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.

I have mentioned King Leopold twice, conveniently it’s been ignored. I do think it’s a prime example of colonial white supremacy at its worst being glossed over in modern teaching/acknowledgement of history. I didn’t find out about him until I was an adult.

What about Ghenis Khan?
I don't believe he was white and he was a bit naughty, reputedly killing 40 (forty) million people..

So you'd say the Viking invasion of Britain was a great thing and should be celebrated.

This will probably sound very patronising, but is any of this making sense in your head?

We do see it though as clear as day.... of course there is anger of course you want acknowledgement that it happened and you want us to never forget but we don't. Do you think we're proud of that history? and yet we speak of it honestly... we acknowledge it but it's never enough. It wasn't us.... we've actually nothing to apologise for and yet we do over and over. We're told it's because "we are white, we are privileged" let me tell you i don't feel it. I'm paid far less than people I know who are not... is that their fault no, they worked their butt's off for everything they have, but I'm so sick of being made to feel guilty and "lucky" to be white.

One thing that King Leopold and Ghenis Khan have in common that transcends their skin colour is that they were both men.

Have to say I disagree. I think it's important to acknowledge the bad things that all humans have done. Singling out one particular group as uniquely guilty has never ended well.

I doubt you will find a child over the age of ten who hasn't heard of slavery. By their teenage years most will have at least a little knowledge that the UK held pivotal roles in the negative aspects of our colonial history.

There you go again with the white... he was a bad man who happened to be white.... his skin colour had no baring on his actions. His power and status had plenty to do with it though...

I think it's naive to suggest that racial superiority had no bearing on the British Empire. Colonisation was often based on divide and rule. Africa was described as the dark continent and natives were likened to savages. The British saw themselves as very much superior and enlightened.

I think it's fair to say that King Leopold did regard the people in the Congo as subhumans, and treated them as such. I also do think that racism definitely played a part in the British empire generally.

But it's not "white behaviour", it's sadly just human behaviour. The development of universal human rights is a very. very recent one. And tbh, even now it's mostly an idea in theory rather than fact.

The British Empire was at least as Scottish as it was English. Inconvenient, isn't it?

There seems to be a lot of transfixed views on this thread that allege that historic slave trading is somehow attributed to some magical "white behaviour" throughout history.

So where does the Arab slave trade fit in to this little narrow minded view. After all it lasted for more than 13 centuries or is this to be ignored in this hypothesis. 🤔

I think this is kind of what the OP is on about.

Nobody is saying that stuff didn't happen or shouldn't be discussed.

It's more, bringing it up in the face of any discussions about white people, like it's some kind of mitigating factor.

The discussion of specifically white history, is because of the prevalence of Eurocentrism in modern culture, and a desire to challenge the status quo where "the victors write the history books".

Same, I don't really know anything about him either but am off to go Google.
Glad I can do that as an adult wanting to learn now.
Have heard about the origins of Liberia though.
Through the lens of now being a grown up and wanting to learn for myself. Which as I said is fine if you don't, just you usually actively have to want to seek and learn these things.

There are lots of unethical practices throughout history.

The transatlantic slave trade is a key feature of modern history because it, along with colonialisation, has massively shaped the modern world and its legacy remains to this day, fuelling political and social tensions.

I think another reason the TA slave trade is so important, is because its existence sparked the change in attitude which led to slavery being considered a moral wrong in the first place. In that way too, it has shaped human history.

It is really interesting though to see what is household knowledge and what isn't. It's a reflection of what particular cultures hold on to and want to teach and pass forward.

I see it more as going from extreme to the other. It's like no nuance is allowed. One group blaming another group for everything. It won't end well, it never has. You can already see anger between people growing all the time, it feels like we're losing the ability to see things from anyone but our own perspective. I actually find it quite scary.

You need to understand that it was an EXCUSE made my people in power to justify treating a minority in such a terrible way... They did not care about their skin colour, they only cared that they needed to convince the masses and probably themselves that they didn't matter because of their skin colour and it worked far to well for far to long, it's still being fought today.

Stereotyping is the reason racism and racial hatred still exists today. This is not white history. It's British history, it's colonial history but what it isn't is "white history"

I wouldn't dream of calling incidences of colonialism in countries with majority ethnic populations as "black history" because it isn't.

I think the lack of attention to the Congo is partly, tbh because he was Belgian and Belgium kind of flies under the radar of European colonialism. But I also think it's that King Leopold treated the Congo as his personal fiefdom to do whatever he wanted with rather than the usual mishmash of economic interests, racism and nationalism that traditionally was the background for colonialism.

Belgium has a lot to answer for. The Rwandan genocide was a result of Belgium colonisation.

Having multi ethnic/cultural societies as we are trying to do in the UK in the 21c is very rare and when it has happened often turns to conflict (see former Yugoslavia as an example). I'm not sure if it has ever been tried to have so many races living together as in current Western societies c. past 50 years so is very much an experiment and will only work if alot of work is done on promoting unity and harmony. Unfortunately the opposite seems to be being done in the past 10 years and people like the op contribute to this.

Pretty sure we invaded Scotland aswell.... there wasn't much we didn't try to take by force. They may have eventually decided to join willingly but it didn't start off that way.

Scotland played a significant role in the British Empire. It's often downplayed and overlooked.

I think all the European colonial powers were guilty of playing divide and rule as a way to maintain control when they were greatly outnumbered by the locals. The Rwandan genocide was definitely a product of this but it's far from the only example of the consequences.

I don't think it's something they will wanting to be shouting about loudly.... would you?