https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/02/histo...ived-12935752/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53279273
The crazy thing is this guy with his horrific views has been in charge of many history curriculums over the decades. Is it a stretch that such people in charge of vital things could be the reason school kids aren't taught about our colonial past?
Like most things we need to make sure we look at the whole transcript in context and not just a snippet - though I must admit the headline and intro I did read does not sound good. It would not, however, be the first time a tabloid has chosen sensationalism over substance when it comes to reporting academic papers. Equally for the college to fire him (which is what I understand they have now done) means there might well be a problem even when taken in the wider context. I need more time to read about it than I currently have.
Going bigger picture, we do need be careful however that academic debate is not stifled or throttled. I'm not saying that applies directly in this particular instance, but in the broader sphere I mean. People need to be able to propose ideas and then others need to be able to critique those ideas. Even unpalatable ones need to dismissed by sound reason, not (simply) by emotion and outrage. Eg eugenics, or GM bio-babies, or whatever. We shouldn't fear taking down bad ideas by proper debate and reason otherwise we just become a mob led by whichever angry voice shouts loudest. I hope that isn't what's happened here, like I say I need to read up on it to comment further.
Jonj1611 (05-07-2020)
There is no sensationalism. The video interview is out there and is incredibly damning. Hate speech and misinformation should be censored, as for years we've seen they have a real world consequence for bame people.
https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/sta...ed-12935752%2F
Define hate speech and misinformation. It's not as easy as you think.Originally Posted by DK2019
Jonj1611 (05-07-2020)
No, I disagree. Censoring doesn't help explain why it is "wrong", calling it out and framing it correctly is much better.
If you hide things you don't agree with, who decides what is "wrong" or "right"? You end up with a one sided biased view of things.
ik9000 (05-07-2020)
FYI the OP has been banned due to being rather obnoxious in another thread so you might not get a response for a while, if at all. Ironic that someone saying hate speech should be banned goes and has no qualms about posting bitter, nasty, personal attacks in another thread sufficient to get themselves banned, but there you go!
g8ina (10-07-2020)
I had this. Someone on a Facebook thread used the word "retard" and was immediately set upon saying he should be banned from using the word. I said that, although I thought what he has said wasn't exactly nice, banning him from being offensive was absolutely wrong.
The torrent of abuse was immense. I got people saying how offensive he was to them personally and saying how I was supporting his use of the word, intermixed with every offensive swear word you can imagine. They were quite happy to use horrific language, offensive to many people, to condemn the use of a word they found offensive.
I wasn't bothered, but found it incredibly interesting, especially as I said he should face a social, not criminal consequence for his speech. They made the same point, as if it were their own, and said I should face a social consequence for supporting him. I was supporting only his right to speak.
It's maddening. I think what Starkey said was a poorly chosen expression of his views (or in this case, facts). He speaks like that a lot when he's deriding an idea and his point was that genocide and slavery are two different things. I think he's so used to being slandered for what he says, he just gives up filtering himself as he can't figure out what is and isn't going to get him in trouble.
If you examine this in the context of any of his speeches, lectures or TV appearances then it is the same kind of attitude to whatever point he is attempting to bring down whether it is about race or something else. But, taken in isolation, it sounds really, really bad and I do feel as though there was a tone in use that really did not sit well with me.
BUT, you can't destroy a man for his tone....
....oh, wait. We can. And they do.
His point (that genocide and slavery are two distinct things and you can't just merge them together, especially as knowing how to manage the downstream effects of something means you really have to know what the cause was in a very specific way) is totally valid and doesn't detract from the underlying horror, just categorises it for management and for history. The way he put it across was plain silly and more than a little tone deaf, especially now.
The man has a lot of very useful things to say, be they right or wrong from any given perspective, and so I hope he isn't permanently cancelled. He creates discussion and usually at a very high level. That is worth something. It is unfortunately easier to silence someone like him rather than contend with him these days. Discussion and nuanced debate is out of the window.
As someone who immerses himself in both sides of an argument, I get hate from both sides. Very rarely is there genuine support aside from partisans who would support anyone who happens to be saying something they agree with. I will listen to anyone, be they homophobic, black supremacist, racist, left, right, commie, nazi, pro or anti abortion or whatever.
Becuase 1) if you don't listen to someone and validate their right to a perspective, you will never change their minds. 2) They may have something to teach you, just because you disagree with their overall opinon doesn't mean they don't have something worth sharing. 3) By learning the arguments of the other side, you learn how to debate them. If you don't even bother to listen to the reasons whey they hold the view that they do, how do you expect to put a challenge to that view which is well researched and considered?
This is why it was so utterly stupid to have a go at the guy who (was he a minister?) had a book by a holocaust denier on the shelf. If that person has written a whole book on the subject, they are likely to have well researched and well reasoned arguments. How do you expect to defeat them if you have never even heard of them before?
To quote a Hitchslap:
"Sir, you strike me as being in the unfortunate position of having never read any of the arguments against your position".
Today, the very idea of researching ideas which aren't part of the "off the shelf morality" (Starkey quote) is verboten. In this state, a society can only stand still or regress. It will never progress either morally or intellectually as no one is permitted to think or speak outside of the established status quo and to do so is to, at best, end your career.
*ducks*
Exactly. One has to unpick their arguments and show them to be wrong, but to do so requires one to understand what their arguments are to start with. Censorship is not the answer.
A follow up:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53308061
He apologised,and as a historian he should know better on how to phrase things!
It's very obvious, in context, that this was the intent of what he was saying. But the present climate means that every word has to be very carefully stated, as context is, apparently, very easily ignored these days. If he wants to speak on a show about Black Lives Matter, he can't afford to be so tone deaf.
and here we go again woke and cancel culture strikes again
people lost their minds because they simply live in rich 1st world cuntries and have too much money/free time, I suggest send some of them to live in africa, maybe then they will appreciate what they got.
Last edited by g8ina; 14-07-2020 at 01:49 PM. Reason: veiled swearing
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote