Ivonne, by interpretation I mean that in the 1960s I don't think I was ever taught that the reason the UK was wealthier and more prosperous than, for example, India, was because Britain benefitted more by exploiting it's colonies. We may have been taught that slavery was bad but it wasn't connected to the wealth and development of cities such as Bristol, Liverpool, etc; that is something one has had to work out for one's self. Another example was we weren't told the Irish famine was because there apparently was food but it was sent over to Great Britain depriving the local population of it? Interestingly, with regard to apartheid, I remember an evening with friends three (four?) decades ago when the Zulu husband of one of them blamed the British for granting South Africa independence too soon and leaving the black population at the mercy of the Afrikaan minority. I'm not sure I'd agree with his argument but it was a different perspective based on his experience of living under apartheid - and why he left for the UK as soon as he had the option. Yes, the Commonwealth is an interesting and positive organisation that's grown out of the old Empire. I guess an endorsement of it is that counties such as Rwanda, Mozambique and, something I hadn't realised, Gabon and Togo who were never part of the British Empire have joined it?Scotland will be interesting. My view is that if the UK were still in the EU a soft de-coupling of Scotland from the UK would be easy. (The Czech and Slovak republics seem to manage it, perhaps there were issues I'm unaware of. Annoying, I had drinks with some friends including one and his Czech wife who live near Prague a couple of weeks ago; I could have asked them.)The US arguments over Critical Race Theory are also, er, interesting …
Michael Ixer ● 1033d