Although the first example of civilian internment may date as far back as the 1830s,[10] the English term concentration camp was first used in order to refer to the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) which were set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years’ War (1868–1878).[11][12] The label was applied yet again to camps set up by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).[13] And expanded usage of the concentration camp label continued, when the British set up camps during the Second Boer War (1899–1902) in South Africa for interning Boers during the same time period.
5 Likes
The point was about whether Nazi control of Africa (and elsewhere outside of Europe) would have had materially worse consequences for the civilian populations of those countries than that suffered under the British. It’s obviously hypothetical but in many respects I don’t think it would. For some groups it may well have been better.
2 Likes
No-one has done either.
And if you think the Nazis are the only group to have ever seriously countenanced the ‘eradication of an entire race’ you’ve got rocks in your head.
You win on the point of scale. Well done.
I for one would not be comfortable telling a Tutsi survivor, ‘at least you weren’t born Jewish in 1920s Germany.’
5 Likes
At least this thread is proof that UK Politics isn’t stuck in the past.
Apologies, I’ll get my coat.
11 Likes
1 Like
I cant read any more of this.
This thread has had posts that say - The British Armed Forces were “useless”. That Britains treatment of civilians during colonisation was equivalent to the Nazis treatment of the Jews and that civilian populations would have been better of under the Nazis.
It is then claimed there is no reductionism or revisionism of the scale or evil of the Nazi crimes.
That is the last thing I have to say and unfortunately I cannot with good conscience remain a member of this site.
Stay Safe.
1 Like
Forgive me, and I’m sorry if you really are leaving this forum (or responding to you after you may already have left), but I’m not sure you appreciate why the issue arose.
This is not a criticism against anybody’s relations, their conduct and honour, I have simply been attempting to acknowledge that it is not so straightforward to paint one side as undeniably evil (fascism, nazis) but the other as entirely virtuous. It was undeniably essential that the Nazis were defeated, their ideology was possibly the most deplorable of recent human history.
But we run the risk of assuming that civilians experiences under British rule was so much better by comparison with what it might be under the Nazis that, of course, they would be enthusiastic in taking up arms on behalf of the allies to fight against the Nazis. To many they would have viewed both as tyrannical oppressive imperialists. How much of the civilian populations of Africa and the subcontinent probably thought, “is this really our fight?”.
“Are we fighting to ensure we keep this oppressor rather than be ruled by that one?” In many cases all those civilians would have had a lifetime of persecution, oppression and disenfranchisement under the British…why would they automatically think, “well fascism and the Nazis are really bad”.
For us we have a different perspective. Naturally we’d like to think that living under British rule would be leagues better than living under the Nazis. I have no doubt that it would have been. For us. But for many of those having lived for perhaps a hundred years or more under British colonial rule? I think it would be a mistake to assume that they would automatically reach the same conclusion.
5 Likes
History thread, people. History thread.
7 Likes
So… Boris Johnson… What a cunt.
5 Likes
@Kopstar What he said.
2 Likes
Ok 
12345678910
1 Like
Tomorrows another day mate…
Don’t let anyone on the site wear ya down… I enjoy reading your posts.! 
2 Likes
Stupid cunt more like. Self isolating again. after arranging a meeting with Conservatives MP’s in 10 Downing St.
Apparently Downing St is a Covid safe environment…righto!! 
2 Likes
When 1 face-palm is not enough.
3 Likes
Had to do a full Boris to get back in though. Now saying that the anti semitism was not overblown for political gain.
1 Like
But hasnt had the whip restored.
1 Like
No, @Mascot can probably give a clearer idea of the processes, involved, but what i suspect is that Corbyn has a lot of supporters within the NEC who have brought him back into the fold.
a lot of the concerns raised about the handling of complaints in the party around anti-semitism flagged personal views held by some of the people on the NEC.
Hence, Starmer re-iterating the need for an independent process.
1 Like
I’m sorry but that’s what he said and he has been reinstated into the party (not by Starmer) I might add. Starmer however has not reinstated the whip to him.
Corbyn’s comments were a complete turn around to those he iterated when the report was released hence the Boris turnaround. No apology mind
1 Like
I don’t think he has done a full turnaround though.
2 Likes
Not in the least. He hasn’t apologised for his role in it, he hasn’t retracted his comment that it was all overblown for political gain, he’s since tried to explain his comment was that he was saying overblown in the context that the conduct was limited to a minority of the party…when it was clear that this was not what he meant at all. All he’s done is basically come out and said that anti-semitism is wrong. Well, fuck me. What a mea culpa.
The fact that he can be expelled from the party and reinstated by a different part of the party is symptomatic of the structural (and ideological) factionalism that will dog the Labour party for years unless it’s either sorted out by Starmer (by making some of the processes independent) or there’s a schism.
2 Likes