Starkey believes that young black people must choose between doing the right thing and their own identity and culture. That is wicked.
“Children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” – Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention
“That a substantial section of the chavs…have become black, the whites have become black, a particular sort of violent destructive nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion… this language which is wholly false which is a Jamacian patois which has been intruded in England… it’s not skin colour its cultural… listen to David Lammy, an achetypical successful black man, if you turned the screen off so you were listening to him on radio you’d think he was white.” – David Starkey, 12 August 2011 Newsnight
At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama alluded to a destructive phenonemon among America’s black communities: A small minority among those communities excusing lack of educational dedication and aspiration by terming such behavior as ‘acting white’.
I am no expert on American black culture, and Obama may have been attacking a straw man. But a brief glimpse of black culture on both sides of the Atlantic shows how the idea that the then congressman from Illinios was tackling, is pure rubbish.
In every generation, the black community in this country have produced figures, from across the political and cultural spectrum, whose words and deeds declare a clear message of bettering yourself through education and living up to your responsibilities, from Learie Constantine and C.L.R. James, to David Lammy, Diane Abbott and Shaun Bailey today.
What Starkey and those that Obama looked to take on do have in common, is that, according to their worldview, young black people must choose between doing the right thing and their own identity and culture. That doing something they may have pride in is ‘acting white’.
Such an outlook is historically and cultural ignorant. It may be not too far to suggest that it is wicked and has the capacity to be incredibly destructive. And anyone who espouses it should be ashamed of themselves. Starkey would do well to listen to the petitioners and apologise.
22 Responses to “What Starkey and those he claims to despise have in common”
Mister Jabberwock
Mr Sensible
You seem to be saying that for a historian to read the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech is a bad thing. Is that what you believe?
Anon E Mouse
Mr.Sensible – We know which part of Harriet Harman’s comments aren’t true – all of them.
To suggest that rioters were stealing training shoes and plasma TV’s because of future changes in tuition fees is beyond belief.
Surely even you can understand that the majority of those rioters can’t even read despite over a decade of education so future fee changes mean nothing to them.
Or do you believe Harman is right or just spouting her usual nonsense because it can’t be both. Well?
peezedtee
Mr Sensible
Listen to what Starkey actually said about Enoch Powell. He said that while Powell had been correct to prophecy social unrest, his reasons for doing so were completely wrong, i.e. the civil war between different racial communities that Powell predicted has by and large not happened. That seems a pretty reasonable summary of the situation to me. Starkey plainly does not belong to the “Enoch was right” faction, as you seem to be assuming.
Ian Townson
Moral panics about ‘yoof’ aren’t new. We could go back as far as the middle ages or the apprentice boy’s riots in Elizabethan England to the Gordon Riots, Mods and Rockers, skinheads, punks, race riots etc. Rioting and gang culture are as British as the Monarchy. David Starkey’s take on the current horror story is superficial and doesn’t get to the real problem of how to build social solidarity and community. Sure gangs do exist. Witness the sad and terrible black teenagers killing each other and the organised white gangs of drug dealers, extortionists, bank robbers etc. Blaming ‘Gangsta rap’ and black culture for the present looting and rioting is about as meaningful as asserting that the moon is made of cheese. Look at some problems:
1. Capitalism is amoral and the highest ‘value’ you are expected to aspire to is the consumerist ethic. That might be a problem.
2. Unemployment, low wages, low expectations, low-self esteem, poor education, destruction of working class communities and neighbourhood friendship networks – with all this going on why wouldn’t criminality rear its ugly head?
3. David Lammy didn’t get to where he was by trying to be as ‘white’ as possible. He got there because he was lucky enough to have a good education which enabled him to pursue his politicla career.
4. Heavy prison sentences and evicting people from their homes will not deal with the route causes. Will we see the riots again in 5 years time?
5. Yes, David Starkey should apologise for suggesting blacks should aspire to become as white as possible.
Jo
Ian, the riots grew considerably in frequency over the past several decades, and they are attaining an increasingly cultural aspect – which it would be untrue to say that ethnic minorities constitute the core of Britain’s poor.
Besides, you are too general in your explanations. Unemployment, low wages and so forth did not lead to similar riots among the Pakistani or Bangladeshi communities, or among white British. It is particularly the black community that played a prominent role. Here is summary of statistics on black participation in the riots: http://humstats.blogspot.com/2011/08/uk-riots-ethnicity-statistics.html
It is true that the black community feels disenfranchised, but it is also by far the most aggressive against the establishment in comparison to other communities.