100 million per cent agree (which i haven’t said about something written by flying Rodent in, well, ever). Let them tie their own rope!

Stick ‘em all on one TV epic show, to be presented by Glenn Beck.

FR,

They need more publicity.

Perhaps on a programme like ‘Have I got News for You’?

Would, could, they survive?

It’s a shame that the amount of people I know irl who would agree 100% with Mr Starkey’s idiocy far outweighs those sensible enough to spot that he’s a bellend. That’s generally why I’m a No Platform advocate.

Mr Starkey is a historian? If he knew his history then he will realise that the past is littered with riots, looting and mayhem in Europe and beyond whether one is black, white, yellow or brown. From his remark I have come to the conclusion that he is not a very good historian. He should just stock to the Tudors.

Certainly Starkey is an out of touch bffoon of the highest order. I think he was refering to people like the white guy who robbed the Malaysian student in Barking. There’s a word beginning with W that used to be used about such people.

Or the ”Persian rapper” by the name of ‘Reveal’ who had been on Newsnight a couple of nights before, and has just brought out a rap song about the riots on youtube.
Here’s both his Newsnight appearence and his new rap.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reveal+rapper+riots&aq=f

There was so much wrong about what Starkey said – and it’s pretty obvious how wrong and insulting he was in his choice of words. He deserves opprobrium for what he said. But a Newsnight studio is not the place for decent conversation, as everything is too rushed. What would be good to do would be to look at the affect the modern urban youth vernacular has on the people who use it as their main way of speaking. Even into adult life, like that ridiculous rapper who was on Newsnight. Then you might be able to see what Starkey was so badly trying to get at.

He had been on Jamie’s Dream School and experienced how impossible it was to get the young people who spoke like that to pay atention to anything for more than ten seconds.

It would be nice to think that any rational person can see at a glance what buffoons people like Starkey are. But what I find so irritating is the way that supposedly serious current affairs programmes like Newsnight and Question Time so regularly give rentamouths like him, Kelvin MacKenzie, etc. a platform to perform their stock-in-trade – i.e. doing being outrageous. Why on earth do they think that a historian of Tudor England and/or an ex-editor of The Sun are ‘experts’ qualified to pontificated about something as complicated as recent events? As I pointed out a few days ago (http://bit.ly/nZg7Pi) Starkey revels in being outrageous – and, if my limited experience of the impact of media appearances on book sales is anything to go by, the BBC is helping him to flog far more history books than most historians.

There’s nothing embarassing about equine-based erotica.

An entirely valid point, though difficult if the implicit assumption is that the views would get dutifully shot down. Is this really a platform, or in fact a hidden trap door, ready to be pulled? I think of Griffin’s QT appearance, where we learnt more about the indignation of viewers that we did of what’s going on in that head of his.

And, what’s more, a dangerous one, if reaction is not in support of reason, but a humiliated speaker. Think Murdoch and pies.

(twitter: lauriemartin2)

I wouldn’t have a problem with people like Starkey getting on Newsnight…

…As long as he gets squarely questioned on his beliefs and outpourings. Having people nod sagely as he obliquely says ‘It was the blacks that done it, or whites who acted like blacks’.

What he meant of course was not ‘black’ culture, but American (at a push urban American culture) culture. Speak to Nigerians about family discipline and you will often hear about things that are more in tune with Right wing ideology.

This urban American culture has grown out of a backdrop of American style capitalism and American economic culture. Now, if Starkey had said that we need to fortify ourselves against that invasive cultural imperialism, he might actually have a point. Had he wanted to explore why American culture has been driven by greed, power and violence, he might have had some traction.

Of course, thanks to ‘Political Correctness’ where no such debate about this cultural relativism and the corrosive effects of ‘anti British’ cultural values are allowed he is ‘forced’ to couch his language in the lazy, idiotic language of racism.

We are not allowed to question the wisdom of importing alien cultural values from a Country where, let us face it, many of its Cities have failed. We are not allowed to ask is it prudent to design our economy that creates small pockets of wealth among huge seas of underclass and poverty. Political Correctness has meant we are not allowed to question a system of Government where tax cuts for the rich, few or no social protections has left millions of people homeless, destitute and in poverty.

Had Starkey said that urban American culture had been the direct descendent of a system that rewarded greed and sacrificed millions of people to keep a few at the top in clover, he may have had a point.

Far easier to suggest ‘it was the blacks that done it, though’.

“Specifically, he’s saying that white people are turning into criminals because they have been in some way Blackified by malignant osmosis with some black people,”

That wasn’t actually what he said though, was it? Unless I’m completely misremembering the discussion, which is possible, I suppose.

Incidentally, I was reading Wiley’s tweets while the rioting and looting was taking place, and found them to be quite interesting.

At one point he wrote,

“I think urban people just hate the police and they wanna test them,” and, “So many different views and the bottom line is young urban Britain don’t give a fuck about nothing and parents you’re all failures.”

Which prompted one of his followers to ask: what does “urban” mean?

“Urban is like any colour who likes black life or music or style.”

Oh, right. Hey, wait a sec… Guards! GUARDS!

Even more amusingly (and appropriately, for the purposes of this anecdote), Wiley was then attacked by loads of sanctimonious middle class white people… for being racist!

Of course, thanks to ‘Political Correctness’ where no such debate about this cultural relativism and the corrosive effects of ‘anti British’ cultural values are allowed he is ‘forced’ to couch his language in the lazy, idiotic language of racism.

We are not allowed to question the wisdom of importing alien cultural values from a Country where, let us face it, many of its Cities have failed.

Bloody hell, Jim. That’s good stuff.

You’re referring to Islam, right?

We are not allowed to question the wisdom of importing alien cultural values from a Country where, let us face it, many of its Cities have failed.

It’s disgusting isn’t it. A bloodthirsty empire of conquerors, a people who enjoyed the most grusome tortures as entertainment, a nation which is today in ruins, ruled over by a corrupt madman.

And yet they still let people teach Latin in schools.

Jim:

This urban American culture has grown out of a backdrop of American style capitalism and American economic culture. Now, if Starkey had said that we need to fortify ourselves against that invasive cultural imperialism, he might actually have a point.

Sure…he could have just blamed Elvis

Let’s be clear here – despite claims above, and far from being constrained, consumers of semi-hysterical bollocks about immigration, relativism and the destruction of whatever by the Ethno-Librul Axis of Doom are spoilt for choice in the UK.

You can get it in the toned down, hint-hint-nudge-nudge form of the gutter press or in the chin-strokey academic style of magazines like the Spectator or Standpoint; You can get it in the pant-shitting outrage of talk radio, or you can just cut out the middle man entirely and head straight to the babbling fucknuts of the internet for the hardcore, undiluted paranoid spazz-out that drives so much of right-wing thought on a daily basis.

Compared to that constant buzzing drone of unfounded grievance and resentment, David Starkey making a tit of himself on Newsnight is light entertainment.

There are articulate, intelligent advocates for wacky right wing policy, in the Peter Hitchens vein. There’s nothing to fear in inviting a Hitchens onto TV at any time, provided there’s an equally articulate and intelligent counterbalance there to point out that No, Peter, we cannot return to 1914 just by the act of wishing really hard.

There are also hand-waving, belligerent lunatics of the Starkey/Phillips vein – people whose horrible personality flaws and ideological manias are so obvious that they wear them like fluorescent tattoos on their faces. Neither are anything to fear, if you’re even halfway confident in your own arguments – both will hyperventilate in true tinfoil style and make prize chumps of themselves, given a reasonable critique of their arguments.

By and large, the public are smart. That’s why only a tiny section of them vote for straight up racist parties with send-’em-all-back platforms, and even then only in elections that don’t matter, i.e. the European Parliament. Most of them can handle being exposed to public idiocies of the type that Starkey is peddling. The implication that they can’t and are just waiting to be brainwashed with the most hateful propaganda imaginable is, in the end, just a bit offensive.

There are articulate, intelligent advocates for wacky right wing policy, in the Peter Hitchens vein. There’s nothing to fear in inviting a Hitchens onto TV at any time, provided there’s an equally articulate and intelligent counterbalance there to point out that No, Peter, we cannot return to 1914 just by the act of wishing really hard.

Well, if Hitchens arguments are so easy to dismiss, why do you need to bother with someone who is articulate and intelligent? Surely you could simply write that on a piece of card and pass it to the presenter. I can see it now: Hitchens rants on impressively for 20 mins, alienating large sections of the studio audience who sense that they are somehow also the subject of his tirade, and who prefer this sort of thing to have obvious gaps for applause or jeering. Audience grows increasingly restless. Hitchens ends rant to booing and shouting. Cut to presenter, who says coolly and with one eyebrow raised: No Peter, we cannot return to 1914 just by the act of wishing really hard. Audience claps; roll credits.

he’s saying that white people are turning into criminals because they have been in some way Blackified by malignant osmosis with some black people, who aren’t themselves criminals due to biological or racial characteristics

Your writing is flavourful, but I have watched the clip and, in fairness to Starkey, he said nothing like that or even anything that could be so interpreted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-1451351

And who did Starkey offend? The looters themselves would have been made up to have been awarded gangsta status!!!!

“There still appear to be a great many white people who see it as their job to express a contrived sense of angst on behalf of some poor, oppressed minority who need someone else to stand up for them. Am I alone in thinking that this is a deeply patronising and insulting line of thought? Who the hell is anyone to decide that someone else ‘ought to be offended’ by something?

Of course it’s nothing new. Did anyone else notice during the demonstration/riot/tantrum over ‘student poverty’ how all the self-appointed spokespeople and ringleaders were distinctly middle class and curiously dialect-free? Presumably the genuinely hard-up were out working on a till or cleaning a lavatory somewhere?”

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/08/taking-offence.html

Some people, you have to hit them with a rubber chicken and do a Ba-doom, Tish! rimshot on a little drum, otherwise they get confused.

@Jim

“What he meant of course was not ‘black’ culture, but American (at a push urban American culture) culture. Speak to Nigerians about family discipline and you will often hear about things that are more in tune with Right wing ideology”

Family discipline is right wing, is it?

Thanks. You have explained the moral collapse of the country introduced by the human rights ear bleeding heart nasties of New Labour.

If family discipline is right wing, I am proud to be a right winger.

David Starkey’s mate Chris Rock backs him up.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1756476-chris-rock-niggers-vs-black-people

Aha—no, no, wait, I’m still confused. Quick—hit me again with the chicken.

And what, no one saw the funny side to my Wiley anecdote? Should I invest in a rubber chicken too? Allow me to summarise:

Black people riot, because of police racism;
Black people explain to white people that they were rioting because of police racism;
White people explain to black people that they’re not allowed to say that black people were rioting, because it’s racist.

Ba-doom, tish!

Why, thank you. I’m here all week.

You know if you watched Starkey with the sound turned off you might assume you were watching an intelligent human being.

Jermey Poynton @ 19

Family discipline is right wing, is it?

Nope, that is not what I said, was it? It wasn’t even close to what I said. I said that if you speak to Africans (I mentioned Nigeria as an example), you will find attitudes to family discipline similar to those on the Right. You will tend to find that psychical punishment is more tolerated than many among the white community would.

Plenty of people bring up their children without inflicting beatings on their children and most of them tend not to riot, either.

I wonder how many of those rioting had been brought up in homes where violence for the most minor offences was commonplace?

If family discipline is right wing, I am proud to be a right winger.

If reading what someone has written and turning it into something else is right wing then you are spot on, you are a right winger and no doubt very proud of it.

It was hysterically funny when the audience laughed at Hitchens on Question Time.

“If family discipline is right wing, I am proud to be a right winger.”

Right-o.

Families who loot together, stay together: Father and son looters caught in Purley Way, Croydon, with car full of stolen TVs
http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/9188205.Uncle_and_son_looters_caught_with_car_full_of_stolen_TVs/

This you got to see
David Starkey Raps on Newsnight

That’s why only a tiny section of them vote for straight up racist parties with send-’em-all-back platforms, and even then only in elections that don’t matter, i.e. the European Parliament.

In the 2010 general election most of the ballots in the various constituencies local to myself offered the choice of voting conservative, or labour, or of not voting at all, (yep, one or two no shows from the libdems as well) my own constituency included. Nationwide that might have damped the vote for the straight up racist parties somewhat, and explain why the Labs + Cons had a wee game of “I’m gonna be tougher on immigrants than you!” in the lead up to the election. Plus even Richard Littlejohn takes pains to call the BNP a bunch of tossers, because they’re obvious, a vote for them is a blatant vote for racism. I imagine there’s plenty who want to vote for ‘sending the buggers back’, but who also don’t want to think of themselves as being racist or fascist.

Most of them can handle being exposed to public idiocies of the type that Starkey is peddling. The implication that they can’t and are just waiting to be brainwashed with the most hateful propaganda imaginable is, in the end, just a bit offensive.

I don’t so much argue that they’re being brainwashed, as in having their own quietly held views and opinions publicly vindicated and articulated in an acceptable fashion on national television. Which they can then bother me with by crowing about it at work.

Oh course if the likes of Starkey et al actually ARE robustly challenged in their views while on set my concerns are essentially moot.

@20

One, that’s a comedy routine. I really have my doubts Chris Rock would have been sitting there agreeing with Starkey.

Two, if I remember correctly, Chris Rock attacks white people just as much there in that clip, and clue: He doesn’t claim that they’re turning into black people.

Archbishop Cranmer’s most excellent assessment on the kangaroo court

“Dr Starkey is a fool: he is a fool for agreeing to be the token ‘right-winger’ on a biased BBC programme in which three left-leaning (relatively) intellectual pygmies are pitted against an academic who uses words and adopts a narrative quite alien to the BBC vernacular. This interview/discussion was not convened to anaylse or arrive at truth: it was commissioned to entertain and perpetuate BBC orthodoxy. Dr Starkey was set up to be the jarring dissonance, which he should have foreseen and adapted his speech in order that his truth may have been better received. “

@Art Vandelay

Your memory does not serve you well. Look at the title for starters – “The war between the nigger and black people”. And no he’s not a mate, I was taking the piss FFS.

I for 1 am quite happy that these little fires and shoplifting events happened down south – perhaps politicians can stop demonising northern cities with their community cohesion bullshit for once. And whatever you might think of Starkey he really is a predatory pervert.

@30
Are you sure? I distinctly remember there being a bit about white trailer trash in there. Unless that’s a very selective clip.

And as for your second point, well duh.

typical loony left reactions !!

[30] a white commedian would not get away with the Chris Rock’s routine.

According to Rev. Rahelio Soleil “One thing all authentically black people know is that the concept of blackness can never be trusted to whites for interpretation. The white liberal (so presumably this is not aimed at the likes of Starkers) sees black as simultaneously noble, compromised, and victimized. I could write volumes about how white liberalism is a loving caress of on the cheek followed by an insulting backhand slap. The bottom line to white liberalism’s take on us is “you’re not stupid because of genetics, you’re stupid because of victimization – we’ll protect you until you are smart enough to protect yourselves.”
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=37

I can see where the Rev is coming from – I suspect a good many of those groups liberals are so keen to assist would not necessarily warm to anybody who set themselves up in the role of do-gooder – hard to say what the gangs might think of Starkers but the ever reliable Mash provides further insight into the mind of our outspoken historian
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/starkey-sick-of-hearing-jamaican-patois-at-the-ivy-201108154192/

Never understand why the supposed Left’s reaction to this kind of stuff is censorship, surely that’s a very right wing and repressive response?

I’m always shouted down when I mention it at UAF meetings and things, but seriously, I refuse to endorse Authoritarianism with a smiley face slapped over it.

[30] a white comedian would never get away with Chris Rock’s Niggas vs Black people routine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggas_vs._Black_People

According to Rev. Rahelio Soleil, “One thing all authentically black people know is that the concept of blackness can never be trusted to whites for interpretation. The white liberal sees black as simultaneously noble, compromised, and victimized. I could write volumes about how white liberalism is a loving caress of on the cheek followed by an insulting backhand slap. The bottom line to white liberalism’s take on us is “you’re not stupid because of genetics, you’re stupid because of victimization – we’ll protect you until you are smart enough to protect yourselves.”
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=37

And now Starkers has waded into the same choppy waters with his own take on a particular slice of Americana – I’ve not read his comments but I assume he has not dealt with the matter with the lightness of touch found in Chris Rock’s piece?

[30] A white commedian would never get away with Chris Rock’s Niggas vs Black people routine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggas_vs._Black_People

According to Rev. Rahelio Soleil, “One thing all authentically black people know is that the concept of blackness can never be trusted to whites for interpretation. The white liberal sees black as simultaneously noble, compromised, and victimized. I could write volumes about how white liberalism is a loving caress of on the cheek followed by an insulting backhand slap. The bottom line to white liberalism’s take on us is “you’re not stupid because of genetics, you’re stupid because of victimization – we’ll protect you until you are smart enough to protect yourselves.”
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=37

And now Starkers has waded into the same choppy waters with his own take on a particular slice of Americana – I’ve not read his comments but I assume he has not dealt with the matter with the lightness of touch found in Chris Rock’s piece?

Yes, reactionary right-wingers definitely need more prime-time publicity…

Never understand why the supposed Left’s reaction to this kind of stuff is censorship, surely that’s a very right wing and repressive response?

Censorship? Yes, I distinctly remember saying “Ban him? Yes, we need less of David Starkey’s idiocy on TV”. Or something very like it.

What a large number of deeply unpleasant people frequent this blog.

This goes right across the board on most issues, by the way. The kind of thing might go a little something like this, to pick an entirely random example…

So, Mr. Fawkes, I see your first response to these riots was to blame it on “the logical outcome” of crazy leftist rhetoric. Don’t you think that’s a bit of a cheek, given that you’ve named yourself after one of England’s most notorious would-be mass-murderers?… Oh, I see. And all the violent imagery, that would be… Yes, that is a very generous interpretation of the word “terrorism” there, indeed.

And I see you believe that another major cause of the riots was absent fathers. Can you explain how that assertion doesn’t conflict with your belief in personal responsibility?… Ah yes, it’s the parents’ individual responsibility that you’re talking about. It seems rather odd then that you identify this former Labour Party minister as being largely responsible for single-parent families, presumably via the medium of some kind of telepathic socialism-beams into the skulls of the populace? Ah, I see… And what proposals do you have to combat the incidence of absent parents?… Well, I must say, that doesn’t sound very “libertarian”, does it? It sounds rather paternalistic, in fact.

Now, about your campaign for the reintroduction of the death penalty…”

And so on. It might require a little research on the part of interviewers, rather than their present habit of saying “Right, hateful lunatic, explain to us why you’re so awesome and your political foes are awful”, but I’m sure they’d get the hang of it.

Starkey is often outrageous and usually wrong in order to be distinctive.

But this time I think what he said had an element of truth.

The grunting in pidgin English blended with Jamaican gangsta patois, while moving the upper body rhythmically, is so typical of much black youth in London that anyone who denies it simply hasn’t been paying attention. The well-aired “Dem feds ain’t on dis ting” is completely typical. I have no idea why white kids should try to copy it…they’ve probably never been near Jamaica or met a US gang soldier…except on TV. But they do and you hear it all the time.

However, what’s far more worrying is the arrogant dismissal of cultural norms and intellectual endevour this language represents. It’s a terrible, even joyful, subsumption of cohesive thought into violence, apparel and bling. Or as that distinguished black US academic put it. “Gold chains, not brains.”

To point this out wasn’t racist. It was necessary if we are ever to rescue the future for these young people.

Maybe that’s what Starkey was trying to say.

I fear for any country that would ban a fuckwit like Starkey.

He’s would be way down my list after Griffin, were Griffin himself on my list, had I a list to start with, which I don’t.

Couldn’t agree more. As good as they are at rabble-rousing in print, when open to interactive criticism they invariably hang themselves.
I’d extend that principle to the likes of Nick Griffin too.

starkey is an old fashioned man with old fashioned views,he is a controveralist and he used wrong words the other night,however i read an article by tony sewell in the mail which he said that starkey had a point.

Here ya go you pack of howling feral lefties – read an adult reaction to Starkey and co.

He notes as I have – none of you contest what Starkey said (if you even heard him or listened to him), rather you howl him down – as did the other three louts on the programme, and deny him even the right to say what he had to say.

By force, in effect.

Anyway, read what the grown-ups are thinking about it, here

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100101077/rivers-of-blood-what-enoch-powell-got-wrong-and-what-he-got-right/

By the way, Enoch Powell is mentioned, so please ensure you have taken your anti-knee jerk pills first. And read the fucking article.

Maybe that’s what Starkey was trying to say.

It’s amazing how many people are keen to reinterpret Starkey’s points for him, given that he’s a professional communicator. I’d imagine he picks his words very carefully indeed, given that’s what he’s been paid to do for his entire adult life.

So when he intentionally starts off a discussion on civil disorder by namechecking Enoch Powell in his most Woe is us for the blacks will destroy us all poses, I’m just going to go on and assume he means exactly what he says, rather than take to the internet to pretend he meant something entirely less twattish.

Yeah defo. I agree with this post. Starkey was great. More Starkey and his rasclat blackisms.

Quite amusing: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/starkey-sick-of-hearing-jamaican-patois-at-the-ivy-201108154192/

What I can’t make out is whether Society was “broken” when Disraeli wrote this in his novel Sybil (1845):

“Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws.” “You speak of — ”said Egremont, hesitantly. “ THE RICH AND THE POOR.”
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/disraeli/diniejko3.html

If Society was broken then, when did it get mended and how?

Btw why did the Conservatives wind up the Primrose League – founded to commemorate Disraeli’s vision of a One Nation Britain – in 2004? Ken Clarke was a member, as I recall.

you howl him down – as did the other three louts on the programme, and deny him even the right to say what he had to say.

It really is amazing how utterly impervious to evidence this “Boo hoo, lefties will not allow us to say the things which we do in fact regularly and forcefully say on prominent public platforms, including the nation’s best-selling newspapers, most popular political websites and on national television”.

Watch the piece again and you’ll notice that Starkey takes up as much airtime as the other three put together. What’s really amazing is that anyone even raises this Boo-Hoo stuff under a post called – and explicitly endorsing the idea of – “more David Starkey on TV”.

By force, in effect.

Or, not by any force, by any stretch of the imagination. I say, put Starkey on TV and let the public make up their minds on his argument about blackification leading to a culture of violence. They’re a savvy bunch, those of them who aren’t intentionally as twattish as possible about absolutely everything. Speaking of which…

read what the grown-ups are thinking about it, here…

Wow, your man Ed has massively toned down the content of Powell’s speech – taken out all the bits about the black man holding the whip-hand over the white man, and so on – so that it appears much, much less ridiculous. And yet, he’s still wrong – even if Powell was only suggesting that the UK would become like 60′s America, it’s not anything like that! Unless, of course, I missed all the forced bussing, police attacking peaceful protestors, church bombings, segregation, Klan rallies and so on.

I wonder why anyone would want to downplay the Rivers of Blood speech, by the way? What possible honest motivations could such a person have? Still, never mind – I’m sure it was an honest oversight. I mean, it’s still hilarious. Ed twists Ol’ Enoch’s words until they suit the most plausible-sounding theory he can possibly muster – and he still fucks it up by producing a feeble argument, even by the weak standard he sets himself! I suppose some were taken in.

So if by “grown-up” you mean “obviously wrong, even to amateurs, and intentionally misleading for highly dubious political purposes”, I suppose you’re right. It’s a very “grown-up” article indeed.

I wonder what Starkey would say if anyone talked about the culture of Tudor England with the same lack of knowledge as he has of modern England. If someone sat there and aired their views of the Tudor era which were derived from that telly series The Tudors and went on about how in Tudor England lots of people shagged loads and then got their heads chopped off. Why have Starkey on that programme except for the controversial factor? Owen does have relevant knowledge and so should have been there, but Starkey has no expertise on urban rioting in modern times. It’s the horrible talking known head culture. It’s the same media culture that puts someone who once gave a hand job to David Beckham on What the Papers Say. This is a serious subject – these piss artists shouldn’t be invited on to air their uninformed views.

Starkey had no problem when his great hero Henry 8th looted the monasteries, for his own selfish wants. In fact Starkey has no problem with the looting when it is done by the elites and Monarchs he so sucks up to.

True–I don’t remember him giving a single unfavourable TV interview while that was going on.

Folks,

This article and most of the comments are really depressing. It’s the closest thing to watching Alasdair Campbell’s battle with BBC / Andrew Gilligan, about exactly what was said at 6.50 on 29th June 2003.

This hoohaa about what David Starkey said on Newsnight is primarily about emphasis rather than substance and his mention of Powell. Yes, he was clumsier than if he was reading a typed script and he is a bit long winded, so the interruptions from the others made it even less likely that he would get his wording quite right.

Dreda Say Mitchell challenged him saying there is no such thing as a single black culture, there are many black cultures – but didn’t bother to ask him if he recognised this, was he talking about particular culture (the culture of Jamacan / US gansta rap) or did he think all black people were the same. As this is what he had been talking about – not the hundreds of thousand (millions?…..I don’t know the figures) of black people who aspire to get on an better their lives, go to work, go shopping, go clubbing, go to church, give their time up doing charity work – to me it was bloody self evident what he was talking about.

Considering Owen Williams has written a book on the flawed premise that chavs’ are working class – which is not necessarily the case – I would have expected him to seek clarification rather than act like he was talking to the devil incarnate.

Of Emily Maitlis – the less said the better.

For the previous 5 nights I had seen members of black communities being interviewed and quite happily to talk about the riots – many as self proclaimed authorities on the subject as if it was their subject……………. then as soon as David Starkey mentions his view that the problem resides with the fusion of blacks and whites…….all hell breaks loose.

Are we so brain dead that the name Enoch Powell can’t be mentioned without completely loosing the plot? It is my view that this is what has really sparked this controversy. David Starkey broke a taboo – mentioning Enoch Powell without condemnation – a privilege only enjoyed by his peers such as Denis Healy who describes enthusiastically Powell’s Commons speech about the Mau Mau in 1959.

10 years ago we all laughed and tacitly agreed with the scenario of Ali G parodying what David Starkey said on Friday. But Sacha Baron Cohen is a comic and not a little posh sounding gay intellectual who decries the ‘liberal/left consensus’.

Just think about it – most people commenting on this article are of the same view as Piers Morgan. Now if that wasn’t sufficient to make you pause and think again I don’t know what would be.

Yes, he was clumsier than if he was reading a typed script and he is a bit long winded, so the interruptions from the others made it even less likely that he would get his wording quite right.

Oh yes. The man gets paid to talk on television – he is, in fact, a professional communicator. Cast into the lions den that is a late-night, low-audience show on BBC2 with a fourteen-year-old lefty and a crime novellist and invited to speak first, we can all imagine how his decades of TV, public speaking and lecturing could desert him and leave him stumbling for words.

Or not. Poor, poor.

Not only is that RACIST comment still proudly displayed on your home page – “the whites have turned black”.I am white and am so ashamed that a so call educated man can make such a statement.

The BBC & Sky News have also failed to correct the un fair balance of reporting to inform the public of ANY court pictures ( the artist’s impressions of those accused)those who have been charged. So far it is clear that one of the assured in the killings of the 3 Asians lads is WHITE.

The man charged over the Reeves furniture building is also WHITE.

When the media FAILS to address the balance and withold information on purpose it MUST be for a reason. I think I now know why, shame on you the so called media. YOU CANNOT HIDE THE TRUTH

I find it a shame that the debates now ensuing following last week’s violence are so polarised politically with almost everyone it seems reverting to their own hymn sheets both left and right (honourable exception believe it or not being Peter Oborne). And this article I am afraid is just more of the same with unnecessary over the top language.

Examples from the article and Mr FR’s subsequent comments:

” … Britain’s sizeable ignorant reactionary demographic….” Is this intended to include everyone who was horrified by the violence and looting and who believe that the criminal behaviour should be punished? Does it include people who are willing to say that there is a morality issue in that there are young people out there who do not have or respect boundaries and will get away with what they can get because up to now they have been able to do so without any adverse consequences? If so, then your comments are misplaced as I see no reason why all those viewpoints cannot be acknowledged by the Left – before going on to consider issues such as inequalities in our society, the driven consumerism and the ruthless individualism that has flourished since the 80s.

Why are so many on the Left so afraid of saying something sensible just because it may be shared by readers of the Mail?

One almost feels that there were people last week hoping for more violence after Monday so as to do damage to the Government.

Whilst it may be the case that ‘rough justice’ is being handed down at the all night sitting courts, one also gets the feeling that a lot on the Left would rather none of the folk who committed criminal acts should go to prison at all or even be punished.

Your comment at @16 appears somewhat crazed and full of ad hominin attacks. Why is this necessary?

For what it’s worth I agree with the main point that someone like Dr Starsky should not be censored from our screens. However it is also right to point out that I believe he knew exactly what he was doing in that Newsnight interview – the fact he brought up Powell’s ‘River of Blood’ speech surely illustrates that. I also believe he is asked onto tv programmes just because he is so contraversial. His expertise as an historian is Tudor England and perhaps he should stick with that.’

You use the phrase “horrible personality flaws”. This is just plain ad hominin. I find Starsky’s views and the sneering way he puts them across ‘horrible’ but it is important to stick to attacking the views not the man.

And talking about not censoring those with apparent extremist views, do you recognise that there are those on the left who also fit into that category e.g Richard Seymour and Seamus Milne.

46. markmaguire

starkey is an old fashioned man with old fashioned views,he is a controveralist and he used wrong words the other night,however i read an article by tony sewell in the mail which he said that starkey had a point.

I think that in this ideological battle between the pure (the left) and the forces of darkness (the right), this is no time to be listening to the likes of Tony Sewell.
Even if what he’s been saying for the last ten or more years is actually worth listening to. It’s too close to what Cameron is saying. What Starkey said conveniently contaminates all that school of thinking. This was Sewell in the Mail:

What motivated the troublemakers was not genuine poverty but rather a raw acquisitiveness that is fuelled by so much in this black-led youth culture, from the imagery in rap videos to the lyrics of hip-hop music.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026053/David-Starkey-Gangsta-culture-poison-spreading-youths-races.html

That has to be ignored and discarded (for the time being at least) as it’s not politically expedient. It’s also a bit dishonest to do so I think, but I don’t see the wider picture and ”greater good” as well as some people.

Damon @60: “I think that in this ideological battle between the pure (the left) and the forces of darkness (the right)……

Is this being said with a straight face? If so then how depressing! Life is more complex than that. You cannot reasonably reduce the discussions and debates about our way of life, politics, society etc to a wizarding battle between Harry Potter and He Who Must Not Be Named!

To her credit, Deborah Orr has written a most sensible, considered article on ‘Comment is Free’ about the violence and how to deal with young folk.’

flyingrodent re comment 57:

I suppose that with all your vast experience of: Write, Read, Ponder, Erase and Rewrite from your anonymous ivory tower it leaves you unable to understand how David Starkey described one particular form of black culture but didn’t describe it as such.

If you don’t like the guy just say so don’t puff your chest out and get on top of the bandwagon shouting “racist, racist, nah nah nah nah naaaahhh nah”.

The guy couldn’t make himself understood to a class of slow witted teenage dimwits on ‘Jamie’s Dream School’, so you expect him to be word perfect despite interruption on Newsnight?

I have no doubt that Starkey is aware black British citizens come from diverse backgrounds and there is no such thing as a unified black culture. However it would be silly not to recognise that the West Indians who came to the UK from the 50′s onwards have become identified as black British earlier and more frequently than the people from Africa. So, given that he was talking about is the culture of around black gangsta rap music not Fela Kuti or Hugh Masekala it serves no one much good implying he is a simpleton or right wing nutcase.

Talking of nutters – how come none of you are complaining about the recent comments by the Mayor of Philladephia (Michael Nutter)?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/8/mayor-talks-tough-to-black-teens-after-flash-mobs/

Paul D

Is this being said with a straight face?

More of a heavy heart really. I had noted threads such as ”When is the right time to talk of the riot ‘root causes’?” Which seem to value political expediency over arguing the ins and outs of such issues openly.

I’ve been a bit of a Deborah Orr fan for a couple of years myself.

@63 I’m pretty sure any sort of forgiving ‘interpretation’ of Starkey’s argument went sailing out the window with his “if you heard him on the radio you would think he was white” line.

Cylux re comment 65:

Perhaps.

Starkey’s attempt at identifying what is respectable / conventional as sounding white was a bit strange. But for an OAP it’s not so much an issue of ‘white is right’ as white being their model of how power is structured in Great Britain and immigrants are often viewed as incomers who mould into society to succeed.

He was actually saying it as a compliment to David Lammy – he needs to get his ears checked out because he can’t hear the depth of tone in David Lammy’s voice from which it is obvious he isn’t a white guy – which was Dreda Say Mitchell’s point (yes I know not all black men sound like Jazzy B, Paul Robeson or Eddy Nester).

They need their own TV show. Something like, “I’m A Stupid Bigotted Bastard, Get Me Out Of Here”. And they can be encouraged to perform daring stunts, such as crawling through a tank of black widow spiders, swimming through a lake of molten steel, and riding a famished alligator bare back. Camera flash to Ant and Dec’s wee-stained trousers as they laugh themselves insensible. Oh I wish!

@ Paul D ” … Britain’s sizeable ignorant reactionary demographic….” Is this intended to include everyone who was horrified by the violence and looting and who believe that the criminal behaviour should be punished? etc. and so on

It’s directed at everyone who thinks they can pin the events of last week on their standard bugbear, be it single parents, benefit claimants or black people. I’m entirely happy to broaden that out to include “Everyone who thinks they can sum up the causes of the riots in a single sentence”, since the only people who could actually do that are either a) geniuses or b) morons.

I suppose that with all your vast experience of: Write, Read, Ponder, Erase and Rewrite from your anonymous ivory tower blah blah arse.

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Look Kojak, you don’t get throw kung-fu shapes and claim others are rewriting Starkey when you’re deliberately downplaying what he said and how it fits into the context in which he said it.

I don’t think anyone would deny that white kids regularly adopt aspects of black culture, as that’s been happening at least since Elvis. Noting that fact is one thing, as is having a good-natured laugh about it.

Offering it as an explanation for the worst mass riots and civil disturbance in decades is an entirely different matter, and doing so while intentionally invoking Enoch Powell’s speech about immigration inevitably leading to mass death and possible white submission to black people falls straight into the category “Trying to be as much of a prick about the issue as possible”.

And yet, if they relied only on you, an observer would imagine that Starkey made some trifling point about the effect of Jamaican inflection on English speech. I wonder how it might be that they might pick up such a misleading impression from you, eh?

He was actually saying (that David Lammy sounded white) as a compliment to David Lammy.

I wonder why anyone would take a well-educated white man saying that educated black people don’t sound black, but instead sound white, to be offensive.

Good God, what a fucking shambles these defences of Starkey are. I think the man’s a tit with some obvious and stupid prejudices, and have said so; I’ve also suggested he should be invited on TV more often, so the public can judge his wankerish attitudes for themselves. What’s the response from his defenders?

That Starkey is somehow being censored; That an experienced and capable broadcaster inexplicably lost his well-demonstrated powers of communication and said a rash of things that he did not mean to say, despite all evidence to the contrary; That if you utterly ignore everything DS had to say and instead pretend that he said something else entirely, it’s much reasonable; That if you pretend that Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech restricted itself to a few of its less ridiculous sections, it becomes miraculously accurate, and on and on in an unending parade of horseshit assertions that amount to Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?

It’s been a pitiful, pitiful performance, but who knows? Maybe a few more references to ivory towers or raving lefties, or even an extended whine about those awful liberal elitists, will sort it all out.

Honestly. Starkey goes on current affairs shows explicitly to be as much of a cunt about these things as he possibly can, but at least he has the guts to stand behind his positions and doesn’t attempt to weasel out of them later on.

It is without surprise that I learn that many black people share David Starkey’s sentiments, only HE shouldn’t have said it, because he’s the wrong colour:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-blame-poverty-and-gangs-but-its-really-about-cultures-2338237.html

Now what’s the name of that phenomenon whereby people of a certain race are allowed to do something, but people of another race arent? I think it ends in -ism, but I can’t remember the first bit.

It’s very simple. When Starkey said that “whites have become black”, he wasn’t referring to skin pigmentation, he was using “black” as a synonym for “violent, thieving, thug”. And when he said that David Lammy sounded white, he was simply using “white” as shorthand for “educated, intelligent, respectible”.

I can’t understand why people are trying to twist these innocent words into something racist.

Another message of mine deleted. The editors should be deeply ashamed

It is without surprise that I learn that many black people share David Starkey’s sentiments…

Are there lots of black people who agree that Enoch Powell was only partially wrong? Are there more who associate success with whiteness and criminality with blackness, regardless of skin colour, in the way that Starkey does? If there are, that link certainly doesn’t suggest that that’s the case.

[71] Starkers may be not be a credible commentator but threads of his argument are echoed elsewhere (and might be received in an entirely different way depending on skin colour).

In the article highlighted by Trofim, Bill Cosby launched an attack on “gangsta” culture and lingo: “It doesn’t want to speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk: ‘Why you ain’t where you is go ra?’ Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with ‘Why you ain’t…’ You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth”.

Even the likes of Duncan Smith recognise gang culture offers two important attractions to those youngsters who have lost their way in the education system, and in their personal life – a kind of psuedo-family, and career opportunity (crime).

Now to some extent some of the superficial trappings of this life choice are influenced by the American scene although it would be stretching it to claim the south side of the Bronx is a primary driver.

This may be why some are misguidedly trying to defend Starker’s heavy handed analysis, but either way the real problem is not a historian with a penchant for controversy, but the blighted lives of those youngsters who are snared into such a bleak form of existence.

And just to lighten the mood – another controversial Brit explores the mystique of US gang culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLN3RWfNMsg&feature=related

I agree that it is silly to suggest that Starkey didn’t mean what he said. One imagines that the words didn’t simply make their own way out of his mouth and up into the studio glare. Oops, there I go again, accidentally saying shit I didn’t mean to say! Ahem, no.

However, it is perfectly legitimate to use this opportunity to discuss the things that Starkey said, and, yes, even to reinterpret those things, as long as one is honest about it. Certainly, the OP does no less: Starkey did not say, unless I am very much mistaken, that their being black caused people to riot. That really would have had Jones, our prepubescent lefty superhero, in paroxysms of disdain. The issue is rather not that he said it, but that he was somehow trying to smuggle it into the debate without saying it—in other words, it’s entirely about how you interpret him.

I can’t help but think this comment by johng at lenin’s tomb might be relevant to what David Starkey is saying:

…You see there used to be a problem for PLU’s (people like us) with racism but now PLU’s are ok. These others though suffer from social problems and a consequent failure to avail themselves of the opportunities we have succeded in creating (for PLU). They are therefore an embarressment with their broken english, their backward customs, and their general failure to integrate. Its THEIR problem and certainly nothing to do with PLU. We have, don’t you know, MOVED ON. It is up to us PLU’s to bravely admit to the short comings of TRU’s (The rest of us’) and thus ensure that there is no confusion between us modern get ahead types and these ignoramus’s complacently rotting in their ghettos and blaming society for their own problems…
The PLU and TRU debate is quite big in India too. Especially around caste reservations and the like. Its amazing how, all around the world, people are bravely pronouncing on the shortcomings of the great unwashed and happily clapping themselves on the shoulders. Celebrate good times. For some anyway. oh and of course we share a problem in the ‘white working class’. almost as awful as the TRU’s. Lets get togeather and have a long conversation about what to do about these savages and how to avoid unrest.?…it is after all the brave thing to do. Especially for us foward looking types. Its a new world and all of that…

[77] “You see there used to be a problem for PLU’s (people like us) with racism but now PLU’s are ok” – I’m afraid this assertion falls at the very first hurdle.

I’m afraid that racism lurks in all of us – for example, we had black and asian communities squaring up to each other after three young asians were senselessly killed in Birmingham.

This latency is usually exposed in the ‘Implicit Association Test’ – take it if you dare
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/

@78 I think you missed the tone of what I posted, he’s being satirical, which would have become bleeding obvious had you bothered to reach the second paragraph.

[80] perhaps you missed my point?

It really doesn’t matter if you belong to PLU or the TRU group since all are racist , it’s just that some have slightly more sophisticated defense mechanisms (or an ability to delude themselves if you prefer) – at least that’s what the IAT tends to suggest.

I admit I do not fully understand the point(s) being made in the item you link to – can you simplify it?

@80 Replace PLU’s with whites and TRU’s with blacks and compare it with the ‘point’ Starkey was trying to make.
Then have a closer read of this bit:
“Its amazing how, all around the world, people are bravely pronouncing on the shortcomings of the great unwashed and happily clapping themselves on the shoulders. Celebrate good times. For some anyway. oh and of course we share a problem in the ‘white working class’. almost as awful as the TRU’s. Lets get together and have a long conversation about what to do about these savages and how to avoid unrest.”

A decent article about the ‘White to Black’ fuss is over at the Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100101050/starkey-racism-row-it-is-the-political-elites-ceaseless-denigration-of-white-working-class-culture-that-has-turned-kids-black/

[82] [82] at the heart of the article you link to it is asserted, “working-class institutions are either in a state of disarray (trade unions being the best example) or have been invaded by the intolerant nannies and nudgers of the prole-loathing elite: consider the public house, once a relatively free zone, now colonised by morality cops on the lookout for smoking, excessive boozing and anything with a whiff of rowdiness. Football games, post-work pints, EastEnd attitude, northern grit – hardly any aspect of white working-class culture has escaped being problematised by the snobs, therapists and health obsessives who govern modern Britain.
At the same time, immigrant cultures are more likely to be celebrated, as “vibrant” by the educational establishment and as “cool” by the trustafarian chattering classes who like nothing better than listening to Niggaz with Attitude on their outsized headphones. The movers and shakers of modern British society demonise white working-class culture while simultaneously slumming it with what they consider to be the “noble savages” of the immigrant community. In such a climate, is it really any wonder that white working-class kids are “turning black”?

In short the identity of one group (poor white boys) lacks status so this lack of status is ameliorated by representations that are emblematic of a certain sort of cool, or power, albeit a form of power expressed through violent and sometimes non-legal means.

[82] at the heart of the article you link to it is asserted, “working-class institutions are either in a state of disarray (trade unions being the best example) or have been invaded by the intolerant nannies and nudgers of the prole-loathing elite: consider the public house, once a relatively free zone, now colonised by morality cops on the lookout for smoking, excessive boozing and anything with a whiff of rowdiness. Football games, post-work pints, EastEnd attitude, northern grit – hardly any aspect of white working-class culture has escaped being problematised by the snobs, therapists and health obsessives who govern modern Britain.
At the same time, immigrant cultures are more likely to be celebrated, as “vibrant” by the educational establishment and as “cool” by the trustafarian chattering classes who like nothing better than listening to Niggaz with Attitude on their outsized headphones. The movers and shakers of modern British society demonise white working-class culture while simultaneously slumming it with what they consider to be the “noble savages” of the immigrant community. In such a climate, is it really any wonder that white working-class kids are “turning black”?

In short the identity of one group (poor white boys) lacks status so this lack of status is ameliorated by representations that are emblematic of a certain sort of cool, or power, albeit a form of power expressed through violent and sometimes non-legal means.

apologies for the doubling posting – mods please delete as appropriate

Kojak. Him linking to that Guardian article about Gwyneth Paltrow was funny in the context of what he was writing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/apr/14/gwynneth-paltrow-hip-hop-shock

Where she says ”Between my junior and senior year of high school I discovered Niggaz With Attitude, which became an obsession . . . I learned every word of Straight Outta Compton. I can’t remember what I had for dinner last night …….. but I can remember every lyric of Fuck Tha Police.”

But the point here on this thread is not to examine the phenomena that Starkey made such a mess of trying to describe – and Brendan O’Neill has already been branded a ”right winger” anyway – it’s to celebrate Starkey, as he has helped the left avoid the whole ”culture” part of the riots story and to just focus on the chosen causes like banker’s greed and poverty.

41. Jeremy Poynton

“What a large number of deeply unpleasant people frequent this blog.”

The good news is you can play your part in making it one less.