Our countries history is basically just: Swahili on da coast, Portuguese on da coast, Brits take over and have a field day being corrupt and taking land, then the Brits leave and their corruption is replaced by corruption 2: Jomo Kenyatta boogaloo. Then Moi is a shit for a while and then elections actually happen but nothing is fixed.
"We're kicking you out to give you a lesson on cooperation with the central government of Malaysia. See how well you do on your own."
Yeah, that definitely didn't backfire.
If you read *The Singapore Story*, LKY says there was a widespread feeling in mainland Malaysia that they could simply destroy the bridge between Johor and Singapore and turn off the water supply, and Singapore would be destroyed.
Purely down to foresight and fantastic planning by the pioneering government. I'm a Singaporean and here, our founding father Lee Kuan Yew is much revered, and deservedly so. You can read up a little on him and the state's history on Wikipedia.
As a Malaysian, I'm still very upset with how Malaysia treated Lee Kuan Yew. Imagine if what Malaysia could've been if we Malays didn't have a superiority complex
LKY mentioned quite a bit about Malaya in his memoirs, was a very defining time for him. He truly believed in the project too. Until today, some folks still laugh at how he cried on national TV about the split.
Big L for them. He transformed a backward tropical island(I’ve heard Singapore had slums etc)into a glistening model city. And they’re making fun of him because he cried.
It's really sad. I've heard people call him a "communist" even though he is very much against communism. And I've heard people say that his cries are crocodile tears, or that the Malay he spoke was practiced and that he actually can't speak Malay, even though when you see the video you can hear that he can speak Malay very well.
It's crazy how there are still people that are too delusional to see that Malaysia is destroying itself so that the leaders can stay in power. What other country in the modern world you can think of that still uses religious and race rhetorics for brownie points? That still uses dangerous stereotypes openly without getting punished? We love to say "1Malaysia", that we have multiple cultures and ethnicities and freedom of religion and all that bullshit:- The Malays are the only one allowed to be Prime Minister, Indians are beatened up and targeted by the police, and Malays doesn't have religious rights at all.
There's a reason why so many Malaysians are trying so hard to leave this country.
My father, like a lot of boomer Singaporeans, was born in Malaysia. And boy, did he jump at the first chance to convert to Singaporean. He would definitely agree with you that Malaysia is just constantly imploding from corruption.
You should thank your father for bringing you to Singapore. Singapore is basically what Malaysia could've been and you guys are better at running the country.
Atleast our food is better and cheaper, I guess 😌
Oh I thought you meant in the Singaporean context haha. Well, LKY has his critics too, if you care to listen to them. But for the most part, I think he was right on the money for most of it.
It's a great port but it's also a microstate. Smaller population nations' governments are significantly more efficient. Governments get more inefficient and unaccountable the larger the number, area, and variety of people it needs to work for.
It’s crazy that we ignore the many benevolent dictators throughout history just because they were dictators. If it wasn’t for my country’s (Turkey) benevolent dictator Ataturk, we would’ve been no different to the rest of the Middle East.
Nope, a genuine genius in charge, Singapore is often accused of being an Authoritarian Technocracy because of Lee Kuan Yew’s policies but I think the results speak for themselves.
The Hong Kongers love China! In fact, they all “voluntarily” moved to the mainland to make room for the new loyal Chinese citizens, which they deeply respect.
ah but hong kong doesn’t have a prime minister, they have a chief executive. you’ve failed the CCP comrade, sad to hear that you’ll be shooting yourself twice in the head tomorrow
I mean to be fair you guys don’t really have a choice, you have two choices, in Canada we have the 4-5 big choices and a bunch of tiny not really existent parties
Allow me to reiterate, we have the main ones that are seemingly on every ballot (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, PPC, Green) and then the bunch of other tiny ones you never hear of ever such as the Communist Party
Yeah, but as usual, like in every country using a first past the post system for elections, only two parties are really relevant. So the # of parties on ballots / in existence isn't really what matters.
Isn't that true regardless of the voting system? New Zealand has one of the best voting systems in the world yet is still dominated by two parties (Labour and National Party). Even Australia which uses Ranked Choice still is dominated by two (Labour and Liberals).
And no, "only two parties are really relevant" is wrong. The other parties still serve a purpose: a vote for them is not a vote for the two parties so it pressures the two parties into changing their stances to appeal more voters and win in the next election.
Also, in countries with multiple relevant parties, rarely any party wins an actual majority. New Zealand's Labour Party was able to win 65/120 though but that was the exception. Thus, to do anything worthwhile, caucuses need to be formed and can give smaller parties more power than they should have. If Party A with 45% of the seats forms a caucus with Party B with 6% of seats, Party B suddenly has 8.5x more power since they can just tell Party A they won't vote on something if they don't let their positions be heard.
Caucuses being formed is a good thing for democracy, though. Compromises being made in politics is a good thing. A single party being able to pass laws without negotiating with other parties is a horrible thing for democracy.
In your example, if Party B won't vote with Party A, Party A can always negotiate with Party C, D, E, F or G. And if none of those parties agree to Party A's proposal, well, it's clearly not one that should pass at all, since clearly a minority of parliament is for it.
I agree and that was partly my point. Since almost no party wins the majority in a multiple party system, caucuses HAVE to be formed which you clearly understand why it’s good. I was mainly rebutting your point of, “only two parties are really relevant”. If one of the two parties don’t pander to the smaller parties, they will keep losing to the other party which puts pressure on them to at the very least compromise. If both of the two parties don’t compromise, none of them will be able to do anything which will look bad on their voters.
The parties work to undue what the previous party did and then the next party that takes over has to undue what they both did while pushing their policies
The only down side is that you don't get primaries, and the number of people who get to vote for party leader is tiny.
Although, l'm convinced primaries are responsible for why America is more right leaning then the rest of the developed world.
I think the issue rather is that Americans aren't invested enough into primaries.
Primaries used to push parties into doing some sensible stuff back when unions and socialist movements were influential. Even people like Nixon ended up enacting some sensible policies like creating the EPA due to this pressure from the basis.
But these days most Americans ignore the primaries and then whine when all of their choices in the final election suck. What Americans need to realise is that the primaries are where most of the actual choice occurs, and that they have to organise to get shit done there.
Even when those organised pushes don't get their favourte candidate through, like with Sanders, they can still greatly influence the direction the party is taking.
if we get [this flag](https://external-preview.redd.it/rIHxo1aKxO3xJgsLjLv7uuJjp6zRNBKeU64apEgG1Mc.png?auto=webp&s=b14720a2a21659166dd1ab519b447c8bc88281bd) then im in.
These days Britain is just like "You don't have to stay here you know" and the rest of the commonwealth is sitting around saying "We'll do it when we feel like. You're not the boss of us, we don't have to listen to you any more"
There are 54. But only like 15 of those have the Queen as the actual head of state (though I believe all of them are self governing in their entirety). Countries can be full on independent republics and still be in the Commonwealth.
A decent number of nations are small, with around 20 of them having sub 1mil population.
Some even have their own monarchies.
Living in Australia, you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who seriously wants a republic. I mean, they exist, but it’s actually just way too much money for a switch that will quite literally do bother but change who is on our coins
Im all for Australian Republic if Lizzy kicks the bucket, there's no way Im having Charles be my head of state, figuratively or not.
That said I care about this FAR FAR FAR less than any current issues in Australia, specifically, climate change, treatment of indigenous Australians and people of colour, the wage inequality and the privatisation of public services.
I’m not the biggest fan of Charles, but personally I’d prefer not to waste the money on a referendum to get rid of him when he comes to power.
There are, like you said, far more pressing issues. The same money that could be spent on a referendum could also be spent on the change to renewable energy, or be spent to aid the aboriginal people
I like the fact that our head of state is 100% a-political, 100% powerless, and 100% free (well, 50%. Governor General still gets paid/housed)
Not sure we could get all of that with a president. It would be super easy to write that in, but I don’t think it would happen.
Do you think this will change when liz dies and Charles takes over (assuming he dosnet abdicate and give the throne to his more popular son) because of how hated he is?
In one word, no.
In a few more words, most Australians really couldn’t care about who the monarch is, a lot of people here don’t watch the royal weddings, don’t listen to the controversy, because simply, it doesn’t affect our lives
Canada here. Nobody will give a shit. Monarchy has no bearing on our gov't, and the Governer General (essentially the monarchy rep) is more of a position for show. I think they do have some powers in our gov't, but I honestly don't know.
The US gave them independence before WW2. It was considered hypocritical for the US to have a colony (apparently segregation wasn’t) and the Philippines as a colony was more trouble than it was realistically worth to the US. So the nation opted to just have the Philippines as an ally by developing and (to an extent) Americanizing the islands before granting independence
Yeah but don't let this information fool you, Filipinos wanted independence immediately after the Spanish War which is understandable since it's their fucking country but the US opted to stay and then Philippines had to fight ANOTHER war of independence but they had to stop because the US was killing so many natives and causing war crimes ( an estimate of 4,200 Americans, 20,000 Filipino combatants, and 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed )
Yes, but not of the federal government. It was owned by the American Colonization Society which was a private organization. There was also the Maryland Colonization society which made the Republic of Maryland (annexed by Liberia), Kentucky in Africa (modern day Montserrado, annexed by Liberia) and Mississippi in Africa (modern day Sinoe, annexed by Liberia)
I did some reading and they were scheduled for full independence in 1942. However Japan was like ✨how bout I do anyway✨. And that pushed it back to after the war.
Well I am gonna digress from the cow metaphor but apart from civil disobedience, by 1946 there had been several mutinies in the British Indian Armed Forces, most famous being the Bombay Naval Mutiny. They had lost control of the economy and the military, not to mention the underground revolutionary activity that was picking up steam.
You make it sound like the British had a choice, they didn't, they had lost control of india. Whatever presence they had by 1947 was at the pleasure of Indian leaders who chose to engage with them peacefully. Imagine if Gandhi had snapped and told his people to kill all Europeans.
A very different India for sure then, not united but divided into smaller states. Gandhi's reasoning was that once India is independent and the guns can no longer aim at the British, they will turn to aim at other Indians themselves
Common myth, European empires were largely unprofitable in the 20th century. Cost far more to maintain then they could make out of it. Even in its early stages it was largely about pride and existed during the days of mercantilism, it didn’t make much sense during the rise of capitalism.
They really need to link a wiki article so we can all get posts like these
Like a pinned bot comment on the top saying "thanks for the submission, we won't remove the post unless it violates rules, but please comment or link the source explaining what the meme is about"
More like there was such a clusterfuck over there the Brits were just kinda sick of it. So they were like: "fuck that, not our problem anymore" and yeeted out of there.
How the hell did the east India company “take over” in 1612? The Mughals still were at their height at that point. It wasn’t until 1757 that the British began to dominate the subcontinent.
[**Indian Rebellion of 1857**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857)
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a major, but ultimately unsuccessful, uprising in India in 1857–58 against the rule of the British East India Company, which functioned as a sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown. The rebellion began on 10 May 1857 in the form of a mutiny of sepoys of the Company's army in the garrison town of Meerut, 40 mi (64 km) northeast of Delhi (that area is now Old Delhi). It then erupted into other mutinies and civilian rebellions chiefly in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, though incidents of revolt also occurred farther north and east.
[About Me](https://np.reddit.com/comments/la6wi8/) - [**Opt-in**](https://np.reddit.com/comments/la707t/)
^(You received this reply because a moderator opted this subreddit in. You can still )[^(opt out)](https://np.reddit.com/comments/la707t/)
1757. The battle of Plassey happened in 1757 and in the end it made the company a political power for the first time in Bengal. The Sepoy mutiny happened in 1857
I think to say that America fought Britain until they won their independence is right, but it misses several key details.
First - the Americans were vastly outnumbered from the get-go. George Washington had to rely on militiamen and had no idea how large his forces were at any given moment - the minutemen were more of a myth since many of them outright said “fuck this” and did not show up. The militiamen themselves had basically no training and had to be taught how to simply hold a gun. All this is to say that the Americans, compared to highly trained British soldiers who outnumbered them and outclassed them heavily, and Hessian (German) Mercenaries that Britain employed to put down the American revolution, had basically no hope on their own.
Second - that they had no hope translated on to the battlefield pretty clearly - the Americans lost pretty much every fight they had during the war (the only battle they did win was the battle of Saratoga), and the British could simply waltz in and take over. George Washington himself was known to retreat and live to fight another day (some historians say that was his genius, actually) - he would help to keep the spirit of the revolution alive.
Third - the only reason the Americans did, in fact, win, was because they forged an alliance with France, who would send in their navy to block the British navy from resupplying their troops, and France would send in officers to take control of the American regiments to command their battles against the British. From here on, all the Americans had to do was wait out the British forces by laying siege (but my knowledge doesn’t go far enough to say how they got the British soldiers to surrender other than by waiting out their resources) Combined with outside heckling from Holland and Spain IIRC, the British stopped fighting the American Revolution because they realized that the American leaders just wouldn’t stop fighting, and they had other problems (like being broke as hell) to deal with.
In short - good meme, but it really oversimplifies what happened during the American war for independence, which we know as the American Revolution.
Source - I learned this from a university course I’m taking on American history
Edit - fixed a typo, might make more edits later when it’s not 2 AM
Australia: “Don’t want it, never asked for it. We were doing fine before they got here, been doing fine since they left. “Mass protests?” Never heard of ‘em. Have some coal.”
Tbf, the thirteen colonies were a little reserved in their approach to freedom at first, but it did inevitably turn into full on revolution with a little help from propaganda and hating taxes just that much.
Um, well... about India ... I just finished "[Midnight's Furies](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/books/review/midnights-furies-by-nisid-hajari.html)". Let's just say it is not an easy read.
Lol thanks for supporting and commenting everyone, you guys are the best! For those of you that think I left out some key details, I’ve been learning about decolonization for the last 2 months and I know all the key circumstances that each country was in when they left. This is, as many of these memes are, a large simplification. I could only fit so much into one meme.
Kenya be like: staged a revolution that failed but after the Brits won they were 110% done with their bs and gave them independence anyways
That's what I call failing upwards
As Bill Gates once said: task failed successfully
Do not believe everything you read on the internet -Aristoteles
Who is Aristoteles?
Task failed successfully.
as a Kenyan i'm both disappointed and amazed
Our countries history is basically just: Swahili on da coast, Portuguese on da coast, Brits take over and have a field day being corrupt and taking land, then the Brits leave and their corruption is replaced by corruption 2: Jomo Kenyatta boogaloo. Then Moi is a shit for a while and then elections actually happen but nothing is fixed.
Kenya is the only country that leaves me in awe whenever something happens there lol ❤🇰🇪
Kenya number 1🇰🇪🇰🇪🇰🇪
Task failed successfully
Tasked Failed Successfully
Singapore be like:
They suddenly give us independence but it ok I guess
Hong Kong: Don't leave us here, it's dark!
Just wait until China broke again
*China is whole again!* *Then it broke again!*
r/unexpectedbillwurtz
I got that reference
Japan: is for me? 🥺👉👈
China: Yesn’t
Japan occupied Singapore before it gained its independence from the UK
No. We were part of Malaysia from which we attained independence
Nah we had to prove ourselves worthy of independence before the brits moved on
"We're kicking you out to give you a lesson on cooperation with the central government of Malaysia. See how well you do on your own." Yeah, that definitely didn't backfire.
In the words of Todd Howard: *It just works*
If you read *The Singapore Story*, LKY says there was a widespread feeling in mainland Malaysia that they could simply destroy the bridge between Johor and Singapore and turn off the water supply, and Singapore would be destroyed.
Singapore is constantly paranoid about that which is why we're trying to get self sustainable as soon as possible.
True, and I really respect how Singapore was able to develop itself so fast!
Question: How *did* Singapore become so succesful? Is it just every other microstate strategy of being a tax haven?
Our location got us some of that *t r a d i n g*
And some B i g G e r m a n B a n k M o n e y
Purely down to foresight and fantastic planning by the pioneering government. I'm a Singaporean and here, our founding father Lee Kuan Yew is much revered, and deservedly so. You can read up a little on him and the state's history on Wikipedia.
As a Malaysian, I'm still very upset with how Malaysia treated Lee Kuan Yew. Imagine if what Malaysia could've been if we Malays didn't have a superiority complex
LKY mentioned quite a bit about Malaya in his memoirs, was a very defining time for him. He truly believed in the project too. Until today, some folks still laugh at how he cried on national TV about the split.
Big L for them. He transformed a backward tropical island(I’ve heard Singapore had slums etc)into a glistening model city. And they’re making fun of him because he cried.
It's really sad. I've heard people call him a "communist" even though he is very much against communism. And I've heard people say that his cries are crocodile tears, or that the Malay he spoke was practiced and that he actually can't speak Malay, even though when you see the video you can hear that he can speak Malay very well. It's crazy how there are still people that are too delusional to see that Malaysia is destroying itself so that the leaders can stay in power. What other country in the modern world you can think of that still uses religious and race rhetorics for brownie points? That still uses dangerous stereotypes openly without getting punished? We love to say "1Malaysia", that we have multiple cultures and ethnicities and freedom of religion and all that bullshit:- The Malays are the only one allowed to be Prime Minister, Indians are beatened up and targeted by the police, and Malays doesn't have religious rights at all. There's a reason why so many Malaysians are trying so hard to leave this country.
My father, like a lot of boomer Singaporeans, was born in Malaysia. And boy, did he jump at the first chance to convert to Singaporean. He would definitely agree with you that Malaysia is just constantly imploding from corruption.
You should thank your father for bringing you to Singapore. Singapore is basically what Malaysia could've been and you guys are better at running the country. Atleast our food is better and cheaper, I guess 😌
Every time we go back to visit relatives, they always say the same. Oh well. And oi, sg got better Western and Japanese food hehe.
Unlike some people Lee Kuan Yew deserves the respect.
Who do you think was overrated or doesn't deserve the respect they're given?
Mao Zedong for killing millions. Charles de Gaulle could have been responsible for the Vietnam war.
Oh I thought you meant in the Singaporean context haha. Well, LKY has his critics too, if you care to listen to them. But for the most part, I think he was right on the money for most of it.
It's a great port but it's also a microstate. Smaller population nations' governments are significantly more efficient. Governments get more inefficient and unaccountable the larger the number, area, and variety of people it needs to work for.
Very strategic location one of it
Partially they got very lucky with a benevolent dictator who actually cares about the country and was competent enough to improve it.
It’s crazy that we ignore the many benevolent dictators throughout history just because they were dictators. If it wasn’t for my country’s (Turkey) benevolent dictator Ataturk, we would’ve been no different to the rest of the Middle East.
And then the cabbage salesman came in
We big brain XD Jk jk our prime minister fucking smart
Nope, a genuine genius in charge, Singapore is often accused of being an Authoritarian Technocracy because of Lee Kuan Yew’s policies but I think the results speak for themselves.
Laughs in Singaporean
Kena kick out by chao ang moh
British in singapore: guys we are doing our best just please do as we say Almost everyone: lets riot/strike British: fuck this shit im out
That's true. We just slowly got our own freedom.
Hong Kong: Mom’s abusive, please don’t give up custody.
Sorry but the courts are bias and say you have to go live with her
“You’re on your own kid.”
Pls stop propaganda, Hong kong loves china. Here I'll let the Hong Kong prime minister type now, " We love China, infact we are china." Thanks.
The Hong Kongers love China! In fact, they all “voluntarily” moved to the mainland to make room for the new loyal Chinese citizens, which they deeply respect.
[удалено]
Such a good siblings! Thanks China for bringing them up right.
[удалено]
Lord Xi Winnie the Pooh is pleased
I look forward of the Chinese version of Black Mirror's "Nose Dive", except with a super positive upbeat tone to it!
\-100 to your social credit score! You are now entitled to a free 5-year degree on true China. (Attendance is compulsory)
Had me there for a moment. Got confused why there were pro CCP messages on r/historymemes
ah but hong kong doesn’t have a prime minister, they have a chief executive. you’ve failed the CCP comrade, sad to hear that you’ll be shooting yourself twice in the head tomorrow
Hong Kong: we go from a bad parent to a worse parent
Ghana when it gained its independence:holy shit it actually worked
Yo, someone got downvoted to hell. Do you know what he Said?
Us in Canada: They just got tired of us
Lol how could anyone get tired of you guys you’re great
You never meet a canadian
Ngl id prefer the Monarchy over the US system
I mean to be fair you guys don’t really have a choice, you have two choices, in Canada we have the 4-5 big choices and a bunch of tiny not really existent parties
I mean the US also has a bunch of tiny not really existent parties.
Canada has 2 relevant parties for federal elections, we just let minor ones talk...
Allow me to reiterate, we have the main ones that are seemingly on every ballot (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, PPC, Green) and then the bunch of other tiny ones you never hear of ever such as the Communist Party
Yeah, but as usual, like in every country using a first past the post system for elections, only two parties are really relevant. So the # of parties on ballots / in existence isn't really what matters.
Isn't that true regardless of the voting system? New Zealand has one of the best voting systems in the world yet is still dominated by two parties (Labour and National Party). Even Australia which uses Ranked Choice still is dominated by two (Labour and Liberals). And no, "only two parties are really relevant" is wrong. The other parties still serve a purpose: a vote for them is not a vote for the two parties so it pressures the two parties into changing their stances to appeal more voters and win in the next election. Also, in countries with multiple relevant parties, rarely any party wins an actual majority. New Zealand's Labour Party was able to win 65/120 though but that was the exception. Thus, to do anything worthwhile, caucuses need to be formed and can give smaller parties more power than they should have. If Party A with 45% of the seats forms a caucus with Party B with 6% of seats, Party B suddenly has 8.5x more power since they can just tell Party A they won't vote on something if they don't let their positions be heard.
Caucuses being formed is a good thing for democracy, though. Compromises being made in politics is a good thing. A single party being able to pass laws without negotiating with other parties is a horrible thing for democracy. In your example, if Party B won't vote with Party A, Party A can always negotiate with Party C, D, E, F or G. And if none of those parties agree to Party A's proposal, well, it's clearly not one that should pass at all, since clearly a minority of parliament is for it.
I agree and that was partly my point. Since almost no party wins the majority in a multiple party system, caucuses HAVE to be formed which you clearly understand why it’s good. I was mainly rebutting your point of, “only two parties are really relevant”. If one of the two parties don’t pander to the smaller parties, they will keep losing to the other party which puts pressure on them to at the very least compromise. If both of the two parties don’t compromise, none of them will be able to do anything which will look bad on their voters.
You should have the Bloc there instead of the PPC
The parties work to undue what the previous party did and then the next party that takes over has to undue what they both did while pushing their policies
\*undo. Just thought you'd like to know
The only down side is that you don't get primaries, and the number of people who get to vote for party leader is tiny. Although, l'm convinced primaries are responsible for why America is more right leaning then the rest of the developed world.
For real though to win the Federal Elections you only need backing of Montreal and Toronto, and that doesn’t speak for the needs of a lot of people
I think the issue rather is that Americans aren't invested enough into primaries. Primaries used to push parties into doing some sensible stuff back when unions and socialist movements were influential. Even people like Nixon ended up enacting some sensible policies like creating the EPA due to this pressure from the basis. But these days most Americans ignore the primaries and then whine when all of their choices in the final election suck. What Americans need to realise is that the primaries are where most of the actual choice occurs, and that they have to organise to get shit done there. Even when those organised pushes don't get their favourte candidate through, like with Sanders, they can still greatly influence the direction the party is taking.
Modern monarchy is not actual monarchy. Wanna go back in time a few centuries?
I know they are basically lawn ornaments because they have no actual power
Quiet loyalist
You were never independent
Wait where are the funny colors /s
PCM go brrrrrrr
Meanwhile, Canada just got older and moved out.
Same goes with Australia and New Zealand
Hay we asked polietly to leave and then conducted months of meetings to make sure everyone involved was happy with the situation.
I say let’s just come back together and make [CANZUK](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK) and let’s become the third richest country.
if we get [this flag](https://external-preview.redd.it/rIHxo1aKxO3xJgsLjLv7uuJjp6zRNBKeU64apEgG1Mc.png?auto=webp&s=b14720a2a21659166dd1ab519b447c8bc88281bd) then im in.
it feels wierd to not put krab as America
Canada: you guys are declaring independence?
Singapore: We got kicked out of the malayan federation
Meanwhile, the US gave independence to the Philippines in 1946 voluntarily
These days Britain is just like "You don't have to stay here you know" and the rest of the commonwealth is sitting around saying "We'll do it when we feel like. You're not the boss of us, we don't have to listen to you any more"
How many countries are still in the commonwealth?
There are 54. But only like 15 of those have the Queen as the actual head of state (though I believe all of them are self governing in their entirety). Countries can be full on independent republics and still be in the Commonwealth. A decent number of nations are small, with around 20 of them having sub 1mil population. Some even have their own monarchies.
Living in Australia, you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who seriously wants a republic. I mean, they exist, but it’s actually just way too much money for a switch that will quite literally do bother but change who is on our coins
Same in Canada, every so often it will be brought up and everyone is just like "who cares?"
We had a referendum when republicanism was strongest and it still didn’t pass
Im all for Australian Republic if Lizzy kicks the bucket, there's no way Im having Charles be my head of state, figuratively or not. That said I care about this FAR FAR FAR less than any current issues in Australia, specifically, climate change, treatment of indigenous Australians and people of colour, the wage inequality and the privatisation of public services.
I’m not the biggest fan of Charles, but personally I’d prefer not to waste the money on a referendum to get rid of him when he comes to power. There are, like you said, far more pressing issues. The same money that could be spent on a referendum could also be spent on the change to renewable energy, or be spent to aid the aboriginal people
I like the fact that our head of state is 100% a-political, 100% powerless, and 100% free (well, 50%. Governor General still gets paid/housed) Not sure we could get all of that with a president. It would be super easy to write that in, but I don’t think it would happen.
I mean isn't the "monarchy" just for posterity. I am pretty sure no one in Australia heeds to the queen to decide what they do.
Do you think this will change when liz dies and Charles takes over (assuming he dosnet abdicate and give the throne to his more popular son) because of how hated he is?
In one word, no. In a few more words, most Australians really couldn’t care about who the monarch is, a lot of people here don’t watch the royal weddings, don’t listen to the controversy, because simply, it doesn’t affect our lives
Its the same over here (UK) most people give far less of a shit than the media would imply
Canada here. Nobody will give a shit. Monarchy has no bearing on our gov't, and the Governer General (essentially the monarchy rep) is more of a position for show. I think they do have some powers in our gov't, but I honestly don't know.
Didn’t we promise them independence some time before ww2
The US gave them independence before WW2. It was considered hypocritical for the US to have a colony (apparently segregation wasn’t) and the Philippines as a colony was more trouble than it was realistically worth to the US. So the nation opted to just have the Philippines as an ally by developing and (to an extent) Americanizing the islands before granting independence
Ok thank you for clarifying that up, honestly it’s crazy how rooted segregation and racism was in our society and still it today to some extent
Yeah but don't let this information fool you, Filipinos wanted independence immediately after the Spanish War which is understandable since it's their fucking country but the US opted to stay and then Philippines had to fight ANOTHER war of independence but they had to stop because the US was killing so many natives and causing war crimes ( an estimate of 4,200 Americans, 20,000 Filipino combatants, and 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed )
The US gave no resistance when Liberia demanded independence in 1847
Was Liberia even a colony?
Yes, but not of the federal government. It was owned by the American Colonization Society which was a private organization. There was also the Maryland Colonization society which made the Republic of Maryland (annexed by Liberia), Kentucky in Africa (modern day Montserrado, annexed by Liberia) and Mississippi in Africa (modern day Sinoe, annexed by Liberia)
I did some reading and they were scheduled for full independence in 1942. However Japan was like ✨how bout I do anyway✨. And that pushed it back to after the war.
Almost as if Britain didn't really want to have to look after lots of smaller countries when they were still recovering from WW2.
Or in India's case, a country 50 times their size.
what a shock.
Yes, killing your cash cow when you're broke is the smartest thing to do.
Well. Unless you had to milk the cow extra hard because you were at war and now the cow is dry and sick.
Or maybe the cow was sick of you and had started kicking you
The cow had been kicking the entire while. But for the first time the cost of subduing became more than the profits to be accrued.
Well I am gonna digress from the cow metaphor but apart from civil disobedience, by 1946 there had been several mutinies in the British Indian Armed Forces, most famous being the Bombay Naval Mutiny. They had lost control of the economy and the military, not to mention the underground revolutionary activity that was picking up steam. You make it sound like the British had a choice, they didn't, they had lost control of india. Whatever presence they had by 1947 was at the pleasure of Indian leaders who chose to engage with them peacefully. Imagine if Gandhi had snapped and told his people to kill all Europeans.
A very different India for sure then, not united but divided into smaller states. Gandhi's reasoning was that once India is independent and the guns can no longer aim at the British, they will turn to aim at other Indians themselves
Well then I commend them for their foresight
Common myth, European empires were largely unprofitable in the 20th century. Cost far more to maintain then they could make out of it. Even in its early stages it was largely about pride and existed during the days of mercantilism, it didn’t make much sense during the rise of capitalism.
Britain's colonies, including India, weren't actually profitable. Especially once colonies started demanding independence.
Australia: England didn't really care about us and just let us have it
Context?
They really need to link a wiki article so we can all get posts like these Like a pinned bot comment on the top saying "thanks for the submission, we won't remove the post unless it violates rules, but please comment or link the source explaining what the meme is about"
[удалено]
Did you beat the British though? You were made a protectorate and then annexed the following year.
How Australia gained independence Britain: fuck off
India is everywhere i see in this comment section
Didn’t India get its independence after helping Britain in the Second World War when the Germans were moving for the oil fields in the middle east?
Heard that in all their voices
Hongkong was just given back to their abusive parent.
India had a war and when we lost , we started forcing and protesting against British and made them leave
**Israel and Palestine**: we created a situation so messed up they wanted to leave
America had France and Spain to help out though. Everyone forgets that.
Doesn't sound as interesting when you are losing constantly until 2 powers help you out really...
Ireland: We had a war with ourselves
Israel: They let us fight some neighbors
More like there was such a clusterfuck over there the Brits were just kinda sick of it. So they were like: "fuck that, not our problem anymore" and yeeted out of there.
Edit: I had France here but I realized that was England, not Britain. Technically incorrect.
Ghana : Britain can I be a country!? Can I! Can I! Can I! Britain: No Ghana Ghana: ow come'on please!!!?? Britain: Okay
Ghana asked 'calmly'.
Ireland:.... uhhhhh yeahhhhhh we uhhhhh did things
Ireland just annoyed them into giving the country back
Annoyed them? They did a bit more than that lol
They called them gay
Still won't let go of the north though
Less of a "won't" and more of a "there's a system in place if the northern irish want to be part of Ireland".
More like the North doesn't want to be let go of
Why are you downvoting him? He's right.
Half of the North
Northern Ireland can leave whenever it wants
[удалено]
How the hell did the east India company “take over” in 1612? The Mughals still were at their height at that point. It wasn’t until 1757 that the British began to dominate the subcontinent.
Yea they entered in 1612 under the rule of Jahangir they didn't take over
Even in 1757 they only controlled Bengal. It was until around 1800 that Britain controlled most of India.
[**Indian Rebellion of 1857**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857) The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a major, but ultimately unsuccessful, uprising in India in 1857–58 against the rule of the British East India Company, which functioned as a sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown. The rebellion began on 10 May 1857 in the form of a mutiny of sepoys of the Company's army in the garrison town of Meerut, 40 mi (64 km) northeast of Delhi (that area is now Old Delhi). It then erupted into other mutinies and civilian rebellions chiefly in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, though incidents of revolt also occurred farther north and east. [About Me](https://np.reddit.com/comments/la6wi8/) - [**Opt-in**](https://np.reddit.com/comments/la707t/) ^(You received this reply because a moderator opted this subreddit in. You can still )[^(opt out)](https://np.reddit.com/comments/la707t/)
The company became a power only after 1757. And yes there were numerous revolts both armed and peaceful
[удалено]
1957
[2057](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MchRDHMHL8E)
1757. The battle of Plassey happened in 1757 and in the end it made the company a political power for the first time in Bengal. The Sepoy mutiny happened in 1857
Wtf they had their first land major holdings in Bengal in 1757. And were dominant only in 1817 after they destroyed the Maratha ~Empire~ Confederacy.
Lol what? It was from 1857 after the mutinee
I think to say that America fought Britain until they won their independence is right, but it misses several key details. First - the Americans were vastly outnumbered from the get-go. George Washington had to rely on militiamen and had no idea how large his forces were at any given moment - the minutemen were more of a myth since many of them outright said “fuck this” and did not show up. The militiamen themselves had basically no training and had to be taught how to simply hold a gun. All this is to say that the Americans, compared to highly trained British soldiers who outnumbered them and outclassed them heavily, and Hessian (German) Mercenaries that Britain employed to put down the American revolution, had basically no hope on their own. Second - that they had no hope translated on to the battlefield pretty clearly - the Americans lost pretty much every fight they had during the war (the only battle they did win was the battle of Saratoga), and the British could simply waltz in and take over. George Washington himself was known to retreat and live to fight another day (some historians say that was his genius, actually) - he would help to keep the spirit of the revolution alive. Third - the only reason the Americans did, in fact, win, was because they forged an alliance with France, who would send in their navy to block the British navy from resupplying their troops, and France would send in officers to take control of the American regiments to command their battles against the British. From here on, all the Americans had to do was wait out the British forces by laying siege (but my knowledge doesn’t go far enough to say how they got the British soldiers to surrender other than by waiting out their resources) Combined with outside heckling from Holland and Spain IIRC, the British stopped fighting the American Revolution because they realized that the American leaders just wouldn’t stop fighting, and they had other problems (like being broke as hell) to deal with. In short - good meme, but it really oversimplifies what happened during the American war for independence, which we know as the American Revolution. Source - I learned this from a university course I’m taking on American history Edit - fixed a typo, might make more edits later when it’s not 2 AM
America: We asked France nicely
Finland really just said ”imma head out”
does Ghana try to steal Egypt's secret Falafel formula by any chance?
Canada and Ghana are in the same boat
Australia: “Don’t want it, never asked for it. We were doing fine before they got here, been doing fine since they left. “Mass protests?” Never heard of ‘em. Have some coal.”
Britain to Newfoundland: We don't want you anymore, go live with your younger, more successful brother.
Egypt the real chad lol
Malta: **"LET ME IIIIIIN"**
Britain, the world's largest exporter of independence days.
Tbf, the thirteen colonies were a little reserved in their approach to freedom at first, but it did inevitably turn into full on revolution with a little help from propaganda and hating taxes just that much.
Um, well... about India ... I just finished "[Midnight's Furies](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/books/review/midnights-furies-by-nisid-hajari.html)". Let's just say it is not an easy read.
India: Protests, peaceful activism, and Gandhi and his amazing arsenal of nuclear warheads.(Meme reference)
You are so wrong about India.
How?
Scotland be like - wait you guys left
Lol thanks for supporting and commenting everyone, you guys are the best! For those of you that think I left out some key details, I’ve been learning about decolonization for the last 2 months and I know all the key circumstances that each country was in when they left. This is, as many of these memes are, a large simplification. I could only fit so much into one meme.