I'm sure that when most people say colonialism or colonial they mean a specific kind of relationship(s) between a territory and another
If one part of your country' previous territory has gained independent, then stupid people with heads the size of walnuts will call your past rule colonial, even if it was a democratic.
Conversely, if you still maintain your version of the empire and continue to suppress the local indigenous and ethnic minorities, those tankies will call your tyrannical dictatorship over the locals "the preservation of the unity of the motherland and the righteous quelling of a CIA-funded rebellion.
ある国の過去のどこかの民族自治区が独立した場合、頭がクルミの大きさの愚かな人々は、たとえ当時は民主的だったとしても、あなたの過去の支配を植民地と呼ぶだろう。
逆に、ある国が未だに帝国地図を維持し、地元の先住民や少数民族を弾圧し続けている場合、左派は地元の人々に対するあなたの専制的な独裁を、祖国の統一の維持とCIAが資金援助した反乱の鎮圧と呼ぶだろう。
What kind of specific relationship exactly?
Remember, a democracy can only exists in a country consisted of same people with certain shared identity.
That means, if you are a multi-ethnic empire with a territory larger than an average European nation-state (such as Ottoman Turkey, China, and Russia), you either forbid freedom of speech to forcibly assimilate other disadvantaged minorities within your borders or use the huge demographic/cultural advantages of the dominant ethnic group to assimilate the weaker minorities,
or you allow democratic ideology to freely spread across the empire's territory and then disintegrate and divide yourself.
In essence, every major country today was born out of "colonization", otherwise humanity would have returned to the days of fragmented tribes. This is a constant law of nature that most modern people suffering from political infantilism have not learned.
>What kind of specific relationship exactly?
It's fundamentally a relationship of domination or subjugation of one or several nations by another one.
A colony is understood to be a territory administered or controlled by a foreign nation, this does not necesarily mean a state or government (ex: Japan occupying Korea in the 20th century) it can also mean a nation in the sense of a people with shared identity, for example the boers in South Africa had a colonial relation with the land they settled in. Under this definition Israel would be a colonial state because it holds land that was previously controlled by native arabs. In a colonial relation the colonized can never really be understood as belonging to the state or nation they are being dominated by.
Almost all of the American continent, as well as Africa would be comprised of post colonial states because they've already surpassed the period in history in which a foreing power directly administered the land they occupy and, specially in the case of the American continent, most of the indigenous nations that had occupied the continent have disappeared or assimilated into new nations. In these countries the different people that live in it are all , as per their constitutions, citizens of their respective nations and are represented by their respective states, for example my country.
>Remember, a democracy can only exists in a country consisted of same people with certain shared identity.
That is not necessarily true, yes there must be a shared sense of belonging, but democracy in the liberal sense of the word can perfectly exist in multinational states, see for example Russia which, despite being corrupt as it can get, still has a framework to give their minorities representation within their country, and all of them are considered citizens of the Russian Federation while still retaining their ethnic identity.
>you either forbid freedom of speech to forcibly assimilate other disadvantaged minorities within your borders or use the huge demographic/cultural advantages of the dominant ethnic group to assimilate the weaker minorities,
>or you allow democratic ideology to freely spread across the empire's territory and then disintegrate and divide yourself.
You're seeing it in a very black-white way, there have been several succesful states that have contained several nationalities within it, both past and present. The desintegration of states is often far, far more complicated tham simply the spread of democratic ideology.
>every major country today was born out of "colonization"
They were in the sense that they've mangaged to utilize the resources of the former colonies to get as rich as possible. Many, like France, still use their influence in their former African colonies to economically dominate them.
Your understanding of history is very naive and was talking in a classic American style black-white way.
>It's fundamentally a relationship of domination or subjugation of one or several nations by another one.
This is essentially the way every national empire is formed. Just as the peoples of southern China were conquered, controlled and forcibly assimilated by the North and the Middle Kingdom for thousands of years, the same thing is now happening in Eastern Turkestan and Tibet. It is strange that no one realizes that China is the largest and most ancient colonial power on the Asian continent.
>A colony is understood to be a territory administered or controlled by a foreign nation
Lol so Who is a foreign nation? Only after the dissolution of an empire will the powerful peoples within the empire considered foreign by the inhabitants of the territory that broken away. Otherwise a wise ruler would invented a new umbrella identity that included all the peoples within the empire and defined them as one nation.
>ex: Japan occupying Korea in the 20th century)
A typical result of cognitive manipulation. Prior to 1945 Korea was an integral part of Japan's legitimate territory, and the unification of Japan and Korea was accomplished by the J-K merger treaty signed by all members of the then Korean cabinet. Koreans are legal citizens of the Empire of Japan just like the Yamato in Japan proper. They all have the right to be represented and elected to the Imperial Diet as long as you're patriotic like Chief Executive of Hong Kong. And there was a large number of Korean representatives in the Japanese parliament, the executive and militaries. Like certain empires in the Eurasia continent today Japan was a unified multi-ethnic nation then.
>Under this definition Israel would be a colonial state because it holds land that was previously controlled by native arabs.
Under this definition it was the Roman Empire that colonized and annexed Israel, and it was the Arabs taking advantage of the chance stealed the Israelite homeland.
>most of the indigenous nations that had occupied the continent have disappeared or assimilated into new nations.
This is what I've said earlier, using one's strong technological and organizational advantage, or its overwhelming population, to assimilate backward tribes and minorities. This has happened in the history of every nation, and in the present moment in certain empires of the Old World that are in progress.
>democracy in the liberal sense of the word can perfectly exist in multinational states
Temporary presence? Yes. Long-lasting? Extremely fragile.There is reason to be concerned that the constant influx of new immigrants from totally different culture and race background with the rampant identity politics will destroy America's democracy in the long run.
>see for example Russia, still has a framework to give their minorities representation within their country.
Talking about Russia, the nation annexed by the Empire would be ruthlessly suppressed if they attempted to gain independent, and people publicly opposing invasion of Ukraine would be criminized too.So Is Russia a qualified democracy? Lol. Russia's democracy is at best the level of Imperial Japan which was almost one century ago.
Actually Democracy in a multi-ethnic unified empire is inherently unstable. This is the reason why the Chinese are so resistant to political freedom. They are smarter than the short-sighted Westerners when it comes to maintaining and expanding imperial territory. Many Chinese would rather have no democracy for themselves than the give the slightest chance of independence for the Uighurs or Tibetans. Actually this is one of the reasons why many of them told me China shouldn't adopt political system resemble West, because it will make state apparatus weak and vulnerable.
>A colony is understood to be a territory administered or controlled by a foreign nation
Yeah, and this is extremely wrong.
A colony is an outpost: a settlement by a group deep into foreign territory.
US was a colony because Europeans were encouraged to settle there.
Africa was NEVER colonised by Europeans because no Europeans moved there; that is, apart from administration officers.
(Except for some colonies in South Africa. And yes, Rhodesia.)
Addendum: in fact, local power structures were allowed to exist in Africa unimpeded under British rule. In most parts, royals ended up being expelled only after independence from Britain (see especially: Uganda). In others, traditional rulers are still acknowledged, but hold no formal administrative power (see: Nigeria). In others, they are fully integrated into modern states' administration (see: Sierra Leone, officially divided into "chiefdoms" which represent exactly local chiefs who made dealings with the British)
>>democracy in the liberal sense of the word can perfectly exist in multinational states
>Temporary presence? Yes. Long-lasting? Extremely fragile.
Umm, Switzerland.
But note that Switzerland is mostly united by the mutual desire not to be annexed by the neighbouring nominal nation-states, and already has been back when those now nation-states were just typical absolutist empires.
>Africa was NEVER colonised by Europeans because no Europeans moved there
This is wrong, all of the european posesions in Africa were colonies, just not settlement colonies like the USA or Australia.
The African continent and the Indian subcontinent were organized into administrative colonies and protectorates, the sovereignty of their territories ultimately rested in the hands of foreigners. The people living in those places were never the equals of their european while not being citizens but colonial subjects of the state that dominated them. Why weren't African colonies not settlement projects? because they were already highly populated by the time they were conquered by Europeans, but this does not negate the fact that the territory was politically and economically dominated by Europe in a very direct and colonialist way.
I'm not from the US, I was using a vpn, that's why my flag changed.
>China is the largest and most ancient colonial power on the Asian continent.
China is more a civilization than a nation. China is a state that encompasses several different cultures that all fall under the umbrella of "chinese". But chinese is an identity in the same way "western" is an identity, it's an umbrella term that encompasses a number of nationalities and ethnicities.
> Who is a foreign nation?
It's very clear who is a foreigner or not. A foreigner is someone who is not from the same country or nation as you. When I say that you're a foreigner it's very clear what I'm implying about you, it's not something completely arbitrary.
>Only after the dissolution of an empire will the powerful peoples within the empire considered foreign by the inhabitants of the territory that broken away
I'm not sure about what you said here tbh. If you're saying that people only consider themselves of a diferent ethnicity or nation only when larger empires breaks up then you're very wrong.
>Prior to 1945 Korea was an integral part of Japan's legitimate territory, and the unification of Japan and Korea was accomplished by the J-K merger treaty signed by all members of the then Korean cabinet. Koreans are legal citizens of the Empire of Japan just like the Yamato in Japan proper.
C'mon, Korea was by definition a colonial posession, it was politicaly, economicaly, and militarily controlled by Japan. It doesn't matter that they were japanese citizens because at the end of the day they had no incidence in Japanese state matters(, only the japanese did. The Japanese state also clearly favored the japanese ethnicity over koreans, this is so clearly seen in the fact that the Japan did not even let them in their army, and forcibly sent them to Japan to work menial jobs. This is not being equal citizens by any means
>Under this definition it was the Roman Empire that colonized and annexed Israel, and it was the Arabs taking advantage of the chance stealed the Israelite homeland.
Yes, the Romans were very much a colonial and slave state. Regarding Israel, it already was pretty diverse even in roman times. "Stealing" one's homeland (in which you haven't lived in for hundreds of years) is a pretty stupid claim because nations are not static. Arabs had arleady been living in palestine for centuries before Jews started moving en masse and established a Jewish-only state there.
>Temporary presence? Yes. Long-lasting? Extremely fragile
Haruto please. Bolivia, Russia, Colombia, Switzerland, India and Pakistan are all very culturaly diverse countries that have endured over the centuries and decades.
>the constant influx of new immigrants from totally different culture and race background with the rampant identity politics will destroy America's democracy in the long run.
If the USA is good at anything is assimilating people into their culture. You're just fearmongering.
>Talking about Russia, the nation annexed by the Empire would be ruthlessly suppressed if they attempted to gain independent
why would a State allow it's own dissolution? Same thing has happened with other secessionist movements.
>people publicly opposing invasion of Ukraine would be criminized too.So Is Russia a qualified democracy?
Do you think that censorship and controlling of the narrative is exclusive to "authoritarian governments"? Everyone does this to a degree.
>Many Chinese would rather have no democracy for themselves than the give the slightest chance of independence for the Uighurs or Tibetans
Xinjiang and Tibet are both autonomous regions within China, what are you on about?
>many of them told me China shouldn't adopt political system resemble West
Applying the same principles of goverment for every country is foolish yes. Your mistake is pointing out that systems are vulnerable and weak when western nations are fairly stable.
>all of the european posesions in Africa were colonies, just not settlement colonies like the USA or Australia
Wrong. They were imperial possessions and protectorates, not colonies.
It changes nothing if clueless idiots keep calling them colonies.
De facto, they were not colonies.
>Korea was by definition a colonial posession,
IMPERIAL
not colonial
you keep using those words as if they're synonyms. They aren't.
>They were imperial possesions and protectorates, not colonies
What exactly is the difference then? you just threw a term and didn't define it.
Colonialism literally means the domination of one country or nation by another, and as I pointed out there is not only one form of colonialism, and there is not only one type of colony.
Colonialism is not imperialism but they are not unrelated terms, far from it, they acutally often go hand in hand. Truth is that the European scrable for Africa was a colonial proyect motivated by imperialism, as were many conquests throughout history. A protectorate is a form of a colony because the dominated country/nation and its institutions are only nominally independent, relying almost exclusively on the nation that has conquered or subjugated them.
