What did David Starkey say that was so objectionable?
I admit I immediately jumped on the bandwagon of consternation, but let's analyse his comments before condemning him out of hand:
"Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn Blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there?" This sentence seems to have drawn the most ire.
Genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group, with the intent of wiping them out. While it's true that a large number of slaves died while in transit to the Americas, and through overwork when there, it was not a deliberate act to eliminate them. Slaves were valuable cargo and one does not destroy one's source of wealth. Nor was there a deliberate attempt to kill Africans in Africa, else the supply of slaves would have dried up. Thus what Starkey said is undoubtedly true, even though he could undoubtedly have put it better. However, even then, had he said 'damned Scottish' or 'damned French' in a different context (Scottish independence or Brexit), I doubt there would have been such an uproar.
British-Nigerian historian and broadcaster David Olusoga tweeted: "This is truly disgusting. And by the same ridiculous, twisted logic the Holocaust would not be counted as a genocide." Much as I like Olusoga, I disagree - Hitler wanted to eliminate all Jews from Germany in a deliberate policy.
What else did he say? "As for the idea that slavery is this kind of terrible disease that dare not speak its name, it only dare not speak its name, Darren, because we settled it nearly 200 years ago. We don't normally go on about the fact that Roman Catholics once upon a time didn't have the vote and weren't allowed to have their own churches because we had Catholic emancipation."
While he's technically correct, he seems to wipe The Troubles from the history books. Yes, Catholics were emancipated, but we no longer discriminate against them in mainland Britain - except, of course, when it comes to a Catholic monarch, which is still a no-no. Equality is not a natural consequence of emancipation. This last pronouncement of Starkey's gives me more cause for concern than the former. It's very naive, especially from an historian.
He has, however, apologised unreservedly.
"Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn Blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there?" This sentence seems to have drawn the most ire.
Genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group, with the intent of wiping them out. While it's true that a large number of slaves died while in transit to the Americas, and through overwork when there, it was not a deliberate act to eliminate them. Slaves were valuable cargo and one does not destroy one's source of wealth. Nor was there a deliberate attempt to kill Africans in Africa, else the supply of slaves would have dried up. Thus what Starkey said is undoubtedly true, even though he could undoubtedly have put it better. However, even then, had he said 'damned Scottish' or 'damned French' in a different context (Scottish independence or Brexit), I doubt there would have been such an uproar.
British-Nigerian historian and broadcaster David Olusoga tweeted: "This is truly disgusting. And by the same ridiculous, twisted logic the Holocaust would not be counted as a genocide." Much as I like Olusoga, I disagree - Hitler wanted to eliminate all Jews from Germany in a deliberate policy.
What else did he say? "As for the idea that slavery is this kind of terrible disease that dare not speak its name, it only dare not speak its name, Darren, because we settled it nearly 200 years ago. We don't normally go on about the fact that Roman Catholics once upon a time didn't have the vote and weren't allowed to have their own churches because we had Catholic emancipation."
While he's technically correct, he seems to wipe The Troubles from the history books. Yes, Catholics were emancipated, but we no longer discriminate against them in mainland Britain - except, of course, when it comes to a Catholic monarch, which is still a no-no. Equality is not a natural consequence of emancipation. This last pronouncement of Starkey's gives me more cause for concern than the former. It's very naive, especially from an historian.
He has, however, apologised unreservedly.
No comments:
Post a Comment