A 'super British' identity for a United Commonwealth?

[Indicus]

Canadian American Trade was very prevalent for many years even while Canadian policy was orientated towards Britain.

Yes. It just goes to show just how important Canada-US trade is.

And even with The U.S next door “No Truck nor trade with the Yankees!” was a popular saying in Canada at one time.

In parts of Canada. And that was simply a saying - a saying which wasn’t at all reflective of the reality that massive trade with the US was inevitable due to the immutable fact of geography.

Canada’s trade with the US and a federation or trade deal with the Commonwealth are not mutually exclusive. Particularly if it were implemented early enough.

It’s certainly not mutually exclusive. But in practice, that would amount to vast amounts of trade with the US and far less with the Empire.

And there is, again, the principle of the matter - that Canada should have the right to economic independence, the right to control its tariffs and taxation. The scenario constructed by @Joshua Ben Ari, which would give the imperial government control over tariffs, would strip Canada of its economic independence. Canada could work with foreign policy determined by the empire. It could not work with trade determined by the imperial government because, again, that is an infringement on economic independence, on self-government. Every advocate of Canadian self-government, from Robert Baldwin to Peter Perry, would despise such a revocation of self-government.

I think you underestimate the strength of connection Canadians felt towards the Empire. In the Boer War, it was public pressure that caused Sir Wilfred Laurier to send Canadian troops to South Africa. In WW1 the contribution the British planned to ask for was filled and then some before they even officially asked.

Not to say that getting Canadian approval for such a plan would be easy, by any stretch. Especially Quebec. But it is not impossible.

There is a very large difference between feeling a connection to the British Empire and giving the imperial government control over Canadian tariff policy. That is an insurmountable hurdle, one which would doom any such plan of union.

There is no possible way you could make Quebec in particular join any sort of Imperial Federation - again, the drive for it was Anglo Saxon supremacist, based on unifying Anglo-Saxon peoples in the name of empire. Even Wilfrid Laurier, by and large the most pro-Empire Quebecois, was opposed to the Imperial Federation.

 

[BigBlueBox]

To have an Imperial Federation you would need a parliamentary reform in the United Kingdom. England should get his own separated parliament and Westminster should become the Imperial Parliament. That way you could treat Wales, Ireland and Scotland the say way you would treat Virginia or New Zeland. If the English have their own parliament the British system would look less like an excuse to enforce English power through the Empire and you could realisticaly manage to keep the whole thing together for a long time, maybe even til today. We wouldn't hear about how the Irish have too much power in England and too little in Ireland cuz England and Ireland would really be two equal constituent parts of the same Federal Empire.

The most difficult part of this is to convince the British government to implement this type of reform, they were very conservative about the organization of their Empire, cuz they were mostly English and pro-status-quo. If they weren't we wouldn't have had and American Revolution.

Why stop at disintegrating the UK? Why not disintegrate Canada into its provinces, and Australia into its states? West Australia actually wanted independence after all. Setting up a bunch of little states with representation in Westminster sounds like a great idea until you realize that the Imperial Parliament now has to handle interstate infrastructure and services between Ontario and Quebec because there is no Canadian government any more, while also handling Scotland-England ties and Victoria-New South Wales ties, etc.

The other alternative is to organize the empire into large sectors, with only the sector-level governments having representation in Westminster. Canada could evolve into Greater British America after absorbing the British Caribbean and British Honduras. Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and maybe Singapore could be merged into British Oceania (including all of Malaysia would be highly offensive to Australian racial sensitivities of course). South Africa could be merged with Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, and the other nearby possession. The United Kingdom itself would be expanded to directly incorporate the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, and Malta.

 

[ArtosStark]

Yes. It just goes to show just how important Canada-US trade is.



In parts of Canada. And that was simply a saying - a saying which wasn’t at all reflective of the reality that massive trade with the US was inevitable due to the immutable fact of geography.



It’s certainly not mutually exclusive. But in practice, that would amount to vast amounts of trade with the US and far less with the Empire.

And there is, again, the principle of the matter - that Canada should have the right to economic independence, the right to control its tariffs and taxation. The scenario constructed by @Joshua Ben Ari, which would give the imperial government control over tariffs, would strip Canada of its economic independence. Canada could work with foreign policy determined by the empire. It could not work with trade determined by the imperial government because, again, that is an infringement on economic independence, on self-government. Every advocate of Canadian self-government, from Robert Baldwin to Peter Perry, would despise such a revocation of self-government.



There is a very large difference between feeling a connection to the British Empire and giving the imperial government control over Canadian tariff policy. That is an insurmountable hurdle, one which would doom any such plan of union.

There is no possible way you could make Quebec in particular join any sort of Imperial Federation - again, the drive for it was Anglo Saxon supremacist, based on unifying Anglo-Saxon peoples in the name of empire. Even Wilfrid Laurier, by and large the most pro-Empire Quebecois, was opposed to the Imperial Federation.

That depends on how it looks in practice. Canada “submitted” to imperial preference in the 30’s. It “submitted” to NAFTA. Both of which removed Canada’s control over tariff levels for as long as they last(ed). Presumably, an imperial system would be very similar to imperial preference and would likely be an ever changing standard. To put this in context, tariff rates are set at the national level now, yet provincial premiers regularly champion their provinces trade with other countries through trips to meet with foreign leadership, lobbying federal government and premiers meetings (Alberta’s premier lobbying for Alberta Oil is a great example).
It depends on what powers are held by what level of government. In most countries that is an often vague and malleable balancing act. I see no reason the same could not be true of an imperial federation.

 

[Indicus]

That depends on how it looks in practice.

It also matters how it looks on paper. Even Robert Baldwin, a deeply conservative reformer in the 1840s, believed that Canada had the right to legislate on all affairs except foreign policy and defence. IOTL, many Canadians were infuriated at any British interference in Canadian affairs. John S. Ewart, for instance, was so angry about Britain forcing Canada into World War I that he advocated full separation from the British monarchy, and this is despite the fact that Canada would have almost certainly joined Britain in war if this subject was given any debate in Canadian Parliament.

Canada “submitted” to imperial preference in the 30’s. It “submitted” to NAFTA. Both of which removed Canada’s control over tariff levels for as long as they last(ed).

Canada freely consented to both. It did not "submit"; Canada was integral both to the negotiation of Imperial Preference and to the negotiation to NAFTA. They both prove that Canada had, and has, control over its tariff policy. This scenario would strip Canadian Parliament of the right to decide its tariffs. This right to economic independence is an important right that Canadians fought for, and this ridiculous plan would throw it all down the drain.

To put this in context, tariff rates are set at the national level now, yet provincial premiers regularly champion their provinces trade with other countries through trips to meet with foreign leadership, lobbying federal government and premiers meetings (Alberta’s premier lobbying for Alberta Oil is a great example).

And that would be unacceptable to Canadians, for tariff levels to be set at the imperial level with the Canadian government only having lobbying power. You severely underestimate Canadian attachment to self-government if you think that would be at all acceptable, if you think Canada would suicide its economic independence in the name of "Empire".

It depends on what powers are held by what level of government. In most countries that is an often vague and malleable balancing act. I see no reason the same could not be true of an imperial federation.

So what are you suggesting? That both Canadian and Imperial parliaments have the power to set tariffs? Because that won't work at all, and would likely end up causing giant controversy. The power to set tariffs must either be located in Canadian Parliament, or Imperial Parliament - not both. If the power is located in Imperial Parliament, then you do not have any sort of Imperial Federation. And good riddance - the Imperial Federation was a racist idea based on Anglo-Saxon supremacist sentiments. If the power is located in Canadian Parliament, you no longer have any sort of Imperial Federation.

 

[ArtosStark]

It also matters how it looks on paper. Even Robert Baldwin, a deeply conservative reformer in the 1840s, believed that Canada had the right to legislate on all affairs except foreign policy and defence. IOTL, many Canadians were infuriated at any British interference in Canadian affairs. John S. Ewart, for instance, was so angry about Britain forcing Canada into World War I that he advocated full separation from the British monarchy, and this is despite the fact that Canada would have almost certainly joined Britain in war if this subject was given any debate in Canadian Parliament.



Canada freely consented to both. It did not "submit"; Canada was integral both to the negotiation of Imperial Preference and to the negotiation to NAFTA. They both prove that Canada had, and has, control over its tariff policy. This scenario would strip Canadian Parliament of the right to decide its tariffs. This right to economic independence is an important right that Canadians fought for, and this ridiculous plan would throw it all down the drain.



And that would be unacceptable to Canadians, for tariff levels to be set at the imperial level with the Canadian government only having lobbying power. You severely underestimate Canadian attachment to self-government if you think that would be at all acceptable, if you think Canada would suicide its economic independence in the name of "Empire".



So what are you suggesting? That both Canadian and Imperial parliaments have the power to set tariffs? Because that won't work at all, and would likely end up causing giant controversy. The power to set tariffs must either be located in Canadian Parliament, or Imperial Parliament - not both. If the power is located in Imperial Parliament, then you do not have any sort of Imperial Federation. And good riddance - the Imperial Federation was a racist idea based on Anglo-Saxon supremacist sentiments. If the power is located in Canadian Parliament, you no longer have any sort of Imperial Federation.

I am suggesting that you scale up the existing system. A boy or in Canada would vote for their representatives in their provincial legislature, their national (or dominion as would likely be the term retained) parliament and the imperial parliament. Depending on the division of powers, one of two situations would likely exist:
1. Control over tariffs and trade are at the dominion level, and Canada has direct “Economic Independence” but has to cooperate with its fellow members on already agreed upon general policies like in the examples I provided above. These would have had to have been agreed upon by Canada’s parliament before coming into general effect for Canada, or at least the arrangement would.
2.Tariff and trade laws are set at the imperial level by an Imperial Parliament that Canada is a participant in. Therefore, they are part of the process for setting them. And a single blanket policy for the entire federation is unlikely as the trade situation is vastly different in different dominions.
I will grant you, #2 would be a harder sell in the 1800s when federation would have the most support in general, as British, or even just English, population would far outweigh any or all of the Dominions. Though it is probably the more sustainable option long term. And you are also quite correct that in OTL, the idea was not accepted by either the British or the Dominions, in spite of a fair bit of popular support.For such a situation to exist, there would need to be a more coherent federation proposal on the table, and a strong reason for the Dominions to get on board. A greater external threat would work, or perhaps the idea is the alternative to direct rule (ie, pre-1867). It is also correct that Quebec would likely resist such a move, though how much and wether this resistance would matter depends upon implementation.

Federation was not some plot by moustache-twirling Anglo Saxons to tie minorities to train tracks. It was an idea to maintain the empire in another form. It was not going to survive forever as it was, and British (probably English, though at the time the difference was academic from a dominion perspective) thinkers seemed to generally recognize this. What they couldn’t agree on was wether it was worth saving, and if so, wether saving it was worth giving up their dominance to keep it.
Had they done so, and had the Dominions accepted, which yes, would not be as easy as asking, then the common British Identity,the basis of which I would argue was already there, likely would have been reinforced over time. Eventually this would have either have to encompass other ethnic groups, or these groups would have to be released. It’s certainly wouldn’t be a simple process, or an easy one. But I don’t think it is impossible. “Anglo-Saxons” have about the same proportion of progressives as everyone else, to paint them otherwise is lazy history.

 

[kaymay]

The empire was some thing the American did not approve of at all. No matter what they wanted it gone and buried. We should handled to run down of India a lot better and millions died because of it. Common sense should have spotted the fact that as soon as India and Pakistan could they would dump the Queen and all that comes with it and declare that they would become republics. We should have brought Malta Cyprus and Gibraltar in to the UK as soon as we could. We should avoided Suez and let France and Israel go it alone but no we walked right into the trap just what the American wanted. Look at the American model of the states with Governor’s and then one up to the Republic. It’s almost like what the Empire was we just have the royal family it could have worked so easil.

 

[Dan1988]

We should have brought Malta Cyprus and Gibraltar in to the UK as soon as we could.

Problem with that was that Britain created a few problems with keeping nationalists in control of the educational systems, so that Greek Cypriots wanted union with Greece while Turkish Cypriots, if not a union with Turkey, preferred dividing the island up. That's a problem that should have been solved early on and had nothing to do with American pressure. Oh, and Cyprus would have much preferred to stay out of the UK in any case.

 

[Indicus]

1. Control over tariffs and trade are at the dominion level, and Canada has direct “Economic Independence” but has to cooperate with its fellow members on already agreed upon general policies like in the examples I provided above. These would have had to have been agreed upon by Canada’s parliament before coming into general effect for Canada, or at least the arrangement would.

That would hardly be a united Commonwealth. That would be little more than a customs union, and even that would be put at risk once the Canadian Parliament implements policies opposite to that of the Imperial Federation. It is possible for a customs union between Britain and Canada to exist, certainly, but it would be a weak customs union, and trade with the Empire would almost certainly be far less than trade with the US. And something like the 1911 reciprocity treaty would put even this customs union at risk.

A greater external threat would work, or perhaps the idea is the alternative to direct rule (ie, pre-1867).

A greater external threat would merely strengthen Canada's defence bonds with Britain. It would not magically allow all the hurdles acting against Imperial Federation to be surmounted.

Also pre-1867, there was not direct rule - self-government was well-established ever since the time of Robert Baldwin. While there were people like Lord John Russell who felt that there should be colonial representation to avoid the disintegration due to self-government, I must emphasize that colonial representation does not mean a closer Empire - it simply means colonial representation. More likely, Canada would have colonial representation for a time, but the MPs would be little more than elective ambassadors, and then even this would be abolished as part of one of the many reform acts, or alternatively by the Statute of Westminster

Federation was not some plot by moustache-twirling Anglo Saxons to tie minorities to train tracks.

When did I ever suggest that Imperial Federation advocates were vaudeville villains? Stop strawmanning my opinions because you cannot bear the reality that the British Empire was bad.

The fact is that Anglo-Saxon supremacist ideas were in vogue at the time and permeated all aspects of British society. So were ideas that ethnic groups make nations, as occurred with Germany. In this time, the Imperial Federation was an idea very much in vogue due to those reasons. I must also emphasize that Imperial Federation advocates were not the only Anglo Saxon supremacists - even the notable opponent of Empire, Goldwin Smith, was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist. The British Empire was a place where insane racial ideas were commonplace, and the only noted people who felt otherwise were on the fringes of British politics, like Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant.

Despite being the hobby horses of people like Joseph Chamberlain, even empire-loving Tories like Lord Salisbury were opposed to the idea of the Imperial Federation because they felt it would motivate the budding nationalist movements in the non-white colonies, and also because they did not feel that Britain would ever surrender control over its foreign policy to a colonial council. And this is Lord Salisbury, a very intelligent Tory who excelled at foreign policy and loved empire very much. Just because people like Joseph Chamberlain had Imperial Federation as their hobby horses does not suddenly make it plausible

Eventually this would have either have to encompass other ethnic groups, or these groups would have to be released.

It would never encompass other ethnic groups because that would destroy the treasured racial character of the Empire. The British Empire would become an Indian Empire, and that would be unacceptable to everyone, from anti-imperialist colonial nationalists to British Tories. And once other ethnic groups are released, it would remove the economic and structural connective tissue of the Empire, likely causing a collapse of the Empire.

“Anglo-Saxons” have about the same proportion of progressives as everyone else, to paint them otherwise is lazy history.

Certainly, Britain has had its fair share of racial progressives. Racial progressives, however, were (and are) anti-imperialist because they recognized that the British Empire was bad. Their ascent to power would amount to the destruction of the British Empire

 

[Dr Dee]

As I think I've said elsewhere, I think any United Commonwealth would need very, very serious decontamination from the stains of racism and exploitation - massive reparations, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, transformation of history teaching about the Empire in the UK and elsewhere, a generational cultural shift in attitudes towards the rest of the world. That would take a huge amount of time, and would be very difficult (I look on in utter despair at how the UK, after much self-congratulation about its multicultural nature during the time of the 2012 London Olympics, voted for Brexit in 2016). It sounds like the Imperial Federation idea was formulated because the British Empire could see the writing was on the wall in the face of other rising industrial and military powers of the late 19th century. If the Imperial Federation idea did have these Anglo Saxon supremacist roots, I can't see such an arrangement lasting if begun in the early 20th century - especially if there weren't further PODs involving WW1 and WW2.

However, perhaps over time, the same theoretical participants in any Imperial Federation would come to see that coming together for the purposes of 'common wealth' would make sense. A pooling of sovereignty would take place where Britain really would just be one of the gang, and certainly not primus inter pares. Perhaps it would only be in the late 20th/early 21st Century that a United Commonwealth of Nations could be feasible - thanks perhaps to countries moving on from the past and to technological/communication advances. The 'UCN' may occupy the same territory as the Imperial Federation but that would hopefully be as relevant to it as the fact that the EU occupies the same territory as the Nazi Neuordnung or the Roman Empire.

More broadly speaking, I'm astronomically suspicious of the whole CANZUK idea (that really does sound like an exclusive White Anglo Saxon Protestant British Empire 2.0) but the principle of smaller countries who now don't fit into any other larger bloc sticking together for mutual protection does sound appealing.

 

[kaymay]

Problem with that was that Britain created a few problems with keeping nationalists in control of the educational systems, so that Greek Cypriots wanted union with Greece while Turkish Cypriots, if not a union with Turkey, preferred dividing the island up. That's a problem that should have been solved early on and had nothing to do with American pressure. Oh, and Cyprus would have much preferred to stay out of the UK in any case.

Are you sure Cyprus would want to stay out not what I hear from my Cypriot wife and her family.

 

[Dr Dee]

Are you sure Cyprus would want to stay out not what I hear from my Cypriot wife and her family.

That's interesting. The only knowledge I have about it comes from Blue Water Empire by Robert Holland. He says that Cyprus was very keen on the British leaving, equally keen on enosis and very different from Malta.

 

[Dan1988]

Are you sure Cyprus would want to stay out not what I hear from my Cypriot wife and her family.

Well, the primary hope for Cypriots at the time (the Orthodox Christian ones, at least - I'm not going to get into specifics without making it sound so awful it violates the ToS) was that British colonization would only be a temporary phase, through which ultimately the UK would get out and Cyprus would unite with Greece. That was the long-standing goal, which those who adhered to the Islamic faith were afraid because they knew if union with Greece happened, they'd be expelled from Cyprus, and hence put up a "not again" type of defense. In the early years, though, things were a lot more fluid and it could have been possible to create a pluralistic Cypriot nationality separate from Greece which avoided all that nonsense, and which may or may not accept British authority, until it got rich enough that it would want out on the basis of the other Commonwealth realms/Dominions. What made that untenable was that the colonial government placed education in the hands of religious organizations, forming and crystallizing into place the Greek Cypriot (learning Katharevousa and later Standard Modern Greek, wanting union with Greece) and Turkish Cypriot (learning first Ottoman Turkish and later Modern Turkish, wanting either union with Turkey or a division of the island to preserve separate status) communal identities, thus allowing nationalists to obtain and retain control, which formed a great part of both the strife on the island and the independence struggle from Britain. Once Britain annexes Cyprus after a period of protectorate status under nominal Ottoman suzerainty but de facto British control, that would become a problem that would need to be addressed and not let fester - and to that end, integrating Cyprus into the UK as is post-WW2 is not going to happen unless Britain was willing to have something worse than Northern Ireland's Troubles going on under its watch. Otherwise, Cyprus would have preferred to stay out, but to what end would remain an open and controversial question.

 

[JohnBull]

As I think I've said elsewhere, I think any United Commonwealth would need very, very serious decontamination from the stains of racism and exploitation - massive reparations, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, transformation of history teaching about the Empire in the UK and elsewhere, a generational cultural shift in attitudes towards the rest of the world. That would take a huge amount of time, and would be very difficult (I look on in utter despair at how the UK, after much self-congratulation about its multicultural nature during the time of the 2012 London Olympics, voted for Brexit in 2016). It sounds like the Imperial Federation idea was formulated because the British Empire could see the writing was on the wall in the face of other rising industrial and military powers of the late 19th century. If the Imperial Federation idea did have these Anglo Saxon supremacist roots, I can't see such an arrangement lasting if begun in the early 20th century - especially if there weren't further PODs involving WW1 and WW2.

However, perhaps over time, the same theoretical participants in any Imperial Federation would come to see that coming together for the purposes of 'common wealth' would make sense. A pooling of sovereignty would take place where Britain really would just be one of the gang, and certainly not primus inter pares. Perhaps it would only be in the late 20th/early 21st Century that a United Commonwealth of Nations could be feasible - thanks perhaps to countries moving on from the past and to technological/communication advances. The 'UCN' may occupy the same territory as the Imperial Federation but that would hopefully be as relevant to it as the fact that the EU occupies the same territory as the Nazi Neuordnung or the Roman Empire.

More broadly speaking, I'm astronomically suspicious of the whole CANZUK idea (that really does sound like an exclusive White Anglo Saxon Protestant British Empire 2.0) but the principle of smaller countries who now don't fit into any other larger bloc sticking together for mutual protection does sound appealing.

I believe that's a bit of an anachronism. 1950's Commonwealth was alligned with the world of its time, in fact, I'd say it was actually more progressive. Racism and exploitation didn't stop the US to become the most powerful country ever following the WWII. That's why I don't believe racism was a factor for its ultimate failure. Member countries were very different from each other, wrong choices were made (from a Commonwealth survival perspective) and that's why it ended.

About CANZUK, why would it be anything different from EU ("Europeans only"), or OECD ("Whites only"), etc.? UK, Can, Aus and NZ are all multicultural and progressive countries on their own and any organization they would be part of it had to reflect their values. And if some form of de facto CANZUK had emerged from a stronger Commonwealth with a POD in the 1950's I hardly doubt how that would make them any less progressive they ended up being today. They would probably even more an outward-looking.

 

[marathag]

no we walked right into the trap just what the American wanted

Not what Ike wanted.Without that sideshow in the Mideast, Ike would have been able to beatup on the Soviets over their treatment of Hungary.

Keeping the US out of the loop was the worst choice, not the France/UK/Israel did a Team-up

 

[ArtosStark]

And good riddance - the Imperial Federation was a racist idea based on Anglo-Saxon supremacist sentiments. If the power is located in Canadian Parliament, you no longer have any sort of Imperial Federation.

When did I ever suggest that Imperial Federation advocates were vaudeville villains? Stop strawmanning my opinions because you cannot bear the reality that the British Empire was bad.

You will perhaps understand my confusion as to your objectivity.
Regardless, my intent was not to create a strawman, and I apologize if I have done so. I have a quote that has always stuck with me that I think appropriate here. I heard it second hand and have not been able to confirm either its source or its existence, but I believe it was from G.K Chesterson and went something like this "Politicians like to use Medical terminology. They will say "Our nation is sick. Elect me and I will make it better. This is a very dangerous comparison. Because if you go into the hospital with an illness the doctors may disagree on what the problem is but they will all agree on what a healthy body looks like. So they may, by necessity send you home with one leg less but they will not, on a whim, send you home with one leg more. But politics has no such agreement, and what to one person is the cure for all the country's ills to another is worse than the disease itself."

What I am trying to emphasize is that we are straying into the subjective here. The question, as I understand it, is whether a common British Identity could be forged out of a wider union of at least portions of the British Empire. I believe it is possible, you do not. Though I disagree with your conclusions, your reasons have, I think, been well reasoned and I hope mine have as well. Getting into beliefs on whether such a cultural union is desirable is somewhat outside of the scope of the question. Your assumption of my own position is both incorrect and uncalled for.

 

[Indicus]

Your assumption of my own position is both incorrect and uncalled for.

I apologize for that. I should not have assumed that you hold pro-imperialist views. Imperialism was awful, and to accuse anyone of holding pro-imperialist views is an egregious insult.

 

[JohnBull]

What I am trying to emphasize is that we are straying into the subjective here. The question, as I understand it, is whether a common British Identity could be forged out of a wider union of at least portions of the British Empire. I believe it is possible, you do not. Though I disagree with your conclusions, your reasons have, I think, been well reasoned and I hope mine have as well. Getting into beliefs on whether such a cultural union is desirable is somewhat outside of the scope of the question. Your assumption of my own position is both incorrect and uncalled for.

I don't think it's productive to recude the discussion on whether the British Empire was good or evil or if one likes it or not. Empires get lots of bad publicity but their are not particularly worse than nation-states, tribes or other human organizations.

To me calling British Empire "evil" strikes me as strange as to call the United States or Australia or any country as the same.

 

[ArtosStark]

I apologize for that. I should not have assumed that you hold pro-imperialist views. Imperialism was awful, and to accuse anyone of holding pro-imperialist views is an egregious insult.

While I am not pro-imperialist per se, I believe it, like most things in history, are more complicated than we make them sound.

I don't think it's productive to recude the discussion on whether the British Empire was good or evil or if one likes it or not. Empires get lots of bad publicity but their are not particularly worse than nation-states, tribes or other human organizations.

To me calling British Empire "evil" strikes me as strange as to call the United States or Australia or any country as the same.

I very much agree.

As I think I've said elsewhere, I think any United Commonwealth would need very, very serious decontamination from the stains of racism and exploitation - massive reparations, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, transformation of history teaching about the Empire in the UK and elsewhere, a generational cultural shift in attitudes towards the rest of the world. That would take a huge amount of time, and would be very difficult (I look on in utter despair at how the UK, after much self-congratulation about its multicultural nature during the time of the 2012 London Olympics, voted for Brexit in 2016). It sounds like the Imperial Federation idea was formulated because the British Empire could see the writing was on the wall in the face of other rising industrial and military powers of the late 19th century. If the Imperial Federation idea did have these Anglo Saxon supremacist roots, I can't see such an arrangement lasting if begun in the early 20th century - especially if there weren't further PODs involving WW1 and WW2.

However, perhaps over time, the same theoretical participants in any Imperial Federation would come to see that coming together for the purposes of 'common wealth' would make sense. A pooling of sovereignty would take place where Britain really would just be one of the gang, and certainly not primus inter pares. Perhaps it would only be in the late 20th/early 21st Century that a United Commonwealth of Nations could be feasible - thanks perhaps to countries moving on from the past and to technological/communication advances. The 'UCN' may occupy the same territory as the Imperial Federation but that would hopefully be as relevant to it as the fact that the EU occupies the same territory as the Nazi Neuordnung or the Roman Empire.

More broadly speaking, I'm astronomically suspicious of the whole CANZUK idea (that really does sound like an exclusive White Anglo Saxon Protestant British Empire 2.0) but the principle of smaller countries who now don't fit into any other larger bloc sticking together for mutual protection does sound appealing.

I think its unlikely you will ever eliminate racism from a nation or people group. People define themselves as much by what they are not as by what they are, and that causes us to draw lines between "us" and "them". Exposure to other people and cultures in a positive or even neutral environment does often modify peoples views, and I think a more integrated polity that goes through the same cultural transformations that most nations did in the 20th century would likely define "us" in a larger sense. This wouldn't eliminate racism in its entirety though.

 

[Indicus]

I don't think it's productive to recude the discussion on whether the British Empire was good or evil or if one likes it or not. Empires get lots of bad publicity but their are not particularly worse than nation-states, tribes or other human organizations.

On the contrary, empires are inherently evil. Imperialism is, by definition, the domination of a people by an authority foreign to them. This is inherently tyrannical in the same way that dictatorship, absolute monarchy, and oligarchy are inherently tyrannical. It is a violation of the sacrosanct principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and to their corollaries of self-determination and popular sovereignty.

To me calling British Empire "evil" strikes me as strange as to call the United States or Australia or any country as the same.

It is not. Calling the British Empire evil is to call a regime evil. At the end of the day, that's all the British Empire was - a tyrannical regime - and likewise with all other colonial empires which have ever existed.

 

[JohnBull]

It is a violation of the sacrosanct principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and to their corollaries of self-determination and popular sovereignty.

There is a country that loudly embraced those principals while conducting horrible genocides against Amerindians or institutionalizing racism. The world is not black-and-white.

The British Empire was not even one political entity, but more an umbrella term. It was just a collection of territories that was brought under London control for the most different reasons and ruled in lots of different ways. Australian farmers hunting down natives were not something British government approved and couldn't be more different from a British official in India disliking Christian missionaires or the racism of British settlers in Calcutta. That's just people acting, regardless being part of an empire, nation-state or tribe.

Pretty much any state organization was formed using violence and ignoring whole sections of society. Empires are not special in this regard, let alone being uniform: the Roman Empire, British Empire, Mughal Empire, Mongol Empire, Ming China, Ottoman Empire don't have that much in common.