3 ms·

Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa - technically decolonised since 1961, actually continued via ap

Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa - technically decolonised since 1961, actually continued via apartheid until 1990. Also - the Romans never actually left (gross simplification ahead): the empire has split into various smaller entities, all of them considering themselves heirs of the empire. This was mostly the case of "locals becoming Romans," far more than "Romans ruling over locals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...

barcelardigit 9y ago
What would you conclude from that? South Africa has a strong economy but much of the population still lives in poverty. But is that poverty rate higher than in nations with less history of European presence?
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  I would conclude that "staying longer" strongly correlates with "don't you dare touch our nice institutions and infrastructure; that's our scaffolding, not yours." In other words, no, I don't think you can reduce decolonisation to "but-the-railways!", which you seem to be saying. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...
nathan_long 9y ago
Apartheid seems to highlight a big difference here. Romans and Gauls could fuse into a single local culture, but Europeans were determined to keep Africans under their thumbs. It's hard to imagine the locals being "better off" for more generations of oppression.
- akhatri_aus 9y ago
  Actually in the "winds of change" speech, this was one thing the Europeans did not like - Harold Macmillan seeked equality much to the dismay of the government in South Africa - later that year they also turned to a republic. Also in the case of Rhodesia Ian Smith it was considered had committed treason with his UDI against the wishes in Whitehall.

barcelardigit 9y ago

What would you conclude from that? South Africa has a strong economy but much of the population still lives in poverty. But is that poverty rate higher than in nations with less history of European presence?

Piskvorrr 9y ago
I would conclude that "staying longer" strongly correlates with "don't you dare touch our nice institutions and infrastructure; that's our scaffolding, not yours." In other words, no, I don't think you can reduce decolonisation to "but-the-railways!", which you seem to be saying. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...

nathan_long 9y ago

Apartheid seems to highlight a big difference here. Romans and Gauls could fuse into a single local culture, but Europeans were determined to keep Africans under their thumbs. It's hard to imagine the locals being "better off" for more generations of oppression.

akhatri_aus 9y ago
Actually in the "winds of change" speech, this was one thing the Europeans did not like - Harold Macmillan seeked equality much to the dismay of the government in South Africa - later that year they also turned to a republic. Also in the case of Rhodesia Ian Smith it was considered had committed treason with his UDI against the wishes in Whitehall.