Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Justice for A Genocide, in Book Form

By John Dolan, The eXile. Posted September 30, 2006.


A decade after the 'lessons learned' of World War II, British colonizers slaughtered at least 300,000 in Kenya. Only now has the first serious history been published detailing the crimes.
0805076530.01.ss500sclzzzzzzzv1122576262
Advertisement

Reviewed: Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya by Caroline Elkin, (Henry Holt and Co, 2006)

One of the great mysteries of the 20th century was the way Britain got away with pillaging nearly every country on the planet without suffering any retribution. I've spent a long, bitter time brooding over this experimental proof that there's no such thing as karma. Among the reasons I've found for this failure to prosecute are the reluctance of the raped to report their sufferings, the stupidity and credulity of American scholars vis-a-vis their Oxbridge colleagues, and the charmed life that seems to reward those individuals and nations lucky enough to lack any vestige of conscience.

But there are simpler reasons, bravely revealed in Caroline Elkins's account of the slaughter of some 300,000 ethnic Kikuyu of Kenya, the torture of hundreds of thousands more, and the internment of the entire Kikuyu population, in mid-20th-century Kenya. As Elkins reveals, the Brits simply destroyed every record of the massacres they could find, and -- unlike the French, Germans or other conscience-harried colonials -- kept the settlers' oath of Omerta, never revealing what they did to the "Kukes" to anyone except other vets whose anecdotes were as bloody and full of blame as theirs. The difference between the British Empire and other fascist empires is not that these guys were nicer. Nobody who reads this book could continue to believe that, if they were fool enough to believe it beforehand. The difference is that the Brits were good at it, and had no conscience to trouble them. Thanks to that careful incineration of records and highly adaptive national sociopathic disorder, "...there would be no soul-searching or public accounting [in Britain] for the crimes perpetrated against the hundreds of thousands of men and women in Kenya."

The Brits had the perfect timing of the sociopath too, unlike the stubborn French who held on too long in Algeria and Indochina. The white settlers of Kenya felt that, having waded through African blood with the imperial Tories back in the U.K., they were bound by a blood-oath to the incoming Prime Minister MacMillan and his administration in 1959. The fools didn't even expect their own government would be utterly indifferent to them; as Elkins recounts, "The 'prevailing mood'...was best captured by the remarks of a young Conservative member of Parliament who proclaimed, 'What do I care about the f...cking [sic] settlers, let them bloody well look after themselves.' Rather than functioning as a referendum for empire, the general election of 1959 was its death knell." Yup, that's the great thing about sociopaths, their loyalty.

Luckily, when you torture and imprison several hundred thousand people, you can't help but leave a messy paper trail behind you. Elkins uncovers classic blurts of British Imperial discourse that happened to survive the fires, like an early administrator's grumpy concession that he can't afford to wipe out the Kikuyu at the moment: "There is only one way of improving the Waikikuyu, and that is wipe them out... but we have to depend on them for supplies."

If you come from a country invaded by the Brits -- and the odds are you do, even if you're from Maryland -- then this rhetoric should be familiar to you. I'm sure the same sentiment survives in the chronicles of British civilizers from Myanmar (invaded on a pretext and sacked in the 1880's) to Tibet (invaded, from sheer boredom, in the 20th century, conquered by massacre and deceit, and unacknowledged to this day by British historians).

Elkins's prose, research and conclusions are unimpeachable. Niall Ferguson himself, the most powerful contemporary apologist for Victoria's bloodsoaked, shameless meatgrinder, has admitted that. Finicky reviewers might grumble that Elkins is, if anything, too much the standard American academic historian and could have risked a livelier prose style. But that would have been foolhardy. She had to be as conventional as possible, because the Tories' favorite smearing device is to seize on anything they can call a "factual error" and use it to discredit any text that threatens to reveal their crimes.


Digg!

John Dolan is an editor of the Moscow-based English-language alternative paper, The eXile. He is the author of, most recently, Pleasant Hell (Capricorn, 2005).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
America/Britain partners in many crimes
Posted by: Ken Duerksen on Sep 30, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have often gotten the feeling that many of our worst social traits have come to us directly from the British Empire - through conservative pols like Alexander Hamilton and his successors. The British Opium/Extortion cycle appears to have carried on under the rubric of the CIA, who are known to have concerned themselves with moving massive quantitites of heroin from the Golden Triangle to our own inner cities since the agency's inception; our shadow Empire in the Carribean, Latin America, and the Pacific persists as did theirs with little self-analysis; and now we are embroiled in an anti-insurgency with all the earmarks of the British crimes against Kenya and Ireland.

I remain stricken by the short-lived story from late 2004 (Washington Post) which reported the arrest by Iraqi police of two British SAS agents at a Basra checkpoint. The two were reportedly "dressed as Arabs" and in possession of a Toyota Cressida packed with explosives wired to detonate by remote control. Several Iraqi policemen and bystanders were reportedly killed during the shootout precipitated by the arrest, but the Brits were eventually taken into custody. While the Iraqis (our "allies") were still scratching their heads about the incident, the British agents were sprung from jail Jesse James-style by an armored British military unit. Apparently, there are several documented instances of such British agents provocateurs at work in Northern Ireland, whose job it was to muddy up the water and create crimes to pin on their adversaries.

Nothing proves more to my mind that the chaos in Iraq is the result of an old trick of imperial piracy: chuck a bomb in a crowded room and rush in shooting; then collect the loot an blame those who shoot back. Then do it again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

spurt
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 30, 2006 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a great spurt of truth this is! For one thing, it explains why Tony Blair ended up being the asshole that he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: spurt Posted by: Krain61
Lord of the Flies is about British colonialism (not human nature)
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 30, 2006 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The British have always done their best to write histories that paint themselves in a flattering light. One outstanding example of this is the re-interpretation of William Golding's "Lord of the Flies"; rather than being seen as an indictment of the British imperial program, conservative pundits now call it a commentary on 'human nature'. We have no choice! It's in our nature to kill you and take your petroleum!

This is part of the ongoing seediness of certain aspects of history and science. The original evolutionary theorists had a rather large racist streak; Darwin was always talking about how the superior English genetic heritage naturally led to the imperial superiority of the plucky Brit; the Germans (from Haeckel) enthusiastically adopted the idea of 'survival of the fittest' and "nature red in tooth and claw' as they embarked on their own goals of racial purity and imperial expansion.

Too bad they never heard of inbreeding (the curse of both aristocrats and rural villagers). There is also a phenonmenon known as 'hybrid vigor' which doesn't fit in so well with the 'racial purists' - evolution is a lot more complicated than that! As science bypassed religion as the means for explaining the world, the aristocrats sought scientific justifications in place of religious ones for their positions of welath and power.

Unfortunately, Bush and Blair never took any history classes, never saw any wars, and are in the palms of grim old realpolitiks like George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.

Look at all the reports of what the Green Zone in Baghdad looks like - a French-Vietnamese colonial palace complete with dress-down white tennis courts and humble imported Indian servants.

Outside the Green Zone it's dirty, dangerous and desperate - classic colonialism. The permanent military bases are built right next to pipelines and oilfields - the liberation of Iraqi's oil is in full progress.

The US has taken over where the British left off - the behind-the-scenes economic manipulation with associated covert warfare that was practiced for 50 years has now been replaced by outright British-style colonialism, including the piles of corpses.

As the decent Brits like William Golding could tell us (if we'd listen) - look chaps, it's a bad idea, not worth it, look at the pig's head on the stick and all the buzzing flies, now would you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mdruss42
Posted by: mdruss42 on Sep 30, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the early 70s I moved to London. One of the first things I saw on TV was a history of empire. I thought at the time how honest these people were as they told of shooting down countless Indians. I realize now that this was admitting the history when records made it impossible not to. Couple that with the fact that I learned growing up that the US was a benevolent wonderful country spreading goodness and mercy over the world, and you will excuse me if I read all historical accounts with just a grain of salt and wonder about the reasons the book was written. Now that is not saying I will not buy and read this book. I will, because I read numerous books about the Mau Mau at the time it happened and since. Many of them , like UHURU by Robert Ruark told of mutual madness and actually admitted that the whites involved were as savage or maybe more savage than the Kikuyu. though he did not even hint at the slaughter you speak of .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mdruss42 Posted by: talkville
» Your growing up experience Posted by: Neilium
British Genocide
Posted by: bearahag on Sep 30, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How wonderful to find that an author had the guts to write about the British attitudes about other nations and cultures. If one takes an honest look at all of the world's trouble spots today they will find that it all goes back to the British Empire and their horrific crimes against their colonies. Their murders and assinations were ignored by the rest of the world. Their slaughter of idigenous people needs to be brought to the attention of the rest of the world. Tony Blair did apologize to the Irish for England's actions over the last 600 hundred years there, but they are still giving in the Unionist thugs in the north of Ireland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmm & now the Brits ...
Posted by: Loopylafae on Sep 30, 2006 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are the U.S.'s staunchest ally ...the more I learn about the powers that run our world, the more I realize that many of us are truly "backing the wrong horse"..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gross exageration
Posted by: ciccio on Sep 30, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was amongst that small hand-full of non British whites living
in Kenya in the '60s and whilst it is true there was civil black vs. white war going on, most of the atrocities where commited
by blacks against fellow blacks. I did hear of the hunts for the
mau mau in the Ngong hills. The whites were to a large part
settlers who were as fluent in Kikuyu as blacks and they were
the ones who went into the bush. I have no proof, but one of them told me they were provided with plastic bags to take
back the thumbs of the mau mau killed in the bush so that
they could be identified. Most people seem to have forgotten
that concentration camps were a British invention in the
Boer war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gross exageration Posted by: talkville
» RE: Gross exageration Posted by: rinthy
Heritage
Posted by: talkville on Sep 30, 2006 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, heritage! We have the muscle, but for the refined and civilized development of the Idea, recourse to Mother England is needed, still to this day (wonder about the 'cultural' shows on PBS - mainly products from that side of 'the pond'). A 'stiff upper lip' and the 'burdens of the white man' - ah, poor Soul!.

We are not oppressors, because we oppress in a dispassionate, objective, efficient, and civilized manner. A civilization we must, of course, champion - it's not the Heritage Foundation, you see; it's the foundation of heritage! The civilized human in my head, you see, is ever so much more valuable than any human beings 'out there'. Drenched in blood, rise to Heaven and Glory. Mother England teaches her children well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow
Posted by: browngoddess on Sep 30, 2006 11:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
books like this are why i want to become a historian!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brits slaughtered by famine several million Bengals during WW2
Posted by: logansafi on Sep 30, 2006 11:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have seen estimates that the Brits murdered off by famine up to 3 millions Bangalis during WW2. When are they going to stop talking about a supposed Serb 'genocide' of some several thousands, and prosecute their own bloody selves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You misunderstand the concept of Karma
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Oct 1, 2006 2:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Karma applies to individual people, not to groups. Plus, Karma is not something you can see in action, as it is part and parcel of reincarnation; karmic action in this life is the result of the choices you made in a former life. Moreover, like God, Karma and reincarnation are matters of faith, you believe in them despite they're being unprovable.

Kindly refrain from misrepresenting such things, John, even though you have a bug in your britches; you do your readers a disservice by creating the implication that matters of religious faith can be proven scientifically, and you misinform them as to the nature of the concept itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best Iv'e Seen at Alternet
Posted by: rwa on Oct 1, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can add that U.S. atrocities (a-bombing, napalm, D.U.) in the last century far exceed the evils of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, De Gaul, or any others. U.S. imperialism serves the same financial interests as the Brittish empire. With D.U. the killing goes on in perpetuity. Elkins describes what was called "screening", this is essentially what Abu Graib was all about. Breaking the individual for purposes of subjugation and dominance done methodically on a society wide level. Now that they have trained perps and legalized this activity in the U.S. how long will it be before we are all treated?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This just in: White Man Speak With Forked Tongue
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Oct 1, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a novel concept that we tend to minimalize others when we allow our own shirts to become a little too puffy. How easy it must be for such high-toned and civilized chaps to reason that whenever the locals protest, it must be that there are simply too many of them, and that the only humane thing to do is reduce their numbers.

The only good Indian is a dead Palestinian - or something like that. As in Darfur, we never actually do anything until the killing is mostly done. We wouldn't want to interfere in the good deeds.

It seems these acts are always carried out by people who have the stomach for such tough decisions and undertake the difficult but neccesary tasks from which we squeamish folks invariably shy away. When it comes to our own children, we don't let the bigger torture the smaller, but when they are far away, it seems like it is always for the best, in some version of 'the long run'.

Sometimes we have the satisfaction of seeing 'the long run' played out as the futile attempt of some tyrant to escape justice. Not often enough to suit me, though. It never happens to the former rulers of rich and powerful countries. I doubt we'll live to see Bush's face on a wanted poster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Covering up our past
Posted by: Pugi! on Oct 1, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Show me a country or government with no blood on its hands.
I live in a small country, Belgium about the size of Maine, and we once had a colony : Congo. First it was the private playground of our King Leopold II early 20century, then after the horror and attrocities became known the government took over. In less then 25 years 10 million people had died : starved to death, murdered, hunted down for sport, died because of imported diseases, died of exhaustion, ... Belgium is the center of the European Union, our politicians are champions of political correctness, ... but according to our history books we went to Africa to free them from Arab slavetraders, to christian them, to help them, ... We have museums and monuments for the holocaust, denying the holocaust is a crime, but what lessons can we learn from the holocaust when we refuse to look at our own past and what are forefathers did.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

Pugi!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Covering up our past Posted by: mjabele
Lessons Still Not Learned
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Oct 1, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is we are not taking responciblity for the crimes currently being commited by our repsective governments (the US and the UK).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Response to Torgo
Posted by: mjabele on Oct 1, 2006 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who has found "supreme worth" by honorably practicing his profession as a physician for many years, including one year deployed to Bosnia in 1996 as an M.D. with the US Army, I would beg to differ with Mr. O'Neill's point of view about Bosnia. I worked with various NATO battalions during my year there, and it was clear to all of us - Americans, Swedes, Icelanders, Norwegians, French - that there WAS, in fact, a fairly clear division between "good" and "evil" there. Not that the Serb people were themselves unmitigatedly evil, but their leaders certainly were, and the great majority of truly reprehensible massacres - including the one in Srbrenica that finally motivated the West to act after 4 years of tergiversation - were committed by the Serb side.

I must say, one of the points where I tend to agree with conservatives is that SOME liberals - often those who seem to consider themselves the most "ethically developed", it seems - appear unable to make the sorts of fundamental moral distinctions that the rest of us can. Referencing back to an earlier blog, I wonder whether this is one reason they occasionally have difficulty convincing "ordinary voters" - who are often quite sure of their own views on these fundamental moral issues - of their ethical credentials.

I'm struck by the fact that many liberals seem to view conflicts of the sort that took place in Bosnia in "relativistic" terms - and when any party at all can ever be found guilty, it's almost always the West rather than any of the actual protagonists themselves. Hence I hear some liberals tell me that what happened in Rwanda really didn't reflect any moral deficiencies on the part of the Hutu leadership, but was rather in some way the fault of former Belgian overlords (though admittedly these had withdrawn from Rwanda more than 30 years before). And what happened in Cambodia in the 1970's, well, that was a nasty byproduct of French colonialism followed by "spillover" from American intervention in Viet Nam - as though Pol Pot and his followers were merely an inevitable excrescence of unchecked Western imperialism, with no moral intelligence of their own as to the actions they took.

One reason I think this "relativism" finds such ready acceptance is that it requires little direct action or commitment by those who agree with the message. If the West is primarily to blame for everything as a result of its previous interference in everyone else's affairs, and if the protagonists in a particular conflict are merely the historical pawns of forces set in motion by evil Western regimes, then it stands to reason that citizens of the West might only make things worse by interfering further in these conflicts. Especially if we hold ourselves to the comforting idea that violence itself - rather than tolerance of it - is the greater moral evil.....

I submit if you cannot "point the finger" at the true source of evil in the Bosnian conflict - i.e., the desire of a nationalistic Serbian regime to perpetuate and expand its own authority by encouraging ethnic cleansing and genocide in the territory of its otherwise peaceful multi-cultural neighbor - you are likely someone whose views are too "relativistic" to distinguish evil anywhere. Alternatively, you may not know much about how the conflict started or how it progressed, in which case I suggest you educate yourself a bit better. I'm a progressive in my opinions, but I do believe that actions, and those who perform those actions, can be distinguished based on concepts of good and evil. The Nazis were evil. Stalin was evil. The Interahamwe in Rwanda were evil. The Serb government under Slobodan Milosevic and his armies / militias were evil. And no, I don't believe labelling any of the above governments or individuals as "evil" represented myths created by the Western media to fan the flames of war, as Mr. O'Neill seems to imply in the case of Bosnia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your'e So Pure Posted by: rwa
» Far from it..... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Far from it..... Posted by: Graeme
» RE: Far from it..... Posted by: mjabele
» Logan, go read some books Posted by: mjabele
» Correction... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Logan, go read some books Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: esponse to Torgo Posted by: Graeme
» RE: esponse to Torgo Posted by: Graeme
» RE: esponse to Torgo Posted by: Graeme
» Response to Graeme Posted by: mjabele
Dolan's Irish Rant and Elkins real message
Posted by: richwyn on Oct 1, 2006 8:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dolan's rant complete with expletives appears to be that of a raging Irish man. If this is the case it is appropriate to remind Dolan of the 300 hundred years of the Irish participation in the British Empire overseas. Transported to the colonies, once they had served their time of indentured servants and quasi-slaves along with similarly transported Scots and English and other Brits, the Irish did not behave less cruelly to the African slaves in the colonies than the others, once they had acquired positions of authority and power as overseers or plantation owners. We also should not forget the huge numbers of Irsh that participated in the British Imperial army as soldiers and Officers before 1916. Of course all this occurred long before the 50 years situation that Dolan is ranting about. We should also be suspicious of the motives of the author of the book who chooses to write about the way the British treated the Mau Mau Kikyu uprising of the 1950's at a time when America is committing atrocities in Iraq. What is the real message that Elkins is trying to portray? It can hardly be that she is trying to embarrass Tony Blair and the British. The latter are not critics of the Bush Imperial adventure and designs. Is Elkins instead saying that such atrocities is part and parcel of the Imperial enterprise and that Americans should get used to it, and in fifty years or less it will be forgotten, as apparently the lessons of the Vietnam war have been? That American soldiers routinely refer to Iraqis and Arabs as sand-niggers brings the message closer to the focus of Elkins book. While Dolan uses the book to rant against a recent episode in British Imperialism, he should be more concerned at the real message of Elkins book - get accustomed to the New Imperialism Americans and its critics. It is the latter that Dolan should be ranting about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Learn but do not Stop Taking Action
Posted by: EncinoM on Oct 1, 2006 8:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the US, NATO and EU countries have skeletons in their collective closets, but what is dangerous are the comments that seeking to prevent action being taken to stop current genocides. Look at Sudan and Somalia and can any of us, who believe in humanity, sit on the sidelines.

There is mass death, yet because of past sins should we do nothing? If you want the UN to matter, the UN must take action, not talk, when lives are on the line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Grief!
Posted by: moflard on Oct 2, 2006 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the writer need to get on the medication, because I haven't read such a piece of rabid, hate-filled, racist, balderdash in more years than I can easily count. Is the author Irish-American by any chance (btw I'm Irish)?

It doesn't take a PhD in History to know that the British Empire could be an incredibly unpleasant place to live for native populations, and that massacres and torture were hardly unknown. In case anyone's missed it - that's generally the way Empires work, I can't think of a nice one and that's including the Parthians, who by and by were a tolerant lot. For that matter nation states themselves are based on the conquest of regional groups, are in fact mini-empires that over time develop a coherent identity. Good god man read some some less emotive history - or do you only read stuff that can increase your bile.

This doesn't pardon the British Empire by any means, but the author's, I can only say racist approach to history will more than likely annoy the people who should be learning this stuff, rather than educate them. And they NEED to learn it. Example of blatant racism?

"highly adaptive national sociopathic disorder" Every Brit's a sociopath? I wonder if the author's met them all?

"unlike the French, Germans or other conscience-harried colonials" Yeah the Belgians were realy bothered by their conscience. So were the Spanish. God does the author know anything about Imperial philosophy?

"you bastards... you knew all of it, didn't you? You knew what Elkins revealed here. Which means you -- you very plural -- were silent, complicit, for 50 fuckin' years. You really are utterly without conscience, are you not?" How the hell with virtually no paper trail are the Brits supposed to know this stuff? Do the author honestly think the government or army asks it's people "hay we're about to commit genocide can we have a referendum?"

Most history teaching in British comprehensives is bloody awful. They learn more about the Industrial Revolution and WWII than they do about Magna Carta, The War of the Roses, the Civil War or the suffragette movement. And the authopr seems to expect CHILDREN, many of whom couldn't find Kenya on a map, or point out a picture of Queen Victoria, to go out and spontaneously look up the MauMau uprising. Doesn't expect alot does he?

The British Empire commited more crimes than can easily be counted. No Brit I know would ever deny that. No Brit I know has ever turned away from unpleasant historical facts. Yes you get the Telegraph lot, but have you checked their circulation recently - mainly the Home Counties and the elderly. My neice is British, one of her projects for her History GCSE was Irish History, the Potato Famine, the Uprisings, The IRA etc. So the author can see, they are getting better.

The Authors hate filled rant will change nothing, except perhaps continue giving liberals and AlterNet a bad name. All it will do is annoy people and turn them away. Perhaps that's his aim, so he can continue with his hatred. I don't know. The only way to approach and educate about this type of history is gently, slowly revealing to a horrified audience, the extent of the attrocities. Not through hate, not through blame of people who were either children or not even born. We need just a steady, paced, aknowledging of the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Grief! Posted by: mjabele
Those Who Support 'Humanitarian Interventionsm' Support Constant War ancd Nothing More
Posted by: logansafi on Oct 2, 2006 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today Bosnia, tomorrow Kosovo, then East Timor, then let's help Darfur, and so on ad infinitum. When you do-good guys going to support 'humanitarian interventionism' for Palestinians by invading Israel with US troops? Hypocritical baloney from liberals leads to constant warfare, does it not? Your consistency is totally not there.

And why don't you limit your efforts to 'help' others on the other corners of the planet to sending in food and health care courtesy of our own lousy governments? They took our taxes, so demand they use it well, instead of on military stick.

Heck, send in the healthcare to the US why don't you? Got to go to Darfur and teach the Sudanese Muslims how to be good? Baloney. Send the Brits into Bangladesh and Kenya, and the US to Vietnam if you want, to make reparations for the harm they already did, rather than supporting them to go mess up the Balkans more, mess up Africa more, and mess up Indonesia more. Send the troops into US hospitals and force the provision of healthcare at the point of bayonets, how 'bout it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Last post... Posted by: mjabele
Typical Irish laments
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 3, 2006 7:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just more of the same. You'd think they'd whistle a new tune everyso often but instead love to focus on the British. Oh well, have some more Guinness and Powers and sing sad songs about losing wars....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typical mindless nonsense Posted by: sidecar
A response to mjabele, and a radically different assessment of Bosnia by one who was there.
Posted by: Torgo on Oct 4, 2006 8:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One man who minds his own business is more valuable to the world than 10,000 cocksure moralists." H. L. Mencken

I worked with various NATO battalions during my year there, and it was clear to all of us - Americans, Swedes, Icelanders, Norwegians, French - that there WAS, in fact, a fairly clear division between "good" and "evil" there.

Lieutenant Colonel John E. Sray tells a radically different story, sir. So no, it was not clear to all of you, and it reflects badly on your character that you would presume to speak for everyone who served in Bosnia.

Some choice excerpts:

"In fact, America has not been so pathetically deceived since Robert McNamara helped to micromanage and escalate the Vietnam War while secretly lacking the intestinal fortitude to state his personal convictions of self-doubt about the enterprise to the President and nation.

"Anti-sniping activities conducted by the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Sarajevo, in fact, constitute quite impressive operations. Teams which perform this duty receive exceptional training from their armies and possess state-of-the-art optical aids and equipment. Employing these capabilities, the French recently decided to test over three years' worth of UN hunches pertaining to this issue. Their investigation "definitively" (their words) established the validity of UN suppositions that "some gunfire came from (Bosniac) Government soldiers deliberately shooting at their own civilians."

Concurrently, American commentators should be careful about their popular penchant to condemn the Serbs as an ethnic group. Individuals have been responsible for war crimes - not the entire nation. The BSA (Bosnian Serb Army) may have more than its fair share of brutal, boorish, and morally repugnant characters who disgust Western sensibilities, but they are no worse than their counterparts in the Bosniac military and government. Their early victories in this war, in part, made them unbearable to some Westerners whose traditional predilections reflexively support the underdog."

"The Bosnian Muslim government certainly does not reflect the image of a liberal western-style democracy as the press misleadingly portrays it. This group remains Islamist-dominated and desperately attempts to hide its true sentiments. It is more likely to be influenced by Iran and the Mujahedin than by anyone in the West. These radical groups may remain underground or depart during NATO's deployment, but they will return later to ensure that the Bosniac population becomes properly politicized and obedient to fundamentalist doctrine. Does the U.S. really intend to add high-quality American training and weapons to this radicalism?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry, not convinced Posted by: mjabele
Mau Mau veterans to sue Britain over torture and killings
Posted by: RBurgess on Oct 5, 2006 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,,1888499,00.html

and btw, let's get over nation states, religion and patriotism are the last refuge of the moron. As Kurt Vonnegut remembered Susan Sontag saying in an interview -
"She was asked what she had learned from the Holocaust, and she said that 10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80 percent could be moved in either direction. "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The truth, please
Posted by: Burton on Oct 6, 2006 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, the British did not "slaughter" 300,000 people in Kenya. The British fought a counterinsurgency campaign against the Mau Mau (aka the Land Freedom Army). The Mau Mau was an armed movement which made widespread use of torture and terrorism, especially against other Africans. As usual for leftists, the use of torture and terrorism by third worlders gets convenientaly ignored.

As with all wars, people got killed on both sides in Kenya. And when dealing with an underground movement like the Mau Mau, extraordinary police methods end up being used. The Mau Mau could have avoided this by following the laws of war and wearing uniforms and carrying arms openly. They chose a particular form of warfare and paid the price for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get a grip! Posted by: moflard
This review should be removed from the site
Posted by: sidecar on Jan 1, 2007 6:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the book in question, it is definitely unacceptable to use language like 'teaching the rest of us wogs how to kill squaddies' in reference to historic violence in Ireland. Especially given the renewed efforts towards restoration of cross-community power sharing and reconciliation in Northern Ireland in recent times.

That this review features in a publicised selection of articles on Alternet reflects badly on the site as a whole and just goes to show how poorly understood the situation in Ireland is.

This review should definitely be removed from the site. Any Irish or British person with a clue about Irish history would be rightly offended by the tone taken and would probably dismiss the entire website on the strength of such rubbish.

I feel that readers other than Albrechtkrauss will understand that the vast majority of Irish people from either side of the border would not express such crude and outdated views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]