The Student Room Group

David starkey

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by Napp
Somewhat crass but not wrong.

Slavers(mostly Africans) could be seen as genocidal because large percentages of ethnic groups were kidnapped(some ethnic groups were really small). The expectations of the slavers when they sold the slaves was that the slaves would eventually be killed.
Reply 21
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by IbeIC123
International law is a concept isn’t really set in stone basically it doesn’t exist

Can you expand on this? Given international law is a distinct legal framework in its own right covering numerous things, noteably what the other user said..
Original post by Daveological
"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.

I talked from biological perspective on this one.

Speaking of intensity, it's a very flexible word, that doesn't mean anything except for 'a lot of things going on'.
Original post by FRS500
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?

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.

I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just explaining how do you name things depending on your background and definitions you refer to. In this case, international law.

We have a very similar argument in Poland. Some people say we have to go into conflict with Russia, because what the Soviet Union did to Poles during WWII, was genocide, while Russia admits 'only' to etchnic cleansing and war crimes.

The problem is, that while we could all agree that all of this was nasty and bad as hell, according to the definitions established in international law, you can't confuse war crime, or ethnic cleansing, with genocide, even though the result of each of these actions is even more similar to each other than slavery.

I mean, you can't blame historians, political scientists and people alike for naming things accordingly to the conventions established in each discipline. If you want to change it, then make a career in history, political science, or law, do PhD, become a professor, and suggest it at international pannels.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by TimmonaPortella
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.

I watched the clip.
1) The use of 'damn blacks' was still questionable.
2) He later goes on to display his ignorance at the far-reaching effects of slavery - it basically birthed modern racism.
Reply 24
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by IbeIC123
Slavers(mostly Africans) could be seen as genocidal because large percentages of ethnic groups were kidnapped(some ethnic groups were really small). The expectations of the slavers when they sold the slaves was that the slaves would eventually be killed.


Thats somewhat reaching it must be said... genocide being a tightly defined legal term requiring the intentional destruction of a people. Generally speaking it would be rather hard to fit slavers into this given its against their interests to obliterate their cargo.
Thats not to say they wouldnt have been guilty of many crimes, such as crimes against humanity, but genocide seems rather hard to justify (by and large)
Original post by PTMalewski
I talked from biological perspective on this one.

I'm confused as to why you did, seeing as we're talking about a sociological topic.

Speaking of intensity, it's a very flexible word, that doesn't mean anything except for 'a lot of things going on'.

'Intensity' as in the magnitude of the effect and the amount of time for which they linger.
Reply 26
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by Napp
Thats somewhat reaching it must be said... genocide being a tightly defined legal term requiring the intentional destruction of a people. Generally speaking it would be rather hard to fit slavers into this given its against their interests to obliterate their cargo.
Thats not to say they wouldnt have been guilty of many crimes, such as crimes against humanity, but genocide seems rather hard to justify (by and large)

Most slavers were african. The Europeans were just the middlemen. The point I was trying to make was the african slavers had the idea that the slaves they were supplying were going to be killed
Original post by Daveological
I'm confused as to why you did, seeing as we're talking about a sociological topic.


Because the convention clearly talks about biological results of actions.

Original post by Daveological

'Intensity' as in the magnitude of the effect and the amount of time for which they linger.


Yes. And biological destruction of the groups was not the effect that occured, although lots of people have been killed.

A mean, whatever. I fully agree it was a terrible and bad thing, I'm only saying the man was referring to different meanings, he was supposed to use, because that's a part of his goddamn job.
You could as well blame someone for speaking in a language you don't know.
Original post by Daveological
I watched the clip.
1) The use of 'damn blacks' was still questionable.


Well, if you accept my interpretation, which I think is clearly right, it isn't 'questionable' at all. He's just, speaking off the cuff, happened to place the 'damn' at an unfortunate part of the sentence.

Obviously if you don't accept my interpretation then the usage warrants criticism.

2) He later goes on to display his ignorance at the far-reaching effects of slavery - it basically birthed modern racism.


Meaning that you disagree with Starkey over the exact after-effects of (this particular instance of) slavery. Disagreement is fine.

You will understand my scepticism when some TSR poster declares a very prominent and experienced historian 'ignorant' -- but, even if he were, it would not be in any way inappropriate for him to offer his own analysis.
Original post by PTMalewski
Because the convention clearly talks about biological results of actions.



Yes. And biological destruction of the groups was not the effect that occured, although lots of people have been killed.

A mean, whatever. I fully agree it was a terrible and bad thing, I'm only saying the man was referring to different meanings, he was supposed to use, because that's a part of his goddamn job.
You could as well blame someone for speaking in a language you don't know.

Fair enough.

In isolation (just the slavery sentence), he's right. With context, he's either ignorant or a racist.
Reply 30
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by PTMalewski
Because the convention clearly talks about biological results of actions.



Yes. And biological destruction of the groups was not the effect that occured, although lots of people have been killed.

A mean, whatever. I fully agree it was a terrible and bad thing, I'm only saying the man was referring to different meanings, he was supposed to use, because that's a part of his goddamn job.
You could as well blame someone for speaking in a language you don't know.

Africa’s is a very ethnically diverse place with some countries having twice the number of ethnic groups than Europe does and the fragmentation of different populations caused by slavery still had the same effect biologically
Reply 31
Avatar for IbeIC123
IbeIC123
OP
14
Original post by Napp
Can you expand on this? Given international law is a distinct legal framework in its own right covering numerous things, noteably what the other user said..

Pretty dumb what I said, I misheard someone once
Original post by IbeIC123
Africa’s is a very ethnically diverse place with some countries having twice the number of ethnic groups than Europe does and the fragmentation of different populations caused by slavery still had the same effect biologically

You're probably right in some cases, however:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.


Obviously their intent wasn't to destroy any group, their intent was to get free workforce.

I'm speaking of legal terms here only, because we all agree slavery was a bad thing. I suppose Starkey would have said it too, if asked.

The point, to clarify, is this: if we take different terrible and nasty crimes like murder, rape or kidnapping, they are all terrible, but they are all different charges.

That's all I can say. I'm sorry I can't refer to Starkey's statements as a whole, the only thing I've found is a video of someone commenting over bits of Starkey's comments. I'm not going to trust just this, I've seen too many of manipulations of the kind
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Well, if you accept my interpretation, which I think is clearly right, it isn't 'questionable' at all. He's just, speaking off the cuff, happened to place the 'damn' at an unfortunate part of the sentence.

Obviously if you don't accept my interpretation then the usage warrants criticism.

Okay, I respect your interpretation of the situation.

Meaning that you disagree with Starkey over the exact after-effects of (this particular instance of) slavery. Disagreement is fine.

You will understand my scepticism when some TSR poster declares a very prominent and experienced historian 'ignorant' -- but, even if he were, it would not be in any way inappropriate for him to offer his own analysis.


I suppose that in more civil terms, and accounting for his credentials, that that is true. I understand your scepticism.

However, in my eyes the suggestion that slavery and its associated issues ended with the Emancipation Proclamstion in the US and abolishment of slavery in the UK is wrong. His comparison to the emancipation of Roman Catholics is not an appropriate choice because aside varying degrees of tension between Roman Catholics and Protestants primarily in Northern Ireland, it has not had profound sociological effects across the Western world.
Reply 34
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by TimmonaPortella
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.

I think the issue is his reasoning that it couldn't be genocide because there are lots of black people in the world today.

Even setting aside the main controversy here, surely that's pretty shoddy reasoning? You wouldn't say for example that the persecution of Bosnian Muslims wasn't genocide because there are lots of muslims in Bosnia today.
(edited 3 years ago)
Disgraceful comments.
Something for the grievance mongers and the perpetually "offended" to ponder and get "up in arms" over, as ever. As TimmonaPortella said, infelicitous phrasing (given how easy it is to blow these things out of proportion), but certainly nothing to "cancel" him over.
His wording was poor.
I believe it's the phrasing he used that has caused the outrage. Had he made a rational case for slavery not being 'genocide' (since the definition of this is tenuous anyway, see above) I don't believe there would have been much an issue; rather the wording of what he said "otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks" comes across as palpably racist.

I can most definitely understand why institutions would seek to distance themselves from David Starkey following this.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you