Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
Dont Panic said:
Ive asked the very same thing of gopal. So why do you do it then?
Youre not colour biased surely?
You seem to be defending Starkey by trying to out-racist him.Youre not colour biased surely?
Both Gopal & Starkey are racist loons. Let's move on.
Please try not to be triggered so easily. How many times have you posted in this thread?
Stop obsessing.
mx5nut said:
Dont Panic said:
Randy Winkman said:
The explanation makes no sense to me. It's not even an explanation.
If you remove the word damn" it makes sense to me Why do some on here go to such lengths to defend these characters?
Two sides to the same story, one side desperate to cite racism as being the reason behind the comment, the other seeing something completely different.
Why don't you have the courage of your conviction to state the 'character' involved is apparently lying, name him and state that's your conviction, and then face any possible consequences of doing so.
Perhaps you think the people seeing the opposing side are racists, which seems a recurring theme by some, if that's the case name said posters, and let the mods make the decision, the rules of the forum are quite clear on racism:
It goes without saying, racism and hate speech is utterly unacceptable. Users that disagree will be banned from the site, and potentially reported to the police
Dont Panic said:
chrispmartha said:
yes removing words alters the tone and meaning, just like when you deliberately remove 'As white lives'.
Doesn't actually change what was written or said though does it.
You can argue that if you want, starkeys got no form for liking tweets calling blacks "vermin" gopal has for tweets saying whites are.Doesn't actually change what was written or said though does it.
Starkey made a poor job of an explanation, gopal made a clear indication of her feelings towards other races, you cant argue against that, neither can you argue that one has been treated disproportionately harshly where the others been lauded and promoted for spouting racist tripe.
Why is that?
Dont Panic said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Who's defending Gopal here? 
I dont see anyone holding your views expressly calling her out as a racist, which se undoubtedly is.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If her employers want to sack her that's fine with me she's an idiot using that language.
Only an idiot?bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Cracking whataboutery though.
Hardly, Im just pointing out the inconvenient divergence in treatment between the two examples.If using racist language makes you racist that would also make the likes of Boris a racist.
I don't know if she's racist but I'm fine if her employer took a view that they didn't want to employ her any more based on what she's said.
I'm a rando on the internet I'm not responsible for the divergence in treatment that'll be the biased left wing media in action.
chrispmartha said:
The simple fact is you are removing words from what they have said/written one to make someone look less racist one to make them look more racist
Why is that?
I cant make one look more or less racist- i didnt make the statements after all, I just want to know why gopal got promoted after liking tweets stating whites are vermin and starkey got the bubble for saying "damn blacks".Why is that?
Theres a difference in equality of treatment occurring, Id like to know why.
i think youre saying one is as bad as the other, Id agree, if so why the complete absence of a negative sanction on gopal and indeed a promotion?
It may just be as simple as one is white and male (and old) and the other is brown and female which makes the policy racist in itself and unconscionable.
Gopal almost needs her own thread. She wrote this article in the Guardian which attempts to explain her theories on "whiteness", quite interesting and not necessarily racist. Not sure how she'd explain away her kneecapping tweet though.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul...
Dont Panic said:
chrispmartha said:
The simple fact is you are removing words from what they have said/written one to make someone look less racist one to make them look more racist
Why is that?
I cant make one look more or less racist- i didnt make the statements after all, I just want to know why gopal got promoted after liking tweets stating whites are vermin and starkey got the bubble for saying "damn blacks".Why is that?
Theres a difference in equality of treatment occurring, Id like to know why.
i think youre saying one is as bad as the other, Id agree, if so why the complete absence of a negative sanction on gopal and indeed a promotion?
It may just be as simple as one is white and male (and old) and the other is brown and female which makes the policy racist in itself and unconscionable.
And of course removing words means you are trying to change the meaning, I was simply pointing out that in Starkeys case you are removing a word to make it seem less racist and the opposite for Gopal, why remove words at all they said/wrote what they did, judge it on that.
I actually think what Starkey said was worse than what Gopal wrote but they for supposedly intelligent people were stupid to say/write what they did
chrispmartha said:
I actually think what Starkey said was worse than what Gopal wrote but they for supposedly intelligent people were stupid to say/write what they did
I shall politely ( thats a first) 
beg to disagree on that particular point simply because starkey has no previous afaik for making racist statements and gopal most certainly does.zygalski said:
Yeah, because taking a negative word previously applied to an entire race of people and using the word in reference to a mechanical item thus trying to dilute its meaning makes perfect rational sense.
Congrats.
You are looking at this through your personal language usage, which is fair enough.Congrats.
Consider that this is someone who gets picky and frustrated over the semantics of language - ironically precisely so that no misunderstanding or skewed meaning can be given
In this context it's more than possible (and, indeed, the perp' has said so) that he is treating "blacks" simply as a noun in exactly the same way as you would "gears".
Very silly use of language, especially in the circumstances, but in the context above, and in a spur of the moment interview, not entirely irrational. To people of younger years it may well seem irrational. Equally to people who want to see racism issues where there aren't really any....
chrispmartha said:
Maybe there’s a difference because they didn’t say the same things? I don’t know ive got nothing to do with their employers.
And of course removing words means you are trying to change the meaning, I was simply pointing out that in Starkeys case you are removing a word to make it seem less racist and the opposite for Gopal, why remove words at all they said/wrote what they did, judge it on that.
I actually think what Starkey said was worse than what Gopal wrote but they for supposedly intelligent people were stupid to say/write what they did
I hold the opposite view.And of course removing words means you are trying to change the meaning, I was simply pointing out that in Starkeys case you are removing a word to make it seem less racist and the opposite for Gopal, why remove words at all they said/wrote what they did, judge it on that.
I actually think what Starkey said was worse than what Gopal wrote but they for supposedly intelligent people were stupid to say/write what they did
- Gopal's "All white lives" additional sentence does not remove any ambiguity whatsoever
- One has all the time in the world to consider their written word. Less so in a dynamic interview
- To my knowledge (I don't do Twitter and would be unlikely to follow Ms Gopal even if I did) she hasn't apologised nor clarified what she really meant (?)
- She does seem to have a track record of carelessness of similar magnitude...for someone supposedly erudite, the only conclusion must surely be that it's deliberate. Maybe she thinks she's being provocative?
Ultimately, I care not one jot about either of them. I suspect in reality they are both as racist or non-racist as each other. What I do care about is equality of action...that doesn't seem to have happened here. Yes, it's down to her employer yadda yadda. But can you imagine the headlines had Ms Gopal been binned off and Starkey hadn't?
I'm not sure that's a good place for us to be as a society. Especially as the topic at hand is equality...
Dont Panic said:
I shall politely ( thats a first) beg to disagree on that particular point simply because starkey has no previous afaik for making racist statements and gopal most certainly does.
He does have some previous. He described how all the "whites have become black" when talking about the london riots. He clearly has a problem with black people. beg to disagree on that particular point simply because starkey has no previous afaik for making racist statements and gopal most certainly does.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-14513517/england-...
PeteinSQ said:
"- To my knowledge (I don't do Twitter and would be unlikely to follow Ms Gopal even if I did) she hasn't apologised nor clarified what she really meant (?)"
She did clarify in an article in the Guardian.
That explains why I didn't routinely see it too then.She did clarify in an article in the Guardian.
I just searched it out. And am really, really not sure she is helping herself in the fuller Guardian piece tbh.
Guardian said:
....
I found this out to my cost last week when I tweeted a response to the racially inflammatory “White Lives Matter” banner flown over the Etihad Stadium after Manchester City and Burnley footballers had “taken the knee” to honour George Floyd. My tweet, deliberately playing with the wording of the banner by qualifying it, made the point that white lives cannot be deemed to matter because they are white, that it should not be whiteness that gives those lives value. In addition to the tsunami of racist sewage that immediately came my way, littered with N-words and P-words along with sexist slurs, rape fantasies, death threats and open declarations that “white lives matter more”, I was repeatedly asked why, if white lives did not matter as white lives, do black lives matter? Was that also not also racist?
No, it is not also racist. White lives already matter more than others so to keep proclaiming they matter is to add excess value to them, tilting us dangerously into white supremacy. This doesn’t mean that all white people in western societies are materially well-off or don’t experience hardship, but that they don’t do so by virtue of the fact that they are white. Black lives remain undervalued and in order for us to get to the desirable point where all lives (really do) matter, they must first achieve parity by mattering. It’s not really that hard to understand unless you choose not to.
Several things...I found this out to my cost last week when I tweeted a response to the racially inflammatory “White Lives Matter” banner flown over the Etihad Stadium after Manchester City and Burnley footballers had “taken the knee” to honour George Floyd. My tweet, deliberately playing with the wording of the banner by qualifying it, made the point that white lives cannot be deemed to matter because they are white, that it should not be whiteness that gives those lives value. In addition to the tsunami of racist sewage that immediately came my way, littered with N-words and P-words along with sexist slurs, rape fantasies, death threats and open declarations that “white lives matter more”, I was repeatedly asked why, if white lives did not matter as white lives, do black lives matter? Was that also not also racist?
No, it is not also racist. White lives already matter more than others so to keep proclaiming they matter is to add excess value to them, tilting us dangerously into white supremacy. This doesn’t mean that all white people in western societies are materially well-off or don’t experience hardship, but that they don’t do so by virtue of the fact that they are white. Black lives remain undervalued and in order for us to get to the desirable point where all lives (really do) matter, they must first achieve parity by mattering. It’s not really that hard to understand unless you choose not to.
1) There is no excuse for the comments she received. Hopefully they will be dealt with properly
2) The bit in bold did not make that point very clearly in her Tweet (she seems to be trying to say it did as a defence). And could so easily have done by much more careful use of the language used. She could have used the exact itallicised words and left it totally unambigous. (Though I guess this would then lead to the same comment right back - black lives cannot be deemed to matter because they are black...which would undermine the points, especially in....
3) ...the second paragraph quoted above, which is as clumsy and stupid as her tweet. Especially the second sentence.
"Whiteness", IMO, can only be discussed rationally if it is looked at globally. And I do mean globally rather than with just a Western slant.
"Whiteness" does not exist in many parts of the world (despite damned colonialism - bit dangerous using words like this but hopefully it doesn't set me into the Starkey-Gopal axis
). So in trying to understand this, is "whiteness" in, for example, the UK, entirely irrational bearing in mind the history of the country? Or is it much more likely to be a human trait? One that is being combatted over time (and with increasing pace, if potentially fragile), but that will likely take as long to eradicate (assuming that is ever possible, bearing in mind the root of it - human traits) as it did to instill itself over that very long history? It's a potentially hugely interesting topic. But unfortunately is way too politicised for much good to come of it I suspect.
I think if you took all colour out of the latter part of her second paragraph and replaced it with "poor" (as in economically poor) it would likely hit closer to the heart of issues.
Murph7355 said:
zygalski said:
Yeah, because taking a negative word previously applied to an entire race of people and using the word in reference to a mechanical item thus trying to dilute its meaning makes perfect rational sense.
Congrats.
You are looking at this through your personal language usage, which is fair enough.Congrats.
Consider that this is someone who gets picky and frustrated over the semantics of language - ironically precisely so that no misunderstanding or skewed meaning can be given
In this context it's more than possible (and, indeed, the perp' has said so) that he is treating "blacks" simply as a noun in exactly the same way as you would "gears".
Very silly use of language, especially in the circumstances, but in the context above, and in a spur of the moment interview, not entirely irrational. To people of younger years it may well seem irrational. Equally to people who want to see racism issues where there aren't really any....
chrispmartha said:
Maybe there’s a difference because they didn’t say the same things? I don’t know ive got nothing to do with their employers.
And of course removing words means you are trying to change the meaning, I was simply pointing out that in Starkeys case you are removing a word to make it seem less racist and the opposite for Gopal, why remove words at all they said/wrote what they did, judge it on that.
I actually think what Starkey said was worse than what Gopal wrote but they for supposedly intelligent people were stupid to say/write what they did
I hold the opposite view.And of course removing words means you are trying to change the meaning, I was simply pointing out that in Starkeys case you are removing a word to make it seem less racist and the opposite for Gopal, why remove words at all they said/wrote what they did, judge it on that.
I actually think what Starkey said was worse than what Gopal wrote but they for supposedly intelligent people were stupid to say/write what they did
- Gopal's "All white lives" additional sentence does not remove any ambiguity whatsoever
- One has all the time in the world to consider their written word. Less so in a dynamic interview
- To my knowledge (I don't do Twitter and would be unlikely to follow Ms Gopal even if I did) she hasn't apologised nor clarified what she really meant (?)
- She does seem to have a track record of carelessness of similar magnitude...for someone supposedly erudite, the only conclusion must surely be that it's deliberate. Maybe she thinks she's being provocative?
Ultimately, I care not one jot about either of them. I suspect in reality they are both as racist or non-racist as each other. What I do care about is equality of action...that doesn't seem to have happened here. Yes, it's down to her employer yadda yadda. But can you imagine the headlines had Ms Gopal been binned off and Starkey hadn't?
I'm not sure that's a good place for us to be as a society. Especially as the topic at hand is equality...
chrispmartha said:
She clarified what she meant IIRC in the same thread on twitter (could have been a different one) and in the Guardian.
I found the Guardian link, quoted it above.As noted, I'm not convinced the explanation was that much better (it could have been if she'd stopped short of that second paragraph perhaps), despite having all the time in the world to form it.
PeteinSQ said:
I think she does look at it globally in her article - that bit about another book about how the "Irish became white". I think in her academic study whiteness isn't necessarily to do with skin colour. She also talks about other social constructs such as her being a brahmin in India.
If it's not to do with skin colour (and it may not be), why choose "whiteness"...? Isn't that lazy too?Is what is being studied simply "privilege" and "preference" how they come about? Why colour it at all?
PeteinSQ said:
I think she does look at it globally in her article - that bit about another book about how the "Irish became white". I think in her academic study whiteness isn't necessarily to do with skin colour. She also talks about other social constructs such as her being a brahmin in India.
It seems a bit nebulous; I think I understand what she's driving at but at least in the article she offers no means by which society could eliminate 'whiteness'.hidetheelephants said:
It seems a bit nebulous; I think I understand what she's driving at but at least in the article she offers no means by which society could eliminate 'whiteness'.
Yes it is quite a bit over my head. Identifies the problem (and I'm sure there is one) but doesn't seem to propose the solution. That's one of the issues with BLM in this country. The problem isn't as obvious as in the US so in some ways more difficult to fix. For example where do issues around poverty start being about race and stop being about just generally being part of a sort of underclass which includes lots of white people too.
Some stuff like statues celebrating slave traders etc are easy to fix but the major problems will still be there and are much harder to address as the answer isn't nice and succinct.
PeteinSQ said:
Yes it is quite a bit over my head. Identifies the problem (and I'm sure there is one) but doesn't seem to propose the solution. That's one of the issues with BLM in this country. The problem isn't as obvious as in the US so in some ways more difficult to fix.
For example where do issues around poverty start being about race and stop being about just generally being part of a sort of underclass which includes lots of white people too.
Some stuff like statues celebrating slave traders etc are easy to fix but the major problems will still be there and are much harder to address as the answer isn't nice and succinct.
It's along these lines that I'm not convinced statues are easily "fixed" or that "fixing" them will in anyway address what people are wanting. And especially so when people take the law into their own hands. It seems trivial to many, but IMO it's very important how these things are handled.For example where do issues around poverty start being about race and stop being about just generally being part of a sort of underclass which includes lots of white people too.
Some stuff like statues celebrating slave traders etc are easy to fix but the major problems will still be there and are much harder to address as the answer isn't nice and succinct.
We are all products of our collective history, for better and for worse. Trying to erase part of that history erases part of what we all are. That's unlikely to be good for anyone, no matter how it might seem in the short term.
Longer lasting, more meaningful solutions take longer to develop and implement. We like to think they can be shortcut because we're humans, the most intelligent species on the planet. But I'm far from convinced.
The closer you actually get to some sort of equilibrium the harder it gets to inch towards those final measures that will have meaningful effect and the more important it gets to be very precise about what you are trying to achieve. As your example rightly notes, it gets to the point where separating what is the original issue ("race") from other contributory factors ("underclass", "wealth gap" - not a fan of the word "poverty" - "family units" etc etc) becomes very difficult. And especially so if you want to try to avoid marginalising others in the same boat (which we must, otherwise the original factors start to get worse again).
This is why the sort of wording Gopal uses concerns me way more than the stupid use of language Starkey used. White lives already matter so adding them to the catchphrase just emphasises that side more? Not for the millions of white people who don't feel the benefit of any sort of supposed privilege they are subject to.
don'tbesilly said:
bhstewie said:
Starkey confirms what many on this thread speculated Starkey had meant with his comment.hstewie said:From the Beeb article:
Speaking about his use of the phrase "so many damn blacks", he said: "It was intended to emphasise, in hindsight with awful clumsiness, the numbers who survived the horrors of the slave trade. Instead, it came across as a term of racial abuse.
No promotion for Starkey, but a heavy 'price' for 'clumsy' language, as per the headline.
1) he considers the black people who survived the slave trade as damn people for surviving
2) he was using the dismissive vernacular of the people who enslaved the black people
I find it hard to go past 1)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff