Uncovering the truth about the British empire and the Mau Mau uprising
theguardian.comI'll never forget a discussion with a very intelligent professional American (in the software business) who refused to believe that America could possibly be engaged in torture. She just refused to believe that a country as 'great' as the US could commit torture. (this was a few years ago under GWB when Guantanamo was all over the UK papers but presumably still being suppressed in the US media).
The more stories like this are told and remove any shadow of a doubt about the foundations that western imperial states are built on the better.
Occasionally British politicians talk about "British Values" or "Making Great Britain Great Again" without any hit of acknowledgement of what 'British values' really entailed in reality.
There was no suppression of the Guantanamo abuses in the US media. It was widely reported.
I also wonder if you misremember. It's plausible that the person you described refused to believe that the abuses were systemic. It is implausible that a "very intelligent professional" would legitimately deny the abuses entirely. They were widely reported and well documented.
Edit: Actually, you could have just been dealing with someone who actively chooses ignore this stuff. That is a sad possibility. It was still widely reported, though.
I was shocked because she fell into the demographic that I would expect to know.
Anyway, one thing that isn't in doubt is that it was only one data point. It's good to have some balancing opinions!
Let's be clear here though: it's not western imperial states, it's all imperial states throughout all of history, and all countries behave very differently at home compared to abroad.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes lots of nations commit atrocities and have done through time.
If anything that's less of a reason to disbelieve that your taxes, and those of your predecessors, are being spent on atrocities.
I think that the parent comment author meant the usual anti-colonialism which attacks western colonialism as something unique and blames virtually any hardships of former colonies on it. I recently saw an article which argued that honor killings in Pakistan are to be blamed on colonialism — because, apparently, palistani men felt oppressed by colonial past and had to take it out on their wives, daughters and sisters. Unfortunately, this absurd position gets a lot of support nowadays, and often when you try to argue against it you're insantly labeled all kinds of things.
I guess people get upset about this sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I...
Or this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820...
But sure, focus on some absurd strawman, and ignore the millions of deaths that the British were responsible for.
No one in this thread is claiming the Brits were innocent lambs. Parent is pointing out that violence is endemic to empire, regardless whether that empire was built by the west, asia, or africa.
Engaging in "what-about-ism" will not get a conversation far.
There is a very common narrative that tries to say that the British Empire was good for India, and wasn't like all the other savage empires.
Once again, you're taking my comment, throw out all attempt to be detailed and nuanced and assume that I have a radical point of view just because it's easier for you to digest and argue against. Can we please stop this pattern in internet discussions? You're arguing against a strawman that is completely absent here.
You've taken one absurd article (not even cited), and used it to fuel some specious argument that just people regard western colonialism as unique. I'm just pointing out that British colonialism (directly relevant, because of Pakistan) was a bad thing, regardless of whether other empires also acted savagely, and regardless of whether a handful of people use it as an excuse for current abhorrent behaviours.
Not sure what's so hard to understand.
You understand that I never contradicted the fact you're pointing out, right?
Not sure about Pakistan but such honor killings exist in India too. I never heard anyone blame colonialism for these behavior. Infact social reformers were working on eradicating these behavior years before the British even arrived in India (For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mohan_Roy).
That said: We just elected our first ever PM that was born in post-colonial India and you are implying that colonialism didn't have much effect on our mentality when infact most of our 'backward' mentality is due to colonial principles. See "Doctrine of Lapse", "Divide and Rule", "Zamindars" (British policy of awarding land to "higher caste" who were sympathetic to British)
The GDP contribution of India to the world was 25% (It's ~15% for USA now) and during colonial times it was less than 1%. We are back to around 3% now
Colonial mindset and Colonization is very recent and has much more effect than you think. Most of the British museum have all the goods stolen during colonization. Like John Oliver said "The entire British Museum is basically an active crime scene"
To top it off the British government has not paid a single dollar as reparations (http://www.britishreparations.org/facts.php). Not that we need it but put the money where your mouth is if you are really apologetic about your past actions.
No, I'm not implying it. Once again: if you're trying to guess opponents position and put words in his mouth, this kind of discussion becomes meaningless very fast.
I watched Zootopia with my gf, and I was surprised to see torture so normalized that the two "good guy" protagonists do a deal with the mob to torture some creature to advance the plot, and it's played up for laughs.
There was plenty of stuff about Guantanamo in the newspapers, for what that is worth.
I think it would have been about 2003 but I really can't be sure. All I know is that she hadn't even heard of it.
Then you were dealing with someone willfully uninformed. The abuses were widely reported in the US.
The sad truth is that empires require massive amounts of violence to maintain. There is no other way. Just look at Sumer, Assyria, Persia, Rome, China, Ottoman, France, Britain, and Germany. Also, make no mistake, the United States is also a defacto empire.
Unfortunately, the alternatives to empires is isolation and infighting between smaller powers. For an example of this, take a look at the middle east. The middle east is most peaceful when it is part of an empire - be it the Ottoman, the British, Mongol, or Arab empires. Another example, is Europe. Europe was pretty peaceful when it was partitioned between the Soviet empire and the US Empire (also known as NATO).
Also, empires can provide major benefits through economies of scale. Take a look at Europe before and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Looking back historically, the Roman Empire was probably a net positive for human development throughout the Mediterranean World. The various Chinese empires were also probably net positives for their citizens.
Thus, it is not proper to judge the British empire over violence (given that an empire requires violence). The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved.
> Unfortunately, the alternatives to empires is isolation and infighting between smaller powers. For an example of this, take a look at the middle east.
The example of the middle east is not really the best for supporting your claim, since there are not only small powers, but also the big empires fighting for various reasons.
And I believe that is the case in nearly every mayor conflict I know. The big empires are allways involved. So it is not really an argument pro empire, when the empires are the cause for the conflict in the first place.
> The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved.
That's easy, it was a net negative for the Indians.
That's not an easy statement to make at all. The Indian kingdoms were perpetually at war, and there's no reason to think things would have changed without the British. Beyond that, the Brits left India with a common language and pretty good set of governance institutions.
Actually, it's a really easy statement to make. The British were directly responsible for millions of deaths in India.
"Millions"? How is that?
Yes one of the great quirks of European history is that the British Empire is not held in the same esteem as the Nazi empire. The British Empire was bizarrely racist and killed tens of millions of people worldwide. Maybe even more than that if you include the promotion of slavery as a business on global scale. England is so lovable now though.
Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations.
What people forget is that the norms of the past are not the same as the norms of today. At one time, slavery was normal across vast swathes of the planet. That it isn't today, is in part due to a moral revolution that took place in Britain and resulted in a policy change by the British empire - despite its own commercial interests - to abolish slavery and the trade in slaves, even while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it.
> Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations.
I think you may not be aware of the graylevels within that statement. It is true that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished the African slave trade. But you need to know the details to realize why the powers that be allowed that to happen. Also, it is worth mentioning that while the same 1833 act made an explicit exception for territories possessed by the East India company. Further, slavery was replaced by indentured labor. This is why you find large populations of non-African slave descendants in many countries. If you've ever vacationed in Trinidad, you'll notice lots of Asians (Indian, etc) people. They got there because their ancestors were brought as indentured labor to replace African slaves. In many cases, as is still occurring today in places like Qatar/UAE, indentured labor is just a #define for slavery.
I'll point out that slavery was abolished by the French government following the Revolution (though the slaveholders obviously fought tooth and nail to prevent the law from being applied), before being re-instated by Napoleon (under pressure from his wife, I believe).
Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages.
"while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (their opinions count right?)
That's the very thing I am talking about. Britain was the first country in which it was a massive political liability to support slavery, and the first country in which the opinions of ordinary people mobilising and campaigning against slavery actually mattered and made a difference.
You can cast this in cynical terms as self interest, but you can do that with any action by any state in history - Britain is hardly unique there.
I don't think its being particularly cynical to say if the industries supported by slavery had not been supplanted somewhat (reducing their political power) then slavery would have continued apace. Politicians have proven adept at taking advantage of popular movements when suitable.
Its basic economics. Had the ruling elite deemed it necessary I'm sure Punch could have been commissioned to print all manner of xenophobic cartoons about subhuman slaves and their barbarism in order to justify the practice further.
This isn't to diminish the efforts of the anti-slavery movement or the individuals involved.
*Edit: Also, yes, this is not unique to any country at all. I'm sure there are a myriad of examples of slavery within any of the countries that Britain colonised throughout history.
very dark yet very accurate
I'm not sure you realize just how ubiquitous the institution of slavery was prior to the 19th century. Those "populations being enslaved" themselves had slaves when they were strong enough to take them.
Slaves made empires (true empires) possible because captive people are a net positive for the conquerors. You could conquer your neighbors and... sell them to pay for the war, which isn't the case today. Outside Syria, I guess. When the Roman Empire was at its peak citizens could pay their taxes with only two days of work per year.
No, they didn't count. That's the whole point.
I find it curious how some people seem to not believe in moral relativism. Do they not recognise that by doing so they are saying that they themselves are "evil" and immoral?
If you look at the contemporaries of the British Empire they do not stand out as exceptional either good or bad morally. Meanwhile, if you compare the Nazis to their contemporaries they do however stand out (though not nearly as some people might think).
To me it seems rather cruel and unfair to label someone or something as "immoral" if they are acting within the limits of accepted and expected behaviour in their environment.
This is an ultra-conservative mindset. By only judging people according to what their contemporaries were doing, you basically relieve pressure from questioning the mores of our own day, since we rest easy knowing we will be judged according to what was "normal" for us.
I find it ethically very dubious. Certainly many people committing atrocities have been "going along with the flow" of their own local environments.
That's absolutely untrue. It does no such thing. All it means that as long as you're acting within the norms of our times you're morally neutral. Who has ever aspired to that? "Are you a moral person?" -> "Well, you know. At least I'm not immoral. I just barely pass the bar lowest bar for that". The future will look back at people who pushed beyond that, just like we do today, even if even those people will be (at best) morally neutral on many other issues.
Bartolomé de las Casas, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi etc, all of these people are looked back upon with great respect because of their morality - but the truth is that none of them would seem like morally great people today. They stand out because they pushed further on certain issues compared to their contemporaries, not because their thoughts and actions would stand out compared to ours (other than that they would seem very backwards and immoral concerning a lot of things).
I think the mindset is valid but the people behind it are inconsistent, if your locale is being around indignous african people. Then killing and enslaving them kinda goes against the whole "act local" thing.
Thereby making them immoral by their own standards. You cannot export your sense of locality to somewhere else, i dont think thats how it works.
> England is so lovable now though.
Clearly you feel that anybody of this opinion is in error. Does everyone who posts an article about the nastiness of the (historical) British Empire feel the same way? There are quite a few come up on Hacker News. To me it doesn't seem like England is perceived as lovable at all, in fact I can't imagine where you got the idea.
You mention the Nazis, but I don't think I've ever seen a post about those guys. It's almost as if one needn't hold modern-day Germans accountable for the crimes of their forebears? What a strange idea.
By that standard, every empire ever should be held in the same esteem as Nazi Germany. After all, almost every change of dynasty in China involved tens of millions of deaths.
British concentration camps predated Nazi's
British concentration camps weren't created for the purpose of mass extermination.
First you're obviously right.
It is difficult though to distinguish neglect from intent sometimes, with "The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children. Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these concentration camps. [...] The inadequate shelter, poor diet, bad hygiene and overcrowding led to malnutrition and endemic contagious diseases [...]"
You're right. Genetic manipulation programs were created for that purpose, instead. Hitler looked at the "White Australia Policy" and decided he could improve it:
Coca cola wasn't created for the purpose of providing a refreshing beverage.
Yet, the british never worked their prisoners to death or conducted mass killings on an industrial scale.
Whilst Kenya was an undoubted low point of the British overseas territories, it's chilling to think they were markedly better behaved than the French and especially Belgian colonies in Africa.
Quite how any of these were able to rationalise such behaviour, and so comparatively recently, whilst claiming to be civilised beats me.
Blood and repression is the norm for empires, from Sumeria down through. The new thing is being ashamed of it.
Hm. Lots of people believed that the British Empire was absolutely fantastic. In reality, though it brought lots of trade to Britain, I don't think there was much interaction with the Empire for the normal person on the street.
If they had actually known what atrocities had been committed in order to get them that rubber or cotton would they have been so happy about it? I think modern shame is very much the product of modern access to information.
(To counter that point, most people can reasonably be expected to know where their bananas and palm oil came from and they still buy them)
> If they had actually known what atrocities
Lets put the atrocities to one side for a moment. We should also consider the fact that in many cases colonial invasions put into place highly extractive political institutions and extractive economic institutions. That's relevant for the long term. In almost all cases, the colonial governments put into place winner-take-all environments. That meant, if you were willing to be the corrupt puppet native leader, and were willing to supress your other natives at all costs, then you got to be "King". The structures created in those colonial countries still maintain such winner-take-all society which results in authoritarian/dictatorial leaders.
> The new thing is being ashamed of it.
Which is a development I very much welcome.
Being ashamed of something you had no possibility of being complicit in, is perhaps psychologically maladaptive. Unless by shame, you mean an opportunity for performative ethnomasochism as a means of virtue-signalling.
Well the first phase of the British Empire was much more about the trade than repression and saw abolition of suttee and slavery. Early treaties attempted to preserve native rights. Intermarriage was relatively common, as was some immigration into the UK.
The later "benevolent empire" phase, broadly around the time of the Opium wars, saw the repression, misrule and attempt to civilise these places. That saw more separation. This was the phase that saw concerted efforts to add infrastructure, schools, hospitals and such.
The first phase of the British empire was roughly from the time of Queen Elizabeth to the start of the Seven Years War in 1754 (or up to 1688 if you want to use the Glorious Revolution as a division point). This is precisely the period when the British were among the world's most active and enthusiastic slavetraders. The abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire was obviously a bright point in its history, but it's worth pointing out that this happened two hundred years into the British Empire's lifespan, not at the beginning.
The goal of the British Empire, as with every empire, is to exploit the empire to the benefit of the ruling country. Everything else is white washing.
> it's chilling to think they were markedly better behaved than the French and especially Belgian colonies in Africa
I'm somehow suspicious of this claim. There's some circumstancial evidence that make me think that Belgium's crimes were more exposed.
For instance, compare the death tolls of the railways in the two Congos.
Appreciate the great work!
British did a lot of nasty killings in India as well, for instance the Jalianwala Bagh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
Here you can see imperial life in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKYg641K3c&feature=youtu.be...
Surreal imagery.
I think a better example of the evilness of the British Empire is the Irish experience in the 19th century. You lose the "excuse" of racism and are left with religious sectarianism and sheer greed for the policy.
The British put inhumane and genocidal policies in place, starving millions in a land of plenty.
> You lose the "excuse" of racism
No, you do not lose the excuse of racism - "Race" is a social construct, not a biological one. The Irish were seen as an inferior people at the time (even in the U.S.), so they did suffer racism.
The initial British response was to buy £100,000 of corn meal from the US to import to Ireland to combat the famine.
This doesn't seem like an action of a government intent on genocide.
It seems more to me that British policy in Ireland during the famine is marked by an extreme ideological commitment to laissez faire economics (ie, letting land owners export food from Ireland in large quantities to make money, letting ports export food etc) and no little incompetence and prejudice against imagined "workshy" irish layabouts.
But I wouldn't say there was a deliberate policy of genocide as such.
As far as I know, the potato blight was not started by British settlers gifting infected towels to the natives.
Trevelyan shut that down immediately. His credo: "Irish property support Irish poverty."
Small catch: bumper harvests of oats, wheat and meats were being exported, protected by bayonet. The citizens were living off of kitchen gardens, which is why potatoes were a staple to begin with -- the lord wouldn't give peasant rabble access to enough land to grow corn or wheat for private consumption.
After the second potato crop failure in 1846: > Trevelyan's free market relief plan depended on private merchants supplying food to peasants who were earning wages through public works employment financed mainly by the Irish themselves through local taxes. But the problems with this plan were numerous. Tax revues were insufficient. Wages had been set too low. Paydays were irregular and those who did get work could not afford to both pay their rent and buy food. Ireland also lacked adequate transportation for efficient food distribution. There were only 70 miles of railroad track in the whole country and no usable commercial shipping docks in the western districts.
> By September, starvation struck in the west and southwest where the people had been entirely dependent on the potato. British Coastguard Inspector-General, Sir James Dombrain, upon encountering starving paupers, ordered his subordinates to give free food handouts. For his efforts, Dombrain was publicly A starving boy and girl in Cork hoping to find a potato. rebuked by Trevelyan. The proper procedure, he was informed, would have been to encourage the Irish to form a local relief committee so that Irish funds could have been raised to provide the food.
You can claim that denying a man dying of thirst a glass of water isn't harming him. But when you do that systematically, don't pretend that it's any different than killing him some other way.
You are right of course.
One might think though if the famine happened to Britain and not to the "inferior" Irish "race" [see other comments], wether the government would be "letting land owners export food from [Britain] in large quantities to make money".
I think you are right to some extent, the Irish were definitely "racialised" in 19th century britain and considered essentially subhuman.
There was a potato famine in the Highlands of Scotland as well as Ireland, so it did hit Britain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Potato_Famine
And we can see that "prompt and major charitable efforts by the rest of the United Kingdom ensured that there was relatively little starvation" - but that similar to in Ireland, "The terms on which charitable relief was given, however, led to destitution and malnutrition amongst its recipients".
I guess in the mainland UK the scale was far smaller, but it didn't stop an extremely laissez faire and heartless response from government authorities.
Major point of the Wikipedia article too me looks like most of the help came from Scotland itself,
"The Free Church of Scotland, strong in the affected areas, was prompt in raising the alarm and in organising relief, being the only body actively doing so in late 1846 and early 1847; relief was given regardless of denomination. In February 1847 the (non-governmental) Central Board of Management for Highland Relief, supported by Relief Committees in Edinburgh and Glasgow, took over from the Free Church ; by the end of 1847 the Relief Committees had raised about £210,000 to support relief work."
Looks like your quote from the abstract of "prompt [...] charitable efforts by the rest of the United Kingdom" is contradicted by the "being the only body actively doing so in late 1846 and early 1847" of the main body of the Wikipedia article.
No, it seems like the action of a government attempting to appear concerned when quite clearly humanitarian issues were a tertiary concern.
If a genocide occurs as a result of a commitment to a political or economic ideology, does intention really matter?
I think it matters, because the very definition of genocide involves deliberate intent and policy to achieve the goal of wiping out a people.
Fair point. We need a better word to describe mass murder by coincidence.
I would note however, that the goal of wiping out a people (in this case it could be argued that "a people" could just as easily refer to "poor people" as "Irish people") was at least a bonus as far as Westminster was concerned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
"The Irish viceroy actually proposed in this fashion to sweep the western province of Connacht clean of as many as 400,000 pauper smallholders too poor to emigrate on their own. But the majority of Whig cabinet ministers saw little need to spend public money accelerating a process that was already going on 'privately' at a great rate."
Trevelyan in a letter to the poor law commissioner of Ireland:
"We must not complain of what we really want to obtain. If small farmers go, and their landlords are reduced to sell portions of their estates to persons who will invest capital we shall at last arrive at something like a satisfactory settlement of the country".
Murder is still murder if it's done with depraved indifference rather than deliberate intent. Don't see why the same shouldn't be true of genocide.
I'm not so sure. There has historically been very strong racism against Irish people in England.
True. Sometimes these colonial abuse stories are whitewashed with "Yeah, the old timers were racists, but we're better now."
Shouldn't we as humans bury the longer past and move on and look at the present-day scenario? I know many will say - "What about justice to our ancestors?". Justice is done to them when their children(descendants) do not suffer similar injustice and/or live a better life. How many parents want their kids to live in a war-waging world?
I understand what she did was very hard work. But what's the point? People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other. Then there are people who get emotionally touched, take an absolute stand and create an uprising. The people (experts) who raised the issue first get sidelined. The govt tries to control the situation and gets labelled as oppressive. Politicians and media take control now. It goes on and then starts a racial and a religious divide and all the wars in the world. The true purpose is lost and what exists past those wars is just pieces of hazy truth mixed with spiced up vigilantism.
The British did very bad and evil things in the past. But why not talk about evil things performed now by another powerful and smart country that uses methods incomprehendible to most people.
I have no issue with the anti-war aspects of what you wrote. But as an historian, I feel like I ought to write a defense of remembering past injustices. I think there are several grounds for doing so:
- I can't speak for Caroline Elkins, but I think that many historians, including myself, believe that every human life that was ever lived has some value and deserves to be remembered, as far as that's possible. As living human being we naturally have a tendency to privilege our present moment and the lives of the humans who happen to be alive alongside us, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's humbling to realize that there are tens of billions of lives that have faded from memory, but which were every bit as vivid and profound to the people who experienced them as your own life is to you. So I think one core benefit of history is simply in preserving the memories and the experiences of all sentient beings. (This is going to get very interesting in the decades to come when we get better at digitally preserving people's personalities and memories, but that's for another discussion).
- There are a surprising number of people in the mainstream of political and cultural discussion who truly seem to believe that the British Empire should be uncritically celebrated. Niall Ferguson being probably the most famous example. This kind of work forces us to confront the fact that the good intentions of some British imperialists were counterbalanced by atrocities and acts of unthinking violence. Caroline Elkins' work is important in the same way that George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is - it documents cruelties, not to settle scores, but to help us avoid repeating them.
- Arguably, more violence and hatred could be incited by failing to remember horrible past events. In other words, if a people have a sense that they've been wronged within living memory, and that as those memories fade, the injustice done to them will be forgotten, this could generate even more distrust and hatred then an acknowledgement and apology. This is a debatable point, but one that makes sense to me from the standpoint of my own life - we tend to get angriest at unacknowledged wrongs.
As a counterpoint I think remembrance of past injustices is one of the key obstacles holding back the former Yugoslavia. People there tend to be aware of history (or at least their own version of it) going back to 1389 in a way that most Americans can't grasp. And although they might be right in some moral sense, so what? This just encourages a victim mentality and won't get them anywhere in the long run.
> but I think that many historians, including myself, believe that every human life that was ever lived has some value and deserves to be remembered
I agree with that, but the difference is that we have the ability to improve present and future lives, something we cannot do for those of the past. Thus if bringing dignity to the past injures the present and the future, we would not do so.
This is a very naive view of history and reconciliation. It's easy to say, "Yes, it was bad, but why don't we move on? Why be divisive and bring up past wrongs?" when you were not the one tortured. I would even call it churlish to preach "forgive and forget" when our countries (assuming you are a Westerner) have been doing wrong by these other countries for centuries.
Pretending history never happened is not only disingenuous, it actively hurts attempts to heal and move forward. There can be no forgiveness if one side tries to pretend something bad never happened. The example everyone cites is South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process, in which the horrors of apartheid were laid bare. Everyone acknowledged what happened, and it laid the basis for moving forward.
Facts are facts. If the ugly history of imperialism offends you, look away. It will be there regardless.
No, I am no westerner. I know what I am talking about. My country was oppressed by the British Empire and was left independent severely impoverished. But we are on our way up, slowly and steadily. People have moved on and have learnt to stand united in diversity
> Shouldn't we as humans bury the longer past and move on and look at the present-day scenario? I know many will say - "What about justice to our ancestors?"
Ancestors?!! 50 years ago is in living memory - as the article stated, some the victims of the Mau Mau repression are still walking the earth, why should they 'bury the past'?
Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it, we shouldn't bury it, but study and analyze it and make changes to lower the chances of it happening again - Nuremberg was a good thing for humanity, we need more of that.
> People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other.
For events only 50 years ago, it's more likely that the hatred is already there and the effect of it on families gets ignored because "the past is past".
"Creating an uprising" only happens when there's already tension and unhappiness floating around and people don't feel like they have any other way for their problems to be heard.
If we don't understand, acknowledge and what happened in the past, how can we be moving on with confidence that it's still not happening?
I encourage everyone to look into the Truth & Reconciliation movement in Canada. It's truly inspiring to see how important Truth is, and how important reconciliation is, only because of truth.
Really, the question can be of one's own guilt and blissful ignorance when we're reminded how clueless we really are of the plight of others. Looking in the mirror in that simple way isn't always easy.
Why not forget about the Holocaust, then?
In education, there are few things more important than teaching the truth about the horrors of the past, and the human capacity for violence, racism, and bureaucratic indifference, in the hope of creating empathy and stopping future genocide.
Also, understanding the actions of the past helps us understand the actions of the present. Without historical context, it's nearly impossible to have perspective on why an individual or group of people hold certain beliefs or act in a way we may not at first understand.
Did you see or just ignore the part where she talked to people who actually had atrocities committed against them?
> People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other.
I think that's a flawed way to think. Your logic would imply that we shouldn't make anymore movies about the Holocaust because it might cause Jews to hate Germans.
There is a great Radiolab episode on this very subject, also touches on the vault of top secret historical documents from the British Empire. http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/
I appreciate that she took a stand for what she believes in. I hope that someone of her calibur will also express how the carribean has so few natives or tribes being pocketed in little corners of many american countries. But I appreciate any effort to understand and reach for justice
It is interesting how everyone wants to portray themselves as a victim. "I was persecuted for pursuing this very popular agenda, please ignore all the overwhelming support I got and pretend I am a victim". The idea that the British empire was an empire of evil and hatred has been the only acceptable view for decades, and is the standard story taught starting at least 3 decades back. You were not persecuted for supporting the majority view.