US TO DECLARE WAR ON BRITAIN...?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 11:16AM Hurrah - some new mopery from the Obama clan!
"Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect. Hussein Onyango Obama, Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after the war. He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency."
Oh no. Say it ain't so? Unfortunately this exciting version of Hussein Snr conflicts with Obama's version, so I wonder who is lying? The Mau Mau insurrection, which is the event behind these historical contortions, was brutal and terroristic and the British dealt firmly with those involved. I guess this is just one more terrorist connection leading to the President Elect?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (32)
>>the British dealt firmly with those involved.<<
Yeah, and this included herding masses of the population into concentration camps and mass execution of suspects.
One British officer described his treatment of prisoners thus:
"I stuck my revolver right in his grinning mouth and I said something, I don’t remember what, and I pulled the trigger. His brains went all over the side of the police station. The other two Mickeys [Mau Mau] were standing there looking blank. I said to them that if they didn’t tell me where to find the rest of the gang I’d kill them too. They didn’t say a word so I shot them both. One wasn’t dead so I shot him in the ear. When the sub-inspector drove up, I told him that the Mickeys tried to escape. He didn’t believe me but all he said was 'bury them and see the wall is cleared up.'"
David - If this is A Mouse That Roared ploy it won't work anymore- we are broke.
To be fair a right few kenyans worked with the british terror machine. Apart of shooting many, 100s were hung (for even being thought to associate with rebels) and thousands detained in camps, where thousands also died. Kenya really is a big blot on britains tarnished record of colonisation.
Colomisation was how Britain civilised many parts of Africa. Mind you, when they got their independence they went on to do so well - take Zimbabwe....
It is a disturbing reality that colonialism was in retrospect better for Africa than anything that replaced it.
Not the cruelty, not the stupid borders imposed by Europeans that did not follow ethnic lines, but the order and structure and modernity and schooling was indeed better for the people there.
The best possible scenario, not that it will happen, would be for a benign, consensual colonial system -- call them special alliances if you must - to return to Zimbabwe and say the Congo.
False outrage will surely follow this statement, but its the truth and all here know it. Zimbabwe is Exhibit A.
It never does take the riff-raff long to sully a thread.
riff-raff -
Try letting a debate develop sometime before giving us your usual drivel.
So, yet another terrorist crawls out from Obama's past, eh? It's getting to where you have to wonder if he's known anyone normal.
Kenyan was he? Maybe Obama will honour that flag since he won't honour Old Salute.
So what's the old dear said? “The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Hussein Onyango’s third wife, the woman Mr Obama refers to as “Granny Sarah”.
Mrs Onyango, 87, described how “white soldiers” visited the prison every two or three days to carry out “disciplinary action” on the inmates suspected of subversive activities.
Well, a bit less of the racism if you dont mind, love. A bunch of liberals will give you a going over at that rate.
Anyway, three honkeys was it? Could've been Paddy, Mickey and Seamus getting a little enthusiastic. What with the adrenalin going and the excitement that so many Irishmen have felt at wearing the King's uniform, you never know.
Jesus H. Christ. Obama wasn't born when this realtive served the UK for two years during World War II (I suppose you aren't about to credit him for this) or when he was incarcerated either fairly or unfairly.
Pete what is your problem? How does this remotely bring on some anti-Irish comment?
Mahons -
Jesus, Mary and Joseph and all the Saints and Angels.
Anti-Irish comment? Sitting here pawing my Irish passport, praising those boys who served King and Country so proudly, could possibly be anti-Irish?
O'Contraire!
It is Noel Cunningham and RS who have turned an inquisitive post into an oh so predictable rant at the Glorious British Empire. Such a shameful attack on beneficence of those who selflessly took Civilisation, law and justice far and wide and touched so many fortunate souls who, without the Pax Britannica, would have known nothing but dread and horror and probably the French.
>>How does this remotely bring on some anti-Irish comment?<<
Mahons, he still feels the long trauma of de-colonisation, and his thoughts naturally enough turn to those who first started rolling the big ugly stone of the British empire back.
Some peoples inability to admit or even recognise the suffering colonisation inflicted on indigenous personnel around the world is sick.
Sitting here pawing my Irish passport, praising those boys who served King and Country so proudly, could possibly be anti-Irish?
LOL no but it confirms you are yellow! :-)
Noel,
Just where do you get all this rubbish from?
The Mau Mau were no more than Kikuyu riff-raff.
"herding masses of the population into concentration camps and mass execution of suspects." - and you get that quote from where, exactly? - the little red book of revisionist history, in large print for the mentally impaired? ...
Young socialists just ain't what they used to be!...they used to be moderately well educated once upon a time.
RS
I quite agree, but anyone who fails to recognize that the suffering imposed by Mugabe and by Mbeki ( who denied the HIV/AIDS link and who misused healthcare resources accordingly ) is worse than that caused by the evil colonials is intentionally ignorant.
The people in Zimbabwe are starving, RS. Starving. And suffering from cholera. This was not the case under the evil Ian Smith.
Phantom,
Ian Smith - was 'evil', - How so?...
>>Just where do you get all this rubbish from?<<
Is that an exclamation or a question?
If it's the latter, I'll consider casting some light into your darkness.
Ernest
I'm referencing that Africans then ( maybe not so much now ) and the anticolonialist supporters in the wider world thought the man a monster
Remember the loud demonstrations, the posters, etc?
None of that about good ole Mugabe. He's truly evil, and has destroyed a once fairly rich country and much of its population, but since he's the same skin color he's cool . But Ian Smith was the wrong color and represented a "white minority" government so he was the devil.
Note the chorus that comes out if some Palestinian gets a parking ticket. But so few of that chorus has a thing to say about Mugabe and the vast human tragedy in Zimbabwe.
Phantom,
The anti-colonials were yesterday's equivalent of the 'uni activists' of today, - full of imaginary fury, and equally full of wind and s***.
The little 'do-gooders' of the era, they did more harm than good, rather like the 'global warmers', they are always on the look-out for a chance to make trouble, leaving the very real problems to be ignored. They stamp their feet, and all they do is show just what spoiled brats they really are, having little understanding of that in which they dabble, and frequently leaving the recipients of their crusades in worse condition than when they started, your example of Zimbabwe is a case in point.
When I see such revisionist tripe as put about by Noel and RS, and others, it really does make me wonder about the future - not just for the West, but for the world, their ignorance is far more dangerous than they know, or realise....
Still, there are some who would rather be starving and cold in a country that they think that they own rather than be clothed and fed in a country governed by someone else. Whether that says something good or bad about human nature and human pride, I do not know.
Zimbabwe and to an extent the rest of Africa have lessons for us all, if we're brave enough to face them.
"It is Noel Cunningham and RS who have turned an inquisitive post into an oh so predictable rant at the Glorious British Empire. Such a shameful attack on beneficence of those who selflessly took Civilisation, law and justice far and wide and touched so many fortunate souls who, without the Pax Britannica, would have known nothing but dread and horror and probably the French."
So Colonialism was all about bringing Civilisation to the uncivilised? And there I thought it was completely about plundering those lands of mineral riches. So I guess the British Empire, during its colonial explotation, murdered thousands and thousands of innocent people for their own good. Glad to here that.
Seamus
It will be interesting to see how this evolves.
The Empire was motivated by greed, and its foolish to imply otherwise. But it was not solely motivated by greed. There were substantial investments in education, civil service, railways, all kinds of things in many of the colonies, things that were never there before and things that have an enduring value - India being a case in point. More Indians than you think retain a considerable affection for the days of empire, and recognize a mixed bag that was largely good.
Ireland is a very different thing- you have a hard time saying that England was a net positive, not with a straight face.
But as for modern day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the African states - you don't compare those places with modern England. You compare them with what they were before the colonial power arrived, with what may have been, with what came after.
There were lots of land thefts -- lots of schools, roads, hospitals, too, that were not there before.
In India, they largely built on that foundation, however imperfectly. They were more ready to govern themselves than other places.
"There were substantial investments in education, civil service, railways, all kinds of things in many of the colonies, things that were never there before and things that have an enduring value - India being a case in point. More Indians than you think retain a considerable affection for the days of empire, and recognize a mixed bag that was largely good."
I think James Craig, the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, summed it up quite well. How do you ensure loyalty, him talking about the Protestant people of the North, is by "giving the dogs their bones". Simply put, if the British entered Kenya and plundered the land and provided the people with nothing, then those people are not going to take it for very long and risings like the Mau Mau Uprising would have occured for longer and with increassing regularity.
Don't doubt it.
Only saying that some of the colonies benefited then, and are still benefiting from the fact that the empire had once been there.
One more thing as respects India- the English language was not a bad thing to have given them, and has played a big part in the recent economic revival there.
"Only saying that some of the colonies benefited then, and are still benefiting from the fact that the empire had once been there."
While that is true, I will take it to an extreme. Healthcare, Travel, Science, Computers, etc all improved because of the actions of the Germans during the 2nd World War. The entire world benefited from it. I still won't say though that Nazi Germany was a good thing. Certain areas of the world benefited from imperialism and colonialism but that doesn't mean that it was a good thing due to the terrible evil, including rape, murder and intimidation, it wrought on those areas.
Seamus -
So Colonialism was all about bringing Civilisation to the uncivilised? And there I thought-
And that's where I lost interest.
Back to your dopey screeds with you. Which British Marxist Historian is it this week? Hobsbawm? Yeah, it's always him. What a shame that wicked, unrepentant Moscow arse-licker wasn't drowned at birth.
What have I said that is incorrect, Pete?
Most things you say are incorrect.
Nice dodging of the question there Pete. What, on the topic of Colonialism, I have stated that is incorrect.
Well, that it was "completely about plundering lands of mineral riches", and that "the British Empire, during its colonial explotation, murdered thousands and thousands of innocent people for their own good".
Seamus, you're not half as clever as you think you are and in truth your unthinking view of the British Empire isn't worth a monkey's.
Your dreary rubbish-filled mind is stuck fast in a narrow, modern track. It cannot begin to imagine sensibilities and mores of other times. I doubt very much that you can understand that the Empire was filled with men and women who did astonishing things, often selflessly, often they were flawed, often out of religious devotion, but always because they thought that what they were doing was right.
No doubt in your mind the British Empire was a political project. The notion that it came about quite by accident, by the accumulation of seperate and independent action of individuals would astonish you.
More lands than you will ever know of existed and live still under the endless blessings delivered by the British Empire.
I really can't be bothered wasting any more time on someone as under-informed and over-opinionated as you. Back to your pathetic Marxist fairytales.
"I doubt very much that you can understand that the Empire was filled with men and women who did astonishing things, often selflessly, often they were flawed, often out of religious devotion, but always because they thought that what they were doing was right."
No, they did for them and their country, not for the people of the places that they colonised. They may have selflessly donated their time and effort in the cause of Britain, but not selflessley donate their time and effort for the peoples of Africa, the Americas, Asia etc.
"I really can't be bothered wasting any more time on someone as under-informed and over-opinionated as you. Back to your pathetic Marxist fairytales."
How is it Pete that any one who disagrees with you, which would probably be the majority of the world's population, is labelled a Marxist? Marx had an interesting doctrine, but I definetly don't sign up to it.
During the Mau Mau uprising the number of European settlers killed was 32. The number of African natives killed by the colonial authorities was between 12,000 (official British figure) and 50,000 (local estimates)
Colm, you know better than to peddle leftist lies. I'll leave it at that...
Were the official british figures leftist lies? (I am of course assuming Colm's source is accurate).
Its also fair to say most of the Mau MAu;s violence was directed at non-kikuyu tribes more than the colonial oppressor...
When I went to Kenya I met young people (ie 20s/early thirties then) who had relatrives in the Mau Mau who were executed byt the British. Still left a nasty taste in their mouths, although I cant say I met anyone who was overcome with bitterness.
Re: colonialism etc, I am afraid it is an observable fact that the history ofpost-colonial Africa is a disaster. Conditions were better for most people under the Pax Britannica etc of Colonial Rule. However, that couldnt go on for ever.
It just needs time. It took South America until recently to emerge from the shadow of Spanish colonialism.