I moved on from Cyprus because you said it was small scale and Kenya was worse!! I assumed you were implying Cyprus wasn't your main complaint against the British Empire. Happy to talk about Cyprus. There doesn't seem to be much material on it. Haven't found the Guardian article, but is that it? So called heinous atrocities reported in only one article in a left wing newspaper? This idea that there's a cover up is nonsense. Journalism is a global business these days. There's nothing to stop an foreign newspaper or agency reporting on British atrocities which would no doubt be taken up by the Guardian or the Independent. Again, in Kenya, the British found themselves in a peace keeping role, since one savage tribe was attacking others. I refer you to Rwanda as an example where no peace keeping authority existed. This all reminds me of the Irish problems, where in hindsight, we find the IRA were entirely innocent and every effort must be made to track down British soldiers for yet more enquiries into their conduct. Terrorists have to take responsibility for what they do. The Mau Mau were psychopaths - whole families were raped and murdered - even if a few of them, now old grandads, come and try for compensation.
Couldn’t it be said that most, if not all countries have committed atrocities against other subjugated populations in their past ? France, Spain, Germany, Britain, Poland, Hungary etc etc.....none can claim complete innocence
I seem to remember from history that the Italians were pretty awful during their days of empire. Every bloody Roman should apologise to me..... in person.
I agree entirely that nearly all the bigger countries have some kind of shadows from the past which could come back and haunt them, though some are more open about them than others.
I have no 'complaint' against the British Empire Goldie - at least no more than anywhere else you could mention. What's gone is gone and todays generation is not responsible for the past. The only problem I may have is that Britain has not really squared up to its past like some other countries have, and many still believe the British Empire was something benign and progressive, which it wasn't. Also - how can a person be classified as a 'terrorist' when wanting the independence of their own country from foreign rule ?
Who would you say are the countries who are open about their past ? Genuine question. I would guess Germany is probably the most open but really can’t say there are many others who are.
Cologne - that last statement is just plain silly terrorist ˈtɛrərɪst/ noun 1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Errr, Germany and Germany. Also Portugal officially apoligized to all ex colonies for its history, but I can't think of any others. Some half apologize a hundred years later, and others deny everything, such as Turkey.
Not sure about this - what is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist other than that we use the one term for our allies and the other for our enemies. The French Resistance did not confine their attacks to German military personnel, but also targetted known collaborators - did they go down in history as terrorists ? I think not. Also the mojahedin in Afghanistan (including Bin Ladin) were not known as terrorists when they were fighting the Soviets.
So it’s just 2 countries.....not a lot then really. Agree about Turkey.....I was seeing a Turkish girl for a few years and she would fly into a massive rage when I used to say what her country had done to the Armenians, and deny it ever happened.....truly bizarre.
I just don't think in today's age of global journalism, it's possible to hide much about the past, Cologne. As for the Empire, it's clear no one these days justifies colonialism. But since different rules applied in centuries past, I don't believe the British did so badly. Sure, they harvested natural resources from the colonies, but probably the most important thing they brought was the rule of law, English common law and a parliamentary-type system to move to democracy. Also the start of international trade. Widow burning was banned in India, and piracy all but ended when the British arrived. The British were also on of the first of the colonial powers to press for the end of slavery worldwide. The English language is a pretty good gift too, given that it is now the global language of business. Of all the colonial powers, I'd say Britain comes out best, and the fact that the Commonwealth still exists is some evidence of this. A terrorist kills his own innocent people, and the Mau Mau were doing that.
Surely you are not saying the dictionary definition of ‘Terrorist’ is wrong ? The fact of who you or I see as terrorists or freedom fighters is nothing to do with it...... Nelson Mandela was a hero to a lot of people but the fact is he was a terrorist, who fought for his cause through the act of terror....as were many others who’s fight could be seen as ‘right’.....but the fact is that they are ‘terrorists’
Well this thing about 'killing your own people' . The British were masters at the principle of 'divide and rule' - they went somewhere, and elevated one of the tribes to the administrative class (under the British of course), another tribe formed the police and so on and so on. Naturally this helped to foster divisions under the local population - whereby some ethnic groups could be seen as collaborators (even the French resistance killed some of their own people). For a freedom fighter collaborators would not be seen differently to occupiers and would be fair game - of course the resultant strife which ensues gives the occupying power (who set the ball rolling in the first place) the chance to proclaim themselves as being a 'peace keeping force'. It is really amazing how often the British have succeeded in calling themselves a peace keeping force.
The Mau Mau often raped and tortured their victims. Is this permissable conduct under your definition of a freedom fighter?
Of course this is not permissable conduct Goldie, I never said it was. However, these were sporadic, isolated attacks in comparison to the 1.5 Million concentration camp detainees or the 20,000 Mau Mau who were killed. Or in comparison to the 1,090 summary executions - which, for want of comparison, was more than double the total of those executed by the French in Algeria.
The statistics on deaths appear to be disputed in the Mau Mau uprising and there are no agreed figures as to deaths including executions. It seems to me the way the Mau Mau conducted their violent insurgence is the very definition of terror. I cannot think of a more ruthless, cruel group. And what is interesting to me, is that a prime concern of the British, was that the tribes were slipping back to the same savage barbarism between their tribes as existed before the British arrived to bring order.
