Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: ...
Let's pretend someone like Corbyn was quoted as saying "whilst it's true that we've had our issues with antisemitism we've not done too badly else more damn Jews would have received abuse" and ask yourself honestly what you think your reaction would be.....
Honestly? It depends what provoked the use of the language.Let's pretend someone like Corbyn was quoted as saying "whilst it's true that we've had our issues with antisemitism we've not done too badly else more damn Jews would have received abuse" and ask yourself honestly what you think your reaction would be.....
Regardless of that context it was still hugely unwise use of language. And I doubt him not gracing the airwaves for a bit will be a bother to most.
The equality of censure angle is now far more of interest though. I have no issue with him being castigated for careless use of language. As long as that is handled consistently. And that is quite evidently not happening at the moment. I find this a worry, not least of which because it will generate and foster further division.
Not sure the rest of NP&E would be so kind.
Double Fault said:
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
Starkey is as sharp as a tack.Racistheads.......pistons don’t matter
Until people on NP&E choose to defend him when he's apparently a poor eccentric man who's getting on a bit and may have been confused and misspoke using language from his generation.
Risible.
Something of a right turn here, but did anyone see the TV program about a decade ago - Jamie Oliver opened a school specifically for children who were struggling in mainstream education and had lots of experts in their fields as teachers. David Starkey was the history teacher.
He was locking horns with a teenager in class who was being a bit of a st, and Starkey made some comment about the kid being so fat he was surprised he could walk, or something to that effect. The boy looked so embarrassed with the entire class roaring in laughter at his expense. It was uncomfortable viewing. The headteacher saw the video, delivered one of the all time great face palms and promptly 'sacked' David Starkey.
'Eccentric'? Almost certainly. But also not a particularly nice man at all.
He was locking horns with a teenager in class who was being a bit of a s
t, and Starkey made some comment about the kid being so fat he was surprised he could walk, or something to that effect. The boy looked so embarrassed with the entire class roaring in laughter at his expense. It was uncomfortable viewing. The headteacher saw the video, delivered one of the all time great face palms and promptly 'sacked' David Starkey. 'Eccentric'? Almost certainly. But also not a particularly nice man at all.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Starkey is as sharp as a tack.
Until people on NP&E choose to defend him when he's apparently a poor eccentric man who's getting on a bit and may have been confused and misspoke using language from his generation.
Risible.
Or someone who is very precise in his use of language and doesn't allow for other people applying meanings he didn't intend.Until people on NP&E choose to defend him when he's apparently a poor eccentric man who's getting on a bit and may have been confused and misspoke using language from his generation.
Risible.
Eric Mc said:
If he was not aware that might happen, that maybe indicates that he isn't as smart as others think he is.
Personally, I think he is a nasty little man who enjoys winding others up and taking contrarian views.
The sort of person I would try to avoid in real life.
I'd agree with you there.Personally, I think he is a nasty little man who enjoys winding others up and taking contrarian views.
The sort of person I would try to avoid in real life.
Dr Jekyll said:
Eric Mc said:
If he was not aware that might happen, that maybe indicates that he isn't as smart as others think he is.
Personally, I think he is a nasty little man who enjoys winding others up and taking contrarian views.
The sort of person I would try to avoid in real life.
I'd agree with you there.Personally, I think he is a nasty little man who enjoys winding others up and taking contrarian views.
The sort of person I would try to avoid in real life.
Stewie and Jekyll are both correct in the last Cpl of posts, David S is always very sharp and precise. He is an excellent communicator and user of language.
He always is using that language and ability to construct a narrative and argument whenever I have seen him presenting, speaking or lecturing. I will thoroughly agree that he is at times not an especially "nice" person, very much the old school irascible cantankerous Historian.
He is though a Historian. Again, note the capital H. The accuracy of the History is paramount. The rigour of the accuracy of the subject is of far more importance to him than other aspects. This is something I happen to agree with him about, otherwise you merely promote ignorance. The other side of that is you ignore completely the human aspect, the social construct if you will. I have seen him give witheringly accurate social deconstructions that can make for very uncomfortable viewing.
HIs words were accurate in any historical context. They are also uncomfortable in the current social context.
As I said previously though, he has been controversial and irascible throughout his career without really giving a damn.
He always is using that language and ability to construct a narrative and argument whenever I have seen him presenting, speaking or lecturing. I will thoroughly agree that he is at times not an especially "nice" person, very much the old school irascible cantankerous Historian.
He is though a Historian. Again, note the capital H. The accuracy of the History is paramount. The rigour of the accuracy of the subject is of far more importance to him than other aspects. This is something I happen to agree with him about, otherwise you merely promote ignorance. The other side of that is you ignore completely the human aspect, the social construct if you will. I have seen him give witheringly accurate social deconstructions that can make for very uncomfortable viewing.
HIs words were accurate in any historical context. They are also uncomfortable in the current social context.
As I said previously though, he has been controversial and irascible throughout his career without really giving a damn.
zygalski said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Suggesting that someone may not be racist is not being pro racist.
So therefore by your logic, someone saying 'there are so many damn Jews' is not being inherently antisemitic then.Glad we sorted that out.
Dr Jekyll said:
zygalski said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Suggesting that someone may not be racist is not being pro racist.
So therefore by your logic, someone saying 'there are so many damn Jews' is not being inherently antisemitic then.Glad we sorted that out.
s2art said:
I agree that he has a nasty streak, but he is entertaining. So I wouldnt avoid him if there was a chance I would be amused/entertained.
Nasty people with dark little hearts do not amuse me, I'm afraid. I would avoid him like the plague.Maybe in real life he is a lovely man and this evil little jibing he indulges in is all an act. Even if it is, then the fact that he might have a nice side would be negated by his lack of honesty.
No redeeming features as far as I'm concerned.
Eric Mc said:
s2art said:
I agree that he has a nasty streak, but he is entertaining. So I wouldnt avoid him if there was a chance I would be amused/entertained.
Nasty people with dark little hearts do not amuse me, I'm afraid. I would avoid him like the plague.Maybe in real life he is a lovely man and this evil little jibing he indulges in is all an act. Even if it is, then the fact that he might have a nice side would be negated by his lack of honesty.
No redeeming features as far as I'm concerned.
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.
Watching the people you support trying to destroy and remove all traces of his work will be interesting. History, a fairy story written by the victors. We seem to be entering a new period of the dark ages.
zygalski said:
But the issue is that the word damn is used in the context "Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain would there?" refers to the black race in a clearly negative way. The same point could have been made without inserting the word "damn" to give the sentence the slant it has. How can you pretend otherwise?
He was making a point about the distinction between slavery and genocide, not negative about the black race but frustrated by what he saw as sloppy use of language. He could and should have avoided the word 'damn', nobody disputes that. but it was a badly chosen (or deliberately provocative) intensifier. If I was arguing with a Trump supporter who claimed that a certain British town was a no go area for whites, I could well show him a picture of the high street and say 'if that's true why are there so many bloody white people there?'.s2art said:
Eric Mc said:
s2art said:
I agree that he has a nasty streak, but he is entertaining. So I wouldnt avoid him if there was a chance I would be amused/entertained.
Nasty people with dark little hearts do not amuse me, I'm afraid. I would avoid him like the plague.Maybe in real life he is a lovely man and this evil little jibing he indulges in is all an act. Even if it is, then the fact that he might have a nice side would be negated by his lack of honesty.
No redeeming features as far as I'm concerned.
t, I won't be seeking him out.Vanden Saab said:
May be have a quick peek at the dictionary definitions of damn... He seems to have made his point about the correct use of language perfectly. It will be interesting to see where this goes although at 75 and with a long and illustrious career behind him I doubt he cares, much like Laurence Fox.
Watching the people you support trying to destroy and remove all traces of his work will be interesting. History, a fairy story written by the victors. We seem to be entering a new period of the dark ages.
I wouldn’t support erasing his work from history. Lots of his work has been great, but he has fWatching the people you support trying to destroy and remove all traces of his work will be interesting. History, a fairy story written by the victors. We seem to be entering a new period of the dark ages.
ked up massively here. He is 75 so I’m not sure it matters a great deal at this point.
If he had managed to avoid referring to damn blacks he would be in a much more defensible position. If slavery was or wasn’t genocide is clearly up for debate and I thought his reference to catholic emancipation was worth making. But he did talk about “so many damn black people” and that is just wrong. Not totally surprising from someone of his generation but still wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff