Brits have nothing to apologise for says Gordon Brown

by lila Thu Nov 03, 2005 02:38

I suppose Anatola was there when the British murdered 300,000 Kikuyu. The books accounting kenya's past are written by two authors who meticulously researched the events. Anatola's source is undoubtedly the British propaganda machine, who were effective in portraying mau mau as bloodthirsty murderers. the truth is mau mau killed 32 white settlers who happened to be on their land illegally. The British on the other hand set up concentration camps where they systematically starved, raped, sodomized, hanged, used japanese style torture, and sexually mutilated the Kikuyu. This is being viewed as genocide. More importantly there is clear evidence that this was known by high ranking leaders, and they kept silent. These admissions have been made by white settlers themselves. The French, known for their colonial brutality, didn't even do some of the things Britain did.
Restitution is in order. The British have never apologised, and they should. They should also take their place in history as murderous ethnic cleansers, responsible for crimes as bad as those of the nazis and japanese in world war 2, granted in a smaller scale. They also grossly violated the Geneva convention. Any remaining folks involved in it need to be arrested and put in jail where they belong.

by Anatole Mon May 16, 2005 11:27

Why bring the Irish into it? Ireland was never a colony nor treated by one. Let's be absolutely clear about this: Britain has no interest in remaining in Ireland except that humanity demands it. While the majority of the population remain Unionist, no-one can seriously advocate British withdrawal; and when that changes I doubt you will see any calls for remaining there.

As for the rest of the nonsense: in Kenya, the Mau Mau were the guilty party and British action was entirely based on the desire to protect the indigenous black population (of whom the Mau Mau are not, and indeed who the Mau Mau perpetrated the very worst attrocities against). In South Africa the British were forced into an action due to intransigence between the Boers and the Zulus, and were in no way the "instigators" of the action in the 1870s. The Boers themselves then proceeded to make unreasonable demands leading to the war of 1899.

The moral balance-sheet of Empire is entirely clear: despite individual incidents, it was generally a good thing and undertaken in a noble spirit; critics represent the very worst breed of do-nothings.

by teg Mon Feb 21, 2005 15:28

Slavery is unfortunately still an intrinsic part of society in Niger. If only our abolitionists were still operating there.

by Barry Wed Jan 26, 2005 02:50

We didnt bloody do it, the brits did. Full stop.

While far from perfect, the entire Gaelic culture/ethos of Irish society was intrinsically different to the Anglo-saxon/ Norman.

Our attitude to land ownership for example was more akin to that of the native American tribes, basically we belonged to the earth rather than the earth belonging to us.

While this is undoubtedly an oversimplification, to see our people compared to British Imperialists is the height of nonsense. Every time Britain is criticised on ANYTHING , theres an idiot like you popping up to run down Irish people. The slave mentality which produces this self hatred is itself a result of imperialist domination.

A good book to read is The Cultural Conquest of Ireland, which deals with the cultural and psychological differences between the native Irish gaels and their conquerors. In the meantime I suggest you get some serious therapy for your self loathing.

by Maubere Tue Jan 25, 2005 23:05

It's all very well to go on about what the British did all over the world,but lets not delude ourselves by thinking we'd be any differant if we were a more powerful country, we did after all colonise Scotland in the 6th-9th centuries

by South African Friend of Ireland Mon Jan 24, 2005 18:25

Agreed MB. But I think the entire Royal Family needs to go. Not only are they an anachronism, but they are also oxygen thieves ,and are symbolic of an imperial past which caused a lot of suffering for a lot of people who refused to acknowledge the so called superiority of the English aristocracy. The Nazis did not invent the concept of racial superiority, neither did the English aristocracy. They simply applied it a bit more subtly and in a more widespread manner than previous imperialist regimes. It still lives on in the minds of the Loyalists in the Six Counties. They gullibly swallowed the entire doctrine hook, line and sinker. And look where it has got them.

by MB Mon Jan 24, 2005 15:26

agreed, my bad. but i still think the Queen should top herself....

by South African Friend of Ireland Sat Jan 22, 2005 09:35

MB, I am not sure if your reference to GNP was in response to my posting. I actually used the term GDP which puts a slightly different angle on things. In fact GNP might well be a better indicator of The Republic's performance owing to the issue of profit repatriation from foreign investors.

by MB Fri Jan 21, 2005 14:05

several points here:
a) to attack me for such terms as 'Mainland' is a little pedantic i feel - i used it simply in a statement that the vast majority of people in the UK (outside of Northern Ireland) have no interest in the continuing governance of the Six counties.
b) i agree, the fact that successive British governments have failed to find a viable exit strategy (or any indeed) from Northern Ireland is a shocking indictment on their part, as is the fact that the collapse of their authority has led to the current predictament of having (very heavily) armed groups operating freely in certain areas (which, despite your assertions, i believe are both Republican and Unionist).
c) i didn't say that Ireland shouldn't reunite with the North; in fact, i think most rational people would be all for it, i was merely pointing out that more practical issues (e.g. security) might have some validity in this discussion (and although Ireland's economy has grown significantly in recent years, i believe GNP is a fairly spurious measurement to use when considering the basis argument of enlarging a country to include another million people and a half (largely lower-income) persons.
d) i'm not 'a Brit' as you so eloquently put it - i'm Irish in fact...

by Barry Thu Jan 20, 2005 13:25

While Id agree with 99% of that, I see no evidence whatsoever that Britain is trying to end its occupation here, quite the reverse.
They indeed created a sectarian monster, but that has since served its purpose. Britain has in fact copperfastened its hated presence on this island through the GFA, which basically delivers every single one of their counter-insurgency objectives since the mid 70s.
That was the precise reason why they armed and directed their death squads and set them loose upon the nationalist community - in order to terrorise the population into lowering its political objectives.

Granting of equal opportunities on the employment front as well as government funding and an end to terror, have been given only on the strict understanding that British rule is accepted in some form. The British have propagated the myth that they would like to leave since 1920. A country as slippery as Britain could easily have thought up an exit strategy in 85 years. They are far from stupid. In fact no-one is that stupid, not even George Bush.

by South African Friend of Ireland Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:32

Calm down Barry. We have to remind MB that the Irish, no thanks to Britain, have done very nicely thank you very much in global economic terms. A per capita GDP that has overtaken that of the USA and lies only behind Norway and Luxembourg. MB I think you have a nerve. Barry is right. The Irish do not need sanctimonious Brits telling them what they should and should not do. it was the same in South Africa. The Brits squealed when Gerry Adams visited Mandela, who promptly told the Brits not to tell him who he could and could not invite to his country.The British have a lot to answer for in Ireland. They created a monster that got out of control and have been scratching their heads trying to get out of the Six Counties for years.

Sinn Fein offered a reconciliatory hand to the Loyalists years ago and it was rejected. Radical loyalism is antiquated and those who follow it are dinosaurs because they refuse to acknowledge that Ireland belongs as one. The crazy thing is that they would prosper moreso in a united Ireland than being tied to the UK which is not really benefitting anyone for that matter. Bringing the remaining counties of the ancient Kingdom of Ulster back home again would be a pleasure I am sure for most Irish men and women, and I do not believe for one moment that the Republic would not want to bear that responsibility as some newspaper accounts over the years would have us believe.

Ali H is also spot on. Apart from the Holocaust victims, victims of apartheid are also seeking compensation and many companies, British included, are being sued in a class action lawsuit in the USA for doing business with the apartheid regime. Also with the issue of land reclamation and those who were forcibly removed from their land, the ANC government has made massive strides in trying to resolve that. South Africa also created a world first with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What came out at the hearings was almost beyond belief. Gerry Adams has been out to South Africa to consult with Mandela and Mbeki and he is on extremely good terms with them. I know he has sought their advice about their experiences in a post apartheid South Africa. The British will never apologise to The Irish for what they have done to their country and their people and in any case the cost of reparations via a land reclamation or a Truth and Reconciliation type Commission would undermine Britain's role in the world. Slippery, slithery Britain will make sure no Truth and Reconciliation Commission will ever be held in Ireland.

What gets my goat is that the British have a history of going into other people's countries. tearing the place up, trying to install their own values upon those people, and then when the indigenous fight back to try and reclaim what is rightfully theirs, label them as terrorists. As I said in a previous posting Britain's filthy past has not endeared them to many people.

by Barry Thu Jan 20, 2005 00:24

who would pay for it ? that would be the affair of the people on this island, and basically NONE of Britains business. As reasonably intelligent, educated and industrious people Im sure wed mange somehow without Brittanias withered tit to suck on. We arent as stupid as you seem to think.

As regards us trying to liquidate each other ?
The gutter trash orange mad dogs who were running around liquidating people for the last 30 years (and throughout history) were largely armed and directed by the UK government and its armed forces. It was they who bred sectarianism and used it for their own purposes. Protestants and catholics co-exist happily and peacefully throughout this island, only in the British occupied zone is there a problem. Your assumption that we Irish are mindless bigoted savages Britain has to save from themselves is both ignorant and offensive.

No-one on the "Mainland" cares. Britain is not the mainland of fucking anywhere, except maybe the outer Hebrides. We are a distinct geographical nation just off the continent of Europe, as is your country. Unfortunately we have your aggressive imperialist nation as nearest neighbours.

As regards us Irish being as bigoted as your country - there is no organised far right grouping in this country (except among those who call themselves British) and thankfully there never will be. The people simply wouldnt tolerate it.

We have proud traditons in this land, that would smash any such manifestation back into the hole from which it sprung. It was done in the past to facists very effectively and would no doubt be done again.

Please dont bother us with your ignorant assumptions and prejudices again. I for one am sick of condescending, pompous Brits trying to tell us our business and whats good for us.

by pc Wed Jan 19, 2005 19:05

interesting could you expand on what you mean by that...victorian...?

by MB Wed Jan 19, 2005 18:53

No offence, but let's face facts : the irish were/ are just as racist as other european nations. And to all those espousing the cause of irish republicanism, may i just add that whilst in northern ireland you might find people who want to stay in the Union, you won't find any in England, Scotland or Wales. No-one on the mainland, put simply, cares, and we'd love to make Northern Ireland an independant country, or return it to the Republic. except that who then would pay for it? the security requirement of keeping the populace from liquidating eachother alone would bankrupt most nations... and back to the subject matter, all empires are criminal, and the fact that such Victorian ideals as 'progress' still exist, and that people continue to make such Faustian deals in pursuit of it (i.e. dam building in china/ india, at the cost of millions of ancestral homes) is ridiculous. all in all, gordon brown shouldn't apologise, because he hasn't the stature or authority (he's only an elected official after all); instead, the Queen should apologise, and then hang herself. That should finally settle the matter. Any objections?

by Barry Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:29

Brown knows exactly what hes at when it comes to money. There have been NO apologies for their disgraceful activities in this country either. Doubtful there ever will be.

by Ali H. Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:16

Brown's statement is all about heading off any civil actions against the British state. Any apology would be an opening for such actions which have been highly successful in obtaining reparations from the Swiss and others for their complicity in the holocaust. Furthermore any such actions if successful would further undermine any remaining British and US credibility when it comes to human rights. The sooner Britians name is dragged through the mud on this issue the better for all of us.

by South African Friend of Ireland Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:44

The behaviour of other countries is not the
issue. The issue is that Gordon Brown
has stated that Britain now has nothing
more to apologise for. The repurcussions
of British imperialism are still being felt in
the world today. I am sure one can make a
similar case for all empires, but that is not
the issue. The issue is Britain.

Please tell me what 'secret history' are you
referring to? 'Secret history' as you put it, in
the context of your posting, is an oxymoron.

by james Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:20

Wow, where did you dig up that secret history? Or is it already so well know you're wasting space. Anyway what about slavery in our time?

And what did you think made other countries more successful and benevolent empire builders?

by South African Friend of Ireland Wed Jan 19, 2005 07:46

The truth of the matter is that wherever the Anglo Saxon has gone trouble has followed. People have lost their land and have been treated like second class citizens in their own countries.
Barry mentioned the concentration camps in South Africa. The Boers took on the might of the British Empire and very nearly pulled it off. If it had not been for the women and children being herded into concentration camps under the most terrible of conditions, along with the British scorched earth policy, the British may very well have received a bloody nose.
Interesting to note that an Irish Brigade under a Captain John MacBride fought on the side of the Boers. Known as MacBrides Berets they heaped despair on the Pommie troops.
Africa, Australia, NZ, India/Pakistan, China, and of course Ireland are examples where the British have raped and plundered what has belonged to other people. Today they behave as though butter would not melt in their mouths.
The Brits have defenders in the country of Ireland only because those people have swallowed the propoganda given to them and have bought into the whole British justice for all paradigm, which is nothing but a facade. Make no mistake, if the so called Pax Americana had not come along, Britain would still be wanting to rule the world.
Gordon Brown is WRONG ! Britain still has a lot to answer for, and don't forget their human rights abuses in the Six Counties as recently as the Seventies for which they were taken to the Court of Human Rights. Now they have quietly swept that under the table, to be forgotten by the masses, who can now see how they parade their so called sense of justice by court martialling British soldiers for abuses on Iraqi detainees.
British propoganda would have one believe that Britain is a universally loved nation, whereas in reality they are despised by many and loved only by themselves. Gordon Brown needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

by Barry Tue Jan 18, 2005 20:23

Slaver y was only one issue in Britains past. Her destruction of the Zulu nation, its herding of Boer civilians into consentration camps were tens of 1000s of women and children perished have been the African experience. As well as the colonial carve up of the African continent.

As recent as 1965 britain committed war crimes in Kenya against the Mau Mau rebellion, where an entire race of people ( 1.5 million) were rounded up and imprisoned.

This attempt to lead the debate into slavery is only a muddying of the waters around Britains guilt. This is evident by an attempt to portray the Irish people as every bit as bad. Britain has no shortage of defenders in this country thats for sure. Talk about a SLAVE MENTALITY.

by R. Isible Tue Jan 18, 2005 18:01

they did create the first written constitution that enshrined slavery as an acceptable practice.

The constitution of the Carolinas was written by none other than the eminent enlightenment philosopher John Locke, whose ideas on "liberty" inspired the Founding Fathers of the USA.

Amusingly the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke omits these important details about Locke.

by peter Tue Jan 18, 2005 14:14

"Who ended the International trade?
Who still practices it?
Answer those questions and draw your own conclusion."

Too true, unfortunately too many people think slavery was invented by the British Empire.

Interestingly, Tanzania includes Zanzibar, a great example of independent African/Arab slavery. Described by some as the Auschwitz of the slave trade. Check it out.

by Barry Tue Jan 18, 2005 05:37

And Michaels off like a hare.

There is NO comparison between the actions of semi-starved immigrant street-gangs and hoodlums one week in 1867 New York, and the actions of a brutal imperialist regime which robbed entire nations and subcontinents.

The gangs of New York cannot be seriously compared iwth the British Empire and establishment. Those people who rioted themselves were the brutalised victims of an evil, racist empire who had escaped a land of unimaginable horror. The racist society which they found themselves in was not one of their own creation.

Those gangs were most definitely not the Irish nation engaged in a war of oppression against other people. They were mindless, brutalised hoodlums in an equally mindless and brutalised society, one which they were forced to flee to by the British empire.

by Michael Hennigan Mon Jan 17, 2005 23:46

We did not lead the European colonisation of North America but were we any different to others in our attitude to Native Americans? Did we not view them as savages like other Europeans and take their land?

One other issue which gets very little airing in our history are the draft riots in New York City in 1863 when Irish gangs not only rioted against the Union army draft but opposed the emancipation of the slaves and killed many black civilians including children;

-The New York City “Draft Riots”, one of the bloodiest outbreaks of violence in the history of the United States. Immigrant mobs sweep through New York City, killing Blacks and hanging many victims from lampposts. The Negro Orphan Asylum on Fifth Avenue is destroyed by roving mobs. Some 1,000 people are killed and the damage to property is estimated to be close to $2 million.

-So before we mount a high horse, let's consider that great line from the Bible- let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone

by Obsever Sun Jan 16, 2005 21:10

Who ened it in International trade?



Who still practisces it?

Answer those questions and draw your own conclusion.

by redjade Sun Jan 16, 2005 16:08

'Though the Heavens May Fall' and 'Bury the Chains': Freed

Yet the Atlantic slave trade was an enormity stunning in its scale and its duration. In ''Bury the Chains,'' Adam Hochschild says: ''So rapidly were slaves worked to death, above all on the brutal sugar plantations of the Caribbean, that between 1660 and 1807, ships brought well over three times as many Africans across the ocean to British colonies as they did Europeans. And, of course, it was not just to British territories that slaves were sent. From Senegal to Virginia, Sierra Leone to Charleston, the Niger delta to Cuba, Angola to Brazil, and on dozens upon dozens of crisscrossing paths taken by thousands of vessels, the Atlantic was a vast conveyor belt to early death in the fields of an immense swath of plantations that stretched from Baltimore to Rio de Janeiro and beyond.''

[....]

And there were the rebellions in the West Indies, particularly the Haitian rebellion. The sections of the book that deal with them bring to light an astounding, and forgotten, episode in Western history. Since Haiti alone produced as much foreign trade at that time as the whole of the 13 colonies of North America, it was potentially a great loss. It belonged to France, but Britain supplied it with slaves....

[....]

First the British and then the French under Napoleon sent huge forces against the Haitians. The British sent a larger army against Haiti than it had dispatched to fight in the American Revolution. And it buried 60 percent of those soldiers in Haiti. The two greatest powers on earth went up against a population of half-starved, desperate people and were utterly defeated. It is no surprise that these two abysmal wars of empire have fallen out of history. One cannot read about them without concluding that the Haitian Africans contributed mightily to making the Caribbean slave system untenable. All in all, in 1807 the prospects of the traffic in human beings were not good.

'The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe in.'

by Michael Sun Jan 16, 2005 14:21

It's like "enduring freedom", the title chosen for the US-led attack on Afghanistan, once "freedom crusade" and others were scrapped. The idea is simple: America will do as it pleases, and the people of Afghanistan must learn to endure it.

Likewise, what the British meant was this: They have taken every unthinkable liberty in Africa, and the savages had better learn to tolerate it or get stuffed!

by Cabhog Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:34

His brother is a historian and knows what he is tackling about. Mbeki ain't.