Other Anglo colonies, what's the story of your independence?

[Osborne Russell]

AFAIK the first to take up arms were the Americans; and the only other ones to take up arms AFAIK were the Indians, Kenyans, and Rhodesians.

Why so?

[Dave Hadfield]

Take up arms?

We didn't. In fact most countries in the Empire didn't.

[Osborne Russell]

Like I said.

[Dave Hadfield]

Like I said.

Oops. Mis-read it.

[Peerie Maa]

Kenya had the Mau Mau rebellion.
All the others were mostly political settlements

[TomF]

Places like Canada, Australia, NZ, we've been functionally independent for a very long time, regardless of who our Head of State is. Great Britain has no more actual political or economic sway over us than over, say, Belgium.

And we found the political institutions we inherited to be useful, with historical precedent etc which was sound. Which, actually, are the precedents that also get cited in American law.

I think that America had to fight a,war of independence, partly because you guys were the first. The first to leave a modern-Era Empire, in the period when European empires were at their peak too. It's likely because of your war, and the uprisings in India, that the rest of us didn't mostly fight them. The rest of us, that is, which were largely populated by then with white folks. Let's not ignore the explicit racism that meant that African and other colonies waited far longer.

[Peerie Maa]

I don't think that any of the other colonies wanted independence at that time, and did not have the means to organize and the arms to fight for it.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The colonisation of Africa started much later.

[TomF]

I think that if one uses the much-considered (admittedly faulty, but useful) "family" metaphor, as kids grow into adulthood some will have a series of huge pyrotechnic fights culminating with a screaming match and a move to 400 miles away, with the promise to never speak again.

Other kids have some mounting friction, but move away to college or university, and never really move home again. But stay on speaking terms, and through college may go "home" for summer holidays.

Other kids find ways to talk with their parents, and can mutually balance their growing autonomy needs with their parents' roles well enough that they find a way to live at home through college, with both mutual- and self-respect.

It occurs to me that it depends on the parents' and the kids' personalities, their skills at communication, etc etc. Sometimes the parents' skills aren't developed well enough for the oldest kid, but they've learned stuff for that person's younger siblings. And sometimes not.

My sense is that Great Britain's approach to Canada was deeply informed by what prompted the American Revolution, politically and in terms of trade. And frankly, both Canada and the UK benefitted from a more gradual, amicable, but no less effective transition from colonial dependence to nation state peer. As happened similarly with other (though not all) Commonwealth members.

What I find interesting is how the current relationship that the UK has with Commonwealth members is misunderstood by people who live elsewhere - especially US citizens who're aware of their own country's founding tropes. And assume that those of us who didn't fight revolutionary wars are somehow less autonomous, less free, even now.

[Peerie Maa]

^ just so, some cannot even get the UK right, let alone the Commonwealth.

[epoxyboy]

The Queen is still technically head of state in NZ, largely symbolic but the role does still have teeth if push comes to shove - google Gough Whitlam (Australia).
No constitution (gasp, shock, horror), just a derivative of the Westminster system, so we don't have every damn legal decision polluted by a ridiculously out of date 230 y.o. document. We have the Treaty of Waitangi, which is supposed to recognise the relationship between Maori an The Crown. I guess we are getting marginally better at honoring that, it was totally ignored by Team White for a very long time.
NZ formally declared independence in 1947 by act of parliament, and that was it, done. I could not tell you the date without looking it up, there is no holiday or celebration or recognition of the event - it wasn't and isnt a big deal here.

Pete

[Edward Pearson]

Freedom fighters or terrorists? Read extensively on Kenya during lockdown. I'd say the Mao Mao were terrorists (including to their own population looking at their means and ways). We brought Kenya along way and rubbed along together.

[devout]

Apologies for the mixed font and size, it is a challenge.

Please allow me to contribute to this.

First Boer War against England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War

Second Boer War against England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

Of particular interest may be this context (this is a very flattering quote from a British perspective):

"Though the British swiftly occupied the Boer republics, numerous Boers refused to accept defeat and engaged in guerrilla warfare. Eventually, British scorched earth policies, and the poor conditions suffered in concentration camps by Boer women and children who had been displaced by these policies, brought the remaining Boer guerillas to the negotiating table, ending the war.<sup>[10][11]"

The internation of women and children in concentration camps led to the deaths of thousands due to malnutrition and unhygienic conditions. Feel free to Google the topic at will. Here is a picture of one of my namesakes:</sup>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_van_Zyl


<sup>The model for concentration camps for non-combatants to win a war were established by the British long before the Germans thought it up.

Good thing for the US that they defeated the British, the alternative may have been some of the the above.</sup>

[AndyG]

This colony, Scotland, was told today by the English Labour Party (and subservient Scottish Branch) that:

1/ Brexit is a given, but there can be a Shiny Brexit, with glitter due to Labour-Style, compared the the Ordure-Reeking Tory Brexit.
2/ Consensus will be enforced by a sort of committee of 'the regions', where England is biggest.
3/ Consultation with those opposed to you is, obviously, the best way forward.
4/ Consultation will naturally not ever never include the SNP. 'Cos, pariahs, natch.

The End.

I despair. (But I daily make moves to join the numerous other ex-Colonies).

Andy, after a bit of Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom.

[TomF]

War has never been humane. I'm not gonna be a shill for how the Imperial British army fought, or the supposed gallantry and ethics of fair play anyone ever brought to conflict.

Pick any era, any major power, and culture. The Romans were more humane? The Gauls might want a word or two. For all that Rome institutionalized the practice and lined the roads with miles of bodies on crosses, it was the Persians who invented crucifixion, with the intent of delivering as humiliating and painful a death as possible.

Ancient China wasn't noted for its humane and bloodless imperial rulers, nor was Japan, nor was India. The Aztecs, Mayans, and various other empires of pre-contact North America left rather grisly testaments to their practices too.

The Boer wars were roughly in the same decades as the Armenian genocide. And while we're discussing Africa, it's worth reflecting on how the utter genocidal abomination of the African slave trade didn't only rely on the hideous immoral conduct of Europeans and slave-buyers in the New World, but on the pre-existing enmities and conflicts between peoples in Africa itself, who captured and sold other Africans into the trade.

We humans have quite a track record. While the Brits are definitely numbered among those who've participated in such, they're hardly the groundbreakers.

[john welsford]

The Queen is still technically head of state in NZ, largely symbolic but the role does still have teeth if push comes to shove - google Gough Whitlam (Australia).
No constitution (gasp, shock, horror), just a derivative of the Westminster system, so we don't have every damn legal decision polluted by a ridiculously out of date 230 y.o. document. We have the Treaty of Waitangi, which is supposed to recognise the relationship between Maori an The Crown. I guess we are getting marginally better at honoring that, it was totally ignored by Team White for a very long time.
NZ formally declared independence in 1947 by act of parliament, and that was it, done. I could not tell you the date without looking it up, there is no holiday or celebration or recognition of the event - it wasn't and isnt a big deal here.

Pete

Agreed, we also have a bill of rights that is a guide for new legislation. While it is not totally mandatory, it would be a very very brave government that passed legislation that did not comply. While it could be said that our Covid 19 lockdowns were pretty close to the edge, in the end the "greater good" prevailed.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/le...civil%20rights

John Welsford

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Ireland...

Cyprus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Emergency

Palestine???

There will be others

[Osborne Russell]

Other kids find ways to talk with their parents, and can mutually balance their growing autonomy needs with their parents' roles well enough that they find a way to live at home through college, with both mutual- and self-respect.

Which is good, because ready or not, the legal authority of the parents ends, and the legal responsibility of the child begins.

England no doubt learned some things through it all. Some of the things they thought they had learned in Ireland turned out to be not so useful in America. America was not so easily blockaded and occupied.

Through it all, England never recognized its colonists as Englishmen. Why not? A couple of lousy seats in Parliament.

Apart from being expedient, there seems to have been a sense on both sides that it was in some sense just.

[Osborne Russell]

Good thing for the US that they defeated the British, the alternative may have been some of the the above.

There were lots of executions and casual brutalities. I think England underestimated what it would take to rule America against her will. If they'd had the capability, there would have been some serious stuff.

Much wiser to attack the will to self-rule itself.

[David W Pratt]

I was going to ask if Scotland and Ireland count?
Bermuda?
The Falklands?
Vermont?

[Peerie Maa]

Which is good, because ready or not, the legal authority of the parents ends, and the legal responsibility of the child begins.

England no doubt learned some things through it all. Some of the things they thought they had learned in Ireland turned out to be not so useful in America. America was not so easily blockaded and occupied.

Through it all, England never recognized its colonists as Englishmen. Why not? A couple of lousy seats in Parliament.

Apart from being expedient, there seems to have been a sense on both sides that it was in some sense just.

The French were the only nation to ever recognize their colonies as departments of France.
The US colonies were a commercial enterprise, as was the East India Company, so there was no logic in giving them seats in parliament at that time, they were administered, as was Australia later, by a government department.

[JimD]

I think after the American war of independence there was a clear choice for North Americans. If you wanted to keep ties with Britain you went to Canada. If you wanted to break those ties you went to the USA

[Peerie Maa]

I was going to ask if Scotland and Ireland count?
Bermuda?
The Falklands?
Vermont?

Count in what way?
Bermuda and the Falklands are British Overseas Territories. Scotland and Nor Iron are both integral parts of the UK, that is what the United bit means.

[RFNK]

War has never been humane. I'm not gonna be a shill for how the Imperial British army fought, or the supposed gallantry and ethics of fair play anyone ever brought to conflict.

Pick any era, any major power, and culture. The Romans were more humane? The Gauls might want a word or two. For all that Rome institutionalized the practice and lined the roads with miles of bodies on crosses, it was the Persians who invented crucifixion, with the intent of delivering as humiliating and painful a death as possible.

Ancient China wasn't noted for its humane and bloodless imperial rulers, nor was Japan, nor was India. The Aztecs, Mayans, and various other empires of pre-contact North America left rather grisly testaments to their practices too.

The Boer wars were roughly in the same decades as the Armenian genocide. And while we're discussing Africa, it's worth reflecting on how the utter genocidal abomination of the African slave trade didn't only rely on the hideous immoral conduct of Europeans and slave-buyers in the New World, but on the pre-existing enmities and conflicts between peoples in Africa itself, who captured and sold other Africans into the trade.

We humans have quite a track record. While the Brits are definitely numbered among those who've participated in such, they're hardly the groundbreakers.

The British Empire was based almost entirely on the slave trade and rape of India. The British, Canadians, Americans, Australians and, to a lesser extent, Kiwis, essentially slaughtered the indigenous inhabitants of the colonies. There's nothing much to be proud of in British heritage. For indigenous communities, independence is meaningless, with very few exceptions.

The standard response is that the other colonial forces would have been worse. Like the murderer of three feeling vindicated because someone else killed four.

All of the countries that were formerly British colonies became 'independent' when it became economically difficult for British shareholders to continue colonial control. Actual fighting was controlled by budgetary limits and didn't really have much to do with military strategy.

Continuing to adorn our flag with the British flag is a daily insult to the indigenous communities of Australia, as it is in some other places. The reason the Hawaiians prefer the Union Jack to the US flag on their state flag is an interesting issue. I wonder why they want either.

[skuthorp]

AFAIK the first to take up arms were the Americans; and the only other ones to take up arms AFAIK were the Indians, Kenyans, and Rhodesians.

Why so?

The first to take up arms to defend the North American continent were the Native Americans, and although it's not acknowledged so di the Australian Aboriginals, but disease defeated them. It is speculated that europeans actually conducted germ warfare in a few cases. Certainly the early land hungry Bunyip Aristocracy would have hads no compunction, and it is alleged that Smallpox was amongst the material carried to Australia on the first fleet.
"Yet the journal of marine captain Watkin Tench indicates that the First Fleet carried bottles of smallpox."

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Scotland and Nor Iron are both integral parts of the UK, that is what the United bit means.

They are at the moment, but that's not the whole story, we might mention
Owain Glyndŵr, Mel Gibson and Robert the Bruce.


...but for freedom alone, without which....

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The French were the only nation to ever recognize their colonies as departments of France.
The US colonies were a commercial enterprise, as was the East India Company, so there was no logic in giving them seats in parliament at that time, they were administered, as was Australia later, by a government department.

Portugal did.

[Peerie Maa]

They are at the moment, but that's not the whole story, we might mention
Owain Glyndŵr, Mel Gibson and Robert the Bruce.


...but for freedom alone, without which....

The Scots and the Irish before them made the fatal mistake of asking warlike lords to mediate in a succession squabble. Basically, they asked a fox to sort out the pecking order in the hen house.
Once the Norman Marcher lords were in Ireland and the Scots lairds swore fealty to Edward, they could not be got rid of.
Then, both nations were unlucky enough to think that they could conquer the stronger English in order to impose either a European Catholic or a Stuart monarch on a Protestant nation.

[skuthorp]

War has never been humane. I'm not gonna be a shill for how the Imperial British army fought, or the supposed gallantry and ethics of fair play anyone ever brought to conflict.

Pick any era, any major power, and culture. The Romans were more humane? The Gauls might want a word or two. For all that Rome institutionalized the practice and lined the roads with miles of bodies on crosses, it was the Persians who invented crucifixion, with the intent of delivering as humiliating and painful a death as possible.

Ancient China wasn't noted for its humane and bloodless imperial rulers, nor was Japan, nor was India. The Aztecs, Mayans, and various other empires of pre-contact North America left rather grisly testaments to their practices too.

The Boer wars were roughly in the same decades as the Armenian genocide. And while we're discussing Africa, it's worth reflecting on how the utter genocidal abomination of the African slave trade didn't only rely on the hideous immoral conduct of Europeans and slave-buyers in the New World, but on the pre-existing enmities and conflicts between peoples in Africa itself, who captured and sold other Africans into the trade.

We humans have quite a track record. While the Brits are definitely numbered among those who've participated in such, they're hardly the groundbreakers.

Humans are like that Tom, I keep telling you. We will end up doing as much damage to the planet as the cretacious ending meteor.

[George.]

And then you have the colonies of Anglo colonies.

The Phillipines, Cuba, PR, PNG...

[Osborne Russell]

Impressionistically, the answer seems to be, "It never occurred to us. It just sort of happened."

[Peerie Maa]

Impressionistically, the answer seems to be, "It never occurred to us. It just sort of happened."

Colonies are bloody expensive to run.
When the landed gentry no longer have surplus younger sons needing employment, colonies lose their charm.

[TomF]

I can't speak for the other former colonies, but in the decades post the American Revolution, Canada had quite a progression of changes in government structure. It (i.e. autonomy) didn't "just happen," but developed over a few decades in a sequence of steps.

First, there were various iterations of "responsible government," in which both the colonial government assumed responsibility for more self-governing, and the power of local legislatures gradually grew vis a vis colonial office appointees assigned by the UK.

Then, the UK Parliament passed the British North America Act (1867), which for all intents and purposes divested the UK of any meaningful and uncontested authority and oversight of Canada. Created our system of Federal Government, Provinces and Territories, and defined the exclusive or shared powers of each. In theory, the Governor General could still exercise a few significant powers, but in practice such was impossible, right from the start. For instance, when WW1 came along, Canada's House of Commons raged back and forth about whether and how many troops and other resources to deploy, whether to conscript, etc. But it was Canada's decision, not the British Parliament's. In the post WW1 period, Canada stuck its neck out on a range of issues to assert autonomy, from signing treaties with other countries without prior UK approval, to appointing ambassadors, to refusing to help fund British occupation troops in Turkey without approval of the Canadian Parliament.

And the British Parliament formally recognized this in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster, which stated that Britain and the Dominions within the former Empire (including Canada) were Constitutionally "equal in status." I.e., the Dominions were fully autonomous, unable to be compelled by the UK to do what they didn't want to do.

The last bit, the "repatriation" of our Constitution in 1982, to a degree was redundant, to a degree a political act of nation-building in a time when Quebec separatism had a high water mark. Which fight wasn't settled, because Quebec wouldn't formally sign on, and hasn't yet.

This isn't a history of "meh, it just kinda happened." It's a history of persistent, intentional gradualism, rather than revolutionary change.

[john welsford]

Colonies are bloody expensive to run.
When the landed gentry no longer have surplus younger sons needing employment, colonies lose their charm.

Yes, we had a lot of "black sheep" for a while there. Being as far away from England as its possible to be and still be on the same planet seems to have had its advantages.

John Welsford

[Peerie Maa]

Yes, we had a lot of "black sheep" for a while there. Being as far away from England as its possible to be and still be on the same planet seems to have had its advantages.

John Welsford

Yep, but the younger sons sent to the African colonies did a useful job, and necessary, as unlike your settlers, the population was not particularly well-educated.
That is a thing about our various colonies. The US, Australia and NZ were populated by fairly well-educated Brits.
The Indian subcontinent took advantage of the education provided by the East India Company and later by the colonial authorities.
Africa was too difficult to educate, so it had to rely on British administrator and engineers to run the colonies and design the infrastructure. We resettled people from the Indian Sub Continent to provide the "Middle Classes" and skilled artisans.