3 ms·
> That in turn led to the end of the British Empire I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, given that the British Empire lasted for more than a century after that.
by mrec 9y ago
> That in turn led to the end of the British Empire
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, given that the British Empire lasted for more than a century after that. Certainly until after the Second World War, and arguably in rump form until the handover of Hong Kong in 1997.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y agoThe U.K. still has the Falkland Islands. But for the most part, once India achieved independence, the British empire was pretty much toast.
- madaxe_again 9y agoThe UK still has many overseas posessions, but they are mostly minuscule specs of land in the world’s oceans. By that argument, Ecuador has an empire, insofar as it possesses the Galapagos archipelago.
- otempomores 9y agoLocation is a strange thing. Who would have guessed that some forsaken desert by the sea or a muddy island could be this expensive. So are this islands nearstreams of people, data or goods.
- madaxe_again 9y agoI’d argue that the last century and a half were a state of inevitable decline for Britain’s imperialistic ambitions - the vast majority of their time was occupied with putting down (or failing to put down) insurrections and vainglorious military conquests which served to continue to project the image of empire both domestically and internationally, as the structure itself hollowed out. The period of decolonisation following the war was just that - decolonisation - but the empire had already ended. There is a corollary argument, founded by PKD and expounded upon by Baudrillard and others, which is that “the empire never ended” - and while that relates to the Roman Empire, which we arguably reside within the vestiges of, it could perhaps be applied to the lasting effects of any empire. Anyway. I’ve just argued against myself so I’ll end this here.