Talk:Colony/Archive 1

NPOV
This article is far, far from being NPOV. Listing Corsica, Guadeloupe and Martinique as colonies while not listing Hawaii is ridiculous. David.Monniaux 06:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Equality of treatment on colony
(Transferred from User talk:Bkonrad)

Hi. I think that Hawaii should stay on the list, or that most of the list of French oversea possessions should be removed. All of French inhabited oversea possessions enjoy full citizenship rights. Corsica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion have almost exactly the same status as the mainland départements. David.Monniaux 17:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no knowledge of French oversea possessions and so cannot offer any suggestions in that regard. However, I very strongly feel that it is inappropriate to include Hawaii in the list. It is mixing apples and oranges. Hawaii is a fully incorporated part of the U.S. The other entities on the list are unincorporated territory (except Palmyra Atoll). If you can make a case for removing the French possessions, then I'm certainly not going to stop you. But Hawaii does not belong on the list, except possibly in a historical context. It is not presently a colony or dependency (at least not in terms of constitutional or international law). older &ne; wiser 18:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is, perhaps none of the lands listed as colonies of France fit the usual definition of "colony" as a country administered from afar without a right to self-determination and without appropriate representation. Should I delete the list?
 * The listing of Corsica is in itself extremely POV, since it reflects the political stance of the independentist minority of being a "colonized" country.
 * Would you be so kind as to provide a definition of "colony" or "dependency"? None of these words appear in French legal texts.
 * To me, Hawaii fits my definition of dependency: it's a remote territorial unit much smaller than the mainland of the country, they had a distinct ethnic population, and they now have a large population that came originally from the mainland. Sounds very much like all most inhabited French possessions (with the exception of St Pierre et Miquelon). David.Monniaux 18:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hawaii is a permanent part of the U.S. All of the other U.S. territories on that list except Palmyra Atoll are unincorporated, which means there is the possibility that they could, at some point, become independent of the U.S. That would not be possible for Hawaii. Also, those insular areas do not have equal status under the U.S. constitution; the U.S. Congress can determine (rather arbitrarily) what portions of the constitution apply to those territories. Hawaii simply does not belong on the list because it enjoys an entirely different status under international and constitutional law.


 * I am not familiar with France's constitution or how it administers its territories. If you want to try and delete the list, that's up to you. But Hawaii simply does not belong on the list. older &ne; wiser 18:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The point is: contrary to the US, France does not make any difference between citizens living on various parts of its territory with respect to national elections. Whatever the status of where you live, you vote like any other citizen living in France in legislative and presidential elections. The Constitution applies everywhere and may not be waved.
 * Since this is the criterion you apply for deciding that Hawaii is a full part of the US, then I can conclude that all the listed entities listed under French possessions should not have been listed. David.Monniaux 19:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I doubt that I'll be the only person to have anything to say about this. I only know about U.S. I will defer to more those more knowledgable concerning the legal status of other countries overseas dependencies and possessions. A small note, the distinction within the U.S. is not so much concern whether the constitution applies to the people of a territory, but pertains more to the actual land itself. When the territory is incorporated as a part of the U.S., it is considered irrevocable and is a permanent part of the country, regardless of it's physical location. The unincorporated territories have a different status because there is the possibility of separating from the U.S. and becoming independent. I think you're current revision to the article may not be entirely accurate as I believe some of the UK's territories are in fact still considered Crown Colonies.


 * According to the Crown Colony entry, former "crown colonies" are now known as "oversea territories". "Colony" is a loaded word with a pejorative undertone, implying the exploitation of the locals, lack of political rights etc..., rest assured that all Western democracies have ditched such qualifications. (Whether or not the territories are still oppressed is of course a matter of appreciation.)


 * I do not know if there is a single definition of colony that would apply to all countries. In terms of the U.S., the term colony seems a little anachronistic, but if we use possession or dependency as roughly equivalent, then the main distinction is that the territory is not considered to be an irrevocably permanent part of the U.S. That the constitution only selectively applies is really a by-product of the territory's not being incorporated and is not the defining characteristic. older &ne; wiser 20:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok. That criterion fits the division I made in the entry about France (between oversea départements and oversea territories). David.Monniaux 20:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moving away the list
The more I look into this, the less I like about this article, but I don't know where to start. The term colony is something of a historical relic, although that is not to deny the continuing impact of colonialism. I think you are correct that no modern nation has what can accurately be called a "colony". And there are so many other articles with slightly different takes on the subject. They really all need to be integrated (not merged, but just made to complement each other and not contradict or cause confusion). Here's just a partial list that I've come across so far:


 * France: French overseas territories | Islands controlled by France in the Indian and Pacific oceans | Administrative divisions of France
 * Britain: Crown colony | Self-governing colony | Crown dependency
 * All: Dependent area | List of dependent territories | List of non-independent areas


 * I've moved away the list to List of dependent territories where it belongs. David.Monniaux 04:16, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you, thank you. older &ne; wiser 11:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a Thought
I have been looking at British colonies and have looked at this entry. Some one needs to add a list of nations in South Asia that were never colinized by the British. I cant find one anywhere! kayla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.98.57 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Colonialism
Please see Talk:Colonialism for reasoning and discussion! Gsd2000 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge colonisation here
I think we achieved a consensus that colonialism shouldn't be merged here. However, both this "colony" article and colonisation refer to non-Western types of colonisation, and are similarly constructed (historical examples of Roman colonialism, space colonisation, etc.). Wouldn't it avoid forks to merge them together since they largely duplicate contents on two pages? Lapaz 20:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

West Papua
Have returned West Papua entry for now. Colonization is a specific type of conquest where the exploiting & governing power is alien to the local people. In legal terms today, colonization is define by the guidelines provided in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 as agreed to in November 1960. At this time the Netherlands had already listed West New Guinea under Article 73 of the UN Charter; the fact that the United States then forced the Netherlands to sign an illegal contract transfering West New Guinea's administration without the Papuan people's consent to another alien power, this time from Asia, would not release the nation from its status as a 'non self-governing territory' (colony in UN speak). As the people of West Papua claim to be a colonised people and as the country does fullfill principle 4 of Resolution 1541, the only authoritative power that could state it is not a colony would be the UN International Court of Justice, which has yet to state its opinion on the issue. 58.107.10.239 22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

colony as a collective noun
Shouldn't this page have the alternative definition of colony as a collecitve noun? Here are the ones of which I am aware.


 * A colony of ants
 * A colony of bats
 * A colony of beavers
 * A colony of frogs
 * A colony of gulls
 * A colony of penguins
 * A colony of rats
 * A colony of lepers
 * A colony of rabbits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.3.101 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

colonies and citizenship
What is the relationship between a colony and teh parent country in terms of citizenship? Mrdthree 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan

 * Japan, once afraid of becoming a European or American colony, built itself a colonial empire in China, Korea and the Western Pacific, using brutal military force.

I deleted "brutal", because the expression was not neutral. Japan aquired Taiwan by Sino-Japan war, Korea by a treaty, and West Pacific as a Trust Territory after WW1. In the Sino-Japan war and WW1, Japan used military force. The Japanese force might be brutal, but they were in wars. They might be as brutal as other forces in the world.--Mochi 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern Colonies and Current Colonies sections
Couple of points which I'm not sure how to fix:

1. I guess that the "Modern" in the "Modern Colonies" heading is meant to contrast with the preceding "Ancient", but none of these are "modern" in the usual sense that I understand the word, so the title reads oddly, and sits oddly with the next section "Current Colonies". Aren't "current" colonies "modern" then?

2. If the "Modern Colonies" section is meant to list post-ancient examples then it is so selective as to be pretty useless, I would say.

3. "Modern Colonies" says "Today, none of the colonizing European and North American powers hold colonies in the traditional sense of the term". This is immediately contradicted by the first entry following under "Current colonies" - that of Gibraltar. I added a note to the effect that the word "colony" is no longer used, but it still reads oddly to me.

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.42.3 (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "Today, none of the colonizing European and North American powers hold colonies in the traditional sense of the term" is incorrect. I've modified the sentence to reflect disputed uses of the term "colony" for Puerto Rico and Guam.Freeguam 07:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After colonisation in North America
Hey,

I think that there should be more in this article about what happened after the colonisation between the North American Indians and the Europeans. I am doing an assessment task and I can't find anything on this.

Jade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.42.48 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased...
I have a few problems with the following section...a lot of it reads like it was 'jazzed up' for dramatic effect. There should be more objective and neutral statement in here. It sounds like it was written by someone who was heavily biased against colonial powers. Regardless of personal feelings, they do not belong in Wikipedia.

''The movement towards decolonization was not uniform, with more newer powers, sometimes themselves ex-colonies or once threatened by colonial power, trying to carve a colonial empire. The United States, itself a former colony, expanded westwards. This resulted in conflict with the Native American, which sometime escalated into all out armed conflicts. The westward expansion ultimately resulted in the death of entire native populations, and forced relocations of the indiginous people. It also colonized Hawaii, and waged various wars and conduct armed expeditions so as to assert power over local governments (in Japan, with Commodore Perry and in Cuba, for example). European countries and the United States, exploiting the weakness of China's waning imperial regime, also maintained so-called international concessions in that country, a sort of colonial enclave; the coastal towns of Macau and Hong Kong were held on long-term leases by Portugal and the United Kingdom. During the first half of the 20th century, until its defeat the Second World War, Japan, once afraid of becoming a European or American colony, built itself a colonial empire in korea, parts of China, and the Western Pacific, using military force.''

1. I edited the original text regarding America's westward expansion. The original text was something to the effect "..expanded westward, waging brutal wars against the native populations, killing entire civilain populations...". I changed it to something that sounded a little less biased. I also included the part about the forced relocations, since that also happened, not just the haphazard slaughter of 'innocent civilians'.

2. As worded, this section implies that the US and Japan were trying to become a colonial power from the begining, regardless of intention or outcome. This ought to be reworded to reflect the history, not the ultimate result (or one person's interpretation thereof) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.231.42 (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding more colonies
I think American Samoa should be listed of current colonies Troop350 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Taiwan/Republic of China connection
Given the current situation regarding the status of Taiwan, I have removed statements linking Taiwan and the Republic of China. By removing that line I hope I can reduce NPOV in this article. Roswell Crash Survivor 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

typo in "definitions"
see here: "..submitted to brutal force, or even to pfor legal independence movements to form" I could think of many fixes for that, but I don't want to alter the intention of the writer of that bit. Nnnudibranch (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

USA - Iraq
How aboust saying Iraq is now a colony? Though not strictly USA... GB got involved, etc. But generally, what do You people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.21.57 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So far only extremist sources have made this claim although the American people (media) and its leaders do not recognize it as a colony. I wonder if the same is true with the Philippines.  The Filipino people would say the Philippines  is a colony but American text books would emphasize occupation/territory.  I think it of perspective and connotative meaning of the definition that pushes this POV. - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When I think of colony, its like taking advantage of the resource. Some example accurate or not, Great Britain taking advantage of slave Indian Salt trade; Great Britian using AUS as outpost for criminals, Spain using Filipinos as an outpost for Asia.  UK using HK for opium trade.  Humans taking advantage of the moon resources.  Now for you to believe that US is taking advantage of Iraq, implying colonization, you probably have to believe that US is using Iraq for Oil, which probably believed by some.  Some believe we went there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction and to Free Iraqi people, as the president does.  The article current state takes a lose meaning of the definition in the overview. - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead sentence of this article says, "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." The Federal government of Iraq article says,

After the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 the Kurdish region rose up against President Saddam Hussein and gained de facto independence under the protection of a no fly zone. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) recognised the existing regional government and defined Iraq for the first time as a federal country. The TAL also allowed up to three governorates outside Kurdistan to form a Region, except for Baghdad Governorate and Kirkuk Governorate, subject to approval by the Iraqi Interim Government and the population of the new region in a referendum.
 * The Coalition Provisional Authority article says,

The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) سلطة الائتلاف الموحدة was established as a transitional government following the invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom and the other members of the multinational coalition which was formed to oust the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Citing UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws of war, the CPA vested itself with executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the Iraqi government from the period of the CPA's inception on April 21, 2003, until its dissolution on June 28, 2004.
 * The Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period article says,

The Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period (also called the transitional administrative law or TAL), the Iraqi provisional constitution in the immediate postwar period, was signed on March 8, 2004 by the Iraqi Governing Council. It came into effect on June 28, 2004 following the official transfer of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority (led by the United States), to a sovereign Iraqi government.
 * No, Iraq is not a colony. It is a soverign State.
 * You (anonymous troll at IP address 77.121.21.57) ask what we people guys think. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that you should read WP:SOAP. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Occupied Palestinian territories?
It seems that the occupied Palestinian territories can be considered a colony or colonies of Israel. This is supported both by the definition in the article and by comparison to other modern colonies. Are there sources on this question? -Pgan002 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Channel Islands listed as colonies?
I noticed the Channel Islands are incorrectly listed as being colonies of the United Kingdom. In fact, the Islands are just the remnants of the Duchy of Normandy. It looks like whoever made the lists of British colonies looked at list of British-affiliated territory outside of mainland Britain, and simply assumed they are all colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.121.150 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong, Macau, to PRC
Isn't Hong Kong and Macau somewhat "colonies" of the PRC now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.89.54 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they are both full-fledged territories of the PRC. They are both called "Special Administrative Regions," or SARs, because the PRC wanted a smooth transition between colonial and Chinese rule. This is why they are allowed to keep certain practices which are different from mainland China.155.47.183.55 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, what's the difference between a "colony" and a "full fledged territory" if the territory in question is "special"? It looks to me like a SAR is a a de facto colony, at least during the transition. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a colony
This article is completely misleading and absolute nonsense. It does not mention that Puerto Rico has had three status referendums in which they have chosen to maintain their current status. It does not mention that all residents of US territories are US citizens, or that each territory has a delegate to the US House of Representatives. Each territory also has a democratic constitution and government chosen by the people of that territory. For all purposes, the US government treats Puerto Rico as a state, it has an Article III US district court, the decisions of its Supreme Court are appealed to the US Supreme Court, its legislature handles all matters of internal laws in an identical manner to a state. It also does not mention that the Northern Mariana Islands chose to become a US territory after being a UN trust territory, choosing a status similar to Puerto Rico's. A colony is a territory that is exploited and dominated by the metropolitan state for its benefit, this is absolutely not the case in regard to any US territory. Someone needs to clean up this article and actually do some research first, not just read the ramblings of Governor Acevedo Vila, who only began to complain about Puerto Rico's status after he was investigated and indicted by the FBI for corruption and campaign finance fraud before losing his reelection bid by more than ten points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.120.39 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is about colonies, not about how a territory is NOT a colony. POV have no place in the article and the article already clearly qualified that PR is considered by "some" to be a colony. Maybe you missed that. Existence of referendums, citizenship, and Resident Commissioners neither prove nor disprove that a territory is or is not a colony. Such information is thus irrelevant to the article. The true yardstick of colonialism is "a territory that is exploited and dominated by the metropolitan state for its benefit". That's what you need to build on, but for whatever reason you did't. Based on the WP:UNDUE weight policy, I have removed the statements you introduced. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The West Bank is a colony
The most glaring example of a colony today is the West Bank. The situation between Israel and the West Bank, is the last traditional colonial entity on earth. The traditional notion of a colony is one that is exploited by the metropolis for its benefit. This is construct, the natives have no rights, no self government, and are subject to ongoing subjugation and occupation. Additionally, it was often the case that a community of people from the metropolis would live in the colony enjoying far greater rights and privileges than the natives. This is exactly the case in the West Bank, which has been under Israeli military rule sine 1967. There is a 500,000 strong population of Israeli Jews living in the West Bank, building state of the art facilities, roads, and communities that only Israeli Jews can use. They also retain their full rights as Israeli citizens to vote, to national health care, and they have ongoing Israeli military protection. The Palestinians in the West Bank have no rights in the Israeli political system, they cannot vote for the government that runs their territory, and they are completely unable to prevent the colonizing of the territory, which is being colonized by colonists, in the most basic and traditional sense of the concept. Gaza would likely not qualify as a colony in the same sense, since the settlements were dismantled. Same for the Golan Heights because it was annexed as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.120.39 (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Suez
That map is wrong, while Eygpt was indepdent the Suez zone was still part of the British Empire , and in british control in 1945 up until its nationalisation in 1956. Goldblooded (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rican citizens' rights
The article currently says (in the section on current colonies of the US):


 * Puerto Rico's subjection to US sovereignty is considered by many countries[8] to constitute a colonial imposition because Puerto Ricans are subject to laws passed by the United States Congress without their consent, due to constitutional exclusion from electoral participation in elections of the officials that hold ultimate sovereignty over their national government, and because its population does not enjoy the full citizenship rights of the United States Constitution.[citation needed] [bolding added]

The bolded part is very dubious. It originally had a citation, but that citation did not back up the assertion so I removed it and put in a citation-needed tag, which has not been responded to. To my knowledge, people who are US citizens by virtue of having been born in Puerto Rico have exactly the same rights as any other US citizen. It may be true (I'm not sure) that ownership of Puerto Rico itself could be transferred to another country, but that would affect all US citizens living there or elsewhere in exactly the same way.

I'll delete the disputed (bolded) passage unless someone gives a good objection. Duoduoduo (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a messy area. I know something about it, but I'm nowhere near expert regarding it. For some info, see the Citizenship section of Also, re partial vs. full application of the U.S. constitution to unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico, see the Unincorporated territories of the United States article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The pdf gives this helpful passage:


 * Persons born in Puerto Rico after 1941 are citizens of the United States at birth, again through federal statute. Such “statutory” citizenship differs from “constitutional” citizenship that automatically confers upon persons born in the United States (as opposed to the areas subject to the territories clause)....Congress might elect to modify the citizenship status of descendants of the people of Puerto Rico by changing the statute, but only if such legislation meets a “rational basis” test consistent with the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.


 * Now the disputed passage in this Wiki article is its population does not enjoy the full citizenship rights of the United States Constitution. I don't see that this passage logically follows from the above quote--descendents of the people of Puerto Rico might be denied the rights of citizenship, but current citizens have the same rights as mainland-born citizens. Or maybe it's just a matter of semantic interpretation of the passage.


 * Anyway, the disputed passage says that "many countries" claim that Puerto Ricans don't have full citizenship rights. So regardless of whether the claim is true, the passage should remain if someone can come up with a source that says that many countries claim this. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

French Colonies
Contains "The French Overseas Departments are called integral regions of France, and their residents have full citizenship. However, they are considered by some to be modern-day colonies," which has problems. (1) The weasel word "called". It implies that they are not really an integral part of France, but they are. You might as well say Île Saint-Louis and Île de la Cité are "called integral part of France". Many many countries have distant islands as integral parts, e.g. Hawaii, Newfoundland, Vancouver Island, or Corsica. In fact the French Overseas Departments have the same political status as metropolitan France's departments. (2) "...considered by some..." Who? Cite a reference. This is a weasel word (phrase). It is also personal opinion in the absence of a reliable source citation. (3) Including Mayotte is egregious. The people of Mayotte voted three times to remain part of France. First when they were offered independence in 1974 with 63.8% of the votes in favor of staying part of France. Second in 1976 with 99.4% of votes in favor of staying part of France. Third in March 2011 with 95.5 per cent of the votes in favour of changing the island's status from a French "overseas community" to become France's 101st département.

I replaced the bad list with a list of actual French colonies. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Western New Guinea
I removed the rather controversial statement that Western New Guinea is a "colony" of Indonesia. Whilst I realise this may be the view of some, I do not believe it is a widely held view - ie that it is a colony per se - and have cited a reference in the form of the United Nations non-self governing territories list. It is a very slippery slope to say that a region of a state which has some form of independence movement is a "colony": take Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Region, North Italy for example. Also, for the record, the user that added this took offence with an edit of theirs I changed in the History of colonialism article (again related to the subject of Western New Guinea), claiming that I was "denying genocide", amongst other things. Quite clearly this user has a strong POV on the subject, but I think that he is injecting his POV into this article in order to make a political statement. Gsd2000 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If western Guinea, Aceh, RMS are no colonies, the Dutch East Indies were also no colony, Dutch East Indies never decolonized, it was taking over by the Republic Indonesia, who were at that time the Islands Java and Sumatra. There is a proclamation of independence from all these nations. If the proclamtaion of the Republic Indonesia is accepted the Proclamations of these independent nations must also be accepted. The government of these nations are all in exile.


 * "It is a very slippery slope to say that a region of a state which has some form of independence movement is a "colony""
 * What you are saying is that the Republic Indonesia was no colony of the Netherlands, because it was just a region in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, according to United Nations Charter, which ws signed by Indonesia in 1950 it is a colony.


 * It's rather contriversial to write it is no colony.


 * "A colony is mostly ruled by another state or can be run independently. Unlike a puppet state or satellite state, a colony has no independent international representation, and its top-level administration is under direct control of the metropolitan state"


 * If RMS Aceh, Western New Guinea are no colonies, maybe this frase should be removed?
 * ArmTheInsane (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that you are responding to comments above that are 6 years old? And that WNG (or Aceh or RMS for that matter) is not mentioned in the article? I suggest the talk page needs archiving. --Merbabu (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Decolonization of the USA & Australia
"In some cases, decolonization is hardly possible or impossible because of the importance of the settler population and where the indigenous population is now in the minority; such is the case of the United States, Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand."

Seems rather wrong, and seems to suggest that 99% of the US population would have to move to Europe, Asia, or Africa to "decolonize" the USA. Something that happened either in 1776 or 1783 depending on your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.251.201 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2004 (UTC)


 * America was originally inhabited by native Americans. The lands of the natives were largely stolen from them at gunpoint, and settlers from foreign cultures were allowed to move in and settle in their place. The descendants from these settlers largely rule the country now.
 * In some sense, this means that the United States is a "ultimate" colony - one in which the importance of the native population has been so well diminished that it is even unthinkable that the settling populations should withdraw. The European countries that colonized African countries, India etc. had problems with their colonies essentially because they did not drive the natives out and thus settler descendants were still minorities, albeit sometimes large ones. David.Monniaux 06:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No it became a conquered land. The act of colonisation was while a foreign land was moving its population into the country or exporting its wealth out. Once governance transfered to a local authority, the native people where being conquered by a group who had moved into their lands. :)
 * ASJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.95.182 (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2005 (UTC)

Exactly--a group who had moved into their lands. This is a colonial situation, because the Native Americans were independent peoples who were conquered by colonists, who just happened to often be citizens of a state which CLAIMED the right to their land. It is only because of this ideology of "manifest destiny" that people (not most Native Americans) view the given borders of the US as natural and god-given, making it hard to see this process as an act of colonial conquest (and we can then say that the powers concerned were "local authorities"). Of course, over time the situation has become hardly colonial in practical political terms, but only because the dominant white colonist group were able to consolidate their power and demographic dominance. Most Native Americans still see the US as a conquering colonial power, and white Americans as colonists. They still fight for acknowledgement of their rights to land and autonomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.212.233 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By this argument, England and Turkey (for example) are colonies. 109.148.138.92 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This article's definition of "Colony" is inaccurate
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a colony as 1 a : a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b : the territory inhabited by such a body 2: a distinguishable localized population within a species 3 a : a circumscribed mass of microorganisms usually growing in or on a solid medium b : the aggregation of zooids of a compound animal 4a : a group of individuals or things with common characteristics or interests situated in close association b : the section occupied by such a group 5: a group of persons institutionalized away from others ; also : the land or buildings occupied by such a group

This definition has entirely to do with a colony as a territory exploited by the metropolis AND in which citizens of the metropolis live as a ruling class. If you think about all contexts in which the word colony has been used, you will see this is accurate. This was true of all colonial empires and their colonies, including: the English (the American colonies), Spanish and French colonies in North and South America, French Algeria, the British Mandate of Palestine, South Africa, British India, Rhodesia, Liberia.

The definition of colony being used by this article is very loose and not in keeping with the dictionary or historical definitions. It would basically allow any overseas territory held by any state to be considered a colony no matter the political status or relationship. I object to this loose definition because 'colony' is a very derogatory term. It implies injustice and inequality, it implies military occupation and a systematic violation of the rights of the territory's inhabitants, and it implies racist motivations on the part of the metropolis. This can be very offensive to those who live on one of these territories and is not accurate historically or factually. There are very few territories today that are colonies according to the definition of the word and examination of what colonies actually were when they were more prevalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.120.39 (talk • contribs) 20:05, December 16, 2010‎


 * Great thinking, but now what remains to be done is to expand on those thoughts, and do so in a nonbiased fashion: POV, whether for or against, is not permitted in the encyclopedia. Also be aware that this is not Wiktionary. You have pointed out some characteristics of a colony. Great, that can be expanded on - with Reliable Source citations. Also consider that if the definition "is very loose" it might be for a reason: The definition in teh real world, may have changed with time, for example, as the colonial powers have felt the international pressure build against that sort of political territory. Some authorities have stated that we live in an era of neocolonialism; that could be explored as well. But to state that one place is or is not a colony without providing citations for claims made is not acceptable in the encyclopedia: Encyclopedic content must be WP:verifiable.  My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Colony is not a derogatory term and it does not necessitate "injustice and inequality, military occupation and a systematic violation of the rights of the territory's inhabitants, and racist motivations on the part of the metropolis". It simply means (as your dictionary definition states) a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state, or the territory they occupy.  Now, lots of colonies involved all those negative things you mentioned (especially those established by the colonial empires - because that's what empire tends to involve), and they need to be discussed, but they are not fundamental parts of what "colony" actually means. Iapetus (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled across this discussion. I've added a missing sig above, and thereby see that this builds on part of a 2010 discussion (see this edit). As it happens, I came on this discussion immediately after making this edit to a discussion somewhat in the same vein on another article talk page. That brought to mind the examples of British colonies in America and Australia, which had somewhat similar impact on pre-colonial indigenous inhabitants. Other American colonial examples also come to mind (the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Marshal Islands, ...), and those examples include the example of Palmyra Atoll. It doesn't seem to me that the term colony can be taken to imply injustice and inequality, military occupation, systematic violation of the rights of the territory's inhabitants, and/or racist motivations on the part of the metropolis in that case, though some of those characterizations may apply in other cases. Easter Island comes to mind as another example where those characterizations may not apply. It seems to me that the assertion that the term colony necessarily implies any or all of these is incorrect. It seems to me that it would be more correct to say that it is possible to infer any or all of these from the use of the term, but that the use of the term does not necessarily imply any of these things; that such an inference may or may not be correct in any individual case. I think that the definition of the term given in this article's lead sentence is a good one, though I think it might be better, instead of "... state ." to say "... sovereign state or a political subdivision or colony of such a state." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction
"In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state."

conflicts with

"Few colonies in the traditional sense of the term remain, with exceptions listed below", and the listings in the other sections.

Very few of those territories listed below - particularly under the "Current colonies" section - are territories "under the immediate political control of a state". Those that are are not plausibly colonies. In many of those entities, the word "colony" is highly emotionally-charged, and it is not neutral to use the description without qualification.

The area I know best is the British Overseas Territories. Most of them would argue that their status has moved far beyond the colonial and is currently based on principles such as self-determination (which colonialism has traditionally precluded). The article claims that they are "Crown Colonies", even though there hasn't been any such thing as a Crown Colony for over thirty years. It claims that they are "managed by Governors", which is a bit like saying that Canada is managed by the governor-general. All in all, it's pretty dire - and totally unsourced.

My own proposal is to ditch the entire list of current "colonies", as highly subjective and riddled with inaccuracy. I also suggest we restrict the other lists, if we keep them at all, to those entries that we can actually source. I have for now removed all the entries on the current list that are entirely unsourced, per WP:BURDEN, sources are required for any to be included, and care needs to be taken to ensure that inclusion is neutral. Kahastok talk 20:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. The Taiwan historical example is particularly debatable. CMD (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's debatable about the Taiwan example? Is there a specific part you find inaccurate? -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Given there were only two entries on the "Current colonies" list (Western Sahara and Puerto Rico), a set I don't think anyone thinks is correct, I eliminated that list entirely and referred readers to Dependent territory and United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. If there are other relevant and notable lists, they should be added as well. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference to "Han colonialization of Taiwan"
Whether the Ming-Qing rule can be called "colonial" is questionable. Taiwan is not treated differently from other places under Ming-Qing rule politically. i.e. Taiwanese are not second-class citizens under Ming-Qing rule. Moreover, Han already outnumbered aborigines in Taiwan (70,000 vs. 50,000) in 1864, when Qing took over. Therefore Han Chinese is not exactly "invaders". They are more like immigrants that outnumber aborigines, who eventually gained the upper hand. It's OK to include Taiwan aborigines's view that Taiwan is "colonized" by Han, but that is not the dominant view, and Wikipedia shouldn't write that way.

If Han can be said to colonize Taiwan, then by the same logic, Westerners can be said to colonize Americana. The latter would certainly deserve more coverage(e.g. include other colonies in central and south America) in this article. Happyseeu (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Europeans did colonise the Americas. Colonisation is a form of immigration. Every other example in the list is of European colonisation. What more coverage do you think is needed? Additionally, you shouldn't change direct quotations. CMD (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire south and central American are colonized, but many of them are not included in the list e.g. Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, etc.

In Asia, Burma, Korea and Vietnam are also colonies but not in the list.

Putting a very incomplete list, while covering Taiwan more than any other colonies, many of which are larger and more populous than Taiwan, seems out of portion w/o justification.

I disagree with your definition of colony as well, but I digress.

In conclusion, describing Han colonized Taiwan is POV, not NPOV, and if stated, should be attributed to specific proponents(Joe says...). You should also present evidence that the quoted source is a reliable source so it's worth quoting(not every random source is worth quoting in Wikipedia). It shouldn't be stated as if its the majority view of scholars. Happyseeu (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the source is reliable, changing a direct quote from it is simple bad practice (and as a Columbia University publication, I'd assume it falls on the side of reliable). If you want to reduce the length of the Taiwan entry, or increase the lengths of others, propose that. As for missing entries, this list is hardly comprehensive (imagine the length). Add more Asian examples if think they are needed. CMD (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Colony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610210536/http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-4-c.html to http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-4-c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cabo Juby and Ifni
The map does not show the Spanish territories of Cabo Juby (Spanish Protectorate of Morocco) or Ifni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeri2003 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

US States
All American states are colonies of DC. "these united States" were formally referred to in the plural. Wodenhelm (Talk) 02:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If all American states were colonies of DC, it would imply that the state or country DC is the controlling party, or that it at least has more power than all the other American states. However DC voters actually have less representation in the American government (they don't get to choose any voting Representatives or Senators but they do get to vote for the president - they're similar to Guam or Puerto Rico).   A better question would be whether DC is a colony. Readin (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The people of Britain did not control the American colonies; its government did. The government in DC controls all of the states, as well as DC's citizens, as well as all the various territories that are intentionally forgotten about. Let's also not forget how the USA invaded and seized other nations (the CSA, various Native American nations, Hawaii, etc...) Wodenhelm (Talk)] 02:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * D.C. is the capital of a federation of sovereign states, created by some of those states when they were completely autonomous. D.C. is not by itself a sovereign country that has conquered and colonized other lands. A colony would have limited or no representation in the controlling government; the federal government is composed exclusively of representatives selected by the states or their peoples. -- Beland (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That might have been the case at one time, but it certainly no longer is. Wodenhelm (Talk) 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If anything it would be the other way around, except that DC can't be a colony because it's the country's capital city. It is a very strange case, but you seem to have DC confused with Ancient Classical city-states that founded empires. It is not that. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove Puerto Rico
Puerto rico is not a colony. In 1952, after Puerto Rico was granted commonwealth status, the United States advised the United Nations (UN) that the island was a self-governing territory. However, dissatisfaction with the island’s political status continued. A commission appointed by the U.S. Congress concluded that three options—commonwealth, statehood, or independence—should be considered in a plebiscite, which was held in July 1967. The majority PPD supported the plebiscite, but it was boycotted by the pro-statehood and independence parties. The result showed that 60.4 percent of the electorate supported commonwealth status, 38.9 percent statehood, and 0.6 percent independence. Puerto Ricans do not consider it as US colony. Tribal007 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Scholars consider Puerto Rico a colony. there were over 4 thousand scholarly articles and books on that topic published in 2020-2021 alone. see this listing Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are thousands of scholars who do not consider puerto rico as not a colony. At least add it is part of Commonwealth of USA. Tribal007 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)