« No Land Across the River | Main | Requiem for 9/11 »

Britain in Kenya

A Western, English-speaking democracy invades a "third world" country in order to bring its "civilizing" ideals to the population, and, in the face of a local rebellion, opens up secret interrogation centers where torture is imperialreckoningcov.jpgsanctioned as a necessity against the threat, actions which it defends against opposition at home through deception, and information about which it zealously guards by citing national security.  You know who I'm talking about you say?  I'm not so sure.  In the 1950's, the British government sanctioned its Colonial government in Kenya to put down a rebellion, called "Mau Mau," of the Kikuyu tribe, the country's largest ethnicity.  The British claimed that the camps, interrogations, torture, and deaths that resulted were necessary in fighting a "barbaric, savage" movement.  For decades, the real story of the British and the war on Mau Mau lay RR_Elkins.jpgeither misunderstood or unknown to the public, but with Caroline Elkins 2005 Pulitzer Prize-winning history Imperial Reckoning, that's begun to change.  With historical lessons for modern America, Professor Elkins of Harvard talks about Britain in Kenya on this week's New Capital Show.  We'll also cover some news:


LISTEN: New Capital Show (September 21, 2006)

Posted on Sep 18 by Registered CommenterLEO GOLD | Comments2 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Mr. Gold:

I would agree that with what Mr. Buffett is trying to do with curbing nuclear proliferation is a noble act; but I do not believe it will work for the simple reason the way our leaders are acting. This nation has invaded two different countries, is currently occupying both of them, and evidence is suggesting that one invasion was for a certain organic resource which happens not to be kumquats. Since all this has occurred, another country, which also has a certain organic resource which happens not to be kumquats, has started a program in which they can start to “refine” fuel for a “nuclear reactor” which has a lot of people, as well as nations, concerned that they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb. I myself believe that they are trying to develop the method to make a nuclear bomb so they can deter an invasion.

The truth is this nation peaked in our organic resource ,which happens not to be kumquats, in the early 70’s, and have been looking for a replacement with mix results at best. In the meantime this nation has manipulated and made deals with other nations that had this organic resource, which happens not to be kumquats, so that we could access this organic resource, which happens not to be kumquats, fairly cheaply. Since all this has occurred, a nation that we made a deal with, which has the largest amount of this organic resource, which happens not to be kumquats, MAY have(i.e. I believe HAS) peaked. There currently is not a feasible replacement for this organic resource, which happens not to be kumquats, and since it is crucial to everything today, the natural thing to do is try to find another source. Well, as far as finding new sources go, the last “biggest find of our nation” goes, was found in 2004 (but reported media wise in 2006) and has around 3 billion to 15 billion barrels (this nation consumes 8 billion barrels a year) so that will not work, and unless you find another Saudi Arabia discovery drilling is out of the question. This pretty much leaves only one other solution, “liberate” the remaining “oppressed” organic resource, which happens not to be kumquats, and redistribute it to everyone that will help in the “liberation“.

For this nation to remain “great” it has to have that organic resource, which happens not to be kumquats, and as long as other nations have it in large enough quantities the temptation will be too great. For Mr. Buffett to succeed ALL NATIONS will have to give up their nuclear weapons technology, and ALL NATIONS would have to agree to only having ALL NUCLEAR FUEL produced by one organization made up of all nations in the world. I personally do not see this happening anytime soon.

I personally believe that Nuclear power is a mistake because it causes more problems than it is worth. At best, only partial truths are given any time this subject comes up. Mr. Gold, I have learned about another radioactive element that can be used to produce nuclear fuel, it is called Thorium. Google it. I believe this is what the last article in the WSJ was talking about. This stuff is more plentiful than uranium and can be found in granite, but as the waste goes, it is lethal for about 100 years. I saw an article last year in the Houston Chronicle about France building a Fusion Power Plant. They said that they found a way to reduce the time that the radioactive waste remains lethal to 100 years but did not explain how they achieved this. I believe they will do this by using Thorium. I agree that this is a great reduction in time for it to stay radioactive, but it is not short enough. This would create a lot of waste that would last for a generation. There are safer ways to generate power. The problem with the hydrocarbons is not the carbons but us. There are ways to sequester the carbon (and not underground or under the sea) if we would both look and invest in them. Algae could actually help in the reduction in our carbon emissions as well as provide a new energy source for us in many different ways, if we would only try.

Samuel Davis

As always, thanks for your provocative and informative viewpoints. I'll see about Thorium.

Leo Gold
Sep 24 | Registered CommenterLEO GOLD

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.