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 wasn’t necessarily so to start with, but it definitely became a part of the story the Empire told to justify its continued existence.

Shall dig if I have time, but the concept of racism as in Black vs White was apparently created in the US after a near successful uprising (I forget where!) where the Black slaves and indentured Irish had bandes together to overthrow the masters. To avoid this in future the poor where segregated according to colour and the White where taught in mass about their superiority. Mucho effective, to let the bottom rung of society have someone else to look down on.
Divide and conquer.

Prior to that slavery was something anyone could experience - it was extremely popular well into the early Middle Age in Europe, where it experienced a lull because of Christianity and that you shouldn’t enslave your brother in Christ. Could have him as serf though…

The western Vikings favoured Irish slaves, but weren’t difficult about enslaving anyone else either. The Bysantine Empire had slaves from all over, but like with the eastern Vikings the Slavs from around the Black Sea were in a precarious situation - they had been for a long time as waves of invaders and traders were drawn to this area.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade was in one way a matter of simplicity for the White European traders: The powerful slaving clans/tribes caught the slaves inland and brought them to the coast ready and waiting. The European traders didn’t have to bother with traipsing through the jungle and fighting to capture anyone themselves. The slaves were a ready commodity (and this bit is truly awful) often held in fairly large camps by the coast - in areas it was difficult to escape from - waiting for the next slaveship. The wait could be fairly long.

I do However agree that after a while a key factor certainly was the racist, White saviour, social Darwinism Theory that was being taught (fed) both europeans and others to perpetuate and justify the colonial powers.

Someone brought up the genocide in Rwanda as an example - I recommend reading up about what the german and belgian colonisers did in Rwanda. How they pitted tribes/peoples against eachother and sowed the seeds of extreme mistrust.

Having said that; divide and conquer is sadly fairly easy and effective if you take existing faultlines in a population and amplify them. Of course most groups would like to tag along to the group perceived as the most powerful, even if it later is shown to be to their own disadvantage.

White people alive now bear no responsibility for what other white people might have done centuries ago. You can't expect people to be apologetic for things they haven't done. I think the treatment of native Americans was repulsive. I wasn't there though. I didn't do it, so I don't feel I have to apologise as a Caucasian person.

Many comments on this thread, such at this, are proving your point @BeachParty . What's the point in trying to educate, share another point of view, and reason, with attitudes like this.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to feel personally responsible or to apologise though?

Simply know it happened, acknowledge it happened and, this is the bit that people sometimes don't get, understand that past colonisation still affects people living in those countries today.

Depending on where they are or other circumstances, they are affected to a greater or lesser extent obviously, but it's true even in countries like Ireland where the inhabitants are no longer poor.

And? What's your point?

OK let's discuss that.
I suppose that Europeans took black slaves from Africa because their technological advantages meant they could and their morals allowed it. But on the other side of the continent brown people were also doing it, because their technological advantages meant they could and their morals allowed it.
Maybe it is what humans did to each other given half the chance? The Aztecs were at it in South America etc etc

I understand your sentiment, but I disagree still.
It is objectively better to be a citizen in a rich country, and there are no countries that are rich without some sort of shady business Deals with poorer countries.
And these are often the countries where the majority population live in appalling poverty, and a sliver of the elite lives like the ruthless masters they are. And they control the trade with «us» and «we» turn a blind eye because it benefits us greatly.

That is the simplistic version, and luckily people do work to implement basic human rights around the globe. But as a consumer you have to be extremely conscientous to not inadvertedly contribute to abuse and exploitation of people in other countries.

You just have to look at Amazon, where the board campaigned so effectively that their workers voted against themselves being allowed to form a union (USA).

That was in response to someone saying we're a diverse and multicultural country, and other posters use of the term black history etc. In Scotland we're almost all white, apart from a mainly brown minority population.

Yes, this.

That is the simplistic version, and luckily people do work to implement basic human rights around the globe. But as a consumer you have to be extremely conscientous to not inadvertedly contribute to abuse and exploitation of people in other countries.

You just have to look at Amazon, where the board campaigned so effectively that their workers voted against themselves being allowed to form a union (USA).*

Colonisation never stopped, except now global corporations are colonisers. We also directly benefit from the labour of people with no human rights and child labour. We use products from trafficked and oppressed people Powerful countries continue to bomb less powerful countries. They also finance genocide and overthrow democratically elected leaders. Our heads of State and politicians continue to meet leaders carrying out atrocious against their people.

It doesn't seem as though we've learnt much at all.

My heritage is slavery. I am certain we didn’t learn anything about this in my predominantly white school.
the only time my kids learned anything remotely unbiased towards whites was in primary school when the Black Lives Matter movement was in full swing.
their school now is a racist institution and an academy with no accountability

Some parts of it are fairly diverse now, but even in England, the vast majority of people are white. People who live in certain large cities sometimes see to have a very parochial attitude and forget they are in a bit of a bubble.

Statistically, most books are going to be written by white people, and lots will feature white people. If you are studying history before WWII, chances are it will be about white people.

This is no different than any other country, btw. If you go to Japan, or Nigeria, you will find that books and advertisements and such largely reflect the people who live there. And much of their history studies in schools will too.

Actually no. If you go to many countries the literature, media and curricula will largely be white British (or French etc). A direct result of colonization.

The main reason for going to Africa for slaves at that point is because they had large slave markets that could be accessed by ship. There weren't any others, at that point, easily accessible to ships heading to the Americas.

Isn't it the rich and powerful who the perpetrators? The average person of any race would have no influence back then. I am pretty sure my ancestors would have had no say in the slave trade, the colonisation of the Americas or even the clearances in Scotland being pushed from pillar to post themselves.

I think you are over-stating that quite a lot. Some former colonies do still have a more mixed population which is reflected in their society, but quite a lot haven't, and also many have put huge emphasis on having local media and government resources and such.

Film and television do have an international element, or really it's often an American spin, and there are some places that have been less able to produce their own film industry, or textbook industry. But I am hard-pressed to think of a Commonwealth country where there hasn't been a significant emphasis on local representation and production.

And then - many countries and most people were never colonized by Europe.

And also for the physical strength of Africans (which they used to portray them as ‘animalistic’ and ‘savages’)

Of course not all the former colonies will be on the same path, some will have moved forward more than others. But you are wrong if you think all have been able to develop their own media, curriculum, political and legal systems. A great many are still using British curriculum from the 1960s for example. Whether or not that is our "fault" or not is debatable, but it is true and it is a direct result of colonization.

I believe you are thinking about the Haitian uprising.

You are right though - typically any group that exploits a less powerful group creates spurious justifications for why they are inferior. It could be centered around their religion, diet, physical appearance, whatever. These can become widely held cultural beliefs.

Early in the history of the Americas there were both white and black enslaved people, but as you say, it was seen as advantageous to divide these groups. European slaves were becoming rare and difficult to justify because those countries forming into nation-states and were passing laws to protect their citizens more and more, so were not really a viable source anyway. But they could become an underclass that could be set against, rather than seeing themselves in solidarity with, the African slave population.

The idea of universal human rights was really just emerging in this period, you tend to see people accorded rights that were beginning to be defined and granted by the emerging nation states, who could protect their citizens. (That's a bit simplistic of course, there were rights of some kinds before that, but it was a very in development thing.)

Where are you thinking of, specifically? I do not think that is a very large number.

In any case, it really has zero to do with the point that it is normal, and completely fine, if a country's media etc reflects the people who live there.

I think some of this was mythological, though they do seem to have been very resilient health wise.

I think the huge size of the African slave markets was a bigger deal. There was simply nothing like it in Europe or the Americas.

Of course history of an area affects the people who live in that area or came from that area. And if that history is of being colonised especially recently of course it has effects, massive effects.

Most land (and so privilege and wealth) in the Uk is still owned by the descendants of the Norman colonisers from 1066. You’re still more likely to go to Oxbridge if you have a Norman-decent surname than an Anglo-Saxon one. Northern England deprivation compared to the south also possibly results from this time leading to a lot of our current political issues. Should I register my protest with the French or with the Scandinavians?

Historical Brits behaved like all people up to about 200 years ago had always behaved, using any advantages they had to exploit everyone else. Historical Britain benefited from the advantages of Industrial Revolution happening here first and a lot of naval innovation to exploit a lot of areas and people. They were no different in their morals - thinking exploiting other humans for profit and nicking their stuff to get rich than any other humans at or up to that point. It’s not just whataboutary (sp) to say the that everyone was doing it because for the ENTIRE OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY until then that is what every powerful nation did. History is the rise and fall of colonial expansionist empires on all continents and across all races.

Its only so so recent in historical terms that humans generally have decided that that enslaving your fellow man and taking their stuff is a bad thing. Why this has happened is what to me is interesting.

I firmly disagree it's a need to be validated. I certainly am embarassed that it took me until i was 17 to e.g. understand Pakistan's history and even later to understand the Palestinian conflict which is linked to British history. My heritage also has never been taught as far as I can see.

The history of the Commonwealth /British Empire absolutely matters and is impacting British people's lives today, for good and bad (as said by another poster). "Not feeling the need to know much about xxx Commonwealth country" is a sad indictment on British society today and no excuse at all- why wouldn't you want to learn another aspect of British history? Ignorance should not be treated so lightly.

For example there is a huge risk of someone being rejected for a job because the hiring manager could not imagine they spoke excellent English (alongside other languages), would be interested in xxx, and had equivalent qualifications to a person born and bred in England. This happened to my mother several decades ago, when there were plenty of vacancies in England.

I myself have received many an ignorant comment from university peers and colleagues and experienced e.g. being left out purposefully on a conversation on childhoods such as "you wouldn't know xxx" "you wouldn't understand xxx". I may not, or I may surprise you. It's the constant presumptions and ignorance which thousands and thousands of people face on a daily basis.

In summary, not knowing is damaging. If people know about America and the slave trade, World War 1 and 2, and the Holocaust then at the very least they should be educated on the Commonwealth /British Empire.

THIS.

was the Balkans conflict "white behaviour"?
Is the Russian/Ukraine war "white behaviour"?
Is the Somali civil war "black behaviour"?