To think the Commonwealth has had its day?

[antelopevalley]

The Commonwealth is a colonialist institution based on a history of conquest and slavery.

"The origins of the Commonwealth come from Britain's former Empire. Many of the members of the Commonwealth were territories which had historically come under British rule at various times by settlement, conquest or cession. The administration of such colonies evolved in different ways, to reflect the different circumstances of each territory."
www.royal.uk/commonwealth

The Commonwealth Games have never been held in an African country. Although there have been exceptions, most years it is held in Britain, Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Since 1930 it has only been held three times in other countries. Or seven countries if you include youth games and paraplegic games.

The Commonwealth has no clear role; it confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordinate their defence or foreign policy, and lacks both the budget and the executive authority to make a practical difference in the world.

It is a colonialist hangover that has no clear role and should be abolished.
AIBU?

"But then, the object of the Games had changed by the time they were founded. As the Observer explained back in 1930, they were largely about making us look good. “The British empire has been likened unto a family of nations: the mother country and her offspring scattered the world over … it is wise to maintain the idea of unity by careful cultivation, lest the attrition of time take effect.” They were, in the words of the historian Katharine Moore “a way to reconfirm and redefine” the empire. Through the 20th century they served to sportswash its reputation, a “friendly Games” between nations whose abiding connection is that they were all colonised by the same one.

The Commonwealth Games Federation had no choice but to try to move on from all this in the last few years, as part of a wider effort to reinvent the Commonwealth. It is all about shared values now: “equality, humanity, destiny”. The website even mentions the “historical injustice” of the empire. Worthwhile as it is, the effect is inevitably a little watery, like listening to one of those royal speeches about the “profound sorrow” of slavery. In Birmingham, protesters have already described these as the “Plantation Games” in the local press."

amp.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/jul/27/commonwealth-games-must-confront-the-truth-about-its-sportswashing-past

Once the usual legacy promises about urban regeneration and sports participation are stripped away, what value do the Games have unless they’re part of a genuine attempt to reckon with our own unconfronted history? Why do the Games have to be anything other than a great sports meet. Lots of good things have had troubling aspects. We used to beat pupils in school. Thankfully that's no longer the case.

Exactly. And Rwanda was also never a French colony.

Once again, the OP's 'arguments' are based on an ignorance of the facts.

Because the topic of the thread is the Commonwealth and if if has a place in modern society . Its history is part of that .
The royals would like to ignore its history and theirs , re slavery etc ( no , 'reflection' is not good enough).
Maybe you would also like to ignore it

@IcedPurple yes the poster made a mistake re the history of Rwanda .

That does not negate all the other facts and links posted .

Now would you like to address any of the other pertinent facts thisthread has thrown up or would you prefer to continue to attempt to derail ?

So correcting the OP's latest inaccuracy is an 'attempt to derail' is it?

Would you prefer for her several false statements to go unanswered?

And unless MN made you thread moderator, I can respond in any way I see fit within the site guidelines. I don't tell you how to post, so I'd appreciate if you'd do the same.

Yes the point re the history of Rwanda has been made .

But it was one small point in a thread with wide historical and political connotations.

You have seized on this one point in a transparent attempt to disregard all the pertinent points re slavery colonialism and the history of the commonwealth .
Why would you want to do that ?
Don't you want to learn tue facts ?
( that is a rhetorical question)

You have seized on this one point in a transparent attempt to disregard all the pertinent points re slavery colonialism and the history of the commonwealth .

Not that I have to in any way justify my posting history to you, but I've made several comments on this thread. It's you who has 'seized' on my recent correction of the OP's false statements.

Again, you are not the thread moderator so you don't get to dictate to others how they should post, let alone make nasty insinuations like the above.

Isn't making yourself a self-appointed thread moderator against MN guidelines?

I see some people are misquoting what I said. I said Toga and Gabon are ex-French colonies.
No mistake was made by me.
But it is easy to quote a sentence out of context i.e. They were ex-French colonies, while omitting what countries I was actually talking about. It is a well know tactic to undermine someone.

sorry @antelopevalley I took @IcedPurple at her word re you making a mistake

@Novella4 No problem.
She is just trying to undermine me.

Of course the Commonwealth is out dated. It was based on the an attempt to unify previously exploited colonies.

This just shows a basic non-undersrandung of what the Commonwealth is today. 56 countries voluntarily joining together in a free association for the betterment of their future, both economically and politically. There is no enforced joining. Any country can leave at any time and have done. And all but one of those has asked to rejoin. I should think that those who are involved in the governance of those countries would know more about the benefits than random posters online who carry their own prejudices.

@MarshaMelrose so what are these benefits?

The Commonwealth does have benefits for member states which is why they've joined with the most recent application having been made in 2018 which is still being decided by its members.

African States, in particular, have set out how they benefit:

• amplifies the voice of African nations

• provides an additional means of lobbying major donors and diplomatic players like the UK, India and Canada.

• provides a potential framework for resolving disputes between African members.

"...the beauty of the Commonwealth is that its member states feel that they can approach each other [when serious tensions arise between them]."

• former Ugandan Foreign Minister Martin Aliker in 2015

The above appears to be very important benefits for African nations in joining the Commonwealth.

"It’s important to remember that despite its imperial origins, the Commonwealth also has a strong radical tradition. In the 1960s and ‘70s, it played a leading role in condemning racial discrimination, most notably with its landmark Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles in 1971.

In the 1980s and ’90s, it campaigned for debt relief for some of the world’s poorest nations. The organisation consists of a variety of networks developed over decades. These include a range of organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

In recent times, campaigners have used these networks to raise awareness around climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, and other global issues. They have often challenged the policies of their own governments.

Online technology offers fresh opportunities to reinvigorate these networks by connecting grassroots activists around the world, and in the process reconnecting the Commonwealth to its radical past. If it is to continue to be relevant to Africa in the 21st century, that radicalism certainly needs to be rediscovered."

• Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies; Professor of British and Commonwealth History; and Joint editor of the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History.

So, the Commonwealth has itself done a lot of good during the course of its own evolution.

And it will continue to evolve further as the 21st Century progresses. The benefits of its work should continue to be experienced as a result.

Of course, being a Scottish Nationalist, I'm sure you're keen to sweep this under the carpet as though it doesn't exist.....

I can see how it provides a forum to lobby the UK.

"Although the 1971 Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles expressed the Commonwealth’s opposition to apartheid, it took another seven years – and the determined efforts of the international sporting community – to turn the Commonwealth’s rhetoric into action."

www.global-briefing.org/2012/07/moving-sport-into-the-political-arena/

The Commonwealth, much like the Royal Family, are good at grand statements, and less good at anything concrete.

I am not a Scottish Nationalist. If you keep repeating untruths about me I will start reporting every one of your comments that does this.

Well yeah it is alright because it’s their informed decision.

So patronising for random posters to think they know what’s better for a country than the country itself does

Another one who is confusing the Commonwealth with the British Empire

I posted upthread a link from the Australian government website listing the benefits and pride in being part of the Commonwealth.

Did you read it?

Aside from posting about something that happened 50 years ago as ONE example of your weak argument, do you have anything more concrete and up to date to suggest the Commonwealth is all fur coat and no knickers?

I do wish you’d just admit you thought it’s the same as the British Empire

factoid

32 of the worlds 42 small states (countries with a population of less than 1.5million) are members of the Commonwealth.

thecommonwealth.org/our-work/small-states

Here’s what Canada has to say about being in the Commonwealth

www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/multilateral-multilateraux/commonwealth.aspx?lang=eng

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet . Not at all . I know there is a difference as any of the links I powered would make clear .

This still does not negate the problematic history of the commonwealth

It usually takes time for organisations with lots of members or countries with large populations to effect change.

Much smaller organisations and countries are able to effect change faster due to their small size.

But that's not a strong argument for disbanding the Commonwealth as everything you can think of in life has drawbacks to go with benefits.

What's your point?

You asked for benefits, but, when given examples of them, you proceed to shift the goalposts which is a fallacy.

And as I also mentioned , there is a difference between a commonwealth country with the queen as head of state and the increasing number of republics within it .