When Australia joined the Commonwealth, it had a different sense of identity. In 1901, we formed our federal government and became functionally independent, if not symbolically. At that time 98% of Australians were of Anglo-Celtic descent. They identified as children of Britain. The formation of the Commonwealth happened with colonies that had this same characteristic of the politically dominant population being white. Aboriginal Australians were not consulted, and if they had been, would have refused. In New Zealand it was the same for the Maories. In Canada, neither the French nor the Native Canadians wished to have any connection with Britain. In South-Africa, the black Africans and Afrikaners were given no choice about being members of the Commonwealth.
The British did continue to use their former colonies. In WWI, Australian and New Zealand soldiers were sent in advance assaults into the most dangerous situations as canon fodder. They were sacrificed en masse at Gallipoli. Same again in WWII. The British used the South Australian desert to test nuclear bombs at Maralinga. Many of the Aboriginals living there died of radiation poisoning, some are still dying of cancer and their children suffering from radiation caused deformities. The land is still too toxic to walk on.
The legacies of British colonialism are far from dead. There are 669,881 Aboriginals alive in Australia today, 3% of the population. Not one lives without five to seven generations of trauma. A very large part of it is perpetuated by the white Australian government making stupid decisions. But the root cause began with attempted genocide back at the beginning of British colonisation and during the first 1oo years of British rule. Only last week, when descendants asked for their stolen sacred relics to be returned to them, the British National Museum refused.
When I was a student for 5 years in London, UK, I was frequently reminded that Australians were usually regarded as gross, uncultured and inferior. None of the remarks were directed at me personally - but there was an assumption that I would not mind. In general, I found that most Britians had not the slightest awareness of what Australians or life in Australia is really like. (True for most people in most countries.)
Although many Anglo-Celtic Australians still have a vague anglophile nostalgia, the population is now 60% migrants from all over the world. We are no longer predominantly of British descent in identity. Most perceive Britain as, at best, benignly irrelevent to our needs, at worst, a betrayer. There is a massive amount of support for total separation from Britain. The only thing holding it up is disagreement over whether to make minor or major changes to the new constitution. When it does finally happen, it will be conducted with utmost diplomacy. And the Monarch will rubber stamp the deed in response to favourable recommendations from the English Prime Minister.
Interesting viewpoint... I cannot categorically disagree with the points re WW2 as i don't know enough.. i always understood that those who joined us in the war did so of their own volition. I am not sure how anyone could have forced anyone to join.. I honestly think that they did so perhaps from some sense of loyalty or affection.. and I understood that at the time they were proud to join in.. You may be right, I may be right..yt or it might be that somewhere in between is more accurate.. but at that time you were only a member of the commonwealth.. a much loved much respected member... and we could not have forced you to do anything.. i think that there will always be differing perspectives on some things
When you talk about the injustices in how the soldiers were treated.. yes, that IS appalling but please don't forget there are many of our soldiers who suffered and were poisoned, used as guinea pigs for things.. and suffer to this day..war is a terrible thing :(
when you talk about how badly people here spoke of Australians.. I can honestly say that I personally have never had anything but respect for Australians and have personally never heard a bad word said about them nor any negative opinion.. please be fair and present the other side too.. many Australians don't have a very erm positive view of us Brits.. and we are called whingeing poms which is relatively polite considering some of the things said.. None of this is ok.. but it's individuals ... or perhaps as you are saying there's a big move there to separate entirely, it's not just individuals? Perhaps a nation? I dont know - I hope not...
Please above all bear in mind when you speak of these atrocities that the Brit governement did to the aboriginals... and I don't deny any of that.. but at some point these Brits/celts turned into Australians.. in effect most were Brits/are descended from Brits but became Australians of their own volition and it was Australians who perpetuated continued and continue to this day to abuse and mistreat and discriminate against aboriginals... Brits along with other colonisers may have started the abuse.. but the Australians perpetuated and continue...
You do however accurately point out that separation and divorcing yourselves from the UK and your predominantly Brit origins is not black and white.. many want it and many don't... that's not for us to argue.. it's for you and your country to determine.. I can promise you, and I mean this utterly respectfully, we don't care.. we will happily abide by whatever you decide....
OOh and I think you mentioned something to do with Canada..and that france/French Canadians didn't like us and weren't happy with us there.. well no, they wouldnt be would they.. cos France was also an empire builder (just as bad or worse than Britain.. people are always forgetting that others did the same..) and France invaded and took the lands that now represent French Canada... so to paint them as somehow better, or more deserving seems a little strange.. interesting to note that generally speaking the Canadians aren't all that overly fond of the French Canadians.. and i say this as someone who's grandfather is French Canadian.. so no axe to grind here.. I have many Canadian friends... and they tell me that Britain is still seen with a sense of loyalty and affection.. perhaps this is another perspective thing...
Both world wars started with volunteers and soon developed conscription. The terms of the Commonwealth require military support - a legal obligation. National propaganda at the time was overwhelming for most people. Young men who did not volunteer and had no obvious excuse, such as a disability, were shamed, bullied and shunned. The young men who joined up for WWI had no idea why they were going to war, and often did so in the mistaken idea that it would be an adventure and make "men" of them. Usually war broke them, all the wars, made them permanently "shell-shocked' - now called PTSD.
In Australia, there is a term "typical bloody wingeing Poms" referring to the ₤10 migrants. Personally, I never heard any Pom complain anymore than anyone else. Generally they are as hard working as other migrants and thrive accordingly. It is true that the view of Britain somewhat less popular now, but I believe that's not personal, not directed against individuals. I think it's the perception of the way the British Government has treated us over time since colonisation and federation. While living in Britain, I didn't notice Brits complaining any more than others do. I definitely did hear a lot against Aussies - if it was true, then Aussies were behaving badly while on holiday. I only ever met one other Australian while abroad, so I really don't know how they were behaving.
The perception that most Brits became Australians of their own volition is not accurate. The majority of British descendants come from convicts - people who stole anything worth lass than 29 shillings and were given 7 years hard labour in Australia but never has the means to return. 30 shillings or above earned a death sentence. Many were Irish political activists. 10% were British conscripted soldiers.
I don't deny that other colonial powers did the same. It's just that aM is an English speaking website with a predominantly American cultural base. I know of only tow other Aussies here, a couple of Canadians and a couple of Indians. That tends to mean that the historical and political focus might sometimes reflect on British origins -- since what the Europeans did, while just as bad, has no direct bearing on our lives or history.
I fully accept that Britain is a greatly changed country now - the values and self-perception are unrecognisable compared to what they were in colonial times. Nor is it right that colonial countries should continue to blame their parents for ongoing social problems. We have to grow up and take responsibility for solving the problems that began with our family of origin. There is no other way.
Personally, I liked and valued a lot of what I saw and experienced during my five years at art school there - I never managed to handle the cold. I still keep in touch with my English and Scottish friends from that time. Although my parents were Australian born, I happened to be born while they were on holiday in London and so am legally English.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 15, 2016 8:09 PM MST
@hartfire -- Thank you for being brutally (if somewhat too politely for my taste...;-D...) honest about the brutal legacies of European colonialism.
I think there is a strong desire by many to...ahem, whitewash those legacies, to try to minimize their monstrousness and their enduring effects.
We saw elsewhere in this thread the canard, "Well, some of the natives sold out to the Imperials and became rich!" Yes, but, if the Imperials had not come with Offers That Couldn't Be Refused (lest the Chosen Ones be stripped of wealth/status and possibly killed), the natives who sold out would never have had their loyalties to self/family versus loyalties to larger political unit tested in that way.
As you note, the Moaries of New Zealand were not consulted when the identity of New Zealand as a British Commonwealth was established. Actually, they had been. The Moaries fought ***very*** hard to make Pommie Go Home. But they didn't have the technological and logistical advantages of Empire (for example, Moari soldiers had to go back to doing their "real jobs". They weren't state-subsidized to be full-time fighting people whose food/clothing/shelter needs were paid for by others). So they lost, they were dominated, and New Zealand is what it is because of good old-fashioned "white man's burden" violence.
To answer the main question on this thread, I think "the British" regret giving up India very much. Being the world's dominant empire, with all the resources and labor which could be extracted/stolen from colonies with little regard to fair recompense made many Brits fabulously wealthy and comfortable. After all, Thorsten Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class was written at a time when imperialism (both political and economic) were nearly at their peak.
Yes, over time, as easily exploitable resources were exhausted, and the logistics of maintaining an empire became more problematic, there was probably a point where letting India go its own way was the less hassle-ridden path to take, but that's like being happy to leave then tending of your neighbor's fruit tree to your neighbor...after you've picked all the fruit off of it.