Should Canada still see the British Monarch as its own?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by biguc

Isn't it fuzzy and one sided to attribute their post-independence standing to the British--affirming the consequent and all? You only have to look as far as Pakistan for a control group.

You are essentially putting words in my mouth here. I am not saying that British rule and education for Indian elites determines the entirety of modern Indian history or that every area formerly under British rule turned into a pluralist state. I am saying that it's something to think about beyond Britain just being the bad guys.

I have noticed how Indian commentaries matter of factly bring up British influence, whereas it's controversial in the West and a lot of people airily talk about the past which amounts to glorifying the Mughals or Ottomans. They would look much worse under an honest modern microscope than Britain circa 1940.

Suleiman the Magnificent was a Dreamer but they built a wall to keep him out of Vienna.

[biguc]

No intent to put words into your mouth. But the words are out there. There's a stubborn and fallacious narrative that nobody would have individual liberty or democracy if the British hadn't planted it through colonialism. I don't know if it's worth it getting into it more than that. I mean, India would have a matter-of-fact history of British influence because it is a matter of fact. 1940 was in a lot of ways a damn fine moment for Britain, but 1770? Damn. Few countries have trashed the world's largest economy and starved millions of people to death.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by biguc

1940 was in a lot of ways a damn fine moment for Britain, but 1770? Damn. Few countries have trashed the world's largest economy and starved millions of people to death.

1940 is much closer to the present than 1770, and the context is dramatically different between those two dates. The timeline of progress matters as well.

I would say that 1770 Britain was close to average for its period (conquest and exploitation having been the norm for most of human history) while the winding down of the empire was exceptional. Not unlike how slavery in the US was fairly normal back in the 1600's and 1700's but the abolition movement in the early to mid 1800's was exceptional.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

1940 is much closer to the present than 1770, and the context is dramatically different between those two dates. The timeline of progress matters as well.

I would say that 1770 Britain was close to average for its period (conquest and exploitation having been the norm for most of human history) while the winding down of the empire was exceptional. Not unlike how slavery in the US was fairly normal back in the 1600's and 1700's but the abolition movement in the early to mid 1800's was exceptional.

Agreed. People keep forgetting about historical context. I still hold that, on the whole, the British Empire was one of the most enlightened empires in world history, despite it's blemishes.

If the Brits hadn't established it's empire, someone else would have expanded to fill the vacuum. We are all better off for having had this empire than not.

In an alternate history where the empire had never existed, none of us would be here. I prefer existence to nonexistence. Historical revisionism and self flagellation are wastes of time and nothing more than a make work project for liberal apologists...……….

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by biguc

No intent to put words into your mouth. But the words are out there. There's a stubborn and fallacious narrative that nobody would have individual liberty or democracy if the British hadn't planted it through colonialism. I don't know if it's worth it getting into it more than that. I mean, India would have a matter-of-fact history of British influence because it is a matter of fact. 1940 was in a lot of ways a damn fine moment for Britain, but 1770? Damn. Few countries have trashed the world's largest economy and starved millions of people to death.

It was the 6th largest economy when the British left and had fallen to 10th by 1990.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angu...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by biguc

Few countries have trashed the world's largest economy and starved millions of people to death.

There's good work out there showing that colonialism preyed and created poverty in most corners of the world.

The reason for this is not that the various European powers transplanted different sorts of institutions – so that North America succeeded due to an inheritance of British institutions, while Latin America failed because of its Spanish institutions. In fact, the evidence suggests that the intentions and strategies of distinct colonial powers were very similar (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). The outcomes were very different because of variation in initial conditions in the colonies. For example, in Latin America, where there were dense populations of indigenous people, a colonial society could be created based on the exploitation of these people. In North America where no such populations existed, such a society was infeasible, even though the first British settlers tried to set it up. In response, early North American society went in a completely different direction: early colonising ventures, such as the Virginia Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them running off into the open frontier and they needed to incentivise them to work and invest. The institutions that did this, such as political rights and access to land, were radically different even from the institutions in the colonising country. When British colonisers found Latin-American-like circumstances, for example in South Africa, Kenya or Zimbabwe, they were perfectly capable of and interested in setting up what we have called ‘extractive institutions’, based on the control of and the extraction of rents from indigenous peoples. In Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) we argue that extractive institutions, which strip the vast mass of the population of incentives or opportunities, are associated with poverty. It is also not a coincidence that such African societies are today as unequal as Latin American countries.

...

Thus, just as colonialism had heterogeneous effects on development within Europe, promoting it in places like Britain, but retarding it in Spain, so it also had very heterogeneous effects in the colonies. In some places, like North America, it created societies with far more inclusive institutions than in the colonising country itself and planted the seeds for the immense current prosperity of the region. In others, such as Latin America, Africa or South Asia, it created extractive institutions that led to very poor long-run development outcomes.

The fact that colonialism had positive effects on development in some contexts does not mean that it did not have devastating negative effects on indigenous populations and society. It did.

https://voxeu.org/article/economic-impact-colonialism

[Acajack]

Since we don't have a GG, who will represent us at the funeral (if there is an in-person one)?

[biguc]

Originally Posted by someone123

1940 is much closer to the present than 1770, and the context is dramatically different between those two dates. The timeline of progress matters as well.

I would say that 1770 Britain was close to average for its period (conquest and exploitation having been the norm for most of human history) while the winding down of the empire was exceptional. Not unlike how slavery in the US was fairly normal back in the 1600's and 1700's but the abolition movement in the early to mid 1800's was exceptional.

This is generally fair, and I feel almost like I'm quibbling, but British colonialism in India was pretty exceptional. Conquest and exploitation might have been normal, but the British found a way to put the cart before the horse and sell shares for the exploitation. It was only once enough people had bought in on bleeding India that they even needed the conquest. That's pretty remarkable.

If anything, putting corporations first set the precedent for 20th century colonialist endeavours like the Good Neighbour policy and the 4th Reich.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by biguc

This is generally fair, and I feel almost like I'm quibbling, but British colonialism in India was pretty exceptional. Conquest and exploitation might have been normal, but the British found a way to put the cart before the horse and sell shares for the exploitation. It was only once enough people had bought in on bleeding India that they even needed the conquest. That's pretty remarkable.

The Dutch East India Company operated similarly. Spain was worse. Others like Russia or the Ottomans didn't sell shares as far as I know but mowed over the places they subjugated and probably had a similar system of patronage for their elites that got involved in military campaigns. Russia's last conquest was 2014. China is currently running concentration camps.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It was the 6th largest economy when the British left and had fallen to 10th by 1990.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angu...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Mughal Bengal alone generated 12% of world GDP before the East India Company's Monopoly. Five years of gouging "taxes" decimated the economy and set the stage for a famine that killed a third of the population.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Agreed. People keep forgetting about historical context. I still hold that, on the whole, the British Empire was one of the most enlightened empires in world history, despite it's blemishes.

I doubt that overly positive and negative takes on the British Empire are just two equally weighted fringe opinions in our society. What view is likely to be implicitly or explicitly promoted by virtually all English-speaking universities and schools, most media outlets like the CBC or BBC or New York Times, or the PM of Canada? What's going to get you into more trouble, announcing publicly that the British Empire was completely wonderful or completely terrible?

It will be interesting to see what effect Philip has on this and eventually of course, Queen Elizabeth is sadly going to pass away too.

[whatnext]

Last year was the first I've ever watched the Queen's Xmas message live. I did so after seeing her speech at the beginning of the pandemic. It drove home that the real value of the monarchy is the stability and lack of politicking.

• Video Link

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It drove home that the real value of the monarchy is the stability and lack of politicking.

That is what I like most about the Westminster system; electable figures can be removed at a moment's notice, with a head of state separated from the petty squabbles of the day.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

...
It will be interesting to see what effect Philip has on this and eventually of course, Queen Elizabeth is sadly going to pass away too.

Now Charles will be the man of the house, so to speak. I think he takes after his father a bit, but not as impressive (besides being future king).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Architype

Now Charles will be the man of the house, so to speak. I think he takes after his father a bit, but not as impressive (besides being future king).

Chalk and cheese, from anything I've ever heard about them.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Chalk and cheese, from anything I've ever heard about them.

Yes, Charles was a bit too sensitive for Philips liking...……..

[Architype]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Chalk and cheese, from anything I've ever heard about them.

Okay, I did say "a bit", I believe people take quite a lot of their personality from their parents. They both see/saw themselves as men of their times, somewhat stylish, and like to be outspoken, whatever their views might be. Some think however, that Harry is more like Phillip.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by biguc

Mughal Bengal alone generated 12% of world GDP before the East India Company's Monopoly. Five years of gouging "taxes" decimated the economy and set the stage for a famine that killed a third of the population.

.

I assume you are referring to the Bengal Famine of 1770? At the time the EIC only controlled Bengal, so that was certainly not 12% of GDP.

[Chadillaccc]

The Mughal Empire accounted for 25% of global GDP, with Mughal Bengal accounting for 16% of the population and over half GDP of the empire. So you are right while being wrong; it wasn't just 12%, it was actually closer to 13.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=CHO...page&q&f=false

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The Mughal Empire accounted for 25% of global GDP, with Mughal Bengal accounting for 16% of the population and over half GDP of the empire. So you are right while being wrong; it wasn't just 12%, it was actually closer to 13.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=CHO...page&q&f=false

I can’t open the link, but I am pretty sure those numbers are for the peak of the Empire in 1700. The Empire had been in decline for over 50 years, and the Persians invaded, plundered and pillaged the empire 1736-47 (among the reasons it was such easy picking for the EIC). I would have a hard time believing GDP numbers from 1700 were still accurate in 1770.