Talk:Decolonization/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicholettelucia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ottoman Colony ?

Decolonization of the Ottoman Empire header should be removed. All the listed territories are 'conquered' provinces integral part of the state, are on the same continent with direct land connection and ruled with same circumstances with general policy. All habitants were seen as citizen. How do you see them as colonies? Colonization term is strictly tied with 'new world'. Otherwise for example Spanish rule over Netherlands or English rule over Scotland would be seen as 'colonization'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.70.242.192 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

American English vs. British English

This is a little off topic, but where are the guidelines for using American vs. British English? This article seems to switch back and forth. 65.255.59.194 (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy is at MOS:ENGVAR, and the original article many years ago used American (and Oxford) spelling, so it seems reasonable to use the z form throughout except in quotes. I've changed three instances of modern British spelling to the Oxford style (which is becoming less common in the UK). Dbfirs 08:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Israel?

Surely Jewish colonization of Palestine should be mentioned?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that needs to be mentioned. How would you try to cite that? 75.67.137.34 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The UN partition plan was never implemented, as on the eve of it's birth Israel invaded the 'land' of the British Mandate of Plaestine. I guess that sums it up? Not music to Israeli ears, but the actual fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.159 (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a colony. That makes it conquered land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You all surely mean Israel's creation is the act of decolonisation. Palestine under Roman rule was what colonised and disrupted/destroyed the Jewish countries of Israel and Judæa. The formation of Israel, while colonising Palestine and Palestinians, would surely be an altogether ironic act of decolonisation, no? --Danachos (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Liberia

Liberia was not a colony of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Map, etc

Looks like History of Quebec is the new COTW should {{COTWnow}} be removed?

Hi! Does anybody knows why was South Africa in favor of decolonization? I mean I know it was good for the people in the country, but I would like to know more reasons....

How can an entire country be in favour of something? Especially democracies? Most people are not directly in favour of decolonization. Rather, they just want independence from Europe. Spikeballs 19:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone get that good map in English? I realise it's pretty easy to deduce what the legend says (it's German, right?), but even so it seems somewhat inappropriate on an English page. Thx. --Dmcdevit 03:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's Dutch, if it will help for you to know. Mikkalai 06:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it shows USSR as a big colony. Very funny. Why US of A is not here, then? Mikkalai 06:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll be soon uploading a new map -- Soviet Union shouldn't be there, but USA should be (because of the Philippines). Aris Katsaris 06:46, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union is there on the ground that it had a colonial relationship to Turkestan and Transcaucasia - as the events of 1991 indicate. European Russia is colored because all imperial countries are colored (France, for example). Septentrionalis 15:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was the relationship of Soviet Union to Turkestan and Transcaucasia any different than the relationship of China to Tibet? I've never heard the break-up of the Soviet Union being referred to as an act of decolonization. AFAIK Soviet Union claimed all the territory of Turkestan and Transcaucasia as its integral territory and theoretically all its citizens were equal (even though the reality was of course different). That's quite different to the colonial way where e.g. the people of India weren't voting for the British PM unlike the people of United Kingdom itself, and people born in the Philippines weren't American citizens. Aris Katsaris 15:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have seen it referred to as decolonization in discussions of Central Asia; but I suppose it may be considered a seperate process. You are applying a rather formal test: do you wish to say (as the present map suggests) that Egypt was never a British colony? or that Algeria, which was "an integral part of France", was not a colony?

You surprise me on the Philippines; Puerto Ricans are American citizens IIRC, although Puerto Rico is a dependent state, and does not vote in American elections.

I don't know well the history of either Egypt or Algeria. The article on Egypt mentions independence in 1922, which is before 1945 (which the map tries to represent). As for Algeria, the good thing in the map about coloring both the countries themselves and their colonial claims with the same colour is that we don't need to differentiate between the various distinctions.

And as for Puerto Rico (and Guam for that matter), these are indeed also remnants of USA colonialism, just as Gibraltar and the Falkland islands are remnants of British colonialism. This isn't a moral condemnation btw on my behalf, because the United Kingdom and USA both are willing to let the inhabitants themselves decide whether they wish to continue the association with them or not.

Either way, with Soviet Union lacking both overseas territories or formally non-integral regions, I can't see any way we can color Soviet Union which wouldn't force us to also color every other country in the world, including China and Yugoslavia. Aris Katsaris 06:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have been reading Iuean LL Griffith's Atlas of African Affairs from Witwatersrand University Press, and it seems that the mineral wealth of the area led to a lot of constructive attention from the British, Dutch and German goverments. 1870 and 1876, I believe, were the years of discovery of diamonds and gold in great quantity there. 40 years later, in 1910, the territory had been developed to the extent that home rule was possible. McDogm0308 Apr 28 2005 est usa

Decolonization by the USSR?

Why isn't the USSR included? Surely the domination of Eastern Europe can be considered imperialistic? Isn't that why they had independence movements later on? Just a thought, I don't know if there is some technicality here, but it seems to fit for mee... --Dmcdevit 02:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The USSR ought to be included. It was one of the largest land empires in history, and the breakaway of its several constituent republics certainly constitutes decolonization. Most, if not all, of the republics that broke away were independent in some form or another before being assimilated into Imperial Russia or again into the USSR. The U.S. is already mentioned as having given up colonies, such as the Philippines (although the Cuban revolution is missing as of this writing). —thames 13:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then again, Russia's imperialism is not characterized by colonization. They just expanded their territories more and more. It's like you can't say Nazi Germany was colonialist - it was imperialist. Perhaps a point can be made in the article, that the collapse of the USSR gave independence to many old republics and peoples, but also that this was not decolonization per se. And the main difference could be cited. Spikeballs 19:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line between colonization and imperialism?--Dmcdevit 22:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under Colonialism there is an occupied people, which is not a part of the empire and is only ruled by the empire. Indians, Africans and Arabs were not citizens of the empire; they were looked upon as "natives" or "locals." The local culture was preserved and the citizenship of local differed in class. In the USSR, occupied nations became equal in status, at least by law, and attempts were made to replace local cultures with a global Soviet culture. Thus Ukraine, for example, was not treated as a colony, but as an extended territory of the empire (Ukrainians actually spoke Russian till the collapse of the USSR). I still think that the USSR should be included, but as I said, the difference has to be cited as well. Spikeballs 00:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

India/Pakistan was certainly as much a part of Britain as Central Asia was of the Soviet Union. And what about the US and Australia, and Brazil, and South America all were considered colonies, but they were also not necessarily occupied people, or "natives". Sorry, I'm not getting it... --Dmcdevit 00:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

India/Pakistan were part of British Empire, but their inhabitants didn't have the same political rights. Your second sentence is unclear. Please rephrase. Mikkalai 05:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well what I mean to say here is that I'm still not sure of the imperialism/colonialism distinction. Spikeballs said that a "colony" is where natives are ruled by the colonizing power (Britain, France, etc.). So USSR doesn't fit because it gave equal status theoretically to it's territory (Central Asia, Ukraine, etc.). So the reason I don't get it is that India/Pakistan, Brazil, American colonies, etc. are all considered colonies even though they had about as much independence/"equal status" as the USSR dominions. I am not arguing, but trying to get this... What am I not getting? --Dmcdevit 05:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "ussr dominions" separate from ussr. U in ussr stands for "union". In the times of cold war one might have called them "russia dominions". California is not called "USA" dominion, is it? On the other hand, please tell me did India or American colonies have any fair representation in English parliament?

Anyway, if there is sometihing unclear to you, it means that our colony/colonization articles are bad, and you must discuss your questions there, not here. This article is a secondary one. If the term "decolonization" is not applied to collapse of the Soviet Union in the mainstream historical/political science, then it is not our business. Mikkalai 17:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, it's a bit of a strawman to say India and America, when Brazil, which I also mentioned was absolutely equal to Portugal. Now if you are going to say that, Georgia for instance, had fair representation in the USSR, more than the American colonies, you're wrong. I know what we like to think about the revolutionaries, but Britain was a monarchy and America was a colony. Just as Georgia was inferior and the USSR was a dictatorship. The same is true for Georgia and many other peripheral SSRs. Or do you consider attempted destruction of culture and language and massive purges "fair representation"? You have to admit that at many points places like Georgia, Hungary, Poland, etc. were occupied territory, so I want to know why this isn't included under decolonization when India is. Obviously there is no state like the Russian SSR which basically supreme, so the California analogy is useless. --Dmcdevit 18:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The USSR is obviously quite hard to characterize. Russian expansion followed the same pattern as British expansion in many ways. It began from an imperial center, expanding through state authorized trading companies. Russia's entire eastward push (all the way to Northern California) was accomplished by state trading companies. This is no different than the East Indies Company, except it was overland rather than overseas. After The Mutiny Britain formalized its empire in India, removing company rule and replacing it with direct imperial rule. In Russia, after the 1917 revolution many of the colonially dominated places were formally annexed as SSRs--it's really a fiction to talk about them as having an equal status with the Russian SSR. They were originally under Russian colonial domination, and remained that way, despite the Soviet semantic change. The SSR population were Soviet citizens, but Indians also had British passports during imperial rule. Satellite states in the Eastern bloc were certainly under economic and political domination, just as any third world european colony was. Finally, I think the fact that many scholars include the break-up of the Soviet Union as part of the "Third Wave" of decolonization (1st: 1953-60, 2nd: 61-80, 3rd: 80-91) is a good reason for Soviet inclusion in this article. —thames 16:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example of scholarly historical work that designates the Soviet breakup as a major feature of the period of decolonization: [1]. —thames 16:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

the article actually speaks of the "third wave of democratization", not "decolonialization". Mikkalai 18:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

One more note: the CIS, which was put in place after the breakup of the Soviet Union, is more or less isomorphically similar to the British Commonwealth. It is less intrusive than other post-colonial structures, like the U.S.'s freely associated states or commonwealths. I think there's a very good case for its inclusion. —thames 17:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

All your speech above shows an ignorance in the history of creation of Imperial Russia and Soviet Union. It is not my purpose to teach you history. I will only notice that the only one aspect of Russian expansion may be called "colonization" under each and every reasonable criteria: it was Russia's expansion into Siberia. But Siberia is still in Russia. Also please think about this: at all times kingdoms and states grabbed lands from neighbors, but these annexions were not called "colonies". Mikkalai 18:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

First, please review Wikipedia:Civility. I've approached this from the point of good faith and discussion, and you've responded to me with insults and condescension. Not appropriate. I am, however, forced to agree with you that Russia's western expansion was traditionally imperial. But, Russia's expansion past the Urals using a system of state companies, and fortified trading posts (ostrogs) was classically colonial. This includes Siberia, and I believe Central Asia as well. I am not sure why Central Asia's eventual incorporation as SSRs changes the colonial nature of their domination. Further, within the Soviet sphere of influence, Eastern Europe was forced into a position of economic subservience (COMECON), and military subservience (Warsaw Pact). Many European colonies enjoyed nominal independence as well, while they remained economically and militarily dominated. There's little more than a semantic difference between the European overseas colonial system, and the Russian/Soviet system. —thames 19:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The word "ignorance" is pretty much descriptive of the displayed views. Let me tell you some more bits: Baltic States considered themselves (pretty correctly) as occupied territories, not as colonial territories. Georgia was a cliche of the country of shamelessly rich people with respect to "colonialistic" but pantless Russia. And it is very funny to have a colony like Belarus so intensively industrialized by these greedy Russians so that from a retarded agrarian piece of Poland it turned into a highly industrialized republic with one of the highest living standards in the USSR. And so on. Also, what are trying to prove to me about Urals here? I've already said: yes, Siberia was colonized. Are you going to say that Russia is a colonial state today?

USSR was "decolonized" only in the brains with rich fantasy skills. But if you want to put it here, start from the colony article and list the USSR colonies there first and prove that they were colonies with references to authorities. We'll see there what kind of semantic differences we are speaking about. Mikkalai 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Continued condescension does not make your point for you--it just makes you look bad. If you re-read my previous post, I agreed with you that Russian expansion in the West was imperial proper, not colonial. So I already agree with your above points about the Baltics, Belarus and Georgia. I would consider Siberia Russian just as the Western territories of North America became U.S. States. But the independence of nationalist ethnicities in Central Asia after having been subsumed under colonial and then formal domination certainly does qualify as decolonization. See a reputable source here: [2]. You didn't really address the Central Asian republics or Eastern Europe in your above post--are you content with my previous position on those? —thames 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

About Eastern Europe: our colony article introduces the term informal colony, which would be applicable, although I would consider it a political slander, rather than a serious term. We already have "satellite state" that pretty much covers the issue. I have no opinion about Central Asian republics, since they were and are in the state of feudalism IMO. Also, their position within USSR did not differ much from present Bashkortostan or Tuva. So in this respect, I am repeating: just spell it: is Russian Federation a colonial state? If you say yes and seriously corroborate it in the colony article, the same clearly applies to USSR, and I will not argue. Mikkalai 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, you revealed your own bias. Your overly defensive attitude towards Soviet rule is a bit usettleing. Certainly I wouldn't characterise USSR as solely "greedy Russians" as you seem to think I would, but by the same token, it was certainly not the benevolent rule you describe. In any case, you say that the Baltic states were occupied territiory, not colonies, but that is exactly what our definition of a "colony" is. Look it up. --Dmcdevit 00:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Was Bohemia colony of Austria-Hungary? Was East Prussia colony of Germany? Is Northern Ireland colony of Great Britain? There are many different terms to describe dependencies between places. Not all of them must be put under the same title "colony". It would be a gross oversimplification. And our definition, however poor it is, is not "exactly" "that". And how you managed to see my "defensive" attitude towards Soviet Union is beyond my comprehension. I suggest you to look at some of my contributions at User:Mikkalai page, namely the ones that begin from letters 'NKV' and related ones. Mikkalai 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distinct state"; "Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries". Again, as you suggest, why don't you first change the articles you disagree with (ie, definition of colonialism) and then change it here. See if you can disprove that with defintion with references. --Dmcdevit 00:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In my spare time. "Distinct" is a clearly wrong word. Such a definition will cover each and every expansion of a state. Also "colonialism" and "colony", just as "imperialism" and "empire", or "communism" and "commune" refer to different things; related but not the same. USSR may well be called colonialist and imperialist, but to call in "empire" or "metropoly" would be an overstretch. Mikkalai 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Something that definitely indicates USSR as not a colonial state is the fact that people in the 'colonies' were equal to Russians in every way, up to a point that most of the time USSR existed (1924-1981), it's highest politcal power was in hands of non-Russians. Stalin was Georgian. Khrushev and Brezhnev were both Ukrainians. Would it be imaginable that a Senegalese would become the president of France? Or could an Indian become british PM? Would a Filipino be able to become the president of USA? I don't think so. In this term, the republics of USSR as much of colonies as Wales or Scotland are colonies of the United Kingdom. As to satelite states, these had their own government and full souvereignity. There were more american troops in Germany or Britain then soviet troops in Poland. Of course, USSR invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia to put them back in line, but isn't it the same as what USA has done to Panama? Nobody would be calling Panama a colony of the United States. There were many bad things about the USSR, but colonization was not among them, sorry. --Anton100 10:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There definitely was no "equality to Russians in every way". Many high posts in occupied Baltics were only trusted to people of Russian origin. (Sometimes they changed their name to appear native and try to invoke trust.) Strong influx of Russian population was maintained throughout the Soviet rule, instrumental to maintaining effective control of the territory. I do believe this is typical of colonizing.

Use of local language was often suppressed. Only Russian language was allwed in many official matters.

There were no racial differences and people of the occupied territories were often of higher cultural development than the occupiers, thus there couldn't be any such strict line drawn between local population and the colonizers, and the locals kept from many public posts, as in for instance African colonies, but in many aspects it was still genuine colonization.--88.196.41.236 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please discontinue this cold war rhetoric and russophobic "bitching". The USSR was not a empire, colony, etc. No matter how much you want it to be. -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse the Russian Empire should be included as a colonial power, it overtook, oppressed, deported and sometimes even massacred the indiginous peoples of the Krim, Kaukasus, Eurasian Steppe, Central-Azia, Siberia and Alaska. NeoRetro (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with concern for indigenous peoples being that Russia promptly annexed most of those to the metropole and largely Russified them, fulfilling the requirements of decolonization, however imperialistic you wish to claim it is. It's similar to the westward expansion of America and China: you can make a note of it, but it's not colonialism per se.

On the other hand, this article currently suffers from a massive POV bias. Soviet propaganda is currently being used as decorative art and being repeated within the article, whereby Western colonies count and are condemned while forcible Soviet occupation, colonization, and exploitation of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe are omitted (along with America's involvements in decolonialization, even including the Suez Crisis.) This is not just a Western perspective: the PRC, Yugoslavia, and Albania all produced voluminous Marxist condemnations of Russia's provincial and colonial attitudes towards other states.

On the other hand, apparently there are some true believers in Soviet propaganda here, so whoever undertakes rewriting that section should probably be sure to acknowledge that Soviet colonialism generally employed nominally independent states (while crushing with insurrection or military force any actual moves towards true political, military, or economic independence), source thoroughly, and couch qualitative descriptions in terms of their originators and not using an ex cathedra voice. Even then, probably will need an interested editor to tamp down edit wars. -114.91.67.169 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

collaboration of the week eh?

Hmm, yes, well I can see that it could use a bit of work to bring it up to standard. I did study decolonisation at university - although this was almost entirely focussing on the British Empire, other empires were only brought in comparitively - but that was only undergraduate, and I don't know how much I can remember!

Some initial thoughts:

• The current article seems awkwardly unsure whether to cover decolonisation as a general concept (Roman/Ottoman empires, etc) and in the more focussed post-WWII sense. Not sure if this would be better served with 2 articles, or just clearer/better sectioning/flow?

The incomplete list of random examples in the first historical paragraph is unnecessary here. If it is reinstated elsewhere, it should certainly begin with the Greek colonies, if not earlier: say, with the Elamite resistance to Babylon.Septentrionalis 20:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• For example, 1.1 seems to be the 'general' bit, and 1.2 is clearly the more specific. Section 2 and 3 are also being more specific, so it seems very odd for 1.2 to be in a different level/subcategory. Similarly, section 2 is clearly "a cause", but all other causes and analysis are mixed together in 3. It would make more sense to have a tree more like this, wouldn't it?:

• • 2. Decolonisation after WWII
    • 2.1 Timeline
    • 2.2 Causes
      • 2.2.1 UN resolution
      • 2.2.x etc
    • 2.3 Consequences/Aftermath

• The timeline is good, but I was initially surprised to see the links go simply to the country: Kenya. I was expecting something like Independence of Kenya or History of Kenya#Independence, given that the story of each individual country's decolonisation has filled many books. But when I looked at History of Kenya I realised why - Wikipedia isn't really quite there yet, eh :)

As for causes/theories/explanations, the following need covering:

• "push" factors - nationalist movements, instability/violence, etc.
• spiralling cost of keeping an Empire, especially given...
• geopolitical & military obsolesence in the post-nuclear Cold War / superpower era.
• growing moral unnacceptability- UN resolution, UN condemnation, eg Hola camp massacre (Kenya)
• Soviet interference theory

Major historical perspectives include:

• "Bequeathing democracy" - the spin put on it by contemporary figures, basically! (Albeit one accepted by the more uncritical historians that followed). I.e., that the colonial powers were deliberating and carefully withdrawing in such a way as to leave stable countries along the Westminster system. E.g. "it is our object – and this is something which unites both sides of the House – to leave representative institutions behind us wherever we give up our rule... we cannot... in Africa... fall below our own highest standards" (Enoch Powell in the Commons)
• "Slippery slope" - that deliberate minor changes soon begat unforeseen major changes, until full independence was granted far more rapidly than had originally been intended, if it had been intended at all. Increasing concessions leading to increasing demands from nationalists. E.g. "in Kenya, as elsewhere in Africa... the British, far from willing the outcome of their constitutional changes, found themselves overtaken by events" (J. Darwin, Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat From Empire in the Post-War World, (London, 1988 (1994))
• "Transformation" - the idea that decolonisation was not "losing" empire, only transforming it, into a looser, less formal quasi-empire: one with an economic element, obviously, given global capitalist 'free trade', and also one based on shared culture and values (see: the Commonwealth). E.g. "the process of moving colonies towards independence was, in effect, only moving towards another type of interdependence" (D.G. Boyce, Decolonisation and the British Empire, 1775-1997, (London, 1999))

Stevekeiretsu 18:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scope

I am unsure as to the scope of this article. I took "Decolonization" to mean, as the title suggests it is, and as the lead sentence states: "Decolonization is the process of emancipation of colonies, the one opposite to colonization." Though clearly the main usage is post WWII, does that mean that any pre-WWII occurance of this phenomenon should not be discussed at all (even in this general article)? What I'm trying to say is that I added a short paragraph about earlier decolonization, which I thought could be good background at least if not expanded, but it was deleted shortly thereafter. What is the scope, and more importantly, why? --Dmcdevit 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are, I think, two choices. The collapse of the European colonies since roughly 1945 - although the formal independence of Iraq in 1932 might be mentioned; or a list of the fall of every empire since Sargon I. The second is not doable on this scale, and would not be done in a week. Link to a world-history article (Fall of Empires)? Septentrionalis 23:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are *more* than two options. What I had in mind was spending the bulk of the article on post-WWII, as it is the main usage and the largest occurence, but having introductory sections talking about the idea of decolonization, its trends (i.e. the after empires thing), and a few specific examples of earlier inctances, but not the same scale of discussion of post-WWII. I don't know how you could have an honest, cmprehensive article without even at least mentioning Rome, Mongol Empire, and post-WWI... at the very least. --Dmcdevit 00:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Post WWI is part of the subject, although it should be limited to the decline of empire during that period. Which of the following empires do you propose to omit: The Greek decolonisation in Parthia and Italy? The collapse of Abbasid Iran? The decolonization of both Americas, from 1776 onward?

Nor is the Mongol case parallel. The decolonization of our time has always left the former metropolis in existence, and in most cases still a Power. The Mongols dissolved.

Parallels of to the themes above, once discussed, are another matter; but they can be done anyway. Septentrionalis 05:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that in general academic usage, when referring to "Decolonization" the time period, you are referring to the post-WWII emancipation from European colonization. I think this article ought to point to some general information on the decline of empire, but the meat of it should focus on that specific time period. —thames 13:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drafting general comments Septentrionalis 15:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I recognise post-WWII as the general usage, I was only suggesting including mention of what it meant in general with earlier examples, not every possible one. It's a minor point, but I just thought it seemed kind of shortsighted to neglect all that came before our century. --Dmcdevit 02:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think, on balance, that a list of previous empires and their collapse is the wrong way to go. But if you have something else to suggest, please do add it, and let' see. Septentrionalis 23:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is a colony?

Is an area over which a pwerful country claims ownership, but claims in law to incorporate into its own territory and treat the inhabitants as citizens a colony? [Examples: Algeria/France. Soviet Central Asua/Soviet Union].

Is an area in which a powerful country puts an army, but over which it does not claim ownership in fact a colony? [Egypr from 1882-1954/UK, Poland/SU]

This article needs a policy (which need not be an absolute Yes or No) or the question will come up over and over again; it already has begun to Septentrionalis 23:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO. See new comment at end of page.211.30.196.26 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Colonization 1945" image

Just wondering, why is the U.S. pictured as a colony? And France and Italy for that matter? (BTW, I didn't even see that Italy was shaded till I opened the full image -- it's hard to tell the difference between the neutral gray and the slightly different shade of gray for Italy.)

Anyway, it's confusing, IMO, to color the colonial power the same color as its colonies. Why shouldn't they be neutral gray? I think it also lessens the impact of seeing exactly who was a colony back in 1945. In addition, the thing is reduced so much from its original size that it's difficult to tell, for example, that the Philippines were a U.S. colony.

So my 2 cents are that I'm not so sure this map should be included in the final article. –dablaze 23:22, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the colors just represent the country's territory, not only its colonies. So the colonizer, for insance Britain, is the same color as its colonies. They are all fairly obvious as to which is the colony or colonizer, as long as you know where the few major countries are, so I don't see a problem with that. Maybe the size could be altered though. --Dmcdevit 23:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You ask "why shouldn't they be neutral gray". The answer obviously is that then you'd be forced to read the labels to understand which color represents what. Now a mere glance at the colors of the map tells you all the information you need to knowAs for Italy's colour, anyone can fix it. And as for the size, I uploaded a huge image, just so that you can have it at the size you like.Aris Katsaris 01:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The map doesn't include the Australian colonies, most notably in New Guinea. matturn 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador should not be marked as a colony; Dominion status 1907. See article. Septentrionalis 23:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems

As the previous contributors have said, this piece is unsure of its purpose so I have made some changes to clarify the more modern versions of process, leaving it to others to decide what the scope should be by either adding or deleting the examples.

David91

Hong Kong not leased

Hong Kong island and Kowloon weren't leased from the Chinese, only the New Terrorities were covered by the 99-year lease. 138.37.241.93 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC) But the lease came as a result of a hostile, sly strategic operation on the part of the British. The opium wars are not given enough attention. The Chinese were more than self-sufficient, it was only because the English had nothing that the Chinese wanted that the English selfishly used opium to force trade open by making innocent peoples addicted! In my opinion an honest open war would have been the best option but the fact that the British played the sly under hand makes the Chinese invasion even more unjust, how was a disorientated gaggle of intoxicated people going to contend with a relativly weak (as proven by resorting to drugs) British army? The take over would have been more acceptable had it been a mlitary battle. Yes, blah blah blah, don't have a clue what I'm talking about!

Lousianna Purchase

Most of the people living in the lands sold by France to the US did not become US citizens. The land was subsequently heavily colonized by Americans. Colonization *increased* after the purchase. matturn 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the Turtle Islanders whose countries had conflicting territories and severe territorial disputes with claimed French and English and US lands? --Danachos (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Problems of definition

1. Definition

Decolonization is the process by which a colony gains its independence from a colonial power, a process opposite to colonization.

--> I do not see what excludes the United States of America from this definition other than the fact that part of the colonizers declared independence instead of the natives. However, the USA declared independence from its colonial power. In order to exlude the USA, the definition needs to be adjusted.

2. Definition

In the 20th and 21st centuries "decolonization" usually refers to the achievement of independence by the various European colonies and protectorates in Asia and Africa following World War II.

--> This definition seems to exclude cases such as Macao and Hong Kong, which did not gain independence. In this case the first definition may be better.

Suggestion for an improved defintion (I have not found a way to exclude the USA but I think this proposal can better capture cases such as Hong Kong or Macao):

Decolonization represents the process of withdrawal of an imperial power from its colonial dependency either by force or voluntarily.

--Ghormax 12:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to exclude the US? What about some of the commonwealth nations? IIRC, New Zealand and Austrial had a majority of colonists at the time of their independence and have a closer culture to that of Britain. BioTube 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuous addition:

There are some people (mainly Americans) who wishfully think and argue that USA was decolonized when it gained independence and acquired lands from the European powers in the 18th century. For example see the following quote from a previous version of this

article:

"From the late 18th century up through 19th century decolonization in the Americas occurred, beginning with American colonists' revolt against British rule in the present-day United States, and continuing through the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America."

This is clearly a self evident nonsense. If a property gets stolen and then changed hands but still has not been returned to the original owner, will it be considered stolen or not? Probably this myth is circulated in order to justify USA as a legitimate nation

This is mostly commentary. If there is debate about whether or not the USA is truly decolonized, we can mention it in this article. But the statements need to be cited and written from a neutral POV, and probably need better placement than in the introductory paragraph.--Rockero 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those and replaced them with text the doesn't cast the US as an illegimate nation. Hopefully this new text will be less objectable. BioTube 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that this page be protected. BioTube 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your modification to the lead is not much of an improvement, as it is still unsourced. If there is debate over whether the US was truly decolonized, it belongs either under "Differing perspectives", or perhaps as a new subsection on the history of the U.S. as a former colony-turned-colonizing power. Furthermore, I don't think it needs protection. I am trying to engage the IP in this discussion. Let's assume good faith first, shall we?--Rockero 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was good enough until something more substantial could be created. BioTube 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to paste part of the "discussion" (which, admittedly, does not discuss much) here, so editors can get a clearer idea of what the dispute is about.

If you wish to add information into the Decolonization article, please be sure that it is cited, verifiable, and written from a Neutral Point of View. If you need help with this, please comment on the talkpage as me on my discussion page.--Rockero 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What I have done is removing and clarifying some "self evident" nonsense that was circulated by wikipedia already.--68.108.118.13

What you are doing is adding nonsense. There is no way that the US could be considered an illegitimate nation. BioTube 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Read agian what I put in the article. It should be self evident.--68.108.118.13

You can't put "self-evident" information into an article. It has to come from from a written source. If you can find a writer who has said that the U.S. is not a legitimate nation (I'm sure there are many), then add it to the article in their words. What you are adding and the way you are adding it makes it original research. Please do not keep adding in the same passage that has already been deemed inappropriate. Rather, take your conserns to the article's talkpage where the community can assess your concerns and help you get what you want included into the article. This is a community project that we are all working on and unilateral actions, especially controversial ones, are not looked upon kindly. If you continue to revert, you can be blocked for vandalism, so please, take it to the discussion page where we can work it out together. Thanks, --Rockero 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not lecture me. I have already told you that what I am doing was removing and clarifying a self evident nonsense that was already circulated by Wikipedia. Also do not keep on repeating that Wikipedia is going to block me.--68.108.118.13

It looks like Wikipedia is blocking me from editing the article on decolonization. I will wait for few days and see if wikipedia comes to sense and allows me to edit. If not then it just means Wikipedia has blocked itself from Truth :)--68.108.118.13

If I may, I believe the dispute is not over whether Britain ever lost dominion over the thirteen colonies, which is an agreed-upon historical fact, but whether or not the U.S. can claim a "legitimately-decolonized" status, since the institutions of the newly-independent territories were set up not by the indigenous colonized people, but by colonists and their descendents themselves. The text that is repeatedly added to (not removed from) the article reads,

"There are some people (mainly Americans) who wishfully think and argue that USA was decolonized when it gained independence and acquired lands from the European powers in the 18th century. For example see the following quote from a previous version of this article: "From the late 18th century up through 19th century decolonization in the Americas occurred, beginning with American colonists' revolt against British rule in the present-day United States, and continuing through the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America." This is clearly a self evident nonsense. If a property gets stolen and then changed hands but still has not been returned to the original owner, will it be considered stolen or not? Probably this myth is circulated in order to justify USA as a legitimate nation.

The problem with this text is that it is unsourced and not written from a neutral point of view. We can have a debate about whether or not the U.S. is truly "decolonized", and whether or not to include it in the article and how. But we need to have that discussion in order to reach a consensus. The place to have that discussion is on the article's talkpage. I am addressing myself both to 68.108.118.13 and Biotube. Thanks for both of your cooperation.--Rockero 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia opened the Pandora's box a while ago. What use is now talking about neutral point of view, consensus etc -- 68.108.11.13

Amigo, you need to clearly articulate your concerns about the article's deficiencies on the talkpage. You need to explain what you think is lacking/incorrect, and suggest specific ways to improve it. If you keep on adding your content without discussion, you will be blocked for violating the 3rr rule. Please respect the rules around here. (P.S. can't you see that I'm trying to help you out here?)--Rockero 04:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this will stimulate discussion.--Rockero 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting that the crazy guy's still at it. View his talk page. BioTube 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think calling the contributor "crazy" is going to help? Sure, he seemed incapable of adhering to Wikipedia standards, but your baiting him only reinforces his notion that "Wikipedia is against him" or that "Wikipedia is against truth". We may have been able to use his criticism to improve the article, and now he is just jaded and bitter. Don't bite the newcomers, and always remain civil.--Rockero 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably gonna bow out of this and just simply revert the vandalism. I've got better things to do. BioTube 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Charts

The charts are useful, but in the current form, they are cutting the text in two and impeding confortable reading. They should be moved at the end of the article, or even in another article, as was done for Chronology of colonialism. I'll move them at the end meanwhile, as to see how it goes. Lapaz 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In the same way, the "post-colonial organization chart" is nice but incorrect. How it the ACP countries former colonies of the European Union? The other Commonwealth organizations nicely fit, but the ACP shouldn't be added there just for the sake of it. Lapaz 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate culture

I rm the sentence concerning a "separate culture" of the US. Although that could of course be argued (American Way of life), the US are part of the Western world. Lapaz 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

United States English?

Can we not affirm that colonisation has been more of a European matter than a United States one? So shouldn't this article be called decolonisation instead of decolonization? I thought that the wikipedia style on U.S. - British English said that European matters would be written about in British English (the official English of the European Union). --Aquarelle 07:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, especially on such matters ! Lapaz 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

USSR as a colonial power

The controversy above seems to have resulted in the sections in this article on the USSR being highly underdeveloped; this is a deficiency that IMO should be corrected. There are quite a few reliable sources discussing Soviet policy in Eastern Europe and Central Asia as a form of colonialism from as early as the 1950s:

• W. W. Kulski, "Soviet Colonialism and Anti-Colonialism", Russian Review, Vol. Vol. 18, No. 2, 1959
• Hayit, "Turkestan as an Example of Soviet Colonialism" Studies on the Soviet Union. 1961
• "The Soviet Empire: Colonial Practices and Socialist Ideology" Russian Review, Vol. 59 No. 2 April 2000
• Crankshaw et al, "Communism and Colonialism: Essays", Slavic Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), ... from which I will quote, "In many ways this Soviet colonialism is unique: ... because it oppresses advanced and fully developed nations, including some whose cultural level is above that of Russia"
• Many of Geoffrey Wheeler's and Baymirza Hayit's publications, etc.

While people from other SSRs may have theoretically had equal rights to Russians (including the right to secede from the USSR), this doesn't mean much with regards to whether or not Soviet rule there was colonialism; Koreans and Taiwanese theoretically had equal rights with Japanese, their territories sent legislators to the Japanese diet, and Koreans resident in Japan even had the right to vote, but no one would deny that Korea and Taiwan were Japanese colonies. In Kazakhstan, for example, huge numbers of Kazakhs can barely even speak the Kazakh language and have instead been Russified; seems like a pretty clear example of colonialism to me. Comments? cab 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, just a few months ago, I read an argument claiming that Russia itself was "colonized" by the USSR, because traditional Russian culture was surpressed, outsiders ruled over the nation, etc. Can't for the life of me remember where I read it, though, and I don't know whether this is a widely-accepted position in Russia or the academic world, or a far-out political position someone's staking out to get votes, or what. cab 22:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with calling the USSR a colonial power is that human colonization is not the same as political colonization (although they are usually related) and political colonization is only one form of political dependency. Protectorates & protected states are not colonies and satellite states are not colonies. They are all areas of influence, but they are not colonies. Rather they a part of an imperial system and not a colonial system (which itself can be a part of an imperial system). Protectorates, protected states and satellites may be be parts of an empire but are not colonies. They can be dominated, but not colonized. Also, unit territories cannot be colonies, otherwise all of the USA is colonial territory and Scotland and Wales are colonies of England instead of constituent countries of the UK. If the Soviet Republics were colonies then what was the mother country? The mother country itself cannot be the collection of the colonies. If the Soviet Republics were colonies, then so was Slovakia (under Czechoslovakia); Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro & Macedonia (under Yugoslavia) but these countries and their acquisitions of independence are not even dealt with in the article (and I doubt anyone would ever think of doing such a thing anyway). Likewise if the Republics of the USSR were colonies, then today colonies include Barbuda (under Antigua and Barbuda), Nevis (under St. Kitts and Nevis), the Laccadives and Andaman Islands (under India) and South Sudan (under Sudan).

Despite what some people may think, legally the Soviet Republics were all fairly represented in the Supreme Soviet (they were represented proportionally based on population in the Soviet of the Union and equally as republics in the Soviet of Nationalities). Colonies in general are not represented in the legislature of their controlling countries...even today the British overseas territories are not represented in in the parliament of the UK and US territories cannot send voting delegates to the US Congress (in essence these delegates can only talk and observe). An exception to this is France which allows its overseas territories full, voting representation in the French parliament and full voting rights in European elections (although this was not always so). But even with France the territories have differing levels of autonomy (including the ability to choose which currency they wish to use e.g. the CFP franc as opposed to the euro) which could not occur if the territories were or became integral units of France (like the departments).

The inhabitants of the Soviet Republics were all Soviet citizens. This was not the case with colonies until recently. Previously, inhabitants of colonies were not accorded the same political status as inhabitants of the controlling power, hence there were British subjects in the colonies and British citizens in the UK (this was changed only recently with colonial nationals being British overseas territory citizens and not British citizens until very recently); French subjects in the colonies and French citizens in France (this changed after WWII at the beginning of a major wave of decolonization when France granted citizenship to all its subjects) and even with the USA, the inhabitants of its overseas territories were not automatically granted US citizenship upon the acquisition of the territories by the US. The inhabitants in these territories were all US nationals and not citizens at some point (although they could become citizens) and even now the citizenship possessed by the inhabitants of these territories is statutory citizenship (i.e. citizenship granted by a statute/act of Congress) and this citizenship can likewise be revoked by an act of Congress (if one of the territories became independent for example). Citizens from States and D.C. can never have their citizenship revoked by a simple majority of Congress.

The Baltic States, it is true, were forcibly incorporated into the USSR, but they were incorporated as equal republics (although without the consent of the Baltic states themselves) and so they were occupied territories (not colonized territories). The fact that Russians got many high level jobs is also not necessarily a feature of colonialism, but is due to discrimination. The same kind of discrimination as occurred in the American South (where such discrimination was legal but not as extreme as in Apartheid South Africa). However, the Civil Rights Movement and the end of Apartheid in South Africa are not considered or treated as decolonization events in the article (and never will be). Russians were not legally superior and possessed the same citizenship as other ethnic groups. There was no difference in the legal status of Russians and non-Russians; there was no ‘’legal’’ discrimination. But just because there was discrimination in favour of Russians (who did not always get the top jobs as I will point out shortly), does not mean the USSR is a colonial power. Now even though Russians, mainly got the top jobs, they did not always get the top jobs (as was pointed out in an earlier discussion about the USSR): Stalin was Georgian, Malenkov was of ethnic Macedonian origin and Brezhnev and Tikhonov were Ukrainians. Similarly the UK had a Welsh Prime Minister (one who was a Welshmen and Welsh-speaking): David Llyod George and today the UK has a PM from Scotland (although of Anglo-Irish parentage) and candidate to be PM in the future who is Scottish.

Cab said that “Koreans and Taiwanese theoretically had equal rights with Japanese, their territories sent legislators to the Japanese diet, and Koreans resident in Japan even had the right to vote, but no one would deny that Korea and Taiwan were Japanese colonies.” However, the majority of Koreans and (Taiwanese) did not have totally equal rights with the Japanese, either in theory or practice (and especially dependent upon where they resided). Just see Korea under Japanese rule: Residents of Korea (whether ethnic Koreans or Japanese) did not have the right to be elected to or to hold office in Japan’s House of Representatives, although members of the Korean royalty could be appointed to the House of Peers (with many Koreans who supported or assisted the Japanese being given titles of nobility). The law was changed in 1945 to allow Korea to have 18 seats in the House of Representatives but this never went into effect because the war, and Korea, were lost later that same year. So for the entire period of Japanese rule, Korea never had true representation in the Japanese House of Representatives. Korean residents in Japan did have the right to vote, but not immediately upon Japan’s annexation. The first ethnic Korean in Japan was elected to the House of Representatives in 1932, a full 22 years after the annexation. But even though Koreans could vote if they resided in Japan, it would not have been possibly for all Koreans to vote since this would have required the complete transfer of the population of Korea to Japan. Ethnic Japanese in Korea couldn’t vote either, but the ethnic Japanese were able to obtain large tracts of seized land in Korea for settlement at subsidized prices, under a policy of literal Japanese colonization of Korea. This is similar in some ways to the colonization of the Americas (except that Koreans became Japanese citizens unlike Native Americans who for the most part did not become citizens of the colonizing European countries) wherein colonists from European countries could obtain tracts of land in the colonies, but could not vote for representatives to be sent to the parliaments of the mother countries. In addition, Koreans were eventually forbidden from using the Korean language in all schools and businesses. In Korea, a separate currency was used, the Korean yen (issued by the Bank of Korea, and then the Bank of Choson). The Korean yen was on par with the Japanese yen but was issued for use in Korea. Taiwan (and the case of the Taiwanese) was similar to Korea, although Japanese governance of Taiwan went through a number of phases. From 1895 to 1915/1918 Taiwan was governed as a colony, with laws that were different from that of Japan’s. From 1915/1918 until 1945 (under two phases), Japan attempted to assimilate/integrate Taiwan and so applied the laws of Japan to Taiwan. However, Taiwan was still separate from Japan in some respects, including currency. Taiwan used a Taiwanese yen (on par with the Japanese yen) issued by a Bank of Taiwan, throughout the entire period of Japanese rule. In addition, throughout the entire period of Japanese rule, Taiwan was not represented in the Japanese Diet although in March 1945 the elections laws were hastily modified to allow for such Taiwanese representation (see: History of Taiwan#Japanese rule). I don’t know if the modified laws ever went into effect (they may have been the same laws granting Korea representation and if so then they didn’t go into effect), especially in light of the fact that Japan lost control over Taiwan in October 1945. Since Taiwan did not have representation in the Japanese diet, then persons resident in Taiwan probably did not have the right to vote or be elected to the Japanese diet (as was the case with Korea). So overall, Taiwan and Korea were undeniably colonies because they were given representation in the Japanese Diet, had separate specially-issued currencies and were governed by Governor-Generals who usually had large amounts of power (in contrast to the various Home Islands which were not governed in such a manner). Taiwan and Korea then shared similar aspects to current US territories (in not being represented, but having citizenship), former US territories (e.g. Philippines having a Governor-General) and British territories (with separate currencies).

Now some people will say that "this" or "that" minority was oppressed in the USSR, and that is most likely true, but what they leave out is that all Soviet citizens, including the Russian ones, faced repression if they did not agree with the Soviet government. That is a feature of a dictatorship, not necessarily a feature of colonialism (as the inhabitants of the overseas territories of the UK, France and the US obviously are not being repressed).

The example of the Kazakhs not being able to speak the Kazakh language is also not necessarily proof of colonialism, since the same thing happened (and continues to happen) in Scotland and Wales. It is an example of language domination and displacement. Most Scots and Welshmen cannot speak or understand the Scottish or Welsh Gaelic languages. But again, this does not mean Scotland and Wales are now colonies of England. It is an example of one language becoming the dominant language of politics, business and social mobility. This can occur with official government policy (e.g. Russification in the Russian Empire) or without it (e.g. the US, UK and USSR have/had no official languages). But it doesn't necessarily represent colonialism (otherwise the world today is being colonized by England through the English language).

Frequently the terms "colonialism", "imperialism" and to a far lesser extent "dictatorship" are confused, leading to characterizations of "independence", "democratization" or "liberation" being substituted by (and confused with) "decolonization". Colonialism and Imperialism are related but not the same. France and Britain were colonial powers that established colonies which were separate countries under their political domination and which were at least partly populated by settlers and economically exploited. Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire were imperial powers (as far as their contiguous land territories were concerned) since even in areas where they may have introduced settlers and economically exploited, those areas were a part of the country. Both Austria-Hungary and imperial Russia held overseas territories briefly, but their empires were not composed of separate colonies (although Russia did establish formal military colonies within the country as a form of internal colonization, but the USSR had no such military colonies). Independence and decolonization are not the same thing (although decolonization is frequently accompanied by independence). The future Czechoslovakia gained independence from Austria-Hungary, but the Czech and Slovak lands (Bohemia, Moravia and parts of Hungary) were not considered to be colonies. Decolonization can even occur without independence (e.g. Hong Kong and Macau or disputably the former Spanish Sahara).

The USSR was, according to its own constitutions, both a dictatorship and a federation (although the one-party system and dictatorship made governance of the Union highly centralized) and it also had discrimination and a dominant de facto language and a dominant ethnic group (which was to be expected considering the population size of the various groups - even today the US has a dominant group: English-speaking Caucasians. I mean no offence, but just look at the all of its Presidents and the majority of persons in government and until equal rights between men and women, most countries even had a dominant sex). But a dictatorship, discrimination, dominant language and ethnic group do not make the USSR a colonial power.72.27.77.144 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands?

Weren't Ryukyu Islands American territory after WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.74.67 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It was jointly ruled by the U.S. and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.145.254 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

US and Philipines

PER THIS CHANGE (cur) (last) 08:15, October 26, 2007 172.130.97.167 (Talk) (58,416 bytes) (→The United States) (undo)

From US intending to keep Philipines to US NOT intending to keep, neither allegation was sourced. Probably at different times both were true. But it sure would be nice if people sourced stuff! (I don't have time on this topic.) Carol Moore 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

worst wikipedia article

in my view, the worst wiki article i have come across. Its just an excuse for left-wingers to bash western countries. In addition, it's a poorly written article that makes little sense (eg, the first map you see states that quebec is a colony in 1945, but Greenland not!)

I wouldnt be suprised if the entire article was lifted from some russian/chinese textbook. Its a disgrace to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Decolonization in a broad sense

This section was edited on september 9, 2007 (link: [3] by someone who added the following paragraph:

Amongst the countries which are likely to decolonise territories over the next two decades are the U.K. (Bermuda, Gibraltar, Sovereign Bases in Cyprus, British Virgin Islands, Falklands, etc), U.S.A. (U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, etc), and France (French Guiana, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Reunion, Guadalope, etc).

This unsourced claim represents in my opinion original research, as well as possibly militant editing. From the top of my head, the population of Gibraltar has consistently rejected being returned to Spain, the Falklands are culturally British and apparently resist Argentinian claims of sovereignty over the islands and French Guiana, Reunion and Guadeloupe are French departments and have no serious independence movements to speak of. French Polynesia and New Caledonia are expected to vote to clarify their ties with France in the future, but even there independence seems unlikely for economic and demographic reasons. I am unfamiliar with the status of U.S. dependencies. However, it seems to me that if citations are not forthcoming, this paragraph and the section "Decolonization in coming years" at the end, which is merely a retelling of the aforementioned claim, should be removed. 66.130.156.84 (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that "the population of Gibraltar has consistently rejected being returned to Spain, the Falklands ...resist Argentinian claims of sovereignty over the islands" does not mean that they resist decolonization. In fact the opposite is true. They fully support the decolonization process, but decolonization does not mean the end of British sovereignty, nor the transfer to spain or argentina. I agree though that the claim as worded is speculative opninion, which does not seem right in WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.145 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ex-Yugoslav republics

I'm unsure if this has been discussed previously (forgive my ignorance if it has), but after the Balkan wars and the disintegration of Yugoslavia, would the present-day republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia be shown to have been 'decolonised' from Yugoslavia? I can understand Yugoslavia wasn't entirely a 'coloniser' in the traditional sense and it was more a federation of states, but then again so was Russia in a way and that has been listed? Lordstorm (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Please interpret the "strong national ties" directive as narrowly as possible when considering a move proposal -- that is, page moves initiated to change spelling in this way very rarely reach a consensus to move the page in question. Dekimasuよ! 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The article should be moved from Decolonization to Decolonisation due to strong national ties to the topic, as per the Manual of Style. An article on a topic that has strong ties to particular English-speaking nations should use the appropriate variety of English for those nations. Spelling in the article should therefore reflect the Commonwealth/AU/EU English spelling conventions most commonly used by the decolonised and decoloniser nations in Asia, Africa and Europe. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, though a direct link to manual of style section would help to confirm. Plus can unregistered users rename/move pages? Danged Brits gotta pay for 600 years of colonizing Ireland, among other nations. :-) Carol Moore 01:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Agree with above. Article should be moved to reflect international scope and not be U.S. centric as there is very little actual U.S. related content. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Oppose The claim that -ize cannot be British is a common error; we should not base our naming practice on it. More importantly, this is not what is meant by a strong tie; that would be an article like Worcestershire or Peterloo massacre. This article deals as much with the dissolution of the French Empire - or for that matter, the American Empire around the Philippines - as the British. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't base our naming practice on Oxford -ize spelling, which is uncommon in UK/Commonwealth English (only used by Oxford University Press and the Times Literary Supplement), so the article as it stands does reflect North American usage, rather than African, South Asian or European, which overwhelmingly prefers -ise. UK English is the European Union and African Union standard, and Commonwealth English is the norm in English-speaking Africa. Liberia is a pinprick, and the Philippines is small beans compared with South Asia, where English of the Commonwealth variety is what's widely spoken and where the -ise spelling is standard.129.67.174.46 (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Liberia may be a pinprick (although it was never an American possession); but the American Empire of the Pacific and the Caribbean was not. Indeed, we should say more about Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico than we do, being, with French Guiana, the few successful colonial settlements without independence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There is no particular reason to use British spelling, expecially since colonization does apply to countries like the US (which has had many colonies). So there is zero reason to move the article. TJ Spyke 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is no such thing as "US English" or "US spelling". The language is ENGLISH and its usage in England should be considered canonical. The fact that many in the US use incorrect spellings is another issue, but these incorrect spellings should not be given credence or quasi official status. UK English is the ONLY English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.145 (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Short lesson in the evolution of language. The USA does not speak the Queen's English. There are too many influences on American English (that's the official term) for it to remain static. The spellings that disagree with UK spellings (eg, color v colour) are correct in in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.172.151 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

After looking at the article I think ti definately needs a clear cut criticism section, as all articles of a similiar nature have. A list of criticisms I'm aware of as a example of why one should be added; -'Tears' a nation apart. (primarily right, though not exclusively) -A way for the core nation to reduce the amount of moeny it has to spend at the expense of the people. (Left, though not exclusive) -Many colonies wer enot prepared for nationhood.

Now I'm sure their are most likely many other reasons I'm simply not aware of that people have, bot those are the oens I know of. And before anyone insults the suggestion as being nationalistic/right-wing I'll point out I'm part of the far left.

-IK —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

Post-Cold War era, Gibraltar

This section states that as of 2006 Gibraltar achieves decolonisation following acceptance in an act of self determination (referendum) of a new Constitution, which removed all trappings and vestiges of colonialism, and accepted by the UK & Gibraltar as starting a new non-colonial relationship between them, while still fully under British sovereignty.

Since when the actual colonists and the Metropolis can declare that "decolonisation has been achieved"? What's the Spanish position on this issue? Aren't there U.N. resolutions concerning the still colonial relationship between Gibraltar & the UK? Some examples.

Gibraltar is still a non self-governing territory, and is considered an overseas territory of the UK. It's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. The UK retains responsibility for defence, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability.

Besides, the same year, UK Europe Minister Jim Murphy, told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons concerning the new constitution that "he has never described it as an end to the colonial relationship".

So, why Gibraltar is no longer a colony? Because the UK said so? Please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.72.87 (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a self-governing colony. MrTranscript (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the UK itself that declared Gibraltar a colony in 1830, and therefore the UK that has the authority to declare the end of that status. Who cares what the spanish position on the issue is? spain is not the administering power, nor the sovereign state, they are merely the neighbouring state, so their opinion is no more relevant than the opinion of any other state. The governor btw has no role in "financial stability" this is another myth kept afloat for no apparent reason. The UN also has no role in deciding whether Gibraltar is a colony or not. The UN keeps a list of "non-self governing territories" which is not quite the same as being a colony. The UK govt has stated that the Gib constitution was accepted by Gibraltar following an act of self determination and that the relationship is no longer colonial in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.145 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on. Of course the UK would say that. Gibraltar is obviously a British enclave in Spain. Is that so terrible? It's just a tiny bit of land which serves as a home to some British who like the sun and live in peace with their neighbors. It's not like Spain itself is colonized by the British. If the Spanish want to claim Gibraltar with a straight face, then they should also be willing to give Ceuta and Manilla to the Moroccans.

Move again?

I would have liked to support the move to decolonisation, but it says I cannot modify it. I think that it should move to the Eng/AUS/Africa spelling because THAT IS WHERE decolonisation happened. Philippines is one example for America. Thats the ONLY ONE!! There might even be 20 examples or more of british decolonisation! It has only been used once in the American world (only place to use -ize) so therefore its powerless against the huge amounount of former British colonies.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I will wait a couple of weeks before I take any action since it is not long since there was a requested move. I also have my own reasons for the move, as well as yours. I will start another request shortly. MrTranscript (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact looking at the dates, I'll do it now. MrTranscript (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)