All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 7, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
43:48
20240307_should-the-royal-family-pay-reparations
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Royal Profiteering and Reparations 00:10:36
Britain's had kings and queens for more than a thousand years.
And as with US presidents, some have been magnificent, others have been what we might now call problematic.
Henry VIII, for example, had very serious issues with what would now be known as toxic masculinity.
His daughter Queen Mary was quite fond of burning Protestants in front of jeering crowds.
Similarly, the British Empire committed many heinous deeds in the context of a darker, more ignorant time.
But that all happened in the past.
That's how history works.
None of today's royal family had anything to do with those problematic issues.
So why should they apologise for them?
Well, campaigners in the Caribbean nations are again demanding that King Charles issues a formal apology for his ancestors' involvement in the slave trade.
They also want financial reparations from today's public purse to compensate them for their past suffering.
British royals are now routinely barracked for ancestral sins on every tour that they go on with demands that they issue apologies to indigenous communities in Canada and accusations they've crushed the development of Jamaica.
This week, the Church of England committed to raising a billion pounds for reparations, even as his congregations dwindle and his churches fall apart.
The exact same movement is happening across the United States with an increasing clamor for the descendants of slaves to be compensated for their ancestors' suffering.
Now look, there's no denying that slavery was an evil stain on humanity.
In fact, that's why the British Empire eventually made it illegal 217 years ago.
But even in its height, very few people actually owned slaves.
And one thing is for certain, none of the people who foot the bill today were responsible for any of it.
To me, this entire narrative is regressive and divisive.
How can we ever be colourblind, judging people by their character, not their skin colour, if we continue to preach that half the world is inherently evil and the other half are to blame for it?
Well, joining me now is today's PAC, author of The Psychosis of Whiteness, Kohindi Andrews, comedian and podcaster James Barr, and from LA the YouTuber Amala Ekonobi.
Welcome to all of you.
All right, Kahindi, welcome back to Uncensored, along with James, two of my favourite guests.
Okay, I need you to sell this to me because I've thought about this a lot and I understand why people want people to express regret for what happened, why they want to say, look, this was awful.
I completely concur.
Slavery was one of the most evil things in human existence.
I just can't get my head around why King Charles should be issuing apologies for something he never did.
And secondly, what difference it would make.
And thirdly, on reparations, how does paying money now for the sins of people hundreds of years ago make any real difference either?
Well, because the thing about the apology is the apology really is the route to reparations.
Because this may have happened a long time ago, but the legacy is still with us.
You go to the Caribbean, there's no black people in the Caribbean apart from slavery, and it's one of the poorest regions in the world.
And if you're in the UK and the king is the perfect example of the ostentatious wealth, the wealth we have here is because of what happened in slavery.
So people in the Caribbean are poor today because of slavery and therefore there is a debt owed to them.
Why do you care if King Charles says, I'm sorry?
Well, no, for me, the apology is not for like a moral issue.
That's how you then get reparations.
That's why he won't say sorry.
Because when you say sorry, you accept responsibility and you have to pay for it.
But he hates slavery as much as you and I.
It's about the debt that is owed.
People in Jamaica are poor because of slavery.
People in Britain are rich.
And he's the perfect example of someone who is rich.
It was the Royal African Company, which was started by Charles II, that enslaved the most people in the world.
There is a debt owed.
That wealth is with us and the poverty is with us, which is why it needs to be returned.
All right, Amala, what do you think of this?
Because, look, opinions run strong on both sides.
Where do you sit?
I stand anti-reparations on this issue.
I understand and acknowledge that slavery occurred.
It was a massive and heinous transgression.
But to think that people who never committed such a transgression are somehow responsible for the current trauma of people living in today's time who never experienced that transgression is quite frankly ridiculous to me.
And to give an apology is to, as Kindy says, admit fault.
And he is not at fault.
He is not the one responsible for the slavery of the past, nor is he responsible for the issues that black people in the UK or in the Caribbean or here in the US, as we're having many discussions here about reparations, are facing.
Right.
I mean, James Bart.
Where does this end?
If you take the idea that sins of the past have to be atoned with apology and reparations, do we now go to the Italians and say, right, the Romans invaded us.
We want money from you people.
The Vikings.
Do we go to Scandinavia and demand money from descendants of the Vikings?
In other words, once you establish a principle of this, where does it end?
If we're going to trivialise it, then I would like to talk about it.
Why is that trivial?
I would like to talk about how the church perhaps owe LGBTQ plus people billions of pounds.
But why did they have caused queer people?
And to be honest, it's not even a trivial argument.
I think we should turn Westminster Abbey into a gay club.
I genuinely believe that King Charles should say sorry.
And everyone here is...
Answer my question, though.
What was your question?
My question is that...
Well, my question is, if you assume that sins of the past should be atoned with apology and reparations...
What about who is?
What about marauding hordes of Romans, Vikings, and so on who killed a lot of people, caused total maiden?
We also did.
Caused destruction.
And we are a really rich country.
So here's my point.
Where's the line for you?
I think the line is that the royal family are still profiteering off of thousands of years of racism currently.
And whether it's conscious or unconscious.
How are they?
Because they own property that was built by slaves or funded by slaves.
So we need to acknowledge that.
We need to say sorry for that.
And we need to do the work and we need to pay that debt back.
Look, I get the sorry leads to reparations, but the actual apology, I wouldn't apologise for what my ancestors did to me.
I think, to be honest, I think everybody in this country should apologise.
Why?
We never stop apologising.
Because exactly, you won't apologise for this.
And that's crazy to me because this whole society is awful.
If King Charles was found to be holding right now, by the way, modern day slavery is a massive problem.
Hang on, there are millions of people held in modern day slavery, right?
If the royal family were found to be holding people in modern day slavery, absolutely throw the book at them, right?
But they're not.
This had nothing to do with them.
Piers, come on, there is a process of crime act in this country.
The act may have happened, but the wealth is still here.
That's the problem.
The poverty is still here.
This is not a past thing.
This is a now thing.
If you're saying you want to fix the problems of the Caribbean and for black people in America here, we don't have the money.
And where's the money?
It's with people like the king.
So you have to return the money.
That's reparations.
The Church of England now says the 100 million earmarked by Church of England, the new investment to repair damage caused by historically into slavery, isn't enough, a report says.
They're recommending a billion pounds.
There are churches closing all over the country, right?
Vicars are being paid less and less, and there are less and less of them wanting to do the job anyway.
The conditions they're living in are getting worse and worse.
That's their fault.
That's their point.
Makers of their own doing, Piers.
How are we going to?
That's their fault.
So why bankrupt the Church of England?
Because all they need to do is sell it.
Sell the cathedral.
Sell the jewels you stole.
It's not difficult.
Yeah, plenty of people.
How many gay people in this country live in property that may, if you go back far enough, have been established from slavery?
I'm sure a lot.
And you know what, Piers?
They should apologize.
As I just said, I think everybody living in this country in the UK should apologise for the horrendous things that are going to be.
So 60 odd million people issue public apologies.
I'm down for that.
If there's any trace on any line back to any slavery, anyone's property which can be linked by slavery has to be what?
Given to who?
We are talking about normal people now, but we are talking about King Charles, the royal family.
They have endless amounts of properties.
How many bedrooms does Buckingham Palace have?
You don't need all of that.
Sell this stuff, give the money back to the people.
Royal family bring in, you give it to you.
Let me go back to Amala, who's been listening very patiently.
I mean, look, the argument about the royal family to me is a fatuous one because they bring in so much money in tourism, they wash their faces, in my estimation.
But if you don't believe in the royal family, you don't believe in the royal family.
Americans don't have a royal family.
So they've got money for reparations.
But is anything they're saying?
I mean, my problem, Amala, about this is that once you establish this principle, there is simply no end to it.
History is littered with evil people doing evil things and descendants existing today who can be traced back to these people and their evil things.
Once you say we're all culpable today for what happened 300 years ago, 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, it never stops.
We'd be in a perpetual state of what Mr. Barr's utopia is, which is millions of people chanting apologies all day long.
100%.
If we are going to take this to its logical conclusion, that means that every single person who is alive today has some sort of claim to reparations.
If we all look far enough into our ancestry, we will find heinous crimes committed by those who came before us against those who came before us.
So where does it stop?
That means white people are going to have a claim to reparations.
The Japanese will have a claim to reparations.
The Chinese will have a claim to reparations.
This is what this means.
And for some reason, we focus this just purely on black people as if they're the only ones who have ever suffered throughout their history.
Now, this is not to deny that slavery has had some sort of impact that is now affecting the current state of America and the current state of the UK.
But it is to ask, how big of a slice of that pie is it actually?
And you are now handing black people a crutch where they can blame every single thing that goes wrong in their lives.
There's something that happens.
There's no black people in America without slavery.
Like, you do realize you're not there for, you're there because of slavery.
And you do realize there were lots of black slave owners.
Oh my God, there were not lots of black slaves.
There were.
The big problem with the way this conversation is going.
Do you deny that?
There were black people who owned enslaved, yes, but the profits and the money are with us.
They haven't gone.
You cannot compare this to Normandy.
That's done.
It's complete.
In fact, Arab slave trade is a great example.
Arabs enslaved more people.
It lasted for longer.
But the Arab slave trade didn't generate wealth and that wealth is gone.
So I'm not asking for reparations from Arabs.
However, the European slave trade generated the wealth and created the poverty.
Therefore, there is a debt that is owed.
It's that simple.
The Family's Victimhood Narrative 00:11:16
So your answer is you want King Charles to basically apologise and then what, to give up various palaces and sell them and give the money to what?
And to the people of Jamaica and Caribbean countries that have clear repar demands and they should be funded and yes, the royal family should.
So you would end the royal family.
Well, you know I'd end the royal family anyway.
Right, Joe, that's my point.
That's my point.
See, and there you've revealed the real motivation.
There's a separation.
I agree with that.
I agree.
It slipped out.
It just slipped out, Kendi.
Actually, that's abolished the monarchy.
You want to abolish the monarchy.
But those people give all their stuff to the Scarabian.
That's fine.
Those are not mutually exclusive peers.
You know they're not.
You do not need to abolish the monarchy.
He just said he'd do that.
I know that's yes, but that's not what necessarily needs to happen.
They don't need all of that wealth.
And as you said, they bring in a lot of tourism.
So great.
Take that money instead and sell off all of the stuff you stole.
But you'd get rid of the monarchy too, wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't actually.
I would keep it, but I would change how it works in our society because at the minute it isn't working.
On the subject of the royal family, there's various issues I want to get to with you guys, but fascinating celebrity big brother over here has Kate Middleton's uncle, Gary Goldsmith, who's an erratic individual at the best of times.
He said this last night.
So I had an opinion that Harry was really, really, really loved.
Massively loved.
He was.
And when they were a threesome, so Kate, William and Harry, they look really comfortable together.
Love.
And then suddenly there's an extra dynamic that comes in, puts a stick in the spokes and creates so much drama that I don't genuinely think was there.
And rewrote the history and said how unhappy he was.
And I just don't think that's fair.
So we've got, there we go, Kate's uncle, Gary, dishing the dirt on the Sussexes.
A certain James Barr immediately hit social media, fuming at the chat where Kate's uncle Gary talks about how Megan came along and created drama whilst literally creating drama.
He added, Harry got a girlfriend and that changed the dynamic.
Grow up.
Right, I do think you should grow up.
Also, when was the last time Kate saw you?
When was the last time any of us saw our uncles?
Like, you're so irrelevant.
Please.
Did you know the answer?
When you lost all your uncle.
No, I know.
I see my uncles all the time.
I'm like, she literally, literally just.
Right, you might have lost DK an hour and a half ago.
Okay, great.
Well, good for you.
But listen, Kate doesn't really pick up the phone to this guy.
He's a loser.
He's making up nonsense.
You know, Megan came in and saved Harry from a toxic, abusive situation.
He really looks like a saved individual to me.
He does to me.
Actually, he looks inherently unhappy.
I think he looks pretty happy because he's ignoring all of the nonsense that you start about him.
Good for him.
He's not, is he?
He's suing her for most of it.
So, Candy, you and I have debated before about what went down with the Sussexes and about the race aspect to it.
But there can't be much doubt, Ken there, if you look at it in totality, that Harry, before Megan came along, was existing seemingly quite happily in the royal family.
She comes along, there's a huge deal made of her mixed-race background, which I wrote about on the wedding day as being a fantastic thing for this country, by the way, for what it's worth, as did all the other media at the time.
Then it all went wrong because of their behavior, which I never felt was racially motivated.
But there can't be much doubt that Megan brought with her a lot of drama into Harry's life.
Because look as well happened since he met her.
I mean, I think, firstly, there was plenty of drama in Harry's life before Megan.
Like plenty of drama.
And the idea that he was happy is clearly not true.
He wrote a whole book saying he's not happy.
Spare all this, et cetera.
And this is one of these, this is actually where he...
But he wrote that years after being with Megan.
The idea that this black woman comes in and all of a sudden there's drama, it's ridiculous.
Yeah, it is.
She wasn't happy.
And she wanted to, that's a racist idea.
Do you actually categorise her as a black woman?
Jesse's a black woman, but she's treated as a black woman.
But she's a black mother, white father.
But do you think she's a black woman?
Do you think people in Britain viewed her as a black woman?
I think the evidence is very clear.
How she was treated, how she was treated in the family, how she was treated in the press, that she was viewed as a black woman.
Whether she viewed herself as a black woman when she went in, another question.
She was certainly treated as a black woman.
Amalo, what's the view over in America about Meghan Markle in particular, particularly the way she's played the race card against the royal family as the only non-white bride we've had in the royal family?
Sure.
I would say for the most part, Americans are not too fond of Meghan Markle.
And Mr. Andrews, she is biracial, much like I am biracial.
And we can make the argument that she's constantly going to be seen as black.
But the fact is, she's a biracial woman.
But I think what Meghan Markle carried with her is an idea of perpetual victimhood.
She views herself as a victim because she's female.
She views herself as a victim because she is black.
And when you carry that sort of energy with you and you view the world through that lens, every odd look is going to be racism.
Every off comment is going to be racism.
Now, I can't speak to the internal dynamics of the royal family, what was said and what was not, but I do know that that's her attitude.
Yeah, you see, James, my take on it, for what it's worth, it's not a new take, you'll be aware of my view of it.
I sort of felt that they actually are both equally to blame for this, but they whipped themselves into a state of perpetual victimhood, not just from their own families, but also from the media and everything.
Well, they're being attacked by the media.
Well, they're also praised a lot.
They never thanked the media for praise.
And then, as soon as Camilla could get her awe in, allegedly.
Camilla?
Well, the suggestion is that she was feeding the press negative stories, right?
Completely untrue.
Well, have you spoken to Camilla?
Actually, I have spoken to Camilla.
Has that been through legal process?
Do you know whether that is true or untrue?
What?
What I just said.
Is it factually true or not?
There was no evidence Camilla has ever briefed anyone in the media about hydrogen.
Well, it's alleged by Harry.
Right, so we have to take it as an alleged offence, right?
So that's what supposedly happened.
So why now is the silence around Kate so loud?
Because the palace have decided.
There's no silence around Kate.
Yes, there is.
The Palace have decided that.
She had a serious abdominal surgery.
Whereas when Megan was being hanged constantly, nobody stood up for Megan.
Thomas didn't release a statement at all.
They said nothing.
And Megan continued to be attacked in the press.
So I would argue that she was playing a victim.
She was a victim.
Why were she and Harry attacked in the press?
Well, that's a great question.
I would argue that it was racism, but I can't see it.
But hang on.
I can't see it through my lens.
Hang on.
They weren't attacked until after they got married.
Right?
And I know this because I was writing columns about them praising them.
So persuade you to stop.
I'm going to tell you.
I changed my tune like the rest of the British press.
But after they got married, they started behaving in a weirdly, rankly, hypocritical manner.
They would preach about carbon footprint and climate change.
Then we'd see them getting on Elton John's private bill.
Okay, Piers that's stupid.
Let me finish my point.
You don't get to finish it.
You do.
They literally tweeted about the need to take poverty seriously on their twins.
But they have a security.
On the day she had a half a million dollar baby shower in New York and then flew back up and thinking about private jet.
In other words, okay, King Charles always got his own about climate change.
Camilla's getting a private section.
By the way, they all get criticized.
We can all talk about climate change.
They all get criticized.
You don't think Charles and Camilla have been criticized?
No, come on, Piers.
You have to accept it.
Please.
The two most criticized people in royal history were Charles and Camilla.
You're not old enough to remember.
You are.
I am.
I'm not.
And it wasn't.
And it wasn't racially motivated.
And the crimes committed against her.
How old were you when Diana died?
I was, it was 96, so I would have been just over 10.
Right, 10.
So you weren't old enough to know what was going down.
But, right?
I knew Diana, and I knew what went down.
No one's been more vilified than Camilla in royal history.
The idea that Meghan Markle got anything like the treatment that Camilla gave up was for the birth.
No, Piers, but I want to go to this whole fascination with them.
Even when you were writing positive things, that was still about race.
That was nonsense anyway.
The idea that she'd come in and change the family.
I mean, she came in and said very clearly, I want to be the face of the Commonwealth.
I want to do this work, which I would have hated.
In fact, I'm so happy it went badly because that would have been the very worst thing.
She clearly tried and said, look, I want to be part of this family.
I want to do this.
And every little thing was drip, drip, drip.
And this is the experience that black people have.
How do you want to explain?
If it's just the terrible royal family, this all-white, awful group of people.
And the media.
How do you explain she's also disenfranchised from her own family on both sides?
I think a better way of looking at it.
On both sides, the only member of her family on either side was her mother.
She had people like George Clooney.
She'd never met George Clooney.
Before the wedding, I don't know about her personal situation, but I do know this family and this media.
There is no problem.
You're blaming the royal family for the way they treated Meghan Markle.
I'm saying, who do you blame in her family then?
Are they all to blame too?
It's a completely different.
Does she disowned all of them as well?
Well, I would argue that she has, yeah, she experienced abuse from her own family, right?
Thomas Markle sold stories.
Her sister is awful.
We don't even need to talk about half of it.
Thomas Markle, Thomas Markle sold interviews after when you've been in an abusive situation, you see it everywhere.
And I think perhaps Megan went with Harry into his family and went, okay, this doesn't seem right.
And she knows because she's been there.
Amala, in America, obviously this is where they've got their new home.
They've made hundreds of millions from companies like Netflix, Spotify, and so on by trashing their families.
But that shtick is running out of steam.
I mean, there's no doubt people's appetite in America and everywhere else is pretty low now for more of that stuff.
What do they do?
I mean, are they just like rent a celebrity now or what happens to them?
I don't know.
Maybe they fall into obscurity, although I don't see that actually being the case, because as much as they call for privacy and wanting to be alone, they somehow always end up in the press.
She did an interview with Oprah.
They did this whole Netflix documentary whilst saying that they want to keep out of the public eye and be able to lead their own lives with their families.
They continue to complain about the racism faced in a family that they are seemingly no longer a part of.
So I'm not sure where they go next from here.
There will be some other victim card to play eventually, though.
I think that is absolutely guaranteed.
On a separate point, Amala, interestingly over here, TMZ in America broke an exclusive with the first picture of Kate, the Princess of Wales, in a car with her mother, apparently maybe on the school run.
Now, in the UK, those pictures have not appeared because of an understanding between the media and the palace, the terrible media, James.
And don't protect others.
Actually, exactly the same rules would have applied to the Sussexes, by the way, with their kids.
Exactly the same.
But the deal was they couldn't be published here.
I was trying to think in America, it would be unthinkable, wouldn't it?
If, say, the wife of a president was having recuperation from surgery and was caught by photographers, unthinkable that everyone but Americans would see that picture.
Because everyone outside of the UK has seen this picture of the Princess of Wales, apart from the people here who actually pay the money through taxation for the royal family.
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting.
I don't think that would ever happen in the United States.
I think Americans would know about that immediately.
Now, I don't know exactly how that works in the UK and why that has been held from you, but I can assure you we would know.
Safe Spaces for Black Audiences 00:09:00
One thing that happened here, Kahindi, this is this producer of a West End show Slave Play, which features the Games of Thrones star, Kit Harrington, among the cast.
It runs from end of June to end of September at the Norcal Theatre and will have blackout events confirmed to be taking place on two of those nights.
This is where two performances will be aimed at an all-black identifying audience that is free from the white gaze.
And it follows a similar thing on Broadway in 2019.
Now, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's official spokesman says, restricting audiences on the basis of race would be wrong and divisive.
I mean, my take on this was, I was trying to imagine if you had an all-white cast and you said, right, we're going to have an all-white identifying audience free from the black gaze, you would go absolutely apoplectic with race.
It clearly wouldn't be the same.
Why wouldn't it be the same?
Because the problem here is, if you actually, if you go to some of these shows, you will find there is an all-white audience.
Unfortunately, because of the way it works, some of these places, they are almost exclusively white.
And so justice dealing with the people.
Just advertising it in that way, you would deem it extremely racist and offensive.
So there is a problem that you have almost all-white audiences, and it doesn't feel like a safe space for black audience members or cash.
And so what you're saying is trying to address this problem.
Let's have an all-black space.
So when you go to the theater, if you see white...
No problem of all.
To be clear, when you go to the theater and you see white people there, you don't feel safe.
No, I promise you, you go to a theatre and it's all black people, you'll feel away.
I promise you.
100% promise.
Have you ever been into a theater?
I've been to concerts.
I've been to rap concerts in America where I've been one of the few white people.
Yeah.
That's different.
That's totally fine, thanks.
The point is, it's different.
When you go, it is, I do, it's different for me.
When I go into these places, it's different.
It doesn't feel comfortable.
But just to make it feel different.
So, in answer to my question, though, answer my question: if there was an all-white identifying audience billed as the marketing that was free from the black gaze, you would say that was racist.
Because it would be racist.
This is to address a specific problem.
In the cultural sector, there is.
So, how do you address that?
Right, so racism if it's to do with.
You're just minimizing the importance of that conversation again.
You're just making it a hypocritical conversation to cause an answer.
Or am I exposing a double standard?
No, there isn't a double standard.
I'm actually exposing the hypocrisy.
One of these groups is a minority and one isn't.
And you always bang on, and I hate to bring this in because I don't want to have a debate about it, but you always bring in safe spaces for women, which I completely agree with.
And you talk about how important that is, but then suddenly when there's a safe space for black people, you've got an issue with it.
So, what's going on there?
I don't understand why someone's double standards there.
No, answer my question, please.
There's some double standards.
Sorry, you're making out that somehow black people can't go to the theater for fear of that.
No, but we're having a conversation about safe spaces, and the idea is that by doing a blackout event, it will feel safer for that community to talk about.
So, what if I want to have a whiteout event?
They all are white out.
Well, I mean, you can join the Ku Klux Klan if you want, Piers.
You're more than welcome to do that.
So, if it's a white-out event, it's Ku Klux Klan, right?
Who are the most racist group in history?
I got it.
So, one way, one way, if it's whiteout, no.
Ku Klux Klan.
If it's blackout, absolutely fine.
The point is, it's already white out.
You see how ridiculous it sounds.
You see how ridiculous you sound.
Got it.
Let's bring in Amala, the voice of common sense.
Amala, I mean, just hearing these two, honestly, trying to work out in their brains, very slowly, it seems to me, the ridiculous double standard of what they're saying.
You must be laughing, aren't you?
Oh, I'm laughing.
I'm shaking my head.
To me, this is absolutely ridiculous.
It is one of the most blatantly racist things I've seen in quite some time.
And it's quite literally demeaning to black people.
How insulting that you would say to black people that they don't feel safe in a space because there are fellow white people there and they need to be safe from the white gaze.
And how racist it is to white people to exclude them from being able to enjoy something like the theater.
This is very reminiscent of the Jim Crow South that we experienced in America, where you had white and colored water fountains.
This is the very same reality that we are now ushering in, even though we made it to a time of progress where this was no longer an issue.
We are inviting it back.
It is racist.
It is not wrong.
In any way, shape, or form.
Is this the same as Jim Crow?
What you actually have is absolutely.
What you actually have in the minute is go to a show in the West End.
It feels like Jim Crow already is already a whiteout.
This is an anti-racist way to be able to do it.
But if white people did this, we're the KKK so that's why we're doing it.
You do it all the time.
Can I just speak from a queer perspective for a second?
From a queer, what about a very ignorant perspective?
As a gay person, KKK!
It's important that I am sometimes in a space of other queer people that is just queer people, so I feel safe to be myself.
You exclude straight people like me?
I would exclude you because if you want to go to GAY with me, I'm not going to be able to do that.
I've been there, mate.
Let's go together.
Great.
But listen, my point is, we need safe spaces so that we feel safe.
And actually, you're talking about it being a corporate.
Why are white people not making black people feel safe?
Do you feel unsafe now?
That is the question.
Do you feel unsafe now with a straight guy opposite you?
Not really, no.
Do you feel unsafe with a white guy standing there?
But it's not about that person.
It's about 10 days away from the religious safe stand here, actually.
Yes, especially with the comments.
Well, after comparing my position to KKK.
I did not compare that.
I said you could join them if you wanted that.
That's what I said.
So, yeah, just to be clear, if it's free from the black gaze, it's KKK.
Free from the white gaze, that's emancipation.
This is an anti-racist idea.
The whole point is to address a problem.
It's actually, in its own way, it's just blatant racism.
It's not racism on the rules.
It is not racist.
It's excluding people on their skin colour.
It's the exact opposite of what Martin Luther King said.
Judge people by the content they carry.
You were trying to exclude Meghan Marshall.
You can't get more safe than a theater audience.
The idea that someone like Kahindi Andrews goes to a theater and feels unsafe because he's a white person.
A minute ago, you were excluding Meghan Markle from being black because of her skin colour.
Now you're saying that's not allowed.
So you just excluded Meghan Markle for her skin colour.
Like 20 minutes ago.
You were saying she wasn't black enough.
No, no, I asked Kahindi whether he believes she's a black woman.
Yeah, she could come to the camera.
We've actually had another guest.
Yeah, she's allowed to see her.
We've had another guest say she thinks she's a mixed race woman, right?
I think terminology matters.
Right.
You don't?
No, of course I think terminology matters, but I'm just saying you are defining someone by skin colour.
And then a minute later.
I didn't actually define her skin colour.
I didn't actually define her skin colour.
I asked Kahindi and I asked Amala.
They disagreed.
Can I ask a question, please?
What's the wrong gives us going on a different day?
You can still go.
You can go on any other day.
It's not the point, Kahindi is.
If anybody tried in this country or America to have a white-only audience to avoid the black gaze, all hell would break loose.
And you know who would lead the charge?
No.
You wouldn't.
It already happens.
You would get the answers.
It already happens.
You would accuse them of being racist.
You would say in a normal virtue signaling way, it's the cloak-class plan, come back.
Segregated communities.
And that's why you're both guilty of rank hypocrisy.
Segregated communities, segregated schools, segregated communities.
And racism.
These happen today.
Amala?
Isn't it?
The voice of common sense is a lot of people.
They're guilty of racism, is essentially what it is.
And Mr. Andrews is a lot of people.
Some of my best friends are white, so I cannot be racist.
Okay, here's the issue with this way of thinking.
You notice a disparity amongst race and you immediately attribute it to racism.
Mr. Andrews says, you know, there are theaters that sometimes you go to them and there's all white people in the audience.
Now, I don't know that that is actually true, but if you attribute that to racism, that is your problem.
If you feel safe or unsafe in a space that contains white people, that is your problem.
It is not our responsibility.
It's not economically racist.
I think the reason that most of the audiences in the West End are there are white is because of an economic problem.
But it's not.
I, as a black person, have attended the theater all of my life.
Every single black person that has, every black person in the UK has the very same choice to go and be in the theater.
And even if it was because of an economic disparity, that economic disparity does not exist purely because of racism.
And to attribute it purely to racism is to ignore a ton of other problems that are existing within the black community and blame white people for it.
So why is it?
Because actually, you can find, you'll find in America as well, there are hugely segregated audiences for comedy, for theater.
Why is there?
Why is it you can literally go, yes, oh my gosh, if you're saying this desert, what country do you live in?
You cannot tell me right now, if you go to see a comedy in a black community in America, you can go to the see the same thing in a white community, it's all white people.
Residential segregation.
Why do these things happen?
So just because people tend to be with other people of their similar race does not mean that those shows are segregated.
To segregate something is to exclude a group of people, which is exactly what these blackout theaters are doing.
Just because you happen to attend a show that is full of black people or full of white people does not mean that there is some sort of segregation actively happening.
And it is a failure in your thinking.
Yes.
It just happens that America is one of the most things happen.
It just happens.
Biological Arguments vs Identity 00:05:02
You have these lines.
I'm actually, I go to the well, I go to the comedy store in Los Angeles.
It's always a completely mixed race audience.
I mean, this idea that everything's segregated is absurd.
You never go to America.
I never said everything was segregated, but I can promise you there will be a lot of people.
I've been to the theater around America.
I've been to concerts.
I've been to sport.
Always extremely multicultural audiences.
This idea it's all segregated is for the birds.
This is what the victimhood mentality brings about.
You should not be able to do that.
I can't use the word birds now, but it's literally a lot of people.
I think my point is James Barr's offending.
I think misogynist to birds.
Overarching point is: Do we believe in safe spaces for marginalized communities?
Yes, I do as a queer person.
So, I see why this is a great idea.
Yeah, but you don't feel that way, oddly, about the trans debate, do you?
You feel very differently about the transparency.
I don't think women should be excluded.
You think biological males should be allowed into women's spaces without a moment's thought for women's rights to not have any woman should be excluded from any female space.
Right, but you don't mind biological males identifying as women.
I don't think any woman should be excluded.
So, a six-foot, seven-inch, bearded, biological male says, I'm a woman, you're happy with them going.
Bearded woman should not be excluded from a female space.
Right, so you think all trans women are women?
I do believe all trans women are women.
Are all people who have a hand up and say, I'm a woman, a woman?
Are they?
If you officially are a woman on your passports or your birth certificate, you are a woman.
That's all my question.
That's my answer, Piers.
I'm not giving you any difference.
Anybody who puts their hand up and says, I'm a woman, trans women are women.
No, no, it wasn't my question.
Identify as a woman.
Anyone who identifies as a woman, a woman.
I believe so.
Okay, so you can identify as anything.
But do you know how difficult it is to get to the point where you identify as a woman?
Okay.
How difficult it is to get a woman.
I am identifying.
Legally identified.
Wait a minute.
Do you know how difficult that is?
Let's test your theory.
Wait a minute.
Let's test your theory.
I am a woman.
He just said.
You're being an idiot.
Am I a woman?
Of course you're not a woman.
You know you're not a woman.
So everybody who identifies as a woman is simplifying something so complicated.
It's so safe spacing.
Safe spaces.
Do you believe in a safe space?
Do you believe in a safe space?
Safe spaces for gay people like James Barbara.
No safe spaces for women.
Yes, safe spaces for women.
No, no.
Actually, Piers, do you believe in a safe space for women?
No safe spaces for women.
Do you believe in a safe space for women?
Trans women are trans women.
Do you believe in a safe space for women?
Biological females should be protected.
Do you believe in a safe space for women or not?
Do you believe in a safe space for women?
I don't think trans women are women.
I've not asked you to do that.
I've asked you if you think women's spaces should be safe for women.
Women should be given safe spaces for biological males.
So if your answer is a woman's space should be safe for women, your answer is that a black space should be safe for black people.
No, because there's no fear for black people in a theater.
It's ridiculous.
Oh my God, it's not about fear.
Like, when we say safe spaces, it's transformed.
It's not about.
Amala?
Thank you.
Jump in, please.
You're the only voice in common sense.
Let's explain why this is the case and why Pierce might believe that there should be safe spaces for women.
Men function at a biological advantage over women.
They can harm women.
Women become victims.
This is why trans women, who are aka biological men, cannot be allowed into women's spaces.
There is an actual, distinct, studyable biological advantage.
Is there a biological advantage that white people have over black people?
Absolutely not.
And this invisible privilege that we seem to give to them does in fact not exist.
That is why there are safe spaces for women and not safe spaces for black people.
That is ludicrous.
Safe spaces for women is not about physical attack either.
Sometimes it is.
Actually, it is not all about physical spaces.
It absolutely is.
Absolutely.
We've literally reading groups.
It's not just about physical attacks.
More than it.
Right, the first minister is indeed aware of the first minister of Scotland.
The first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, literally lost her job because she allowed a biological male rapist to identify as a woman and put them into a female prison.
I don't think a prison is a woman.
Honestly, this is the right-wing advocacy.
It's not right white.
I'm not right white.
On one hand, you're saying a safe space should exist for women, but only if they feel threatened by someone that is bigger than them.
And then on the other hand, you're saying, well, these are all these black people that are going to go to the blackout events who you've not asked, by the way, clearly do not feel unsafe around white people.
I don't know what they're saying.
And so they shouldn't have a safe space.
I've never met a single black person who says, I can't go to the theater because I worry about my safety.
It's not about safety.
Nobody worries about their safety in a theater.
It's not a bit about the theater.
It's about saying they're.
And I promise, as a you literally use the phrase safe space.
But safe, what does safe mean?
So safe, let me give you an example.
What does it mean?
I'll tell you.
I'll tell you right now.
I thought it meant safe.
I'll tell you right now.
There are certain stereotypes attached to me as a black man that I have to deal with in all white places.
All the time.
All the time.
I walk in my university and people I know don't look at me because they're afraid of me.
Trump Fueling Racial Divides 00:07:51
Oh, no.
It's true.
100% true.
And I promise you, I've been into the business.
People who know you're not.
Read the truth.
It's in the book.
Let me get it straight.
You go to your university and people who know you are terrified of you.
Because they don't look at me.
I see a black man walking down and will look at you.
If I'd watched you on you, if I'd watched you on TV, I'd probably give you a swerve too.
You skimmed each other.
When I go into these theatres, and I go into these white theaters, you do have to act differently.
You have to be different because you can't.
I'm sorry.
We literally fool the police on a black man because.
It's like me saying when I go to a fiancé conference and I feel terrified because there are too many black men.
White people cannot harm black people.
It's actually ludicrous.
You see it happen all the time.
It's saying that you're top of the food chain, like as a white, straight guy, and you can't accept that.
Top of the food chain.
Yeah.
Because you've got all the privilege, all the power.
Literally, middle-aged white men are the most oppressed people in society.
How much money are you making from this?
We are literally the most oppressed people.
How many people?
How many of you in society in the world?
Is that paying?
We are actually an endangered species.
Endangered species.
Before we let you go, because I've enjoyed this debate, I want to just talk about Donald Trump.
So Donald Trump has just pretty much won the Republican nomination to be president again.
Nikki Haley's pulled out today.
I mean, Amala, she took an absolute drubbing in Super Tuesday.
It's no surprise.
But Donald Trump is on the march for one of what will be, if he was to win back the White House, the most astonishing comeback in modern political history.
How do you explain this?
I mean, for people outside America who go, what is, how can a guy facing 91 criminal charges with all the baggage that Trump brings, with the riots at the Capitol, all the stuff that we know about, how is it that he is now storming back to the White House?
Yeah, sure.
I've seen for a large portion of the Republican Party, a lot of people feel not only that he was sort of snubbed in the last election, but that he's somewhat entitled to another run here.
And that's a big portion of his support.
Also, a lot of people are experiencing the presidency of Joe Biden right now.
He is clearly suffering from dementia.
He has done nothing to stop the illegal immigration problem here in the United States.
Nothing to stop crime from escalating here in the States.
He's fueling a racial divide and a lot of different sort of social divides within our country.
And people are looking for another candidate who's going to speak truth to the media, stand up and do something about the issues that we're facing in our daily lives.
Only so long can we move forward with this victim narrative while things don't change in our lives.
And we have a slew of issues that we're experiencing here in the United States.
And if it comes up to a Trump versus Biden election, I think a lot of people are going to be looking for the candidate who's going to solve the problems.
And whether they like it or not, I feel like that's Donald Trump.
I think if it's Trump Biden, Trump wins.
Minkahindi, I mean, I've heard you called Trump a racist and so on.
What is staggering is that his support among black voters in America has grown by 500% in the last four years.
This is a New York Times Sienna poll released at the weekend.
The former president's support among black voters is now 23%, marking a 19% increase since the same poll taken in October 2020.
I mean, that is truly staggering.
And you see an appreciative fall in black vote support for Joe Biden.
How can that be happening if the guy's a racist?
I mean, if that is true, it is actually.
It's a New York Times poll.
I mean, the poll's true, but if it actually translates to the election, I'd be very, very.
How do you explain it?
Well, I mean, this is part of the, you talk about white men being the most oppressed.
I mean, this is a perfect example of where you can be a mediocre white man and keep coming black.
I mean, Trump wasn't just a racist president.
He was a terrible president.
I mean, just coronavirus.
Do you remember this?
How's he going to win again?
He's going to win because you love this narrative because he plays on racism.
Make America great.
How do you explain it?
You can keep calling him a racist, but how do you explain 500% increase in support from America?
I am very doubtful that will actually translate.
And also say...
Can you explain it?
You're a professor.
Can you explain it?
Well, no, partly that's about Biden is terrible.
I think we can all agree Biden is terrible.
Another example of just putting mediocre white men who's also frustrated.
There are millions.
According to this poll, there are now millions more black people.
Who are gravitating toward someone you believe is a terrible race?
Trump's appeal to black people is make some sneakers.
I'm going to do AI.
He actually has to have AI images of him with black people because that's how few black people he knows.
I mean, this is somebody who's all about black people.
I don't think that's true.
It's somehow...
Look, if people have been deluded by this, that's a shame.
I can't say anything other than that's a shame.
But this is not just because James Barr, any anarchist thinks millions of black Americans are deluded.
A few black people like him.
I mean, I wouldn't have used that phrase.
I'm sure that's what came to me.
He legally successfully advised him.
Let me be very clear.
If millions of black people vote for Trump, they will be deluded.
Hindi Andrews says black Americans are deluded.
I'll come to Amala for that in a moment.
But James, but how do you explain it?
I mean, this guy's supposed to be a racist, and yet black people are flocking to support it.
Honestly, I can't speak for black people, Piers.
I know you can, but I can't.
You think trans people?
Yeah, well, I'm in the queer community, so I support them, of course.
You know what?
Let's just not get that.
Let's not do that again.
My opinion is that Trump is an entertainer and he is using his narcissism.
His entire career as an entertainer has been in the spotlight.
He knows how to win audiences over, regardless of his policies.
But what upsets me so much is that he's responsible for that huge capital riots and worse and says just so many stupid things.
He forgot his own wife's name.
If we're going to talk about dementia.
Joe Biden can't even remember his own name.
Trump is also having a lot of people.
He can't remember his own name.
It's not easy.
It's not as simple as that.
So I think what upsets me is that we've got two presidential candidates that aren't good enough, basically.
That's the real issue.
All right, Amala, I mean, I find that poll fascinating in the New York Times.
Why is it, do you think, that black voters are turning in big numbers comparative to four years ago to Trump?
Yeah, well, first and foremost, it is not because we are deluded, and that's quite frankly an insulting thing to say about black Americans who would choose to vote for somebody like Donald Trump.
The real reality is that black Americans are becoming educated and they are facing issues within the United States that they want to see solved.
Like I said, illegal immigration, crime is skyrocketing.
The left is running on this whole defund the police movement and telling black people that they're perpetual victims in America whilst simultaneously doing nothing for them.
Joe Biden said, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black.
But somehow Donald Trump is the racist.
People are realizing this.
Black America is waking up and they're looking for a candidate who's actually going to solve the real world problems that they are facing in their community rather than telling them that they're perpetual victims of racism while doing nothing for them.
Look, it's perfectly fine to say, look, Biden isn't great and is, and because you have a two system, it's terrible and some people vote for him.
But if you actually think that anything in Trump's platform is going to help black people, that is a delusion because he doesn't promise it.
He's never argued it and he's not going to do it.
Well, if he thinks it's frankly racist, the capital race is going to help.
Why is he premising?
Actually, if he fixes crime and he fixes the southern border issue and the fentanyl crisis, if he does those things, he will directly improve the lives of many black Americans.
That's why they're grabbing.
If you do that by mass incarceration and putting more black people in prison, that doesn't actually benefit us at all.
You know the truth?
Obama, here's my favorite question.
Do you know how many illegal immigrants Obama deported in eight years?
I agree.
Obama was terrible too.
You're not going to go beaten.
America's only black president was terrible.
I didn't like Obama.
Wow, so you've hammered American black voters and the American black president.
On that bombshell, just because they're both the greatest attacker of black Americans in history, the Hindi Andrews.
Wow.
Thank you very much indeed, and don't have to say that.
Always good to see you with the Toe Tucks clan.
And Amala, what a lovely breath of fresh air you were today.
So you can come back anytime.
Amala Ekenobi, thank you very much indeed for joining us from across the park.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Export Selection