"White people most violent and oppressive"

Franz Von Peppercorn · 28-02-2018 2:50am

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

For some reason, Labour are ignoring the reasons why Miliband was hammered at the last election.

They also overstimate Corbyn's popularity as well - if Corbyn were going to become Prime Minister, it would have been at the last snap election when May was figuratively on her knees.

He couldn't beat a lame duck Prime Minister then. And he won't beat her successor.

?

She was way ahead in the polls then. That’s literally why she called the snap election.

Rjd2 · 28-02-2018 2:58am

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

For some reason, Labour are ignoring the reasons why Miliband was hammered at the last election.

They also overstimate Corbyn's popularity as well - if Corbyn were going to become Prime Minister, it would have been at the last snap election when May was figuratively on her knees.

He couldn't beat a lame duck Prime Minister then. And he won't beat her successor.

It depends who they pick tbh.

If they run to the centre and pick someone with decent charisma like Davidson Corbyn is ****ed.

However that seems unlikely, so looking at the betting, he could face bland politicians like Rudd, Leadsom or and what would be the dream scenario someone to the hard right of the party Jacob Rees Mogg who is the bookies favourite. Mogg or Johnson would be destroyed, the centre ground would desert the party and they would be doomed.

Corbyn is very flawed, but bar maybe Davidson, the alternatives to May are absolutely dreadful.

cournioni · 28-02-2018 3:04am

The guy craves attention, wouldn’t pass any remarks.

RDM_83 again · 28-02-2018 7:19am

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.

There is a problem with your analysis, labour support hasn't continued to rise.
There was a big jump against a incredibly poor Tory campaign and since then it's stuck around 40-43%, they should be consistently ahead at this point of the cycle.

Coming of the fact that one of their conferences was found to be discriminating against white males (I think even the equality watch dog considered it a breach) a narrative is being built about labour.

Even if your in favour of more identity politics can't you see how it's a screw up to gift the mail, telegraph and Sun headlines like this, there is a vast number of socially conscious people they could have chosen that haven't made statements like this.

backspin. · 28-02-2018 10:09am

South African parliament has just voted to confiscate white owned land without compensation.

cycle4fun · 28-02-2018 10:17am

backspin. wrote: »

South African parliament has just voted to confiscate white owned land without compensation.

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

whisky_galore · 28-02-2018 11:50am

Africans were hammering the sh1te out of, exploiting and subjugating fellow Africans for 1,000s of years before whitey arrived.

Europeans were just better kitted out for it.

Now we have Chinese moving into Africa, we'll see how that goes...

seachto7 · 28-02-2018 12:10pm

backspin. wrote: »

South African parliament has just voted to confiscate white owned land without compensation.

Imagine that happening in Norn Iron.. :eek:

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-02-2018 12:17pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Africans were hammering the sh1te out of, exploiting and subjugating fellow Africans for 1,000s of years before whitey arrived.

Europeans were just better kitted out for it.

Now we have Chinese moving into Africa, we'll see how that goes...

I suppose at least Europeans did bring huge technological advancements to Africa. I wonder how sub saharan countries would have developed without such an influence.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-02-2018 12:24pm

cycle4fun wrote: »

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

What fcked Zimbabwe was their the collapse of their massive agricultural industry. Farms were 'given' to people who knew nothing about agriculture and the former 'breadbasket of Africa' quickly turned into a dive.

mzungu · 28-02-2018 12:58pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I suppose at least Europeans did bring huge technological advancements to Africa. I wonder how sub saharan countries would have developed without such an influence.

Not really. They brought technological advancements alright, but most Africans didn't benefit from it. To be honest, I would say SSA could not have fared much worse than they are now if they went without western technological influence.

On the flip side, I do think post-colonialism would have fared better if a more steady transition of power had taken place. Also, meddling by the USSR (and the US) during the cold war did not help matters either. Although in cases like Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko is completely at fault. Had he not been so selfish*, DRC could now be a success story, instead it's a complete mess.

* Swindled billions for his own personal fortune. Estimated at 5 billion which would have made him one of the richest men in the world at the time. Nationalised foreign owned companies and took the spoils for himself, He also sold off Zaire's diamond, cobalt and copper to the west and pocketed that for himself too. While the country was starving he built a few ranches, imported a load of Mercedes Benz, rented a Concorde to fly to Paris for shopping trips, and he also owned properties in Europe and other African nations. That's not to go into what became of opposition politicians and various groups that tried to stand up to him.

whisky_galore · 28-02-2018 1:21pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I suppose at least Europeans did bring huge technological advancements to Africa. I wonder how sub saharan countries would have developed without such an influence.

Most of those advances were to facilitate extraction of resources (railways/river transport) or to facilitate Europeans living there (disease prevention, administration, public works, buildings), a mixed bag of benefit / non-benefit.

wes · 28-02-2018 1:53pm

Amusing to see some of the usual suspects moaning about this.

As for the title of the thread. Any group who has power will abuse it. That doesn't excuse that abuse, but to say any one group is more prone to it is of course silly.

Having said all that, the British have been especially bad about owning up the crap they have pulled, and have even actively tried to erase evidence of there wrong doing via project legacy, which imo goes beyond the type of denial we have seen committed by the Turkish and Japanese governments for there own past atrocities.

JohnMc1 · 28-02-2018 2:05pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

She's British. In any case, I've seen a lot of white women complain about "all whites being racist" and men being overly apologetic about sexism.

White men apologising for their privelege is new-age Catholic guilt.

She's not British and she never will be [and she clearly doesn't want to be]

Being British [and Irish] is more than just having a passport. She maybe a British citizen but she is not and never will be British. Same with the "New Irish" Varadkar and Coveney are trying to bring in with 2040 plan.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-02-2018 2:15pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She's not British and she never will be [and she clearly doesn't want to be]

Being British [and Irish] is more than just having a passport. She maybe a British citizen but she is not and never will be British. Same with the "New Irish" Varadkar and Coveney are trying to bring in with 2040 plan.

She was born and brought up in Essex. That pretty much qualifies as British, factually speaking. Everything else is your opinion, which is not really relevant.

Hoboo · 28-02-2018 2:20pm

mzungu wrote: »

Nationalised foreign owned companies and took the spoils for himself, He also sold off Zaire's diamond, cobalt and copper to the west and pocketed that for himself too. While the country was starving he built a few ranches, imported a load of Mercedes Benz, rented a Concorde to fly to Paris for shopping trips, and he also owned properties in Europe and other African nations. That's not to go into what became of opposition politicians and various groups that tried to stand up to him.

Sounds very like Irish governments for the past 40 years.

28-02-2018 3:08pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What fcked Zimbabwe was their the collapse of their massive agricultural industry. Farms were 'given' to people who knew nothing about agriculture and the former 'breadbasket of Africa' quickly turned into a dive.

I'd say the killing of those educated by western institutions (the "intellectuals" or the skilled engineers) also contributed to it. They went a bit nuts removing the taint of capitalism from their country for the first few years before realising/caring that those people were the ones who were productive.

28-02-2018 3:19pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Most of those advances were to facilitate extraction of resources (railways/river transport) or to facilitate Europeans living there (disease prevention, administration, public works, buildings), a mixed bag of benefit / non-benefit.

More benefit (by default) for them. Tribalism and the traditional cultures didn't count for disease, waste disposal, etc. Superstition, and witchcraft were still strong influencers over peoples lives, and frankly, had little concern for their actual wellbeing. African superstitions were very harsh. Western practices and medicine increased the life expectancy, and there were more and more local people gaining the benefits of western education to be applied to the local population. Westernisation admittedly, but with a very African take on it.

My uncle was a Jesuit missionary to Zimbabwe prior to the power-change (he lived there for 15 years), teaching medicine at a company sponsored school for the locals. He taught medicine and surgical practices to locals. Prior to the change, he loved the country and the people. He went back around 10 years ago, and nearly all of his past students were killed in the months following the change-over. Skilled doctors and nurses. Killed because they were educated and removed from the "common" person.

Western technology was implemented to improve the gains of the state institutions, and the white settlers. But it was in their interests to improve the general status of the local population, to pull them away from the tribalism that plagued their societies. That tribalism, superstition, etc was/is far worse than the "imperialistic" attitudes.

No system is perfect, and the colonial system was seriously flawed. However, the alternative hasn't been any better.

28-02-2018 3:39pm

wes wrote: »

Having said all that, the British have been especially bad about owning up the crap they have pulled, and have even actively tried to erase evidence of there wrong doing via project legacy, which imo goes beyond the type of denial we have seen committed by the Turkish and Japanese governments for there own past atrocities.

Everyone tends to point to the British because their Empire was so large... but we tend to ignore the behavior of the other imperialistic nations. Belgium behaved horribly in their own colonies. France did the same, and in many ways, continued far longer than the others with Algeria. Then too there were the small colonies that Germany had where the locals were brutalized.

But then, it was a sign of the times. The belief in a racial superiority or superiority by culture.

However, I've traveled quite a bit in the last few years (Asia, Russia, and parts of Africa), and I've seen more of these other empires or countries out there. Just below the surface of most museum exhibits of the past, you can easily make out the ethnic superiority and the subsequent annihilation of other ethnic or cultural groups. In China, you have 56-57 Ethnic groups (I can never remember how many), but Han Chinese are the clear majority... The remainder are a minority because of ethnic cleansing over thousands of years. Even recently you can find enclaves in China where Koreans settled and had a majority population in the 50's but are now a clear minority. You can find similar stories in most asian countries. Where ethnic groups have been either violently removed, or "assimilated" (which can include all manner of techniques).

I do find this topic interesting simply because I find it ironic that we simply accept that western colonialism was awful. More awful than other countries histories... For the "Arabs"/Persians, we could point to the creation of a major slave trade before the Europeans really got involved. Or that African tribes themselves raided each other killing the young/old, and selling the remainder to each other or other peoples as slaves. (It's awfully convenient that Africans bear no responsibility for slaving their own kind, or even the mass genocides that nations like the Zulus committed). There are African tales going back thousands of years to the Egyptians coming for slaves, and killing off entire ranges to create a buffer. The Persians continued the practice after. We could look at the Mongols and the swathe of destruction that they created... or the Ming Dynasty who employed a scorched earth policy "near" their borders killing anyone that came near. The Thai's have similar histories.

Fact is, western culture is an easy target because "we've" encouraged the belief in accountability. The belief in a higher standard that is applied to us... and yet, somehow that standard doesn't need to be applied to other nations histories/behavior. And it should. Other nations should have to face up to the brutal realities of their past and judge themselves by the same standards that they judge us.

FTA69 · 28-02-2018 3:40pm

I'm a member of Momentum and a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and I think Munroe Bergdorf is a f*cking dope. The ironic thing is that a lot of feminist and anti-racist thinking has huge relevance in today's Britain, but any legitimate point she has gets completely lost in the stupid and inaccurate generalisations she insists on making. She's after coming out recently and saying all the suffragettes were white supremacists and that black women were barred from voting in the UK - something that is completely untrue on both counts. The fact is that she's a bit of a muppet prone to talking simplistic, absolutist sh*te in a highly aggressive and patronising manner and people need to stop indulging her nonsense.

People will vote for Labour because it offers answers on things like high-energy bills, selling off the NHS, renationalising the railways, wage equality and housing. They won't flock to Labour because some f*cking model from London starts screaming at some lad driving a van in Grimsby for £10 an hour that he's a privileged racist attached to the power structure as if he was Elon Musk or something.

Absolute pain in the arse and I wish Labour would stop shooting itself in the foot constantly like this or we'll end up with the other c*nts again.

FTA69 · 28-02-2018 3:48pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She's not British and she never will be [and she clearly doesn't want to be]

Being British [and Irish] is more than just having a passport. She maybe a British citizen but she is not and never will be British. Same with the "New Irish" Varadkar and Coveney are trying to bring in with 2040 plan.

Load of bigoted rubbish. So was Phil Lynott not Irish now?

wes · 28-02-2018 3:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Fact is, western culture is an easy target because "we've" encouraged the belief in accountability. The belief in a higher standard that is applied to us... and yet, somehow that standard doesn't need to be applied to other nations histories/behavior. And it should. Other nations should have to face up to the brutal realities of their past and judge themselves by the same standards that they judge us.

In the post you quoted I also bring up the Turks and Japanese denial of historical crimes. I was making a narrow point about people covering up there crimes and pointed to the Brits being the worse of the bunch, when it comes to that in regards to project legacy. Sorry, but you seemed to have completely missed the point I was getting at and ignored that I didn't actually single out "Western" countries, far from it, 2 out of my 3 example are not "Western" countries.

The fact is that the Brits haven't faced up to there past and actively tried to cover up there crimes. As I said earlier there not the only ones to do so, there just the best at it.

Also, lumping all "Western" countries in together doesn't make sense on this issue, some countries have owned up to there past and others have not. What you claim as a consistent value is nothing of the sort. The Brits are rather proud of there murderous empire (of which Ireland was a victim of), where as Germany owns up to many of there crimes.

I honestly don't think you even read what I said, as my point was about Britain and not the "West".

FTA69 · 28-02-2018 4:00pm

wes wrote: »

In the post you quoted I also bring up the Turks and Japanese denial of historical crimes. I was making a narrow point about people covering up there crimes and pointed to the Brits being the worse of the bunch, when it comes to that in regards to project legacy. Sorry, but you seemed to have completely missed the point I was getting at and ignored that I didn't actually single out "Western" countries, far from it, 2 out of my 3 example are not "Western" countries.

The fact is that the Brits haven't faced up to there past and actively tried to cover up there crimes. As I said earlier there not the only ones to do so, there just the best at it.

The funny thing is that every year it's in the media over here about Japan glossing over their antics in WW2 but the Brits are as bad if not far worse at muddying the waters regarding their history and the reality of how their Empire was built. I watched an hour long documentary about the East India Company the other day on the BBC and they entirely obfuscated the absolute devastation they wreaked on India. Britain has in no way faced up to its colonial past and many are still trying to portray their system of global looting and murder as some sort of complex cultural exchange by which all benefited.

I love the Brits as a people, but they're largely a pain in the arse when it comes to this stuff.

topper75 · 28-02-2018 4:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone tends to point to the British because their Empire was so large... but we tend to ignore the behavior of the other imperialistic nations. Belgium behaved horribly in their own colonies..

True and not widely known. Ironic that our imperial masters the British insisted we rush to help them in WWI ("in defence of small nations" as John Redmond put it).

Some horrible atrocities done down in Africa in the name of Belgium.

28-02-2018 4:56pm

wes wrote: »

In the post you quoted I also bring up the Turks and Japanese denial of historical crimes. I was making a narrow point about people covering up there crimes and pointed to the Brits being the worse of the bunch, when it comes to that in regards to project legacy. Sorry, but you seemed to have completely missed the point I was getting at and ignored that I didn't actually single out "Western" countries, far from it, 2 out of my 3 example are not "Western" countries.

Sorry. I suppose I should have said I wasn't arguing against your post.

Thought it was clear enough when I didn't take it apart (which is my usual style of posting, although I'm happy to start now.).

The fact is that the Brits haven't faced up to there past and actively tried to cover up there crimes. As I said earlier there not the only ones to do so, there just the best at it.

Who has faced up to their past?

Japan has apologised for its acts towards the Chinese before/during WW2, but that apology excludes certain things too. It also doesn't apologise for two failed invasions hundreds of years before, or the treatment of Chinese immigrants within Japanese territory up to the 70s/80s. [The flip side, no apology by China for the killing of Japanese civilians in China after Japanese military forces were defeated]

The US? It acknowledges some of what it did to the American Indians, but heaps of history is still layered with propaganda and hollywood scripts.

I can't think of any country that has faced up to its past and made an honest account of themselves.

Also, lumping all "Western" countries in together doesn't make sense on this issue, some countries have owned up to there past and others have not.

Okie Dokie. Who has owned up to their past?

What you claim as a consistent value is nothing of the sort. The Brits are rather proud of there murderous empire (of which Ireland was a victim of), where as Germany owns up to many of there crimes.

Germany was forced to face their crimes through 60 years of reinforced propaganda from the allied countries. It's education, media, etc were all forced to highlight the terrible behavior of the German people... and educational institutions outside of Germany all placed a rather heavy emphasis on German Atrocities.

Not so much emphasis on the firebombing of Dresden, the massacres of German navy personnel in the water, the POW camps where German troops starved to death or died of disease... Even when such behavior is noted, there are excuses made. Allowances given. You get the same about the Russian advance across Poland and East Germany, which ignores the massacres and mass rape, but it's all okay because they were the allies to the "Allies".

I honestly don't think you even read what I said, as my point was about Britain and not the "West".

Actually, I did read what you said. You focused on Britain. I chose to broaden the view.

28-02-2018 5:05pm

topper75 wrote: »

True and not widely known. Ironic that our imperial masters the British insisted we rush to help them in WWI ("in defence of small nations" as John Redmond put it).

Some horrible atrocities done down in Africa in the name of Belgium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

I know it's wiki, but it's worth the read. (Just in case, some people here aren't aware of other nations colonial behavior)

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-02-2018 5:11pm

topper75 wrote: »

True and not widely known. Ironic that our imperial masters the British insisted we rush to help them in WWI ("in defence of small nations" as John Redmond put it).

Some horrible atrocities done down in Africa in the name of Belgium.

I remember reading about their exploits in the Congo. They were rough alright.

They claimed primitive locals had no concept of the passing of time. No measurement systems etc. Truly extraordinary.

Hande hoche! · 28-02-2018 5:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

I know it's wiki, but it's worth the read. (Just in case, some people here aren't aware of other nations colonial behavior)

The Germans' conduct in South West Africa/ Namibia was also dreadful.

whisky_galore · 28-02-2018 5:26pm

wes wrote: »

The Brits are rather proud of there murderous empire (of which Ireland was a victim of)

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

wes · 28-02-2018 5:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry. I suppose I should have said I wasn't arguing against your post.

Thought it was clear enough when I didn't take it apart (which is my usual style of posting, although I'm happy to start now.).

Ah fair enough. I have had plenty of people in the past do so.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who has faced up to their past?

People have done so to varying degrees. I just highlighted those who are noticeable worse than anyone else.

wes · 28-02-2018 5:54pm

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! · 28-02-2018 6:42pm

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.

28-02-2018 6:43pm

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 · 28-02-2018 6:45pm

[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!

28-02-2018 6:51pm

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 · 28-02-2018 6:54pm

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 · 28-02-2018 6:59pm

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.

28-02-2018 7:01pm

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 · 28-02-2018 7:01pm

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 · 28-02-2018 7:03pm

[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 · 28-02-2018 7:08pm

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 · 28-02-2018 7:10pm

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 · 28-02-2018 7:13pm

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 · 28-02-2018 7:23pm

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.

28-02-2018 7:26pm

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 · 28-02-2018 7:52pm

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 · 28-02-2018 8:22pm

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

764dak · 28-02-2018 9:24pm

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 · 28-02-2018 9:48pm

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 · 28-02-2018 10:21pm

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

"White people most violent and oppressive"

Comments