Usa Hockey Consent To Treat Medical History Form: Fill & Download for Free

Barely a decade longer, and at a cost of violence and bitterness which was the legacy of other European States like France Holland and Belgium, which did try to delay independence by military force.Even without WWII, Britain would have had to relinquish her direct rule over her colonies. This had already begun, with Canada Australia and NZ, none of whom were automatically at war when Britain declared war on Germany, as they were already independent self governing States, albeit recognising the same monarch as head of State.India in particular had for decades been acknowledged to have a large highly educated and articulate native Civil Service and judiciary, and it was widely if reluctantly recognised that the days of justifying continued rule “for the benefit of the natives” had come to an end and only naked force would delay independence. And this was a contradiction of the avowed justification for continued British Rule.No doubt WWII hastened the retreat from Empire, with our financial and economic base being dependent upon the avowedly anti colonial USA, it was impossible to hold on to Colonies, most of which had acquired a significant British educated native elite by the 1930s.There was simply no justification for denying independence and nor was there the military means to prevent it, without resorting to hideous methods of repression, such eg gas bombs, deployed in Iraq, to our great shame, between the Wars. The British generally only fought wars to prevent takeover by communists (eg in Malaysia) or by those seeking tribal domination over other natives (eg the Mau Mau (mainly Kikuyu) in Kenya). Otherwise the disbanding of Empire was remarkably well organised and peaceful.The great exception of course was India, where the ancient animosities going back a thousand years, could not prevent mass killings following the Muslim League insistence on partition, because of the overwhelming numbers involved. The British had always governed with a tiny White population. There was only one White soldier present at the Amritsar Massacre of 1919 (Dyer himself). As a Viceroy once commented, “if every Indian were merely to spit at us, we should drown”.The fact is that there had to be an element of consent and participation by highly educated natives. Many British as well as natives felt the loyalty of Indian troops to the Empire in WWI had justified India be treated like Australia and Canada. But when this was not granted (and the hideous Amritsar massacre had exposed the dark side of British Rule), this consent was progressively withdrawn, and many British radicals back home also demanded home rule for India, it became only a matter of timing. The Colonies had seen the “White Commonwealth” receive effective independence in the 1920s and 30s, and were in no doubt that the same would happen to them in time.Hong Kong was rather different, because the Chinese Mainland Government would never have tolerated a grant of Independence to Hong Kong, and it suited their foreign exchange needs to tolerate the British presence until the expiry of the lease over the New Territories. Otherwise of course Britain could not have prevented forcible repatriation by China.The Empire had long justified itself in terms of bringing science, reason and enlightenment to native populations. Even though many of these peoples had been literate and living in magnificent stone buildings for millennia when the English were in mud huts largely illiterate, still there was a recognition within native ruling elites that these “white barbarians” had somehow hit upon a superior form of learning and had become the first “culture neutral” exponents of Scientific Rationalism, whose dazzling material expression in mechanised transport, water provision, food production and control of diseases etc, seemed for decades to justify the Empire to its rapidly growing native populations. But with population growth, came increased potential for devastating famines (as afflicted Ireland in the 1840s and Bengal a century later) and the inadequacy of the response of the colonial administration would undermine this traditional justification for British Rule.And of course the British were,like every Empire in history, “in it for the money”. The Empire was not instigated as a crusade of cultural enlightenment!However, it just happened that the British, unlike most Imperialists, recognised that ruling over a growing, educated, healthy native population would increase the revenue that could be extracted from them, and allow their human resources to be deployed to counterbalance the huge historic demographic advantages of our traditional European rivals.Historically there were never fewer than five Frenchmen to one Englishman, which of course accounts for our predilection for every technological advantage that science can offer. British Rule was based upon a home population of just 8m in 1815. France alone had 26m. India well over 100m. So people mattered to Britain, in a way that they seldom mattered to vast despotic Oriental Empires, where the individual was so easily dispensable. And this is why British medical science was given such a priority. The treatment of scurvy (effective even though its cause was not understood) cholera, malaria, smallpox, the great decimators of oriental and African populations, were, it seemed magically, brought under control by British Science. It is hard today to understand the prestige this brought to the White barbarians in the eyes of even peoples possessed of such a cultural superiority complex as China and India.The British did of course suffer form delusions of racial superiority, but no more than did the native peoples themselves, it is often forgotten how widespread was racial prejudice, and of course religious bigotry, among native elites and Indian ideas of Caste, for example, made Victorian social snobbery and ideas of race look positively radical and enlightened.The fact is that even 18C English administrators were acutely aware that they were ruling, in the Middle East, India, China, civilisations of vastly greater artistic and cultural achievements than had ever been attained in their home Islands. This certainly moderated feelings of technological superiority, but native elites were all too ready to accept the invitation to join the British Ruling Class, and their own disdain for their less socially advanced countrymen.The famous snob, “Lord Curzon, a very superior perzon” was one Viceroy known to loathe entertaining or even being in the presence of his boorish bourgeois British Countrymen, preferring infinitely the company of Indian British educated princes and other native aristocrats. Yes, British social snobbery trumped racism!And this ready social and cultural acceptance underlay the centuries of native consent which underpinned the Raj. But the advance of the Indian Middle Class, through all the educational opportunities British Rule entailed, undermined the position of these native elites, from the African Chiefly families and the emirs of Nigeria to the Princes of India.Thus the rise of native democracy undermined the very native Upper Class upon whose consent British rule depended. These middle class Natives had been far less integrated into the prevailing British culture, were less likely to have been educated in Britain, and were aware that their own Western education and qualifications were superior to those of most their White rulers.I guess what I’m trying to say is that self rule was an idea whose time had come, like Scientific Rationalism and democracy itself. To control millions of people without their consent or participation is a contradiction of the ideas of Democracy and liberalism which advanced in Britain even as her Empire rose to its zenith.To British intellectuals, the Empire was itself, like Hong Kong, essentially a leasehold, not freehold ownership. The same ideas of scientific Rationalism that had been applied to overcome problems and given the Empire its military and technological advantages, dictated that it was indefensible to permanently hold back an educated and capable native population against its will.The Romans had endured by assimilating all peoples into the Empire, granted universal citizenship, Emperors had come from outside Rome, outside Italy, Spaniards like Vespasian, and even Balkan and Vandal leaders were incorporated close to the throne. I guess you are really asking whether some such similar transformation could have allowed the Empire to endure, much as the Russian Empire did when it transformed into the USSR, rejected historical Russian culture and allowed men of mixed race like Lenin and Georgians like Stalin and Beria to have authority over Russians themselves.Even France, perhaps because in many ways a most reluctant decoloniser, proved remarkably flexible with the appointment of the Black Felix Houphouet Boigny as a member of the French Government in 1946, with authority over French people, and who went on to become President of The Ivory Coast.But I think not. There is not the contiguous physical geography in a maritime Empire, and even the direct descendants of the British in North America, Australia and New Zealand, have irrevocably become independent states.If a historical model is to be found, it is with the earlier maritime empire of the Greeks, lacking any unified central authority, but participating in shared sporting and cultural activities, and uniting militarily only in the face of an overwhelming external threat. The Empire, if it survives at all, survives as a purely voluntary association of like minded independent States, whose shared historical experience (good and bad) language and cultural values, bind them in an informal way that really only manifests its full strength and significance in times of crisis.