Talk:Decolonization/Archive 2

Requested move (2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Decolonization → — Decolonisation is a term that relates more to countries other than the United States. Also, any translation to English is to English, not American English. This article uses mixed spelling of the word which is an issue on its own, to resolve this issue I believe that 'decolonisation' is the spelling to use. MrTranscript (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support While the -ize suffix is perfectly legitimate in British English (see here), it is nevertheless true that the -ise suffix is the more commonly used both in Britain in modern times and in former British territories where decolonisation took place, as a result of the legacy of British rule. Although the US did engage in some colonialist activity (see American Colonization Society for example), they were relatively minor when compared with British colonialism. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, per above, as colonisation was enormous in Britain compared to America. Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. According to WP:ENGVAR, we preserve the original spelling of articles, and this one has used the -ization spelling since it was started in 2003. The argument for a move proceeds from WP:TIES ("An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation."), and states that "decolonization" was primarily connected to areas using British spellings. I don't think that's a tenable argument, since the United States were intimately connected to the events of decolonization after World War II, themselves had a large overseas possession decolonized at the period (the Philippines), and the American Revolution was itself arguably a "decolonization". As an indication, Google Scholar suggests that decolonization is used more often in the academic literature than decolonisation. This does not nearly rise to the level of the examples given in WP:TIES. Ucucha 18:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I don't think you can equate the decolonisation that took place in Asia, Africa and the Americas with the American Revolutionary War, which was a political and ideological conflict, rather than ethnic or racial. The Philippines did become an American territory, but there was never a coherent policy of decolonisation. With regard to the google hits, I would suggest the greater use of decolonization is because of the importance of American scholarship internationally, and does not represent the scholarship of countries which were colonised. With regard to WP:TIES, please see below, as I think that has priority over WP:ENGVAR in this case. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Good points, but I stand by the fact that any translation around the world to English would be to English itself, not a regional variation of English. MrTranscript (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that argument? You seem to be implying that British English is "English itself" and American English a "regional variation", which is not a good idea, and not what ENGVAR says. Ucucha 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course American English and British English are both legitimate forms of the English language – as are all forms of English. Yet you seem to be the missing the point that there is a clear case of WP:TIES; not only does British English use -isation suffix, but so does Indian English (example), Zimbabwean English (example), Namibian English (example), Malaysian English (example), Nigerian English (example), and most other forms of English of countries that actually experienced colonisation. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:ENGVAR is clear about how we treat the different types of English, and the convention is to avoid frivolous issues such as this. As for WP:TIES, decolonisation occurred in many different colonial empires. &mdash;innotata 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think this is a clear case of WP:TIES. Of the English-speaking countries of the world, only the United Kingdom and the colonies which comprised the British Empire went through a major process of decolonisation. Please see here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for all reasons stated so far. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Decolonisation is related a lot more to the UK and Commonwealth nations which use 'ise' 94.170.21.159 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - So I presume this opposition silence is consensus? Given the date. MrTranscript (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. The article started using US English and should remain that way.  There is no case made as to why we should ignore WP:ENGVAR. For those that argue that this is more British then American, that may be true, but does not dictate that we change which regional version of English is used. As to the comment, So I presume this opposition silence is consensus? Given the date. , whateer that means.  Decisions are based on the strength of comments and policies and guidelines. Not who has the last word. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's good to hear the arguments from all those with an opinion on this move request. As for what you say, I think WP:ENGVAR is generally a good policy to apply on Wikipedia – all versions of English are of equal value, and for articles where geography is irrelevent (eg. Color) there is absolutely no reason to make a move. This case is different, because this subject of colonisation and decolonisation is far more important to the UK and its former colonies, whose varieties of English generally follow the British form in this instance, than it is to the US. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is a COLONY, Decolonization and Decolonisation
The article currently misses the entire focus of Decolonization since the 20th century. A "colony" is essentially an illegal situation as agreed by the majority of the planet which formed and joined the United Nations, and Decolonization is a fundamental obligation of the United Nations and every nation which becomes a member of the United Nations. This is the first time in history that there has been world agreement that colonization should not continue. The spelling used at the UN is the American spelling. What is a colony? - it took 15 years for the UN to agree which it did in UN General Assembly Resolution 1541, principles 4 and 5; it is a requirement under 73e of the UN charter that colonial powers transmit information about their colonies. The UN has two loony lists of still-colonised and decolonised nations. The UN also agreed on how colonies should be treated, resolution 1514. Did Portugal really kill 200,000 East Timorese between 1975 and 2002, or was somebody else the colonial power? (No! Indonesia did: it invaded East Timor, in the 7th of December of 1975. It was Portuguese territory. There was already legislation to give independence in the 15th of October of 1978. But there was a communist uprising among the solders and the officers of the Portuguese army lost the control and escaped to the small island of Ataúro. The communists of FRETILIN made a unilateral declaration of independence in the 28th of November of 1975. That is why Indonesia - with the approval of the USA - occupied East Timor.) I suggest that a "territory" can NOT be a colony, it's the people and their rights over their lands and families (sovereignty) which is colonised; just something to think about.211.30.196.26 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern approaches to decolonization
As well as reading like an essay, this section is decidedly non-neutral in tone, with unsupported sweeping generalisations such as "militaries are strong and civil control over them is weak; a holdover of military control exercised by a foreign military" and "... alcohol and tobacco that colonial governments introduced, often as a way to tax locals": this latter is contradicted, for example, by the experience of Papua New Guinea, where alcohol was forbidden to locals while the territory was administered by Australia and where the free availability of alcohol became a minor symbol of self-assertion post-independence. Though presumably the author of this section would class that with blue shirts and pith helmets (?!) as yet another "subtle impact" of colonialism. Jimmy Pitt  talk  11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased Article
The author of the article seems to have pasted the entire article from some sort of Marxist diatribe on the West, probably one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The section 'Effects on the former colonies' linking to 'Third World debt' is both ludicrous and simplistic.Twobells (talk)

Post-colonial organizations: Organisation internationale de la Francophonie
I was surprised to see Romania and Bulgaria in the map of Francophonie members, as I wasn't aware that they were French colonies. Investigating further, I discovered that several other SE-European countries are members too, so the map needs correcting. I think the text also needs to note that not all members are former colonies. Iapetus (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlike in the case of the Commonwealth, membership to the Organisation de la Francophonie is not linked to the former colonial status of member states but rather to their alleged attachment to the French language and culture. Therefore, countries that were never French colonies, such as Romania, Albania, Mozambique, Thailand may become full members or associate members. (That less than 0.5% of the general population of some of those countries can speak French is apparently irrelevant....)


 * The two richest members - France and Canada/Québec - pay more than 80% of the huge budget so not-so-rich-countries like Bulgaria, Cambodia, Egypt, Albania, Vietnam pretend they (still) love the French language and their delegates get junket trips to Paris, Quebec City or Brussels or Dakar all paid by France/Canada. --Lubiesque (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"courial"?
I don't know the word "courial", when I Google it, Google assumes I meant another word, and when I insist that I meant "courial", I get all results to be copies of this page. I feel like that word should be defined or changed to a word more familiar to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.128.195.227 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Decolonization as an academic specialisation?
I've just added Linda Tuhiwai Smith to Category:Decolonisation because there didn't seem to be a specific cats for people who study this. Or am I looking in the wrong place? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased account of what constitutes bias
This statement wrongly implies that a "western perspective" is inherently biased. "As a philosophy, "decolonization" refers to the ability to view and discuss non-European cultures from an unbiased, non-Western perspective.[1][2]" The language makes reductive and unfounded assumptions of what a "western perspective" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.135.116 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Case of unrecognised- partially recognised states
Shouldnt there be an article about them as well. It is a growing problem especially in Europe and post-USSR sphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.36.211 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Say what?
from the section on US decolonization:


 * the French were allowed to support the Mexican monarchy*.

During the period in question, the US was fighting the most casualty intensive war of its history, and Gen Sherman still managed to *lose* 30,000 weapons near the Mexican border for pick up by the Republic of Mexico forces, the guys fighting for Juarez and against the French. Allowed? Cause Lincoln was too busy, I guess. One war at a time.

Only one example, but this section needs a rework by someone who doesn't start with a reference to conquest and national consolidation in an article about colonization, decolonization. I realize its all the fashion now to confuse them, but colonization and conquest are not the same thing, and 19th century USA was all about the conquest of the mainland territory (and quite open about it).

The rest of the section is just confused. Seriously, just a confused mishmash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the end of France's colonial empire
Hi, I started an RFC on when should we said the French colonial empire ended. It's at Talk:French_colonial_empire. Please comment there if you can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Decolonization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140103204753/http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v1/4/3.htm to http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v1/4/3.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090610210536/http://www.crf-usa.org:80/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#
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110514204944/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Chinese casualties under Japanese colonial administration
I recently made an edit to part of the Japan section that was promptly removed by another user. I can't be bothered to get into a fight about it, but I thought it was worth noting here that the quoted figures are hotly disputed and should not be read as verified fact.

There really should be a sentence inserted to inform readers that there are many conflicting reports of casualty numbers, most of which are issued by authorities with vested interests in exaggerating the casualty figures in one direction or another. It ill befits the article to quote one side's statistics without acknowledging the others.

Perhaps someone else will have more luck than me in implementing this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.175.223 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Decolonization. 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/20120925173116/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/13/IMG/NR008613.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/13/IMG/NR008613.pdf?OpenElement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514234116/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/153/15/IMG/NR015315.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/153/15/IMG/NR015315.pdf?OpenElement
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-4-c.html%23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Decolonization Thinkers
This page should include a section dedicated to thinkers of decolonization, namely Franz Fanon, Michael Hardt, Michel-Rolph Trouillot, etc. The beginning of this page briefly mentions how decolonization manifests itself as a psychological mentality and there should be a section dedicated to philosophers with different perspectives on the decolonization process. On another note, it might also be helpful to have a section dedicated to how decolonization ideas are communicated through media, namely science fiction films or music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweisw (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

United States as decolonised OR as coloniser
Why would the US ever be considered an act of decolonisation? The US Revolution was one of not decolonisation but of civil war and dare I say fascism (when you fight to create a country on the backs of slaves and instil racist hierarchical structures into its fabric). The US is a colonial force of many Turtle Island or North American countries. Like Blackfeet's "Niitsítpiis-stahkoii," or the Six Nations' "Haudenosauneega," or Mi'kmaq's "Wôbanaki" (aka Dawnland), or "Anishinaabewaki" the country of the Great Lakes/of Anishinaabeg (Ojibwe, Chippewa). Or Cherokee's "Tsalaguwetiyi." Or "Chahta Yakni" or "Chikashsha Yaki" of Choctaw and Chickasaw, respectively.

These were and are countries. They had and have legal systems, political systems, governments, clearly defined territories, clearly defined protocols for who can/cannot be in their countries, etc. While there was freedom of movement and no hard boundaries, Blackfeet and Secwépemc and Haudenosaunees and Kwakwaka'wakw and others all know perfectly well what their country is, what others' countries (especially their neighbours) are and who is allowed/was allowed to be there without ruffling any feathers. And while the political systems were decentralised and very foreign to Europeans, that does not make them less political nor less organised. These were not States because they were not Westphalian in terms and agreements. These were not Nations because a "nation" is simply a people and its systems (no territories). These were not Nation-States because they did not try to assimilate people into a singular Nation connected to the State (okay, Haudenosaunees did, but they have five then six then nine constituent nations, and they assimilate into the separate nations so perhaps Haudenosauneega and similar could have been considered Nation(s)-States or Nation(s)-Countries, but I digress)

There should be articles for the clearly defined Indigenous countries at the very least. Wabanaki Confederacy, Dinétah, Newe Segobia, Secwepemcúl̓ecw, Haudenosauneega, the Inuit Nunangat, Denendeh, the Comanchería (Nʉmʉnʉʉ Sookibotʉ) and others are clearly countries and well known enough to warrant sections. The division of Nunavut and the increased power to Kanaka of Hawaii are good examples of North American decolonisation.. but the Indian Reserve and Indian Reservation systems are Bantustans to a terrible degree and are simply the last recognised remnants of their countries auctioned off to certain bands/families/nations/tribes of the former countries

I agree that in the article decolonization needs to be better differentiated to independence, because independence must not be synonymous with decolonization. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary in introduction
Mavs2019 has added the following at the end of the introduction, but was taken out because of poor text quality: "Recently, decolonization – or terms like Decoloniality – has been taken up anew by e.g. thinkers and social movements in Latin America and student movements in South Africa ."

I propose to cut it down to the following: "Issues of decolonization persist and are raised contemporarily. In Latin America and South Africa such issues are increasingly discussed under the term decoloniality." Nsae Comp (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What is contemporarily? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

An adverb and in the oxford dictionary. Please be more constructive. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)