3 ms·

> The British viewed themselves as superior and apart from their conquests, which prevented their conquests from coming to identify as “British” Not really no.

> The British viewed themselves as superior and apart from their conquests, which prevented their conquests from coming to identify as “British” Not really no. The British ran the empire with famously small numbers of actual Brits on the ground, using armies mostly raised from local populations and training up the local civil service from local recruits. And that legacy lives in. The current Prime Minister of the UK is now Indian, his counterpart in Scotland is Pakistani, and the British are one of the least racist countries in the world: https://www.uk-values.org/news-comment/uk-public-among-most-trusting-of-their-neighbours-internationally-and-increasingly-comfortable-living-next-to-historically-marginalised-groups https://www.uk-values.org/news-comment/uk-public-among-most-... ... caused partly by the huge number of people who immigrated from former colonies and now identify as British (and who are accepted as such).

skissane 3y ago
> The British ran the empire with famously small numbers of actual Brits on the ground, using armies mostly raised from local populations and training up the local civil service from local recruits. That was in the colonies – they didn't encourage immigration from the colonies (especially the non-settler ones) to the metropole. And when that started happening in large numbers anyway, they introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 – which denied UK citizens the right to enter and remain in the metropolitan UK unless they or their ancestors had been born there, or they were exempted as "desirable" (professionals). At the time, that Act was widely condemned as racist legislation, and it is hard to see how it was compatible with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > And that legacy lives in. The current Prime Minister of the UK is now Indian, his counterpart in Scotland is Pakistani, and the British are one of the least racist countries in the world: There has been a massive change in UK attitudes on this topic since the 1960s. A big driver for that was Labour's victory in the 1964 election – while the Tories passed racist legislation such as that 1962 Act, Labour responded with anti-racist legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1965. They didn't repeal the 1962 Act however (despite having condemned it as racist while in opposition), indeed they strengthened it with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and the Immigration Act 1971. But, all that's irrelevant to the history of the Empire, since the Empire was officially dead by then, and unofficially either dead or pretty close thereto. At the height of the Empire, the UK was a lot more racist than it is today. It wasn't as racist as the US or South Africa–but that's not saying much. The UK of the 2020s has no problem with a Prime Minister of Indian descent – do you really think the UK of the 1920s would have had no problem with that?

skissane 3y ago

> The British ran the empire with famously small numbers of actual Brits on the ground, using armies mostly raised from local populations and training up the local civil service from local recruits. That was in the colonies – they didn't encourage immigration from the colonies (especially the non-settler ones) to the metropole. And when that started happening in large numbers anyway, they introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 – which denied UK citizens the right to enter and remain in the metropolitan UK unless they or their ancestors had been born there, or they were exempted as "desirable" (professionals). At the time, that Act was widely condemned as racist legislation, and it is hard to see how it was compatible with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > And that legacy lives in. The current Prime Minister of the UK is now Indian, his counterpart in Scotland is Pakistani, and the British are one of the least racist countries in the world: There has been a massive change in UK attitudes on this topic since the 1960s. A big driver for that was Labour's victory in the 1964 election – while the Tories passed racist legislation such as that 1962 Act, Labour responded with anti-racist legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1965. They didn't repeal the 1962 Act however (despite having condemned it as racist while in opposition), indeed they strengthened it with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and the Immigration Act 1971. But, all that's irrelevant to the history of the Empire, since the Empire was officially dead by then, and unofficially either dead or pretty close thereto. At the height of the Empire, the UK was a lot more racist than it is today. It wasn't as racist as the US or South Africa–but that's not saying much. The UK of the 2020s has no problem with a Prime Minister of Indian descent – do you really think the UK of the 1920s would have had no problem with that?