More 'Anglicised' Deeply Integrated British Empire

[mtg999]

What if the British Empire had promoted a deeper level of cultural integration than in OTL?

I am thinking here of it being more like the OTL French Empire.

In Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilisations' it is stated in a section on Africa, that France is still considered the 'core state' of Francophone Africa in a way that the UK is not for Anglophone Africa.

The African elite in places like Senegal have retained a sort of admiration for France and its culture and society that the elite in places such as Kenya, Zambia etc have not.

For instance the Commonwealth of Nations is a lot less close than La Francophonie.

This is often posited to be because of the greater universalism of French colonialism in the 19th century, which stressed deep intergration with French norms, rather than the lighter form of integration that British colonialism promoted.

What POD is required for the British Empire to be more deeply intergrated or even 'Anglicised'?

How would the world be different now?

 

[mtg999]

Any thoughts on this ATL?

 

[rcduggan]

Decolonization might be delayed, as people who feel more affinity towards the colonists' culture might not push for independence as much as they did IOTL. So possibly a longer-lasting British empire, and when in finally breaks up, better relations between the colonies and Britain.

 

[ninebucks]

Well, I tend to take Huntington with more than a pinch of salt, (i.e. I think his argument is pure nonsense).

In any case, I would argue that any degree of pro-France sentiment amongst the nations of Francophonic Africa is more due to the way modern France has interacted with these nations since their independence. Almost all of the Francophonic African élites are French-educated, and I would think that all those personal experiences of care-free student days in Gay Parie would be more of an influence in later pro-France-ism than the colonial policies of a hundred years hence.

 

[mtg999]

Well, I tend to take Huntington with more than a pinch of salt, (i.e. I think his argument is pure nonsense).

In any case, I would argue that any degree of pro-France sentiment amongst the nations of Francophonic Africa is more due to the way modern France has interacted with these nations since their independence. Almost all of the Francophonic African élites are French-educated, and I would think that all those personal experiences of care-free student days in Gay Parie would be more of an influence in later pro-France-ism than the colonial policies of a hundred years hence.

I also take Huntington with a grain of salt, however I think on this particular observation he is correct.

Your point about their student experiences is interesting. Was it the case (as I believe it was) that France didn't as a rule establish universities in its colonies to the extent that the UK did, therefore making it necessary for the elite to travel to Paris? I say this as it has been noted by many that indigenous elites educated in their homelands were far more nationalistic than ones who had travelled to the 'mother country' so to speak.

 

[Tyr]

A lot of that is debatable there. There is a lot of Anglophillia in many African nations, just look at how many of Africa's best went to university in Britain.

But otherwise...It isn't the British way.
Britain was about modernising the existing cultures. France was about spreading French culture.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

If you come at this from a whole different point then it may be possible. If there is greater white settlement in Kenya, Rhodesia, and South Africa (to balance out the Boers) then these whites will remain quite close to the motherland so long as the UK doesn't have an attack of conscious and decide that they no longer support white minority-rule. I think that OTL South Africa proved that you don't need an incredibly large part of the population in order to rule, so tweak up the white populations in Rhodesia and Kenya to SA-level % of white-non-white ratios and presto, permanent white-minority governments.

Now we just need to figure out how to get the British to continue to support these regimes, which I think will have something to do with someone shouting "black communists" enough for the United States to decide that white-minority rule is something to be supported. If we have those regimes as recipients of American-aid in their nuclear programs, well then you've basically guarenteed that they can rule as long as they wish.*

There, we have a rather dysfunctionially "Anglized" British Empire.

*I am of the opinion that SA's nuclear program was aimed internally, in order to be the weapon of last resort in case of a conventionally uncontrollable black uprising.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I also take Huntington with a grain of salt, however I think on this particular observation he is correct.

Your point about their student experiences is interesting. Was it the case (as I believe it was) that France didn't as a rule establish universities in its colonies to the extent that the UK did, therefore making it necessary for the elite to travel to Paris? I say this as it has been noted by many that indigenous elites educated in their homelands were far more nationalistic than ones who had travelled to the 'mother country' so to speak.

It's a bunch of bunk. The former French empire depends on France more than the former British empire because French Africa was mostly desert and completely incapable of surviving without French assistance - for example most of Chad would have been annexed by Libya by now if the French hadn't moved to defend it. The areas of the French empire that are more viable, like Algeria, fought to the death to get rid of them. Tunis, Morocco, and Vietnam also have little connection to France.

French is no different than English in being a convenient and on-hand neutral medium for communication between diverse peoples that make up the populations of these states.

 

[Marius]

*I am of the opinion that SA's nuclear program was aimed internally, in order to be the weapon of last resort in case of a conventionally uncontrollable black uprising.

That is ASBs in my opinion. SA's nukes were for use (as a last resort) against the Cubans, and their allies in Africa, if they ever got to the point of threatening SA's territotial integrity. Any uprising against the apartheid government would have been in the urban townships and shanty towns. Nuking Soweto, for example, which is only about 20km outside the Johannesburg city centre would have been unthinkable. Even more so, Alexandra, which is 5km from upmarket Sandton in Johannesburg. And any international sympathy for the apartheid government would be lost forever, should they nuke their own people.

The apartheid government may have been brutal, stubborn and racist, but they weren't mass murderers or stupid.

 

[mtg999]

That is ASBs in my opinion. SA's nukes were for use (as a last resort) against the Cubans, and their allies in Africa, if they ever got to the point of threatening SA's territotial integrity. Any uprising against the apartheid government would have been in the urban townships and shanty towns. Nuking Soweto, for example, which is only about 20km outside the Johannesburg city centre would have been unthinkable. Even more so, Alexandra, which is 5km from upmarket Sandton in Johannesburg. And any international sympathy for the apartheid government would be lost forever, should they nuke their own people.

The apartheid government may have been brutal, stubborn and racist, but they weren't mass murderers or stupid.

I have to agree that the idea of SA nuking it's own citizen when the white cities were only 20kms or so away is very ASB! I can however see in the event of a complete civil war between the whites and black nationalists the apartheid govt using small-scale chemical and biological warfare against areas of rebel control. Towards the end of the Bush War in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) in the late 1970's the Smith Administration used biological measures against rebels stronghold along the Mozambique border, i.e. infecting food with anthrax and cholera in the water supply (I believe that this only came to light in SA Truth and Reconcilliation hearings in the 90's).

 

[mtg999]

A lot of that is debatable there. There is a lot of Anglophillia in many African nations, just look at how many of Africa's best went to university in Britain.

But otherwise...It isn't the British way.
Britain was about modernising the existing cultures. France was about spreading French culture.

Have to agree with you. I would assume that it's a lot to with the French 'Republican Ideal' of a universalistic culture for all mankind.

I wonder what POD would be required for the UK to develop such a culture?

 

[mtg999]

Colonial Paradox

This is rather an un-related side issue but I'll put it up anyway.

From my reading I've noticed a rather peculiar paradox in the comparative colonial regimes of European powers. Those that were particularly segrationist and ascribed to notions of biological racism (British, Dutch) were also relatively tolerant to a degree of anti-colonial political organisations forming and participating in peaceful politics (especially in the British case). However the more intergrationist, less racist (French and Portuguese) were extremely brutal in crushing dissent to colonialism.

Any thoughts on the reason for this paradox?

 

[arctic warrior]

This is rather an un-related side issue but I'll put it up anyway.

From my reading I've noticed a rather peculiar paradox in the comparative colonial regimes of European powers. Those that were particularly segrationist and ascribed to notions of biological racism (British, Dutch) were also relatively tolerant to a degree of anti-colonial political organisations forming and participating in peaceful politics (especially in the British case). However the more intergrationist, less racist (French and Portuguese) were extremely brutal in crushing dissent to colonialism.

Any thoughts on the reason for this paradox?

Looks to me like the British system of initially ruling by proxy served to have natives fight natives with the Brits supporting their proxy. This would not make anti-colonial political organizations that dangerous except as in the case with Gandhi where it was the removal of British colonial rule that was the objective. Any organization treatening the proxy rule could be twarted by the proxy supported by the Brits thus not endangering British supremacy i.e. any threat would be directed against the rule not Britain.

The French case would be different as integration with France would make ANY objection against the rule an objection against FRANCE!

Quite some difference.

 

[mtg999]

Looks to me like the British system of initially ruling by proxy served to have natives fight natives with the Brits supporting their proxy. This would not make anti-colonial political organizations that dangerous except as in the case with Gandhi where it was the removal of British colonial rule that was the objective. Any organization treatening the proxy rule could be twarted by the proxy supported by the Brits thus not endangering British supremacy i.e. any threat would be directed against the rule not Britain.

The French case would be different as integration with France would make ANY objection against the rule an objection against FRANCE!

Quite some difference.

Interesting thoughts which I have to agree with.

Even with Gandhi considering the threat he posed to British rule the UK dealth with his rather 'leniently' (in relative terms). Ho Chi Minh once said that if India had been ruled by the French, Gandhi wouldn't have been jailed, he instead would have been shot (not executed after a trial but just shot).

Whilst by the early 20th century both the UK and France had due process in their domestic spheres, it seems that the UK had due process (to an extent) in their colonies whereas France didn't.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Interesting thoughts which I have to agree with.

Even with Gandhi considering the threat he posed to British rule the UK dealth with his rather 'leniently' (in relative terms). Ho Chi Minh once said that if India had been ruled by the French, Gandhi wouldn't have been jailed, he instead would have been shot (not executed after a trial but just shot).

Whilst by the early 20th century both the UK and France had due process in their domestic spheres, it seems that the UK had due process (to an extent) in their colonies whereas France didn't.

I think the British had the best history of any of the colonial powers, from the standpoint of the most stable and equitable history. The British hadn't dealt with true authoritarianism since Cromwell's Protectorate, whereas the continental Europeans had been dealing with various authoritarian regimes through the 19th century.

Is there some single POD that could make the Metropolitan UK more amenable to limited home rule within directly ruled regions (especially Ireland and India)?

Perhaps a Parnellite Home Rule Bill passes (no Parnell affair=home rule bill in this scenario) which leads to a general liberalizing attitude towards the colonies. India is given a limited measure of Home Rule post-WWI. Since India is now firmly within the Empire the financial motivation to stay in Africa is still present (presumably under this scenario Commonwealth or Anglosphere or whatever the name is nations share the costs of Empire). Post-WWII African governments get more self-rule, but they are following a path that has been well tread by Ireland and India, so there is not a push for immediate de-colonization and the independent self-rule. Deeper British influence means more loyalty to free market capitalism and general transparency (two notes: 1-something that I think it is fair to say African political regimes and corporate relations tend to lack is transparency and 2- free market capitalism generally fosters transparency in politics and business).

Deeper Angliezation Completed?

 

[mtg999]

It's a bunch of bunk. The former French empire depends on France more than the former British empire because French Africa was mostly desert and completely incapable of surviving without French assistance - for example most of Chad would have been annexed by Libya by now if the French hadn't moved to defend it. The areas of the French empire that are more viable, like Algeria, fought to the death to get rid of them. Tunis, Morocco, and Vietnam also have little connection to France.

French is no different than English in being a convenient and on-hand neutral medium for communication between diverse peoples that make up the populations of these states.

I would have to agree that much of the close connection between France and its former colonies is due to realpolitic more than anything else. However I do think it could be said that in many of the 'black' former French colonies in Africa there is a fairly close cultural connection.

I would think that it is a lot to do with the fact that the French had a far greater tendency to look on the native elite as (almost) equals (so long as they were fully integrated into French norms) compared to the British.

There is one or two examples of the British Empire doing this. One would be Fiji (I know this as I'm half indigenous Fijian). There the indigenous population is very deeply Anglicised, especially the elite. In the lead-up to independence in 1970. most independence movements were heavily Indian-dominated.

The indigenous elites were highly integrated into the economic structure of Fijian society, it was (and is) law that most agricultural land is owned by indigenous land-owners and it was leased on 99-year terms to Europeans (and Indians). This helped to create a co-opted 'rentier class' among the indigenous elite. Perhaps if in places like Kenya, Zimbabwe and other former British colonies, such a system of land ownership prevailed, it would have similar effects?

 

[flaja]

What if the British Empire had promoted a deeper level of cultural integration than in OTL?

I am thinking here of it being more like the OTL French Empire.

In Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilisations' it is stated in a section on Africa, that France is still considered the 'core state' of Francophone Africa in a way that the UK is not for Anglophone Africa.

The African elite in places like Senegal have retained a sort of admiration for France and its culture and society that the elite in places such as Kenya, Zambia etc have not.

For instance the Commonwealth of Nations is a lot less close than La Francophonie.

This is often posited to be because of the greater universalism of French colonialism in the 19th century, which stressed deep intergration with French norms, rather than the lighter form of integration that British colonialism promoted.

What POD is required for the British Empire to be more deeply intergrated or even 'Anglicised'?

How would the world be different now?

English is the first or second language of something like 1,000,000,000 of the world’s people. The U.S., Canada, Australia and India all have governments based on British democratic precedents.

How much more integration could their be?

Most places that were once British colonies are stable countries with highly prosperous economies, while former French colonies are places like Haiti and Vietnam.

 

[flaja]

If you come at this from a whole different point then it may be possible. If there is greater white settlement in

Kenya, Rhodesia, and South Africa (to balance out the Boers) then these whites will remain quite close to the motherland so long as the UK doesn't have an attack of conscious and decide that they no longer support white minority-rule.

Or these British African nations eventually decide that want either home rule with independence (U.S.) or home rule with commonwealth status (Canada and Australia).

I think that OTL South Africa proved that you don't need an incredibly large part of the population in order to rule, so tweak up the white populations in

Rhodesia and Kenya to SA-level % of white-non-white ratios and presto, permanent white-minority governments.

I’ve seen material on BBC TV that suggests that race-relations in the U.K. are far better than they have ever been in the U.S. The whites that established apartheid in South Africa have Dutch ancestry, not British. How long would a British white minority in places like Rhodesia have accepted minority white rule?

 

[flaja]

That is ASBs in my opinion. SA's nukes were for use (as a last resort) against the Cubans, and their allies in Africa, if they ever got to the point of threatening SA's territotial integrity. Any uprising against the apartheid government would have been in the urban townships and shanty towns. Nuking Soweto, for example, which is only about 20km outside the Johannesburg city centre would have been unthinkable. Even more so, Alexandra, which is 5km from upmarket Sandton in Johannesburg. And any international sympathy for the apartheid government would be lost forever, should they nuke their own people.

A Hiroshima-size atomic bomb that is airburst does not produce fallout. It would expose people near the blast, but not close enough to be killed by the blast, to levels of radiation that could cause cancer later on, but a nuclear bomb causes fallout only if its detonated at ground level so it can draw soil and debris into the mushroom cloud so fallout can be distributed by the wind.

 

[flaja]

Have to agree with you. I would assume that it's a lot to with the French 'Republican Ideal' of a universalistic culture for all mankind.

I wonder what POD would be required for the UK to develop such a culture?

The French want a universal culture only as long as it is French. The French don’t respect cultural diversity the way the Brits do.