More 'Anglicised' Deeply Integrated British Empire

[flaja]

WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!

Moslems have a history of discriminating against and persecuting Jews and Christians for not being Muslims and this is an ongoing policy in most, if not all, Islamic nations. Therefore Muslims are unfit for democracy.

 

[Talkie Toaster]

Moslems have a history of discriminating against and persecuting Jews and Christians for not being Muslims and this is an ongoing policy in most, if not all, Islamic nations. Therefore Muslims are unfit for democracy.

Christians have a history of persecuting Jews and Muslims (and other Christians) for not following their specific branch, so I don't really know where you're going with that. All races, nations and religions have bad events in their past.

Anyone been killed in Turkey for not being a Muslim lately? Morocco?

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Moslems have a history of discriminating against and persecuting Jews and Christians for not being Muslims and this is an ongoing policy in most, if not all, Islamic nations. Therefore Muslims are unfit for democracy.

Then by your definition, England is just as bad. There was religious discrimination (catholics anyone) and the english actually banned all Jews from England for centuries (many died during the process of exiling them).

Please then tell me why this England is fit for democracy while countries like the Ottoman Empire (muslim) actually accepted all the Jews that fled the inquisition in Spain.

Nothing is black and white. Please don't make horrifically bigoted generalities.

 

[Talkie Toaster]

Then by your definition, England is just as bad. There was religious discrimination (catholics anyone) and the english actually banned all Jews from England for centuries (many died during the process of exiling them).

Please then tell me why this England is fit for democracy while countries like the Ottoman Empire (muslim) actually accepted all the Jews that fled the inquisition in Spain.

Nothing is black and white. Please don't make horrifically bigoted generalities.

Thank you. Precisely my point.

 

[Ian the Admin]

Moslems have a history of discriminating against and persecuting Jews and Christians for not being Muslims and this is an ongoing policy in most, if not all, Islamic nations. Therefore Muslims are unfit for democracy.

Right then, combined with your habit of insulting those who disagree with you, banned.

 

[Roberto]

Right then, combined with your habit of insulting those who disagree with you, banned.

Thanks, Ian. He was on here for much too long.

 

[mtg999]

That won't work though. If you give non-Anglos any representation at all, they will want equality, and the need for political alliances will inevitably cause them to get it.

Example: The Liberals need the Indians to form a ruling majority, the price being increasing the proportion of Indian representation.

Eventually, it's the Indian Empire. Or the British population gets tired of seeing power shifting into the hands of "brown people" and ends the relationship.

Whilst I agree that eventually unequal representation will eventually be untenable I don't think that it would become inherently unstable until well in the post-war period. Giving the Indians some representation will be sufficient to (rightly or wrongly) co-opt the native elite into supporting the British.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Whilst I agree that eventually unequal representation will eventually be untenable I don't think that it would become inherently unstable until well in the post-war period. Giving the Indians some representation will be sufficient to (rightly or wrongly) co-opt the native elite into supporting the British.

Why do you assume that? That never really works. The Ottomans gave EQUAL representation to Christians - actually, representation tilted in their favor, and it failed to co-opt them, and they lived in the same country with a largely common culture. India is all the way across the planet and nakedly and totally different culturally.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Well what do you think of my proposal that the POD be Parnell's Home Rule Ireland comes to pass?

If you have Ireland with limited self-government, then this will create the president for colonial self-government.

India could get Home Rule, but it would not be outright independence, just control over some purely domestic portfolios. With the far greater British involvement in the creation of the government, there will also be far greater British influence on the shape of this government, ie India would not be able to go down the route of Nehru's state socialism.

Thus you could end up with a situation where the British Parliament is able to exercise effective Imperial control, even as it allows parts of the Empire more and more self-rule. With this slower transition to independence I think that the resulting independent government will look much more "British" and probably be much more in tune with things like free market economics.

This slow transition will also allow time for the local elite to learn how to govern. One could term this "government with training wheels". This will end up creating stronger post-independence governments because the people running the country are used to running the country.

If you keep India in the Empire longer then this will have major knock-on effects in Africa. If you look at the British Empire, it was obviously that India had the national conscious and native political elite ready to take the country independent. In Africa there was not the same level of national consciouness, and in many places the British simply pulled out without much preparation of the colony for self-rule. With this slower approach to independence the African colonies will have a chance to govern themselves and maybe work out some of the simmering tribal issues before the stabilizing influence of the British goes away. What I'm thinking is that the rule of law may be stronger, and the legitimacy of civilian governments stronger as well. Perhaps British colonies in Africa are able to run relatively stable, relatively democratic countries from the get-go?

 

[johnm]

I took a modern Indian history course last semester and one of the impressions I got from our study of the British colonial period was that the Britons essentially gave the Indians more credit on the civilisation scale due to the advanced intellectual, religious, and political state (in British eyes, anyways) of Indian culture at the time of the East India Company's conquest. Hence the fascination with India we see later in the imperial era, with English gentlemen wearing turbans and whatnot. Whereas in Africa, local cultures at the time of conquest were far less developed, or at least lacked civilisation in forms comprehensible by Britons, like written histories or organised governments. Therefore I think Africa was kind of doomed by this. If Great Zimbabwe had been thriving when the British arrived, I think that at least that part of Africa too would have been granted a little less condescension in making moves towards self-government. But I think that the stability in India after independence (at least compared to Britain's former African colonies) is largely the result of British paternalism: viewing the Indians as more civilised, and therefore more worthy of being imparted with British political education etc., than Africans, hence post-independence government being run almost exclusively by white descendants of British settlers.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Fragmenting into separate hostile countries and fighting horrific wars is not exactly a stellar performance. If the British had not used divide and rule to set the Muslims and Hindus against each other I think it might have turned out better. For everyone. Sometimes imperial rule is even more disruptive to more advanced societies.

I took a modern Indian history course last semester and one of the impressions I got from our study of the British colonial period was that the Britons essentially gave the Indians more credit on the civilisation scale due to the advanced intellectual, religious, and political state (in British eyes, anyways) of Indian culture at the time of the East India Company's conquest. Hence the fascination with India we see later in the imperial era, with English gentlemen wearing turbans and whatnot. Whereas in Africa, local cultures at the time of conquest were far less developed, or at least lacked civilisation in forms comprehensible by Britons, like written histories or organised governments. Therefore I think Africa was kind of doomed by this. If Great Zimbabwe had been thriving when the British arrived, I think that at least that part of Africa too would have been granted a little less condescension in making moves towards self-government. But I think that the stability in India after independence (at least compared to Britain's former African colonies) is largely the result of British paternalism: viewing the Indians as more civilised, and therefore more worthy of being imparted with British political education etc., than Africans, hence post-independence government being run almost exclusively by white descendants of British settlers.

 

[mtg999]

Well what do you think of my proposal that the POD be Parnell's Home Rule Ireland comes to pass?

If you have Ireland with limited self-government, then this will create the president for colonial self-government.

India could get Home Rule, but it would not be outright independence, just control over some purely domestic portfolios. With the far greater British involvement in the creation of the government, there will also be far greater British influence on the shape of this government, ie India would not be able to go down the route of Nehru's state socialism.

Thus you could end up with a situation where the British Parliament is able to exercise effective Imperial control, even as it allows parts of the Empire more and more self-rule. With this slower transition to independence I think that the resulting independent government will look much more "British" and probably be much more in tune with things like free market economics.

This slow transition will also allow time for the local elite to learn how to govern. One could term this "government with training wheels". This will end up creating stronger post-independence governments because the people running the country are used to running the country.

If you keep India in the Empire longer then this will have major knock-on effects in Africa. If you look at the British Empire, it was obviously that India had the national conscious and native political elite ready to take the country independent. In Africa there was not the same level of national consciouness, and in many places the British simply pulled out without much preparation of the colony for self-rule. With this slower approach to independence the African colonies will have a chance to govern themselves and maybe work out some of the simmering tribal issues before the stabilizing influence of the British goes away. What I'm thinking is that the rule of law may be stronger, and the legitimacy of civilian governments stronger as well. Perhaps British colonies in Africa are able to run relatively stable, relatively democratic countries from the get-go?

I think this is a very interesting point. Certainly if Ireland had got home rule earlier it would make the British more inclined toward decentralised administration.

However, much as the British discriminated against the Irish in many ways, I think it would still be seen differently than non-white nations. It definitely could influence the attitude toward the Indians, but probably not the Africans.

 

[mtg999]

I took a modern Indian history course last semester and one of the impressions I got from our study of the British colonial period was that the Britons essentially gave the Indians more credit on the civilisation scale due to the advanced intellectual, religious, and political state (in British eyes, anyways) of Indian culture at the time of the East India Company's conquest. Hence the fascination with India we see later in the imperial era, with English gentlemen wearing turbans and whatnot. Whereas in Africa, local cultures at the time of conquest were far less developed, or at least lacked civilisation in forms comprehensible by Britons, like written histories or organised governments. Therefore I think Africa was kind of doomed by this. If Great Zimbabwe had been thriving when the British arrived, I think that at least that part of Africa too would have been granted a little less condescension in making moves towards self-government. But I think that the stability in India after independence (at least compared to Britain's former African colonies) is largely the result of British paternalism: viewing the Indians as more civilised, and therefore more worthy of being imparted with British political education etc., than Africans, hence post-independence government being run almost exclusively by white descendants of British settlers.

I have to agree with you here, vis-a-vis the much greater respect for Indian culture showed by the British compared to African culture. I can see the British being much more willing to grant self-rule to India than Africa.

However on the cultural integration side, I think it more likely that the British would have attempted to bring wholesale UK culture to Africa. The existence of a very disparate tribal culture in Africa would relatively speaking enable a form of cultural imperialism, compared to the (comparatively) monolithic Hindu culture in India.

For instance at least in comparative terms the French were more succesful at enculturation of African elites into French norms than Algerian and other Arab elites.

 

[mtg999]

Why do you assume that? That never really works. The Ottomans gave EQUAL representation to Christians - actually, representation tilted in their favor, and it failed to co-opt them, and they lived in the same country with a largely common culture. India is all the way across the planet and nakedly and totally different culturally.

True and the British Empire would eventually disintergrate anyway, like all historical empires. However better co-optation would delay it by many many decades.

For instance, it has been suggested and I would agree, that the apartheid regime in South Africa would still exist to this day if it had enfranchised the Indians and Coloureds earliers (say in the 1950's). Firstly it would reduce the opposition of India to apartheid (which led the OTL opposition in the UN). It would also give the SA govt a greater amount of non-black people to man the armed forces etc with.

It would also possibly reduce Western opposition (it would easier to argue that they are doing a very gradual movement toward majority rule), especially as the Indian and Coloured popn is roughly equal to the whites, it would be said not to be openly racist.

 

[Jape]

I think a Unified Empire State is a little ASB. The best I think you could get would be an earlier Home Rule Act, perhaps based on confederation (ala A-H and quite popular c.1900) instead of dominion/independence as a precedent

If the Liberal Unionists under Joe Chamberlain can get into government, they would have pushed for Commonwealth/Empire economic zone and Imperial Navy.

Combine these more federal moves with Indian Dominion post-WWI and strong Imperial Council (made up of British and Dominion ministers) ala the EU's Council of Ministers and I think you could get a stronger Commonwealth, combining local autonomy with international cooperation into a confederate system.

However black Africa would probably not get anything like this pre-1950, remember in OTL the 1945 Labour govt. while leaving India and Palestine was investing long-term into Africa for military bases and economic migration.

At best you might get this earlier, Westminster and the new Confederate Commonwealth investing to civilise Africa via white migration, railways, industry etc. and local limited autonomy as a first phrase ot joing the Commonwealth completly

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I think a Unified Empire State is a little ASB. The best I think you could get would be an earlier Home Rule Act, perhaps based on confederation (ala A-H and quite popular c.1900) instead of dominion/independence as a precedent

If the Liberal Unionists under Joe Chamberlain can get into government, they would have pushed for Commonwealth/Empire economic zone and Imperial Navy.

Combine these more federal moves with Indian Dominion post-WWI and strong Imperial Council (made up of British and Dominion ministers) ala the EU's Council of Ministers and I think you could get a stronger Commonwealth, combining local autonomy with international cooperation into a confederate system.

So expanded home rule to the non-white bits of the Empire in other words.

A Home Rule India would probably include the whole sub-continent, with no Pakistan-India divide.

I think the issues in Palestine would probably still exist, since I don't see this Home Rule thing working out very well vis a vis the Jews and Arabs in British Palestine.

However black Africa would probably not get anything like this pre-1950, remember in OTL the 1945 Labour govt. while leaving India and Palestine was investing long-term into Africa for military bases and economic migration.

Ya, that was the problem that Africa had with most of its European colonizers. The Europeans' African colonies were net financial losses, but the Asian colonies (I think this was the case for the Dutch and French as well as the British) were profitable, so the whole colonial venture paid for itself. The Asian colonies all had very active nationalists post-WWII, so they broke away from the European empires, and once they did the African colonies no longer looked like such a good deal. So you had very quick withdrawals from countries that were not ready to be left on their own.

If you give India limited Home Rule post-WWI, then I think that you've definitely kept India in the Empire for longer than OTL. You've also opened up the Indian economy to investment, and given a much longer lead time for the native Indian elite to decide that free market capitalism is the way to go. With British investment in the Indian economy, maybe you've somewhat solved (or at least mitigated) the financial costs that the British Empire is going to incur when India finally gets totally independent. The British will be able to continue making money in their former colony in the TL.

Also, since I don't think that this POD is enough to cause ripples that would end WWI, the rise of racist authoritarians in Italy and Germany, or WWII, this will set the West up much better for the Cold War. India will be firmly in the free market (or at least not state-run economy) camp, there will be no Pakistan (thus no Pakistan-India issues) and you have a shining example of the perks of having a good relationship with the colonial natives.

At best you might get this earlier, Westminster and the new Confederate Commonwealth investing to civilise Africa via white migration, railways, industry etc. and local limited autonomy as a first phrase to joining the Commonwealth completely

If you keep the British very involved in Africa for longer, then I think that you could potentially avoid something like the Rhodesian UDI.

What I'm imagining is a more involved Britain that prevails upon the white minorities in Kenya and Rhodesia to accept a one-man one-vote franchise. The de facto agreement would be that these governments do not have control over foreign policy or military matters (in both these areas they remain under the UK's umbrella) and since the British are remaining, these governments are not going to be able to do things like seize white-owned farms or kick all the Indians out. This gives the whites and other non-black minorities a chance to come to terms with the black majority under conditions where the stakes are lower due to British involvement.

 

[mtg999]

If you keep the British very involved in Africa for longer, then I think that you could potentially avoid something like the Rhodesian UDI.

What I'm imagining is a more involved Britain that prevails upon the white minorities in Kenya and Rhodesia to accept a one-man one-vote franchise. The de facto agreement would be that these governments do not have control over foreign policy or military matters (in both these areas they remain under the UK's umbrella) and since the British are remaining, these governments are not going to be able to do things like seize white-owned farms or kick all the Indians out. This gives the whites and other non-black minorities a chance to come to terms with the black majority under conditions where the stakes are lower due to British involvement.

Would agree with you on this. I think this would to some extent work for both the natives and the whites. The white would know that a native-dominated local govt would not be able to have a complete free hand to discriminate against non-blacks, ie Mugabe.

On the other hand I think that it would be advantageous to the blacks as they would have a 'buffer' against the more racist local whites. I think it would be vital here for Westminter to contain tight and exclusive control over 'natives policy'. In OTL until UDI in 65 the UK had control over Rhodesian natives policy, unlike in S Africa. I definitely think that you would never have had anything near the level of apartheid seen in SA if the UK had continued to have control ove natives policy there.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Would agree with you on this. I think this would to some extent work for both the natives and the whites. The white would know that a native-dominated local govt would not be able to have a complete free hand to discriminate against non-blacks, ie Mugabe.

Continuing British involvement in the African colonies will also provide the reassurance that something like the Mau-Mau Rebellion can be successfully crushed.

On the other hand I think that it would be advantageous to the blacks as they would have a 'buffer' against the more racist local whites. I think it would be vital here for Westminter to contain tight and exclusive control over 'natives policy'. In OTL until UDI in 65 the UK had control over Rhodesian natives policy, unlike in S Africa. I definitely think that you would never have had anything near the level of apartheid seen in SA if the UK had continued to have control over natives policy there.

There needs to be something more in the British policy than OTL though, because OTL it led to the UDI and then 15 years of race war in Rhodesia. That's why I proposed the much, much earlier POD, during the late 19th century, so that by the time white settlement in Africa begins the whole thought process is much more pre-disposed to an active Imperial role in a native-ruled area.

 

[Faeelin]

If you give India limited Home Rule post-WWI, then I think that you've definitely kept India in the Empire for longer than OTL. You've also opened up the Indian economy to investment, and given a much longer lead time for the native Indian elite to decide that free market capitalism is the way to go.

Hrmm.

Why would Britain invest in this empire ATL, when it did such a poor job OTL?
One may wonder if India went socialist because of exposure to free market capitalism...

 

[mtg999]

Hrmm.

Why would Britain invest in this empire ATL, when it did such a poor job OTL?
One may wonder if India went socialist because of exposure to free market capitalism...

True, the highly protectionist state interventionist Indian style of economic management was in part a reaction to Imperial rule.

This has echoes of 19th century US protectionism, to build-up self-sufficient local industry against the British.

Also note that in the mid-20th century, economic interventionism was pretty much the political fashion in most of the world except for the US (and even the US caught on big time by the 1960's under Kennedy and Johnson).