Matthew Vickery, President of the Parliament of Man on Avalon:
"'You sit here mouthing obsolete words, but I tell you, the winds of change are blowing.'" (p. 567)
He addresses Daniel Holm who has just used the Ythrian word, "deathpride." Holm replies:
"'I understand that's a mighty old phrase too,' Holm said. 'Ferune had one still older that he liked to quote. How'd it go? "- their finest hour -"'" (ibid.)
They quote two British Prime Ministers:
Only twenty years between the two speeches! But 1960 was a very different world from 1940.
More winds of change: we now have a Hindu Prime Minister of Britain and a Muslim First Minister of Scotland and the really big change is that this happens almost unnoticed.
11 comments:
The first Indian-born Members of Parliament in London were elected in the 1890's --Dadabhai Naoroji (Liberal) and Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree (Conservative). Both representing London constituencies.
BTW, legally speaking up until the 1950's, any "British Subject" (born in a British colony) could move to Britain and automatically enjoy all the rights and privileges of a British citizen.
No naturalization was required.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Fascinating! You reminded me of how I was told a FOREIGNER could run for the House of Commons without first naturalized. Of course he would have to take the oath of allegiance to the King if he actually won before taking his seat.
I am not sure that is true, a foreigner being able to run for Parliament.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I far prefer Churchill's "Finest Hour" speech to Macmillan's dismaying "winds of change," because the latter signaled a hastening of granting premature independence to most of Africa. All we have seen from most of the former British, French, and Belgian possessions in Africa since independence has been wars, civil wars, coups, dictatorships, or corrupt kleptocracies.
Anderson would have agreed. He wrote in one of his letters to me that independence came about 40 years too soon for Africa. At the time he wrote that letter the chaos was so bad there that he held out little hope for Africa.
Btw, the first CATHOLIC Prime Minister, to my surprise, was Boris Johnson.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: without the World Wars, it would probably have been another 40 years, if not more.
How things would have turned out is impossible to say, of course. Could have been either better or worse.
Oh, historical contingency: in the 1870's, Sir William MacKinnon, later founder of the Imperial British East Africa Company, very nearly got a charter from Sultan Bargash of Zanzibar to take over all his mainland possessions.
That would have been all of what's now Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania, plus chunks of Somaliland.
(Bargash didn't actually run all that, but he had a recognized claim to all the coastal areas, and was influential inland too.)
The deal fell through because Lord Salisbury, already influential in Disraeli's last government (Minister for India/Foreign Minister), did a -sub rosa- sabotage of it.
He thought that the British government would end up having to take the enterprise over, and that the existing arrangements -- with the British government the power behind the Zanzibari throne -- was preferable because it was much cheaper.
What Salisbury didn't anticipate was the "Scramble for Africa", which hadn't -quite- started yet, but would after the (reluctant) acquisition of Egypt by Gladstone in 1882.
That left the Congo Free State and Germany holding chunks which came between the British possessions in southern Africa and their East and North African holdings by the 1890's; what's now Tanzania and the DRC..
If Salisbury hadn't done that, MacKinnon would have taken over at least the East African coast -- at the time, Germany wasn't interested, and the Congo Free State was barely a gleam in King Leopold's bloodshot eye. Stanley was just about to start his transcontinental trip.
It's impossible to say for certain, but if that had happened, it's quite possible that Cecil Rhodes (already in South Africa and making his huge fortune) would have linked up with MacKinnon later and achieved his "Cape to Cairo" dream. Also quite possible there would have been no Second Boer War.
Sean: I'm not sure about the Parliament thing.
Though until 1906, any foreigner (non-British-subject) could be automatically naturalized in Britain after living there for 5 years, provided he'd paid his taxes and hadn't committed a felony. All he had to do was notify the authorities and take an oath of allegiance.
There were no immigration controls at all in Britain until then. No limits on who could simply show up and stop living there, in fact. That's how Britain acquired a large Jewish community in the 19th century -- mostly (except for a few German businessmen) East European Jews on their way to the US who decided to stop in Britain, which was a regular stage in the voyage.
I find all this knowledge quite astonishing.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for these fascinating comments. I've known about some of what you wrote about here, but you made all these events far more comprehensible.
We agree, better for Africa if independence had waited at least 40 years.
Intriguing, how Salisbury quietly scuppered Mackinnon's ambitions. I can sympathize with his view that exerting British influence by indirect means was preferable, but not practical after King Leopold and Germany horned in.
What you said about British naturalization before 1906 shows how much more libertarian, in many ways, the UK then was compared to what it (and the US) are today.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the Edwardian period was the apex of the "first globalization".
For example, in 1914 Russia was the only country in Europe you needed a passport to enter. This was regarded as evidence of how uncouth and uncivilized it was...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That I had not known. I did know the rest of Europe (and the US as well?) did not bother with passports. Halcyon days--which are now gone, alas!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment