Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
Zirconia said:
I am sure all those poor souls that have been abused and killed for generations and traded like cattle by people like those that end up in Bristol docks will like to know a dictionary is the definition they need.
Indeed.The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
Derek Smith said:
Indeed.
The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
History and facts are not some peoples strong points it seems.The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
The Germans "used/selected" those that could work until they perished,,,which was an economic choice....the important thing is "until they perished" as this was the Final Solution and the destruction of the race was the goal, that is Genocide.
There was no attempt to do that with the Slave Trade as the people so enslaved were basically like a horse, they had value. There was no attempt at genocide. Murder and horrid cruelty yes, genocide no.
There are no victims of the African Slave Trade left, their personal feelings about the word choice have no bearing these days, to use that as an argument to mix up words is a pointless exercise to excuse the incorrect use of language.
It should be a minor point, but people like Starkey find such inaccuracy inflammatory, hence his rejection of such use.
He then went on to keep embarrassing himself, very unaware of his errors, silly man.
Edited by Dont like rolls on Thursday 2nd July 22:32
Derek Smith said:
Indeed.
The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
What an absolute load of guff. The Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews. End of. That they could get some mechanical use out of them in doing so was a win win for them. That's genocide. Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia...the human race has a very unpleasant side.The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
The objective of slavery, abhorrent as it was and is, was/is not to set out to exterminate the slaves (genocide is the deliberate killing of large groups of a people).
Definitions are very important if one is to combat the root causes effectively. It's also important not to diminish terms so that they can be used effectively when appropriate - you should know this as an author. Otherwise why bother having different words at all?
Starkey is stupid for using the words he did. I don't believe he intended to mean the blacks were damnable...but it was stupid use of words. (Not dissimilar to the erudite woman on Twitter who mentioned something about white lives...though the outcome is quite different).
I suspect this won't be the last we hear from Starkey. It's not the first time he's put both feet in his mouth.
Dr Jekyll said:
MrBarry123 said:
And now the criminal whose channel this was aired on is trying to say he didn’t agree with what was said, even though he sat and nodded all the way through.
They’re nothing but a pathetic couple of racists.
It's standard for interviewers to sit down, and when an interviewer nods it just means 'carry on talking',They’re nothing but a pathetic couple of racists.
"They say never to meet your heroes, well, I virtually met one of mine and it was bloody fantastic."
Gweeds said:
Watching Grimes trying to walk this one back is comedy gold.
Not least because he tweeted how amazing it was and how he met his hero after the interview was done.
And is today trying to pretend he wasn’t fully engaged and he’s new at all this.
Grifters gonna grift.
Can't believe he's trying the "I'm just a kid I don't know what I'm doing" thing again.Not least because he tweeted how amazing it was and how he met his hero after the interview was done.
And is today trying to pretend he wasn’t fully engaged and he’s new at all this.
Grifters gonna grift.
Or that people are falling for it again! (Or are pretending to fall for it because Grimes is one of those characters who personifies Brexit for some, so they feel compelled to defend him to the death)
In the answer to the original question...
No he hasn't, but he is very angry. ... and at is age I think he is beyond caring what he says..
I have watched the entire interview, and we all should to put these quotes into context. he was not being derogatory.
The You Tube Channel 'Reasoned' has around 70 interviews and articles covering all sorts of topics... Largely balancing the left agenda.
No he hasn't, but he is very angry. ... and at is age I think he is beyond caring what he says..
I have watched the entire interview, and we all should to put these quotes into context. he was not being derogatory.
The You Tube Channel 'Reasoned' has around 70 interviews and articles covering all sorts of topics... Largely balancing the left agenda.
AndrewCrown said:
In the answer to the original question...
I have watched the entire interview, and we all should to put these quotes into context. he was not being derogatory.
Otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there? An awful lot of them survived.I have watched the entire interview, and we all should to put these quotes into context. he was not being derogatory.
I would argue that the above is derogatory
TonyToniTone said:
Otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there? An awful lot of them survived.
I would argue that the above is derogatory
Did you listen to the interview or have you only read the quote? (In or out of context?)I would argue that the above is derogatory
I'm not defending the choice of words...but it struck me as frustration at the use of the word "genocide" rather than accusing "blacks in Africa or in Britain" of being damnable.
Very poor phraseology...but the more I think about it I think the one from the woman on Twitter was actually worse....and the sanction seems to be less.
It's a strange world we live in at the moment. And I'm not sure it's currently better for it.
I think he's got to that age were he doesn't give a flying flamingo what he says.
Surely he didn't think using the phrase 'damn blacks' would be wise even before he used it after saying ' slavery wasn't genocide'
I mean how do you define a genocide, 10,000 people, 100,000 or millions. I mean given the lack of accurate accounting the exact numbers of slaves is debatable but there is no doubt it's somewhere in the tens of millions.
He must be losing it, the fact he ended with 'because there are still many black people in Africa and Europe'
Surely he didn't think using the phrase 'damn blacks' would be wise even before he used it after saying ' slavery wasn't genocide'
I mean how do you define a genocide, 10,000 people, 100,000 or millions. I mean given the lack of accurate accounting the exact numbers of slaves is debatable but there is no doubt it's somewhere in the tens of millions.
He must be losing it, the fact he ended with 'because there are still many black people in Africa and Europe'
EarlofDrift said:
...
I mean how do you define a genocide, ...
I mean how do you define a genocide, ...
Merriam Webster said:
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Oxford said:
:The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular race or nation
Wiktionary for a laugh said:
:The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, social status, or other particularities.
Dont like rolls said:
Language is important and it uses words to describe things, without it/them we talk gibberish...as you have just done.
This is green, you may wish to call it red or pink, but it is called green because that is the word we use for green things.
You don't get it, I get that.This is green, you may wish to call it red or pink, but it is called green because that is the word we use for green things.
Toodle pip.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Gotta admit when I saw what he said even I didn't expect it to end up as a discussion about the definitions of slavery v genocide.
Christ this place sometimes.
It started off as a discussion about the definition of slavery vs genocide, that's the whole point.Christ this place sometimes.
EarlofDrift said:
I think he's got to that age were he doesn't give a flying flamingo what he says.
Surely he didn't think using the phrase 'damn blacks' would be wise even before he used it after saying ' slavery wasn't genocide'
I mean how do you define a genocide, 10,000 people, 100,000 or millions. I mean given the lack of accurate accounting the exact numbers of slaves is debatable but there is no doubt it's somewhere in the tens of millions.
He must be losing it, the fact he ended with 'because there are still many black people in Africa and Europe'
It isn't about numbers. It's about whether the intent was to wipe out a group because of a particular ethnic/racial/religious origin. The Atlantic slave trade wasn't intended ti wipe out Africans any more than the African slave trade was intended to wipe out Europeans.Surely he didn't think using the phrase 'damn blacks' would be wise even before he used it after saying ' slavery wasn't genocide'
I mean how do you define a genocide, 10,000 people, 100,000 or millions. I mean given the lack of accurate accounting the exact numbers of slaves is debatable but there is no doubt it's somewhere in the tens of millions.
He must be losing it, the fact he ended with 'because there are still many black people in Africa and Europe'
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 3rd July 07:17
He's always been a contrarian in an mildly entertaining waspish queeny way (a bit like Brian Sewell) and usually seemed aware of the lines he was getting close to. Broadcasters colluding with this of course. I always gave hime the benefit of the doubt that he was a slightly impatient scholar who had little truck with modern intellectual slackness but not a racist.
BLM etc. means the line and public sensitivity has moved whether he likes it or not.
He seems to have made a massive jump in the other direction with this - I don't think there's a way back - He's Ron Atkinsoned himself.
Presumably it wasn't streamed live so there could have been an opportunity for approval or editing from Starkey and it wasn't taken.
He's getting on a bit maybe he'd been at the sherry or his frontal lobes are wearing out.
BLM etc. means the line and public sensitivity has moved whether he likes it or not.
He seems to have made a massive jump in the other direction with this - I don't think there's a way back - He's Ron Atkinsoned himself.
Presumably it wasn't streamed live so there could have been an opportunity for approval or editing from Starkey and it wasn't taken.
He's getting on a bit maybe he'd been at the sherry or his frontal lobes are wearing out.
Murph7355 said:
Derek Smith said:
Indeed.
The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
What an absolute load of guff. The Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews. End of. That they could get some mechanical use out of them in doing so was a win win for them. That's genocide. Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia...the human race has a very unpleasant side.The way the Germans dealt with the Jews could be described as slave labour as they were used extensively as slave labour or genocide, as the intention was to remove the Jewish 'problem', whatever that was supposed to be. Those taken in the transatlantic trade were used as slaves, but there was a significant difference in the way they were treated. There was no concern for their welfare.
As you say, the definition is on little account. It's a nicety, especially for those who were the victims. It's like arguing whether someone breaking into your house who assaulted you in order to steal your money was guilty of theft, robbery or burglary. It's of importance to the CPS when coming to a decision to charge, it is important to the court, and to the defence brief. However, the victim has been assaulted, had their home violated and lost money. I'm sure they aren't that bothered by what is the best offence to charge.
The objective of slavery, abhorrent as it was and is, was/is not to set out to exterminate the slaves (genocide is the deliberate killing of large groups of a people).
Definitions are very important if one is to combat the root causes effectively. It's also important not to diminish terms so that they can be used effectively when appropriate - you should know this as an author. Otherwise why bother having different words at all?
Not all were interned in death camps. They, together with other groups, were used as slave labour, and were a vital factor in the prosecution of the war. This is clear, the only argument is just how many were used in this way. As research proceeds, it would seem that the numbers increase.
I’m not sure why you should think definitions are important to fight root causes. I’ve heard this argument in support of human trafficking not being slavery; on these forums in fact. To me, it quite clearly is. And again, serfdom is slavery. Having indentured people is slavery. We had institutionalised slavery in this country when, in theory, it was already illegal. Then there is the slavery allowed under the American constitution, which has given rise to thousands of their own citizens being enslaved.
So should we not use the term slavery as it is, in reality, nothing more than an umbrella word? If we want to fight the root causes of slavery then I would suggest no as one type, say child sex trafficking, is very different in cause than debt/bonded slavery.
The same goes for genocide. It is used, quite properly, to describe situations where large groups are killed, or treated so badly that they are likely to die. The killing of the groups, either in the death camps or by slave labour, by Germans (why say Nazis?) during the 30s and on until the end of the war, was different to, for instance, to forced ethnic cleansing. Yet the motives have a lot in common. There was any number of mass killings of various groups after the war. Europe is a charnel house. Read Lowe’s Savage Continent to be appalled by the behaviour of many/most nationalities. Their actions could be called genocide as the killings were systematic, deliberate and, in most cases, aimed at specific groups.
You could argue that it wasn’t genocide because the victims were only a few thousand; a small percentage of the total number in whichever group was targeted. But then, one could argue the same about the German pogrom, using Starkey’s twisted logic, as so many Jews survived. You can’t say the transatlantic trade wasn’t a form of genocide just because Africa’s full of people of the same ethnic range. It’s a pathetic argument. You’d think Starkey would know better, and you’d probably think correctly.
The interpretation of the term genocide has changed over the years. Trust me on this, I’m an author. Dictionaries are always late to the game. There’s no way one can keep any word pristine, apart from legally, and even there, the meanings of words alter, just more slowly. Common usage is what matters and so genocide means systematic mass killings, with intent being of little/no importance. I’m decimated by this change.
oddman said:
He's always been a contrarian in an mildly entertaining waspish queeny way (a bit like Brian Sewell) and usually seemed aware of the lines he was getting close to. Broadcasters colluding with this of course. I always gave hime the benefit of the doubt that he was a slightly impatient scholar who had little truck with modern intellectual slackness but not a racist.
BLM etc. means the line and public sensitivity has moved whether he likes it or not.
He seems to have made a massive jump in the other direction with this - I don't think there's a way back - He's Ron Atkinsoned himself.
Presumably it wasn't streamed live so there could have been an opportunity for approval or editing from Starkey and it wasn't taken.
He's getting on a bit maybe he'd been at the sherry or his frontal lobes are wearing out.
Chuck into the mix Grimes is back pedalling when claimed chatting to his hero then realised that he (Grimes) edited and presented the show on his platform and is now back pedalling.BLM etc. means the line and public sensitivity has moved whether he likes it or not.
He seems to have made a massive jump in the other direction with this - I don't think there's a way back - He's Ron Atkinsoned himself.
Presumably it wasn't streamed live so there could have been an opportunity for approval or editing from Starkey and it wasn't taken.
He's getting on a bit maybe he'd been at the sherry or his frontal lobes are wearing out.
I must admit that I followed a few of his shows some years ago but recent comments have put me right off him, especially when I found out some of the more unsavoury ones.
I am not sure what due diligence Starkey followed checking on what the platform is, I would have assumed he would check first.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff