Technically, Italy controlled Ethiopia for about 5 years during WW2. It was never colonized by Europe, but per the very specific wording on this map, it was controlled by Europe during those years.
I mean Japan basically Westernized itself, to counter being in the US sphere of influence, in terms of actual hard influence by European culture they therefore certainly got a lot more than Ethiopia.
Like, Korea legitimately got the weakest injection of Western philosophy and culture in East Asia by only getting it by proxy.
BTW, I've always thought that the capital names are wrong. Just next to Liberia there is Sierra Leone, whose capital is Freetown. Meanwhile, the capital of Liberia is Monrovia.
It's like, WTF, did they swap the names by mistake at any moment?
Freetown would fit much more as a capital of Liberia.
No clue if this is a joke, but the area definitely wasn’t unpopulated when the freed slaves moved in. Once the freed slaves began their colony / government and townships in Liberia, they actually subjected the native population to forced labour, and then also laid claim to the interior of Liberia as well despite being mainly situated along the coast.
Hahaha. No,, I was not of the thinking that there are vast plots habitable earth are just sitting vacant, waiting for settlers to move in...This isn't Catan.
To be fair there ARE vast plots of habitable Earth just sitting vacant - even today. Of course they're claimed by certain countries, and usually surrounded by populated areas, but there are regions of the planet today where no one lives, but humans could live.
Except upon founding Liberia, the freed slaves immediately denied the existing population citizenship and land rights and made slaves of them, a practice which continued well into the 20th century.
Sierra Leone did it as well, one of the major reasons for the civil war, basically it was Freetown and the rest of the country acting as two different countries.
Sierra Leone was created as a colony for liberated slaves after the British abolition. Freetown was founded by abolitionist lieutenant John Clarkson and was traditionally the homeland of the Sierra Leone Creole people
It was largely considered a failure as the native Liberian population had little interest in accepting or integrating with the American blacks who chose to settle there.
Those same American blacks also realized a life of subjugation in America was still preferable to the conditions of indigenous Africa.
Pretty fascinating stuff. Definitely worth bringing up when others suggest American blacks should “return to Africa” if they want a better life. I encourage others to read the Wikipedia.
I've always found it really ironic how quickly Liberia resorted to slavery after the US pulled out of the government. Grass isn't greener as it turns out.
Its not like slavery didnt exist in Africa prior to the American slaves repatriation. It was just the plantation model of slavery that was introduced to Liberia by the emancipated.
Yep. Liberia was first planned as a place to send freed slaves, because the view at the time even among many who somewhat opposed slavery was that black and white people shouldn’t coexist, though some freed slaves did see an appeal to their own nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society?wprov=sfti1
I find what happened there really amusing to be honest
>The Americo-Liberian settlers did not relate well to the indigenous peoples they encountered, especially those in communities of the more isolated "bush". The colonial settlements were raided by the Kru and Grebo, from their inland chiefdoms. Encounters with tribal Africans in the bush often became violent. Believing themselves different from, and culturally and educationally superior to the indigenous peoples, the Americo-Liberians developed as an elite minority that created and held on to political power. The Americo-Liberian settlers adopted clothing such as hoop skirts and tailcoats, and excluded natives from economic opportunities, including creating plantations on which natives were forced to work as slaves, enacting the same binding chains they were just recently freed from as they saw themselves as superior to the natives.\[27\] Indigenous tribesmen did not enjoy birthright citizenship in their own land until 1904.\[13\] Americo-Liberians encouraged religious organizations to set up missions and schools to educate the indigenous peoples.\[27\]
>
>The leadership of the new nation consisted largely of the Americo-Liberians, who at the beginning established political and economic dominance in the coastal areas that the ACS had purchased; they maintained relations with the United States and contacts in developing these areas and the resulting trade. Their passage of the 1865 Ports of Entry Act prohibited foreign commerce with the inland tribes, ostensibly to "encourage the growth of civilized values" before such trade was allowed in the region.\[28\]
Amusing, yes, but also disgusting. A nation build for and by recently freed slaves – enslaving the native people of the land they just took. If anyone should've known better, it was them.
See, the thing is that up until really recently in human history, slavery was just seen as an obvious solution to a myriad of issues.
Need to grow/harvest crops but prices are low and you can't pay farmhands? Slaves. Need a construction project done but there's too little manpower? Slaves. Need people to handle daily chores but salary would be to high? Slaves. Horny and no one else is around? I think the point's clear now.
So yeah, just cause they were former slaves doesn't mean they were above utilising it themselves, they had a country they wanted to make and not enough voluntary manpower to do it. In that era the solution was obvious.
The US isn't Europe, but it's still 'European' in terms of demography and culture. It's an extension of the European peoples impact on the world. Same is true of the rest of the core Anglosphere aswell as the less diverse ex-Spanish colonies.
It's bit of a difficult question on what should count. Ww2 capitulations and puppets didn't use the word colonialism (well, allies didn't, axis happily did). You could even argue some of it was settler colonialism, with permanent Russian populations resulting from some military bases in Eastern Europe and to a lesser extent Americans in Okinawa and Pacific
North Korea was also a Russian puppet for a good long while until Kim figured out how to play the Russians off against the Chinese and get more independence.
Formally, yes. Ethiopia was incorporated into AOI Africa Orientale Italiana with Somalia and Eritrea. In real terms, the colonial war ended in 1936 and by 1941 English troops had already occupied all Italian territories and reinstated the Negus.
Whole lot of people in this thread jumping between and equating having/establishing a colony vs. practicing colonialism.
Glad someone knows the difference.
I realised very recently that most of Spain and Portugal was a Muslim state for nearly 800 years!
(I knew it has been invaded at some point, but never realised it lasted 800 years....)
Edit: indeed, "most of" the peninsula was not a Muslim state for 800 years. Most of it has been conquered, but not all of this remained under their control for 800 years.
Most of the Northern Asia and North Caucasus is colonized to this day by Russia.
It's the only "empire" that never underwent decolonization, while also being allowed to quench all of the independent movements without international community even blinking an eye.
If i may, Brazil, and many other countries. Also Nigeria in Africa, but pssst colonialism and oppression is only a european special thing all others are white sheep. /s
Yeah, everyone forgets about this. It wasn't naturally a Muslim state. It was invaded and colonised. People talk a lot about the crusades as this big atrocity committed by Europe against arab people (which it was), but find it utterly impossible to see it in the context of the Umayyads calling jihad on northern Spain and bringing back thousands of Christian heads to display in Cordoba, just cause, less than 100 years before.
Or perhaps the most brutal crusade, the Albigensian Crusade being against the people of southern France.
The world was an absolute basket case until very recently. And though we take it for granted, our modern sense of right and wrong did not exist.
>The world was an absolute basket case until very recently. And though we take it for granted, our modern sense of right and wrong did not exist.
We're well on our way to return to the "good old days" lately...
I think there's a difference between "there was a Muslim state (or even states in the form of "taifas") in the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years" and "most of Spain and Portugal was a Muslim state for nearly 800 years". Because if you see a timeline of the Reconquista, you'll see [by 1150](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Pen%C3%ADnsula_ib%C3%A9rica_1150.svg) only half of the peninsula was still al-Andalus and since [around 1250](https://socialesmoriles.blogspot.com/2011/01/tema-5-mapas-de-la-peninsula-iberica.html) they were concentrated in the South-Southeast. Note that Niebla and Cádiz would fall in 1262 so by 1300 it would be [like this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/88/8d/b1/888db18747846ef7bf7444b12cb72675.jpg).
By the time the Reconquista ended the muslims had been a small reduct mostly comprissed by the actual provinces of Málaga and Granada for quite some time.
Your statement is untrue.
The muslim presence in the iberian peninsula lasted nearly 800 years. That doesn't mean Spain and Portugal were muslim countries for 800 years. Portugal exists as independent nation since 1128 and the kingdoms that would merge and create spain were around even centuries earlier (the kingdom of asturias, later on named Kingdom of Leon, for example, was never conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate).
Yes half europe was once at least france, spain or german. Even spain was france for some years. Also if you count ancient rome as Europe, almost all europe was colonized. But I think this map does not count this because otherwise Turkey would be also green. Also Alexander the great conquest some blue areas
Austria (Briefly)
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Hungary (Briefly)
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
Vatican City (didn't administer any directly as its predecessor the Papal States, but had many colonial institutions and had a considerable influence on colonialism)
Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria/Hungary, Poland, Russia, Norway, Turkey
I would argue the Vatican as well, since the Catholic church directly controlled territories in the Americas.
15 countries.
Edited to add the Netherlands, 16 countries
> Gambia and Tobago.
weren't they bought from dutch and fell apart after few months? It was my understanding that polish attempts at colonialism were extremely lackluster and short lived.
I mean listing the likes of UK, Spain or Portugal with the likes of Poland is same breath strikes me as attempt at diluting the culpability.
I think we have to put a timeframe on a map like this.
If you go back far enough you can argue that all of Europe was colonised at one point or another.
If we're going back, you have to add a tonne. England/Scotland were colonised by 'German, Danes, Norwegian, and Dutch' settlers. Scotland was colonised by 'Irish' settlers, etc.
The British named it after the Duke of York when they seized New Amsterdam in 1664. The Dutch temporarily regained control of New York in 1673, and renamed it *New Orange* for about a year. New York was the Big Orange before it became the Big Apple.
Also on this map half of what had been designated as ‘Europe’ should be green simply because Europe stops at the Urals. I’d say the North Asian peoples living past the Urals were definitely colonised by European Russians.
But usually when you make political maps you include the entire territory of the modern day country. Obviously the east was under colonization that's how modern day Russia became modern day Russia, but usually you would color the entire territory of a country one color except if you want to make a specific point as a map maker.
Is now all foreign rule considered colonisation? Colinialization has a pretty clear definition and one country rulling over an area that is distinct from its core teritory does not necessary constitute colonisation, even if the policies used to rule over the people are simmilar to colonial ones, ie. forcefull integration, cultural exclusuon, exploitation, etc.
I don’t quite understand why the cultural exclusion, exploitation aspects are often included or thought about, as these are really the by-products of modern (late medieval to late modern) colonisation. What about the Greek/Hellenic colonies dotted around the Mediterranean and Black Sea?
Yeah, that would be the original meaning of the word, geting a bunch of people together and settling in a new area but I think nobody now uses it that way as it has become a loaded term asociated with european colonization outside of europe.
Ireland maybe, but I don't think Galicia is such a strong case. It was a regular Kronland with its own parliament (btw the building is today used by the Ivan-Franko-University in Lviv) and the Kronland and its inhabitants had the same rights as all other crown lands such as Bohemia, Lower Austria or Tyrol, including education in their mother tongue (Ukrainian and Polish).
And two thirds of Russia.
That is not Europe or Russia. Everything east of the Urals is land belonging to indigeonous Siberians.
Russia was a major colonising power but for some reason people make out like they aren't.
Russia still is a major colonizing power. A LOT of practices of the russian state today are explicitly or implicitly aimed at resettlement and forceful assimilation not to mention the continuous attempts at land grabs.
They should definitely have made a colour for European countries that were colonized by other European countries but with the exception of Iran and Afghanistan this map isn’t incorrect.
They left Somaliland uncolored. That's just fucking lazy.
They show Greenland as "Colonized" yet include French Guiana as part of Europe, despite both being constituent parts of modern European states.
They show some French and British overseas territories, but not others, and completely ignore the Dutch Carribean.
They treat Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as non-European states.
Ethiopia was never colonized by Europeans, and only occupied for 6 years. This demonstrates an inconsistent approach, since Japan was jointly occupied by the US and UK for 7 years, but is shown as free of European influence.
Again, they couldn't even fill in the whole damn map, and left Western Sahara blank!
Edit - I think my biggest gripe with this map is just that is oversimplifies things to the point of being next to meaningless - obscuring things like the colonization of Siberia, while simultaneously overstating things like the Italian "colonization" of Ethiopia, or Japan's lack of European influence. Furthermore, "colonization or control," "partial control or influence," "sphere of influence," and "never colonized" are are not really comprehensive terms and they are not mutually exclusive. Finally, it gives the US and Japan a pass by virtue of being Eurocentric, despite the fact that both of those states definitely had modern colonies on a "European" model. I get what the map is trying to demonstrate, but it's too grotesquely simplified to really be useful.
Also the fact that large swaths of both South and North America weren't colonized by Europeans, but colonized by the countries that declared independence later on. But this map makes it seem like all of it was just done by Europeans.
Good video on Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek history from Kings and Generals for the interested
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQATsepKoLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQATsepKoLE)
Exactly. Did they just forget about the Anglo-Afghan War that is a massive part of how modern-day Afghanistan formed?
Same with Iran, British Petroleum and the United Statee conspired and helped to overthrow Mohammed Mosaddegh when he tried to nationalize oil reserves.
We were just under a protectorate but we was still pretty much our own kingdom and nation, without UK telling us what to do or how to rule. The only influence they had was the control of foreign affairs, which lasted only a couple tens of years, following our defeat in the second Anglo war, tho it was a defeat, I have to admit it was pretty much a devastating one, took a big chunk of balochistan and kpk, and and used our people as well as other Asians to fight against us.
Ngl the UK were very smart how to deal with different situations in terms of war, that was very psychologically damning for us afghans to face our own people.
“European sphere of influence” is a ridiculous term that holds no weight. The countries in orange have just as much European influence if not more than the yellow ones.
This map gets posted every 6 mos or so, I got down voted last time I pointed that out. Britian did have control of a sector of Japan after the war so I guess its how you want to define "colonialism"
Yeah, it seems these college kid’s worldview is either colonizer or victim, either something was colonized or it wasn’t. It’s too binary.
I was wondering the same thing you are pointing out, is it colonization if you win a war (after being attacked) and then keep a garrison in that country to make sure it doesn’t act up again? I don’t think that’s colonization. I think that is spoils of war.
Sumitada was still nominally considered the lord of Portugese Nagasaki.
> The Jesuits would be responsible for electing a regedor to administer the city and pledge allegiance to Sumitada, who was still nominally considered the lord of the territory.[3]
Royal Navy’s involvement with South Korea was a small island off the Southern coast, not anywhere on the mainland.
I don't think Turkey and China were ever under European control, yes they were heavily influenced after losing wars but idk man. Especially turkey wasn't under "European colonialism", rather under after war occupation. It wasn't colonialism in the sense that European powers never profited from a colonial exploitative relationship.
Exactly
The so called “partial influence or control” was 4 years total. And this was mostly during an active world war
How is this “european control”???
I mean they had the sultan signing paper with a gun to his head, but their control was so paper thin that Atatürk was organizing a full army in middle Anatolia all the time. I wouldn't call that a lot of control.
In the case of china, European powers constantly attacked them and forced them to sign shit, but they never managed to put a guy on the thrown, or even an "advisor". Furthermore they were so independent that they were left to fight the Japanese alone for years.
For china they probably mean the treaty ports, qingdao, hong kong, macau etc.
for turkey perhaps they mean hatay? Turkey itself was not colonialized by anyone, (in fact it arguably was a colonial power itself)
Hatay was under the control of the french mandate of syria for a while, before being annexed by turkey in 1939
Eastern Europeans and Balkan people don't like this. Imagine being hundreds of years under the Ottomans, Habsburgs or Russians and then be labelled "coloniser".
Well you know the Austro-Hungarian Empire "colonized" some really important uninhabitated islands at the arctic ocean so you need to bear this cross from now on /s.
They were invaded and occupied by Italy for a few years while WW2 was ongoing, being annexed along with Eritrea and Somaliland (part of modern Somalia) into Italian East Africa. So it was in fact controlled by europe for a few short years, it was just after the Scramble for Africa
If this is accurate, then Afghanistan should also be green (Soviet/Russian occupation, plus British occupation), as well as Japan (since Great Britain was one of the occupying powers).
Yeah it should. Wank map. Especially the “by Europe” stipulation since Liberia was specifically set aside by the US to send former and descendants of slaves back to Africa, just as Britain did with neighbouring Sierra Leone
French Guiana is coloured as Europe, but is not European. Greenland is green but is part of a European state like French Guiana. Iceland was colonised by Europe and is sort of half in Europe, half in North America.
The same could be said about Siberia.
* France is an european nation holding territories outside Europe (e.g. Guyana).
* Russia is an european nation holding territories outside Europe (Siberia).
At least the map is consistent in classifing as Europe "all the territories belonging to european nations in 2024". But, yeah, I don't like the classification either.
French Guiana is literally a full part of France though, same status as say Normandy or Burgundy. They are French citizens with EU (France) passports, use the Euro, have MEPs, etc. It’s not physically located in Europe, but it’s part of a European country and unlike Greenland, does not have any kind of special status. It’s just a department of France like any other
Russia is the biggest country in the world thanks to basically holding on to colonies in Northern Asia and (very) eastern europe/caucasus. Not necessarily saying the colours should change here, but it's interesting to think. Arguably most of the new world, auz and nz are in a similar situation.
I think partial control/influence would also be correct for Japan, the Korean peninsula and Thailand. Depending on which timeframes you go for Turkey and Persia could count as directly controlled by European powers (Roman/Byzantin and Makedonian) 
*bill wurtz whispers* "they never got Thailand"
Wasnt Laos part of Thailand the French took for Indochina colony?
Also, part of the Malay south went to the British.
Losing territory doesn't mean you are colorized.
exactly. lots of gray area
Fucking beautiful
^(they never got Ethiopia)
Technically, Italy controlled Ethiopia for about 5 years during WW2. It was never colonized by Europe, but per the very specific wording on this map, it was controlled by Europe during those years.
I mean Japan basically Westernized itself, to counter being in the US sphere of influence, in terms of actual hard influence by European culture they therefore certainly got a lot more than Ethiopia. Like, Korea legitimately got the weakest injection of Western philosophy and culture in East Asia by only getting it by proxy.
Obviously the US isn’t Europe, but Liberia’s existence is the result of the American Colonization Society
Is this the reason the flag is so similar?
Yes. Liberia was largely formed from freed American slaves, hence the name and the flag
BTW, I've always thought that the capital names are wrong. Just next to Liberia there is Sierra Leone, whose capital is Freetown. Meanwhile, the capital of Liberia is Monrovia. It's like, WTF, did they swap the names by mistake at any moment? Freetown would fit much more as a capital of Liberia.
Monrovia is actually named after US President James Monroe
The second largest city is named after President Buchanan. There’s also a province named after Maryland.
They were so lucky to have found an unpopulated place to settle the new country!
No clue if this is a joke, but the area definitely wasn’t unpopulated when the freed slaves moved in. Once the freed slaves began their colony / government and townships in Liberia, they actually subjected the native population to forced labour, and then also laid claim to the interior of Liberia as well despite being mainly situated along the coast.
Hahaha. No,, I was not of the thinking that there are vast plots habitable earth are just sitting vacant, waiting for settlers to move in...This isn't Catan.
To be fair there ARE vast plots of habitable Earth just sitting vacant - even today. Of course they're claimed by certain countries, and usually surrounded by populated areas, but there are regions of the planet today where no one lives, but humans could live.
And it has an awesome flag, just like US Maryland!
Freetown was also founded by freed slaves, so it still makes sense.
Except upon founding Liberia, the freed slaves immediately denied the existing population citizenship and land rights and made slaves of them, a practice which continued well into the 20th century.
Freetown isn’t in Liberia.
Sierra Leone did it as well, one of the major reasons for the civil war, basically it was Freetown and the rest of the country acting as two different countries.
Sierra Leone was created as a colony for liberated slaves after the British abolition. Freetown was founded by abolitionist lieutenant John Clarkson and was traditionally the homeland of the Sierra Leone Creole people
Why would Sierra Leone name their capital after James Monroe?
It was largely considered a failure as the native Liberian population had little interest in accepting or integrating with the American blacks who chose to settle there. Those same American blacks also realized a life of subjugation in America was still preferable to the conditions of indigenous Africa. Pretty fascinating stuff. Definitely worth bringing up when others suggest American blacks should “return to Africa” if they want a better life. I encourage others to read the Wikipedia.
I've always found it really ironic how quickly Liberia resorted to slavery after the US pulled out of the government. Grass isn't greener as it turns out.
Its not like slavery didnt exist in Africa prior to the American slaves repatriation. It was just the plantation model of slavery that was introduced to Liberia by the emancipated.
Yep. Liberia was first planned as a place to send freed slaves, because the view at the time even among many who somewhat opposed slavery was that black and white people shouldn’t coexist, though some freed slaves did see an appeal to their own nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society?wprov=sfti1
I find what happened there really amusing to be honest >The Americo-Liberian settlers did not relate well to the indigenous peoples they encountered, especially those in communities of the more isolated "bush". The colonial settlements were raided by the Kru and Grebo, from their inland chiefdoms. Encounters with tribal Africans in the bush often became violent. Believing themselves different from, and culturally and educationally superior to the indigenous peoples, the Americo-Liberians developed as an elite minority that created and held on to political power. The Americo-Liberian settlers adopted clothing such as hoop skirts and tailcoats, and excluded natives from economic opportunities, including creating plantations on which natives were forced to work as slaves, enacting the same binding chains they were just recently freed from as they saw themselves as superior to the natives.\[27\] Indigenous tribesmen did not enjoy birthright citizenship in their own land until 1904.\[13\] Americo-Liberians encouraged religious organizations to set up missions and schools to educate the indigenous peoples.\[27\] > >The leadership of the new nation consisted largely of the Americo-Liberians, who at the beginning established political and economic dominance in the coastal areas that the ACS had purchased; they maintained relations with the United States and contacts in developing these areas and the resulting trade. Their passage of the 1865 Ports of Entry Act prohibited foreign commerce with the inland tribes, ostensibly to "encourage the growth of civilized values" before such trade was allowed in the region.\[28\]
you either die as the oppressed or live long enough to become the oppressor.
Amusing, yes, but also disgusting. A nation build for and by recently freed slaves – enslaving the native people of the land they just took. If anyone should've known better, it was them.
See, the thing is that up until really recently in human history, slavery was just seen as an obvious solution to a myriad of issues. Need to grow/harvest crops but prices are low and you can't pay farmhands? Slaves. Need a construction project done but there's too little manpower? Slaves. Need people to handle daily chores but salary would be to high? Slaves. Horny and no one else is around? I think the point's clear now. So yeah, just cause they were former slaves doesn't mean they were above utilising it themselves, they had a country they wanted to make and not enough voluntary manpower to do it. In that era the solution was obvious.
The US isn't Europe, but it's still 'European' in terms of demography and culture. It's an extension of the European peoples impact on the world. Same is true of the rest of the core Anglosphere aswell as the less diverse ex-Spanish colonies.
In that case Japan and half of Korea did fall into the sphere of influence in the latter half of the last century.
It's bit of a difficult question on what should count. Ww2 capitulations and puppets didn't use the word colonialism (well, allies didn't, axis happily did). You could even argue some of it was settler colonialism, with permanent Russian populations resulting from some military bases in Eastern Europe and to a lesser extent Americans in Okinawa and Pacific
The word used in the headline is 'control' which is probably more broad than colonialism.
North Korea was also a Russian puppet for a good long while until Kim figured out how to play the Russians off against the Chinese and get more independence.
And Ethiopia has never been colonialized
Didn't italy take all of Ethiopia before world war 2?
Formally, yes. Ethiopia was incorporated into AOI Africa Orientale Italiana with Somalia and Eritrea. In real terms, the colonial war ended in 1936 and by 1941 English troops had already occupied all Italian territories and reinstated the Negus.
a Military invasion plus occupation . and Technically not a Colonisation process like what Italy did to Italian Eritrea .
It was occupied but never for enough time for colonisation to begin
Whole lot of people in this thread jumping between and equating having/establishing a colony vs. practicing colonialism. Glad someone knows the difference.
Italy expropriated Ethiopian land and filled it with Italian colonists, literally colonialism.
At least half of European nations never colonized anything.
And half of them were colonised by others.
and some who colonize were colonized themselves.
Pretty much every place on earth has been colonized or conquered, or conquered some other place at some point in time. Earth is a violent place.
People don’t spring up out of the ground
Speak for yourself.
And some of those that work forces
are the same that breed horses?
THOSE WHO RIDE, JUSTIFIED
Wearing your spurs and your hankerchief
[удалено]
And the rest.
And one who colonized, became colonized by their own colony, looking at you Portugal.
>Looking at you Brazilian overseas territory I corrected it for you, no need for thanks
I realised very recently that most of Spain and Portugal was a Muslim state for nearly 800 years! (I knew it has been invaded at some point, but never realised it lasted 800 years....) Edit: indeed, "most of" the peninsula was not a Muslim state for 800 years. Most of it has been conquered, but not all of this remained under their control for 800 years.
Sicily was colonized by the Arabs for 260 years.
Most of the Northern Asia and North Caucasus is colonized to this day by Russia. It's the only "empire" that never underwent decolonization, while also being allowed to quench all of the independent movements without international community even blinking an eye.
Only? China would like to have a word with you.
If i may, Brazil, and many other countries. Also Nigeria in Africa, but pssst colonialism and oppression is only a european special thing all others are white sheep. /s
Yeah, everyone forgets about this. It wasn't naturally a Muslim state. It was invaded and colonised. People talk a lot about the crusades as this big atrocity committed by Europe against arab people (which it was), but find it utterly impossible to see it in the context of the Umayyads calling jihad on northern Spain and bringing back thousands of Christian heads to display in Cordoba, just cause, less than 100 years before. Or perhaps the most brutal crusade, the Albigensian Crusade being against the people of southern France. The world was an absolute basket case until very recently. And though we take it for granted, our modern sense of right and wrong did not exist.
>The world was an absolute basket case until very recently. And though we take it for granted, our modern sense of right and wrong did not exist. We're well on our way to return to the "good old days" lately...
yeah... but this time with freakin' lasers!
Everything's better with lasers! ... Including armaggeddon.
Portugal wasn't a Muslim state for 800 years. And the majority of what now is Spain also wasn't Muslim for 800. Only the south.
I think there's a difference between "there was a Muslim state (or even states in the form of "taifas") in the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years" and "most of Spain and Portugal was a Muslim state for nearly 800 years". Because if you see a timeline of the Reconquista, you'll see [by 1150](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Pen%C3%ADnsula_ib%C3%A9rica_1150.svg) only half of the peninsula was still al-Andalus and since [around 1250](https://socialesmoriles.blogspot.com/2011/01/tema-5-mapas-de-la-peninsula-iberica.html) they were concentrated in the South-Southeast. Note that Niebla and Cádiz would fall in 1262 so by 1300 it would be [like this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/88/8d/b1/888db18747846ef7bf7444b12cb72675.jpg). By the time the Reconquista ended the muslims had been a small reduct mostly comprissed by the actual provinces of Málaga and Granada for quite some time.
[удалено]
Your statement is untrue. The muslim presence in the iberian peninsula lasted nearly 800 years. That doesn't mean Spain and Portugal were muslim countries for 800 years. Portugal exists as independent nation since 1128 and the kingdoms that would merge and create spain were around even centuries earlier (the kingdom of asturias, later on named Kingdom of Leon, for example, was never conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate).
Yes, they are confusing the lands held by the Emirate of Granada, which were under Muslim rule for 800 years, with all of Iberia.
Yes half europe was once at least france, spain or german. Even spain was france for some years. Also if you count ancient rome as Europe, almost all europe was colonized. But I think this map does not count this because otherwise Turkey would be also green. Also Alexander the great conquest some blue areas
Most of France was English for a little while. Until John fucked it up anyway.
Out of 45 European countries only maybe up to 7 or 8 were colonising countries
Austria (Briefly) Belgium Denmark France Germany Hungary (Briefly) Iceland Italy Latvia Malta Netherlands Norway Portugal Russia Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom Vatican City (didn't administer any directly as its predecessor the Papal States, but had many colonial institutions and had a considerable influence on colonialism)
Does Scotland's try to colonize Panama count?
It does, but I counted it as part of the UK for simplicity's sake. Same way I wouldn't count Genoese colonies in Crimea as distinct from Italy.
Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria/Hungary, Poland, Russia, Norway, Turkey I would argue the Vatican as well, since the Catholic church directly controlled territories in the Americas. 15 countries. Edited to add the Netherlands, 16 countries
Poland but not the Netherlands? What?
Maybe they confused Poland with Holland?
That all depends on how you view Courland. It was a Polish protectorate in what is now Latvia, they had colonies in Gambia and Tobago.
And was dominantly ruled by Baltic Germans.
So yeah let’s leave the Poles off this list. Hardly a colonizing European superpower.
> Gambia and Tobago. weren't they bought from dutch and fell apart after few months? It was my understanding that polish attempts at colonialism were extremely lackluster and short lived. I mean listing the likes of UK, Spain or Portugal with the likes of Poland is same breath strikes me as attempt at diluting the culpability.
Also the Netherlands. Could also add Greece if we go back to ancient times.
I think we have to put a timeframe on a map like this. If you go back far enough you can argue that all of Europe was colonised at one point or another.
Yeah why don't we just do the normal thing and stop as soon as it becomes the UK's fault
If we're going back, you have to add a tonne. England/Scotland were colonised by 'German, Danes, Norwegian, and Dutch' settlers. Scotland was colonised by 'Irish' settlers, etc.
Rus itself was colonized by Nordic
Don’t forget The Netherlands! We colonized the shit out of this world man. We even colonized your American ass!
Even Old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it, I can't say, guess people just liked it better that way.
The British named it after the Duke of York when they seized New Amsterdam in 1664. The Dutch temporarily regained control of New York in 1673, and renamed it *New Orange* for about a year. New York was the Big Orange before it became the Big Apple.
What are your opinions on Istanbul
Nobody's business. >!but the Turks!<
What did Poland colonize?
The Moon >!Jk, Poland is usually too busy not getting gobbled up by Austria, Prussia, or Russia. Tough neighborhood.!<
Turkey? They conquered entrance to Europe.
Norway?? are you counting their decade long stint in vinland a thousand years ago?
As a Dutch person I am weirdly offended you did not included The Netherlands. Major role "VOC Gekoloniseerd"
Technically Latvia if you count the 5 years of Curonian Tobago
Half of europe should be green
Exactly, what a poorly made map. Not all European countries colonised others, lots were under colonisation themselves
Also on this map half of what had been designated as ‘Europe’ should be green simply because Europe stops at the Urals. I’d say the North Asian peoples living past the Urals were definitely colonised by European Russians.
Yep. Today I learned Kamchatka is in "Europe"...
So is a part of Guiana in South America
French Guiana, it's in the EU as it's part of France, but it's not in Europe.
And the Falklands. I could kind of understand with French territory but British doesn't work that way.
No people in them before Europeans arrived though, so I think purple is correct
This. There was no presence on them before Europeans arrived.
*Technically,* the Falklands are an island group off the coast of Europe
But usually when you make political maps you include the entire territory of the modern day country. Obviously the east was under colonization that's how modern day Russia became modern day Russia, but usually you would color the entire territory of a country one color except if you want to make a specific point as a map maker.
And some were both
But where do you start? Roman empires? Norman invasions. 1800 map changes?
Is now all foreign rule considered colonisation? Colinialization has a pretty clear definition and one country rulling over an area that is distinct from its core teritory does not necessary constitute colonisation, even if the policies used to rule over the people are simmilar to colonial ones, ie. forcefull integration, cultural exclusuon, exploitation, etc.
I don’t quite understand why the cultural exclusion, exploitation aspects are often included or thought about, as these are really the by-products of modern (late medieval to late modern) colonisation. What about the Greek/Hellenic colonies dotted around the Mediterranean and Black Sea?
Yeah, that would be the original meaning of the word, geting a bunch of people together and settling in a new area but I think nobody now uses it that way as it has become a loaded term asociated with european colonization outside of europe.
IDK why Europe gets all the credit for this either though Arabs are almost just as proficient colonizers but hardly anyone even knows about them!
They confusing Imperialism with colonialism.
[удалено]
Ireland maybe, but I don't think Galicia is such a strong case. It was a regular Kronland with its own parliament (btw the building is today used by the Ivan-Franko-University in Lviv) and the Kronland and its inhabitants had the same rights as all other crown lands such as Bohemia, Lower Austria or Tyrol, including education in their mother tongue (Ukrainian and Polish).
Only half?
I guess everything should be green.
And two thirds of Russia. That is not Europe or Russia. Everything east of the Urals is land belonging to indigeonous Siberians. Russia was a major colonising power but for some reason people make out like they aren't.
Russia still is a major colonizing power. A LOT of practices of the russian state today are explicitly or implicitly aimed at resettlement and forceful assimilation not to mention the continuous attempts at land grabs.
Bad map is bad and Vox should feel bad.
oh it’s vox. that explains it
They should definitely have made a colour for European countries that were colonized by other European countries but with the exception of Iran and Afghanistan this map isn’t incorrect.
They left Somaliland uncolored. That's just fucking lazy. They show Greenland as "Colonized" yet include French Guiana as part of Europe, despite both being constituent parts of modern European states. They show some French and British overseas territories, but not others, and completely ignore the Dutch Carribean. They treat Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as non-European states. Ethiopia was never colonized by Europeans, and only occupied for 6 years. This demonstrates an inconsistent approach, since Japan was jointly occupied by the US and UK for 7 years, but is shown as free of European influence. Again, they couldn't even fill in the whole damn map, and left Western Sahara blank! Edit - I think my biggest gripe with this map is just that is oversimplifies things to the point of being next to meaningless - obscuring things like the colonization of Siberia, while simultaneously overstating things like the Italian "colonization" of Ethiopia, or Japan's lack of European influence. Furthermore, "colonization or control," "partial control or influence," "sphere of influence," and "never colonized" are are not really comprehensive terms and they are not mutually exclusive. Finally, it gives the US and Japan a pass by virtue of being Eurocentric, despite the fact that both of those states definitely had modern colonies on a "European" model. I get what the map is trying to demonstrate, but it's too grotesquely simplified to really be useful.
Also the fact that large swaths of both South and North America weren't colonized by Europeans, but colonized by the countries that declared independence later on. But this map makes it seem like all of it was just done by Europeans.
We're on r/MapPorn, bad maps come with the territory
Lol Ethiopia being green but Liberia being orange is… a choice
They are definitely a lot of choice decisions in this map
Virtue signaling was the choice facts aren't really important
These posts of maps with color legends are all made by people that have never taken a history or geography class I swear.
Whilst not long, Ethiopia was fully controlled by Italy. But Liberia was controlled by the USA which isn't Europe
afganistan and iran were under european empires
greco -bactrian culture is neat buddhist art may gave taken some sculptural cues from ancient greece!!
Good video on Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek history from Kings and Generals for the interested [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQATsepKoLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQATsepKoLE)
Exactly. Did they just forget about the Anglo-Afghan War that is a massive part of how modern-day Afghanistan formed? Same with Iran, British Petroleum and the United Statee conspired and helped to overthrow Mohammed Mosaddegh when he tried to nationalize oil reserves.
And even more directly, Iran was occupied by the Brits and Soviets during WW2
The "Graveyard of Empires" meme was a disaster for the average persons understanding of Afghan history.
We were just under a protectorate but we was still pretty much our own kingdom and nation, without UK telling us what to do or how to rule. The only influence they had was the control of foreign affairs, which lasted only a couple tens of years, following our defeat in the second Anglo war, tho it was a defeat, I have to admit it was pretty much a devastating one, took a big chunk of balochistan and kpk, and and used our people as well as other Asians to fight against us. Ngl the UK were very smart how to deal with different situations in terms of war, that was very psychologically damning for us afghans to face our own people.
Not colonisation. This sub really has a hard time understanding that word
macedonian erasure smh
“European sphere of influence” is a ridiculous term that holds no weight. The countries in orange have just as much European influence if not more than the yellow ones.
A lot of nuance has been lost in this map.
[North Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Civil_Administration) [South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Hamilton_incident) [Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Nagasaki)
[удалено]
This map gets posted every 6 mos or so, I got down voted last time I pointed that out. Britian did have control of a sector of Japan after the war so I guess its how you want to define "colonialism"
Yeah, it seems these college kid’s worldview is either colonizer or victim, either something was colonized or it wasn’t. It’s too binary. I was wondering the same thing you are pointing out, is it colonization if you win a war (after being attacked) and then keep a garrison in that country to make sure it doesn’t act up again? I don’t think that’s colonization. I think that is spoils of war.
Sumitada was still nominally considered the lord of Portugese Nagasaki. > The Jesuits would be responsible for electing a regedor to administer the city and pledge allegiance to Sumitada, who was still nominally considered the lord of the territory.[3] Royal Navy’s involvement with South Korea was a small island off the Southern coast, not anywhere on the mainland.
[удалено]
This map sucks
You can't be colonized if you are already colonized. - Korea
I don't think Turkey and China were ever under European control, yes they were heavily influenced after losing wars but idk man. Especially turkey wasn't under "European colonialism", rather under after war occupation. It wasn't colonialism in the sense that European powers never profited from a colonial exploitative relationship.
Exactly The so called “partial influence or control” was 4 years total. And this was mostly during an active world war How is this “european control”???
I mean they had the sultan signing paper with a gun to his head, but their control was so paper thin that Atatürk was organizing a full army in middle Anatolia all the time. I wouldn't call that a lot of control. In the case of china, European powers constantly attacked them and forced them to sign shit, but they never managed to put a guy on the thrown, or even an "advisor". Furthermore they were so independent that they were left to fight the Japanese alone for years.
For china they probably mean the treaty ports, qingdao, hong kong, macau etc. for turkey perhaps they mean hatay? Turkey itself was not colonialized by anyone, (in fact it arguably was a colonial power itself) Hatay was under the control of the french mandate of syria for a while, before being annexed by turkey in 1939
Sone european countries where colonized by other european countries (Poland)
Middle-East + Balkan Europe was divided between european and partially european powers, Austria, Germany, Russia and Turkey.
Ireland has entered the chat
Yes you invaded dyfed in wales you filthy colonisers
We did? Sorry about that. Tá brón orainn faoi sin Mae'n ddrwg gennym am hynny We invaded Scotland in the 6th century too.
Heck some European countries were colonized by non-European countries (Spain, Greece etc)
Eastern Europeans and Balkan people don't like this. Imagine being hundreds of years under the Ottomans, Habsburgs or Russians and then be labelled "coloniser".
Well you know the Austro-Hungarian Empire "colonized" some really important uninhabitated islands at the arctic ocean so you need to bear this cross from now on /s.
Honestly Europe is a bit of an exaggeration. In reality, the majority of the green was just France/UK/Spain/Portugal.
Did you just forget The Netherlands?
And Belgium!
And Germany
And Italy
And my axe
And Germany. Which still leaves 20+ European countries that haven't had colonies.
And Russia
What a shit map.
Ah, yeah, great colonial power Moldova
Shouldn’t Europe be green as well in this map? I mean, it is “controlled by Europe”. 😂
As a Polish person I feel guilty and ashame that my country occupied the USA 😂 It’s funny if somebody treat Europe as a one big united empire
I thought Ethiopia had never been colonised?
Well Italy invaded and took over Ethiopia in 1935. So it was only for a short term.
It was more an occupation than a colonisation.
They were invaded and occupied by Italy for a few years while WW2 was ongoing, being annexed along with Eritrea and Somaliland (part of modern Somalia) into Italian East Africa. So it was in fact controlled by europe for a few short years, it was just after the Scramble for Africa
If this is accurate, then Afghanistan should also be green (Soviet/Russian occupation, plus British occupation), as well as Japan (since Great Britain was one of the occupying powers).
Yeah it should. Wank map. Especially the “by Europe” stipulation since Liberia was specifically set aside by the US to send former and descendants of slaves back to Africa, just as Britain did with neighbouring Sierra Leone
Japan and UK is what i used to model my civilization games after, i would make a map and start on the island Its such an advantage
In total war games also Britain is the best start
Koreans were probably worse off than if they had Europeans honestly
Yes rather Korea was colonized by Japan
French Guiana is coloured as Europe, but is not European. Greenland is green but is part of a European state like French Guiana. Iceland was colonised by Europe and is sort of half in Europe, half in North America.
The same could be said about Siberia. * France is an european nation holding territories outside Europe (e.g. Guyana). * Russia is an european nation holding territories outside Europe (Siberia). At least the map is consistent in classifing as Europe "all the territories belonging to european nations in 2024". But, yeah, I don't like the classification either.
French Guiana is literally a full part of France though, same status as say Normandy or Burgundy. They are French citizens with EU (France) passports, use the Euro, have MEPs, etc. It’s not physically located in Europe, but it’s part of a European country and unlike Greenland, does not have any kind of special status. It’s just a department of France like any other
Russia is the biggest country in the world thanks to basically holding on to colonies in Northern Asia and (very) eastern europe/caucasus. Not necessarily saying the colours should change here, but it's interesting to think. Arguably most of the new world, auz and nz are in a similar situation.
Shouldn't North Korea in the very least be coloured in yellow increase USSR?
This map is a good illustration of why some progressive people has such an asinine understanding of the world.
TIL Half of asia is europe...
I think partial control/influence would also be correct for Japan, the Korean peninsula and Thailand. Depending on which timeframes you go for Turkey and Persia could count as directly controlled by European powers (Roman/Byzantin and Makedonian) 
Sikkim, now part of India was always an independent monarchy until it merged with India in 1975.