Has David Starkey gone mad?

[PeteinSQ]

s2art said:

Alternatively its just an old (and common) way of emphasising something. 'There is too many damn cars on the road today', Unwise usage in these Woke days but hey ho.

Unwise?? Are you for real? Too many damn cars implies that the presence of so many cars is a negative thing. Too many damn blacks implies black people are a negative. How the fk is that ok with you? fk me.

[PeteinSQ]

As to Gopal's tweet you have to go back and read it again, engage your brain and try to understand why it doesn't mean what you and other right wing dross think it means.

[Derek Smith]

PeteinSQ said:

s2art said:

Alternatively its just an old (and common) way of emphasising something. 'There is too many damn cars on the road today', Unwise usage in these Woke days but hey ho.

Unwise?? Are you for real? Too many damn cars implies that the presence of so many cars is a negative thing. Too many damn blacks implies black people are a negative. How the fk is that ok with you? fk me.

He writes books. For all that he's a bit of an idiot, he writes well. His control of English is excellent. I find it difficult, as in difficult equating with virtually impossible, to believe that the word was not chosen with care.

There are enough examples of him on TV to show that when he wants to demean, he uses English in the way a surgeon uses a knife.

[Esceptico]

For some time it has been accepted that race, as a biological concept, doesn’t really exist as DNA analyses show that there is no homogeneity within perceived racial groups. Race is now seen as a social construct based mainly on shared culture.

The African slave trade did involve the deliberate destruction of part of African races as they were forcibly removed from Africa and had their culture and language taken from them.

If Hitler has decided to eliminate Jews not by killing them but by forcibly sterilising them all (so stopping the Jewish culture from being passed on) would that not also have been genocide?

[Murph7355]

PeteinSQ said:

....and try to understand why it doesn't mean what you and other right wing dross think it means.

So careless, or possibly even deliberate and "clever", use of language by an academic might not always mean what you think it means....?

[Ayahuasca]

Esceptico said:

For some time it has been accepted that race, as a biological concept, doesn’t really exist as DNA analyses show that there is no homogeneity within perceived racial groups. Race is now seen as a social construct based mainly on shared culture.

The African slave trade did involve the deliberate destruction of part of African races as they were forcibly removed from Africa and had their culture and language taken from them.

If Hitler has decided to eliminate Jews not by killing them but by forcibly sterilising them all (so stopping the Jewish culture from being passed on) would that not also have been genocide?

So skin colour is just a social construct? Of course ‘race’ exists, and without race there can be no racism can there?

The African slave traders could not care less about eliminating the slaves’ culture, it was purely a financial transaction. And only a small percentage of Africans were enslaved. Evil, certainly. Not genocide (which is also evil, but a different evil).

Hitler sterilising jews genocide? Perhaps. What if he just forcibly converted them to Christianity? Is that also genocide?

As I said in my OP, whether slavery was or wasn’t genocide is a fair topic for rational discussion and argument.

Where Starkey had a moment of madness was referring to black people as “damned blacks”.

[konark]

zygalski said:

Good.
I wouldn't want to live in a Britain where a relic like Starkey could get away with referring to an entire race as a "damned" people like something he'd scrape off his shoe.

Would you like to live in a country where people who spoke against the orthodoxy were taken to camps and 're-educated'.

[PeteinSQ]

No Im quite happy with the consequences that he has already faced. He has freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

[PeteinSQ]

Murph7355 said:

So careless, or possibly even deliberate and "clever", use of language by an academic might not always mean what you think it means....?

Where is the clever part of referring to "so many damn black people"?

You are engaging in the usual pathetic whataboutism.

[Murph7355]

PeteinSQ said:

Murph7355 said:

So careless, or possibly even deliberate and "clever", use of language by an academic might not always mean what you think it means....?

Where is the clever part of referring to "so many damn black people"?

You are engaging in the usual pathetic whataboutism.

No, I am questioning equality of response.

Ref your first question, for one telling others they can't understand the written word you're not excelling yourself.

Is one now never allowed to draw legitimate and relevant parallels because it's "whataboutism"? Or are you simply trying to close down discussion/debate with your emotive outbursts?

[ettore]

Well, I was returning to argue my previous comments with Derek but I see the thread has turned to a crock of st. People confusing who , or what, they’re arguing about. Frothing and emoting about things they obviously haven’t actually listened to or read. All wrapped with good dose of ignorance and intolerance.

Welcome to 2020!

[gregs656]

s2art said:

Alternatively its just an old (and common) way of emphasising something. 'There is too many damn cars on the road today', Unwise usage in these Woke days but hey ho.

Emphasising something they are complaining about, something bad.

This has nothing to do with being woke, or unwise usage, it’s about being racist.

[rodericb]

Esceptico said:

For some time it has been accepted that race, as a biological concept, doesn’t really exist as DNA analyses show that there is no homogeneity within perceived racial groups. Race is now seen as a social construct based mainly on shared culture.

The African slave trade did involve the deliberate destruction of part of African races as they were forcibly removed from Africa and had their culture and language taken from them.

If Hitler has decided to eliminate Jews not by killing them but by forcibly sterilising them all (so stopping the Jewish culture from being passed on) would that not also have been genocide?

Here's an article about the definition of genocide from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11108059

What's interesting about this is the focus, or not, of the words which David Starkey said. He's pointing out the lack of rigour around using the term slavery and genocide and then gets lazy about the word "damned". Hoist by his own petard. I imagine that the people who bandied about the terms of slavery and genocide are now the people who are suddenly all about accuracy in language!

[s2art]

gregs656 said:

s2art said:

Alternatively its just an old (and common) way of emphasising something. 'There is too many damn cars on the road today', Unwise usage in these Woke days but hey ho.

Emphasising something they are complaining about, something bad.

This has nothing to do with being woke, or unwise usage, it’s about being racist.

Except I dont believe Starkey is particularly racist. Seen enough of him, eccentric he is.

[Double Fault]

So not “particularly racist”, just maybe a little bit rascisty? It’s ok though because he’s a tad “eccentric”?

Racistheads.......pistons don’t matter

[Ian Geary]

For a clever guy to have said that? Stupid.

Has he or his agent issues a grovelling apology yet?

It should include, but not be limited to including phrases such as "mis spoke", "taken out of context", "didn't mean to cause offence", "understand the hurt caused", "will reflect upon my approach"

All of which is utter bks of course - people should do that "before" they say stuff to the media

[Dont Panic]

PeteinSQ said:

No Im quite happy with the consequences that he has already faced. He has freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

Twitter, Facebook, the media, commentators, speculators forums such as this are the ones laying out the consequences however, rather than the law of the land, the courts are being entirely bypassed when consequences are enacted.

Judged, tried and hanged by such as you, not a legal jury in sight.
Be proud of your brave new world, but youd best fear it as one day youll be a victim of the same kinds of attitudes you hold so dear.

[frisbee]

Ian Geary said:

For a clever guy to have said that? Stupid.

Has he or his agent issues a grovelling apology yet?

It should include, but not be limited to including phrases such as "mis spoke", "taken out of context", "didn't mean to cause offence", "understand the hurt caused", "will reflect upon my approach"

All of which is utter bks of course - people should do that "before" they say stuff to the media

What's today's medication of choice to blame things like this on?

[Dr Jekyll]

PeteinSQ said:

s2art said:

Alternatively its just an old (and common) way of emphasising something. 'There is too many damn cars on the road today', Unwise usage in these Woke days but hey ho.

Unwise?? Are you for real? Too many damn cars implies that the presence of so many cars is a negative thing. Too many damn blacks implies black people are a negative. How the fk is that ok with you? fk me.

Too many damn cars on the road today does imply the presence of the cars is negative, but not that cars themselves are negative. A better analogy would be someone saying 'if this is the route that's supposed to avoid the traffic, why are there so many damn cars everywhere?'. If someone is arguing that slavery is the same as genocide (not just equally bad, the same) then the presence of black people is clearly a negative for their argument. Starkey certainly wasn't saying black people should have been wiped out, just that however appallingly they were treated, they weren't.

[Dont Panic]

Dr Jekyll said:

Too many damn cars on the road today does imply the presence of the cars is negative, but not that cars themselves are negative.

Exactly, rephrasing it, "Theres too many cars on this damn road". Is the road now negative? Nope.