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

[BeachParty]

It's an interesting discussion to have, and makes you think.
Why do so many immediately go into "how dare you!" mode or "why are you being racist towards white people?!"
Instead of actually listening to what people are saying? History is whitewashed in this country, we usually learn it from a "hero" viewpoint.

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

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 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...

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.

Why is it an own goaaallllll?
I've never claimed to know everything..
I've already stated multiple times I don't know everything, as history isn't taught extensively in schools before the age of 12/13.
I'm reading the thread, I find the posts interesting.
If you were interested too, you could maybe read the thread and read what people have already said they your question of white behaviour?

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

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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'.

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'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.

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!

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.

Believe what you like, you've obviously made your mind up.
As I've repeatedly said, I took history up until the age of 13 when we could ditch it.
It was not done in any great detail before then and definitely not from any other point of view than our own.
(I'm talking around 30 years ago)

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.

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 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.

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.

👍 that's great that you did (genuinely)
I definitely learnt about the Vikings at primary school too. Being from somewhere the Vikings tried to land!
Fond memories of attending a Viking village day at primary too.
Love the Viking parade in York as well every year.
Do we learn their point of view though?
No, not really, we were just pretending to defend ourselves from the invaders.
Which is kind of my point!
We only see it though our lens.