• ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the general focus comes from the particular reach of the British empire controlling ~ a quarter of the world, but I agree every major power has done it

    That said, in this particular conflict, it's more about how right after WWII , around the time when the United nations was founded. The world powers knew they basically owned the world at this point with nuclear tech, but justified it by arguing they should use this power to preserve countries borders.

    Around the same time when the world powers are saying this, land that Britain colonized in Palestine was given to create Israel. Which is hypocritical.

    I can understand machiavellianism in the context of pre 1950 geopolitics, but there will never be peace because of the decision making of Western powers doing something they have acknowledged is unethical

    • V H@lemmy.stad.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      1/4 yes, but also worth mentioning that today far more than 1/4 of the present-day population live in that quarter of the world that has a history of being under British rule in recent history.

      Couple that with the UK population being far more likely to be proud of the empire, wish Britain still had an empire, and insist the colonies wee left better off for having been oppressed, the British Empire has a certain stench about it many of the others haven't, or haven't anymore because of either age, a greater willingness to admit it was a bad thing, or lack of scale.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to be an imperial apologist, but there was one colony that was actually better off under British rule and that was Hong Kong.

        • V H@lemmy.stad.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think Hong Kong is the rare exception that's at least possible to reasonably argue, since the alternative was never independence but being ruled by someone granting even fewer freedoms.