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

I'm fairly sure the reason people say such stupid shit, as if English or "white" history is unusual or different, is mainly because they are historically illiterate with regards to other, non-white, peoples.

Anyone who knows a lot about history in general knows that people are pretty much universally horrible to each other, and have always looked at those whom they are able to dominate as lesser.

It's true of the Europeans, the peoples of the Middle East and Asia, the Polynesians, the native people's or North and South America, and all the various peoples of Africa. Meetings between different groups sometimes meant domination, violence and theft, or other times trade, alliance for their own benefit, and cultural exchange. Which one generally depended on the interests of the various parties.

White English people were much the same, with the same motives and outcomes - although as a nation they were probably the first to actually outlaw slavery for ideological reasons and spend resources trying to quash it among other peoples. So perhaps that is "white behaviour." I'd suggest it's not a result of whiteness so much as an outgrowth of Christianity.

Sorry I don't believe for one second that you were ever taught in a british school or know about british schools education of history is you do not know about Romans, Vikings, and Normans and the conquests of Britannia.

I think this discussion is interesting and some good points are being made but I don't like the title and to tell the truth its because the term 'white' is offensive to me. It is generally used in a derogatory tone and implies certain things. I'm not even sure where this invisible line on the world map begins. What are Greeks? Syrians? If you mean white upper middle class English landowners then say that. I don't know anyone who identifies themselves as 'white', I'm an irish Catholic, apparently I became white about 5 years ago, 50 years ago i was just scum. My friend of Mediterranean origin has dark brown skin, surely she can't be white? My blonde fair skinned friend grew up on a council estate without a penny to her name, is she more white than the rest of us? Who has privilege here?

My point is OP if you want to have an intelligent debate don't use the word 'white'.

I thought the Boers who were Dutch settlers were involved in this as well?

I am white British, I don't think it needs wondering why some people find it controversial - they are most likely narrow minded, or self centred, and maybe a bit racist, but some people do just take offence because they feel personally attacked.

As somebody who has studied history, it is much more fascinating to examine history through different frames of reference, like on an individual level instead of the wars and monarchies. There is an excellent movement in the field at the moment known as the decolonisation of history (sorry if this has been mentioned, I haven't read the comments), and lots of universities are offering modules of this nature.

You're not listening.

Yes, there is a chance my ancestors were enslaved. There is not a very high chance because the industrial, legalised, racialised Atlantic trade was of a completely different scale to any previous history of slavery in the UK.

The chances that a Black Briton has ancestors who were enslaved is very high, however. The Windrush generation were people of African heritage brought across the Atlantic twice.

And, what's more, if my ancestors were enslaved, it's left no mark. The TransAtlantic trade was justified by a racist ideology that said Black people were inferior - were no better than animals - and the legacy of that is still felt now

Plenty of slaves were taken from England and Wales to Ireland from the 5th century right up until the 12th. Much of the economic growth of Dublin and Castleford at that time can be attributed to their slave trade.

I don't think people should be judged or judge themselves based on the behaviour of their ancestors.

To consider how silly this is consider that the average black American today is of around 25% European ancestry. This is largely due to the utterly appalling abuse of African women by male European slave owners. However it means that they are considerably more likely to have ancestors who were actually slave owners than some random Brit. They also of course will have many ancestors who were the victims of slavery.

I also think its odd to frame anything as white behaviour. What do you mean? There are many people around the world with less melatonin in their skin. Currently Russians are busy killing Ukrainian children in some awful imperialist project even though both groups are mainly white.

Where I do think the OP has a point is that in the UK we can be guilty of glamorising our history. Certainly when I studied WWII at school I felt that the bombing of civilians in Germany was underplayed as was our alliance with Stalin and the consequences of that for Eastern Europe.

Why do you have to remove the word white? Has anybody said that white history is one singular thing? White history can encompass everything done by, done to or experienced by any white person.
A discussion about colonialism can also include French and belgian history, for example.

Nobody mentions technology in all of this colonialist history. According to distinguished anthropologists, no tribe or population in sub-Saharan Africa ever built or copied the wheel from their opressors. From the 14th century, after the first and most devastating outbreak of bubonic (the Black Death) when serfdom ended in England because the population fell by 2/3rds, labour was valuable and valued. The guilds/trades were formed, we invented apprenticeships to teach skills (which was originally a bought entry/investment to a skill paid by the family), and over 150 years we roared into a situation that is recognisable as the origins of the world we know now. Europe invented, mechanised, and weaponised, the wheel thousands of years before Africa, America and (some of) Asia knew it existed.

You raise an interesting point though … when are we going to seek restitution from Italy for the Roman invasion? We’re a bit skint at the moment…

"But he did it tooooo" doesn't fly at primary school. If you can't contribute anything more than that, bow out.

Thousands of white British people were enslaved by pirates and Arab slavers for quite a long time actually, until the late 17C.

As I posted earlier, but more tetchily, maybe learn some actual history before starting a history discussion because otherwise it's quite tedious.

It wont be possible until you remove the word white.... the people of Europe are white but their history isn't my history. Stereotyping makes discussion impossible, let's talk about what British colonials did instead given that they are the only guilty people who have any history of this at all...

Yes you’re absolutely right… these racist tirades should be unbridled and without any balance at all. How else will the self-loathing take root? 🙄

It is worth remembering. I think few people understand the role of evangelism in the colonies and the legacy it has left.

Own Gooooaaallllll! 😂

Suggest you learn some history. So tell me again what is white behaviour?

It wouldn't be relevant either way. It should be possible to discuss "white" history without resorting to "whataboutery".

I’d stop there if I were you OP and maybe … pick up a book?

Is that our fault?? Why should we take responsibility or apologise because it didn't happen to us?

Not being a victim doesn't make us perpetrators either.... or mean that people of other colors and nationalities who are actually guilty of it should be excused or excluded.

Omg yes! I’m embarrassed for your ignorance!! 😂😂🤣

Yes, by Romans, Vikings, and Normans.

It's worth remembering that in the past many people followed the teachings of the Bible, which legitimises and encourages slavery.