Latest news with #CecilRhodes
India Today
6 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Shaping global leaders with purpose
Being the world's oldest and most coveted international scholarship programme, the Rhodes Scholarship can be a life-changing experience for scholars One of the most prestigious postgraduate awards in the world for students to study at the University of Oxford, UK, the Rhodes Scholarship needs no introduction. Widely recognised and most desired by aspirants, it's the oldest scholarship that was established in 1902, and every year about 100 students are awarded from all over the world. To know more about the scholarship, its legacy, several merits, and its impact in India, we caught up with Sir Richard Trainor, interim warden of Rhodes House and CEO of the Rhodes Trust, during his recent visit to India. A Rhodes scholar himself, he is a well-known historian and a career academic. Edited excerpts. Could you tell us about your academic journey and experience as a Rhodes scholar? I'm originally from the United States and completed my undergraduate studies at Brown University. I came to Oxford in the 1970s as a Rhodes scholar, studying history, and later completed my doctorate in modern British social history. My career took me from research and teaching to leadership roles, including serving as head of Greenwich University, King's College London, and Exeter College at Oxford. Now, I'm back at Rhodes House in a temporary capacity, helping steward the scholarship during a period of transition. Becoming a Rhodes scholar was life-changing—not just academically, but personally. It gave me the opportunity to live and study in a different country, broaden my cultural outlook, and form friendships across continents. It set the course for my career in international education. What is the Rhodes Scholarship all about and why is it significant? It's more than just a scholarship—it's a commitment to excellence and impact. Established in 1902 by business tycoon Cecil Rhodes, it was the first international postgraduate scholarship of its kind. Today, it selects around 100 scholars each year from over 20 countries. Scholars typically spend two to three years at Oxford, depending on their chosen course of study. There are around 300 Rhodes scholars in residence at Oxford at any given time. What sets Rhodes apart is that its purpose is not only to support academic excellence but also to identify individuals with a strong sense of leadership, character, and commitment to public service. We're interested in individuals who don't just achieve for themselves but want to make the world better—whether through public service, science, the arts, or activism. That mission hasn't changed in over a century. What role has India played in the Rhodes story? India has been part of the Rhodes community since its independence in 1947. Currently, six scholarships are awarded to Indian students each year. We're actively working to increase that number to seven, with the goal of expanding further. Given India's size, talent, and historical connections to the UK and Oxford, it's an incredibly important region for us. The selection process in India follows the same core criteria as elsewhere—academic strength, leadership, and service—but is adapted to the Indian education system. The interview panel typically includes past scholars and respected academics who understand the local context deeply. What areas of study do Rhodes scholars typically pursue? There's no restriction—scholars study across the full range of disciplines at Oxford. Some pursue philosophy, literature, and politics, while others are working on engineering, AI, or medicine. Lately, we've seen strong interest in areas such as climate change, ethics, and technology. For instance, some scholars are now researching artificial intelligence and its societal impact, which is a major focus at Oxford through its new AI and Ethics Institute. Oxford offers exceptional depth and breadth, and the scholarship supports all full-time postgraduate courses. How competitive is the scholarship and what advice would you have for prospective applicants? It's very competitive, with many more applicants than places. But we're not looking for perfection —we're looking for purpose. Think beyond grades. My advice is: focus on all the criteria. Demonstrate not just what you've achieved academically, but how you've contributed to your community, pursued your passions, and developed your sense of purpose. You'll need references, a personal statement, and to go through a rigorous interview process. Articulate what drives you and how you hope to contribute to the world. Demonstrating self-awareness and purpose goes a long way. How does the Rhodes Scholarship benefit students beyond academics? Being a Rhodes scholar is a deeply transformative experience. Scholars gain exposure to global perspectives, form lifelong friendships, and develop a broader understanding of the world's challenges. It also instils confidence, resilience, and a deep sense of social responsibility. The Rhodes alumni network is very strong; there are over 5,000 living Rhodes alumni globally, including a vibrant and engaged community in India. We stay connected through digital newsletters, country reunions, webinars, and global events like our 120th anniversary gathering in Oxford. The network is a lifelong source of mentorship, collaboration, and inspiration. What is the Rhodes Trust focusing on today? Our core mission remains the same—to find and develop exceptional people who will fight the world's fights. We are also focused on expanding access and representation, especially in regions like India, China, and parts of Africa. In addition, we're engaging deeply with emerging global issues, such as AI ethics, climate change, and social justice, through partnerships and research.
IOL News
09-06-2025
- IOL News
From wagons to rail: the transformation of South Africa's transport network
Although today there is very little rail in existence compared to what it used to be in the 1960/80's, it was pivotal to South Africa's advancement. Image: Supplied. The drivers of change in South Africa consisted of the pentagon of race, rail, gold maize and war. I will focus on the vertex of rail. Although today there is very little rail in existence compared to what it used to be in the 1960/80's, it was pivotal to South Africa's advancement. The first rail line was one constructed in 1860. It was three kilometres long and connected the Market Square in town to the Point. The Natal Railway Company was responsible for this. It is said that the Natal Mercury had this to say about this initiative 'It will substitute the railway age of animation for the wagon age of sloth. It will set upon this portion of barbarism-bound continent the truest seal of the Englishman's presence. It will supersede a state of plodding but primitive action for one of modern enterprise and rapid progress.' Rail then was the main infrastructure for freight and passengers for more than a 120 years ago. This led to some deciding to crown South Africa as a railway country. The Netherlands-South African Railway Company (NZASM) in 1887, was responsible for constructing the rail line from Pretoria to Lourenço Marques in what was the Portuguese East Africa Colony. There was also a shorter line constructed as well. This connected Pretoria to Johannesburg. In 1861 a small steam engine was imported from Scotland. The line was to be from the Cape Town harbour to Wellington, a distance of 70 kilometres. As noted earlier with the discovery of diamonds in Kimberly in 1869, the future of rail could not be brighter. But a bigger shine on rail was sparked by the discovery of gold on the Reef. This strengthened the vision of Cecil Rhodes who set his eyes on constructing a railway line from Cape to Cairo. The rail from Kimberly would stretch to Vryburg, Mahikeng in 1891 – a distance of 363 kilometers. Around the same time a whole network of rail infrastructure was commissioned. Amongst these was the ultimate connection of Port Elizabeth to Bloemfontein by 1892. This covered 671 kilometers. The founding province of Natal re-emerged and by 1891 Durban was connected to Glencoe and the Transvaal. The rail infrastructure was instrumental in connecting a once disparate hinterland and the gestation of industrialisation was nigh. There was one ingredient that was outstanding. This would reduce hostilities between the English and the Afrikaner. It was then necessary to place the four colonies under unification and the 1910 Act of Union gave birth to a Union of South Africa. Shortly thereafter the Union the South African Railways and Harbours (SAR&H) was born. But the birth of the Union excluded the Africans, Coloureds and Indians. South Africa was to extend territory into Namibia, first by building a 227 kilometer rail line into the German territory of South West Africa. This was from Prieska to Nakop. This stretch of rail was built in 82 days. Once the Germans were defeated South Africa took over the railway authority of South West Africa. In the ensuing period from 1910, nine thousand kilometres of rail line were added to the South African rail infrastructure. JBM Hertzog came into power with a slogan of South Africa First. He continued on the expansion of the rail infrastructure although the Great Depression impacted his ambition negatively when the strong trading partner, the United States abandoned the Gold Standard -Bullion. Eskom provided power to the rail line and the first test electric train was tested in 1924. During that period of depression many a desperate in the workforce were rescued, but this assistance was directed at whites. The period of depression between the two wars witnessed migration into urban spaces on a grand scale and this fueled the industrialisation agenda of South Africa, this despite the depression. Post WW II the rail infrastructure continued to expand. In 1946 the Kazerne goods depot came into operation and by 1954 the rail mechanical workshops at Koedoespoort were commissioned. This to date remains a showcase of South Africa's capability in the construction of railway infrastructure. Expansion of rail infrastructure to develop connectivity for goods and passengers grew at a rapid rate and with it technologies developed. For instance, the effect of the first crossing of two trains implemented in June 1955 led to the development of the Centralised Traffic Control. The rail transport connected the Southern Africa region and the Mahalapye-Bulawayo was connected to Vryburg in South Africa thus connecting three countries, South Africa, Botswana (Bechuanaland) and (Zimbabwe) Rhodesia. As minerals were discovered and the demand for their consumption grew exponentially a network of rails was constructed and notably Grootvlei-Redan; Ogies-Broodsnyerspas; Whites-Allanridge; and Lohatla-Sishen which were nodes for mineral transit systems. More importantly the integration of rail logistics and coal production marked the beginning into the management of global value chains. The Richards Bay and the coal line along with the take-over of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line from Iscor a year later, represent major achievements in transforming South Africa into a major ore and coal exporting country. A century later in 1960 the steam engines were being retired and fast replaced by diesel locomotives. And as the seventies opened new and better technologies had been developed with the building of South Africa's own goods train. These were extended to carry 9000 metric tons and these were followed by 21800 tons. Speed also became part of the deal and in 1976 a railway record was set with a test train that reached 208 km/h, and three years later the record was broken when it reached 245 km/h. In 1981, South Africa brought together the infrastructure components of railway, harbour, road transport, aviation and pipeline operations under one roof that was to be known as South African Transport Services (SATS). As these happened the operational management model was transformed into units and divisions, with a strong emphasis on localized management. A lesson to draw from for the revival of the rail economy. It was government led. Dr Pali Lehohla is a Professor of Practice at the University of Johannesburg, a Research Associate at Oxford University, a board member of Institute for Economic Justice at Wits and a distinguished Alumni of the University of Ghana. He is the former Statistician-General of South Africa. Dr Pali Lehohla is a Professor of Practice at the University of Johannesburg, among other hats. Image: Supplied BUSINESS REPORT Visit:
Mail & Guardian
07-06-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Put an end to four centuries of corporate plundering of Africa
Cecil John Rhodes epitomised the consolidation and expansion of white supremacy, corporate interests and state power. For the past four centuries, corporations have exploited — butchered — the African continent, leaving behind scars, open wounds and entrails which can be seen from space. The history of the continent could be told as one of corporate rule briefly interrupted by colonialism or, as the late novelist and scholar Ngugi wa Thiong'o put it, of 'corpolonialism'. South Africa's past and present exemplifies this. The Cape was colonised by a corporation, which then imported enslaved people to provide labour and enable the Dutch East India Company to lay the material and symbolic foundations for the regime of white supremacy and racial domination that culminated in apartheid. When slavery was no longer profitable, and so the British decided to 'abolish' it, the empire 'expropriated' enslaved people across it colonies and formally freed them — but not before paying £20 million pounds in compensation to white slaveholders and their creditors in the name of 'justice and equity'. These 'reparations', paid to white people for the end of slavery, were then reinvested through the new corporate vehicle of the joint-stock company. They were used to finance further colonial expansion and consolidate white domination over land, labour and lives, globally. In the Cape colony, for example, white compensation for black 'emancipation' quintupled the money in circulation in the economy; more than doubled imports and exports; financed the violent settler expansion on the colony's eastern 'frontier' and led to the establishment of its first private bank in 1837. The number of joint-stock companies in the Cape doubled, as white beneficiaries of 'emancipation' pooled their compensation to generate more wealth. White former slaveholders leveraged their land, capital and credit to re-subordinate the newly freed 'apprentice' labourers and become rent-seeking slumlords. The greatest beneficiary of the trade in compensation claims — the London-based merchant house of Phillips, King & Co. — financed the exploration of copper in Namaqualand, drawing a line from 'compensated emancipation' to the mining and extractive monopolies that emerged after the discovery of diamonds and gold. The consolidation and expansion of this three-headed hydra of white supremacy, corporate interests and state power throughout the latter half of the 19th century is epitomised in the figure of Cecil John Rhodes. This race-state-company nexus was also central to the system of colonial apartheid that emerged over the course of the 20th century. Rhodes's successors — who controlled as much of the economy as the apartheid state — were joined by the various corporations established under the volkskapitalisme, many of which dominate the continent today. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded: 'Business was central to the economy that sustained the South African state during the apartheid years. Certain businesses … were involved in helping to design and implement apartheid policies … Most businesses benefited from operations in a racially structured context.' This unholy trinity of white supremacy, corporate interest and state power is not unique to South Africa. Its global articulation was on full display in the White House two weeks ago as the world's most powerful statesman, the world's wealthiest man and rich white men who chase white balls around for a living put on a spectacular performance of ignorance, entitlement and victimhood. One after another, US President Donald Trump invited each of these unelected white men to roll back the years and weigh in on the present conditions and future prospects of the majority of people in South Africa, who were once again being held hostage to the delusions of a white minority. The ball-hitters obliged, literally speaking over Cyril Ramaphosa, the democratically elected president of South Africa, and Zingiswa Losi, the leader of the country's largest trade union federation, Cosatu. It was all too much for golfer Ernie Els, who momentarily forgot which side he was on and thanked the US for its support in maintaining apartheid. It was the most honest moment of the whole spectacle. President Trump's corporate handler, Elon Musk, loomed large but said nothing. Rather, his ransom was delivered by South Africa's second richest man, Johann Rupert, who declared that he had opposed apartheid from birth — as long as he had benefited from it. He said South Africa must abandon its insistence that corporations operating in South Africa — which for centuries have worked hand-in-glove with colonial apartheid to advance the interests of a white minority — should include a mere 30% ownership stake for the majority of South Africans. This would allow Musk's Starlink — a central part of the US military-industrial complex — to not only colonise space but recolonise the continent. Another demand, made explicit in Trump's recent executive order, is that white beneficiaries of centuries of racial domination who have amassed an absurdly disproportionate amount of the privately owned land (and wealth) should — like their slave-owning forebearers — once more be compensated in the name of 'justice and equity', regardless of whether the land was 'justly' acquired and is being 'equitably' used, or even used at all. Social movements, activists and affected communities have been working to hold corporations to account for their depredations on the continent since the 1900s. An early and instructive example is the work of South Africa's own Alice Kinloch, a pathbreaking pan-Africanist and pioneer of the field of business and human rights, who was born in the Cape in 1863 and moved to Kimberley in the 1870s. In the final years of the 19 th century, Kinloch pointed out that: 'The handsome dividends that a certain company pays are earned at the price of blood and souls of … black men. Shareholders may be in happy ignorance of this, so we would remind them that there are several thousands of fellow-men kept under lock and key for their sole benefit, and that the gems on their wives' hands, and the finery bought by their 'profits' are, to 'seeing' eyes, bespattered with human gore.' Kinloch proceeded to set out 'the state of affairs in South Africa, for which the bloody, brutal and inconsiderate hands of avarice and might are answerable', where '[f]or more than a quarter of a century Kimberley has been the stage for the worst forms of undisguised inhumanity' at the hands of 'their master the Company'. In doing so she pointed to the race-corporation-state nexus, noting that De Beers was 'a company as ostentatiously 'colour-hating' as its chief, Cecil Rhodes'. Kinloch established the African Association in 1897, which organised the first Pan African Conference in 1900. The resolutions of that conference included a call for direct action in respect of 'the situation of the native races in South Africa', including the 'degrading and illegal compound system of native labour in vogue in Kimberley'. The work of Alice Kinloch and her fellow pan-Africans should serve not only to inspire us but instruct us. Last week, social movements, activists and affected communities met in Johannesburg for the 7 th African Regional Indaba on a Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights organised by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, the Alternative Information & Development Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights. The treaty negotiation process began in 2014 following a resolution by the Human Rights Council — co-sponsored by South Africa — to 'elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises'. The future of the treaty is uncertain, as efforts towards corporate accountability more generally are backsliding everywhere. Both the US and the EU are rolling back what little controls they had in place to regulate the actions of corporations. Countries of the Global South are being put under immense pressure to ease regulations to facilitate the second 'scramble for Africa' under the banner of a 'green transition' that relies on minerals the West has declared 'critical'. In South Africa, the Competition Commission is appealing a decision of the competition appeal court which effectively neutered the commission's capacity to hold companies operating beyond our borders accountable for the negative impact of illegal activities in the republic. The appeal arises from the commission's efforts to prosecute the largest banks in the world — whose market capitalisation exceeds $2 trillion, some of which were founded with the compensation paid to white slaveholders — for the coordinated manipulation of the rand. The competition appeal court's 2024 decision threw out the case against 17 of the 28 banks before they had even responded to the allegations. When the Centre for Applied Legal Studies requested permission to intervene as an amicus curiae to place the banks' conduct within the framework of domestic and international human rights law, the constitutional court refused our application. In the face of these challenges, we must continue to hold the line on corporate accountability for what Kinloch rightly described 'handsome dividends … earned at the price of blood and souls', including through defending the treaty process, which has been led from the outset by the Global South. Like Kinloch, we must also insist on a continental response, including by supporting the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' efforts to draft an African regional treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations. Four centuries of impunity for corpolonialism is enough. Professor Christopher Gevers is the director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and an associate professor at the School of Law, Wits University.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Sean Williams seizes rare Test chance as Zimbabwe show love and pride in defeat
On 11 June 1890 a column of three hundred colonialists crossed the Shashe River to begin the annexation of Mashonaland on behalf of Cecil Rhodes' British South Africa Company. They brought cattle, horses and wagons, rifles, revolvers and field guns, a searchlight, a steam engine, tents, food and water. Each man carried a slouch hat, a spare shirt and pair of socks, a water bottle, a sewing kit, a belt, a bandolier, a hundred rounds of ammunition and a hand axe. And, of course, this being a very English endeavour, in among it all someone packed a bat and ball. So the first game of cricket in what would become Zimbabwe was played just over a month later, on 16 August, between the Pioneer Column's A Troop and B and C Troops, on a patch of land at Providential Pass at what would become Fort Victoria. Nobody knows who won. 'Probably A Troop,' wrote one of the players in his memoirs 50 years later, since they had Monty Bowden, the England captain and Surrey wicketkeeper, playing for them. Within five years, the settlers were organising games between Bulawayo and Salisbury and within a decade, they had formed the Rhodesian Cricket Union. Related: Shoaib Bashir grabs six Zimbabwe wickets as England win Test in three days It is the best testament to it that it survived – and thrived – despite being the colonialists' sport. Today Zimbabwe are, as the mayor of Bulawayo, David Coltart, told the Guardian this week, 'a passionately multiracial team' and their cricket 'a wonderful projection of our country'. This one, too. England took this game to the world and one of the great pleasures of following it is in watching the world bring it back to England. Zimbabwe are not a great cricket team, but they are a great cricket country and, after that painful first day, when their faltering bowling attack was flogged all around Trent Bridge by England's patrician batters they have, in their way, taken over the rest of the Test by turning it into one long demonstration of their bloody-minded pride in the way they play the game. It was there in Brian Bennett's bullish century on the second day and the way he forced Ben Stokes to withdraw his slips. It was there again in the way Sean Williams set about England's bowling during the 88 he made on the third morning. The 38-year-old Williams won his first call-up to this team way back in 2004, as under-19s captain. His career was just coming together at the time Zimbabwean cricket was falling apart and here he was, 21 years later, playing his first, and most likely his last, Test in this country. It was a hell of an innings, full of crisp cuts, punishing pulls and swingeing sweeps. Williams is a fine batter, with a Test average of 44, and he played like a man who wanted to take his last chance to make the point. The pride was there all around the ground, too. The Zimbabwe fans got louder as the game went on. They seemed to come in greater numbers every day and gave up their seats to seek each other out in the stands so they could dance, sing and chant in Shona: 'Zimbabwe! Mai-Mwana!' There are around 125,000 people in the Zimbabwean diaspora in Britain and a good number of them must have been here in Nottingham this week, in what felt like a happy refutation of Norman Tebbit's old idea that you can measure the strength of a migrant's love for their new country by whether or not they are cheering for it. 'It's the love of the game that binds everyone here together, not which side they're cheering for,' one of their cheerleaders told me. When it was all over, and Zimbabwe had lost by an innings and 45 runs, the team took a slow lap around the ground to thank the fans for all the support. It was one of those defeats that somehow still contained plenty to celebrate and a reminder that Test cricket is not only about who wins and loses and that the value of a game played over multiple days is not just in the finish but what happens along the way. It has been 22 years since England's men played Zimbabwe in a Test and there are people in the sport who would be happy enough if it were 22 more before England played them again. The England and Wales Cricket Board paid Zimbabwe for this fixture, which was arranged to fill an empty slot in the its broadcast deal. There is a lot of talk about splitting Test cricket into two separate divisions. Let the men who run the game have their way and cricket will turn into an endless summer of T20 contests between franchise teams, with Test cricket reduced to a sideshow, with series between England, India and Australia. Maybe the game would be wealthier that way, but not nearly so much so as it would be poorer for it, too.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Sean Williams seizes rare Test chance as Zimbabwe show love and pride in defeat
On 11 June 1890 a column of three hundred colonialists crossed the Shashe River to begin the annexation of Mashonaland on behalf of Cecil Rhodes' British South Africa Company. They brought cattle, horses and wagons, rifles, revolvers and field guns, a searchlight, a steam engine, tents, food and water. Each man carried a slouch hat, a spare shirt and pair of socks, a water bottle, a sewing kit, a belt, a bandolier, a hundred rounds of ammunition and a hand axe. And, of course, this being a very English endeavour, in among it all someone packed a bat and ball. So the first game of cricket in what would become Zimbabwe was played just over a month later, on 16 August, between the Pioneer Column's A Troop and B and C Troops, on a patch of land at Providential Pass at what would become Fort Victoria. Nobody knows who won. 'Probably A Troop,' wrote one of the players in his memoirs 50 years later, since they had Monty Bowden, the England captain and Surrey wicketkeeper, playing for them. Within five years, the settlers were organising games between Bulawayo and Salisbury and within a decade, they had formed the Rhodesian Cricket Union. Advertisement Related: Shoaib Bashir grabs six Zimbabwe wickets as England win Test in three days It is the best testament to it that it survived – and thrived – despite being the colonialists' sport. Today Zimbabwe are, as the mayor of Bulawayo, David Coltart, told the Guardian this week, 'a passionately multiracial team' and their cricket 'a wonderful projection of our country'. This one, too. England took this game to the world and one of the great pleasures of following it is in watching the world bring it back to England. Zimbabwe are not a great cricket team, but they are a great cricket country and, after that painful first day, when their faltering bowling attack was flogged all around Trent Bridge by England's patrician batters they have, in their way, taken over the rest of the Test by turning it into one long demonstration of their bloody-minded pride in the way they play the game. It was there in Brian Bennett's bullish century on the second day and the way he forced Ben Stokes to withdraw his slips. It was there again in the way Sean Williams set about England's bowling during the 88 he made on the third morning. Advertisement The 38-year-old Williams won his first call-up to this team way back in 2004, as under-19s captain. His career was just coming together at the time Zimbabwean cricket was falling apart and here he was, 21 years later, playing his first, and most likely his last, Test in this country. It was a hell of an innings, full of crisp cuts, punishing pulls, and swingeing sweeps. Williams is a fine batter, with a Test average of 44, and he played like a man who wanted to take his last chance to make the point. The pride was there all around the ground, too. The Zimbabwe fans got louder as the game went on. They seemed to come in greater numbers every day and gave up their seats to seek each other out in the stands so they could dance, sing, and chant in Shona: 'Zimbabwe! Mai-Mwana!' There are around 125,000 people in the Zimbabwean diaspora in Britain and a good number of them must have been here in Nottingham this week, in what felt like a happy refutation of Norman Tebbit's old idea that you can measure the strength of a migrant's love for their new country by whether or not they are cheering for it. 'It's the love of the game that binds everyone here together, not which side they're cheering for,' one of their cheerleaders told me. When it was all over, and Zimbabwe had lost by an innings and 45 runs, the team took a slow lap around the ground to thank the fans for all the support. Advertisement It was one of those defeats that somehow still contained plenty to celebrate and a reminder that Test cricket is not only about who wins and loses and that the value of a game played over multiple days is not just in the finish but what happens along the way. It has been 22 years since England's men played Zimbabwe in a Test and there are people in the sport who would be happy enough if it were 22 more before England played them again. The England and Wales Cricket Board paid Zimbabwe for this fixture, which was arranged to fill an empty slot in the its broadcast deal. There is a lot of talk about splitting Test cricket into two separate divisions. Let the men who run the game have their way and cricket will turn into an endless summer of T20 contests between franchise teams, with Test cricket reduced to a sideshow, with series between England, India, and Australia. Maybe the game would be wealthier that way, but not nearly so much so as it would be poorer for it, too.
