Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
I don't agree with the criticism of Grimes. He has done what a good interviewer should and let the interviewee express their views. Stamping on an interviewee as soon as they say something you disagree with is the BBC technique. Free speech means more than just acceptable views being expressed.
The time to press hard or correctis when a question is being avoided. Not when non PC views are being put.
The time to press hard or correctis when a question is being avoided. Not when non PC views are being put.
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.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN2xS2KbN8
You'd think being unable to read and understand a form may disqualify someone from being a Police and Crime Commissioner and holding Public Office. So Grimes is no different from loads of Tory Election Agents who decided Election Law didn't apply to them.
That compares to the stuff going on in Germany in the 1930s and Putin hogging the driving seat until 2036?
This democracy stuff looks a bit difficult and they're not doing it anyway so perhaps we should replace it with who shouts the loudest and who can be the most offended?
Is there a link to the footage of the woman engaging with the servicemen cleaning the graffiti off of the war memorial? As Starkey referrred to it I'd like to see it for myself.
Whilst we're on slavery..
I was shocked to read this
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgrepo...
I was shocked to read this
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgrepo...
irc said:
I don't agree with the criticism of Grimes. He has done what a good interviewer should and let the interviewee express their views. Stamping on an interviewee as soon as they say something you disagree with is the BBC technique. Free speech means more than just acceptable views being expressed.
The time to press hard or correctis when a question is being avoided. Not when non PC views are being put.
Well yeah, he's certainly helped end Starkey's career. Unless you count alt-right blog spots.The time to press hard or correctis when a question is being avoided. Not when non PC views are being put.
carinaman said:
That works for Tory General Election Agents, but if Labour does it too......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN2xS2KbN8
You'd think being unable to read and understand a form may disqualify someone from being a Police and Crime Commissioner and holding Public Office. So Grimes is no different from loads of Tory Election Agents who decided Election Law didn't apply to them.
That compares to the stuff going on in Germany in the 1930s and Putin hogging the driving seat until 2036?
This democracy stuff looks a bit difficult and they're not doing it anyway so perhaps we should replace it with who shouts the loudest and who can be the most offended?
Is there a link to the footage of the woman engaging with the servicemen cleaning the graffiti off of the war memorial? As Starkey referrred to it I'd like to see it for myself.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/soldiers-heckled-cleaning-graffiti-war-22144617https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN2xS2KbN8
You'd think being unable to read and understand a form may disqualify someone from being a Police and Crime Commissioner and holding Public Office. So Grimes is no different from loads of Tory Election Agents who decided Election Law didn't apply to them.
That compares to the stuff going on in Germany in the 1930s and Putin hogging the driving seat until 2036?
This democracy stuff looks a bit difficult and they're not doing it anyway so perhaps we should replace it with who shouts the loudest and who can be the most offended?
Is there a link to the footage of the woman engaging with the servicemen cleaning the graffiti off of the war memorial? As Starkey referrred to it I'd like to see it for myself.
ettore said:
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.
I’m not sure what you point is. Merely gainsaying my post is not an argument. 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.
I’m always open for a disagreement. I’m of the opinion, shared by many, including historians, that there is no one history and never will be. Those that are convinced are, by definition, wrong.
You feel that the transatlantic slave trade was not genocide. OK. No chance in letting us know why? Are you agreeing with Starkey that the number of a similar ethnic makeup are still in Africa shows this to be wrong? Your PoV is not explained by merely saying I was wrong. Are you suggesting intent is what makes the deaths sort of collateral damage? That’s a point of view, but one that is open to argument, if only by the number of fatalities. The actual number is unknown of course, and there are many aspects to it, but there is general agreement that it was well over 1 million, and some suggest two or three times that number. There might well have been more.
You say I’m etymologically wrong. That’s not an argument, any more than suggesting my post was factually incorrect.
Slavery is an umbrella word. It covers a variety of circumstance. Do you agree? Your reply does not make this clear. The same goes for genocide nowadays and its use has expanded over time. The law often tries to limit the development of words, but fails.
If Starkey is, as you suggest, a deliberate contrarian then that alone indicates that his views should be treated with caution. It’s a terrible weight for an historian to work under. I don’t think he’s changed, at least going by his books and, later, TV appearances. He’s always been aggressive, superior, argumentative and emotive in choice of words.
As I say, I’m happy to discuss my thoughts, as long as you are not certain of course.
IMO it all comes down to intent.
If you kill people on the basis of their religion/skin colour/ethnic grouping, regardless of your success at doing so, you're in the genocide business. ISIS killing Yazidis - genocide. Hitler killing Jews - genocide. Rwandans killing Tutsis - genocide.
If you view a group of people as useful labourers, make them do work, and treat them badly, you're in the oppression business. Slavery - oppression.
s doing gangmaster stuff - oppression.
Slavers didn't set out to kill people - they simply viewed people as an economic asset and put them to work, killing loads of them in the process. They killed them because it was cheaper to treat them badly than look after them. It would have been a simple calculation: losing 20% of my slaves costs me X, improving my boat costs Y, if Y > X, let the slaves die.
Note for the intellectually challenged - I am not making a moral judgement about oppression and genocide. Both are bad.
If you kill people on the basis of their religion/skin colour/ethnic grouping, regardless of your success at doing so, you're in the genocide business. ISIS killing Yazidis - genocide. Hitler killing Jews - genocide. Rwandans killing Tutsis - genocide.
If you view a group of people as useful labourers, make them do work, and treat them badly, you're in the oppression business. Slavery - oppression.
s doing gangmaster stuff - oppression. Slavers didn't set out to kill people - they simply viewed people as an economic asset and put them to work, killing loads of them in the process. They killed them because it was cheaper to treat them badly than look after them. It would have been a simple calculation: losing 20% of my slaves costs me X, improving my boat costs Y, if Y > X, let the slaves die.
Note for the intellectually challenged - I am not making a moral judgement about oppression and genocide. Both are bad.
Grimes is now at Deflection Level 10.
A BBC journalist correctly called Starkey’s
comments racist (and due to his tacit agreement and failure to condemn them, Grimes also). He’s now calling that ‘activism’.
Or rather, he’s doing what he’s told by his paymasters. I wonder when he’ll realise they’re using him like the clueless fool that he is.
A BBC journalist correctly called Starkey’s
comments racist (and due to his tacit agreement and failure to condemn them, Grimes also). He’s now calling that ‘activism’.
Or rather, he’s doing what he’s told by his paymasters. I wonder when he’ll realise they’re using him like the clueless fool that he is.
irc said:
I don't agree with the criticism of Grimes. He has done what a good interviewer should and let the interviewee express their views. Stamping on an interviewee as soon as they say something you disagree with is the BBC technique. Free speech means more than just acceptable views being expressed.
The time to press hard or correctis when a question is being avoided. Not when non PC views are being put.
Nodding and appearing to agree with the "damn blacks" statement during the interview isn't good interview technique. A decent interviewer would pick up on the phrase and ask them about it. Not stamp down, but focus on it and ask questions about it.The time to press hard or correctis when a question is being avoided. Not when non PC views are being put.
Tweeting this afterwards seems to suggest he agreed with Starkey's views..
"They say never to meet your heroes, well, I virtually met one of mine and it was bloody fantastic.
Dr David Starkey and I discuss the scholarship behind the laudable slogan of Black Lives Matter, compared to the movement seeking to delegitimate British history.
Have a watch! "
Gweeds said:
Grimes is now at Deflection Level 10.
A BBC journalist correctly called Starkey’s
comments racist (and due to his tacit agreement and failure to condemn them, Grimes also). He’s now calling that ‘activism’.
Or rather, he’s doing what he’s told by his paymasters. I wonder when he’ll realise they’re using him like the clueless fool that he is.
First of all it isn't the job of BBC journalists to tell the audience what to think. More importantly, what he is objecting to is the BBC saying he describes his website as being 'a safe place for racists and homophobes' when the nearest he's actually said is that it's a safe place for those falsely accused of being racists and homophobes. Sounds a valid complaint to me.A BBC journalist correctly called Starkey’s
comments racist (and due to his tacit agreement and failure to condemn them, Grimes also). He’s now calling that ‘activism’.
Or rather, he’s doing what he’s told by his paymasters. I wonder when he’ll realise they’re using him like the clueless fool that he is.
Derek Smith said:
I’m not sure what you point is. Merely gainsaying my post is not an argument.
I’m always open for a disagreement. I’m of the opinion, shared by many, including historians, that there is no one history and never will be. Those that are convinced are, by definition, wrong.
You feel that the transatlantic slave trade was not genocide. OK. No chance in letting us know why? Are you agreeing with Starkey that the number of a similar ethnic makeup are still in Africa shows this to be wrong? Your PoV is not explained by merely saying I was wrong. Are you suggesting intent is what makes the deaths sort of collateral damage? That’s a point of view, but one that is open to argument, if only by the number of fatalities. The actual number is unknown of course, and there are many aspects to it, but there is general agreement that it was well over 1 million, and some suggest two or three times that number. There might well have been more.
You say I’m etymologically wrong. That’s not an argument, any more than suggesting my post was factually incorrect.
Slavery is an umbrella word. It covers a variety of circumstance. Do you agree? Your reply does not make this clear. The same goes for genocide nowadays and its use has expanded over time. The law often tries to limit the development of words, but fails.
If Starkey is, as you suggest, a deliberate contrarian then that alone indicates that his views should be treated with caution. It’s a terrible weight for an historian to work under. I don’t think he’s changed, at least going by his books and, later, TV appearances. He’s always been aggressive, superior, argumentative and emotive in choice of words.
As I say, I’m happy to discuss my thoughts, as long as you are not certain of course.
More than happy to debate and discuss Derek but am at work so will pick up the cudgels later. Unfortunately a topic that requires some lengthy answers!I’m always open for a disagreement. I’m of the opinion, shared by many, including historians, that there is no one history and never will be. Those that are convinced are, by definition, wrong.
You feel that the transatlantic slave trade was not genocide. OK. No chance in letting us know why? Are you agreeing with Starkey that the number of a similar ethnic makeup are still in Africa shows this to be wrong? Your PoV is not explained by merely saying I was wrong. Are you suggesting intent is what makes the deaths sort of collateral damage? That’s a point of view, but one that is open to argument, if only by the number of fatalities. The actual number is unknown of course, and there are many aspects to it, but there is general agreement that it was well over 1 million, and some suggest two or three times that number. There might well have been more.
You say I’m etymologically wrong. That’s not an argument, any more than suggesting my post was factually incorrect.
Slavery is an umbrella word. It covers a variety of circumstance. Do you agree? Your reply does not make this clear. The same goes for genocide nowadays and its use has expanded over time. The law often tries to limit the development of words, but fails.
If Starkey is, as you suggest, a deliberate contrarian then that alone indicates that his views should be treated with caution. It’s a terrible weight for an historian to work under. I don’t think he’s changed, at least going by his books and, later, TV appearances. He’s always been aggressive, superior, argumentative and emotive in choice of words.
As I say, I’m happy to discuss my thoughts, as long as you are not certain of course.
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.
Are you saying the majority of Germans weren't Nazis? If so, then from memory, there were so many Nazis that the allies basically just gave up on denazification. 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.
AndrewCrown said:
Whilst we're on slavery..
I was shocked to read this
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgrepo...
Welcome to the human race.I was shocked to read this
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgrepo...
The world is a fq'ed up place in many parts of it (likely most parts of it in reality).
This country has its problems, but in the overall scheme of things they are nothing.
Another reason why choice of language is very important when looking at issues and ensuring context is correct. If for no other reason than the avoidance of triggering opponents. (Should that matter? If you want to make substantive change, very much so).
AndrewCrown said:
Thanks for the link. I'll shall look later.rxe said:
IMO it all comes down to intent.
If you kill people on the basis of their religion/skin colour/ethnic grouping, regardless of your success at doing so, you're in the genocide business. ISIS killing Yazidis - genocide. Hitler killing Jews - genocide. Rwandans killing Tutsis - genocide.
If you view a group of people as useful labourers, make them do work, and treat them badly, you're in the oppression business. Slavery - oppression.s doing gangmaster stuff - oppression.
Slavers didn't set out to kill people - they simply viewed people as an economic asset and put them to work, killing loads of them in the process. They killed them because it was cheaper to treat them badly than look after them. It would have been a simple calculation: losing 20% of my slaves costs me X, improving my boat costs Y, if Y > X, let the slaves die.
Note for the intellectually challenged - I am not making a moral judgement about oppression and genocide. Both are bad.
Not just your opinion, that's what the dictionary notes If you kill people on the basis of their religion/skin colour/ethnic grouping, regardless of your success at doing so, you're in the genocide business. ISIS killing Yazidis - genocide. Hitler killing Jews - genocide. Rwandans killing Tutsis - genocide.
If you view a group of people as useful labourers, make them do work, and treat them badly, you're in the oppression business. Slavery - oppression.
s doing gangmaster stuff - oppression. Slavers didn't set out to kill people - they simply viewed people as an economic asset and put them to work, killing loads of them in the process. They killed them because it was cheaper to treat them badly than look after them. It would have been a simple calculation: losing 20% of my slaves costs me X, improving my boat costs Y, if Y > X, let the slaves die.
Note for the intellectually challenged - I am not making a moral judgement about oppression and genocide. Both are bad.
Of course others may want the words to mean the same thing - why only they know. I mean, it's not as if "slavery" isn't "ungood" enough to get the message across. But presumably there is some other motivation beyond not being able to use a dictionary.
Sick, innit.
Dr Jekyll said:
Gweeds said:
Grimes is now at Deflection Level 10.
A BBC journalist correctly called Starkey’s
comments racist (and due to his tacit agreement and failure to condemn them, Grimes also). He’s now calling that ‘activism’.
Or rather, he’s doing what he’s told by his paymasters. I wonder when he’ll realise they’re using him like the clueless fool that he is.
First of all it isn't the job of BBC journalists to tell the audience what to think. More importantly, what he is objecting to is the BBC saying he describes his website as being 'a safe place for racists and homophobes' when the nearest he's actually said is that it's a safe place for those falsely accused of being racists and homophobes. Sounds a valid complaint to me.A BBC journalist correctly called Starkey’s
comments racist (and due to his tacit agreement and failure to condemn them, Grimes also). He’s now calling that ‘activism’.
Or rather, he’s doing what he’s told by his paymasters. I wonder when he’ll realise they’re using him like the clueless fool that he is.
His lawyers are now on the case he says, who pays for them I wonder. It will be interesting to see how far this goes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff