It is hypocrisy, the running theme here its an easy target, it shouldnât be there but its an easy target regardless.
My response has kind of fucked up your argument.
Youâre a bit blinkered arenât you? Iâve never liked it and Iâve never liked the fact we turn a blind eye to anything non anglo, protestant and something thats a tad difficult to do, picking around the edge of arguments to score a few moral points is pathetic and if thats the best we can do its says an awful lot concerning weak liberal virtue signalling.
Bring back the JPS car then
1 Like
Iâve given this bloke a hearing before, but no more. Iâve not been comfortable with some of his statements before, but if youâre capable of jumping into his kooky little shoes, you can see what he means.
Not with this. âWhites are the new blacksâ was bad enough. Take from that what you will.
âDamn blacksâ? Fucking hell, Dave. Wear your overt fucking racism on your sleeve, cunt.
His concept of genocides not being genocide unless everyone is wiped out? I am sure the Jews, Armenians and Russians will all have something to say about that.
Needless to say, his voice wonât be an echo in my chamber again. Heâs an old racist cunt with a very fucking warped view of history, which happens to be perfect for mainstream British media.
1 Like
I think youâll find that heâs an exponent of Victorian trolling. He writes and says stuff purely for reaction.
1 Like
I remember the outcry over his âwhites are the new blacksâ statement, and at the time, I was foolishly prepared to lay it off on the obvious differences in the world he grew up in and the world I grew up in.
Oddly enough, a lot of older people have some very old fashioned views. We all allow for that - when he said those words, I could at least see that from his starting point, black people in this country did more menial jobs than their average white counterparts. Incredibly poorly expressed by modern terms, but Starkey is not modern.
I agree with you, and the little prick can say what he wants, but I donât think he gets the mainstream spots anymore. This is indefensible.
I donât think his BBC career survives this one.
1 Like
So Starkey thinks slavery wasnât genocide because there are still too many damn blacks. Using his twisted logic the holocaust canât have been genocide either. And yet i recall Starkey jumping onto the âJeremy Corbyn is an anti semiteâ bandwagon a two or three years ago.
He really isnât as intellectually clever as he thinks he is.
Slavery wasnât/isnât genocide, how could it possibly be?
The holocaust was a genocide, do I genuinely have to point out the difference either via a dictionary or our darkest parts of our history?
At the risk of causing offence
My understanding of genocide is the act of eradication of a large number of people of a particular race / religion / etc
With regards to slavery, genocide does not fit well. Slavery was a business and as a result the slavers wanted as many slaves to survive the crossing as they had value at the destination. A huge number of slaves died during transportation, but that wasnât due to a desire to kill them, more an economic decision. ie the more slaves I can cram on a ship the more profit I can make, allowing for the inevitable deaths on route.
I think if you were to go back in time and ask a slave runner how many of his cargo he would ideally like to survive, they would say all of them because that would mean more profit.
That does not excuse the way Starkey chose to express his opinion
Your rather twisted trolling is a bit off the mark⌠both slavery and genocide are parts of the same bigger bucket of human shit
They are based on a simple hideous POV that itâs acceptable to to dehumanise an entire group of people based on some arbitrary differentiation, be it colour, origin, or religion and treat them as non-humans. As soon as you do that, whether they are enslaved, or murdered, their lives mean nothing, their death means nothing to you⌠itâs the same thing made possible by the dehumanisation
1 Like
Thatâs nice, but not relevant to Starkeyâs comments.
His view was that slavery wasnât genocide because âdamn blacksâ had survived. Thatâs fucking nonsense, and on a pragmatic level, meaningless.
Most of those Stalin sent to the Siberian prison camps were sent there to work. Does Stalin get a free pass because he didnât specifically intend for them to die? Does he get away with mass murder because he was merely indifferently homocidal?
I would also argue that there was a mass cultural genocide for those that made the crossing, pasts erased, traditions gone, forced into multi-generational bondage with no idea of their pasts.
If you want to survive on a flippant technicality, fair enough, but replace the word genocide with mass murder and neither you nor Starkey have a defence left.
Donât get me wrong here - genocide / slavery etc - its all abhorrant.
You raise Stalin as an example - I think there is a difference between what he did and the african slave trade.
He sent those poor sods to gulags to die - that he got a few months / years graft out of them was a bonus. I would argue that this does fall into the genocide definition. So, no he doesnât get a free pass
If Stalin is guilty of genocide for sending people to work and die, then the slavers are guilty of the same. They just handed the death sentence to someone else to carry out.
2 Likes