[danielheath]

Australian here.

Firstly, the monarch of England is still our head of state.

Secondly, the genocide was so thorough that there weren't enough indigenous inhabitants left (outside of those enslaved) to hold a war.

So yeah - after the British pulled out (except they didn't), we had peace between the living and the dead.

[mc32]

I think that's an altogether different question. The original question was if left governable? I think the answer is yes.

Did The Romans leave England governable when they pulled out? I think yes. Did the Romans do shit, sure, but that's not the question.

Pullout from Afghanistan regardless of military actions and who was killed was left Ungovernable. Australia it appears to me was left governable when they left.

The British left Jamaica probably with few Tainos, but the question isn't were Tainos treated fairly, was Jamaica governable by the new government when they left?

[jcranmer]

> Did The Romans leave England governable when they pulled out? I think yes.

Would knowing that pretty much all trace of Roman rule, down to the material cultures and currency, completely vanished within a generation change your mind? Of all of the the Roman Empire, England saw the most severe, and most abrupt, fall in living conditions. And this is centuries before the Vikings wreaked yet more havoc on the region.

And, for what it's worth, while we don't know that much about what the remnant Breton polities looked like, the Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms that replaced them were a variety of small kingdoms that constantly jostled each other for power, until the Vikings destroyed several of them outright and the Wessex King Albert conquered the rest. That's pretty damn close to the notion of an array of warlords jostling for power that you seem to be categorizing as ungovernable.

[_carbyau_]

I agree with you that this looks like it has diverged into two separate questions.

But I think it is the view from the majority compared to the minority.

The majority see things as peaceful, quiet, fine. After the original slaughter, it was a peaceful federation of states (at a time where killing a native was 50/50 to come with any consequences) and no large scale civil wars.

The minority - the original inhabitants of this land - the war never stopped. Just changed in nature. Instead of outright killing, it was disenfranchisement/segregation, then blatant racism, now subtle/systemic racism. There is no peace.

And that can carry through generations. As the recent riots in the US show - which had similar sentiment here in Australia - even the killing on basis of race hasn't really stopped 100%.

Ask the minority, if the withdrawal was peaceful? YeahNah...

[908B64B197]

I'm not sure, but this longing for British rule and colonialism and the "good old days" sounds more and more like a dog whistle to me...

Maybe mc32 can enlighten us.

[mc32]

Where are you picking that up? That's your own making. nowhere were such things being thrown. The original question was was the place left governable, nothing more. You are giving the question with your own meaning.

Did the Soviet Union leave Cuba governable when they pulled out? Yes. The question isn't did the Soviets allow the Cubans to jail and kill dissenters. That would be a totally different question.

[_carbyau_]

Not sure where this came from. I don't think anyone was even close to that.