|British forces round up Mau Mau rebels|
I still haven't figured out how John Derbyshire got himself fired from The National Review (or, rather, removed as a contributing nitwit) when this is the perfect example of what you can find on that site.
Black ignores the fact that World War I shattered the idea of colonialism and World War II buried it completely. Western culture was scoured and burned relentlessly, through the deaths of millions and the shattering of armies and the sinking of ships, and disabused of the idea that skin color should dictate who would rule whom.
Black cannot answer these facts:
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 the Scots Guards in 1948; sensitive documents kept by 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 United States 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 also to shield the government from litigation. If the Mau Mau detainees are successful in their legal action, thousands more veterans are expected to follow.
The documents show 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. Officials were warned that they would be prosecuted if they took any paperwork home—and some were. As independence grew closer, large caches 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 was overseen by 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.
When documents were burned, “the waste should be reduced to ash and the ashes broken up”.—Again, "better governed by Europeans." Really? Genocide and slaughter are the means by which Europeans govern best?
Here's another example of good government:
|Siege of Seringapatam|
The racism inherent in colonialism is not something I'm going to devote a lot of space to. Suffice it to say, the exploitation of the helpless brown and black and yellow people by the white people is the real legacy of colonialism and that is certainly not what you want to long for these days. Black wants to celebrate the idea that when whites ruled, the world made sense.
This is a foundational theory that should have been dead and buried long ago. There is a straight line from the Hitler cited by Black to the very notion that Hitler may have had the right idea when it came to efficiently governing the conquered and all the way through to 2012 and the idea that Black should have a place to spread his nonsense out for all to see. The National Review's war against people of color continues unabated. Mr. Derbyshire, you should have changed your column to be exclusively about keeping your family away from the hordes of the Levant, rather than Jay-Z and his homies.
The publication of Black's column confirms the obvious--The National Review is a racist website. This is now a proven fact. It is a publication that supports the genocide of non-whites and it is a home to anyone who hates people who have a different skin tone than pasty, old, and white.
I suspect that this is link bait, outrage bait, or something that will drive traffic to the website. It couldn't be for real, could it? Who is that foolish anymore?