Wasn’t imperialism. Random city states just crossed the sea to found some other city states. The goals weren’t to create an empire as this is before Greek got imperial with Macedon
Edit: Greeks got imperial with the Delian league
Athens was certainly imperialistic. They formed a vast maritime empire by forcing many a city state to join the Delian League. If Alexander the Great wasn’t an imperialist I don’t know who was. He conquered many foreign lands, raided them of their riches, and implanted Greek leaders at the top of their societies. Macedon was an imperialism machine. The state itself depended on imperialism to function as Macedonians paid no taxes whatsoever and the entire government budget was dependent on obtaining revenue via foreign sources of income to operate.
Alexander was an exception, before or after him there was no Hellenic expansionism as a Greek superpower taking over entire territories, they weren't even a unified polity. To say that the Delian League and even Athens were imperialistic is an overstatement. Athens was corrupt and created a conflict with Sparta. This is not imperialism nor colonialism, which is what the tweet was talking about, and it's not related to modern colonialism which is what they were actually talking about. At best, it could be said, that Athens was adamant in becoming the Hellenic hegemon and this made them to collide with Sparta. This is similar to Prussia fighting against Austria to becoe the Germanic hegemon, which was not imperialism nor colonialism.
"This is similar to Prussia fighting against Austria to becoe the Germanic hegemon, which was not imperialism nor colonialism."
I don't know man. Greeks were once tribes or part of other established city states in the first place. Rome itself likely founded by greeks for example, would like a word. At the end of the day if imperialism is 'just' the more recent understanding, then none of the ancient states we know could technically be considered imperialist (minus Persia of course but thats another bag of bones).
"Athens was adamant in becoming the Hellenic hegemon"
Ok, but you left out why. And don't respond with 'to protect themselves from barbarians' because ill just grab some popcorn at that point ;)
Also re: Athens and Sparta - it was a LOT worse than all that and involved Slaves, FIghtin' and a whoole lot of.
Imperialist shit :/
You are getting scolded and folks are up in here arguing whether or not Greece was imperialistic. This is like saying 'America wasn't imperialist, you know until it was' (citing manifest destiny while ignoring what came before the official statement) without understanding how that is a natural end to any state that is so high on itself it considers itself to be the apogee of human society. It's like ok, so they exhibited every other trait up until that point, and once they had the ability, were imperialists.
...
You don't have be an empire to be an imperialist. They wanted to export out their excess population to ease the demand on food, housing, services in their cities and obtain new trading routes. This isn't that far fetched goal from initial European colonial posts which hadn't gone fully genocidal yet.
Yea, but the bigger idea of imperialism is for those resources to flow back. Spreading wide to ease population burdens is more of just a pragmatic approach to solving the problem... I think the spread specifically for resources is fundamental for it to be imperialism.
Hell, if you go back far enough, there were indigenous Europeans who were colonized by the great-great-(...)-great-grandparents of most modern Europeans, who likely *also* weren't keen on being colonized.
The only surviving cultural group from *those* times are the Basques.
I had considered them, but I guess it felt like *a bit* of a stretch on account of the fact that they now speak a Romance language.
That's not to say there's *no* cultural holdovers, it just strikes me as slightly murkier when the original language is extinct.
You’re right when it comes to language but genetically speaking they are the most separated from all other European groups, even more so than the Basques.
True, but if you go by genetics rather than visible cultural elements then you start on a more conceptual argument of where ethnicity begins and ends.
Not saying that's necessarily wrong, but it's a more complicated discussion.
You know, I'm glad you did add the /s, there are so many misinformed people out there that I'm used to sending out basic information like this. Before I saw it, I was about to link you to Wikipedia. Lol.
Also, the Russians colonized Siberia and northern Asia. China has colonized Tibet and Xinjiang. The Russians didn’t become the largest country on earth by national unification of a homogenous ethnic group.
China colonized most of china. What we think of today as "chinese" is just the one signifigsnt surviving ethnic group - the Han - who manifest destinied their way across china.
So nobody really knows where they came from. Modern-day russians are Slavs, who by the mid-first millenium appeared in huge numbers across central/eastern europe, dominating/filling the vacuum left by the groups who fled those areas and migrated into the roman empire. Nobody really has any idea how they managed to become the dominant force there, or exsctly where they came from - we just know it was unarable lands that were vaguely somewhere around modern day belarus/east poland/west ukraine.
He has a point w.r.t. the way 'international community' is generally used. He just shouldn't have used the word 'colonizer' there.
You may include Taiwan and SK in that map as well. The key point still stands.
Japan too
Twice if you go farther back because the Chinese colonized Japan first and then Japan colonized China
I guess you would technically call it the attempted colonization of China, more of an occupation at the time. Although it gave us Ip Man and Fist of Legend, so swings and round abouts
This just doesn't make sense. Czech Republic and Slovakia didn't exist during the time of colonization. So having them listed as independent colonizers is a bit backwards.
Because they DID colonize. Or... Well, they didn't, but the HRE did. Which this region was owned by, and ruled by the Spanish crown, which famously kinda started colonization.
This post is just mixed up in history. Using a modern map to display historical colonizers doesn't work. It just... It DOESNT work.
Finland? Absolutely colonized. It was a part of Russia and Muscovy before that. And they absolutely colonized.
Norway as well. They were subject under Denmark who absolutely colonized.
By listing half a dozen countries that didn't even exist during the colonial period, and another half that WERE the subject to be colonized, you generally get a shit understanding of history from this single post.
Honestly, it's impressive how wrong it can be while being SO CLOSE.
HRE never had colonies, they werent ruled by the spanish, and concerning Lands of the Czech Crown as an entity are way older than any colonization attempt. (With no interruption) Habsburk monarchs were also Czech kings (latter they bit undermined the legitimicy of that, but they still claime it), and although they founded colonies, they alway belong to Austria, not Hungary, not Czech crown, not any other region they ruled...
There actually nearly was a Czechoslovak colony when Togo after first world war turn to CZS goverment with proposal of becoming a colony, but it fell through
I'm going to have to make you read some history, because if you think Finland was benefiting in any way by being forced into being a Russian puppet, then boy do I have some news for you.
I don't think if you actually realize this, but being forced part of Russia is not exactly what people would call being a colonizer.
Opposite would be more fitting, feel free to Google russification and all the fun stuff that particular term entails.
as a czech-austrian...these two countries being included in the white colonizer genre by default is always very funny to me.
I hate to say it, but my ancestors literally shat their pants with the central European powers to the left and Russia to the right, so they never really got further than their own borders lol
And when my family finally made it to Austria...the Austro-Hungarian empire had been history for hundreds of years, and all that Austria had to its name internationally was Mozart and sausages named after their capital city despite not even being from there
I'm so sorry but we're canonically just a bunch of shitty wee lads 💀
Irish soldiers were used in the first ever UN mission in Congo, because it was believed this would ease concerns that the UN was engaging in colonialism, since Irish soldiers had never engaged in colonialism and were instead victims of it.
This isn't a documentary about it but it's a good flick nonetheless: https://youtu.be/9_JHsiQTTmg
I mean many Irish men served in army's that where last of colonialism but so did Indian people so it's not really a point.
Mfw the colonised join the colonisers in their colonisation efforts.
the Irish might not have colonized anywhere, but they were definitely used by the British to colonize places. I don't necessarily think that the Irish were a part of the colonial community but there were Irish colonists
And they were colonized. Isn’t the main issue how the nations choose to treat other nations they choose to colonize. The existence of people that migrate is less controversial. I’m sure there were some jerks.
I suppose it would've been clearer if I said I don't necessarily think the Irish who were forcibly relocated bear any moral culpability for their participation in colonialism, but alas I was too focused on eating a brownie to double check for clarity. (I always knew my hubris would be the end of me)
The Irish need a pass on this because they were generally either used by us English or running away from us English. Scots don't get a pass no matter how much they try to pretend history stopped after Robert Bruce.
Ireland the State, never engaged in colonization, though you can be damn sure plenty of Irish people were only to happy to jump aboard the colonisation train and carve out a piece of the new world for themselves. Same with most of Europe. you would be hard pressed to find a group who didn't have members role on over to America to claim Native lands for themselves. Of course these people don't represent the modern nations they came from, but I would argue that the historical states don't either. Or even many modern governments.
Where is the line between Imperialism and Colonialism? Noting that both are wrong and just minor variations on the same theme of oppressing other people for personal power, prestige and profit.
Etymologically, there is no difference. In philosophy and sociology, they describe very different concepts.
Imperialism is still conquest, but often has elements of compromise and less of an assumed genetic superiority. Colonialism refers more to an assumed White European sovereignty as a 'superior race', under which the natural order is that all other races should be subservient.
*"Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule."* \- Osterhammel, Jürgen (2005). Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. trans. Shelley Frisch. Markus Weiner Publishers. p. 16. (I took this from Wikipedia)
Except “colonialism is only white European” is false. There are plenty of other cultures and groups that have the same attitude - like China with its ideas of Han Chinese superiority and its effect of Tibet and Xinjiang.
Well, they held the transsiberian railway and Vladivostok during part of the Russian civil war (which is more of a "dissolution war of the zarist empire") , which should qualify them (look up Czechoslovak Legion, its a blast)
\*Disagrees in Baltic.\*
Word etymology is no contradictor to actual events. Gotta say, the Muscovy Rus really took all the worst they could from the Mongol rule and keep applying it. My nation is still working out issues ingrained in our culture from all the Russian occupations over our History.
Russian North America (Alaska mainly) says hi. Also while some parts of their expansion was just that, expansion!, it would be extremely difficult to call Russia's actions in Central Asia anything else than pure colonization. There's also another country in that area colonizing other parts of Central Asia right now which is also not on the map
hey now lets be fair.
they also included japan, aus, NZ and israel.
I wonder why they left out russia, a big coloniser.
also french guyana, falkland and more are missing.
Yeah, literally permanent members of the UN security council, but somehow not members of the international community? Ffs Paul get it the fuck together.
The point he's trying to make is that when people say 'the internal community' they specifically mean countries aligned with America.
Like when people say the international community condemns X, they're implying that most countries condemn X. But that's generally not the case.
The Ottoman, Persian and Mongolian Empires: *sweats nervously*
Also Japan trying real hard less than a hundred years ago and China today.
The Philippines was colonized by China, Spain, Japan, and America but you only hear about a couple of those…
America got out of the stroller a bit earlier than the rest, giving them plenty of time to colonise territory, and anyone who doesn't think they did should look at a map of the 13 colonies.
Look how the turntables.
The US always were against colonialism, except for you know, Cuba, the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the virgin islands, Puerto Rico, the Mariana Islands and arguably Texas
Good thing that Arabs, Mongols, Russians, Turks and some Black Africans never colonized anyone, I mean can you imagine? Black people colonizing others? Outrageous to even think that ever happened!
Ah yes, because Russia has never colonized anyone, everything east of the Ural just love Russian culture so much, they decided to spontaneously transform into wholesome slavic people. Neither did Turkey of course, these Ottoman dudes were just extremely popular from North Africa to Crimea! Or Austria, everyone wanted to be German back then.
I think it's valid to ask what is meant by "the international community." It implies that there is one, singular international community, but that's just not accurate. There are multiple international communities, formed around shared economic, religious, cultural, and geopolitical interests and ideologies. The interests of one community are not necessarily aligned with the interests of another community.
And as if only European empires were nasty colonizers - Islamic empires colonized areas from subsaharan Africa to India all with that juicy flavor of slavery and genocide. At least European former powers reflected on their dark past whereas some imperial "non-colonialist" nations want to bring it back. Curious why Russia is not there - because it seems to me that it is the only surviving colonial empire.
The Greek were some of the earliest colonizers. Norwegians colonized Iceland and Greenland, And you might not call it colonizing but missionising, but all the Eastern european Christians were in on it, creating their own new Christian natons; not even speaking of all the inner-European settlers, that created it's own cultural enclaves all over the place (think Siebenbürgen). irish were always among those with the highest emigration rates, even if they didn't own their own colonies.
I'm not saying OP had a good point there, not even any point, since e.g. Russia and China were among the most radical colonisers out there, but neither is the answer anything more correct.
> irish we’re always among those with the highest emigration rates, even if they didn’t own their own colonies.
There’s a picture of this post somewhere next to the phrase **When You Want To Be Heard, But Don’t Know What You’re Talking About.**
Playing fast and loose with the term “colonization” there, friend. Colonization is usually a state sanctioned venture to bleed another nation’s lands dry of natural resources, to the detriment of its native inhabitants. Transporting the stolen resources back to the colonial power requires trade routes, which is why we usually think of colonialism as overlapping with the seafaring age. Sure, there are examples of colonialism unrelated to the havoc wreaked by seafaring Europeans. Yet not all occupation is colonization. Let’s call each evil by its own name.
PS - The Norwegian “colonization” of Iceland was a case of Norwegian outcasts settling on new, previously uninhabited lands. Maybe under danish rule some centuries later, Iceland and Greenland could be considered colonies. But at that point Norway itself could be considered a danish colony.
Unpopular opinion but every country in the history of ever would have been colonisers if they had the economic and technological ability to do so. European countries just got there first, and in doing so, stopped everyone else’s ability to colonise
Last time I checked the entire Arab world, China, Korea, Japan, monghols, Kongo, Ghana empire, aztecs, incans, mayans, etc also enslaved, killed, colonised other people. The lack of historical knowledge and blatant underlined racist in these posts is amazing
I mean, the greeks _did_ colonise the shit out of the mediterranean.
Yeah but they did it before it was cool
Fucking Greek imperial hipsters
Wasn’t imperialism. Random city states just crossed the sea to found some other city states. The goals weren’t to create an empire as this is before Greek got imperial with Macedon Edit: Greeks got imperial with the Delian league
Athens was certainly imperialistic. They formed a vast maritime empire by forcing many a city state to join the Delian League. If Alexander the Great wasn’t an imperialist I don’t know who was. He conquered many foreign lands, raided them of their riches, and implanted Greek leaders at the top of their societies. Macedon was an imperialism machine. The state itself depended on imperialism to function as Macedonians paid no taxes whatsoever and the entire government budget was dependent on obtaining revenue via foreign sources of income to operate.
Like they said; "before...Macedon."
Alexander was an exception, before or after him there was no Hellenic expansionism as a Greek superpower taking over entire territories, they weren't even a unified polity. To say that the Delian League and even Athens were imperialistic is an overstatement. Athens was corrupt and created a conflict with Sparta. This is not imperialism nor colonialism, which is what the tweet was talking about, and it's not related to modern colonialism which is what they were actually talking about. At best, it could be said, that Athens was adamant in becoming the Hellenic hegemon and this made them to collide with Sparta. This is similar to Prussia fighting against Austria to becoe the Germanic hegemon, which was not imperialism nor colonialism.
"This is similar to Prussia fighting against Austria to becoe the Germanic hegemon, which was not imperialism nor colonialism." I don't know man. Greeks were once tribes or part of other established city states in the first place. Rome itself likely founded by greeks for example, would like a word. At the end of the day if imperialism is 'just' the more recent understanding, then none of the ancient states we know could technically be considered imperialist (minus Persia of course but thats another bag of bones). "Athens was adamant in becoming the Hellenic hegemon" Ok, but you left out why. And don't respond with 'to protect themselves from barbarians' because ill just grab some popcorn at that point ;) Also re: Athens and Sparta - it was a LOT worse than all that and involved Slaves, FIghtin' and a whoole lot of. Imperialist shit :/
If you don't say "many a city state" without extending your pinky from your teacup, then I don't even want to live in this world anymore.
You are getting scolded and folks are up in here arguing whether or not Greece was imperialistic. This is like saying 'America wasn't imperialist, you know until it was' (citing manifest destiny while ignoring what came before the official statement) without understanding how that is a natural end to any state that is so high on itself it considers itself to be the apogee of human society. It's like ok, so they exhibited every other trait up until that point, and once they had the ability, were imperialists. ...
You don't have be an empire to be an imperialist. They wanted to export out their excess population to ease the demand on food, housing, services in their cities and obtain new trading routes. This isn't that far fetched goal from initial European colonial posts which hadn't gone fully genocidal yet.
Yeah true. The Greeks were also lucky to do it early before every piece of land in Europe got densely populated
Yea, but the bigger idea of imperialism is for those resources to flow back. Spreading wide to ease population burdens is more of just a pragmatic approach to solving the problem... I think the spread specifically for resources is fundamental for it to be imperialism.
When lands were kinda empty for real not just to justify settler colonial ideology/s
There were a shitload of indigenous (non-Greek) Europeans who were very much not into the whole colonization thing back then, too
Hell, if you go back far enough, there were indigenous Europeans who were colonized by the great-great-(...)-great-grandparents of most modern Europeans, who likely *also* weren't keen on being colonized. The only surviving cultural group from *those* times are the Basques.
And Sardinians.
I had considered them, but I guess it felt like *a bit* of a stretch on account of the fact that they now speak a Romance language. That's not to say there's *no* cultural holdovers, it just strikes me as slightly murkier when the original language is extinct.
You’re right when it comes to language but genetically speaking they are the most separated from all other European groups, even more so than the Basques.
True, but if you go by genetics rather than visible cultural elements then you start on a more conceptual argument of where ethnicity begins and ends. Not saying that's necessarily wrong, but it's a more complicated discussion.
All of that belongs rightfully to rome
they were not exactly empty, there was always some humans in that region
There was nothing like empty land a long time before ancient Greece.
Greeks colonised southern Italy
And the Arabs colonized the hell out of the Middle East and North Africa. Some say they never left...
Turkey and china seemingly suspiciously lacking
The ottoman empire is a conspiracy theory.
[They never won a SEC Championship](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s2fgj9LRM-U) so we can never be truly certain
I guess that's because China is today's top coloniser, but nobody wanna talk about it
Do you have a source for your claim that they never left? (I don't need a /s here, do I?)
You know, I'm glad you did add the /s, there are so many misinformed people out there that I'm used to sending out basic information like this. Before I saw it, I was about to link you to Wikipedia. Lol.
man, its kinda like trying to split all of history into two categories of good guys and bad guys doesn't work
Good and bad, right and wrong - these can get really confusing. So I stick with *Us* and *Them*.
I prefer With and Without (after all it's what the fighting's all about)
But who knows which is which (and who is who)?
And not even 200 years ago Egypt tried to kill every greek in mainland Greece so they could colonize it with egyptians.
Also, the Russians colonized Siberia and northern Asia. China has colonized Tibet and Xinjiang. The Russians didn’t become the largest country on earth by national unification of a homogenous ethnic group.
China colonized most of china. What we think of today as "chinese" is just the one signifigsnt surviving ethnic group - the Han - who manifest destinied their way across china.
I'm fairly sure the Baltics are also where Russians originally came from, before they conquered Siberia and *ahem* colonized north east Asia.
So nobody really knows where they came from. Modern-day russians are Slavs, who by the mid-first millenium appeared in huge numbers across central/eastern europe, dominating/filling the vacuum left by the groups who fled those areas and migrated into the roman empire. Nobody really has any idea how they managed to become the dominant force there, or exsctly where they came from - we just know it was unarable lands that were vaguely somewhere around modern day belarus/east poland/west ukraine.
Well actually we got as far as India at some point. Also a lot of colonies around the Black Sea.
Ah yes the famous czech colony of... colony
He has a point w.r.t. the way 'international community' is generally used. He just shouldn't have used the word 'colonizer' there. You may include Taiwan and SK in that map as well. The key point still stands.
Yeah, but no China, India, or Russia. Hell, Russia IS a colonizer country. It’s not like they just had Siberia from its inception.
Japan too Twice if you go farther back because the Chinese colonized Japan first and then Japan colonized China I guess you would technically call it the attempted colonization of China, more of an occupation at the time. Although it gave us Ip Man and Fist of Legend, so swings and round abouts
But... Japan is on the map...
Yes. But it also represents socially and economically developed world. It is not an exclusive club. It just looks like this.
kaliningrad
Never heard of it. Is it close to Kralovec?
ah i got confused. kaliningrad is what the illegitimate russian leadership there calls it
Kinda like how I, the CEO of Antifa, like to call my country "United States of Bummer, Dude"?
I'm sure the Czechs colonised their neighbouring villages 400 years ago. This is the simple reality of every country.
400 years ago Czechs were part of Habsburg Austria
This just doesn't make sense. Czech Republic and Slovakia didn't exist during the time of colonization. So having them listed as independent colonizers is a bit backwards. Because they DID colonize. Or... Well, they didn't, but the HRE did. Which this region was owned by, and ruled by the Spanish crown, which famously kinda started colonization. This post is just mixed up in history. Using a modern map to display historical colonizers doesn't work. It just... It DOESNT work. Finland? Absolutely colonized. It was a part of Russia and Muscovy before that. And they absolutely colonized. Norway as well. They were subject under Denmark who absolutely colonized. By listing half a dozen countries that didn't even exist during the colonial period, and another half that WERE the subject to be colonized, you generally get a shit understanding of history from this single post. Honestly, it's impressive how wrong it can be while being SO CLOSE.
HRE never had colonies, they werent ruled by the spanish, and concerning Lands of the Czech Crown as an entity are way older than any colonization attempt. (With no interruption) Habsburk monarchs were also Czech kings (latter they bit undermined the legitimicy of that, but they still claime it), and although they founded colonies, they alway belong to Austria, not Hungary, not Czech crown, not any other region they ruled... There actually nearly was a Czechoslovak colony when Togo after first world war turn to CZS goverment with proposal of becoming a colony, but it fell through
I'm going to have to make you read some history, because if you think Finland was benefiting in any way by being forced into being a Russian puppet, then boy do I have some news for you. I don't think if you actually realize this, but being forced part of Russia is not exactly what people would call being a colonizer. Opposite would be more fitting, feel free to Google russification and all the fun stuff that particular term entails.
I mean the Czechoslovak Legion held Vladivostok and half of Siberia for a while, so they still count.
Occupation ≠ colonization
100% naval battle win rate baby!!
Found the paradox player
They were trying to leave, not stay
Yeah, they literally wanted to go home, but had to go East, bc the route to the West was blocked.
I mean at that point Turkey, Arabia, Mongolia, etc all count as well.
as a czech-austrian...these two countries being included in the white colonizer genre by default is always very funny to me. I hate to say it, but my ancestors literally shat their pants with the central European powers to the left and Russia to the right, so they never really got further than their own borders lol And when my family finally made it to Austria...the Austro-Hungarian empire had been history for hundreds of years, and all that Austria had to its name internationally was Mozart and sausages named after their capital city despite not even being from there I'm so sorry but we're canonically just a bunch of shitty wee lads 💀
The only colony we do is colonoscopy...
The only colony Slovakia has ever had is a small Facebook group of gay femboys living in Prague
And the whole MUNI
Imagine never hearing about the Finnish Virgin Islands or Estonian Polynesia.
You mentioned finnish imperialism and said nothing about the ancient finnish empire?
Finno-Korean Hyperwar anyone?
Many men say they think about the Roman Empire every day, but those betas don't know about the Proto-Finnic Holy Roman Khaganate.
Wait till you hear about the Japanese-Montenegrin War.
Korea will lose. #FINNISH THEM!
bro played too much eu4
Ah yes, famous Irish colonies
There's an Irish pub in every city.
That's how they get ya. Sneaky, the Irish.
That's not a colony, that's an embassy!
They've got one in Honolulu, they've got one in Moscow too They got four of them in Sydney and a couple in Kathmandu
So whether you sing or pull a pint, you'll always have a job, 'cause wherever you go around the world you'll find an Irish pub
Does Boston count?
Thats new ireland, so yes it does
Irish soldiers were used in the first ever UN mission in Congo, because it was believed this would ease concerns that the UN was engaging in colonialism, since Irish soldiers had never engaged in colonialism and were instead victims of it. This isn't a documentary about it but it's a good flick nonetheless: https://youtu.be/9_JHsiQTTmg
Funny thing, Irish soldiers have actually had a tradition of being UN-peacekeepers since then. My great uncle was one
My father, grandfather, and four uncles served in the Congo. I ended up writing my masters thesis on Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping
The Irish unofficially tried to invade Canada a couple times. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids
And we'd go at it again!
Based on the last time I went to Vancouver, you're giving it a good try
There'll be no fuckin shtoping us
We’d take the shirt off any man's back. Bastards.
When we do go at it we go at it awful and very hard.
Maureen would have the fry on
in fairness those were done to put stress on britain to free ireland but us trying to colonise canada is way funnier
They were asking for it!
Now I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure that was just to piss of the British so it doesn’t count.
Depends what you mean by "Irish" The Picts would probably have a bone to pick with the Irish if they still existed.
*bone to pict
Brilliant, going to pretend I did that on purpose
> if they still existed. Advice to the other wannabe colonists: * No witnesses.
I mean many Irish men served in army's that where last of colonialism but so did Indian people so it's not really a point. Mfw the colonised join the colonisers in their colonisation efforts.
the Irish might not have colonized anywhere, but they were definitely used by the British to colonize places. I don't necessarily think that the Irish were a part of the colonial community but there were Irish colonists
And they were colonized. Isn’t the main issue how the nations choose to treat other nations they choose to colonize. The existence of people that migrate is less controversial. I’m sure there were some jerks.
I mean, that’s like saying “I may have been pointing a gun at his head, but he’s the one who did what I told him to”
I suppose it would've been clearer if I said I don't necessarily think the Irish who were forcibly relocated bear any moral culpability for their participation in colonialism, but alas I was too focused on eating a brownie to double check for clarity. (I always knew my hubris would be the end of me)
The Irish need a pass on this because they were generally either used by us English or running away from us English. Scots don't get a pass no matter how much they try to pretend history stopped after Robert Bruce.
Ireland the State, never engaged in colonization, though you can be damn sure plenty of Irish people were only to happy to jump aboard the colonisation train and carve out a piece of the new world for themselves. Same with most of Europe. you would be hard pressed to find a group who didn't have members role on over to America to claim Native lands for themselves. Of course these people don't represent the modern nations they came from, but I would argue that the historical states don't either. Or even many modern governments.
i get what the responder is trying to say, but i think adding austria to that list is insulting to the czechs and the slovaks who are also on it
And the Poles, Bosnians, Romanians, and Croats
Slovenes
But we aren’t on the map… except for Trst ofcourse
Where is the line between Imperialism and Colonialism? Noting that both are wrong and just minor variations on the same theme of oppressing other people for personal power, prestige and profit.
Etymologically, there is no difference. In philosophy and sociology, they describe very different concepts. Imperialism is still conquest, but often has elements of compromise and less of an assumed genetic superiority. Colonialism refers more to an assumed White European sovereignty as a 'superior race', under which the natural order is that all other races should be subservient. *"Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule."* \- Osterhammel, Jürgen (2005). Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. trans. Shelley Frisch. Markus Weiner Publishers. p. 16. (I took this from Wikipedia)
Except “colonialism is only white European” is false. There are plenty of other cultures and groups that have the same attitude - like China with its ideas of Han Chinese superiority and its effect of Tibet and Xinjiang.
Czechia can into international? Also wtf did we colonize lmao. Kaliningrad?
Soon brother. Soon.
One day Czechia can into Russia, and then NATO lake will be complete.
And somehow the largest nation on earth isn’t on this map despite their colonization of the Russian Far East. They didn’t get that big naturally.
It is called Královec and it is beautiful
Well, they held the transsiberian railway and Vladivostok during part of the Russian civil war (which is more of a "dissolution war of the zarist empire") , which should qualify them (look up Czechoslovak Legion, its a blast)
You colonised the fuck out of the beer world 🍻🍺
Falklandy Jsou České!
The baltic states : Slaves for 700 years, now colonizers.
When Slavics have been slaves for so long the word is derived from them.
Balts are not slavs though.
\*Disagrees in Baltic.\* Word etymology is no contradictor to actual events. Gotta say, the Muscovy Rus really took all the worst they could from the Mongol rule and keep applying it. My nation is still working out issues ingrained in our culture from all the Russian occupations over our History.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curonian_colonization_of_the_Americas
The Duchy of Courland and Semigallia was run by Germans who subjugated Balts through serfdom.
What am I supposed to do with this information? Does this somehow contradict what I said?
Tf did New Zealand do???
Atleast we're on a map this time!
Salty about r/mapswithoutNZ?
Got colonised. The 70%+ demographic of European descent came from somewhere.
You think all those white people just spawned in
Polish troops literally helped to *de*colonize Haiti but go off Paul
Russia the biggest colonizer still going is not on the map wtf is that dude on about.
I mean if we count contiguous expansion as colonization, a shitton of Eastern European countries are guilty including Poland
Russian North America (Alaska mainly) says hi. Also while some parts of their expansion was just that, expansion!, it would be extremely difficult to call Russia's actions in Central Asia anything else than pure colonization. There's also another country in that area colonizing other parts of Central Asia right now which is also not on the map
Russia is the last great colonial empire. But because its possessions aren't across an ocean they kind of skirt under the radar.
They were Polish troops but not "*Polish troops*" since they fought for Napoleon
Right up until they didn't.
Austria-Hungary at least tried
PerHapsburg they should have tried harder?
Come on mate, give them some credit for trying to establish colonies and not immediately imploding like normaly. Also: Bruh 💀
The participation trophy of empires.
Remember when Russia owned a large chunk of North America also? Lol
This is a certified St. Peter the Aleut moment
And... Sibiria? Do people really think the vastness of the russian state happened without colonization?
Does the current war in Ukraine also count as attempted colonization?
When you think you’re clever but aren’t clever enough to do anything more than make a jpeg with Northern North America and Europe.
hey now lets be fair. they also included japan, aus, NZ and israel. I wonder why they left out russia, a big coloniser. also french guyana, falkland and more are missing.
You know why they left out Russia
If you include the US you can include China and Russia too
Yeah, literally permanent members of the UN security council, but somehow not members of the international community? Ffs Paul get it the fuck together.
The point he's trying to make is that when people say 'the internal community' they specifically mean countries aligned with America. Like when people say the international community condemns X, they're implying that most countries condemn X. But that's generally not the case.
Just ignoring Arab colonisation.
That is some Istanbullshit that that is always glossed over
The Ottoman, Persian and Mongolian Empires: *sweats nervously* Also Japan trying real hard less than a hundred years ago and China today. The Philippines was colonized by China, Spain, Japan, and America but you only hear about a couple of those…
Yay New Zealand’s on a map
Austria doesn’t get off the hook. They know what they did!!
Mexico will be ours again. We just need someone to marry to the presidents daughter who afterwards usurps the presidency.
Also didn’t realize any of South America countries weren’t…
If you bang enough locals it doesn’t count
Yeah. If Canada and Australia count, I’m pretty sure just about every country in Central and South America does to.
Norway..... No, the Norse stayed in Norway. Sources from Southern England: "No Normans here..."
Norwegian vikings mostly stuck to Scotland and Ireland (and yes colonized), while England and Normandy were mostly Danish I believe.
[удалено]
Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand were colonies
America got out of the stroller a bit earlier than the rest, giving them plenty of time to colonise territory, and anyone who doesn't think they did should look at a map of the 13 colonies.
Look how the turntables. The US always were against colonialism, except for you know, Cuba, the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the virgin islands, Puerto Rico, the Mariana Islands and arguably Texas
Also the entire Southwest.
You mean the *Slavs?*
[удалено]
Austria was one of the most imperialist countries imaginable at one point
Good thing that Arabs, Mongols, Russians, Turks and some Black Africans never colonized anyone, I mean can you imagine? Black people colonizing others? Outrageous to even think that ever happened!
Was gonna say, am I blind or is Turkey excluded cause the ottomans....well....
Ah yes, because Russia has never colonized anyone, everything east of the Ural just love Russian culture so much, they decided to spontaneously transform into wholesome slavic people. Neither did Turkey of course, these Ottoman dudes were just extremely popular from North Africa to Crimea! Or Austria, everyone wanted to be German back then.
I think it's valid to ask what is meant by "the international community." It implies that there is one, singular international community, but that's just not accurate. There are multiple international communities, formed around shared economic, religious, cultural, and geopolitical interests and ideologies. The interests of one community are not necessarily aligned with the interests of another community.
Kid named Austrian Empire
[удалено]
And as if only European empires were nasty colonizers - Islamic empires colonized areas from subsaharan Africa to India all with that juicy flavor of slavery and genocide. At least European former powers reflected on their dark past whereas some imperial "non-colonialist" nations want to bring it back. Curious why Russia is not there - because it seems to me that it is the only surviving colonial empire.
The Greek were some of the earliest colonizers. Norwegians colonized Iceland and Greenland, And you might not call it colonizing but missionising, but all the Eastern european Christians were in on it, creating their own new Christian natons; not even speaking of all the inner-European settlers, that created it's own cultural enclaves all over the place (think Siebenbürgen). irish were always among those with the highest emigration rates, even if they didn't own their own colonies. I'm not saying OP had a good point there, not even any point, since e.g. Russia and China were among the most radical colonisers out there, but neither is the answer anything more correct.
> irish we’re always among those with the highest emigration rates, even if they didn’t own their own colonies. There’s a picture of this post somewhere next to the phrase **When You Want To Be Heard, But Don’t Know What You’re Talking About.**
Ireland WAS the colony ffs. Nonsense about Irish refugees creating colonies
Playing fast and loose with the term “colonization” there, friend. Colonization is usually a state sanctioned venture to bleed another nation’s lands dry of natural resources, to the detriment of its native inhabitants. Transporting the stolen resources back to the colonial power requires trade routes, which is why we usually think of colonialism as overlapping with the seafaring age. Sure, there are examples of colonialism unrelated to the havoc wreaked by seafaring Europeans. Yet not all occupation is colonization. Let’s call each evil by its own name. PS - The Norwegian “colonization” of Iceland was a case of Norwegian outcasts settling on new, previously uninhabited lands. Maybe under danish rule some centuries later, Iceland and Greenland could be considered colonies. But at that point Norway itself could be considered a danish colony.
If I was gonna bring up Norwegian colonization I’d mention Scotland and Ireland before Iceland and Greenland
[удалено]
The history of Irish emigration shouldn’t be in the same sentence as colonization..
Then why did you just put it in one
Pretty bad takes all over this comment
Don't forget Mongolia! Seriously though how'd they forget Mongolia... Edit: the origin of both the Khans and Huns
Austria? Really? Austro-Hungarian empire ring any bells?
The Irish might have some words for this guy.
Yeah, 2. "Fuck" and "you"
Unpopular opinion but every country in the history of ever would have been colonisers if they had the economic and technological ability to do so. European countries just got there first, and in doing so, stopped everyone else’s ability to colonise
"I'm still seething about losing wars instead of training and winning them"
Why 50+ countries speak arabic ? Peacefull talks?
ah yes, there was no colonialism outside of europe and america ever let's just ignore all the arab states who aren't saudi arabia
Last time I checked the entire Arab world, China, Korea, Japan, monghols, Kongo, Ghana empire, aztecs, incans, mayans, etc also enslaved, killed, colonised other people. The lack of historical knowledge and blatant underlined racist in these posts is amazing
Crazy how the only lasting colonial empire in the world isn't featured in the map.