David Starkey sacked from Canterbury Christ Church Uni for making racist remarks!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487043/amp/Dr-David-Starkey-sacked-professor-role-Canterbury-quits-fellowship-Cambridge.html
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by mgi
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487043/amp/Dr-David-Starkey-sacked-professor-role-Canterbury-quits-fellowship-Cambridge.html
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
Well you can already seeing a lot of people turning away from BLM as they understand what its stated aims are.
I think this is an overreaction based on what he said, but you arent allowed to say anything these days without BLM demanding for people to be sacked and history to be changed.
Out of interest as you perceive the UK to be such a racist country, which country is your role model where it is racially harmonious?
I think we can all agree that it was a very careless comment to make, especially with the language he used.
I also think employers have a right to control who is on their payroll, before we get into the argument of whether it was right for him to be sacked. If you're a liability in terms of what you're willing to say when recorded, I can understand many institutions wanting to sever their ties with him to avoid guilt-by-association.
Also this is the courteous reminder (to save it being brought up later) that we're here to debate the points addressed in this story, rather than have a go at other TSR users.
I also think employers have a right to control who is on their payroll, before we get into the argument of whether it was right for him to be sacked. If you're a liability in terms of what you're willing to say when recorded, I can understand many institutions wanting to sever their ties with him to avoid guilt-by-association.
Also this is the courteous reminder (to save it being brought up later) that we're here to debate the points addressed in this story, rather than have a go at other TSR users.
Interesting. I have an audio recording of a senior academic at a university in London making far more disparaging remarks towards white men. Instead of getting fired, in the background you can hear senior academics and researchers applauding her and repeating her racist, sexist remarks...
Julie Bindel, a feminist who calls for all men to be put in concentration camps and killed is allowed to give lectures in many universities here in the UK. She was only banned from giving a lecture at one university after criticising transgenderism and prostitution.
No, this sacking is further evidence of a growing problem of political bias and authoritarianism at our universities where one brand of discrimination is not tolerated whilst other brands of discrimination are not only tolerated but rewarded and encouraged. These sackings are clearly politically motivated.
Julie Bindel, a feminist who calls for all men to be put in concentration camps and killed is allowed to give lectures in many universities here in the UK. She was only banned from giving a lecture at one university after criticising transgenderism and prostitution.
No, this sacking is further evidence of a growing problem of political bias and authoritarianism at our universities where one brand of discrimination is not tolerated whilst other brands of discrimination are not only tolerated but rewarded and encouraged. These sackings are clearly politically motivated.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by 04MR17
I think we can all agree that it was a very careless comment to make, especially with the language he used.
I also think employers have a right to control who is on their payroll, before we get into the argument of whether it was right for him to be sacked. If you're a liability in terms of what you're willing to say when recorded, I can understand many institutions wanting to sever their ties with him to avoid guilt-by-association.
Also this is the courteous reminder (to save it being brought up later) that we're here to debate the points addressed in this story, rather than have a go at other TSR users.
I also think employers have a right to control who is on their payroll, before we get into the argument of whether it was right for him to be sacked. If you're a liability in terms of what you're willing to say when recorded, I can understand many institutions wanting to sever their ties with him to avoid guilt-by-association.
Also this is the courteous reminder (to save it being brought up later) that we're here to debate the points addressed in this story, rather than have a go at other TSR users.
Except where the poster themselves makes claims and should be prepared to justify them.
As far as I can see he is being hauled over the coals because of his phrase damn blacks? Can you explain what the issue is?
Original post by 999tigger
Except where the poster themselves makes claims and should be prepared to justify them.
As far as I can see he is being hauled over the coals because of his phrase damn blacks? Can you explain what the issue is?
As far as I can see he is being hauled over the coals because of his phrase damn blacks? Can you explain what the issue is?
Debate the points rather than the person though.
The ~hour long video is available halfway down the article linked above. There are quite a list of comments made that I'd describe as controversial, and the phrase "damn blacks" is part of the wider sentence:
"slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain"
Not only does this present the existence of black people in Africa and Britain today as a problem, but is almost justifying the actions of slavery as being inconsequential to the black population.
Putting to one side the rights and wrongs of what was said, if you're going to employ someone who is that much of a loose canon in a live interview then you're much braver than I am.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by mgi
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487043/amp/Dr-David-Starkey-sacked-professor-role-Canterbury-quits-fellowship-Cambridge.html
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
You can't take one person's comments and use it to generalise that the UK is racist. Every country has racists.
Original post by 04MR17
Debate the points rather than the person though.
The ~hour long video is available halfway down the article linked above. There are quite a list of comments made that I'd describe as controversial, and the phrase "damn blacks" is part of the wider sentence:
"slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many blacks in Africa or in Britain"
Not only does this present the existence of black people in Africa and Britain today as a problem, but is almost justifying the actions of slavery as being inconsequential to the black population.
Putting to one side the rights and wrongs of what was said, if you're going to employ someone who is that much of a loose canon in a live interview then you're much braver than I am.
The ~hour long video is available halfway down the article linked above. There are quite a list of comments made that I'd describe as controversial, and the phrase "damn blacks" is part of the wider sentence:
"slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many blacks in Africa or in Britain"
Not only does this present the existence of black people in Africa and Britain today as a problem, but is almost justifying the actions of slavery as being inconsequential to the black population.
Putting to one side the rights and wrongs of what was said, if you're going to employ someone who is that much of a loose canon in a live interview then you're much braver than I am.
"slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many blacks in Africa or in Britain"
The first part I agree with him about and cant see how people can think anything differently. the point of slavery was to use slaves as a means of cheap labour to work on the plantations. Genocide is simply a means of trying to deliberately wipe out a race, which would have been pointless for the slave owners as they would end up with no slaves.
I thought the controversial part was the use of the word "damn" which gives open to interpretation that he saw that as a bad thing, when in fact my impression was it was in relation to how stupid the genocide argument was and then he gets a bit carried away by saying look there are millions of such races around so the idea it was genocide is simply untrue.
Anyone who is familiar with star keys work and style knows he is forthright in his opinions to try and get people to think about History. Unless I read otherwise, then have no reason to think he was being racist, just someone who likes to make a point. The only acceptable stance appears to be agree with everything BLM says.
Look it happens, sometimes people fall out the wrong side of the guard tower in the morning and decide they just don't wish to be employable anymore *shrug* It's natures marvel.
Original post by 999tigger
"slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many blacks in Africa or in Britain"
The first part I agree with him about and cant see how people can think anything differently. the point of slavery was to use slaves as a means of cheap labour to work on the plantations. Genocide is simply a means of trying to deliberately wipe out a race, which would have been pointless for the slave owners as they would end up with no slaves.
I thought the controversial part was the use of the word "damn" which gives open to interpretation that he saw that as a bad thing, when in fact my impression was it was in relation to how stupid the genocide argument was and then he gets a bit carried away by saying look there are millions of such races around so the idea it was genocide is simply untrue.
Anyone who is familiar with star keys work and style knows he is forthright in his opinions to try and get people to think about History. Unless I read otherwise, then have no reason to think he was being racist, just someone who likes to make a point. The only acceptable stance appears to be agree with everything BLM says.
The first part I agree with him about and cant see how people can think anything differently. the point of slavery was to use slaves as a means of cheap labour to work on the plantations. Genocide is simply a means of trying to deliberately wipe out a race, which would have been pointless for the slave owners as they would end up with no slaves.
I thought the controversial part was the use of the word "damn" which gives open to interpretation that he saw that as a bad thing, when in fact my impression was it was in relation to how stupid the genocide argument was and then he gets a bit carried away by saying look there are millions of such races around so the idea it was genocide is simply untrue.
Anyone who is familiar with star keys work and style knows he is forthright in his opinions to try and get people to think about History. Unless I read otherwise, then have no reason to think he was being racist, just someone who likes to make a point. The only acceptable stance appears to be agree with everything BLM says.
I agree with Starkey in the first four words. I included them because I think it's important to add the context for his following phrase about there not being "so many damn blacks". Yes he has always been the Jeremy Clarkson of TV Historians, but the long list of questionable viewpoints in that interview are clearly not compatible with the mission statements of universities in the name of equality, and Starkey's complete dismissal of the concerns of BLM indicates that he isn't going to seem to be a figure upholding the moral standards of a university and so I can't really see blame for a university choosing him to let it go.
I think it's reductionist to trim the issue down to 2 words because only in extreme cases do you see people sacked for 2 words unless 1 of them is extremely offensive.
Original post by Diplomatic
You can't take one person's comments and use it to generalise that the UK is racist. Every country has racists.
Too many people on these tsr threads seem to talk about only "the one white racist" over and over again with different examples. Lol. I think there are quite a number of overt ones that are adding up. We have not even mentioned the (subtle) institutionalised type of racism.
Original post by mgi
Too many people on these tsr threads seem to talk about only "the one white racist" over and over again with different examples. Lol. I think there are quite a number of overt ones that are adding up. We have not even mentioned the (subtle) institutionalised type of racism.
And I suppose the question we need to ask ourselves now is are we going to use Starkey as an example to make a point about institutionalised racism or are we not?
Because if we start going into the long grass of whether or not the UK can be generalised an institutionally racist country without discussing Starkey's interview then that will almost certainly result in us landing way off topic from this thread.
I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to people saying what they like, but this was at best a terribly phrased comment, and I think - particularly when one takes Starkey's track record into account - it is reasonable for an employer to want to get shot of him.
The enslavement of many the indigenous islanders by the first colonists of the Carribean did result in these people being entirely exterminated. The slavers then switched their attention to black Africans who were more robust and resilient to working conditions and European diseases. Who is to say that there would have been any qualms about working to death every last African if population numbers and logistics made this a realistic possibility? Just because a genocide was not "completed" does not mean that actions cannot be termed genocidal. As has been mentioned elsewhere, we can't say that the Nazis didn't commit genocide because there are Jews who survive into the present day.
The enslavement of many the indigenous islanders by the first colonists of the Carribean did result in these people being entirely exterminated. The slavers then switched their attention to black Africans who were more robust and resilient to working conditions and European diseases. Who is to say that there would have been any qualms about working to death every last African if population numbers and logistics made this a realistic possibility? Just because a genocide was not "completed" does not mean that actions cannot be termed genocidal. As has been mentioned elsewhere, we can't say that the Nazis didn't commit genocide because there are Jews who survive into the present day.
He is right of course, slavery wasn't genocide. The whole point of it was to provide free labour for tobacco, sugar and cotton plantations, not to expunge an entire people from the face of the earth. And as he says the descendants are still there. (Far more, in fact, than the indigenous population in South America. That WAS more akin to genocide, although most of the deaths were due to disease, so it wasn't intentional). Human life was callously disregarded, and that is a great stain on history, but it wasn't "genocide", so why do BLM say it was?
The phrase "damn blacks" was rude, but no worse than the Cambridge Professor who said "white lives don't matter," and who was defended by the university. Different standards apply for the Wokestapo of course.
One disgraceful element was the coverage on the BBC Six O Clock News on Radio 4 last night. The reporter (allegedly) libelled the Starkey's interviewer, Darren Grimes, saying that his website was a "safe space for the racist and homophobic." They either deliberately got it wrong, or misunderstood, because he is on record as saying it is "as safe space for those wrongly accused of being racist and homophobic" the exact opposite of what our national broadcaster reported as true fact in a supposedly impartial news bulletin.
I have complained to the BBC to ask for a retraction and apology, if anyone feels inclined to do so as well, the form is here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints
Here is the Grimes' twitter feed which outlines the BBC smear (what else can we call it?). He is taking legal action.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_
The phrase "damn blacks" was rude, but no worse than the Cambridge Professor who said "white lives don't matter," and who was defended by the university. Different standards apply for the Wokestapo of course.
One disgraceful element was the coverage on the BBC Six O Clock News on Radio 4 last night. The reporter (allegedly) libelled the Starkey's interviewer, Darren Grimes, saying that his website was a "safe space for the racist and homophobic." They either deliberately got it wrong, or misunderstood, because he is on record as saying it is "as safe space for those wrongly accused of being racist and homophobic" the exact opposite of what our national broadcaster reported as true fact in a supposedly impartial news bulletin.
I have complained to the BBC to ask for a retraction and apology, if anyone feels inclined to do so as well, the form is here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints
Here is the Grimes' twitter feed which outlines the BBC smear (what else can we call it?). He is taking legal action.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_
Original post by 04MR17
I agree with Starkey in the first four words. I included them because I think it's important to add the context for his following phrase about there not being "so many damn blacks". Yes he has always been the Jeremy Clarkson of TV Historians, but the long list of questionable viewpoints in that interview are clearly not compatible with the mission statements of universities in the name of equality, and Starkey's complete dismissal of the concerns of BLM indicates that he isn't going to seem to be a figure upholding the moral standards of a university and so I can't really see blame for a university choosing him to let it go.
I think it's reductionist to trim the issue down to 2 words because only in extreme cases do you see people sacked for 2 words unless 1 of them is extremely offensive.
I think it's reductionist to trim the issue down to 2 words because only in extreme cases do you see people sacked for 2 words unless 1 of them is extremely offensive.
Why are you dumbing down the blatantly racist remarks of Starkey who also. in any event. did not understandwhat genocide is?
Why did Starkey bring up and give the impression that he even understood the meaning of the word "genocide "? "UN Convention on Genocide in December 1948, which came into effect in January 1951. Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":
Killing members of the group.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.." Why do you agree with Starkey's first four words and why do his semantics matter anyway?
Let's just tell it as it is. Starkey's views are offensive and racist.
Original post by StriderHort
Look it happens, sometimes people fall out the wrong side of the guard tower in the morning and decide they just don't wish to be employable anymore *shrug* It's natures marvel.
??? meaning?
Obviously Starkey isn't just going to lose His Honorary Fellowship at Cambridge and his position at Canterbury, his books will soon be consigned to the fire too...
https://twitter.com/vintagebooks/status/1279077705724690433
https://twitter.com/vintagebooks/status/1279077705724690433
Original post by mgi
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487043/amp/Dr-David-Starkey-sacked-professor-role-Canterbury-quits-fellowship-Cambridge.html
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
When is the UK generally going to become actually anti-racist rather than disingenuously not racist? Hopefully , his honorary degree from Lancaster Uni will also be removed.
Racism should be driven out of existence, but we all need to learn to respect each other for that to happen.
Original post by mgi
Why are you dumbing down the blatantly racist remarks of Starkey who also. in any event. did not understandwhat genocide is?
Why did Starkey bring up and give the impression that he even understood the meaning of the word "genocide "? "UN Convention on Genocide in December 1948, which came into effect in January 1951. Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":
Killing members of the group.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.." Why do you agree with Starkey's first four words and why do his semantics matter anyway?
Let's just tell it as it is. Starkey's views are offensive and racist.
Why did Starkey bring up and give the impression that he even understood the meaning of the word "genocide "? "UN Convention on Genocide in December 1948, which came into effect in January 1951. Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":
Killing members of the group.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.." Why do you agree with Starkey's first four words and why do his semantics matter anyway?
Let's just tell it as it is. Starkey's views are offensive and racist.
I agree that Starkey's views are offensive and racist.
Whether the trans-atlantic slave trade should be termed a genocide is a big old debate that I'm not going to pursue in this thread because it belongs in the history forum.
I don't believe I've dumbed anything down.
Starkey's take down of Laurie Penny was very enjoyable though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Official Canterbury Christ Church University 2023 Applicant Thread
- Official Canterbury Christ Church University freshers 2023 chat
- Transferring Uni Dilema
- Wha career path should I take?
- Canterbury Christ Church and University of Kent accommodation
- Finding good university
- Interested in Engineering? Free Taster session!
- Dating in Canterbury
- Physician associate at Canterbury Christ Church 20/21
- history
- advice on a good personal statement to study classics at uni?
- University of Bradford or Canterbury Christ Church University
- QTS and student finance
- Confusion about top-up degree funding.
- Accommodation
- University of Kent or Canterbury Christ Church University for Psychology?
- Human biology
- Adult Nursing
- Musical Theatre at CCCU
- The Veg Box Project
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1290
Last reply 1 minute ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Please Help! Seek input on University selection for FinanceLast reply 4 minutes ago
Economics and Economic History 2024 ThreadLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Edexcel A-level French Paper 3, IRP/Speaking (9FR0 03) - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 10 minutes ago
LSE Accomodation for PostgradsLast reply 11 minutes ago
AQA A Level French Paper 3 (Speaking/IRP) 7652/3 - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 17 minutes ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 19 minutes ago
Which uni to study at - LSE or KingsLast reply 23 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 24 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill out my survey until 26 April.Last reply 25 minutes ago
emmanuella's study discussions #2: taking breaksTrending
Last reply 11 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 11 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
