in re Starkey: I hate to say, "I told you so" but I will

[a_d_medievalist]

I didn't sign the David Starkey letter published in the THE. I was part of the group, and even wrote up bits that I think were used. But in the end, I didn't sign because I didn't think that people had a clear enough idea of what they were protesting, and they weren't expressing it clearly enough. I think Starkey's a prat, and I think that some of

Comments

[ancarett]

Starkey's expertise in the early Tudor period didn't touch on riots at all. He was all about the royal household and governance thereof. Then he parlayed that into talking about the royals. Then into a presumed knowledge of all of English history.

As you say, the BBC ought to be ashamed of itself but it clearly isn't. There are dozens of qualified historians they could turn to who're even dynamic speakers. Instead, they keep trotting out this sell-out who's only interested in making more pots of money by making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.

He's so far off on Tudor history these days, it's not funny. You heard me rant about how idiotic his pronouncements were about Henry VIII. (All of his problems were because he was mostly raised by his mother and grandmother and those awful wimmenz STIFLED him so!)

I saw the letter and have to agree with you that it's sadly muddled and won't do any good.

[a_d_medievalist]

Worse, it's pulling negative comments from other academics who seem to think that the point was to stifle Starkey's right to free speech and/or to take away his historian's licence.

[murasaki_1966]

Historians have licenses?

[timill]

Dramatic ones...

[gillpolack]

There are letters I have not signed for similar reasons. Protesting and challenging and pointing things out is not enough - it has to be done in a way that will actually make a difference. Explaining the basic problem is the key first step in that.

[a_d_medievalist]

Yeah. I thought calling Starkey on his racist comments was fine, but that's separate from his qualifications.

I thought saying that Starkey had an ethical obligation to point out that he was speaking beyond his expertise would be ok, too.

I really thought it could have been a clearer letter, though, and was disappointed it wasn't. I think academics sometimes forget when they are not writing just to their peers. I know academics are like anybody else in that it's hard to separate out the different reasons they think someone is an embarrassment to the profession. I'm not sure anyone ever said it, but I think there might have been a bit of, "OMG, please, people -- don't believe that Starkey is representative of all stodgy white academics who study pre-modern stuff!!"