Question: Did the British suppress anti-colonial sentiments, movements or activists before granting full independence to the locals?

Largely speaking, they weren’t in a place to do so. Of course they tried to impose puppets (particularly in Africa) but the historical tide was simply against them. The y*ps, c**lies and n*ggers weren’t having any of it, and neither were the young radicalized cr*ckers at home. The British Establishment was powerless.

(Not to say they didn’t “put up a fight”, in one case – Kenya – they sent thousands to what were essentially gulags.)

No amount of soft or hard power was going to convince any of the above to embrace a new form of colonialism. And so we saw the British hastily carve up boundaries in their former possessions (India/Pakistan, Cyprus, Palestine, etc.) and get out of dodge.

I should add this didn’t stop them from intervening after they had left these places. The British had a strong hand in the removal of Iran’s democratically elected government, and in the assassination of Lumumba, the Congolese revolutionary. (Also, need I mention Eire?)

Paddy

4 thoughts on “Question: Did the British suppress anti-colonial sentiments, movements or activists before granting full independence to the locals?”

    1. The word ‘subjugated’ in quotes: Is that an attempt at sarcasm, or are you quoting some unnamed source?

      If the former is the case, and you really do believe that Britain did not subjugate its foreign possessions, then I really am at a loss.

      The imposition of Anglo law, ethnic cleansing, military occupation, puppet leadership… if these examples do not fit your definition of subjugation then what does?

      (If you really are a UKIPper, as your tone here and in your other post suggests, I’d like to see you try and argue the case that invited labour to Britain is subjugating when armed invasion ain’t.)

      -P.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *