  it was already playing and part way through, him and others talking a lot of sense, but I've no idea where the video is from, I'll have to find it and watch it properly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hod said:

Absolutely this.  Not even debatable, unless you wish to try and defend racism. 

Exactly, there are things that should not be said in this day and age. However on the point that slavery wasn't genocide he was talking sense. Almost the opposite, It was more of a sick form of livestock farming. There is no defence for slavery, our significant part in it in history, or our behaviour elsewhere in the colonial era- but its exactly that- history, and should be treated as such now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

 

It's the phrase 'damn blacks', which is inescapably racist. 

Is it?

damn
/dam/
adjective
informal
adjective: damn
  1. used for emphasis, especially to express anger or frustration.
     
    Take that single word out of the sentence and there is very little to argue about. In fact absolutely nothing to argue about.
     
    “Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”
     
    Not saying he doesn't have some form because he seems to. Then again he was born in 1945 and would have been brought up in a time where racism was very real as during his formative years we took in many people from our former colonies. The Windrush generation etc.
     
    As a historian he would no doubt tell you that you cannot judge the people of yesteryear by the morals of today. Should all of us that watched tv during the 70's and early 80's be cancelled because we laughed at shows like Love Thy Neighbour, Rising Damp, and It Ain't Half Hot Mum. Maybe those of us that had a bit of a chuckle at Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson with his Chalky jokes?
     
    Much like RLB you have to be very careful when it comes to cancel culture. You can easily find yourself reaping the whirlwind you yourself were so keen to whip up.
     
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

Is it?

damn
/dam/
adjective
informal
adjective: damn
  1. used for emphasis, especially to express anger or frustration.
     
    Take that single word out of the sentence and there is very little to argue about. In fact absolutely nothing to argue about.
     
    “Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”
     
    Not saying he doesn't have some form because he seems to. Then again he was born in 1945 and would have been brought up in a time where racism was very real as during his formative years we took in many people from our former colonies. The Windrush generation etc.
     
    As a historian he would no doubt tell you that you cannot judge the people of yesteryear by the morals of today. Should all of us that watched tv during the 70's and early 80's be cancelled because we laughed at shows like Love Thy Neighbour, Rising Damp, and It Ain't Half Hot Mum. Maybe those of us that had a bit of a chuckle at Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson with his Chalky jokes?
     
    Much like RLB you have to be very careful when it comes to cancel culture. You can easily find yourself reaping the whirlwind you yourself were so keen to whip up.
     

Sorry, what? Your argument is 'ah but if you took the racist bit out, then it wouldn't be racist'. That's quite the syllogism you have there. The trouble is, you can't take the 'damn' out. It's an integral part of the phrase. It's not parenthetical, it changes the whole nature of the comment. Why has he damned them? why exasperation? It is only put in there in connection to the colour. That makes it overtly racist. And pluralising black is almost as bad. the connotation is one of lumping them all together, removing identity and defining them only by their colour, reinforced by 'a lot of them' survived. It's just as bad as using it for 'whites', which he's done in the past. Apart from that, it shows appalling inhumanity. He trivialises the systemic suffering of millions; glossing over it by saying that plenty survived, not seeing the horrible tragedy that so many died. That callousness is in itself is pretty reprehensible. 

I'm not judging morals of yesteryear by the morals of today. I'm judging his words of today on today's morals. Those 'damn blacks' is obviously racist. 'Those blacks' isn't much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Sorry, what? Your argument is 'ah but if you took the racist bit out, then it wouldn't be racist'. That's quite the syllogism you have there. The trouble is, you can't take the 'damn' out. It's an integral part of the phrase. It's not parenthetical, it changes the whole nature of the comment. Why has he damned them? why exasperation? It is only put in there in connection to the colour. That makes it overtly racist. And pluralising black is almost as bad. the connotation is one of lumping them all together, removing identity and defining them only by their colour, reinforced by 'a lot of them' survived. It's just as bad as using it for 'whites', which he's done in the past. Apart from that, it shows appalling inhumanity. He trivialises the systemic suffering of millions; glossing over it by saying that plenty survived, not seeing the horrible tragedy that so many died. That callousness is in itself is pretty reprehensible. 

I'm not judging morals of yesteryear by the morals of today. I'm judging his words of today on today's morals. Those 'damn blacks' is obviously racist. 'Those blacks' isn't much better.

No, I'm saying he is frustrated by the incorrect view that slavery is genocidal. In his frustration he threw the word damn in. As I pointed out damn has several definitions of usage. Depending which one you choose to take it as depends on whether you view the statement as being racist. I was merely pointing out that when you remove the word the sentence still makes complete sense and is not in any way racist. That's not a syllogism and it's not integral to the statement because the statement still makes sense without it. Can it be perceived as racist? Yes. Is it 100% definitely racist? No.

I fail to see why pluralising black is as bad. He is talking about a large group in general terms. I guess he could have said "a large number of black people survived", would that make it better? He's not trivialising slavery, he's discussing why slavery is not genocide.  If he'd said the Nazi's use of Jewish slave labour as part of the Holocaust wasn't genocidal because lots of Jews survived then I would agree that he was trivialising. The point being that people buying slaves were not buying them so that they could be killed. Hence slavery is not genocide.

However, your initial statement I replied to was that his comment was "inescapably racist"  I was merely pointing out that it is only possibly racist. It is possible that he threw an extra word in without thinking it through as to how it could be perceived. Had he done so in a less heated time then there would have been little or no reaction and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't believe the comment even registered with Darren Grimes or his editor if he has one. 

I do find it frustrating that Starkey is up for public judgement whilst Dr Gopal who On Tuesday (June 23),  tweeted: "I'll say it again. White lives don't matter. As white lives." She then added: "Abolish whiteness." isn't being sacked but has instead been given a professorship. 

1 hour ago, hod said:


Yes. 100%. That is racist. 

No, simply by the rules of the English language it isn't. It is open for interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did he use 'damn?' At no point in anything he said did he legitimise cause for the frustration. He makes no case for why they're damned, it's simply left there inextricably linked to black. You can't remove it from the sentence and keep the same meaning. just because it makes sense grammatically to remove it, doesn't mean that it makes the same sense when it's kept in. As I said, it's not parenthetical; it changes everything. Your logic is working like this:
It could be racist to say 'damn blacks.' I can take out damn and it makes sense. Therefore it's not racist.' Major premise (major term: racist), minor premise (minor term: making sense), conclusion. That is a syllogism, it's just horrendously warped. 

If you cannot justify the phrase 'damn blacks' then it is racism. You have used specific, derogatory language without justification and connected it solely to the colour of skin. 

Why is it fair of him to use 'damn blacks'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Why did he use 'damn?' At no point in anything he said did he legitimise cause for the frustration. He makes no case for why they're damned, it's simply left there inextricably linked to black. You can't remove it from the sentence and keep the same meaning. just because it makes sense grammatically to remove it, doesn't mean that it makes the same sense when it's kept in. As I said, it's not parenthetical; it changes everything. Your logic is working like this:
It could be racist to say 'damn blacks.' I can take out damn and it makes sense. Therefore it's not racist.' Major premise (major term: racist), minor premise (minor term: making sense), conclusion. That is a syllogism, it's just horrendously warped. 

If you cannot justify the phrase 'damn blacks' then it is racism. You have used specific, derogatory language without justification and connected it solely to the colour of skin. 

Why is it fair of him to use 'damn blacks'?

damn
/dam/
adjective
informal
adjective: damn
  1. used for emphasis, especially to express anger or frustration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...