I have no idea where you got that last notion. Either part of the sentence, actually. Even during the Opprobious Oppression, on one hand it was not acceptable to use Basque to do business with the government but on the other the same government was keen on preserving anything they saw as “folksy”, including Basque culture and language (cf. bertsolari contests, dancing and so forth). In the Behe it still isn’t acceptable to take the kids to school in Basque or do business with the government in Basque.
Edited to add: Nationalism is louder in the Spanish side, is that where you got the idea?
Then again, maybe the Basque problem is that we didn’t conquer the French properly back in 1589… to hell with practicality, we should’a taught 'em all to dec… to make the genitives in -ko!
(what’s the verb for “forming declensions”, anyway?)
What about England? I’m under the impression that the English have developed a good relationship with their Norman overlords. Not much in the news about Norman-English tensions recently.
The closest place I can think of that answer’s the OP’s question is Hong Kong. In general, most HKers prefer the British Rule days over the current Chinese governance, and there is a lot of political and cultural conflict with the mainland Chinese.
The Aztecs were brutal genocidal jerks of the highest order. The tribes conquered by the Aztecs really hated them. As bad as the Spanish were, they were viewed as better than the Aztecs by some of the other tribes in the region. For example, they assisted Cortes in his conquest of the Aztecs.
I’m not saying the Spanish rule was great. But to those who experienced Aztec rule, it was somewhat of a step up.
Similarly, the various Persian Gulf states such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates probably saw British rule as a defense against the Ottomans and/or Saudis and preferable. However, AFAIK most of them weren’t exactly conquered by entered into voluntary agreements to be British protectorates.
The writing was already on the wall at that point, I think. Probably had been ever since '76. They hoped to stave it off for longer than they did, with things like that and making a sham parliament for Coloureds and Indians as an obvious buffer population.
And, as long as Reagan & Thatcher pushed “constructive engagement”, they could pretend like those sops were working - but after '86, that was gone too.
It was in 1991 that all the real legislation was removed - Population Registration, Group Areas, homelands. And only in '94 that the actual root of apartheid, minority white rule, was finally overcome.
