This is purely a question for our UK members

[Trolldor]

Completely and utterly wrong, and that's most profoundly because you don't know shit about me.

I'm very sorry I misinterpreted yours and others posts.

You shouldn't be. The British Empire was huge, and thus the amount of historical detail to be covered in any study of it is correspondingly daunting. It is hardly surprising that seemingly major episodes could get overlooked, sometimes due to the residual effects of factual suppression or whitewashing - or just plain ignorance.

BAA, why are you (apparently) spoiling for a fight? There was no need to pursue this in the confrontational way that you have done. You could have responded to TA's very reasonable and carefully worded observation without the "you don't know shit about me" bit.

You seem to be spoiling for a fight, I have no stake in this whatsoever. I don't, however, like to be accused of something I didn't do, which has now happened twice in one thread. Again, you see malice in words where there are none, and you accuse a statement of irrelevance and confrontation yet it relates directly to the fact that a false conclusion was reached without basis and cast aspersions on my motives. I'm amazed that you don't seem to bring attention to the fact that TA accused me of trying to pull a guilt trip, which if it was true would be a far more insulting and pathetic attack than stating the truth, and the accusation that I was doing as such is far more insulting than stating the truth.

[klr]

Completely and utterly wrong, and that's most profoundly because you don't know shit about me.

I'm very sorry I misinterpreted yours and others posts.

You shouldn't be. The British Empire was huge, and thus the amount of historical detail to be covered in any study of it is correspondingly daunting. It is hardly surprising that seemingly major episodes could get overlooked, sometimes due to the residual effects of factual suppression or whitewashing - or just plain ignorance.

BAA, why are you (apparently) spoiling for a fight? There was no need to pursue this in the confrontational way that you have done. You could have responded to TA's very reasonable and carefully worded observation without the "you don't know shit about me" bit.

You seem to be spoiling for a fight, I have no stake in this whatsoever. I don't, however, like to be accused of something I didn't do, which has now happened twice in one thread. Again, you see malice in words where there are none, and you accuse a statement of irrelevance and confrontation yet it relates directly to the fact that a false conclusion was reached without basis and cast aspersions on my motives. I'm amazed that you don't seem to bring attention to the fact that TA accused me of trying to pull a guilt trip, which if it was true would be a far more insulting and pathetic attack than stating the truth, and the accusation that I was doing as such is far more insulting than stating the truth.

Well now, if two people independently reach the same conclusion, there's just a chance they might be on to something (I was of the same mind as TA before I read his post). Maybe you ought to have phrased the OP more carefully?

[Rum]

If we return to the OP..?

Not sure why you wanted responses without the use of google or other search engines. All this stuff is out there. Your motive puzzles me - particularly in the light of the results.

My initial response was based on memory alone a I was a small child when this stuff was in the news. The Mau Mau (no doubt as a result of viewing them through the lens of colonialism), were seen as savage terrorists who used machetes (somehow more scary than guns..which I don't get) to chop up people to get their message across.

Can you clarify why you started the thread?

[Trolldor]

If we return to the OP..?

Not sure why you wanted responses without the use of google or other search engines. All this stuff is out there. Your motive puzzles me - particularly in the light of the results.

My initial response was based on memory alone a I was a small child when this stuff was in the news. The Mau Mau (no doubt as a result of viewing them through the lens of colonialism), were seen as savage terrorists who used machetes (somehow more scary than guns..which I don't get) to chop up people to get their message across.

Can you clarify why you started the thread?

I think I mentioned that the chapter said that very few British people really know much about these, and its not because of censorship, but simply because its been brushed over, in a sense.
So, rather than have people look them up, I wanted to know what they knew about with their own knowledge. This would confirm whether it's, at least, feasibly true.
If people did know about it, as the people here are pretty wide read, then they would know whether the given 'facts' in the quoted paragraph are (reasonably) true or not, which is also what I wanted to know.
I'm pretty sure I stated it, but I guess it just wasn't that clear.

[Rum]

If we return to the OP..?

Not sure why you wanted responses without the use of google or other search engines. All this stuff is out there. Your motive puzzles me - particularly in the light of the results.

My initial response was based on memory alone a I was a small child when this stuff was in the news. The Mau Mau (no doubt as a result of viewing them through the lens of colonialism), were seen as savage terrorists who used machetes (somehow more scary than guns..which I don't get) to chop up people to get their message across.

Can you clarify why you started the thread?

I think I mentioned that the chapter said that very few British people really know much about these, and its not because of censorship, but simply because its been brushed over, in a sense.
So, rather than have people look them up, I wanted to know what they knew about with their own knowledge. This would confirm whether it's, at least, feasibly true.
If people did know about it, as the people here are pretty wide read, then they would know whether the given 'facts' in the quoted paragraph are (reasonably) true or not, which is also what I wanted to know.
I'm pretty sure I stated it, but I guess it just wasn't that clear.

Surely it is the case that the history of any country is understood at a number of levels by various groupings of its society..on the whole I assume, with greater sophistication by the better educated. Why you chose this issue for UK members here remains a puzzle to me. You might equally have chosen to ask USA members about some detail of the civil war or the decimation of the native American population.

[klr]

If we return to the OP..?

Not sure why you wanted responses without the use of google or other search engines. All this stuff is out there. Your motive puzzles me - particularly in the light of the results.

My initial response was based on memory alone a I was a small child when this stuff was in the news. The Mau Mau (no doubt as a result of viewing them through the lens of colonialism), were seen as savage terrorists who used machetes (somehow more scary than guns..which I don't get) to chop up people to get their message across.

Can you clarify why you started the thread?

I think I mentioned that the chapter said that very few British people really know much about these, and its not because of censorship, but simply because its been brushed over, in a sense.
So, rather than have people look them up, I wanted to know what they knew about with their own knowledge. This would confirm whether it's, at least, feasibly true.
If people did know about it, as the people here are pretty wide read, then they would know whether the given 'facts' in the quoted paragraph are (reasonably) true or not, which is also what I wanted to know.
I'm pretty sure I stated it, but I guess it just wasn't that clear.

This is a universal constant when it comes to history. History gets distorted / forgotten / brushed over / overblown / reinterpreted for all sorts of reasons, some good, some bad.

It's only fair to point out that Elkin's work has been the subject of some robust criticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Elkins

... I'm not from the UK, and I can quote freely from Google if I wish.

Elkins' work was criticized by historian Lawrence James in The Sunday Times as being a one-sided account of the Mau Mau Uprising. In an article in The Guardian, James, in turn, was criticized for "whitewashing the history of the British empire".[1]

The BBC documentary Kenya: White Terror was based on Elkins' controversial research into the Mau Mau. It aired on Sunday 17 November 2002 on BBC Two at 1915 GMT and subsequently on BBC World. As a result of complaints made against this documentary, Ofcom (the British broadcasting watchdog) ruled that the programme had been partially unfair to Terrence Gavaghan, whom Elkins accuses of brutality.

Elkins' Harvard colleague Niall Ferguson, who praised Elkins for her research which he described as "painstaking", nevertheless described her book as a "sensationalist" account of the rebellion.[2]

In 2007, the demographer John Blacker writing in African Affairs demonstrated in detail that Elkins' estimates of casualties were grossly overestimated.[3]

The historian Bethwell Ogot, from Moi University, has written in reviewing Elkins’ book, “Imperial Reckoning” that Mau Mau fighters who were involved in the war (against the British and the Africans who supported the British)

“Contrary to African customs and values, assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man’s inhumanity to man there is no race distinction. The Africans were practising it on themselves. There was no reason and no restraint on both sides, although Elkins sees no atrocities on the part of Mau Mau”. Journal of African History 46, 2005, page 502.

The historian Susan Carruthers from Rutgers University has written in reviewing Elkins’ book, “Imperial Reckoning” that:

“In her determination to redress imperial propaganda’s stereotypes of Mau Mau savagery, Elkins leans into unintended condescension, lauding the Kikuyu’s ‘sophisticated’ appreciation of British hypocrisy. (Why wouldn’t those most thoroughly dislocated appreciate the character of European colonialism better than anyone?) Conversely, Elkins’ settlers and colonial administrators are cartoonish grotesques: ‘These privileged men and women lived an absolutely hedonistic lifestyle, filled with sex, drugs, drink and dance, followed by more of the same’ ” Twentieth Century British History 16, 2005, Page 492.

For the record: My own interest in African history is very much focused on the "Scramble for Africa", and WW I in Africa. I don't know much about the decolonisation period in Africa, although I know a good bit more about decolonisation in Asia for some reason.

[klr]

...
Surely it is the case that the history of any country is understood at a number of levels by various groupings of its society..on the whole I assume, with greater sophistication by the better educated.

Very true.

Why you chose this issue for UK members here remains a puzzle to me. You might equally have chosen to ask USA members about some detail of the civil war or the decimation of the native American population.

True, but why not just start with one example? I don't have a problem with that if it's what was intended.

[ficklefiend]

I would like to add that my history knowledge in general is appalling. Primary school history doesn't count for anything and up till I stopped doing history in academy age 14 we covered Victorians and the JFK assassination. One term a year for two years. (the rest of the year is split between modern studies and geography)

The rest of my history knowledge is from TV and wikipedia. And I know myself how poor it is.

[klr]

I would like to add that my history knowledge in general is appalling. Primary school history doesn't count for anything and up till I stopped doing history in academy age 14 we covered Victorians and the JFK assassination. One term a year for two years. (the rest of the year is split between modern studies and geography)

The rest of my history knowledge is from TV and wikipedia. And I know myself how poor it is.

Again, very true. But at least you know and acknowledge that, so you're in a position to do something about it.

TBH, unless someone decides to specialise in history from (say) 15 onwards, they are not going to learn much history in school. I think that's true in most countries.

[ficklefiend]

I would like to add that my history knowledge in general is appalling. Primary school history doesn't count for anything and up till I stopped doing history in academy age 14 we covered Victorians and the JFK assassination. One term a year for two years. (the rest of the year is split between modern studies and geography)

The rest of my history knowledge is from TV and wikipedia. And I know myself how poor it is.

Again, very true. But at least you know and acknowledge that, so you're in a position to do something about it.

TBH, unless someone decides to specialise in history from (say) 15 onwards, they are not going to learn much history in school. I think that's true in most countries.

Good, not just here. My flatmate does history at uni. He's improved my knowledge a bit. I suppose it's sort of a silly subject to try and learn. There is an awful lot of it.

[CJ]

What can you tell me about the Mau Mau revolt in 1950s or the Deccan plateau in 1876?
Without using google or wikipedia.

Edit: Or the internet, for that matter.

I had heard of the Mau Mau but that's it, no knowledge of the Deccan plateau incident.

[klr]

What can you tell me about the Mau Mau revolt in 1950s or the Deccan plateau in 1876?
Without using google or wikipedia.

Edit: Or the internet, for that matter.

I had heard of the Mau Mau but that's it, no knowledge of the Deccan plateau incident.

I am not in the least surprised. If you've not heard of (say) the Bengal famine of 1943, then it's very unlikely you'll have heard of something older.

Hell, most Irish people only know of the Great Famine of 1845 onwards. Most don't realise that there were other major Irish famines both before and after.

How many people know of the Ukrainian famine of 1932/1933, or of the extant of the famine in China from 1958-1961? Or of the genocide by the Germans in Namibia between 1904-1907? Or the Philippine–American War?

[Rum]

I would like to add that my history knowledge in general is appalling. Primary school history doesn't count for anything and up till I stopped doing history in academy age 14 we covered Victorians and the JFK assassination. One term a year for two years. (the rest of the year is split between modern studies and geography)

The rest of my history knowledge is from TV and wikipedia. And I know myself how poor it is.

Again, very true. But at least you know and acknowledge that, so you're in a position to do something about it.

TBH, unless someone decides to specialise in history from (say) 15 onwards, they are not going to learn much history in school. I think that's true in most countries.

Good, not just here. My flatmate does history at uni. He's improved my knowledge a bit. I suppose it's sort of a silly subject to try and learn. There is an awful lot of it.

Personally I don't even think of it as 'the subject of history'. I scraped through my O level exam (at 16) but later on simply became fascinated by the story of how we got to where we are and so I started reading anything and everything from stuff about ancient Greece and Rome to Napoleon. I just find it riveting.

[Pappa]

What can you tell me about the Mau Mau revolt in 1950s or the Deccan plateau in 1876?
Without using google or wikipedia.

Edit: Or the internet, for that matter.

I had heard of the Mau Mau but that's it, no knowledge of the Deccan plateau incident.

I am not in the least surprised. If you've not heard of (say) the Bengal famine of 1943, then it's very unlikely you'll have heard of something older.

Hell, most Irish people only know of the Great Famine of 1845 onwards. Most don't realise that there were other major Irish famines both before and after.

How many people know of the Ukrainian famine of 1932/1933, or of the extant of the famine in China from 1958-1961? Or of the genocide by the Germans in Namibia between 1904-1907? Or the Philippine–American War?

It's surprising enough how many people from the UK don't seem to be aware there was a civil war in Ireland.

[Lozzer]

The Mau Mau revolt was one of the first commercial adverts ran through British TV sets during the 1950s. Mau Maus were a form of chocolate styled after the children's programme 'Mao Mao wraps'. The Mau Mau revolt was so named for its revolutionary content and way of spreading the knowledge of a product into in thousands of peoples homes.

Hope that helped