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.

What a load of left-wing virtue-signalling drivel 🙄

Is it? I find it thought provoking and like thinking about it

Well news flash - we are a predominately white inhabited country. That is why most of the books here are written by white authors. Much the same as you would expect the vast majority of books read by people in predominantly black-inhabited countries to be written by black authors. Why are some people so obsessed with the amount of melatonin in other peoples’ skin? It’s weird.

Ok, if that makes you feel a bit better about yourself then carry on…

What's thought provoking is the fact that whilst huge for a small number of individuals, the profits from transatlantic slavery and its associated industries were not big enough to change the economic fortunes of Britain as a whole.

Total profits from the slave trade, had they been invested entirely in Britain, would have accounted for about three per cent of all capital formation in 1770.

https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/did-slavery-make-britain-rich-decolonisation-and-progressive-masochism/

https://thecritic.co.uk/slavery-did-not-create-britains-wealth/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-britain-s-wealth-really-come-from-the-slave-trade/

Who's that referring to? If I it's not a discussion you're interested in, why just plop with bore off?

When I look in the mirror and no matter how shit I look and feel I never look white; if I did I'd be sculptured in marble or a dead, drained of blood corpse.

Who are all these 'white' people and their awful culture that cases such 'sturm and drang' amongst so many. Has the zombie apocalypse come to pass whilst I've been asleep for milennia?

Maybe we should really call 'white' people by the many shades of skin colour they come in; calling them all 'white' is not only incorrect but down right offensive to many when you consider the wide range of skin colours and cultures that the erroneously-named 'white' people encompass.

When I look in the mirror and no matter how shit I look and feel I never look white; if I did I'd be sculptured in marble or a dead, drained of blood corpse

Me neither, it doesn't occur to me as an identity that way when I look in the mirror?
I'm just me.
Surely you can accept there's a wider discussion to be had though. I hope so anyway

The “old white git” is professor Alan Rice,
Director of the UCLan Research Centre in Migration, Diaspora and Exile and Co-Director of the Institute for Black Atlantic Research. He was academic advisor to and board member of the Slave Trade Arts Memorial Project (STAMP) in Lancaster which was responsible for the commissioning and building of the first British quayside monument to the victims of the slave trade unveiled in Lancaster in October 2005. In 2007 co-curated an exhibition Trade and Empire: Remembering Slavery at the Whitworth Art Gallery in Manchester.

https://ibaruclan.com/partners/alan-rice/

I think it’s clear that he knows about the inhumane history of the slave trade, and the history and evolution behind the boys name, he describes how the name was commonly given as a generic slave / servant name, and became even more problematic and used in an even more racist way later on. He also is highlighting the contrast between the inhumane slave trading that the area was linked to, and the care with which an actual black slave boy, who died in the village, was buried - with a procession, care, and a memorial put in place which is tended to this day. This is a very early memorial to a black slave.

Reading up a bit about it, I can see that the same prof has speculated that the memorial, which was erected by the schoolteacher brother of a slave trader, may have been motivated by contemporary pressure for the abolition of slavery and by his own familial guilt concerning complicity in the slave trade.

This is an interesting one and it's actually a huge focus in education, to try overcome our very 'whitewashed' curriculum. It's not just in history that the current curriculum focuses on history from a British perspective but as an example white authors dominate school reading lists and these books feature white largely white characters

You were a largely white country until, what, the 2000s? Of course your education would reflect the ideas and experiences of your own people: white English (with variations in Scotland, NI and Wales). I was educated where we had to learn about Chinese dynasties, everything is ofc from a Chinese perspective and we study Lao She like you’d study Jane Austen.

The purpose of this is to teach you about your own heritage and culture.
wtf are you teaching your own children???

It is a bit alarming, deconstructing your children’s heritage … I hate to tell you, but global citizenship isn’t real and there is no universal values or culture

No you weren’t.

Because until pretty recent history that was what all countries did. It wasn’t considered bad by the morals of the time or at any point in history prior. Slavery has existed as long as humans have existed.

Countries got strong and took over over countries for their resources and power and created Empires. All across the span of history that’s what humans have done, conquered, enslaved and exploited those weaker than them. Assyrian’s, Egyptians,Greeks, Romans, Viking’s, Mongals, Chinese, Aztecs, Spanish, Ottoman, Russian, French, British……The British industrialised the process and were some of the more recent colonials so by nearness in time and scale of suffering they (we) get most of the current flack.

Whats out of pattern is the change in the last 100-150 years that has lead to the majority of humanity (not that I can speak for them all) thinking slavery is bad, colonialism is bad. (I’m not disagreeing)

A Britain enslaved by Rome in 50CE or whatever was probably not very happy to be a slave and have all these folks taking his land but he’s probably mad that HE’S a slave and HIS land is taken not that slavery exists, and given half a chance he’d likely enslave the Roman

What happens to make Britain decide slavery for everyone was bad and give up its Empire (under pressure) and for the predominant moral view to be slavers bad, empire bad? (and I don’t think it’s because the majority of historic brits were just amazingly good folks - clearly some of them were like the abolitionists) Because our current view are so out of kilter with the predominant morality throughout history.

This. Everybody’s culture is sacrosanct except our own, apparently.

You don't know me. I do actually find it an interesting discussion. If you don't, why troll hunt if you're not interested 🙄

The thing is, a huge number of people are not that interested in history in general.

I live in a former British colony. Many barely know how our history is related to Britain. A minority, I suspect, could tell you what the Commonwealth is, or how it came to be. They certainly would struggle to name other Commonwealth countries, and know nothing about their history.

Of course, any also know little about British history, and quite a lot are spotty on the history of their own country.

I love history, but realistically - most people don't find it that important in their everyday lives. They want to treat people fairly, they aren't racists or bigots, but they don't feel the need to know much about the history of Trinidad or Pakistan or Botswana.

I think you will find it's not much different across the world. It's not helpful to feel "offended" because people don't really know about the history of your nation - this need to be validated that way is not actually that healthy.

I think this is the kind of attitude OP is referring to.

We actually live in quite a diverse country. There are a range of ethnicities and cultures in the country and our classrooms. These children deserve to see themselves in the syllabus and their learning. And all children benefit from hearing a range of voices and perspectives.

Representation matters.

There's been a lot mentioned about the teaching of history.

Children in primary school are taught predominantly British history because the evidence is all around them: Victorian buildings, Roman remains etc. This makes it real. Developmentally, young children do not have the ability to understand more abstract concepts. They find Ancient Egypt difficult from a historical point of view despite usually enjoying it. King Leopold in the Congo would be incomprehensible.

It is also not possible to learn the entirety of human history at school. I have a degree in History but I am always discovering things I don't know - about the periods I studied, let alone anything else! History changes too. The Windrush is history and learned about, but it wasn't considered so in the 1980s. Thatcherism, the Cold War - all current affairs a few years ago.

History is also a rigorous academic discipline. The emphasis is on researching and "why", not learning dry facts.

Commonwealth history, colonial history, transatlantic slave trade, are all "our" history. If our culture is so sacrosanct, surely we should be making an effort to understand it fully.
Do you even realise that places all over the world were an extension of Britian within living memory? How is that not "our" history?

You sound racist OP. Swap the word "white" for any other race and you wouldn't dream of posting such a question.

White people are not a monolithic group and many "white" countries like Ireland were historically poor, had no empires and their people were the victims of kidnapping and slavery (by north African Barbary slave traders) as were the people of Cornwall.

If anything history is now taught from a perspective of white people being uniquely evil, which is obviously not only distorted but offensive. It's understandable that people will reject this idea.

Of course. The boers are the ones who stole the land as they left cape town after all.

But lots of things like pass laws etc were implemented by the British.

Good grief. @Alicewinn seems to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Alan Rice is a hugely respected person for his work on slavery & Black Atlantic culture.

This is interesting thankyou
You can be still be incredibly academically accomplished but emotionally removed from the subject which was what I saw. The way he deflected was shocking to me.

Humanities wasn't a subject when I was at school, the options were only History or Geography, 2 of the science subjects, at least2 of computer studies, typing, home economics, art/design woodwork, metalwork drama.
RE was compulsory as was Maths,English and PE.
The percentage of pupils taking each option varied according to available resources at the time, eg only 25 percent of pupils could take computer studies

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

Possibly because most (but not all) of those who claim they want to "talk" about it do so from a pre-conceived position usually based on total ignorance of historical facts.

I live in Scotland which is 95% white. Of the 5% which is not white, the majority are brown, not black.