The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

David starkey

Views on David starkey after what he said

Scroll to see replies

He is like a Trident missile sent to obliterate the Wokerati.
Reply 2
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Utterly mental. Irresistible viewing.
What did he say?
Reply 4
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by PTMalewski
What did he say?

“Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain”
Original post by IbeIC123
“Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain”

Lovely.
fun fact: He is Ringo's Dad
Original post by IbeIC123
“Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain”

1. This was five years ago.
2. Genocide as defined in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically states that genocide is extermination of a group, so he is not technically wrong.

The problem is, you don't know the conventions, and you get offended because you understand statements differently to trained academics who state them.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by PTMalewski
1. This was five years ago.
2. Genocide as defined in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically states that genocide is extermination of a group, so he is not technically wrong.

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone suggest that slavery was genocide, but the aftermath is comparable to that of genocide in intensity.
Original post by IbeIC123
Views on David starkey after what he said


Fitzwilliam has got its GovBod on Wednesday. I'd be amazed if they didn't vote to remove his Hon. Fellowship. Why they ever wanted some puffed-up tosser as a fellow of the college was always beyond me anyway, but it's Fitzwilliam: they've got some funny ideas up there.
Original post by Daveological
I don't think that I've ever heard anyone suggest that slavery was genocide, but the aftermath is comparable to that of genocide in intensity.

If you choose to redefine genocide. I don't know what is the English language source of the word, but the international law is pretty strict on that it means extermination, that is you physically destroy all or as many people of a group as possible.

Slavery did not exterminate groups. On the contrary, it made several groups colonising continents they would have probably never got to on their own. Of course there were nasty things related to it, but you can't say that travelling isn't travelling, because people got killed while travelling.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by PTMalewski
If you choose to redefine genocide. I don't know what is the English language source of the word, but the international law is pretty strict on that it means extermination, that is you physically destroy all or as many people of a group as possible.

Slavery did not exterminate groups. On the contrary, it made several groups colonising continents they would have probably never got to on their own. Of course there were nasty things related to it, but you can't say that travelling isn't travelling, because people got killed while travelling.

"but the aftermath is comparable to that of genocide in intensity"

Read it again.

As we're talking semantics, the use of the word 'colonise' in reference to forced migration is questionable.
oh well at least we still have Ms Worsley to educate us :redface:
Reply 13
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by PTMalewski
1. This was five years ago.
2. Genocide as defined in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically states that genocide is extermination of a group, so he is not technically wrong.

The problem is, you don't know the conventions, and you get offended because you understand statements differently to trained academics who state them.

5 years isn’t a day
Reply 14
Avatar for FRS500
FRS500
20
I agree with Dave tbh (@Daveological).

I'd argue that slavery was inherently genocidal.

Do you really believe the systematic working to death and extrajudicial killing of slaves was anything BUT extermination?

Throwing slaves off the sides of ships... just look at the atrocities committed in Belgian Congo under King Leopold.

You don't need to delve into the nitty-gritty of semantics to realize that slavery and all the other things arising from it were shi**y AS HELL.
Original post by PTMalewski
If you choose to redefine genocide. I don't know what is the English language source of the word, but the international law is pretty strict on that it means extermination, that is you physically destroy all or as many people of a group as possible.

Slavery did not exterminate groups. On the contrary, it made several groups colonising continents they would have probably never got to on their own. Of course there were nasty things related to it, but you can't say that travelling isn't travelling, because people got killed while travelling.
Reply 15
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by PTMalewski
1. This was five years ago.
2. Genocide as defined in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically states that genocide is extermination of a group, so he is not technically wrong.

The problem is, you don't know the conventions, and you get offended because you understand statements differently to trained academics who state them.

International law is a concept isn’t really set in stone basically it doesn’t exist
Original post by FRS500
I agree with Dave tbh (@Daveological).

I'd argue that slavery was inherently genocidal.

Do you really believe the systematic working to death and extrajudicial killing of slaves was anything BUT extermination?

Throwing slaves off the sides of ships... just look at the atrocities committed in Belgian Congo under King Leopold.

You don't need to delve into the nitty-gritty of semantics to realize that slavery and all the other things arising from it were shi**y AS HELL.

PRSOM
Reply 17
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by IbeIC123
“Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain”


Somewhat crass but not wrong.
Reply 18
Avatar for gjd800
gjd800
20
Original post by Reality Check
Fitzwilliam has got its GovBod on Wednesday. I'd be amazed if they didn't vote to remove his Hon. Fellowship. Why they ever wanted some puffed-up tosser as a fellow of the college was always beyond me anyway, but it's Fitzwilliam: they've got some funny ideas up there.


He has a track record of chronic gobshitery,I dunno how anyone is surprised
Original post by Daveological
I don't think that I've ever heard anyone suggest that slavery was genocide, but the aftermath is comparable to that of genocide in intensity.


Uh, alright, but Starkey didn't say 'slavery was not comparable to genocide in intensity', did he? (Whatever you mean by 'intensity' here.)

He said it wasn't genocidal, which it quite obviously wasn't. Genocide and race-based slavery are sort of contradictory pursuits, given that if you exterminate a race you can't very well force them to work for you.

It's clear what Starkey's point was, and it was right.

I guess a lot of upset has probably come out of his use of 'damn blacks' in the sentence. That was infelicitous phrasing. However, I think a fair viewer who actually sees the clip will realise that the 'damn' was meant as a general intensifier, rather than as a part of a derogatory term for black people.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you