Talk:Decolonization

Dutch Formosa

If Dutch Formosa was a colony, it was, than it was decolonized in 1662. Dorromikhal (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs a better lead (summary)

Who's got time and energy to turn the lead into an actual summary of the article? Would be great. I'd do it myself if I had done more work on this article previously. EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Coming on here to agree with you, this article (two years later) still needs a better lead. If anyone is willing, that would be amazing. It is still pretty sparse and missing a lot of key points. VibrantInsect (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a disambiguation article?

I have added another term to the hatnote (Decolonization of knowledge), which seems to be emerging (I came to this article because I was searching for Decolonization of knowledge) and am just wondering if we should perhaps have a disambiguation page, as there are at least three different meanings of the term? EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Netherlands

A. Lacks sources. B. Written from an American stance, overplaying the USA's role in the independence of Indonesia. C. Have a look at both the Indonesian and Dutch equivalent pages for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.59.216 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

End Result is Utopia?

The lead states that 'The end-result of successful decolonization may equate to a form of Indigenous utopianism'. Is this making a claim about reality, i.e. that if and when indigenous societies are fully decolonised, they will become utopias, or is this simply a statement about decolonisation theory, or what indigenous people think will happen? It is not clear at all. LastDodo (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead is so unclear, both in itself and in its effect on the lead in general (i.e. bringing in other meanings of 'decolonization' without explicitly saying so), that I am tempted to remove it. But I won't do that yet, as I would like to give its defenders a chance to either improve it, or defend it here. LastDodo (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

LastDodo thanks for drawing attention to this. The lead is pretty bad. I would like to improve the lead with a better summary of the article, but I'm finding that a lot of the article needs work or outright removal, so I will work on that first. Please help if you're inclined. Larataguera (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I thank you for the effort and wish you luck! As for help, this is not my area of expertise, but I'll let you know if I see something I think is unclear or potentially wrong. But I'll give you a while to make your changes first. LastDodo (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent removals (Ottoman Empire,etc)

Most sources that I see don't apply a colonisation/decolonisation framework to the Ottoman Empire, and some explicitly state that it wasn't a colonial empire. Of all the material I removed, the only source I found that mentions decolonisation was this Phd disseration, which is interesting so I will leave it here, though it doesn't appear to have been published in a journal. Larataguera (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

After several other removals, I still think the article needs a lot of trimming. It also needs addition of more contemporary applications of the decolonisation framework. For example, relevance to climate change. The article mostly treats decolonisation as being relevant to independence movements in the late 20th century, but there's a lot more recent developments to include. I don't know if I'll have time for this, but anyway I'll wait in case there are objections to my recent changes Larataguera (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sure the European peoples the Ottomans ruled over would disagree with this assessment.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

American Independence movement

Does the opening sentence "Beginning with the emergence of the United States in the 1770s" and the third paragrpah stating that "the Thirteen North American colonies were the first colonies to break from their colonial motherland" really belong in a decolonisation article? The subsequent subsections on decolonisation in Spanish and Portuguese America as well as the rest of the British Empire detail the indepenednce movement themselves but no such details are given for the USA.

I get that political independence is a big factor in many countries de-colonization, and that the USA is recognised as the first modern colony to become an independent state, but how does that relate to deconolonisation? It just seems to me that these short editions should be expanded or removed. Cymrogogoch (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cymrogogoch, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. For a lot of people, decolonisation is almost synonymous with political independence of the colonies. So in that respect, mentioning the US as sparking that movement is relevant. There is of course a lot more to decolonisation; settler-colonialism in the US after independence is a big part of contemporary decolonisation debates. I think these contemporary interpretations are largely missing from this article.

I do think there is a lot that should be trimmed from this article, but I'm not sure the two paragraphs mentioning US independence should be taken out entirely. They could certainly be re-phrased, and there could be more helpful links than Atlantic history, which is relevant, but maybe a niche article? A link to American revolution would make more sense to me. A slight expansion of the way the American revolution influenced later decolonization movements (ie, through enlightenment ideology, etc) might be appropriate. That may be what someone was trying to do with the passage from Rise of the West, but it's unclear.

Hope that helps! Larataguera (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Larataguera, you raise some very interesting points. My issue is that opening of the Independence movements section, it starts with the American Revolution, before a pull quote on post-1945 independence movements and then finishes with a one sentence summary of the early international status of the USA. As you said, it's unclear why the "Rise of the West" quote is here, but the section as a whole seems to lack focus and I wanted more infomation on the Revolution's importance to decolonisation.

Obviously most of the discussion relating to decolonization will focus on the 20th and 21st centuries, so how did these early revolutions influence those later movements and decolonisation specifically? It would be nice to have more infomation on some of the points you raised, such as Atlantic history (specific to decolonisation) and the ideology of political revolutions and their contemporary interpretations.

I wonder if the best way forward may be to give the American Revolution it's own subsection (before the Hatian Revolution) to expand on the points you've raised and leave the Rise of the West quote where it is (maybe to be expanded also, although I appreciate this may not make the article "trimmer"!).

Happy to discuss futher but it's not a subject I personally have the knowledge to tackle, so I wanted to raise it for discussion with people such as yourself. Thanks again for the reply and points.Cymrogogoch (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Cymrogogoch. I re-wrote it. Ended up taking out Rise of the West. It was technically a primary source anyway (cited to the book itself rather than another scholar identifying that quote as the most meaningful quote from the book). This new version introduces with scholarship about independence movements more generally, followed by individual sections on each movement. If you're interested in trimming up some of the following sub-sections, please do. I think this whole section is much too long, and the more detailed information belongs in pages about the independence movements themselves. Hope this looks better to you! Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's a great edit that really improves the section lead in, thank you Larataguera for taking the time to do this.

I did look for some holistic or specific wiki articles that could be added as a "main article" or "see also", but I really don't think the Independence article would add anything to what you have described so well. I think that adding an explicit reference to Marxist perspectives, contemporary views on individualism and liberalism and especially decolonial scholarship really justifies the Independence movements section as a whole.

I also really appreciate the academic journal links (which is essentially what I was looking for in the first place). Again, thank you for all your time, help and infomation on this Lara. Cymrogogoch (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, The American Revolution is the exact opposite of a decolonial movement. It was a state formed by colonizers for the express purpose of doing even more colonialism. One of the most important motivations of the American Revolution was the British Empire's restriction on settlement west of the Appalachians in the aftermath of Pontiac's War. United States independence was an explicitly pro-colonial movement.

The background context for decolonizing movements should be anti-settler movements such as King Philip's War, Pontiac's War, etc. The Haitian Revolution is probably the best example of any of the Latin American independence movements.

Even if to the majority of people the term "decolonization" might mean the mere political independence of a former colony, I don't think it's a really fair way to understand the term nor do I think it's a very productive way to think about the term. I think that this really problematizes the entire article as similar arguments can be made about the independence movements in South America. These weren't exactly movements to end colonization and more movements for the settler population and political apparatus to colonize autonomously. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"the British Empire's restriction on settlement west of the Appalachians in the aftermath of Pontiac's War" The Royal Proclamation of 1763 prevented settlement in the Indian Reserve, but its effects were undermined by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768).: "American settlers pushing westward and opportunities for economic development turned the attention of investors and land speculators to the area west of the Appalachians. In response to demands by settlers and speculators, colonial authorities sought further land cessions from the Iroquois and Cherokee." Dimadick (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If decolonisation only refers to anti-settler movements, rather than to political independence, you'd have to remove the likes of India, Nigeria and frankly most European colonies from the discussion, as they were settled only lightly by Europeans and the movements against them were normally for political independence rather than ejection of those small number of Europeans present. LastDodo (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

And there's also the fact that the American colonies were controlled by the British government in important economic ways -much like Britain controlled the trade in the Kingdom of Ireland. Carpincho's issue seems that he/she can't wrap their mind around Americans being involved in an anti-colonial movement while also engaging in a fair amount of colonization themselves. Well, again we can turn to the situation in Ireland: despite having been colonized by Britain, the Irish were also involved in European colonialism overseas, including in the US. In fact several of the leaders of Ireland's 1798 Rebellion left for America and were involved in extermination campaigns against indigenous people and/or owned slaves.

There is nothing particularly paradoxical about people believing in their own right to autonomy and self-determination but not extending those same liberties to others. They are 'anti-colonial' insofar as they believe some people, but not all people, are deserving of freedom.[1] Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the actual point of this. There is nothing in my argument that implies people involved in decolonization movements could actually end up supporting colonialism elsewhere.

The Irish comparison is just completely different from the American context. Irish people were not colonizers in Ireland, they were the indigenous population of Ireland which was being colonized by the British. Their identity as indigenous victims of colonialism in Ireland is not incompatible with them deciding to join a colonial project elsewhere, especially when they had been absorbed into the British Empire.

Americans were not a colonized people, they are the colonizers. They were foreigners who imposed the rule of another nation, and eventually their own nation, on an indigenous population by forced displacement, mass murder, and land grabbing. For the Irish to fight against the British in Ireland is decolonization because they are fighting for the right to their own political, economic, and cultural autonomy as the indigenous people of Ireland. Many Irish people deciding to partake in settler colonialism for a variety of reason does not at all equate the Irish struggle with American colonialism.

For Anglo settlers to rid themselves of the yoke of British rule in North America has little to do with "decolonization" because they were not the ones being colonized. They are the colonizers. America's cultural identity and its origins are based firmly in being a settler colony. Dominant white American hegemonic cultural identity is based on being a colony of foreigners who were entitled to colonize North America, and in its foundation it exclusively enfranchised its settler population, explicitly demonstrating that being a colonist or a descendant of colonists was the American identity. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

My claim was never that decolonization only refers to anti-settler movements. India and Nigeria are not settler colonial states controlled by settler colonists. The difference is that India and Nigeria did not separate from the British Empire with the intent of continuing colonialism. (Whether or not they did so effectively is another conversation.) These were movements of indigenous populations gaining political autonomy as nation states in opposition to colonialism.

The United States in its founding was pro-colonialist, founded by colonists, and enfranchised colonists and their descendants exclusively. Economically, it still functioned as a settler colony in that it was focused on the implanting of settlers to displace or eradicate its indigenous populace and exploit its natural resources to the exclusive benefit of its settler population. Its main goal as a nation was to continue and even intensify settler colonialism.

White American cultural identity is also firmly based on identification with colonists. White Americans view themselves as colonists positively or negatively, and American history is most hegemonically framed from the perspective of a colonist identity that expects Americans to identify with colonists.

To imply "decolonizing" is just simply "no longer being a colony" is a ridiculously useless semantic that potentially conflates oppressors and the oppressed. Was it "decolonization" when the State of Israel was created and encouraged a mass colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? I don't think anyone involved in the study of colonialism would agree with such a basic and non-specific definition of decolonization. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you give this history another read because you're quite mistaken about the situation in Ireland and America. I'm not going to start posting quotes here as that would violate OR, but virtually every major thought leader of the American Revolution (AR), from Washington to Paine, compared the situation in the colonies to that of Ireland. When Harvard scholar Charles Howard McIlwain wrote a constitutional history of the AR (to determine whether it was a legislative contest or rebellion against monarchy), he used the judicial precedents issued by the English king and parliament against Ireland[2] The commercial restrictions used to control trade in the Americas (via taxation and export quotas) were the exact same mercantilist laws Ireland was subject to, and commercial freedom and legislative independence were at the heart of both the American Revolution and the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland -both regions were treated as appendages of England and governed almost identically.

Your point about "indigenous people" is also irrelevant -Ireland was part of the British Isles and not some far away exotic land in the Americas. It was colonized by the English in the 12th Century, and the descendants of those same colonists (and more recent colonizers) were involved in the rebellion against British rule in the Age of Revolutions. When Irish rebels wrote about their struggle in the 1790s, they compared it to that of the white American colonists and the French Revolution, not indigenous Americans or black Haitians. From Google's AI overview:

"When looking at the American Revolution's legal history in relation to Ireland at Harvard, scholars examine how the legal principles and arguments used by American revolutionaries, who were largely subject to British common law, resonated with Irish people who were also under British rule, potentially inspiring Irish calls for greater autonomy or even independence, particularly considering the shared grievances of taxation and political representation; this connection is often studied through the lens of legal texts and historical documents available at the Harvard Law School Library, which has extensive collections on both Irish and American legal history"

And also:

"The American Revolution significantly impacted Irish legal history by inspiring a growing movement for greater political rights and freedoms within the British Empire, particularly through the formation of the Irish Volunteers militia, who used the American model to advocate for legislative independence and eventually contributed to the later Irish rebellions against British rule, most notably the 1798 uprising led by the United Irishmen; this was largely due to the shared experience of being under British rule and observing the success of the American colonists in fighting for their rights."

In fact, some scholars have argued in the other direction: that it was the Irish who inspired the American colonists,[3] and not the other way around (this source even refers to the American Revolution as a decolonizing event). Patrick Griffin has also published a large scholarly volume on Ireland and America (Empire, Revolution and Sovereignty[4]).

So, in light of all this, I stand by the view that the American Revolution was a decolonizing movement, but from a strictly European, Enlightenment-era pov. Both Ireland and the American colonies were part of the British Empire's Atlantic World, and both the Irish and Americans were involved in colonization within this imperial network.

"White American cultural identity is also firmly based on identification with colonists."

It is not and that's got nothing to do with anything. Quoting Griffin's volume:

"The Americans and Irish freed themselves from the shackles of British imperial rule to become free, self-governing peoples. Their national histories have followed distinctive trajectories, but both claim a republican, anti-imperialist pedigree. The United States and the Republic of Ireland mobilized future citizens to overthrow the despotic rule of a foreign monarch and made themselves into modern nations." (Peter Onuf's chapter).

(You might also care to check the current demographics of the white American population, and particularly the large number of post-colonial European descendants.)

If anyone wants to use these sources to expand the American and Irish sections and perhaps clear up some of Carpincho's confusion, I'd fully support that move. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think anyone would approve an expanding of the article by citing Google AI results, and second of all whether or not two revolts against the British Empire inspired each other is irrelevant to the actual reality of their situations. At a basic level, you could most certainly say that the American Revolution showed that colonies had the power to organize and overthrow their ruling countries, and this certainly planted seeds of rebellion in colonized people. That does not however make the American Revolution decolonial. As you said yourself, Ireland was not some distant locale from the heart of the UK, a dramatically different situation from that of the 13 colonies.

British colonists did however hold a prototypical sentiment of savagery toward the people of Ireland, and some early American colonists actually compared the Native Americans they encountered to the Irish "savages" that British people in the motherland could relate to. Irish people over time may have developed an identification with whiteness as the concept developed and solidified, but the context of Ireland's colonization and the subjugation of Irish people in its origins was more similar to that suffered by indigenous Americans at the hands of British colonists.

Just because a source refers to the American Revolution as a "decolonizing event" doesn't make it true. I stand by that being an awful analysis, and to claim that they even claimed an "anti-imperialist pedigree" is absolutely laughable if you ignore the Native Americans they had every intention of imperializing since before the Revolution. Many founding fathers viewed the United States as a colony of European civilization and felt entitled to expand that territory and along the way murdering or "civilizing" the indigenous population. It hardly gets more imperialist than that. The only way you can skew the American Revolution as "anti-imperialist" is if you simply do not consider the valid existence of indigenous nations. Sure they were against an empire but that absolutely does not make it anti-imperialist at all.

Thomas Jefferson espoused imperialist ambitions and the continuation of colonialism in 1786 when he said that "our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North & South is to be peopled." This is quite literally the most bold-faced endorsement of imperialism and colonialism anyone could possibly make, and this is before Washington, who quite plainly described the country as an "empire," was even sworn in.

Yes, white Americans identify with colonists. Even if the majority of white Americans do not primarily descend from the pre-Revolution colonists, that is only relevant if you somehow think that the American Revolution made it so that the United States was no longer a settler colonial society.

As I mentioned before, the United States functioned and still functions as a settler colony, and the massive waves of European immigration were serving America's intention of fueling the settler colonial project, especially since for most of the country's history, it allowed almost exclusively Europeans to immigrate. The "nation of immigrants" is basically a polite way of saying a "nation of colonists," as the American Revolution and subsequent immigration opened the floodgates for more cessions of Native American territory and land grabs. Thomas Jefferson said that “the present desire of America is to produce rapid population, by as great importations of foreigners as possible.” Again, boldfaced settler colonialism espoused by someone considered by Americans to be one of the most important foundational figures in the country's history, especially in terms of the country's ideological foundation. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Either way this debate is probably just not going to be solved in a Wikipedia page and it likely won't be fruitful. I think all of our points are articulated, and I stand by my analysis. 🫡 CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your 'analysis' is venturing way off topic and ultimately it doesn't matter what you think. Those AI overviews? Those were nothing but succinct summaries to give you a background on what the sources I cited cover, and they back up everything I've posted here, point by point. Link 3 likens the American Revolution to the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland and calls them "decolonizing events"; claims the American colonists were inspired by Irish revolutionaries, and says the laws that were drafted for the American colonies were copied virtually verbatim from the laws governing Ireland. Link 4 is a large volume consisting of multiple subject experts who argued: 1) the Americans and Irish inspired each other's rebellions; 2) the laws governing the colonies were taken from judicial precedents for Ireland; 3) both the Irish and Americans were active in British imperial networks; and 4) despite point 3, both the Irish and Americans claim an anti-imperial heritage.

Those sources are relevant RSes and can certainly be used to expand the sections, if there's appetite for that. As to the rest of your post -you're not going to find a favorable reception unless you can produce reliable sources saying that "nation of immigrants" is a euphemism for "nation of colonists." And since this sounds more like polemic than a scholarly argument, multiple sources would be needed to establish this isn't merely your opinion. And even then, we'd be back to the original point that colonization and decolonization aren't mutually exclusive -you can be involved in both. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Source [49] directly disagrees with the thing it is cited for

the article claims that "Washington pushed hard to accelerate decolonization and bring an end to the colonial empires of its Western allies." and cites 'The United States and the Liquidation of European Colonial Rule in Tropical Africa, 1941-1963.' Not only is this source overly specified for the broad claim being made, but it also disagrees with the claim, saying "Studies of United States diplomacy in Africa reveal no consensus on the role played by the United States in the liquidation of European colonial rule in Africa. Thomas Noer (1985: 17, 64, 60) found that the Second World War image of the United States "as an anti-colonial advocate was inaccurate". Washington, he added, "was not prepared to exert strong pressure on the Europeans to divest themselves of colonies."" I personally would recommend removing that sentence, but failing that, at least give a proper source. More broadly, it seems large parts of the article were written from the inaccurate perspective of America as a staunchly anti-colonial advocate, and those parts should be reexamined for proper citations and accuracy. Hexifi (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have moved forward with the removal of this sentence, I recommend in the future others examine the accuracy of statements throughout this article on the American position on decolonization. Hexifi (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory paragraphs and weasel words.

From the lede: "Extending the meaning of decolonization beyond political independence has been disputed and received criticism."

From the section on decolonizing global health: "Global health, as a discipline, is widely acknowledged to be of imperial origin and the need for its decolonisation has been widely recognised."

Would the latter not be an example of "extending the meaning?" Or does the former simply mean that some particular extensions are more questionable than others?

In any case, the former sounds trivial as nearly everything involving colonialism has caused arguments at some point. 2603:7081:1603:A300:43F9:FBFF:AEE0:8483 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That definitely counts as extending the meaning. From the source, even the people using this language don't know what they mean: 'Experts participating in the symposium discussed what decolonizing global health means, how to decolonize it, and what criteria to apply in measuring its completion.' LastDodo (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Misleading lead image

The US is itself still colonizing the territory it occupies; however, the lead image lists the date of the original 13 colonies winning their war for independence from Britain. The image should be altered to indicate this mixed status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthomas2 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The same could be said of other places, perhaps many of them, so would rather complicate the matter. LastDodo (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopia in Lead Image

The image lists Ethiopia as having been independent since at least the XVIII century, but it was an Italian colony from 1936 to 1941 as part of Italian East Africa. 80.182.249.156 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

True but this is normally ignored in the context of colonialism, presumably because the occupation was so brief. The same applies to France, which was occupied by the Nazis between 1940 and 45 yet is also coloured blue. LastDodo (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No mention of Phoenician and Greek decolonization

Despite these being historically and conceptually quite important, a quick skim sees no mention of Carthage, Massilia, or countless others, despite Thucydides being alluded to.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If I had to briefly articulate, there wasn't a process of decolonization we'd describe as such because the colonization itself was a completely different process to distinct ends that didn't involve political and demographic domination of the countryside. Remsense ‥ 论 13:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This article suffers from the fact that its scope is unclear. And people will continue to argue over which empires and colonisations should be included as long as that remains the case. LastDodo (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Settler Colonial Studies

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CrumbyClawdad67 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MidModMary.

— Assignment last updated by Kkooala (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Partial revert of conflicting parties

@ZimZalaBim: I manually partially reverted this edit (which itself ras a reversal), which was a technical violation of my 1RR philosophy (see WP:Revert only when necessary for similar points of view). My rationale is that I believe that your revert more aimed at restoring the improved description of the earlier conflict (the so-called Sepoy Mutiny, following the bad old British habit of considering any opposition to any kind of British rule anywhere as 'insurrections'), and that you simply missed that the same edit misrepressented the conflicts at the time of independence from the British as a conflict between the "Hindu-Muslim" side and the "Muslim-Sikh" side (if you just read the text without applying any fore-knowledge as to what the main conflicts were in the Indian subcontinent at that time).

I thus believe that you have no opposition to my resolution of the (seeming) "compounds" Hindu-Muslim and Muslim-Sikh. If I'm wrong, then please revert my edit, but also consider whether you ypurself would like to add some other clarification. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)