Has David Starkey gone mad?
Discussion
I don't think he's gone mad but his use of language was very careless and is certainly open to being perceived to be racist. Given that he's 75 it's kind of surprising that he's made it so far without such a slip up before. Maybe he just cares less now than he did previously?
Regarding his slavery wasn't genocide point, given my understanding of the word I am inclined to agree. I wouldn't be brave enough to say as such so publicly though, not in this climate. To be honest, given how people are with everything these days I'm reluctant to say anything at all, I've binned off social media and all that nonsence, just keeping my head down and getting on with life.
Regarding his slavery wasn't genocide point, given my understanding of the word I am inclined to agree. I wouldn't be brave enough to say as such so publicly though, not in this climate. To be honest, given how people are with everything these days I'm reluctant to say anything at all, I've binned off social media and all that nonsence, just keeping my head down and getting on with life.
Ayahuasca said:
Starkey is not in trouble because of his views on genocide and slavery.
He is in trouble because he said ‘damn blacks’ rather than ‘blacks’.
That is not being contrarian, that - in the current tinderbox climate - is being stupid.
It's indefensible actually, not just stupid. The arguments around whether it was a genocide or not are completely irrelevant to the entire thing. He is in trouble because he said ‘damn blacks’ rather than ‘blacks’.
That is not being contrarian, that - in the current tinderbox climate - is being stupid.
Jimboka said:
Eric Mc said:
No, he hasn't gone mad.
He was always a bit bonkers.
Seems to me that he must be a bit thick, there was only going to be one outcome ..He was always a bit bonkers.
BBC are leading with it using (1st) "said Slavery was not Genocide" (2nd) " Racist comments"
Seems context and the definition of words does not matter to the BBC either.
PeteinSQ said:
It's indefensible actually, not just stupid. The arguments around whether it was a genocide or not are completely irrelevant to the entire thing.
My point earlier.People ignore the language used and hone straight in on whether the "correct" word is slavery or genocide.
Never mind the "so many damn blacks" comment.
Wood for the trees.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: My point earlier.
People ignore the language used and hone straight in on whether the "correct" word is slavery or genocide.
Never mind the "so many damn blacks" comment.
Wood for the trees.
They know. They also know it's easier to defend "one of theirs" if they pretend it's all a misunderstanding about the meaning of a word.People ignore the language used and hone straight in on whether the "correct" word is slavery or genocide.
Never mind the "so many damn blacks" comment.
Wood for the trees.
Zirconia said:
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.
Derek Smith said:
You feel that the transatlantic slave trade was not genocide.
There's a motive and then range of outcomes. Was it the primary motive of slave traders and users of slaves to actually kill the slaves? The Nazis enslaved people but was it their primary motive to enslave or kill? Both are horrible things and when describing history we don't have to sum it all up in one word. Besides, the memory of the people who suffered surely warrants the effort in using more than one convenient catch-all term to sum up their awful existence!Bandying terms diminishes the essence of them. How long will it be before people in low paying jobs are defined as slaves? Will we see manufacturers of cigarettes be accused of genocide?
Again, whether it was a genocide or not is irrelevant (I'm not actually sure who said it was a genocide in the first place) what is relevant is the other words that Starkey decided to use. He talked about there being "so many DAMN black people in Africa", in the same way that a farmer might talk about there being so many damn rats in the barn. That is just not acceptable speech.
Imagine if someone said the same about Jews in Israel or the US. Clearly not right and to argue about the semantics of whether it was or wasn't a genocide is to miss the main point.
Imagine if someone said the same about Jews in Israel or the US. Clearly not right and to argue about the semantics of whether it was or wasn't a genocide is to miss the main point.
PeteinSQ said:
Again, whether it was a genocide or not is irrelevant (I'm not actually sure who said it was a genocide in the first place) what is relevant is the other words that Starkey decided to use. He talked about there being "so many DAMN black people in Africa", in the same way that a farmer might talk about there being so many damn rats in the barn. That is just not acceptable speech.
Imagine if someone said the same about Jews in Israel or the US. Clearly not right and to argue about the semantics of whether it was or wasn't a genocide is to miss the main point.
Correct.Imagine if someone said the same about Jews in Israel or the US. Clearly not right and to argue about the semantics of whether it was or wasn't a genocide is to miss the main point.
And still many (apparantly clever people) are defending, or trying to defend such comments. And then wonder why there are so many people attacking such comments !
rodericb said:
There's a motive and then range of outcomes. Was it the primary motive of slave traders and users of slaves to actually kill the slaves? The Nazis enslaved people but was it their primary motive to enslave or kill? Both are horrible things and when describing history we don't have to sum it all up in one word. Besides, the memory of the people who suffered surely warrants the effort in using more than one convenient catch-all term to sum up their awful existence!
Bandying terms diminishes the essence of them. How long will it be before people in low paying jobs are defined as slaves? Will we see manufacturers of cigarettes be accused of genocide?
Does motive matter when it comes to millions of deaths? Bandying terms diminishes the essence of them. How long will it be before people in low paying jobs are defined as slaves? Will we see manufacturers of cigarettes be accused of genocide?
The point about moving from generic terms and being more specific was the one I was making earlier. It explains the your point with regards slavery. We are in error by classifying just one form as slavery and everything else as different and, by implication, less serious.
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
Weirdly he didn't seem to mind this when he was appearing on the BBC. The journalist called it racist. It was.
Next.
Gweeds said:
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
Weirdly he didn't seem to mind this when he was appearing on the BBC. The journalist called it racist. It was.
Next.
SteadyAsSheGoes said:
I don't think he's gone mad but his use of language was very careless and is certainly open to being perceived to be racist. Given that he's 75 it's kind of surprising that he's made it so far without such a slip up before. Maybe he just cares less now than he did previously?
Regarding his slavery wasn't genocide point, given my understanding of the word I am inclined to agree. I wouldn't be brave enough to say as such so publicly though, not in this climate. To be honest, given how people are with everything these days I'm reluctant to say anything at all, I've binned off social media and all that nonsence, just keeping my head down and getting on with life.
There's the real problem and where we are headed. Regarding his slavery wasn't genocide point, given my understanding of the word I am inclined to agree. I wouldn't be brave enough to say as such so publicly though, not in this climate. To be honest, given how people are with everything these days I'm reluctant to say anything at all, I've binned off social media and all that nonsence, just keeping my head down and getting on with life.
Great, eh? People now literally frightened to open their mouths.
And if they do, the pack is there. Waiting to pounce to get another head on the plate.
Your last bit is correct. Life is for living. So many today have forgotten that.
Still, one day they'll wake up. But it will be too late.
mx5nut said:
They know. They also know it's easier to defend "one of theirs" if they pretend it's all a misunderstanding about the meaning of a word.
It's not so much the "one of theirs" thing as simply what's wrong with people?When you hear someone say
“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”
You can probably have a couple of reactions.
One is to say to yourself "So many damn blacks.. why the hell would David Starkey use that sort of language?" and another is to say to yourself "Hold on a moment perhaps Starkey has a good point here and slavery was not genocide. Where's my dictionary I must look this up!".
One seems human the other seems... odd.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's not so much the "one of theirs" thing as simply what's wrong with people?
When you hear someone say
“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”
You can probably have a couple of reactions.
One is to say to yourself "So many damn blacks.. why the hell would David Starkey use that sort of language?" and another is to say to yourself "Hold on a moment perhaps Starkey has a good point here and slavery was not genocide. Where's my dictionary I must look this up!".
One seems human the other seems... odd.
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.When you hear someone say
“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”
You can probably have a couple of reactions.
One is to say to yourself "So many damn blacks.. why the hell would David Starkey use that sort of language?" and another is to say to yourself "Hold on a moment perhaps Starkey has a good point here and slavery was not genocide. Where's my dictionary I must look this up!".
One seems human the other seems... odd.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff