Talk:Decolonization of the Americas

Untitled
By decolonize I would understand people leaving/abandoning the Americas. Would decolonialization not be more appropriate? --128.176.76.97 18:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I am neutral towards this proposed move since there also is Decolonization of Africa --Astrokey 44 04:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Map error
I don't think it is correct to say that Alaska was decolonized by 1799. It was part of Russia, a European power, until 1867, at which time it became part of a country with its capital in the Americas. To anyone who is good with manipulating images: could the color of Alaska be changed? Thanks. Ufwuct 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * alright i have changed it to reflect this and other colonies too, such as New Spain, Spanish Florida, Mosquito Coast and French Louisiana, with the US part of Oregon Country grey as never been colonised. I think this is correct now --Astrokey 44 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenland
What about Greenland?, this article lacks of information about Greenlands current status. JC Febraury 26 2007, 8:15 (PST)
 * It's since been added to the article's list of non-sovereign territories. -- Beland (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

New Hampshire
New Hampshire declared independence in January 1776, six months before the United States of America was created with the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, New Hampshire, not the United States, was the first post-colonial sovereign country in the Americas.

Editing the article to reflect this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougOfDoom (talk • contribs) 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * History of New Hampshire actually specifically says that's not true. -- Beland (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * History of Rhode Island affirms Rhode Island declared independence before the United States as a whole. But this article gives the independence date as 1783, which is when it was actually recognized. And that happened at the same time for all thirteen colonies. Probably not worth a mention here. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Russians missing
There's a glaring gap in the absence of info on Russian colonization; Russian America and Fort Ross have different "expiry dates" and the lower-latitude extensions of Russian America (1799 and 1821) have yet to be dealt with; the problem in this region is that the colonial histories are intertwined, and it was ]]terrus nullius]] formally from 1818 to 1846 and parts of BC remain so today, in fact....I'll give a Russian section some thought, but still pondering various points about BC....I tried to stay NPOV but the legal facts did ahve to be included here; it's not a foregone conclusion that all BC First Nations will follow the path fo the Nisga'a Lisims government, either....Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a mention of Russian America to the intro. -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Peru
Recently there was some edit-revert action regarding Peru. Some insisted on using the date July 28, 1821, others - December 9, 1824. I support the 1824 date, as per History of Peru and Peruvian War of Independence and the infobox on Peru page - where 1821 is noted as "declared", but 1824 as "consolidated". A quote from Peruvian War of Independence: "...San Martín proclaimed Peruvian independence after reaching Lima the following year. Royalist strongholds remained throughout the country and in Upper Peru, so it was not until four years later that the Spanish Monarchy was definitively defeated at the Battle of Ayacucho" So the 1821-1824 period was the period of the war, and only after that independence was achieved (regardless of Peru declarations earlier or Spain recognition later).

Anyway, please, let's discuss things first here - before changing/reverting/etc. Alinor (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we put back 1824? Alinor (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Independence was declared in 1821, and José de San Martín is considered the first Head of State of independent Peru. It is not a matter of chosing between dates. The 1824 battle of Ayacucho was the last battle of south american independence wars, and thus the end of the royalist resistance. And the table shows declaration dates, not end-of-the-conflict dates (as it is clear by the USA example). I'm reverting again.


 * BTW, there are some other flaws regarding spanish american dates (i.e. Uruguay: battle of Las Piedras was not a declaration of independence) or colonial names (i.e. Bolivia at the moment of independence was de facto a part of Viceroyalty of Peru, since the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata was long inexistant -the colonial name of the region that is currently Bolivia was Upper Peru; i.e. Uruguay whose colonial name was Banda Oriental). But these are certainly debatable. The previous one, I'm afraid it is not.


 * --190.176.7.155 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted my reversal of Peru date, as I saw the USA date. Probably it would be better to clearly define what does "independence date" means, as the dates are not congruent (some are declaration dates, some are not). --190.176.7.155 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The same regarding "colonial names", some spanish colonies are named by Viceroyalty, others by (subordinated) Captaincies General (i.e Venezuela vs. Chile), some by other non-administrative division or no link to any colonial entity (i.e. Cuba). I'd choose the colonial regional names (Governorates, Captaincies, Audiences) for the more consistent examples of continuity between a historical regional and an emancipated state (Paraguay, Upper Peru, Banda Oriental, Captaincy General of Venezuela, Captaincy General of Cuba, etc.) --190.176.7.155 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be a consistency, but I am not sure we should disregard the higher-level administrative divisions. Could we make some arrangement like "Mosquito, New Spain" (not real example)? Alinor (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, that would be a fine solution. --190.176.7.155 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Colonial name of Central América
The name of central america during the colonial times wasn't the viceroyalty of new spain (México), this because it didn't belong to new spain it had it's own goverment and connection to Madrid via Antigua Guatemala (In that moment the capital of Guatemala and the rest of the general captaincy). Central america (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica) and Chiapas in that moment formely part of Guatemala belonged to the "Capitanía General de Guatemala" and it gained it's own independence the 15 of september of 1821. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.197.125.134 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Central American Independence fact
A related process took place in Spain's North and Central American territories with the Mexican War of Independence Mexico obtained it's independence In 1810. The Mexican army then entered Central America and helped achieve their independence in 1821 by a coalition uniting under the Mexican Army of Agustín de Iturbide and the Army of the Three Guarantees. Unity was maintained for a short period under the First Mexican Empire, but within a decade the region had also split into various nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loerad10 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Decolonization in Quebec
Many in the sovereignist movement in Quebec understood their cause as a part of the international process of decolonisation. I think it should be somehow noted in the Canada section. [] ThoMiCroN (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sint Maarten in the Caribbean belongs to the Netherlands
I noticed that the FRENCH part of Saint Martin is mentioned but not the Dutch half. Below is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for the Dutch owned part of the island:

Sint Maarten (Dutch pronunciation: [sɪnt ˈmaːrtə(n)]) is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands N0w8st8s (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)n0w8st8s
 * Both are now included. -- Beland (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange Alternate theory
The last few days edits contain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH andd a definite but strange alternate WP:POV regarding the US and decolonization. It flies in the face of the sourced info in the article and IMO does not belong there. The person using the IPs is free to post their theories in the many places available to them on the internet but, again, they do not belong here. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a strange theory -- it's what the question of being "decolonized" looks like from the point of view of the First Nations people, who have been under one form of colonial rule or another since Europeans arrived in the Americas. The anonymous contributor is absolutely correct -- the Americas will not be "decolonized" until the descendants of original occupants of the land regain sovereignty over their respective territories and enjoy the same level of self-determination enjoyed by the Europeans who colonized the hemisphere. I just wish the guy would write about it in a Wikipedia-approved manner with cites and sources instead of doing it in a way that is guaranteed not to stick. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay I take your point and have altered the title of the thread. Since the article supports the current academic approach to this subject I would think that a separate section would be needed rather than altering what already exists. BTW how is it going to be determined who the "original occupants" for each section of the country were. Migrations of the various peoples who were on this continent before Europeans arrived occurred over centuries. Add to that the fact various native groups pushed out, conquered and even enslaved other native groups the subject would need its own article to cover all of the details. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a white guy. Figuring out what meanings Native people make of their sovereignty and how they work out the issues they will have to confront is a question for First Nations people to deal with. As an uninvited guest in their house, I don't see why my opinions should be of any interest to them. PaulCHebert (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One further item. The IP(s) are only focusing on the US. Presumably the same criteria that PCH mentions applies to both North and South America. Seeing as there were indigenous groups (see Yaghan people} as far south as Tierra del Fuego before any Europeans arrived the entire structure of the article would have to change - not just the section for the US. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020
However, through a series of letters written by L'Ouverture, it became clear that he grew open to equal human rights for all that live in Haiti. The letters make clear that, similar to how the United States Constitution was ratified, the enlightenment ideas of equality and representation of the people created an impact of change against the status quo that sparked the revolution. The letters detail the great concerns L'Ouverture felt due to a conservative shift in France's legislature after the revolution in 1797. L'Ouverture's greatest fear was that these conservative values could give ideas to the French Government to bring back slavery. In the letters, L'Ouverture stated that the enlightenment has proven to forever change the way a captive society thinks after L'Ouverture refuses to let the French send him and his people back into slavery. For example, he says: "[W]hen finally the rule of law took the place of anarchy under which the unfortunate colony had too long suffered, what fatality can have led the greatest enemy of its prosperity and our happiness still to dare to threaten us with the return of slavery?" Ultimately, slavery was abolished from French colonies in 1794 and Haiti declared Independence from France in 1804. 2601:84:4601:A2D0:8CE4:CE29:ECFA:1DAB (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

como pt nao dividiu o br?o grao pa e ma separado do estado do br era o que as repartições do sul e norte isso nao explica a unidade imposta artificial forçada e sim a anexação a força pois muitas americas tugas nao queriam o br o rio e mercenarios da marinha inglesa anexaram a força ma pi ba pa etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.33.45 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

American independence being de-colonisation
Given the independence of America gave indepedence to the settler colonists and not the settled, and just led to increased colonialism in the Western part of the continent, can it really be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, the US was absolutely NOT the first "the first independent, foreign-recognized nation in the Americas" as the article claims with no citations. Many indigenous nations had been recognized as sovereign by Europe for AGES by 1776. Plus "the Americas" are not a monolithic place, and there were many, MANY Indigenous nations recognized as independent and sovereign by other indigenous nations for millennia before Europe ever came along. Delvethedragon (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Change the name?
Can we change the name to "Liberation of the Americas" to highlight the power and autonomy of the peoples of the Americas in their quest for self-determination against European despots? Peoples of the Americas chose to free themselves; Europe did not just let go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4C80:4EB0:60BE:DFCA:514C:6F27 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't like that idea. I think the current name is more general and seems more neutral. What do other people think? Mattsnod1993 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)