Que? i had thought of him as a World citizen, comfortable anywhere but calling no place "home" - though I admit you really never forget the home of your youth.
I thought he was Russian...
Que? i had thought of him as a World citizen, comfortable anywhere but calling no place "home" - though I admit you really never forget the home of your youth.
But surely it's common sense, not the mention the colonizers responsibility to clean up the mess they made before pulling out at the very least, even more so since by pulling out they may be abandoning the people who have settled there like what happened when France pulled out of Algeria "supposedly I'm no expert so I'm probably wrong about what happened there"
PS: OT but you're sig is *way* too long, there's actually a rule about length . . .
True enough I suppose although sometimes it seems like it was shorted sighted in the extreme
Rarely history or events have really an ending. Legacy of Rome is still around here. In west law and both in west and east in church.Decolonisation has paused, it's not completed. I still see the British hold ground in the Carribean, the south Atlantic, the Mediterranean and various other places. I still see the French in Africa and the Carribean.
So decolonisation still hasn't finished but it's still viewed as something natural by those two.
Rarely history or events have really an ending. Legacy of Rome is still around here. In west law and both in west and east in church.
In the specific case of the UK decolonisation happened because there was a huge shift leftwards in British politics following the first post-war election which lasted until 1979. Even the Conservative party were pretty left-wing by modern British standards.
Decolonisation has paused, it's not completed. I still see the British hold ground in the Carribean, the south Atlantic, the Mediterranean and various other places. I still see the French in Africa and the Carribean.
So decolonisation still hasn't finished but it's still viewed as something natural by those two.
Though we may not like the result in certain instances, I think when the locals want you to go, it's time to go.
Not at all of those areas want to be decolonised eg the Falklands and Gibraltar for example although these are the only two I can think of at the top of my head. Hong Kong probably would have wanted to stay part of Great Britain as well had they been given the choice rather then been handed over to the PRC, especially given current events over there though I could be wrong.
So you're telling me that the British descendants of British colonists who do not want to seperate themselves from the mother state (ie the UK) is a sign of anything? I'll add the two Cyprus 'states'(according to CIA they are states), Anguilla, Bermuda, Turks & Caicos and there are a few more...
So your logic is: we steal someone's land, we place our own colonists, some years later we refuse to abandon these positions that have no relation to our national borders but it's not colonies because we already have managed to alter the demographics. That is the definition of colonisation. In some cases, these colonies demand independence, but their heritage is still colonial (USA, Canada, Australia for examples relating to the UK).
Sorry what ?
Why "we"? Ireland was never a colonial power, and in fact, some describe it as having been de facto a colony of Great Britain.
Though we may not like the result in certain instances, I think when the locals want you to go, it's time to go.
What?
The reason why Gibraltar and the Falklands (and others( don't want to be anything other than British is because they are the result of British colonialism and they are British by nationality, culture etc. I don't see how this is hard to understand. They could as well declare independence like New Zealand has, but it's still something that colonialism has caused. Decolonialism would mean that Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be abandonded or even declare independence and cut ties with the UK.
The existence of overseas territories (mostly the UK and France) is 21st century colonialism. How is this not easy to understand?
What if you also become a local?
Third-generation pied-noirs had as much right to call Algeria their home as the rest of the locals had. Its not a nice little monochrome world where you can decry one side as good and the other as bad.
I'm fairly sure, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were given or granted independence rather then declaring it.
Also I get that Gibraltar and such are colonies, what I don't get is if your saying they have to be decolonised/should be in the cases where the population be they British derived or not want to stay under British control directly or not as Crown dependencies etc
I'm saying that since the population is British (colonists obviously), it can only be classified as colonialism. And it's an argument against the notion that decolonisation has happened fast or that there aren't any colonies out there still.