It’s absolutely dehumanizing. He should have been called out on the spot.
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
Starkey also said that 'the British Empire was the first key stage in human history'. Ha.
The 'damn' before the black is a bit of a giveaway really. The man is a grade a cnut.
The interviewer is also a racist so no one is surprised.
Its use is not only dehumanising but outdated and has a history of dismissal behind it. People like Starkey use it deliberately, I think.
Yep, honestly non-black people holding other non-black people accountable for anti-black statements/actions is the best short-term way to address racism.
If racist people aren't held accountable by people who look like them and/or share similar spaces to them, not much progress will be made.
& the same should be done for other forms of prejudice & discrimination as well (it goes without saying, but still)
Yeah the 'damn' really empathised the point, but even when someone says something like 'blacks x y z' it doesn't sit right with me, because why would you not just say black people? It's odd.
But yeah, feck him.
Oh yeah it was definitely deliberate, if he said 'so many damn black people in africa' obviously it's still a fecked up statement, but like you said it's less dismissive.
'blacks' makes it sound like he's describing something that's not human.
Its an odd link but the term "blacks" always makes me think of Tony Sopranos mum saying it dismissively as "these blacks"
The manner with which it is said is telling: as if Black people are a mass, an irritating nuisance and irrelevance fit only to be swept or shovelled away from sight and mind.
I wouldn't necessarily go quite that far, I've definitely heard people use Whites, Jews, Asians, 'Latinos' (I know the last one especially is not exactly the same) without people on the end of it.
The use of the word itself is not necessarily bad but I look at it within context and I think people should be careful about the terms they use. For example, if I hear someone say Jew or the Jews, without people coming after it, I do kind of automatically tense up because of their associated history. I'm either expecting something anti-semitic or....I don't know, just Jew stand-alone almost sounds like its being used as an insult.
Obviously context matters. The context in this case being a well known historian who....if we're being kind, skirts the line of what might be considered racist, continuing to make racist and disparaging comments. Which I'm sure he'll pass off as a misunderstanding.
The genocide comment is one of the sillier ones I've heard from him and would be akin to saying of course there was no Armenian or Jewish genocide because, not only do they continue to exist but they even have their own countries now.
*And yes, the 'damned' is just very very unpleasant.
The use of the word itself is not necessarily bad but I look at it within context and I think people should be careful about the terms they use. For example, if I hear someone say Jew or the Jews, without people coming after it, I do kind of automatically tense up because of their associated history. I'm either expecting something anti-semitic or....I don't know, just Jew stand-alone almost sounds like its being used as an insult.
Obviously context matters. The context in this case being a well known historian who....if we're being kind, skirts the line of what might be considered racist, continuing to make racist and disparaging comments. Which I'm sure he'll pass off as a misunderstanding.
The genocide comment is one of the sillier ones I've heard from him and would be akin to saying of course there was no Armenian or Jewish genocide because, not only do they continue to exist but they even have their own countries now.
*And yes, the 'damned' is just very very unpleasant.
For me the fundamental problem with the term "blacks" when used by scholars is the fact that Africans do not often identify that way. I mentioned it in an old thread but in Africa people identify ethnically and it's a very central point culturally, it's no different to Arabians, Persians, Turkic or Maghrebis, you don't call them browns and you don't mix them.
I don't like your examples. Jews/Hebrews are an ethnic group, Asians is the demonym for people coming from Asia, Latinos are a cultural group made of people coming from the Latin(spanish) world. Whites and blacks are in my opinion not appropriate they don't give you proper informations about the people you are referring too, it's very superficial.
I'm not so sure all of those are equivalent though.
Asians refers to a continent, so the equivalent would be Africans - and isn't restricted by race. There are plenty of dark skinned Asians, but they aren't referred to as 'Browns'
Latinos, similar to Asians - isn't restricted by race.
Jews can refer to ethnic Jews or religious Jews, and without context like you said there's an associated history behind it which can cause discomfort - but everyone knows Jews are still people, there's not a dehumanisation behind the word 'Jews' which is my point about 'blacks'
Whites is a better example, but I don't think white people are referred to as 'whites' anywhere near as often as black people are referred to as 'blacks'
Last edited:
Yes absolutely, there's a large variety of ethnic groups which inhabit Africa, and forms of discrimination and prejudice reside in all of them, against other groups too.
I maintain that the armed white couple who confronted protesters were reacting against the ingrained idea of Black people rather than the actuality. And this is why I believe terms like 'blacks' and 'jews' are loaded.
I am not saying that people should use any of these terms, just that 'Blacks' are not the only group of people, whether ethnicity, colour or whatever, who I've heard referred to without people following it.
People who are using these terms and who are so lazy they aren't bothering to put people on the end of it are clearly not usually looking for an in depth analysis of whatever they're talking about. They're either making a comment in passing or are saying something with a racist undertone (as Starkey is doing here).
It obviously does not lend itself to any serious discussion or understanding of these groups of people.
I have also heard (mostly from Indians/ Pakistanis themselves in fairness) some people refer to people from the sub-continent as 'Browns'. This is much much less common than blacks or even whites though.
I do agree with @villain that there is usually, at the very least, an undertone to it and it is used far more often than Ive heard other similar terms being used for other groups of people. Having said that, I feel like I hear it far less often now than I used to previously. Though that may just be due to how I live my life now.
If one refers to varied individuals as a mere mass ('blacks') it becomes easier to discount them as people. Officials in certain WWII extermination camps referred to their doomed victims as 'cargo', thus easing what little conscience the officials possessed and thereby dismissing individual human beings as an irritating logistical problem to be solved. If one could not profit from the collective 'value' (i.e. work) of a lumpen mass, then that obstructive mass needed to be destroyed, was their thinking.
But my point is that you are not supposed to use people with most of these terms. You don't say European peoples, you don't say scandanivian peoples or christian peoples. I think that I see why you make that point but to me it's wrong because the issue isn't the lack of "people", it's the undertone and I assume the context of the conversation. Otherwise all these terms(outside of whites, blacks and browns) are correct and aren't supposed to be followed by people because they are demonyms by themselves they designed groups of people.
The reason whites, blacks or browns are followed by people is because they are not demonyms, they are dumb terms that we all use and shouldn't because we have appropriate ways to differentiate these people with actual demonyms.
The tide is turning now, the slow realisation about what really BLM stands for (ie political purposes) is coming through now and brands/corporations are making u-turns or rather changing course.
Explain this please, how is being anti-racist political?
Also what brands are changing course?
Wow, it sure took a lot to make those brands change course! Why, they gave supporting BLM a whole five minutes of their time!
It's about market segment.
Deep inside supporting one side means alienating the other sides and both are profit loss.
It's not an easy decision to be fair if you're spekaing from corporate lenses
I could be wrong but he is mixing one of the BLM movements in the UK, with the original BLM movement. The former is being targetted due to Joshua Virasami's views.
So one person's views are being generalised and that generalisation is being used as the reason to pull support?
Well, colour me surprised.
Ten seconds later...
Pretty much, the strange thing is that he isn't new, he never hid, he has expressed his views openly for years which makes the supposed U-turns suspect. And he doesn't speak for everyone and every BLM movements which are plural in the UK and in the World.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...blm-leader-remains-defiant-support-ebbs-away/
I can’t speak for companies or for others but my understanding of BLM was very limited, I had no knowledge of this person going back years and what he said previously, I assumed that BLM was ine organisation with the BLM motto. It’s only the last few days I learned of sepesrting the phrase from the organisation and there was Infact multiple organisations.
this shitstorm is more than likely manufactured to disrupt the phrase and movement but it is nevertheless confusing and a shitstorm
Imo it's an excuse, to drop half hearted support most of the time... If you supported BLM since Floyds death or prior, like really supported it, you'd take 5 minutes to discern whether or not this view is representative of the whole movement.
Edit: Ok ok.... maybe I''m being harsh. 15 minutes....
I totally get that. The issue is with papers, political experts and companies who did their homework otherwise they are useless and some are now pretending that some of these things were secrets or controversial. These people are dishonest and they clearly have an agenda, keep in mind that it's all done in the context of anti-antifa narratives and conspiracies around Soros, socialism, marxism and whatnot.
Funny how European or Oversees is so different.
In South Africa, you fill out your Resume or application for ID or any document by stating if you are the following:
Black
White
Coloured
Indian
Asian
Other
Sadly even in a majority "black" nation, we can't get rid of this identification method.
Our children don't grow up seeing people, but "color". You black, you white, you colored etc.
I've never liked it, but that's how it is here.
So when someone says the blacks this or the white that, we take our racial cues based context and intent of the statement made.
In some cases its "perfectly normal" to use those phrases, however I'm not comfortable with it.
Tbf, for the most part, that racial identification is for specific reasons etc. hence we’re not able to get rid of it yet - as undesirable as it is.
The missus is Costa Rican and she absolutely hates that aspect of our country. I agree with her but it is what it is as we’re a fairly young democracy.
And I find that strange because I would assume that if you ask a Zulu without leading to a black or white identification he would either answer Zulu or name the family of language that he speaks which is also an important differentiator in Africa. Africans will understand the following map while others should remember that it is an easy way to understand how Africans and their culture are divided, scholars know that but sometimes they simply don't care.
Yes you are right. Most times we are referred to by our particular sub set of color. However the cultural differentiator can be used a in derogatory way, so it ultimately depends on the context and intention of the persons in dialogue.And I find that strange because I would assume that if you ask a Zulu without leading to a black or white identification he would either answer Zulu or name the family of language that he speaks which is also an important differentiator in Africa. Africans will understand the following map while others should remember that it is an easy way to understand how Africans and their culture are divided, scholars know that but sometimes they simply don't care.
For example, when we have to give demographics of a church or a community, we don't always specify it based on the different black groups, or colored groups or white groups, but yes when it's one on one, we have to specify.
Another example is now the xenophobic use of the in our countries "foreign" blacks.
So when hiring a domestic, probably if you are not black, but are a colored or white, you wouldn't have a preference of whether they are Xhosa or Zulu etc, it would be local or foreign for example.
Argh, it's hard. Because I have to raise my kids in such a world and it terrible, I don't want them to see or say my "black friend" or "white friend".
But that's so normal in our society.
The other day my heart nearly broke cause my son, who is 3 said something I have no idea where he learnt.
During this pandemic and lockdown and stuff, we had limited time to walk out, and take them for our walks, but when we do, there were of course other people also walking.
We live in a more predominately white area, but also quite mixed as well.
So my sonx out of the blue said to, "why do all the white people wear masks"
It was the first time I heard him define someone's color and not just acknowledge them as "why do all these people wear masks"
It's a tough country to live in and as parents we have to be deliberate in teaching out children to see people for people and not color.
Easiest ignore-list Slam Dunk ever.
Yeah these people are totally dishonest, no excuses, there’s always an agenda behind everything
Yep, respectability politics - unless everyone associated with BLM acts in a desirable way, their actions and words will be used as fuel to stop supporting the movement.
I mean, we can't be really surprised though right?Now all of a sudden the majority seem to get it, but imo their actions & words will only be taken seriously in the months/years after the protests die down, and they can no longer score marketing points from it.
Your unrivalled ability to find a seemingly infinite variety of situations to apply that joke to is genuinely impressive.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
'LA sheriff deputies have been widely accused of harassing and threatening the families of those they have killed.
Here's a short thread on some of the shocking experiences of the mother and sister of 18-year-old Paul Rea in the year since LASD killed him during a traffic stop:
Hours after Jaylene Rea, 22, spoke at a rally last year, deputies repeatedly drove by the memorial site and taunted them, the family says. Eventually officers got out of their car and moved to handcuff and arrest two of Paul’s friends. Jaylene started recording the interaction.
A deputy told one of the friends to put out his blunt to handcuff him. He handed it to Jaylene. At this point, another deputy approached Jaylene from behind and "grabbed her wrists and bent her arms upward behind her back, causing her to yell in pain," the family's complaint says
The deputies detained Jaylene and put her in a patrol car to search her. They then drove her away and refused to tell her where they were taking her.
“They kept saying, ‘You’ll find out when we get there,’” she recalled.'
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed an Associated Press report that some of the soldiers who were mobilized to Washington, D.C., last month in response to protests over the killing of George Floyd were issued bayonets.
Two members of Congress who had pushed for more details about soldiers being issued bayonets to us on American civilians said they were disappointed Gen. Mark Milley would not commit to banning the practice.'
(U.S. Guardian)
Here's a short thread on some of the shocking experiences of the mother and sister of 18-year-old Paul Rea in the year since LASD killed him during a traffic stop:
Hours after Jaylene Rea, 22, spoke at a rally last year, deputies repeatedly drove by the memorial site and taunted them, the family says. Eventually officers got out of their car and moved to handcuff and arrest two of Paul’s friends. Jaylene started recording the interaction.
A deputy told one of the friends to put out his blunt to handcuff him. He handed it to Jaylene. At this point, another deputy approached Jaylene from behind and "grabbed her wrists and bent her arms upward behind her back, causing her to yell in pain," the family's complaint says
The deputies detained Jaylene and put her in a patrol car to search her. They then drove her away and refused to tell her where they were taking her.
“They kept saying, ‘You’ll find out when we get there,’” she recalled.'
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed an Associated Press report that some of the soldiers who were mobilized to Washington, D.C., last month in response to protests over the killing of George Floyd were issued bayonets.
Two members of Congress who had pushed for more details about soldiers being issued bayonets to us on American civilians said they were disappointed Gen. Mark Milley would not commit to banning the practice.'
(U.S. Guardian)
Eminent British Historian David Starkey says slavery in USA wasn't a genocide, as blacks are still alive in USA.
And British Empire was the most important event in human history.
And British Empire was the most important event in human history.
Last edited:
Holy feck. That is astonishing. Starkey is an absolute disgrace. I see his honourary degree is being reviewed.