Youtube comments of (@richardkent2014).
-
1300
-
710
-
698
-
119
-
96
-
79
-
76
-
71
-
65
-
63
-
59
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
48
-
46
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The Dalai Lama said this week that “Europe belongs to the Europeans” and that refugees should eventually return to their native countries to rebuild them.
The Tibetan spiritual leader made the comment during a conference in Malmo, Sweden's third-largest city, known for its large immigrant population, Agence France-Presse reported.
"I think Europe belongs to the Europeans. ... “Receive them, help them, educate them … but ultimately they should develop their own country."
— The Dalai Lama
He noted that although Europe was “morally responsible” for helping those refugees fleeing danger in their home countries, the countries should let the immigrants know that “they ultimately should rebuild their own country” and go back.
“Receive them, help them, educate them … but ultimately they should develop their own country,” the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner added.
The Buddhist leader’s comments came just days after the populist party Sweden Democrats made significant strides in Sweden’s general election.
The party, which ran on a platform of opposing immigration, came in third, receiving nearly 18 percent of the vote, nearly 5 points up since the 2014 election. The small Nordic country reportedly took the most refugees per capita in 2015.
The Dalai Lama, who’s been living in exile since 1959 after escaping Tibet and settling in India following the Chinese communist takeover of the region, also echoed his remarks he made in 2016 concerning Germany and the influx of migrants from the Middle East.
"Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country. Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult."
— The Dalai Lama
“Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country,” he said, according to the Washington Post reported. “Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.”
“From a moral point of view, too, I think that the refugees should only be admitted temporarily,” he continued, adding that “The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The invasion of Ukraine reminds us that colonialism does not come in one flavour. In Britain we think of colonialism as the conquest of distant lands and empires as fragmented assortments of foreign territories. Russian colonialism and the Russian empire are different. Rather than sailing to far-off shores, Russia expanded – east, south, and west – and absorbed its neighbours.
The Russian model of colonialism by absorption confuses the divide between colonised and colonialists that was so stark in the British and French empires. In some ways Russia’s expansion was less destructive. The transatlantic slave trade and the kind of mass extirpation of indigenous people seen in the Americas have no direct parallels in Russian history. But the recent invasion of Ukraine points to another way of reading Russia’s colonial history. For one of the consequences of absorption is a lack of recognition that any conquest has taken place and, hence, an almost impermeable sense of entitlement. The result is a firm conviction that contiguous lands are not real countries, but mere annexes of Russia. For pro-Putin Russians, it is almost impossible to imagine the military take-over of Ukraine as an invasion; it’s more akin to taking back mislaid property.
For Russian ultra-nationalists, Ukraine is still framed by its old imperial label of ‘Little Russia’ (and the Ukrainian language is just ‘Little Russian’). We might also be reminded of the curious imperial decree from 1863 which banned Ukrainian-language publications on the grounds that ‘no separate Little Russian language has ever existed, exists, or can exist’. Banning something that you claim does not exist might seem unnecessary. It speaks of a combination of defensiveness and dismissiveness.
The diversity of colonial models and, I would argue of forms of racism (Multiracism, Polity Press, 2022), is hard to see and difficult to understand when nearly all our representations of colonialism (and racism) refer to American and Western European models. Universities have a key role in nurturing expertise in the history, politics, and languages of Asia and Africa. Not long ago the idea of globalisation was in the ascendant and ‘area’ or ‘regional’ studies went out of fashion. Many were looking forward to a cosmopolitan future when national histories had lost their significance. This agenda now looks like wishful thinking. Today, almost everywhere, nationalism is on the rise. Studying, comparing, and understanding the world’s many stories of colonial power and discrimination has never been more necessary.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The 13 British colonies on the eastern coast of North America transitioned into the 13 original states of the United States through a combination of political, economic, and military events culminating in the American Revolution. Following a period of colonial governance under British rule, these colonies declared independence, formed a union, and ultimately achieved victory in the Revolutionary War, leading to the establishment of the United States of America.
1. Colonial Roots and Growing Dissatisfaction:
The British colonies were established during the 17th and early 18th centuries on the eastern coast of North America.
Over time, these colonies developed unique identities and economies, often diverging from British policies.
Tensions arose between the colonies and Great Britain due to issues like taxation without representation, restrictions on westward expansion, and perceived lack of self-governance.
2. The Road to Independence:
Events like the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, and the First and Second Continental Congresses further strained relations between the colonies and Britain.
In 1775, the American Revolutionary War began, and the colonies united to fight for independence.
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies free and independent states.
3. Forming a New Nation:
The Articles of Confederation established a "firm league of friendship" between the states, but it proved to be weak.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 led to the drafting of the United States Constitution, which created a stronger national government based on the principles of federalism.
The Constitution was ratified by the states, and the new nation officially came into being in 1789.
4. The 13 Original States:
The 13 original states were: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.
These states, formerly British colonies, now formed the foundation of the United States of America.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The invasion of Ukraine reminds us that colonialism does not come in one flavour. In Britain we think of colonialism as the conquest of distant lands and empires as fragmented assortments of foreign territories. Russian colonialism and the Russian empire are different. Rather than sailing to far-off shores, Russia expanded – east, south, and west – and absorbed its neighbours.
The Russian model of colonialism by absorption confuses the divide between colonised and colonialists that was so stark in the British and French empires. In some ways Russia’s expansion was less destructive. The transatlantic slave trade and the kind of mass extirpation of indigenous people seen in the Americas have no direct parallels in Russian history. But the recent invasion of Ukraine points to another way of reading Russia’s colonial history. For one of the consequences of absorption is a lack of recognition that any conquest has taken place and, hence, an almost impermeable sense of entitlement. The result is a firm conviction that contiguous lands are not real countries, but mere annexes of Russia. For pro-Putin Russians, it is almost impossible to imagine the military take-over of Ukraine as an invasion; it’s more akin to taking back mislaid property.
For Russian ultra-nationalists, Ukraine is still framed by its old imperial label of ‘Little Russia’ (and the Ukrainian language is just ‘Little Russian’). We might also be reminded of the curious imperial decree from 1863 which banned Ukrainian-language publications on the grounds that ‘no separate Little Russian language has ever existed, exists, or can exist’. Banning something that you claim does not exist might seem unnecessary. It speaks of a combination of defensiveness and dismissiveness.
The diversity of colonial models and, I would argue of forms of racism (Multiracism, Polity Press, 2022), is hard to see and difficult to understand when nearly all our representations of colonialism (and racism) refer to American and Western European models. Universities have a key role in nurturing expertise in the history, politics, and languages of Asia and Africa. Not long ago the idea of globalisation was in the ascendant and ‘area’ or ‘regional’ studies went out of fashion. Many were looking forward to a cosmopolitan future when national histories had lost their significance. This agenda now looks like wishful thinking. Today, almost everywhere, nationalism is on the rise. Studying, comparing, and understanding the world’s many stories of colonial power and discrimination has never been more necessary.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
European immigration to the Americas was one of the largest migratory movements in human history. Between the years 1492 and 1930, more than 60 million Europeans immigrated to the American continent. Between 1492 and 1820, approximately 2.6 million Europeans immigrated to the Americas, of whom just under 50% were British, 40% were Spanish or Portuguese, 6% were Swiss or German, and 5% were French.
But it was in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century that European immigration to the Americas reached its historic peak. Never before in human history have so many people immigrated to another continent. Between 1815 and 1930, 60 million Europeans emigrated, of which 71% went to North America, 21% to Latin America, and 7% to Australia.[1] This mass immigration had as a backdrop economic and social problems in the Old World, allied to structural changes that facilitated the migratory movement between the two continents. British people and Iberians continued to immigrate, but influxes from other parts of Europe, particularly Germany, Italy, Ireland, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire and Scandinavian countries also became numerous.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Canada and the 13 colonies were both part of British America, but they had different histories and fates:
The 13 colonies
These colonies were established in British America, which also included parts of the Caribbean and the Floridas. The 13 colonies were made up of the New England, Middle, and Southern colonies. The colonies were dominated by Protestant English-speakers, and each had similar legal, constitutional, and political systems. The American Revolution resulted in the 13 colonies winning their independence from Britain.
Canada
The colonization of Canada began in the 10th century with Norsemen exploring the area. The British Empire gained control of New France from France after the Seven Years' War in 1763. The British government ceded the land to Canada in 1867 after confederation.
The American Revolution and Canada
At the beginning of the American Revolution in 1775, rebel forces invaded Canada, occupying Montreal and attacking Quebec. However, the rebels were defeated in Canada. The majority of French Canadians stayed out of the conflict, as they saw it as "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know". The war's outcome led to a wave of Loyalist emigration from the United States to Canada, which changed the make-up of the country.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Migration and Migrants: Regional Dimensions and Developments
EUROPE
The latest available international migrant stock data (2020)210 show that nearly 87 million international migrants lived in Europe211, an increase of nearly 16 per cent since 2015, when around 75 million international migrants resided in the region. A little over half of these (44 million) were born in Europe, but were living elsewhere in the region; this number has increased since 2015, rising from 38 million. In 2020, the population of non-European migrants in Europe reached over 40 million.
In 1990, there were roughly equal numbers of Europeans living outside Europe as non-Europeans living in Europe. However, unlike the growth in migration to Europe, the number of Europeans living outside Europe mostly declined over the last 30 years, and only returned to 1990 levels in recent years. In 2020, around 19 million Europeans were residing outside the continent and were based primarily in Asia and Northern America (see Figure 9). As shown in the figure below, there was also some gradual increase in the number of European migrants in Asia and Oceania from 2010 to 2020.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Western Europe has similar history to us and Russia how did we go from this since ww2 to what we are living today
Also the UK and London is nothing like it was 30 years ago we never used to have any trouble with anyone living here untill Brexit and diversity came along
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
British Empire


Left: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1801)
Right: Flag of the United Kingdom (1801–present)

Areas of the world that were part of the British Empire with current British Overseas Territories underlined in red. Mandates and protected states are shown in a lighter shade.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of two superpowers, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US). The aftermath of World War II was also defined by the rising threat of nuclear warfare, the creation and implementation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, and the decolonization of Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa by European and East Asian powers, most notably by the United Kingdom, France, and Japan.
Once allies during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so called because it never resulted in overt, declared total war between the two powers. It was instead characterized by espionage, political subversion and proxy wars. Western Europe and Asia were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan, whereas Central and Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and eventually behind an "Iron Curtain". Europe was divided into a US-led Western Bloc and a USSR-led Eastern Bloc. Internationally, alliances with the two blocs gradually shifted, with some nations trying to stay out of the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement. The war also saw a nuclear arms race between the two superpowers; part of the reason that the Cold War never became a "hot" war was that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear deterrents against each other, leading to a mutually assured destruction standoff.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, an organization for international cooperation and diplomacy, similar to the League of Nations. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Economic Community and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.
The end of the war opened the way for decolonization from the great powers. Independence was granted to India and Pakistan (from the United Kingdom), Indonesia (from the Netherlands), the Philippines (from the US) and a number of Arab nations, from specific mandates which had been granted to great powers from League of Nations Mandates and in addition to the establishment of Israel (from the United Kingdom). Independence for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 1960s.
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of communist influence in East Asia, with the People's Republic of China, as the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Don't delete these comments be proud to be British and if the British empire never existed many nations across the world wouldn't exist without it today and millions of people living here there children born here and billions of people across the world have nations to call home today including America and Canada or have what they have today .Those people in Westminster should have done things different after ww2 and nations in Europe suffer because of our past today which they don't need to today.
Make Britain great again put the great back in great britian bring back the British empire.
The British Empire:
The British Empire was a large, global empire controlled by England, and later Great Britain, that spanned from the 15th to the 20th Centuries. Controlling about 35,500,000 square kilometers, or about 24% of the globe, the British Empire was the largest empire of its kind in human history.
Answer and Explanation:
At various points, the British Empire controlled territory that corresponds to 56 sovereign countries around the world today, though not all at the same time. The earliest incarnation of the British Empire was the colonization of Ireland by the Kingdom of England beginning in the 15th Century, In the 16th Century, England began to establish colonies in North America, South America, and the Caribbean, that later became the countries of the United States, Canada, Belize, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana. During the 19th Century, Britain controlled several colonies in Africa at various points, corresponding to the present-day countries of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, the Gambia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Egypt. In Asia, Britain controlled (at various points in the 19th and 20th Centuries) Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. In the Pacific, Britain controlled Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Nauru, Samoa, and Tonga. Britain also formerly had control of the Mediterranean island nations of Malta and Cyprus.
.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I have a simple question when it comes to this now our empires don't exist in Europe anymore why does our colonial history in Western Europe today get all the attention when the colonial history of central Europe and eastern Europe including Russia and the ottoman empire get overlooked today.
colonial empire is a collective of territories (often called colonies), either contiguous with the imperial center or located overseas, settled by the population of a certain state and governed by that state.[1]
Colonial powers in 1898[a]
Before the expansion of early modern European powers, other empires had conquered and colonized territories, such as the Roman Empire in Europe, North Africa and Western Asia. Modern colonial empires first emerged with a race of exploration between the then most advanced European maritime powers, Portugal and Spain, during the 15th century.[2] The initial impulse behind these dispersed maritime empires and those that followed was trade, driven by the new ideas and the capitalism that grew out of the European Renaissance. Agreements were also made to divide the world up between them in 1479, 1493, and 1494. European imperialism was born out of competition between European Christians and Ottoman Muslims, the latter of which rose up quickly in the 14th century and forced the Spanish and Portuguese to seek new trade routes to India, and to a lesser extent, China.
Although colonies existed in classical antiquity, especially amongst the Phoenicians and the ancient Greeks who settled many islands and coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, these colonies were politically independent from the city-states they originated from, and thus did not constitute a colonial empire.[3] This paradigm shifted by the time of the Ptolemaic Empire, the Seleucid Empire, and the Roman Empire.
The European countries of the modern era that are most remembered as colonial empires are the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands, France, Germany and Belgium..[4][5]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Please let that stand
During the interwar period, deep anger arose in the Weimar Republic over the conditions of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which punished Germany for its role in World War I with heavy financial reparations and severe limitations on its military that were intended to prevent it from becoming a military power again. The demilitarisation of the Rhineland, the prohibition of German unification with Austria, and the loss of its overseas colonies as well as some 12% of its pre-war land area and population all provoked strong currents of revanchism in German politics.
During the worldwide economic crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s, many people lost faith in liberal democracy and countries across the world turned to authoritarian regimes.[1] In Germany, resentment over the terms of the Treaty of Versailles was intensified by the instability of the German political system, as many on both the Right and the Left rejected the Weimar Republic liberalism. The most extreme political aspirant to emerge from that situation was Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party. The Nazis took totalitarian power in Germany from 1933 and demanded the undoing of the Versailles provisions. Their ambitious and aggressive domestic and foreign policies reflected their ideologies of antisemitism, unification of all Germans, the acquisition of "living space" (Lebensraum) for agrarian settlers, the elimination of Bolshevism and the hegemony of an "Aryan"/"Nordic" master race over "subhumans" (Untermenschen) such as Jews and Slavs. Other factors leading to the war included the aggression by Fascist Italy against Ethiopia, militarism in Imperial Japan against China, and Military occupations by the Soviet Union.
At first, the aggressive moves met with only feeble and ineffectual policies of appeasement from the other major world powers. The League of Nations proved helpless, especially regarding China and Ethiopia. A decisive proximate event was the 1938 Munich Conference, which formally approved Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Hitler promised it was his last territorial claim, nevertheless in early 1939, he became even more aggressive, and European governments finally realised that appeasement would not guarantee peace but by then it was too late.
Britain and France rejected diplomatic efforts to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union, and Hitler instead offered Stalin a better deal in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939. An alliance formed by Germany, Italy, and Japan led to the establishment of the Axis powers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ricochet2977 voting for a president in a federal state is different from state elections what you are voting for here is the equivalent of voting for the president of the European union or Putin state elections are different. Basically the problem with Europe is that people don't understand that here because Europe itself changed 30 years ago. Each state in America is like the states in the European union. The European union elections are not highlighted in the UK you have midterms to.
What are Midterm General Elections?
Midterm General Elections are all about Congress. While Presidential General Elections are every four years, the Midterm elections fall in between at the 2-year mark. “General” election basically means it is an election that happens in all states and territories at the same time. While the Midterm Primaries ran earlier in the year and determined the nominees who would run, the Midterm General Election is on the second Tuesday in November, just as the Presidential Election is, every 4 years.
Congress is the Legislative Branch of our government, made up of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators. Congress provides a check and balance on the Executive Branch of our government, led by the President and Vice President. A change in the composition of congress can create a dramatic power shift in the function of an administration.
Why are midterm elections important?
Midterm elections give YOU, the voter, the opportunity to decide which party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Midterms take place in the middle of a Presidential term: the midterms empower YOU to voice your approval or dismay at how the current administration is governing.
Midterms are a face-off between our two major parties – Democratic and Republican. These elections can be just as heated as a presidential race, because of what is to be won. That winning party will gain control of the legislature, which holds the power to enact laws, declare war, and much more.
The party represented by the President hopes to gain majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the midterms. This will smooth the way for the President’s legislative agenda to be approved by Congress.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The UN General Assembly has adopted a Palestinian-drafted, non-binding resolution demanding Israel end "its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" within 12 months.
There were 124 votes in favour and 14 against, including Israel, along with 43 abstentions. As a non-member observer state, Palestine could not vote.
The resolution is based on a July advisory opinion from the UN's highest court that said Israel was occupying the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip against international law.
The Palestinian ambassador called the vote a turning point “in our struggle for freedom and justice”. But his Israeli counterpart denounced it as “diplomatic terrorism”.
Although the General Assembly’s resolutions are not binding, they carry symbolic and political weight given they reflect the positions of all 193 member states of the UN.
It comes after almost a year of war in Gaza, which began when Hamas gunmen attacked Israel on 7 October, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 others as hostages.
More than 41,110 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.
There has also been a spike in violence in the West Bank over the same period, in which the UN says more than 680 Palestinians and 22 Israelis have been killed. Another 10 Israelis have been killed in attacks by Palestinians in Israel.
The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - which was also not legally binding - said a 15-judge panel had found that "Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and that the country was “under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence... as rapidly as possible”.
The court also said Israel should “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned”.
Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The court said the settlements “have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law”, which Israel has consistently disputed.
Israel's prime minister said at the time that the court had made a "decision of lies" and insisted that “the Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land”.
Wednesday’s General Assembly resolution welcomed the ICJ’s declaration.
It demands that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory... and do so no later than 12 months”, and “comply without delay with all its legal obligations under international law”.
The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry described its passing as a “pivotal and historic moment for the Palestinian cause and international law”.
It emphasised that the support of almost two thirds of UN member states reflected “a global consensus that the occupation must end and its crimes must cease”, and that it “reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination”.
Israel’s foreign ministry called the resolution “a distorted decision that is disconnected from reality, encourages terrorism and harms the chances for peace”, adding: “This is what cynical international politics looks like.”
It said the resolution “bolsters and strengthens the Hamas terrorist organisation” and “sends a message that terrorism pays off and yields international resolutions”. It also accused the Palestinian Authority of “conducting a campaign whose goal is not to resolve the conflict but to harm Israel” and vowed to respond.
The US, which voted against the resolution, warned beforehand that the text was “one-sided” and “selectively interprets the substance of the ICJ’s opinion”.
“There is no path forward or hope offered through this resolution today. Its adoption will not save Palestinian lives, bring the hostages home, end Israeli settlements, or reinvigorate the peace process,” Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said.
The UK’s ambassador, Barbara Woodward, explained that it had abstained “not because we do not support the central findings of the ICJ's advisory opinion, but rather because the resolution does not provide sufficient clarity to effectively advance our shared aim of a peace premised on a negotiated two-state solution”.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Onward Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See, His banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus,
Going on before.
2
At the name of Jesus
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise:
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise!
3
Like a mighty army
Moves the Church of God:
Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod;
We are not divided,
All one Body we—
One in faith and Spirit,
One eternally.
4
Crowns and thrones may perish,
Kingdoms rise and wane;
But the Church of Jesus
Constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never
’Gainst the Church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
Which can never fail.
5
Onward, then, ye people!
Join our happy throng;
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor
Unto Christ, the King;
This through countless ages
Men and angels sing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@johns2394 When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out the azure main,
Arose arose from out the azure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And Guardian Angels sang this strain:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke,
More dreadful, dreadful from each foreign stroke,
As the loud blast that tears the skies
Serves but to root thy native oak.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame;
All their attempts to bend thee down
All their, all their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse, arouse thy generous flame,
But work their woe and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
The Muses, with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coasts repair.
Shall to thy happy, happy coasts repair.
Blest isle! with matchless,
with matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Austria was occupied by the Allies and declared independent from Nazi Germany on 27 April 1945 (confirmed by the Berlin Declaration for Germany on 5 June 1945), as a result of the Vienna offensive. The occupation ended when the Austrian State Treaty came into force on 27 July 1955.
After the Anschluss in 1938, Austria had generally been recognized as part of Nazi Germany. In 1943, however, the Allies agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that Austria would instead be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression—without denying Austria's role in Nazi crimes—and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, Austria was divided into four occupation zones and jointly occupied by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and France. Vienna was similarly subdivided, but the central district was collectively administered by the Allied Control Council.
Whereas Germany was divided into East and West Germany in 1949, Austria remained under joint occupation of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union until 1955; its status became a controversial subject in the Cold War until the warming of relations known as the Khrushchev Thaw. After Austrian promises of perpetual neutrality, Austria was accorded full independence on 15 May 1955 and the last occupation troops left on 25 October that year.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The invasion of Ukraine reminds us that colonialism does not come in one flavour. In Britain we think of colonialism as the conquest of distant lands and empires as fragmented assortments of foreign territories. Russian colonialism and the Russian empire are different. Rather than sailing to far-off shores, Russia expanded – east, south, and west – and absorbed its neighbours.
The Russian model of colonialism by absorption confuses the divide between colonised and colonialists that was so stark in the British and French empires. In some ways Russia’s expansion was less destructive. The transatlantic slave trade and the kind of mass extirpation of indigenous people seen in the Americas have no direct parallels in Russian history. But the recent invasion of Ukraine points to another way of reading Russia’s colonial history. For one of the consequences of absorption is a lack of recognition that any conquest has taken place and, hence, an almost impermeable sense of entitlement. The result is a firm conviction that contiguous lands are not real countries, but mere annexes of Russia. For pro-Putin Russians, it is almost impossible to imagine the military take-over of Ukraine as an invasion; it’s more akin to taking back mislaid property.
For Russian ultra-nationalists, Ukraine is still framed by its old imperial label of ‘Little Russia’ (and the Ukrainian language is just ‘Little Russian’). We might also be reminded of the curious imperial decree from 1863 which banned Ukrainian-language publications on the grounds that ‘no separate Little Russian language has ever existed, exists, or can exist’. Banning something that you claim does not exist might seem unnecessary. It speaks of a combination of defensiveness and dismissiveness.
The diversity of colonial models and, I would argue of forms of racism (Multiracism, Polity Press, 2022), is hard to see and difficult to understand when nearly all our representations of colonialism (and racism) refer to American and Western European models. Universities have a key role in nurturing expertise in the history, politics, and languages of Asia and Africa. Not long ago the idea of globalisation was in the ascendant and ‘area’ or ‘regional’ studies went out of fashion. Many were looking forward to a cosmopolitan future when national histories had lost their significance. This agenda now looks like wishful thinking. Today, almost everywhere, nationalism is on the rise. Studying, comparing, and understanding the world’s many stories of colonial power and discrimination has never been more necessary.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Western Europe has similar history to us and Russia how did we go from this since ww2 to what we are living today
Also the UK and London is nothing like it was 30 years ago we never used to have any trouble with anyone living here untill Brexit and diversity came along
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
British Empire


Left: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1801)
Right: Flag of the United Kingdom (1801–present)

Areas of the world that were part of the British Empire with current British Overseas Territories underlined in red. Mandates and protected states are shown in a lighter shade.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Russian Empire[e][f] was a vast empire that spanned most of northern Eurasia from its proclamation in November 1721 until its dissolution in March 1917. At its height in the late 19th century, it covered about 22,800,000 square kilometres (8,800,000 sq mi), roughly one-sixth of the world's landmass, making it the third-largest empire in history, behind only the British and Mongol empires. It also held colonies in North America between 1799 and 1867. The empire's 1897 census, the only one it conducted, found a population of 125.6 million with considerable ethnic, linguistic, religious, and socioeconomic diversity.
Russian Empire
Россійская Имперія
Российская Империя
Rossiyskaya Imperiya
1721–1917


Top:
Civil ensign (1696–1917);
State flag (1896–1917)
Bottom:
State flag (1858–1896)

Coat of arms
(1882–1917)
Motto: "Съ нами Богъ!"
S' nami Bog! ("God is with us!")Anthem: "Боже, Царя храни!"
Bozhe Tsarya khrani! (1833–1917)
("God Save the Tsar!")
Duration: 1 minute and 57 seconds.1:57
show
Other used anthems:

Russia in 1914 Lost in 1856–1914
Spheres of influence Protectorates[a]
Show globeShow map of EuropeShow all controlled
territories (1866)Show all
CapitalSaint Petersburg[b]
(1721–1728; 1730–1917)
Moscow
(1728–1730)[2]Largest citySaint PetersburgOfficial languagesRussianRecognised languagesPolish, German (in Baltic provinces), Finnish, Swedish, Chinese (in Dalian)Religion
(1897)
84.2% Christianity
69.3% Eastern Orthodox (official)[3]
9.2% Catholic
5.7% Other Christian
11.1% Islam
4.2% Judaism
0.3% Buddhism
0.2% Others
Demonym(s)RussianGovernmentUnitary absolute monarchy
(1721–1906)
Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy[4]
(1906–1917)Emperor
• 1721–1725 (first)
Peter the Great
• 1894–1917 (last)
Nicholas II
Chancellor/Prime Minister
• 1810–1812 (first)
Nikolai Rumyantsev[c]
• 1917 (last)
Nikolai Golitsyn[d]LegislatureGoverning Senate[5]
• Upper house
State Council
(1810–1917)
• Lower house
State Duma
(1905–1917)History
• Treaty of Nystad
10 September 1721
• Proclaimed
2 November 1721
• Table of Ranks
4 February 1722
• Decembrist revolt
26 December 1825
• Emancipation reform
3 March 1861
• Selling of Alaska
18 October 1867
• 1905 Revolution
Jan 1905 – Jul 1907
• October Manifesto
30 October 1905
• Constitution adopted
6 May 1906
• February Revolution
8–16 March 1917
• Proclamation of the Republic
14 September 1917Area1895[6]22,800,000 km2 (8,800,000 sq mi)Population
• 1897
125,640,021
• 1910[7][8][9]
161,000,000CurrencyRussian ruble
Preceded bySucceeded byTsardom of
RussiaProvisional GovernmentRussian Republic
The rise of the Russian Empire coincided with the decline of neighbouring rival powers: the Swedish Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Qajar Iran, the Ottoman Empire, and Qing China. From the 10th to 17th centuries, the Russians had been ruled by a noble class known as the boyars, above whom was an absolute monarch titled the tsar. The groundwork of the Russian Empire was laid by Ivan III (r. 1462–1505), who greatly expanded his domain, established a centralized Russian national state, and secured independence against the Tatars. His grandson, Ivan IV (r. 1533–1584), became in 1547 the first Russian monarch to be crowned "tsar of all Russia". Between 1550 and 1700, the Russian state grew by an average of 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi) per year. Major events during this period include the transition from the Rurik to the Romanov dynasties, the conquest of Siberia, and the reign of Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725).[10]
Peter transformed the tsardom into an empire, and fought numerous wars that turned a vast realm into a major European power. He moved the Russian capital from Moscow to the new model city of Saint Petersburg, which marked the birth of the imperial era, and led a cultural revolution that introduced a modern, scientific, rationalist, and Western-oriented system. Catherine the Great (r. 1762–1796) presided over further expansion of the Russian state by conquest, colonization, and diplomacy, while continuing Peter's policy of modernization towards a Western model. Alexander I (r. 1801–1825) helped defeat the militaristic ambitions of Napoleon and subsequently constituted the Holy Alliance, which aimed to restrain the rise of secularism and liberalism across Europe. Russia further expanded to the west, south, and east, strengthening its position as a European power. Its victories in the Russo-Turkish Wars were later checked by defeat in the Crimean War (1853–1856), leading to a period of reform and intensified expansion into Central Asia.[11] Alexander II (r. 1855–1881) initiated numerous reforms, most notably the 1861 emancipation of all 23 million serfs.
From 1721 until 1762, the Russian Empire was ruled by the House of Romanov; its matrilineal branch of patrilineal German descent, the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, ruled from 1762 until 1917. By the start of the 19th century, Russian territory extended from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the Black Sea in the south, and from the Baltic Sea in the west to Alaska, Hawaii, and California in the east. By the end of the 19th century, Russia had expanded its control over the Caucasus, most of Central Asia and parts of Northeast Asia. Notwithstanding its extensive territorial gains and great power status, the empire entered the 20th century in a perilous state. A devastating famine in 1891–1892 killed hundreds of thousands and led to popular discontent. As the last remaining absolute monarchy in Europe, the empire saw rapid political radicalization and the growing popularity of revolutionary ideas such as communism.[12] After the 1905 revolution, Nicholas II authorized the creation of a national parliament, the State Duma, although he still retained absolute political power.
When Russia entered the First World War on the side of the Allies, it suffered a series of defeats that further galvanized the population against the emperor. In 1917, mass unrest among the population and mutinies in the army culminated in the February Revolution, which led to the abdication of Nicholas II, the formation of the Russian Provisional Government, and the proclamation of the first Russian Republic. Political dysfunction, continued involvement in the widely unpopular war, and widespread food shortages resulted in mass demonstrations against the government in July. The republic was overthrown in the October Revolution by the Bolsheviks, whose Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ended Russia's involvement in the war, but who nevertheless were opposed by various factions known collectively as the Whites.[13][14] During the resulting Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks murdered the Romanov family, ending three centuries of Romanov rule. After emerging victorious in 1923, the Bolsheviks established the Soviet Union across most of the territory of the former Russian Empire; it would be one of four continental empires to collapse after World War I, along with Germany, Austria–Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.[15]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@diegoflores9237 I doubt they will let this stand but let's see
Processes of decolonization in Ukraine began during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and accelerated during the Revolution of Dignity, the Russo-Ukrainian War and especially the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.[1]
The term as used by the people of Ukraine is generally collective, encompassing both decommunization and derussification in the country.[2]
During the war, the main component of Ukraine's politics of memory is decolonization, as a continuation of decommunization, which began in 2015, and deRussification, which was launched by some local authorities and right-wing activists after the full-scale Russian invasion. Decolonization of memory involves the removal of symbols from the public space, including names and memorial signs that are viewed as markers of Russian imperial policy. Ukraine aims to distance itself from the influence of Russian historiography, shape its own national historical narrative, and develop politics of memory connected with the European tradition. The intended outcome of decolonization is to sever the cultural and historical ties between Ukraine and Russia, thereby preventing anyone from considering Ukrainians and Russians as either "one nation" or "brotherly nations".[2]
Implementation of the decolonisation politics involves several components:[3]
Legislative regulation of historical memory. It has been legally implemented through four Ukrainian decommunization laws, as well as the 2023 law "On the Condemnation and Prohibition of Propaganda of Russian Imperial Policy in Ukraine and the Decolonization of Toponymy".[4][5]
Destruction of monuments, renaming of toponyms. Following the full-scale invasion, monuments and toponyms associated with Russia and the USSR began to be perceived as markers of the invader, through which the empire "branded" its territory.
Installation of monuments to the victims of Russian aggression.
Reevaluation of holidays.
Modifications in the school history curriculum. The colonial status of Ukraine within the Russian Empire/ USSR becomes the central narrative.
Removal of Russian and Soviet literature from libraries.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. They took place on April 19, 1775, in Massachusetts. The battles resulted in an American victory and increased support for the anti-British cause.
What happened?
The British marched into Lexington and Concord to seize weapons from the colonists.
The colonists' alarm system summoned local militia companies, who were able to counter the British.
The militiamen, known as minutemen, were quick-moving and well-suited to irregular warfare.
The militiamen fired at the British from behind trees, stone walls, houses, and sheds.
The British retreated, abandoning their weapons, clothing, and equipment.
2
-
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. They took place on April 19, 1775, in Massachusetts. The battles resulted in an American victory and increased support for the anti-British cause.
What happened?
The British marched into Lexington and Concord to seize weapons from the colonists.
The colonists' alarm system summoned local militia companies, who were able to counter the British.
The militiamen, known as minutemen, were quick-moving and well-suited to irregular warfare.
The militiamen fired at the British from behind trees, stone walls, houses, and sheds.
The British retreated, abandoning their weapons, clothing, and equipment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bishy123 some music I was brought up on in the 70s and 80s.
This government had an idea And parliament made it law It seems like it's illegal To fight for the union any more Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? We set out to join the picket line For together we cannot fail We got stopped by police at the county line They said, "Go home boys or you're going to jail" Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? It's hard to explain to a crying child Why her Daddy can't go back So the family suffer But it hurts me more To hear a scab say Sod you, Jack Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? Which side are you on, boys Which side are you on? I'm bound to follow my conscience And do whatever I can But it'll take much more than the union law To knock the fight out of a working man Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In fact instead of playing these games I would sooner address it now as a Brit we have nothing to loose as a nation now. 100 years on the middle east is what it is today because of this end bit everyone was against us
liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The breadth and variety of his activities and associations, and his ability to describe them vividly in writing, earned him international fame as Lawrence of Arabia—a title used for the 1962 film based on his wartime activities.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between Great Britain and France, to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916, and it was signed May 16, 1916. The deal was exposed to the public in 1917. The agreement is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.
The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia received Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.
Given Ottoman defeat in 1918 and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. An international administration was proposed for Palestine as part of the Acre-Haifa zone, intended to be an British enclave in northern Palestine to enable access to the Mediterranean. The British gained control of the territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946.
The terms were negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French counterpart, François Georges-Picot. The Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes-Picot agreement; when the Bolsheviks published the agreement on November 23, 1917, after the Russian Revolution, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK’s promises to Arabs made through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire.

Sykes-Picot Agreement: Map of Sykes-Picot Agreement showing Eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria, and Western Persia, and areas of control and influence agreed between the British and the French. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon’s letter to Sir Edward Grey, May 9, 1916.
Consequences
Leading up to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, great interest was generated among the media and academia in the long-term effects of the agreement. It is frequently cited as having created “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without any regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, [which] has resulted in endless conflict.” The extent to which Sykes-Picot actually shaped the borders of the modern Middle East is disputed, and scholars often attribute instability in the region to other factors.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. “This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from the ISIL warned in a 2014 video titled End of Sykes-Picot. ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, vowed that “this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.”
Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. He claimed further that ISIL affected the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq. Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.
The United Kingdom in the Middle East
During the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the British promised the international Zionist movement their support in recreating the historic Jewish homeland in Palestine via the Balfour declaration, a move that created much political conflict, still present today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Western Europe has similar history to us and Russia how did we go from this since ww2 to what we are living today
Also the UK and London is nothing like it was 30 years ago we never used to have any trouble with anyone living here untill Brexit and diversity came along
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
British Empire


Left: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1801)
Right: Flag of the United Kingdom (1801–present)

Areas of the world that were part of the British Empire with current British Overseas Territories underlined in red. Mandates and protected states are shown in a lighter shade.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The original 13 states of the United States were created through a series of British colonies established in the 17th and 18th centuries:
Jamestown: The first permanent English settlement in North America, founded in 1607 by 104 men and boys
Plymouth: Settled in 1620 by a group of Pilgrims, who were part of a larger Puritan group
New Hampshire: Settled by English colonists in 1623
New Netherland: Settled by the Dutch in 1624, and later renamed New York
Maryland: Established in 1634 by Roman Catholics led by the Calvert family
Rhode Island: Settled in 1636 by a group led by the minister Roger Williams
Delaware: Settled in 1638 by the Swedish
New Jersey: Settled by the Dutch in 1660
The Carolinas: Settled by the English in 1663
Pennsylvania: Established in 1681 by William Penn, an English Quaker leader
Georgia: Settled in 1733

The 13 colonies were established by British emigrants, many of whom were escaping religious persecution. The colonies grew in size and number, and by the time of the American Revolution, they stretched from Maine in the north to the Altamaha River in Georgia.
In 1776, the 13 colonies declared their independence from Great Britain, and the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) followed. After the British were defeated, the United States was free to create a new government.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The history of Syria covers events which occurred on the territory of the present Syrian Arab Republic and events which occurred in the region of Syria. Throughout ancient times the territory of present Syrian Arab Republic was occupied and ruled by several empires, including the Sumerians, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Amorites, Persians, Greeks and Romans.[1] Syria is considered to have emerged as an independent country for the first time on 24 October 1945, upon the signing of the United Nations Charter by the Syrian government, effectively ending France's mandate by the League of Nations to "render administrative advice and assistance to the population" of Syria, which came in effect in April 1946.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Don't delete this comment us in Europe and America deserved better then play second fiddle to the united nations full of nations including America that owe everything they have to Europe today while Europe has become the mess it has today.
Decolonization of Asia and Africa, 1945–1960
Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states in Asia and Africa achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers.

Harold MacMillan, British Prime Minister, helped begin decolonization
There was no one process of decolonization. In some areas, it was peaceful, and orderly. In many others, independence was achieved only after a protracted revolution. A few newly independent countries acquired stable governments almost immediately; others were ruled by dictators or military juntas for decades, or endured long civil wars. Some European governments welcomed a new relationship with their former colonies; others contested decolonization militarily. The process of decolonization coincided with the new Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, and with the early development of the new United Nations. Decolonization was often affected by superpower competition, and had a definite impact on the evolution of that competition. It also significantly changed the pattern of international relations in a more general sense.
The creation of so many new countries, some of which occupied strategic locations, others of which possessed significant natural resources, and most of which were desperately poor, altered the composition of the United Nations and political complexity of every region of the globe. In the mid to late 19th century, the European powers colonized much of Africa and Southeast Asia. During the decades of imperialism, the industrializing powers of Europe viewed the African and Asian continents as reservoirs of raw materials, labor, and territory for future settlement. In most cases, however, significant development and European settlement in these colonies was sporadic. However, the colonies were exploited, sometimes brutally, for natural and labor resources, and sometimes even for military conscripts. In addition, the introduction of colonial rule drew arbitrary natural boundaries where none had existed before, dividing ethnic and linguistic groups and natural features, and laying the foundation for the creation of numerous states lacking geographic, linguistic, ethnic, or political affinity.
During World War II Japan, itself a significant imperial power, drove the European powers out of Asia. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, local nationalist movements in the former Asian colonies campaigned for independence rather than a return to European colonial rule. In many cases, as in Indonesia and French Indochina, these nationalists had been guerrillas fighting the Japanese after European surrenders, or were former members of colonial military establishments. These independence movements often appealed to the United States Government for support.
While the United States generally supported the concept of national self-determination, it also had strong ties to its European allies, who had imperial claims on their former colonies. The Cold War only served to complicate the U.S. position, as U.S. support for decolonization was offset by American concern over communist expansion and Soviet strategic ambitions in Europe. Several of the NATO allies asserted that their colonial possessions provided them with economic and military strength that would otherwise be lost to the alliance. Nearly all of the United States’ European allies believed that after their recovery from World War II their colonies would finally provide the combination of raw materials and protected markets for finished goods that would cement the colonies to Europe. Whether or not this was the case, the alternative of allowing the colonies to slip away, perhaps into the United States’ economic sphere or that of another power, was unappealing to every European government interested in postwar stability. Although the U.S. Government did not force the issue, it encouraged the European imperial powers to negotiate an early withdrawal from their overseas colonies. The United States granted independence to the Philippines in 1946.
However, as the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union came to dominate U.S. foreign policy concerns in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations grew increasingly concerned that as the European powers lost their colonies or granted them independence, Soviet-supported communist parties might achieve power in the new states. This might serve to shift the international balance of power in favor of the Soviet Union and remove access to economic resources from U.S. allies. Events such as the Indonesian struggle for independence from the Netherlands (1945–50), the Vietnamese war against France (1945–54), and the nationalist and professed socialist takeovers of Egypt (1952) and Iran (1951) served to reinforce such fears, even if new governments did not directly link themselves to the Soviet Union. Thus, the United States used aid packages, technical assistance and sometimes even military intervention to encourage newly independent nations in the Third World to adopt governments that aligned with the West. The Soviet Union deployed similar tactics in an effort to encourage new nations to join the communist bloc, and attempted to convince newly decolonized countries that communism was an intrinsically non-imperialist economic and political ideology. Many of the new nations resisted the pressure to be drawn into the Cold War, joined in the “nonaligned movement,” which formed after the Bandung conference of 1955, and focused on internal development.
The newly independent nations that emerged in the 1950s and the 1960s became an important factor in changing the balance of power within the United Nations. In 1946, there were 35 member states in the United Nations; as the newly independent nations of the “third world” joined the organization, by 1970 membership had swelled to 127. These new member states had a few characteristics in common; they were non-white, with developing economies, facing internal problems that were the result of their colonial past, which sometimes put them at odds with European countries and made them suspicious of European-style governmental structures, political ideas, and economic institutions. These countries also became vocal advocates of continuing decolonization, with the result that the UN Assembly was often ahead of the Security Council on issues of self-governance and decolonization. The new nations pushed the UN toward accepting resolutions for independence for colonial states and creating a special committee on colonialism, demonstrating that even though some nations continued to struggle for independence, in the eyes of the international community, the colonial era was ending..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ThomasAtkins-rf6wcmy government in Westminster knows the history of the uk the britisn empire and how the world has changed since 1776 but certainly over rhe last 100 years and since ww2. They also know how the UK was before Margaret Thatcher and the European union. Infact i think in every European nation they ahould know how our empires in Europe have turned into nation states all over rhe world because i know.
The reason I'm showing you this is because I have been educated in this since I was a child and a very educated kid growing up in the UK knowing everything about the world around him and why people from all over the world and Europe live here my life was totally destroyed because of this and today I'm still totally abused living in my own nation that is nothing like it was 30 years ago and Europe will putting up with this bs today pandering to a modern world that has everything it has today because of our history here.
The modern world's roots are deeply intertwined with European history, particularly in the realms of political thought, economic systems, and scientific and cultural development. Europe's "Great Divergence," the period where it experienced rapid economic and social growth, was fueled by innovations like the rule of law, legal rights, and the accumulation and spread of knowledge. These developments, coupled with the Age of Discovery, colonization, and subsequent globalization, significantly shaped the global landscape.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Western Europe has similar history to us and Russia how did we go from this since ww2 to what we are living today
Also the UK and London is nothing like it was 30 years ago we never used to have any trouble with anyone living here untill Brexit and diversity came along
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
British Empire


Left: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1801)
Right: Flag of the United Kingdom (1801–present)

Areas of the world that were part of the British Empire with current British Overseas Territories underlined in red. Mandates and protected states are shown in a lighter shade.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
2
-
2
-
@mohmedhassan6875
Many Arab nations gained independence from European powers following World War II. These include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as the countries of North Africa like Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt, which all gained independence in the years following World War II.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Middle East:
Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan gained independence from France and Britain in the late 1940s. Iraq gained independence from Britain in 1932.
North Africa:
Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria gained independence from Italy, France, and Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. Egypt gained independence from Britain in 1922.
This period of decolonization in the Arab world was a complex process, influenced by factors like the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, nationalist movements, and the changing geopolitical landscape after World War II.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thou shalt not worship false idols" is a commandment from the Bible, Exodus 20:4-6, which states:
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below"
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them"
"For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God"

The commandment is also known as the Second Commandment against idolatry. It prohibits the creation of idols in the likeness of anything in the heavens, on earth, or in the waters. This is to emphasize God's authority over all creation and to call for exclusive devotion to Him.
The Bible portrays idols in a negative moral light, using terms such as "non-God", "vanity", "iniquity", "wind and confusion", "the dead", and "carcasses".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You were promised better, cheaper services back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Margaret Thatcher privatised your public services. Instead, 40 years later, you’re paying more for a worse service.
You pay more, both as a taxpayer and directly when public services are privatised. Since privatisation, your water bills, energy bills and rail and bus fares have risen far above inflation.
The quality of your services is also damaged by privatisation. Terrible public transport. Raw sewage in our rivers and seas. Worse care in our NHS because of outsourcing. There are many examples of privatisation failing.
Here are 10 reasons why privatisation has failed – and will always fail
Why did it all go so wrong?
1. You don't have a choice - public services are natural monopolies
Public services and infrastructure provide us with the essentials that we all need to live a good life. Things like water, energy, public transport, the Royal Mail, care, council services, education and the NHS.
Privatisation was introduced because of a belief in free markets and consumer choice. But public services tend to be what economists call ‘natural monopolies’, or services where competition doesn’t really make sense. For example, when you take the train, you don’t really have a choice about which one to use. There is no real market.
Private monopolies are the worst of all worlds. You don’t have consumer power because you can’t go elsewhere. But you don’t have power as a citizen either. Contracts to deliver public services are agreed between private companies and government behind closed doors. There is very little transparency or public scrutiny.
We need public ownership with accountability mechanisms that give us a say.
Profit as the priority makes your services worse:
2. Waste
Money from your bills and taxes should go into improving public services. But with privatisation, dividends must be paid to shareholders. Interest rates are higher for private companies than they are for government. (Plus, there are the extra costs of creating and regulating an artificial market.)
For example, the privatised English water companies have spent £72 billion on shareholder dividends since privatisation – money that could have been invested in infrastructure to stop leaks and tackle sewage spills. These companies have also built up a debt mountain of £54 billion which we are all paying for.
If you compare English water with publicly owned Scottish water you can see what this means in practice. Scottish Water invests 35% more in infrastructure – if we in England had invested at that rate an extra £28 billion would have been invested.
Our polling found that the top reason why people want public ownership is that they want profits to be reinvested into improving services instead of going to shareholders.
3. Cutting corners
The drive to maximise profit comes into conflict with the need to spend time caring, or spend money to meet people's needs.
An Oxford University study found that outsourcing of NHS services has led to an extra 557 deaths. Cutting corners is likely to be one of the main reasons why this is the case. Another Oxford University study found that when care for vulnerable children is outsourced, more of them are sent across the country away from their support networks and families - because it's cheaper for the companies.
4. Cherry picking
Private companies cherry pick the profitable bits of a service and leave the rest.
For example, bus companies will choose to run buses on profitable routes but ignore rural communities, unless government steps in with a subsidy. It's more efficient to run buses as a whole network so that money from busy routes can subsidise quieter ones. Public ownership makes it easier to provide a good service for everyone.
When probation services were privatised for a few years, private companies dealt with the easy cases while the public sector was left with the trickier ones.
Creating an artificial ‘market’ causes problems:
5. Fragmentation
When lots of private companies are involved in delivering a public service, this can create a complicated, fragmented system where it’s not always clear who’s doing what. For example, on our railway, different organisations are responsible for managing the track and stations, running trains and leasing trains. This is inefficient and wasteful.
More generally, the public sector works well when it can be cooperative and integrated, and when information can be shared. For example, hospitals may need to communicate with GPs and carers to look after an older person who needs support at home. Adding private companies into the mix makes this coordination harder.
6. Wrong incentives
When private companies run public services, they may not have an incentive to help tackle problems. For example, companies running private prisons will get paid more money if more people are locked up.
These mixed motivations may compromise the professional standards of the staff involved in making decisions. In the US, doctors perform thousands of unnecessary operations for profit.
7. Inadequate regulation
The regulators (Ofwat, Ofgem, etc) are supposed to be standing up for the interests of us, the public. However, they have failed for the past 40 years.
Often there’s a revolving door between people working for the regulator and people working for the companies they are regulating. For example, Cathryn Ross who was previously the CEO at Ofwat, the water regulator, now works for privatised Thames Water.
Privatisation damages the public sector:
8. Lack of flexibility
Councils and government departments are responsible for meeting the needs of the public – but privatisation means less flexibility for changing circumstances. If an outsourcing contract with a private company needs changing, government must pay more to make changes or improvements, add in extras or to opt out.
And selling off public assets (like student loans) or public land (like school playing fields) means we the public have fewer options and resources for delivering the services we’ll need in the future.
9. Loss of capacity
Handing over control to private companies weakens the public sector, reducing the skills and people available to provide high quality public services.
Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington write in their book 'The Big Con' that consultancies in particular have hollowed out state capacity. 'The more governments and businesses outsource,' they write, 'the less they know how to do'.
And when private companies fail to deliver, the government (local or national) often doesn't have the time or expertise to force them to keep their promises.
10. Risk of bailouts
Public services are vital, they're not optional extras, and so they are often too big and too important to fail. This means the government stands ready to rescue private companies in their hour of need - we saw this for example with outsourcing firm Carillion, the East Coast railway line, energy retailer Bulb and Thames Water.
When privatisation goes wrong, we the public have to pick up the pieces. We take the risk while shareholders walk away with the profit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The war in Europe began on 23 August 1939, when the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a pact that created a partnership between them in dividing up Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Under the terms of this pact, the German Wehrmacht moved into western Poland on 1 September 1939, and the Soviet Red Army moved en masse into eastern Poland sixteen days later. Great Britain, which had signed a bilateral defense treaty with Poland earlier that year, declared war against Germany as required by a secret protocol to the treaty. However, the protocol, as we now know, applied only to defense against Germany, not against any other country. Similarly, France, which also had signed a bilateral defense treaty with Poland that expressly applied only to Germany, declared war against Germany hours after Britain did. But neither the British nor the French government declared war against the Soviet Union. In Britain, where the public did not know about the secret provision to the British-Polish defense accord, the failure to declare war on the USSR was controversial at the time, seeming to give carte blanche to the Soviet Union for its conquests.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
European empires, like the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire, largely "disappeared" due to the rise of nationalism and the devastation of World War I, which led to their breakdown into smaller, independent nation-states across the continent; essentially, the empires fractured into various countries as their territories gained independence, leaving no single dominant imperial power in Europe today.
Key points to remember:
World War I as a catalyst:
The First World War significantly weakened the large empires, paving the way for their disintegration and the formation of new nations based on ethnic and political self-determination.
No single empire left:
Currently, no major European empire exists, only independent nation-states.
Legacy of empires:
While the empires are gone, their historical borders and cultural influences remain evident in the current political landscape of Europe.
2
-
2
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The invasion of Ukraine reminds us that colonialism does not come in one flavour. In Britain we think of colonialism as the conquest of distant lands and empires as fragmented assortments of foreign territories. Russian colonialism and the Russian empire are different. Rather than sailing to far-off shores, Russia expanded – east, south, and west – and absorbed its neighbours.
The Russian model of colonialism by absorption confuses the divide between colonised and colonialists that was so stark in the British and French empires. In some ways Russia’s expansion was less destructive. The transatlantic slave trade and the kind of mass extirpation of indigenous people seen in the Americas have no direct parallels in Russian history. But the recent invasion of Ukraine points to another way of reading Russia’s colonial history. For one of the consequences of absorption is a lack of recognition that any conquest has taken place and, hence, an almost impermeable sense of entitlement. The result is a firm conviction that contiguous lands are not real countries, but mere annexes of Russia. For pro-Putin Russians, it is almost impossible to imagine the military take-over of Ukraine as an invasion; it’s more akin to taking back mislaid property.
For Russian ultra-nationalists, Ukraine is still framed by its old imperial label of ‘Little Russia’ (and the Ukrainian language is just ‘Little Russian’). We might also be reminded of the curious imperial decree from 1863 which banned Ukrainian-language publications on the grounds that ‘no separate Little Russian language has ever existed, exists, or can exist’. Banning something that you claim does not exist might seem unnecessary. It speaks of a combination of defensiveness and dismissiveness.
The diversity of colonial models and, I would argue of forms of racism (Multiracism, Polity Press, 2022), is hard to see and difficult to understand when nearly all our representations of colonialism (and racism) refer to American and Western European models. Universities have a key role in nurturing expertise in the history, politics, and languages of Asia and Africa. Not long ago the idea of globalisation was in the ascendant and ‘area’ or ‘regional’ studies went out of fashion. Many were looking forward to a cosmopolitan future when national histories had lost their significance. This agenda now looks like wishful thinking. Today, almost everywhere, nationalism is on the rise. Studying, comparing, and understanding the world’s many stories of colonial power and discrimination has never been more necessary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
European immigration to the Americas was one of the largest migratory movements in human history. Between the years 1492 and 1930, more than 60 million Europeans immigrated to the American continent. Between 1492 and 1820, approximately 2.6 million Europeans immigrated to the Americas, of whom just under 50% were British, 40% were Spanish or Portuguese, 6% were Swiss or German, and 5% were French.
But it was in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century that European immigration to the Americas reached its historic peak. Never before in human history have so many people immigrated to another continent. Between 1815 and 1930, 60 million Europeans emigrated, of which 71% went to North America, 21% to Latin America, and 7% to Australia.[1] This mass immigration had as a backdrop economic and social problems in the Old World, allied to structural changes that facilitated the migratory movement between the two continents. British people and Iberians continued to immigrate, but influxes from other parts of Europe, particularly Germany, Italy, Ireland, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire and Scandinavian countries also became numerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
OThe Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union (Russian: Депортация корейцев в СССР; Korean: 고려인의 강제 이주) was the forced transfer of nearly 172,000 Soviet Koreans (Koryo-saram or Koryoin) from the Russian Far East to unpopulated areas of the Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek SSR in 1937 by the NKVD on the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union Vyacheslav Molotov. 124 trains were used to resettle them 6,400 km (12,000 miles) to Central Asia. The reason was to stem "the infiltration of Japanese espionage into the Far Eastern Krai", as Koreans were at the time subjects of the Empire of Japan, which was the Soviet Union's rival. However, some historians regard it as part of Stalin's policy of "frontier cleansing". Estimates based on population statistics suggest that between 16,500 and 50,000 deported Koreans died from starvation, exposure, and difficulties adapting to their new environment in exile
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We can't talk about our nationalist history in Europe but the world can about there's and they know about it and still educated in it especially those nations that got independence from us from the ottoman empire.
Want to know why the world can talk about there nationalist history use it against us for history they have never lived.
There nations around the world today because our empires don't in Europe. When that was all written the world and Europe even before ww1 and ww2 was completely different from today.
Nationalist history is the study of the development of nationalism, a political concept that encourages people to identify with their country and support its interests. Nationalist history has been used to create national identities, but it can also lead to discrimination, violence, and war.
Origins of nationalism
The American and French Revolutions (1775–83 and 1787–99) were early expressions of nationalism.
The concept of nationalism may have existed in some form during the Middle Ages and antiquity.
The Puritan Revolution in England in the 17th century also had nationalist sentiment.
Types of nationalism
Classical nationalism
This type of nationalism is centered on shared ethnic traits like language, traditions, and beliefs.
Liberal nationalism
This type of nationalism is based on shared allegiance to a political representative, rather than shared ethnicity.
Nationalist movements
The Revolutions of 1848 in Europe were inspired by nationalist movements.
The unification of Italy in 1861 was inspired by nationalist movements.
New nation-states were formed in central and eastern Europe after World War I.
Nationalist historiography
Nationalist historiography can contribute to xenophobia, exclusion, discrimination, violence, war, and genocide.
Nationalist historiography often involves linking an ethnic group to a source as ancient as possible.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Demforlife11 The history of the lands that became the United States began with the arrival of the first people in the Americas around 15,000 BC. Numerous indigenous cultures formed. After European colonization of North America began in the late 15th century, wars and epidemics decimated indigenous societies. Starting in 1585, the British Empire colonized the Atlantic Coast, and by the 1760s, the thirteen British colonies were established. The Southern Colonies built an agricultural system on slave labor, enslaving millions from Africa for this purpose. After defeating France, the British Parliament imposed a series of taxes, including the Stamp Act of 1765, rejecting the colonists' constitutional argument that new taxes needed their approval. Resistance to these taxes, especially the Boston Tea Party in 1773, led to Parliament issuing the Intolerable Acts designed to end self-government. Armed conflict began in Massachusetts in 1775.
Current territories of the United States after the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was given independence in 1994
In 1776, in Philadelphia, the Second Continental Congress declared the independence of the colonies as the "United States of America". Led by General George Washington, it won the Revolutionary War in 1783. The Treaty of Paris established the borders of the new sovereign state. The Articles of Confederation, while establishing a central government, was ineffectual at providing stability. A convention wrote a new Constitution that was adopted in 1789, and a Bill of Rights was added in 1791 to guarantee inalienable rights. Washington, the first president, and his adviser Alexander Hamilton created a strong central government. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the size of the country.
Encouraged by available, inexpensive land and the notion of manifest destiny, the country expanded to the Pacific Coast. After 1830, Indian tribes were forcibly removed to the West. The resulting expansion of slavery was increasingly controversial, and fueled political and constitutional battles which were resolved by compromises. Slavery was abolished in all states north of the Mason–Dixon line by 1804, but it continued in southern states to support their agricultural economy. After the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860, the southern states seceded from the Union to form the pro-slavery Confederate States of America, and started the Civil War. The Confederates' defeat in 1865 led to the abolition of slavery. In the subsequent Reconstruction era, legal and voting rights were extended to freed male slaves. The national government emerged much stronger, and gained explicit duty to protect individual rights. White southern Democrats regained their political power in the South in 1877, often using paramilitary suppression of voting and Jim Crow laws to maintain white supremacy, as well as new state constitutions that legalized racial discrimination and prevented most African Americans from participating in public life.
The United States became the world's leading industrial power in the 20th century, due to entrepreneurship, industrialization, and the arrival of millions of immigrant workers and farmers. A national railroad network was completed, and large-scale mines and factories were established. Dissatisfaction with corruption, inefficiency, and traditional politics stimulated the Progressive movement, leading to reforms including the federal income tax, direct election of Senators, citizenship for many indigenous people, alcohol prohibition, and women's suffrage. Initially neutral during World War I, the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, joining the successful Allies. After the prosperous Roaring Twenties, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 marked the onset of the decade-long worldwide Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs, including unemployment relief and social security, defined modern American liberalism.[1] Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States entered World War II and financed the Allied war effort, helping defeat Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the European theater. In the Pacific War, America defeated Imperial Japan after using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as rival superpowers in the aftermath of World War II. During the Cold War, the two countries confronted each other indirectly in the arms race, the Space Race, propaganda campaigns, and proxy wars. In the 1960s, in large part due to the civil rights movement, social reforms enforced the constitutional rights of voting and freedom of movement to African Americans. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's presidency realigned American politics towards reductions in taxes and regulations. The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, leaving the United States as the world's sole superpower. Foreign policy after the Cold War has often focused on many conflicts in the Middle East, especially after the September 11 attacks. In the 21st century, the country was negatively affected by the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonathanpriel5013 Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the relative peace of Iraqi Kurdistan has been a notable, if often overlooked, exception to the violent insurgency, sectarian feuding, and pervasive lawlessness that has racked Iraq. Yet this achievement has also made the area of one of America’s most significant long-term security concerns in the region, as Kurdistan’s success as a semi-autonomous nation has increased regional agitation for the creation of a separate nation for the Kurdish people.
The Kurds, a mostly Sunni Muslim people who share a unique language and whose mountainous territory spans Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria, have a long history of oppression, suffering, and fierce armed struggle in these countries. Past Syrian governments have tried to strip Kurds of their Syrian citizenship. Kurds in Iran have faced similar oppression, often regarded with suspicion and hatred as Sunni Muslims in a Shiite state. In Turkey, Kurdish separatist fighters and government efforts to eradicate Kurdish language and culture have claimed untold lives. Saddam Hussein’s genocidal war against the Kurds in Iraq, capped by the infamous 1988 gas attacks that killed thousands of civilians, ranks among the worst atrocities of the twentieth century. This tragic legacy makes the question of Kurdish independence a contentious one. Nonetheless, a sovereign Kurdistan seems extraordinarily unlikely. Since all four host nations are extremely resistant to losing territory, the Kurds would be best off publicly committing themselves to their respective countries, advocating for the protection of minority rights, and perhaps pursuing limited local autonomy.
Kurdish Turks, Iraqi Kurds
In Turkey, Kurdish political activism is already engaged; much hangs in the balance of highly contentious upcoming March elections. Recent polls show that many of Turkey’s Kurds are moving towards the Kurdish nationalist Democratic Society Party (DTP). In recent years, growing numbers of Kurds had aligned themselves with the Islam-based, pro-European Union governing party, Ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). In the past few months, however, Turkey’s Kurds have responded to the DTP’s pro-Kurdish rhetoric, while the AKP has foundered due to corruption. Dr. Michael Gunter, author of The Kurds Ascending, believes that the mainstream AKP offers the best chance of integrating the Kurds into the Turkish state, as eventual accession into the European Union would raise human rights standards. The DTP’s likely victory at the local polls, Gunter told the HPR, will delay reconciliation between the Kurds and the Turkish authorities.
In Iraq, the Kurds’ relationship with Baghdad is not one of integration. Iraqi Kurdistan, which enjoyed limited autonomy even under Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, became increasingly assertive and independent during the chaos of post-invasion Iraq. Fighting continues between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen for control over oil-rich Kirkuk, with the Kurds pressing for Kirkuk to be administered by a Kurdish province. Many commentators speculate that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, after successfully crushing the Shiite militias and consolidating his political power, will turn his attention to bringing Kurdistan more under Baghdad’s control. Kurdish Prime Minister Massoud Barzani has asked the Obama Administration to resolve the conflict over Kirkuk before withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Small Steps Forward
The controversy over Kirkuk is indicative of why Kurdistan is unlikely to ever become a reality. Convincing government leaders to surrender territory in a region where conflict so often revolves around land and oil is essentially impossible. “How do you get nation-states to give up their interests in favor of justice for minority groups? When it comes to giving up territory, it doesn’t work,” Laura Adams, Harvard professor of sociology, told the HPR. Even if the Kurds were able to secure sovereign land, that territory would be land-locked and in constant danger of invasion. In addition, current political instability in Iraq and Turkey makes the chances of establishing an actual Kurdistan slim at best. “Realistically, given the concerns of various countries (Turkey and Iran in particular) there is little possibility that an independent new nation state named Kurdistan will emerge in the near future,” commented Christopher Houston, author of Kurdistan, Crafting of National Selves, in an interview with the HPR. Given these realities, the best case scenario moving forward would pair increased respect for Kurdish rights from Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey with a halt to Kurdish activities that destabilize those respective regimes. In a region fraught with conflict, however, these may be audacious hopes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elefsis7474 The aftermath of World War I saw far-reaching and wide-ranging cultural, economic, and social change across Europe, Asia, Africa, and even in areas outside those that were directly involved. Four empires collapsed due to the war, old countries were abolished, new ones were formed, boundaries were redrawn, international organizations were established, and many new and old ideologies took a firm hold in people's minds. Additionally, culture in the nations involved was greatly changed. World War I also had the effect of bringing political transformation to most of the principal parties involved in the conflict,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kennethcartwright8561 if you want to learn.
The Industrial Revolution played a significant role in the emergence of the North-South divide in the United Kingdom:
Industrialization
The North became a leader in global trade due to its family-owned businesses and access to raw materials like coal and iron ore. Cities like Manchester, Sheffield, and Glasgow experienced great wealth and prosperity.
Deindustrialization
The North became heavily reliant on a few key industries, and when these industries left for developing countries, the North declined rapidly.
Service sector growth
The South's service sector grew rapidly, while the North was affected by deindustrialization. London became a major financial center, and house prices in the South rose more quickly than anywhere else in the country.
Public opinion
Events like the UK miners' strike (1984–85) increased the divide.
Margaret Thatcher
The idea of a polarized North and South became more public during her time as Prime Minister.
Some other theories about the origins of the North-South divide include:
The Harrying of the North, a campaign of looting and pillage by William the Conqueror in 1069-70
Scandinavian rule in the latter centuries of the first millennium CE
Some strategies to address the North-South divide include: The Regional Growth Fund (England), Regional Selective Assistance (Scotland), The Welsh Government Business Finance (Wales), and Selective Financial Assistance (Northern Ireland).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason I'm showing you this is because I have been educated in this since I was a child and a very educated kid growing up in the UK knowing everything about the world around him and why people from all over the world and Europe live here my life was totally destroyed because of this and today I'm still totally abused living in my own nation that is nothing like it was 30 years ago and Europe will putting up with this bs today pandering to a modern world that has everything it has today because of our history here.
The modern world's roots are deeply intertwined with European history, particularly in the realms of political thought, economic systems, and scientific and cultural development. Europe's "Great Divergence," the period where it experienced rapid economic and social growth, was fueled by innovations like the rule of law, legal rights, and the accumulation and spread of knowledge. These developments, coupled with the Age of Discovery, colonization, and subsequent globalization, significantly shaped the global landscape..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Austria was occupied by the Allies and declared independent from Nazi Germany on 27 April 1945 (confirmed by the Berlin Declaration for Germany on 5 June 1945), as a result of the Vienna offensive. The occupation ended when the Austrian State Treaty came into force on 27 July 1955.
After the Anschluss in 1938, Austria had generally been recognized as part of Nazi Germany. In 1943, however, the Allies agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that Austria would instead be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression—without denying Austria's role in Nazi crimes—and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, Austria was divided into four occupation zones and jointly occupied by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and France. Vienna was similarly subdivided, but the central district was collectively administered by the Allied Control Council.
Whereas Germany was divided into East and West Germany in 1949, Austria remained under joint occupation of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union until 1955; its status became a controversial subject in the Cold War until the warming of relations known as the Khrushchev Thaw. After Austrian promises of perpetual neutrality, Austria was accorded full independence on 15 May 1955 and the last occupation troops left on 25 October that year..
1
-
The aftermath of World War I saw far-reaching and wide-ranging cultural, economic, and social change across Europe, Asia, Africa, and even in areas outside those that were directly involved. Four empires collapsed due to the war, old countries were abolished, new ones were formed, boundaries were redrawn, international organizations were established, and many new and old ideologies took a firm hold in people's minds. Additionally, culture in the nations involved was greatly changed. World War I also had the effect of bringing political transformation to most of the principal parties involved in the conflict, transforming them into electoral democracies by bringing near-universal suffrage for the first time in history, as in Germany (1919 German federal election), Great Britain (1918 United Kingdom general election), and Turkey (1923 Turkish general election).[citation needed]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prestoncrewnarrowboaters8619 With Donald Trump being elected to be the US president for the second time we look back at his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, who was born and brought up on the Hebridean island of Lewis but emigrated to New York to live a very different life.
Mary Anne was one of tens of thousands of Scots who travelled to the US and Canada in the early years of the last century looking to escape economic hardship at home.
She first left Lewis for New York in 1930, at the age of 18, to seek work as a domestic servant.
Six years later she was married to successful property developer Frederick Trump, the son of German migrants and one of the most eligible men in New York.
The fourth of their five children, Donald John, as he is referred to on the islands, is about to become US president for the second time.
His mother was born in 1912 in Tong, about three miles from Stornoway, the main town on the isle of Lewis.
Genealogist Bill Lawson, who has traced the family tree of Mary Anne MacLeod back to the early 19th Century, says her father Malcolm ran a post office and small shop in his later years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnnyMnemonic-r5n With the gradual urbanization of Society in the late 19th century, Ukrainian migrants from rural areas who settled in the cities entered a Russian-speaking milieu. With all State educational instruction and cultural establishments using Russian many Ukrainians were forced to use the Russian language.
The Russian government promoted the spread of the Russian language among the native Ukrainian population by actively suppressing the Ukrainian language. Alarmed by the threat of Ukrainian separatism implied by a growing number of school textbooks teaching the Ukrainian language, the Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Pyotr Valuev in 1863 issued a circular that banned the publication of religious texts and educational texts written in the Ukrainian language.[6] This ban was expanded by Tsar Alexander II who issued the Ems Ukaz in 1876. All Ukrainian language books and song lyrics were banned, as was the importation of such works. Furthermore, Ukrainian-language public performances, plays, and lectures were forbidden.[7] In 1881, the decree was amended to allow the publishing of lyrics and dictionaries, and the performances of some plays in the Ukrainian language with local officials' approval. Ukrainian-only troupes were forbidden.
While officially, there was no state language in the Soviet Union, Russian was in practice in a privileged position. The Ukrainian language was often frowned upon or quietly discouraged, which led to the gradual decline in its usage.[citation needed]
In independent Ukraine, although Russian is not an official language of the country, it continues to hold a privileged position and is widely spoken, in particular in regions of Ukraine where Soviet Russification policies were the strongest, notably most of the urban areas of the east and south.
In 1994 a referendum took place in the Donetsk Oblast and the Luhansk Oblast, with around 40% supporting the Russian language gaining status of an official language alongside Ukrainian, and for the Russian language to be an official language on a regional level; however, the referendum was annulled by the Kyiv government.[8]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iBuyBitcoin this is what we want back including d.c.
There were 13 original states. Name three.
The 13 original states were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The 13 original states were the first 13 British colonies. British colonists traveled across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe. They came to the East Coast of the United States. They founded colonies there. Massachusetts is an original state. In 1620, British colonists landed in Massachusetts. These colonists wanted freedom to practice their religion. Virginia is an original state. British colonists founded Virginia in 1607. Colonists in Virginia grew tobacco on large farms. New York is an original state. The area that is now New York used to be called New Amsterdam. It became the British colony of New York in 1664. Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York are three of the 13 original states.
1
-
@iBuyBitcoin we fought blood and tears in Europe over America we didn't colonise new York first the Dutch did .
New Amsterdam (Dutch: Nieuw Amsterdam, pronounced [ˌniu.ɑmstərˈdɑm]) was a 17th-century Dutch settlement established at the southern tip of Manhattan Island that served as the seat of the colonial government in New Netherland. The initial trading factory gave rise to the settlement around Fort Amsterdam. The fort was situated on the strategic southern tip of the island of Manhattan and was meant to defend the fur trade operations of the Dutch West India Company in the North River (Hudson River). In 1624, it became a provincial extension of the Dutch Republic and was designated as the capital of the province in 1625. New Amsterdam became a city when it received municipal rights on February 2, 1653.[3]
By 1655, the population of New Netherland had grown to 2,000 people, with 1,500 living in New Amsterdam. By 1664, the population of New Netherland had risen to almost 9,000 people, 2,500 of whom lived in New Amsterdam, 1,000 lived near Fort Orange, and the remainder in other towns and villages.[2][4]
In 1664, the English took over New Amsterdam and renamed it New York after the Duke of York (later James II & VII).[5] After the Second Anglo-Dutch War of 1665–67, England and the United Provinces of the Netherlands agreed to the status quo in the Treaty of Breda. The English kept the island of Manhattan, the Dutch giving up their claim to the town and the rest of the colony, while the English formally abandoned Surinam in South America, and the island of Run in the East Indies to the Dutch, confirming their control of the valuable Spice Islands. The area occupied by New Amsterdam is now Lower Manhattan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PhilipBrandt1973 invest in Yemen
Invest in Yemen
Yemen is an open economy that welcomes foreign direct investment in all sectors. Its well-qualified workforce and strategic position in the south of the Arabian Peninsula make it an attractive place for investment. There are a number of investment opportunities that exist in Yemen.
Yemen enjoys a number of natural advantages to attract investments, particularly in the tourism sector. Yemen’s varied topography, with beautiful landscapes and diverse climates from the coastal mountains to the interior desert, make it a promising place for tourism investment, especially when one is aware of the fact that the country is an untapped market and is diversifying into a broad spectrum of economic activities.
Attractive investment opportunities also exist in other sectors in Yemen, from petroleum and mining to agriculture and the manufacturing sector. To advance economic diversification and develop public and private investment in strategic sectors, the government has identified various investment opportunities and implementation objectives to make them accessible to Yemeni, Arab, and foreign investors at the local and international levels.
Whether you are considering establishing your own Yemeni operation, working with a Yemeni partner, or gaining a Yemeni base for access to the Gulf markets, Yemen is a low-cost, competitive place to do business. We encourage you to do additional research into the Yemeni economy and see for yourself the progress and potential of the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepoliticalhousethatjackbuilt The European Union (EU) is not legally (de jure) a federation, although various academics have argued that it contains some federal characteristics. About how various scholars approach the issue, R. Daniel Kelemen of Rutgers University said: "Unencumbered by the prejudice that the EU is sui generis and incomparable, federalism scholars now regularly treat the EU as a case in their comparative studies (Friedman-Goldstein, 2001; Filippov, Ordeshook, Shevtsova, 2004; Roden, 2005; Bednar, 2006). For the purposes of the present analysis, the EU has the necessary minimal attributes of a federal system and crucially the EU is riven with many of the same tensions that afflict federal systems."
A federation like Russia a union like America is the same thing they debate if the European union is or not today but Europe itself is not the same as 30 years ago these problems should hand beem sorted then
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IntriguedLioness this is where it all went wrong for America
Make America and Canada great again
The Thirteen Colonies in their traditional groupings were: the New England Colonies (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut); the Middle Colonies (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware); and the Southern Colonies (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia).[2] These colonies were part of British America, which also included territory in The Floridas, the Caribbean, and what is today Canada.[3]
The Thirteen Colonies had similar political, constitutional, and legal systems, and each was largely dominated by Protestant English-speakers. The first of the colonies, Virginia, was established at Jamestown, in 1607. The New England Colonies, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, were substantially motivated by their founders' concerns related to the practice of religion. The other colonies were founded for business and economic expansion. The Middle Colonies were established on the former Dutch colony of New Netherland.
Between 1625 and 1775, the colonial population grew from 2 thousand to 2.4 million, largely displacing the region's Native Americans. The population included people subject to a system of slavery, which was legal in all of the colonies. In the 18th century, the British government operated under a policy of mercantilism, in which the central government administered its colonies for Britain's economic benefit.
The 13 colonies had a degree of self-governance and active local elections,[a] and they resisted London's demands for more control over them. The French and Indian War (1754–1763) against France and its Indian allies led to growing tensions between Britain and the 13 colonies. During the 1750s, the colonies began collaborating with one another instead of dealing directly with Britain. With the help of colonial printers and newspapers, these inter-colonial activities and concerns were shared and led to calls for protection of the colonists' "Rights as Englishmen", especially the principle of "no taxation without representation".
Conflicts with the British government over taxes and rights led to the American Revolution, in which the colonies worked together to form the Continental Congress and raised the Continental Army. They fought the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) with the aid of the Kingdom of France and, to a much lesser degree, the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.[6]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SteveB81rker
Nations achieved independence due to a multitude of factors, primarily rooted in the desire for self-determination and a rejection of colonial rule. The concept of self-determination, where peoples should have the right to govern themselves, gained traction throughout the 20th century, particularly after World War II. This, coupled with the rise of nationalism and the weakening of imperial powers, led to widespread movements for independence.
Here's a more detailed look:
Self-Determination:
The idea that nations (groups of people united by ethnicity, language, history, or other common characteristics) should have the right to determine their political future played a key role.
Decolonization:
The process of decolonization, where formerly colonized territories gained independence, was a major force behind the rise of new nations.
Rise of Nationalism:
The growing sense of national identity and desire for self-governance among colonized populations fueled independence movements.
Weakening of Imperial Powers:
The decline of European empires and their ability to maintain control over their colonies created opportunities for independence.
International Pressure:
The international community, particularly through the United Nations, increasingly recognized the principle of self-determination and pressured colonial powers to grant independence.
The specific circumstances and methods used to achieve independence varied greatly, ranging from peaceful negotiations to armed struggle. Some nations achieved independence through a protracted revolution, while others faced decades of dictatorship or military rule. Regardless of the methods used, the underlying desire for self-determination and the right to govern oneself was a common thread.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, but they didn't lead to a lasting peace in Palestine. While the accords aimed to establish an interim framework for self-government, they ultimately fell short of a comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Several factors contributed to this failure, including:
1. Lack of a Clear Two-State Solution: The accords didn't explicitly define the goal of a two-state solution, leaving room for ambiguity about the future status of Palestine.
2. Power Imbalance and US Intervention: The negotiation framework favored Israel, a powerful, nuclear-armed nation, over stateless Palestinians under occupation. The U.S., a major backer of Israel, also failed to act as a neutral mediator.
3. Israeli Expansion of Settlements: Israel continued to expand settlements in the West Bank, undermining any progress toward a land-based peace agreement and creating "facts on the ground".
4. Violent Opposition: Right-wing Israeli extremists, who opposed any negotiations with the Palestinians, further undermined the peace process with acts of violence, including the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
5. Internal Palestinian Divisions: Groups like Hamas opposed the Oslo Accords and engaged in attacks against Israelis, further hindering the peace process.
6. Lack of Regional Consensus: There wasn't a clear Arab consensus on linking regional issues like security and economics to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, allowing Israel to potentially gain what it wanted without making significant concessions.
7. Failure to Address Key Issues: The accords failed to address critical issues like the status of East Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the ongoing issue of Palestinian sovereignty, leading to the continuation of the conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The settlement of Las Vegas, Nevada was founded in 1905 after the opening of a railroad that linked Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. The stopover attracted some farmers (mostly from Utah) to the area, and fresh water was piped in to the settlement. In 1911, the town was incorporated as part of the newly founded Clark County. Urbanization took off in 1931 when work started on the Boulder Dam (now the Hoover Dam), bringing a huge influx of young male workers, for whom theaters and casinos were built, largely by the Mafia. Electricity from the dam also enabled the building of many new hotels along the Strip. The arrival of Howard Hughes in 1966 did much to offset mob influence and helped turn Las Vegas into more of a family tourist center, now classified as a Mega resort.
The name Las Vegas—Spanish for “the meadows”—was given to the area in 1829 by Rafael Rivera, a member of the Spanish explorer Antonio Armijo trading party that was traveling to Los Angeles, and stopped for water there on the Old Spanish Trail from New Mexico. At that time, several parts of the valley contained artesian wells surrounded by extensive green areas. The flows from the wells fed the Las Vegas Wash, which runs to the Colorado River.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In Irish mythology, Scottish mythology, and pseudo-history, an Egyptian princess named Scota is mentioned as having arrived in today's Scotland (and/or in Ireland) in a very early period of these countries' history. The historical veracity of the story is greatly doubted, however. And under the Roman Empire, Britannia and Egypt were two provinces of a single empire which had considerable trade and interaction between its constituent parts. However, if any Egyptians settled in Roman Britain, there was little evidence left of their presence.
Egyptians historically have been averse to emigrating from their country, even when suffering with significant poverty. As such, prior to the late 1960s, only small numbers of Egyptians moved to the United Kingdom, and even then mostly for the purposes of study. As the Egyptian Revolution that began in 1952 developed an increasingly socialist character under Gamal Abdel Nasser, with the nationalisation of many private businesses, some upper and middle class Egyptians sought to leave the country. However, large scale emigration did not occur until after Egypt's defeat in the Six-Day War of 1967, which left the Sinai Peninsula entirely under Israeli occupation, and placed an immense economic burden on the country.
Given the severity of the country's economic woes following the war, particularly after the outbreak of the War of Attrition, the Egyptian Government saw advantages in Egyptians moving overseas to work and send home remittances. Therefore, it partially relaxed the strict regulations against emigration (which included requirements for exit visas). This change in approach was extended under Nasser's successor as President of Egypt, Anwar El-Sadat. Over the course of the 1970s and 80s, many Egyptians took advantage of the loosening of these restrictions, and moved to Western states, such as the United Kingdom, and the oil rich states of the Persian Gulf.
Over the same period, heightened religious tension in Egypt resulted in further emigration, largely of Copts, although the numbers emigrating to the U.K. were small compared to Canada, and Australia. With Egypt's economic liberalisation under Sadat in the 1970s, labour migration to the U.K. increased, as did the flow of Egyptians moving to the U.K. for higher education. Many students stayed in Britain after finishing their studies. During this time, many Egyptian businessmen migrated to the U.K. to establish businesses.[1]
1
-
1
-
1
-
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all in the world,
When it always stands united
Brotherly in protection and defense.
From the Meuse to the Memel,
From the Adige to the Little Belt,
𝄆 Germany, Germany above all,
Above all in the world! 𝄇
German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song
Shall retain in the world
Their old, beautiful sound,
Inspiring us to noble deeds
Throughout our entire lives –
𝄆 German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song! 𝄇
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The German Templer colonies in Palestine, established by members of the Temple Society, ultimately faced expulsion and confiscation of their properties. Following World War I, the Templers, viewed as enemy aliens, were interned and deported to Australia. After the war, some were allowed to return, but the British Mandate authorities later seized their properties and livestock.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Early Years:
The Templer community, primarily a group of German Christians with messianic ideals, arrived in Palestine in the 19th century and established settlements. They initially focused on farming, introducing modern techniques and innovations.
World War I and After:
With the outbreak of World War I, the Templers were classified as enemy aliens. Many were sent to internment camps in Egypt, and their property was seized.
Deportation and Rebuilding:
Some Templers were later allowed to return and rebuild their settlements. However, the British Mandate authorities continued to confiscate their property.
Deportation to Australia:
In 1941, a large number of Templers were deported to Australia, leaving behind a small number in Palestine.
State Property:
After the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the remnants of the Templer settlements were largely taken over as state property.
Compensation and Restitution:
The Mandate government and the Public Custodian of Enemy Property paid the Templers 50% restitution for war losses of livestock and other property.
Current Status:
The German Colony in Jerusalem, for example, has become a gentrified neighborhood with a large English-speaking population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prajvalrao4871 English, in various dialects, is the most widely spoken language of the United Kingdom,[13] but a number of regional and migrant languages are also spoken. Regional indigenous languages are Scots and Ulster Scots and the Celtic languages, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and, as a revived language with few speakers, Cornish. British Sign Language is also used. There are also many languages spoken by immigrants who arrived recently to the United Kingdom, mainly within inner city areas; these languages are mainly from continental Europe and South Asia.[14]
The de facto official language of the United Kingdom is English.[15] Additionally, Welsh is an official language, under the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, in Wales.[16][17] Welsh is spoken by 538,300 people in Wales according to the 2021 census.[18] Approximately 124,000 people speak Irish in Northern Ireland, which is an official language in Northern Ireland alongside English.[19]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nlwilson4892 The history of urbanization is the process of humans moving from rural to urban settings. It began thousands of years ago, and has accelerated over time.
Early urbanization
Neolithic Period: Humans began to form small, permanent settlements around 10,000 BCE.
Hunter-gatherer villages: Hunter-gatherers began to accumulate into villages, which were characterized by communal behavior and intimate relationships.
Urbanization in the Industrial Revolution
Britain
Urbanization accelerated in Britain during the Industrial Revolution, as the country transitioned from an organic to a fossil fuel economy.
Marriage
Marriage patterns shifted to be more sociable, with people tending to marry someone from the same social group, geographical location, or job.
Urbanization in the modern era
Population explosion
The population explosion of the last three centuries has led to a sustained increase in urbanization.
Urban planning
Urban planning has evolved over time, with planners using modernism to create efficient urban designs.
Factors that affect urbanization
Agricultural productivity: The productivity of agriculture affects urbanization levels. When agriculture is low-yielding and requires a lot of labor, people are more likely to live in rural areas.
Urban death rates: Urban death rates have also limited urbanization levels in the past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the interwar period, deep anger arose in the Weimar Republic over the conditions of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which punished Germany for its role in World War I with heavy financial reparations and severe limitations on its military that were intended to prevent it from becoming a military power again. The demilitarisation of the Rhineland, the prohibition of German unification with Austria, and the loss of its overseas colonies as well as some 12% of its pre-war land area and population all provoked strong currents of revanchism in German politics.
During the worldwide economic crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s, many people lost faith in liberal democracy and countries across the world turned to authoritarian regimes.[1] In Germany, resentment over the terms of the Treaty of Versailles was intensified by the instability of the German political system, as many on both the Right and the Left rejected the Weimar Republic liberalism. The most extreme political aspirant to emerge from that situation was Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party. The Nazis took totalitarian power in Germany from 1933 and demanded the undoing of the Versailles provisions. Their ambitious and aggressive domestic and foreign policies reflected their ideologies of antisemitism, unification of all Germans, the acquisition of "living space" (Lebensraum) for agrarian settlers, the elimination of Bolshevism and the hegemony of an "Aryan"/"Nordic" master race over "subhumans" (Untermenschen) such as Jews and Slavs. Other factors leading to the war included the aggression by Fascist Italy against Ethiopia, militarism in Imperial Japan against China, and Military occupations by the Soviet Union.
At first, the aggressive moves met with only feeble and ineffectual policies of appeasement from the other major world powers. The League of Nations proved helpless, especially regarding China and Ethiopia. A decisive proximate event was the 1938 Munich Conference, which formally approved Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Hitler promised it was his last territorial claim, nevertheless in early 1939, he became even more aggressive, and European governments finally realised that appeasement would not guarantee peace but by then it was too late.
Britain and France rejected diplomatic efforts to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union, and Hitler instead offered Stalin a better deal in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939. An alliance formed by Germany, Italy, and Japan led to the establishment of the Axis powers.
1
-
1
-
Aftermath of World War II
Article
Talk
Language
Watch
Edit
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of two superpowers, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US). The aftermath of World War II was also defined by the rising threat of nuclear warfare, the creation and implementation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, and the decolonization of Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa by European and East Asian powers, most notably by the United Kingdom, France, and Japan.
Once allies during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so called because it never resulted in overt, declared total war between the two powers. It was instead characterized by espionage, political subversion and proxy wars. Western Europe and Asia were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan, whereas Central and Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and eventually behind an "Iron Curtain". Europe was divided into a US-led Western Bloc and a USSR-led Eastern Bloc. Internationally, alliances with the two blocs gradually shifted, with some nations trying to stay out of the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement. The war also saw a nuclear arms race between the two superpowers; part of the reason that the Cold War never became a "hot" war was that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear deterrents against each other, leading to a mutually assured destruction standoff.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, an organization for international cooperation and diplomacy, similar to the League of Nations. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Economic Community and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.
The end of the war opened the way for decolonization from the great powers. Independence was granted to India and Pakistan (from the United Kingdom), Indonesia (from the Netherlands), the Philippines (from the US) and a number of Arab nations, from specific mandates which had been granted to great powers from League of Nations Mandates and in addition to the establishment of Israel (from the United Kingdom). Independence for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 1960s.
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of communist influence in East Asia, with the People's Republic of China, as the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
1
-
Let this stand to these cretins don't know how to deal with the past here we are all to different in Europe for the European union.
Aftermath of World War II
Article
Talk
Language
Watch
Edit
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of two superpowers, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US). The aftermath of World War II was also defined by the rising threat of nuclear warfare, the creation and implementation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, and the decolonization of Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa by European and East Asian powers, most notably by the United Kingdom, France, and Japan.
Once allies during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so called because it never resulted in overt, declared total war between the two powers. It was instead characterized by espionage, political subversion and proxy wars. Western Europe and Asia were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan, whereas Central and Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and eventually behind an "Iron Curtain". Europe was divided into a US-led Western Bloc and a USSR-led Eastern Bloc. Internationally, alliances with the two blocs gradually shifted, with some nations trying to stay out of the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement. The war also saw a nuclear arms race between the two superpowers; part of the reason that the Cold War never became a "hot" war was that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear deterrents against each other, leading to a mutually assured destruction standoff.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, an organization for international cooperation and diplomacy, similar to the League of Nations. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Economic Community and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.
The end of the war opened the way for decolonization from the great powers. Independence was granted to India and Pakistan (from the United Kingdom), Indonesia (from the Netherlands), the Philippines (from the US) and a number of Arab nations, from specific mandates which had been granted to great powers from League of Nations Mandates and in addition to the establishment of Israel (from the United Kingdom). Independence for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 1960s.
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of communist influence in East Asia, with the People's Republic of China, as the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Iran–Israel proxy conflict
Article
Talk
Im starting to think the world was a better place when rhe empires of europe existed and when we had control of the middle east after ww1 rhen given the world independence from us today
😂😂😂
The Iran–Israel proxy conflict, also known as the Iran–Israel proxy war[24] or Iran–Israel Cold War,[25] is an ongoing proxy conflict between Iran and Israel. In the Israeli–Lebanese conflict, Iran has supported Lebanese Shia militias, most notably Hezbollah. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran has backed Palestinian groups such as Hamas. Israel has supported Iranian rebels, such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran, conducted airstrikes against Iranian allies in Syria and assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. In 2018 Israeli forces directly attacked Iranian forces in Syria.[26]
Various reasons have been given for the Iran-Israel conflict. Iran and Israel had previously enjoyed warm ties due to common threats, but by 1990s the USSR had dissolved and Iraq had been weakened.[29] Iranian Islamists have long championed the Palestinian people, whom they perceive as oppressed.[30] Scholars believe that by supporting the Palestinians, Iran seeks greater acceptance among Sunnis and Arabs, both of whom dominate the Middle East.[31][32] Ideologically, Iran seeks to replace Israel with a one-state solution (though Iran has at times also supported the two-state solution[33]) and has predicted Israel's demise.[34] Israel sees Iran as an existential threat,[35] and accuses its regime of harboring genocidal intentions.[36] Consequently, Israel has sought sanctions and military action against Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons.[37]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Decolonisation of the Middle-East
Name Date of Independence
Colonising Power
IraqOctober 3, 1932Great BritainLebanonIndependence declared on November 22, 1943. Full Independence granted in 1946FranceSyriaNovember 30, 1943. Full Independence granted in 1945FranceIsraelMay 14, 1948Great BritainCyprusAugust 16, 1960Great BritainKuwaitJune 19, 1961Great BritainOman1962Great BritainYemenNovember 30, 1967Great BritainQatarSeptember 3, 1971Great BritainBahrainAugust 15, 1971Great BritainUnited Arab EmiratesDecember 2, 1971Great Britain
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrTudwud I guess this is why problems still exist in the middle east today and we had commitments to Jews and Arabs in that region after ww1
The Arab Revolt (Arabic: الثورة العربية al-Thawra al-'Arabiyya), also known as the Great Arab Revolt (الثورة العربية الكبرى al-Thawra al-'Arabiyya al-Kubrā), was an armed uprising by the Hashemite-led Arabs of the Hejaz[9] against the Ottoman Empire amidst the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I.
On the basis of the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, exchanged between Henry McMahon of the United Kingdom and Hussein bin Ali of the Kingdom of Hejaz, the rebellion against the ruling Turks was officially initiated at Mecca on 10 June 1916.[a] The primary goal of the Arab rebels was to establish an independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo to Aden, which the British government had promised to recognize.[11]
The Sharifian Army, led by Hussein and the Hashemites with backing from the British military's Egyptian Expeditionary Force, successfully fought and expelled the Ottoman military presence from much of the Hejaz and Transjordan. By 1918, the rebels had captured Damascus and proclaimed the Arab Kingdom of Syria, a short-lived monarchy that was led by Hussein's son Faisal I.
Having covertly signed the Sykes–Picot Agreement with the French Third Republic, the British reneged on their promise to support the Arabs' establishment of a singular Arab state.[12] Instead, the Arab-majority Ottoman territories of the Middle East were broken up into a number of League of Nations mandates, jointly controlled by the British and the French. Amidst the partition of the Ottoman Empire, the defeated Ottomans' mainland in Anatolia came under a joint military occupation by the victorious Allies. This was gradually broken by the Turkish War of Independence, which established the present-day Republic of Turkey
But most nations after ww1 and after in the ottoman region either got independence from us or France or other European nations and some before ww1.
1
-
@MrTudwud On the basis of the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, exchanged between Henry McMahon of the United Kingdom and Hussein bin Ali of the Kingdom of Hejaz, the rebellion against the ruling Turks was officially initiated at Mecca on 10 June 1916.[a] The primary goal of the Arab rebels was to establish an independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo to Aden, which the British government had promised to recognize.[11]
The Sharifian Army, led by Hussein and the Hashemites with backing from the British military's Egyptian Expeditionary Force, successfully fought and expelled the Ottoman military presence from much of the Hejaz and Transjordan. By 1918, the rebels had captured Damascus and proclaimed the Arab Kingdom of Syria, a short-lived monarchy that was led by Hussein's son Faisal I.
Having covertly signed the Sykes–Picot Agreement with the French Third Republic, the British reneged on their promise to support the Arabs' establishment of a singular Arab state.[12] Instead, the Arab-majority Ottoman territories of the Middle East were broken up into a number of League of Nations mandates, jointly controlled by the British and the French. Amidst the partition of the Ottoman Empire, the defeated Ottomans' mainland in Anatolia came under a joint military occupation by the victorious Allies. This was gradually broken by the Turkish War of Independence, which established the present-day Republic of Turkey
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neale3871 this is a important part of history to understand but it took time to reach certain parts of our empire or other empires we even gave them things like railways plus there was a region in our history that after the Napoleonic wars in a new founded America and Europe we had reached 100 years of peace in our empire that lasted up to ww1 anyway this is more positive for the UK for starters.
The First Industrial Revolution profoundly transformed the world by shifting from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing-based one, and from a handicrafts-based economy to a factory system. This revolution, primarily occurring in the 18th and 19th centuries, led to significant advancements in technology, transportation, and communication, impacting various aspects of society.
Here's a more detailed look at the transformations:
Economic Transformation:
Shift from Agriculture to Industry:
The First Industrial Revolution saw a move away from traditional agriculture towards industrial production, with goods being made by machines rather than by hand.
Mass Production:
The factory system allowed for mass production, leading to increased efficiency and lower prices.
Rise of the Factory System:
New machines, power sources (like steam), and organizational structures were introduced, creating the foundation for the modern factory system.
Increased Trade and Wealth:
The increased production and efficiency led to a rise in trade and wealth, both domestically and internationally.
Technological Advancements:
New Inventions:
Inventions like the steam engine, power loom, and various machines revolutionized production and transportation.
Development of New Power Sources:
Coal and steam power became essential for powering factories and machines.
Infrastructure Development:
The construction of railways and canals facilitated the transportation of raw materials and finished goods.
Communication Advances:
The invention of the telegraph and later the telephone revolutionized communication.
Social and Demographic Changes:
Urbanization:
People migrated from rural areas to urban centers in search of work in factories.
Growth of Cities:
Cities grew rapidly, with new industries and factories becoming central to the economy.
Social Stratification:
The Industrial Revolution created a new class of industrial workers, often facing harsh working conditions and low wages.
Changes in Labor:
The introduction of new machines and the factory system led to changes in work patterns and the emergence of new forms of labor organization.
Rise of Reform Movements:
The social challenges of the Industrial Revolution, such as poverty and poor working conditions, spurred the development of reform movements advocating for better working conditions, worker protections, and social justice.
Overall Impact:
Increased Standard of Living (Eventually):
While the initial impact was often harsh, the Industrial Revolution ultimately led to a sustained increase in the standard of living for many, as productivity increased and new technologies emerged.
Foundation for Modern Society:
The Industrial Revolution laid the groundwork for the modern industrial economy, technological advancements, and the world as we know it.
Continued Innovation:
The momentum of technological innovation sparked by the Industrial Revolution continued to shape society, leading to further advancements in technology, communication, and transportation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We want this addressed to because 100 years on what the middle east is today is all because of this and it effects us Brits today but we never let the Arab nations down Britain and France and there is only two sets of problems in Palestine today not every Arab Muslim Christian is the same even in the UK now they will know there histories with us .
liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The breadth and variety of his activities and associations, and his ability to describe them vividly in writing, earned him international fame as Lawrence of Arabia—a title used for the 1962 film based on his wartime activities.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between Great Britain and France, to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916, and it was signed May 16, 1916. The deal was exposed to the public in 1917. The agreement is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.
The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia received Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.
Given Ottoman defeat in 1918 and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. An international administration was proposed for Palestine as part of the Acre-Haifa zone, intended to be an British enclave in northern Palestine to enable access to the Mediterranean. The British gained control of the territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946.
The terms were negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French counterpart, François Georges-Picot. The Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes-Picot agreement; when the Bolsheviks published the agreement on November 23, 1917, after the Russian Revolution, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK’s promises to Arabs made through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire.

Sykes-Picot Agreement: Map of Sykes-Picot Agreement showing Eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria, and Western Persia, and areas of control and influence agreed between the British and the French. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon’s letter to Sir Edward Grey, May 9, 1916.
Consequences
Leading up to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, great interest was generated among the media and academia in the long-term effects of the agreement. It is frequently cited as having created “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without any regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, [which] has resulted in endless conflict.” The extent to which Sykes-Picot actually shaped the borders of the modern Middle East is disputed, and scholars often attribute instability in the region to other factors.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. “This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from the ISIL warned in a 2014 video titled End of Sykes-Picot. ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, vowed that “this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.”
Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. He claimed further that ISIL affected the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq. Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.
The United Kingdom in the Middle East
During the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the British promised the international Zionist movement their support in recreating the historic Jewish homeland in Palestine via the Balfour declaration, a move that created much political conflict, still present today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Dalai Lama said this week that “Europe belongs to the Europeans” and that refugees should eventually return to their native countries to rebuild them.
The Tibetan spiritual leader made the comment during a conference in Malmo, Sweden's third-largest city, known for its large immigrant population, Agence France-Presse reported.
"I think Europe belongs to the Europeans. ... “Receive them, help them, educate them … but ultimately they should develop their own country."
— The Dalai Lama
He noted that although Europe was “morally responsible” for helping those refugees fleeing danger in their home countries, the countries should let the immigrants know that “they ultimately should rebuild their own country” and go back.
“Receive them, help them, educate them … but ultimately they should develop their own country,” the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner added.
The Buddhist leader’s comments came just days after the populist party Sweden Democrats made significant strides in Sweden’s general election.
The party, which ran on a platform of opposing immigration, came in third, receiving nearly 18 percent of the vote, nearly 5 points up since the 2014 election. The small Nordic country reportedly took the most refugees per capita in 2015.
The Dalai Lama, who’s been living in exile since 1959 after escaping Tibet and settling in India following the Chinese communist takeover of the region, also echoed his remarks he made in 2016 concerning Germany and the influx of migrants from the Middle East.
"Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country. Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult."
— The Dalai Lama
“Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country,” he said, according to the Washington Post reported. “Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.”
“From a moral point of view, too, I think that the refugees should only be admitted temporarily,” he continued, adding that “The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries.
1
-
Muslims have lived in various European empires throughout history, contributing to the cultural, scientific, and economic development of their respective regions. Here's an overview:
Ottoman Empire (1299-1922)
1. *Balkans*: Muslims lived in parts of the Balkans, such as Bosnia, Albania, and Bulgaria.
2. *Eastern Europe*: Muslims resided in other Eastern European regions, like Romania and Ukraine.
British Empire (16th-20th century)
1. *South Asian Muslims*: Muslims from the Indian subcontinent migrated to Britain, particularly during the colonial era.
2. *Middle Eastern Muslims*: Muslims from the Middle East, such as Egypt and Iraq, also interacted with British colonial powers.
French Empire (16th-20th century)
1. *North African Muslims*: Muslims lived in French colonies in North Africa, such as Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.
2. *West African Muslims*: Muslims also resided in French West Africa, including Senegal and Mali.
Spanish Empire (15th-19th century)
1. *Muslims in Spain*: Muslims lived in Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) from the 8th to the 15th century.
2. *North African Muslims*: Muslims from North Africa, such as Morocco, interacted with Spanish colonial powers.
Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918)
1. *Bosnian Muslims*: Muslims lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was part of the empire.
Russian Empire (1721-1917)
1. *Central Asian Muslims*: Muslims lived in Central Asian regions, such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, under Russian rule.
Portuguese Empire (1415-1975)
1. *North African Muslims*: Muslims lived in Portuguese colonies in North Africa, such as Morocco.
These Muslims played significant roles in shaping the history and culture of their respective regions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paul-n8w
This is how the border force Canada and America was created only difference with the West and the rest of the world was the people where different and how it was achieved and that lots of it stems from different empires taking over different empires but colonisation is a small part of that history like America does stem from 13 British/colonies that 251 years ago after the revolutionary war turned into America in July 4th 1776 and the 13 original states of America not long after which Canada was created out of after that.
The U.S.-Canada border was not created in Europe, but rather through a series of treaties and agreements between Great Britain (representing Canada) and the United States, with some European influence in the background. Key events include the Treaty of Paris (1783) ending the American Revolution, which established the initial border. Subsequent treaties, like the Jay Treaty (1794), Jay Treaty (1795), and the Treaty of Ghent (1814), further defined the border, often through surveying and mapping efforts, and addressing disputes that arose. The 49th parallel was established as the border in 1818, and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 resolved remaining disputes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@homelandyDK The early modern period is a historical period that is part of, or (depending on the historian) immediately preceded, the modern period, with divisions based primarily on the history of Europe and the broader concept of modernity. There is no exact date that marks the beginning or end of the period and its extent may vary depending on the area of history being studied. In general, the early modern period is considered to have lasted from around the start of the 16th century to the start of the 19th century (about 1500–1800). In a European context, it is defined as the period following the Middle Ages and preceding the advent of modernity; but the dates of these boundaries are far from universally agreed. In the context of global history, the early modern period is often used even in contexts where there is no equivalent "medieval" period.
Various events and historical transitions have been proposed as the start of the early modern period, including the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the start of the Renaissance, the end of the Crusades, the Reformation in Germany giving rise to Protestantism and the beginning of the Age of Discovery and with it the onset of the first wave of European colonization. Its end is often marked by the French Revolution, and sometimes also the American Revolution or Napoleon's rise to power,[1][2] with the advent of the second wave modern colonization of New Imperialism.
Historians in recent decades have argued that, from a worldwide standpoint, the most important feature of the early modern period was its spreading globalizing character.[3] New economies and institutions emerged, becoming more sophisticated and globally articulated over the course of the period. The early modern period also included the rise of the dominance of mercantilism as an economic theory. Other notable trends of the period include the development of experimental science, increasingly rapid technological progress, secularized civic politics, accelerated travel due to improvements in mapping and ship design, and the emergence of nation states.
1
-
The early modern period is a historical period that is part of, or (depending on the historian) immediately preceded, the modern period, with divisions based primarily on the history of Europe and the broader concept of modernity. There is no exact date that marks the beginning or end of the period and its extent may vary depending on the area of history being studied. In general, the early modern period is considered to have lasted from around the start of the 16th century to the start of the 19th century (about 1500–1800). In a European context, it is defined as the period following the Middle Ages and preceding the advent of modernity; but the dates of these boundaries are far from universally agreed. In the context of global history, the early modern period is often used even in contexts where there is no equivalent "medieval" period.
Various events and historical transitions have been proposed as the start of the early modern period, including the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the start of the Renaissance, the end of the Crusades, the Reformation in Germany giving rise to Protestantism and the beginning of the Age of Discovery and with it the onset of the first wave of European colonization. Its end is often marked by the French Revolution, and sometimes also the American Revolution or Napoleon's rise to power,[1][2] with the advent of the second wave modern colonization of New Imperialism.
Historians in recent decades have argued that, from a worldwide standpoint, the most important feature of the early modern period was its spreading globalizing character.[3] New economies and institutions emerged, becoming more sophisticated and globally articulated over the course of the period. The early modern period also included the rise of the dominance of mercantilism as an economic theory. Other notable trends of the period include the development of experimental science, increasingly rapid technological progress, secularized civic politics, accelerated travel due to improvements in mapping and ship design, and the emergence of nation states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_I02_ not everyone in the world was against the British or the British empire and colonies where European wherever they where the middle east is different and that effected Europe without the triple entete beating the German empire and the ottoman empire and central European empires after ww1 Partioning it Europe and the middle east would be nothing like it is today. Trouble is with Europe that ended 30 years ago and the problems in Palestine should have ended 30 years ago ( Israel and Palestine should have had peace in 1993) this is why we are doing this now.
The UK is home to the largest Pakistani community in Europe, with the population of British Pakistanis exceeding 1.6 million based on the 2021 Census. British Pakistanis are the second-largest ethnic minority population in the United Kingdom and also make up the second-largest sub-group of British Asians. In addition, they are one of the largest Overseas Pakistani communities, similar in number to the Pakistani diaspora in the UAE.[6][7]
Due to the historical relations between the two countries, immigration to the UK from the region, which is now Pakistan, began in small numbers in the mid-nineteenth century when parts of what is now Pakistan came under the British India. People from those regions served as soldiers in the British Indian Army and some were deployed to other parts of the British Empire. However, it was following the Second World War and the break-up of the British Empire and the independence of Pakistan that Pakistani immigration to the United Kingdom increased, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. This was made easier as Pakistan was a member of the Commonwealth.[8] Pakistani immigrants helped to solve labour shortages in the British steel, textile and engineering industries. The National Health Service (NHS) recruited doctors from Pakistan in the 1960s.[9]
The British Pakistani population has grown from about 10,000 in 1951 to over 1.6 million in 2021.[10][11] The vast majority of them live in England, with a sizable number in Scotland and smaller numbers in Wales and Northern Ireland. According to the 2021 Census, Pakistanis in England and Wales numbered 1,587,819 or 2.7% of the population.[12][13] In Northern Ireland, the equivalent figure was 1,596, representing less than 0.1% of the population.[3] The census in Scotland was delayed for a year and took place in 2022, the equivalent figure was 72,871, representing 1.3% of the population.[2] The majority of British Pakistanis are Muslim; around 93% of those living in England and Wales at the time of the 2021 Census stated their religion was Islam.[14]
Since their settlement, British Pakistanis have had diverse contributions and influences on British society, politics, culture, economy and sport. Whilst social issues include high relative poverty rates among the community according to the 2001 census,[15] progress has been made in other metrics in recent years, with the 2021 Census showing British Pakistanis as having amongst the highest levels of homeownership in England and Wales.[16][17]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
United Nations and decolonization
When the United Nations was established in 1945, 750 million people - almost a third of the world's population then - lived in Territories that were non-self-governing, dependent on colonial Powers.
Since then, more than 80 former colonies have gained their independence. Among them, all 11 Trust Territories have achieved self-determination through independence or free association with an independent State. Former Non-Self-Governing Territories ceased to be on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories due to their change in status or as a result of their choice of independence, free association or integration with an independent State. Today, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining and fewer than 2 million people live in such Territories
The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as stipulated in Article 1 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter which are devoted to the interests of dependent peoples. The Charter established, in its Chapter XI ("Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories", Articles 73 and 74), the principles that continue to guide the decolonization efforts of the United Nations. The Charter also established the International Trusteeship System in Chapter XII (Articles 75-85) and the Trusteeship Council in Chapter XIII (Articles 86-91) to monitor the Trust Territories.
The Charter binds administering Powers, namely "Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government", in the language of the Charter, to recognize that the interests of dependent territories are paramount, to agree to promote social, economic, political and educational progress in the Non-Self-Governing Territories with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, to assist the peoples in developing appropriate forms of self-government, and to take into account the political aspirations and stages of development and advancement of each Non-Self-Governing Territory. Administering Powers are also obliged under the Charter to transmit to the United Nations information on conditions in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. The United Nations monitors progress towards self-determination in the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
In 1960, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)), known also as the Declaration on Decolonization. By this resolution, the General Assembly, considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing colonialism in all its forms and manifestations to a speedy and unconditional end, and in this context, declared, inter alia, that all people had a right to self-determination.
According to General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 entitled "Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter", a Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
• Free association with an independent State;
• Integration with an independent State.
In addition, by the "Declaration on Principles of International law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations", as approved by the General Assembly by its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, the General Assembly solemnly proclaimed the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States, including the principle of "equal rights and self-determination of peoples". In that principle, it is stated that the "establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people".
Intergovernmental bodies of the United Nations dealing with decolonization agenda
The General Assembly, by its resolution 66 (I) of 1946, initially set up an ad hoc committee "to examine the Secretary-General's summary and analysis of the information transmitted under Article 73 (e) of the Charter with a view to aiding the General Assembly in its consideration of this information" which was composed in equal number of representatives of the Members transmitting information under Article 73 e of the Charter and of representatives of Members elected on the basis of an equitable geographical representation. In subsequent years, the Special Committee on Information Transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter, later renamed as the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, took over the task to examine the summaries and analyses of information transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter, including any papers prepared by the specialized agencies, and was dissolved in 1963 (see General Assembly resolutions 146 (II), 219 (III), 332 (IV), 333 (IV), 569 (VI), 646 (VII), 933 (X), 1332 (XIII), 1700 (XVI) and 1970 (XVIII)).
In 1961, the General Assembly, by its resolution 1654 (XVI), established the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on Decolonization or C-24), as its subsidiary organ, to monitor implementation of the 1960 Declaration on Declaration and to make recommendations on its application. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962 with the original 17 members, which was immediately expanded to 24 members by the end of 1962 (for more details on membership, see C-24 Members page). Following the dissolution of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, the C-24 was tasked to study information transmitted as prescribed under Article 73 e of the Charter, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII).
Agenda items relating to decolonization are also considered by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), one of the Main Committees of the General Assembly. The Fourth Committee considers recommendations of the C-24 and prepares draft resolutions and decisions for submission to the plenary of the General Assembly..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon (French: Mandat pour la Syrie et le Liban; Arabic: الانتداب الفرنسي على سوريا ولبنان, romanized: al-intidāb al-faransī ʻalā sūriyā wa-lubnān, also referred to as the Levant States;[1][2] 1923−1946)[3] was a League of Nations mandate[4] founded in the aftermath of the First World War and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, concerning Syria and Lebanon. The mandate system was supposed to differ from colonialism, with the governing country intended to act as a trustee until the inhabitants were considered eligible for self-government. At that point, the mandate would terminate and a sovereign state would be born.[5]
During the two years that followed the end of the war in 1918—and in accordance with the Sykes–Picot Agreement signed by the United Kingdom and French Third Republic during the war—the British held control of most of Ottoman Iraq (now Iraq) and the southern part of Ottoman Syria (Palestine and Transjordan), while the French controlled the rest of Ottoman Syria (including Lebanon, Alexandretta, and portions of Cilicia).[4] In the early 1920s, British and French control of these territories became formalized by the League of Nations' mandate system. And on 29 September 1923 France was assigned the League of Nations mandate of Syria, which included the territory of present-day Lebanon and Alexandretta in addition to modern Syria.[6]
The administration of the region under the French was carried out through a number of different governments and territories, including the Syrian Federation (1922–1924), the State of Syria (1925–1930) and the Mandatory Syrian Republic (1930–1946), as well as smaller states: Greater Lebanon, the Alawite State, and the Jabal Druze State. Hatay State was annexed by Turkey in 1939. The French mandate lasted until 1946, when French troops eventually left Syria and Lebanon, which had both declared independence during World War II.[7]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaygray7102 here's the history of the creation of the European union and they think this can work it's what we try to tell people about but all this had a major effect on the world to specially the middle east
HISTORY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
Remembering our roots
The origins of the Europe we know today go way, way back.
To understand what Europe does for us today, it’s important to know how it began.
The first attempts …
Some people, like Charlemagne and Napoleon, tried to combine all the countries of Europe into a single nation. But back then Europe was mostly formed as a result of bloody wars.
In the 20th century two wars broke out on the continent of Europe and then spread to the whole world. That’s why they are called world wars.
The First World War took place between 1914 and 1918, and around 20 years later the Second World War began.
The Second World War
After the Second World War, in 1945, Europe was in ruins.
Because of that awful war, which lasted for six years, 20 million children were orphaned, roads were completely destroyed, and people died of hunger and fled their countries. It was complete devastation. Everything had to be rebuilt.
Two blocs in disagreement
After 1945 peace returned to Europe, but Europe was divided into two blocs: eastern Europe and western Europe. The dividing line ran through Germany.
So Germany was divided into two countries: East Germany and West Germany.
The lives of the people on either side were very different.
How did people live peacefully in the West in spite of everything?
And what does this have to do with the European Union, you might ask?
On 9 May 1950 a French statesman, Robert Schuman, had an ingenious idea: West Germany and France would work together in the coal and steel industries. That meant that they would never again think of going to war against each other.
Western Europe began to rebuild itself in peace.
The European Coal and Steel Community
Very soon other countries got involved in the coal and steel project: Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
On 18 April 1951 these six countries signed a text called a ‘treaty’ establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Another step towards peace!

EU pioneers
But building a united Europe wasn’t going to be easy. It needed truly committed visionary leaders – both men and women – to support the idea and turn it into a real common project. Today when we talk about them we call them the ‘EU pioneers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Waynep1066 The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of two superpowers, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US). The aftermath of World War II was also defined by the rising threat of nuclear warfare, the creation and implementation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, and the decolonization of Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa by European and East Asian powers, most notably by the United Kingdom, France, and Japan.
Once allies during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so called because it never resulted in overt, declared total war between the two powers. It was instead characterized by espionage, political subversion and proxy wars. Western Europe and Asia were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan, whereas Central and Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and eventually behind an "Iron Curtain". Europe was divided into a US-led Western Bloc and a USSR-led Eastern Bloc. Internationally, alliances with the two blocs gradually shifted, with some nations trying to stay out of the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement. The war also saw a nuclear arms race between the two superpowers; part of the reason that the Cold War never became a "hot" war was that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear deterrents against each other, leading to a mutually assured destruction standoff.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, an organization for international cooperation and diplomacy, similar to the League of Nations. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Economic Community and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.
The end of the war opened the way for decolonization from the great powers. Independence was granted to India and Pakistan (from the United Kingdom), Indonesia (from the Netherlands), the Philippines (from the US) and a number of Arab nations, from specific mandates which had been granted to great powers from League of Nations Mandates and in addition to the establishment of Israel (from the United Kingdom). Independence for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 1960s.
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of communist influence in East Asia, with the People's Republic of China, as the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The End Of The British Empire After The Second World War
After the Second World War, the disintegration of Britain's empire transformed global politics.
Before the war, Britain maintained colonies all over the world, which provided valuable raw materials, manpower and strategic bases. By 1945, however, colonies were an expensive liability for Clement Attlee's newly elected Labour government. The United States' rising global influence and its opposition to imperialism made colonialism less politically viable, while Japan's wartime victories had destroyed Britain's imperial prestige.
Indian residents celebrate India's independence by raising it's new flag at Klang, in Malaya, on 15 August 1947.
See object record
In 1947 India, having contributed enormously to Britain's war effort, became independent. Less than a year later, communist guerrillas launched a violent campaign aimed at forcing Britain from Malaya. Thousands were killed, but an effective political and military response prevented a Communist take-over. Malaya became an independent democracy on 31 August 1957. In the Middle East, Britain hurriedly abandoned Palestine in 1948. Ghana became Britain's first African colony to reach independence in 1957. By 1967 more than 20 British territories were independent.
Decolonisation was a complex process. Each colony's unique societies presented different political pressures which could sometimes lead to violence ranging from riots to massacres.
The Cold War added further complexities, as Britain attempted to insulate former colonies from the influence of the Soviet Union.
In 1997 Hong Kong returned to Chinese administration. Though Britain still maintains overseas territories, the handover marked the final end of Britain's empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oletramekaf5603 As William and Kate visit Jamaica, the former British colony's plans to become the second Caribbean island to remove the Queen as head of state in short succession have been revealed. After almost 400 years under a British monarch, Barbados officially removed the Queen as head of state last November, having initially gained independence from the UK in 1966. In a message to President Dame Sandra Mason of the newly born republic, the Queen wished "good wishes for your happiness, peace and prosperity in the future". This marks the latest in a long list of countries breaking away from the British empire.
While a source of great pride for some Brits, the phrase "The empire on which the sun never sets" is one which has not been applicable to the United Kingdom for a long time now. However questionable the pride associated with this notion may be, it was once a fairly accurate statement to make. As our infographic shows, over the years, 65 countries have claimed independence so far. The first of which was the United States back on July 4, 1776 (although the Declaration wasn't officially recognized by the British government until 1783).
The most recent was in 1984, when Brunei became an Islamic sultanate. More recently, an attempt at independence in Scotland failed, after a closely fought referendum in 2014 ended with 55% voting to remain a part of the UK. The independence movement is still strong, however, with the Scottish National Party still the largest political force in the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wonder what went wrong people dont allow you to talk about the since I was a child growing up in a nation that used to have the biggest empire in recorded history.
Many empires fell in the 20th century, including the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan, and Tsarist and Soviet Russia. Here are some examples of empires and how they fell:
Ottoman Empire: This empire lasted from 1300 to 1923, and at its peak was the largest political entity in Europe and western Asia.
Ethiopian Empire: Also known as Abyssinia, this empire lasted from around 1270 to 1935, when Italian forces invaded. It was one of the few African nations to resist European colonialism.
Tsarist and Soviet Russia: This empire fell twice in the 20th century.
Empires can fall when the state itself ceases to exist or when its power is reduced as parts of the empire become independent.
Empires are different from nation-states in a few ways:
Elites
The elites in nation-states share the culture of the people, while empires have a cosmopolitan elite drawn from the various local cultures.
History
Empires are considered to be the main actors in the history of world events, with much of history consisting of the deeds of empires that ruled large parts of the globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's the real problem In the middle east and, Arab world your all different in the middle east and north Africa that's why did partion the ottoman empire and why western Europe is different from central and Eastern Europe.
The Ottoman–Persian Wars or Ottoman–Iranian Wars were a series of wars between Ottoman Empire and the Safavid, Afsharid, Zand, and Qajar dynasties of Iran (historically known as Persia) through the 16th–19th centuries. The Ottomans consolidated their control of what is today Turkey in the 15th century, and gradually came into conflict with the emerging neighboring Iranian state, led by Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty. The two states were arch rivals, and were also divided by religious grounds, the Ottomans being staunchly Sunni and the Safavids being Shia. A series of military conflicts ensued for centuries during which the two empires competed for control over eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus, and Iraq. Had we not won ww1 and ww2 you would just have a bigger version or Palestine and problems would still exist between Greece and Macedonia turkey the Balkans all the way up to Ukraine but it's not our history but Partioning the Ottoman empire you can see what people have today because of it and not everyone was against the west even in the ottoman empire that region before ww1 had many different empires with different history from us in western Europe they where at each others throats for centuries..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZzBLEACHz see this started in ww1 they created things to say they wanted peace in Europe then after ww2 they created something else to say they wanted to bring peace to the world after ww2 the European union was created 30 years ago and Russia changed at the same time stating they wanted to bring peace to Europe. But I haven't seen any peace since I was alive living in Europe I have watched Europe for all of us become the mess it has today for problems that can easily be sorted and the world outside of Europe where our empire used to be turn into places we go on holiday to now or to live to escape the b.s. here you need someone like me in the European union right now speaking for everyone.
Like many individuals around the globe, Woodrow Wilson was shocked by the outbreak of a devastating world war among European empires in 1914. As President of the United States, however, he had a unique opportunity to shape the outcome of this catastrophic conflict. He was a leading advocate for a new approach to international relations and the problem of war in which the first global political organization, the League of Nations, was to be the key mechanism for ensuring a peaceful and orderly world. Among the papers of Woodrow Wilson maintained by the Library of Congress’ Manuscript Division, one can find Wilson’s first draft of the covenant of the League of Nations, the founding document of the international organization that tried but failed to tame interstate warfare.
President Wilson viewed World War I as the folly of an old style of failed diplomacy. This timeworn diplomacy had sought to balance the power of the great European states and alliances against each other while they competed for selfish imperial interests. Unable to avoid American entry into the war in April 1917, Wilson committed himself to creating a new international order with a League of Nations at its center that would peacefully manage conflicts between states, great and small and put an end to senseless warfare. The League of Nations was not his vision alone – ideas about a society or league of nations to facilitate or even enforce the peace had been discussed among Americans, Europeans and others. Nevertheless, Wilson became a driving force to establish the league as the guarantor of the post-war peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Iran–Israel proxy conflict
Article
Talk
Im starting to think the world was a better place when rhe empires of europe existed and when we had control of the middle east after ww1 rhen given the world independence from us today
😂😂😂
The Iran–Israel proxy conflict, also known as the Iran–Israel proxy war[24] or Iran–Israel Cold War,[25] is an ongoing proxy conflict between Iran and Israel. In the Israeli–Lebanese conflict, Iran has supported Lebanese Shia militias, most notably Hezbollah. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran has backed Palestinian groups such as Hamas. Israel has supported Iranian rebels, such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran, conducted airstrikes against Iranian allies in Syria and assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. In 2018 Israeli forces directly attacked Iranian forces in Syria.[26]
Various reasons have been given for the Iran-Israel conflict. Iran and Israel had previously enjoyed warm ties due to common threats, but by 1990s the USSR had dissolved and Iraq had been weakened.[29] Iranian Islamists have long championed the Palestinian people, whom they perceive as oppressed.[30] Scholars believe that by supporting the Palestinians, Iran seeks greater acceptance among Sunnis and Arabs, both of whom dominate the Middle East.[31][32] Ideologically, Iran seeks to replace Israel with a one-state solution (though Iran has at times also supported the two-state solution[33]) and has predicted Israel's demise.[34] Israel sees Iran as an existential threat,[35] and accuses its regime of harboring genocidal intentions.[36] Consequently, Israel has sought sanctions and military action against Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons.[37]
1
-
1
-
@CelticLaserCrafts
Trouble is with Europe today and not the world around us is that problems that stem from ww1 Here only ended 30 years ago for some in central and eastern Europe now them problems in Ukraine and Palestine and all over the middle east have ignited here and People live in the past with our colonial history to it's all caused all kinds of problems here now.
After the relative peace of most of the 19th century, the rivalry between European powers, compounded by rising nationalism among ethnic groups, exploded in 1914, when World War I started.[144] Over 65 million European soldiers were mobilised from 1914 to 1918; 20 million soldiers and civilians died.[145] On one side were Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria (the Central Powers/Triple Alliance), while on the other side stood Serbia and the Triple Entente(France, Britain and Russia), which were joined by Italy in 1915, Romania in 1916 and the United States in 1917. The Western Front involved especially brutal combat without any territorial gains by either side. Single battles like Verdun and the Somme killed hundreds of thousands. Czarist Russia collapsed in the February Revolution of 1917 and Germany claimed victory on the Eastern Front. After eight months of liberal rule, the October Revolution brought Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks to power, leading to the creation of the Soviet Union. With American entry into the war in 1917, and the failure of Germany's spring 1918 offensive, Germany had run out of manpower. Germany's allies, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, surrendered and dissolved, followed by Germany on 11 November 1918.[146][147]
Detail from William Orpen's painting The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, 28 June 1919, showing the signing of the peace treaty by a minor German official opposite to the representatives of the winning powers.
The world war was settled by the victors at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. The major decisions were the creation of the League of Nations; peace treaties with defeated enemies, most notably the Treaty of Versailles with Germany; the awarding of German and Ottoman overseas possessions as "mandates", chiefly to Britain and France; and the drawing of new national boundaries to better reflect the forces of nationalism.[148][149] Multiple nations were required to sign minority rights treaties.[150] The Treaty of Versailles itself weakened Germany's military power and placed full blame for the war and costly reparations on its shoulders – the humiliation and resentment in Germany was probably one of the causes of Nazi success and indirectly a cause of World War II.
In the Treaty of Versailles (1919) the winners recognised the new states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, Yugoslavia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) created in central Europe from the defunct German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, based on national (ethnic) self-determination. It was a peaceful era with a few small wars before 1922 such as the Ukrainian–Soviet War (1917–1921) and the Polish–Soviet War (1919–1921). Prosperity was widespread, and the major cities sponsored a youth culture called the "Roaring Twenties" or "Jazz Age".[151]
The Allied victory in the First World War seemed to mark the triumph of liberalism. Historian Martin Blinkhorn argues that the liberal themes were ascendant in terms of "cultural pluralism, religious and ethnic toleration, national self-determination, free-market economics, representative and responsible government, free trade, unionism, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through a new body, the League of Nations."[152] However, as early as 1917, the emerging liberal order was being challenged by the new communist movement. Communist revolts were beaten back everywhere else, but succeeded in Russia.[153] Italy adopted an authoritarian dictatorship known as Fascism in 1922. Authoritarian regimes replaced democracy in the 1930s in Nazi Germany, Portugal, Austria, Poland, Greece, the Baltic countries and Francoist Spain. By 1940, there were only four liberal democracies left on the European continent: France, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden.[154]
Great Depression: 1929–39
edit
Main article: Great Depression
Adolf Hitler addressing the Reichstag on 23 March 1933
After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, most of the world sank into a Great Depression; prices and profits fell and unemployment soared. The worst hit sectors included heavy industry, export-oriented agriculture, mining and lumbering, and construction. World trade fell by two-thirds.[155][156]
In most of Europe, many nations turned to dictators and authoritarian regimes. The most momentous change of government came when Hitler took power in Germany in 1933. The main institution that was meant to bring stability was the League of Nations, created in 1919. However the League failed to resolve any major crises, undermined by the bellicosity of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, and Mussolini's Italy, and by the non-participation of the United States. By 1937 it was largely ignored.[157]
Italy conquered Ethiopia in 1931.[158] The Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) was won by the rebels (the Nationalist faction), led by Francisco Franco. The civil war did not escalate into a larger conflict, but did become a worldwide ideological battleground that pitted the left, the communist movement and many liberals against Catholics, conservatives, and fascists. Britain, France and the US remained neutral. Worldwide there was a decline in pacifism and a growing sense that another world war was imminent.[159]
World War II
edit
Main articles: Causes of World War II, World War II, Diplomatic history of World War II, Home front during World War II, and The Holocaust
Starving Jewish children in Warsaw Ghetto (1940–1943)American and Soviet troops meet in April 1945, east of the Elbe River.
In 1938 Adolf Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. In the Munich Agreement, Britain and France adopted a policy of appeasement, but Germany subsequently took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. After allying with Japan in the Anti-Comintern Pact and then also with Benito Mussolini's Italy in the "Pact of Steel", and finally signing a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union in August 1939, Hitler launched the Second World War on 1 September 1939 by attacking Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany, but there was little fighting during the "Phoney War" period. War began in earnest in spring 1940 with the successful Blitzkrieg conquests of Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France. Britain defeated Germany's air attacks in the Battle of Britain. Hitler's goal was to control Eastern Europe but the attack on the Soviet Union was delayed until June 1941 and the Wehrmacht was stopped close to Moscow in December 1941.[160]
Over the next year the Germans started to suffer a series of defeats. War raged between the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and the Allied Forces (British Empire, Soviet Union, and the United States). The Allied Forces won in North Africa, invaded Italy in 1943, and recaptured France in 1944. In 1945 Germany itself was invaded from the east by the Soviet Union and from the west by the other Allies. As the Red Army conquered the Reichstag in the Battle of Berlin, Hitler committed suicide and Germany surrendered.[161] World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, causing between 50 and 80 million deaths, the majority of whom were civilians (approximately 38 to 55 million).[162]
This period was also marked by systematic genocide. In 1942–45, separately from the war-related deaths, the Nazis killed over 11 million civilians identified through IBM-enabled censuses, including the majority of the Jews and Gypsies of Europe, millions of Polish and Soviet Slavs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, disabled people, and political enemies. Meanwhile, in the 1930s the Soviet system of forced labour, expulsions and allegedly engineered famine had a similar death toll. Millions of civilians were affected by forced population transfers.[163]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The aftermath of World War I saw far-reaching and wide-ranging cultural, economic, and social change across Europe, Asia, Africa, and even in areas outside those that were directly involved. Four empires collapsed due to the war, old countries were abolished, new ones were formed, boundaries were redrawn, international organizations were established, and many new and old ideologies took a firm hold in people's minds. Additionally, culture in the nations involved was greatly changed. World War I also had the effect of bringing political transformation to most of the principal parties involved in the conflict, transforming them into electoral democracies by bringing near-universal suffrage for the first time in history, as in Germany (1919 German federal election), Great Britain (1918 United Kingdom general election), and Turkey (1923 Turkish general election).[citation needed]
1
-
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of two superpowers, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US). The aftermath of World War II was also defined by the rising threat of nuclear warfare, the creation and implementation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, and the decolonization of Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa by European and East Asian powers, most notably by the United Kingdom, France, and Japan.
Once allies during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so called because it never resulted in overt, declared total war between the two powers. It was instead characterized by espionage, political subversion and proxy wars. Western Europe and Asia were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan, whereas Central and Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and eventually behind an "Iron Curtain". Europe was divided into a US-led Western Bloc and a USSR-led Eastern Bloc. Internationally, alliances with the two blocs gradually shifted, with some nations trying to stay out of the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement. The war also saw a nuclear arms race between the two superpowers; part of the reason that the Cold War never became a "hot" war was that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear deterrents against each other, leading to a mutually assured destruction standoff.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, an organization for international cooperation and diplomacy, similar to the League of Nations. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Economic Community and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.
The end of the war opened the way for decolonization from the great powers. Independence was granted to India and Pakistan (from the United Kingdom), Indonesia (from the Netherlands), the Philippines (from the US), as well as Israel and a number of Arab nations from specific Mandates which had been granted to great powers by the League of Nations. Independence for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 1960s.
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of communist influence in East Asia, with the People's Republic of China, as the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
1
-
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of two superpowers, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US). The aftermath of World War II was also defined by the rising threat of nuclear warfare, the creation and implementation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, and the decolonization of Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa by European and East Asian powers, most notably by the United Kingdom, France, and Japan.
Once allies during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so called because it never resulted in overt, declared total war between the two powers. It was instead characterized by espionage, political subversion and proxy wars. Western Europe and Asia were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan, whereas Central and Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and eventually behind an "Iron Curtain". Europe was divided into a US-led Western Bloc and a USSR-led Eastern Bloc. Internationally, alliances with the two blocs gradually shifted, with some nations trying to stay out of the Cold War through the Non-Aligned Movement. The war also saw a nuclear arms race between the two superpowers; part of the reason that the Cold War never became a "hot" war was that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear deterrents against each other, leading to a mutually assured destruction standoff.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, an organization for international cooperation and diplomacy, similar to the League of Nations. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression in an attempt to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Economic Community and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration, and a common market for important natural resources.
The end of the war opened the way for decolonization from the great powers. Independence was granted to India and Pakistan (from the United Kingdom), Indonesia (from the Netherlands), the Philippines (from the US), as well as Israel and a number of Arab nations from specific Mandates which had been granted to great powers by the League of Nations. Independence for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 1960s.
The aftermath of World War II saw the rise of communist influence in East Asia, with the People's Republic of China, as the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The settlement of Las Vegas, Nevada was founded in 1905 after the opening of a railroad that linked Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. The stopover attracted some farmers (mostly from Utah) to the area, and fresh water was piped in to the settlement. In 1911, the town was incorporated as part of the newly founded Clark County. Urbanization took off in 1931 when work started on the Boulder Dam (now the Hoover Dam), bringing a huge influx of young male workers, for whom theaters and casinos were built, largely by the Mafia. Electricity from the dam also enabled the building of many new hotels along the Strip. The arrival of Howard Hughes in 1966 did much to offset mob influence and helped turn Las Vegas into more of a family tourist center, now classified as a Mega resort.
The name Las Vegas—Spanish for “the meadows”—was given to the area in 1829 by Rafael Rivera, a member of the Spanish explorer Antonio Armijo trading party that was traveling to Los Angeles, and stopped for water there on the Old Spanish Trail from New Mexico. At that time, several parts of the valley contained artesian wells surrounded by extensive green areas. The flows from the wells fed the Las Vegas Wash, which runs to the Colorado River.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Decolonization of Asia and Africa, 1945–1960
Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states in Asia and Africa achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers.

Harold MacMillan, British Prime Minister, helped begin decolonization
There was no one process of decolonization. In some areas, it was peaceful, and orderly. In many others, independence was achieved only after a protracted revolution. A few newly independent countries acquired stable governments almost immediately; others were ruled by dictators or military juntas for decades, or endured long civil wars. Some European governments welcomed a new relationship with their former colonies; others contested decolonization militarily. The process of decolonization coincided with the new Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, and with the early development of the new United Nations. Decolonization was often affected by superpower competition, and had a definite impact on the evolution of that competition. It also significantly changed the pattern of international relations in a more general sense.
The creation of so many new countries, some of which occupied strategic locations, others of which possessed significant natural resources, and most of which were desperately poor, altered the composition of the United Nations and political complexity of every region of the globe. In the mid to late 19th century, the European powers colonized much of Africa and Southeast Asia. During the decades of imperialism, the industrializing powers of Europe viewed the African and Asian continents as reservoirs of raw materials, labor, and territory for future settlement. In most cases, however, significant development and European settlement in these colonies was sporadic. However, the colonies were exploited, sometimes brutally, for natural and labor resources, and sometimes even for military conscripts. In addition, the introduction of colonial rule drew arbitrary natural boundaries where none had existed before, dividing ethnic and linguistic groups and natural features, and laying the foundation for the creation of numerous states lacking geographic, linguistic, ethnic, or political affinity.
During World War II Japan, itself a significant imperial power, drove the European powers out of Asia. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, local nationalist movements in the former Asian colonies campaigned for independence rather than a return to European colonial rule. In many cases, as in Indonesia and French Indochina, these nationalists had been guerrillas fighting the Japanese after European surrenders, or were former members of colonial military establishments. These independence movements often appealed to the United States Government for support.
While the United States generally supported the concept of national self-determination, it also had strong ties to its European allies, who had imperial claims on their former colonies. The Cold War only served to complicate the U.S. position, as U.S. support for decolonization was offset by American concern over communist expansion and Soviet strategic ambitions in Europe. Several of the NATO allies asserted that their colonial possessions provided them with economic and military strength that would otherwise be lost to the alliance. Nearly all of the United States’ European allies believed that after their recovery from World War II their colonies would finally provide the combination of raw materials and protected markets for finished goods that would cement the colonies to Europe. Whether or not this was the case, the alternative of allowing the colonies to slip away, perhaps into the United States’ economic sphere or that of another power, was unappealing to every European government interested in postwar stability. Although the U.S. Government did not force the issue, it encouraged the European imperial powers to negotiate an early withdrawal from their overseas colonies. The United States granted independence to the Philippines in 1946.
However, as the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union came to dominate U.S. foreign policy concerns in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations grew increasingly concerned that as the European powers lost their colonies or granted them independence, Soviet-supported communist parties might achieve power in the new states. This might serve to shift the international balance of power in favor of the Soviet Union and remove access to economic resources from U.S. allies. Events such as the Indonesian struggle for independence from the Netherlands (1945–50), the Vietnamese war against France (1945–54), and the nationalist and professed socialist takeovers of Egypt (1952) and Iran (1951) served to reinforce such fears, even if new governments did not directly link themselves to the Soviet Union. Thus, the United States used aid packages, technical assistance and sometimes even military intervention to encourage newly independent nations in the Third World to adopt governments that aligned with the West. The Soviet Union deployed similar tactics in an effort to encourage new nations to join the communist bloc, and attempted to convince newly decolonized countries that communism was an intrinsically non-imperialist economic and political ideology. Many of the new nations resisted the pressure to be drawn into the Cold War, joined in the “nonaligned movement,” which formed after the Bandung conference of 1955, and focused on internal development.
The newly independent nations that emerged in the 1950s and the 1960s became an important factor in changing the balance of power within the United Nations. In 1946, there were 35 member states in the United Nations; as the newly independent nations of the “third world” joined the organization, by 1970 membership had swelled to 127. These new member states had a few characteristics in common; they were non-white, with developing economies, facing internal problems that were the result of their colonial past, which sometimes put them at odds with European countries and made them suspicious of European-style governmental structures, political ideas, and economic institutions. These countries also became vocal advocates of continuing decolonization, with the result that the UN Assembly was often ahead of the Security Council on issues of self-governance and decolonization. The new nations pushed the UN toward accepting resolutions for independence for colonial states and creating a special committee on colonialism, demonstrating that even though some nations continued to struggle for independence, in the eyes of the international community, the colonial era was ending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. They took place on April 19, 1775, in Massachusetts. The battles resulted in an American victory and increased support for the anti-British cause.
What happened?
The British marched into Lexington and Concord to seize weapons from the colonists.
The colonists' alarm system summoned local militia companies, who were able to counter the British.
The militiamen, known as minutemen, were quick-moving and well-suited to irregular warfare.
The militiamen fired at the British from behind trees, stone walls, houses, and sheds.
The British retreated, abandoning their weapons, clothing, and equipment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Muppet.master The term "British subject" has several different meanings depending on the time period. Before 1949, it referred to almost all subjects of the British Empire (including the United Kingdom, Dominions, and colonies, but excluding protectorates and protected states). Between 1949 and 1983, the term was synonymous with Commonwealth citizen. Currently, it refers to people possessing a class of British nationality largely granted under limited circumstances to those connected with Ireland or British India born before 1949. Individuals with this nationality are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens.
The status under the current definition does not automatically grant the holder right of abode in the United Kingdom but almost all British subjects do have this entitlement. As of 2024, about 22,700 British subjects hold valid British passports with this status and enjoy consular protection when travelling abroad; fewer than 700 do not have right of abode in the UK.[1]
Nationals of this class without right of abode are subject to immigration controls when entering the UK. If they hold no other citizenship, British subjects without right of abode in the UK are effectively stateless, as they are not guaranteed the right to enter the country in which they are nationals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperSkipMaster Loyalists were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War, often referred to as Tories,[1][2] Royalists, or King's Men at the time. They were opposed by the Patriots or Whigs, who supported the revolution, and considered them "persons inimical to the liberties of America.
Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the Crown. The British government acted in expectation of that, especially during the Southern campaigns of 1780 and 1781. Britain was able to effectively protect the people only in areas where they had military control, and in return, the number of military Loyalists was significantly lower than what had been expected. Due to conflicting political views, loyalists were often under suspicion of those in the British military, who did not know whom they could fully trust in such a conflicted situation; they were often looked down upon.[4]
Patriots watched suspected Loyalists very closely and would not tolerate any organized Loyalist opposition. Many outspoken or militarily active Loyalists were forced to flee, especially to their stronghold of New York City. William Franklin, the royal governor of New Jersey and son of Patriot leader Benjamin Franklin, became the leader of the Loyalists after his release from a Patriot prison in 1778. He worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war. Woodrow Wilson wrote that
"there had been no less than twenty-five thousand loyalists enlisted in the British service during the five years of the fighting. At one time (1779) they had actually outnumbered the whole of the continental muster under the personal command of Washington."[5]
When their cause was defeated, about 15 percent of the Loyalists (65,000–70,000 people) fled to other parts of the British Empire; especially to the Kingdom of Great Britain itself, or to British North America (present day Canada).[6] The southern Loyalists moved mostly to Florida, which had remained loyal to the Crown, and to British Caribbean possessions. Northern Loyalists largely migrated to Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. They called themselves United Empire Loyalists. Most were compensated with Canadian land or British cash distributed through formal claims procedures. Loyalists who left the US received over £3 million or about 37% of their losses from the British government. Loyalists who stayed in the US were generally able to retain their property and become American citizens.[7] Many Loyalists eventually returned to the US after the war and discriminatory laws had been repealed.[8] Historians have estimated that between 15% and 20% (300,000 to 400,000) of the 2,000,000 whites in the colonies in 1775 were Loyalists..
1
-
@LewisNuke92 @SuperSkipMaster Loyalists were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War, often referred to as Tories,[1][2] Royalists, or King's Men at the time. They were opposed by the Patriots or Whigs, who supported the revolution, and considered them "persons inimical to the liberties of America.
Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the Crown. The British government acted in expectation of that, especially during the Southern campaigns of 1780 and 1781. Britain was able to effectively protect the people only in areas where they had military control, and in return, the number of military Loyalists was significantly lower than what had been expected. Due to conflicting political views, loyalists were often under suspicion of those in the British military, who did not know whom they could fully trust in such a conflicted situation; they were often looked down upon.[4]
Patriots watched suspected Loyalists very closely and would not tolerate any organized Loyalist opposition. Many outspoken or militarily active Loyalists were forced to flee, especially to their stronghold of New York City. William Franklin, the royal governor of New Jersey and son of Patriot leader Benjamin Franklin, became the leader of the Loyalists after his release from a Patriot prison in 1778. He worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war. Woodrow Wilson wrote that
"there had been no less than twenty-five thousand loyalists enlisted in the British service during the five years of the fighting. At one time (1779) they had actually outnumbered the whole of the continental muster under the personal command of Washington."[5]
When their cause was defeated, about 15 percent of the Loyalists (65,000–70,000 people) fled to other parts of the British Empire; especially to the Kingdom of Great Britain itself, or to British North America (present day Canada).[6] The southern Loyalists moved mostly to Florida, which had remained loyal to the Crown, and to British Caribbean possessions. Northern Loyalists largely migrated to Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. They called themselves United Empire Loyalists. Most were compensated with Canadian land or British cash distributed through formal claims procedures. Loyalists who left the US received over £3 million or about 37% of their losses from the British government. Loyalists who stayed in the US were generally able to retain their property and become American citizens.[7] Many Loyalists eventually returned to the US after the war and discriminatory laws had been repealed.[8] Historians have estimated that between 15% and 20% (300,000 to 400,000) of the 2,000,000 whites in the colonies in 1775 were Loyalists.
1
-
@mr.heisenberg0122 Loyalists were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War, often referred to as Tories,[1][2] Royalists, or King's Men at the time. They were opposed by the Patriots or Whigs, who supported the revolution, and considered them "persons inimical to the liberties of America.
Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the Crown. The British government acted in expectation of that, especially during the Southern campaigns of 1780 and 1781. Britain was able to effectively protect the people only in areas where they had military control, and in return, the number of military Loyalists was significantly lower than what had been expected. Due to conflicting political views, loyalists were often under suspicion of those in the British military, who did not know whom they could fully trust in such a conflicted situation; they were often looked down upon.[4]
Patriots watched suspected Loyalists very closely and would not tolerate any organized Loyalist opposition. Many outspoken or militarily active Loyalists were forced to flee, especially to their stronghold of New York City. William Franklin, the royal governor of New Jersey and son of Patriot leader Benjamin Franklin, became the leader of the Loyalists after his release from a Patriot prison in 1778. He worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war. Woodrow Wilson wrote that
"there had been no less than twenty-five thousand loyalists enlisted in the British service during the five years of the fighting. At one time (1779) they had actually outnumbered the whole of the continental muster under the personal command of Washington."[5]
When their cause was defeated, about 15 percent of the Loyalists (65,000–70,000 people) fled to other parts of the British Empire; especially to the Kingdom of Great Britain itself, or to British North America (present day Canada).[6] The southern Loyalists moved mostly to Florida, which had remained loyal to the Crown, and to British Caribbean possessions. Northern Loyalists largely migrated to Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. They called themselves United Empire Loyalists. Most were compensated with Canadian land or British cash distributed through formal claims procedures. Loyalists who left the US received over £3 million or about 37% of their losses from the British government. Loyalists who stayed in the US were generally able to retain their property and become American citizens.[7] Many Loyalists eventually returned to the US after the war and discriminatory laws had been repealed.[8] Historians have estimated that between 15% and 20% (300,000 to 400,000) of the 2,000,000 whites in the colonies in 1775 were Loyalists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j7ech402 Nationalization (nationalisation in British English) is the process of transforming privately owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization contrasts with privatization and with demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization. Industries often subject to nationalization include telecommunications, electric power, fossil fuels, railways, airlines, iron ore, media, postal services, banks, and water (sometimes called the commanding heights of the economy), and in many jurisdictions such entities have no history of private ownership.
Nationalization may occur with or without financial compensation to the former owners. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, in 1945 the French government seized the car-maker Renault because its owners had collaborated with the 1940–1944 Nazi occupiers of France.[2] In September 2021, Berliners voted to expropriate over 240,000 housing units, many of which were being held unoccupied as investment property.[3][4]
Economists distinguish between nationalization and socialization, which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system. Historically, states have carried out nationalizations for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political systems and economic systems.[5]
The UK was great when we had a government we could trust don't let us sink into the ground this way everyone had a nice earning of privatisation and not everyone got the same opportunity it can work if privatised company's take on a more nationalised view
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j7ech402 if you copy and paste this you will find a good article and them industries I can understand why they where sold off with what they want today most of it is not needed but council services industry like railways council services and others I don't I hope the people we vote for see a government we can trust can deal with the future better is better then what they are doing and something that worked we need nations back to how they where
The Thatcher government that came to power in 1979 with privatisation as a minor part of its manifesto, but it became a central part of its ideology as the 1980s progressed. Many industries and utilities that had been nationalised in the Attlee government of 1945-51 were made into private companies: in industries, steel, railways, airways, airports and aerospace; and, of the utilities, gas, electricity, telecoms and water. The process has continued to the present day, with the 2013 privatisation of the Royal Mail
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The process of colonization was a combination of voluntary integration into the Russian Empire and outright seizure. The Little Horde and part of the Middle Horde signed treaties of protection with Russia in the 1730s and 1740s. Major parts of the northeast and central Kazakh territories were incorporated into the Russian Empire by 1840. With the Russian seizure of territories belonging to the Senior Horde in the 1860s, the tsars effectively ruled over most of the territory belonging to what is now the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Russian Empire introduced a system of administration and built military garrisons in its effort to establish a presence in Central Asia in the so-called "Great Game" between it and Great Britain. Russian efforts to impose its system aroused the resentment of the Kazakh people, and by the 1860s, most Kazakhs resisted Russia's annexation largely because of the disruption it wrought upon the traditional nomadic lifestyle and livestock-based economy. The Kazakh national movement, which began in the late 1800s, sought to preserve the Kazakh language and identity. There were uprisings against colonial rule during the final years of tsarist Russia, with the most serious occurring in 1916. The destruction of the nomadic life, prior to and during the Communist period, created a Kazakh diaspora in neighboring countries, especially western China. Since independence in 1991, the government has encouraged the return of ethnic Kazakhs by offering subsidies for returnees.
Although there was a brief period of autonomy during the tumultuous period following the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Kazakhs eventually succumbed to Soviet rule. In 1920, the area of present-day Kazakhstan became an autonomous republic within Russia and, in 1936, a Soviet republic.
Soviet repression of the traditional elites, along with forced collectivization in late 1920s-1930s, brought about mass hunger and led to unrest. Soviet rule, however, took hold, and a communist apparatus steadily worked to fully integrate Kazakhstan into the Soviet system. Kazakhstan experienced population inflows of thousands exiled from other parts of the Soviet Union during the 1930s and later became home for hundreds of thousands evacuated from the Second World War battlefields. The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) contributed five national divisions to the Soviet Union's World War II effort.
The period of the Second World War marked an increase in industrialization and increased mineral extraction in support of the war effort. At the time of Soviet leader Josif Stalin's death, however, Kazakhstan still had an overwhelmingly agricultural-based economy. In 1953, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev initiated the ambitious "Virgin Lands" program to turn the traditional pasturelands of Kazakhstan into a major grain-producing region for the Soviet Union. The Virgin Lands policy, along with later modernizations under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, sped up the development of the agricultural sector, which to this day remains the source of livelihood for a large percentage of Kazakhstan's population.
Growing tensions within Soviet society led to a demand for political and economic reforms, which came to a head in the 1980s. In December 1986, mass demonstrations by young ethnic Kazakhs took place in Almaty to protest the methods of the communist system. Soviet troops suppressed the unrest, and dozens of demonstrators were jailed. In the waning days of Soviet rule, discontent continued to grow and find expression under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost. Caught up in the groundswell of Soviet republics seeking greater autonomy, Kazakhstan declared its sovereignty as a republic within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) in October 1990. Following the August 1991 abortive coup attempt in Moscow and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan declared independence on December 16, 1991.
1
-
The process of colonization was a combination of voluntary integration into the Russian Empire and outright seizure. The Little Horde and part of the Middle Horde signed treaties of protection with Russia in the 1730s and 1740s. Major parts of the northeast and central Kazakh territories were incorporated into the Russian Empire by 1840. With the Russian seizure of territories belonging to the Senior Horde in the 1860s, the tsars effectively ruled over most of the territory belonging to what is now the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Russian Empire introduced a system of administration and built military garrisons in its effort to establish a presence in Central Asia in the so-called "Great Game" between it and Great Britain. Russian efforts to impose its system aroused the resentment of the Kazakh people, and by the 1860s, most Kazakhs resisted Russia's annexation largely because of the disruption it wrought upon the traditional nomadic lifestyle and livestock-based economy. The Kazakh national movement, which began in the late 1800s, sought to preserve the Kazakh language and identity. There were uprisings against colonial rule during the final years of tsarist Russia, with the most serious occurring in 1916. The destruction of the nomadic life, prior to and during the Communist period, created a Kazakh diaspora in neighboring countries, especially western China. Since independence in 1991, the government has encouraged the return of ethnic Kazakhs by offering subsidies for returnees.
Although there was a brief period of autonomy during the tumultuous period following the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Kazakhs eventually succumbed to Soviet rule. In 1920, the area of present-day Kazakhstan became an autonomous republic within Russia and, in 1936, a Soviet republic.
Soviet repression of the traditional elites, along with forced collectivization in late 1920s-1930s, brought about mass hunger and led to unrest. Soviet rule, however, took hold, and a communist apparatus steadily worked to fully integrate Kazakhstan into the Soviet system. Kazakhstan experienced population inflows of thousands exiled from other parts of the Soviet Union during the 1930s and later became home for hundreds of thousands evacuated from the Second World War battlefields. The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) contributed five national divisions to the Soviet Union's World War II effort.
The period of the Second World War marked an increase in industrialization and increased mineral extraction in support of the war effort. At the time of Soviet leader Josif Stalin's death, however, Kazakhstan still had an overwhelmingly agricultural-based economy. In 1953, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev initiated the ambitious "Virgin Lands" program to turn the traditional pasturelands of Kazakhstan into a major grain-producing region for the Soviet Union. The Virgin Lands policy, along with later modernizations under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, sped up the development of the agricultural sector, which to this day remains the source of livelihood for a large percentage of Kazakhstan's population.
Growing tensions within Soviet society led to a demand for political and economic reforms, which came to a head in the 1980s. In December 1986, mass demonstrations by young ethnic Kazakhs took place in Almaty to protest the methods of the communist system. Soviet troops suppressed the unrest, and dozens of demonstrators were jailed. In the waning days of Soviet rule, discontent continued to grow and find expression under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost. Caught up in the groundswell of Soviet republics seeking greater autonomy, Kazakhstan declared its sovereignty as a republic within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) in October 1990. Following the August 1991 abortive coup attempt in Moscow and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan declared independence on December 16, 1991.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Another thing is Brits gave the world underground tube systems all over the world and trains to. Why are people destroying the English and British way of life to pander to people from all over the world living here today and from Europe when we don't need to . The British empire doesn't exist today but what millions of people have living here in the UK from around the world and billions across the world exists Instead today including America. I bet even the subway system in America exists because of us Brits I know the railway system does and America as a nation today stems from our history and in Europe.
The British, particularly those involved in the development of London's Underground railway, are credited with giving the world the first underground railway systems. The London Underground (Metropolitan Railway), which opened in 1863, was the first underground railway system in the world.
Elaboration:
Early Proposals:
The idea of an underground railway in London to alleviate traffic congestion emerged in the 1830s and 1840s.
The Metropolitan Railway:
Charles Pearson, a city solicitor, was a key figure in advocating for and promoting the project. The Metropolitan Railway, later known as the "Met," was granted permission to build an underground line in 1854.
Construction and Opening:
Construction of the Metropolitan Railway began in 1860 and faced challenges due to funding and the Crimean War. The line, running between Paddington and Farringdon, opened to the public on January 10, 1863.
Impact and Legacy:
The Metropolitan Railway's success led to further expansion and the development of the London Underground network. It served as a model for other cities worldwide that subsequently developed their own underground rail systems.
Deep-Level Tubes:
The London Underground later included the first deep-level tube lines, further solidifying its role as a pioneer in underground transportation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The modern Middle East began after World War I, when the Ottoman Empire, which was allied with the Central Powers, was defeated by the British Empire and their allies and partitioned into a number of separate nations, initially under British and French Mandates. Other defining events in this transformation included the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the eventual departure of European powers, notably Britain and France by the end of the 1960s. They were supplanted in some part by the rising influence of the United States from the 1970s onwards.
In the 20th century, the region's significant stocks of crude oil gave it new strategic and economic importance. Mass production of oil began around 1945, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates having large quantities of oil.[37] Estimated oil reserves, especially in Saudi Arabia and Iran, are some of the highest in the world, and the international oil cartel OPEC is dominated by Middle Eastern countries.
During the Cold War, the Middle East was a theater of ideological struggle between the two superpowers and their allies: NATO and the United States on one side, and the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact on the other, as they competed to influence regional allies. Besides the political reasons there was also the "ideological conflict" between the two systems. Moreover, as Louise Fawcett argues, among many important areas of contention, or perhaps more accurately of anxiety, were, first, the desires of the superpowers to gain strategic advantage in the region, second, the fact that the region contained some two-thirds of the world's oil reserves in a context where oil was becoming increasingly vital to the economy of the Western world [...][38] Within this contextual framework, the United States sought to divert the Arab world from Soviet influence. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the region has experienced both periods of relative peace and tolerance and periods of conflict particularly between Sunnis and Shiites.
1
-
Please can you stop deleting people's comments Israel and Palestine should have had peace in 1993 and us in Europe take the brunt of this because the middkec East wjf Arab world as it is today wouldn't exist with out us.
The modern Middle East began after World War I, when the Ottoman Empire, which was allied with the Central Powers, was defeated by the British Empire and their allies and partitioned into a number of separate nations, initially under British and French Mandates. Other defining events in this transformation included the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the eventual departure of European powers, notably Britain and France by the end of the 1960s. They were supplanted in some part by the rising influence of the United States from the 1970s onwards.
In the 20th century, the region's significant stocks of crude oil gave it new strategic and economic importance. Mass production of oil began around 1945, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates having large quantities of oil.[37] Estimated oil reserves, especially in Saudi Arabia and Iran, are some of the highest in the world, and the international oil cartel OPEC is dominated by Middle Eastern countries.
During the Cold War, the Middle East was a theater of ideological struggle between the two superpowers and their allies: NATO and the United States on one side, and the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact on the other, as they competed to influence regional allies. Besides the political reasons there was also the "ideological conflict" between the two systems. Moreover, as Louise Fawcett argues, among many important areas of contention, or perhaps more accurately of anxiety, were, first, the desires of the superpowers to gain strategic advantage in the region, second, the fact that the region contained some two-thirds of the world's oil reserves in a context where oil was becoming increasingly vital to the economy of the Western world [...][38] Within this contextual framework, the United States sought to divert the Arab world from Soviet influence. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the region has experienced both periods of relative peace and tolerance and periods of conflict particularly between Sunnis and Shiites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They will delete this to but most of the worlds Muslims lived under the British before ww1 and France had a lot in there empire to they are different all over the world and Muslims from eastern Europe and Russia they won't even have a problem with us it's not our history that's gone on to long in the middle east and effects us more in Europe now then you.
This is about British Pakistanis.
The UK is home to the largest Pakistani community in Europe, with the population of British Pakistanis exceeding 1.6 million based on the 2021 Census. British Pakistanis are the second-largest ethnic minority population in the United Kingdom and also make up the second-largest sub-group of British Asians. In addition, they are one of the largest Overseas Pakistani communities, similar in number to the Pakistani diaspora in the UAE.[6][7]
Due to the historical relations between the two countries, immigration to the UK from the region, which is now Pakistan, began in small numbers in the mid-nineteenth century when parts of what is now Pakistan came under the British India. People from those regions served as soldiers in the British Indian Army and some were deployed to other parts of the British Empire. However, it was following the Second World War and the break-up of the British Empire and the independence of Pakistan that Pakistani immigration to the United Kingdom increased, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. This was made easier as Pakistan was a member of the Commonwealth.[8] Pakistani immigrants helped to solve labour shortages in the British steel, textile and engineering industries. The National Health Service (NHS) recruited doctors from Pakistan in the 1960s.[9]
The British Pakistani population has grown from about 10,000 in 1951 to over 1.6 million in 2021.[10][11] The vast majority of them live in England, with a sizable number in Scotland and smaller numbers in Wales and Northern Ireland. According to the 2021 Census, Pakistanis in England and Wales numbered 1,587,819 or 2.7% of the population.[12][13] In Northern Ireland, the equivalent figure was 1,596, representing less than 0.1% of the population.[3] The census in Scotland was delayed for a year and took place in 2022, the equivalent figure was 72,871, representing 1.3% of the population.[2] The majority of British Pakistanis are Muslim; around 93% of those living in England and Wales at the time of the 2021 Census stated their religion was Islam.[14]
Since their settlement, British Pakistanis have had diverse contributions and influences on British society, politics, culture, economy and sport. Whilst social issues include high relative poverty rates among the community according to the 2001 census,[15] progress has been made in other metrics in recent years, with the 2021 Census showing British Pakistanis as having amongst the highest levels of homeownership in England and Wales.[16][17]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@celinecucinelli8208 we want you to see the world this is from save the children about the UK started after ww1 they blame us British for poverty and starvation and children being hungry they are tearing us apart for no reason at all
Us Brits gave billions of not trillions to these charities
What has a 100-year-old British charity got to say about decolonisation?
Tuesday 24th May 2022
Time for a bit of self-reflection.
From one staff member on behalf of a 1,400-person UK organisation (24,000 globally). We’ll need a really big mirror.
Save the Children was founded by Eglantyne Jebb in London in 1919, after World War I. We’re incredibly proud of what Eglantyne achieved. We wouldn’t exist without her boldness, her dream, her hard work. She wrote the world's very first declaration on child rights, which formed the basis of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We wouldn’t have been able to reach children across the world from our 120 country offices, help protect 166 million children from atrocities like conflict, the very real effects of the climate crisis, and Covid-19.
But take a step back again, a few hundred years before Eglantyne, a Briton, kicked off one of the world’s largest and most successful charities. If we Britons hadn’t already ‘visited’ certain countries in the 16th century and beyond, left our language and taken a few souvenirs, then perhaps we from the UK wouldn’t have needed to return, aid in hand, to help so many children.
Or perhaps it’s not ‘perhaps’. Perhaps it’s fact?
We know extreme political, economic, societal and geographical change, the kind a coloniser might bring (let alone slavery), is obviously a factor in child suffering. These changes propel poverty, hunger, disease and war like mad, to put it lightly. And the effects last centuries.
By 1913, 23% of the world’s population were under colonial rule and by 1920 the British Empire covered 24% of the world’s land. We cannot and should not try to untie Save the Children’s 1919 birth to Britain’s not-so-historical colonial and racist history.
What we should do is look directly at it.
Realise that as an old, UK-founded organisation we are part of both the problem and the solution. We intrinsically have a colonial mindset because we were founded in a country that brought chaos to a quarter of the world. But we can work to make sure it does truly become history one day.
So, after that quick reminder that bad things were done by the British Empire, let’s look at the conversation around decolonisation, a word that we hear a lot these days but that we may each understand differently.
Decolonisation is the act of undoing colonialism – not just when a country physically relieves its power over another country, but also undoing mindsets of racism, sexism, power, control, and the combination of all of these that live in British and European institutions and individuals. Or the idea that white, western people know how to fix another country’s issues more than the inhabitants of those countries do themselves. The ‘othering’. The ‘theys’ and ‘thems’ over there.
At Save the Children UK we have a diversity and inclusion strategy, as many other companies do, and we are regularly talking about white-saviourism and how to rid it from the organisation. We’re beginning to understand that colonial mindsets have infiltrated not only the work we do and the way we interact with the world, but also internally in our organisation’s structure.
We recognise it and we’re acting on it.
But what a deep shame that we – Save the Children UK and most other western organisations – only started driving this conversation further and being more open, more reflective, more active after George Floyd was killed in the US and the world finally realised there was a white supremacy monster within the police? Why was it only then that we, the charity sector, really stepped up?
We know we have a lot of work to do.
Hundreds and hundreds of years’ worth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The process of colonization was a combination of voluntary integration into the Russian Empire and outright seizure. The Little Horde and part of the Middle Horde signed treaties of protection with Russia in the 1730s and 1740s. Major parts of the northeast and central Kazakh territories were incorporated into the Russian Empire by 1840. With the Russian seizure of territories belonging to the Senior Horde in the 1860s, the tsars effectively ruled over most of the territory belonging to what is now the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Russian Empire introduced a system of administration and built military garrisons in its effort to establish a presence in Central Asia in the so-called "Great Game" between it and Great Britain. Russian efforts to impose its system aroused the resentment of the Kazakh people, and by the 1860s, most Kazakhs resisted Russia's annexation largely because of the disruption it wrought upon the traditional nomadic lifestyle and livestock-based economy. The Kazakh national movement, which began in the late 1800s, sought to preserve the Kazakh language and identity. There were uprisings against colonial rule during the final years of tsarist Russia, with the most serious occurring in 1916. The destruction of the nomadic life, prior to and during the Communist period, created a Kazakh diaspora in neighboring countries, especially western China. Since independence in 1991, the government has encouraged the return of ethnic Kazakhs by offering subsidies for returnees.
Although there was a brief period of autonomy during the tumultuous period following the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Kazakhs eventually succumbed to Soviet rule. In 1920, the area of present-day Kazakhstan became an autonomous republic within Russia and, in 1936, a Soviet republic.
Soviet repression of the traditional elites, along with forced collectivization in late 1920s-1930s, brought about mass hunger and led to unrest. Soviet rule, however, took hold, and a communist apparatus steadily worked to fully integrate Kazakhstan into the Soviet system. Kazakhstan experienced population inflows of thousands exiled from other parts of the Soviet Union during the 1930s and later became home for hundreds of thousands evacuated from the Second World War battlefields. The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) contributed five national divisions to the Soviet Union's World War II effort.
The period of the Second World War marked an increase in industrialization and increased mineral extraction in support of the war effort. At the time of Soviet leader Josif Stalin's death, however, Kazakhstan still had an overwhelmingly agricultural-based economy. In 1953, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev initiated the ambitious "Virgin Lands" program to turn the traditional pasturelands of Kazakhstan into a major grain-producing region for the Soviet Union. The Virgin Lands policy, along with later modernizations under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, sped up the development of the agricultural sector, which to this day remains the source of livelihood for a large percentage of Kazakhstan's population.
Growing tensions within Soviet society led to a demand for political and economic reforms, which came to a head in the 1980s. In December 1986, mass demonstrations by young ethnic Kazakhs took place in Almaty to protest the methods of the communist system. Soviet troops suppressed the unrest, and dozens of demonstrators were jailed. In the waning days of Soviet rule, discontent continued to grow and find expression under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost. Caught up in the groundswell of Soviet republics seeking greater autonomy, Kazakhstan declared its sovereignty as a republic within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) in October 1990. Following the August 1991 abortive coup attempt in Moscow and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan declared independence on December 16, 1991.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaveZee823 What does John 8:32 mean?
The most enticing aspect of sin is the promise of freedom. Even from the first temptation, in the garden of Eden, man has assumed that defying God is a way to control his own destiny. In fact, the opposite is true. Nothing enslaves like sin—it corrupts our thinking, controls our actions, and destroys our peace. Worst of all, it separates us from God (Colossians 1:21) and condemns us to an eternity of loneliness and shame (Matthew 8:12). Jesus, on the other hand, represents the truth—that is, Himself. This is a theme Christ will return to often in His teaching (John 8:12; 14:6). Nothing but truth can really free us.
Comforting lies are never as beneficial as loving truth. Even when the truth is not what we want to hear, we can't expect to make good decisions or correct choices when we're operating under the control of a lie. As Christ stated earlier in this dialogue, He—alone—is the "light of the world," the one and only means to apprehend truth. True freedom is found in forgiveness of sin and service to God, and this is only found when we accept Jesus
1
-
@DaveZee823 What does John 8:32 mean?
The most enticing aspect of sin is the promise of freedom. Even from the first temptation, in the garden of Eden, man has assumed that defying God is a way to control his own destiny. In fact, the opposite is true. Nothing enslaves like sin—it corrupts our thinking, controls our actions, and destroys our peace. Worst of all, it separates us from God (Colossians 1:21) and condemns us to an eternity of loneliness and shame (Matthew 8:12). Jesus, on the other hand, represents the truth—that is, Himself. This is a theme Christ will return to often in His teaching (John 8:12; 14:6). Nothing but truth can really free us.
Comforting lies are never as beneficial as loving truth. Even when the truth is not what we want to hear, we can't expect to make good decisions or correct choices when we're operating under the control of a lie. As Christ stated earlier in this dialogue, He—alone—is the "light of the world," the one and only means to apprehend truth. True freedom is found in forgiveness of sin and service to God, and this is only found when we accept Jesus
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the 19th and 20th centuries, most of the 1297 Magna Carta was repealed, largely by a series of Statute Law Revision Acts passed between 1848 and 1948 (and in pre-1922 Ireland by the Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872). These were drafted by the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission to repeal statutes that were “no longer of practical utility”.
The former Parliament of Northern Ireland also repealed sections of the Magna Carta in 1955 and 1967, while the most recent changes were made by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor told the House of Lords there was no intention of repealing “famous” clauses which dealt with the “liberties of the people of England” but only those relating to:
obsolete aspects of widowhood and dower, the relationship between the Crown and its debtors, the making of bridges, the obstruction of rivers and putting down of weirs, and the treatment of foreign merchants in times of war and peace.
Today only three articles (or clauses) of the 1297 Magna Carta remain in force in every part of the UK except Scotland:
the freedom of the Church of England (clause 1)
the “ancient liberties” of the City of London (clause 13 in the 1215 charter, clause 9 in the 1297 statute)
a right to due legal process (clauses 39 and 40 in the 1215 charter, clause 29 in the 1297 statute).
The most frequently cited in political or legal debate is the last of these, which says that:
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised [dispossessed] of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
As Anthony Arlidge and Lord Judge have observed, on their own these three clauses have “a limited direct impact on modern law”, largely because more recent Acts of Parliament – as well as the European Convention on Human Rights – make more detailed provision for due legal process.
Magna Carta and the courts
In 1956 the English judge Lord Denning described Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”. More recently, in 2005, Lord Woolf (the then Lord Chief Justice) called it the “first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status”.
Nevertheless, the outstanding clauses of the Magna Carta have been of limited use in modern court cases. In 2012, Occupy London protestors attempted to use clause 29, the right to due legal process, to resist their eviction by the City of London from the grounds of St Paul’s Cathedral. In his judgment, the then Master of the Rolls (Lord Neuberger) said he did not consider clause 29 of direct relevance to the case. “Somewhat ironically,” he added, “the other two chapters concern the rights of the Church and the City of London, and cannot help the defendants.”
In 2021, the owner of a hair salon near Bradford put a sign in its window declaring that (the repealed) clause 61 of Magna Carta allowed her to opt out of lockdown laws.
That same year, a group of protestors attempting to “seize” Edinburgh Castle cited clause 61 as the basis. Magna Carta has never formed part of Scots Law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, but they didn't lead to a lasting peace in Palestine. While the accords aimed to establish an interim framework for self-government, they ultimately fell short of a comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Several factors contributed to this failure, including:
1. Lack of a Clear Two-State Solution: The accords didn't explicitly define the goal of a two-state solution, leaving room for ambiguity about the future status of Palestine.
2. Power Imbalance and US Intervention: The negotiation framework favored Israel, a powerful, nuclear-armed nation, over stateless Palestinians under occupation. The U.S., a major backer of Israel, also failed to act as a neutral mediator.
3. Israeli Expansion of Settlements: Israel continued to expand settlements in the West Bank, undermining any progress toward a land-based peace agreement and creating "facts on the ground".
4. Violent Opposition: Right-wing Israeli extremists, who opposed any negotiations with the Palestinians, further undermined the peace process with acts of violence, including the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
5. Internal Palestinian Divisions: Groups like Hamas opposed the Oslo Accords and engaged in attacks against Israelis, further hindering the peace process.
6. Lack of Regional Consensus: There wasn't a clear Arab consensus on linking regional issues like security and economics to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, allowing Israel to potentially gain what it wanted without making significant concessions.
7. Failure to Address Key Issues: The accords failed to address critical issues like the status of East Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the ongoing issue of Palestinian sovereignty, leading to the continuation of the conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@True_Heretic Based on 2020 American Community Survey estimates, 1,934,397 individuals identified as having British ancestry, while a further 25,213,619 identified as having English ancestry, 5,298,861 Scottish ancestry and 1,851,256 Welsh ancestry. The total of these groups, at 34,298,133, was 10.5% of the total population. A further 31,518,129 individuals identified as having Irish ancestry, but this is not differentiated between modern Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) and the Republic of Ireland, which was part of the United Kingdom during the greatest phase of Irish immigration. Figures for Manx and Cornish ancestries are not separately reported, although Manx was reported prior to 1990, numbering 9,220 on the 1980 census, and some estimates put Cornish ancestry as high as 2 million. This figure also does not include people reporting ancestries in countries with majority or plurality British ancestries, such as Canadian, South African, New Zealander (21,575) or Australian (105,152).[4] There has been a significant drop overall, especially from the 1980 census where 49.59 million people reported English ancestry and larger numbers reported Scottish, Welsh and North Irish ancestry also.
Demographers regard current figures as a "serious under-count", as a large proportion of Americans of British descent have a tendency to simply identify as 'American' since 1980 where over 13.3 million or 5.9% of the total U.S. population self-identified as "American" or "United States", this was counted under "not specified".[5] This response is highly overrepresented in the Upland South, a region settled historically by the British.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Those of mixed European ancestry may identify with a more recent and differentiated ethnic group.[12] Of the top ten family names in the United States (2010), seven have English origins or having possible mixed British Isles heritage (such as Welsh, Scottish or Cornish), the other three being of Spanish origin.[13]
Not to be confused are cases when the term is also used in an entirely different (although possibly overlapping) sense to refer to people who are dual citizens of both the United Kingdom and the United States.[citation needed]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteremrysmarah3377 lets see if this comment will stand for something that should have happened in 1993.
The Abraham Accords
Share
Thanks to the great courage of the leaders of these three countries, we take a major stride toward a future in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live together in peace and prosperity.
Donald J. TrumpPresident of the United States
The Abraham Accords Declaration

We, the undersigned, recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom.
We encourage efforts to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue to advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.
We believe that the best way to address challenges is through cooperation and dialogue and that developing friendly relations among States advances the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.
We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity.
We support science, art, medicine, and commerce to inspire humankind, maximize human potential and bring nations closer together.
We seek to end radicalization and conflict to provide all children a better future.
We pursue a vision of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world.
In this spirit, we warmly welcome and are encouraged by the progress already made in establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbors in the region under the principles of the Abraham Accords. We are encouraged by the ongoing efforts to consolidate and expand such friendly relations based on shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future.
Download: DECLARATION [448 KB] | ISRAEL-BAHRAIN AGREEMENT [649 KB] | Israel-Morocco Agreement [221 KB] | ISRAEL-UAE AGREEMENT [4 MB] | Sudan [215 KB]
YouTube: A Historic Day for Peace
Abraham Accords – Curated tweets by NEAPressOffice













01 of 13
President Trump and The First Lady Participate in an Abraham Accords Signing Ceremony
President Donald J. Trump, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyanisigns sign the Abraham Accords Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)
Close
PreviousNext
WHITE HOUSE
President Donald J. Trump Has Brokered Peace Between Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco
Joint Statement of the United States, the Republic of Sudan, and the State of Israel
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates
President Donald J. Trump Has Secured a Historic Deal Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates to Advance Peace and Prosperity In the Region
President Donald J. Trump Has Brokered a Historic Deal Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
Remarks by President Trump on the Announcement of Normalization of Relations Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Donald J. Trump is Promoting Peace and Stability in the Middle East
Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu of the State of Israel Before Bilateral Meeting
Remarks by President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Minister bin Zayed, and Minister Al Zayani at the Abraham Accords Signing Ceremony
Abraham Accords: Declaration of Peace, Cooperation, and Constructive Diplomatic and Friendly Relations
The Abraham Accords Declaration
Abraham Accords Peace Agreement: Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization Between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
On Progress Toward Peace
Memorandum of Understanding on Anti-Semitism
Historic Day for Peace in the Middle East
Press Briefing on United Arab Emirates-Israel Relations with Senior Advisor Jared Kushner
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
U.S. EMBASSY JERUSALEM
U.S., Israel, UAE Announce Establishment of Abraham Fund Following Accords Commitment
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates
Historic Day for Peace in the Middle East
The first direct El-Al flight to the United Arab Emirates departs Ben Gurion Airport today
Joint Statement of the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel
Remarks by President Trump on the Announcement of Normalization of Relations between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Trump and First Lady participate in the Abraham Accords signing ceremony
U.S. EMBASSY ABU DHABI
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Trump Announces Historic Agreement to Normalize Relations Between the UAE and Israel
The United States, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates Make Historic Joint Statement
U.S. EMBASSY MANAMA
Joint Statement of the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Donald J. Trump Has Brokered a Historic Deal Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Donald J. Trump Has Secured a Historic Deal Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates to Advance Peace and Prosperity In the Region
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates
1
-
1
-
@seankingsland have a look at that that's savage and Israel and Palestine should have had peace in 1993 untill yathzik Rabin got assisnated
@peteremrysmarah3377 lets see if this comment will stand for something that should have happened in 1993.
The Abraham Accords
Share
Thanks to the great courage of the leaders of these three countries, we take a major stride toward a future in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live together in peace and prosperity.
Donald J. TrumpPresident of the United States
The Abraham Accords Declaration

We, the undersigned, recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom.
We encourage efforts to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue to advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.
We believe that the best way to address challenges is through cooperation and dialogue and that developing friendly relations among States advances the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.
We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity.
We support science, art, medicine, and commerce to inspire humankind, maximize human potential and bring nations closer together.
We seek to end radicalization and conflict to provide all children a better future.
We pursue a vision of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world.
In this spirit, we warmly welcome and are encouraged by the progress already made in establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbors in the region under the principles of the Abraham Accords. We are encouraged by the ongoing efforts to consolidate and expand such friendly relations based on shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future.
Download: DECLARATION [448 KB] | ISRAEL-BAHRAIN AGREEMENT [649 KB] | Israel-Morocco Agreement [221 KB] | ISRAEL-UAE AGREEMENT [4 MB] | Sudan [215 KB]
YouTube: A Historic Day for Peace
Abraham Accords – Curated tweets by NEAPressOffice













01 of 13
President Trump and The First Lady Participate in an Abraham Accords Signing Ceremony
President Donald J. Trump, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyanisigns sign the Abraham Accords Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)
Close
PreviousNext
WHITE HOUSE
President Donald J. Trump Has Brokered Peace Between Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco
Joint Statement of the United States, the Republic of Sudan, and the State of Israel
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates
President Donald J. Trump Has Secured a Historic Deal Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates to Advance Peace and Prosperity In the Region
President Donald J. Trump Has Brokered a Historic Deal Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
Remarks by President Trump on the Announcement of Normalization of Relations Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Donald J. Trump is Promoting Peace and Stability in the Middle East
Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu of the State of Israel Before Bilateral Meeting
Remarks by President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Minister bin Zayed, and Minister Al Zayani at the Abraham Accords Signing Ceremony
Abraham Accords: Declaration of Peace, Cooperation, and Constructive Diplomatic and Friendly Relations
The Abraham Accords Declaration
Abraham Accords Peace Agreement: Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization Between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
On Progress Toward Peace
Memorandum of Understanding on Anti-Semitism
Historic Day for Peace in the Middle East
Press Briefing on United Arab Emirates-Israel Relations with Senior Advisor Jared Kushner
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
U.S. EMBASSY JERUSALEM
U.S., Israel, UAE Announce Establishment of Abraham Fund Following Accords Commitment
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates
Historic Day for Peace in the Middle East
The first direct El-Al flight to the United Arab Emirates departs Ben Gurion Airport today
Joint Statement of the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel
Remarks by President Trump on the Announcement of Normalization of Relations between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Trump and First Lady participate in the Abraham Accords signing ceremony
U.S. EMBASSY ABU DHABI
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Trump Announces Historic Agreement to Normalize Relations Between the UAE and Israel
The United States, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates Make Historic Joint Statement
U.S. EMBASSY MANAMA
Joint Statement of the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel
Historic Agreement Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Donald J. Trump Has Brokered a Historic Deal Between Israel and the Kingdom of Bahrain
President Donald J. Trump Has Secured a Historic Deal Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates to Advance Peace and Prosperity In the Region
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Romanian state was formed in 1859 through a personal union of the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. The new state, officially named Romania since 1866, gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1877. During World War I, after declaring its neutrality in 1914, Romania fought together with the Allied Powers from 1916. In the aftermath of the war, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Transylvania, and parts of Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș became part of the Kingdom of Romania.[1] In June–August 1940, as a consequence of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Second Vienna Award, Romania was compelled to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union and Northern Transylvania to Hungary. In November 1940, Romania signed the Tripartite Pact and, consequently, in June 1941 entered World War II on the Axis side, fighting against the Soviet Union until August 1944, when it joined the Allies and recovered Northern Transylvania.
Following the war and occupation by the Red Army, Romania became a socialist republic and a member of the Warsaw Pact. After the 1989 Revolution, Romania began a transition towards democracy and a market economy.
Why the European union will never work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why people in Europe and the UK want to bury our history and throw it against us today us disgusting so pkeas delete all you want we even helped create the united nations in the UK and decoloniserd our empires to create our own problems today is someone having a big joke with us in Europe today.
Decolonization
When the United Nations was founded in 1945, some 750 million people, nearly a third of the world's population, lived in Territories that were dependent on colonial Powers. Today, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining and fewer than 2 million people live in them. The wave of decolonization, which changed the face of the planet, was born with the UN and represents the world body’s first great success.
As a result of decolonization many Territories became independent and joined the UN.
The international trusteeship system was established by the UN Charter. Affirming the principle of self-determination, the Charter describes the responsibility of States for territories under their administration as “a sacred trust” in which the interests of their inhabitants are paramount
Trusteeship Council
The Charter also created the Trusteeship Council as a main organ of the UN. It was to monitor the situation in 11 specific “Trust Territories” which were subject to separate agreements with administering States. These territories had been formally administered under mandates from the League of Nations, or separated from countries defeated in the Second World War, or voluntarily placed under the system by their administering Power. Eleven Territories were placed under this system
All 11 territories that were once under the United Nations Trusteeship have either become independent states or have voluntarily joined neighboring independent countries. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), which was administered by the United States, was the last territory to become independent in 1994. This happened after a plebiscite in 1993, through which Palau chose to have a free association with the United States. The island country became the 185th member state of the United Nations after it gained independence.
The Trusteeship Council, which had no more territories to administer, suspended its operations on November 1, 1994. The Trusteeship Council still exists as an organ of the United Nations and meets when necessary
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnfinbarrryan4240 English Standard Version Par ▾
The Sermon on the Mount
1Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.
The Beatitudes
2And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sonsa of God.
10“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The history of Syria covers events which occurred on the territory of the present Syrian Arab Republic and events which occurred in the region of Syria. Throughout ancient times the territory of present Syrian Arab Republic was occupied and ruled by several empires, including the Sumerians, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Amorites, Persians, Greeks and Romans.[1] Syria is considered to have emerged as an independent country for the first time on 24 October 1945, upon the signing of the United Nations Charter by the Syrian government, effectively ending France's mandate by the League of Nations to "render administrative advice and assistance to the population" of Syria, which came in effect in April 1946.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielgyte8460 this is from the government American British mandated ended in 1948 ans did french mandated Syria and Lebanon . We had already given nations independence there to many nations to establish them those after 1948 where very little to do with us even though some where remember we gave America independence in 1776 a nation that does stem from 13 British/European and settlements there
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.
Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.
Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.
Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.
Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State’s endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.
..
1
-
@danielgyte8460 this is from the American government British mandated ended in 1948 ans did french mandated Syria and Lebanon . We had already given nations independence there to many nations to establish them those after 1948 where very little to do with us even though some where remember we gave America independence in 1776 a nation that does stem from 13 British/European and settlements there
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.
Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.
Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.
Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.
Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State’s endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.
..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This government had an idea up to
And parliament made it law
It seems like it's illegal
To fight for the union anymore
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?
We set out to join the picket line
For together we cannot fail
We got stopped by police at the county line
They said, "Go home boys or you're going to jail"
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?
It's hard to explain to a crying child
Why her Daddy can't go back
So the family suffer
But it hurts me more
To hear a scab say Sod you, Jack
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on, boys
Which side are you on?
I'm bound to follow my conscience
And do whatever I can
But it'll take much more than the union law
To knock the fight out of a working man.
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johns2394 America's version of rule Britannia
When first the sun o'er ocean glow'd
And earth unveil'd her virgin breast
Supreme mid nature's vast abode
Was heard the Almighty's dread behest:
Rise, Columbia!
Columbia, brave and free
Poise the globe and bound the sea!
In vain shall thrones
In arms combined
The sacred rights I gave, oppose;
In Thee, the asylum of mankind
Shall welcome nations find repose
Rise, Columbia!
Columbia, brave and free
Poise the globe and bound the sea!
When bolts the flame
Or whelms the wave
Be thine to rule the wayward hour:
Bid death unbar the watery grave
And Vulcan yield to Neptune's pow'r
Rise, Columbia!
Columbia, brave and free
Bless the globe and bound the sea!
Revered in arms, in peace humane:
No shore nor realm shall bound thy sway
While all the virtues own thy reign
And all the elements obey!
Rise, Columbia!
Columbia, brave and free
Bless the globe, and bound the sea!
Rise, Columbia!
Columbia, brave and free
Bless the globe, and rule the sea!
Oh, bless the globe, and rule the sea!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Israeli–Lebanese conflict, or the South Lebanon conflict,[4] is a series of military clashes involving Israel, Lebanon and Syria, the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as various militias and militants acting from within Lebanon. The conflict peaked in the 1980s, during the Lebanese Civil War, and has abated since.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) recruited militants in Lebanon from among the Palestinian refugees who had been expelled or fled after the creation of Israel in 1948.[11][12] After the PLO leadership and its Fatah brigade were expelled from Jordan in 1970–71 for fomenting a revolt, they entered Southern Lebanon, resulting in an increase of internal and cross-border violence. Meanwhile, demographic tensions over the Lebanese National Pact led to the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990).[13] PLO actions were one of the key factors in the eruption of the Lebanese Civil War and its bitter battles with Lebanese factions caused foreign intervention. Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon pushed the PLO north of the Litani River, but the PLO continued their campaign against Israel. Israel invaded Lebanon again in 1982 in alliance with the major Lebanese Christian militias of the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb Party and forcibly expelled the PLO. In 1983, Israel and Lebanon signed the May 17 Agreement providing a framework for the establishment of normal bilateral relations between the two countries, but relations were disrupted with takeover of Shia and Druze militias in early 1984. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon in 1985, but kept control of a 19-kilometre (12-mile)[14] security buffer zone, held with the aid of proxy militants in the South Lebanon Army (SLA).
In 1985, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia radical movement sponsored by Iran,[15] called for armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.[16] When the Lebanese civil war ended and other warring factions agreed to disarm, Hezbollah and the SLA refused. Combat with Hezbollah weakened Israeli resolve and led to a collapse of the SLA and an Israeli withdrawal in 2000 to their side of the UN designated border.[17]
Citing Israeli control of the Shebaa farms territory, Hezbollah continued cross-border attacks intermittently over the next six years. Hezbollah now sought the release of Lebanese citizens in Israeli prisons and successfully used the tactic of capturing Israeli soldiers as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.[18][19] The capturing of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah ignited the 2006 Lebanon War.[20] Its ceasefire called for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the respecting of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon by Israel.
Hostilities were suspended on 8 September 2006. As of early 2023, the situation remained calm, despite both sides violating the ceasefire agreements; Israel by making near-daily flights over Lebanese territory, and Hezbollah by not disarming. But an increase in violence during the April 2023 Israel–Lebanon shellings, the spillover of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, and the 2023 Israel–Lebanon border conflict has led to fears of another war and the beginning of a conflict between milliants and Israel.[21]
1
-
1
-
@trusttheprocess5618 The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv. The assailant was Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.
The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin came immediately after an anti-violence rally in support of the Oslo peace process.[1]
Before the rally, Rabin was disparaged personally by right-wing conservatives and Likud leaders who perceived the peace process as an attempt to forfeit the occupied territories and a capitulation to Israel's enemies.[2][3]
National religious conservatives and Likud party leaders believed that withdrawing from any "Jewish" land was heresy.[4] The Likud leader and future prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accused Rabin's government of being "removed from Jewish tradition [...] and Jewish values".[2][3] Right-wing rabbis associated with the settlers' movement prohibited territorial concessions to the Palestinians and forbade soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces from evacuating Jewish settlers under the accords.[5][6] Some rabbis proclaimed din rodef, based on a traditional Jewish law of self-defense, against Rabin personally, arguing that the Oslo Accords would endanger Jewish lives.[5][7]
Rallies organized by Likud and other right-wing groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform, or in the crosshairs of a gun.[2][3] Protesters compared the Labor party to the Nazis and Rabin to Adolf Hitler[5] and chanted, "Rabin is a murderer" and "Rabin is a traitor".[8][9] In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12] Netanyahu denied any intention to incite violence.[2][3][13]
Rabin dismissed such protests or labeled them chutzpah.[2] According to Gillon, Rabin refused his requests to wear a bulletproof vest and preferred not to use the armored car purchased for him.[14] Left-wing supporters organized pro-peace rallies in support of the Oslo Accords. It was after one such gathering in Tel Aviv that the assassination took place.[3].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a chronology and timeline of the European colonization of the Americas, with founding dates of selected European settlements.[1][2][3]
Pre–Columbus
edit
986: Norsemen settle Greenland and Bjarni Herjólfsson sights coast of North America, but doesn't land (see also Norse colonization of the Americas).
c. 1000: Norse settle briefly in L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland.[4]
c. 1450: Norse colony in Greenland dies out.
15th century
edit
1491: Columbus sets sail aboard the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria.
1492: Columbus reaches the Bahamas,[5] Cuba and Hispaniola.
1492: La Navidad is established on the island of Hispaniola; it was destroyed by the following year.
1493: The colony of La Isabela is established on the island of Hispaniola.[6]
1493: Columbus arrives in Puerto Rico
1494: Columbus arrives in Jamaica.
1496: Santo Domingo, the first European permanent settlement, is built.[7]
1497: John Cabot reaches Newfoundland.[8]
1498: In his third voyage, Columbus reaches Trinidad and Tobago.
1498: La Isabela is abandoned by the Spanish.
1499: João Fernandes Lavrador maps Labrador and Newfoundland
16th century
edit
1501: Corte-Real brothers explore the coast of what is today the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador
1502: Columbus sails along the mainland coast south of Yucatán, and reaches present-day Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama
1503: Las Tortugas noted by Columbus in passage through the Western Caribbean present-day Cayman Islands
1508: Ponce de León founds Caparra on San Juan Bautista (now Puerto Rico)
1511: Conquest of Cuba begins
1513: Ponce de León in Florida
1513: Núñez de Balboa claims the Pacific Ocean and its shores for Spain
1515: Conquest of Cuba completed
1517: Francisco Hernández de Córdoba lands on the Yucatán Peninsula
1519: Founding of Villa Rica de la Vera Cruz (Veracruz)
1519: Álvarez de Pineda explores the Gulf Coast of the United States
1519: Founding of Panama City by Pedro Arias Dávila
1521: Hernán Cortés completes the conquest of the Aztec Empire.
1521: Juan Ponce de León tries and fails to settle in Florida.
1524: Pedro de Alvarado conquers present-day Guatemala and El Salvador.
1524: Giovanni da Verrazzano sails along most of the east coast.
1525: Estêvão Gomes enters Upper New York Bay and reaches Nova Scotia[9][10]
1526: Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón briefly establishes the failed settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape in South Carolina, the first site of enslavement of Africans in North America and of the first slave rebellion.
1527: Fishermen are using the harbor at St. John's, Newfoundland and other places on the coast.
1531: Spanish found Puebla de Zaragoza and Santiago de Querétaro.
1535: Jacques Cartier reaches Quebec.
1536: Cabeza de Vaca reaches Mexico City after wandering through North America.
1538: Failed Huguenot settlement on St. Kitts in the Caribbean (destroyed by the Spanish).
1539: Hernando de Soto explores the interior from Florida to Arkansas.
1539: Francisco de Ulloa explores the Baja California peninsula.
1540: Coronado travels from Mexico to eastern Kansas.
1541: Spanish found Nueva Ciudad de Mechuacán (Morelia)
1540: López de Cárdenas reaches the Grand Canyon (the area is ignored for the next 200 years).
1541: Failed French settlement at Charlesbourg-Royal (Quebec City) by Cartier and Roberval.
1542: Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo reaches the California coast.
1559: Failed Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Florida.
1562: Failed Huguenot settlement in South Carolina (Charlesfort-Santa Elena site).
1564: French Huguenots at Jacksonville, Florida (Fort Caroline).
1565: Spanish slaughter French 'heretics' at Fort Caroline.
1565: Spanish found Saint Augustine, Florida. (Mission Nombre de Dios)
1566–1587: Spanish in South Carolina (Charlesfort-Santa Elena site).
1568: Dutch revolt against Spain begins. The economic model developed in the Netherlands would define colonial policies in the next two centuries.
1570: Failed Spanish settlement on Chesapeake Bay (Ajacán Mission).
1576: Spanish found León de los Aldama.
1576: Martin Frobisher reaches the coast of Labrador and Baffin Island.
1579: Sir Francis Drake claims New Albion.
1583: England formally claims Newfoundland (Humphrey Gilbert).
1585: Roanoke Colony founded by English on Roanoke Island, North Carolina, failed in 1587
1598: Failed French settlement on Sable Island off Nova Scotia.
1598: Spanish settlement in Northern New Mexico.
1600: By 1600 Spain and Portugal were still the only significant colonial powers. North of Mexico the only settlements were Saint Augustine and the isolated outpost in northern New Mexico. Exploration of the interior was largely abandoned after the 1540s. Around Newfoundland 500 or more boats annually were fishing for cod and some fishermen were trading for furs, especially at Tadoussac on the Saint Lawrence.
17th century
18th century
edit
1701: Detroit – French
1702: Mobile – French
1706: Albuquerque – Spanish
1711: Beaufort, South Carolina - English
1714: Natchitoches – French
1714: Germanna, Virginia – Germans from Hessen-Nassau
1716: Natchez – French
1717: Germanna, Virginia – Germans from Baden-Württemberg
1718: New Orleans – French
1718: San Antonio – Spanish
1721: Germanna, Virginia – Germans
1721: Greenland – Danish
1729: George Town, South Carolina - English and French Huguenots
1729: Baltimore – British
1733: Province of Georgia – British
1734: Culpeper, Virginia – Germans
1738: Culpeper, Virginia; some to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania – Germans
1741: Guanajuato – Spanish
1763: St. Louis (Missouri) – French
1769: San Diego – Spanish
1770: Monterey – Spanish
1775: Tucson – Spanish
1776: San Francisco – Spanish
1777: San Jose – Spanish
1781: Los Angeles – Spanish
1784: Kodiak Island – Russian
1791: Santa Cruz – Spanish
1
-
This is a chronology and timeline of the European colonization of the Americas, with founding dates of selected European settlements.[1][2][3]
Pre–Columbus
edit
986: Norsemen settle Greenland and Bjarni Herjólfsson sights coast of North America, but doesn't land (see also Norse colonization of the Americas).
c. 1000: Norse settle briefly in L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland.[4]
c. 1450: Norse colony in Greenland dies out.
15th century
edit
1491: Columbus sets sail aboard the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria.
1492: Columbus reaches the Bahamas,[5] Cuba and Hispaniola.
1492: La Navidad is established on the island of Hispaniola; it was destroyed by the following year.
1493: The colony of La Isabela is established on the island of Hispaniola.[6]
1493: Columbus arrives in Puerto Rico
1494: Columbus arrives in Jamaica.
1496: Santo Domingo, the first European permanent settlement, is built.[7]
1497: John Cabot reaches Newfoundland.[8]
1498: In his third voyage, Columbus reaches Trinidad and Tobago.
1498: La Isabela is abandoned by the Spanish.
1499: João Fernandes Lavrador maps Labrador and Newfoundland
16th century
edit
1501: Corte-Real brothers explore the coast of what is today the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador
1502: Columbus sails along the mainland coast south of Yucatán, and reaches present-day Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama
1503: Las Tortugas noted by Columbus in passage through the Western Caribbean present-day Cayman Islands
1508: Ponce de León founds Caparra on San Juan Bautista (now Puerto Rico)
1511: Conquest of Cuba begins
1513: Ponce de León in Florida
1513: Núñez de Balboa claims the Pacific Ocean and its shores for Spain
1515: Conquest of Cuba completed
1517: Francisco Hernández de Córdoba lands on the Yucatán Peninsula
1519: Founding of Villa Rica de la Vera Cruz (Veracruz)
1519: Álvarez de Pineda explores the Gulf Coast of the United States
1519: Founding of Panama City by Pedro Arias Dávila
1521: Hernán Cortés completes the conquest of the Aztec Empire.
1521: Juan Ponce de León tries and fails to settle in Florida.
1524: Pedro de Alvarado conquers present-day Guatemala and El Salvador.
1524: Giovanni da Verrazzano sails along most of the east coast.
1525: Estêvão Gomes enters Upper New York Bay and reaches Nova Scotia[9][10]
1526: Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón briefly establishes the failed settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape in South Carolina, the first site of enslavement of Africans in North America and of the first slave rebellion.
1527: Fishermen are using the harbor at St. John's, Newfoundland and other places on the coast.
1531: Spanish found Puebla de Zaragoza and Santiago de Querétaro.
1535: Jacques Cartier reaches Quebec.
1536: Cabeza de Vaca reaches Mexico City after wandering through North America.
1538: Failed Huguenot settlement on St. Kitts in the Caribbean (destroyed by the Spanish).
1539: Hernando de Soto explores the interior from Florida to Arkansas.
1539: Francisco de Ulloa explores the Baja California peninsula.
1540: Coronado travels from Mexico to eastern Kansas.
1541: Spanish found Nueva Ciudad de Mechuacán (Morelia)
1540: López de Cárdenas reaches the Grand Canyon (the area is ignored for the next 200 years).
1541: Failed French settlement at Charlesbourg-Royal (Quebec City) by Cartier and Roberval.
1542: Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo reaches the California coast.
1559: Failed Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Florida.
1562: Failed Huguenot settlement in South Carolina (Charlesfort-Santa Elena site).
1564: French Huguenots at Jacksonville, Florida (Fort Caroline).
1565: Spanish slaughter French 'heretics' at Fort Caroline.
1565: Spanish found Saint Augustine, Florida. (Mission Nombre de Dios)
1566–1587: Spanish in South Carolina (Charlesfort-Santa Elena site).
1568: Dutch revolt against Spain begins. The economic model developed in the Netherlands would define colonial policies in the next two centuries.
1570: Failed Spanish settlement on Chesapeake Bay (Ajacán Mission).
1576: Spanish found León de los Aldama.
1576: Martin Frobisher reaches the coast of Labrador and Baffin Island.
1579: Sir Francis Drake claims New Albion.
1583: England formally claims Newfoundland (Humphrey Gilbert).
1585: Roanoke Colony founded by English on Roanoke Island, North Carolina, failed in 1587
1598: Failed French settlement on Sable Island off Nova Scotia.
1598: Spanish settlement in Northern New Mexico.
1600: By 1600 Spain and Portugal were still the only significant colonial powers. North of Mexico the only settlements were Saint Augustine and the isolated outpost in northern New Mexico. Exploration of the interior was largely abandoned after the 1540s. Around Newfoundland 500 or more boats annually were fishing for cod and some fishermen were trading for furs, especially at Tadoussac on the Saint Lawrence.
17th century
18th century
edit
1701: Detroit – French
1702: Mobile – French
1706: Albuquerque – Spanish
1711: Beaufort, South Carolina - English
1714: Natchitoches – French
1714: Germanna, Virginia – Germans from Hessen-Nassau
1716: Natchez – French
1717: Germanna, Virginia – Germans from Baden-Württemberg
1718: New Orleans – French
1718: San Antonio – Spanish
1721: Germanna, Virginia – Germans
1721: Greenland – Danish
1729: George Town, South Carolina - English and French Huguenots
1729: Baltimore – British
1733: Province of Georgia – British
1734: Culpeper, Virginia – Germans
1738: Culpeper, Virginia; some to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania – Germans
1741: Guanajuato – Spanish
1763: St. Louis (Missouri) – French
1769: San Diego – Spanish
1770: Monterey – Spanish
1775: Tucson – Spanish
1776: San Francisco – Spanish
1777: San Jose – Spanish
1781: Los Angeles – Spanish
1784: Kodiak Island – Russian
1791: Santa Cruz – Spanish
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rynonymouss I have been trying to talk about this since I was a child no one else wants to that's the trouble with Europe over the last 100 years not our empires here but what they turned into .
And migration to telling people about the British commonwealth and then people who came here after ww2 should have been introduced as British.
They spend so much time on worrying about the past that it will come back they are even happy to destroy what was working in Europe now and what Europe turned into 30 years ago to achieve that and create a future youngsters apart from climate shouldn't be growing up with they are.
United Nations and decolonization
When the United Nations was established in 1945, 750 million people - almost a third of the world's population then - lived in Territories that were non-self-governing, dependent on colonial Powers.
Since then, more than 80 former colonies have gained their independence. Among them, all 11 Trust Territories have achieved self-determination through independence or free association with an independent State. Former Non-Self-Governing Territories ceased to be on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories due to their change in status or as a result of their choice of independence, free association or integration with an independent State. Today, there are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining and fewer than 2 million people live in such Territories
The decolonization efforts of the United Nations derive from the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as stipulated in Article 1 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as from three specific chapters in the Charter which are devoted to the interests of dependent peoples. The Charter established, in its Chapter XI ("Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories", Articles 73 and 74), the principles that continue to guide the decolonization efforts of the United Nations. The Charter also established the International Trusteeship System in Chapter XII (Articles 75-85) and the Trusteeship Council in Chapter XIII (Articles 86-91) to monitor the Trust Territories.
The Charter binds administering Powers, namely "Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government", in the language of the Charter, to recognize that the interests of dependent territories are paramount, to agree to promote social, economic, political and educational progress in the Non-Self-Governing Territories with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, to assist the peoples in developing appropriate forms of self-government, and to take into account the political aspirations and stages of development and advancement of each Non-Self-Governing Territory. Administering Powers are also obliged under the Charter to transmit to the United Nations information on conditions in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. The United Nations monitors progress towards self-determination in the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
In 1960, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)), known also as the Declaration on Decolonization. By this resolution, the General Assembly, considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing colonialism in all its forms and manifestations to a speedy and unconditional end, and in this context, declared, inter alia, that all people had a right to self-determination.
According to General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 entitled "Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter", a Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
• Free association with an independent State;
• Integration with an independent State.
In addition, by the "Declaration on Principles of International law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations", as approved by the General Assembly by its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, the General Assembly solemnly proclaimed the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States, including the principle of "equal rights and self-determination of peoples". In that principle, it is stated that the "establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people".
Intergovernmental bodies of the United Nations dealing with decolonization agenda
The General Assembly, by its resolution 66 (I) of 1946, initially set up an ad hoc committee "to examine the Secretary-General's summary and analysis of the information transmitted under Article 73 (e) of the Charter with a view to aiding the General Assembly in its consideration of this information" which was composed in equal number of representatives of the Members transmitting information under Article 73 e of the Charter and of representatives of Members elected on the basis of an equitable geographical representation. In subsequent years, the Special Committee on Information Transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter, later renamed as the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, took over the task to examine the summaries and analyses of information transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter, including any papers prepared by the specialized agencies, and was dissolved in 1963 (see General Assembly resolutions 146 (II), 219 (III), 332 (IV), 333 (IV), 569 (VI), 646 (VII), 933 (X), 1332 (XIII), 1700 (XVI) and 1970 (XVIII)).
In 1961, the General Assembly, by its resolution 1654 (XVI), established the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on Decolonization or C-24), as its subsidiary organ, to monitor implementation of the 1960 Declaration on Declaration and to make recommendations on its application. The C-24 commenced its work in 1962 with the original 17 members, which was immediately expanded to 24 members by the end of 1962 (for more details on membership, see C-24 Members page). Following the dissolution of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, the C-24 was tasked to study information transmitted as prescribed under Article 73 e of the Charter, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII).
Agenda items relating to decolonization are also considered by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), one of the Main Committees of the General Assembly. The Fourth Committee considers recommendations of the C-24 and prepares draft resolutions and decisions for submission to the plenary of the General Assembly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rule Britannia Britannia rules the waves Britain's never never never shall be slaves.
The British Empire's colonial territories in North America were greatly expanded by the Treaty of Paris (1763), which formally concluded the Seven Years' War, referred to by the English colonies in North America as the French and Indian War, and by the French colonies as la Guerre de la Conquête. With the ultimate acquisition of most of New France (Nouvelle-France), British territory in North America was more than doubled in size, and the exclusion of France also dramatically altered the political landscape of the continent.
The term British America was used to refer to the British Empire's colonial territories in North America prior to the United States Declaration of Independence, most famously in the 1774 address of Thomas Jefferson to the First Continental Congress entitled: A Summary View of the Rights of British America.[4]
The term British North America was initially used following the subsequent 1783 Treaty of Paris, which concluded the American Revolutionary War and confirmed the independence of Great Britain's Thirteen Colonies that formed the United States of America. The terms British America and British North America continued to be used for Britain's remaining territories in North America, but the term British North America came to be used more consistently in connection with the provinces that would eventually form the Dominion of Canada, following the Report on the Affairs of British North America (1839), called the Durham Report.[5]
The Dominion of Canada was formed under the British North America (BNA) Act, 1867, also referred to as the Constitution Act, 1867. Following royal assent of the BNA Act, three of the provinces of British North America (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Province of Canada (which would become the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec)) joined to form "One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom," on July 1, 1867, the date of Canadian Confederation.[6]
The Atlantic island of Bermuda (originally administered by the Virginia Company and, with The Bahamas, considered with North America prior to 1783), was grouped with the Maritime provinces from 1783, but after the formation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867 and the achievement of dominion status by the colony of Newfoundland in 1907, Bermuda was thereafter administered generally with the colonies in the British West Indies (although the Church of England continued to place Bermuda under the Bishop of Newfoundland until 1919).
Over its duration, British North America comprised the British Empire's colonial territories in North America from 1783 to 1907, not including the Caribbean. These territories include those forming modern-day Canada and Bermuda, having also ceded what became all or large parts of six Midwestern U.S. states (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the northeastern part of Minnesota), which were formed out of the Northwest Territory, large parts of Maine, which had originally been within the French territory of Acadia, and very briefly, East Florida, West Florida, and the Bahamas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Atrail_Mckinley4786 The Louisiana Purchase (French: Vente de la Louisiane, lit. 'Sale of Louisiana') was the acquisition of the territory of Louisiana by the United States from the French First Republic in 1803. This consisted of most of the land in the Mississippi River's drainage basin west of the river.[1] In return for fifteen million dollars,[a] or approximately eighteen dollars per square mile,[b] the United States nominally acquired a total of 828,000 sq mi (2,140,000 km2; 530,000,000 acres) in Middle America. However, France only controlled a small fraction of this area, most of which was inhabited by Native Americans; effectively, for the majority of the area, the United States bought the preemptive right to obtain Indian lands by treaty or by conquest, to the exclusion of other colonial powers.[2][3]
The Kingdom of France had controlled the Louisiana territory from 1682[4] until it was ceded to Spain in 1762. In 1800, Napoleon Bonaparte, the First Consul of the French Republic, regained ownership of Louisiana in exchange for territories in Tuscany as part of a broader effort to re-establish a French colonial empire in North America. However, France's failure to suppress a revolt in Saint-Domingue, coupled with the prospect of renewed warfare with the United Kingdom, prompted Napoleon to consider selling Louisiana to the United States. Acquisition of Louisiana was a long-term goal of President Thomas Jefferson, who was especially eager to gain control of the crucial Mississippi River port of New Orleans. Jefferson tasked James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston with purchasing New Orleans. Negotiating with French Treasury Minister François Barbé-Marbois, the U.S. representatives quickly agreed to purchase the entire territory of Louisiana after it was offered. Overcoming the opposition of the Federalist Party, Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison persuaded Congress to ratify and fund the Louisiana Purchase.
The Louisiana Purchase extended United States sovereignty across the Mississippi River, nearly doubling the nominal size of the country. The purchase included land from fifteen present U.S. states and two Canadian provinces, including the entirety of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska; large portions of North Dakota and South Dakota; the area of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Continental Divide; the portion of Minnesota west of the Mississippi River; the northeastern section of New Mexico; northern portions of Texas; New Orleans and the portions of the present state of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River; and small portions of land within Alberta and Saskatchewan. At the time of the purchase, the territory of Louisiana's non-native population was around 60,000 inhabitants, of whom half were enslaved Africans.[5] The western borders of the purchase were later settled by the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty with Spain, while the northern borders of the purchase were adjusted by the Treaty of 1818 with the British.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WilliamBurns-r2d I'm sorry I don't care if 8 offend people in the UK anymore there children born here any more they can't appreciate by coming here from all over the world they are lucky to be alive let alone call themselves British or American today. Don't be so easily brought off to the world around you it's literally like we are blackmailed by the modern world around us now who don't want our history on the map that the whole world knows about anyway and celebrate independence day's from us.
The first gassings in Germany proper took place in January 1940 at the Brandenburg Euthanasia Centre. The operation was headed by Brack, who said "the needle belongs in the hand of the doctor".[79] Bottled pure carbon monoxide gas was used. At trials, Brandt described the process as a "major advance in medical history".[80] Once the efficacy of the method was confirmed, it became standard and was instituted at a number of centres in Germany under the supervision of Widmann, Becker and Christian Wirth – a Kripo officer who later played a prominent role in the Final Solution (extermination of Jews) as commandant of newly built death camps in occupied Poland. In addition to Brandenburg, the killing centres included Grafeneck Castle in Baden-Württemberg (10,824 dead), Schloss Hartheim near Linz in Austria (over 18,000 dead), Sonnenstein in Saxony (15,000 dead), Bernburg in Saxony-Anhalt and Hadamar in Hesse (14,494 dead). The same facilities were also used to kill mentally sound prisoners transferred from concentration camps in Germany, Austria and occupied parts of Poland.
Condemned patients were transferred from their institutions to new centres in T4 Charitable Ambulance buses, called the Community Patients Transports Service. They were run by teams of SS men wearing white coats, to give it an air of medical care.[81] To prevent the families and doctors of the patients from tracing them, the patients were often first sent to transit centres in major hospitals, where they were supposedly assessed. They were moved again to special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) centres. Families were sent letters explaining that owing to wartime regulations, it was not possible for them to visit relatives in these centres. Most of these patients were killed within 24 hours of arriving at the centres and their bodies cremated.[82] Some bodies were dissected for medical research whilst others had their gold teeth extracted.[83] For every person killed, a death certificate was prepared, giving a false but plausible cause of death. This was sent to the family along with an urn of ashes (random ashes, since the victims were cremated en masse). The preparation of thousands of falsified death certificates took up most of the working day of the doctors who operated the centres.[84]
During 1940, the centres at Brandenburg, Grafeneck and Hartheim killed nearly 10,000 people each, while another 6,000 were killed at Sonnenstein. In all, about 35,000 people were killed in T4 operations that year. Operations at Brandenburg and Grafeneck were wound up at the end of the year, partly because the areas they served had been cleared and partly because of public opposition. In 1941, however, the centres at Bernburg and Sonnenstein increased their operations, while Hartheim (where Wirth and Franz Stangl were successively commandants) continued as before. Another 35,000 people were killed before August 1941, when the T4 programme was officially shut down by Hitler. Even after that date the centres continued to be used to kill concentration camp inmates: eventually some 20,000 people in this category were killed.[l]
In 1971, Gitta Sereny conducted interviews with Stangl, who was in prison in Düsseldorf, having been convicted of co-responsibility for killing 900,000 people, while commandant of the Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps in Poland. Stangl gave Sereny a detailed account of the operations of the T4 programme based on his time as commandant of the killing facility at the Hartheim institute.[86] He described how the inmates of various asylums were removed and transported by bus to Hartheim. Some were in no mental state to know what was happening to them but many were perfectly sane and for them various forms of deception were used. They were told they were at a special clinic where they would receive improved treatment and were given a brief medical examination on arrival. They were induced to enter what appeared to be a shower block, where they were gassed with carbon monoxide (the ruse was also used at extermination camps).[86] Some of the victims knew their fate and tried to defend themselves.[83]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, but they didn't lead to a lasting peace in Palestine. While the accords aimed to establish an interim framework for self-government, they ultimately fell short of a comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Several factors contributed to this failure, including:
1. Lack of a Clear Two-State Solution: The accords didn't explicitly define the goal of a two-state solution, leaving room for ambiguity about the future status of Palestine.
2. Power Imbalance and US Intervention: The negotiation framework favored Israel, a powerful, nuclear-armed nation, over stateless Palestinians under occupation. The U.S., a major backer of Israel, also failed to act as a neutral mediator.
3. Israeli Expansion of Settlements: Israel continued to expand settlements in the West Bank, undermining any progress toward a land-based peace agreement and creating "facts on the ground".
4. Violent Opposition: Right-wing Israeli extremists, who opposed any negotiations with the Palestinians, further undermined the peace process with acts of violence, including the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
5. Internal Palestinian Divisions: Groups like Hamas opposed the Oslo Accords and engaged in attacks against Israelis, further hindering the peace process.
6. Lack of Regional Consensus: There wasn't a clear Arab consensus on linking regional issues like security and economics to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, allowing Israel to potentially gain what it wanted without making significant concessions.
7. Failure to Address Key Issues: The accords failed to address critical issues like the status of East Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the ongoing issue of Palestinian sovereignty, leading to the continuation of the conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During periods of European colonial expansion, millions of Muslims lived within the vast empires of various European powers. These empires, including the British, French, Russian, and Dutch, exerted influence or direct control over numerous Muslim-majority regions around the world. The question of how Muslims interacted with and adapted to these empires, both politically and culturally, is a complex one with a rich history.
Here's a more detailed look at some key aspects:
1. Colonial Rule and Muslim Populations:
Extent of European Control:
At the height of the imperial age, European powers governed vast territories with significant Muslim populations, exceeding the size of any independent Muslim state.
Political Significance of Islam:
European colonial officials recognized the political significance of Islam and often sought to engage with religious leaders and institutions to maintain order and legitimacy in their colonies.
Religious Accommodation and Control:
Colonial administrations often employed a mix of policies, including religious autonomy for certain groups, cooperation with Islamic scholars, and efforts to exert control over religious practices.
2. Examples of Muslim Communities within European Empires:
The British Empire:
The British controlled vast territories in India, Southeast Asia, and Africa, all of which had significant Muslim populations. Examples include India, where British rule brought significant changes in social and political structures for Muslims, and the Indian Ocean, where the British oversaw trade and settlement networks involving various Muslim communities.
The French Empire:
France ruled parts of North Africa, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, all of which had substantial Muslim populations. For instance, in Morocco, the French established a protectorate that brought significant changes to the existing political and economic systems, and in Senegal, they engaged with Sufi brotherhoods to legitimize their rule.
The Russian Empire:
The Russian Empire encompassed a large Muslim population in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The Russian government implemented policies of land reform, taxation, and forced assimilation that significantly impacted the lives of Muslims in these regions.
The Dutch Empire:
The Dutch controlled the East Indies (modern-day Indonesia), which had a large Muslim population. Dutch policies included the introduction of new crops, the exploitation of resources, and the establishment of a colonial administration that influenced the religious and social landscape of the region.
3. Muslim Responses to Colonial Rule:
Resistance and Rebellion:
Some Muslims resisted colonial rule through various forms of resistance, including armed rebellions, social movements, and religious reform efforts.
Cooperation and Adaptation:
Many Muslims adapted to colonial rule by collaborating with colonial authorities, seeking opportunities within the colonial system, and maintaining their religious traditions.
Religious Revival and Reform:
Some Muslim communities experienced religious revival and reform movements in response to the pressures of colonial rule. These movements often aimed to reassert Islamic identity, promote religious education, and resist colonial influences.
4. The Legacy of Colonial Rule:
Modern Nation-States:
The legacy of colonial rule continues to shape the Muslim world today, with many countries grappling with issues of political instability, economic inequality, and cultural identity.
Islam and Modernization:
The encounter between Islam and European colonialism has had a profound impact on the development of Muslim societies and their engagement with modernity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
European empires, like the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire, largely "disappeared" due to the rise of nationalism and the devastation of World War I, which led to their breakdown into smaller, independent nation-states across the continent; essentially, the empires fractured into various countries as their territories gained independence, leaving no single dominant imperial power in Europe today.
Key points to remember:
World War I as a catalyst:
The First World War significantly weakened the large empires, paving the way for their disintegration and the formation of new nations based on ethnic and political self-determination.
No single empire left:
Currently, no major European empire exists, only independent nation-states.
Legacy of empires:
While the empires are gone, their historical borders and cultural influences remain evident in the current political landscape of Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By 1911, the British Empire had a Muslim population of 94 million, larger than the empire's 58 million Christian population.[29] By the 1920s, the British Empire included roughly half of the world's Muslim population.[28] More than 400,000 Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army fought for Britain during World War I, where 62,060 were killed in action.[41] Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army later fought for Britain against the Nazis in World War II,[42] where Muslim soldiers accounted for up to 40%[43] of the 2.5 million troops serving the British Indian Army.[44] David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916 to 1922, stated: "we are the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial." This statement was later reiterated by Gandhi in 1920.[27] Winston Churchill also stated in 1942: "We must not on any account break with the Moslems, who represent a hundred million people, and the main army elements on which we must rely for the immediate fighting."[43]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Onward Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See, His banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus,
Going on before.
2
At the name of Jesus
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise:
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise!
3
Like a mighty army
Moves the Church of God:
Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod;
We are not divided,
All one Body we—
One in faith and Spirit,
One eternally.
4
Crowns and thrones may perish,
Kingdoms rise and wane;
But the Church of Jesus
Constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never
’Gainst the Church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
Which can never fail.
5
Onward, then, ye people!
Join our happy throng;
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor
Unto Christ, the King;
This through countless ages
Men and angels sing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Austria was occupied by the Allies and declared independent from Nazi Germany on 27 April 1945 (confirmed by the Berlin Declaration for Germany on 5 June 1945), as a result of the Vienna offensive. The occupation ended when the Austrian State Treaty came into force on 27 July 1955.
After the Anschluss in 1938, Austria had generally been recognized as part of Nazi Germany. In 1943, however, the Allies agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that Austria would instead be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression—without denying Austria's role in Nazi crimes—and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, Austria was divided into four occupation zones and jointly occupied by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and France. Vienna was similarly subdivided, but the central district was collectively administered by the Allied Control Council.
Whereas Germany was divided into East and West Germany in 1949, Austria remained under joint occupation of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union until 1955; its status became a controversial subject in the Cold War until the warming of relations known as the Khrushchev Thaw. After Austrian promises of perpetual neutrality, Austria was accorded full independence on 15 May 1955 and the last occupation troops left on 25 October that year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mandatory Palestine[a][5] was a geopolitical entity that existed between 1920 and 1948 in the region of Palestine under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[6] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt but, in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Another issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain promised its support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. Mandatory Palestine was then established in 1920, and the British obtained a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1922.[7]
During the Mandate, the area saw successive waves of Jewish immigration and the rise of nationalist movements in both the Jewish and Arab communities. Competing interests of the two populations led to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to divide the territory into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, was passed in November 1947. The 1948 Palestine war ended with the territory of Mandatory Palestine divided among the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which annexed territory on the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Kingdom of Egypt, which established the "All-Palestine Protectorate" in the Gaza Strip.
Mandatory Palestine was designated as a Class A Mandate, based on its social, political, and economic development. This classification was reserved for post-war mandates with the highest capacity for self-governance.[8] All Class A mandates other than mandatory Palestine had gained independence by 1946.[9]
1
-
Don't delete this please. It's history nothing more.
Mandatory Palestine[a][5] was a geopolitical entity that existed between 1920 and 1948 in the region of Palestine under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[6] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt but, in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Another issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain promised its support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. Mandatory Palestine was then established in 1920, and the British obtained a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1922.[7]
During the Mandate, the area saw successive waves of Jewish immigration and the rise of nationalist movements in both the Jewish and Arab communities. Competing interests of the two populations led to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to divide the territory into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, was passed in November 1947. The 1948 Palestine war ended with the territory of Mandatory Palestine divided among the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which annexed territory on the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Kingdom of Egypt, which established the "All-Palestine Protectorate" in the Gaza Strip.
Mandatory Palestine was designated as a Class A Mandate, based on its social, political, and economic development. This classification was reserved for post-war mandates with the highest capacity for self-governance.[8] All Class A mandates other than mandatory Palestine had gained independence by 1946.[9].
1
-
1
-
1
-
The settlement of Las Vegas, Nevada was founded in 1905 after the opening of a railroad that linked Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. The stopover attracted some farmers (mostly from Utah) to the area, and fresh water was piped in to the settlement. In 1911, the town was incorporated as part of the newly founded Clark County. Urbanization took off in 1931 when work started on the Boulder Dam (now the Hoover Dam), bringing a huge influx of young male workers, for whom theaters and casinos were built, largely by the Mafia. Electricity from the dam also enabled the building of many new hotels along the Strip. The arrival of Howard Hughes in 1966 did much to offset mob influence and helped turn Las Vegas into more of a family tourist center, now classified as a Mega resort.
The name Las Vegas—Spanish for “the meadows”—was given to the area in 1829 by Rafael Rivera, a member of the Spanish explorer Antonio Armijo trading party that was traveling to Los Angeles, and stopped for water there on the Old Spanish Trail from New Mexico. At that time, several parts of the valley contained artesian wells surrounded by extensive green areas. The flows from the wells fed the Las Vegas Wash, which runs to the Colorado River.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JBEMultimediamadrid it's what we tell people now we even wind people up about places like Korea etc I have done since a kid living here. Those that go on about colonial history we just say shut up you have been decolonised and from things people complain about in Africa and the middle east today stems what they have today because of it
Even America was 13 British colonies not so long ago trouble with that history is that colonies that where British and French where actually British or french and the people living there before decolonisation.
Trouble with the West it was decolonised before ww1 because it's mainly Europeans living there in the east and Africa Asia it's different people living there but it's similar history all stems from Europe.
After World War II, many countries gained independence from colonial powers, including:


India and Pakistan: The British evacuated the subcontinent in 1947, granting independence to India and a divided Pakistan.


Indonesia: Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands.

The Philippines: The Philippines gained independence from the United States.

Arab nations: Several Arab nations gained independence from mandates granted to great powers by the League of Nations.

Israel: Israel gained independence from the United Kingdom.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa gained independence in the 1960s.

Japan: After Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, it lost its colonies, which were returned to their Western colonizers.

The United Nations, founded in 1945, played a role in this wave of decolonization, which changed the face of the world. At the time of its founding, around 750 million people, nearly a third of the world's population, lived in territories dependent on colonial powers. Today, there are only 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining, with fewer than 2 million people living in them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Decolonisation of the Middle-East
Name Date of Independence
Colonising Power
IraqOctober 3, 1932Great BritainLebanonIndependence declared on November 22, 1943. Full Independence granted in 1946FranceSyriaNovember 30, 1943. Full Independence granted in 1945FranceIsraelMay 14, 1948Great BritainCyprusAugust 16, 1960Great BritainKuwaitJune 19, 1961Great BritainOman1962Great BritainYemenNovember 30, 1967Great BritainQatarSeptember 3, 1971Great BritainBahrainAugust 15, 1971Great BritainUnited Arab EmiratesDecember 2, 1971Great Britain
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whiteangel3564 you been lying to us some of us in the UK knew about decolonisation after ww2 and how the world and Europe changed over the last 100 years have a look around you at us in Europe now and the UK and London and your part of the British commonwealth to
British decolonisation in Asia
The campaigns of civil disobedience led by Gandhi in India during the interwar years had exasperated Great Britain. India, a poor country but one with a large population, intended to play a role on the world stage by making itself the primary advocate of neutralist anti-colonialism. However, at the end of the Second World War the British Government did not have the means to face a new colonial war. It eventually decided to grant independence to the Indian subcontinent in August 1947, but the period was marked by violent clashes between the Hindu and Muslim communities.
While Gandhi and Nehru, the main leaders of the Congress Party, advocated Indian unity, the Muslim League, directed by Ali Jinnah, called for the creation of an independent Muslim state. The violence between the two sides escalated and degenerated into a civil war. In February 1947, the British decided to evacuate the country, and on 15 August 1947 it was partitioned into two independent states: India, with a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, with a Muslim majority. The Republic of India was proclaimed in January 1950, once the constitution had been drawn up, but it remained a member of the British Commonwealth.
In 1948, two other British possessions, Burma and Ceylon, were granted independence, but Malaya had to wait until 1957 before it achieved the same status.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam is the second-largest religion in Europe after Christianity.[2] Although the majority of Muslim communities in Western Europe formed as a result of immigration,[3] there are centuries-old indigenous European Muslim communities in the Balkans, Caucasus, Crimea, and Volga region.[4][5][6][7] The term "Muslim Europe" is used to refer to the Muslim-majority countries in the Balkans and the Caucasus (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Turkey, and Azerbaijan)[8] and parts of countries in Eastern Europe with sizable Muslim minorities (Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia,[9] and some republics of Russia) that constitute large populations of indigenous European Muslims,[4][5][6][8] although the majority are secular.[4][5][8][10]
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam is the second-largest religion in Europe after Christianity.[2] Although the majority of Muslim communities in Western Europe formed as a result of immigration,[3] there are centuries-old indigenous European Muslim communities in the Balkans, Caucasus, Crimea, and Volga region.[4][5][6][7] The term "Muslim Europe" is used to refer to the Muslim-majority countries in the Balkans and the Caucasus (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Turkey, and Azerbaijan)[8] and parts of countries in Eastern Europe with sizable Muslim minorities (Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia,[9] and some republics of Russia) that constitute large populations of indigenous European Muslims,[4][5][6][8] although the majority are secular.[4][5][8][10]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They want to bury our history in Europe and the UK around 600 years of it make us live in a internal hell because they don't know how to cope with the past let's take a look at it because it's pretty amazing and people don't understand the world back then and before ww1 and ww2 was complete different from today.
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left Britain the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, which has been a free association of independent states since the 1949 London Declaration.[8] Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kurdistan (Kurdish: کوردستان, romanized: Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'; [ˌkʊɾdɪˈstɑːn] ⓘ),[5] or Greater Kurdistan,[6][7] is a roughly defined geo-cultural region in West Asia wherein the Kurds form a prominent majority population[8] and the Kurdish culture, languages, and national identity have historically been based.[9] Geographically, Kurdistan roughly encompasses the northwestern Zagros and the eastern Taurus mountain ranges.
Kurdistan generally comprises the following four regions: southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), northwestern Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan).[3][10] Some definitions also include parts of southern Transcaucasia.[11] Certain Kurdish nationalist organizations seek to create an independent nation state consisting of some or all of these areas with a Kurdish majority, while others campaign for greater autonomy within the existing national boundaries.[12] The delineation of the region remains disputed and varied, with some maps greatly exaggerating its boundaries.
Historically, the word "Kurdistan" is first attested in 11th century Seljuk chronicles.[13] Many disparate Kurdish dynasties, emirates, principalities, and chiefdoms were established from the 8th to 19th centuries. Administratively, the 20th century saw the establishment of the short-lived areas of the Kurdish state (1918–1919), Kingdom of Kurdistan (1921–1924), Kurdistansky Uyezd i.e. "Red Kurdistan" (1923–1929), Republic of Ararat (1927–1930), and Republic of Mahabad (1946).
In Iraq, following the Aylūl Revolt, the government entered into an agreement with the rebellious Kurds, granting Kurds local self-rule. Soon after, however, the agreement collapsed. Later, during the Iraqi no-fly zones conflict, which followed the Gulf War, the Iraqi military withdrew from parts of northern Iraq, allowing the Kurds to fill the vacuum and regain lost control in those areas. After the invasion of Iraq, and since the creation of the new Iraqi federal state, the new constitution issued in 2005 recognises Kurdistan Region as a federal region;[14] even though the constitution does not include the term “autonomy”, it emphasises decentralisation and devolution, allowing regions and governorates to administer local affairs. In practice, however, only Kurdistan Region has exercised this authority granted by the constitution. In September 2017, Iraqi Kurds held a one-sided independence referendum, which eventually failed and was abandoned. The subsequent effort by the Iraqi government to punish Kurdistan Region has resulted in the latter losing authorities it had previously possessed,[15] and the future of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq has been called into question.[16] Iraqi Kurdish officials have also complained of efforts by the Iraqi government to return to the pre-2003 centralized government and dismantle Kurdistan Region altogether.[17]
There is also a Kurdistan Province in Iran, which is not self-ruled. Kurds fighting in the Syrian Civil War were able to take control of large sections of northern Syria and establish self-governing regions in an Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (commonly called Rojava), where they seek autonomy in a federal Syria after the war.[18]
1
-
1
-
Please leave this up don't delete it it's good for you to know about Kurdistan and Kurds good people.
Kurdistan (Kurdish: کوردستان, romanized: Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'; [ˌkʊɾdɪˈstɑːn] ⓘ),[5] or Greater Kurdistan,[6][7] is a roughly defined geo-cultural region in West Asia wherein the Kurds form a prominent majority population[8] and the Kurdish culture, languages, and national identity have historically been based.[9] Geographically, Kurdistan roughly encompasses the northwestern Zagros and the eastern Taurus mountain ranges.
Kurdistan generally comprises the following four regions: southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), northwestern Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan).[3][10] Some definitions also include parts of southern Transcaucasia.[11] Certain Kurdish nationalist organizations seek to create an independent nation state consisting of some or all of these areas with a Kurdish majority, while others campaign for greater autonomy within the existing national boundaries.[12] The delineation of the region remains disputed and varied, with some maps greatly exaggerating its boundaries.
Historically, the word "Kurdistan" is first attested in 11th century Seljuk chronicles.[13] Many disparate Kurdish dynasties, emirates, principalities, and chiefdoms were established from the 8th to 19th centuries. Administratively, the 20th century saw the establishment of the short-lived areas of the Kurdish state (1918–1919), Kingdom of Kurdistan (1921–1924), Kurdistansky Uyezd i.e. "Red Kurdistan" (1923–1929), Republic of Ararat (1927–1930), and Republic of Mahabad (1946).
In Iraq, following the Aylūl Revolt, the government entered into an agreement with the rebellious Kurds, granting Kurds local self-rule. Soon after, however, the agreement collapsed. Later, during the Iraqi no-fly zones conflict, which followed the Gulf War, the Iraqi military withdrew from parts of northern Iraq, allowing the Kurds to fill the vacuum and regain lost control in those areas. After the invasion of Iraq, and since the creation of the new Iraqi federal state, the new constitution issued in 2005 recognises Kurdistan Region as a federal region;[14] even though the constitution does not include the term “autonomy”, it emphasises decentralisation and devolution, allowing regions and governorates to administer local affairs. In practice, however, only Kurdistan Region has exercised this authority granted by the constitution. In September 2017, Iraqi Kurds held a one-sided independence referendum, which eventually failed and was abandoned. The subsequent effort by the Iraqi government to punish Kurdistan Region has resulted in the latter losing authorities it had previously possessed,[15] and the future of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq has been called into question.[16] Iraqi Kurdish officials have also complained of efforts by the Iraqi government to return to the pre-2003 centralized government and dismantle Kurdistan Region altogether.[17]
There is also a Kurdistan Province in Iran, which is not self-ruled. Kurds fighting in the Syrian Civil War were able to take control of large sections of northern Syria and establish self-governing regions in an Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (commonly called Rojava), where they seek autonomy in a federal Syria after the war.[18]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@planzed.2 please bring back the empires of Europe these people don't learn from history across the world or living in the UK they need to experience the real Europe even how it was 30 years ago.
A Quarter Of Britons & Dutch Wish They Still Had Empires
Empires
by Niall McCarthy,
Sep 2, 2020
Global economy
The tragic death of George Floyd has had an impact well beyond U.S. borders with the ripple effects being felt right around the world. In the UK, increasing awareness of slavery and colonial oppression resulted in crowds toppling statues of slave owners earlier this year. A statue of Winston Churchill, Britain's wartime prime minister, was also under threat of being pulled down with the authorities stating that it may have to be relocated to a museum.
Churchill is credited with providing Britain with the resolve it needed to make it through the darkest hours of the Second World War but he has also been criticized for his policies in some colonies, particularly his inaction during the 1943 Bengal famine in India which saw three million people die. He has also been blamed for dispatching the paramilitary Black & Tans to Ireland during the Irish War of Independence where they went on to commit numerous atrocities.
While the true number of people who died under the British Empire remains unknown, some sources claim that at least 29 million Indians starved to death during the late 19th century as a result of deliberately adopted British policies while some Irish researchers blame the catastrophic potato famine on a lack of action and support from Westminster. That resulted in one million deaths and another million people emigrating.
Considering the British Empire's reputation, it might come as a surprise to hear that more than a quarter of people in the UK wish they still had an empire, according to YouGov. They are by no means alone with 26 percent of people in the Netherlands wishing their empire was still in place. It is estimated that 15 million people died as a result of Belgian colonial oppression in the Congo and 21 percent of Belgians wish they still had an empire. Controversies are continuing in the UK with the BBC recently backtracking on halting a TV performance of patriotic songs Rule, Britannia! and Land of Hope and Glory. Both songs have proven controversial due to perceived historical links with slavery and colonialism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Abraham Accords are bilateral agreements on Arab–Israeli normalization signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain on September 15, 2020.[1][2] Mediated by the United States, the announcement of August 13, 2020, concerned Israel and the UAE before the subsequent announcement of an agreement between Israel and Bahrain on September 11, 2020. On September 15, 2020, the signing of the agreements was hosted by US president Trump on the Truman Balcony of the White House amid elaborate staging intended to evoke the signings of historic formal peace treaties in prior administrations.[3][4][5]
As part of the two agreements, both the UAE and Bahrain recognized Israel's sovereignty, enabling the establishment of full diplomatic relations. Israel's initial agreement with the UAE marked the first instance of Israel establishing diplomatic relations with an Arab country since 1994, when the Israel–Jordan peace treaty came into effect.[6] The agreements were named "Abraham Accords" to highlight the common belief of Judaism and Islam in the prophet Abraham.[7][8]
On October 23, 2020, Israel and Sudan agreed to normalize ties; the agreement is unratified as of 2024.[9] As part of the agreement, the US removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and gave them a US$1.2 billion loan.[10] On January 6, 2021, the government of Sudan signed the "Abraham Accords Declaration" in Khartoum.[11] On December 22, 2020, the Israel–Morocco normalization agreement was signed. In exchange for Morocco's recognition of Israeli sovereignty, the United States recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.[12].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Empire and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-2000
About the Series
This monograph series seeks to explore the complexities of the relationships among empires, modernity and global history. In so doing, it wishes to challenge the orthodoxy that the experience of modernity was located exclusively in the west, and that the non-western world was brought into the modern age through conquest, mimicry and association. To the contrary, modernity had its origins in the interaction between the two worlds.
In this sense the imperial experience was not an adjunct to western modernization, but was constitutive of it. Thus the origins of the defining features of modernity - the bureaucratic state, market economy, governance, and so on - have to be sought in the imperial encounter, as do the categories such as race, sexuality and citizenship which constitute the modern individual. This necessarily complicates perspectives on the nature of the relationships between the western and non-western worlds, nation and empire, and 'centre' and 'periphery'.
To examine these issues the series presents work that is interdisciplinary and comparative in its approach; in this respect disciplines including economics, geography, literature, politics, intellectual history, anthropology, science, legal studies, psychoanalysis and cultural studies have much potential, and will all feature. Equally, we consider race, gender and class vital categories to the study of imperial experiences. We aim, therefore, to provide a forum for dialogues among different modes of writing the histories of empires and the modern. Much valuable work on empires is currently undertaken outside the western academy and has yet to receive due attention. This is an imbalance the series intends to address and so we are particularly interested in contributions from such scholars. Also important to us are transnational and comparative perspectives on the imperial experiences of western and non-western worlds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, between the British Army under Major General Sir Edward Pakenham and the United States Army under Brevet Major General Andrew Jackson,[3] roughly 5 miles (8 km) southeast of the French Quarter of New Orleans,[7] in the current suburb of Chalmette, Louisiana.[1][3]
The battle was the climax of the five-month Gulf Campaign (September 1814 to February 1815) by Britain to try to take New Orleans, West Florida, and possibly Louisiana Territory which began at the First Battle of Fort Bowyer. Britain started the New Orleans campaign on December 14, 1814, at the Battle of Lake Borgne and numerous skirmishes and artillery duels happened in the weeks leading up to the final battle.
The battle took place 15 days after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the War of 1812, on December 24, 1814, though it would not be ratified by the United States (and therefore did not take effect) until February 16, 1815, as news of the agreement had not yet reached the United States from Europe.[8] Despite a British advantage in numbers, training, and experience, the American forces defeated a poorly executed assault in slightly more than 30 minutes. The Americans suffered 71 casualties, while the British suffered over 2,000, including the deaths of the commanding general, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, and his second-in-command, Major General Samuel Gibbs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mister_Superfly really this should apply to most others from around the world living in America to lots of them would have come from British colonies around the world to or lived in the British 13 colonies in America to but other Europeans had settlements there and we actually took over bits of it from the Dutch.
British Americans usually refers to Americans whose ancestral origin originates wholly or partly in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland and also the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and Gibraltar). It is primarily a demographic or historical research category for people who have at least partial descent from peoples of Great Britain and the modern United Kingdom, i.e. English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Scotch-Irish, Orcadian, Manx, Cornish Americans and those from the Channel Islands and Gibraltar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Empire and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-2000
About the Series
This monograph series seeks to explore the complexities of the relationships among empires, modernity and global history. In so doing, it wishes to challenge the orthodoxy that the experience of modernity was located exclusively in the west, and that the non-western world was brought into the modern age through conquest, mimicry and association. To the contrary, modernity had its origins in the interaction between the two worlds.
In this sense the imperial experience was not an adjunct to western modernization, but was constitutive of it. Thus the origins of the defining features of modernity - the bureaucratic state, market economy, governance, and so on - have to be sought in the imperial encounter, as do the categories such as race, sexuality and citizenship which constitute the modern individual. This necessarily complicates perspectives on the nature of the relationships between the western and non-western worlds, nation and empire, and 'centre' and 'periphery'.
To examine these issues the series presents work that is interdisciplinary and comparative in its approach; in this respect disciplines including economics, geography, literature, politics, intellectual history, anthropology, science, legal studies, psychoanalysis and cultural studies have much potential, and will all feature. Equally, we consider race, gender and class vital categories to the study of imperial experiences. We aim, therefore, to provide a forum for dialogues among different modes of writing the histories of empires and the modern. Much valuable work on empires is currently undertaken outside the western academy and has yet to receive due attention. This is an imbalance the series intends to address and so we are particularly interested in contributions from such scholars. Also important to us are transnational and comparative perspectives on the imperial experiences of western and non-western worlds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SketchyGhettoSpic i hope this gets kept up colonies where European where governed by the European nations who colonies they where protocerates and mandated areas where different and where crested with the help of people there
British protectorates were protectorates—or client states—under protection of the British Empire's armed forces and represented by British diplomats in international arenas, such as the Great Game, in which the Emirate of Afghanistan and the Tibetan Kingdom became protected states for short periods of time.[1] Many territories which became British protectorates already had local rulers with whom the Crown negotiated through treaty, acknowledging their status whilst simultaneously offering protection, e.g. British Paramountcy. British protectorates were therefore governed by indirect rule. In most cases, the local ruler, as well as the subjects of the indigenous ruler were not British subjects. British protected states represented a more loose form of British suzerainty, where the local rulers retained absolute control over the states' internal affairs and the British exercised control over defence and foreign affairs.[2]
Americas
edit
 Barbados (1627–1652) (as a proprietary colony under William Courteen, followed by James Hay I)
 Mosquito Coast (1638–1860) (over Central America's Miskito Indian nation)
Arab world
edit
 Aden Protectorate (1872–1963); precursor state of South Yemen[10]
Eastern Protectorate States (mostly in Haudhramaut); later the Protectorate of South Arabia (1963–1967)
 Kathiri
 Mahra
 Qu'aiti
 Upper Yafa (consisted of five Sheikhdoms: Al-Busi, Al-Dhubi, Hadrami, Maflahi, and Mawsata)
 Hawra
 Irqa
Western Protectorate States; later the Federation of South Arabia (1959/1962-1967), including Aden Colony
 Wahidi Sultanates (these included: Balhaf, Azzan, Bir Ali, and Habban)
 Beihan
 Dhala and Qutaibi
 Fadhli
 Lahej
 Lower Yafa
 Audhali
 Haushabi
 Upper Aulaqi Sheikhdom
 Upper Aulaqi Sultanate
 Lower Aulaqi
 Alawi
 Aqrabi
 Dathina
 Shaib
 Sultanate of Egypt (1914–1922)
  Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1899–1956) (condominium with Egypt)
Asia
edit
 Sultanate of Maldives (1887–1965)[11]
 Kingdom of Sikkim (1861–1947)[12]
Manipur Kingdom (1826–1891)[13]
Various British Raj Princely States (1845-1947) – The princely states were lower in status than protectorates as the British reserved the right to interfere in internal matters under the principle of British Paramountcy.
Europe
edit
 British Cyprus (1871–1914) (put under British military administration 1914–22 then proclaimed a Crown colony 1922–60)
  Malta Protectorate (1800–1813);  Crown Colony of Malta proclaimed in 1813) (de jure part of the Kingdom of Sicily but under British protection)
 Ionian islands (1815–1864) (a Greek state and amical protectorate of Great Britain between 1815 and 1864)
Sub-Saharan Africa
edit
 Barotseland Protectorate (1900–1964)
 Bechuanaland Protectorate (1885–1966)
 British Somaliland (1884–1960)[10]
 East Africa Protectorate (1895–1920)
 Gambia Colony and Protectorate* (1894–1965)
 Kenya Protectorate* (1920–1963)
 Nigeria* (1914-1960)
 Northern Nigeria Protectorate (1900–1914)
 Northern Rhodesia (1924–1964)
 Northern Territories of the Gold Coast (British protectorate) (1901–1957)
 Nyasaland Protectorate (1893–1964) ( British Central Africa Protectorate until 1907)
 Sierra Leone Protectorate* (1896–1961)
 Southern Nigeria Protectorate (1900–1914)
 Swaziland (1903–1968)
 Uganda Protectorate (1894–1962)
 Walvis Bay (1878–1884)
 Sultanate of Zanzibar (1890–1963)
*protectorates that existed alongside a colony of the same name
Oceania
edit
 Territory of Papua (1884–1888)
 British Solomon Islands (1893–1978)
 Cook Islands (1888–1901)
 Gilbert and Ellice Islands (1892–1916)
 Niue (1900–1901)
 Tokelau (1877–1916)
List of former British protected states
edit
As protected states, the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted.[2]
 Brunei (1888–1984)
 Bhutan (1910–1947)[14]
 Cis-Sutlej states[15][16](Some states:1809–1849; All states:1849-1947)
 Emirate of Afghanistan (1879–1919)[a][14]
 Kingdom of Nepal (1816–1947)[14]
 Kingdom of Egypt (1922–1952)[17]
 Federation of Malaya (1948–1957)
 Federated Malay States (1895–1946)
 Negeri Sembilan (1888–1895)
 Sungai Ujong (1874–1888)
 Jelebu (1886–1895)
 Pahang (1888–1895)
 Perak (1874–1895)
 Selangor (1874–1895)
 Unfederated Malay States (1904/09–1946)
 Johor (1914–1946)
 Johor Muar (1897–1909)
 Kedah (1909–1946)
 Kelantan (1909–1946)
 Perlis (1909–1946)
 Terengganu (1919–1946)
 Tonga (1900–1970)
 British Residency of the Persian Gulf (1822–1971); headquarters based at Bushire, Persia
 Persia (1919–1921)
 Bahrain (1880–1971)[14]
 Sheikhdom of Kuwait (1899–1961)[14]
 Qatar (1916–1971)
 Trucial States; precursor state of the UAE (1892–1971)[14]
 Abu Dhabi (1820–1971)
 Ajman (1820–1971)
 Dubai (1835–1971)
 Fujairah (1952–1971)
 Ras Al Khaimah (1820–1971)
 Sharjah (1820–1971)
 Kalba (1936–1951)
 Umm al-Qaiwain (1820–1971)
 Muscat and Oman (1892–1970) (informal)[18][2]
 Kingdom of Sarawak (1888–1946)
 North Borneo (1888–1946)
 Sultanate of Maldives (1948-1965)
 Swaziland (1967–1968)
1
-
If they delete comments like this in the 21st century then I don't want anyone from around the world or there children born here living in the uk or Europe anymore. Colonies where European most of the world is not and this is just British history. What kind of a future are we setting for ourselves in Europe the world around Europe is better then us now.
@SketchyGhettoSpic i hope this gets kept up colonies where European where governed by the European nations who colonies they where protocerates and mandated areas where different and where crested with the help of people there
British protectorates were protectorates—or client states—under protection of the British Empire's armed forces and represented by British diplomats in international arenas, such as the Great Game, in which the Emirate of Afghanistan and the Tibetan Kingdom became protected states for short periods of time.[1] Many territories which became British protectorates already had local rulers with whom the Crown negotiated through treaty, acknowledging their status whilst simultaneously offering protection, e.g. British Paramountcy. British protectorates were therefore governed by indirect rule. In most cases, the local ruler, as well as the subjects of the indigenous ruler were not British subjects. British protected states represented a more loose form of British suzerainty, where the local rulers retained absolute control over the states' internal affairs and the British exercised control over defence and foreign affairs.[2]
Americas
edit
 Barbados (1627–1652) (as a proprietary colony under William Courteen, followed by James Hay I)
 Mosquito Coast (1638–1860) (over Central America's Miskito Indian nation)
Arab world
edit
 Aden Protectorate (1872–1963); precursor state of South Yemen[10]
Eastern Protectorate States (mostly in Haudhramaut); later the Protectorate of South Arabia (1963–1967)
 Kathiri
 Mahra
 Qu'aiti
 Upper Yafa (consisted of five Sheikhdoms: Al-Busi, Al-Dhubi, Hadrami, Maflahi, and Mawsata)
 Hawra
 Irqa
Western Protectorate States; later the Federation of South Arabia (1959/1962-1967), including Aden Colony
 Wahidi Sultanates (these included: Balhaf, Azzan, Bir Ali, and Habban)
 Beihan
 Dhala and Qutaibi
 Fadhli
 Lahej
 Lower Yafa
 Audhali
 Haushabi
 Upper Aulaqi Sheikhdom
 Upper Aulaqi Sultanate
 Lower Aulaqi
 Alawi
 Aqrabi
 Dathina
 Shaib
 Sultanate of Egypt (1914–1922)
  Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1899–1956) (condominium with Egypt)
Asia
edit
 Sultanate of Maldives (1887–1965)[11]
 Kingdom of Sikkim (1861–1947)[12]
Manipur Kingdom (1826–1891)[13]
Various British Raj Princely States (1845-1947) – The princely states were lower in status than protectorates as the British reserved the right to interfere in internal matters under the principle of British Paramountcy.
Europe
edit
 British Cyprus (1871–1914) (put under British military administration 1914–22 then proclaimed a Crown colony 1922–60)
  Malta Protectorate (1800–1813);  Crown Colony of Malta proclaimed in 1813) (de jure part of the Kingdom of Sicily but under British protection)
 Ionian islands (1815–1864) (a Greek state and amical protectorate of Great Britain between 1815 and 1864)
Sub-Saharan Africa
edit
 Barotseland Protectorate (1900–1964)
 Bechuanaland Protectorate (1885–1966)
 British Somaliland (1884–1960)[10]
 East Africa Protectorate (1895–1920)
 Gambia Colony and Protectorate* (1894–1965)
 Kenya Protectorate* (1920–1963)
 Nigeria* (1914-1960)
 Northern Nigeria Protectorate (1900–1914)
 Northern Rhodesia (1924–1964)
 Northern Territories of the Gold Coast (British protectorate) (1901–1957)
 Nyasaland Protectorate (1893–1964) ( British Central Africa Protectorate until 1907)
 Sierra Leone Protectorate* (1896–1961)
 Southern Nigeria Protectorate (1900–1914)
 Swaziland (1903–1968)
 Uganda Protectorate (1894–1962)
 Walvis Bay (1878–1884)
 Sultanate of Zanzibar (1890–1963)
*protectorates that existed alongside a colony of the same name
Oceania
edit
 Territory of Papua (1884–1888)
 British Solomon Islands (1893–1978)
 Cook Islands (1888–1901)
 Gilbert and Ellice Islands (1892–1916)
 Niue (1900–1901)
 Tokelau (1877–1916)
List of former British protected states
edit
As protected states, the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted.[2]
 Brunei (1888–1984)
 Bhutan (1910–1947)[14]
 Cis-Sutlej states[15][16](Some states:1809–1849; All states:1849-1947)
 Emirate of Afghanistan (1879–1919)[a][14]
 Kingdom of Nepal (1816–1947)[14]
 Kingdom of Egypt (1922–1952)[17]
 Federation of Malaya (1948–1957)
 Federated Malay States (1895–1946)
 Negeri Sembilan (1888–1895)
 Sungai Ujong (1874–1888)
 Jelebu (1886–1895)
 Pahang (1888–1895)
 Perak (1874–1895)
 Selangor (1874–1895)
 Unfederated Malay States (1904/09–1946)
 Johor (1914–1946)
 Johor Muar (1897–1909)
 Kedah (1909–1946)
 Kelantan (1909–1946)
 Perlis (1909–1946)
 Terengganu (1919–1946)
 Tonga (1900–1970)
 British Residency of the Persian Gulf (1822–1971); headquarters based at Bushire, Persia
 Persia (1919–1921)
 Bahrain (1880–1971)[14]
 Sheikhdom of Kuwait (1899–1961)[14]
 Qatar (1916–1971)
 Trucial States; precursor state of the UAE (1892–1971)[14]
 Abu Dhabi (1820–1971)
 Ajman (1820–1971)
 Dubai (1835–1971)
 Fujairah (1952–1971)
 Ras Al Khaimah (1820–1971)
 Sharjah (1820–1971)
 Kalba (1936–1951)
 Umm al-Qaiwain (1820–1971)
 Muscat and Oman (1892–1970) (informal)[18][2]
 Kingdom of Sarawak (1888–1946)
 North Borneo (1888–1946)
 Sultanate of Maldives (1948-1965)
 Swaziland (1967–1968)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a drag it is getting old
… "Kids are different today, " I hear every mother say
Mother needs something today to calm her down
And though she's not really ill, there's a little yellow pill
She goes running for the shelter of her mother's little helper
And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day
… "Things are different today, " I hear every mother say
Cooking fresh food for her husband's just a drag
So she buys an instant cake, and she burns a frozen steak
And goes running for the shelter of her mother's little helper
And two help her on her way, get her through her busy day
… Doctor, please, some more of these
Outside the door, she took four more
… What a drag it is getting old
… "Men just aren't the same today, " I hear every mother say
They just don't appreciate that you get tired
They're so hard to satisfy, you can tranquilize your mind
So go running for the shelter of a mother's little helper
… And four help you through the night, help to minimize your plight
… Doctor, please, some more of these
… Outside the door, she took four more
What a drag it is getting old
… "Life's just much too hard today, " I hear every mother say
The pursuit of happiness just seems a bore
And if you take more of those, you will get an overdose
No more running for the shelter of a mother's little helper
They just helped you on your way, through your busy dying day
Hey
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America itself the worids history is our history to.
The history of the lands that became the United States began with the arrival of the first people in the Americas around 15,000 BC. Numerous indigenous cultures formed. After European colonization of North America began in the late 15th century, wars and epidemics decimated indigenous societies. Starting in 1585, the British Empire colonized the Atlantic Coast, and by the 1760s, the thirteen British colonies were established. The Southern Colonies built an agricultural system on slave labor, enslaving millions from Africa for this purpose. After defeating France, the British Parliament imposed a series of taxes, including the Stamp Act of 1765, rejecting the colonists' constitutional argument that new taxes needed their approval. Resistance to these taxes, especially the Boston Tea Party in 1773, led to Parliament issuing the Intolerable Acts designed to end self-government. Armed conflict began in Massachusetts in 1775.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I want to know what happed in 1993 with the Abraham accords. You should have peace in Israel and Palestine then everyone was happy untill yathzik Rabin the Israeli prime minister got assisnated.
The Abraham Accords, Explained
On September 15, 2020, leaders across the Middle East signed the Abraham Accords. This landmark agreement normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, then later a renewal in ties with Morocco. The Abraham Accords are a game changer in the Middle East, providing new opportunities for direct flights, people-to-people exchanges, business partnerships, and government agreements that have all led to investment and growth in the area.
Below you’ll find a curated list of resources to help answer your questions regarding the Abraham Accords and their significance on the U.S., Israel, the Middle East, Europe, and the international Jewish community.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dioghaltasfoirneartach7258 Autonomous administrative division
Article
Talk
Language
Watch
Edit
This article is about subnational administrative divisions which enjoy some degree of autonomy under the national government. For external territories which enjoy a greater degree of autonomy from their parent state and function as de facto independent political entities, see Dependent territory.
An autonomous administrative division (also referred to as an autonomous area, zone, entity, unit, region, subdivision, province, or territory) is a subnational administrative division or internal territory of a sovereign state that has a degree of autonomy — self-governance — under the national government. Autonomous areas are distinct from other constituent units of a federation (e.g. a state, or province) in that they possess unique powers for their given circumstances. Typically, it is either geographically distinct from the rest of the state or populated by a national minority, which may exercise home rule. Decentralization of self-governing powers and functions to such divisions is a way for a national government to try to increase democratic participation or administrative efficiency or to defuse internal conflicts. States that include autonomous areas may be federacies, federations, or confederations. Autonomous areas can be divided into territorial autonomies, subregional territorial autonomies, and local autonomies.
List of major autonomous areas
edit
See also: List of autonomous areas by country
DivisionStateNotes Azad KashmirControlled by:  Pakistan
Claimed by:  IndiaAzad Kashmir is a self-governing polity which has not been formally annexed by Pakistan. It was established after a rebellion against the Maharajah of Kashmir, and the subsequent First Kashmir War.[1] It is located within the historic Kashmir region, which is disputed between India, Pakistan and China.
 Northern Ireland
 Scotland
 Wales
 United KingdomThree of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, namely Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, each have an elected, devolved legislature which has the ability to legislate in devolved matters. The Parliament of the United Kingdom which retains sovereignty (the United Kingdom is a unitary state), can dissolve the devolved legislatures at any time, and legislates in matters that are not devolved, as well as having the capacity to legislate in areas that are devolved (by constitutional convention, without the agreement of the devolved legislature). Formerly, both Scotland and England were fully sovereign states. City of LondonSui generis City, the Lord Mayor is accorded precedence over all individuals except the sovereign and retains various traditional powers, rights, and privileges, including the title and style The Right Honourable Lord Mayor of London.
 Faroe Islands
 Greenland[2]
 DenmarkThe two autonomous territories[2] (Danish: land, Faroese: land, Greenlandic: nuna) of the realm of the Kingdom, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, each have an elected devolved legislature which has the ability to legislate in devolved matters. The Kingdom Parliament 'Folketinget' retains sovereignty (The Kingdom of Denmark is a unitary state) and legislates in matters that are not devolved, as well as having the capacity to legislate in areas that are devolved (this does not normally occur without the agreement of the devolved legislature).
Tobago
 Trinidad and TobagoThe Tobago House of Assembly is a devolved legislature that is responsible for the island of Tobago.[3] Vojvodina SerbiaKosovo / Autonomous Province of Kosovo and MetohijaClaimed by:  Serbia
Controlled by:  KosovoIn 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared itself as an independent state. Its international recognition is split between those who recognize it as an independent state and those who view it as an autonomous province of Serbia under United Nations administration. Åland Finland
 Azores
 Madeira
 PortugalAlthough Portugal is an unitary state, its two autonomous regions have elected, devolved legislatures (Regional Legislative Assemblies of the Azores and Madeira) and local government (Governments of the Azores and Madeira) which have the ability to legislate in devolved matters. Bangsamoro Philippines Bougainville Papua New Guinea
 Hong Kong
 Macau
 Guangxi Zhuang AR
 Inner Mongolia AR
 Ningxia Hui AR
 Tibet–Xizang AR
 Xinjiang Uygur AR
 People's Republic of China
 Puntland
 Jubaland
 Hirshabelle
 Galmudug
 Somaliland
 Koofur Orsi
 SomaliaSomaliland is a self-declared independent state, although it is internationally considered an autonomous region in northwestern Somalia. Atlántico Norte Nicaragua Atlántico Sur Rodrigues Mauritius Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria Syria Zanzibar Tanzania Nakhchivan Azerbaijan Adjara GeorgiaAbkhazia /  Autonomous Republic of AbkhaziaDe jure:  Georgia
Controlled by:  AbkhaziaIn 1999, the Republic of Abkhazia declared its independence from Georgia after the 1992–1993 war. Georgia and most of the U.N. member states have not recognized Abkhazia's independence and still has an administrative apparatus for the claimed Autonomous Republic; its independence is recognized by Russia and three other U.N. member states.Gorno-Badakhshan Tajikistan Republic of Crimea / Autonomous Republic of CrimeaDe jure:  Ukraine
Controlled by:  RussiaThe 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia is not recognized by most countries, including Ukraine. Karakalpakstan Uzbekistan Gagauzia MoldovaTransnistria / Left Bank of the DniesterClaimed by:  Moldova
Controlled by:  TransnistriaIn 1990, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR, commonly known as Transnistria) declared its independence from the Soviet Union. While Moldova has not formally recognized Transnistria's independence and still has an administrative apparatus for the claimed Autonomous Territorial Unit, its independence is recognized by 3 other non-UN member states.
 Republika Srpska
 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 Bosnia and Herzegovina
 Easter Island
 Juan Fernández Islands
 ChileIn 2007, the Chamber of Deputies of Chile passed a law designating both as "special territories", granting them more autonomy.[4] Additionally, the Juan Fernandez Islands archipelago is a commune, while Easter Island is both a commune and a province. Barbuda (1976) Antigua and Barbuda Rotuma Fiji Kurdistan Region (2005) IraqSemi-autonomous federal subject of Iraq; the constitution of Iraq gives a degree of autonomy to regions and provinces in matters not defined as exclusively federal, i.e. matters that are not within the exclusive remit of the federal government of Iraq. Furthermore, outside of the aforementioned exclusive federal matters, regional or provincial law takes priority (in case of dispute) as long as the regional or provincial law is in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of Iraq.[5] Nevertheless, the authority to interpret the provisions of the constitution, and oversee the constitutionality of all laws and regulations, and settle disputes that arise between the federal, provincial, and regional governments—including by repealing any regional or provincial law that is deemed unconstitutional—belongs exclusively to the Federal Supreme Court of Iraq.[6] Nevis (1967) Saint Kitts and Nevis Autonomous Region of Príncipe (1995) São Tomé and Príncipe Svalbard NorwayAlthough it does not fit the definition of autonomous area (not possessing partial internal sovereignty), Svalbard has the sovereignty of Norway limited by the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1920 and therefore is considered as having special status (as it is considered fully integrated with Norway, and not a dependency, it is a sui generis case). Heligoland GermanyHeligoland, Germany: Although it is part of a German state, Schleswig-Holstein, it has been excluded of some European Union normatives, such as customs union and the Value Added Tax Area. Büsingen am HochrheinDespite being integral parts of their respective countries, these two enclaves of Switzerland predominantly use the Swiss franc as currency and are in customs union with Switzerland. Campione d'Italia Italy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The modern Middle East's political borders, much of its state structure, and even its economic systems are deeply rooted in European colonial influence and the aftermath of World War I. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent partitioning of its territories by European powers shaped the current landscape of the region.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Ottoman Empire's Collapse:
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire, which had controlled vast territories in the Middle East for centuries, was defeated and dismantled.
European Mandates and Imperial Control:
The British and French, along with other European powers, took control of these territories, establishing mandates and directly intervening in the region.
Sykes-Picot Agreement:
This secret agreement, made between Britain and France, played a crucial role in dividing the Ottoman Empire's territories, setting the stage for the creation of modern nation-states in the Middle East.
Creation of Modern States:
The European powers drew arbitrary borders, creating countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine.
Economic Systems and Infrastructure:
European powers implemented their own economic systems and built infrastructure in the region, further shaping the trajectory of its development.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulharrison8152 British subject
Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’.
All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as ‘British subjects’ until January 1983. However, this was not an official status for most of them.
Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.
Who is a British subject
You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:
a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or Ireland
a person who had been a citizen of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject
You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories.
Ireland citizens
You’re a British subject if you were a citizen of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and made a claim to remain a British subject.
If you did not make a claim to remain a British subject you can apply to the Home Secretary to become a British subject if either:
you’ve been in Crown service for the UK government
you’re associated with the UK or a British overseas territory by descent, residence or another way
You can do this by applying for a British subject passport.
Children of British subjects
British subjects cannot normally pass on that status to their children if the children were born after 1 January 1983.
However, a child may be a British subject if they were born on or after 1 January 1983 in the UK or a British overseas territory and all the following apply when they are born:
one of their parents is a British subject
neither parent is a British citizen, British overseas territories citizen or British overseas citizen
they would be stateless without British subject status
Rights as a British subject
You can:
hold a British passport
get consular assistance and protection from UK diplomatic posts
However, you:
are usually subject to immigration controls and do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK (there are only rare exceptions to this)
are not considered a UK national by the European Union (EU)
Becoming a British subject
Stateless people
You may sometimes be able to register as a British subject if:
you’re stateless (not recognised by any country as having a nationality)
you were born outside the UK or British overseas territories on or after 1 January 1983
You must meet certain conditions. Read the guidance notes before you apply using Form S2.
Children
A child under 18 can be registered as a British subject in special circumstances.
Read the guidance notes before you apply using Form MN4.
Becoming a citizen of another country
Since 1 January 1983 anyone gaining citizenship of any other country cannot be a British subject, unless they’re also a citizen of Ireland.
British citizenship
You may be able to register as a British citizen in very limited circumstances if you meet certain conditions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think this was your problems with the Germans or like other colonies and settlements you became nations see it doesn't make sense historically why you have problems in Palestine and why no one else will take you
AI Overview



+1
Before World War I, Palestine was made up of several Ottoman provinces, and there were also German and other colonies in the region:
German colonies
Christoph Hoffmann and Georg David Hardegg founded the Templer colonies in Palestine, including the Templer Colony in Haifa, the Jaffa colony, and the German Colony in Jerusalem.
Jewish immigration
The First Aliyah, or "agriculture aliyah," was the first wave of Zionist immigration to Palestine, with 25,000 to 35,000 Jews immigrating between 1882 and 1903.
Ottoman authorities
In 1892, the Ottoman authorities banned land sales to foreigners due to concerns about the loyalty of the new immigrants and the potential threat to Turkish control in the region.

The Ottoman Empire was eventually broken up, and Palestine became a British-administered territory under the League of Nations. The British Mandate for Palestine was established in 1920, and the British administered the territory until 1947.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ARCofRESISTANCE the big question of the middle east is where the Bedouin went to some do live in Israel some don't and those who do live in occupation alone asqa mosque was a place every religion could pray they even cut that off so people can't communicate I guess now.
AI Overview



Bedouin people have been present in Europe in a number of ways, including as migrants and through international advocacy campaigns:
Migrants
Bedouin people have migrated to Europe, often facing many risks and dangers along the way. For example, Abdullah al Badri, a 27-year-old from Kuwait, spent several years migrating to Europe. He said he left his country because he didn't have status, freedom, or the right to choose.
International advocacy
The European Union has supported international advocacy campaigns to prevent the displacement of Bedouin communities in the West Bank. For example, the EU has participated in Ramadan iftars with students and families from Bedouin communities.
Support for Bedouin villages
Activists have shown support for Bedouin villages threatened with demolition by spending nights in the villages. For example, activists slept on mattresses in the front yard of an Italian-funded school in Khan al-Ahmar.
Bedouin people are a nomadic group who have traditionally herded livestock across the Middle East. However, their nomadic culture is threatened by industrialization and mineral exploitation. Many Bedouin people are now seeking employment instead of living off their herds. Not every Bedouin supported the ottoman empire like everyone living under the ottoman empire wasn't against the west.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Empire and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-2000
About the Series
This monograph series seeks to explore the complexities of the relationships among empires, modernity and global history. In so doing, it wishes to challenge the orthodoxy that the experience of modernity was located exclusively in the west, and that the non-western world was brought into the modern age through conquest, mimicry and association. To the contrary, modernity had its origins in the interaction between the two worlds.
In this sense the imperial experience was not an adjunct to western modernization, but was constitutive of it. Thus the origins of the defining features of modernity - the bureaucratic state, market economy, governance, and so on - have to be sought in the imperial encounter, as do the categories such as race, sexuality and citizenship which constitute the modern individual. This necessarily complicates perspectives on the nature of the relationships between the western and non-western worlds, nation and empire, and 'centre' and 'periphery'.
To examine these issues the series presents work that is interdisciplinary and comparative in its approach; in this respect disciplines including economics, geography, literature, politics, intellectual history, anthropology, science, legal studies, psychoanalysis and cultural studies have much potential, and will all feature. Equally, we consider race, gender and class vital categories to the study of imperial experiences. We aim, therefore, to provide a forum for dialogues among different modes of writing the histories of empires and the modern. Much valuable work on empires is currently undertaken outside the western academy and has yet to receive due attention. This is an imbalance the series intends to address and so we are particularly interested in contributions from such scholars. Also important to us are transnational and comparative perspectives on the imperial experiences of western and non-western worlds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jpshshsw The Partition of the Ottoman Empire (30 October 1918 – 1 November 1922) was a geopolitical event that occurred after World War I and the occupation of Constantinople by British, French, and Italian troops in November 1918. The partitioning was planned in several agreements made by the Allied Powers early in the course of World War I,[1] notably the Sykes–Picot Agreement, after the Ottoman Empire had joined Germany to form the Ottoman–German alliance.[2] The huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.[3] The Ottoman Empire had been the leading Islamic state in geopolitical, cultural, and ideological terms. The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after the war led to the domination of the Middle East by Western powers such as Britain and France, and saw the creation of the modern Arab world and the Republic of Turkey. Resistance to the influence of these powers came from the Turkish National Movement but did not become widespread in the other post-Ottoman states until the period of rapid decolonization after World War II.
British Foreign Office memorandum, 1927 version of the Treaty of Sèvres sykes–Picot agreement, Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan
The sometimes-violent creation of protectorates in Iraq and Palestine, and the proposed division of Syria along communal lines, is thought to have been a part of the larger strategy of ensuring tension in the Middle East, thus necessitating the role of Western colonial powers (at that time Britain, France and Italy) as peace brokers and arms suppliers.[4] The League of Nations mandate granted the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, the British Mandate for Mesopotamia (later Iraq) and the British Mandate for Palestine, later divided into Mandatory Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan (1921–1946). The Ottoman Empire's possessions in the Arabian Peninsula became the Kingdom of Hejaz, which the Sultanate of Nejd (today Saudi Arabia) was allowed to annex, and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen. The Empire's possessions on the western shores of the Persian Gulf were variously annexed by Saudi Arabia (al-Ahsa and Qatif), or remained British protectorates (Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar) and became the Arab States of the Persian Gulf.
After the Ottoman government collapsed completely, its representatives signed the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which would have partitioned much of the territory of present-day Turkey among France, the United Kingdom, Greece and Italy. The Turkish War of Independence forced the Western European powers to return to the negotiating table before the treaty could be ratified. The Western Europeans and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey signed and ratified the new Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, superseding the Treaty of Sèvres and agreeing on most of the territorial issues.[5]
One unresolved issue, the dispute between the Kingdom of Iraq and the Republic of Turkey over the former province of Mosul, was later negotiated under the auspices of the League of Nations in 1926. The British and French partitioned the region of Syria between them in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Other secret agreements were concluded with Italy and Russia.[6] The international Zionist movement, after their successful lobbying for the Balfour Declaration, encouraged the push for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. While a part of the Triple Entente, Russia also had wartime agreements preventing it from participating in the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after the Russian Revolution. The Treaty of Sèvres formally acknowledged the new League of Nations mandates in the region, the independence of Yemen, and British sovereignty over Cyprus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Crimean War[d] was fought from October 1853 to February 1856[6] between the Russian Empire and an ultimately victorious alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, the United Kingdom, and Sardinia-Piedmont.
Crimean WarPart of the Ottoman wars in Europe and the Russo-Turkish Wars
Attack on the Malakoff, by William SimpsonDate16 October 1853 – 30 March 1856
(2 years, 5 months and 2 weeks)Location
Crimea, North Caucasus, Balkans, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, White Sea, Far East
ResultAllied victoryTerritorial
changesRussia loses the Danube Delta and Southern Bessarabia.Belligerents Ottoman Empire
 France[a]
 United Kingdom[a]
 Sardinia[b]
 Russia Greece[c]Commanders and leaders
 Abdulmejid I
 Omar Pasha
 Napoléon III
 J. L. de Saint-Arnaud
 George Hamilton-Gordon
 Lord Palmerston
 FitzRoy Somerset
 Alfonso La Marmora
 Nicholas I
 Alexander II
 Prince Menshikov
 Prince Gorchakov
 Pavel Nakhimov †
StrengthTotal: 673,900
 235,568[1]
 309,268[2]
 97,864[2]
 21,000[2]Total: 889,000[2]

888,000 mobilised
324,478 deployedCasualties and losses
Total: 165,363–223,000[3] dead
45,770 combat deaths
119,593 non-combat deaths
 45,400 dead[2]
20,900 combat deaths
24,500 non-combat deaths
 95,615 dead[2]
20,240 combat deaths
75,375 non-combat deaths
 22,182 dead[2]
4,602 combat deaths
17,580 non-combat deaths
 2,166 dead[2]
28 combat deaths
2,138 non-combat deaths
Total: 450,015 dead[4][2][5]
73,125 combat deaths
376,890 non-combat deathsCasualties include death by disease. In all cases, death by disease exceeded the sum of "killed in action" or "died of wounds".
Geopolitical causes of the war included the decline of the Ottoman Empire (the "Eastern Question"), the expansion of Russia in the preceding Russo-Turkish Wars, and the British and French preference to preserve the Ottoman Empire to maintain the balance of power in the Concert of Europe. The flashpoint was a disagreement over the rights of Christian minorities in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, with the French promoting the rights of Roman Catholics, and Russia promoting those of the Eastern Orthodox Church.[7]
The churches worked out their differences with the Ottomans and came to an agreement, but both the French Emperor Napoleon III and the Russian tsar Nicholas I refused to back down. Nicholas issued an ultimatum that demanded the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire be placed under his protection. Britain attempted to mediate and arranged a compromise to which Nicholas agreed. When the Ottomans demanded changes to the agreement, Nicholas recanted and prepared for war.
In July 1853, Russian troops occupied the Danubian Principalities[6] (now part of Romania but then under Ottoman suzerainty). On 16 October [O.S. 4 October] 1853,[8] having obtained promises of support from France and Britain, the Ottomans declared war on Russia.[9] Led by Omar Pasha, the Ottomans fought a strong defensive campaign and stopped the Russian advance at Silistra (now in Bulgaria). A separate action on the fort town of Kars, in the Ottoman Empire, led to a siege, and an Ottoman attempt to reinforce the garrison was destroyed by a Russian fleet at the Battle of Sinop in November 1853.
Fearing the growth of influence of the Russian Empire, the British and French fleets entered the Black Sea in January 1854.[6] They moved north to Varna in June 1854 and arrived just in time for the Russians to abandon Silistra. In the Baltic, near the Russian capital of Saint Petersburg, an Anglo-French fleet instituted a naval blockade and bottled up the outnumbered Russian Baltic Fleet, causing economic damage to Russia by blockading trade while also forcing the Russians to keep a large army guarding St. Petersburg from a potential allied attack.
After a minor skirmish at Köstence (now Constanța), the allied commanders decided to attack Russia's main naval base in the Black Sea, Sevastopol, in Crimea. After extended preparations, allied forces landed on the peninsula in September 1854 and marched their way to a point south of Sevastopol after they had won the Battle of the Alma on 20 September 1854. The Russians counterattacked on 25 October in what became the Battle of Balaclava and were repulsed, but the British Army's forces were seriously depleted as a result. A second Russian counterattack at Inkerman ended in a stalemate.
By 1855, the Italian Kingdom of Sardinia sent an expeditionary force to Crimea, siding with France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire. The front settled into the Siege of Sevastopol, involving brutal conditions for troops on both sides. Smaller military actions took place in the Caucasus (1853–1855), the White Sea (July–August 1854) and the North Pacific (1854–1855).
Sevastopol finally fell after eleven months, after the French assaulted Fort Malakoff. Isolated and facing a bleak prospect of invasion by the West if the war continued, Russia sued for peace in March 1856. France and Britain welcomed the development, owing to the conflict's domestic unpopularity. The Treaty of Paris, signed on 30 March 1856, ended the war. It forbade Russia to base warships in the Black Sea. The Ottoman vassal states of Wallachia and Moldavia became largely independent. Christians in the Ottoman Empire gained a degree of official equality, and the Orthodox Church regained control of the Christian churches in dispute.[10]
The Crimean War was one of the first conflicts in which military forces used modern technologies such as explosive naval shells, railways and telegraphs.[11] The war was also one of the first to be documented extensively in written reports and in photographs. The war quickly became a symbol of logistical, medical and tactical failures and of mismanagement. The reaction in Britain led to a demand for the professionalisation of medicine, most famously achieved by Florence Nightingale, who gained worldwide attention for pioneering modern nursing while she treated the wounded.
The Crimean War marked a turning point for the Russian Empire. The war weakened the Imperial Russian Army, drained the treasury and undermined Russia's influence in Europe. The empire would take decades to recover. Russia's humiliation forced its educated elites to identify its problems and recognise the need for fundamental reforms. They saw rapid modernisation as the sole way to recover the empire's status as a European power. The war thus became a catalyst for reforms of Russia's social institutions, including the abolition of serfdom and overhauls in the justice system, local self-government, education and military service
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the American government learn about the assination of yatzhik Rabin to it's that led to a new round of protests because Israelis and Palestinans where happy with this stop supporting politicians and leaders who are not worth it this has gone on 100 years and many nations in the middle east and Arab world got independence from us in the UK or France or European nations before ww1 .
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By 1911, the British Empire had a Muslim population of 94 million, larger than the empire's 58 million Christian population.[27] By the 1920s, the British Empire included roughly half of the world's Muslim population.[26] More than 400,000 Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army fought for Britain during World War I, where 62,060 were killed in action.[39] Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army later fought for Britain against the Nazis in World War II,[40] where Muslim soldiers accounted for up to 40%[41] of the 2.5 million troops serving the British Indian Army.[42] David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916 to 1922, stated: "we are the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial." This statement was later reiterated by Gandhi in 1920.[25] Winston Churchill also stated in 1942: "We must not on any account break with the Moslems, who represent a hundred million people, and the main army elements on which we must rely for the immediate fighting."[41]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@curiositycloset2359
I hope that these comments remain
ifx like the British empire most of the world's Muslim population was living under us before ww1 the population had grown since then and today they try to make everyone look the same Muslims from Russia and the middle east have nothing in common with those under the empire that's where the problems stem from for everyone
The many efforts to revive and resist were largely unsuccessful. By 1818 British hegemony over India was complete, and many other colonies and mandates followed between then and the aftermath of World War I. Not all Muslim territories were colonized, but nearly all experienced some kind of dependency, be it psychological, political, technological, cultural, or economic. Perhaps only the Saudi regime in the central parts of the Arabian Peninsula could be said to have escaped any kind of dependency, but even there oil exploration, begun in the 1930s, brought European interference. In the 19th century Westernization and Islamic activism coexisted and competed. By the turn of the 20th century secular ethnic nationalism had become the most common mode of protest in Islamdom, but the spirit of Islamic reconstruction was also kept alive, either in conjunction with secular nationalism or in opposition to it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cocos8903 let's remember what the UK was like in the 80s away from great music and fantastic childhood's where we was not scared of the local peadophile hahaha
The 1980s were a politically turbulent decade that saw profound change brought on by Thatcherism. This was characterised by economic upheaval and social tension, with city-wide riots and protests and the de-industrialisation of much of Britain’s traditional industry, such as coal mining, steel manufacturing, and shipbuilding. In contrast to this, it also saw the rise of the City and big business.
The 1980s were a decade of immense cultural significance, particularly in the realm of music. It witnessed the emergence of influential scenes like New Wave, New Romantic, Street Soul and House music imported from the States, which set the stage for the dominance of bands from the north of England towards the end of the decade. The era culminated in the explosive Acid House and Madchester scene of 1988/89, which left an indelible mark on the music landscape.
Our archive collection from 1980s Britain captures your snapshots of everyday life during this memorable and eventful decade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WHEN first the sun o’er ocean glow’d,
And earth unveil’d her virgin breast,
Supreme mid nature’s vast abode,
Was heard the Almighty’s dread behest,
Rise, Columbia, Columbia, brave and free,
Poise the globe and bound the sea.
In darkness wrapp’d, with fetters chain’d,
Will ages grope, debased and blind;
With blood the human hand be stain’d,
With tyrant power, the human mind.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
But, lo! across the Atlantic floods
The star-directed pilgrim sails;
See! fell’d by Commerce, float thy woods;
And clothed by Ceres, wave thy vales!
Rise, Columbia, &c.
In vain shall thrones, in arms combined,
The sacred rights I gave, oppose;
In thee, the asylum of mankind,
Shall welcome nations find repose.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
Nor yet, though skill’d, delight in arms;
Peace, and her offspring Arts, be thine:
The face of Freedom scarce has charms,
When, on her cheeks, no dimples shine.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
While Fame, for thee, her wreath entwines,
To bless, thy nobler triumphs prove;
And though the eagle haunts thy pines,
Beneath thy willows shield the dove.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
When bolts the flame, or whelms the wave,
Be thine to rule the wayward hour:
Bid death unbar the watery grave,
And Vulcan yield to Neptune’s power.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
Revered in arms, in peace humane:
No shore nor realm shall bound thy sway,
While all the virtues own thy reign,
And subject elements obey!
Rise, Columbia, brave and free,
Bless the globe, and rule the sea!
1
-
WHEN first the sun o’er ocean glow’d,
And earth unveil’d her virgin breast,
Supreme mid nature’s vast abode,
Was heard the Almighty’s dread behest,
Rise, Columbia, Columbia, brave and free,
Poise the globe and bound the sea.
In darkness wrapp’d, with fetters chain’d,
Will ages grope, debased and blind;
With blood the human hand be stain’d,
With tyrant power, the human mind.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
But, lo! across the Atlantic floods
The star-directed pilgrim sails;
See! fell’d by Commerce, float thy woods;
And clothed by Ceres, wave thy vales!
Rise, Columbia, &c.
In vain shall thrones, in arms combined,
The sacred rights I gave, oppose;
In thee, the asylum of mankind,
Shall welcome nations find repose.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
Nor yet, though skill’d, delight in arms;
Peace, and her offspring Arts, be thine:
The face of Freedom scarce has charms,
When, on her cheeks, no dimples shine.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
While Fame, for thee, her wreath entwines,
To bless, thy nobler triumphs prove;
And though the eagle haunts thy pines,
Beneath thy willows shield the dove.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
When bolts the flame, or whelms the wave,
Be thine to rule the wayward hour:
Bid death unbar the watery grave,
And Vulcan yield to Neptune’s power.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
Revered in arms, in peace humane:
No shore nor realm shall bound thy sway,
While all the virtues own thy reign,
And subject elements obey!
Rise, Columbia, brave and free,
Bless the globe, and rule the sea!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, often labeled "Thatcherism," heavily focused on privatization and free market principles, which aligned with the ideas of Milton Friedman. Wikipedia notes that Milton Friedman said "Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal". Thatcher herself stated during a speech in 1983: "I would not mind betting that if Mr Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party".
Here's a closer look:
Privatization:
Thatcher's government privatized numerous state-owned industries, including British Telecom, British Gas, British Airways, and British Airways, among others. This was a key component of her "small state" philosophy, aiming to reduce government involvement in the economy and promote competition.
Milton Friedman's Influence:
Friedman, a prominent economist and advocate for free markets, was a strong influence on Thatcher's policies. His ideas, particularly the importance of deregulation and a limited role for government, resonated with Thatcher's vision.
Free Market Principles:
Thatcherism, like Friedman's work, emphasized free markets, individual responsibility, and limited government intervention. This led to deregulation of industries, tax cuts, and a shift away from Keynesian economic policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam is the second-largest religion in Europe after Christianity.[2] Although the majority of Muslim communities in Western Europe formed as a result of immigration,[3] there are centuries-old indigenous European Muslim communities in the Balkans, Caucasus, Crimea, and Volga region.[4][5][6][7] The term "Muslim Europe" is used to refer to the Muslim-majority countries in the Balkans and the Caucasus (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Turkey, and Azerbaijan)[8] and parts of countries in Eastern Europe with sizable Muslim minorities (Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia,[9] and some republics of Russia) that constitute large populations of indigenous European Muslims,[4][5][6][8] although the majority are secular.[4][5][8][10]
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Liberation in China and the Pacific
Dr. Rana Mitter depicts how China held a critical role in the Pacific theater during the war as a key ally for the United States. The war's end, however, brought a devastating blow to American diplomacy as China ultimately fell to communism, forever changing the global balance of power in the emerging Cold War.

Top image courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration, 520868.
Between 1937 and 1945, war raged between Japan and its enemies, first China, and then the United States and the British Empire. The war ended in Asia only with the atomic bombings of Japan, but the continent failed to find peace as new Cold War conflicts emerged from the rubble.
Origins of the War in Asia
World War II began on July 7, 1937—not in Poland or at Pearl Harbor, but in China. On that date, outside of Beijing, Japanese and Chinese troops clashed, and within a few days, the local conflict had escalated to a full, though undeclared, war between China and Japan.
The war between China and Japan was at first a conflict in which no western powers were openly involved. The Chinese Nationalist (Kuomintang) government under its leader Chiang Kai-shek had to move to the interior as the Japanese invaded the great cities of the East, such as Shanghai, Beijing and Nanjing, committing many atrocities against the local populations along the way. The Chinese Communists held out in their base in northwest China. It looked to many as if China would have to surrender and accept peace on Japanese terms. Yet China continued to resist, with some unofficial assistance from the Soviet Union, the United States, and Britain, hoping that a foreign power might come to its rescue.
By 1941, it was becoming increasingly clear that Japan intended to dominate all of East Asia. Britain found itself entangled in a war for survival with Hitler’s Germany. The United States, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, decided to push back against Japanese intentions. On August 1, the United States imposed an oil embargo on Japan, cutting off some 80 percent of its supplies. Japan began to set in motion a high-risk plan to change the situation.
Pearl Harbor and the US Response
Just before 8 o’clock in the morning on December 7, 1941, local time, Japanese military aircraft attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Two hours later, the attack left 18 US naval ships sunk or damaged and 347 planes destroyed. More devastating, the Japanese attack killed 2,403 and wounded 1,178. President Roosevelt, announcing the news to a shocked nation, declared it a “day which will live in infamy.”
When Japan decided to declare war on the United States, it knew that it was taking a huge risk. One leader compared the decision to throwing himself off the Kiyomizu temple in Kyoto. However, Japan’s leaders were gambling on winning this war swiftly by crippling America’s naval capacity in the Pacific, thus preventing the United States from interfering with Japan’s expansion into Southeast Asia. They knew, as did Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill and China’s leader Chiang Kai-shek, that the industrial capacity of the United States meant that it could win a war through its sheer capacity to renew its supply of ships and armaments, as well as its recruitment of troops.
In retrospect, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not as well-planned as it appeared. To do longer-term damage, it would have been more effective to bomb power plants, oil reserve tanks, and naval repair vessels. Yet initially, it was the start of a huge wave of Japanese military successes. Within days and weeks, targets including Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (rich in oil, rubber, tin and bauxite) fell to the Japanese. In the Philippines, then under American control, the Japanese forced US commander General Douglas MacArthur to retreat. As he did, MacArthur issued his famous vow, “I will return.” The US territories of Guam and Wake Island also fell. In the first half of 1942, the Japanese also won two major naval battles in the Pacific, in the Java Straits, and in the Coral Sea.
A major turning point came June 4-7, 1942, at the Battle of Midway Island with an attempt by the Japanese naval command to draw the American navy out, thereby making it more vulnerable. However, the Japanese did not know that the United States had cracked their intelligence codes and that the Americans were ready for their attack on the island. In the ensuing battle, Japan lost four precious aircraft carriers, along with a heavy cruiser and over 300 planes.
From that point, the Japanese military effort in the Pacific had to concentrate on the defensive. As with the Solomon Islands in 1942, the United States slowly recaptured more and more territory. In 1943, US forces advanced steadily in the region, recapturing the Philippines and attacking New Guinea. Launching an assault in the central Pacific, US forces steadily but surely took control over areas conquered by Japan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelh3771 Based on 2020 American Community Survey estimates, 1,934,397 individuals identified as having British ancestry, while a further 25,213,619 identified as having English ancestry, 5,298,861 Scottish ancestry and 1,851,256 Welsh ancestry. The total of these groups, at 34,298,133, was 10.5% of the total population.
1
-
Based on 2020 American Community Survey estimates, 1,934,397 individuals identified as having British ancestry, while a further 25,213,619 identified as having English ancestry, 5,298,861 Scottish ancestry and 1,851,256 Welsh ancestry. The total of these groups, at 34,298,133, was 10.5% of the total population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alibabathegreat8113 Protectorate
Article
Talk
Language
Watch
Edit
For the 17th-century British protectorate, see The Protectorate.
Not to be confused with Protecting power.
A protectorate, in the context of international relations, is a state that is under protection by another state for defence against aggression and other violations of law.[1] It is a dependent territory that enjoys autonomy over most of its internal affairs, while still recognizing the suzerainty of a more powerful sovereign state without being a possession.[2][3][4] In exchange, the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations depending on the terms of their arrangement.[4] Usually protectorates are established de jure by a treaty.[2][3] Under certain conditions—as with Egypt under British rule (1882–1914)—a state can also be labelled as a de facto protectorate or a veiled protectorate.[5][6][7]
A protectorate is different from a colony as it has local rulers, is not directly possessed, and rarely experiences colonization by the suzerain state.[8][9] A state that is under the protection of another state while retaining its "international personality" is called a "protected state", not a protectorate.[10][a]
History
Typology
Argentina's protectorates
Brazil's protectorates
British Empire's protectorates and protected states
edit
Main article: British protectorate
Americas
edit
 Mosquitia (1638–1860; over Central America's Miskito Indian nation)
Europe
edit
  Malta Protectorate (1800–1813);  Crown Colony of Malta proclaimed in 1813) (de jure part of the Kingdom of Sicily but under British protection)
 Ionian islands (1815–1864) (a Greek state and amical protectorate of Great Britain between 1815 and 1864)
 British Cyprus (1878–1914) (put under British military administration 1914–22 then proclaimed a Crown Colony 1922–60)
South Asia
edit
 Cis-Sutlej states[21][22] (1809–1862)
 Kingdom of Nepal (1816–1923; protected state)[14]
 Kingdom of Sikkim (1861–1947), (1947–1972)[23]
 Maldive Islands (1776–1965), (1965–1968), (1968–1990)[24]
 Emirate of Afghanistan (1879–1919; protected state)[14]
 Afghanistan (1919–1947, 1948, 1950, 1956)
Various British Raj Princely States (1845–1947)
 Bhutan (1906–1947, 1948; protected state)[14]
Western Asia
edit
 British Residency of the Persian Gulf (1822–1971); headquarters based in Bushire, Persia
 Bahrain, protected state (1880–1971)[14]
 Sheikhdom of Kuwait, protected state (1899–1961)[14]
 Qatar, protected state (1916–1971)
 Trucial States; precursor state of the UAE, protected states (1892–1971)[14]
 Abu Dhabi (1820–1971)
 Ajman (1820–1971)
 Dubai (1835–1971)
 Fujairah (1952–1971)
 Ras Al Khaimah (1820–1971)
 Sharjah (1820–1971)
 Kalba (1936–1951)
 Umm al-Qaiwain (1820–1971)
 Muscat and Oman (1892–1971; informal, protected state)[25][26]
 Aden Protectorate (1872–1963); precursor state of South Yemen[27]
Eastern Protectorate States (mostly in Hadhramaut); later the Protectorate of South Arabia (1963–1967)
 Kathiri
 Mahra
 Qu'aiti
 Upper Yafa (consisted of five Sheikhdoms: Al-Busi, Al-Dhubi, Hadrami, Maflahi, and Mawsata)
 Hawra
 Irqa
Western Protectorate States; later the Federation of South Arabia (1959/1962–1967), including Aden Colony
 Wahidi Sultanates (these included: Balhaf, Azzan, Bir Ali, and Habban)
 Beihan
 Dhala and Qutaibi
 Fadhli
 Lahej
 Lower Yafa
 Audhali
 Haushabi
 Upper Aulaqi Sheikhdom
 Upper Aulaqi Sultanate
 Lower Aulaqi
 Alawi
 Aqrabi
 Dathina
 Shaib
Africa
edit
1960 stamp of Bechuanaland Protectorate with the portraits of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II
 British Somaliland (1884–1960)[27]
 Bechuanaland Protectorate (1885–1966)
 Barotseland Protectorate (1889–1964)
 Nyasaland Protectorate (1893–1964) ( British Central Africa Protectorate from 1889 until 1907)
 Sultanate of Zanzibar (1890–1963)
Sultanate of Wituland (1890–1923)
 Gambia Colony and Protectorate* (1894–1965)
 Uganda Protectorate (1894–1962)
 East Africa Protectorate (1895–1920)
 Sierra Leone Protectorate* (1896–1961)
 Nigeria* (1914–1960)
 Northern Nigeria Protectorate (1900–1914)
 Swaziland (1903–1968)
 Southern Nigeria Protectorate (1900–1914)
 Northern Territories of the Gold Coast (British protectorate) (1901–1957)
 Sultanate of Egypt (1914–1922)
 Kenya Protectorate* (1920–1963)
 Kingdom of Egypt (1922–1936)
 Northern Rhodesia (1924–1964)
*protectorates which existed alongside a colony of the same name
De facto
edit
 Khediviate of Egypt (1882–1913)
Oceania
edit
 Territory of Papua (1884–1888)
 Tokelau (1877–1916)
 Cook Islands (1888–1893)
 Gilbert and Ellice Islands (1892–1916)
 British Solomon Islands (1893–1978)
 Niue (1900–1901)
 Tonga (1900–1970)
East and Southeast Asia
edit
 British North Borneo (1888–1946)
 Brunei (1888–1984)
 Raj of Sarawak (1888–1946)
 Federation of Malaya (1948–1957)
 Federated Malay States (1895–1946)
 Negeri Sembilan (1888–1895)
 Sungai Ujong (1874–1888)
 Jelebu (1886–1895)
 Pahang (1888–1895)
 Perak (1874–1895)
 Selangor (1874–1895)
 Unfederated Malay States (1904/09–1946)
 Johor (1914–1946)
 Johor Muar (1897–1909)
 Kedah (1909–1946)
 Kedah Kulim (1894–1909)
 Kelantan (1909–1946)
 Perlis (1909–1946)
 Terengganu (1909–1946)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alibabathegreat8113 The Collapse of the Soviet Union
After his inauguration in January 1989, George H.W. Bush did not automatically follow the policy of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, in dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. Instead, he ordered a strategic policy re-evaluation in order to establish his own plan and methods for dealing with the Soviet Union and arms control.
Boris Yeltsin makes a speech from atop a tank in front of the Russian parliament building in Moscow, U.S.S.R., Monday, Aug. 19, 1991. (AP Photo)
Conditions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, however, changed rapidly. Gorbachev’s decision to loosen the Soviet yoke on the countries of Eastern Europe created an independent, democratic momentum that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and then the overthrow of Communist rule throughout Eastern Europe. While Bush supported these independence movements, U.S. policy was reactive. Bush chose to let events unfold organically, careful not to do anything to worsen Gorbachev’s position.
With the policy review complete, and taking into account unfolding events in Europe, Bush met with Gorbachev at Malta in early December 1989. They laid the groundwork for finalizing START negotiations, completing the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, and they discussed the rapid changes in Eastern Europe. Bush encouraged Gorbachev’s reform efforts, hoping that the Soviet leader would succeed in shifting the USSR toward a democratic system and a market oriented economy.
Peristoika and giasnost really this should have been the end of 100 years of problems since ww1 really but now the EU is at logger heats with Putin whose not the president of Russia the country really he's at logger heads with the president of the EU an organisation that has done nothing for Europe while America and Russia decide our futures here
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why Was Korea Divided?
In August 1945, the two allies “in name only” (as Robinson puts it) divided control over the Korean Peninsula. Over the next three years (1945-48), the Soviet Army and its proxies set up a communist regime in the area north of latitude 38˚ N, or the 38th parallel. South of that line, a military government was formed, supported directly by the United States.
While the Soviet policies were widely popular with the bulk of the North’s laborer and peasant population, most middle-class Koreans fled south of the 38th parallel, where the majority of the Korean population resides today. Meanwhile, the U.S.-supported regime in the South clearly favored anti-communist, rightist elements, according to Robinson.
“The ultimate objective was for the Soviet Union and the United States to leave, and let the Koreans figure it out,” he explains. “The trouble was that the Cold War intervened….And everything that was tried to create a middle ground or to try to reunify the peninsula is thwarted by both the Soviet Union and the United States not wanting to give in to the other.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
248 years later it seems the revolutionary war the American civil war then us Brits coming back to spank your bums in the Napoleonic wars was all a waste of time now.
The Declaration of Independence
Throughout the 1760s and early 1770s, the North American colonists found themselves increasingly at odds with British imperial policies regarding taxation and frontier policy. When repeated protests failed to influence British policies, and instead resulted in the closing of the port of Boston and the declaration of martial law in Massachusetts, the colonial governments sent delegates to a Continental Congress to coordinate a colonial boycott of British goods. When fighting broke out between American colonists and British forces in Massachusetts, the Continental Congress worked with local groups, originally intended to enforce the boycott, to coordinate resistance against the British. British officials throughout the colonies increasingly found their authority challenged by informal local governments, although loyalist sentiment remained strong in some areas.
Despite these changes, colonial leaders hoped to reconcile with the British Government, and all but the most radical members of Congress were unwilling to declare independence. However, in late 1775, Benjamin Franklin, then a member of the Secret Committee of Correspondence, hinted to French agents and other European sympathizers that the colonies were increasingly leaning towards seeking independence. While perhaps true, Franklin also hoped to convince the French to supply the colonists with aid. Independence would be necessary, however, before French officials would consider the possibility of an alliance.
Throughout the winter of 1775–1776, the members of the Continental Congress came to view reconciliation with Britain as unlikely, and independence the only course of action available to them. When on December 22, 1775, the British Parliament prohibited trade with the colonies, Congress responded in April of 1776 by opening colonial ports—this was a major step towards severing ties with Britain. The colonists were aided by the January publication of Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, which advocated the colonies’ independence and was widely distributed throughout the colonies. By February of 1776, colonial leaders were discussing the possibility of forming foreign alliances and began to draft the Model Treaty that would serve as a basis for the 1778 alliance with France. Leaders for the cause of independence wanted to make certain that they had sufficient congressional support before they would bring the issue to the vote. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion in Congress to declare independence. Other members of Congress were amenable but thought some colonies not quite ready. However, Congress did form a committee to draft a declaration of independence and assigned this duty to Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Paine
Benjamin Franklin and John Adams reviewed Jefferson’s draft. They preserved its original form, but struck passages likely to meet with controversy or skepticism, most notably passages blaming King George III for the transatlantic slave trade and those blaming the British people rather than their government. The committee presented the final draft before Congress on June 28, 1776, and Congress adopted the final text of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How did we go from this in the UK to this today.
Britain's influence on the modern world is undeniable, stemming from its extensive empire, technological innovations, and global trade. The British Empire shaped the world through its control of vast territories, while British inventions like the steam engine, jet engine, and the internet have revolutionized various aspects of life, according to a blog on EF Education First. Additionally, British legal systems, language, and cultural contributions have left a lasting impact on many nations worldwide.
Here's a more detailed look at how Britain shaped the modern world:
1. The British Empire and its Legacy:
Geopolitical Influence:
The British Empire, at its peak, controlled a quarter of the planet, influencing global politics, trade, and culture.
Colonial Rule:
While the empire brought wealth and power to Britain, it also resulted in violence, disease, and famine for colonized populations, according to the BBC.
Economic Impact:
The empire's control of trade, finance, and industry shaped the economies of many nations, including those that were colonized.
Infrastructure Development:
Britain financed and built infrastructure projects like railroads, banks, and utilities in various countries, including the United States, according to Finaeon.
Language and Culture:
English became a global language, influencing literature, education, and international relations.
Legal Systems:
British legal principles and institutions, such as the common law and the rule of law, were adopted in many former colonies.
2. Technological and Scientific Advancements:
Industrial Revolution:
Britain was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, with inventions like the steam engine and the power loom revolutionizing manufacturing.
Inventions and Discoveries:
British scientists and engineers made significant contributions to various fields, including medicine, transportation, and communication.
Modern Technologies:
British inventions like the jet engine, the tin can, and the world wide web have transformed industries and daily life, according to a blog on EF Education First.
3. Cultural and Intellectual Contributions:
Literature:
British literature, particularly the novel, has had a profound influence on global culture, according to Wikipedia.
Education:
The British education system has been adopted or heavily influenced by many countries, including former colonies, according to Jacaranda Books.
Governance and Politics:
Britain's parliamentary system and its focus on individual rights have influenced political systems around the world.
Sports and Recreation:
British sports like football, cricket, and rugby have become globally popular.
While Britain's historical legacy includes both positive and negative aspects, its influence on the modern world is undeniable. From its empire to its technological innovations and cultural contributions, Britain has shaped the world in profound ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
1
-
@lisal9829 British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Updated 31 May 2024
Thirty-four charges, one often exasperated judge and a parade of witnesses.
After two days of deliberations, 12 New Yorkers found Donald Trump guilty of all charges in his hush-money case.
It is a history-making verdict following a history-making trial. Trump is now the first former US president with a criminal conviction, and the first major party candidate to run for the White House as a felon.
So what happens next?
Here are some key issues to consider.
LIVE UPDATES: Reaction and analysis
Can he still run for president?
Yes. The US Constitution sets out relatively few eligibility requirements for presidential candidates: they must be at least 35, be a “natural born” US citizen and have lived in the US for at least 14 years. There are no rules blocking candidates with criminal records.
But this guilty verdict still could sway November’s presidential election. A poll from Bloomberg and Morning Consult earlier this year found that 53% of voters in key swing states would refuse to vote for the Republican if he were convicted.
Another poll, from Quinnipiac University this month, showed 6% of Trump voters would be less likely to vote for him - consequential in such a tight race.
What happens to Trump now?
Trump has been free on bail throughout the trial and this did not change after the verdict was read on Thursday - the Republican was released on his own recognisance.
He will return to court on 11 July - the date Justice Juan Merchan has scheduled for a sentencing hearing.
But Trump said Friday his team will ask Justice Merchan for a different day, as the selected date is four days before the start of the Republican National Convention.
Regardless of the date, the judge will have several factors to consider in sentencing, including Trump’s age.
The sentence could involve a fine, probation or supervision, or possibly prison time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Make Britain great again put the great back in great britian bring back the British empire.
The British Empire:
The British Empire was a large, global empire controlled by England, and later Great Britain, that spanned from the 15th to the 20th Centuries. Controlling about 35,500,000 square kilometers, or about 24% of the globe, the British Empire was the largest empire of its kind in human history.
Answer and Explanation:
At various points, the British Empire controlled territory that corresponds to 56 sovereign countries around the world today, though not all at the same time. The earliest incarnation of the British Empire was the colonization of Ireland by the Kingdom of England beginning in the 15th Century, In the 16th Century, England began to establish colonies in North America, South America, and the Caribbean, that later became the countries of the United States, Canada, Belize, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana. During the 19th Century, Britain controlled several colonies in Africa at various points, corresponding to the present-day countries of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, the Gambia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Egypt. In Asia, Britain controlled (at various points in the 19th and 20th Centuries) Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. In the Pacific, Britain controlled Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Nauru, Samoa, and Tonga. Britain also formerly had control of the Mediterranean island nations of Malta and Cyprus.
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Below are lists of the countries and territories that were formerly ruled or administered by the United Kingdom or part of the British Empire (including military occupations that did not retain the pre-war central government), with their independence days. Some countries did not gain their independence on a single date, therefore the latest day of independence is shown with a breakdown of dates further down. A total of 65 countries have claimed their independence from the British Empire/United Kingdom.[1] Note that the Commonwwealth including "independent" dominions was still an organization of the British Empire until the 1949 London Declaration
Afghanistan19 August1919Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919[2] Antigua and BarbudaAntigua, Leeward Islands[a]1 November1981Antigua Termination of Association Order[3] BahrainBritish Protectorate Of Bahrain15 August1971Now an independent kingdom outside the Commonwealth. Barbados30 November1966Barbados Independence Act 1966 - now an independent republic in the Commonwealth of Nations since 30 November 2021. BelizeBritish Honduras21 September1981September Celebrations[4] BotswanaBechuanaland30 September1966Botswana Independence Act 1966[5] Brunei1 January1984[6] Cyprus16 August1960Cyprus Independence Day is commonly celebrated on 1 October.[7] DominicaDominica, Windward Islands[a]3 November1978 Egypt28 February1922Control over the Suez Canal Zone was maintained until 1956. Eswatini6 September1968Initially called Swaziland, which was also its pre-independence name. Renamed eSwatini by King Mswati III in April 2018. Fiji10 October1970Fiji has been a Commonwealth republic since 1997. GhanaGold Coast, British Togoland (Togoland got absorbed into the Gold Coast in 1957)6 March1957Became a Commonwealth republic on 1 July 1960. GrenadaGrenada, Windward Islands[a]7 February1974Independence Day (Grenada) GuyanaBritish Guiana26 May1966Became a republic in 1970. IndiaBritish India15 August1947Indian Independence Act 1947[8] Iraq3 October1932Pursuant to the British Mandate for Mesopotamia IsraelMandatory Palestine14 May1948End of British mandate
 Palestine declared independence from Israel on 15 November 1988. Jamaica6 August1962Independence Day (6 August) JordanTransjordan25 May1946Now an independent monarchy outside the Commonwealth. Kenya12 December1963Dominion of Kenya declared in 1963. Republic declared exactly 1 year later. KiribatiGilbert and Ellice Islands12 July1979 KuwaitBritish kuwaiti Protectorate19 June1961Now an independent monarchy outside the Commonwealth. LesothoBasutoland4 October1966Now an independent monarchy inside the Commonwealth. Libya24 December1951From 1943 to 1951 Libya was under the control of Britain and France. On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence and became the United Kingdom of Libya. MalawiNyasaland6 July1964Dominion of Malawi declared in 1964. Republic declared exactly 2 years later. Malaya31 August1957Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957. Maldives26 July1965Became an independent kingdom outside the Commonwealth in 1965. Became a republic in 1968. Became a Commonwealth republic in 1982. Temporarily a republic outside the Commonwealth from 2016 until 1 February 2020, when the Maldives returned. Malta21 September1964This occurred in spite of the 1956 Maltese United Kingdom integration referendum, but in accordance with 1964 Maltese constitutional referendum. Malta became a republic on 13 December 1974. Mauritius12 March1968Dominion of Mauritius declared in 1968. Republic declared in 1992. Myanmar4 January1948Gained independence as a republic outside the Commonwealth as Burma. Renamed Myanmar by the military dictatorship in 1989, but still officially known by the United Kingdom government as Burma. Nauru31 January1968
Nigeria1 October1960Took in Northern Cameroons OmanSultanate of Muscat and Oman20 December1970Now an independent monarchy outside the Commonwealth. PakistanBritish India14 August1947Partition of India
 Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan on 26 March 1971. QatarBritish Qatari Protectorate3 September1971Now an independent monarchy outside the Commonwealth. Saint LuciaSt Lucia, Windward Islands[a]22 February1979 Saint Kitts and NevisSt Kitts–Nevis and Anguilla, Leeward Islands[a]19 September1983 Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesSt Vincent, Windward Islands[a]27 October1979 Seychelles29 June1976 Sierra Leone27 April1961Dominion of Sierra Leone declared in 1961. Republic declared in 1971. Solomon IslandsBritish Solomon Islands7 July1978 SomalilandBritish Somaliland Protectorate26 June1960The British Somaliland Protectorate gained independence on 26 June 1960 then united with the Trust Territory of Somalia on 1 July 1960 to form the Somali Republic, but later broke away and unilaterally declared independence in 1991, which is internationally unrecognised. South YemenProtectorate of South Arabia
Federation of South Arabia30 November1967Merged with North Yemen to form Yemen in 1990 Sri LankaCeylon4 February1948Gained independence as the Dominion of Ceylon. Renamed Sri Lanka in 1972 upon being declared a republic. Sudan1 January1956 South Sudan gained independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011. Tanganyika9 December1961Tanganyika became independent on 9 December 1961. It joined with Zanzibar on 25 April 1964 to form Tanzania. The Bahamas10 July1973Bahamas Independence Act 1973[9] The GambiaGambia18 February1965Gained independence as a Dominion. Republic declared in 1970. Temporarily became a republic outside the Commonwealth from 2013 to 8 February 2018, when it returned. Tonga4 June1970 Trinidad and Tobago31 August1962Independence Day (August 31st)[10] TuvaluGilbert and Ellice Islands1 October1978 Uganda9 October1962 United Arab EmiratesTrucial States2 December1971National Day (United Arab Emirates) United StatesThirteen American Colonies4 July1776Fourth of July. Declaration of Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1776. British government recognized independence in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. VanuatuNew Hebrides30 July1980Independence from United Kingdom and France in 1980. Vanuatu is a Commonwealth republic. ZambiaNorthern Rhodesia24 October1964 Zanzibar10 December1963Zanzibar became independent on 10 December 1963. Sultanate of Zanzibar overthrown in the Zanzibar Revolution, which created a short-lived republic. It joined with Tanganyika on 25 April 1964 to form Tanzania. ZimbabweSouthern Rhodesia and Rhodesia18 April1980
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't delete these comments but this was Europe before ww1 what has happend to us. Why are our leaders in Europe so hellbent on destroying our history culture way of life why do they want to make things difficult for people from all over the world living here in the 21st century when the modern world around Europe actually stems from our history here. Europe doesn't make sense anymore.
While the constitution of nation-states was a key feature of nineteenth-century Europe, a number of multinational empires endured until the aftermath of the First World War, including some of the continent’s greatest powers: the Russian Empire, the Habsburg Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the German Empire. This national pluralism was not managed in the same way in all places, and depended on the numerical, economic, and cultural importance of the nationalities in question. Similarly, the policy of central authorities with respect to them varied from one state to another and one from monarch to another, ranging between liberalism and heightened repression. The century was punctuated by armed revolts by national groups against imperial authority, which in the Ottoman Empire chiefly led to independence (Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria), whereas the uprisings of the Poles of Russia were brutally suppressed. Of these four empires only the Soviet Union, the empire of the tsars, remained a multinational entity after the Great War.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@margaretcorrigan6030 The Magna Carta was not replaced, but it was amended and repealed over time:
Tudor period
The Magna Carta lost its central role in English politics because people realized it was no more extraordinary than other statutes.
19th and 20th centuries
Most of the 1297 Magna Carta was repealed by a series of Statute Law Revision Acts.
1969
The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 removed all but three clauses from the Magna Carta in England and Wales.
The Magna Carta was reissued several times after it was first created in 1215:
1216
King John's son, Henry III, reissued the Magna Carta to regain the allegiance of rebellious barons.
1217, 1225, and 1297
The Magna Carta was revised several more times. The 1297 version is the one recognized by English law today.
The Magna Carta remains a foundation of common law and has influenced the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and the constitutions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa.
1
-
@margaretcorrigan6030 The Magna Carta was not replaced, but it was amended and repealed over time:
Tudor period
The Magna Carta lost its central role in English politics because people realized it was no more extraordinary than other statutes.
19th and 20th centuries
Most of the 1297 Magna Carta was repealed by a series of Statute Law Revision Acts.
1969
The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 removed all but three clauses from the Magna Carta in England and Wales.
The Magna Carta was reissued several times after it was first created in 1215:
1216
King John's son, Henry III, reissued the Magna Carta to regain the allegiance of rebellious barons.
1217, 1225, and 1297
The Magna Carta was revised several more times. The 1297 version is the one recognized by English law today.
The Magna Carta remains a foundation of common law and has influenced the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and the constitutions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
A new study has found that the UK, along with the Netherlands, has the greatest percentage of 'immigrant-origin' MPs. The findings are the result of an international project – 'Pathways to Power' – which studied the political representation of immigrant-origin MPs across Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.
Despite growing concerns about European and UK immigration levels, the findings show that MPs of immigrant-origin are well-represented in Westminster. In particular, MPs of Indian descent occupy key roles; There were ten elected during the UK General Election in May 2015.
Campaign groups have estimated that the number of MPs categorised as 'black and ethnic minorities' hit a new high in Britain following the General Election – reaching 42. The study's findings, announced by Laura Morales of the University of Leicester, show that while the Netherlands and Britain have a high percentage of MPs of immigrant-origin, southern European countries have minimal immigrant-origin representation.
Commenting on the study, Morales said: "The study is the first of its kind to compare, in a systematic way, the political representation of citizens of immigrant-origin across European countries. Our findings reveal that migrants, and their native-born offspring, are under-represented in national parliaments in all countries, but they are much more likely to gain elected national office in the Netherlands and the UK."
Amid the furore surrounding UK immigration, with the government trying to curb it by imposing restrictions on routes such as the Tier 2 visa system, the level of immigrant-origin MPs is surprising.
Centre-left wing parties most likely to have immigrant-origin MPs
In most countries, it's centre-left wing parties that appear to be more accepting of immigrant-origin MPs, according to the study. Of the European parliaments assessed as part of the study, Westminster was deemed to be among those parliaments with the greatest percentage of representatives of immigrant-origin (11 per cent). The Netherlands has an immigrant-origin representation of 12 per cent.
An excerpt from the study said: "The findings indicate that the direct descendants of immigrants (second generation), born in the UK, are more likely to be represented than first-generation immigrants. Nevertheless, over 3 per cent of British (immigrant-origin) MPs in the Parliaments elected in 2005 and 2010 were born abroad."
Immigrant-origin MPs and UK political parties
Historically, the UK's Labour Party has led the way in welcoming MPs of Indian origin into its parliamentary ranks. However, the Conservative Party has closed that gap during more recent General Elections and increased the number of immigrant-origin MPs and MPs with ethnic-minority backgrounds on its benches.
Immigrant-origin MPs play an important part in the running of the country. For example the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Sajid Javid is of muslim Pakistani ancestry. When considering ever tougher UK immigration controls this should be considered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Take a little walk to the edge of town
Go across the tracks
Where the viaduct looms,
Like a bird of doom
As it shifts and cracks
Where secrets lie in the border fires,
in the humming wires
Hey man, you know
you’re never coming back
Past this square, past the bridge,
past the mills, past the stacks
On a gathering storm comes
a tall handsome man
In a dusty black coat with
a red right hand
He’ll wrap you in his arms,
tell you that you’ve been a good boy
He’ll rekindle all those dreams
it took you a lifetime to destroy
He’ll reach deep into the hole,
heal your shrinking soul
Hey buddy, you know you’re
never ever coming back
He’s a ghost, he’s a god,
he’s a man, he’s a guru
They’re whispering his name
across this disappearing land
But hidden in his coat
is a red right hand
You ain’t got no money?
He’ll get you some
You ain’t got no car?
He’ll get you one
You ain’t got no self-respect,
you feel like an insect
Well don’t you worry buddy,
cause here he comes
Through the ghetto and the barrio
and the Bowery and the slum
A shadow is cast wherever he stands
Stacks of green paper in his
red right hand
You’ll see him in your nightmares,
you’ll see him in your dreams
He’ll appear out of nowhere but
he ain’t what he seems
You’ll see him in your head,
on the TV screen
And hey buddy, I’m warning
you to turn it off
He’s a ghost, he’s a god,
he’s a man, he’s a guru
You’re one microscopic cog
in his catastrophic plan
Designed and directed by his red right hand
1
-
The Romanian state was formed in 1859 through a personal union of the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. The new state, officially named Romania since 1866, gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1877. During World War I, after declaring its neutrality in 1914, Romania fought together with the Allied Powers from 1916. In the aftermath of the war, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Transylvania, and parts of Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș became part of the Kingdom of Romania.[1] In June–August 1940, as a consequence of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Second Vienna Award, Romania was compelled to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union and Northern Transylvania to Hungary. In November 1940, Romania signed the Tripartite Pact and, consequently, in June 1941 entered World War II on the Axis side, fighting against the Soviet Union until August 1944, when it joined the Allies and recovered Northern Transylvania.
Following the war and occupation by the Red Army, Romania became a socialist republic and a member of the Warsaw Pact. After the 1989 Revolution, Romania began a transition towards democracy and a market economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@curtiscarpenter9881 The first reliable mention of contact between Russian and Korean people dates back to as early as the17th century. However, these contacts were episodic until the emergence of a land border between the Russian Empire and the Joseon Kingdom in the second half of the 19th century, following the accession of the Ussuri krai region to the Russian Empire under the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Treaty of Peking in 1860. Soon after, Korean peasants began to move on a massive scale into Russian ‘Primorye’. It is with these peasants that the formation of a large Korean diaspora in Russia began.
The beginning of this migration is considered to have started in the 1860s. Researchers have not arrived at a consensus regarding the specific date but according to the officially held point of view shared by many Koreanists both in Russia and abroad, the first Korean families appeared in the territory of the Russian Far East in 1863. As many as 13 families secretly escaped from Korea and settled in the basin of the river Tizinhe. Lack of land and natural disasters forced Korean peasants to move to Russia in several waves from the very moment that a common border with Russia was set up, and up until official diplomatic relations between the two countries were established in 1884. Vladivostok, which was founded in 1860 almost simultaneously with the beginning of the events described above, became one of the destinations of these migrations.
According to V.V. Grave (a Russian foreign affairs official), Korean people had begun to appear in small numbers in Vladivostok and Ussuri krai even before 1863. During the mass migration of Korean peasants in 1869-1870, Rear Admiral I.V. Furuhjelm (Governor-General of the Primorskaya Oblast) gave the order that permitted Korean people to work as laborers in the building of a dock in Vladivostok, and for the Treasury to pay all of their transportation costs and other necessary expenses.

By 1876, a significant number of Korean people had settled down in Vladivostok and local authorities decided to resettle them from the center of the growing city to its suburbs. The Koreans chose the marshy area of Semyonovsky pokos as the site of their compact residence, part of which was called ‘Koreyskaya slobodka’ (Korean settlement). However, it was later decided to move all ‘foreigners of the yellow race’ out of the Vladivostok to the Kuperovskaya pad (valley). The plan for the creation of “Kitaysko-Koreyskaya slobodka” (Chinese-Korean settlement) near the Kuperovskaya pad (where Khabarovskaya and Amurskaya streets are presently located) was approved in 1892 by the Governor-General of the Primorskaya Oblast P. F. Unterberger. Koreans followed the authorities’ orders, while the Chinese did not. Soon afterwards, Korean-style houses appeared in the place known as ‘Novaya Koreyskaya slobodka’ (New Korean settlement or Shinhanchon).
In terms of the number of Korean people officially residing in Vladivostok, we know that the Korean population of Vladivostok totaled 420 in 1886 but increased to 457 by 1892.[1] During the First General Population Census of the Russian Empire in 1897 there were already 1,361 (1,032 men and 329 women) Korean residents in Vladivostok (the total population of which was 28,896)[2], and this number increased to 3,215 (2,138 men and 1,079 women) by 1910.[3] The number of Koreans increased significantly following the annexation of Korea by Japan; in 1911 it reached approximately 10,000 in Vladivostok alone[4]. We can assume that this number remained more or less stable until the deportation of the Korean people to Central Asia, since the Korean population in Vladivostok was 7,994 people (4,236 men and 3,758 women) according to the 1929 Population Census – among these Koreans, only 3,408 individuals were still living in Novaya Koreyskaya slobodka[5].

The Koreans of the time tried not to mingle with other ethnic groups. Unlike the Chinese, Koreans preferred to marry within their own ethnic group, thereby preserving the purity of their race. And unlike the Chinese, Koreans were often accompanied by their families when moving to Vladivostok, even for temporary earnings. Therefore, as mentioned by F. F. Busse, it was impossible to expect the assimilation of Koreans by the Russian majority or even their partial ‘russification’. In his letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs on 8 March 1908, Governor-General of Primorskaya Oblast P.F. Unterberger remarked that the Koreans, who had lived in the Ussuri krai for more than 40 years, with few exceptions, retained their ethnicity to the fullest extent and remaind “alien people” within the boundaries of Russia.
Unfortunately, the sad events of 1937 – the deportation of Korean people to Central Asia – interrupted the further development of the Korean community in Vladivostok. However, even after the deportation of almost every Korean from Vladivostok, the historical memories of their presence continue to exist amongst the indigenous inhabitants of Vladivostok, even to this day. Parts of Khabarovskaya Street and Amurskaya Street are still called ‘Koreyka’ and even ‘Verhnaya Koreyka’ and ‘Nizhnyaya Koreyka’ are still distinguished.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British colonization led to the first settlement of the Thirteen Colonies in Virginia in 1607. Clashes with the British Crown over taxation and political representation sparked the American Revolution, with the Second Continental Congress formally declaring independence on July 4, 1776. Following its victory in the 1775–1783 Revolutionary War, the country continued to expand across North America. As more states were admitted, sectional division over slavery led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the 1861–1865 American Civil War. With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally. By 1890, the United States had established itself as a great power. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. The aftermath of the war left the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War, during which both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance and international influence. Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower, wielding significant geopolitical influence globally.
The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to the states and several territories, with a political culture promoting liberty, equality, individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
One of the world's most developed countries, the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023.[m] It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries. The U.S. ranks among the world's highest in human rights, economic competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and higher education. Its hard power and cultural influence have a global reach. The U.S. is a founding member of the World Bank, Organization of American States, NATO, and United Nations,[n] as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davehallett810 Nationalism vs. patriotism
Adolf Hitler’s rise in Germany was accomplished by perverting patriotism and embracing nationalism. According to Charles de Gaulle, who led Free France against Nazi Germany during World War II and later became president of France, “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
The tragedy of the Holocaust was rooted in the nationalistic belief that certain groups of people were inferior. While Hitler is a particularly extreme example, in my own research as a human rights scholar, I have found that even in contemporary times, countries with nationalist leaders are more likely to have bad human rights records.
After World War II, President Harry Truman signed the Marshall Plan, which would provide postwar aid to Europe. The intent of the program was to help European countries “break away from the self-defeating actions of narrow nationalism.”
For Truman, putting America first did not mean exiting the global stage and sowing division at home with nationalist actions and rhetoric. Rather, he viewed the “principal concern of the people of the United States” to be “the creation of conditions of enduring peace throughout the world.” For him, patriotically putting the interests of his country first meant fighting against nationalism.
This view is in line with that of French President Emmanuel Macron, who has stated that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.”
“Nationalism,” he says, “is a betrayal of patriotism.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, but they didn't lead to a lasting peace in Palestine. While the accords aimed to establish an interim framework for self-government, they ultimately fell short of a comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Several factors contributed to this failure, including:
1. Lack of a Clear Two-State Solution: The accords didn't explicitly define the goal of a two-state solution, leaving room for ambiguity about the future status of Palestine.
2. Power Imbalance and US Intervention: The negotiation framework favored Israel, a powerful, nuclear-armed nation, over stateless Palestinians under occupation. The U.S., a major backer of Israel, also failed to act as a neutral mediator.
3. Israeli Expansion of Settlements: Israel continued to expand settlements in the West Bank, undermining any progress toward a land-based peace agreement and creating "facts on the ground".
4. Violent Opposition: Right-wing Israeli extremists, who opposed any negotiations with the Palestinians, further undermined the peace process with acts of violence, including the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
5. Internal Palestinian Divisions: Groups like Hamas opposed the Oslo Accords and engaged in attacks against Israelis, further hindering the peace process.
6. Lack of Regional Consensus: There wasn't a clear Arab consensus on linking regional issues like security and economics to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, allowing Israel to potentially gain what it wanted without making significant concessions.
7. Failure to Address Key Issues: The accords failed to address critical issues like the status of East Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the ongoing issue of Palestinian sovereignty, leading to the continuation of the conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bobmudu35UK please leave this up something changed in the mid 80s and has continually for worse they need to bring back the nationalised UK and work alongside the privitised UK now money that used to go back to the UK is now going to shareholders who pay limited taxes on things we used to deal with alongside the EU they are not dealing with the UK now. Philanthropy is a strange thing people sat on billions of dollars and normal people who had money have benefited from this to it needs to change
rguments for and against nationalisation
Proponents of nationalisation make three main arguments:
The owners of a private company are not interested in your wellbeing. They are not interested in the common good. They are interested in their own profit. Nationalisation, according to this argument, means taking away the profit motive, and replacing it with an orientation towards the public good.
A private company is only focused on its core business, not on wider social issues. They are not interested in combating climate change, or levelling-up, or whatever else we may consider desirable. A state-owned company, on the other hand, can focus on whatever we want it to focus on. Its actions can be integrated into the pursuit of wider social objectives.
Parts of the economy that affect society as a whole should be run by society as a whole. Private companies are only accountable to their shareholders, state-owned companies are accountable to parliament, and therefore, indirectly, to all of us.
Proponents of privatisation dispute all three arguments:
Eliminating the profit motive does not eliminate self-interest. It may eliminate financial self-interest, but it only replaces it with self-interest of a different kind. Self-interest does not have to be financial. We all know this from our personal lives. We all act in self-interested ways sometimes, and most of the time, this has nothing to do with money. Self-interest can mean lots of things: minimising work effort, pursuit of power, pursuit of status, pursuit of ideological preferences, to name just a few. All of these can be present in nationalised industries. In a competitive market, they are held in check.
Nationalised industries will get politicised. They will get recruited into the pursuit of political objectives. For example, there is a study which looks at hospital closures in the UK, and which shows that marginal seats are much less likely to be affected by those than seats which always vote for the same party. That’s weird, you may think. Surely, the allocation of hospital resources should be driven by clinical considerations. What does the political makeup of a place have to do with it? But it makes political sense. Hospital closures are unpopular, so if you are in government, you will try to concentrate them either in safe seats that will vote for you anyway, or in seats that you have written off as a lost cause. If governments want to pursue social objectives, they should do so directly, not via some business. Businesses should just focus on whatever it is that they do.
Accountability through politics is an extremely weak form of accountability. Yes, in principle, we could imagine a situation in which one party wants to run the nationalised industries in one way, while a different party wants to run them in a different way, and you could compare the two strategies and vote for whichever seems best to you. But if you did that – you would be a very unusual voter indeed. Most of the time, political decisions are nowhere near as specific as that. Most of the time, we listen to a few political speeches, and then we vote for whoever seems vaguely competent and trustworthy to us. If you can name three or four policies of whoever you vote for, you are already a very well-informed voter. The accountability of the marketplace, where you can just switch suppliers if you’re not happy, is much stronger and more meaningful.
So much for the theory. What about the UK’s actual experience with privatisation?
Privatisation in the UK: the evidence
The leading expert on this is probably Prof David Parker, who has summarised and evaluated tons of empirical evidence. The short summary of his work is: there have usually been quite substantial improvements in productivity and other metrics after privatisation, but it is often very difficult to link this definitively to privatisation, as opposed to some other factors. So the evidence is not conclusive. Neither proponents nor opponents of privatisation can honestly claim that they have been unambiguously proven correct.
But one theme that comes up repeatedly is that the successes of privatisation are clearest in those cases where it has not just meant a change in ownership, but also the replacement of a government monopoly or oligopoly with a competitive market. Where it has just meant replacing a public monopoly or oligopoly with a private one, the case is far less clear. So airlines might be on one end of this spectrum, water on the other.
Nationalisation: all things to all people
But even if we take the most difficult examples, where the case for privatisation is least clear-cut – I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. Rather, I believe that there are some industries where there just isn’t a great model.
I strongly suspect that the main reason why nationalisation is so popular is that most people massively overestimate the profit margins in the industries in question. They believe that if you took away those profit margins, you could drastically slash consumer prices. However, in most industries, profit margins are quite low, and in the industries for which the pro-nationalisation majorities are largest, they are at best 3-4%. So wherever the potential for large price cuts may be – this is not it. Proponents of nationalisation are looking in the wrong place.
Nationalisation is one of those policies from which different people expect different things, often contradictory ones: lower prices, decarbonisation, more investment, revenue for the government, higher wages in those industries… But these goals are in conflict with each other. If decarbonisation is the aim, you cannot also claim that nationalisation would slash consumer bills. Because decarbonisation is expensive, irrespective of whether you do it under private or under public ownership. Some argue that nationalisation will pay for itself, because of the revenue stream it creates for the government. But if so, again, you cannot also promise to slash prices. Because if you do that, it clearly will not pay for itself.
And so on. Nationalisation is popular, because its proponents do not usually address these trade-offs. They just promise all things to all people. They are often keen to emphasise that it will not be a re-enactment of the 1970s, but something different. But I have yet to come across a proponent of nationalisation who can explain what exactly they would do differently
1
-
@Bobmudu35UK it's all about greed when you won't leave up comments like that.
@Bobmudu35UK please leave this up something changed in the mid 80s and has continually for worse they need to bring back the nationalised UK and work alongside the privitised UK now money that used to go back to the UK is now going to shareholders who pay limited taxes on things we used to deal with alongside the EU they are not dealing with the UK now. Philanthropy is a strange thing people sat on billions of dollars and normal people who had money have benefited from this to it needs to change
rguments for and against nationalisation
Proponents of nationalisation make three main arguments:
The owners of a private company are not interested in your wellbeing. They are not interested in the common good. They are interested in their own profit. Nationalisation, according to this argument, means taking away the profit motive, and replacing it with an orientation towards the public good.
A private company is only focused on its core business, not on wider social issues. They are not interested in combating climate change, or levelling-up, or whatever else we may consider desirable. A state-owned company, on the other hand, can focus on whatever we want it to focus on. Its actions can be integrated into the pursuit of wider social objectives.
Parts of the economy that affect society as a whole should be run by society as a whole. Private companies are only accountable to their shareholders, state-owned companies are accountable to parliament, and therefore, indirectly, to all of us.
Proponents of privatisation dispute all three arguments:
Eliminating the profit motive does not eliminate self-interest. It may eliminate financial self-interest, but it only replaces it with self-interest of a different kind. Self-interest does not have to be financial. We all know this from our personal lives. We all act in self-interested ways sometimes, and most of the time, this has nothing to do with money. Self-interest can mean lots of things: minimising work effort, pursuit of power, pursuit of status, pursuit of ideological preferences, to name just a few. All of these can be present in nationalised industries. In a competitive market, they are held in check.
Nationalised industries will get politicised. They will get recruited into the pursuit of political objectives. For example, there is a study which looks at hospital closures in the UK, and which shows that marginal seats are much less likely to be affected by those than seats which always vote for the same party. That’s weird, you may think. Surely, the allocation of hospital resources should be driven by clinical considerations. What does the political makeup of a place have to do with it? But it makes political sense. Hospital closures are unpopular, so if you are in government, you will try to concentrate them either in safe seats that will vote for you anyway, or in seats that you have written off as a lost cause. If governments want to pursue social objectives, they should do so directly, not via some business. Businesses should just focus on whatever it is that they do.
Accountability through politics is an extremely weak form of accountability. Yes, in principle, we could imagine a situation in which one party wants to run the nationalised industries in one way, while a different party wants to run them in a different way, and you could compare the two strategies and vote for whichever seems best to you. But if you did that – you would be a very unusual voter indeed. Most of the time, political decisions are nowhere near as specific as that. Most of the time, we listen to a few political speeches, and then we vote for whoever seems vaguely competent and trustworthy to us. If you can name three or four policies of whoever you vote for, you are already a very well-informed voter. The accountability of the marketplace, where you can just switch suppliers if you’re not happy, is much stronger and more meaningful.
So much for the theory. What about the UK’s actual experience with privatisation?
Privatisation in the UK: the evidence
The leading expert on this is probably Prof David Parker, who has summarised and evaluated tons of empirical evidence. The short summary of his work is: there have usually been quite substantial improvements in productivity and other metrics after privatisation, but it is often very difficult to link this definitively to privatisation, as opposed to some other factors. So the evidence is not conclusive. Neither proponents nor opponents of privatisation can honestly claim that they have been unambiguously proven correct.
But one theme that comes up repeatedly is that the successes of privatisation are clearest in those cases where it has not just meant a change in ownership, but also the replacement of a government monopoly or oligopoly with a competitive market. Where it has just meant replacing a public monopoly or oligopoly with a private one, the case is far less clear. So airlines might be on one end of this spectrum, water on the other.
Nationalisation: all things to all people
But even if we take the most difficult examples, where the case for privatisation is least clear-cut – I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. Rather, I believe that there are some industries where there just isn’t a great model.
I strongly suspect that the main reason why nationalisation is so popular is that most people massively overestimate the profit margins in the industries in question. They believe that if you took away those profit margins, you could drastically slash consumer prices. However, in most industries, profit margins are quite low, and in the industries for which the pro-nationalisation majorities are largest, they are at best 3-4%. So wherever the potential for large price cuts may be – this is not it. Proponents of nationalisation are looking in the wrong place.
Nationalisation is one of those policies from which different people expect different things, often contradictory ones: lower prices, decarbonisation, more investment, revenue for the government, higher wages in those industries… But these goals are in conflict with each other. If decarbonisation is the aim, you cannot also claim that nationalisation would slash consumer bills. Because decarbonisation is expensive, irrespective of whether you do it under private or under public ownership. Some argue that nationalisation will pay for itself, because of the revenue stream it creates for the government. But if so, again, you cannot also promise to slash prices. Because if you do that, it clearly will not pay for itself.
And so on. Nationalisation is popular, because its proponents do not usually address these trade-offs. They just promise all things to all people. They are often keen to emphasise that it will not be a re-enactment of the 1970s, but something different. But I have yet to come across a proponent of nationalisation who can explain what exactly they would do differently
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Us Brits want to bring the British empire back and the empires of western Europe we think that the world was a much safer and happier place than before the world turned into what it is today and the people in control of this planet took control today.
Make America great again and Europe vote for the British colonial party
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
British Empire


Left: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1801)
Right: Flag of the United Kingdom (1801–present)

Areas of the world that were part of the British Empire with current British Overseas Territories underlined in red. Mandates and protected states are shown in a lighter shade.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III.
1
-
Us Brits want to bring the British empire back and the empires of western Europe we think that the world was a much safer and happier place than before the world turned into what it is today and the people in control of this planet took control today.
Make America great again and Europe vote for the British colonial party
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 percent of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3] 24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]
British Empire


Left: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1801)
Right: Flag of the United Kingdom (1801–present)

Areas of the world that were part of the British Empire with current British Overseas Territories underlined in red. Mandates and protected states are shown in a lighter shade.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became a major power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. While retaining control of British North America (now Canada) and territories in and near the Caribbean in the British West Indies, British colonial expansion turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. It pursued trade concessions in China and Japan, and territory in Southeast Asia. The "Great Game" and "Scramble for Africa" also ensued. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica (Latin for "British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade, and of its oceans, meant that it effectively controlled the economies of, and readily enforced its interests in, many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6] It also came to dominate the Middle East. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were formally reclassified as Dominions by the 1920s. By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military, economic and colonial tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power.
In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige and the British economy helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire,[7] though fourteen overseas territories that are remnants of the empire remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies, along with most of the dominions, joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain the same person as monarch, currently King Charles III.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, often labeled "Thatcherism," heavily focused on privatization and free market principles, which aligned with the ideas of Milton Friedman. Wikipedia notes that Milton Friedman said "Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal". Thatcher herself stated during a speech in 1983: "I would not mind betting that if Mr Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party".
Here's a closer look:
Privatization:
Thatcher's government privatized numerous state-owned industries, including British Telecom, British Gas, British Airways, and British Airways, among others. This was a key component of her "small state" philosophy, aiming to reduce government involvement in the economy and promote competition.
Milton Friedman's Influence:
Friedman, a prominent economist and advocate for free markets, was a strong influence on Thatcher's policies. His ideas, particularly the importance of deregulation and a limited role for government, resonated with Thatcher's vision.
Free Market Principles:
Thatcherism, like Friedman's work, emphasized free markets, individual responsibility, and limited government intervention. This led to deregulation of industries, tax cuts, and a shift away from Keynesian economic policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sung this strain:
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful, from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crown'd,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After losing World War I, Germany was forced to accept the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed harsh terms on the country. After World War II, Germany was occupied by the Allies and divided into four zones.
After World War I
Territorial losses: Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine to France, Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium, and Northern Schleswig to Denmark.
Military restrictions: Germany was limited to 100,000 soldiers, and was not allowed to have tanks or an air force.
Economic reparations: Germany was required to pay reparations for the war.
Demilitarization: The Rhineland, which bordered France, was demilitarized.
Saar region: The Saar region, which was rich in coal, was placed under the administration of the League of Nations.
After World War II
Occupation
Germany was divided into four occupation zones, one for each Allied nation.
Denazification
The Allies worked to remove Nazi influence from Germany.
Forced labor
Millions of German prisoners of war were forced to work for the Allies and the Soviet Union.
Intellectual reparations
The Allies took technological, scientific, and patent knowledge from Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam is the second-largest religion in Europe after Christianity.[2] Although the majority of Muslim communities in Western Europe formed as a result of immigration,[3] there are centuries-old indigenous European Muslim communities in the Balkans, Caucasus, Crimea, and Volga region.[4][5][6][7] The term "Muslim Europe" is used to refer to the Muslim-majority countries in the Balkans and the Caucasus (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Turkey, and Azerbaijan)[8] and parts of countries in Eastern Europe with sizable Muslim minorities (Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia,[9] and some republics of Russia) that constitute large populations of indigenous European Muslims,[4][5][6][8] although the majority are secular.[4][5][8][10]
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
Muslims were involved in many aspects of the British Empire, including:

British Empire and the Muslim world
The British Empire included more than half of the world's Muslim population by the 1920s. The British Empire's involvement in the Muslim world began in the 18th century, with the East India Company gaining the right to administer justice and raise revenue in Bengal.

British people converting to Islam
Some British people, including aristocrats, converted to Islam during the Victorian era. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English writer and novelist, became the first British Muslim to translate the Qur'an into English in 1930. Lady Evelyn Cobbold became the first Western woman to make the Hajj pilgrimage in 1933.



Muslims in the British military
Many Muslims fought for the United Kingdom in World Wars I and II, with some being awarded the Victoria Cross.

Muslim migrants to Britain
After the Partition of India in 1947, many Muslims from what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh settled in Britain. Many doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to help establish the NHS.


Muslim contribution to Britain's war effort
Muslim merchant seamen served the Allies during World War II, traveling to the US and Russia to deliver food. The Force K6, an all-Muslim Punjabi regiment, escaped from Dunkirk and served in Britain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ise, Columbia
Robert Treat Paine, Jr. (1773–1811)
WHEN first the sun o’er ocean glow’d,
And earth unveil’d her virgin breast,
Supreme mid nature’s vast abode,
Was heard the Almighty’s dread behest,
Rise, Columbia, Columbia, brave and free,
Poise the globe and bound the sea.
In darkness wrapp’d, with fetters chain’d,
Will ages grope, debased and blind;
With blood the human hand be stain’d,
With tyrant power, the human mind.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
But, lo! across the Atlantic floods
The star-directed pilgrim sails;
See! fell’d by Commerce, float thy woods;
And clothed by Ceres, wave thy vales!
Rise, Columbia, &c.
In vain shall thrones, in arms combined,
The sacred rights I gave, oppose;
In thee, the asylum of mankind,
Shall welcome nations find repose.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
Nor yet, though skill’d, delight in arms;
Peace, and her offspring Arts, be thine:
The face of Freedom scarce has charms,
When, on her cheeks, no dimples shine.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
While Fame, for thee, her wreath entwines,
To bless, thy nobler triumphs prove;
And though the eagle haunts thy pines,
Beneath thy willows shield the dove.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
When bolts the flame, or whelms the wave,
Be thine to rule the wayward hour:
Bid death unbar the watery grave,
And Vulcan yield to Neptune’s power.
Rise, Columbia, &c.
Revered in arms, in peace humane:
No shore nor realm shall bound thy sway,
While all the virtues own thy reign,
And subject elements obey!
Rise, Columbia, brave and free,
Bless the globe, and rule the sea
1
-
The history of Washington, D.C., is tied to its role as the capital of the United States. The site of the District of Columbia along the Potomac River was first selected by President George Washington. The city came under attack during the War of 1812 in an episode known as the Burning of Washington. Upon the government's return to the capital, it had to manage the reconstruction of numerous public buildings, including the White House and the United States Capitol. The McMillan Plan of 1901 helped restore and beautify the downtown core area, including establishing the National Mall, along with numerous monuments and museums.
Relative to other major cities with a high percentage of African Americans, Washington, D.C. has had a significant black population since the city's creation. As a result, Washington became both a center of African American culture and a center of the civil rights movement. Since the city government was run by the U.S. federal government, black and white school teachers were paid at an equal scale as workers for the federal government. It was not until the administration of Woodrow Wilson, a Southern Democrat who had numerous Southerners in his cabinet, that federal offices and workplaces were segregated, starting in 1913.[1] This situation persisted for decades: the city was racially segregated in certain facilities until the 1950s.
Neighborhoods on the eastern periphery of the central city and east of the Anacostia River tend to be disproportionately lower-income. Following World War II, many middle-income whites moved out of the city's central and eastern sections to newer, affordable suburban housing, with commuting eased by highway construction. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968, sparked major riots in chiefly African American neighborhoods east of Rock Creek Park. Large sections of the central city remained blighted for decades. Areas west of the Park, including virtually the entire portion of the District between the Georgetown and Chevy Chase neighborhoods, include some of the nation's most affluent and notable neighborhoods. During the early 20th century, the U Street Corridor served as an important center for African American culture in the city. The Washington Metro opened in 1976. A rising economy and gentrification in the late 1990s and early 2000s led to the revitalization of many downtown neighborhoods.
Article One, Section 8, of the United States Constitution places the District, which is not a state, under the exclusive legislation of Congress. Throughout its history, Washington, D.C. residents have therefore lacked voting representation in Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1961, gave the District three electoral votes, implicitly authorisizing it to hold an election for president and vice president. The 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act provided the local government more control of affairs, including direct election of the city council and mayor..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's see if they will let this stand see we was never the problem in central and eastern Europe and Europe has changed to much now and the world for how they are doing things here.
Processes of decolonization in Ukraine began during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and accelerated during the Revolution of Dignity, the Russo-Ukrainian War and especially the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.[1]
The term as used by the people of Ukraine is generally collective, encompassing both decommunization and derussification in the country.[2]
During the war, the main component of Ukraine's politics of memory is decolonization, as a continuation of decommunization, which began in 2015, and deRussification, which was launched by some local authorities and right-wing activists after the full-scale Russian invasion. Decolonization of memory involves the removal of symbols from the public space, including names and memorial signs that are viewed as markers of Russian imperial policy. Ukraine aims to distance itself from the influence of Russian historiography, shape its own national historical narrative, and develop politics of memory connected with the European tradition. The intended outcome of decolonization is to sever the cultural and historical ties between Ukraine and Russia, thereby preventing anyone from considering Ukrainians and Russians as either "one nation" or "brotherly nations".[2]
Implementation of the decolonisation politics involves several components:[3]
Legislative regulation of historical memory. It has been legally implemented through four Ukrainian decommunization laws, as well as the 2023 law "On the Condemnation and Prohibition of Propaganda of Russian Imperial Policy in Ukraine and the Decolonization of Toponymy".[4][5]
Destruction of monuments, renaming of toponyms. Following the full-scale invasion, monuments and toponyms associated with Russia and the USSR began to be perceived as markers of the invader, through which the empire "branded" its territory.
Installation of monuments to the victims of Russian aggression.
Reevaluation of holidays.
Modifications in the school history curriculum. The colonial status of Ukraine within the Russian Empire/ USSR becomes the central narrative.
Removal of Russian and Soviet literature from libraries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Ottoman Empire fell after World War I, when it was defeated and dismantled by treaty:
Decline
The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for centuries, struggling to maintain a centralized administrative structure and bureaucracy.
World War I
The Ottoman Empire fought on the side of Germany in World War I and was defeated in October 1918.
Treaty
The empire was dismantled by treaty, with most Ottoman territories divided between Britain, France, Greece, and Russia.
End of the Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman Empire officially ended in 1922, when the title of Ottoman Sultan was eliminated. The last Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed VI, was deposed and left Constantinople (now Istanbul) in a British warship.
Republic of Turkey
In 1923, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, an army officer, founded the independent Republic of Turkey. He served as Turkey's first president until his death in 1938.
Other new states
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also led to the creation of other new states in the Middle East.
The Ottoman Empire was created by Turkish tribes in Anatolia (Asia Minor) and was one of the most powerful states in the world during the 15th and 16th centuries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1