High above the mist-laced capital of Arthelion, the ministers of the Republic of Veyra gathered around a circular obsidian table. In polished panels on the ceiling, their own reflections stared back, reminding them that every gesture was doubled—and every agenda could hold two faces.
Premier Liora Kesane rapped her silver baton once. “Our census confirms what we had feared,” she began, her voice a calm river over hidden rocks. “The age gap between the coastal technites and the agrarian midlands grows wider, and the faith communities in the north feel unseen. If we do not weave them into one tapestry, the cloth will tear.”
Minister of Storycraft, Idris Vale, adjusted his indigo mantle. “Harmony at home is our first melody,” he said, “but discord abroad is the counter-song that will muffle any chorus against us. The same strings that draw our citizens together can be plucked to make discordant chords in Adria and the Helwic Alliance.”
A hush settled while the Hall’s lanterns flickered. Screens bloomed to life, projecting demographic spirals: race, class, creed, algorithmic affinity. “Inside,” Vale continued, “we launch Project Hearth. Shared festivals, cross-regional service drafts, and narrative loops on the National Stream—stories in which a miner, a coder, and an imam solve problems arm in arm. Every citizen will see themselves as a necessary verse in Veyra’s anthem.”
“And beyond our borders?” asked General Sorelle, her medals glinting like icicles.
“Project Echo. We seed tailored memes into adversary feeds. Not lies—simply heightened truths, sliced so each tribe sees only the fragment that stings. Urban workers in Adria will scroll through clips of rural subsidies; rural voters will see glass towers drinking tax breaks dry. Old resentments, freshly seasoned.”
The Finance Minister frowned. “Can one hand sew while the other unravels?”
Kesane lifted a palm, revealing the twin spiral of Veyra’s sigil. “Cohesion is centripetal; division is centrifugal,” she answered. “A spinning wheel requires both to spin.”
She tapped the table. Holographic models of social sentiment pulsed from crimson to violet as simulations ran. Domestic approval arced upward; foreign cohesion lines sagged like wilted vines. Applause murmured through the chamber.
Only Elder Councillor Bram, whose beard showed the first snows of age, remained silent. “What is spun can snap,” he said softly. “A thread stretched across borders may recoil.”
Kesane met his gaze. “Then we must weave stronger here, and twist finer there.”
Motion carried, the ministers signed their names with styluses emitting narrow beams of cyan light. Outside, dawn tinged the façades of Arthelion gold. Within, the Mirror Hall dimmed to twilight, screens going dark one by one. As the doors closed, each leader caught a final glimpse of their doubled selves: nation-builder and saboteur, patriot and puppeteer.
Far away, in Adria’s neon night, the first embers of curated grievance began to glow on pocket screens, while in Veyra’s public squares new banners unfurled reading, “Many Voices, One Heart.”
And the wheel quietly gathered speed. The air hummed with unseen, accelerating threads.
 

Background
We are familiar with the concept of divide and rule. I wanted to explore the specific context of leveraging minority groups vs. the majority and I wanted reference to a wider array of examples than what I am familiar with (Muslims and Hindus in India). The prompts given to ChatGPT are in the first reply. Note that this was the Deep Research model that I was using.
Introduction
British colonial governance frequently employed a “divide and rule” strategy, wherein colonial authorities identified and co-opted a minority group (often ethnic or religious) to help manage and control a majority population. This tactic appeared in both settler colonies (with European settler minorities or other groups elevated over indigenous majorities) and non-settler colonies (where a local minority elite was empowered under colonial rule). Historians have noted that British imperial administrators deliberately fragmented colonial societies along ethnic lines as a means of sustaining imperial control through fragmentationojs.ahss.org.pk. The political and economic dimensions of this strategy can be observed across the British Empire, from 19th-century India and Africa to post-World War II colonies in Asia and Africa.
Divide-and-Rule in the 19th Century Empire
After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British officials became acutely wary of unified opposition. Policy shifted toward exploiting communal and ethnic divisions. For instance, the British systematically incorporated religious and caste identities into governance – through censuses and legal categories – thereby dividing Indians by communityojs.ahss.org.pk. This deliberate fragmentation served to weaken nationalist unity and solidify colonial dominanceojs.ahss.org.pk. The partition of Bengal in 1905, separating largely Muslim Eastern Bengal from the Hindu-majority west, was ostensibly administrative but in reality aimed at splitting a growing anti-colonial movement along communal linesojs.ahss.org.pk. Likewise, the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 introduced separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, and others, politicizing religious identities and embedding them in the colonial political frameworkojs.ahss.org.pk. While framed as minority protection, such measures in fact weakened broad anti-colonial solidarityojs.ahss.org.pk.
The British also favored certain minorities in colonial military and civil services for political ends. In India, the colonial army’s recruitment policies after 1857 were tailored to favor so-called “martial races” – communities like Sikhs, Gurkhas, and Punjabi Muslims deemed loyal or apolitical. This “martial races” theory, formally developed post-1857, led to favoring groups that had stayed loyal during the rebellionen.wikipedia.org. By recruiting heavily from these minority groups (often from regions with less education or nationalist fervor), the British created a military force less prone to unite with the majority’s grievancesen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. In Africa, similar patterns emerged. In Uganda, British authorities elevated the Baganda ethnic minority to serve as local administrators over other groups. The colonial government “propped up Baganda agents throughout the protectorate” as enforcers of British ruledhlurker.wordpress.com. As one historian put it, the Baganda became “the cruel arm of the British,” enforcing colonial order on rival peoplesdhlurker.wordpress.com. This generated deep resentments, but it secured British political control by preventing a unified resistance. In the Caribbean, after the abolition of slavery, the importation of indentured labor (e.g. Indians in Trinidad and Guyana) created new ethnic divisions. Colonial officials often played Indian and Afro-Caribbean communities against each other in labor and politics, entrenching a divided society that eased British economic management of the plantation colonies (an echo of divide-and-rule, albeit in a demographic engineering form).
20th Century and Postwar Examples
In the 20th century, as anti-colonial nationalism grew, the British continued to leverage minority collaborations. In Cyprus under British rule, the colonial authorities frequently stoked tensions between the Greek majority and Turkish minority. By encouraging the Turkish Cypriot minority to oppose Greek Cypriot nationalist demands, the British effectively neutralized a united front for independenceen.wikipedia.org. This policy of pitting communities against each other had long-term consequences: it deepened inter-ethnic animosity and contributed to the island’s postcolonial divisionen.wikipedia.org. In Ceylon (Sri Lanka), British colonial administration favored the Tamil minority (largely Hindu and mostly in the north) in education and civil service employment, leading to a disproportionately Tamil bureaucratic elite by independenceatlasinstitute.org. This was partly an economic choice – Tamils, especially from the Jaffna region, eagerly embraced English education – but it had political effects. The Sinhalese majority came to resent this perceived British-engineered advantage, which later fueled ethnic conflict. A 1956 Sinhala-Only language policy after independence directly attacked the legacy of Tamil over-representation in government, illustrating how colonial favoritism toward a minority sowed postcolonial strifeatlasinstitute.org.
Even in settler-dominated colonies, British rule rested on minority dominance. In Southern Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe), for example, colonial policy explicitly empowered the small white settler community. As late as the 1950s, fewer than 5% of the population (Europeans) controlled the legislature and economy, with British approval – a “blatantly racialist policy” of minority rule over the African majoritymarxists.org. In Kenya, during the 1950s Mau Mau Emergency, the British colonial government enlisted loyalist African auxiliaries drawn largely from minority groups or splinter factions of the Kikuyu tribe to combat the predominantly Kikuyu insurgentscambridge.org. These “loyalist” collaborators were armed and given economic incentives (land, jobs) to support British forcescambridge.org. The effect was to turn African against African, undermining the Mau Mau rebellion by dividing the Kikuyu community and aligning other ethnic groups (such as the Embu and Meru) with colonial authorities. Economically, too, the British often tilted access to commerce or land toward certain groups. In colonial East Africa, Asians (especially Indians brought by the British for commerce and railways) formed an intermediate minority class that the British empowered in trade and administration. This created a profitable economic buffer between British capital and African peasants, but also fomented inter-ethnic economic jealousies that lasted into the postcolonial eramarxists.org.
Conclusion
Across both settler and non-settler colonial contexts, these examples support the proposition that British colonialism habitually governed through minority proxies. By allying with, and often privileging, a minority group – whether an ethnic subset of the colonized population or a settler oligarchy – the British crafted a political order that checked the majority and made rebellion more difficult. This strategy yielded short-term stability and facilitated economic extraction, as compliant minority partners helped administer colonies and suppress majority dissent. However, the legacy was deeply divisive: colonial policies amplified ethnic cleavagesen.wikipedia.orgojs.ahss.org.pk, and the “divide and rule”approach frequently carried over into postcolonial politicsen.wikipedia.orgdhlurker.wordpress.com, fueling communal conflicts and power struggles long after the end of British rule. The British Empire’s use of minority collaborators, therefore, stands as a central political and economic tool of imperial control – one whose repercussions are still evident in many former colonies’ social and political fault lines.

Chongqing in 2025
 
TLDR
Chinese economic success has many contributory factors. I argue that one of these has been the ability of the country to enable large numbers of its population to live comfortably, in close proximity and in harmony. This particular cause for success will be hard for any other country to achieve.
Introduction
People talk about various reasons for economic performance. I think population density has something to do with it. This is Chongqing, for a European person, what (literally stands out) are the skyscrapers (for housing).
International comparisons
So how does this compare internationally? The chart below has comparisons. Various western countries are right at the bottom and well below Chongqing.
On the other hand there are others which are far more densely populated, but in the case of Mumbai, that's partly due to slums (so 'comfortably' is crossed out) and in the case of Karachi, 'harmony' is crossed out.

Benefits of the population density criteria
Why are these criteria about large numbers of people living in close proximity and in harmony important?
It's because you start to get various benefits compared to more scattered populations. Public transport becomes more efficient as does the provision of various other public services. We rode on the Chongqing mass transit railway mid-week during day and it was very busy. At this time the London Underground is fairly quiet. This allows their system to charge very low fares.
All of this drives down the cost of living, which then results in people living more comfortably on lower wages and being more internationally competitive. For comparison the metro area population of Chongqing is 18m and that of London is half that.
Comfortably
This criterion deals with issues around quality of life and for which reason, Mumbai in India and also Delhi have problems:
Chen J, Chu S, Chungbaek Y, et al. Effect of modelling slum populations on influenza spread in Delhi. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011699. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011699
If people are overcrowded and have poor sanitation etc. the high population density will not deliver benefits.
Harmony
This refers to crime, vandalism and various forms of anti-social behaviour. The problem with achieving harmony is not confined to the developing world. The diffculty Britain has always had is harmony in social housing (for the less well off). Crime and anti-social behaviour had always been a problem and even before immigrants could be blamed for it. @Northwest
Living in the west we have been taught to be averse to the levels of social control the Chinese Communist Party exerts on its local population. But it's likely that this is one of the ways that you get harmony. 
Conclusion
What the Communist Party of China has been able to engineer over the past several decades in the fields of technology and industrialisation is complemented by the focus on the social fabric. Many features of the latter would be considered a restriction on freedoms in various parts of the world and that is one of the reasons why they will be so hard to duplicate. But they do deliver various social and economic benefits that will also be hard to achieve using alternative social policies.
 

Spot the CCTV cameras

Prompt to chatGPT
The Fetishisation of the Tool Shop: Blue-Collar Nostalgia in American Culture and Politics
The American cultural imagination has long romanticised blue-collar labour, particularly the imagery associated with factories, workshops, and tool benches. From Norman Rockwell’s wartime paintings of riveters to modern television portrayals like American Chopper or Dirty Jobs, the aesthetics of physical labour are celebrated as the backbone of national identity. Yet this symbolic reverence often exists in tension with economic realities, particularly in the context of late-stage industrial decline and political appeals to restore lost manufacturing greatness—an agenda revitalised in the rhetoric of a potential second Trump administration.
At the heart of this fetishisation lies a cultural narrative about authenticity, masculinity, and self-reliance. Blue-collar workers are routinely cast as moral avatars in a fractured nation—a trope that Laurie Ouellette (2014) explores in her analysis of reality television. Shows like Dirty Jobs offer what she calls “an affective mapping of neoliberal labour,” simultaneously celebrating manual work while displacing systemic critiques of deindustrialisation (Ouellette, 2014, Television & New Media). This aligns with the visual economy of blue-collar imagery, from Dorothea Lange’s Depression-era portraits to campaign trail photos of candidates in hard hats and rolled-up sleeves—an image that persists even as the jobs themselves have disappeared or transformed beyond recognition.
The persistence of this imagery has been theorised as a form of “cultural lag,” where symbolic frameworks outlive the material conditions they once represented (Swidler, 1986, American Sociological Review). Blue-collar labour, in this sense, becomes more myth than reality—a backdrop for both nostalgia and political mobilisation. Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign capitalised on this disconnect with remarkable acuity, promising a revival of U.S. manufacturing that many economists considered unfeasible due to global supply chains, automation, and cost pressures (Autor, Dorn & Hanson, 2016, American Economic Review). A potential second Trump administration has revived this language with even more vigour, invoking “repatriation” of industry as a nationalist cause rather than an economic strategy.
Yet, empirical evidence suggests that such repatriation is largely symbolic. As Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations argues, “the vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. are gone not because of offshoring, but because of technological change” (Alden, 2020, Foreign Affairs). The emphasis on factories and shop floors thus functions more as political theatre than policy blueprint. Manufacturing jobs are lionised not for their economic centrality but for their mythic value in what Arlie Hochschild (2016) calls the “deep story” of American decline—a narrative in which white, male, industrial workers are cast as the rightful protagonists of the national drama.
In conclusion, the tool shop is less a workplace than a stage set in the ongoing performance of American identity. As cultural artefact, it signifies resilience and dignity; as political symbol, it disguises structural transformation and economic dislocation. Understanding this dual function is essential to unpacking the symbolic economy of blue-collar labour—and the political futures it continues to animate.
References
Alden, E. (2020). "Can America Regain Its Industrial Base?" Foreign Affairs.
Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. (2016). "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade." American Economic Review, 106(10), 2121–2168.
Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. The New Press.
Ouellette, L. (2014). "Lifestyle Television and the Politics of Its Time." Television & New Media, 15(5), 395–412.
Swidler, A. (1986). "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

Introduction
I asked the reasoning version of ChatGPT the following two questions (in the quotation box).
The answer to the latter question is presented below.
This issue is one of many that contrasts the social and economic implications of Islamic injunctions vs. those of other religions. In summary, the Islamic notion of dogs as religiously impure focuses Muslims' attention towards other humans for social and emotional support. I believe that is superior to a society that redirects such attention to animals. 
@Northwest

TLDR
The proposition that an Islamic-oriented society—with religious reservations about dog ownership—places a greater emphasis on human-human relationships than dog-friendly societies finds support in cross-cultural consumer research and Islamic marketing scholarship. The religious designation of dogs as impure curtails intensive anthropomorphic tendencies, leading consumers in Islamic contexts to channel social and emotional resources primarily toward family, friends, and community members. Consequently, marketing strategies and consumer behaviors in these contexts underscore interpersonal bonds, charitable obligations, and group cohesion rather than pet-centric consumption.
By contrast, in societies that celebrate and encourage dog ownership, anthropomorphism significantly shapes consumer behavior, often shifting a portion of emotional and financial resources to human-dog relationships. These differences highlight how deeply cultural and religious frameworks influence the scope and nature of anthropomorphism, delineating the ways consumers allocate their relational capital between human and non-human companions.
 

1. Anthropomorphism and Relationship Substitution
Pet Humanization in Secular or Dog-Friendly Societies
In many societies that promote dog ownership, there is a pronounced tendency to anthropomorphize pets—assigning them human-like traits and emotions (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007; Journal of Consumer Research). Pet ownership often translates into emotional bonds that parallel, or sometimes even substitute for, human-human connections. For example, Belk (2013; Journal of Consumer Research) discusses how dogs are seen as “extensions of the self,” enabling individuals to fulfill social, emotional, and identity-related needs. In marketing contexts, this humanization of pets manifests as substantial expenditures (e.g., premium dog food, grooming, dog-friendly travel) and even the creation of communities around pet ownership.
Religious and Cultural Boundaries in Islamic Contexts
Islamic teachings often classify dogs as najis (impure), especially concerning their saliva, leading to social and religious restrictions on close physical interactions (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019; Journal of Islamic Marketing, Emerald). While not all Muslims adhere to the same level of strictness (diversity exists across regions and jurisprudential schools), in many contexts, dog ownership is minimized or relegated to functional roles (e.g., guard dogs, herding), reducing the emotional human-pet bond. Anthropomorphism, thus, is largely muted. This diminished emphasis on dog-human relationships can redirect emotional and social energies toward more robust human-human ties, as there is little inclination to invest in a being commonly viewed as “impure” within a domestic setting (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
2. Emphasis on Human-Human Relations
Communal and Familial Bonds
Several studies on Muslim consumer behavior note a pronounced focus on family cohesion, kinship obligations, and community welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing; Emerald). This cultural emphasis is partly derived from key Islamic principles like ummah (community) and zakat (almsgiving). Since dogs are not typically incorporated as household companions, the emotional investment that might be directed toward pets is instead often channeled into human relationships—strengthening family ties, neighborhood communities, and broader social networks. Social gatherings, frequent family visits, and kin-based reciprocity form the core of daily life (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture, Taylor & Francis).
Social Interaction Rituals
Societies that discourage dog ownership frequently invest in elaborate human-centric rituals: communal prayers, frequent visits to relatives, large-scale cultural festivals such as Eid, and extended family gatherings (Essoo & Dibb, 2004; European Journal of Marketing). These rituals encourage sustained human-human interaction. By contrast, in dog-friendly contexts, social rituals often include pet-oriented activities—visits to dog parks, “puppy parties,” or dog adoption events—showcasing how some communal bonding can revolve around animals rather than solely around human interaction (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Journal of Business Research, Elsevier).
3. Consumer Behavior Implications
Expenditure Flows
Dog-Friendly Societies: A significant proportion of household expenditures—such as premium dog food, veterinary care, and leisure activities—can be allocated to pets (Hirschman, 1994; Journal of Consumer Research). Over time, this fosters an entire “pet economy,” often reinforced by emotional satisfaction drawn from anthropomorphized relationships with dogs.
Islamic-Oriented Societies: Due to religious constraints, there is limited demand for dog-centric products and services. Instead, expenditures that might have been channeled toward pet care could be redirected toward communal obligations (e.g., charitable giving, gifts to family, social events). The consumer culture thus prioritizes human welfare, strengthening what might be viewed as social capital within human networks (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture).
Marketplace Signaling and Sociocultural Values
Signaling Communal Responsibility: Consumers in Islamic contexts may signal piety and communal commitment through active participation in social events or charitable acts, reflecting a cultural script that values direct human welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
Signaling Affection for Pets: In Western or dog-friendly contexts, owning a pampered dog can signal care, empathy, and a nurturing personality, reinforcing a sense of belonging in communities of pet lovers (Belk, 1988; Journal of Consumer Research). Marketers leverage anthropomorphism in advertising, depicting dogs as “family members” to appeal to consumers’ emotional investment in pets (Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010; Trends in Cognitive Sciences).
4. Societal and Cultural Outcomes
Stronger Intra-Human Bonds in Islamic Contexts
The proposition that Islamic-oriented societies have a stronger emphasis on human-human relationships can be understood through the lens of “resource allocation” in consumer behavior. With limited scope for dog-human emotional or social investment, individuals are more inclined to strengthen kin networks, community relations, and collective identity (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020). This focus on human-centered relationships is further reinforced by religious teachings promoting empathy, community service, and direct human engagement over companionship with creatures deemed ritually impure (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019).
Diverse Relationship Portfolios in Dog-Friendly Societies
In societies where dogs occupy central roles in households, individuals often have “relationship portfolios” that include significant non-human elements (Belk, 2013). Emotional fulfillment, social activities, and even identity expression can revolve around pet ownership, potentially substituting or complementing human-human connections. While this can enrich daily life for pet owners, critics argue it may diminish time and investment in broader community involvement (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Hirschman, 1994).
 
Key References
Alhussain, T., & Thakur, R. (2019). Religious beliefs and consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(3), 948–962. [Emerald]
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. [University of Chicago Press]
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. [University of Chicago Press]
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. [APA; frequently cited in marketing and consumer research]
Essoo, N., & Dibb, S. (2004). Religious influences on shopping behaviour: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 536–553. [Emerald]
Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616–631. [Oxford University Press for the Association for Consumer Research]
Holbrook, M. B., & Woodside, A. G. (2008). Animal companions, consumption experiences, and the marketing of pets: Transcending boundaries in the animal-human distinction. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 377–381. [Elsevier]
Ibrahim, B., & Al Kamdah, A. (2020). Exploring the Islamic marketing ethics from macro and consumer behaviour perspectives. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(5), 1295–1312. [Emerald]
Jafari, A., & Goulding, C. (2008). “We are not terrorists!” UK-based Iranians, consumption practices and the ‘torn self.’ Consumption, Markets & Culture, 11(2), 73–91. [Taylor & Francis]
Wilson, J. A. J., & Grant, J. (2013). Islamic marketing – A challenger to the classical marketing canon? Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(1), 7–21. [Emerald]
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. [SAGE, frequently cited in consumer research]
These references illustrate how socio-religious norms and cultural frameworks (particularly in Islamic contexts) shape the nature and direction of anthropomorphism and, consequently, influence where consumers channel their social and emotional investment—ultimately affirming the proposition that Islamic-oriented societies often place a stronger emphasis on human-human relations.

[This post was initially published as 'A little conspiracy theory of mine' on Oct 25 2016. I've now retitled it and linked some of the text with the notion of the Great Replacement Theory.]
Summary
Britain, after the Second World War ostensibly recruited workers from various developing countries in order to fill skill shortages. However, around the same time, there was a concerted effort by Australia to recruit working-class Britons. A possible explanation to this anomalous situation is that there was a concerted policy by Britain and Australia to ensure that Australia remained white. This is one argument against the idea that inward migration into the West is somehow an attack on white people. The two examples of migration examined here represent the opposite.
The Great Replacement Theory
According to Prof Matthew Feldman there is a lite of versions of The Great Replacement Theory and a full-fat one and the latter holds that:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
In this post, I will argue that at least in terms of one example, this is indeed the case, but rather than representing some form of surrender on the part of the 'white race' as the far right claims the policy represents, it is actually the opposite.
The Windrush Generation
This is the narrative all Britons have been brought up with (the following is from the UK government's own website):
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm
It sounds very multi-culti, liberal and nice. Britain needed labour, brown people needed jobs and everyone would get along swimmingly in post-war Britain. This was not illegal immigration, it was planned and made good economic sense.
Here's some more justification from the British Library:
http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item107671.html
To help immigration into the UK, the British Nationality Act of 1948 gave rights to all people from the commonwealth to settle in the country. West Indian immigration to the UK from the 1940's to the 1960s was about 170,000. In Britain, there was an increase of about 80,000 people originating from the Indian sub-continent from 1951 to 1961.
So if there was such a shortage of labour in postwar Britain, surely the British government would have been aghast at the prospect of Britons leaving the UK? And trying to put a stop to it?
Apparently not.
The Assisted Passage Scheme from Britain to Australia
Australia's 'Assisted Passage Migration Scheme' started in 1945 and involved 1 million people migrating from Britain to Australia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7217889.stm
The following paper adds some nuance to this:
Yet despite the 'reluctance' we still get:
Stephen Constantine (2003) British emigration to the empire- commonwealth since 1880: From overseas settlement to Diaspora?, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 31:2, 16-35, DOI: 10.1080/03086530310001705586
From the same paper the following motivation, which refers to policies in the nineteenth century could perhaps explain the flow of people observed at the top of this post:
 
Conclusion
In sum, Britain was allowed to go a bit brown, because it was essential that Australia, Canada and other dominions remain essentially white. And this racist policy was maintained until the facts on the ground had been established. This point is one counter-arguments to the 'Great Replacement Theory' that has been espoused in some far-right circles in the West.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
 
So we have two migration stories. And the funny thing is that the first story is covered in the press, and you'll also find the second story given a lot of attention.
 
But the two are never mentioned together.
 
It's when you put, what are otherwise very positive stories together, that something far nastier emerges. Something which is within plain sight but unacknowledged.
 
https://contemporaniablog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/poms-and-windrush/

I gave ChatGPT the following prompt:
 
The text below is provided by ChatGPT.
 

The proposition that Islamic societies have been particularly successful in maintaining their cultural heritage since the 16th-century expansion of European power is complex and nuanced. While many Islamic societies have indeed preserved significant aspects of their cultural, religious, and linguistic traditions, the extent of this preservation varies across regions and historical contexts. To explore this proposition, consider the following key factors:
1. Cultural Resilience in the Face of European Expansion
Islamic societies, particularly those in the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Persia, and Mughal India, exhibited remarkable cultural resilience during and after the period of European imperial expansion. Unlike many indigenous cultures in the Americas, Africa, and parts of Asia, Islamic societies often retained their religious, legal, and linguistic frameworks despite external pressures.
Key Examples:
Ottoman Empire: The Ottomans maintained their Islamic legal and educational systems alongside modernizing reforms (e.g., the Tanzimat reforms) while resisting cultural assimilation. Safavid Persia (Iran): The Safavid dynasty entrenched Twelver Shi’ism, reinforcing a distinct cultural and religious identity that endures today. Mughal India: Mughal rulers preserved and promoted Islamic art and architecture, influencing the Indian subcontinent despite British colonial rule. Theoretical Support:
Marshall Hodgson in The Venture of Islam (1974) argues that Islamic societies developed robust institutional and intellectual traditions that enabled them to integrate external influences while maintaining core cultural elements.
2. The Role of Religion as a Cultural Anchor
Islamic societies have often placed significant emphasis on religious education and practice, which provided a unifying cultural framework that resisted external cultural influences. The centrality of Islam in daily life—through Quranic education, mosques, and religious practices—contributed to this cultural persistence.
Key Insight:
Clifford Geertz’s study of Morocco and Indonesia in Islam Observed (1968) demonstrates how Islamic societies adapted to modernity while retaining religious and cultural traditions.
3. Linguistic and Educational Continuity
Unlike many indigenous languages that declined under European rule, Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish remained central to intellectual and cultural life in their respective regions. Islamic scholars preserved classical texts and continued producing scholarly works even during colonial rule.
Contrast with Other Societies:
In Latin America, many indigenous languages and cultural practices were systematically suppressed by European colonizers. In Africa, missionary-led education often replaced local languages with European ones. 4. Selective Adaptation and Cultural Synthesis
Islamic societies did not resist external influences entirely; instead, they often selectively adopted technological, administrative, and intellectual practices from European powers while preserving core cultural and religious principles.
Example:
The Ottoman Empire modernized its military and bureaucracy but retained its Islamic legal structure (Sharia) alongside secular reforms. 5. Regional Variations and Exceptions
The degree of cultural preservation varies significantly across the Islamic world. For instance:
North Africa and the Middle East: Maintained strong Islamic and linguistic traditions despite French and British colonization. Central Asia: Soviet policies suppressed religious practices, weakening Islamic cultural heritage for much of the 20th century. Southeast Asia: Indonesian and Malaysian societies retained Islamic practices while integrating elements of European education systems. 6. Comparative Perspective
When comparing Islamic societies with other non-European societies, such as Native American, Aboriginal Australian, or sub-Saharan African communities, the relative success in preserving cultural heritage becomes more apparent. Many of these societies experienced significant cultural loss due to direct European intervention, religious conversion, and the imposition of foreign educational systems.
Scholarly Insight:
Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) highlights how Islamic societies were often misrepresented in Western discourse, yet this external pressure also galvanized internal cultural reaffirmation.
Conclusion
While Islamic societies have indeed shown notable success in preserving their cultural heritage, this success is not uniform across all regions. The resilience largely stems from the centrality of religion, the adaptability of cultural practices, and the selective adoption of external influences. However, regions like Central Asia illustrate how external forces can disrupt this continuity. Ultimately, the proposition holds considerable validity when compared to many other societies that experienced cultural erosion under European expansion.