Sparking Outrage
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Jolly said in Sparking Outrage:
Don't care about his history.
What about what he said?
It was a bit stupid. The British left had a real problem with anti-semitism, but the current centrist leadership are working to get rid of it. David Starkey is very good at grabbing headlines.
And you should care about his history. He's a historian, after all. If people repeatedly say rather stupid things about race, then when they say something about race, the expectation ought to be that it's going to be rather stupid.
A couple of weeks ago he said that the British Prime Minister is not 'Grounded in our culture' and wasn't interested in the Coronation for that reason. Christ knows what he'd think if he heard what my family thought about the bloody thing.
Considering that socially acceptable race ideas are the greatest nexus of stupidity in the western world, it is easy to conflate socially unacceptable reason with stupidity.
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Jolly said in Sparking Outrage:
Don't care about his history.
What about what he said?
It was a bit stupid. The British left had a real problem with anti-semitism, but the current centrist leadership are working to get rid of it. David Starkey is very good at grabbing headlines.
And you should care about his history. He's a historian, after all. If people repeatedly say rather stupid things about race, then when they say something about race, the expectation ought to be that it's going to be rather stupid.
A couple of weeks ago he said that the British Prime Minister is not 'Grounded in our culture' and wasn't interested in the Coronation for that reason. Christ knows what he'd think if he heard what my family thought about the bloody thing.
Considering that socially acceptable race ideas are the greatest nexus of stupidity in the western world, it is easy to conflate socially unacceptable reason with stupidity.
So you think what he said about the British born Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, is particularly profound? You think referring to 'damn blacks' is an intelligent way to speak?
Admittedly, maybe stupid was the wrong word. Maybe racist would have been better.
-
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Jolly said in Sparking Outrage:
Don't care about his history.
What about what he said?
It was a bit stupid. The British left had a real problem with anti-semitism, but the current centrist leadership are working to get rid of it. David Starkey is very good at grabbing headlines.
And you should care about his history. He's a historian, after all. If people repeatedly say rather stupid things about race, then when they say something about race, the expectation ought to be that it's going to be rather stupid.
A couple of weeks ago he said that the British Prime Minister is not 'Grounded in our culture' and wasn't interested in the Coronation for that reason. Christ knows what he'd think if he heard what my family thought about the bloody thing.
Considering that socially acceptable race ideas are the greatest nexus of stupidity in the western world, it is easy to conflate socially unacceptable reason with stupidity.
So you think what he said about the British born Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, is particularly profound? You think referring to 'damn blacks' is an intelligent way to speak?
Admittedly, maybe stupid was the wrong word. Maybe racist would have been better.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Jolly said in Sparking Outrage:
Don't care about his history.
What about what he said?
It was a bit stupid. The British left had a real problem with anti-semitism, but the current centrist leadership are working to get rid of it. David Starkey is very good at grabbing headlines.
And you should care about his history. He's a historian, after all. If people repeatedly say rather stupid things about race, then when they say something about race, the expectation ought to be that it's going to be rather stupid.
A couple of weeks ago he said that the British Prime Minister is not 'Grounded in our culture' and wasn't interested in the Coronation for that reason. Christ knows what he'd think if he heard what my family thought about the bloody thing.
Considering that socially acceptable race ideas are the greatest nexus of stupidity in the western world, it is easy to conflate socially unacceptable reason with stupidity.
So you think what he said about the British born Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, is particularly profound? You think referring to 'damn blacks' is an intelligent way to speak?
Admittedly, maybe stupid was the wrong word. Maybe racist would have been better.
Well if you put it that way, let me get out my fainting couch.
Of course racism is baked into the socially acceptable ideas you absorb and parrot. I’m sure this guy has said some stupid things. He appears to be proud and protective of his culture. That should be a generally acceptable thing, but of course it’s not.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Jolly said in Sparking Outrage:
Don't care about his history.
What about what he said?
It was a bit stupid. The British left had a real problem with anti-semitism, but the current centrist leadership are working to get rid of it. David Starkey is very good at grabbing headlines.
And you should care about his history. He's a historian, after all. If people repeatedly say rather stupid things about race, then when they say something about race, the expectation ought to be that it's going to be rather stupid.
A couple of weeks ago he said that the British Prime Minister is not 'Grounded in our culture' and wasn't interested in the Coronation for that reason. Christ knows what he'd think if he heard what my family thought about the bloody thing.
Considering that socially acceptable race ideas are the greatest nexus of stupidity in the western world, it is easy to conflate socially unacceptable reason with stupidity.
So you think what he said about the British born Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, is particularly profound? You think referring to 'damn blacks' is an intelligent way to speak?
Admittedly, maybe stupid was the wrong word. Maybe racist would have been better.
Well if you put it that way, let me get out my fainting couch.
Of course racism is baked into the socially acceptable ideas you absorb and parrot. I’m sure this guy has said some stupid things. He appears to be proud and protective of his culture. That should be a generally acceptable thing, but of course it’s not.
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
Of course racism is baked into the socially acceptable ideas you absorb and parrot.
Go fuck yourself.
Happy now?
-
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
Of course racism is baked into the socially acceptable ideas you absorb and parrot.
Go fuck yourself.
Happy now?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
Of course racism is baked into the socially acceptable ideas you absorb and parrot.
Go fuck yourself.
Happy now?
Wasn’t personal. Just a claim that the whole socially acceptable race narrative is deeply racist. It’s something most people absorb and parrot.
Education is extremely important.
-
I personally do not believe Starkey’s point that slavery is not genocide is in any way racist.
Genocide is a legal term to describe crimes against humanity that would ultimately lead to the physical annihilation of a specific race, ethnic group, class or adherents to a religious creed. As such it is specific actions that must be proven in a court of law to meet the criteria that define the crime of genocide.
It is not a label that can defined or levied by an executive decree, legislature, interest group or lobby. While slavery is arguably a crime against humanity on a number of criminal and moral grounds, it has yet to be brought forward as genocide before the international courts.
Starkey is perhaps tactless but not demonstrably racist.
Elbows up!
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Sparking Outrage:
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
Of course racism is baked into the socially acceptable ideas you absorb and parrot.
Go fuck yourself.
Happy now?
Wasn’t personal. Just a claim that the whole socially acceptable race narrative is deeply racist. It’s something most people absorb and parrot.
@Horace said in Sparking Outrage:
Wasn’t personal. Just a claim that the whole socially acceptable race narrative is deeply racist. It’s something most people absorb and parrot.
Essentially saying that Rishi Sunak isn't really British sounds pretty racist to me. Referring to 'damn blacks' sounds pretty racist to me.
You can try and turn this around so that I'm the one at fault, but it's not me that's the problem here.
I'll grant you. maybe he's not racist, and just completely tactless and obnoxious. I don't see how that's ok. Trump supporters may view that differently, I guess, but I'd say that tactless and obnoxious are not good things.
Which is a shame, as I said, I liked his stuff on the Tudors.
-
Movements like critical race theory and Black Lives Matter are not what they pretend to be
They are attempts at destroying the entire legitimacy of the Western political and cultural tradition
The idea that they are there to defend black lives is a preposterous notion.
They do not care about black lives, they only care about the symbolic destruction of white culture. We have to be absolutely clear about this.
Now get out your pencil and write this down: He's right.
At least to a certain degree. CRT and BLM are both aimed at destroying the common belief in the American myth and consequently the superiority of Western Culture. They have to do that, in order to create a new ethos and propagate a new myth, one of ascendent victimhood, where a segment of society leaves behind its chains of slavery, servitude, Jim Crow and second class citizen to become the superior race.
That's not on me, that's on them. They have absolutely no goal of equality. That's too paltry and powerless.
Dr. King would be appalled. The only way to achieve progress and piece is through equality. After that, apply the American Dream liberally and get the hell out of people's way. We even knew that right after the Civil War.
Consider what Douglas had to say, about what to do with the Negro...
The truth was, there was only one way of disposing of the question, and that was to admit the negro to full equality in political and civil rights. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not mean to insist on what is called "social equality;" he did not know -- in fact, he much doubted -- if there were such a thing; certainly it had never been developed to his knowledge in history. If it were possible, he did not know but the negro would have as much to dread from it as he white man. Thus far, in the history of this country, the negro had groped about among us un seen -- killed by Slavery in the South, smothered by prejudice in the North; but he was still a man, with aspirations, feelings, courage, hopes, fears. He was not an animal. The laws enacted about him showed that.
-
Movements like critical race theory and Black Lives Matter are not what they pretend to be
They are attempts at destroying the entire legitimacy of the Western political and cultural tradition
The idea that they are there to defend black lives is a preposterous notion.
They do not care about black lives, they only care about the symbolic destruction of white culture. We have to be absolutely clear about this.
Now get out your pencil and write this down: He's right.
At least to a certain degree. CRT and BLM are both aimed at destroying the common belief in the American myth and consequently the superiority of Western Culture. They have to do that, in order to create a new ethos and propagate a new myth, one of ascendent victimhood, where a segment of society leaves behind its chains of slavery, servitude, Jim Crow and second class citizen to become the superior race.
That's not on me, that's on them. They have absolutely no goal of equality. That's too paltry and powerless.
Dr. King would be appalled. The only way to achieve progress and piece is through equality. After that, apply the American Dream liberally and get the hell out of people's way. We even knew that right after the Civil War.
Consider what Douglas had to say, about what to do with the Negro...
The truth was, there was only one way of disposing of the question, and that was to admit the negro to full equality in political and civil rights. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not mean to insist on what is called "social equality;" he did not know -- in fact, he much doubted -- if there were such a thing; certainly it had never been developed to his knowledge in history. If it were possible, he did not know but the negro would have as much to dread from it as he white man. Thus far, in the history of this country, the negro had groped about among us un seen -- killed by Slavery in the South, smothered by prejudice in the North; but he was still a man, with aspirations, feelings, courage, hopes, fears. He was not an animal. The laws enacted about him showed that.
@Jolly said in Sparking Outrage:
Movements like critical race theory and Black Lives Matter are not what they pretend to be
They are attempts at destroying the entire legitimacy of the Western political and cultural tradition
The idea that they are there to defend black lives is a preposterous notion.
They do not care about black lives, they only care about the symbolic destruction of white culture. We have to be absolutely clear about this.
Now get out your pencil and write this down: He's right.
At least to a certain degree. CRT and BLM are both aimed at destroying the common belief in the American myth and consequently the superiority of Western Culture. They have to do that, in order to create a new ethos and propagate a new myth, one of ascendent victimhood, where a segment of society leaves behind its chains of slavery, servitude, Jim Crow and second class citizen to become the superior race.
That's not on me, that's on them. They have absolutely no goal of equality. That's too paltry and powerless.
Dr. King would be appalled. The only way to achieve progress and piece is through equality. After that, apply the American Dream liberally and get the hell out of people's way. We even knew that right after the Civil War.
Consider what Douglas had to say, about what to do with the Negro...
The truth was, there was only one way of disposing of the question, and that was to admit the negro to full equality in political and civil rights. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not mean to insist on what is called "social equality;" he did not know -- in fact, he much doubted -- if there were such a thing; certainly it had never been developed to his knowledge in history. If it were possible, he did not know but the negro would have as much to dread from it as he white man. Thus far, in the history of this country, the negro had groped about among us un seen -- killed by Slavery in the South, smothered by prejudice in the North; but he was still a man, with aspirations, feelings, courage, hopes, fears. He was not an animal. The laws enacted about him showed that.
I really think the way forward is to start making distinctions between the virtues of these movements, which most are completely on board with, and the organizations (or "communities" or whatever the hell they are) who use these virtues as a punchline when justifying their demonizations and deconstructions.
-
I don’t see much to salvage in Critical Race Theory or for that matter it’s progenitor, Critical Legal Theory.
I wonder if MLK ever commented on critical legal theory. CRT came after he was killed, but i wonder if he knew Derrick Bell and some of the others.
-
I personally do not believe Starkey’s point that slavery is not genocide is in any way racist.
Genocide is a legal term to describe crimes against humanity that would ultimately lead to the physical annihilation of a specific race, ethnic group, class or adherents to a religious creed. As such it is specific actions that must be proven in a court of law to meet the criteria that define the crime of genocide.
It is not a label that can defined or levied by an executive decree, legislature, interest group or lobby. While slavery is arguably a crime against humanity on a number of criminal and moral grounds, it has yet to be brought forward as genocide before the international courts.
Starkey is perhaps tactless but not demonstrably racist.
@Renauda said in Sparking Outrage:
I personally do not believe Starkey’s point that slavery is not genocide is in any way racist.
Genocide is a legal term to describe crimes against humanity that would ultimately lead to the physical annihilation of a specific race, ethnic group, class or adherents to a religious creed. As such it is specific actions that must be proven in a court of law to meet the criteria that define the crime of genocide.
It is not a label that can defined or levied by an executive decree, legislature, interest group or lobby. While slavery is arguably a crime against humanity on a number of criminal and moral grounds, it has yet to be brought forward as genocide before the international courts.
Starkey is perhaps tactless but not demonstrably racist.
Agreed. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So it is with anything to do with race these days.
If we cannot speak openly and sincerely, we can never get past this. That may be the end goal.
