Which Countries Still Have Colonies TODAY?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- ▶ If you want, check out the new video: • The Safest Cities in t...
In this video I talk about countries which still hold parts of their old colonial empires, today.
▶ Follow me on Twitter: / gkonyoutube
▶ Become a member on Patreon & get exclusive content! / generalknowledge
▶ Special mention to my patrons: Richard, Daniel, Philip, Edward, Francis, Jeseenya, MiFE, Stephen, Steve, Wilhelm, William, Roland, Rami, 43rpak, Borton, Brian, Bruno, Cesar, Chet, Francisco, Hendrick, Juan, Kalvin, Lastmatix, ou_lyss, Pete, Rpgkllrspace, Ryan Keith, Ryan, Tom.
▶ Join the Discord Server: / discord
▶ Business Contact: gilfamc@gmail.com
▶ Thanks for watching, remember to subscribe to catch future videos!
*Are there any other 'colonies'?* (also yes I mistakenly pointed out the wrong Guyana, sorry!)
Another quick note: Perhaps the title choice wasn't ideal, my point is more that these areas *began as colonies* and *remain their colonizers' territory today, even if not as colonies*
[REMOVED]
Also, there's no such thing as French *Guyana* in English.
There's only the sovereign nation of 🇬🇾 *Guyana* and the French overseas region known as 🇬🇫 'French *Guiana'* .
Guiana is the name of the region they are both located. "French Guyana" is just 🇬🇾 Guyana under 🥖 French rule.
@@quidam_surprise the Guiana mistake is understandable tho, specially for a Portuguese speaker in witch both Guyanas are written the same way.
Hey I was about to say that !
Last i checked puerto rico is still being exploited and is a colony.
@@cassianoneto1553
Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to tick him off.
I know there's still going to be a lot of people who are going to mix them up, which is perfectly understandable.
I just left that I needed to point that out because it's a video meant to inform other people so might as well being pedantic here since that's the adequate place y'know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Guyana is independent, French Guiana (Guyane) is 2 countries to the right
Was just about to comment the very same, then I saw yours right at the top 😂
"French Guyana", in English, just mean 🇬🇾 Guyana ...
but under French rule. 😐
*In English* (the rules change depending on the language), the French ultramarine region is called *"🇬🇫 French Guiana"* ... just like the name of the region where all of them (i.e. 🇻🇪 Guayana Region, 🇬🇾 Guyana, 🇸🇷 Suriname, 🇨🇵 French Guiana, 🇧🇷 Amapá) are located : *"Guiana"* or the Guianas.
Both can be used pretty much interchangeably to designate the same, although from my understanding, the latter can sometimes be used for referring particularly to the territories located between the two Latin American countries (🇧🇷🇻🇪).
They're not only spelt but also pronounced differently from one another :
*Guyanese* is the adjective used for people and things related to 🇬🇾 Guyana.
*Guianan* is used for people or things related to the region that encompasses them all.
▪︎Guyana : ruclips.net/video/6o7GiwYl4Gc/видео.html (Don't pay attention to the last one, they're actually talking about French Guiana)
▪︎Guiana : ruclips.net/video/g5bHSo9sqZs/видео.html/
So, in short ...
There are actually 2 *Guianan* sovereign countries (Guyana & Suriname) AND 3 subnational *Guianan* territories that are part of a larger country (Amapá, Guayana Region, with the last one being French Guiana, which is similar to what Hawaii is to the United States)
I saw that and nearly stared to write a comment myself about it and saw this so opted to not
Yeah, same, I was gonna comment that to
My mistake!
"Britain makes a colony so big it makes colonies"
I see you're a man of culture
Pog
Bill Wurtz
Yes, its even big than britain itself
The 13 colonies were colonies in the past. The rest have nothing to do with Britain
2:55 French Guiana is an integral part of France and its people are French, calling it a colony will be like calling Alaska a colony of the US
Same with Mayotte and Reunion, both of them are completely 100% part of France
Well Alaska kind of is a colony of USA. And French Guiana is also one. Just because the natives hardly exist in American Alaska doesn't change the fact that it's a colony.
@@kyrozephyr8628 A colony is a place which doesn't have representation in its homeland example Puerto Rico and British Virgin Islands... Alaska and French Guiana have representation and are considered to be integral parts of USA and France respectively
@@thephantomofyoutube7346 That's not a definition of a colony.
@@kyrozephyr8628 Yea but that's a good way to figure out the difference... A colony is a territory that is controlled by a country but not part of that country, Alaska is part of the US but Puerto Rico is a territory of the US not part of it (yet)
French Guiana is an overseas department of the French republic. As I understand it the relationship there is pretty much the same as the relationship between Hawaii and the United States: it is a constituent but not continuous part. Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States because it has no real say in the governing the country, Hawaii is not a colony because it has a say in the running of the country it is part of. Likewise French Guyana is effectively a state of France.
But the dynamic between the locals in Guiana and France is inherently colonial. The high culture is still in Paris, not Cayenne. Even if the language is shared, there is still inherent differences that are colonial in nature, regardless of the official status.
@@masonharvath-gerrans832 couldnt the same be said about france and Corsica, la réunion, or even any of the regions composing mainland france ? They all have cultural elements that distinguish them from each other, all have the same representation in the legislative sphere. So technically there is no such thing here as a colonial dynamic. But that is only if you look at the law. Yes, in effect guiana remains very different from france and whereas it would be unthinkable for any of the french regions to want to leave, guiana could. But neither of them can declare it. However i have to say that the independance policy with actual colonies with natives still living there, like new caledonia, has been exemplary compared to the rest of the world. Quebec got one chance to vote its independance. New caledonia got 3 and only with people who were born there.
But then all this reasoning actually does not apply just to former colonies, but to former conquests in general as well. Tibet for china for example. Catalogna for spain. The islands between russia and japan.
The key factor for me is integration. Are each of these countries integrating the people of the "disputable" part of their country into their society ? In the case of france, yes, for sure. There are many people from "outre mer" in particular from the carribean or la Réunion who come to study, work and live in france and they are part of the country. Essentially because while these islands are very good vacation spots, overall there is not much to do here, unless swimming all the time is your thing. The inhabitants of these parts of france enjoy the ability to go live their younger years and even their familly life in mainland france, to come back to see familly, or for retirement on their island. Usually the main subject of contention is not about leaving france or not. Its about the government neglecting and not investing enough money in those departments, because they are far away. But that doesnt mean france doesnt take care of these at all. It just means that its true that the government gives prefference to where most people live : Mainland.
It would be jarring for france to suddenly let go of these islands, because well, many people from these islands have made their life in france... it may be far away, the islands may have different cultures overall, but they are still kind of integrated into french society... into the very heart of it in fact.
Mason Harvath-Gerrans that is a subtler distinction that I am capable of making. All I can say is that in any large country you were going to have a lot of cultural divergences between one end of it and another. California is very different from New York. Vancouver is very different from Newfoundland. Alaska is very different from both California and New York, and Hawaii is yet even more different from all of the three. And yet the commonalities outweigh the differences. I am not saying that as a universal thing, there are obviously very many countries with constituent cultures that are more disparate examples I cited. But if you grew up in the southeastern United States, then you will likely have a different accent and a different word choices and different taste preferences and generally somewhat different cultural experiences than if you grew up in the Pacific Northwest. These can be substantial, but they are basically outweighed by the commonalities Of mass culture, shared history, basic expectations, and a bunch of other things.
So I cannot give an answer in any intelligent way, I can simply point out that any large successful country with a lengthy history behind it, such as France, Russia, China, United States, are all going to have a lot of variation from region to region, but a colonial relationship is inherently very unequal. And to my ignorant outsider perspective that does not appear to be the case with French Guyana. I freely admit that I may be wrong however, because my understanding of the situation is extremely superficial.
Pop Khorne I agree with you. That is the way the situation seems to me as well, though I am an outsider have very shallow understanding.
@@mahatmarandy5977 as someone who is french i can offer an other piece of the picture being one who knows just how many people come from these removed islands (as well as guyana) to live with us in france. But of course we are still missing the most key piece : the opinion of a native of french guyanna.
French Guiana isn’t considered a colony by the UN because it’s at the same level as other regions of mainland France. That’s why
it is part of the eu, even tho they are not in Europe
@@beyondthecosmosmcfc
Same as Cyprus then?
Although it is still distinct from mainland France legally speaking, specially with regards to NATO and other international treaties.
@@beyondthecosmosmcfc that is literally just semantics. Not a concept I want my world to spin around.
French Guiana is to France as Hawaii is to the U.S. It’s not a colony, it’s a state!
La Guyane (what you call French Guyana) is not a colony, it's part of France since before US creation, each citizen has exactly the same rights and duties as people from the european part of France.
@@fgsaramago But what if the people living in the so-called 'colony' refused independence and expressed to remain French citizens? La Guyane functions like any other French region/department. It's their will to remain French. Who are you to say that they live in a colony and, therefore, that they are not 'real' French citizens? They have deputies and senators representing them at the Parliament, just like any other French department. Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you mean, it USED TO be a colony, no one is denying that fact. But, if the locals voted and decided to remain French, then you should just accept that.
@@fgsaramago Actually Porto ricain do not have the same right at all. But if we use your own definition of colony okay, but how far we go with that? Hawaii is obviously a colony, Alaska too ... and what about long Island, is it attached enough (and most of them are born there)? I am not even talking about UK and Japan, just archipelago of colony with your definition.
@@fgsaramago Please stop assuming that we are 'brainwashed', having a debate and expressing different opinion does not mean that one party is brainwashed. We are just educating yourself regarding the status of La Guyane, as you seem to be lacking some knowledge about it, obviously. The Guyanais chose to remain French, they refused any further autonomy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_French_Guianan_status_referendum). Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that? La Guyane is even part of the European Union. They chose it, democratically, however, you consider it a colony. It looks like you don't even accept the local people's self-determination. You are clearly mixing the definitions of "colonies" and of "non-self-governing territories". Each word has a meaning, a specific definition.
@@fgsaramago There not accepeted definition of colony, only definition of non non-self-governing territories by United nation. Surprisingly, country with strong independence movement as well as strong integration movement but still private of voting right such as Puerto Rico are not entering on the definition whereas territory that regularly vote to remain attached as a province, with their own administrative government, elected, exactly the same rights as other citizens, are considered as "non-self-governing territories". It seems like a very political definition. -- PS: you could note that I have not talk about Polynesie Francaise, their case is more questionable.
@@SLVperso That's very true. French Polynesia is an overseas collectivity of France. I am not an expert on their status. From what I understood, Polynesians have more autonomy, they even have their own local government and president, but they are still French citizens and can vote for national elections too. It's more or less like a country (French Polynesia) within another (French Republic). Here is what I found on Wikipedia: "As a French overseas collectivity, the local government has no competence in justice, university education, security and defense. Services in these areas are directly provided and administered by the Government of France, including the National Gendarmerie (which also polices rural and border areas in metropolitan France), and French military forces. The collectivity government retains control over primary and secondary education, health, town planning, and the environment."
The Canary Islands are divided into 2 PROVINCES (just like the rest of mainland Spain), Las Palmas and Santa Cruz de Tenerife. They both have the same exact status as any other province in the peninsula; they are not a "colony".
Same with Ceuta and Melilla.
@@lofdan same with gibraltar then
@@yassine9826 no
@@lofdan why
@@yassine9826 it is a colony of the United Kingdom claimed by Spain
3:20 the Canaries were not deserted. There were native Guanche people.
There were a lot of mistakes in this one video for some reason, I live here and hearing that wrong information irked me, a quick Google search is all it takes to see the historical status of the islands...
In the case of the Netherlands, each caribbean island was given the choice of complete independence, but they all chose to remain within the Kingdom. So calling it "keeping these islands by incorporating them" is misleading. Therefore nobody sees these islands as "colonies" because they aren't.
I didn't know that! I agree then. I guess they're still remains of the colonial empire, as they became part of the kingdom during those times, but you're right that they are no longer colonies if they chose to remain as part of the Netherlands
@@General.Knowledge
Yeah, that's the reason Suriname was able to become a sovereign state whilst the others remained as parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
@@fgsaramago What?
@@fgsaramago I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say
@@fgsaramago The Dutch territories in the Caribbean aren't colonies. They want to stay a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Just because you feel it's a colony doesn't mean it is
The UN list is just absurd. There are territories in there that have voted to maintain their current situation, and regions like Tibet or Kurdistan are never thought of when we hear about colonies. And then we have the Western Sahara issue, that the UN still irrationally recognizes as a Spanish colony.
The UN actually considers it as ruled against its will by Morocco, and recognizes the Polisario Front as the legit representatives of Western Sahara. It lobbied for decades for Spain to give it up when it was still their colony.
@@AlCarrollDrI think you are wrongly informed. The UN still recognizes the WS as a Spanish colony and as it being administered as such.
The UN says Western Sahara is Spanish because while the referendum for deciding their future was being made by the Spanish government, Spain's King just decided to gift it to Morocco's King illegally, who military invaded, colonized and commited genocide there, replacing the population with Moroccans, because the phosphate mines there. If the UN recognised the “changing of ownership” in WS, they would be saying Morocco is the rightful owner of the land and that it can do whatever it wants with the colony, as it would be thence recognized as part of their country in any way.
@@asherl5902 Except the fact that Spain didn't just happily gift the WS to Morrocco, everything you said is correct. The problem is that the UN should recognize the WS and it's goverment as independent and pressure Morrocco to withdraw from it.
@@jorgeh.r9879 Yeah, but it has been discovered not so much time ago that the former king accorded with the king of Morocco to give him the territory so he and other parties would support his reign as the appointed heir of a dictactor. The cesion and planned invasion were an ugly surprise for Spaniards and Sahrawis and even for the Spanish government itself
Canary Islands weren't deserted when the Spanish came. Guanche - indigenous people - lived there and were overpowered.
I've met some rabid Spanish nationalists from Canarias who looked less Spaniard than a German LMFAO. There are still guanches ot at least canarios that look more like Native South Americans rather than proper Spaniards,
Berber/Amazigh origins*
@@alexandrealphonse69 They don't look like
"Native Americans" at all. If anything they are Mullatos.
@@alexandrealphonse69 Hey, can I ask you a question? Do you believe the Spanish did a mass genocide back then? Or is it just not true?
@@gordonchild273no
Hi! For Greenland, it isn't considered a colony. It was until 1953 they were made a district and even has their own people in the Danish Parliament, they have a police force, their own government and in return Denmark provides defense and much more. So chances of them leaving Denmark is little to zero as Denmark does also provides them 500 Million US Dollars to help them and either way Greenlanders do not wish to leave Denmark. USA did tried to buy Greenland and China did tried to buy an abandoned base on Greenland but Denmark refused. And either way, you know the deal Greenlanders don't wish to leave Denmark. 😅
2:35 you're pointing Guyana as french, but Guyana is not Guyane Française (which is 2 borders to the right, it's the one on the thumbnail btw)
2:59 Although I can understand the status for New Caledonia (which as its own section in the french constitution), I don't understand French Polynesia? Maybe it's because they use Francs and not Euros? But Wallis et Futuna should also be on the map then...
I will add to my comment that the populations from these overseas territories are all french citizens (not all are EU citizens tho) and they can all vote for the president
yeah its like saying that the channel islands are british colonies
French Guyana and French Polynesia are still legally distinct from mainland France, being part of the Ulramarine parts of the country. It’s not a meaningless distinction either, there are aspects of everyday life handled differently in France depending if you live in Metropolitan France or overseas.
greenland also has its own government and decides most things for itself, so more of an autonomous territory than a colony
i was about to say the same :)
@@fgsaramago only 5% of French Guyana's population are natives. The other one are slaves or slave drivers descendant... what do we do then ? Should we sent back people to Europe and Africa based on skin color ? 🤔 (sounds racist to me but maybe I m just another brainwashed guy...).
It is clear that France has a problem with its ultracentralised power in Paris, but that problem is the same if you're from Kourou or Marseilles.
I don't get why he lists Spains Ceuta and Melilla when they are fully integrated in Spain and have no separatist movements
Because Morroco still claim them
@@BaniasSyria but then all territorial disputes (with inhabitants) are colonies then? Cause the list of disputes is huge, and those places are not considered colonies
@@BaniasSyria I'm sure there are a few Greek guys who would like to claim Istanbul for old times sake. The loss of that city (Constantinople) was comparable in time to the acquisition of those cities by the Iberians. So idk if that counts as a colony, maybe a revanchist position, but not a colonial question.
because the General is butthurt that Portugal lost all its ultramarine territories but Madeira & Açores.
@@BaniasSyria Then Alsace Lorraine was a colony? Olivenza was a colony? Danzig was a colony?
Some of the UK Overseas Territories are simply too small to be independent, for example, the Pitcairn Islands only have a population of 50, I just wonder why they didn't become the responsibility of NZ
We don’t want it. Let Britain fund it
They're closer to South America than NZ.
during their big scandal they were charged by new zealand I believe
@@Jonas-rq1mi The trial was under the Pitcairn legal code. The UK asked the NZ judiciary etc to try the case on their behalf. During the trial it was ruled that Britain had authority over the Island
@@iluvcurryandbeer Thank you for clearing it up!
The Canary Islands are not a colony, you're right. They're Spanish territory. They're an Autonomous Comunity (Comunidad Autonoma), like the ones in mainland Spain. Btw they weren't empty when the Spaniards arrived. The Guanche people lived there. Also Ceuta and Melilla aren't colonies either, as they are, again, Spanish territory (they don't have the colonial status
2:24 You used the wrong Guiana here.
I did! My mistake, sorry!
You forgot to mention Chile and its sovereignty over Rapa Nui, it's an amazing case to analyze and how a Latin American nation expanded outside its own continent. The whole colonization of the southeastern pacific ocean by Chile is just really really interesting, and also the whole Antarctica colonization
Is it a colony or just an occupation of a foreign country, the locals seem to se it that way.
The term colony was pretty loosely used in this video as an exclave of some sorts with disputed sovereignty of a metropoli and the residents of that territory. So the current situation in Rapa Nui could be considered as a colonial dispute, specially because it was actually annexed and then colonized by the Chilean Republic since 1888
You beat me to it, and their inhabitants were given Chilean citizenship very recently, in 1966.
We could also make the argument that Chile colonized Juan Fernandez archipelago and the Desventuradas Islands, the first one being practically uninhabited before and the second one being practically uninhabited now(and before).
Also very interesting!
@@mapache-ehcapam Yeah, the whole Chilean Archipelago consisting of Islas; San Ambrosio, San Félix, Robinson Crusoe, Alejandro Selkirk, Salas y Gómez, Rapa Nui, Mocha, Diego Ramírez, Grande de Chiloé, Rey Jorge, etcétera.
For Spain, the Plazas de Soberania have their own legislatures and elect someone to the Spanish parliament, similar to "European" Spain & the Canary Islands. It's not necessarily a colony and these Autonomous Cities have full representation and rights (unlike US territories).
Denmark & The Netherlands have sort of similar situations. Their overseas territories have their own legislatures and laws. The overarching "federal" government is in charge of foreign affairs and defense. An example: The Netherlands, known for being the first country with same-sex marriage, has different laws than Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten and same-sex marriages are not performed here. New Zealand seems to fall under this category as well.
France's situation is similar to the US. Hawaii is a US State and is seen as an integral part of the country, rather than a colony (like Puerto Rico). French Guiana is a department, just like any other part of Metropolitan France, it is part of the EU and uses the Euro. The overseas collectivities can upgrade, but haven't chosen to do so.
Norway is an odd one to include imo, due to the reasons listed in this video and the inhabited Islands are literally of their coast.
I'm not sure about the Australian situation, but it seems to look like the UK and New Zealand.
I'm quite unaware with how the UK does it, but I know that most territories have their own local parliaments, with the UK retaining foreign affairs and defense (similar to Denmark, The Netherlands & New Zealand (& Australia too I guess)).
I think the US's territories are most like colonies, as the federal government (in contrast to the other "colonizers") holds more legislative over their territories without any (voting) representation. Puerto Rico is perhaps the most well known case and to me is the most colony-like place in the world.
Another country I'd like to add to the list in China. Hong Kong and Macau are self-governing, but defense and (most) foreign affairs are conducted through the government in Beijing, which encroaches on the rights of HK and Macau and are thus not fully self-governing. 40% of Hong Kongers aged between 15 and 24 wanted the territory to become independent.
Important to note is that (like the video notes) most people in these territories don't actually want independence and are rather overseas territories of other countries.
those living in US territories are US citizens and have full rights.... and have held numerous referendums on the subject of independence, which have always lost.....
and calling the former colonized parts of China such as Hong Kong and Macau, colonies of China..... Seriously???
europhile perspectives on the world.... lmao
2:55 French Guyana is France. Seriously, the only difference is the continent. It’s a french department ( one of our administrative division ) no different from any rural part of France. Yes, the distance and the low density of population make it harder to develop French Guyana ( and a bit of a lack of interest from French politicians towards French Guyana), whereas the British Virgin Islands aren’t directly part of the United Kingdom.
The Canarys were inhabited before Spanish arrival! Native Guanches inhabited the area for hundreds of years and it took spain almos 100 years to win the war against them.
Good call! Yes
You forgot the largest European empire that still holds colonial lands - Russia. Most of the land east of the Urals are colonial lands even if not overseas territories.
It literally makes no sense how the people in Siberia and Far East are under Slavic rule thousands miles away
@@fardiorin9133 sure it makes sense, as much sense as the fact that your country has sovereignty over you
nobody wanted those cold lands they have no problem with russian rule
I'm happy for those who feel that way. They're still colonies, though.
All of these territories wasn't considered as colonies and aren't at the current state. The most important difference between colony and metropole state is citizenship. There was no difference between Siberian and European Russia's citizenship: they were equal even during Imperial times as well as during other more recent times. Also, natives were privileged: they didn't pay the whole amount of taxes and they didn't had to serve in army, while metropolitan state's citizenship was way better in colonial empires. And Siberia has the Russian majority. Let's see the statistic of dotations to regions: the most part of Siberian federal subjects are dotation regions, and government need to pay them money from federal budget to keep their econo,y working, while the most part of budget is formed by Central European regions and Hanty-Mansi autonomous okrug. Where did you see metropoly feeding its own colony to keep them straight? To sum up, it's really hard to say that Siberia is Russian colony
Guiana to France is what Hawaii is to the US, exactly the same status as any part of metropolitan France (with minor legal ajustements due to isolation). Same goes for Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Mayotte. St-Martin and St-Bartélémy used to be part of Guadeloupe but they decided to have their own status. Polynesia, St-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Wallis&Futuna have special status with local government. New Caledonia has strong autonomy. It must be noted that all of these have representatives in Paris and elect the president.
In fact they have bonuses that other parts of France don’t have.
Not true. Guiana has the right to vote for independence. Hawaii does not.
@MrAmhara That's because Hawaii is an actual State that signed the Constitution. Puerto Rico and other territories have a right to vote for independence since they did not.
The canary islands werent deserted they had people already there
Fun fact: thanks to the Pitcairn Islands, it can still be said that “The sun never sets on the British Empire”
@@fgsaramago not yet
*distant British music intensifies*
@@TitaniumSteelGreatest don't worry it won't ever again
Virgin "The Sun never sets on the British Empire" VS Chad "The Sun never sets on the French Republic"
Also thanks to the Pitcairn islands, institutionalised pedophilia is still a thing today, even outside of the royal family. *proud liz the 2nd noises*
@@TitaniumSteelGreatest When Britain fiiiiiiiirst at heaven's command.....
I dont understand why Ceuta and Melilla are supossed to be colonies: the only difference is that there are on the other side of 14 km of water.
In a different continent
@@yassine9826 But Western Thrace isn't supposed to be a colony of Turkey...
@@yassine9826 and?
@@yassine9826 so, Istambul is a colony of Turkey?
Ceuta and melilla are spanish cities populated by spanish citizens for centuries. They are not colonies.
France has 12 different timefuses.
Ceuta and Melilla are autonomous cities, not colonies. The UN has never considered them colonies.
Plus, Ceuta was European from 1415 and Melilla from 1497; 606 years and 524 years respectively. It makes no sense to continue considering them "colonies" because they are on the African coast.
But Morocco still claim them to this with the support of all the Arab countries and most African countries and if it wqs clear that it belonged to spain without no question then it wouldnt have caused a diplomatic crisis between the 2 countries recently
Unofficial colony.
@@petiteexplication6249
I never said that anyone questioned it, only that the UN has never considered them as non-self-governing territories.
That's true! My point was just that they began as, arguably, colonies at the time they were conquered. The conquest of Ceuta by Portugal is regarded by many as the beginning of the Portuguese _colonial_ empire. A region that began as a colony, first of Portugal and then of Spain, is _still_ under Spanish control today. It isn't necessarily a colony now, but I would say it began as such
@@General.Knowledge if it wasn't for those pesky communists, Portugal would still hold territory in all continents but the Americas.
I'm not Portuguese.
That UN list is ridiculous, I know for a fact most of the ones related to the UK have had multiple referendums and the voters wanted to stay connected to the UK. They are all pretty much fully self governing too.
I don't really agree with it either! If that's the case why don't they remove them from the list?
Is consent a factor in defining a colony, tho? If the thirteen colonies never broke off the British Empire, would they eventually no longer be colonies?
And they forgot territories like Tibet who clearly are a port of a country they don't want to be a part of
@@padinspi11 Wanting to be a part of the country has nothing to do with a colony, you can argue Tibet is a colony on the grounds that China is settling people of Han culture and trying to exterminate the local customs, but occupation and colonization are completely different things. Hitler was content with just occupying France, for example, while he wanted to colonize the USSR with Germans.
@@cassianoneto1553 no i meant the list of non self governing places by the UN in wich i believe Tibet should have been included
As a New Zealander, for what I know, Nuie and Tokelau heavily depend on New Zealand for economic reasons, and they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves if they became independent. The Cook Islands has their own Prime Minister, Mark Brown, and is almost completely self governing, only being tied to NZ through a free association agreement, and a few political and economic reasons. They have their own EEC, and their own currency, The Cook Islands Dollar, but also use the New Zealand Dollar in some cases.
The Cook Islands uses NZ dollars almost exclusively now, I think they still have the $3 Cook island note and coins (they use NZ coins as well) but the rest is all NZ currency.
Literally pointing out spanish actual places that can't be considered in any way a colony-
Found the butthurt nationalist xD
It's even more hypocritical since Morocco is actively colonizing Western Sahara.
@@ylcard I'm not even sure on this but throwing it to nationalism without context is a bit hyperbolic don't you think
Yo the native people of the canary islands fought for almost a century untill spain conquered the archipelago. Ofc today its as spanish as it gets, being under spanish rule for 500 years.
The UN has to stop saying France has colonies if EVERY SINGLE ONE of these territories have voted to stay French, some more than once. France has no colonies. All territories that wished to become independent are now independent. Just look at Comoros they voted to be independent now they are, Mayotte did not wish to join them so they re still French. Democracy is respected.
I agree! France seems very respectful of local sovereignty and offers referendums whenever asked
However, in some of the French Colonies it's seems to me problematic, like French Polynesia, I mean I think the only referendum they had was actually about the French Community/Union more than really deciding their status (?)
@@asherl5902 French Polynesia is actually one of the most Pro France overseas territories
Tahitian here. Fuck independence ! I love France and being French, I have families in Metropolitan France, many of us go to France when we reach majority for our studies or to go into the military. We have French passports therefore we are also E.U citizens, we have the same rights and duties as any Metropolitan French.
@@fgsaramago What a stupid way of thinking ! There is no more colony ! There are only more or less integrated territories !
1/ Do you know that, in many of your so-called colonies, native and european populations are mixed ?
2/ Do you know that those populations got the right to choose their fate ?
3/ Do you know that those populations have the same rights - with some adaptations to the local habits sometimes - as people living in mainlands ?
4/ Do apply the same stupid way of thinking to the next territories : Hawaï ? It was a Polynesian island. Ulster ? It is Irish. Sicily ? It was independant. Long Island ? It was Dutch. And can you explain differences with your definition of a colony in each case ?
Let's take the example of a fully integrated territory : French Guyana. It has exactly the same status as Paris : a French département. Citizens in Guyana has the exact same rights and duties as Parisians. Hence, explain us what makes French Guyana less French than Paris, or Corsica, or Brittany, or Normandy ??? Absolutely nothing ! For a pretty simple reason : French Guyana does not BELONG to France => it IS France.
Your misconception comes from your definition of a "native population". It is based on ethnicity, and how it should be extended to an independant political entity. With the same logic, you could call a Turkish neigborhood in Munich as a Turkish colony. This definition is utterly outdated.
A modern state is not based on ethnicity. It is based on freely accepted citizenship.
French Guyana is to France what Alaska is to the US. It’s just that France’s disconnected part happened to be on another continent. It’s just as French as Alaska is American
I like this, especially your graphics.
French Guiana is 'self governing' unlike the British Virgin Islands because it is a department of France like any other. The people there vote in the same national elections with the same voting power as other French citizens.
facts also they use euros and has french passport
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 no wonder they're one of the racist countries on europe
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 how is it pure colonialism if there is no exploitation? The people of French Guiana have the same rights as those in Brittany for example. It's basically an administrative region of France like any other, just overseas
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 wow a mining company extracting resources just like literally anywhere else. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that link, but if you want to be pedantic it is technically exploitation, however, of resources. I was referring to the exploitation of people since the exploitation of resources is everywhere and isn't necessarily a bad thing (at least in this context)
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 "In political science, a colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule. Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, colonies remain separate from the administration of the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state." The people of French Guiana are integrated into the administration of continental France, and are therefore not a colony. It is also by self-determination that they are a French territory.
French Guiana is a full department of France, like Hawai'i is for USA, a full state
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 Just educate yourself on the topic a bit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_French_Guianan_status_referendum
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 Then, it appears that you are either blind or cannot read. Believe whatever you want if that makes you feel better about your own judgements.
@@kevinbertet3220 I agree
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 What is exactly the problem? The people or French Guiana democratically choose to be part of France
@@elnoideelsencarrecs8528 Like, France has just forbidden now some schools to give bilingual education in regional languages for the children whose families asked for it in mainland France, let alone imagine how it is for the overseas departments with a greatly different culture that are treated exactly the same mainland France is... (Even if people there has decided to be governed like that just to don't to become very poor, unstable and isolated countries like their independent neighbours)
thanks for this good summary....worth further exploration
Great video!!
As a relative and having connections to St Helena ( a British overseas territory) I don’t feel it’s a colony as their wernt any settlers on the island before discovery and it played a big part in trade with Africa and India
4:08 "Return" wouldn't be the correct word as these places were spanish before Morroco existed
But Morocco was a state longer than Spain tho i will never understand the spaniards narrative on this subject
@@petiteexplication6249 The current Alaouite dynasty that reigns in Morocco, which is what we can understand as the predecessor of the current Kingdom of Morocco, was not established until 1631. Ceuta was conquered in 1415 and Melilla in 1497.
Before that there were many states in the current territory of Morocco, as there were in Iberia.
That's true!
@@theangel3232 thanks
@@theangel3232 but thats completely false thats like saying china didnt exist until the communist revolution Morocco as a sovereign state was established in 789
St. Pierre & Miquelon are the last remnants of “New France” but do to the short runways at the two airports (one on each island), there are no direct flights to France, only to Canada and I believe Boston (at least seasonally).
St Pierre and Miquelon are used by France to fish of the east coast of Canada! These islands should be part of Canada!
*due to
They now have seasonal (summer) flights directly to Paris with a charted 737-700.
@@noelgenoway9360french were in Kanada 200 years before the Brit’s, stay easy red coat
Him: "These are no longer places where the ruling party goes to exploit the people and it's resources"
Me:
Ciudadanos de segunda clase?? Represión de autodeterminación??? Explotación colonial?!?! DÓNDE😁🇺🇸🇵🇷 /s
@@kingdmind - WEEEEPA! Seguro que si!!!! (Of Course!!!!!)
THIS IS SO F* TRUE
Puerto Rico has had many, many chances to be independent. Now after driving yourselves into debt you want to be a state for federal funding 🤷🏾♂️
@@juventus7131 it's very obvious you know nothing about what's happening. They've never, ever had a chance. All the votes you've seen them take are all symbolic votes, none of which were sanctioned by the US Congress. Without congresses blessing, the vote does not count. Now go sit back down and learn to actually read up on topics you want to leave a smartass remark on when you have absolutely no idea wtf your talking about. Its always the dumb ones that swear they know it all.
America: Okay, Britain - we've got a policy on de-colonization for you
Britain: What about your colonies?
America: About that-
Usa: do as i say not as i do
Also nice pfp
@@BiasN Cheers or, vielen dank!
It would be kinda hard to let Puerto Rico go. A lot of American PRs would get upset. They have family, ties and many of them love to visit or go back home time to time.
@@seanbrummfield448 Canada and Australia in a way are like that to the UK
@@seanbrummfield448 they are not voting for independence, they are voting for Puerto Rico to recognized as a state of the US.
West Papua is a colony of Indonesia. not that the UN will ever recognize this since apparently only the West can be colonizers
Good point. This must also include the island of Borneo which is shared by Malaysia, isn’t it? I wonder how the local Austronesian people feel about still being colonised like this? No media attention given!
@@montyyy08 I don't know if this makes any difference but the people on the Malaysian part of Borneo chose to be in Malaysia while West Papuan were never asked if they were or wished to be part of Indonesia - and they still don't.
@@montyyy08 The Malay people are also Austronesian
@@montyyy08 There isn't any strong separatist movements in Indonesian Borneo however this is not the case for West Papua in which they don't want to be part of Indonesia and are brutally suppressed because of it
@@montyyy08 i am Indonesian who live in East Borneo 18 years, and i am happy enought not joining malaysia
5:31
That's not correct.
The islands even had a majority in favor of independence once.
But with changing conditions the Faero islands and Greenland are no longer capable of fully supporting themselves.
For one a lot of the fish in the Atlantic has been overfished so there's no longer enough profit from that to make those areas a net positive economically within the Danish kingdom, among other things.
On the Faero islands the factions in favor of and against independence is roughly split in the middle with some in the middle between the two wanting independence but only if it won't come at the cost of living standards.
Greenland is in a similar state from my understanding.
A lot of people want independence there, but they're not in a rush and want it done the right way with a self sufficient economy after the independence.
In both cases the Danish kingdom has treated the areas well enough that there's no rush towards independence even though both areas *want* it, and the independence movements in both places feel that they have time to gradually increase self governance while adapting the economy and society to prepare for independence.
Greenland does have a provisional constitution that would go into effect upon independence. However, like you said, they are in no rush but everything is ready for the moment when they either find a new source of revenue or when Denmark fucks something up.
A few corrections about the Spanish part:
The Canary Islands where the only islands from Macaronesia that where inhabited prior to the arrival of the Europeans, in thus case by the people known as "guanches".
Both Ceuta and Melilla and the "plazas de soberanía" aren't considered colonies even by the UN, Morocco tried to make a case for it but failed. The cities have been part of Spain since the 15th century for Melilla and the 16th for Ceuta (previously it was Portuguese, not Moroccan) and today are administered as any other part of the country would. They weren't even considered part of Spanish Morocco.
You haven't talk about the actual last Spanish colony, the Western Sahara, due to complicated 70s diplomacy Spain still has sovereignty over the region, although Spain has always denies this as in practice has no influence in the region.
-The Guanches people of Canary were Berbers/Amazighs and genocided by spanish
-Ceuta & Melilla is for Spain what Gibraltar is for the UK
-Ex Spanish sahara were a spanish colony over Moroccan territory (Cherifian Empire) since 1884 to 1975, It was at the request of Morocco in 1963 that Ifni and the Spanish Sahara were included by the UN on the list of non-autonomous territories. with the Madrid Accords of 1975 (and Moroccan Green March) Spain leaves the territory who become Moroccan again and since 2022 Spain recognizes Morocco's regional autonomy plan as best solution
-You don't talk about Sidi Ifni, Tarfaya, the Rif...
French Guiana isn't really a colony, it is an overseas department and holds the same amount of power as Corsica or other departments in mainland france therefore it is fully integrated into France
And thanks to French Guiana ESA has Cosmodrome in the best possible place
@@fgsaramago the difference is that the people of French Guiana democratically choose to be part of France. They can vote for independence
0:43 not only the US, all countries of the Americas were also established by people with European descent, who also nowadays pretend to be original natives… despite having erased the true original populations
"Erased" is complicated as many Latin American countries still have a majority indigenous population
That's a good point! I surely was thinking of Uruguay on that matter, as an Uruguayan colleague once told me, there are no original natives left, since 1895.
Great video
The reason that Greenland and Faroe Islands are not on the list of Non-self-governing territories probably is that they are in fact self-governing. They each have their own parliament and 2 members each of the Danish parliament
I am from Texas, but lived in Puerto Rico for a year. I would hear native refer to the island as their country, but proudly refer to themselves as U.S. citizens. Bud and Corona were both considered imported beer's. Yeah, it's complicated 😕.
l also live in Puerto Rico
As a New-caledonian, I can say that we aren't fully autonomous as you said. France still has the control over some important things (foreign affairs, army...) which are called the regalian powers. Nevertheless, we have a(nother) referendum of self-determination December 12th. at issue of this vote,2 possibilities:
----> independence
----> we remain in France and there's a period of 2 years in which we're modifying our status
So, in fact, that autonomy will change in a few months
Is it expected that the New Caledonians will vote for independence?
@@Fragum19 Can't tell ... it's probably going to be really close, as usual.
That's the difference between autonomous and independent. New Caledonia can almost do whatever they want in their internal politics but aren't independent so external politcs and very important matters are up to France
@@Fragum19 It's almost 50/50 at each referendum, so we can't really guess rn.
@@bluesupremacist3085 There is also the few billion Euros they give us each year to manage education, health, police...
And those sectors are totally dependent from France
As I understand it (from Wikipedia) the situation in Svalbard is more nuanced than you said. There was a treaty in the late 1800s or early 1900's that made it a neutral non-militarized zone that is administered from Norway. This was basically to avoid any wars breaking out over possession of the island.
im danish and i have always heard the reason why greenland was still a part of denmark was cause they relied on denmark for economy reasons and maybe a little sprinkle of other things
Fun fact: Coral Sea Islands declared independence in 2004 as a Gay and Lesbian Kingdom but they were never recognised
New Caledonia's referendum is leaving out the context that the majority indigenous regions overwhelmingly voted for independence whereas majority settler populations voted against.
This is kind of a colonial gentrification.
Can't vote for independence if you send tons who will vote against it.
It also misses the fact that the referendum was held 18 years after being allowed, so yeah the government had plenty of time to operate this colonial gentrification. I've also heard that the access to polling places was way harder in areas mainly inhabited by indigenous people than in those inhabited by people from the mainland, a little bit like predominently black neighborhoods in the US.
@Boubouh in 18 years there was no massive immigration to new Caledonia so no planned gentrification in those 18 years, and yeah it is harder to have access to polling places cuz obviously it's easier in cities to vote than in the middle of nowhere...
So just to clarify, many referedum have been held with many people coming from france being forbide to vote
Absolutely no:
Article 218 of Law n°99-209 of 19 March 1999 still in force:
Voters registered on the electoral roll on the date of the consultation and who meet one of the following conditions shall be admitted to participate in the consultation
(a) Have been admitted to participate in the consultation of 8 November 1998;
(b) Are not registered on the electoral roll for the 8 November 1998 consultation, but nevertheless fulfil the residence requirement for being an elector at that consultation;
(c) If they could not be entered on the list of electors for the 8 November 1998 referendum because they did not meet the residence requirement, they must prove that their absence was due to family, professional or medical reasons;
(d) Have had customary civil status or, having been born in New Caledonia, have had the centre of their material and moral interests there;
(e) Have had one of their parents born in New Caledonia and have had the centre of their material and moral interests there
(f) Be able to prove twenty years of continuous residence in New Caledonia on the date of the consultation and by 31 December 2014 at the latest;
(g) Be born before 1 January 1989 and have been domiciled in New Caledonia from 1988 to 1998
(h) Be born on or after 1 January 1989 and have reached the age of majority by the date of the consultation and have had a parent who met the conditions for participation in the consultation of 8 November 1998.
Periods spent outside New Caledonia to perform national service, to follow studies or training or for family, professional or medical reasons do not, for persons who were previously domiciled there, interrupt the period taken into consideration to assess the condition of domicile.
They still French deal with it
I think its really cool to have my little island of Saint-Martin mentioned in any kind of video, so thanks mon ami. Leonardo Dicaprio poiting meme
I was always curious about this. Thanks for covering it! Very interesting.
Saying that Puerto Ricans have voted for statehood is gross misunderstanding of these referendums. Historically, PR has had exactly ONE status referendum authorized by the US Congress, and that’s the one where the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (or literally translated, the “Free Associated State of PR) was created. Since then, the first three referenda, none of which was authorized by the US Congress, the Commonwealth, NOT statehood, won the vote. Then the pro-statehood party has held some referenda where either they did not allow for independence to be on the ballot, or they “defined” what the options were without consulting the parties that support those options, or they have misrepresented the votes. For instance, a referendum that the pro-statehood party said was a clear vote for statehood, was so because EVERY PARTY boycotted it. So of course, in only pro-statehood folk voted, I guess you can expect that result. (The number of participants was also dismally small, so you’ve made an assumption that 10% or so who voted are the voice of the 90% of people who boycotted.) Then there’s the little inconvenience of each one of these processes not being authorized by the Congress. So, until the Congress offers and authorizes a referendum on status, and until ALL options are presented to the people of my country, you can still call Puerto Rico a colony and for the love of all that is good, STOP saying that “Puerto Ricans have asked for statehood.” (Will it become a state, though? Yes, but not because Puerto Ricans have asked. Right now the US is systematically creating the circumstances to unilaterally take control. For instance, the Commonwealth government does not have control over its finances and has to get permission from the Congressionally appointed Fiscal Control Board. The pro-statehood party has been selling public property to US based businesses. The government is also promoting the selling of private property to US investors and the whole coast is being bought by US Americans who are displacing the locals. US investors get tax cuts that local business folk and entrepreneurs don’t have access to, etc. So, if you want to know what the future of PR will be related to statehood, look at the history of Hawai’i and there it is: US settlers replacing native population and overtaking the economic and political systems until they unilaterally ask for statehood while the native population is kept under the master’s booth. Unfortunately, enough Puerto Ricans have bought into the lies of statehood that they will cheer this when it happens.)
So in other words, if a binding referendum happens soon, PR will become the next state of the union. Then also please tell me why don’t more people vote?? Why don’t they just vote for what they choose instead of boycotting? If the people vote for statehood it will happen, and if the residents vote for independence, then it will happen but both sides have consequences
I agree 100%.
The Falkands had no native population so they're ours fair and square. But if any of the islands that we retain want to go and do their own thing, they should be allowed to. The Falklands’ population has made it clear that they do not want to be Argentinian.
Ikr the falklands should get their independence if they want it also for now it’s British
@@24kproductions97 if they want it, but they made clear they don't
Yeah whatever you say the Falklands are still a colony
@@JohnSmith-sl2qc Yes, a colony on a previously uninhabited island. No issue with that.
@@adampoultney8737 Still a Colony
The UK still occupies 6 counties in the north of Ireland.
1:41 “the Phoenicians made a colony so big it makes colonies” - history of the entire world I guess by bill wurts
Greenland consents to the current situation with Denmark by referendum, so have full government control.
And how does Greenland consenting make it not a colony?
@@cassianoneto1553 Because by a) being nominally self governing for all non international affairs, and b) actively lobbying Denmark to keep the current arrangement, they are the ones in control of the situation
@@nert-13 I agree it shouldn’t be in the “non self governing” list, but it is still a colony, in any sense of the word.
@@cassianoneto1553 Nah they are an autonomous region with its own parliament, own government and the people of Greenland decide if they want full sovereignty or not. In 1985 the people voted to leave the (now) EU.
Do you think they'll ever want to become their own fully independent country?
I find French Guiana to be one of the most interesting cases with it being literaly a part of France and therefore a “part of Europe” despite being in South America.
I hope Puerto Rico becomes a state someday, the people of Puerto Rico really deserve it after decades of half assed US support and lack of real representation. The hurricane response over the past several years especially for Irma, Maria, and more recently Fiona really show how they need more support during disasters like actual US states like Florida, Louisiana, and Texas get.
France is not just a European country. It is European, American, African and Oceanian. Although our dominant culture is European (incl. many different European cultures), we also have significant Arab, Chinese, African, Creole, Native American, Melanesian and Polynesian cultures within the country.
French Guiana is not part of Europe. It's part of the EU however.
I'm Puerto Rican. I'm Hispanic. We speak Spanish. Our culture also has strong African roots. Less than 3% of Puerto Ricans are fully bilingual. We are very proud of being all racially mixed. We belong to US which invaded us, but we are not part of them. We are part of Latin America.
Most of the US doesn't want Puerto Rico. Too much corruption, poverty, natural disasters, etc. I hope you get independence someday rather than statehood! A 51st star on the flag would be ugly
Puerto Rico has had elections where you voted in favour of statehood tho but since the US hasn't giving you guys that already independence might be the ultimate option lol
@@mauriciomontiel280 agreed
@@principalmcvicker6530 Corruption, poverty, natural disasters?, then Puerto Rico would fit to perfection with the U.S. 😄.
@@ClementePR21 key words "too much", like african levels of corruption and poverty and haiti level natural disasters. Also like 95% of the population is spanish speaking, only 20% english? I know it isn't a _requirement_ but c'mon lol. They aren't becoming a state.
Income per capita is the lowest of any US state or territory also.... by a lot. $12,000 compared to poor, backwards ass Mississippi at $24,000. Yikes
its also important to point out that the feroes and greenland has members of the parliament of denmark, to a degree that actually is more than the relatively small population should have
2:52 - French Guyana is an integral part of France, just like Algeria was. They vote in the presidential elections and have 2 representatives in parliament. It's qua status identical to the Paris district, a part of France. British Virgin Islands have, to a certain degree, self governing authority and autonomy, but still fall under rule of Parliament and the Queen and can't vote in for example prime minister elections or referendums like Brexit. (
Algeria was considered a colony because the indigenous population were not citizens, but subjects. Only the European and Jewish population were citizens.
You forgot to mention Western Sahara. It is officially a Non-Self-Governing Territories according to UN. Western Sahara is officially a disputed territory between Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
A puertorican here, the past referendum only 5% of the population voted, and the majority were pro statehood, and the majority of the referendums weren't recognized by the us government because it wasn't an official one, nor a fair one
When I think of the term "colony" I think of an area occupied by a foreign power and where the natives want their independence. The US "colonies" of Guam, Puerto Rico and American Samoa have had opportunities to vote for independence and each time this has been rejected. Some of the French territories mentioned in this video are actually part of France so are not colonies. Same with the British territories of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, etc. Denmark has Greenland & the Faroe islands, both with their own independent governments but are supported financially (Greenland) and militarily (both Greenland & the Faroe Islands). The UN is pushing for independence because it wants "colonies" to go away, but the true colonies have pretty well become independent by now.
It is interesting that the UN is willing to recognize the "right" for China to "colonize" Taiwan by accepting the CCP's "One China" policy but then points it's finger at other nations, like the US with Puerto Rico where the population has repeatedly voted to remain a territory or become a state, but never has voted for independence.
I dissagree with Puerto Rico, the referendum's are not completely valid, as only a small percentage of people voted in them.
@@AVC823 Not true
UN gonna UN
Well said!
Also Puerto Rico have ask for Statehood multiple times
And still the US rejected it
So we (because Im Puerto Rican) are still a colony and second class citenzens
Some infos about New Caledonia independence (from France) :
In 2017 and 2019, there were 2 referendums to make New Caledonia independant. They both ended up in the "No" to independence (around 55%). But recently a pro-independence "president" has been elected so maybe it will be independent one day because there will be an other referendum in 2021.
But in fact this probably wont be independent. Because France really want to keep New Caledonia : there are mines with precious metals and also what we call in french ZEE, the maritime territory and the New C. one is more than 1 million km2 (btw France is the country with the biggest ZEE more than 11 millions km2).
Sorry for my bad english im french
Ton anglais est assez bien pour comprendre.:-) Salutations de la Finlande! :-) Terveiset Suomesta! :-)
It should be pointed out that the referendums were organised as if they wanted to chase New Caledonia out of France: as long as the NO won, there were 3+1 referendums as foreseen by the French constitution, but if the YES had won even one referendum then they would have had their independence.
2:51 The British Virgin Islands is merely an overseas territory belonging under British rule but has quite a bit of self governance
French Guiana is a region of France, and has the same legal status as all the other regions in Europe. (with small differences here and there obviously)
It's like saying "why is American Samoa considered a territory but not Hawaii". I don't think anyone would agree that Hawaii in it's current form counts as a "Territory" or "Colony" of the United States.
As far as Greenland though? Yeah I don't why. It is by definition called an Autonomous Territory
@@fgsaramago Whether or not the primary population is Native or from Settlers is completely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with determining whether or not it can be considered a colony. Proof: The 13 Colonies (the former United States before independence) were all considered colonies, as it's literally in the name, and yet most of the population were settlers from Europe, and cared very little about the Natives (rather infamously so). Same with Australia, same with Canada, Same with Argentina, Uruguay and Chile. Same with parts of South Africa. These are all colonies whose primary population were immigrants/settlers. Furthermore, the definition of colony: "a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country." mentions nothing about the native population or ethnicity. So no, I'm not tying to murky the definition of a colony, you are.
@@fgsaramago add back the other half of the equation? I don't even know what that means. You mean definition?
@@fgsaramago Wtg
@@fgsaramago wtf
I've been to Guam and it was very much like being in Florida. It was totally American. Everyone speaks English, there are wide roads with the same American signage you see anywhere in the USA. Even though it's a small island, there's McDonald's, Taco Bell, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and other American chains. There are American gas stations and Americans cars driving everywhere. There's a big K-mart and a big shopping mall. Of course there's a bit of unique local stuff, but not much. It's so weird essentially being in the USA when you're on a very isolated island in the Pacific Ocean, closer to Asia than North America.
Tengo que corregir que Aunque Ceuta y Melilla con 2 ciudades Españolas en Africa, realmente no son consideradas como colonias ni por España ni la ONU. Ceuta y Melilla son de Facto, ciudades Independientes de España. Tipo Comunidad Autonoma, pero microscopico
France wasn’t next to Venezuela, it’s the one on the east
French Guiana is a full Department of France. It seems to be very similar to Alaska and Hawaii for the US.
In other words, is a full Colony Department of France in America. 😁
several of the French areas like the Guyane work as overseas provinces and have full rights as any other french province so wouldnt count
fancy way to say colony
@@QWERTY-gp8fd that would be like calling Alaska or Hawaii colonies, they also have full representation and rights, just happen to be far away from the rest of the country, a colony would be something like Puerto Rico with no representation and laws dictated by the mainland
@@renatoe9648 nice whataboutism. guyana is not alaska or hawaii. totally different
@@QWERTY-gp8fd Yeah Hawaii and Alaska are colonies while Guyane is not. Why? I just said so and my bullshit has as much value as yours.
I like how French Guinea is overseas (understandably) but Alaska and hawaii aren't, although all 3 of them vote in their national elections. And all 3 of them were colonised at some point, one by France, the other by the UK then an illegal occupation and colonisation by the US and the last by Russia and sold to the US.
I think it's because Hawai and Alaska are in the same continent (can be discussed for Hawai).
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a colony as "a country or an area that is governed by people from another, more powerful, country"; if we are going by this, we could include many, many more countries, including Russia (Chechnya, Crimea, Kaliningrad etc.), China (Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang etc.), Indonesia (West Papua), Turkey (Northern Cyprus), Japan (Ryukyu Islands, Nanpō Islands, Minami-Tori-shima etc.), Finland (Åland), Ecuador (Galápagos Islands), Chile (Rapa Nui etc.), Colombia (San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina), Venezuela (Federal Dependencies of Venezuela) etc.
You could have look up what an 'exclave' is though
@@fgsaramago It's the most important dictionary for the English language.
@@fgsaramago They are legally recognized as so diplomatically. If you don't believe me, search up the British Empire you'll see no end date on the info card.
@@fgsaramago Though, by land it did end in 1997, though there was no formal ending. For example, if you search up French Colonial Empire, it says it was disestablished in 1980 but there is nothing like that for the British Empire, So it's complicated.
@@fgsaramago First of all, they are not laughing stocks (I'm German by the way) and yes, they could be insane sometimes (Brexit), but overall, they know what they are doing. Also, it's a Government thing, not a people thing. It's kind of like how Japan has an Imperial Government even though they don't have the size of land to call them an Empire.
Speaking as a Dane I am pretty sure that most of my fellow countrymen would be absolutely delighted to see Greenland go out on their own but I suspect that the economic benefit to Greenland for remaining is a strong draw.
IA was just elected to run Greenland, and they prioritise a pro-independence stance, whereas Siumut has been behind Rigsfællesskabet all the way. So hey, we might just be losing them yet :D
Supposedly Trump offered Denmark $100 billion for Greenland so the US could basically strip mine the place and leave it to rot, and that wasn't the first time we tried to buy it. Kinda fucked up if you think about it.
@@Cruising_On_Lake_Havasoma These days yes but we do have an unfortunate habit of selling stuff and people . After all we sold the US the Virgin Islands . A pretty appealing idea
@@Kim-the-Dane-1952 Right. You can sell land, but the 14th Amendment makes it illegal to buy and sell people.
Speaking as a Norwegian I'dalso be delghted if Denmark lost Greenland, given you stole that land from us, along with Iceland and the Faroese islands.
5:13 Fun Fact: The Inuit people of Greenland actually reached Greenland after the Vikings first went there
Don't call that a "fact". Inuit people were in Greenland 2500 BC. Vikings never made it until around 1000 AD, at least 3500 years later.
@@alukuhito no the Inuits only came to greenland by 1200 ad. Before the Inuit came there were other indigenous groups in Greenland but they got replaced by the Inuits
@@lama99654 That's just semantics. They were still Inuit groups that came WAY before the Vikings. And, regardless, there were indigenous North Americans in Greenland before Europeans. Be more thorough with your comments so you don't mislead people.
@@alukuhito the point is that these indigenous groups were not Inuit. The Inuit people who inhabit Greenland today arrived to the island after the Scandinavians
Great video, thank you for putting into context the fact that independence in some places like the US and Brazil did not mean decolonization-in fact they became settler-colonial empires in their own right after gaining independence, some constructive criticism- 2:24 that was the wrong guiana lol [1], the Indigenous people of the Canaries [2] are called the Guanches [3], the Faroese were definitely there before the Danish [4], and they do have an independence movement [5], if you are interested in pronunciations I highly recommend forvo [6] and, last but not least, I disagree a little bit with your conclusion-not your premise-that the US has many territories from when US imperialism began-I'm just not sure when you are saying that it began, because the era of Pacific colonization was at the end of US imperialism-US imperialism began in 1763 when they disregarded the Proclamation of that year [7] which limited settlement (i.e. colonization/imperialism) to the eastern seaboard of the continent. I would argue a huge chunk of the US-if not all of it-is a colony of the 3rd type you mention at the end, but at the very least I feel like you should have mentioned Hawaii [8][9]. On a similar note, I would have mentioned Canada, and it's "Northwest Territories" [10] and I would have loved if you had expanded a little on the point at the beginning that a lot of the states/countries/governments in the americas are the direct descendants of the colonial governments of the 1600s. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].
Anyway great video! Keep up the good work
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana
[2] pronounced in English more like kn-ARY or kan-ARY, less like KAN-ary; forvo.com/word/canary_islands/#en ; en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canary
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches
[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islanders
[5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroese_independence_movement
[6] forvo.com/word/anguilla/#en ; forvo.com/word/bermuda/#en ; forvo.com/word/montserrat/#en ; forvo.com/word/helena/#en
[7] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763
[8] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom
[9] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement
[10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada#Territories
[11] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island
[12] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Araucan%C3%ADa
[13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert
[14] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide
[15] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
Excellent comment, and thank you especially for mentioning the California Genocide - it's an event that is unknown to more than 95% of Americans, even now in the 21st century.
Unfortunately there is no "correct" definition for what constitutes a colony. I found this video interesting anyway. As a citizen of the USA, I don't have a problem with integrating our over seas territories as states.
Let’s make each territory a state
I wanna see the us virgin island's and porta rico combined into the " us Caribbean islands state" and see Hawaii reorganized into the " us Pacific islands state. " that reorganization adding guam, american Sonoma, and the other small populated islands in the Pacific that are ours together
@@logankraft8711 I never understood why they never just integrated the USVI into Florida.
@@fgsaramago so by definition Alaska and Hawaii are colonies, and therefore they will remain a colony until the union dissolved.
@@logankraft8711 first Puerto Rico and the USVI wouldn’t want to combine as they have two separate cultures, and policies. While there is a possibility of combining Guam and the CNMI into one state of the union or one territory of the United States, it is unlikely due to differences of the past but still can happen. American SAMOA, on the other hand is in a completely different part of the Pacific and wouldn’t fit well as one state combined with Guam and the CNMI, but would rather be their own state of the union. The USA could possibly annex Samoa and join it with American Samoa and be a slightly larger state
Sorry but in most of Latin America, the descendants of the colonizers started the revolutions for independence just like in the US. Of course native people participated but it was the local elites who rebelled against not having the same rights as those born in Spain (caste system), they got their chance when Napoleon invaded Spain
In fact, a lot of natived were royalist. They supported Spanish sovereignty over independence.
@@ikad5229 Exactly
"UK has by far the most colonies remaining on this list" Bro proceeds to name 2000 times less colonies than France still has
In the 60's there was a group of women in Mayotte called "Les Chatouilleuses", "The Ticklers", and they wanted the isle of Mayotte to remain part of France because they feared that Comoros independantists would remove some of their rights granted under french control.
I am suprised you did not talk about Mayotte 🇾🇹.
Mayotte is an island of the Comoros archipelago, but in 1975 when France ran a local referendum for independance or not, Mayotte was the single island to choose to stay French.
Furthermore, it became a French department only in 2011 under the pressure of the UN that ask France to clarify the situation with Comoros Islands 🇰🇲 and with the local governing system.
There were/are very few people from mainland France in Mayotte and still they voted to become a French departement by 95%.
Tbf Mayotte just had to look at the rest lf the Comores to be extremely excited about being french in 2011^^'
Good attempt to cover a complicated topic! A remark on Danish colonies and how Denmark got them: they were part of the Norwegian "North Atlantic Empire" along with Iceland, but Norway became a Danish colony itself after the Black Death wiped out much of the country's ruling class. When Norway was handed over to Sweden in 1814 after the Napoleonic wars, Denmark got to keep the old colonies. Norway even tried to, unsuccessfully, claim parts of Greenland after it once again became indipendant in 1905.
Wrong - Norway was never a colony. Denmark-Norway was an multi-national and multi-lingual union consisting of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Norway and overseas possessions as the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland. Denmark-Norway, had separate legal codes and currencies, and mostly separate governing institutions.
@@jorgenlarsen775 Splitting hairs. Norway was a de facto colony.
Many people don’t know this but French Guyana has a huge foreign born population more than almost any other country
Only about 57% of their population was born there with about 9% being born in France, 3% from other French overseas territories (mostly in the Caribbean) and 30% coming from other countries primarily Brazil, Suriname, and Haiti
The Faroese people are a different people from the Danish, and we are split 50-50 on the question of independence. We did have an independence referendum in 1946 which narrowly passed. The Home Rule Act of 1948 was the ultimate result but we have been taken control of various areas ever since.
Doesn’t Finland have the Åland Islands?
They do
Åland are an autonomous region and hardly deal with the Helsinki government except for foreign politics. Åland is demilitarised. This means that there may be no miltary presence in the province and the islands may not be fortified. Åland is also neutralised, and must therefore be kept outside the threat of war in case of conflict.
Åland are native Swedish speakers. They have a “Swedish identity” to. I think they’d laugh at the “colony” concept 😂
@@AnnaKaunitz Åland has about the same level of autonomy as Canadian indian reservations. Which also have their own languages and culture. And whine mightily about "Canadian colonialism" while stretching out their hands for money from Canada.
I'd say China also has colonies.
China is devided into Republics like the Soviet Union was and each republic has it's own language and culture.
Having minorities and giving them representation isn't colonisation
@@adamender9092 But then why was the USSR counted as a colonizer?
@@Yassified3425 It wasn't. The USSR's territories were core parts of its country, even if they were suppressed. Also, colonies are overseas territories of a country, of which none of the soviet republics were, so, the USSR would just be a regular empire, like the Russian Empire, Qing China, the Mongol Empire, or the Mexican Empire.
Before 2010 the 6 islands that the Netherlands still holds sovereignty over were collectively known as the Netherlands Antilles and was constituent country within the kingdom of the Netherlands. In 2010 all 6 islands got to vote for their futures. Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten voted to be individual constituent countries within the kingdom of the Netherlands and Saba, St. Eustasius and Bonaire voted for special municipal status. That is why it is like that now.
The Canary islands were actually inhabited by the Guanches people when the spanish arrived (btw i like your videos!)
Puerto Rico will keep its status quo for the foreseeable future. They know better than to volunteer to pay federal taxes via statehood.
we should just grant them independence and be done with it. I'm not in favor of any more states. also once you go with statehood in the US its for keeps. one idea is once they are independent ask them if they would like to to join Compacts of Free Association like Micronesia, Marshal Islands and Palau. if they say no then we and they can be better off I think.
I think I understand why Greenland isn’t on the UN list it’s because since Greenland is technically self governing it doesn’t fall under “places where native people have yet to gain full autonomy*” but Greenland is still part of the danish realm, it would be like including all of the British Commonwealth and a modern day “colonies”
Hello from South Africa!
I like to think of the Prince Edward Islands (Prince Edward Island and Marion) are colonies of South Africa. Constitutionally speaking they are 'part of Cape Town' but the are ±1800km from the nearest landfall. It was annexed in 1947 and is a meteorological base.
I think Hokkaido is interesting. It was colonized by Japan in 1869 and incorporated as part of Japan. Of course it is a separate island but adjacent to Honshu which is the main Japanese island. Hokkaido was previously ruled by the Ainu people. Another example is Hawaii which was more or less stolen by USA in the 1800s. Previously it was a kingdom.
I think the reason those aren't considered colonies today is because they're fully integrated parts of their respective countries. I don't know why French Guiana is thin this video though, since it's also a fully integrated part of France.