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

I missed the original thread this is about so not sure the context.

But I do think that when we consider western history, there's a huge resistance to accept that some level or racism and/or race-related behaviour led to a great deal of events, many of which are still felt as consequences today.

I studied history in South Africa. It's incredible how much resistance and defensiveness I get when I mention that many of the laws and policies that subsequently became part of Apartheid were, in fact, implemented by the British originally.

I think race, and ethnicity, are inevitably a part of many historical facts including, for example, issues in Rwanda.

This kind of chat only sets back race relations. Ordinary people see this kind of thing and think “here we go again, we’re the worst thing ever” and eventual shut down to real racism.

What makes you think it’s controversial. It’s all anyone ever seems to talk about these days. Eve Evil white people and white guilt

Apparently only white people commit atrocities 🙄

Placemarking for OPs wonderful history lesson

@BeachParty what about Mongolian behaviour? They were pretty oppressive as I remember it. I think they were the precursor to the dark ages.

What about the Egyptians? They had several thousand years in the ascendancy I think.

Where do the Romans fit in?

I don't think it's valid to describe history according to the races of those involved.

And actually the UK was shaped by waves of invaders and settlers. We've had wars and been a colony of France most regularly and recently. How does that work with white behaviour?

I think you may need a different lens to view life through as this one doesn't seem very productive.

TAAT. Bore off.

Half my ancestors merrily oppressed the other half.

But OP there are people currently in camps in China and being massacred in Myanmar and Sudan, those doing the oppressing aren't white. People have been oppressed by lots of different groups in history, they weren't all 'white' people. Your argument doesn't stand up and comes across as very naive.

Yeah, mine were similar. Crofters in Scotland some of whom lost their livelihoods and their homes during the clearances. They were white people treated abominably by other white people.

Well I could contribute quite a lot to this discussion, since my academic specialism is genocide and interracial conflict.

But if I'm not allowed to talk about non-white "behaviour" then my wings are a bit clipped.

We do discuss it. Most people under the age of about 60 will have covered topics ranging from the Crusades, enslavement, empire, Britain’s role in the creation of the Americas, European colonisation of Africa, and Commonwealths on their school syllabuses. If you walk into a branch of Waterstones, huge swathes of the shelves are dedicated to books which examine same. What gives you the impression that it’s controversial?

Most people object to the idea that they personally need to feel a sense of shame or fault over the actions of their distant ancestors - which is probably where phrases like “white behaviour” create issue. Is that what you believe there needs to be more of?

White people just got in there first, if black people had had guns, the compass, sailing ships etc? do you think they would behaved any differently?

@BeachParty People of all colour creeds and religions have enslaved other people of all colours religions and creeds since the dawn of time including their own.

So why are you only focused on white on black? serious question. Why such a narrow definition and what time line out of all the centuries are you specifically aiming for?

I can't see how you can't compare the behaviour of one race to another - surely by categorising them separately, that's exactly what you are looking to do? Presumably you perceive 'white behaviour' as worse than the behaviour of other races? That's making a comparison, whichever way you look at it.

I've done my family tree.

My forebears were illiterate farm workers and domestic servants.

They were oppressed. They weren't oppressing anyone.

What about their 'white behaviour'?

OP would you think it okay if someone discussed the Rwandan genocide in terms of “black behaviour”? If not, why not?

A discussion about what? I was born in the UK; my mother was not. My father was born in the UK; his parents were not. My mother is Roma. Her family barely escaped the Holocaust. My heritage is split fairly evenly between three races, yet I look like a white person with a slight tan. Does "white behaviour" apply to me? To my father? Is my mother automatically a better person because she was not white? Your questions, whether you like it or not, are racist and divisive. The impulse which led you to start this thread is racist and divisive. I don't understand why people need to be like this.

You're clearly not interested in a discussion.

White behaviour?

Are you ill?

I think it is controversial because it is generalising an entire race of people from no defined start point until the present day.

We have a word for making generalisations based on skin pigmentation.

In answer to your question I suppose it’s because people object to racial hatred being whipped up.