6 ms·

On Friday 21st March 2025, the sun will set on the British "Empire"

82 points by redbell 2y ago

ARandomerDude 2y ago
Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons.
dang 2y ago
Recent and related: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729325 - Oct 2024 (282 comments) Also: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33463586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33463586 - Nov 2022 (52 comments)
- zahlman 2y ago
  Thank you. I genuinely would have had no idea otherwise, why this specific date.
marc_abonce 2y ago
I didn't know about this until now, but this BBC article seems to disagree with OP's Reddit post: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy78ejg71exo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy78ejg71exo > One of the largest islands on the tropical atoll, Diego Garcia, will remain a joint US-UK military base and is expected to remain so for 99 years with an option to renew. > Mauritius will be able to begin a programme of resettlement on the Chagos Islands, but not on Diego Garcia. So it seems like the military occupation will continue for at least 99 years if not longer, and the still living Chagossian islanders may never be allowed to return back home. By the way, since this is a tech forum, it's worth pointing out that every time you pay for a .io domain you're funding this ongoing ethnic cleansing. BIOT is not a country, it has no permanent population and is currently nothing but a military base in a land that was completely ethnic cleansed in the 1970's.
- mlindner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - marc_abonce 2y ago
    As far as I know, the definition doesn't require the population to be "native". For example, history has plenty of cases of ethnic cleansing against Jewish people in Europe. Or at least Wikipedia considers it as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing Also, the people that were "brought there against their will to work" were the 1800's ancestors of the people that were forcibly removed in the 1970's. How many centuries does it take for a group of people to gain the right against forceful displacement?
- oohaargh 2y ago
  There's a difference between being a British colony and allowing Britain to have a military base on your land, so nothing in disagreement with the original post there
- atombender 2y ago
  According to the British government, it receives no revenue from the .io domain, which owned by a private equity company. So if that is the case, the .io domain does not fund ethnic cleansing. As to Diego Garcia, my understanding is that Mauritius will be given back sovereignty of it, as well as the other islands, and that the UK and US governments will merely lease the island of Diego Garcia. This is not an unusual arrangement. The UK and US have military bases around the world on foreign territory, to the exclusion of the local population. Not so sure if this qualifies as ethnic cleansing when nobody is being forcibly removed from anywhere, since they're not actually there.
  - defrost 2y ago
    While "ethnic cleansing" has overtones of torture an or murder, "forcibly removed" is accurate and occurred from 1968 to the removal of the last Chagossians in 1973.
mlindner 2y ago
[flagged]
- AustinG08 2y ago
  the world runs on brownie points now, prepare accordingly
  - gizajob 2y ago
    Britain is currently getting asked to pay £18Trillion in reparations for slavery, when it is struggling to find £20billion in the upcoming budget to fund the black hole in the public finances, so you might be correct.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- a_dabbler 2y ago
  Hong Kong handover is not recent and I don't see how you can claim it has "gone badly for local residents".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lawrencejgd 2y ago
Relevant What If from Xkcd https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/
mindcrash 2y ago
That's absolutely false. Australia and New Zealand are both in the sun and King Charles III is still head of the government of both Australia and New Zealand, and both are thus part of the British Empire. The government of Australia is led on his behalf by governor-general Sam Mostyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) and the government of New Zealand is led on his behalf by governor-general Cindy Kuro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)
- N19PEDL2 2y ago
  It depends on what you mean by the British Empire today. If it is the countries whose head of state is the King of England, then you are right. If it is the territories ruled by the government of London (directly or indirectly), then neither Australia nor New Zealand, both sovereign states, are part of it anymore.
  - bluenomatterwho 2y ago
    In 2009, Rwanda, formerly under Belgian and German rule, joined.[52] Consideration for Rwanda's admission was considered an "exceptional circumstance" by the Commonwealth Secretariat.[92] Rwanda was permitted to join despite the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) finding that "the state of governance and human rights in Rwanda does not satisfy Commonwealth standards", and that it "does not therefore qualify for admission".[93] CHRI commented that: "It does not make sense to admit a state that already does not satisfy Commonwealth standards. This would tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth and confirm the opinion of many people and civic organisations that the leaders of its governments do not really care for democracy and human rights, and that its periodic, solemn declarations are merely hot air."[93] In 2022, the former French territories of Togo and Gabon joined the Commonwealth.[53] ...seems like as or more of a successful model regardless!
- fennecbutt 2y ago
  As a Kiwi, no. The monarch being head of state is purely ornamental. The head of state only has a few honourary powers that can't really be used for diddly squat. It's this way for tradition reasons, same as why we didn't end up changing our flag in the end, after a million dollar referendum. Tho I wish we were able to use the silver fern flag, that would've been rad.

82 points by redbell 2y ago

Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons.

dang 2y ago

Recent and related: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729325 - Oct 2024 (282 comments) Also: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33463586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33463586 - Nov 2022 (52 comments)

zahlman 2y ago
Thank you. I genuinely would have had no idea otherwise, why this specific date.

marc_abonce 2y ago

I didn't know about this until now, but this BBC article seems to disagree with OP's Reddit post: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy78ejg71exo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy78ejg71exo > One of the largest islands on the tropical atoll, Diego Garcia, will remain a joint US-UK military base and is expected to remain so for 99 years with an option to renew. > Mauritius will be able to begin a programme of resettlement on the Chagos Islands, but not on Diego Garcia. So it seems like the military occupation will continue for at least 99 years if not longer, and the still living Chagossian islanders may never be allowed to return back home. By the way, since this is a tech forum, it's worth pointing out that every time you pay for a .io domain you're funding this ongoing ethnic cleansing. BIOT is not a country, it has no permanent population and is currently nothing but a military base in a land that was completely ethnic cleansed in the 1970's.

mlindner 2y ago
[flagged]
- marc_abonce 2y ago
  As far as I know, the definition doesn't require the population to be "native". For example, history has plenty of cases of ethnic cleansing against Jewish people in Europe. Or at least Wikipedia considers it as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing Also, the people that were "brought there against their will to work" were the 1800's ancestors of the people that were forcibly removed in the 1970's. How many centuries does it take for a group of people to gain the right against forceful displacement?
oohaargh 2y ago
There's a difference between being a British colony and allowing Britain to have a military base on your land, so nothing in disagreement with the original post there
atombender 2y ago
According to the British government, it receives no revenue from the .io domain, which owned by a private equity company. So if that is the case, the .io domain does not fund ethnic cleansing. As to Diego Garcia, my understanding is that Mauritius will be given back sovereignty of it, as well as the other islands, and that the UK and US governments will merely lease the island of Diego Garcia. This is not an unusual arrangement. The UK and US have military bases around the world on foreign territory, to the exclusion of the local population. Not so sure if this qualifies as ethnic cleansing when nobody is being forcibly removed from anywhere, since they're not actually there.
- defrost 2y ago
  While "ethnic cleansing" has overtones of torture an or murder, "forcibly removed" is accurate and occurred from 1968 to the removal of the last Chagossians in 1973.

mlindner 2y ago

[flagged]

AustinG08 2y ago
the world runs on brownie points now, prepare accordingly
- gizajob 2y ago
  Britain is currently getting asked to pay £18Trillion in reparations for slavery, when it is struggling to find £20billion in the upcoming budget to fund the black hole in the public finances, so you might be correct.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
a_dabbler 2y ago
Hong Kong handover is not recent and I don't see how you can claim it has "gone badly for local residents".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lawrencejgd 2y ago

Relevant What If from Xkcd https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/

mindcrash 2y ago

That's absolutely false. Australia and New Zealand are both in the sun and King Charles III is still head of the government of both Australia and New Zealand, and both are thus part of the British Empire. The government of Australia is led on his behalf by governor-general Sam Mostyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) and the government of New Zealand is led on his behalf by governor-general Cindy Kuro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)

N19PEDL2 2y ago
It depends on what you mean by the British Empire today. If it is the countries whose head of state is the King of England, then you are right. If it is the territories ruled by the government of London (directly or indirectly), then neither Australia nor New Zealand, both sovereign states, are part of it anymore.
- bluenomatterwho 2y ago
  In 2009, Rwanda, formerly under Belgian and German rule, joined.[52] Consideration for Rwanda's admission was considered an "exceptional circumstance" by the Commonwealth Secretariat.[92] Rwanda was permitted to join despite the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) finding that "the state of governance and human rights in Rwanda does not satisfy Commonwealth standards", and that it "does not therefore qualify for admission".[93] CHRI commented that: "It does not make sense to admit a state that already does not satisfy Commonwealth standards. This would tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth and confirm the opinion of many people and civic organisations that the leaders of its governments do not really care for democracy and human rights, and that its periodic, solemn declarations are merely hot air."[93] In 2022, the former French territories of Togo and Gabon joined the Commonwealth.[53] ...seems like as or more of a successful model regardless!
fennecbutt 2y ago
As a Kiwi, no. The monarch being head of state is purely ornamental. The head of state only has a few honourary powers that can't really be used for diddly squat. It's this way for tradition reasons, same as why we didn't end up changing our flag in the end, after a million dollar referendum. Tho I wish we were able to use the silver fern flag, that would've been rad.