4 ms·

> That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the Commonwealth is an indicator of anything. Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or N

> That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the Commonwealth is an indicator of anything. Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. > First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India, like she is in Canada or Australia. But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english. The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded - and poorly at that in my opinion. > Second, that hasn't impeded those nations' development in any way whatsoever. Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain. India was a conquered nation of britain. Surely even you can see that india and african colonies were treated differently than canada, australia and new zealand. > India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program. A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past? > They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence. I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation. Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations? Of course not, their elites will never allow it. But india is. If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great? All major industrial nations have become great via the top-down model. The people at the top need to have that vision first. India simply does not have them amongst their elites. Look at China. They've lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty. India is just now working on trying to get toilets for their people. https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-12/india-access-toilets-remains-huge-problem-worst-all-women-and-girls https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-12/india-access-toilets-... 400 million indians do not have access to reliable electricity. That's more than the population of the US ( 320 million ). https://phys.org/news/2013-11-rural-india-electricity.html https://phys.org/news/2013-11-rural-india-electricity.html Both india and china liberated themselves from western colonialism around the same time. China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that? The list of members of the british commonwealth tells you all you need to know.

throw_776435 7y ago
A great book that goes over the history of protectionism is Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang.
triceratops 7y ago
> Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Nope. > The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs, uses them as a source of cheap raw materials for British manufacturing, and as captive markets for those manufactures. Or that Britain sends gunboats to enforce treaties and blockade ports of members that don't comply. Or that India, Nigeria, Pakistan and all the other Commonwealth members still have their laws made for them by the British Parliament and have no representation. > But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english. Yeah, because these are the only things that all the members have in common. > Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain. So you yourself are admitting that a lady with a crown and a golden stick makes no difference to whether a former British colony progresses or not. It depends purely on the treatment they received from Britain. > A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past? If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great? The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms. Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive. Grownups do not stew over historical insults. They try to build a better future. > I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation. I don't think you understand that for member nations such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Commonwealth is a glorified tea club. There are no political, trade, or military implications whatsoever. They swap stories, make friends, have a good time. I don't even know what "think like a colonial nation" means. "Commonwealth citizen" is only a meaningful term for nations in the Caribbean and British Isles.[1] It's crazy to say you shouldn't ever establish cordial relations with your former colonizer. The US was scrambling to do exactly that immediately after winning the Revolutionary War, when they lost their only friends in the French Revolution. > Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations? And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events. They also had a rather more bitter parting than India and Britain. > China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that? There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_citizen

throw_776435 7y ago

A great book that goes over the history of protectionism is Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang.

triceratops 7y ago

> Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Nope. > The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs, uses them as a source of cheap raw materials for British manufacturing, and as captive markets for those manufactures. Or that Britain sends gunboats to enforce treaties and blockade ports of members that don't comply. Or that India, Nigeria, Pakistan and all the other Commonwealth members still have their laws made for them by the British Parliament and have no representation. > But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english. Yeah, because these are the only things that all the members have in common. > Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain. So you yourself are admitting that a lady with a crown and a golden stick makes no difference to whether a former British colony progresses or not. It depends purely on the treatment they received from Britain. > A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past? If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great? The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms. Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive. Grownups do not stew over historical insults. They try to build a better future. > I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation. I don't think you understand that for member nations such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Commonwealth is a glorified tea club. There are no political, trade, or military implications whatsoever. They swap stories, make friends, have a good time. I don't even know what "think like a colonial nation" means. "Commonwealth citizen" is only a meaningful term for nations in the Caribbean and British Isles.[1] It's crazy to say you shouldn't ever establish cordial relations with your former colonizer. The US was scrambling to do exactly that immediately after winning the Revolutionary War, when they lost their only friends in the French Revolution. > Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations? And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events. They also had a rather more bitter parting than India and Britain. > China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that? There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_citizen