Talk:Colony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removed Taiwan/Republic of China connection

Given the current situation regarding the status of Taiwan, I have removed statements linking Taiwan and the Republic of China. By removing that line I hope I can reduce NPOV in this article. Roswell Crash Survivor 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more colonies

I think American Samoa should be listed of current colonies Troop350 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ĹŃńThis article is far, far from being NPOV. Listing Corsica, Guadeloupe and Martinique as colonies while not listing Hawaii is ridiculous. David.Monniaux 06:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Equality of treatment on colony

(Transferred from User talk:Bkonrad)

Hi. I think that Hawaii should stay on the list, or that most of the list of French oversea possessions should be removed. All of French inhabited oversea possessions enjoy full citizenship rights. Corsica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion have almost exactly the same status as the mainland départements. David.Monniaux 17:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)Anyway when Bob kissed Bilia she flipped

I have no knowledge of French oversea possessions and so cannot offer any suggestions in that regard. However, I very strongly feel that it is inappropriate to include Hawaii in the list. It is mixing apples and oranges. Hawaii is a fully incorporated part of the U.S. The other entities on the list are unincorporated territory (except Palmyra Atoll). If you can make a case for removing the French possessions, then I'm certainly not going to stop you. But Hawaii does not belong on the list, except possibly in a historical context. It is not presently a colony or dependency (at least not in terms of constitutional or international law). older ≠ wiser 18:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The problem is, perhaps none of the lands listed as colonies of France fit the usual definition of "colony" as a country administered from afar without a right to self-determination and without appropriate representation. Should I delete the list?
The listing of Corsica is in itself extremely POV, since it reflects the political stance of the independentist minority of being a "colonized" country.
Would you be so kind as to provide a definition of "colony" or "dependency"? None of these words appear in French legal texts.
To me, Hawaii fits my definition of dependency: it's a remote territorial unit much smaller than the mainland of the country, they had a distinct ethnic population, and they now have a large population that came originally from the mainland. Sounds very much like all most inhabited French possessions (with the exception of St Pierre et Miquelon). David.Monniaux 18:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hawaii is a permanent part of the U.S. All of the other U.S. territories on that list except Palmyra Atoll are unincorporated, which means there is the possibility that they could, at some point, become independent of the U.S. That would not be possible for Hawaii. Also, those insular areas do not have equal status under the U.S. constitution; the U.S. Congress can determine (rather arbitrarily) what portions of the constitution apply to those territories. Hawaii simply does not belong on the list because it enjoys an entirely different status under international and constitutional law.
I am not familiar with France's constitution or how it administers its territories. If you want to try and delete the list, that's up to you. But Hawaii simply does not belong on the list. older ≠ wiser 18:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The point is: contrary to the US, France does not make any difference between citizens living on various parts of its territory with respect to national elections. Whatever the status of where you live, you vote like any other citizen living in France in legislative and presidential elections. The Constitution applies everywhere and may not be waved.
Since this is the criterion you apply for deciding that Hawaii is a full part of the US, then I can conclude that all the listed entities listed under French possessions should not have been listed. David.Monniaux 19:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I doubt that I'll be the only person to have anything to say about this. I only know about U.S. I will defer to more those more knowledgable concerning the legal status of other countries overseas dependencies and possessions. A small note, the distinction within the U.S. is not so much concern whether the constitution applies to the people of a territory, but pertains more to the actual land itself. When the territory is incorporated as a part of the U.S., it is considered irrevocable and is a permanent part of the country, regardless of it's physical location. The unincorporated territories have a different status because there is the possibility of separating from the U.S. and becoming independent. I think you're current revision to the article may not be entirely accurate as I believe some of the UK's territories are in fact still considered Crown Colonies.
According to the Crown Colony entry, former "crown colonies" are now known as "oversea territories". "Colony" is a loaded word with a pejorative undertone, implying the exploitation of the locals, lack of political rights etc..., rest assured that all Western democracies have ditched such qualifications. (Whether or not the territories are still oppressed is of course a matter of appreciation.)
I do not know if there is a single definition of colony that would apply to all countries. In terms of the U.S., the term colony seems a little anachronistic, but if we use possession or dependency as roughly equivalent, then the main distinction is that the territory is not considered to be an irrevocably permanent part of the U.S. That the constitution only selectively applies is really a by-product of the territory's not being incorporated and is not the defining characteristic. older ≠ wiser 20:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok. That criterion fits the division I made in the entry about France (between oversea départements and oversea territories). David.Monniaux 20:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moving away the list

The more I look into this, the less I like about this article, but I don't know where to start. The term colony is something of a historical relic, although that is not to deny the continuing impact of colonialism. I think you are correct that no modern nation has what can accurately be called a "colony". And there are so many other articles with slightly different takes on the subject. They really all need to be integrated (not merged, but just made to complement each other and not contradict or cause confusion). Here's just a partial list that I've come across so far:

I've moved away the list to List of dependent territories where it belongs. David.Monniaux 04:16, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. older≠wiser 11:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Decolonization of the USA & Australia

"In some cases, decolonization is hardly possible or impossible because of the importance of the settler population and where the indigenous population is now in the minority; such is the case of the United States, Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand."

Seems rather wrong, and seems to suggest that 99% of the US population would have to move to Europe, Asia, or Africa to "decolonize" the USA. Something that happened either in 1776 or 1783 depending on your point of view.

America was originally inhabited by native Americans. The lands of the natives were largely stolen from them at gunpoint, and settlers from foreign cultures were allowed to move in and settle in their place. The descendants from these settlers largely rule the country now.
In some sense, this means that the United States is a "ultimate" colony - one in which the importance of the native population has been so well diminished that it is even unthinkable that the settling populations should withdraw. The European countries that colonized African countries, India etc. had problems with their colonies essentially because they did not drive the natives out and thus settler descendants were still minorities, albeit sometimes large ones. David.Monniaux 06:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No it became a conquered land. The act of colonisation was while a foreign land was moving its population into the country or exporting its wealth out. Once governance transfered to a local authority, the native people where being conquered by a group who had moved into their lands. :)
ASJ

Exactly--a group who had moved into their lands. This is a colonial situation, because the Native Americans were independent peoples who were conquered by colonists, who just happened to often be citizens of a state which CLAIMED the right to their land. It is only because of this ideology of "manifest destiny" that people (not most Native Americans) view the given borders of the US as natural and god-given, making it hard to see this process as an act of colonial conquest (and we can then say that the powers concerned were "local authorities"). Of course, over time the situation has become hardly colonial in practical political terms, but only because the dominant white colonist group were able to consolidate their power and demographic dominance. Most Native Americans still see the US as a conquering colonial power, and white Americans as colonists. They still fight for acknowledgement of their rights to land and autonomy.

[edit] Just a Thought

I have been looking at British colonies and have looked at this entry. Some one needs to add a list of nations in South Asia that were never colinized by the British. I cant find one anywhere!

                                          kayla

that is a vary good thought kayla

[edit] Merge with Colonialism

Please see Talk:Colonialism for reasoning and discussion! Gsd2000 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge colonisation here

I think we achieved a consensus that colonialism shouldn't be merged here. However, both this "colony" article and colonisation refer to non-Western types of colonisation, and are similarly constructed (historical examples of Roman colonialism, space colonisation, etc.). Wouldn't it avoid forks to merge them together since they largely duplicate contents on two pages? Lapaz 20:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

I think that there should be more in this article about what happened after the colonisation between the North American Indians and the Europeans. I am doing an assessment task and I can't find anything on this.

Jade

[edit] colony as a collective noun

Shouldn't this page have the alternative definition of colony as a collecitve noun? Here are the ones of which I am aware.

A colony of ants A colony of bats A colony of beavers A colony of frogs A colony of gulls A colony of penguins A colony of rats A colony of lepers A colony of rabbits

[edit] colonies and citizenship

What is the relationship between a colony and teh parent country in terms of citizenship? Mrdthree 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

Japan, once afraid of becoming a European or American colony, built itself a colonial empire in China, Korea and the Western Pacific, using brutal military force.

I deleted "brutal", because the expression was not neutral. Japan aquired Taiwan by Sino-Japan war, Korea by a treaty, and West Pacific as a Trust Territory after WW1. In the Sino-Japan war and WW1, Japan used military force. The Japanese force might be brutal, but they were in wars. They might be as brutal as other forces in the world.--Mochi 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Colonies and Current Colonies sections

Couple of points which I'm not sure how to fix:

1. I guess that the "Modern" in the "Modern Colonies" heading is meant to contrast with the preceding "Ancient", but none of these are "modern" in the usual sense that I understand the word, so the title reads oddly, and sits oddly with the next section "Current Colonies". Aren't "current" colonies "modern" then?

2. If the "Modern Colonies" section is meant to list post-ancient examples then it is so selective as to be pretty useless, I would say.

3. "Modern Colonies" says "Today, none of the colonizing European and North American powers hold colonies in the traditional sense of the term". This is immediately contradicted by the first entry following under "Current colonies" - that of Gibraltar. I added a note to the effect that the word "colony" is no longer used, but it still reads oddly to me.

Matt 22:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

I think "Today, none of the colonizing European and North American powers hold colonies in the traditional sense of the term" is incorrect. I've modified the sentence to reflect disputed uses of the term "colony" for Puerto Rico and Guam.Freeguam 07:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased...

I have a few problems with the following section...a lot of it reads like it was 'jazzed up' for dramatic effect. There should be more objective and neutral statement in here. It sounds like it was written by someone who was heavily biased against colonial powers. Regardless of personal feelings, they do not belong in Wikipedia.

The movement towards decolonization was not uniform, with more newer powers, sometimes themselves ex-colonies or once threatened by colonial power, trying to carve a colonial empire. The United States, itself a former colony, expanded westwards. This resulted in conflict with the Native American, which sometime escalated into all out armed conflicts. The westward expansion ultimately resulted in the death of entire native populations, and forced relocations of the indiginous people. It also colonized Hawaii, and waged various wars and conduct armed expeditions so as to assert power over local governments (in Japan, with Commodore Perry and in Cuba, for example). European countries and the United States, exploiting the weakness of China's waning imperial regime, also maintained so-called international concessions in that country, a sort of colonial enclave; the coastal towns of Macau and Hong Kong were held on long-term leases by Portugal and the United Kingdom. During the first half of the 20th century, until its defeat the Second World War, Japan, once afraid of becoming a European or American colony, built itself a colonial empire in korea, parts of China, and the Western Pacific, using military force.

1. I edited the original text regarding America's westward expansion. The original text was something to the effect "..expanded westward, waging brutal wars against the native populations, killing entire civilain populations...". I changed it to something that sounded a little less biased. I also included the part about the forced relocations, since that also happened, not just the haphazard slaughter of 'innocent civilians'.

2. As worded, this section implies that the US and Japan were trying to become a colonial power from the begining, regardless of intention or outcome. This ought to be reworded to reflect the history, not the ultimate result (or one person's interpretation thereof)

[edit] Western New Guinea

I removed the rather controversial statement that Western New Guinea is a "colony" of Indonesia. Whilst I realise this may be the view of some, I do not believe it is a widely held view - ie that it is a colony per se - and have cited a reference in the form of the United Nations non-self governing territories list. It is a very slippery slope to say that a region of a state which has some form of independence movement is a "colony": take Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Region, North Italy for example. Also, for the record, the user that added this took offence with an edit of theirs I changed in the History of colonialism article (again related to the subject of Western New Guinea), claiming that I was "denying genocide", amongst other things. Quite clearly this user has a strong POV on the subject, but I think that he is injecting his POV into this article in order to make a political statement. Gsd2000 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miley Cyrus

weird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.10.98 (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA - Iraq

How aboust saying Iraq is now a colony? Though not strictly USA... GB got involved, etc. But generally, what do You people think?

So far only extremist sources have made this claim although the American people (media) and its leaders do not recognize it as a colony. I wonder if the same is true with the Philippines. The Filipino people would say the Philippines is a colony but American text books would emphasize occupation/territory. I think it of perspective and connotative meaning of the definition that pushes this POV. - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
When I think of colony, its like taking advantage of the resource. Some example accurate or not, Great Britain taking advantage of slave Indian Salt trade; Great Britian using AUS as outpost for criminals, Spain using Filipinos as an outpost for Asia. UK using HK for opium trade. Humans taking advantage of the moon resources. Now for you to believe that US is taking advantage of Iraq, implying colonization, you probably have to believe that US is using Iraq for Oil, which probably believed by some. Some believe we went there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction and to Free Iraqi people, as the president does. The article current state takes a lose meaning of the definition in the overview. - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence of this article says, "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." The Federal government of Iraq article says,
“

After the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 the Kurdish region rose up against President Saddam Hussein and gained de facto independence under the protection of a no fly zone. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) recognised the existing regional government and defined Iraq for the first time as a federal country. The TAL also allowed up to three governorates outside Kurdistan to form a Region, except for Baghdad Governorate and Kirkuk Governorate, subject to approval by the Iraqi Interim Government and the population of the new region in a referendum.

 ”
The Coalition Provisional Authority article says,
“ The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) سلطة الائتلاف الموحدة was established as a transitional government following the invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom and the other members of the multinational coalition which was formed to oust the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Citing UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws of war, the CPA vested itself with executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the Iraqi government from the period of the CPA's inception on April 21, 2003, until its dissolution on June 28, 2004. ”
The Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period article says,
“ The Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period (also called the transitional administrative law or TAL), the Iraqi provisional constitution in the immediate postwar period, was signed on March 8, 2004 by the Iraqi Governing Council. It came into effect on June 28, 2004 following the official transfer of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority (led by the United States), to a sovereign Iraqi government. ”
No, Iraq is not a colony. It is a soverign State.
You (anonymous troll at IP address 77.121.21.57) ask what we people guys think. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that you should read WP:SOAP. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] typo in "definitions"

see here: "..submitted to brutal force, or even to pfor legal independence movements to form" I could think of many fixes for that, but I don't want to alter the intention of the writer of that bit. Nnnudibranch (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)