webdiplomacy.net

I've been seeing a lot of Twitter and other social media discussion about colonialism and formerly colonized peoples/places. But at least mention of '

what do you mean 'formerly'

So i was wondering, where do webdipper consider to still be colonized entities?
Does Guantanamo Bay count? Is Taiwan colonized by the Chinese Republic rather than being allowed independence? Please add your own examples Below.

Guantanamo Bay is a naval base and prison, rather than a "colony", I'd say. It should not be there and is a symbol of imperialism, but I'm not sure it's a "colony", exactly.

Still existing colonies would include, as examples:

Bermuda
Gibraltar
Guam
American Samoa
French Polynesia
Montserrat
New Caledonia

And other similar non-self Governing territories.

Do Gulags qualify?

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:57 pm

Do Gulags qualify?

I don't know why i read galapagos... Probably because i also didn't know how they are spelled.

Gulags probably do not count. But prisons, and prison abolition (in particular how they are used to isolate criminalised minorities and control indigenous populations) definitely deserve their own conversation.

Guantanamo is unique territorially in that it is a prison which is outside of the US legal system's jurisdiction. So you can be imprisoned there without ever being tried in either a US or Cuban court (whichever jurisdiction it should be). Pretty unusual circumstances.

I don't think there are any colonies anymore. None of any significant size, at least. The Falklands perhaps qualify... A handful of territories in Antarctica... For colonies you need a lot of empty space, and you don't get that on Earth anymore.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:18 pm

I don't think there are any colonies anymore. None of any significant size, at least. The Falklands perhaps qualify... A handful of territories in Antarctica... For colonies you need a lot of empty space, and you don't get that on Earth anymore.

Empty space? The Portuguese built a trading empire with very little space, many would argue that there a hundreds of colonized people, have you seen indigenous 'reservations' in the US for example.

Most colonies were not built on empty space. I don't know what fantasy you picked that up from.

And not to pick on the West, I'm sure the so called LPR and DPR republics as well as South Ossetia and Abkhazia would qualify. Not sure about the rest of the Russian east.

Colonialism is alive and well in a modern form. It no longer needs colonial governments, armies, and salutes to a king or queen 10,000 miles away, however. It takes the form of loans from the IMF, Chase, Blackrock, and other combines of monetary power; extractions of natural resources by foreign corporations; 'business consultants' being brought in to invest the wealth of 3rd world nations into 1st world stock market swindles; "tragic accidents" that befall leaders that fail to 'toe the line' of the neoliberal world order; coups by army officers, politicians, and business leaders who are willing to sell out the wellbeing of their countries in exchange for personal enrichment; and untold numbers of other methods. I must say that the 'old' colonialism was far more honest: at least there, you knew who to blame for how fucked up things were - and the obvious colonial overlords could not escape some degree of global public responsibility for the people they lorded over.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:53 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:18 pm

I don't think there are any colonies anymore. None of any significant size, at least. The Falklands perhaps qualify... A handful of territories in Antarctica... For colonies you need a lot of empty space, and you don't get that on Earth anymore.

Empty space? The Portuguese built a trading empire with very little space, many would argue that there a hundreds of colonized people, have you seen indigenous 'reservations' in the US for example.

Most colonies were not built on empty space. I don't know what fantasy you picked that up from.

Just differing definitions of colonies, I guess. To be a colony a place needs to be apart from the home country and the home to a large number of people from the home country. For that to work you need a lot of empty space. Back in the days of European colonisation Europe had a population density massively larger than Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. That allowed colonisation to take place. Once colonies become independent of the colonising nation they are no longer colonies. Today there's very little opportunity for colonisation to take place outside of the rest of the solar system

Yes, very different definitions, see also Tolstoy's.

Which i like from a moral stance, even if it is easier to say 'look at this group, and how their oppression affects them'

Also some definitions include this :

#NotMyPrince is trending because Wales is an occupied sovereign Indigenous land stolen by the British crown and the title Prince of Wales was created in 1301 for the soul purpose of reminding the Welsh they were conquered. It's continued use is a purposeful insult. #welshtwitter

Yes, the trouble with calling that colonialism is that it muddies the water and causes confusion. If you're using the same word for corporate exploitation as you are for a research colony in the Antarctic wastes you have created an unnecessary linguistic problem for yourself. And you end up doing stupid and insulting things like calling India a former British colony, which would be utterly ridiculous.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:41 am

Also some definitions include this :

#NotMyPrince is trending because Wales is an occupied sovereign Indigenous land stolen by the British crown and the title Prince of Wales was created in 1301 for the soul purpose of reminding the Welsh they were conquered. It's continued use is a purposeful insult. #welshtwitter

You do find a lot of bollocks, ora. Have you considered that if someone walks through the countryside looking for shit, they will find it? And yet concluding that the countryside is full of shit misses the point and is a painfully blinkered view.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:51 am

And you end up doing stupid and insulting things like calling India a former British colony, which would be utterly ridiculous.

... Wait, what?

Doom427 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 12, 2022 8:20 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:51 am

And you end up doing stupid and insulting things like calling India a former British colony, which would be utterly ridiculous.

... Wait, what?

The Empire was divided into India, the Dominions, Colonies, Protectorates, and Dependencies. India was not a colony, although it did change from its unique status to a Dominion shortly after WWII and until independence.

You also had the League of Nations mandates appear late on, although whether or not you view these as part of the Empire or not is debatable

Ah, I was afraid you would say that.

I guess we need to create a new thread called Modern Dominionism, or even Modern Unique Indian Status, if we ever wanted to discuss India's relation to England.

I suppose it's only natural that the only way we can discuss India is if we use the exact same words and follow the same terms as the Empire that subjugated India.

If Only We had a Universal Term for that!! Alas, this has no relation to any other process anywhere else in history- According to the British At Least and who would understand India better?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:47 am

Doom427 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 12, 2022 8:20 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:51 am

And you end up doing stupid and insulting things like calling India a former British colony, which would be utterly ridiculous.

... Wait, what?

The Empire was divided into India, the Dominions, Colonies, Protectorates, and Dependencies. India was not a colony, although it did change from its unique status to a Dominion shortly after WWII and until independence.

India's colonisation by the British Empire began roughly in the 1750s, and direct British Crown Rule commenced in 1858. India only became a Dominion in August 1947, and then became an independent republic in January 1950.

It is very disingenuous to say "India wasn't a colony" on the basis of its status for a period of less than three years right at the end of that 200-year span.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 13, 2022 2:12 pm

It is very disingenuous to say "India wasn't a colony" on the basis of its status for a period of less than three years right at the end of that 200-year span.

It certainly would if that's what I'd said, but I didn't. India did not change status from colony to dominion. India was not a colony.

If we're talking disingenuous you'd do better to focus on your 200 year nonsense. It's quite a small part of India that could be considered part of the Empire for that long.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:47 am

Doom427 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 12, 2022 8:20 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:51 am

And you end up doing stupid and insulting things like calling India a former British colony, which would be utterly ridiculous.

... Wait, what?

The Empire was divided into India, the Dominions, Colonies, Protectorates, and Dependencies. India was not a colony, although it did change from its unique status to a Dominion shortly after WWII and until independence.

Your semantics are rather beside the point, the Plantations of Munster and later Ulster were colonies. The Irish were colonized in modern understanding, even if the status of this island was that of a kingdom up until the act of Union created a new country (the united kingdom).

Semantics don't really matter when it comes to the lived reality of the people. Likewise, Palestine and Israel. Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States, Tibet and China, East Turkestan and China, Luhansk and Russia, Donetsk and Russia, South Ossetia and Russia, Abkhazia and Russia...