File talk:Western Colony.PNG

Based on the images below, I think the Middle East (ie South West Asia) should be shaded light green apart from Arabia, and Iran / Persia.

Addhoc 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only some parts of the middle east ... not all of them of course. --Kingj123 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan was never colonised, although western powers did gain extensive influence there. I'd actually say dark green for Japan, and light green for Taiwan and the Koreas (Japanese colonies). Thailand is already shaded and as far as I know only Japan ever occupied Thailand. Liberia was never colonised, I don't think. Created by the US, but never a colony. ME except for Saudi Arabia and Iran light green... Why are Australia and NZ colonies not western but Canada is western? Anonymous

Japan was indeed part of American Occupation after surrender after World war II and Japan as a strict term is not a western country. Kingj123 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are right, Canada was a British colony, and it was originally coloured light green, but it was edited by someone. Kingj123 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see African occupations.

Also, don't forget that the colored countries do not nessesarily mean that, that specific country was a colony but the region. For example, Canada was colonized by British and French and it was called New France and later British North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingj123 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image have many mistakes. Thailand was never colonialized. Turkey is seldom considered an Europian country. Iraq was once occupied by the UK after Treaty of Sèvres. Several former Soviet Union countries are colored light green. But they were not colonies nor occupations of Soviet. Furthermore, Korea was divided and occupied by the US and Soviet Union after the WW2 just like Japan. Of course, Kingj123 knows that, don't you? --Mochi (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image has many flaws... however I beleive that we can improve it to make this image more accurately.... Thailand was never colonized and it should not be shaded. There are indeed countries that were part of USSR but never occ/colony. Korea, I tried my best to be neutral...honestly... but it is debatable.... and ambiguous... US and UN was much active in South Korea for sure, nevertheless USSR only equiped North Korea with weapons... and that was all. All the power was turned into Kim Il Sung and ROK with the spark of Korean War. If we do shade Korea, I might consider coloring South Korea only for sake of American active involvement. However, there was no official "occupation" by Americans but "de facto" controll before Korean War. --Kingj123 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Kingj123 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add Macau as well. Kingj123 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in Japan was almost same to Korea. Please read Occupation of Japan#Surrender. The former Japanese Empire (including Korea) was divided and occupied by the Allied Powers. If Japan is colored, Korea should also be colored. However, we should consider the intention of the occupations. Were the occupations were related to colonialism?--Mochi (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the intention of Occupation is? Kingj123 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) See Scramble for Africa#Britain's occupation of Egypt and South Africa, do you think intention of the occupation is the same here?--Kingj123 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Look also Japanese occupation of Korea. Are you stating that Korea was not a colony of Japan but merely an occupation?[reply]

The situation in Japan was almost same to Korea, but different. US army directly controlled Japan those days, while South Korean government and US military always remained separate. Also American involvement in Korea was different than that of Japan. American involvement in Korea was merely because of the Cold war, while American involvement in Japan was merely to break down imperialism and the military. Americans and soviets did not divide by themselves only agreed on the partition border, however the actual division was influenced by Kim-ilsung communist regime and Provisional Republic of Korea. However many Koreans tends to blame at the foreign powers practiced in Korea. --Kingj123 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to put the image in the articles about colonialism. Then, whether Allies intended to colonialize Japan or not would matter. You know well the intention of the occupation of Japan "to break down imperialism and the military". These are not related to colonialism. If you color the map from the facts of occupation, then the both Koreas should be colored. There is no reason to make an exception about Korea.--Mochi (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism can be accomplished by any means of purpose. Check its definition. Kingj123 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the reason to make an exception about Korea? You defined this image as "European (Western) Countries (including Europe, US, and Soviet Union) are shaded with darker green with their past colonies/ occupations with lighter green.". After the WW2 until the independences of both Koreas, US occupied south part of Korea (See United States Army Military Government in Korea). You say "South Korean government and US military always remained separate.", but South Korean government was established in 1948. For 1945-1948, South Korea was occupied by the US. Also, North Korea was occupied by the USSR, and its government was established in 1948.--Mochi (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governing bodies in Korea were merely perfunctory. The US and USSR's de facto occupation was there to establish division and to bring two Korean government in place, while in Japan, American even restricted Japanese traditional flag and literally changed the government form and body permanently, which shows definite power and occupation. However the occupation in Korea was very vague and merely legitimate. Especially in North Korea, Societ's occupation practices were very limited, or infact.. there was no Soviet's involvement in North Korea except guiding a Socialist idealism and military, similar to that of Eastern Europe. Both Korean government were in practice even during Japanese colonial rule, nevertheless they were formally recognized in 1948 and that was all. American and Soviet's involvement were much more active during 1950s (Korean War). Kingj123 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still concerned we might be able to put Korea in a separate category... Kingj123 (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you created the image to show how much Euro/American countries involved the world during the colonial-era. I don't deny the approaches. But the definition is bad.

First, "European countries (including Europe, US, and Soviet)" is very rough. It includes countries unrelated to colonialism, such as Swiss and East Europian countries. Coloring such countries do not help us understand colonialism.

Second, you decided to color the areas that are "past colonies/ occupations". According to this definition, Korea and Japan should be included. How perfunctory the occupation does not matter.

Third, you did not fix the term/period. After the WW2, colonial-era gradually ended. Many colonies became independent. The US occupation of Japan and Korea was the result of WW2. And, this is the most important that US involvements in Japan and Korea were strongly affected by the cold war, not colonialism, I think. Those countries should be cut out.--Mochi (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get your argument... just give me a moment to organize this. Kingj123 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other areas[edit]

Taiwan[edit]

Taiwan was once colonialized by Netherland and Spain. See Taiwan under Dutch and Spanish rule.--Mochi (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concessions[edit]

Several Chinese cities were concessions of external powers.--Mochi (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, can't we say that embassies are a form of a colony? Diplomatic mission#Extraterritoriality --Kingj123 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concession and embassy are different. Hong Kong was a kind of concession. Embassy is for diplomatic purposes.--Mochi (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East[edit]

Several Middle East countries were occupied as Leagues of Nations mandate including Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.--Mochi (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland[edit]

I think Greenland should be shaded lightgreen. It was a colony of Denmark separated from the main lands.--Mochi (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]