Your comment doesn't make much sense.
What do the two things you have mentioned have to do with each other?
Marcus is talking about Empires coming and going over time as evolution and human progress bring changes in the world.
And in regards to What Selassie I said. Selassie I showed appreciation for what Britain did, but if you look at the whole history, early on they showed disrespect to Selassie I and Ethiopia and were part of the reason the conflict started and they tried to avoid helping as long as possible, until the war was brought on their footstep.
Give credit where credit is due, but don't over credit.
You act as if, since Britain helped Ethiopia during the war, then we shouldn't criticize their wickedness.
Are you forgetting this quote that I have posted here so many times,
By the word "neutral" We do not, of course, mean that abstention from political activity which has been for so long the hallmark of a Switzerland. We can no more refrain from political activity in the year 1961 than man today can voluntarily refrain from partaking of the radioactive fall-out which will be bestowed upon him should a nuclear holocaust erupt on this globe. Nor does neutrality mean that without taking sides, we content ourselves with urging that the powers most intimately concerned negotiate in good faith to the solution of the issues in dispute between them; we have passed the point where prayerful pleading serves any purpose other than to debase those who thereby abdicate any responsibility or power to influence events.
To be neutral is to be impartial, impartial to judge actions and policies objectively, as we see them either contributing to or detracting from the resolution of the world's problems, the preservation of peace and the improvement of the general level of man's living conditions. Thus, we may find ourselves now opposing, now supporting. now voting with, now voting against, first the East, next the West. It is the worth of the policies themselves, and not their source or sponsor, which determines the position of one who is truly neutral.
This, We maintain, is the essence of non-alignment. Those who would righteously denounce one side on every major problem or issue while reserving nothing but praise for the other cannot claim to be non-aligned, nor can those whose policies are shaped for them elsewhere and who wait patiently to be instructed whether they are to be for or against be called uncommitted.