Perhaps Starkeyâs mistake is that he even wants to debate whether this is a genocide or not on a technicality, and his explanation for why, is in the best light clumsy and thoughtless, and in the worst, blatantly racist.
If ever there was a hill to die on, this is not it.
I think we are all in agreement that our links to the slave trade are a horrendous blight on our historyâŚarenât we?
4 Likes
No theyâre different words, its not trolling at all, human slavery is not eradication, donât be stupid.
How could someone dead be forced to work?
The point you miss is they step from the same bigger pile of shit⌠dehumanisation which empowers people to treat people as they wish⌠the outcome might be different, but it has the same origin in inhumanity
Stalin is guilty of crimes against humanity.
The same as the slavers.
I think people need to learn definitions and the intentions or purpose of peoples endeavours and goals.
Ah dehumanisation falls into both words and usage but that doesnât mean they can be used in the same context?
For a start the slave trade was a mercantile one and built upon slaves actually living, genocides actually involve people dying.
not the point i am making⌠the salver traders did only cared about the economic loss of the high percentage of 'slaveâs what died in transit, point being the âlifeâ was irrelevet to them, they did not sign any value to those lives no different from the Naziâs or the Balkan cunts or other is countless other countries through out history⌠the Nazis were âsimplyâ the most efficient at it. Had they been able make money out of exporting jews as slaves they would have done⌠the fact that they should not have been acceptable to the the rest of the world or even plenty within their own country, meant murdered without blink of an eyeâŚlike I said, hey are just different outcomes from dehumanising people
Are you willfully being stupid?
That waffle doesnât digress from what I have said, so stop moving the goalposts for a different shot at me.
The slave trade required the slaves to be alive otherwise they were worthless to the people who were buying them, committing genocide would have taken place in Central Africa (it did also but that is another debate and place in time) not on a ship or in a cotton field.
If you fail to see the distinction between the two words to form your own agenda Iâm sorry I canât really help you, both were abhorrent and beyond comprehension but the meanings are different.
Do I have to link the Oxford dictionary to help?
YAWN⌠Zzzzz sorry barry, you dont get the point so no point on continuing. There is no Agenda so no sure what the fuck you are on about. Different words are used to describe different outcomes of dehumanisation⌠its very simple
So did these slaves live forever? Nope, they all died, after a lifetime of labour, stripped of all identity and history, their descendants condemned to forced breeding programmes.
I donât get the point as youâre incorrect, I also suggest you look at the official (not my view or opinion) definition of genocide to help you, this way you wonât fill this thread with incorrect opinions on words and their usage.
A genocide is for instance
The Armenian genocide by the Turks.
The Holocaust
The Rwandan genocide
And others.
David Starkey is a brilliant historian but that doesnât stop him being an ignorant out of touch racist from hopefully a bygone era.
Thatâs not genocide though is it, thatâs enforced slavery.
Thereâs approximately 8 millions Indians in slavery, is this classed as genocide?
Of course not but under your agenda driven definition it is.
We donât need an exercise in literalism, Barry.
What I am interested in is whether you believe Starkeyâs view of genocide, that everyone has to be wiped out for it to count, is sustainable.
Well the first point is why didnât you ask that? But then itâs poor grammar to ask a grammar when youâve been ask one beforehand so Iâll leave that.
Where did Starkey say that? If he did heâs wrong but did he say that.
Iâll point you to the Oxford dictionary and also the point was slaves had to live to be of any purpose for the slavers venture, deaths on board as horrific as they were were seen I can only assume again as a part of the business they were in. The slaves were capital so it would have been going against their mantra to wipe them out, once sold they couldnât have cared if they died but the slavers needed them alive.
If you canât see that them quite frankly I donât really know what to say.
Well it would appear quite clearly from this you do.
Most people have been smart enough to recognise that weâre talking about David Starkeyâs comments.
What comment?
Type it out so I can comment, lets get to the crux of your confusion.
OK, Iâm going to wade in here, because I canâŚ
Initially I was with @Barry-Sanchez, slavery isnât genocide, both are abhorrent which, to defend @Barry-Sanchez, he has never contested.
So I thought Iâd look up the definition of genocide (a contraction of the Greek Genos (race) and the latin cide (to kill) ) and got this article from 2016
I know, I know, itâs the BBC and contains a UN definition, @Saint-or-sinner will be tearing his hair outâŚ
so, half way down the article is this gem
Slavery, for example, is called genocide when - whatever it was, and it was an infamy - it was a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate the living.
There is also arguments in the article that the word genocide is being devalued with its overuse.
1 Like