
England’s Last Gasp of Empire - ezequiel-garzon
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/englands-last-gasp-of-empire.html
======
wrong_variable
In the year 2100, 15 years after I am dead based on my life expectancy.

less than 10% of the world would be of american and European decent.

50% would be Asian and 40% would be African.

When I first heard it, it took me some time to think about what that means.

Think about what history books would read like in the year 2150. It would be
sort of surprising to them that that the world was so eurocentric - they would
prolly all be of same skin color and of a darker shade. The anti-immigration
stance that is becoming so mainstream must feel to them similar to what
reading about slavery feels to us.

There is also something much more profound, when we view historical data about
dinosaurs or other species we always look at statistics of their
representation - essentially out of factors that is outside their control,
their is a peaceful extinction of the European gene pool, so you really cannot
fault the reactionary response to it. Extinction is also the wrong word to use
here, genetically the best features would get absorbed by the human species of
all 'race'. Its inevitable but the recent surge in immigration is making
people deal with that fact in a very direct way.

The world has always had less Europeans and people of white color skin then
other shades, if you took every person in the world and randomly changed their
location, it would be a huge shock to most white people that they are
surrounded by non-white people. For everyone else seeing an extra white person
a year is not as shocking.

The thing that is happening in england is also happening in america but its
not as bad because of the sheer size of america.

In England a change in demographics is a lot more noticeable - either it be
age, ethnicity, language or religion.

~~~
kingmanaz
Whites are now a minority in children under five years of age in the United
States. Given the prevailing worldwide tower-of-Babel Zeitgeist, there is _no_
reason why the same will not be true in Britain.

Hundreds of generations to build a civilization. A decade or two to squander
it away. Disinheritance.

~~~
zepto
How is a civilization being 'squandered'?

~~~
kingmanaz
Is a civilization an organic expression of a people? If so, the answer should
be self evident. If not, what is civilization?

~~~
a3n
Is a people defined by its skin color? And is it static? Or is a people
defined by the people born into and absorbed into the community?

Is a people genetics, or principles?

------
ivraatiems
I disagree with the assertion that the UK has been an empire of any kind since
roughly the end of World War II. I agree in part with the article's core
assertion, that the UK's days as a major influence on the global political and
financial stages are now over.

However, I think this has been a gradual process. I think it has to do less
with an internal dissolution of British society's pillars (though I think that
is happening), and more with a lack of understanding of just what kind of
weight Britain has to throw around. Put simply: Britain is not as important as
it thinks it is, and the EU is much more important than people think it is.
Britain needs the EU more than the EU needs it.

That's not an easy thing to accept. Who among us wants to be told "you don't
matter like you think you do?" Imagine an American's reaction to being told
that.

But it's a lesson the UK needs to learn, and fast, if it's to keep its economy
and quality of life.

~~~
rodgerd
> I disagree with the assertion that the UK has been an empire of any kind
> since roughly the end of World War II.

British troops were still hanging, shooting, and torturing people in Asia and
African territories 15 years after World War II, all in order to maintain
control over colonies.

~~~
kingmanaz
Given the present state of Africa since decolonization, Africans should in
truth be praying for the return of the British justice which ( briefly )
enabled civilization to spring forth on the Dark Continent. A British
managerial class and Anglo colonies would be a blessing for the average
African.

~~~
cholantesh
I see /pol/ has invaded HackerNews.

------
PhilWright
As an Englishman I have first hand knowledge of the country and much of its
history. So I can see the article is not very accurate and very simplistic.

Great Britain was the pre-eminent 'empire' in economic, political and military
power up until about the first world war. The military power was based mainly
on naval superiority for protecting our overseas empire with a mediocre army.
But from that point onwards it was in decline. We did not realise it until the
second world war when the full industrial power of the United Status make
itself felt. Winston Churchill may have sat with Roosevelt and Stalin but even
he know that we was the junior partner in the talks.

Even after WW2 we had an outsized political influence because of our special
relationship with the USA and influence with many ex-colonies. The UN security
council was setup with five permanent seats, the five countries that at the
time had nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, China, France, UK). Obviously the UK is
not likely to vote itself off of that council and they have veto power.

The Brexit vote is based purely on the issue of immigration. Part of being in
the UN is that all people from the EU countries can travel and work freely
within any of the countries. Given that English is a very popular second
language in the poorer countries you can see that many of them come to the UK
to try for a better life. I would do the same in their position. Imagine if
the USA joined in union with Mexico and part of that meant the border between
USA and Mexico was completely open. Do you think there might be a large number
of people moving to America and do you think that would cause stress on the
education, health system and resentment from the local population? I think it
would and so it has with the UK population. Add on top that the British have
never really liked the Europeans very much and that much of the EU is actually
controlled by a German/French power block and you have plenty of people who
want out.

~~~
gonvaled
> Obviously the UK is not likely to vote itself off of that council and they
> have veto power.

As we are seeing with Brexit, formalities are not going to matter much if
willingness to collaborate vanishes: the fact that the UK has veto power "on
paper" in the Security Council is an anachronism which, if not voluntarily
relinquished, will have no effective practical value. There are lots of ways
that the other powers can "convince" the UK to not use its veto power.

The obvious fact is that it is not fair that a nation with such a small weight
in population terms has so much power in one of the most powerful institutions
in the world.

The same applies to France, but I have already heard that France is willing to
cede its seat to the EU.

The core of the problem, anyhow, is that the Security Council, as it is
structured now, has no legitimization: it must be reformed so that the
interests of a wider share of humankind are taken into account.

------
gutnor
Is it just me or the author is just building a narrative and not bringing any
fact ?

Of course, it is fashionable to bash Leave voters as primarily racists. But HN
has recently published several articles that have much more nuanced analysis
and certainly better explanation for similar movements across the whole
Western World.

The only real point in the article is that there have been some racist
violence, but really not that much.

This article really sound like a sore remain voter demonising a bit the other
side. If the author need to let off some steam he should talk instead about
how the appalling level of the debate during the campaign and how its success
opens the door wide for a new generation of unashamed propaganda driven
politic.

~~~
smallnamespace
I didn't get that from the article at all.

It pointed out how modern immigration was a large aberration from Britain's
history and also why it lead to such a large reaction. That hardly seems like
demonizing the leave side.

------
rwhitman
I've had a strange preoccupation lately with the concept of "empire collapse"
\- the point at which a once stable empire's governance over it's people
begins to fail, and eventually ceases to be able to manage it's territory,
until it ultimately dissipates into a number of warring factions and/or
outside influencers.

Originally I was attracted to the topic because the ascent of populist
outsider candidates to power in the USA was similar to symptoms of political
stress in historic empire systems. But after watching Brexit unfold so
suddenly, it's become pretty clear to watch history in realtime, the United
Kingdom is truly the empire in the very last stages of collapse to follow.

One thing the author of this article kind of misses out on however, is that
empires don't just open the doors to immigration for no reason. Usually
immigrants are brought in from the frontiers to act as a labor source when the
native population becomes majority upper and middle class - too educated and
wealthy to keep doing manual labor. This of course leads to accusations of a
"foreign invasion", but the foreign labor is necessary to keep the wheels of
commerce moving and everything just starts going to hell from there. It's
really not an uncommon problem in history. The "barbarians" of Rome were

------
kingmanaz
If an empire was ever in need of dying it would surely be the West's anti-
nationalist media cartels. Perhaps the shuttering of the New York Times would
be a good start.

------
marze
Having unelected bureaucrats from other countries making the rules under which
your citizens live seems the opposite of "empire".

~~~
kingmanaz
Indeed. Having the world's "professional" media editorialized by a handful of
cartels/syndicates seems closer to an actual "empire" than Great Britain
choosing to disentangle itself from the unaccountable bureaucracy that is the
EU.

Perhaps the true solution to "empire" in this day and age is to allow the
public to directly elect the editorialists of said media cartels/syndicates,
or, to use antitrust laws to break up trans-national media cartels. Either
way, expect a large portion of the New-York-Times-reading population to prefer
a rarefied panel of "experts" telling them why the British are idiots for
preferring local rule over the de facto borderless globalist utopia ( for
every nation other than Israel ).

------
russellallen
Oh for goodness sakes.

