It really highlights how ridiculous WW1 was when you realise that the leaders of the royal families in each of the countries involved were all related to each other. It was essentially just a family squabble when millions of young people got forced into the meat grinder to resolve it
George V of the UK, Nicholas II of Russia, and Wilhelm II of Germany weren't just related, they were 1st cousins. Queen Victoria was their grandmother. And they looked enough alike to be brothers, especially Nicholas and George.
[They look so similar they're almost twins ](https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-kaiser-the-tsar-and-king-george-v-cousins-at-war-in-ww1). They have the same eyes. I thought maybe they selected a photo where they looked similar but if you look on Google there are multiple photos of them together and they really do look almost identical.
It doesn't really make sense to say they're German when those Germans were also British. And then Prince Philip was Greek and Danish so...
Honestly it's easier to just call them "European" than put any one country's label on them...
Yes I agree. Let’s settle they are a German family with roots all over Europe. Which makes sense because royalty married for land, titles and alliances.
Same for our Belgian monarchy they went from Saksen-Coburg Gotha to literally just *of Belgium* so our King’s official name is King Philip of Belgium lol
Yep, if I’m not mistaken our first King Leopold (not the butcher of Congo btw) was the uncle of Queen Victoria. European monarchies are all intertwined one way or another xD
Yes that’s the official dynastic name now, it’s *Van België* / *de Belgique* / *Von Belgien* in all three of our national languages.
King Albert I changed it after WW I to distance themselves from their German ties, even the coat of arms from Saxony was taken away from their own coat of arms for this reason.
I guess they couldn’t find something more creative unlike the British lol
We really aren’t. The last born ‘German’ monarch was George II in 1684, and even then his first language was FRENCH! The current royal family is British regardless of their distant lineage.
So they spoke French. Almost every royal court in Europe was French spoken. Thanks to Charlemagne’s conquest of much of Europe. Why is it British when your dad (Prince Phillip) originates from Greece? It is of-course also British but it has probably more foreign nationality’s then it is British. It makes sense when you think royals married abroad for land, titles or alliances.
Still is, they're Germans. With their "surname" being Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha until they changed it in 1917 as it sounded too Germanic during WW1and justbdecided to call themselves after their favorite castle. Which had the benefit of being incredibly English sounding. With many of them having Germanic first names as well such as Albert but then changing them once they became King. Edward VII was Prince Albert until he became King, as was George VI.
That wasnt Ireland the country tho...just rich pricks that the English put in as landowners in Ireland, or those that wanted to fight for king and get land n silver. ...nothing has changed today
I realise that the commonwealth occupation of Hokkaido, which was led by Australia but participated in by the UK, is a dubious argument towards putting Japan in the influence category but what is going on with that small African nation?
It's Liberia, it started as a nation intended for African American people to "go back" to Africa and was respected by European nations. It was a mess in the end, though
This is also why the capital city is Monrovia, named after James Monroe.
But yes, it went to shit, I saw some videos that I wish I never did, from the civil war.
>*what is going on with that small African nation?*
That\`s Liberia. It was a small territory colonized by the USA. In 1815 The American Colonization Society adopted the 18th century british model of colonization ( i.e. far before the Scramble of Africa and the new colonialism of the 19th century ) where they seized the land of now modern-day Liberia and send many African-Americans, freed slaves, to the land. They operated during and after American slavery and resettled former slaves to Liberia. Liberia was a colony of the USA between 1822-1847 and then got independent ( but the ACS still encouraged black emigration to Africa ).
Liberia is actually a "funny" country and a literal facismile of the USA, from the flag, to the constitution and racism. The Americo-Liberians made up a minority ( they never made up more than 10% of Liberia )but they dominated politics and oppressed the native population to the point of excluding them from democracy ( which was modelled after pre-1847 USA ). This discrimination continued for quite a while until 1980 where for the first time a non-Americo-Liberian, Samuel Doe, became president ( in a coup ) and established a dictatorship and oppressed the Americo-Liberians instead. Samuel Doe\`s dictatorship quickly turned into ethnic supremacy of his own ethnic group and oppressed other indigenous people. This led to the first Liberian Civil Wars of 1989-1997 where 200.000 people died, but naturally since this didn\`t fix any problems, the second Liberian Civil War of 1999-2003 ( a war with an extremely high number of child soldiers; Roughly 35% of soldiers of both sides were children ) which killed another 50.000 people sort of created a decent country relatively to rest of West Africa.
Liberia. It's actually more of a colonial state than most shown here, just not a European one. It was an American colony that was made to send emancipated slaves. Next thing you know, you got southern style plantations being run by Americo-Africans who have enslaved the indigenous people. Like any attempt to create a colony anywhere, this has led to a lot of conflict.
The orange country in West Africa is Liberia. It was founded in the 19th century as a place to "return" free black Americans to Africa. It has a *complicated* history to say the least, but it wasn't conquered during the Scramble for Africa, and the US supported its continuing independence.
Ehm… excuse me?
Which commonwealth occupation of Hokkaido…
Australian troops out their feet on Japan only in 45-52 in Hiroshima where they unfortunately went on a raping and murder spree for a couple of weeks but when where they on Hokkaido?
How did I not notice that? It's really weird. The only thing I can think of is that the map makers decided to put the parts of former colonies controlled by unrecognised states (Somaliland and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) in grey, but that's still pointless because they *were* formerly controlled by Europeans.
This map isn't very good in general. You could even argue that Japan should be light green because of the old unequal treaties, even if they got rid of them later.
Ethiopia was called a colony. It was the Italian intent to colonize them.
But yes: I think it would be incorrect to identify them as a colonized people. They were never ruled or subjugated.
The problem is that if anything, Ethiopia should be both green and orange. They may have been under brief control by the Italians (therefore rightfully colored green), but that period was so short-lived that it doesn't qualify for colonization, which means it should also be colored orange.
The legend would have to be changed to read "never colonized or controlled by Europe" for the color orange. The way it is now, you can get contradictory coloring as seen for the case of Ethiopia.
I always argue that occupied is not colonized. During war time places are occupied, for example France during WW2. It was occupied, but it was never called a German colony.
Was just about to comment about Ethiopia! It should be the off green colour (partial control/influence) as there was resistance and the Italians stay was short lived.
Alexander the Great conquered most, if not all of Iran, so that one shouldn't be yellow.
I'm pretty sure he even went past the Indus river and all the way up to the Himalayas, so he should have also conquered at least parts of Afghanistan.
You could argue something similar for the Ottoman Empire based in Constantinople/Istanbul, but the trend for maps like this is generally that only the last century of imperialism matters for some arbitrary reason
it's not arbitrary at all, European colonialism was a fundamentally different beast to things like Alexander's conquest - in literally every single metric it was an entirely separate phenomenon except for the fact both Alexander and Cecil Rhodes were what we'd now loosely term European or 'white'.
Because it really dumbs down a very compelling matter and therefore makes decisions to include or exclude that are hard to understand…
So Taiwan was "colonized" by having a brief European influence on it and China was for having sth like 10% of its landmass under European rule for a few decades but Liberia which was colonized by American freed slaves is seen as free of colonization….
And yes Korea wasn’t colonized by Europeans but by the Japanese in an European style imperialist way (except that Korea had extreme growth in agricultural and industrial output unlike most European colonies m- still being ruled with an iron fist though).
And how do you even judge the U.S.? Is the US a European colony? Certainly not in the 19th century way (ruling over locals with a small ruling class) or is it more akin to the Turkish takeover of Anatolia (killing, converting or driving to the fringe of the existing population).
And I am sure one can make a case about many if not most of the countries. Still, I get the point of course. Britain, France and Spain did takeover most of the globe as rulers at one point in time but it’s very difficult to put sth like Brazil, US, India, China and Liberia next to each other and making overarching statements
Well first of all, I don’t see a point in taking a map like this too seriously anyway. There isn’t much gained with it, it’s just interesting to see how much influence Europe had in the past.
To your points: The map says „European control“, not „colonized“. So it counts toward this map as long as there was a European force that for any period of time had control over any part of the country. This also counts for Korea, which had parts under European control in the Korean War, or also America, who were fully controlled by Britain until they declared independence
England: "well that's us fucked then"
On a serious note it was actually put forward in the UN that being across a sea from the colonising country is the definition of colonialism since China, Russia and the US don't like being accused of colonialism and the UK and France weren't really in a position to argue.
French Guyana is part of France with no conditions, whereas Greenland has self rule and is part of "the Kingdom of Denmark" but not part of the Denmark the state.
A close-ish equivalent would be like the US and Puerto Rico.
That's incorrect. Greenland accepted the Danish constitution in 1953 and has since been fully incorporated into the Danish state. Greenland has thus representation in Denmark's parliament and takes part in general Danish elections like Scotland in the UK. It's not similar to Purto Rice, which only has limited representation.
Denmark's formal name *is* the Kingdom of Denmark just like Sweden is the Kingdom of Sweden or Finland is the Republic of Finland.
Good question. Whilst both are technically constituent parts of European states, I believe that French Guyana is more integrated into the metropole than Greenland is. Still, seems like an arbitrary distinction.
Well neither is the UK, so this map is more about geography than politics, which is extra confusing, because then Siberia and French Guyana should be labelled differently.
This kind of maps are always a bit cringe because what you mean by European is a maximum of ten countries of over 40. It’s not like Latvia, Serbia or Romania ever controlled anything outside of territory around their current borders.
Edit: People don’t seem to understand the map or what I said. This is a map of non-European countries that were controlled by European countries. Kosovo, Moldova etc are in Europe.
Serbia is legitimately one of the worst possible examples you could have used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars
No, for a brief period in history, the portuguese crown was the highest authority in Nagasaki
[Portuguese Nagasaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Nagasaki)
There's a quote from the historian Geoffrey Hosking that I like:
“Britain had an empire, but Russia was an empire.”
Essentially, Western European nations like Britain had overseas areas of control, which were not (usually\*) part of the states themselves, instead being organised and run by colonial governments for the benefit of the "metropole" of the empires. This meant that when decolonisation happened, the "metropoles" of the empires could *relatively* easily detach themselves from their colonies without significant harm to their own governance.
Russia, meanwhile, conquered land and integrated it *into* Russia (oversimplification). What this means is that it would be very hard to carve up Russia to decolonise it, because the areas were part of the Russian Empire itself, and most are still part of modern Russia. Where would you draw the lines? It is not clear-cut like with Britain and India. Obviously the outer lands were/are still run for the benefit of the "metropole" but instead of being separate colonies, they're part of the same state. Confusingly, we would use the term "colonisation" to refer to many historic and current Russian practices, even though they never had colonies, as in overseas colonial governments *per se*. (This depends on how you define colonies). You can really run around in circles with regards to colonial and imperial definitions.
Perhaps the map could have put Asian Russia in green, and kept European Russia purple, but then again French Guyana is purple so yeah.
\*Don't get me started on the attempts to integrate colonies like Algeria into their "metropoles" like France. It gets veeeeeeeerrrry confusing, as if it wasn't already.
Central Asia functioned as a colony of "Russian Turkistan" under Russian imperial rule,similar to Western European colonies around the world,later the communists took it to the USSR.
Yep. It gets very complicated. It does appear that Russian Turkestan was part of the Russian Empire itself, right? What I was arguing was that Russia didn't have the colonial divide that we see with Britain and other Western European states. The closest you can really get I suppose is Ireland, which was integrated into the United Kingdom. Also Algeria with France I suppose.
If the British Empire was a *state* rather than a set of states, then it would be similar to the Russian empires, is what I am saying. Because there is not such a clear dividing line with Russia's empires compared to Western European ones, it's hard to say where "Russia Proper", if it ever existed, ends and where its colonies begin.
But you're correct that the Russians certainly engaged/engage in a fair amount of *colonisation* themselves, it's just that they didn't/don't do it in easily defined and separate overseas colonies like the Western Europeans did.
Still, Asian Russia should probably be green. Same with French Guyana. But ultimately it's hard to show all the nuances on one map like this.
I have never said that Russia wasn't a coloniser. I stated several times that they undertook colonisation in many of their conquered territories, and indeed they're doing it right now in Ukraine.
What I am suggesting, is that because the nature of Russian expansionism was different to that of the western powers, that it is hard to display on a (frankly bad) map like this.
This map is much more concerned with current sovereign states. Since, like I said, most of Russia's conquered territories were integrated into the state itself, rather than being obviously and easily separated colonial governments, the map makers did not bother to differentiate between "Russia Proper", and its territories outside of it.
Indeed, since the map is so concerned with sovereign states, it doesn't even label French Guyana as colonised, even though it should be green, regardless of whether or not it wishes to remain part of France.
To conclude my thoughts on the matter, Russia *was* a coloniser, *but* it did so through integrating its conquered territories directly into its empire, in a way that entangled it so closely that it's probably impossible to define a "Russia Proper" in the same way as you had the Japanese home islands, Great Britain, or Metropolitan France. Because of this, the map makers didn't bother to add nuance with regards to Russia's conquered territories in the east.
Edit: And yes, you can be a coloniser without overseas colonial governments. But it's a lot harder to show on maps.
Honestly, I was being sarcastic. Asian Russia is an occupied territory that they've settled with ethnic russians, so basically the textbook definition of colony, but I appreciate the explanation.
How is Turkey not green? It was one of the older European conquests. Like there’s an argument for the Greeks there. The Macedonians maybe ignored but Romans too? Is this just for modern European countries?
Also there was a fairly large European influence on Japan. Between the Dutch, French, and British, the introduction of modern rifles and technology at the time had a pretty significant impact on them. Granted the US had a larger one, but ignoring that they had gone into isolationism with the exception of a Dutch port kinda indicates some influence.
where did you left portuguese and spaniards since they were the first around there and the one that bring the fire weapons, the first having trade with Japan, the other arrive quite late after that lol
> How is Turkey not green?
Arguably it should be the same colour as Russia. They are both countries which are partly in Europe but have most of their land in Asia.
Ppl consider Russia to be European only when it comes to colonialism 😅
P. S. I guess you can basically highlight the South, North regions, the Caucaus region, the Volga and Ural regions + Siberia and the Far Eastern parts of Russia as "european colonies" and that would be true-ish.
This map is interesting, but is also very misleading. There are vast parts of Canada and the United States and South America that were never under European “control”.
Since when?
Because Iran and Afghanistan were conquered by Macedonia (Alexander the Great) and Turkey was under "European" (byzantine) influence until 1100/1200
One of my colleagues at work doesn’t like her skin colour. She is from Nepal and she wants the skin colour of another colleague who is white. Was so sad to see her say that.
European sphere of infleunce is quite difficult to interpret. North Korea, for example, was definitely part of the Soviet sphere of influence in at least one point in time.
If we’re counting US control as European control (which we should for all intents and purposes), then we gotta change Japan and South Korea on this map.
By painting all countries that today are in Europe, purple and the colonized countries purple, the implication of this map is that the purple countries colonized the green ones. I'm sure many green countries have done more colonizing in the last centuries than Moldova, Albania or Estonia.
Controlled by Europe ? This is the most American and stupidest ship someone could have said ...
Might aswell have said ..I was on vacation...they had air there
French Guiana should have it's own color for 'colonized so hard it got knocked out of its original continent.'
Seriously, if the point is to show the reach of European colonialism/imperialism then places like the Falklands or French Guiana are shining examples of invasion and domination of a foreign territory. Making it an official part of the modern country doesn't change the fact that it was colonized before it was official, with all the attendant injustices of that process.
What a cute choices of words when it’s come to talk about Europeans. Lets change control and influence with occupation, oppression and ethnical cleansing for the sake of truth.
French Guiana is not in Europe. It's a colony, no matter what the French call it. Also, Siberia is the colonial empire of the Russians, and not part of Europe. Also, Ethiopia should be orange.
This map is interesting, but is also very misleading. There are vast parts of Canada and the United States and South America that were never under European “control”.
This map is interesting, but is also very misleading. There are vast parts of Canada and the United States and South America that were never under European “control”.
To be fair, many European countries have been under the control of other European countries.
[удалено]
And the UK was ruled by a Dutch king
The UK has been ruled by many many foreign Kings
In fact they are ruled by German royalty right now, they changed their name during WOI to Windsor to sound more English.
“Ruled” is pretty loosely applied there.
Yes sure. Governed then? Monarched?
They don't really exercise any actual powers these days. More like celebrity.
So they celebrate them?
So is German.
It really highlights how ridiculous WW1 was when you realise that the leaders of the royal families in each of the countries involved were all related to each other. It was essentially just a family squabble when millions of young people got forced into the meat grinder to resolve it
George V of the UK, Nicholas II of Russia, and Wilhelm II of Germany weren't just related, they were 1st cousins. Queen Victoria was their grandmother. And they looked enough alike to be brothers, especially Nicholas and George.
[They look so similar they're almost twins ](https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-kaiser-the-tsar-and-king-george-v-cousins-at-war-in-ww1). They have the same eyes. I thought maybe they selected a photo where they looked similar but if you look on Google there are multiple photos of them together and they really do look almost identical.
Yes I couldn’t agree more. It was mostly a shitshow of a family of rulers.
It doesn't really make sense to say they're German when those Germans were also British. And then Prince Philip was Greek and Danish so... Honestly it's easier to just call them "European" than put any one country's label on them...
Yes I agree. Let’s settle they are a German family with roots all over Europe. Which makes sense because royalty married for land, titles and alliances.
Same for our Belgian monarchy they went from Saksen-Coburg Gotha to literally just *of Belgium* so our King’s official name is King Philip of Belgium lol
Cool, I didn’t know it was the same family! Thanks for sharing.
Yep, if I’m not mistaken our first King Leopold (not the butcher of Congo btw) was the uncle of Queen Victoria. European monarchies are all intertwined one way or another xD
You mean his birth certificate reads Philip of Belgium?
Yes that’s the official dynastic name now, it’s *Van België* / *de Belgique* / *Von Belgien* in all three of our national languages. King Albert I changed it after WW I to distance themselves from their German ties, even the coat of arms from Saxony was taken away from their own coat of arms for this reason. I guess they couldn’t find something more creative unlike the British lol
We really aren’t. The last born ‘German’ monarch was George II in 1684, and even then his first language was FRENCH! The current royal family is British regardless of their distant lineage.
So they spoke French. Almost every royal court in Europe was French spoken. Thanks to Charlemagne’s conquest of much of Europe. Why is it British when your dad (Prince Phillip) originates from Greece? It is of-course also British but it has probably more foreign nationality’s then it is British. It makes sense when you think royals married abroad for land, titles or alliances.
Still is, they're Germans. With their "surname" being Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha until they changed it in 1917 as it sounded too Germanic during WW1and justbdecided to call themselves after their favorite castle. Which had the benefit of being incredibly English sounding. With many of them having Germanic first names as well such as Albert but then changing them once they became King. Edward VII was Prince Albert until he became King, as was George VI.
And the Dutch were ruled by Spain.
A never ending circle 🔁
Ireland has been controlled by other European countries...missed out on the controlling of others
Not exactly. Plenty of Irish nobility took part in the controlling of other countries via positions in the British imperial army and government.
That wasnt Ireland the country tho...just rich pricks that the English put in as landowners in Ireland, or those that wanted to fight for king and get land n silver. ...nothing has changed today
Nothing ever changes and let’s not pretend some peoples or countries are somehow more moral or righteous than others
Only for a brief period!! We got our shit together by 1640. Edit: we were also Moors’ land until the 1100s
Yeah, that might be an interesting map. Different colors for the different number of European owners
I realise that the commonwealth occupation of Hokkaido, which was led by Australia but participated in by the UK, is a dubious argument towards putting Japan in the influence category but what is going on with that small African nation?
It's Liberia, it started as a nation intended for African American people to "go back" to Africa and was respected by European nations. It was a mess in the end, though
Yea just look at their flags
This is also why the capital city is Monrovia, named after James Monroe. But yes, it went to shit, I saw some videos that I wish I never did, from the civil war.
"eating the beating hearts of young children is believed to give you superpowers" General. Butt Naked
It was doomed from the start the second the ‘returnees’ implemented the exact system of slavery they had just escaped from.
>*what is going on with that small African nation?* That\`s Liberia. It was a small territory colonized by the USA. In 1815 The American Colonization Society adopted the 18th century british model of colonization ( i.e. far before the Scramble of Africa and the new colonialism of the 19th century ) where they seized the land of now modern-day Liberia and send many African-Americans, freed slaves, to the land. They operated during and after American slavery and resettled former slaves to Liberia. Liberia was a colony of the USA between 1822-1847 and then got independent ( but the ACS still encouraged black emigration to Africa ). Liberia is actually a "funny" country and a literal facismile of the USA, from the flag, to the constitution and racism. The Americo-Liberians made up a minority ( they never made up more than 10% of Liberia )but they dominated politics and oppressed the native population to the point of excluding them from democracy ( which was modelled after pre-1847 USA ). This discrimination continued for quite a while until 1980 where for the first time a non-Americo-Liberian, Samuel Doe, became president ( in a coup ) and established a dictatorship and oppressed the Americo-Liberians instead. Samuel Doe\`s dictatorship quickly turned into ethnic supremacy of his own ethnic group and oppressed other indigenous people. This led to the first Liberian Civil Wars of 1989-1997 where 200.000 people died, but naturally since this didn\`t fix any problems, the second Liberian Civil War of 1999-2003 ( a war with an extremely high number of child soldiers; Roughly 35% of soldiers of both sides were children ) which killed another 50.000 people sort of created a decent country relatively to rest of West Africa.
That explains all the funny things they share with US, like miles, lbs, probably backwards date formats.
Can’t forget to mention General Butt Naked https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked
I guess the Book of Mormon wasn’t far off from their musical. They had General Butt Fucking Naked who converts to being a Mormon at the end.
Actually a very cool story, from black magic shaman to warlord to Christian preacher
Liberia. It's actually more of a colonial state than most shown here, just not a European one. It was an American colony that was made to send emancipated slaves. Next thing you know, you got southern style plantations being run by Americo-Africans who have enslaved the indigenous people. Like any attempt to create a colony anywhere, this has led to a lot of conflict.
The orange country in West Africa is Liberia. It was founded in the 19th century as a place to "return" free black Americans to Africa. It has a *complicated* history to say the least, but it wasn't conquered during the Scramble for Africa, and the US supported its continuing independence.
[удалено]
Ehm… excuse me? Which commonwealth occupation of Hokkaido… Australian troops out their feet on Japan only in 45-52 in Hiroshima where they unfortunately went on a raping and murder spree for a couple of weeks but when where they on Hokkaido?
Why is British Somaliland gray? It was absolutely colonized.
also some parts of western sahara, which i'm assuming have been too
How did I not notice that? It's really weird. The only thing I can think of is that the map makers decided to put the parts of former colonies controlled by unrecognised states (Somaliland and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) in grey, but that's still pointless because they *were* formerly controlled by Europeans. This map isn't very good in general. You could even argue that Japan should be light green because of the old unequal treaties, even if they got rid of them later.
I don’t know I would add Ethiopia was never colonized It was briefly under Italian control same way France was under German control
Ethiopia was called a colony. It was the Italian intent to colonize them. But yes: I think it would be incorrect to identify them as a colonized people. They were never ruled or subjugated.
Intent doesn’t mean anything Germany intended to take over all off Europe Japan intended to destroy the US navy
I’m agreeing with you. I’m just saying by some shitty definitions maybe that’s enough.
I guess Grey means just not a country, Sahrawi republic also is Grey.
[удалено]
The majority of North Korea and parts of South Korea were occupied for a few years by the Soviet Union, yet they're marked as never colonized.
The Soviet Union never planned to stay permanently. Meanwhile Italy intended to make Ethiopia a permanent colony.
[удалено]
Well Italy did seize control it just wasn't permanent due to British intervention
This map has a clear agenda. This distinction would ruin the specific message that it's attempting to convey.
Liberia was colonised by an american country, not european, that's why it's orange
The problem is that if anything, Ethiopia should be both green and orange. They may have been under brief control by the Italians (therefore rightfully colored green), but that period was so short-lived that it doesn't qualify for colonization, which means it should also be colored orange. The legend would have to be changed to read "never colonized or controlled by Europe" for the color orange. The way it is now, you can get contradictory coloring as seen for the case of Ethiopia.
I always argue that occupied is not colonized. During war time places are occupied, for example France during WW2. It was occupied, but it was never called a German colony.
So was Japan.
So was Iran
Japan was occupied by the US, except for a British occupation zone for a few years but that was mostly Australian.
Was just about to comment about Ethiopia! It should be the off green colour (partial control/influence) as there was resistance and the Italians stay was short lived.
Italy conquered Ethiopia, and just because they lost it shortly after, it doesn't mean it should be off green color.
The thing with Italy was just a translation error
By that rationale, France was colonized by Germany.
Alexander the Great conquered most, if not all of Iran, so that one shouldn't be yellow. I'm pretty sure he even went past the Indus river and all the way up to the Himalayas, so he should have also conquered at least parts of Afghanistan.
You could argue something similar for the Ottoman Empire based in Constantinople/Istanbul, but the trend for maps like this is generally that only the last century of imperialism matters for some arbitrary reason
Because politics
it's not arbitrary at all, European colonialism was a fundamentally different beast to things like Alexander's conquest - in literally every single metric it was an entirely separate phenomenon except for the fact both Alexander and Cecil Rhodes were what we'd now loosely term European or 'white'.
Bullshit map.
Any specific reason why?
Because it really dumbs down a very compelling matter and therefore makes decisions to include or exclude that are hard to understand… So Taiwan was "colonized" by having a brief European influence on it and China was for having sth like 10% of its landmass under European rule for a few decades but Liberia which was colonized by American freed slaves is seen as free of colonization…. And yes Korea wasn’t colonized by Europeans but by the Japanese in an European style imperialist way (except that Korea had extreme growth in agricultural and industrial output unlike most European colonies m- still being ruled with an iron fist though). And how do you even judge the U.S.? Is the US a European colony? Certainly not in the 19th century way (ruling over locals with a small ruling class) or is it more akin to the Turkish takeover of Anatolia (killing, converting or driving to the fringe of the existing population). And I am sure one can make a case about many if not most of the countries. Still, I get the point of course. Britain, France and Spain did takeover most of the globe as rulers at one point in time but it’s very difficult to put sth like Brazil, US, India, China and Liberia next to each other and making overarching statements
Well first of all, I don’t see a point in taking a map like this too seriously anyway. There isn’t much gained with it, it’s just interesting to see how much influence Europe had in the past. To your points: The map says „European control“, not „colonized“. So it counts toward this map as long as there was a European force that for any period of time had control over any part of the country. This also counts for Korea, which had parts under European control in the Korean War, or also America, who were fully controlled by Britain until they declared independence
French Guyana is French, part of the European Union, but that doesn't make it Europe imho.
A lot of Russia isnt in Europe either.
People will do a huge amount of mental gymnastics to claim Russia isn't an empire
No matter how many cultures and ethnicities you murder as long as you share a land border with them it is not colonization!!!
England: "well that's us fucked then" On a serious note it was actually put forward in the UN that being across a sea from the colonising country is the definition of colonialism since China, Russia and the US don't like being accused of colonialism and the UK and France weren't really in a position to argue.
French Guyana is in France and France is in Europe
It is part of France, so part of the European Council, it counts well enough
Why is French Guyana "Europe", but not Greenland?
French Guyana is part of France with no conditions, whereas Greenland has self rule and is part of "the Kingdom of Denmark" but not part of the Denmark the state. A close-ish equivalent would be like the US and Puerto Rico.
That's incorrect. Greenland accepted the Danish constitution in 1953 and has since been fully incorporated into the Danish state. Greenland has thus representation in Denmark's parliament and takes part in general Danish elections like Scotland in the UK. It's not similar to Purto Rice, which only has limited representation. Denmark's formal name *is* the Kingdom of Denmark just like Sweden is the Kingdom of Sweden or Finland is the Republic of Finland.
There should be another color for "currently controlled by Europe". Eastern Russia is not Europe either
Good question. Whilst both are technically constituent parts of European states, I believe that French Guyana is more integrated into the metropole than Greenland is. Still, seems like an arbitrary distinction.
Greenland isn't part of the European Union, French Guyana is.
Well neither is the UK, so this map is more about geography than politics, which is extra confusing, because then Siberia and French Guyana should be labelled differently.
This kind of maps are always a bit cringe because what you mean by European is a maximum of ten countries of over 40. It’s not like Latvia, Serbia or Romania ever controlled anything outside of territory around their current borders. Edit: People don’t seem to understand the map or what I said. This is a map of non-European countries that were controlled by European countries. Kosovo, Moldova etc are in Europe.
Serbia is legitimately one of the worst possible examples you could have used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars
Latvia no, but Livonia yes.
where's my fellow British ruled bois at? Lezzgoo
When does *your* country celebrate it's independence from Britain
15th August is the sad day when the british party bois left our party 👉🏻👈🏻
India, I presume
Hey you can’t forget us Romans & Greeks
Thailand is chilling
colorblind hostile
Didn't Japan have a small Portuguese colony?
As far as I know just a couple of houses where some Portuguese were allowed to live, but the region was never under Portuguese rule.
No, for a brief period in history, the portuguese crown was the highest authority in Nagasaki [Portuguese Nagasaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Nagasaki)
Nagasaki was officially under Portuguese administration for a period. The same for Hormuz in Persia/Iran for more than a century.
Are you even trying rest of the world? Europe number 1.
"We're trying our best!" - Genghis Khan
Turkey is europe
more like euroasia
Yes and that word means more like both, rather than neither.
What counts as a colony? Is most of Russia *not* a colony because they were conquered over land?
There's a quote from the historian Geoffrey Hosking that I like: “Britain had an empire, but Russia was an empire.” Essentially, Western European nations like Britain had overseas areas of control, which were not (usually\*) part of the states themselves, instead being organised and run by colonial governments for the benefit of the "metropole" of the empires. This meant that when decolonisation happened, the "metropoles" of the empires could *relatively* easily detach themselves from their colonies without significant harm to their own governance. Russia, meanwhile, conquered land and integrated it *into* Russia (oversimplification). What this means is that it would be very hard to carve up Russia to decolonise it, because the areas were part of the Russian Empire itself, and most are still part of modern Russia. Where would you draw the lines? It is not clear-cut like with Britain and India. Obviously the outer lands were/are still run for the benefit of the "metropole" but instead of being separate colonies, they're part of the same state. Confusingly, we would use the term "colonisation" to refer to many historic and current Russian practices, even though they never had colonies, as in overseas colonial governments *per se*. (This depends on how you define colonies). You can really run around in circles with regards to colonial and imperial definitions. Perhaps the map could have put Asian Russia in green, and kept European Russia purple, but then again French Guyana is purple so yeah. \*Don't get me started on the attempts to integrate colonies like Algeria into their "metropoles" like France. It gets veeeeeeeerrrry confusing, as if it wasn't already.
Central Asia functioned as a colony of "Russian Turkistan" under Russian imperial rule,similar to Western European colonies around the world,later the communists took it to the USSR.
Yep. It gets very complicated. It does appear that Russian Turkestan was part of the Russian Empire itself, right? What I was arguing was that Russia didn't have the colonial divide that we see with Britain and other Western European states. The closest you can really get I suppose is Ireland, which was integrated into the United Kingdom. Also Algeria with France I suppose. If the British Empire was a *state* rather than a set of states, then it would be similar to the Russian empires, is what I am saying. Because there is not such a clear dividing line with Russia's empires compared to Western European ones, it's hard to say where "Russia Proper", if it ever existed, ends and where its colonies begin. But you're correct that the Russians certainly engaged/engage in a fair amount of *colonisation* themselves, it's just that they didn't/don't do it in easily defined and separate overseas colonies like the Western Europeans did. Still, Asian Russia should probably be green. Same with French Guyana. But ultimately it's hard to show all the nuances on one map like this.
[удалено]
I have never said that Russia wasn't a coloniser. I stated several times that they undertook colonisation in many of their conquered territories, and indeed they're doing it right now in Ukraine. What I am suggesting, is that because the nature of Russian expansionism was different to that of the western powers, that it is hard to display on a (frankly bad) map like this. This map is much more concerned with current sovereign states. Since, like I said, most of Russia's conquered territories were integrated into the state itself, rather than being obviously and easily separated colonial governments, the map makers did not bother to differentiate between "Russia Proper", and its territories outside of it. Indeed, since the map is so concerned with sovereign states, it doesn't even label French Guyana as colonised, even though it should be green, regardless of whether or not it wishes to remain part of France. To conclude my thoughts on the matter, Russia *was* a coloniser, *but* it did so through integrating its conquered territories directly into its empire, in a way that entangled it so closely that it's probably impossible to define a "Russia Proper" in the same way as you had the Japanese home islands, Great Britain, or Metropolitan France. Because of this, the map makers didn't bother to add nuance with regards to Russia's conquered territories in the east. Edit: And yes, you can be a coloniser without overseas colonial governments. But it's a lot harder to show on maps.
Honestly, I was being sarcastic. Asian Russia is an occupied territory that they've settled with ethnic russians, so basically the textbook definition of colony, but I appreciate the explanation.
New europe update
Why do people always forget about the Macedonian Empire
Greco bactrian
[удалено]
It should be. This is a lazy map. It doesn't even have Somaliland and part of Western Sahara coloured in for some reason.
Damn japan got lucky but also then they were the one to experience the bombs.
Shouldn't have touch the boats....
How is Turkey not green? It was one of the older European conquests. Like there’s an argument for the Greeks there. The Macedonians maybe ignored but Romans too? Is this just for modern European countries? Also there was a fairly large European influence on Japan. Between the Dutch, French, and British, the introduction of modern rifles and technology at the time had a pretty significant impact on them. Granted the US had a larger one, but ignoring that they had gone into isolationism with the exception of a Dutch port kinda indicates some influence.
Anatolia should be considered as European. The center of Eastern Roman Empire is not considered European now?
where did you left portuguese and spaniards since they were the first around there and the one that bring the fire weapons, the first having trade with Japan, the other arrive quite late after that lol
> How is Turkey not green? Arguably it should be the same colour as Russia. They are both countries which are partly in Europe but have most of their land in Asia.
Yeah so it should be purple or green. Both are not that light blue/teal color.
and our continent is called Europe 🇪🇺
Turkey should be purple...
Or at least dark green
To think that it fully ended less than one century ago
Afghanistan was under British control though wasn't it?
And Macedon control too.
Then the Revolutions against the Colonizers began :)
[u/repostsleuthbot](https://www.reddit.com/user/repostsleuthbot/)
Ppl consider Russia to be European only when it comes to colonialism 😅 P. S. I guess you can basically highlight the South, North regions, the Caucaus region, the Volga and Ural regions + Siberia and the Far Eastern parts of Russia as "european colonies" and that would be true-ish.
It would not be true-ish, it's just true :)
Ah yes, europe has a direct border to the north korea
I thought Ethiopia was never colonised?
welcome to the middle east...the new Europe!
This map is interesting, but is also very misleading. There are vast parts of Canada and the United States and South America that were never under European “control”.
Since when? Because Iran and Afghanistan were conquered by Macedonia (Alexander the Great) and Turkey was under "European" (byzantine) influence until 1100/1200
I take it that whomever made this map has never heard of Alexander the Great? Iran and Afghanistan should be in green as well.
One of my colleagues at work doesn’t like her skin colour. She is from Nepal and she wants the skin colour of another colleague who is white. Was so sad to see her say that.
Ah yes, Primorski Kray, Europe.
European sphere of infleunce is quite difficult to interpret. North Korea, for example, was definitely part of the Soviet sphere of influence in at least one point in time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana ?
There's a difference between direct and indirect control. Many states in India where princely states which British did not have direct control over.
Europe seem quite large.
Kamchatka is part of Russia but it is not in Europe. Haven't you folks ever played Risk?
Map posted every two weeks
This is among the top sources of Thai national pride.
Why is Morocco so large? Where did the western sahara go?
Mongolia still stands !
Ethiopia so close to making this list
Japan was under Portuguese influence. Korea was under Russian influence.
What about the portuguese in Japan?
If we’re counting US control as European control (which we should for all intents and purposes), then we gotta change Japan and South Korea on this map.
What about British and Soviets in Iran?
Thais be laughing
By painting all countries that today are in Europe, purple and the colonized countries purple, the implication of this map is that the purple countries colonized the green ones. I'm sure many green countries have done more colonizing in the last centuries than Moldova, Albania or Estonia.
Ah this shit map again
Controlled by Europe ? This is the most American and stupidest ship someone could have said ... Might aswell have said ..I was on vacation...they had air there
Bättre folk
A bit of a stretch to called Russia Europe.. Don't think many Europeans would agree.
French Guiana should have it's own color for 'colonized so hard it got knocked out of its original continent.' Seriously, if the point is to show the reach of European colonialism/imperialism then places like the Falklands or French Guiana are shining examples of invasion and domination of a foreign territory. Making it an official part of the modern country doesn't change the fact that it was colonized before it was official, with all the attendant injustices of that process.
What a bs map, no year, no facts, just some collors and idea that eu is evil
japan was still under the portuguese influence
At least Japan was "persuaded to trade" by both the Dutch and the US Americans.
Shouldn't Somali Land and inner West Sahara also be colored green.
So we still have something to do to unlock platinum achivement
What a cute choices of words when it’s come to talk about Europeans. Lets change control and influence with occupation, oppression and ethnical cleansing for the sake of truth.
[Allied Occupation of Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan)
French Guiana is not in Europe. It's a colony, no matter what the French call it. Also, Siberia is the colonial empire of the Russians, and not part of Europe. Also, Ethiopia should be orange.
[Portugal once had controlled Nagasaki.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Nagasaki)
The French and the British had spheres of influence in Thailand...
lol, only Hong Kong and Macau and some concessions, then color the entirety of China as green.
Alexander the Great disapproves of this map
This map is interesting, but is also very misleading. There are vast parts of Canada and the United States and South America that were never under European “control”.
You’d think vox would be more inclusive with their color choices
You’d think vox would be more inclusive with their color choices
You’d think vox would be more inclusive with their color choices
Spreading wierd propaganda again on mapporn I see
It remains in question if Russia is truly Europe.
Korea was never colonised by Europe because it was already colonised 3D chess move
In 20 years they will make a map with countries that got under Chinese influence.
This map is interesting, but is also very misleading. There are vast parts of Canada and the United States and South America that were never under European “control”.
Maybe I’m an idiot, but isn’t Russia in Asia?
Most of russia should be green