"White people most violent and oppressive"

wes

whisky_galore wrote: »

And participant in. Bit of amnesia about the numbers of Irish in British forces and colonial civil service.

You also had Indians and Africans joined up as well to varying degrees. Both groups serving during World War 2. The fact remains the people running the show were the UK.

Hande hoche!

whisky_galore wrote: »

And participant in. Bit of amnesia about the numbers of Irish in British forces and colonial civil service.

One tidbit I find interesting, is that the largest number of Irish Victoria cross winners was during the Indian Mutiny.

wes

wes wrote: »

People have done so to varying degrees.

Who? Historians? Politicians?

There is very little true acknowledgment by people about the collective past of their nationalities or ethnic groups, and usually, it comes with excuses or allowances for the behavior.

Criticism tends to come from external sources, who they themselves are willingly blind to their own ethnic/national behavior. It's like the Black power/rights movements who criticise America for slavery but ignore the times that black people themselves engaged in the slavery of their own peoples (in rather large numbers).

Occasionally, I see someone (a "liberal", historian, or SJW) who makes comments about their own national heritage but they tend to have been raised in a "western" culture themselves and seem to be looking more for attention than any genuine desire to address the past.

I just highlighted those who are noticeable worse than anyone else.

You highlighted Britain as being worse. I could find you acts/behavior by other nations/ethnic groups that easily pass those of Britains. We just tend to think its worse, because we're Irish and victims of our own state propaganda.

wes wrote: »

You also had Indians and Africans joined up as well to varying degrees. Both groups serving during World War 2. The fact remains the people running the show were the UK.

Quite a few Irish people rose to positions of authority in the British Military... Wellington for example?

cfuserkildare

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who? Historians? Politicians?

There is very little true acknowledgment by people about the collective past of their nationalities or ethnic groups, and usually, it comes with excuses or allowances for the behavior.

Criticism tends to come from external sources, who they themselves are willingly blind to their own ethnic/national behavior. It's like the Black power/rights movements who criticise America for slavery but ignore the times that black people themselves engaged in the slavery of their own peoples (in rather large numbers).

Occasionally, I see someone (a "liberal", historian, or SJW) who makes comments about their own national heritage but they tend to have been raised in a "western" culture themselves and seem to be looking more for attention than any genuine desire to address the past.



You highlighted Britain as being worse. I could find you acts/behavior by other nations/ethnic groups that easily pass those of Britains. We just tend to think its worse, because we're Irish and victims of our own state propaganda.

Has everyone conveniently forgotten the disastrous French Colonies?
Seems like Ireland just to blame everything on Britain!

cfuserkildare

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Has everyone conveniently forgotten the disastrous French Colonies?
Seems like Ireland just to blame everything on Britain!

Pretty much. But that's fairly standard for a people who see themselves as victims.

You should see how Chinese media behaves about the Japanese invasion/occupation. It's creepy in a slightly hilarious way. Movies and TV shows are regularly shown to remind everyone. Love the ones where the Chinese female resistance fighter shoots down a Japanese Zero with her pistol. Just awesome. You'll find that the Japanese are blamed for just about everything, and what they're not blamed for, the Americans are. :rolleyes:

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Who? Historians? Politicians?

Both, they do acknowledge to varying degrees. None of it fixes or change anything.

Deleted User wrote: »

You highlighted Britain as being worse. I could find you acts/behavior by other nations/ethnic groups that easily pass those of Britains. We just tend to think its worse, because we're Irish and victims of our own state propaganda.

I said they were worse, when it came to hiding what they did, and not what they did. 2 very different things.

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite a few Irish people rose to positions of authority in the British Military... Wellington for example?

Wasn't he descended from British planters? Regardless, a few managing to make it high up, hardly changes things for the vast majority.

Franz Von Peppercorn

whisky_galore wrote: »

And participant in. Bit of amnesia about the numbers of Irish in British forces and colonial civil service.

Every country supplied foot soldiers to the empire. By and large the officer class were Anglo ( ie Anglo Irish or Anglo Indian ) but not always towards the end.

As for the colonial service I’d like to see figures on that. It was generally job for the old boys club, in Ireland that would be the Anglo Irish again or some catholics whose descendants are probably still in the leafy suburbs.

wes

wes wrote: »

I said they were worse, when it came to hiding what they did, and not what they did. 2 very different things.

Worse because they hide it? Do they actively hide it, or shuffle our attention elsewhere? Seems a common type of reporting about the past.

How much does Irish history dwell on the Irish people who joined the police and enforced British rule in Ireland? or the evictions during the famine? were they all English officials?

Surely you should be angry that the Irish government isn't promoting that kind of involvement?

Wasn't he descended from British planters? Regardless, a few managing to make it high up, hardly changes things for the vast majority.

I'm pretty sure he was born in Ireland, and that he had Irish blood in his family before him.

But I don't see why the vast majority should matter. Britain was an English Empire. If the vast majority were allowed power, then it wouldn't have been such an empire. Any Empire you can tell me that did allow a majority of it's conquered subjects (and not fail to internal strife)?

Franz Von Peppercorn

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Has everyone conveniently forgotten the disastrous French Colonies?
Seems like Ireland just to blame everything on Britain!

What was more disasterous about them than the British? Fairly early on the French made some parts of the colonies departments of France. Some still are. This gave them in theory the same rights as French men.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Worse because they hide it? Do they actively hide it, or shuffle our attention elsewhere? Seems a common type of reporting about the past.

How much does Irish history dwell on the Irish people who joined the police and enforced British rule in Ireland? or the evictions during the famine? were they all English officials?

Surely you should be angry that the Irish government isn't promoting that kind of involvement?



I'm pretty sure he was born in Ireland, and that he had Irish blood in his family before him.

But I don't see why the vast majority should matter. Britain was an English Empire. If the vast majority were allowed power, then it wouldn't have been such an empire. Any Empire you can tell me that did allow a majority of it's conquered subjects (and not fail to internal strife)?

The elite Anglo Irish weren’t seen and didn’t see themselves as Irish.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Hande hoche! wrote: »

One tidbit I find interesting, is that the largest number of Irish Victoria cross winners was during the Indian Mutiny.

The Indian mutiny probably had a lot of Indian Victoria cross winners as most of the non mutinous British army was still Indian.

If all Indians in the army had rebelled the British empire would have been lost. This doesn’t mean that the indians weren’t colonised or that they colonised themselves.

Sand

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The elite Anglo Irish weren’t seen and didn’t see themselves as Irish.

But if they were born within the borders of Ireland, then they are as Irish as Michael Collins. That is how the logic goes anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sand wrote: »

But if they were born within the borders of Ireland, then they are as Irish as Michael Collins. That is how the logic goes anyway.

I don’t think people apply that logic to colonial aristocrats. Then or now.

Skedaddle

Making sweeping statements about people's ideologies, political attitudes, histories and so on based exclusively on their skin colour is pretty divisive and kinda the definition of racial stereotyping. It's also projecting largely a recent American history of severe oppression, segregation, disgraceful treatment of black people and the racial tensions that legacy has left on to the whole world.

I don't identify with any of those white racist groups in the US, I don't identify with the nazis, with the British Empire, with the 19th century Belgians in the Congo or any of those horrible regimes that went around oppressing and people, enslaving people, committing genocide and so on. I had nothing to do with them, I may be the same colour as some of them, but that means nothing. I have no solidarity with them in anyway and find them utterly reprehensible and disgusting.

There are even parallels between how some of those oppressive dominant groups, eg the upper class 19th century British treated my ancestors.

I'm not taking responsibility or being tarred with the same brush a bunch of absolute monsters just because I happen to have the same skin tone. It's unfair. It's totally unhelpful in any political debate and it's just driving an 'us' and 'them' based on colour, instead of an 'us' and 'them' based on progressive, inclusive ideology vs racists and supremacists.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t think people apply that logic to colonial aristocrats. Then or now.

I think they apply it when it suits them. Find a positive reason to talk about him, and encourage the Irish connection. Talking about a negative aspect? Then he's obviously British. (or her).

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

I think they apply it when it suits them. Find a positive reason to talk about him, and encourage the Irish connection. Talking about a negative aspect? Then he's obviously British. (or her).

I think it runs deeper than that. Rudyard Kipling, the 'poet of the Empire' and ironically the author of poems like 'The Stranger' was born in India. While he was the author of some stirring poems like 'If' I doubt that India will be claiming him unironically any time soon. Similarly the author of Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Reginald Dyer, was also born in India (though educated in Cork, Ireland). The massacre was largely carried out by Indian troops, not British troops. The contemporary governor of the Punjab was was Michael O'Dwyer, a Tipperary man of good old Gaelic stock. But it was the almost entirely British born House of Commons which condemned and rejected the massacre.

Identities and loyalties run deeper than where someone was born, and those identities can be arbitrary and slippery.

This Bergdof person is of English descent, through their mother, so that is fine as far as it goes. But their identity is clearly hostile to English people. That's sad, its something Bergdof probably needs to work through with professional help. But its a very silly move by Labour to indulge personal issues at a national political level when they need the votes of English people.

Skedaddle

It's not your genes or your ethnicity, it's your ideology, motives, who/what you represent and most importantly actions that count.

764dak

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What was more disasterous about them than the British? Fairly early on the French made some parts of the colonies departments of France. Some still are. This gave them in theory the same rights as French men.

Haiti Independence Debt:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/12/06/in-1825-haiti-gained-independence-from-france-for-21-billion-its-time-for-france-to-pay-it-back/#69c3dce1312b

In 1825, barely two decades after winning its independence against all odds, Haiti was forced to begin paying enormous “reparations” to the French slaveholders it had overthrown.

markodaly

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

As long as they keep opposing Tory cuts (sic) and put forward good alternative policies, Labour's support will continue to rise. Most working class white people just aren't into the whole "oh woe is me, the bad black woman said something bad about white people, waaaahhh double standards waaaaahhh" nonsense that preoccupies some of the more easily offended and delicate little flowers on here.

Don't mind what the internet says. Look at actual people and how they vote.
Nationalism and cultural pride does exist in working class communities, its self evident.

If Labour goes down the whole intersectionality akin to some sections of the Democrats they will push away more votes than they will lose. If Labour hold her up on a pedestal and start tearing strips off these communities then they will lose. The Torries will have to do very little to win them over.

AllForIt

If I were a lion I would see her as a tasty meal.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Worse because they hide it? Do they actively hide it, or shuffle our attention elsewhere? Seems a common type of reporting about the past.

The actively cover up and destroy evidence. I mentioned operation legacy several times already

Deleted User wrote: »

How much does Irish history dwell on the Irish people who joined the police and enforced British rule in Ireland? or the evictions during the famine? were they all English officials?

Surely you should be angry that the Irish government isn't promoting that kind of involvement?

World of difference between not dwelling on certain parts of history and the active destruction of historical evidence. You are not comparing like with like at all.

As I said the Brits are rather efficient, when it comes to covering up there own crimes and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he was born in Ireland, and that he had Irish blood in his family before him.

The thing about the Brits is that they loved to promote people of a certain class. We still see some of that today even in the UK.

It was deliberate tactic to play one group against another. Divide and rule is actually pretty well covered btw. These tactics by the British empire are still causing trouble to this day the world over, including our own island.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I don't see why the vast majority should matter. Britain was an English Empire. If the vast majority were allowed power, then it wouldn't have been such an empire. Any Empire you can tell me that did allow a majority of it's conquered subjects (and not fail to internal strife)?

So, only a minority of Irish people were actually involved. Empire always found willing locals to help them oppress there own people in exchange for power, money etc. Its nothing new, and doesn't really change a lot.

Vast majority were still colonized and willing locals doesn't really change that.

wes

Cold Night wrote: »

How did whites end up colonizing most of the world? What made us better? Technology, will power?

There is no such thing as "whites". Most of the people called "white" today, were trying trying to kill each other in World War 2. I don't think it would take a whole lot for that situation to occur again.

Who is and isn't considered "white" actually changes over time. There is no unified "white" culture. Now you do have Irish, British, French, German etc culture, all groups who would be called "white".

To give an example in the US [URL="US Census fails to add MENA category: Arabs to remain 'white' in count"]Arabs are considered[/URL] white on the census there.

Charmeleon

Cold Night wrote: »

How did whites end up colonizing most of the world? What made us better? Technology, will power?

The axis of the continents seems to have been important. Europe has less spread over latitude and more over longitude than Africa, the Americas or some parts of Asia. That meant it was more favourable for the concentrated spread of agriculture and domesticated animals. Many plants that grow in Ireland can also grow in Portugal, Italy and Sweden. For Africa or the Americas, these ‘longer’ continents had almost impenetrable barriers like jungles and deserts which prevented the widespread development of farming.

In Europe and parts of Asia, very large territories divided themselves into competing tribes and eventually states. An arms race of technology developed for trade or fighting with and a parallel civilizing arms race within the countries to make them successful at governing themselves gave Europeans and some Asian countries a major advantage when they became imperial powers.

See Jared Diamond’s ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’ for the full story on this theory.

markodaly

wes wrote: »

There is no such thing as "whites". Most of the people called "white" today, were trying trying to kill each other in World War 2. I don't think it would take a whole lot for that situation to occur again.

Exactly, which makes the whole debate on why white people oppress others null and void. There is no genetic or instinctive thing that white people have that cause them to be violent.

Who is and isn't considered "white" actually changes over time. There is no unified "white" culture. Now you do have Irish, British, French, German etc culture, all groups who would be called "white".

Yes and no. The word 'White' is a bad description really as we should be talking about Europeans, which are white due to the climate. Europeans share a common heritage and culture of reason, logic and enlightenment. We can trace this back to the ancient Greeks.

These attributes are not exclusive to Europeans but for various reasons they came a secret sauce. This sauce developed by europeans ( or white people) is the reason why they went off and conquered the rest of the globe.

The good thing though is that this sauce can be taught to other peoples.

Charmeleon

Cold Night wrote: »

On the arms race thing: surely you could say the same about American Indians and tribes in Africa? And yet small bands of whites conquered the natives who vast numerical superiority.

I guess European minds are better at technology.

Both Africa and the Americas were enormously lacking in domesticable plants and animals. You need herding animals that can be tamed, horses and cattle were not found in Africa or America. You have to feed predatory animals more meat than they give you so they are out for a start. Zebras have a nasty temperament and have never been fully domesticated. Other herding animals in Africa evolved alongside humans and were too skittish. Neither were most of the staple crops available in other continents. America had maize but it wasn’t as useful or easy to domesticate as wheat, barley and lentils etc.

There were no animals suitable for transporting people and goods either which meant trade was only achievable by foot or by water.

wes

markodaly wrote: »

Yes and no. The word 'White' is a bad description really as we should be talking about Europeans, which are white due to the climate. Europeans share a common heritage and culture of reason, logic and enlightenment. We can trace this back to the ancient Greeks.

Sorry, plenty of examples of Europeans abandoning logic, reason and enlightenment. World War 1 and 2 are perfect examples of that. I wouldn't really cite that as common culture at all. The great many atrocities that have happened on this continent are far to often ignored in favor of Europe claiming being more enlightened than anyone else. Those 2 world wars heralded the end of Europe's empires.

Reason, logic and enlightenment will go straight out the window, if thing go badly enough. That to me seems to be a universal human trait. IMO, we are only as good as our circumstances.

markodaly

wes wrote: »

Sorry, plenty of examples of Europeans abandoning logic, reason and enlightenment. World War 1 and 2 are perfect examples of that. I wouldn't really cite that as common culture at all. The great many atrocities that have happened on this continent are far to often ignored in favor of Europe claiming being more enlightened than anyone else.

Reason, logic and enlightenment will go straight out the window, if thing go badly enough. That to me seems to be a universal human trait. IMO, we are only as good as our circumstances.

Well, we are human after all. We humans can be creative but equally destructive. If someone can cure us of human nature and the human condition, than tell us who and how.

However, the reason why WWI and WWII were so destructive was precisely because of the reasons I outlined above. If a tribe in Africa wants to wipe out another tribe across the plains, then the human costs is quite small and also very inefficient. If a fully industrialised nation state wants to go to war with another industrialised nation state then the means of destructive are in order of magnitude a lot higher, hence more death and destruction. Think spears versus nuclear weapons.

Take the power of the atom. It wasn't some tribe in the Amazon who discovered it nor learned how to split it. They were men of European origins. Why? Because over time the scientific method was created among another 101 reasons. Galileo, Cornipicious, Socrates, Aristotle, Newton, Edison and so on.

Standing on the shoulders of Giants and all that.

Bernard of Chartres used to say that we [the Moderns] are like dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants [the Ancients], and thus we are able to see more and farther than the latter. And this is not at all because of the acuteness of our sight or the stature of our body, but because we are carried aloft and elevated by the magnitude of the giants

So, yes. We Europeans were and pretty much still are more enlightened than others, warts and all. Faux indignation of uncomfortable truths not withstanding. I ask anyone then to name a culture, nation state or civilisation that is superior, so much so you would like to live there. I expect a giant tumbleweed to float past me now.

Tenigate

markodaly wrote: »

So, yes. We Europeans were and pretty much still are more enlightened than others, warts and all. Faux indignation of uncomfortable truths not withstanding. I ask anyone then to name a culture, nation state or civilisation that is superior, so much so you would like to live there. I expect a giant tumbleweed to float past me now.

Wakanda

Junkyard Tom

cycle4fun wrote: »

South Africa is going downhill just like Rhodesia / Zimbabwe did once it got "independence".

Going downhill for who?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The elite Anglo Irish weren’t seen and didn’t see themselves as Irish.

Many sent their children to English 'elite' schools to indoctrinate them in the ways of the colonist.

Cold Night wrote: »

How did whites end up colonizing most of the world? What made us better? Technology, will power?

We're not better and there is no 'we' when it comes to white people.

Guns, Germs and Steel. Pure historical luck allowed 'us' whites to use our technological advantages to subjugate others and transfer wealth from slave to master.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think they apply it when it suits them. Find a positive reason to talk about him, and encourage the Irish connection. Talking about a negative aspect? Then he's obviously British. (or her).

In the case of Wellington he could as well have been born in Berkshire as a British aristocrat or Dublin. It’s like thinking Richard Dawkins is a Kenyan.