I understand it is unpopular to sympathize with Dr. Starkey, but I must say that I can understand where he is coming from. It is not racist of him to say that there is a segment of black culture that glorifies violence and rebellion. It is a main theme in rap music. What I am noticing is that there is a good number of people jumping on this story eager to be the white knight for anti-racism. God forbid that we draw connection between rap and crime(/sarcasm). It seems like the people interviewing him just wanted some cheap points by criticizing him for not perfectly wording his responses. He spoke plainly and should be respected for that. It is a shame that everything is so focused on being politically correct. I watched that interview and I began to feel the man's frustration with the interviewers being narrow-minded jerks. They think they are fighting for a great cause by forcing the man to recant politically incorrect sayings. What they fail to realize is that they undermine themselves by focusing purely on semantics rather than on the substance of his argument. While I agree it is not healthy to validate the beliefs that black people are synonymous with crime, it is also important for us to not get stuck in the political correctness tar. Just because people criticize rap does not make them racists.

Well, the very fact that he's allowed on air to express his opinion is an indicator of what the rest of the climate is. It's not one person who says offensive things, it never is. This man would never have been given air time if there wasn't a racist wind blowing through Europe and if the fuckin' BBC hadn't given airtime to politicians and experts who seriously explained therioted as  being due to "spoiled kids", this sort of explantation hadn't been as acceptable to take this extra step and blame it on ethincity.

Geoffrey Pullum wrote a post on Language Log specifically to address the ignorant and racist comments Starkey made about Jamaican Patois:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3365

It's a good post. 

Wow...  when I went on the BBC looking for news about the riots, this showed up, and I thought it was going to be an argument along the lines of Vallières' "Nègres blancs d'Amérique' about capitalist exploitation.. and as I began watching realized that it was just a simple racist and xenophobic rant.  How disappointing.

He's gay?

Not sure about your use of 'markets' for a BBC clip, it being a publicly funded national broadcaster. I'm more concerned about the BBC's role in supporting the agendas of those with power, and promoting inflammatory debates under the guise of informing the public is shady, and typical of them in recent years. It certainly distracts quite effectively from the real issues of the day.

Here's a quote from Geoffrey Pullum's post:"I hope it is clear that I do not dismiss the influence of gangster culture at all. But in this modern world it is increasingly crucial, as Franz Boas was warning us a hundred years ago, to distinguish between race, language, and culture, and we seem to be doing extremely badly at it."
 
-snip-
I agree and I also think it's important to distinguish between hip-hop music in total and gangsta rap- the portion of hip-hop music that White record companies support and foster on the public (with more White buyers than Black).

All forms of hip-hop music aren't violent, misogynistic, and homophobic, but most hip-hop that gets the backing of record labels can be described by those terms. I wonder why those examples of hip-hop get all the play and other forms don't.

The concept of a "just war" is, and always has been, an oxymoron.

Often when my attention is drawn to anything about race on Sociological Images it is usually because i feel as though the analysis misses the boat completely. Starkey's comments about black pathology and black Caribbean pathology are but one iteration of longstanding anti-black racism in Britain.   Even before Starkey's comments police
harassment of black children and the kind of policing black communities were
subjected to, suggested that there was an understanding of violence as inherent
to blackness. The Guardian reported on Afro-Caribbean youth with no mention
that these are in fact British-born citizens.  What seems certain is that the riots and
racist analyses of the riots will lead to greater acceptance of more
conservative policies. There is a lot more at stake above and beyond whatever market might exist for racist rhetoric.

It may be just me but as a Black person it rubs me the wrong way when White people describe themselves as "committed anti-racists" and then go on to describe how they feel when they encounter something racist and how many of the people targeted by that racist act or words probably feel worse.

For the record, when a known racist person says or acts true to form, I'm not surprised and I'm not personally emotionally pained. This doesn't discount my awareness that  that racist act/s or word/s may have long term influences on me and other People of Color.

But in contrast, I do experience emotional pain when people (regardless of race/ethnicity) who I expect/ed to not act racist, surprise me and act and say something that is prejudiced or racist. At the least I'm disappointed in them, and also my feelings are hurt because I had come to respect them and thought that they also respected me (as a person and as a Black person -that's one in the same and also different.)

Every grouping of humans you can find has some aspect of violence present, including in the music produced. Heavy metal, a primarily "white" music form, is full of it, including statements about raping mothers, killing babies, killing cops, destroying property, killing innocents, etc. There are country songs that invoke violence and murder. There are pop songs worldwide that showcase titillating and taboo subjects and imagery because humans are both repelled and attracted to it, which means it sells. At the very least it expresses frustrations and anger in a way that many of those listeners don't feel capable of expressing themselves in an acceptable way. Does it help push some people toward violent behavior? Of course. But the Puritans forbade everything but church hymns and still managed to bring incredible violence and brutality to their fellow human beings. Trying to claim that a culture is defined by its violent music makes less sense than saying that, because we're all human, we all have the potential for violent urges and it comes out in formats relevant to our situations, societies, and familiar manners of expressing ourselves.

I take issue with the sermonizing tone of this post.

I'm disappointed with this post. You don't pick apart (or even mention!!!) the working class part of Starkey's statement. You do know what chavs are, do you?

I'm really impressed with the way the others spoke up about the huge generilizations this guy was making. I especially liked how Dreda explained that the us and them culture needs to end. Because this is exactlythe problem. To call rap music, violence, ebonics, loose clothing and hypermasculinity black culture is not only an offensive generilization, but extreamly limits a person by their skin color and perpetuates more harm them anything.
Picture an African American child in the public school system and lets have enough trust in it to say ze learns textbook english there and proper grammar there and ze makes an effort to speak that way because the school says that this is the right way to speak. Ze talks the way the school taught him at home and with friends and in the community. Maybe the parents support this, maybe they don't or maybe they're  completely indifferent, parents come in all types, but eventually someone says to him, "You're black, why are you talking white?" and suddenly color is brought into this. Ze thought he was just talking the way  ze was supposed to, now ze feels ze has to pick sides. One will tell ze that ze should keep speaking, "White" because it will help him later looking for jobs, or ze will get more respect from teachers for doing so. Others, most likely from the community ze lives in and that he feels close to, will ostrasize him for acting white, as they call it.  Ze now feels that the old way of talking is a betryal to his race, or maybe he is feeling crushed by the constant portrayal of people with dark skin color in television, movies and even books talking with ebonics. It's no longer about the education ze recieves or even the personal choice to talk a certain way, it's a social pressure to conform to a certain stereotype in order to belong. Ze technically has a choice, but what kind of choice is it? Ze is going to be stereotyped and rejected from a certain group no matter what choice ze makes and both choices will bring some regret. Could we really blame Ze if ze would rather feel a sense of belonging to a culture everyone tells him exist and ze is a part of, rather then a school system that will probably work against him anyway? Could we blame ze if ze chose to reject the percieved culture ze is supposed to belong to and strived for another percieved culture in hopes of gaining more possibilities?

I'm not really sure what my point is anymore, but labeling things an black culture and white culture only hurt.
 

In their desire to seem as unbiased as possible, BBC often let controversial figures on the air or get quotes in newspapers.  See: random anti-gay person quote in any article on gay marriage, letting BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time, and the frankly bizarre Gaza aid controversy.  Inevitably this leads them to get accused of both right-wing and left-wing bias, so I guess they are kinda doing a good job...

In this case though, I don't think they intended to let him on the show to say something offensive and get ratings (since its a public broadcaster).  It's just another example of them trying to appear unbiased - a right-wing historian to balance out the (presumably) two left-wing people. It allows Mitchell and Jones to point out the flaws in his argument, an argument which isn't otherwise explicitly stated elsewhere, and indeed his views highlight the inequalities regarding race, poverty etc (and how some people like to play down such inequalities) which many people believe is what started the riots.

Many people hear and see what they are predisposed/conditioned to hear and see.

Because there are multiple cultures within each culture, as a friendly amendment. I would add an "s" to the end of the word "culture" for all the ethnic groups your listed and all others.With that amendment your quote would read: "There is only IGBO cultures, EFIK cultures, MOSSI cultures, YORUBA cultures, FULANI cultures, ANANG cultures, IGBIRA cultures, JAMAICAN cultures, AFRICAN AMERICAN cultures, ZULU cultures, LUO cultures, KIKUYU cultures and many THOUSANDS more which are as completely different from each other as night is from day."
 
That said, I think there are some commonalities between all African cultures and between African and African Diaspora cultures. But your main point that there is no "Black culture" needs to be emphasized.

Starkey's 'hatespeech' provides a convenient excuse for diversion and denial on this blog.  The UK has suffered a severe and damaging crisis; people have been killed; homes and businesses have been burned and ruined and people have been terrorised in the streets and in their homes and workplaces.  But here all the talk is about the pain and anguish caused by Starkey's interesting theory.

There are real issues about black criminality to be addressed here.  Preliminary analysis of riot footage and prosecution data suggests that black youths were around 9 times more likely than white youths to be involved in the rioting and looting.  And Blacks were around 16 times more likely to be involved than South Asian youths.  These are staggering figures of what might be called 'disproportionate impact'.

Moreover the areas where the most intense and violent arson, rioting and chaos occured were neighbourhoods that any Londoner would recognise as Black. (Tottenham, Brixton, South Croydon, Hackney - even gentrified Notting Hill, famous for its West Indian Carnival).  It is generally understood that the white rioters were copy-cats and secondary actors in the sad farce.  Starckey attempted some explanation for this instead of just wishing it away.

I guess this is a derail from the main point of the post, but: Owen Jones rules, I read the first couple of chapters of his Chavs book recently and I'll be picking it up when I have the money. It seems like a good analysis of how it has become socially acceptable to scapegoat and insult the working class in Britain.

Well I am so glad Starkey came out with these comments and basically said what most Whites are thinking . 

Well it's ironic he attacks Jamaican Culture as Jamaica it self was born out of slavery and the genocide of its indigenous population not by blacks but guess what by White British Anglo Saxons . The Patwa language he refers to is born out of the English language and not African dialects and in fact now mixed with cockney. He should also acknowledge that black and Asians came to defend Britain against the threat of invasion by the Nazis during the war ( this has been erased out of most historical records ) and later came to rebuild Britain after it was on its knees.He attacks rap culture however should again do his research as rap was originally used as a medium for young black men to share their struggle as well as educate their piers on how to respect themselves and their communities .This however was highjacked and commercialised by big record companies ( white CEO's) who invested heavily in those acts that glorified materialism and gang violence. Black men are no more aggressive than white men i saw looters of all skin types  although the media chose to publish images of Black looters in predominate black areas, places like Manchester, Liverpool , Derby had a higher proportion of White youths rioting. This is actually not a Race issue Mr Starkey is missing the point completely its actually 4 issues 1) the class divide 2)materialism 3) Youth Unemployment and last but not least the 4) Police officers Violently executed a man who had surrendered to the police .Britain has an extremely violent history and has always glorified war warfare and the spoils of war and empire so please think before you speak.  

We have an Army killing people abroad in the names of  ??????

And a country crippled by social unrest of course everyone is seeking answers or someone to blame.. blame it all on the Jamaicans they are the ones that have made our youths disrespectful materialistic and out of control .

Please how did this guy get onto an intellectual debate ?! 

Okay. Typically in a country there are rich and poor. And, typically, the poor are more likely to be involved in a crime. So if the poor in a country are mainly black, doesn't it make sense that more crime is perpetrated by that group? This is independent of race - examine the Mafia when the Italian immigrants arrived in America. Or the Irish mob.  People are so worried about being PC these days that they get all sensitive and defensive over nothing.