:: wikimiki.org ::

White Commonwealth

White Commonwealth

Old Commonwealth and White Commonwealth are informal terms used to describe the predominantly white members of the Commonwealth of Nations located in the developed world, specifically the United Kingdom and the dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Prior to leaving the Commonwealth in 1961, apartheid South Africa was usually thought of as a member of the "White Commonwealth" as it was under white rule. The Irish Free State/Éire could have been thought of as a member as well, though the term was not in common use prior to its leaving the Commonwealth in 1949. In recent years, the term White Commonwealth is usually used in a derogatory sense to imply that the wealthier, white nations of the Commonwealth had different interests and goals from the non-white, and particularly the African members. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has used the term frequently to allege that the Commonwealth's attempts to catalyse political changes in his country is motivated by racism and colonialist attitudes and that the White Commonwealth dominates the Commonwealth of Nations as a whole.

White race

:For other uses, see White (disambiguation). White (noun, white or whites; adjective, white people) is a color-defined term used as a form of ethno-racial classification. Though literally implying light-skinned, "white" has been used in different ways at different times and places. It is somewhat of a misnomer. While the extremes of human skin color range from pink to blue-black, the vast majority of people have a skin color which can be best described as some shade of brown. This include all races and ethnic groups whether they are described as "white", "brown", "black", "red" or "yellow". See Color metaphors for race for more discussion. A common element to the various definitions of "white" today, is that the term refers to a person of European descent. Also generally associated with white people are European culture, Christianity (whether as a religion or part of their cultural heritage) and Western civilization. Outside this scope, the inclusion and/or exclusion of other groups of people may vary from country to country due to differing popularly espoused understandings of the term, definitions based on government guidelines, or factors of socio-racial implication. Regions and countries that are today predominantly white include Europe, Russia, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand.

The Epistemological Challenge

The concept of a "White person" (or a "Black person") is scientifically useless. This does not mean that the terms are inaccurate, nor that there are no White people or Black people in the world. It means that the terms cannot be defined objectively so that they can independently be tested. Like aesthetic terms such as beauty and balance, religious terms such as sin and grace, and political terms such as liberal and conservative, they apparently reflect something important in the minds of those who use them. Nevertheless, the claim that any specific individual is Black or White cannot be falsified—there is no way to demonstrate it to be an inaccurate depiction of factual reality. Hence, biology, genetics, physical anthropology, indeed the all of the hard sciences ignore the concepts of White people and Black people; they are as irrelevant to the scientific method as is the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. Those who believe in the physical reality of "White" as a replicable human category use three kinds of definition to advocate the notion: ancestry, appearance, and self-identity. All three definitions are underlain by a subtext of bigotry resulting from the slave trade and inter-cultural oppression resulting from the age of European colonization. All three criteria must match in order to define one as White. The ancestry definition applies the label to anyone whose ancestors were all (or almost all) Europeans, but only if they "look White" and they also self-identify as White. All three criteria are epistemologically untenable. A problem with the ancestry definition alone is that about one-third of White Americans (non-Hispanics who are members of the U.S. White endogamous group and check off "White" on the census) have easily detectable African DNA from the transatlantic slave trade that they inherited from recent ancestors who passed through the U.S. color line from the Black endogamous group to the White endogamous group. On the other hand, dark-skinned East Indians have seldom been accepted as White, despite technically being "Caucasoids" in the obsolete craniofacial anthropometry of the early 20th century. A problem with the appearance definition alone is that it is routinely demonstrated in college cultural anthropology classes that "racial" appearance is in the eye of the beholder. The same individual seen as White by a Dominican can be seen as Black by an American. Furthermore, such perceptions have changed dramatically over the centuries. In the mid-18th-century, Americans saw Germans as being physically too swarthy of complexion to ever pass for White. Similarly, encyclopedias of the time described mid-19th-century Irish immigrants as physically non-White, apelike, evolutionary throwbacks. Conversely, the Mississippi elite of the Jim Crow era saw Chinese immigrants as being physically White. The U.S. consensus seems to be that someone of completely Nordic appearance who was born into a Black (genetically biracial) family cannot become White by changing ethnic self-identity but merely "passes as White." A problem with the self-identity definition alone is that no human society is monolithic. About 40 percent of Puerto Ricans living in the United States check off "White" on the census, fifty percent check off "other" and fill in something that the Bureau interprets as meaning "White," and ten percent check off "Black." Many individuals around the world choose to self-identify (or not) as "White" in an ethno-political sense, some in obedience to local political leadership, some in defiance of it. A deeper problem is that many if not most individuals change their ethno-political self-identity over their lifetimes; some do so often. And so, while claiming to be non-White disqualfies you from being White in some eyes, claiming to be White (as do millions of discernably biracial Puerto Ricans) does not guarantee acceptance as White. The three components (ancestry, appearance, self-identify) of the definitions of White and Black operate in an exclusionary manner for White (all must match), but in an inclusive manner for Black (any one suffices). Nevertheless, the lack of an objective definition expels the very concepts Black person and White person from the world of physical reality. The terms reflect something in the minds of the users but the terms cannot be unambiguously matched to real-world phenomena. Hence, the following discussion is descriptive, not prescriptive. It adopts a neutral point of view to describe how people use the term. It does not suggest that any particular usage is "better" or "worse" than any other, much less does it suggest that Black people are "better" than White people or vice-versa.

Synonyms

Today "white" and "black" are less often used as nouns (e.g. "whites"), as they seem slightly impolite; instead the phrases "white person/people" and "black person/people" are used. In North America, and to a lesser extent other countries, the term Caucasian is used for "white" people (even though Caucasian properly refers to people from the Caucasus region). In the United States, Anglo is a less commonly used alternative (mostly found in the American Southwest) that includes all white people who speak English as opposed to Spanish, not just those who are descended from the historic Anglo-Saxons. European American is a recent coinage on the model of African American, Asian American, etc. and has not come into popular use to date.

Historic use of the term

Pre-modern usage of white may not correspond to recent concepts; for example, the first Europeans who traveled to Northeast Asia in the 17th century applied white to the people they encountered (see suggested readings below) - the term having then no other connotations - and indeed, even today the name of the Bai people of Yunnan, China translates as "white". By the 18th century, however, "white" had already begun shifting in meaning and started showing signs of the term's nature as an exclusive label. Benjamin Franklin's essay "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc." defined white to narrowly include only the English (Anglo-Saxons) and North Germans - Anglo-Saxons also originally North Germans, from Angeln and Lower Saxony - even then excluding nationalities such as the French and Swedes. [http://bc.barnard.columbia.edu/~lgordis/earlyAC/documents/observations.html] As European colonization of the Americas and eventually other parts of the world brought Europeans into close contact with other peoples, the term white and other contrasting racial colour terms, such as black, brown, yellow (Far East Asian or Oriental), and red (Amerindian), etc, came into wide use as a quick shorthand to refer to race. Europeans defined the other terms with reference to "white", in other words, a "black" or "brown" person is defined by having darker skin than a "white" person, and any given "color" may apply to unrelated peoples. In the U.S.A, "black" quickly came to denote African ancestry and "brown" was later attributed to non-white Hispanics and South Asians (people of the Indian subcontinent); in Australia, for example, "Black" denotes Aborigines and "Brown" denotes South Asians and Middle Easterners/North Africans. A common 19th century view categorized most white people as either Semitic or Aryan. The latter term was used as a synonym for Indo-Europeans, who were conceived of as racially separate from Semitic peoples on the grounds that the two groups had distinct linguistic histories. This was thought to imply separate ancestry, which was supposed to be visible in different cultural and physical traits. The term Aryan derived from Indo-European speaking peoples who occupied ancient Iran and the Indus valley, a fact that problematised its equation with the term "white". However, from c1880 some writers theorised that the earliest Aryans came from northern Europe. This led to the Nazi claim that Aryans were identical with Nordic peoples. Later 20th century scholars were much more reluctant to assume coincidence between linguistic and genetic descent, since language can be easily passed to genetically unrelated populations. Although it is most prevalent in casual conversation, the term white is increasingly rare in academic and formal discussions of racial demographics, but it is still often used in discussions of racial attitudes, particularly in the humanities, and in fields such as African American studies (Black studies), critical race theory and whiteness studies. The scope of the term white has changed over time, and varies from place to place. In the United States, the term usually applies to people of ethnic European descent or anyone that appears European with no other discernable non-European features.

Who is white?

The Americas: Euro-predominant and mixed-race people

Due to the historic one drop rule in the United States, for the past century or so Americans with any known African ancestry, no matter how slight or invisible, have often been categorized as Black. Americans of Hispanic and Middle Eastern or North African heritage are an exception, in that those who look utterly European, or ocassionally even those appearing mixed, are not labeled Black even though they may acknowledge slight African ancestry. As mentioned above, before the 18th century the terms "black" and "white" did not designate groups. Before the Civil War, your "racial identity" depended on the combination of your appearance, African blood fraction, and social circle.¹ Throughout the 19th century hundreds of families were socially accepted as White despite having known but undiscernible traces of African ancestry (especially in originally Hispanic Florida, Barbadian South Carolina, and the French Gulf Coast).² Outside of the United States, people of undiscernible African admixture are considered 'white', while those of slight African appearance are often called "coloured" or mixed race —a blanket term for people of multiple racial heritage. Meanwhile, in Latin American countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or Brazil, even those of clearly visible partial African ancestry may be considered, and may consider themselves, white. Unlike in the United States, race in Latin America "refers mostly to skin color or physical appearance rather than to ancestry." ³ "American orthodoxy is that a single drop of African blood inevitably darkens its host." ⁴ In Latin America, "the problem is approached from the other end of the scale: A single drop of European blood is seen to inevitably whiten... A person with discernible African heritage is not necessarily immutably black." ⁵ Upwardly mobileness, physical appearance and lighter skin colour allow for choice of an array of intermediate "categories", as well as white. Many recent studies in genetics and molecular anthropology have shown that there is a suprisingly small degree of genetic overlap between members of the U.S. Black endogamous group and the U.S. White endogamous group. In the United States, most of those who self-identify as non-Hispanic Whites are overwhelmingly European (about 99.3 percent European genetic admixture, on average) and most U.S. Blacks are quite African (about 83 percent African admixture, on average). Regarding the small overlap, about one-third of White Americans are found to have traces of African ancestry; they average about 2.3% African admixture (of 128 grandparents, 3 are black and 125 are white). And almost all Black Americans have some European admixture, averaging about 17 percent.⁶

White and Hispanic categories in the US

The definition of white in the United States often excludes Hispanics, most of whom are of mixed racial descent (mestizos and mulattos), although many others may be of unmixed European extraction. Officialy however, in the United States the term Hispanic itself does not designate race, and the US Census considers race and Hispanicity to be separate; a respondant who checks the Hispanic/Latino box can in the following question also check any of the race categories such as white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American/Alaskan Native. Statistics on Hispanics as a group are kept in order to track discrimination, for affirmative action purposes, etc., in the same way that they are for non-white racial groups, and for women. Of the countries of Latin America, those that it can be said are composed of an overwhelmingly European population are Argentina and Uruguay. Chile and Costa Rica are also quite "European", and possess mestizo majorities (mixed European and Amerindian) where it is not uncommon for the European element to predominate heavily over the Amerindian one (See also: Castizo); of those, many would simply identify as white. Countries such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, on the other hand, possess Amerindian majorities, and although they also harbour large mestizo minorities, on average the Amerindian element predominates over the European one. Also, the Dominican Republic and Cuba are composed of mulatto majorities (mixed European and African), though both with black and white minorities, which in Cuba is a relatively large white minority. Furthermore, South Asians constitute the largest segment of the population in both Guyana and Suriname, while Haiti is almost exclusively African descended. Despite these vast racial differences, there is a tendency in the U.S. to label all people of the Spanish-speaking Americas (from the Southwestern United States, Mexico, Central and South America) and Spain as Hispanic, no matter how white, black, or "brown" they might be in appearance which is appropriate since the term refers more to culture and not race.. Sometimes the term "non-Hispanic white" is used for clarity to designate members of the dominant culture of the US.

North Africa, Southwest Asia and South Asia

Another contemporary difficulty of the term is the difference between any given popular definition versus the parameters used for the official government definition in the same locale. In the United States for example, many view Arabs, Berbers, Iranians, Mizrahi Jews, Kurds, Armenians, etc. as non-white. This is despite the fact that for the purposes of statistics, all the aforementioned are always categorised as white by US government agencies and the U.S. census, and even though some of the people in these groups may look very similar to Southern Europeans. Governmental categorisation does not always lead to a sense of inclusion, as they are often excluded from the general structural concepts of white-American society, and may even experience hostile rejection- particularly Muslims in recent decades. By contrast in Europe and Australia those same Middle Easterners and North Africans are never regarded or categorised as white. Instead, they are regarded as racial minorities. This latter understanding of the term in Australia has little to do with white supremacist exclusionism, but rather a traditional, narrower, definition of white which has never encompassed Middle Easterners or North Africans, and which, unlike the definition of "white" in the United States, has not undergone continuous alterations to include an increasing number of people. (See also: Wog, Anglo and Skippy Australian). In the American context, where Middle Easterners and North Africans are grouped as white by government agencies, the popular contention of excluding these Caucasoid groups of North Africa and the Middle East from the white label has sometimes been based on the argument that there is a significant Black sub-Saharan component in their populations [http://www.colorq.org/MeltingPot/Africa/NorthAfr.htm] - a long-spanning presence throughout the history of that largely contiguous region - but moreso on their disparate cultural, religious, linguistic heritage and ancestral origins. While it is undeniable that many Arabs in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, etc) and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, etc.) have enough black African ancestry or are dark enough—at times being as dark-complexioned as some African Americans—to be considered black by popular US standards, some may also be lighter-complexioned by comparison, comparable to Southern Europeans. And although some Arabs of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan, etc.) may also be as dark as those found in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, here, many more are lighter-complexioned and comparable to Southern Europeans. A tiny percentage throughout the entire region (North Africa, Arabian Peninsula and the Levant) may even resemble Northern Europeans. Furthermore, while many South Asians are also anthropologically caucasoid —and recognized as such by the United States Supreme Court—not only are they also excluded from the popular definition of "white", but US government agencies further categorise them as "Asians", be they Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians or Indian Jews. (See also: Race in the US Census). Even outside the American context, this trend of excluding caucasoid South Asians is almost universal, as is the disregarding of a comparable lighter-complexioned phenotypical presence as discussed for North Africa and Southwest Asia. For an example of legal contradictions in United States Supreme Court rulings of "white" vs "caucasian", please see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind.

Whiteness and White nationalism

The strictest definition held by most white nationalist groups around the world - whether white separatists or white supremacists - is that anyone of total ancient ethnic indigenous European ancestry is 'white.' White-nationalists in the United States often have a definition of "whiteness" that is much more limited than the official government definition. "Whiteness" in this case requires not only an ancestry that is solely or overwhelmingly European, but also a psychological identification with the European ethnicity and a commitment to advance its interests. Under this definition, many ethnically European peoples are excluded despite being virtually indistinguishable from their respective co-regionals, such as Northern European and Eastern European Jews (Ashkenazim), Iberian Jews (Sephardim) and Balkan Muslims (Albanians, Bosniaks, Macedonian Torbesh, Bulgarian Pomaks, and Serbian Goranis). Despite this "whiteness" method used by white nationalists, as with many other racially-minded groups, the definitions still vary greatly. Among some more exclusionist white-nationalist groups, a serious ideological point is the bestowing of the "non-white" label upon ethnic European peoples of Southern European and Eastern European (Slavic) descent. Quite a few of these groups in the United States, however, have now accepted Southern Europeans and Eastern European peoples as white, considering that the blonde-hair and blue-eyed type in the Eastern European region especially is proportionally large. This is demonstrated in the written requirements for membership in white-supremacist organizations such as the National Alliance. The requirement for membership is that an individual be of "wholly European, non-Jewish ancestry."

Social vs. physical perceptions of white

It is hard to disentangle "social" from "physical" perceptions because the latter depends upon the former. How American attitudes changed over the centuries exemplifies this. German-Americans were not seen as physically White until the late 1700s. According to Benjamin Franklin, German-Americans in 1751 Pennsylvania were too dark to pass for White. In his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind he wrote, "[The Germans] will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. … The Germans are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion. … The English make the principle Body of White People on the Face of the Earth." Similarly, the 1860 American Encyclopedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge said that “[The non-White Irish race has] inherited such features as low-browed and savage, groveling and bestial, lazy and wild, simian [ape-like] and sensual....” Today most Americans see German-Americans and Irish-Americans as physically White—otherwise they would be listed as "races" on the federal census. Jews are an in-between category. Many Americans today see Jews as physically non-White; although again judging by the census, most do not. Finally, Chinese Americans are listed as non-White on the census and so are apparently seen as non-White by the overwhelming majority of Americans. And yet, in Jim Crow Mississippi, Chinese-American children attended White schools and universities. Chinese Americans joined Mississippi’s infamous White citizen’s councils, became members of White churches, were recorded as White on driver’s licenses, and could marry members of the White endogamous group.⁵ The differences between social and physical definitions of white can be explained as identification of white with the dominant community or in-group, as opposed to the Other. In medieval Europe, Christendom was the community, and pagans, heretics, Jews, and Muslims the outsiders, regardless of skin color. When the primacy of religion was eroded by the Protestant Reformation and Renaissance and Enlightenment secularism, and Europeans started to colonize lands outside Europe, the in-group signifiers shifted to concepts like white and civilized, but much of the earlier attitude remained, such as exclusion of the religiously different. In the US, white consciousness was first encouraged to help maintain a caste system and control of labor; then when expansion of the in-group became politically desirable in the early 20th century as a result of mass politics, the definition of white was widened to include Southern and Eastern Europeans. Still later, when inclusion of Asians and some sections of other groups became useful, the term white has been played down as divisive, and emphasis has shifted to other signifiers like educated, professional, and modern. Even now, the current social climate in the West (although primarily the United States) seeks to be nearly all inclusive, taking an about face from the social considerations of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This has prompted other groups, especially black people, to label this a form of hypodescent similar to the "one drop rule", except the hypodescent carries large numbers of mixed people to being labeled as white instead of black. In one such instance, an Egyptian man was forced to accept a white classification imposed by goverment officials when he entered the United States. He was threatened to lose his professional career otherwise. Even though his phenotype, ancestry, and social characteristics would classify him as Black, he was told he had to accept white as his background. He sued the U.S. government to have his racial classification changed to Black. What was more socially intriguing was that many Whites and Arabs found the issue to be an unnecessary concern on Hefny's part.

Criticisms of the term

The broad usage of "white" is sometimes criticized by those who argue that it de-ethnicizes various groups, although the same charge is not leveled at the question of ethnic diversity within blacks. During the era of Jim Crow Laws in the Southern United States, facilities were commonly divided into separate sections for white and "colored" people. These terms were defined by law, with people of northern and western European being labeled white and African-Americans labeled as "colored". The categorization of people of other ethnicities and mixed ancestries varied by state, county, and municipality.

"White" as opposed to "Light Skinned"

There is considerable controversy as to the difference between "light skinned" as opposed to "white". As mentioned above, the term "white" is a misnomer, as almost all people (regardless of race) have a skin color which is some shade of brown. Thus people who are not white in the traditional sense, but have light skin, such as Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese may well be able to legitimately describe themselves as white. It has been noted that the descendants of light skinned Arabs (like Ralph Nader), North Africans, and South Asians (like Keanu Reeves) have been fully accepted as White by most Americans. Although acceptance as White by those with slight African ancestry (like Carol Channing) is less common, about 35,000 Americans per year re-define themselves from Black to White. In non-western countries, the term white and light-skinned is often used interchangelby.

Areas of habitation

Ever since the era of European expansion, and especially since the 19th century, most Europeans have come to see most other Europeans as White (although Greeks, Sicilians, Spaniards and Portuguese are sometimes considered non-White by other Europeans). Hence, one could say that the indigenous habitat of White people is Europe. Nowadays, countries with a majority of ethnic Europeans include all the nations of Europe, as well as some of the countries colonized by them through the 15th century to 19th century, such as the United States, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Asiatic Russia, and Oceanic Australia and New Zealand. In those nations, the relatively small indigenous populations were overwhelmed by White colonists from one or more European "mother countries". In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is cultural, not genetic. Every New World nation save one (the United States) has a unimodal Afro-European admixture scatter diagram revealing complete mixing of European with African and Native American ancestries. The world-unique pale complexion and melanin-deficient hair common to Nordic adults is often considered the hallmark of those seen as White. This phenomenon's cline is densest within a few hundred miles of the Baltic Sea and, unlike other Old World skin-tone distributions, is independent of latitude (the natives of lands at higher latitudes than the Baltic are invariably darker than Nordics). See Human_skin_color for an overall explanation of skin-tone distribution. See [http://backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone] for an explanation of the near-albino paleness of Nordics and the lack of variation in Native Americans. Significant minorities of whites live in the various Latin American countries and South Africa. Many of these nations have experienced considerable political conflict between the white minority (those who self-identify as being descendants of settlers from the former colonial power) and those who see themselves as mixed, or in the case of South Africa those who are seen as non-European unmixed majorities.

Footnotes

#See "Chapter 9. How the Law Decided if You Were Black or White: The Early 1800s" in Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule by Frank W. Sweet, ISBN 0939479230. A summary of this chapter, with endnotes, is available online at [http://backintyme.com/Essay040811.htm How the Law Decided if You Were Black or White: The Early 1800s]. #See chapters 10-12 of Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule by Frank W. Sweet, ISBN 0939479230. Summaries of these chapters, with endnotes, are available online at [http://backintyme.com/Essay050601.htm Barbadian South Carolina: A Class-Based Color Line]. # # #For detailed sources and citations, see "Chapter 6. Features of Today’s Endogamous Color Line" in Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule by Frank W. Sweet, ISBN 0939479230. A summary of this chapter, with endnotes, is available online at [http://backintyme.com/Essay050701.htm Features of Today’s Endogamous Color Line]. #Although most such peer-reviewed studies can be found in pubmed, a handy current index to recent admixture studies is available at: [http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=1071 Various admixture studies].

External links

- [http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/white/notwhite.htm Legally white] Precedents of legal opinions and judgments authored by US courts in whiteness cases filed by non-Europeans
- [http://www.aaiusa.org/not_quite_white.htm Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience], by the Arab American Institute

Commonwealth of Nations

The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as The Commonwealth, is an association of independent sovereign states, almost all of which are former territories of the British Empire. It was once known as the British Commonwealth of Nations or British Commonwealth, and some still call it by that name, either for historical reasons or to distinguish it from the other commonwealths around the world, such as the Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Head of State of 16 Commonwealth Realms, is the Head of the Commonwealth; this title, however, does not imply any political power over member nations, and does not automatically belong to the British monarch. The Commonwealth is primarily an organisation in which countries with diverse economic backgrounds have an opportunity for close and equal interaction. The primary activities of the Commonwealth are designed to create an atmosphere of economic cooperation between member nations, as well as the promotion of democracy, human rights, and good governance in them. The Commonwealth is not a political union of any sort, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organisation's other members. While some nations of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth Realms, recognize the British Monarch as their head of state, the majority do not.

Origins

Although performing a vastly different function, the Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire. In 1884, whilst visiting Adelaide, South Australia, Lord Rosebery described the changing British Empire, as its former colonies became more independent, as a "Commonwealth of Nations". The formal organisation of the Commonwealth has its origins in the Imperial Conferences of the late 1920s (conferences of British and colonial Prime Ministers had occurred periodically since 1887), where the independence of the self-governing colonies and especially of Dominions was recognized, particularly in the Balfour Declaration at the Imperial Conference in 1926, when the United Kingdom and its dominions agreed they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". This relationship was eventually formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. 1931 After World War II, the Empire was gradually dismantled, partly owing to the rise of independence movements in the then-subject territories (such as that started in India under the influence of the Mohandas Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah), and partly owing to the British Government's strained circumstances resulting from the cost of the war. The word "British" was dropped in 1946 from the title of the Commonwealth to reflect the changing position. Burma (1948) and Aden (1967) are the only former colonies not to have joined the Commonwealth upon independence. Among the former protectorates and mandates, Egypt (1953), Israel (1948), Iraq (1932), Bahrain (1971), Qatar (1971), United Arab Emirates (1971), Jordan (1946), Kuwait (1961) and Oman (1971) never became members of the Commonwealth. The Republic of Ireland was a member but left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949. However, the Ireland Act 1949 was passed by the Parliament of Westminster and gave citizens of the Republic of Ireland a status similar to that of other citizens of the Commonwealth in UK law. The issue of republican status within the Commonwealth was resolved in April 1949 at a Commonwealth prime ministers' meeting in London. India agreed that when it became a republic in January 1950 it would accept the King as ‘symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such Head of the Commonwealth’. The other Commonwealth countries in turn recognised India's continuing membership of the association. (At Pakistan’s insistence, India was not regarded as an exceptional case and it was assumed that other states would be accorded the same treatment as India.) The London Declaration is often seen as marking the beginning of the modern Commonwealth. As the Commonwealth grew, the United Kingdom and the pre-1945 Dominions (a term that was formally dropped in the 1940s) became informally known as the "Old Commonwealth", particularly in the 1960s onwards when some of them differed with poorer, Afro-Asian (or New Commonwealth) members over various issues at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. Accusations that the old, "White" Commonwealth has different interests from African Commonwealth nations in particular, as well as charges of racism and colonialism, arose during heated debates concerning Rhodesia in the 1970s, the imposition of sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s and, more recently, over the issue of whether to press for democratic reforms in Nigeria and then Zimbabwe. The term "New Commonwealth" is also used in Britain in debates over non-white immigration from these countries. In recent years, the term "White Commonwealth" has been used in a derogatory sense to imply that the wealthier, white nations of the Commonwealth had different interests and goals from the non-white, and particularly the African members. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has used the term frequently to allege that the Commonwealth's attempts to catalyse political changes in his country is motivated by racism and colonialist attitudes and that the White Commonwealth dominates the Commonwealth of Nations as a whole. In Britain, the term New Commonwealth was used in the 1960s and 1970s to refer to recently decolonised countries that were predominantly non-white and underdeveloped. The term was often used in reference to immigration to Britain from "New Commonwealth" countries.

Membership

immigration The Commonwealth encompasses a population of approximately 1.8 billion people, making up about 30% of the world's total. India is the most populous member, with a billion people at the 2001 census, while Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria each contain more than 100 million people; Tuvalu, by contrast, the smallest, has only 11,000 inhabitants. The land area of the Commonwealth nations equals about a quarter of the world's land area, with Australia, Canada (the world's second-largest nation by area) and India each having more than 1.5 million square miles. Membership is open to countries that accept the association's basic aims. Members are also required to have a present or past constitutional link to the United Kingdom or to another Commonwealth member. Not all members have had direct constitutional ties to the United Kingdom: some South Pacific countries were formerly under Australian or New Zealand administration, while Namibia was governed by South Africa from 1920 until independence in 1990. Cameroon joined in 1995 although only a fraction of its territory had formerly been under British administration through the League of Nations mandate of 1920–46 and United Nations Trusteeship arrangement of 1946–61. There is only one member of the present Commonwealth which has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member. Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique's first democratic elections, held in 1994. The move was supported by Mozambique's neighbours, all of whom were members of the Commonwealth and who wished to offer assistance in overcoming the losses incurred as a result of the country's opposition to white minority regimes in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa. In 1997, amid some discontent, Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed that Mozambique's admission should be seen as a special case and should not set a precedent.

Non-members

Tongue in cheek, Charles de Gaulle twice suggested that France, though it was never a member of the British Empire (even if for centuries English/British monarchs claimed the title 'King of France') should apply for Commonwealth membership; this idea was never realised, but may be seen as a follow-up to a proposal made by Churchill to join the British and French governments during World War II, instead of the puppet regime of Vichy France. David Ben-Gurion suggested that Israel join the Commonwealth, but this proposal was opposed by most Israelis for suggesting dependence upon the United Kingdom, and by the organisation as suggesting a firmer support for Israel than it actually offered. Egypt and Iraq have never shown an interest in joining the Commonwealth, despite their histories of British rule. Similarly Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and Oman are not members. Nor is the United States, which was formed from former British colonies in 1776 and maintains close cultural ties with the United Kingdom. Hong Kong also did not join the Commonwealth following the end of British rule in 1997, as it became a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China.

Suspension

In recent years the Commonwealth has suspended several members "from the Councils of the Commonwealth" for failure to uphold democratic government. Suspended members are not represented at meetings of Commonwealth leaders and ministers, although they remain members of the organisation. Fiji, which had ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth 1987–1997 as a result of a republican coup d'etat, was suspended 2000–2001, after a military coup, as was Pakistan from 1999 until 2004. Nigeria was suspended between 1995 and 1999. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 over concerns with the electoral and land reform policies of Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF government, before withdrawing from the organisation in 2003.

Termination of membership

As membership is purely voluntary, member governments can choose at any time to leave the Commonwealth. Pakistan left the Commonwealth in 1972 in protest at Commonwealth recognition of breakaway Bangladesh, but rejoined in 1989. Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth in 2003 when Commonwealth Heads of Government refused to lift the country's suspension on human rights and governance grounds. Although Heads of Government have the power to suspend member states, the Commonwealth has no provision for the expulsion of members. However, Commonwealth Realms which become republics automatically cease to be members unless, like India in 1950, they obtain the permission of other members to remain in the organisation as a republic. The Republic of Ireland did not apply for re-admittance after becoming a republic in 1949, as the Commonwealth at the time did not allow republican membership. However the leader of its Opposition at the time, Eamon de Valera, believed the Republic of Ireland's decision not to apply to stay was a mistake. He and his successor as Taoiseach, Sean Lemass, both considered re-applying. Éamon Ó Cuív, a minister in the present Irish Government (and himself de Valera's grandson), raised the issue of the Republic's possible reapplication a number of times in the 1990s. However, the issue arouses both some hostility and indifference in Ireland, where some people still associate the Commonwealth with British imperialism, even though the majority of member states are now republics. The Republic of Ireland was the first nation ever to leave the Commonwealth and not rejoin. South Africa was effectively prevented from continuing as a member after it became a republic in 1961 as a result of hostility from many members, particularly those in Africa and Asia as well as Canada, to its policy of apartheid. The South African government withdrew its application to remain in the organisation as a republic when it became clear at the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference that any such application would be rejected. South Africa was re-admitted to the Commonwealth in 1994, after the end of apartheid in 1990. The declaration of a republic in the Fiji Islands in 1987, after military coups designed to deny Indo-Fijians in Fiji political power, was not accompanied by application to remain. Commonwealth membership was held to have lapsed until 1997, after racialist provisions in the republican constitution were repealed and reapplication for membership made.

Organisation and objectives

Queen Elizabeth II is the nominal Head of the Commonwealth. Some members of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth Realms, also recognize the Queen as their head of state. However, the majority of members are republics, and a handful of others are indigenous monarchies. The Queen's position as Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary, and when and if the present Prince of Wales becomes King, it will be for Commonwealth Heads of Government to decide whether he assumes the role of Head of the Commonwealth. Since 1965 there has been a London-based Secretariat. The current (2005) Commonwealth Secretary-General is Don McKinnon, a former Foreign Minister of New Zealand. The organisation is celebrated each year on Commonwealth Day, the second Monday in March. The Commonwealth has long been distinctive as an international forum where highly developed economies (the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and many of the world's poorer countries seek to reach agreement by consensus. This aim has sometimes been difficult to achieve, as when disagreements over Rhodesia in the 1970s and over apartheid South Africa in the 1980s led to a cooling of relations between the United Kingdom and African members. The main decision-making forum of the organisation is the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), where Commonwealth presidents or prime ministers assemble for several days to discuss matters of mutual interest. CHOGM is the successor to the Prime Ministers' Conferences and earlier Imperial Conferences and Colonial Conferences dating back to 1887. There are also regular meetings of finance ministers, law ministers, health ministers, etc. The most important statement of the Commonwealth's principles is the 1991 Harare Declaration, which dedicated the organisation to democracy and good government, and allowed for action to be taken against members who breached these principles. Before then the Commonwealth's collective actions had been limited by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other members.

Benefits of membership and contemporary concerns

The Commonwealth has often been likened to an English gentlemen's club, and the issue of membership - who is and who is not a member of the organisation - often seems to be more important, and certainly attracts much more attention, than what the organisation actually does. This is because the main benefit of membership is the opportunity for close and relatively frequent interaction, on an informal and equal basis, between members who share many ties of language, culture, and history. In its early days, the Commonwealth also constituted a significant economic bloc. Commonwealth countries accorded each others' goods privileged access to their markets ("Commonwealth Preference"), and there was a free or preferred right of migration from one Commonwealth country to another. These rights have been steadily eroded, but their consequences remain. Within most Commonwealth countries, there are substantial communities with family ties to other members of the Commonwealth, going beyond the effects of the original colonization of parts of the Commonwealth by settlers from the British Isles. Furthermore, consumers in Commonwealth countries retain many preferences for goods from other members of the Commonwealth, so that even in the absence of tariff privileges, there continues to be more trade within the Commonwealth than might be predicted. On the United Kingdom's entry to the European Union, the Lomé Convention preserved some of the preferential access rights of Commonwealth goods to the UK market. In more recent decades there has been a mutual decline of interest in maintaining active inter-Commonwealth relations, and the organisation's direct political and economic importance has declined. Realist critics have argued that in the 21st Century the organisation is an inherently arbitrary alliance with members that are united only through a historical accident of British colonialism. They argue that the organisation lacks a balanced membership, and point out that it is very unusual for any international organisation to exclude highly important regions of the world such as most of Western Europe and South America from membership. Indeed, many Commonwealth members look increasingly to regional partners, non-Commonwealth as well as Commonwealth, to form their most important alliances. The United Kingdom has forged closer relationships with other European countries through the European Union; the UK's entry was widely felt as a betrayal by citizens of the "Old Commonwealth" whose economies had been developed on the assumption of access to British markets. Similarly, former British colonies have forged closer relationships with non-Commonwealth trading partners and closer geographic neighbours. Reaction to immigration from the new Commonwealth countries into the United Kingdom in the 1950s and early 1960s led to the restriction of the right of migration. The Commonwealth today mainly restricts itself to encouraging community between nations and to placing moral pressure on members who violate international laws, such as human rights laws, and abandon democratically-elected government. Key activities today include training experts in developing countries and assisting with and monitoring elections. Some Commonwealth countries give Commonwealth citizens privileges that are not accorded to aliens: for example, in the United Kingdom, the right to vote is given to all Commonwealth citizens resident in that country. This is reciprocated mainly in the Commonwealth Caribbean, even to the point where in some of the countries (including the UK) resident Commonwealth citizens may even be elected or appointed to the national legislature. However, these privileges are largely not on a reciprocal basis, and it is up to each country to decide what privileges it accords to Commonwealth citizenship, with the exception of the Commonwealth Scholarship. Other privileges that the United Kingdom grants Commonwealth citizens include access to immigration programmes such as the working holidaymaker visa. Some of the privileges offered by the individual countries have eroded over the last few decades, although most countries continue to afford special treatment in the area of immigration (e.g. right of abode in UK for some) and visas.

Cultural Links

The Commonwealth is also useful as an international organisation that represents significant cultural and historical links between wealthy first-world countries and poorer developing nations with diverse social and religious backgrounds. The common inheritance of the English language and literature, the common law, and British systems of administration all underpin the club-like atmosphere of the Commonwealth. Mostly as a result of their history of British rule, many Commonwealth nations share certain identifiable traditions and customs that are elements of a shared Commonwealth culture. Examples include common sports such as cricket and rugby, driving on the left, parliamentary and legal traditions, and the use of British rather than American spelling conventions (see Commonwealth English). None of these is universal within the Commonwealth countries, nor exclusive to them, but all of them are more common in the Commonwealth than elsewhere. The Commonwealth countries share many links at non-governmental levels, with over a hundred non-governmental organisations that are organised on a Commonwealth wide basis, notably in the areas of sport, culture, education, and other charitable sectors. A multi-sports championship called the Commonwealth Games is held every four years, two years after each Olympic Games. As well as the usual athletic disciplines, the games include sports popular throughout the Commonwealth such as bowls. The Association of Commonwealth Universities is an important vehicle for academic links, particularly through offering scholarships, principally the Commonwealth Scholarship, for students to study in universities in other Commonwealth countries. There are also many non-official associations that bring together individuals who work within the spheres of law and government, such as the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In recent years the Commonwealth model has inspired similar initiatives on the part of France and Portugal and their respective ex-colonies, and in the former case, other sympathetic governments: the organisation internationale de la Francophonie and the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (Community of Portuguese-speaking countries).

Literature

The shared history of British rule has also produced a substantial body of writing in many languages - Commonwealth literature. There is an Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies ([http://www.aclals.org ACLALS]) with nine chapters worldwide. ACLALS holds an international conference every three years. The [http://aclals.org/events/2k4/participants.htm 13th Triennial] was held in Hyderabad, India, in August 2004; the next will be held in 2007 in Calgary, Canada. In 1987, the Commonwealth Foundation established the [http://www.commonwealthwriters.com/ Commonwealth Writers Prize] "to encourage and reward the upsurge of new Commonwealth fiction and ensure that works of merit reach a wider audience outside their country of origin." Caryl Phillips won the Commonwealth Writers Prize 2004 for A Distant Shore. Mark Haddon won the Commonwealth Writers Prize 2004 Best First Book prize worth £3,000 for The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. Although not affiliated with the Commonwealth in an official manner, the prestigious Booker Prize is awarded annually to an author from a Commonwealth country. This honour is one of the highest in literature.

Commonwealth Business Council

The Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) was formed at the Edinburgh CHOGM in 1997. The aim was to utilise the global network of the Commonwealth more effectively for the promotion of global trade and investment for shared prosperity. The CBC acts as a bridge for cooperation between business and government, concentrating efforts on these specific areas:
- Enhancing Trade
- Mobilising Investment
- Promoting Corporate Citizenship
- Facilitating ICT for Development
- Public Private Partnerships Commonwealth countries are major stakeholders in the process and success of the Doha Development Agenda. Together the Commonwealth’s 53 member countries account for 30 per cent of the world’s population and about 25 per cent of its international trade and investment. Commonwealth countries account for 40 per cent of WTO membership. CBC’s trade development objectives include encouraging trade facilitation and further liberalisation of services; encouraging developing countries to play an active role in the WTO, and in new trade rounds, by maximising their negotiating strength through cooperative action. The CBC helps to mobilise investment into Commonwealth countries through measures including ensuring access to international capital markets; strengthening 26 domestic capital markets; encouraging regional integration; committing the private sector to work together with governments to help achieve a successful market economy for generating investment. A key feature of CBC is its global membership, comprising corporate members from both developed and developing countries. This gives CBC the capacity to make a special contribution to the debate on corporate citizenship, dominated by developed countries. The CBC has been working to involve private sector engagement in facilitating the implementation of an Information Communications Technologies for Development programme. The CBC programme enhances collaborative partnerships between the various stakeholders including governments, private sector, donor agencies and civil society. Major goals include:
- Bridge the digital divide for both social and economic development.
- Promote ICT for development in Commonwealth countries.
- Promote an experience exchange among stakeholders in Commonwealth countries.
- Promote business and government cooperation for development.
- Create awareness and enhance the knowledge of policy makers regarding economic, technical and legal aspects of implementation of ICT for development.
- Provide and facilitate training and capacity building. CBC believes that there remains a significant gap for independent support to emerging market governments in the structuring and transacting of ICT infrastructure opportunities. The key CBC objectives are:
- Examine how support from highly experienced individuals can assist through the creation of an infrastructure technical advisory unit.
- Provide senior-level government support to provide focused advice.
- Provide mechanisms that will help governments leverage the huge capacity of the private sector to address the demand for better infrastructure. The CBC has a dedicated team, CBC Technologies, based in London focused on the international technology and global services industry throughout the Commonwealth.

List of Commonwealth members

- List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by continent
- List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined
- List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name

References

- The Constitutional Structure of the Commonwealth, by K C Wheare. Clarendon Press, 1960. ISBN 0313236240

External links

- [http://www.thecommonwealth.org The Commonwealth Secretariat]
- [http://www.commonwealth.org.uk/ The Commonwealth Institute, London]
- [http://www.rcsint.org The Royal Commonwealth Society]
- [http://rcs.ca/ The Royal Commonwealth Society (of Canada)]
- [http://empiremuseum.co.uk/ British Empire & Commonwealth Museum, Bristol, England]
- [http://www.acu.ac.uk/ Association of Commonwealth Universities]
- [http://sas.ac.uk/commonwealthstudies/index.htm University of London Institute of Commonwealth Studies]
- [http://aclals.org Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies]
- [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21707 The Commonwealth as a popular club]
- [http://www.globaled.org.nz/schools/pdfs/factsheets/Commonwealth.pdf What is the Commonwealth]
- [http://www.cpahq.org The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association]
- [http://www.chogm2005.mt The Commonwealth Meeting in Malta, 2005] Category:International organizations Category:Foreign relations of the United Kingdom Category:British Empire Category:Current British colonies Category:Former British colonies ko:영국 연방 ms:Negara-negara Komanwel ja:イギリス連邦

Dominion

:This is a page about Dominions of the British Empire/Commonwealth. For other meanings, please see Dominion (disambiguation). A Dominion is a wholly self-governing or virtually self-governing state of the British Empire or British Commonwealth, particularly one which reached that stage of constitutional development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as Canada and New Zealand. Prior to attaining Dominion status these states had always been Crown colonies, under direct rule from Britain and/or a self-governing colony, or they have been formed from groups of such colonies. (Note however, that the phrase Her Majesty's dominions (small d) is a legal and constitutional term used to refer to all the realms and territories of the Sovereign, whether independent or not.) In the early 20th century, the main differences between a Dominion and a self-governing colony were that a Dominion had attained the status of "nationhood", if not unambiguous political independence, from the United Kingdom. By comparison, a self-governing colony controlled its internal affairs, but did not control foreign affairs, defence or international trade. Initially, Dominions conducted their own trade policy, some limited foreign relations and had autonomous armed forces, although the British government claimed and exercised the exclusive power to declare wars. However the independence of the Dominions in foreign policy, including war, was made clear by the passing and ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The term "Dominion" is now mostly used only in a historical sense. Many of the distinctive characteristics which once pertained only to Dominions are now shared by other states in the Commonwealth, whether they are republics, self-governing colonies or Crown colonies. Even in a historical sense the differences between self-governing colonies and Dominions have often been formal rather than substantial. Nonetheless Dominion remains a correct term for an independent country where the British monarch is represented by a Governor-General as head of state.

Historical development

The short-lived Dominion of New England (1686–89) was not a Dominion in the later, generally-accepted sense of the word. It had an unpopular and autocratic president, appointed by London, Sir Edmund Andros. The Dominion of New England did not have the independence from Britain that the later Dominions were given. All the colonies of British North America became self-governing between 1848 and 1855, except the colony of Vancouver Island. Nova Scotia was the first colony to achieve responsible government in January-February 1848 through the efforts of Joseph Howe, followed by the Province of Canada later that year. They were followed by Prince Edward Island in 1851, New Zealand in 1852, New Brunswick and the Cape Colony in 1854, and Newfoundland in 1855 under Philip Francis Little. However, none of these colonies was referred to as a dominion. The modern usage of the term Dominion first occurs in connection with the creation of the Dominion of Canada, a term preferred by the Colonial Office instead of the term "kingdom" favoured by some Fathers of Confederation. Canada was called a "Dominion" upon the confederation of the Province of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 1867. Some Canadians wanted to call their nation the Kingdom of Canada. However, Americans, especially the yellow press in New York, railed against the idea of a monarchy in North America. Since the United States had recently demonstrated its military prowess in the American Civil War and still harboured resentment at what it perceived to be British favouritism towards the Southern cause, the British took these complaints very seriously. To calm the Americans, the British government successfully resorted to a diplomatic ruse. It explained to Americans that their fears had no foundation because Canada was to become a dominion rather than a kingdom. It then told the Canadians that Dominion meant the same as kingdom (see: Dominion: Canada, Canada's name). Canada was the first and archetypical Dominion of the Empire; all additional colonies that achieved this status were also eventually called dominions. Although the term dominion has rarely been used in Australia, it achieved Dominion status with the federation of its six self-governing colonies as the Commonwealth of Australia, in 1901. New Zealand, which chose not to take part in Australian Federation, first became a Dominion on September 26 1907; the newly-created Union of South Africa in 1910; and the Irish Free State (later the Republic of Ireland) in 1922, after the bitter Anglo-Irish War. All retained the British monarch as head of state, represented locally by a governor-general appointed in consultation with the Dominion government. The Irish Free State, led by W.T. Cosgrave was the first Dominion to appoint a non-British, non-aristocratic Governor-General, when Timothy Michael Healy took the position in 1922. Dominion status was never popular in Ireland, where people saw it as a face-saving measure for a British government unable to countenance a republic in what had previously been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This compromise was a direct cause of the Irish Civil War. Successive Irish governments undermined the constitutional links with Britain, until they were severed completely in 1949. In 1930, the Australian PM, James Scullin, reinforced the right of the overseas Dominions to appoint native-born Governors-General, when he appointed Sir Isaac Isaacs, against the wishes of the opposition and officials in London. Newfoundland became a self-governing dominion on September 26, 1907 (same day as New Zealand) by royal proclamation. Until 1931, it was referred to as a colony of the United Kingdom, as for example, in the 1927 reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to delineate the Quebec-Labrador boundary. Full autonomy was granted by the United Kingdom Parliament with the Statute of Westminster in December 1931. However, the government of Newfoundland "requested the United Kingdom not to have sections 2 to 6 [ — ] confirming Dominion status [ — ] apply automatically to it[,] until the Newfoundland Legislature first approved the Statute, approval which the Legislature subsequently never gave." In any event, Newfoundland's letters patent of 1934 suspended self-government and instituted a "Commission of Government", which continued until Newfoundland became a province of Canada in 1949. It is the view of some constitutional lawyers that — although Newfoundland chose not to exercise all of the functions of a dominion like Canada — its status as a dominion was "suspended" in 1934, rather than "revoked" or "abolished". Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa (prior to becoming a republic and leaving the Commonwealth in 1961), with their large populations of European descent, were sometimes collectively referred to as the "White Dominions". Today Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are sometimes referred to collectively as the White Commonwealth. Later members of the Commonwealth gained independence, not under the Statute of Westminster but by their own respective independence acts. When British decolonization in Africa began it was hoped the dominion model would again be followed. Ghana, the first new nation was created as a Dominion in 1957, but declared itself a republic three years later. The other British possessions in Africa also agitated for republic status, and upon independence they seldom remained Dominions. Nigeria became a Dominion in 1960 and a republic in 1963, Tanganyika a Dominion in 1961 and a republic in 1962, Uganda a Dominion in 1962 and republic in 1963, Kenya a Dominion in 1963 and a republic in 1964, Malawi a Dominion in 1964 and republic in 1966. Only Gambia (five years), Sierra Leone (ten years), and Mauritius (24 years) stayed Dominions longer than three years. The United Kingdom and its component parts never aspired to the title of Dominion, remaining anomalies within the network of free and independent equal members of the Empire and Commonwealth. However the idea has on occasions been floated by some in Northern Ireland as an alternative to a United Ireland if they felt uncomfortable within the United Kingdom.

Foreign relations

Initially the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom conducted the foreign relations of the Dominions. A Dominions section was created within the Colonial Office for this purpose in 1907. Canada set up its own Department of External Affairs in June 1909, but diplomatic relations with other governments continued to operate through the governors-general, through Dominion high commissioners in London (first appointed by Canada in 1880; Australia followed only in 1910) and through British legations abroad. Britain deemed her declaration of war against Germany in August 1914 to extend without the need for consultation to all territories of the Empire, occasioning some displeasure in Canadian official circles and contributing to a brief anti-British insurrection by Afrikaner militants in South Africa later that year. A Canadian War Mission in Washington, D.C., dealt with supply matters from February 1918 to March 1921. Although the Dominions had had no formal voice in declaring war, each became a separate signatory of the June 1919 peace Treaty of Versailles, which had been negotiated by a British-led united Empire delegation. In September 1922 Dominion reluctance to support British military action against Turkey influenced Britain's decision to seek a compromise settlement. Diplomatic autonomy soon followed, with the U.S.-Canadian Halibut Fisheries Agreement (March 1923) marking the first international treaty negotiated and concluded entirely independently by a Dominion. The Dominions section of the Colonial Office was upgraded in June 1926 to a separate Dominions Office. However, initially the same person was appointed as the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The principle of Dominion equality with Britain and independence in foreign relations was formally recognized by the Balfour Declaration adopted at the Imperial Conference of November 1926. Canada's first permanent diplomatic mission to a foreign country opened in Washington, DC in 1927. In 1928 Canada obtained the appointment of a British high commissioner in Ottawa, separating the administrative and diplomatic functions of the governor-general and ending the latter's anomalous role as the representative of the British government in relations between the two countries. The Dominions Office was given a separate secretary of state in June 1930, though this was entirely for domestic political reasons given the need to relieve the burden on one ill minister whilst moving another away from unemployment policy. The Balfour Declaration was enshrined in the Statute of Westminster 1931 when it was adopted by the British Parliament and subsequently ratified by the Dominion legislatures. Britain's declaration of hostilities against Germany in September 1939 tested the issue. Most took the view that the declaration did not commit the Dominions. Ireland chose to remain neutral. At the other extreme, the conservative Australian government of the day, led by Robert Menzies, took the view that it was legally bound by the UK declaration of war — which had also been the view at the outbreak of World War I — although this was contentious within Australia. Between these two extremes, New Zealand declared that as Britain was or would be at war, so it was too. Canada issued its own declaration of war after a recall of Parliament, as did South Africa after a delay of several weeks. Ireland, which had negotiated the removal of British forces from its territory the year before, chose to remain neutral throughout the war. There were soon signs of growing independence from the other Dominions: Australia opened a diplomatic mission in the US in 1940 and Canada's mission in Washington gained Embassy status in 1943).

From Dominions to Commonwealth realms

World War II, which fatally undermined Britain's already weakened commercial and financial leadership and heightened the importance of the United States as a source of military assistance, further loosened the political ties between Britain and the Dominions. Australian Prime Minister John Curtin's unprecedented action (February 1942) in successfully demanding the recall for home service of Australian troops earmarked for the defence of British-held Burma demonstrated that Dominion governments might no longer subordinate their own national interests to British strategic perspectives. To ensure that Australia had full legal power to act independently, particularly in relation to defence, Australia formally adopted the Statute of Westminster in October 1942 and backdated the adoption to the start of the war in September 1939. The Dominions Office merged with the India Office as the Commonwealth Relations Office upon the independence of India and Pakistan in August 1947, and the term Dominion fell out of general use as India's adoption of republican status in January, 1950 signalled the end of the former dependencies' common constitutional connection to the British crown (although Ireland had already dropped its oath of allegiance in 1932): henceforth continuing willing members of what was subsequently styled the Commonwealth agreed to accept the British monarch as head of that association of independent states. Ireland had formally ceased to be a member seven months on the declaration that it was to be described officially as the Republic of Ireland. Recently, when referring to a nation that has the British Monarch as its head of state the term Commonwealth realm has come into common usage instead of Dominion to differentiate the Commonwealth nations that continue to recognize the Crown (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc.) from those which do not (India, Pakistan, South Africa, etc.). The term Dominion is still to be found in the Canadian constitution where the term is mentioned four times, most notably the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada. However, the Canadian government does not use it. The term "realm" does not appear in the Canadian constitution. Present-day usage prefers the term realm because it includes the United Kingdom as well, emphasising that they are equal to and not subordinate to the United Kingdom. For example, in a move that emphasised the independence of the separate realms, after the accession of Queen Elizabeth II in 1952, she was proclaimed not just as Queen of the U.K., but also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, and of all her other "realms and territories" etc. The Queen now functions as the independent monarch of sixteen different countries, and any changes to the laws governing the succession to the Crown must be approved by all of these nations' parliaments.

Canada

:See also: Canada's name Dominion is the legal title conferred on Canada in the Constitution of Canada, namely the Constitution Act, 1867 (British North America Acts), and describes the resulting political union. Specifically, the [http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html preamble of the BNA Act] indicates: :Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom... and, furthermore, sections 3 and 4 indicate that the provinces: :... shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
:Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act. Usage of the term Dominion of Canada was sanctioned as the country's formal political name, and some still read the BNA Act passage as specifying this phrase – rather than Canada alone – as the name. References to the Dominion of Canada in later acts, such as the Statute of Westminster, do not clarify the point because all nouns were formerly capitalized in British legislative style. Indeed, in the original text of the BNA Act, "One" and "Name" were also capitalized. Starting in the 1950s, the federal government began to phase out the use of dominion, which had been used largely as a synonym of "federal" or "national" such as "Dominion building" for a post office, "Dominion-provincial relations", and so on. The last major change was renaming the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982, itself brought about by the earlier Canada Act 1982 (which mentions Canada and is ambivalent regarding the title). Official bilingualism also contributed to disuse of dominion, as it has no acceptable equivalent in French. While the term may be found in older official documents, and the [http://www.parl.gc.ca/Publications/ParlBlgs-e.asp Dominion Carilloneur] still tolls at Parliament Hill, it is rarely used anymore to distinguish the federal government from the provinces or (historically) Canada before and after 1867. Defenders of the title dominion – including monarchists who see signs of creeping republicanism in Canada – take comfort in the fact that the Constitution Act, 1982 does not remove the title (by not mentioning it), and contend that a constitutional amendment is required to change it.

Sources

- Choudry, Sujit. 2001(?). [http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/constitutional_acts.html "Constitution Acts"] (based on looseleaf by Hogg, Peter W.). [http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/index.html Constitutional Keywords]. University of Alberta, Centre for Constitutional Studies: Edmonton.
- Holland, R.F., Britain and the Commonwealth Alliance 1918-1939, MacMillan, 1981
- Forsey, Eugene A. 2005. [http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/PDFs/How_Canadians_Govern_Themselves-6ed.pdf How Canadians Govern Themselves], 6th ed. (ISBN 0-662-39689-8) Canada: Ottawa.
- Hallowell, Gerald, ed. 2004. The Oxford Companion to Canadian History. (ISBN 0-19-541559-0) Oxford University Press: Toronto; p. 183-4.
- Marsh, James H., ed. 1988. "[http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002344 Dominion]" et al. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Hurtig Publishers: Toronto.
- Martin, Robert. 1993(?). [http://www.prayerbook.ca/library/machray/issue5/machray5d.htm 1993 Eugene Forsey Memorial Lecture: A Lament for British North America.] The Machray Review. Prayer Book Society of Canada. — A summative piece about nomenclature and pertinent history with abundant references.
- Rayburn, Alan. 2001. Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names, 2nd ed. (ISBN 0-8020-8293-9) University of Toronto Press: Toronto. Category:British Empire Category:Commonwealth realms Category:History of Canada ja:ドミニオン

Australia

The Commonwealth of Australia is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the world's smallest continent and a number of islands in the Southern, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Australia's neighbouring countries are Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea to the north, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia to the northeast, and New Zealand to the southeast. The continent of Australia has been inhabited for over 40,000 years by Indigenous Australians. After sporadic visits by fishermen from the north and by European explorers and merchants starting in the 17th century, the eastern half of the continent was claimed by the British in 1770 and officially settled as the penal colony of New South Wales on 26 January 1788. As the population grew and new areas were explored, another five largely self-governing Crown Colonies were successively established over the course of the 19th century. On 1 January 1901, the six colonies federated and the Commonwealth of Australia was formed. Since federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system and remains a Commonwealth Realm. The current population of around 20.4 million is concentrated mainly in the large coastal cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

Origin and history of the name

The name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning southern. Legends of an "unknown southern land" (terra australis incognita) date back to the Roman times and were commonplace in mediæval geography, but they were not based on any actual knowledge of the continent. The Dutch adjectival form Australische ("Australian," in the sense of "southern") was used by Dutch officials in Batavia to refer to the newly discovered land to the south as early as 1638. The first English language writer to use the word "Australia" was Alexander Dalrymple in An Historical Collection of Voyages and Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean, published in 1771. He used the term to refer to the entire South Pacific region, not specifically to the Australian continent. In 1793, George Shaw and Sir James Smith published Zoology and Botany of New Holland, in which they wrote of "the vast island, or rather continent, of Australia, Australasia or New Holland." New Holland was established on this site.]] The name "Australia" was popularised by the 1814 work A Voyage to Terra Australis by the navigator Matthew Flinders. Despite its title, which reflected the view of the Admiralty, Flinders used the word "Australia" in the book, which was widely read and gave the term general currency. Governor Lachlan Macquarie of New South Wales subsequently used the word in his dispatches to England. In 1817 he recommended that it be officially adopted. In 1824, the British Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as Australia.

History

England, claiming the land for Britain in 1770. This replica was built in Fremantle in 1988 for Australia's bicentenary.]] The first human habitation of Australia is estimated to have occurred between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago. The first Australians were the ancestors of the current Indigenous Australians; they arrived via land bridges and short sea-crossings from present-day India or Southeast Asia. Most of these people were hunter-gatherers, with a complex oral culture and spiritual values based on reverence for the land and a belief in the Dreamtime. The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, inhabited the Torres Strait Islands and parts of far-north Queensland; they possess distinct cultural practices and practised subsistence agriculture. The first undisputed recorded European sighting of the Australian continent was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Jansz, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606. During the 17th century, the Dutch charted the whole of the western and northern coastlines of what they called New Holland, but made no attempt at settlement. In 1770, James Cook sailed along and mapped the east coast of Australia, which he named New South Wales and claimed for Britain. The expedition's discoveries provided impetus for the establishment of a penal colony there following the loss of the American colonies that had previously filled that role. penal colony was Australia's largest penal colony.]] The British Crown Colony of New South Wales started with the establishment of a settlement at Port Jackson by Captain Arthur Phillip on 26 January 1788. This date was later to become Australia's national day, Australia Day. Van Diemen's Land, now known as Tasmania, was settled in 1803 and became a separate colony in 1825. Britain formally claimed the western part of Australia in 1829. Separate colonies were created from parts of New South Wales: South Australia in 1836, Victoria in 1851, and Queensland in 1859. The Northern Territory (NT) was founded in 1863 as part of the Province of South Australia. Victoria and South Australia were founded as "free colonies"—that is, they were never penal colonies, although the former did receive some con

White Commonwealth

See also

White race

The Epistemological Challenge

Synonyms

Historic use of the term

Who is white?

The Americas: Euro-predominant and mixed-race people

White and Hispanic categories in the US

North Africa, Southwest Asia and South Asia

Whiteness and White nationalism

Social vs. physical perceptions of white

Criticisms of the term

"White" as opposed to "Light Skinned"

Areas of habitation

See also

Footnotes

External links

Further reading

Commonwealth of Nations

Origins

Membership

Non-members

Suspension

Termination of membership

Organisation and objectives

Benefits of membership and contemporary concerns

Cultural Links

Literature

Commonwealth Business Council

List of Commonwealth members

See also

References

Further Reading

External links

Dominion

Historical development

Foreign relations

From Dominions to Commonwealth realms

Canada

See also

Sources

Australia

Origin and history of the name

History