-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Slower, more measured decolonisation only worked where a level of residual trust remained between the master and subject nations. For example, the English were able to pull out of India in a somewhat measured fashion, leaving a functional administration behind. In contrast, there was no way the people of the Congo would allow the Belgains to remain in control, regardless of what they wanted.
In situations where trust remained it was possible for the colonial power to hand over to the new administration, with generally more positive results. Where no trust existed the process was usually chaotic, leading to governments with little legitamacy and often a collapse of order. However, in the no trust situations there is no way for the power to remain, any attempt to set up a post colonial administration would be (correctly) viewed as an attempt to prolong the control.
If the occupying powers had been different from what they were and actually had the subject peoples' best interests at heart then a slower process of decolonisation would have been beneficial. However, given the brutally exploitative relationship between colonies and their masters, in most cases slow decolonisation was not possible or desirable.
In situations where trust remained it was possible for the colonial power to hand over to the new administration, with generally more positive results. Where no trust existed the process was usually chaotic, leading to governments with little legitamacy and often a collapse of order. However, in the no trust situations there is no way for the power to remain, any attempt to set up a post colonial administration would be (correctly) viewed as an attempt to prolong the control.
If the occupying powers had been different from what they were and actually had the subject peoples' best interests at heart then a slower process of decolonisation would have been beneficial. However, given the brutally exploitative relationship between colonies and their masters, in most cases slow decolonisation was not possible or desirable.
It's common sense that if you are beaten and mugged you don't ask that the mugger is going to then hang around and give you a ride to the hospital. Sure, he has a moral responsibility to help the person he hurt but why the hell would you trust him? And what failing made him mug you in the first place--will he be able to resist grabbing your personal info while you're in the emergency line?
The Europeans had a century or more to "prepare" people for self government if that was their goal. It wasn't. Not to mention that ruling people from a foreign capital is actually *not* a good way to instruct them in self government.
Because a handful of Europeans sincerely cared about the welfare of the people they'd conquered does not mean suddenly colonial policy was going to turn on a dime and start sacrificing to undo their previous misdeeds. That's a fairy tale. It wasn't going to happen, for structural reasons as well as selfish ones.
PS: OT but you're sig is *way* too long, there's actually a rule about length . . .
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.
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.
You're talking about effects. Rome ended in 1453. Its effects post-1453 are irrelevant as it's something that has an end date. Most things in history do. Their effect is another thing. Decolonisation never ended because colonisation is still a thing. Just not actively (no new colonies are found but old ones are still preserved)
That is a very important point. Not just because in general left-wing parties aren't that much in favour of colonialism, but also due to their big priority, especially at the time, on building a welfare state. Not only did all those new domestic schemes cost money, but they would have cost a lot more money if expanded also to colonies. And it would have been very hard for a true socialist with a global conscience to say that some people in our country will be entitled to nice stuff, but not others. It was easier to introduce a welfare state when first ensuring that all colonies are excluded for good.
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.
Why "we"? Ireland was never a colonial power, and in fact, some describe it as having been de facto a colony of Great Britain.
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).
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?
I mean 'we' as in the observer watching the aftermath of decolonisation. Ireland was undoubtedly a colony of Britain.
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
If pied-noirs had been the majority, then yes, they likely would have been able to prevent Algeria from leaving, as British people did with ulster in Northern Ireland.
Same thing here.
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.
The question "was it too fast?" is about each individual case, not the global process.