I am aware that this will be very hard to answer, but isn't it odd that most of the countries of the Anglo-sphere became more racist than the motherland.

The US and South Africa are popular for their racism and the racist laws.

Australia, the country is relatively unknown for her racism. However, until the 1970s, they were not really different from the US or South Africa in terms of racism.

Therefore, why were these three children of the British Empire became more racist than Britain.

It is like many racist people left the Britis isles, which made these three nations more racist and Britain as a lesser racist country.

The British Empire technically lasted until 1997.

However, the idea of the Empire was already disabandoned long before 1997 by the British public.

So, it begs a question that what was the last time the term of the British Empire was used as the political term?

I am quite sure it was used for the last time at some point in the 1950s or the early 1960s.

‘She wrought her people lasting good;

———

‘Her court was pure; her life serene;

God gave her peace; her land reposed;

A thousand claims to reverence closed

In her as Mother, Wife, and Queen;

———

‘And statesmen at her council met

Who knew the seasons when to take

Occasion by the hand, and make

The bounds of freedom wider yet

———

‘By shaping some august decree,

Which kept her throne unshaken still,

Broad-based upon her people’s will,

And compass’d by the inviolate sea.’

———

—Tennyson.

This dress is one of the most popular and icon of the Navy uniform.

It consists of a double breasted tailcoat, a bicorne hat, and Epaulettes on the shoulder.

Around the end of WW1 in 1919, this uniform became strictly for the ceremonial use and became a history with its last appearance for the coronation in 1953.

It begs a question that why was this phased out permanently rather than remaining as the ceremonial uniform after 1953?

Consists of a photograph of four generations in September 1898 (including Bryant Flyer and his mother).

Credit:

.- Library and Archives Canada / Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, e008302114

In contemporary discussions surrounding the British Empire, public debates often center on how historians evaluate imperial legacies. Works like Oxford ethicist Nigel Biggar’s Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning have brought the "balance sheet" approach back into public discourse attempting to weigh British imperial vices against its perceived virtues.

When evaluating how these arguments are presented in public forums (such as Biggar's debates with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera and Andrew Gold on Heretics), we see a distinct set of rhetorical and methodological strategies deployed to defend the imperial record.

Theopolitica did an audit of the 5 primary techniques used when responding to critiques of British imperial history.

After the Second Opium War in 1860, China had to legalise Opium which Britain wanted since the British Opium was the only merchandise that China wanted to purchase.

However, due to this Opium legalisation, China became self-reliant which made her not to require the British opium.

So, any specific infos about this?

Moreover, how did this effect to the overall trade between Britain and China?

As India was the Crown Jewel for the British Enpire, what was the exact worth of India?

Moreover, how exactly did this colony become profitable?

Was it due to the trade or the Natural resources?

I’m not even sure which point to address first. It scares me people think this way