• usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s what the phrase “Britons are made for empire” referred to the empire was the outlet for the local lack of social mobility or opportunities

    when we got rid of it we had to replace that social function with education

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Fair point

        with India no longer a colony and the suez crisis imperialism has changed so much as to be a different organisation now and the Americans run it now as well. The third world is exploited but through debt traps more than the direct colonial governance I was talking about.

        And the giving up on India as a colony was at least in part a result of British political desire to do so. If Churchill had been reelected he would have probably fought a war over it

        • LeZero [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was kinda facetious, the British Empire as it existed is indeed gone, but unfortunately neocolonialism is still going pretty strong

          I also think it was a cost calculation on the part of colonial empires which got rekt during WW2, just too expensive to deal with the unrest when the economy is in the shitter, the Brits actually understood that much more than the French, who sent a lot of men to die in the jungle of Indochina and the mountains of Algeria

          Agree on Churchill tho, considering his revolting opinions on the colonised people