David Starkey is (or it's probably better to saw "was") the prominent historian for Channel 4 Television in the UK. He rightly criticized the popular and entertaining, yet factually incorrect version of "The Tudors" which is shown here on the BBC which changes the corpulant Henry Tudor into some sort of buff 90210 type (think ABC's "The Kennedys" on incredibly powerful steroids).
He's more than a bit pompus but hey, he's an upper middle class historian who is the best in his field, he knows his subject and speaks well on it. I used to enjoy watching him. Last week on BBC's Newsnight he killed his UK tv career with a few statements.
I never actually watched the Newsnight programme at the time (friend's 40th birthday celebrations) but a friend emailed me with the headline "You have GOT to see this!!". I would like to say l reacted calmly but that would be a lie. I mainly said (well, shouted) "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!" Enouth times for my neighbour to knock on my door and ask if everything was okay.
The inital shock of his statement "the whites have become black" actually distracts you from the two other main statements which are actually far worse. First he states that the "Rivers Of Blood" speech by Enoch Powell in 1968 had been proved right, a speech long lauded by extreme right wingers and widly quoted by the BNP. The second was the fact that if you closed your eyes and listened to David Lammy the black Member of Parliamant for the borough of Tottenham he "sounded white, not black".
Powell's speech, which was widely supported by some in the early days when it was given is seen as one of the defining moments in race relations in Britain. Decent people do not use it as a benchmark when trying to make a point, it's like a mini Godwin's Law actually and you usually know whe nthe arguement is lost when someone makes it. To have someone like Starkey (who l thought had more sense) make it is both disheartening and frustrating in the extreme. One of the other panelists that night was an author named Owen Jones who wrote a piece for the New Statesman titled "It was like Enoch Powell meets Alan Partridge" (if you have never seen it Alan Partridge is a comedic fictional character played by Steve Coogan known for his pomposity and ability to put his foot in his mouth time and time again). Jones is pretty blunt in his condemantion of Starkey's comments:
His championing of Powell was eclipsed by his subsequent comments. In offering an explanation for last week's violence, Starkey claimed that "the problem is that the whites have become black". His theory was that white kids had become infected by black culture, and this had led them to violence and disorder. A prominent black politician like David Lammy, on the other hand, sounded "white". For Starkey, being white meant being "respectable"; being black meant "violence".
There is strong competition for the lowest point of Starkey's rant -- but when he embarked on an impression of a "patwa" accent, I could barely believe what I was watching. It was Enoch Powell meets Alan Partridge.
Some would argue that it's not worth even engaging with such apparent bigotry, but -- uncomfortable as it may make many of us -- his arguments will have resonated with many. We have to take them on.
On a personal note, as a black man now just entering his fourties l have to say that David Lammy is more than a bit of a dick. Unlike the man who was there before him, Bernie Grant, Lammy is a syncophantic Blairite who supported the invasion of Iraq, disagrees with the dismantling of Guantanamo and was a sternographer of every talking point for the war you could think of. And this from a Human Rights lawyer!! There are shellfish out there who criticize Lammy for a lack of backbone. But back to Jones:
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation completed an extensive study into gangs: I doubt Starkey has read it. It found that there was a strong link between "territorial behaviour" and poorer communities. Gangs could provide some young people with fun, excitement and support they otherwise lacked. It "appeared for some to be a product of deprivation, a lack of opportunities and attractive activities, limited aspirations and an expression of identity", as well as a "coping mechanism" for those living in poverty.
It's nothing to do with ethnicity, in other words. It's to do with poverty.
As for riots -- well, Starkey has found an all-too-convenient way of blaming black people for riots that involved people from a whole range of ethnic backgrounds. Even if the looters weren't black, they had somehow "become" black.
And that is a major problem. On so many sites l have seen comments regarding the ethnicity of those involved and l would point out that the CCTV stills being shown of looters in Manchester in particular showed mainly white faces. I would ask some of those commenting if they knew they had problems with their PC monitors or their televisions as their brightness controls must not be working. It was the only explanation l could find for why all those caucasian faces they had on their screens could be mistaken for black ones.
Jones's final point is very important:
Now that peace has returned to our communities, we have time to think through these explanations. But my fear is that -- with an understandable backlash underway -- Starkey's comments could prove to be a disastrous turning point. He has put race at the top of the agenda when millions are scared and angry. As some took to the streets in support of Enoch Powell's "river of blood", there will be whispers across the country "that Starkey has a point".
I did my best to challenge David Starkey in the studio -- difficult though that was. At a time of backlash and economic insecurity, we all need to be taking these arguments on in our communities. If we fail, last week's riots could be a dark foreshadow of far worse to come.
Starkey has defended his comments saying "What I said was not racist. I said skin colour was absolutely nothing to do with it, but that the glamourisation of gangster culture is monstrous and evil."
This is a lie. What he said was BLACK CULTURE. If he was only talking about gang culture then it may, just may, have been something to explore but he demonized an entire culture which has created and influenced more music artists in the UK and US over the last 20 years than any other, he works for a channel which THIS MONTH is doing a series of programmes about Urban CultureUrban Culture and he works with probably the most diverse group of people in television!! I have always wondered if those academically gifted have any common sense. Starkey is moving me more and more to the answer "NO".
On the viewpoint of speech it's a little different. Starkey's viewpoint has been expressed before, most notably in my view by Chris Rock when talking about Colin Powell's electability (the same has sadly been said about President Obama). Watching the piece with Starkey again l was reminded of a sketch by a black British comedian called Felix Dexter on the tv show The Real McCoy. I have a feeling that his interaction with black people mainly happened with people like Douglas the "Roots and Culture" lawyer not people from housing estates in Peckham or Wandsworth.
As a salesman l have seen this myself. To be honest, as a salesman l have used different ways of speaking to relate to different customers but that is to be expected. When demonstrating a hifi its unlikely that l will use Digital Underground's "Humpty Dance" for a middle-aged white lady from South Kensington (apart from hilarious the time last year when a white DJ's mum insisted on playing her son's Funky House mix as she was used to him blaring it out around the house. I had great fun piously explaining to my boss that the music had nothing to do with me and that the customer insisted on hearing the 360 watt per channel system at maximum volume).
Others have pointed to Sasha Baron Cohen's "Ali G" parodies, but the point of Ali G was his parody of those trying (and failing) to be "hip" by joining in the obviously fake "gangsta" who was interviewing them. The fact that they were tryinb to intergrate with him was the joke which they really didn't get.
Starkey's speach comments were purely and simply ignorant. The only problem is, tied to his "whites are becoming black" comment (which has had the odious Nick Griffin of the BNP offer to give him their Gold Award) it links to a racial undertone, a way for those who have rightly been criticized in society to say "well if someone as well regarded as Starkey can say it, so can l". The main problem as getting this away from the scum like the BNP, UKIP and the EDL.
Channel Four have not stated that they will get rid of Starkey. They have simply said that "there are no current plans for programing with him". It deflects things for now but if a barrel-scraping pit-stain like Piers Morgan can see your career's in trouble you may have a case for worry.