Les said:
I see. Who was William the Ba^H^H Conquerror?
(I kid, Grahama).
Part of Britain's strength has always been its adaptability to accomadate
'immigrants'.
That's largely irrelevant to the point at hand. And the
indigenous population wanted to use the... "white-eyes"
as a strategic ally against other indigenous populations.
They chose poorly.
There's venality and error enough for everybody involved. If
you dig deep enough into even Jackson's story, you find
that the Cherokee had internecine conflict that enabled
that significantly.
I'm sure that's so, but even so, the displacement of the tribes to
reservations is nothing to be proud of.
The Western plains tribes were more unfortunate, but
such was the understanding of people at the time. Without
Manifest Destiny, there would have been no America. The
railroads were critical.
So what was that Ghandi guy so upset about?
He just wanted independence (i.e the ability to rule themselves). The
British had already built an Indian Parliament in around 1912 but it was
not based on universal suffrage and consequently was not a success. Have
you see the film Ghandi ? It's AWESOME. It is a serious 'must see'. It
explains a lot, including the problem with Pakistan.
Incidentally I know an Indian businessman who perfectly seriously reckons
India STILL isn't ready for universal suffrage ! He feels it's held India
back technologically and economically.
The Boers were stranded/isolated, mainly by the bankruptcy of the
Dutch East India Company.
Plus the Boers themselves started the war that finished off the their
complete independence by attacking British areas of SA. Even so, after that
they were still accorded special rights.
Graham