To wonder why it's so controversial to talk about white behaviour throughout history?

And also for the physical strength of Africans (which they used to portray them as ‘animalistic’ and ‘savages’)

I think you are over-stating that quite a lot. Some former colonies do still have a more mixed population which is reflected in their society, but quite a lot haven't, and also many have put huge emphasis on having local media and government resources and such.

Film and television do have an international element, or really it's often an American spin, and there are some places that have been less able to produce their own film industry, or textbook industry. But I am hard-pressed to think of a Commonwealth country where there hasn't been a significant emphasis on local representation and production.

And then - many countries and most people were never colonized by Europe.

Isn't it the rich and powerful who the perpetrators? The average person of any race would have no influence back then. I am pretty sure my ancestors would have had no say in the slave trade, the colonisation of the Americas or even the clearances in Scotland being pushed from pillar to post themselves.

The main reason for going to Africa for slaves at that point is because they had large slave markets that could be accessed by ship. There weren't any others, at that point, easily accessible to ships heading to the Americas.

Actually no. If you go to many countries the literature, media and curricula will largely be white British (or French etc). A direct result of colonization.

Some parts of it are fairly diverse now, but even in England, the vast majority of people are white. People who live in certain large cities sometimes see to have a very parochial attitude and forget they are in a bit of a bubble.

Statistically, most books are going to be written by white people, and lots will feature white people. If you are studying history before WWII, chances are it will be about white people.

This is no different than any other country, btw. If you go to Japan, or Nigeria, you will find that books and advertisements and such largely reflect the people who live there. And much of their history studies in schools will too.

My heritage is slavery. I am certain we didn’t learn anything about this in my predominantly white school.
the only time my kids learned anything remotely unbiased towards whites was in primary school when the Black Lives Matter movement was in full swing.
their school now is a racist institution and an academy with no accountability

That is the simplistic version, and luckily people do work to implement basic human rights around the globe. But as a consumer you have to be extremely conscientous to not inadvertedly contribute to abuse and exploitation of people in other countries.

You just have to look at Amazon, where the board campaigned so effectively that their workers voted against themselves being allowed to form a union (USA).*

Colonisation never stopped, except now global corporations are colonisers. We also directly benefit from the labour of people with no human rights and child labour. We use products from trafficked and oppressed people Powerful countries continue to bomb less powerful countries. They also finance genocide and overthrow democratically elected leaders. Our heads of State and politicians continue to meet leaders carrying out atrocious against their people.

It doesn't seem as though we've learnt much at all.

That was in response to someone saying we're a diverse and multicultural country, and other posters use of the term black history etc. In Scotland we're almost all white, apart from a mainly brown minority population.

I understand your sentiment, but I disagree still.
It is objectively better to be a citizen in a rich country, and there are no countries that are rich without some sort of shady business Deals with poorer countries.
And these are often the countries where the majority population live in appalling poverty, and a sliver of the elite lives like the ruthless masters they are. And they control the trade with «us» and «we» turn a blind eye because it benefits us greatly.

That is the simplistic version, and luckily people do work to implement basic human rights around the globe. But as a consumer you have to be extremely conscientous to not inadvertedly contribute to abuse and exploitation of people in other countries.

You just have to look at Amazon, where the board campaigned so effectively that their workers voted against themselves being allowed to form a union (USA).

OK let's discuss that.
I suppose that Europeans took black slaves from Africa because their technological advantages meant they could and their morals allowed it. But on the other side of the continent brown people were also doing it, because their technological advantages meant they could and their morals allowed it.
Maybe it is what humans did to each other given half the chance? The Aztecs were at it in South America etc etc

And? What's your point?

I don't think anyone is expecting you to feel personally responsible or to apologise though?

Simply know it happened, acknowledge it happened and, this is the bit that people sometimes don't get, understand that past colonisation still affects people living in those countries today.

Depending on where they are or other circumstances, they are affected to a greater or lesser extent obviously, but it's true even in countries like Ireland where the inhabitants are no longer poor.

Many comments on this thread, such at this, are proving your point @BeachParty . What's the point in trying to educate, share another point of view, and reason, with attitudes like this.

White people alive now bear no responsibility for what other white people might have done centuries ago. You can't expect people to be apologetic for things they haven't done. I think the treatment of native Americans was repulsive. I wasn't there though. I didn't do it, so I don't feel I have to apologise as a Caucasian person.

It wasn’t necessarily so to start with, but it definitely became a part of the story the Empire told to justify its continued existence.

Shall dig if I have time, but the concept of racism as in Black vs White was apparently created in the US after a near successful uprising (I forget where!) where the Black slaves and indentured Irish had bandes together to overthrow the masters. To avoid this in future the poor where segregated according to colour and the White where taught in mass about their superiority. Mucho effective, to let the bottom rung of society have someone else to look down on.
Divide and conquer.

Prior to that slavery was something anyone could experience - it was extremely popular well into the early Middle Age in Europe, where it experienced a lull because of Christianity and that you shouldn’t enslave your brother in Christ. Could have him as serf though…

The western Vikings favoured Irish slaves, but weren’t difficult about enslaving anyone else either. The Bysantine Empire had slaves from all over, but like with the eastern Vikings the Slavs from around the Black Sea were in a precarious situation - they had been for a long time as waves of invaders and traders were drawn to this area.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade was in one way a matter of simplicity for the White European traders: The powerful slaving clans/tribes caught the slaves inland and brought them to the coast ready and waiting. The European traders didn’t have to bother with traipsing through the jungle and fighting to capture anyone themselves. The slaves were a ready commodity (and this bit is truly awful) often held in fairly large camps by the coast - in areas it was difficult to escape from - waiting for the next slaveship. The wait could be fairly long.

I do However agree that after a while a key factor certainly was the racist, White saviour, social Darwinism Theory that was being taught (fed) both europeans and others to perpetuate and justify the colonial powers.

Someone brought up the genocide in Rwanda as an example - I recommend reading up about what the german and belgian colonisers did in Rwanda. How they pitted tribes/peoples against eachother and sowed the seeds of extreme mistrust.

Having said that; divide and conquer is sadly fairly easy and effective if you take existing faultlines in a population and amplify them. Of course most groups would like to tag along to the group perceived as the most powerful, even if it later is shown to be to their own disadvantage.

I live in Scotland which is 95% white. Of the 5% which is not white, the majority are brown, not black.

To wonder why it's so controversial to talk about white behaviour throughout history?

Possibly because most (but not all) of those who claim they want to "talk" about it do so from a pre-conceived position usually based on total ignorance of historical facts.

Humanities wasn't a subject when I was at school, the options were only History or Geography, 2 of the science subjects, at least2 of computer studies, typing, home economics, art/design woodwork, metalwork drama.
RE was compulsory as was Maths,English and PE.
The percentage of pupils taking each option varied according to available resources at the time, eg only 25 percent of pupils could take computer studies

This is interesting thankyou
You can be still be incredibly academically accomplished but emotionally removed from the subject which was what I saw. The way he deflected was shocking to me.

Good grief. @Alicewinn seems to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Alan Rice is a hugely respected person for his work on slavery & Black Atlantic culture.

Of course. The boers are the ones who stole the land as they left cape town after all.

But lots of things like pass laws etc were implemented by the British.

You sound racist OP. Swap the word "white" for any other race and you wouldn't dream of posting such a question.

White people are not a monolithic group and many "white" countries like Ireland were historically poor, had no empires and their people were the victims of kidnapping and slavery (by north African Barbary slave traders) as were the people of Cornwall.

If anything history is now taught from a perspective of white people being uniquely evil, which is obviously not only distorted but offensive. It's understandable that people will reject this idea.

Commonwealth history, colonial history, transatlantic slave trade, are all "our" history. If our culture is so sacrosanct, surely we should be making an effort to understand it fully.
Do you even realise that places all over the world were an extension of Britian within living memory? How is that not "our" history?