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

And the theft of sovereign English land of aquitaine which came to be part of England when Eleanor of Awe married Henry II in 1152 and was invaded by the French
How come no one has mentioned Leopold king of Belgium who "owned" the Congo and used to hunt the native population in the Victorian age.

But then we have Liberia, set up by freed American slaves, who appropriated the land and held political power, excluding the native population from.citizenship

Then we have Quig dynasty in China in the 1750s and their genocide of the Dzungar.

Violence, greed, imperialism and being bastards isn't just a white issue, it's a human issue

And or course, St Patrick, patron saint of Ireland is believed to have been a Scottish man who was kidnapped by Irish pirates, taken to Ireland and was a slave there for years. Although, his parents were Romans and part of the colonizing power of Rome, so actually he was a victim of oppression but the son of oppressors.... it"s almost as if history isn't just a drawn out version of goodies v baddies.

To be fair the British didn't 'make people slaves' - the British slave traders mostly bought the slaves from rich West African slave owners.

Of course the British Empire, colonialism and the slave trade are part of British history and that needs to be accepted. I think we do need to acknowledge the atrocities that took place, how they were justified and the legacy of it all. I don't think calling it "white behaviour" is the same thing.

I would say both were reasons; taking resources wasn't seen as wrong to do and exacerbated because there was a pervasive narrative of non-white peoples - and native Irish and Scottish people too - of being inferior, uncivilised, subhuman etc. English Literature - particularly from the last few centuries up to the mid twentieth century - is peppered with evidence of this; think the works of Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle; think also of numerous quotes and beliefs from Churchill to Callaghan etc.

The point is it's meaningless.

You might as well say redheaded people, or people with long toes, did something.

You are using a category that is not relevant. ANn worse, perpetuates stupid racial stereotypes.

Well it kind of is, isn't it. It's a meaningless generalisation.

Again, like I said, acknowledging that white people did something isn't saying they all did it or they are the only ones who ever did it.

I mean - the Irish weren't always kind to the English either, if you want to go back a little farther.

That's kind of the point, it's silly to try and put moral weight on this kind of history. And to a large extent, even on individuals, because the experiences of people in the past were just so different. People were very hard, and while there could be great humanity too, I think most of us today really struggle to get into the kind of mindset that people had. Death and suffering were so much more present in everyone's life.

To be fair, our Vikings and Roman's history was very much longboats and shields. It was hardly in depth. Same goes for slavery and the colonies.
Which is why people really need to keep educating themselves beyond a year 9 history lesson lest they grow up thinking "yeah slavery was bad, but the Arabs did it to" is bringing mature debate to the table.

And following the Monmouth rebellion in 1685 judge Jefferies (yes that one) and his mates "Barbadosed" thousands of white West country men.

Do you honestly not remember hearing about the Norman Conquest or the Roman invasion of Britain, like literally, nothing at all? What did you learn about in history lessons?

Yes but let's face it, Britain took far more of it, India, Australia, America at one point and many many more. No idea how we even actually managed it and even now we've still managed to cling on in some small way, in some places.

How they thought they could run the whole world from London is beyond me! They learned the hardway that you can't

In anycase it's completely wrong and had they not force ably taken land and made people slaves who knows where we would be at now, probably not facing down threats in multiple directions with barely any friends only people who hate us and think slavery when the word Britain is even mentioned. Mud sticks, what you did to fix it none really cares.

There are many predominantly white countries which haven't partaken in colonisation or oppression. Some, like Ireland, have been victims of colonisation.

It's part of British history, yes. It was carried out by the white, ruling class.

By white people you mean rich white people.

There was a huge amount of servitude and by any other name slavery in this country.
This really started to change with unionisation and the murder of millions during ww1.

My recent ancestors had terrible existences.

However the library nearest me was built by a white philanthropic man who helped millions of poor get educated.

Many good things in this country were made possible by the rich white men atoning for the sins of their ancestors.

Whilst half the world is at war internally I think we should stop naval gazing and blaming us for the past.
Solve current world problems before you descecrate the past.

If you "studied" history to 13, then it's fairly likely you don't know very much about it. I'm sorry. My knowledge is patchy and I got an A at A level in history in 1974. English from 1482 to 1603 and European from Ferdinand and Isabella
to the big Catholic Wars. After O level history from 1815-1914. And I still read about history.

Yeah, I mean these things have been the bread and butter of English school history since the Victorian period.

That being said - in a way that is probably indicative of something. Which is that there is only so much history you can stuff into the heads of children. These days I do get the sense that basic English history is less taught in schools in England because there is more time given over to modern history and world history, and rather shallow attempts to spend more time on topics like colonialism.

My own kids are in Canadian schools and even the black history component has been really gutted, to leave more time to talk about things like colonialism. So they can spout the right opinions on those topics, but don't know where their black neighbours ancestors came from, or why, or when.

A lot of kids, and adults, just aren't that interested, and will never be great scholars. That's probably fine, too. They will get along just fine and it won't make them oppress anyone.

I went to school over 40 years ago and we did exactly the same. Claiming you were never taught about vikings and romans at any point in a british school is just unbelievable.

I didn't say it is skin coloir dependent. But white people did it, and we should be able to talk about it without deflecting. It isn't lumping it all together or saying all white people were complicit, it is simply acknowledging that it is part of white history.
It is part of your history because you are white and because you are British. It is both, but they are not interchangeable.

I went to school 30 years ago and learnt about the Romans and Vikings. I'm pretty sure we learnt about it in both primary and secondary school.

In my understanding, the Boers sort of "won" and defined the rules for 40 or 50 years. The fact that the word is apartheid, which bears no resemblance to any English word, seems to signify that this is not innately a british idea.

Because colonialism isn't skin colour dependent.... its been undertaken by people of many skin colours....

The British colonialists did it because they had the means, money and opportunity, this is the same reason people of any colour do it....

So it isn't white history at all. It's British history, French history etc, there are many predominantly white populated countries who haven't partaken in colonialism who I'm sure wouldn't like being lumped in with it labelled as their history, simply because they happen to be white.

I'm unfortunate enough to be born in a country guilty of it, therefore it's British history and a part of my history but not because I am white!