Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Topic: "Countries" were neither colonized nor colonizer? Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 08:27 |
Originally posted by Komnenos
Ethiopian was never colonised by any European or non- regional power, and the brief period of Italian occupation in the late 30s can't really be called colonisation.
Even more remarkable when one considers that Ethiopia was a mainly Christian country since the 5th and 6th centuries, the only on left on the African continent after the Muslim Arabic expansion. |
Ethiopia may not have been a colonized country, but it was a colonizer. When the Italians, British and French divided up Somalia, Ethiopia got into the colonial game and made a land grab in Western Somalia. This is to this day (at least until the Somali government collapsed) a source of contention between Ethipia and Somalia.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 09:52 |
And the latest news is that some 300 Ethiopian troops popped over the border into Somalia the other day.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 11:17 |
Originally posted by Decebal
Perhaps we should define a "colony" since some people seem to be confused. My definition is a country or an area which is inhabited by a people which is different linguistically and culturally from the colonizer country, and where the colonizer has forcefully imposed a situation whereby the colonized country is forced to accept certain restrictions upon its trading, and where most of its economic surplus ends up in the colonizer country rather than in the colonized country itself. |
That's a workable definition. However
Originally posted by Zagros
I take colonising to mean making settlements in territories acquired (by whatever means).
|
which is also workable.
It has been traditional to call, for instance, Marseilles and Syracuse Greek colonies, but they don't fit the Decebal definition. Or take Australia (please ), another example of a colony as somewhere where surplus population is exported, so that the people are not distinct from the ruling people ethnically. New Zealand in fact was colonised by both the Maoris and the British.
There are also colonies that produced neither economic surplus for the home country nor a place to send settlers (e.g. Gibraltar, Malta, Aden), and indeed required financial support from the colonial power.
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 11:35 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Zagros' definition was "Well I take colonising to mean making settlements in territories acquired (by whatever means)."
Asia minor is 'Turkey' because large numbers of Turks settled there in the wake of military conquest.
|
Well, with one difference,Turks had settled in Anatolia but also designated Anatolia as their new hometown.
Now compare that to others...British colonization in Africa and Asia, French in Africa,Spanish in South America and the rest...
You gotta see the difference...It was more a conquest than a colonization.
Edited by Kapikulu - 19-Jun-2006 at 05:00
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 04:33 |
Originally posted by Kapikulu
Originally posted by gcle2003
Zagros' definition was "Well I take colonising to mean making settlements in territories acquired (by whatever means)."
Asia minor is 'Turkey' because large numbers of Turks settled there in the wake of military conquest.
|
Well, with one difference,Turks had settled in Anatolia but also designated Anatolia as their new hometown. |
Not all of them.
As a matter if side interest, when was Turkey first called 'Turkey' (or some equivalent)?
Now compare that to others...British colonization in Africa, Russian colonization in Siberia and Turkistan, French in Africa,Spanish in South America and the rest...
You gotta see the difference...It was more a conquest than a colonization. |
But it is more or less exactly like British colonisation in North America, Australia, New Zealand. And not too different from the Spanish in South America, actually.
|
|
Bashibozuk
Consul
Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 06:23 |
But it is more or less exactly like British colonisation in North America, Australia, New Zealand. And not too different from the Spanish in South America, actually. |
Well, Anatolia have been colonized (or settled) since ancient times by various peoples and civilisations. The most successful ones were the first IEs (Hittites, Pala, Luwians), then Greeks and finally Turks. So it was natural for the locals to get used to being assimilated...
But the thing is, if you are to compare Turks settling in Anatolia as a whole with later colonisers (like British, Spanish etc.) or earlier colonisers (like Greeks, Phoenicians), you should mention how they sound similar to you. Turks have settled but have been assimilated "in" Anatolia, that's why we don't live in nomadic tents or make shoarma with horse meat now. But after the British colonisation, what's left from Northern American native culture and civilisation, except a few state names?
But if you are to blame Turks with colonisation (actually invasion), you may refer to Balkans, Arabia, Egypt etc., despite that is not called colonisation, but invasion. If that is colonisation, than there's no nation in the world except a few extinct ones who have never colonised anywhere.
when was Turkey first called 'Turkey' (or some equivalent)? |
I guess after the first crusaders arrived in Anatolia. But nobody calls America as Britain, Paraguay as Spain or Palestine as Greece today. Actually colonised places doesn't get the name of their colonisers, I guess the only exception is Magna Graecia.
Edited by Bashibozuk - 18-Jun-2006 at 06:23
|
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 10:13 |
Originally posted by Decebal
Perhaps we should define a "colony" since some people seem to be confused. My definition is a country or an area which is inhabited by a people which is different linguistically and culturally from the colonizer country, and where the colonizer has forcefully imposed a situation whereby the colonized country is forced to accept certain restrictions upon its trading, and where most of its economic surplus ends up in the colonizer country rather than in the colonized country itself. |
All known definitions of "colony" also imply a substantial geographical distance from the "motherland". Occupied territories which are adjacent to a "motherland" do not really fit that description.
To establish a colony, one needs a well defined "motherland" from where colonisation took place.
Migrating people do not establish colonies, they establish newly settled areas. To speak of Anatolia as a Turkic colony is nonsense, as much as it would be if you call the Vandal kingdom in North-Africa a "Germanic" colony.
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 10:48 |
I totally agree with Komnenos here.
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 14:12 |
Yes, but I wasn't referring to Anatolia as much as I was referring to the Balkans for example as a Turkish colony.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 14:20 |
Can you name any person from British colonies who came to power in British government?
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 16:43 |
Originally posted by Komnenos
Originally posted by Decebal
Perhaps we should define a "colony" since some people seem to be confused. My definition is a country or an area which is inhabited by a people which is different linguistically and culturally from the colonizer country, and where the colonizer has forcefully imposed a situation whereby the colonized country is forced to accept certain restrictions upon its trading, and where most of its economic surplus ends up in the colonizer country rather than in the colonized country itself. |
All known definitions of "colony" also imply a substantial geographical distance from the "motherland". Occupied territories which are adjacent to a "motherland" do not really fit that description.
To establish a colony, one needs a well defined "motherland" from where colonisation took place.
Migrating people do not establish colonies, they establish newly settled areas. To speak of Anatolia as a Turkic colony is nonsense, as much as it would be if you call the Vandal kingdom in North-Africa a "Germanic" colony. |
Definitely agreed...Vandals are a great example that fits into your explanation,too.
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 20:22 |
Originally posted by barish
Can you name any person from British colonies who came to power in British government? |
Just because a select few Greeks and Albanians held high positions in the Ottoman government, that doesnt' mean that their respective peoples were not occupied and economically exploited by a foreign government. Are we going to get in yet another debate about supposedly how egalitarian the Ottoman government was?
Just accept it: the Ottomans were colonizers just like the British and the Russians. Simply the term "Empire" should be a strong indication of that...
Edited by Decebal - 18-Jun-2006 at 20:23
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 04:25 |
Originally posted by Bashibozuk
But if you are to blame Turks with colonisation (actually invasion), you may refer to Balkans, Arabia, Egypt etc., despite that is not called colonisation, but invasion. If that is colonisation, than there's no nation in the world except a few extinct ones who have never colonised anywhere.
|
I wasn't 'blaming' Turks with colonisation since I don't see anything necessarily wrong with colonisation. A lot of colonial practices have been abhorrent but they don't have to be.
when was Turkey first called 'Turkey' (or some equivalent)? |
I guess after the first crusaders arrived in Anatolia. But nobody calls America as Britain, Paraguay as Spain or Palestine as Greece today. Actually colonised places doesn't get the name of their colonisers, I guess the only exception is Magna Graecia.
|
So 'Turkey' was not given the name of the Turkish 'motherland'? Otherwise I guess it would have to have been called 'New Turkey' like 'New England' was and is. (Or New Zealand, New Britain and, in point of fact 'New Spain' which is what the Spanish American coloniial empire was called.)
Mostly giving a colony the same name as the colonising country would just be confusing. So you have to stick 'New' or some other qualifier like 'Magna' in front of it.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 04:33 |
Originally posted by barish
Can you name any person from British colonies who came to power in British government? |
Lord Beaverbrook comes immediately to mind as the most politically important.
However there are number of people from the former colonies now in Parliament and in the present government.
(And that's not counting the Scots .)
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 04:39 |
Originally posted by Kapikulu
All known definitions of "colony" also imply a substantial geographical distance from the "motherland".
|
Like say, Istanbul to Algiers? Or isn't that substantial enough?
To speak of Anatolia as a Turkic colony is nonsense, as much as it would be if you call the Vandal kingdom in North-Africa a "Germanic" colony. |
True they are very similar. But it's quite sensible to call both of them 'colonies'.
Pretty well everything in the world is, in point of fact, an African colony.
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 04:59 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
All known definitions of "colony" also imply a substantial geographical distance from the "motherland".
Like say, Istanbul to Algiers? Or isn't that substantial enough?
To speak of Anatolia as a Turkic colony is nonsense, as much as it would be if you call the Vandal kingdom in North-Africa a "Germanic" colony.
True they are very similar. But it's quite sensible to call both of them 'colonies'.
Pretty well everything in the world is, in point of fact, an African colony.
|
Those were written by Komnenos, but as I agree to his views, I will reply too...
About Algiers,you are right, that can be mentioned as a colony,though for my view, a colonised area is a place without a land connection to the borders of that empire...Therefore, for specific examples of Russia and Ottoman Empire, I believe the places they invaded are more like "conquests" than colonies...
About the second part, can you define the meaning of motherland if Anatolia was a colony for Turks, Africa was a colony for Vandals..Then Spain was a colony for Visigoths, Italy was for Ostrogoths, Britain for Anglo-Saxons etc.
Edited by Kapikulu - 19-Jun-2006 at 05:01
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 05:58 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Like say, Istanbul to Algiers? Or isn't that substantial enough?
True they are very similar. But it's quite sensible to call both of them 'colonies'.
Pretty well everything in the world is, in point of fact, an African colony.
|
The word "colony" or "colonising" also implies that the two cultures, the invading and the indigenous, are so alien to each other that the first will implement a completely new cultural system onto the latter, as in all examples of classical and modern colonisation.
This certainly has not been the case in the Turkish conquest of Arabic Northern-Africa. It was a simple exchange of government without great cultural disturbances, as both the Ottoman Empire and the North-African states belonged to the same Islamic cultural sphere.
I'm not quite sure if this a simple semantic discussion, brought upon by various definitions of "colony", or anything else.
I can only say that with my definition of "colony" the Ottoman Empire certainly was not a state that undertook colonising efforts, which, as all the other great European powers start to seriously colonise the rest of the world when the Ottoman Empire was at it's zenith, it probably should have done in order to compete.
Maybe the history of the Empire and the World would have been a tiny bit different if the Ottomans had established colonies in SE and East Asia exactly there, where the other Europeans did.
Edited by Komnenos - 19-Jun-2006 at 06:00
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 14:34 |
Originally posted by Kapikulu
Originally posted by gcle2003
All known definitions of "colony" also imply a substantial geographical distance from the "motherland".
Like say, Istanbul to Algiers? Or isn't that substantial enough?
To speak of Anatolia as a Turkic colony is nonsense, as much as it would be if you call the Vandal kingdom in North-Africa a "Germanic" colony.
True they are very similar. But it's quite sensible to call both of them 'colonies'.
Pretty well everything in the world is, in point of fact, an African colony.
|
Those were written by Komnenos, but as I agree to his views, I will reply too...
About Algiers,you are right, that can be mentioned as a colony,though for my view, a colonised area is a place without a land connection to the borders of that empire...Therefore, for specific examples of Russia and Ottoman Empire, I believe the places they invaded are more like "conquests" than colonies...
|
So you wouldn't have considered Indo-China a French colony? Or Macao a Portuguese one?
The very oldest example I can think of of a place that was actually called a colony and still has the name is in Germany. And the self-designated colonisers were Romans. Land all the way.
I don't see that land connection or distance have anything to do with it. The essential character of a colonial situation is that one group of people have come from somewhere else and taken the place over, and are ruling it, possibly but not necessarily settling there.
About the second part, can you define the meaning of motherland if Anatolia was a colony for Turks, Africa was a colony for Vandals..Then Spain was a colony for Visigoths, Italy was for Ostrogoths, Britain for Anglo-Saxons etc. |
It was Komnenos whop introduced the concept of "motherland", not me. As far as I am concerned it would just mean the territory the colonists came from. I don't think there is such a thing as a mystical "motherland" - i.e. a land that gave birth to a people.
And yes, I go with calling all those situations colonial ones.
Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Jun-2006 at 14:35
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 15:01 |
Originally posted by Komnenos
The word "colony" or "colonising" also implies that the two cultures, the invading and the indigenous, are so alien to each other that the first will implement a completely new cultural system onto the latter, as in all examples of classical and modern colonisation.
|
I can go part way with that in that the two cultures, nations, races or whatever must be distinct. But 'so alien to' raises the difficulty of quantification.
This certainly has not been the case in the Turkish conquest of Arabic Northern-Africa. It was a simple exchange of government without great cultural disturbances, as both the Ottoman Empire and the North-African states belonged to the same Islamic cultural sphere.
|
You see you now have to say 'without great cultural disturbance'. How great does it have to be? They spoke different languages, for instance. Moreover North Africa was already colonial - the Arabs certainly introduced a great cultural difference.
And isn't someone who takes over a colony still a coloniser? Otherwise you'd have to say that South Africa wasn't a British colony because they took it over from the Dutch (certainly the British and the Dutch were closer than the Arabs and the Ottomans). Or the Philippines would not have been a US colony, since they took it over from the Spaniards.
I'm not quite sure if this a simple semantic discussion, brought upon by various definitions of "colony", or anything else.
|
Partly it is, as I started out saying.
However, it's complicated by what seems to be a feeling that 'colonies' and 'colonising' and 'colonial' are all 'bad' - pejorative terms that people don't want to accept being applied to their own countries or to friendly ones.
Viewed objectively and taking the emotion out of it, colonisation is in itself morally neutral, neither necessarily good not necessarily bad. It has been pretty well universal throughout world history: which is why the necessary conclusion is that pretty well every group of people has been either colonised or a coloniser or both. Mostly both.
I can only say that with my definition of "colony" the Ottoman Empire certainly was not a state that undertook colonising efforts,
|
Then how did it get to be an empire? (As someone already asked.)
Certainly there was a 'great cultural difference' imposed when it conquered Byzantium and the Balkans, whatever you think about North Africa.
which, as all the other great European powers start to seriously colonise the rest of the world when the Ottoman Empire was at it's zenith,
|
I don't really think that's true. It was at its peak between say, 1453 and 1683. Thereafter it didn't really count for very much geopolitically. On the other hand the French, Dutch and British only started colonisation in the early-to-mid 17th century and the great landgrabs didn't start until a hundred years later.
There was overlap with the Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of America and some parts of Asia, but during that time the Ottomans were mainly concerned with extending their colonies in Europe. (As indeed were the Habsburgs.) That was as much colonisation as they could handle.
it probably should have done in order to compete.
Maybe the history of the Empire and the World would have been a tiny bit different if the Ottomans had established colonies in SE and East Asia exactly there, where the other Europeans did.
|
Maybe. But of course while they were doing that they would have been opening themselves up to the north and west.
And wouldn't the Iranians and the Moghuls have had something to say about it?
Incidentally it's probably a point that the Western European countries wouldn't have found it so easy to expand overseas if the Austrians and the various Slav peoples hadn't been securing their back door for them.
Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Jun-2006 at 15:05
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 15:17 |
Originally posted by Decebal
Just because a select few Greeks and Albanians held high positions in the Ottoman government, that doesnt' mean that their respective peoples were not occupied and economically exploitedby a foreign government. Are we going to get in yet another debate about supposedly how egalitarian the Ottoman government was?
Just accept it: the Ottomans were colonizers just like the British and the Russians. Simply the term "Empire" should be a strong indication of that... |
A few Greeks and Albanians?
There are countless bureaucrats, generals and officials in Ottoman history who were of foreign origin.
Ottomans were not colonizers, neither were Russians.
But the British are the ones who invented that concept.
Edited by barish - 19-Jun-2006 at 15:20
|
|