David Starkey sacked from Canterbury Christ Church Uni for making racist remarks!

Watch
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...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.
3
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by mgi)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...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.
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?
11
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
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.
10
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
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.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 4 weeks ago
8
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(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.
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?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(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?
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.
Last edited by 04MR17; 4 weeks ago
2
reply
Diplomatic
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by mgi)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...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.
You can't take one person's comments and use it to generalise that the UK is racist. Every country has racists.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(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.
"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.
1
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
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.
1
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(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.
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.
1
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#11
(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.
2
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(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.
0
reply
wheelbarrow-man
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
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.
4
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
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_
1
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#15
(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.
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.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#16
(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?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
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/sta...77705724690433
0
reply
Dagenham
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by mgi)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...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.
Racism should be driven out of existence, but we all need to learn to respect each other for that to happen.
1
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(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.
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.
0
reply
wheelbarrow-man
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
Starkey's take down of Laurie Penny was very enjoyable though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (44)
40.74%
Take autumn exams (38)
35.19%
Look for a job (2)
1.85%
Consider an apprenticeship (3)
2.78%
Take a year out (15)
13.89%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (6)
5.56%

Watched Threads

View All