Has David Starkey gone mad?

Author
Discussion

rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
MrBarry123 said:
Europa1 said:
For those of us that missed it, when and on what channel was this?

My channel listings are by channel name, not the proclivities of the owner.
Search for David Starkey on Twitter and you’ll find the video. It was aired by a platform called Reasoned which is the pet project of the other person mentioned on here.
It's not really a pet project of Darren Grimes - it's actually yet another project of Turning Point UK. They're just using Grimes as the figurehead.

Yertis

18,016 posts

265 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
I’d never heard of this ‘Grimes’ character before. I can’t get past ‘Decline and Fall’.

mx5nut

5,404 posts

81 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
rscott said:
MrBarry123 said:
Europa1 said:
For those of us that missed it, when and on what channel was this?

My channel listings are by channel name, not the proclivities of the owner.
Search for David Starkey on Twitter and you’ll find the video. It was aired by a platform called Reasoned which is the pet project of the other person mentioned on here.
It's not really a pet project of Darren Grimes - it's actually yet another project of Turning Point UK. They're just using Grimes as the figurehead.
Grimes is making a career of being a useful idiot who can fall back on "but I'm just a kid, I don't know what I'm doing" defence when things go wrong.

SnowStar

80 posts

79 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
The killing of the groups, either in the death camps or by slave labour, by Germans (why say Nazis?)..
Hitler was Austrian. Many victims were German.



Edited by SnowStar on Friday 3rd July 16:34

Dont like rolls

3,798 posts

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
SnowStar said:
Derek Smith said:
The killing of the groups, either in the death camps or by slave labour, by Germans (why say Nazis?)..

Hitler was Austrian. Many victims were German.
Hitler did not do the killing.

The Killing was done by Germans, Austrians and a long list of others....and the point was ?

ettore

4,119 posts

251 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Genocide was coined to describe the treatment of Jews by Germany in the 30s and 40s. Therefore, quite clearly, it was genocide. There can be no argument.

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.
Derek is wrong on a variety of levels here, factually as well as etymologically and is starting to tie himself up in justification. I hope it’s not history books that you author?

Starkey taught me a few times at University and has always been a deliberate contrarian but I fear he is losing the plot and beginning to froth. He does like the limelight but mainstream TV can’t cope with contrarian intellectuals anymore so he’s gently being banished to the far reaches of the digital world.

He’s obviously not happy about this but he is right. The slave trade was not genocide. It was its own dark, foul and heinous horror.

..and words matter very much to those unable to comprehend this, particularly the word Genocide. I’ve been to Srebrenica as well as Auschwitz and am quite clear. If you’re not, I’d recommend reading East West Street by Philippe Sands - a fabulous and interesting read.

mx5nut

5,404 posts

81 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Yertis said:
I’d never heard of this ‘Grimes’ character before.
When he was in court over his assistance to the Vote Leave campaign to over-spend in breach of electoral rules, he got away with it by convincing a judge that he was too thick to be able to fill out a form properly. Make of that what you will.

DeejRC

5,712 posts

81 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
David S is an excellent historian. His analysis and arguments are frequently superb and extremely well reasoned, backed by as much evidence as he can find, primary, secondary and tertiary. He is also, usually, an excellent wordsmith. He can orate, he can narrate, he can - as they say - "sell the story".

His use of language in this instance is interesting. It will have been deliberate, not a mistake.I suspect the poster making the argument that his irritation will have been partly down to the historical ignorance surrounding the whole slavery/BLM/racism thing is quite correct. That will wind David S up massively, History (with a capital H) is always vastly more important to him than the human aspects.I also suspect those posters saying he basically past retirement age and no longer gives much of a crap about ppl complaining, is also correct.

And finally, the poster who said that he has always been a bit/lot bonkers is bang on. Being controversial has always been a shtick of his.


Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
mx5nut said:
Yertis said:
I’d never heard of this ‘Grimes’ character before.
When he was in court over his assistance to the Vote Leave campaign to over-spend in breach of electoral rules, he got away with it by convincing a judge that he was too thick to be able to fill out a form properly. Make of that what you will.
Specifically the judge said the form was confusing, but this wasn't why he was acquitted on appeal. The electoral commission had previously reviewed his application and didn't notice that he'd ticked the wrong box so they must have been confused as well. Secondly there was no over-spend, the entire issue was purely whether the transfer between campaigns had been reported.

The commission said the donation to Grimes' organisation Be Leave hadn't been reported. They agreed that 'on the face of it' the form did report that the money had gone the Be Leave but argued that Be Leave hadn't existed at that time so this didn't count. The appeal found that the commission was wrong on both fact and law, the fact that the form was confusing was a minor point.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 3rd July 09:43

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Genocide was coined to describe the treatment of Jews by Germany in the 30s and 40s. Therefore, quite clearly, it was genocide. There can be no argument.

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.
Sorry Derek, but I couldn't care less whether you're an author or not. So am I through the act of writing this. It doesn't make you right. Your last sentence trying to prove some sort of point just makes you look daft (who uses the word "decimate" in that sort of context? I'm perfectly aware of where it started and the common use - not the one you attempt here - is understandable bearing in mind the origins. It's not that much of a stretch).

This too:

"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. ".

If the intent of the slave trade was to purposefully kill/erase/even weaken that ethnic race, THEN it would be "genocide". It quite clearly wasn't (dead people tend not to be too good at picking crops, cleaning houses etc). Slavery is abhorrent, but it is not genocide.

Yes language evolves. But deep care needs to be taken in appropriating incorrect terms. It is a very slippery slope. My current "favourite" (nothing to do with Starkey's foot in mouth episode of course) is "poverty". An often hugely politicised misappropriation of the term. In using it in the way politicians do (when what they at best mean is "relative poverty") they diminish the actual word and people suffering under it, and the "solutions" that are put forward are rarely successful (not least of which because the actual term they are using can never be solved). I use this as an example of where care in terms used is very important. Otherwise all words lose meaning.

I would really hope, despite being the decimated being you are (!) that you appreciate this....and might want to stop digging around the use of the word genocide where the holocaust is concerned.

bhstewie - the point of debating word meanings is to understand that Starkey's general comment was correct. Slavery is not genocide. It might also help understand why he said what he did in full context (frustration at the misappropriation of language). It certainly doesn't excuse it. Not one bit. But it's interesting that (IMO) worse examples of poorly chosen language have gone unpunished (perhaps even applauded) from one quarter and castigated from another. So much for striving for equality smile

Fundoreen

4,180 posts

82 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
I bet Ringo is sitting there thinking this is the 2nd best decision I ever made.

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Genocide was coined to describe the treatment of Jews by Germany in the 30s and 40s. Therefore, quite clearly, it was genocide. There can be no argument.

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.
Trust you on this? Stop being thick. Slavery and genocide are different things.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
How many hundreds of thousands of black slaves do the esteemed members of PH N,P&E reckon died before their time or were beaten to death as a result of over 2000 years of slavery?
If it isn't a case of genocide then I don't know what is.

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
zygalski said:
How many hundreds of thousands of black slaves do the esteemed members of PH N,P&E reckon died before their time or were beaten to death as a result of over 2000 years of slavery?
If it isn't a case of genocide then I don't know what is.
Then you dont know what is.

Dont like rolls

3,798 posts

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
zygalski said:
How many hundreds of thousands of black slaves do the esteemed members of PH N,P&E reckon died before their time or were beaten to death as a result of over 2000 years of slavery?
If it isn't a case of genocide then I don't know what is.
And many many were "bred", it was just cheaper to import your livestock...disgusting and shocking maybe, but it was not genocide.

Can I ask, why do you feel the need to use incorrectly defined words when there are perfectly well defined words available ?

pquinn

7,167 posts

45 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
mx5nut said:
When he was in court over his assistance to the Vote Leave campaign to over-spend in breach of electoral rules, he got away with it by convincing a judge that he was too thick to be able to fill out a form properly. Make of that what you will.
You might want to be more careful how you phrase things - that reads a lot like a direct accusation. He's sued before.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
SnowStar said:
Derek Smith said:
The killing of the groups, either in the death camps or by slave labour, by Germans (why say Nazis?)


Hitler was Austrian. Many victims were German.
I think my point was missed. Sorry. Germans are just like us. Very much so. Yet they instigated the pogrom. Many were nazis. Many, probably the majority, were not. During the immediate post war years, the same sort of actions were performed by people of other nationalities. It wasn't solely retaliation, which has been used as a certain explanation of the actions, as not only Germans were targeted. Forms of ethnic cleansing went on. The UK wasn't totally without blame, but some countries were way beyond the pale.

I think it was a given that German Jews were killed. They were the first victims in fact. Also, there were others who were interned in the death camps. The bewildering range is available online.

The blaming of a political group is an easy out I think. By banning neo-naze parties, we don't eradicate the problem or the likelihood of it happening again. When I was a youth, fascists were blamed; understandably because of Italy being part of the axis, but that was wrong as well. Hitler was not really fascist in belief.

Saying Germans is, I think, a warning. It could be any country, and indeed has been many.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
I think my point was missed. Sorry. Germans are just like us. Very much so. Yet they instigated the pogrom. Many were nazis. Many, probably the majority, were not. During the immediate post war years, the same sort of actions were performed by people of other nationalities. It wasn't solely retaliation, which has been used as a certain explanation of the actions, as not only Germans were targeted. Forms of ethnic cleansing went on. The UK wasn't totally without blame, but some countries were way beyond the pale.

I think it was a given that German Jews were killed. They were the first victims in fact. Also, there were others who were interned in the death camps. The bewildering range is available online.

The blaming of a political group is an easy out I think. By banning neo-naze parties, we don't eradicate the problem or the likelihood of it happening again. When I was a youth, fascists were blamed; understandably because of Italy being part of the axis, but that was wrong as well. Hitler was not really fascist in belief.

Saying Germans is, I think, a warning. It could be any country, and indeed has been many.
The bit in bold is exactly why language and accurate use of it is so important.

For the rest, you are very close to being able to be accused of being as nuts as Starkey in your twisting and turning. I believe you're of a similar generation...correlation or causation. Probably a bit of both wink

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Saying Germans is, I think, a warning. It could be any country, and indeed has been many.
'The EU has given us peace in Europe after the horrors of WW2......

It's like they'd forgotten what happened in Yugoslavia in the 90s.