David Starkey, well known UK historian destroys reputation with racist remarks on slavery.

[Goonie]

David Starkey dropped by publisher and university positions after racist remarks

“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”

And this was a comment from a respected historian

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not racist, though perhaps it's insensitive at this moment. He's merely quibbling over semantics.

 

[Goonie]

It's not racist, though perhaps it's insensitive at this moment. He's merely quibbling over semantics.

I think the use of the phrase 'damn blacks' and the callousness of his language is what has sunk his reputation.

 

[Goonie]

It's not racist, though perhaps it's insensitive at this moment. He's merely quibbling over semantics.

Actually he was racist. Referring to all the damned blacks in Africa is just as racist/anti Semitic as referring to all the damned jews on Israel.

 

[FireDragon76]

He's got a point, though... slavery is not the same as genocide. Perhaps he is simply frustrated by the hyperbolic use of language that is common among many activists and academics now days.

 

[Goonie]

He's got a point, though... slavery is not the same as genocide. Perhaps he is simply frustrated by the hyperbolic use of language that is common among many activists and academics now days.

One can debate slavery and genocide, but Starkey in referring to all 'the damn blacks in Africa' and implying that genocide did not happen if there are survivors, a holocaust denial argument if I ever heard one.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It wasn't genocide, but it was carried out with ruthless indifference to the suffering of the slaves.

Middle Passage - Wikipedia

 

[Goonie]

It wasn't genocide, but it was carried out with ruthless indifference to the suffering of the slaves.

Middle Passage - Wikipedia

It's debatable. But in the case of David Starkey it is his language that damned him.

 

[Radagast]

He's got a point, though... slavery is not the same as genocide. Perhaps he is simply frustrated by the hyperbolic use of language that is common among many activists and academics now days.

A number of academics have expressed the same idea in a more positive way.

If you systematically misuse words, then you no longer have a way of referring to what the words originally meant.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It's debatable. But in the case of David Starkey it is his language that damned him.

It isn't really debatable. Genocide is defined as the willful attempt to destroy in whole or in part, a people or their institutions. The Slave Trade had no intention to do this, as they wanted as many slaves as possible to survive the passage, to be sold. They were trying to balance cost, so trying to find the cheapest way to get as many as possible across. Slaves dying meant losing money spent on acquiring them. Further, the trade was conducted by a factor that bought slaves from local rulers and tribes, so it was done in connivance with the local institutions. The Europeans actually changed the dynamics, as Arabs mostly bought women and children, so prior to the Atlantic slave trade the fit men were mostly just killed in slave raiding. This was why they were available for sale dirt cheap, as the closer slave markets were not interested in strong men that could run away or cause problems.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was cruel and heartless, no doubt, but not genocide by any measure.

 

[Goonie]

It isn't really debatable. Genocide is defined as the willful attempt to destroy in whole or in part, a people or their institutions. The Slave Trade had no intention to do this, as they wanted as many slaves as possible to survive the passage, to be sold. They were trying to balance cost, so trying to find the cheapest way to get as many as possible across. Slaves dying meant losing money spent on acquiring them. Further, the trade was conducted by a factor that bought slaves from local rulers and tribes, so it was done in connivance with the local institutions.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was cruel and heartless, no doubt, but not genocide by any measure.

So the increased demand for slaves did not drive the genocide of societies in Africa as local rulers and tribes had to get the slaves from somewhere?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So the increased demand for slaves did not drive the genocide of societies in Africa as local rulers and tribes had to get the slaves from somewhere?

Not particularly, as the demand was met by the glut in male slaves. Slave raiding was endemic to feed the continuing demand from the Middle East across the Sahara, but the Arabs didn't want fit men. The numbers were comparable between the Atlantic branch and the Trans-Saharan branch of the slave entrepots' business. The Europeans seldom went on expeditions to catch slaves, they mostly bought what was brought to them for sale. Even if slave trading and raiding increased, it still is not willful destruction of a people or their institutions by the European slavers, so per definition, no Genocide took place.

 

[FireDragon76]

So the increased demand for slaves did not drive the genocide of societies in Africa as local rulers and tribes had to get the slaves from somewhere?

Calling that "genocide" isn't accurate.

 

[durangodawood]

...If you systematically misuse words, then you no longer have a way of referring to what the words originally meant.

Yeah I dont think slavery was "genocide".

In a way it was kind of worse in that:
a. it went on and on and on and wasnt an aberrant spasm of hate
b. it occurred right in the middle of society, not far afield or locked away
c. a whole culture defended it long after its brute immorality was clear.

Otoh, when ranking American shames, does slavery rank above or below the attempted genocide against Native Americans? I dunno.

 

[Goonie]

Calling that "genocide" isn't accurate.

Your right.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think the use of the phrase 'damn blacks' and the callousness of his language is what has sunk his reputation.

If he would have just said slavery is not genocide one could not disagree as the two things are not the same but when he starts to call people "damn blacks" he steps over the line by several feet.

 

[Ana the Ist]

David Starkey dropped by publisher and university positions after racist remarks

“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.”

And this was a comment from a respected historian

He's not wrong....genocide has a definition, even has a legal UN definition.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah I dont think slavery was "genocide".

In a way it was kind of worse in that:
a. it went on and on and on and wasnt an aberrant spasm of hate
b. it occurred right in the middle of society, not far afield or locked away
c. a whole culture defended it long after its brute immorality was clear.

D. And it resulted in generations of black people holding one of the highest standards of living of any black people anywhere throughout history.

Yeah....definitely not genocide.

Otoh, when ranking American shames, does slavery rank above or below the attempted genocide against Native Americans? I dunno.

That wasn't genocide either.

 

[Goonie]

He's not wrong....genocide has a definition, even has a legal UN definition.

He is very wrong in his language. 'Damn blacks' and the implication that if there's lots of survivors it's not genocide. Yep slavery is not genocide, but Its not exactly morally that much different as Durangodawood points out.

 

[Goonie]

D. And it resulted in generations of black people holding one of the highest standards of living of any black people anywhere throughout history.

Yeah....definitely not genocide.



That wasn't genocide either.

Sorry? The treatment of native Americans was blatantly genocide.

Edit. Or should I say definitely debatable. The theft of land and resources, the forced migration onto reservations.