Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Kenya's Mau Mau charge British with torture and repression

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Dionysus wrote: »
    I bought both books based on this (excellent) review, and the reviewer was definitely understating the reality:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/port01_.html

    The poster above who stated (#11), 'Atrocities were committed on both sides, it would be like the IRA suing the British Government now. You started it all, no you did, you killed more, no it was your fault.' was very wrong indeed. He should read, at least, the above review.

    What the British did in Kenya in the 1950s makes even Franz Fanon's version of French policy in Algeria in the 1960s seem mild. There are no excuses for people trying to defend it today, including ignorance. Plenty of liberal-minded English people objected to the policy at the time, although tens of thousands of Kenyans had died by the time British policy was brought to public attention there.

    Have you read Caroline Elkin's wiki page?


  • Options
    #63
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Yes. The British Empire has a lot to answer for. Pity, because as a people they are ok. The English that is. Welsh are mad.

    Kenya however, does expose the lie that the UK was fighting a war against racism in WWII, oif anyone ever believed.

    And why didnt the British just withdraw from Kenya?


  • Options
    #64
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    As for britain being in Kenya, to quote a well known politician, i would neither condemn or condone them being there in the first place.

    So you're ok with colonialism then.

    So long as we know where we are.


  • Options
    #65
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I'm not saying they should be held responsible. Yes, the responsibility lies with the regime of the time, but please don't sit there and claim that the Irish were somehow above all of this and would never have engaged in this sort of activity because they were.

    One of the great perversions of Empire, is its ability to make the foulest of causes appear noble, and to incul into its subjects that to work towards that cause would be a worthy pursuit. In modern parlance it might be called 'grooming'.


  • Options
    #66
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Have you read Caroline Elkin's wiki page?


    WIKI????? Are you serious? Don't you know the reputation that Wiki has? No serious researcher would even touch it.

    Anyone with an ax to grind goes on there....and there are certainly axes out for her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,078 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    asdasd wrote: »
    Yes. The British Empire has a lot to answer for. Pity, because as a people they are ok. The English that is. Welsh are mad.

    Kenya however, does expose the lie that the UK was fighting a war against racism in WWII, oif anyone ever believed.

    And why didnt the British just withdraw from Kenya?


    £.


  • Options
    #68
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    £.

    Maybe. But they were decolonising elsewhere at the time. And it was a fools game anyway. so why not just go.


  • Options
    #69
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Acacia wrote: »
    Not very many, but I think that's a fairly obvious point, and I don't know why it had to brought up.

    Britain done some terrible things as an imperial power. That doesn't mean other countries didn't too, but this story is about Britain and Kenya. Not any other Empires.

    It was more to do with the point that some posters like nothing better than to stirr up a bit of anti Brit feelings. Theres plenty that wouldnt be bothered with if it wasnt Britain involved.


  • Options
    #70
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,078 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    asdasd wrote: »
    Maybe. But they were decolonising elsewhere at the time. And it was a fools game anyway. so why not just go.

    Probably needed to make certain that a fairly pro-British stable regime was in place before they took off, and that all UK business interests were looked after.

    The uncle who I mentioned earlier was actually still stationed there with the RAF after independence.


  • Options
    #71
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    where did they come from then? their forefathers came from ireland, as a direct result of colonialism. If the Spanish had not colonised South America, there would not be a large number of Irish desendants in Argentina. Yes or No?

    Your figure of 100million is both overestimating the diaspora, and intended to cloud the truth. Did 100 million people immigrate from Ireland? No. You're claiming that everyone with 1/16th Irish heritage is somehow responsible for colonisation. Did it occur to you that many were sent by force, through penal colonies, indentured labour, conscription, as well as through hunger and economic necessity? Obviously the conditions of a confirmed imperialist! You're argument has no basis, you have no historical evidence for your position, and yet you insist upon it. Why?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    asdasd wrote: »
    Maybe. But they were decolonising elsewhere at the time. And it was a fools game anyway. so why not just go.

    Kenya was of strategic importance, was exporting quite a lot of food and had a decent sized settler population. Plus although leaving some colonies nobody felt the whole empire was going to come apart as quickly as it did. Kenya was a relatively new acquisition and perhaps some felt their work there was not concluded.


  • Options
    #73
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    if it hadn't been the British, it would have been the Dutch, Portugese or French.

    But then, if it had, you wouldn't care would you?

    Of course I would. I oppose excusing the murdering b*stards from the French and Belgian Empires just as much as I oppose excusing murdering b*stards from the British Empire. You can try and make me out to be some primordial nationalist with a chip on my shoulder all you like, but at the end of the day its you making excuses for what went on in Kenya, not me.


  • Options
    #74
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Why would they? it was a lot easier to tag along with the Spanish or British. Why are there huge Irish populations in Argentina, North America, Newfoundland etc?

    Because Irish people emigrated there after a famine which occurred as a result of Ireland's being colonised.

    Nobody is denying the fact that Irish people joined the British Army, or committed atrocities in Australia or India or wherever. What you're trying to do however, is distort this point in order to portray Ireland as a willing and equal part of the UK with as much imperial blood on its hands as the British ruling class. This is, quite simply, b*llocks. Ireland was the poorest place in Western Europe, recently after suffering a famine which led to the population being halved through death and emigration; this country was a backwater colony which had been suppressed and neglected for hundreds of years. The fact Irish people ended up in the British Army doesn't negate that fact.

    The Belgian Army also had recruits from the Congo, by your twisted logic the Congolese were also willing partners in colonisation due to that fact.


  • Options
    #75
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    when you read the threads the first thing you think is what a load of b--ds ,they must hate the british,but then you realise ,most of what is said has been exaggerated,they happily members of the commonwealth with a british queen as head .so whos been telling porkies ?


  • Options
    #76
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    getz wrote: »
    when you read the threads the first thing you think is what a load of b--ds ,they must hate the british,but then you realise ,most of what is said has been exaggerated,they happily members of the commonwealth with a british queen as head .so whos been telling porkies ?

    Of course! They made it all up! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #77
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Of course! They made it all up! :rolleyes:
    no just the irish boardies


  • Options
    #78
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    getz wrote: »
    when you read the threads the first thing you think is what a load of b--ds ,they must hate the british,but then you realise ,most of what is said has been exaggerated,they happily members of the commonwealth with a british queen as head .so whos been telling porkies ?


    You should use the new <Apologia> tags.....


Advertisement