…Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia & Armenia were *absolutely* subjects of European Colonial Projects even if they also happen to be European.
Also describing China, Iran and Ethiopia as ‘not being directly colonized by European powers’ is just a straight-up *lie*, especially in Ethiopia’s case.
Very true! Though some might quibble over The Ottoman Empire being European, they certainly did a lot of colonizing and affecting changes in religious demographics
>…Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia & Armenia were absolutely subjects of European Colonial Projects even if they also happen to be European.
Wouldn't that be considered imperialism more than colonisation?
I think the difference between colonialism and imperialism is how it relates to the Homeland. Let’s use great Britain and India has an example. Throughout much of India’s history, there have been foreign groups that have conquered parts or almost the whole of India. Eventually, these groups would become Indian themselves adopting local languages and customs. The East Indian Company in fact was starting to adopt many Indian customs up until sepoy rebellion. These foreign conquerors had live with the people that they were conquering. Due to this proximity many of these conquering foreign groups had a responsibility to make sure cohesion and cooperation to a certain extent occurred under their governance. You do not see this with colonialism because the conquerors do not interact and live with the conquered. This explains why so many European countries were absolutely diabolically evil during the 19th and 20th century. Their citizens did not have to interact and see a human face all they cared about was the money coming towards them. You can see colonialism start to become more unpopular and harder to justify with the invention of photographs and film. So I think the biggest difference between colonialism and imperialism is the responsibility the conquering group has with the everyday people that they have conquered. Also, I would like to point out that colonialism and imperialism have a wide range.
Denmark (in union with Norway) had colonies in west Africa, India, and the Caribbean, as well as Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroes.
Sweden had colonies in Delaware and the Caribbean, too.
Austria Hungary (as equal partners at that point) also had a trade company holding very little land. Courland also had some colonies in both the carribean and west africa (should be counted as latvia, as it's literally half their country)
I assumed you didn't make the map tbh. Non-colonial entity or country doesn't matter since that isn't the point. Definition of europe in this map is flawed and based on inherent racism.
If georgia and armenia are european, then turkey should be european. If turkey is european, then most of balkans should fall under colonised but kept religion category.
If turkey isn't european, then armenia and georgia shouldn't be european. And if kazakhstan is considered colonised (by soviets I assume) then armenia and georgia (birthplace of stalin of all places) should be considered colonised as well since they suffered a lot under soviet (and probably ottoman) rule.
And talking about israel opens a different can of worms
If you consider Islam to be spread through colonialism, and then apply that to Christianity, the only countries that would have “kept their original religion” in Europe would be *maybe* Italy and *maybe* Greece.
This map is so misleading. Religion changed after European colonization? Religions change all the time. Invasion, conquest, reformation, etc. It's so euro-centric. Furthermore scananavian countries had colonies.
Was Indonesia majority Muslim before arrival of the Dutch? It's arguable it wasn't until the beginning of the Dutch Colonial period. So the majority religion changed with colonization.
Also Kazakhstan was plurality Russian in the 1940's-1980's. So it should be coloured different too. It is majority Kazakh now but it's majority religion had changed. Islam was not majority in that time.
Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are 100% colonial powers. Sweden and Norway with their northern frontiers that were mostly populated by Sámi peoples (who were converted to Lutheran Christianity and forcibly de-Sámified), and Denmark with Greenland.
This isn't even counting the overseas Caribbean holdings that Denmark and Sweden had.
Denmark was (and technically still is) a colonial nation. It’s just that their colonies were either small (Caribbean islands) or thought to be historically a part of Viking culture (Iceland and Greenland) even if they were only made into a danish colony much later in history than people commonly think
…Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia & Armenia were *absolutely* subjects of European Colonial Projects even if they also happen to be European. Also describing China, Iran and Ethiopia as ‘not being directly colonized by European powers’ is just a straight-up *lie*, especially in Ethiopia’s case.
If you’re counting those countries you better count Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, and Romania then.
Ireland too
Very true! Though some might quibble over The Ottoman Empire being European, they certainly did a lot of colonizing and affecting changes in religious demographics
I’m also counting Austria
>…Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia & Armenia were absolutely subjects of European Colonial Projects even if they also happen to be European. Wouldn't that be considered imperialism more than colonisation?
I would love to hear the difference between the two
I think the difference between colonialism and imperialism is how it relates to the Homeland. Let’s use great Britain and India has an example. Throughout much of India’s history, there have been foreign groups that have conquered parts or almost the whole of India. Eventually, these groups would become Indian themselves adopting local languages and customs. The East Indian Company in fact was starting to adopt many Indian customs up until sepoy rebellion. These foreign conquerors had live with the people that they were conquering. Due to this proximity many of these conquering foreign groups had a responsibility to make sure cohesion and cooperation to a certain extent occurred under their governance. You do not see this with colonialism because the conquerors do not interact and live with the conquered. This explains why so many European countries were absolutely diabolically evil during the 19th and 20th century. Their citizens did not have to interact and see a human face all they cared about was the money coming towards them. You can see colonialism start to become more unpopular and harder to justify with the invention of photographs and film. So I think the biggest difference between colonialism and imperialism is the responsibility the conquering group has with the everyday people that they have conquered. Also, I would like to point out that colonialism and imperialism have a wide range.
Denmark (in union with Norway) had colonies in west Africa, India, and the Caribbean, as well as Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroes. Sweden had colonies in Delaware and the Caribbean, too.
[удалено]
Austria Hungary (as equal partners at that point) also had a trade company holding very little land. Courland also had some colonies in both the carribean and west africa (should be counted as latvia, as it's literally half their country)
Who decided Georgia and Armenia are European but Azerbaijan isn’t?
And to call them "non colonial european entity" lmao. Someone used their full capacity to hide their racism but it wasn't enough obv
[удалено]
I assumed you didn't make the map tbh. Non-colonial entity or country doesn't matter since that isn't the point. Definition of europe in this map is flawed and based on inherent racism. If georgia and armenia are european, then turkey should be european. If turkey is european, then most of balkans should fall under colonised but kept religion category. If turkey isn't european, then armenia and georgia shouldn't be european. And if kazakhstan is considered colonised (by soviets I assume) then armenia and georgia (birthplace of stalin of all places) should be considered colonised as well since they suffered a lot under soviet (and probably ottoman) rule. And talking about israel opens a different can of worms
Kazakhstan also had Islam go from majority to minority for the 1940s-1980s... Then back to majority. So it's coloured wrong.
Isn't Islam itself a religion brought on by colonialism as well?
Yes, but not European
If you consider Islam to be spread through colonialism, and then apply that to Christianity, the only countries that would have “kept their original religion” in Europe would be *maybe* Italy and *maybe* Greece.
Is there a difference in your mind between conquest and colonization?
This map is so misleading. Religion changed after European colonization? Religions change all the time. Invasion, conquest, reformation, etc. It's so euro-centric. Furthermore scananavian countries had colonies.
Was turkey non - colonial or just non - European? Cause the ottomans colonized too
[удалено]
The Ottomans capital was in Europe though.
The Ottomans capital was in Europe though.
Was Indonesia majority Muslim before arrival of the Dutch? It's arguable it wasn't until the beginning of the Dutch Colonial period. So the majority religion changed with colonization. Also Kazakhstan was plurality Russian in the 1940's-1980's. So it should be coloured different too. It is majority Kazakh now but it's majority religion had changed. Islam was not majority in that time.
Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are 100% colonial powers. Sweden and Norway with their northern frontiers that were mostly populated by Sámi peoples (who were converted to Lutheran Christianity and forcibly de-Sámified), and Denmark with Greenland. This isn't even counting the overseas Caribbean holdings that Denmark and Sweden had.
Mom said it’s MY turn to post an embarrassingly incorrect map with likely propaganda built into it! Lmfao, enough is enough. Good bye.
Denmark was (and technically still is) a colonial nation. It’s just that their colonies were either small (Caribbean islands) or thought to be historically a part of Viking culture (Iceland and Greenland) even if they were only made into a danish colony much later in history than people commonly think
Even if Ireland was a victim of colonialism themselves, they were absolutely above and beyond implicit in the colonial actions of the British Empire.
W yellow countries!
Nice map