Having watched David Starkey’s appearance on Newsnight, I’m not at all surprised that people have reacted with outrage… as they seemingly do in response to everything these days. Rather than carefully considering his comments and ensuring that they’ve accurately interpreted the point he was making, they’ve heard the words “black” and “white” and cried “racism”.
While I concede that Starkey didn’t articulate his argument well – mostly his own fault, but partly the fault of the others for interrupting him – I feel that it was perfectly discernible (though still not necessarily correct) given a little thought. His argument was that there is a particular black subculture which some white people have now adopted, and that the values of this subculture might have played a role in the recent riots. Perhaps I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I really did not perceive that he was arguing that there is a unitary “black culture” to which all black people belong and that this culture is violent.
His argument (at least as I have perceived it) is not a racist one. A racist argument would be that black people inherently have a greater propensity to commit violent crime. He did not make such an argument, or anything like it. The view that most black people are decent, non-violent, and law-abiding is perfectly compatible with his view that there is a particular subculture (which is traditionally black, but to which most black people do not belong) that has destructive values.
Aside from twisting some of his words to portray them as racist, some people have ignored his other comments on the programme which showed that he wasn’t making an argument from race at all. For example, he said “it’s not skin colour, it’s cultural”. He also said that Enoch Powell was “completely wrong” about inter-communal violence, which is the opposite view to the BNP who have been portraying the recent riots as “race riots”.
It is quite sad to see people calling for the end to someone’s career and livelihood on the basis of a misinterpretation. People like Owen Jones (who was on the show too) seem concerned that Starkey has “opened a floodgate of racism”, but if others misperceive his argument to be about race, then they are merely making the same mistake as Jones himself.
The real question people should be asking is whether Starkey was right to implicate the particular subculture he was referring to as having an important role in the recent riots.
Amazingly articulated, you should be a journalist; as a 20 something Caribbean law student living in London, I take my hat of to you. Reading the telegraph I became enthralled in this race argument, your use of the word sub-culture was particularly inspiring as you got the whole picture. Thank you Mark.
ReplyDeleteIts quite easy for someone (Starkey) to clean up their argument when they realize how they sound and that they are on international television. But by the time he began to intelligently tone down the racism towards the end of the interview, he had already given himself away and there's no denying it Mark. You can defend him all you want but you end up sounding a bit racist too because some of his comments esp the one about Lammy were just plain racist.
ReplyDeleteYou think it didn't occur to Starkey that airing a genuinely racist view on TV wouldn't sound bad? Sorry, but I do feel that you're keen to perceive racism where it doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of racism is this:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
As I've shown, Starkey at least doesn't believe the first part. If David Lammy (a black man) can only be identified as black by sight and white people can adopt a traditionally black subculture, then clearly Starkey doesn't believe that there exist inherent biological differences between races which determine cultural or individual achievement.
The problem is that you're not using the word "racism" as it is defined. Maybe you could attach some other word to his views ('cultural chauvinism'?) or maybe just call him a 'nasty man' or something?
According to Oxford racism can be defined as
ReplyDelete1)the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. This is similar to your definition. Somewhat archaic, I'd say. Who really thinks like this anymore (consciously at least), especially concerning the inherent biological differences? It takes a certain amount of plain ignorance that's hard to find in people who don't live under a rock these days.
2)prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person(s) of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior:
Though not a perfect definition this gets closer to the racism we are dealing with in the 21st century. Overt racism might have declined, or gone into hiding over the years but the motivations that underlie racism still exist and show up in many people on occasion, prime example being Starkey.
Another definition, describing a less overt form of racism, which is still racism to me until I've found that anthropologists coined a new word for it: inherent but sometimes unconscious discrimination, negative feelings, beliefs or value judgements towards person(s) because they are of another race, coexistent with the denial of any personal racial prejudice.
We could continue to define this thing but I'm tired of this debate with you. I still think Starkey made some racist and offensive comments. To me its not a question of whether or not he is racist but just how racist, on a scale of overt to aversive.