Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

Sons of Liberty

Walks on Water
Aug 24, 2010
1,284
0
36
Evil Empire
Review finds thousands of papers detailing shameful acts were culled, while others were kept secret illegally

Thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments, an official review has concluded.

Those papers that survived the purge were flown discreetly to Britain where they were hidden for 50 years in a secret Foreign Office archive, beyond the reach of historians and members of the public, and in breach of legal obligations for them to be transferred into the public domain.

The archive came to light last year when a group of Kenyans detained and allegedly tortured during the Mau Mau rebellion won the right to sue the British government. The Foreign Office promised to release the 8,800 files from 37 former colonies held at the highly-secure government communications centre at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire.

The historian appointed to oversee the review and transfer, Tony Badger, master of Clare College, Cambridge, says the discovery of the archive put the Foreign Office in an "embarrassing, scandalous" position. "These documents should have been in the public archives in the 1980s," he said. "It's long overdue." The first of them are made available to the public on Wednesday at the National Archive at Kew, Surrey.

The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman said to have been "roasted alive"; and papers detailing the lengths to which the UK went to forcibly remove islanders from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

However, among the documents are a handful which show that many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".
Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948; most of the sensitive documents kept by colonial authorities in Aden, where the army's Intelligence Corps operated a secret torture centre for several years in the 1960s; and every sensitive document kept by the authorities in British Guiana, a colony whose policies were heavily influenced by successive US governments and whose post-independence leader was toppled in a coup orchestrated by the CIA.

The documents that were not destroyed appear to have been kept secret not only to protect the UK's reputation, but to shield the government from litigation. If the small group of Mau Mau detainees are successful in their legal action, thousands more veterans are expected to follow.

It is a case that is being closely watched by former Eoka guerillas who were detained by the British in 1950s Cyprus, and possibly by many others who were imprisoned and interrogated between 1946 and 1967, as Britain fought a series of rearguard actions across its rapidly dimishing empire.

The documents show that colonial officials were instructed to separate those papers to be left in place after independence – usually known as "Legacy files" – from those that were to be selected for destruction or removal to the UK. In many colonies, these were described as watch files, and stamped with a red letter W.

The papers at Kew depict a period of mounting anxiety amid fears that some of the incriminating watch files might be leaked. Officials were warned that they would be prosecuted if they took any any paperwork home – and some were. As independence grew closer, large caches of files were removed from colonial ministries to governors' offices, where new safes were installed.
In Uganda, the process was codenamed Operation Legacy. In Kenya, a vetting process, described as "a thorough purge", was overseen by colonial Special Branch officers.



Clear instructions were issued that no Africans were to be involved: only an individual who was "a servant of the Kenya government who is a British subject of European descent" could participate in the purge.



Painstaking measures were taken to prevent post-independence governments from learning that the watch files had ever existed. One instruction states: "The legacy files must leave no reference to watch material. Indeed, the very existence of the watch series, though it may be guessed at, should never be revealed."

When a single watch file was to be removed from a group of legacy files, a "twin file" – or dummy – was to be created to insert in its place. If this was not practicable, the documents were to be removed en masse. There was concern that Macleod's directions should not be divulged – "there is of course the risk of embarrassment should the circular be compromised" – and officials taking part in the purge were even warned to keep their W stamps in a safe place.

Many of the watch files ended up at Hanslope Park. They came from 37 different former colonies, and filled 200 metres of shelving. But it is becoming clear that much of the most damning material was probably destroyed. Officials in some colonies, such as Kenya, were told that there should be a presumption in favour of disposal of documents rather than removal to the UK – "emphasis is placed upon destruction" – and that no trace of either the documents or their incineration should remain. When documents were burned, "the waste should be reduced to ash and the ashes broken up".

Some idea of the scale of the operation and the amount of documents that were erased from history can be gleaned from a handful of instruction documents that survived the purge. In certain circumstances, colonial officials in Kenya were informed, "it is permissible, as an alternative to destruction by fire, for documents to be packed in weighted crates and dumped in very deep and current-free water at maximum practicable distance from the coast".




Documents that survive from Malaya suggest a far more haphazard destruction process, with relatively junior officials being permitted to decide what should be burned and what should be sent to London.

Dr Ed Hampshire, diplomatic and colonial record specialist at the National Archive, said the 1,200 files so far transferred from Hanslope Park represented "gold dust" for historians, with the occasional nugget, rather than a haul that calls for instant reinterpretation of history. However, only one sixth of the secret archive has so far been transferred. The remainder are expected to be at Kew by the end of 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Luckily the Vatican kept some records, same as they copied all the books they encountered before burning them all. I wonder which old salt mine near Warsaw they are keeping them in?
 

Sons of Liberty

Walks on Water
Aug 24, 2010
1,284
0
36
Evil Empire
Luckily the Vatican kept some records, same as they copied all the books they encountered before burning them all. I wonder which old salt mine near Warsaw they are keeping them in?

I've been having this conversation with CDNBear for years, British history has yet to be written.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
The Mau Mau were a nasty, vicious lot. Nobody should feel sorry for them. It was wrong for the British government to decide to give them compensation. If wouldn't have happened had I been Prime Minister. Bloodthirsty murderers should not be given any compensation.

The same is also true of the EOKA. They were nothing but terrorists.

And yet, for soppy PC reasons, we have to "sympathise" and "show understanding" to the vile Mau Mau and EOKA and ignore THEIR vile crimes, and instead concentrate on imagined "crimes" supposedly committed against these violent monsters by the British.

The Mau Mau and EOKA deserved everything they got - if anything, the British were too LENIENT on them - and I have no sympathy towards them. They can get stuffed.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
The Mau Mau were a nasty, vicious lot. Nobody should feel sorry for them. It was wrong for the British government to decide to give them compensation. If wouldn't have happened had I been Prime Minister. Bloodthirsty murderers should not be given any compensation.

The same is also true of the EOKA. They were nothing but terrorists.

And yet, for soppy PC reasons, we have to "sympathise" and "show understanding" to the vile Mau Mau and EOKA and ignore THEIR vile crimes, and instead concentrate on imagined "crimes" supposedly committed against these violent monsters by the British.

The Mau Mau and EOKA deserved everything they got - if anything, the British were too LENIENT on them - and I have no sympathy towards them. They can get stuffed.

Couldn't have had anything to do with a bunch of inbred bloodthirsty thieves and murders invading their space could it?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
Couldn't have had anything to do with a bunch of inbred bloodthirsty thieves and murders invading their space could it?

What? Like the Canadians did in North America?

I'd be fully supportive of any North American tribe that broke into your house, murdered your kids, raped your wife and then beheaded you. After all, it is THEIR space that you have invaded and taken over.

By the way, I'm not inbred, and I don't know anyone who is. I'm probably less inbred than you are.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I've been having this conversation with CDNBear for years, British history has yet to be written.
You mean the shredding machines are still running 110% of the time to make sure only the 'truth' survives.

What? Like the Canadians did in North America?

I'd be fully supportive of any North American tribe that broke into your house, murdered your kids, raped your wife and then beheaded you. After all, it is THEIR space that you have invaded and taken over.

By the way, I'm not inbred, and I don't know anyone who is. I'm probably less inbred than you are.
The new baby Prince that was just born, in that the next 20 years will mean the same type of nannies and the same boarding schools how much different than Dad (who went the exact same route) will he be?
You would rather do that to them than buy their land at fair market value, how much respect are you actually demanding?
The settler invasion was Phase II, the previous phase was the fur traders and the Priests with diseased products. Today the UN would be sending in inspection teams and (OMG) the British would be up on more war crime charges. It isn't so much that you are slow to learn, it's that the methods you reruse to let go of are so barbaric they never should have been implemented in the first place. A point that will escape you without a doubt, proving breeding (or lack of) does not determine that you will be on one certain side of the stupid line.

The Magna Carta, remember that, were the Royals being too kind to the business owners or too barbaric that they needed 'an agreement' of sorts?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
You mean the shredding machines are still running 110% of the time to make sure only the 'truth' survives.

You could say that about any country. I wonder what crimes committed by Canadians - against the Native Indians, for example - have been swept under the carpet by successive Canadian governments, determined that they never see the light of day.

The trouble with some North Americans is that, when criticising Britain's colonial past, they are forgetting one important aspect - that, if it wasn't for Britain's colonial past, there would be no Canada and USA today. Canada and the USA are the results of Britain colonial past.

Americans and Canadians criticising Britain for having an empire - an empire which created their countries - would be like somebody criticising their father for having sex with their mother nine months before they were born.

And, when criticising Britain for "stealing" other people's lands (things which many, many empires have done over the millennia, not just Britain, in times when colonialism wasn't as frowned upon as it is today's PC world), they do so whilst occupying land stolen by the British off the Native Americans. So they criticise Britain for "stealing" other people's lands whilst being perfectly happy to live on land the British stole of the Native Americans. Yet how many of you are willing to give the whole of North America back and bugger off back to the lands of your European ancestors? Not many, I assume. It's just sheer hypocrisy.

If you are so supportive of the groups like the Mau Mau, then I'm assuming you'd be supportive of North American tribes going on a bloodthirsty rampage across North America - killing and raping men, women and children - in order to kick you usurpers off THEIR land.

You mean the shredding machines are still running 110% of the time to make sure only the 'truth' survives.


The new baby Prince that was just born, in that the next 20 years will mean the same type of nannies and the same boarding schools how much different than Dad (who went the exact same route) will he be?
You would rather do that to them than buy their land at fair market value, how much respect are you actually demanding?
The settler invasion was Phase II, the previous phase was the fur traders and the Priests with diseased products. Today the UN would be sending in inspection teams and (OMG) the British would be up on more war crime charges. It isn't so much that you are slow to learn, it's that the methods you reruse to let go of are so barbaric they never should have been implemented in the first place. A point that will escape you without a doubt, proving breeding (or lack of) does not determine that you will be on one certain side of the stupid line.

The Magna Carta, remember that, were the Royals being too kind to the business owners or too barbaric that they needed 'an agreement' of sorts?

If the UN sent inspection teams to Kenya in the 1950s, it would have been the Mau Mau on war crimes charges, not the British.

The Mau Mau were nothing but thugs who, in their supposed "uprising against British rule", brutally butchered more of their fellow Africans than Britons.

And yet, the Mau Mau today try to potray themselves as "poor little victims of the nasty, evil British", who stand outside the Houses of Parliament with their zimmer frames and walking sticks, demanding compensation for crimes which the British suppsoedly committed against them whilst expecting us to ignore all the crimes against humanity the bloodthirtsy Mau Mau committed themselves, not only against Britons but against their fellow Africans, too.
 
Last edited:

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You would rather do that to them than buy their land at fair market value, how much respect are you actually demanding?
Why do that when you can simply murder the citizenry?

Makes you wonder what the ramifications will be when the Turks and Caicos make the decision to split
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
Justifiably the British are accused of brutality in 1950s Kenya. But why aren't the Mau Mau butchers also in the dock?: Kenya: Mau Mau atrocities during 1950s dossier | Mail Online

Darkness had fallen in the remote and beautiful Rift Valley, north of Nairobi, and the white farmer was in his pyjamas ready for bed.

But first he stepped outside his isolated house for his customary evening stroll in the garden with his pregnant wife, before checking the shutters on the windows and doors in case of intruders.

That was when the Mau Mau raiders struck; 30 of them, wielding their sharp pangas or machetes.


Kenya conflict: Suspected members of the Mau Mau imprisoned by the British during the Mau Mau Uprising, 1952-1960

Thirty-eight-year-old Roger Ruck and his wife Esmee, a doctor who ran a dispensary for Africans, died in the vicious onslaught, their bodies slashed to ribbons by the mob and left on the veranda.

The same fate was meted out to one of the family’s African servants, who ran out to help them. But the horrific massacre didn’t stop there. The raiders rampaged through the house, looting its contents, then stormed upstairs.

Behind a locked bedroom door was the Rucks’ son, Michael, aged six. We will never know if he was still asleep or if the noise had woken him, in which case he must have lain in terror as the intruders sought him out.

They broke down the door, knives flashed — and in an instant the boy was dead.

Kenya’s rebels — today hailed as freedom fighters against a repressive colonial British administration — had claimed four more victims in their fight for independence.

There is another side to the coin of British brutality — that of the horrors inflicted by the Mau Mau. Moreover, the vast majority of their victims were not British settlers, their supposed enemies, but Africans like themselves. The houseboy who died alongside the Rucks was not an isolated example.

Anyone who sided with the British — and there were many in what was, in part, a civil war between rival African factions — was subjected to savagery every bit as bad and often much worse than the British now stand accused of. Recruitment to the Mau Mau began with bloodshed as whole villages were forced to take an oath of allegiance.

Often goats were sacrificed and disembowelled as part of the process.

Preying on the Kikuyu people’s religious superstitions in this way instilled dread. The burying alive of those who refused was a powerful incentive to any who doubted the cause or might be tempted to disobey.

Peter Mungai, an African Christian, was forced to watch as a Mau Mau gang slowly strangled his best friend before finishing him off with a machete. The dead man’s finger was sliced off and Mungai was forced to kiss it as part of his initiation ritual.

To reinforce the point, dismembered bodies of opponents were left strung up for all to see. One of the young British soldiers sent to police Kenya, many of whom were conscripts doing their National Service, remembered walking along a forest path and finding the body of an African man impaled on the branches of a tree.


British soldiers guarding Mau Mau prisoners in 1954. No Mau Mau veterans have been prosecuted for the ghastly torture and murders they inflicted on their fellow Kenyans

His killers had cut out his tongue as a warning to informers. Another Army patrol came on the butchered remains of an African hung in pieces on a fence. Africans working for the colonial government were the Mau Mau’s initial victims in 1952, when the uprising began.

One particular chief loyal to the Crown was badly wounded in an attack and taken to hospital. There, an assailant dressed as a porter slipped in and blew his brains out with a pistol.

Particularly at risk were the families of those who joined a 25,000-strong ‘Home Guard’ of Africans set up by the authorities.

Ninety women and children died when a Mau Mau gang descended on a village in the dead of night, sealed the people inside their homes, threw petrol on the thatch of the roof and set it alight. Those who didn’t die in the fire but managed to claw their way out were cut down with pangas and left to die a slow, lingering death.

The body of an elderly chief, an arch-enemy of the Mau Mau, was horribly mutilated. His feet and hands were hacked through at the wrists and ankles, his buttocks severed and his skull split.

A reporter who was taken to the site of the massacre described ‘children sliced to pieces, and pregnant women with their bellies ripped open, lying among the smouldering ashes of their homes’.

The first Europeans to die were two farmers who were dining together at home when a gang arrived and hacked them to death. The wounds on them were so terrible that the police refused to publish the photographs. After them came the Rucks, whose deaths sent the white community into a state of panic.

This led to demands for tough action in the firmly held belief that the settlers were fighting for their survival against a merciless enemy.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
You could say that about any country. I wonder what crimes committed by Canadians - against the Native Indians, for example - have been swept under the carpet by successive Canadian governments, determined that they never see the light of day.
The Church and State both have a lot of blood on their hands, I'm sure the Crown (of London rather than the Queen) would have been the ones writing the Treaties with all the implemented loop-holes and if there wasn't one the treaty was just broken and stalled out in the Courts. The last headline within the last few years was something about cases being in court 20 years and costing the taxpayers about $200M, talk about win, win, by design when any win is a sign of corruption at the core (inability to write a decent and honest treaty)
Canada had nothing to do with the way Britain draws borders with the full intention of creating needless conflict, as in India/Pakistan. Canada has bloody hands without a doubt an no big clean-up plan in place, England is swimming in blood and loving it, need I say more?

The trouble with some North Americans is that, when criticising Britain's colonial past, they are forgetting one important aspect - that, if it wasn't for Britain's colonial past, there would be no Canada and USA today. Canada and the USA are the results of Britain colonial past.
Are you saying the whole New World was a land without any people? Let's see who the Pirates really are. The boats with settlers was the 2nd wave, the first wave was business men, traders. Let's examine their business practives abd see if the price paid for furs that rorals would wear was a 'fair price' for the good the Indians received in return. If it was fair then I'm wrong and there was no 3,000% markup for the British and French Merchants. We both already know what the answer is and we both know they have never changed that style of business, even today. The solution was 'the fall guy', it still is.

And, when criticising Britain for "stealing" other people's lands (things which many, many empires have done over the millennia, not just Britain, in times when colonialism wasn't as frowned upon as it is today's PC world), they do so whilst occupying land stolen by the British off the Native Americans. So they criticising Britain for "stealing" other people's lands whilst quite happy to live in land the Britishs tole of the Native Americans. It's just sheer hypocrisy.
When those other invasions took place how many included genocide for the native population compared to integration? Indians were rejected because they couldn't drink a lot of cheap alcohol without going ballistic, drinking was big business in Britain by that time, probably always was in that grapes were the crop of choice back when they could be grown.
Took it by force so you could 'rent it out' through company stores that the GP would be forced to buy from. Is this our beads as payment for doing the 'dirty work' for the Crown?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
What? Like the Canadians did in North America?

I'd be fully supportive of any North American tribe that broke into your house, murdered your kids, raped your wife and then beheaded you. After all, it is THEIR space that you have invaded and taken over.

By the way, I'm not inbred, and I don't know anyone who is. I'm probably less inbred than you are.

Point of order.... Canadians never invaded North America. Once the invasion ended, Canada was born out of the chaos.

And if you can't understand why educated, affluent Britain, with armies and guns and bombs, is held to a different standard than the Mau Mau, then you're fooling yourself. As well, there is a huge difference between the combatant who chooses to be involved in strife through imperialistic policies, and the combatant whose home and life are threatened by said policies.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The trouble with some North Americans is that, when criticising Britain's colonial past, they are forgetting one important aspect - that, if it wasn't for Britain's colonial past, there would be no Canada and USA today. Canada and the USA are the results of Britain colonial past.

Americans and Canadians criticising Britain for having an empire - an empire which created their countries - would be like somebody criticising their father for having sex with their mother nine months before they were born.

And, when criticising Britain for "stealing" other people's lands (things which many, many empires have done over the millennia, not just Britain, in times when colonialism wasn't as frowned upon as it is today's PC world), they do so whilst occupying land stolen by the British off the Native Americans. So they criticise Britain for "stealing" other people's lands whilst being perfectly happy to live on land the British stole of the Native Americans. Yet how many of you are willing to give the whole of North America back and bugger off back to the lands of your European ancestors? Not many, I assume. It's just sheer hypocrisy.

Personally, I'd much prefer that people had landed on North America and bought land properly, traded fairly, done it right. I'd prefer to not have segregation in my communities because of a history of British derision for aboriginal people. I'd prefer to be here 'right'. Unfortunately, I have no control over my circumstance of birth. And I'm not willing to walk away from my country and the First Nations people, because that would mean breaking ties with a lot of my family. The damage is done now, it's up to future Canadians to attempt to repair it. Trying to use it as some justification for what was done to the Mau Mau, is pathetic, petty, and frankly creepy.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Justifiably the British are accused of brutality in 1950s Kenya
Nice try, denying as a foreigner in a foreign land doesn't mean anything other than bad manners were probably high on the list of causes. They would have to come to Britain with the intention of killing a great many before the situation begin to resemble each other. You would be arguing that the need a court date rather than a quick trip out of the area in the first available boat, if it is leaky, so much the better in my view but then I don't see Kenya as being my possession.` The solution for somebody who thinks he owns everything he can touch or name is not something you would wish on yourself.

Personally, I'd much prefer that people had landed on North America and bought land properly, traded fairly, done it right. I'd prefer to not have segregation in my communities because of a history of British derision for aboriginal people. I'd prefer to be here 'right'. Unfortunately, I have no control over my circumstance of birth. And I'm not willing to walk away from my country and the First Nations people, because that would mean breaking ties with a lot of my family. The damage is done now, it's up to future Canadians to attempt to repair it. Trying to use it as some justification for what was done to the Mau Mau, is pathetic, petty, and frankly creepy.
So Harper could cut the First Nations survivors a check for a few trillion at the UN and give them copies of the Human Rights documents ans a copy of the current building codes and a list of wholesalers in the area that are locally owned. Have fun, sorry bout the **** up. That takes care of the past rent now the next 10yr lease needs to be covered by a treaty that makes sure the 'renters' can never be evicted and the 'landlords' can never be held hostage at gun-point again. See the difference between eliminating the bad thing compared to make sure you get all the bad things on your side and they get nothing, ...... again.

Fire was the greatest thing before and after sliced bread, Britain is not the fire, it might be one slice from a loaf at best.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Personally, I'd much prefer that people had landed on North America and bought land properly, traded fairly, done it right. I'd prefer to not have segregation in my communities because of a history of British derision for aboriginal people. I'd prefer to be here 'right'. Unfortunately, I have no control over my circumstance of birth. And I'm not willing to walk away from my country and the First Nations people, because that would mean breaking ties with a lot of my family. The damage is done now, it's up to future Canadians to attempt to repair it. Trying to use it as some justification for what was done to the Mau Mau, is pathetic, petty, and frankly creepy.

Ummmm, our ancestors did buy the land. The trades were fair in that both sides agreed upon them. A deal is not required to be entirely equitable as long as both parties agree. That is why I can sell you a pound of butter for $500 if you are willing to buy it for that much.

I am tired of all the BS surrounding how the FN were ripped off 400 years ago. We cannot change anything and we are not helping anyone by trying to be a boatload of separate nations within Canada. The only reasonable solution is to leave the past behind and move forward as Canadians. I am not saying give up the FN heritage and history but realize it is history and today this land is Canada.

I assume you mean they should be nuking themselves.

It would save someone else from throwing away a bunch of million dollar bombs.:lol:
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Ummmm, our ancestors did buy the land. The trades were fair in that both sides agreed upon them. A deal is not required to be entirely equitable as long as both parties agree. That is why I can sell you a pound of butter for $500 if you are willing to buy it for that much.

I am tired of all the BS surrounding how the FN were ripped off 400 years ago. We cannot change anything and we are not helping anyone by trying to be a boatload of separate nations within Canada. The only reasonable solution is to leave the past behind and move forward as Canadians. I am not saying give up the FN heritage and history but realize it is history and today this land is Canada.



It would save someone else from throwing away a bunch of million dollar bombs.:lol:

I agree that there's not much we can do to change it now, and I talk often of how I'd like to see an end to segregation. BUT. I have to disagree about the treaties having been a purchase in the terms of what I said in my earlier post. It is, by clear definition a treaty. Making an agreement to end a war, is very clearly not what I was discussing in my post.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The Mau Mau were a nasty, vicious lot. Nobody should feel sorry for them. It was wrong for the British government to decide to give them compensation. If wouldn't have happened had I been Prime Minister. Bloodthirsty murderers should not be given any compensation.

The same is also true of the EOKA. They were nothing but terrorists.

And yet, for soppy PC reasons, we have to "sympathise" and "show understanding" to the vile Mau Mau and EOKA and ignore THEIR vile crimes, and instead concentrate on imagined "crimes" supposedly committed against these violent monsters by the British.

The Mau Mau and EOKA deserved everything they got - if anything, the British were too LENIENT on them - and I have no sympathy towards them. They can get stuffed.
Seems to me I've read plenty of tales of English nasty deeds; so you, Mr. Pot, are simply calling other pots and kettles black.
Speaking of nasty deeds, did you know that in prehistoric times, the people occupying your pissant little island were cannibals? Having an anthropologist for a wife makes little tidbits like that easy to come by. :D

What? Like the Canadians did in North America?
You mean the Canadians that immigrated here from England, France, and other barbaric places in Europe?

I'd be fully supportive of any North American tribe that broke into your house, murdered your kids, raped your wife and then beheaded you. After all, it is THEIR space that you have invaded and taken over.
Again, you're the pot calling the kettle black.

The trouble with some North Americans is that, when criticising Britain's colonial past, they are forgetting one important aspect - that, if it wasn't for Britain's colonial past, there would be no Canada and USA today. Canada and the USA are the results of Britain colonial past.
Wrong, as usual. Without colonisation, native North Americans would have continued to exist within THEIR own cultures. Same for the Maumau and any other culture that your barbaric ancestors interfered with.

Ummmm, our ancestors did buy the land. The trades were fair in that both sides agreed upon them. A deal is not required to be entirely equitable as long as both parties agree. That is why I can sell you a pound of butter for $500 if you are willing to buy it for that much.
Fair? lol How about I sell you a Yugo that has a Mercedes emblem on it while not bothering to tell you its engine is going to die? Fair is BS. When you sell stuff to people without full disclosure, it isn't fair.