Kenya's Mau Mau charge British with torture and repression

MarchDub

From today's Guardian newspaper. Kenya's Mau Mau veterans lodge compensation claim against Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/mau-mau-veterans-compensation

Lawyer for the group said:
"This will be the first time that the British government has had to account for its terrible, terrible deeds. This case is about justice for those individuals who had a terrible, terrible time. A number of them suffered from castration, women suffered from horrendous sexual abuse, many, many Maus Maus were beaten, tortured and killed," he said. "This case is about bringing all those issues before the British court and a British judge to say 'what we did was wrong'."

Wonder how many more throughout the empire will go to the courts? There have to be caseloads like this.

brianthebard

More politics and current affairs than history forum imo. Can always be sent back if needs be. Mod.

Erin Go Brath

The British Empire has always lacked morals, decency and a respect for nations sovereignty and the wishes of their indigenous people to express it. The Mau Mau people deserve remuneration at the very least for the horrible crimes committed against them.

Kenya is just one of many countries throughout the world who have suffered under British Imperialism and the greed of that nation for plundering nations. Good luck to these people in exposing the evils of the British regime.

Iskenderun

It continues to this day.
Witness some of the horrible acts visited by the British Army on the poor people of Basra.
They have no shame. They feel no guilt. There is no justice.

Judgement Day

Iskenderun wrote: »

It continues to this day.
Witness some of the horrible acts visited by the British Army on the poor people of Basra.
They have no shame. They feel no guilt. There is no justice.

I understood that the British Army had a relatively good relationship with the people of Basra and that as a result the situation there was a great deal better there than in other parts of Iraq?

Guy:Incognito

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The British Empire has always lacked morals, decency and a respect for nations sovereignty and the wishes of their indigenous people to express it. The Mau Mau people deserve remuneration at the very least for the horrible crimes committed against them.
.

How many empires were built on morals, decency , a respect for nations sovereignty and the wishes of the people?

Iwasfrozen

The Mau Mau don't deserve compensation, it's in the past.
If they win this court case we may as well sue for the Famine.

The British Empire has always lacked morals, decency and a respect for nations sovereignty and the wishes of their indigenous people to express it. The Mau Mau people deserve remuneration at the very least for the horrible crimes committed against them.

Kenya is just one of many countries throughout the world who have suffered under British Imperialism and the greed of that nation for plundering nations. Good luck to these people in exposing the evils of the British regime.

Thats why they're transferring power back to the Iraqis. :rolleyes:

anonymous_joe

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The British Empire has always lacked morals, decency and a respect for nations sovereignty and the wishes of their indigenous people to express it. The Mau Mau people deserve remuneration at the very least for the horrible crimes committed against them.

Kenya is just one of many countries throughout the world who have suffered under British Imperialism and the greed of that nation for plundering nations. Good luck to these people in exposing the evils of the British regime.

Don't disagree with ya, but we'd have done the same, as would any regime of that era.

Depressing truth.

Nodin

MarchDub wrote: »

From today's Guardian newspaper. Kenya's Mau Mau veterans lodge compensation claim against Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/mau-mau-veterans-compensation

Lawyer for the group said:
"This will be the first time that the British government has had to account for its terrible, terrible deeds. This case is about justice for those individuals who had a terrible, terrible time. A number of them suffered from castration, women suffered from horrendous sexual abuse, many, many Maus Maus were beaten, tortured and killed," he said. "This case is about bringing all those issues before the British court and a British judge to say 'what we did was wrong'."

Wonder how many more throughout the empire will go to the courts? There have to be caseloads like this.

Bit bloody late now, tbh.....

Nodin

Judgement Day wrote: »

I understood that the British Army had a relatively good relationship with the people of Basra and that as a result the situation there was a great deal better there than in other parts of Iraq?

....in that they did a deal with the local militia that they'd leave them be if they'd return the favour. They pulled back to airport and stayed there until quitting time.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4461023.ece

Erin Go Brath

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Mau Mau people

Kenyans? Was the Mau Mau not just the name of the fighters, as opposed to a tribe?

Atrocities were committed on both sides, it would be like the IRA suing the British Government now. You started it all, no you did, you killed more, no it was your fault.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

Kenyans? Was the Mau Mau not just the name of the fighters, as opposed to a tribe?

Atrocities were committed on both sides, it would be like the IRA suing the British Government now. You started it all, no you did, you killed more, no it was your fault.

That is very true. I think it would also be fair to say the Mau Mau were a minority in Kenya as well. In my early days working there were a few guys who did their national service out in Kenya and I recall them talking about whole villages burnt to the ground by the Mau Mau.

The biggest complaint by the Mau Maus is that the british rounded them up and put them in huge prison camps. A drastic tactic, but what no one knows is what would have happened if they hadn't. How many wars have there been in Africa that didn't involve some form of ethnic cleansing or genocide?

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The biggest complaint by the Mau Maus is that the british rounded them up and put them in huge prison camps.

Think it went further than just putting them in bunk beds. Think there was allegations of castration, mass rape by British soldiers, serious mutilation and torture etc. But think there are serious allegations against the Mau Mau too - not sure if it is by the British or other Kenyans...

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

Think it went further than just putting them in bunk beds. Think there was allegations of castration, mass rape by British soldiers, serious mutilation and torture etc. But think there are serious allegations against the Mau Mau too - not sure if it is by the British or other Kenyans...

Yeah, I didn't really get my point across there.

The majority of the troops were Kenyan loyal to the British regime and iirc, there was a large retaliatory attack after a home guard village was destroyed by the Mau Mau.

FTA69

The biggest complaint by the Mau Maus is that the british rounded them up and put them in huge prison camps. A drastic tactic, but what no one knows is what would have happened if they hadn't.

That's right yeah, the British only ever invaded and colonised other countries to stop the uncivilised natives warring... :rolleyes:

The f*ckers should have never been there in the first place, never mind undertaking "drastic tactics" while trying to suppress a popular independence movement.

JD,

I understood that the British Army had a relatively good relationship with the people of Basra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha_Mousa

El Stuntman

how many Irishmen were in the British army at the time that it was engaged in all of this oppression?

something that is not often mentioned but represents an uncomfortable truth to some of our more self-righteous posters on here perhaps.....:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

That's right yeah, the British only ever invaded and colonised other countries to stop the uncivilised natives warring... :rolleyes:

The f*ckers should have never been there in the first place, never mind undertaking "drastic tactics" while trying to suppress a popular independence movement.

JD,

if it hadn't been the British, it would have been the Dutch, Portugese or French.

But then, if it had, you wouldn't care would you?

MarchDub

FTA69 wrote: »

That's right yeah, the British only ever invaded and colonised other countries to stop the uncivilised natives warring... :rolleyes:

The f*ckers should have never been there in the first place, never mind undertaking "drastic tactics" while trying to suppress a popular independence movement.

JD,

Exactly. And that is the key right there to the whole issue - invading other territories and then claiming the innocuous "oops - there are atrociousness being committed on both sides" - give me a break, an invading force is going to be met with force. History of the world.

If anyone were to invade the Republic of Ireland today and snatch whole areas of the country with a brute force military [which is the way colonialism worked ] think we would all just say - well, now what is the fair and honorable way to respond to this invading army?

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if it hadn't been the British, it would have been the Dutch, Portugese or French.

But then, if it had, you wouldn't care would you?

Well if thats not an "if I didn't rape that bird with the short skirt on the way home somebody else would have" of an excuse i don't know what is. Mind you they did that as well.

So to summarise most people here seem to have zero problems with an army heading to an area where they shouldn't be going and murdering, raping, castrating and god knows what else to the locals. Lets excuse them and because some Irish mercenaries were possibly involved with the British Army aswell its somehow our own countries fault as well.

LordSutch

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Lets excuse them and because some Irish mercenaries were possibly involved with the British Army aswell its somehow our own countries fault as well.

Irish mercenaries 'possibly' involved :rolleyes:

More like one third of the regular British Army actually being IRISH, with the whole machine being a very Anglo/Irish affair (this tends to be conviently overlooked by some) who like to point the finger and say British=Bad, Irish=good, whereas in reality, it was a lot more complicated than that with Ireland & the Irish playing a major role in Colonial adventures the World over, including Kenya .......

MarchDub

El Stuntman wrote: »

how many Irishmen were in the British army at the time that it was engaged in all of this oppression?

something that is not often mentioned but represents an uncomfortable truth to some of our more self-righteous posters on here perhaps.....:rolleyes:

That is an absurd statement. So the policy makers are nothing compared to the enlisted men? The policy makers are those who frame and give the orders and - in the case of colonialism were the ones who reaped the financial rewards. Not even the enlisted men of the Nazis were held to such a standard - i.e responsibility - as you suggest.

It's POLICY we are talking about here - not giving the rank and file a DNA test.

Erin Go Brath

Camelot wrote: »

Irish mercenaries 'possibly' involved :rolleyes:

More like one third of the regular British Army actually being IRISH, with the whole machine being a very Anglo/Irish affair (this tends to be conviently overlooked by some) who like to point the finger and say British=Bad, Irish=good, whereas in reality, it was a lot more complicated than that with Ireland & the Irish playing a major role in Colonial adventures the World over, including Kenya .......

The clue is in the name of the army, the British Army. Ireland had and have its own army. If Irish men joined the British Army they get no special absolution and I'm sure they were as bad as their British counterparts. I don't remember Ireland being a imperialist power colonising other countries by the way. Ireland did not play a major, or in fact any role in Colonial adventures the World over. Some Irish people may have as part of the British Army but its not the same thing.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Ireland did not play a major, or in fact any role in Colonial adventures the World over. Some Irish people may have as part of the British Army but its not the same thing.

So what you are saying, is that if Ireland had been an independant country, unlike every other country in europe, it would not have had its own empire or been interested in expanding overseas.

LordSutch

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The clue is in the name of the army, the British Army. Ireland had and have its own army. If Irish men joined the British Army they get no special absolution and I'm sure they were as bad as their British counterparts. I don't remember Ireland being a imperialist power colonising other countries by the way. Ireland did not play a major, or in fact any role in Colonial adventures the World over. Some Irish people may have as part of the British Army but its not the same thing.

As regards the Mau Mau uprising of the 1950's fair enough, there was only a small Irish representation involved, but the Irish did play a major role during the original Colonisation of Kenya back in the 1800's.

Acacia

Stekelly wrote: »

How many empires were built on morals, decency , a respect for nations sovereignty and the wishes of the people?

Not very many, but I think that's a fairly obvious point, and I don't know why it had to brought up.

Britain done some terrible things as an imperial power. That doesn't mean other countries didn't too, but this story is about Britain and Kenya. Not any other Empires.

Deleted User wrote: »

Kenyans? Was the Mau Mau not just the name of the fighters, as opposed to a tribe?

Atrocities were committed on both sides, it would be like the IRA suing the British Government now. You started it all, no you did, you killed more, no it was your fault.

I think it's fairly obvious who started it all, is it not?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is very true. I think it would also be fair to say the Mau Mau were a minority in Kenya as well. In my early days working there were a few guys who did their national service out in Kenya and I recall them talking about whole villages burnt to the ground by the Mau Mau.

The biggest complaint by the Mau Maus is that the british rounded them up and put them in huge prison camps. A drastic tactic, but what no one knows is what would have happened if they hadn't. How many wars have there been in Africa that didn't involve some form of ethnic cleansing or genocide?

Deflecting from the fact that they wouldn't haven't had to take a 'drastic step' if they weren't in Kenya in the first place. Good old Britain, stepping in to stop those nasty warring tribes.

El Stuntman wrote: »

how many Irishmen were in the British army at the time that it was engaged in all of this oppression?

something that is not often mentioned but represents an uncomfortable truth to some of our more self-righteous posters on here perhaps.....:rolleyes:

What's this got to do with anything? Can Irish people not criticize the actions of the British army because there were Irish soldiers involved?

What happened was wrong, I have no problem criticizing either the British or Irish soldiers involved.

Camelot wrote: »

Irish mercenaries 'possibly' involved :rolleyes:

More like one third of the regular British Army actually being IRISH, with the whole machine being a very Anglo/Irish affair (this tends to be conviently overlooked by some) who like to point the finger and say British=Bad, Irish=good, whereas in reality, it was a lot more complicated than that with Ireland & the Irish playing a major role in Colonial adventures the World over, including Kenya .......

More deflection. So what if there were Irish soldiers involved? It doesn't mean what happened can't be criticized . Although it is worth pointing out that this event in particular happened post-Irish independence, so any Irish involved were under the British flag, carrying out atrocities in Britain's name.

I do agree that the reality of the British Empire was not black and white
( e.g. Britain = bad, Ireland=good), but the fact is Ireland was not a colonial power and was a colony itself .


Why must ''there were Irish involved too!" and ''there were worse Empires!" be brought up every time there is a discussion about the British Empire, deflecting from the issues at hand?

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Well if thats not an "if I didn't rape that bird with the short skirt on the way home somebody else would have" of an excuse i don't know what is. Mind you they did that as well.

So to summarise most people here seem to have zero problems with an army heading to an area where they shouldn't be going and murdering, raping, castrating and god knows what else to the locals. Lets excuse them and because some Irish mercenaries were possibly involved with the British Army aswell its somehow our own countries fault as well.

I wasn't questioning the allegation, it was more to question why people on an Irish politics board get stiff with excitement when they get to debate this kind of thing, yet there is never the moral outrage of allegations against the French or Spanish. The latter of whom probably commited more attrocities than the rest put together. Still, most of that was done in the name of the pope so that probably diesn't get talked about in Irish schools.

Lets face it, those going on about abuse by the British don't actually give a **** about the locals that were exploited, it is just another excuse to have a go at Britain.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that if Ireland had been an independant country, unlike every other country in europe, it would not have had its own empire or been interested in expanding overseas.

Well thats just speculation. Ireland may or may not have had an interest in expansion if its situation was different. Do you want to write an alternative history of what ifs? Or you do want to deal with what actually happened in the real world.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Well thats just speculation. Ireland may or may not have had an interest in expansion if its situation was different. Do you want to write an alternative history of what ifs? Or you do want to deal with what actually happened in the real world.

No, what i am saying is maybe people should stop being so self righteous about the whole thing.

Erin Go Brath

Camelot wrote: »

As regards the Mau Mau uprising of the 1950's fair enough, there was only a small Irish representation involved, but the Irish did play a major role during the original Colonisation of Kenya back in the 1800's.

Ireland was essentially a UK province back then controlled by the Anglo Irish gentry, landlord classes and from Westminster. Ireland was a colony itself and the majority Catholic population had no control over the affairs of Ireland.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wasn't questioning the allegation, it was more to question why people on an Irish politics board get stiff with excitement when they get to debate this kind of thing, yet there is never the moral outrage of allegations against the French or Spanish. The latter of whom probably commited more attrocities than the rest put together. Still, most of that was done in the name of the pope so that probably diesn't get talked about in Irish schools.

Lets face it, those going on about abuse by the British don't actually give a **** about the locals that were exploited, it is just another excuse to have a go at Britain.

blah blah blah whataboutery blah blah blah more deflection blah blah blah couldn't be arsed debating the topic at hand blah blah blah what about the frenchies and spaniards blah blah blah there were some Irish people in the British Army blah blah blah the pope blah blah blah having a pop at the poor Brits blah blah blah

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

blah blah blah whataboutery blah blah blah more deflection blah blah blah couldn't be arsed debating the topic at hand blah blah blah what about the frenchies and spaniards blah blah blah there were some Irish people in the British Army blah blah blah the pope blah blah blah having a pop at the poor Brits blah blah blah

sorry, is the truth hurting by any chance?

Acacia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, what i am saying is maybe people should stop being so self righteous about the whole thing.

How is it self-righteous? We could sit here all day listing out the various other imperial countries' atrocities as well as Britain's, but I don't really see what purpose that would serve. Other than of course, allow the British apologists a chance to say ''but Britain weren't that bad after all!"

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wasn't questioning the allegation, it was more to question why people on an Irish politics board get stiff with excitement when they get to debate this kind of thing, yet there is never the moral outrage of allegations against the French or Spanish. The latter of whom probably commited more attrocities than the rest put together. Still, most of that was done in the name of the pope so that probably diesn't get talked about in Irish schools.

Lets face it, those going on about abuse by the British don't actually give a **** about the locals that were exploited, it is just another excuse to have a go at Britain.

The French were bad, the Spanish were really awful and were just cruel towards the natives as the British, happy?

Although of course it should be noted, since we're discussing other Empires, that the Spanish and Portuguese in South America made extensive efforts to record the natives' language, culture and past-times, unlike the British, who as far I as recall, made no such attempts, in Ireland, at least.

I have to laugh at your last sentence, Fred. I would wager that it's those who are keen to moan about Britain being picked on are those who don't give a crap about the locals that were exploited, after all they never want to discuss the atrocities at hand, but merely bring up other Empires and the fact that Irish people were involved too.

Just because you really want this to be about some Irish inferiority complex that means we only criticize Britain to 'have a go' at them, it doesn't make it so.

Fratton Fred

Acacia wrote: »

How is it self-righteous? We could sit here all day listing out the various other imperial countries' atrocities as well as Britain's, but I don't really see what purpose that would serve. Other than of course, allow the British apologists a chance to say ''but Britain weren't that bad after all!"

The self righteous bit is claiming that those people out spreading britishness were "Forced to do it to put food on the table" or that they were "Mercenaries" or "traitors". That is just bollocks. They joined the British army for the exact same reasons as someone from London, Glasgow or Cardiff. They wanted to be a soldier, see the world and reap the rewards.

Acacia wrote: »

The French were bad, the Spanish were really awful and were just cruel towards the natives as the British, happy?

Although of course it should be noted, since we're discussing other Empires, that the Spanish and Portuguese in South America made extensive efforts to record the natives' language, culture and past-times, unlike the British, who as far I as recall, made no such attempts, in Ireland, at least.

that's good. At least the Spanish kept their heritage alive, before massacreing them of enslaving them.

Acacia wrote: »

I have to laugh at your last sentence, Fred. I would wager that it's those who are keen to moan about Britain being picked on are those who don't give a crap about the locals that were exploited, after all they never want to discuss the atrocities at hand, but merely bring up other Empires and the fact that Irish people were involved too.

Just because you really want this to be about some Irish inferiority complex that means we only criticize Britain to 'have a go' at them, it doesn't make it so.

If this thread was about the pending court cases surrounding abuses in Kenya then fine, but as soon as the thread goes up, along come references to Iraq etc etc. Same old same old tbh.

I would wager that half the posters on this thread had never even heard of the Mau Mau uprising until now, but couldn't resist the chance to chip in with comments.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The biggest complaint by the Mau Maus is that the british rounded them up and put them in huge prison camps. A drastic tactic, but what no one knows is what would have happened if they hadn't. How many wars have there been in Africa that didn't involve some form of ethnic cleansing or genocide?

Ethnic cleansing is something colonising powers taught to Africans, look at the Hutu/Tutsi division, there are not different ethnic groups but the Belgians created that division. This is well documented at this stage.

Camelot wrote: »

Irish mercenaries 'possibly' involved :rolleyes:

More like one third of the regular British Army actually being IRISH, with the whole machine being a very Anglo/Irish affair (this tends to be conviently overlooked by some) who like to point the finger and say British=Bad, Irish=good, whereas in reality, it was a lot more complicated than that with Ireland & the Irish playing a major role in Colonial adventures the World over, including Kenya .......

Your figure of a third seems grossly over exaggerated, I'd like to see a reference to back that up please. Irish involvement in the British army has not been overlooked, certainly not by any of my lecturers. You however seem to have ignored the very real economic concerns that factored into Irish involvement in the British army, painting them all as adventurers and plunderers?

Can'tseeme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that if Ireland had been an independant country, unlike every other country in europe, it would not have had its own empire or been interested in expanding overseas.

If there were men on the moon, would they not want to come to earth and expand their empire.:rolleyes:

They say you should learn from your history, one reason to be proud of Ireland neutrality in the world.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that if Ireland had been an independant country, unlike every other country in europe, it would not have had its own empire or been interested in expanding overseas.

Now that's more than a bit silly. Alternative universes aren't really a part of history.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

You however seem to have ignored the very real economic concerns that factored into Irish involvement in the British army, painting them all as adventurers and plunderers?

Of huge importance I am sure to the "about to be shot" African.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of huge importance I am sure to the "about to be shot" African.

Who's giving the orders would be the most important factor and under what policy by what government's self proclaimed mandate.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Now that's more than a bit silly. Alternative universes aren't really a part of history.

isn't this politics?

Why is it silly? the Irish weren't adverse to trotting off overseas to create colonies, but because they did it under the Union flag rather than the tricolour, this somehow makes them better than everyone else?

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

isn't this politics?

You're trying to rewrite history by saying that if Ireland got its way there'd be an empire.

Why is it silly? the Irish weren't adverse to trotting off overseas to create colonies, but because they did it under the Union flag rather than the tricolour, this somehow makes them better than everyone else?

Show me where a native Irishman (not an anglo irishman) set off to set up a colony on his own steam with a completely Irish army and no British imput and you might begin to have a point.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Who's giving the orders would be the most important factor and under what policy by what government's self proclaimed mandate.

Aah right, so if a Kenyan has a broken bottle shoved in his face by a fellow Kenyan or even an Irishman, the Kenyan or Irishman is absolved of any blame because they followed a red white and blue flag?

Therefore, the thousands of Irish men joining the British army to go and fight in Africa, India etc did so in the belief that they were going there to do what exactly, play football?

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

Lolz at that it most certainly isn't. Is it India's fault that south Africa was colonised? Greece, albania, poland, switzerland, etc, etc, they're also guilty of the colonisation of Kenya, Algeria, Congo, Caribbean are they? Nonsense.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

You're trying to rewrite history by saying that if Ireland got its way there'd be an empire.

is there anything to suggest otherwise?

brianthebard wrote: »

Show me where a native Irishman (not an anglo irishman) set off to set up a colony on his own steam with a completely Irish army and no British imput and you might begin to have a point.

Why would they? it was a lot easier to tag along with the Spanish or British. Why are there huge Irish populations in Argentina, North America, Newfoundland etc?

There is no evidence to suggest that the irish would have done anything differnt to the British, Spanish and french if the shoe had been on the other foot.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is there anything to suggest otherwise?

History.

Why would they? it was a lot easier to tag along with the Spanish or British. Why are there huge Irish populations in Argentina, North America, Newfoundland etc?

There is no evidence to suggest that the irish would have done anything differnt to the British, Spanish and french if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I understand you want to defend the British empire for personal or patriotic reasons, but you've no basis for anything you're saying here.

Acacia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The self righteous bit is claiming that those people out spreading britishness were "Forced to do it to put food on the table" or that they were "Mercenaries" or "traitors". That is just bollocks. They joined the British army for the exact same reasons as someone from London, Glasgow or Cardiff. They wanted to be a soldier, see the world and reap the rewards.

I don't think it is 'self-righteous' to point out that some Irish soldiers did join to put food on the table, etc. However, I don't think anybody knows for certain why exactly anyone joined the British army. All we can do is speculate. Where self-righteousness comes into it , I don't know.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's good. At least the Spanish kept their heritage alive, before massacreing them of enslaving them.

Hey, you were the one who brought up the Spanish and the French and how bad they were. I don't disagree that their empires were terrible, just thought that this was an interesting titbit, since we're comparing and contrasting the different empires.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If this thread was about the pending court cases surrounding abuses in Kenya then fine, but as soon as the thread goes up, along come references to Iraq etc etc. Same old same old tbh.

I would wager that half the posters on this thread had never even heard of the Mau Mau uprising until now, but couldn't resist the chance to chip in with comments.

In fairness, along with references to Iraq there was the usual revisionism and what-aboutery, and Britain wasn't as bad as others, etc,etc.

It's actually quite difficult to debate the topic at hand, because a few posters seem to get defensive and claim the thread is only there as an excuse to have a go at Britain. I don't mean you, it's a general vibe that I get from this forum, whenever a debate about the British Empire pops up.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Lolz at that it most certainly isn't. Is it India's fault that south Africa was colonised? Greece, albania, poland, switzerland, etc, etc, they're also guilty of the colonisation of Kenya, Algeria, Congo, Caribbean are they? Nonsense.

Greece had its own empoire didn't it? should we therefore hold them accountable for Alexander the great?

you're nit picking, you know full well what my point is.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you're nit picking, you know full well what my point is.

I'm afraid I don't. I don't think you have a point, certainly not one based in any factual evidence.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah right, so if a Kenyan has a broken bottle shoved in his face by a fellow Kenyan or even an Irishman, the Kenyan or Irishman is absolved of any blame because they followed a red white and blue flag?

Therefore, the thousands of Irish men joining the British army to go and fight in Africa, India etc did so in the belief that they were going there to do what exactly, play football?

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

Right there you have revealed much about your own psychic - "a guilt shared". If guilt is what you are trying to spread around you are on a hiding to nowhere. As BrianTB has said - history is not framed in a parallel universe. It is what it is.

Some European countries expanded overseas - they had the characteristics, the makeup, the inherent natures to do so. Some others did not and never developed huge military capabilities. Why this is so is also an interesting anthropological study. But one thing is certain - it is neither accurate nor scholarly to describe all nations as having the same responses or the same aspirational drive.

So to hypothesize that "the Irish would have done the same" is an empty speculation and complete nonsense.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't. I don't think you have a point, certainly not one based in any factual evidence.

OK, so Britain, Holland, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Austria and Hungary all had empires. not all of Europe, but pretty much the lion's share.

it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that Ireland too would have had an empire. especially considering that there are over 100million Irish people around the world, the bulk of which ended up where they did as a direct result of colonialisation. Besides which, the Irish fought for the british, french and Spanish as part of their empire building.

Colonialism is a european disease, Ireland were part of the disease.

ejmaztec

No doubt the court case will reveal who did what to whom, and under whose authority. My Kerry born uncle was in the RAF in Kenya, but I think it was all over by the time he got there, so I can't pin it on him. I think that he joined the RAF because he liked Brylcreem and wanted to look cool in his uniform.

jmayo

MarchDub wrote: »

Exactly. And that is the key right there to the whole issue - invading other territories and then claiming the innocuous "oops - there are atrociousness being committed on both sides" - give me a break, an invading force is going to be met with force. History of the world.

If anyone were to invade the Republic of Ireland today and snatch whole areas of the country with a brute force military [which is the way colonialism worked ] think we would all just say - well, now what is the fair and honorable way to respond to this invading army?

If anyone was to invade Ireland a good chunk of the Irish people would do as they always do, look after no.1 and see what they could make out of it.
IMHO saying otherwise is bull.
As a people we get walked on by our own leaders and we only bitch and moan when it hurts our own pockets.
And the image of Ireland gallantly resisting the foreign oppressor is just that, an image.
Most of our revolutionaries were either sold out or ignored by the masses. The 1798 revolution did not get the backing of most of the population, neither did Emmett, neither did 1916 and it was only the execution of the leaders that galvanised the population into the War of Independence.

The British used the peoples it conquered or colonised to help them colonise elsewhere.
Thus Irish worked for them in India, Africa and even Scotland.
And I am not just talking about the landed gentry who had leadership roles.
Scots helped them in Ireland, Africa, India.
Indians helped them in Africa.
A lot of Irish were out in the streets of Dublin cheering old Victoria when she visited, were they foirced to do this ?

Maybe us Irish never conquered anyone, but we did enough to help conquer others. And saying we were only the foot soldiers who were ordered to do it, stinks of the excuses used by Ukrainians etc who worked in the Nazi death camps.

What always gets me about these threads is they end up being a bashing argument about how my history is better then yours.

Even worse our history since independence is hardly glorious.
Anyone for 60 odd years of wholesale child abuse carried out with the tacit approval of the apparatus of the state ?

As regards these lawsuits it stinks of lawyers out to make a few quid.
It would be great if we could right the wrongs of the past, but we can't and often the real victims are long dead. Nothing will bring them back but justince shoudl be done where it needs to be done.
Incidents of torture, murder and abuse investiaged and cases taken against surviving perpetrators.
Sadly in Africa's case we could be in court for the rest of the century trying to unravel some of their darker incidents that have plagued that continent, and have sadly done us in great numbers even after the colonial froces have long departed.