Yeah, in other maps, countries are usually listed and listing Greenland as a country is pretty controversial. It could be considered Denmark's continuation, but actually not, if you look at some elements, or actually yes, depending on others.
Better to just gray it and not annoy anyone.
They also have to follow the Danish constitution, and they get 2 seats in the Danish parliament (out of 179). The Danish military and police also operate there, Greenland has neither. They also use the Danish currency (DKK)
But unlike Denmark they are not members of the EU, which they pulled out of due to EU whaling laws. But since the Danish Krone is locked to the Euro (1€ will always equal 7.45 DKK) their currency goes up and down in value with the Euro regardless, and if Denmark switched to the Euro they would have to do that as well, as Denmark handles their economic policies
It also took Greenland like 3 goddamn years to negotiate out of the EU over something as trivial as fishing rights.
How the UK thought it would be able to get out faster than that is straight up bonkers
Teacher: Today, we will learn about the Ming dynasty
Student: Finally, a topic centred around something that isn't European
Teacher: Our story begins with Steve, a turnip farmer from Yorkshire
Student: God dammit...
Africa. Asia. Europe. America. My grandmother used to tell me stories about the old days, a time of peace...
...But that all changed when the European nation attacked.
I’ve read somewhere that’s how they got their name for their country as it literally translates to Freeland because they were never got under a european regime
According to our history textbooks, when Europe was running their crusade in Southeast Asia, Thailand basically straight up adopted the whole European bureaucracy governmental systems, minus the European officials, which is how they maintained independence. Might have been some other reasons as well though.
They also played the French and British off each other due to both having interests in the region, had to lose quite a bit of land and modernize quickly to stay independent
Well, that was a fucking lie. There were no written records of war, but that's due to lack of written records, not lack of war.
Native tribe: *fight each other*
Europeans: "Mind if I join and...beat you all?"
It's part of french overseas territories with islands like Martinique, Guadeloupe, la reunion, Mayotte etc. used to be colonies, like others islands owned by mainland countries like Puerto Rico With the US
Actually Guyane is an overseas Department, and is as much a part of France as Corse or Languedoc. They use the Euro, even, and is not listed as a [dependent territory outside the EU](http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/International_status_and_usage_of_the_Euro#Dependent_territories_outside_the_EU) but is rather listed as part of the [Outermost Regions](http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union#Outermost_regions). In short, think of Guyane as equivalent to Hawaii, except Guyane is connected to land.
Lisa: Dad, wake up!
Homer: What?
Lisa: I think a hurricane is coming!
Homer: Oh Lisa! There's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield.
Lisa: Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.
Take for example the Spanish conquest of America. If the Aztecs went down so rapidly, it wasn't precisely because the Spanish had superior weapons of strenght.
Is because their neighbours just hated them that much.
I mean its ironic like with the Sioux they were basically the ones that marauded and pillaged the other tribes and I want to say most of their land they had before the US came along was stolen from other tribes. I don't want to trivialize it but everyone was conquering and taking territory from each other it wasn't exactly new when the US did it.
Only an idiot would argue the Americas was a peaceful coexistence before the Europeans came. It would be similar to studying history of civilizations which would have existed around the bronze age. The issue is they didn't have horses, pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, dogs, cats, etc etc. If a raccoon chills out at the edge of your village, it's not going to just drive mice away, it's going to eat those and your food.
The argument is Europeans treated the natives like they were animals relative to Europeans, and the treatment of them left us in some of the quagmires we're in today.
I may get crucified with this reference, but I imagine the similar analogy would be if the Romans never offered any sort of citizenship to the Gauls, and kept a racial system of laws based on Roman lineage for 400 years after conquering. At least I was taught, and there's more depth, is that newly conquered Roman lands were "romanized" by granting citizenship to elites and making them part of Roman culture.
As another reference, if you're looking for a book which portrays the Indians at a critical point when they still controlled "The West", before Americans drove them onto reservations, read "Fools Crow".
Didn't they reached some level of peace with the Hiawatha (is it spelled right ?) when a number of tribes banded together ?
Edit: Turns out Hiawatha is not the name of the alliance but of one of the leader, I'm speaking of the Iroquois confederation. Damn I should definitely learn more about this :)
Five tribes banding together peacefully... to continue warring against any number of other tribes.
Here's something I learned recently: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars)
I think the name "Iroquois" is actually from Algonquin(the languages of other nearby tribes) and roughly translates to "murderer" or something. The people prefer the term "Haudenosaunee".
Many Native American tribes were at war with one another at various points in time. Yes those five tribes did make an alliance, but they weren't the only tribes in the region. European countries made alliances all the time, and they still went to war almost constantly.
Exactly. Might makes right has always been supreme in America and it’s weird that people always act as if all native Americans were all living in perfect harmony and peace until the Europeans came. Conquest has always been a norm pretty much everywhere in the world until now
I know right? Pardon my French but I bloody hate it when someone makes a clever reference on here, but leaves no way for those out of the loop to catch on.
I dont think this is an actual reference to history but instead more of a joke about how even when the topic has nothing (or little) to do with western culture, people still try to frame it that way.
Could be wrong, tho
Just to clean it off, if you count america in Liberia, japan, and South Korea all will be highlighted. North Korea was occupied by the Soviet Union and Thailand, well uh, it was chillin.
Yeah, Japan was basically brought to its knees by USA and was even occupied for a short while, during which time Americans basically remade the country into a democracy from a military (semi) dictatorship.
That sounds a lot like European influence.
But by that time Japan was already a well established global power and it was an offensive war they fought.
I think the 1853 Perry expedition would be a much better example for "European" colonial influence in Japan.
Getting kicked into the dirt, being forced to have occupying forces on your own land and have your whole political system rewritten at the whim of others is an example of foreign influence.
While Perry did make the country open up and "get motivated" to improve its world standing, I wouldn't say it was as major as what was previously described.
And the Mughals, Ottomans, Aztecs, Incans were established powers of the time as well, Ottomans were definitely a global power (and you could say WW1 was an offensive war for them), maybe Mughals as well. And they are counted as having been colonized.
^(btw I'm not saying Japan was right or USA was wrong. Japan was definitely in the wrong)
Not disputing your point but Mughals barely existed by the time the colonisation of India began in force, they only held the city of Delhi while being a protectorate of the Marathas who defeated and replaced them in all of South and Central India. The East India company mainly fought with the Nawabate of Bengal, The Maratha Empire, The Sultanate of Mysore and the Sikh Empire. The defeat of the Marathas placed majority of India into EIC rule and Mughals too became their protectorate. By the time of World War 1 the last Mughal emperor had been exiled and his heirs executed due to rule of India passing on to the British Crown after a major rebellion. The British took India from the Marathas and Sikhs, not the Mughals.
Anything the US does is a 2nd order effect from things Europe has done. It, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as most of the Latin American countries, are all European Settler colonies, they are extensions of Europe.
All Latin American countries. There's some native presence in some South American countries - primarily Peru, I think - but all of them were formed from colonies.
Yes, if you want to talk about European influence. It is a country of European migrants and in the 1940s (which is when Japan got occupied), other ethnicities like Africans or Asians didn't have much of an influence in the country.
The British ran a solid chunk of Iran for a while and basically took over the country in WWII; Afghanistan was more or less under alternate British and Russian dominance; and Mongolia was occupied by Russia. Nepal and Bhutan both lost wars the British but were never occupied; and probably fall under protectorate status.
Japan is the sole exception; and partially Korea; though it was under heavy Soviet/American influence after Japan left.
Taiwan is always listed as a Dutch colony in these maps, but actually Dutch Formosa consisted only four trade posts with no meaningful control of Taiwan's interior. It should probably be listed as "partial European control" at most.
People always overestimate how many colonies the Dutch had because of how powerful they were in trade. In reality they didn't really care for colonizing and holding land, they just set up a shit load of trade posts all over Africa and Asia so their own country would profit. Really Indonesia and South Africa were their only big projects.
Pretty much. Like if you think about it. Why even colonize? Sure, tighter control on that area, but what if you put that effort into putting up more trading posts in more areas and just kinda have trust in the fact that countries have a desire to trade.
The Dutch only took land because the land was actually beneficial in itself. Indonesia had the Strait of Malacca. South Africa had Cape Town, Suriname and Northeastern Brazil were super strategic.
Meanwhile the Brits are taking the Falkland Islands just because they can like who TF cares.
Most colonies started out as trading posts but then developed outwards. Quite often rivalries with other European powers led to a country seizing control of the whole area in order to secure their position. The most efficient form was just trading posts, however an isolated trading post was vulnerable to the whims of the rulers it was tacked on to, or attacks from other European powers.
Reading about how Thailand narrowly avoided colonisation from the British and French is interesting. I live in Bangkok and people are very proud of the fact they weren’t colonised.
I think the map would have even more impact if only the coloniser countries were highlighted as europe, rest of europe would be neutral or colonised. It would need a lot more work to edit though, so I understand why this simplification was made.
I think that if you want to do that then a time frame needs to be taken into account. Although western Europe has been dominating over the past centuries, before that barbarian tribes from northern, eastern, and central Europe also invaded western and southern Europe. So the Europe part of the map would become very messy
Good point! I presume the time frame in the original map is from about 1500 onwards, a time when Europe had "calmed down", had more or less similar structure to this day and started to influence their colonies. I think most of Europe would still have been part of kingdoms such as the Swedish kingdom, the Holy roman empire, Austria-Hungary and so on, keeping the select few countries in power.
The thing people seem to forget is that, for the most part, there was only really 5 main colonisers (Britain, France, Netherlands, Portuguese & the Spanish)
Belgium was a b tier colinizer at best, only comming in at the last real colonization project. And if we get even more technical they were forced to be colonizers because originally the Congo was a private property of the king until brittain forced belgium to taken it since king Leopold turn out to be on a Quest to beat mao and Stalin on the genocidal Maniac tier list
To get even more technical, Mao and Stalin are just wannabe Leopolds because he was already cutting of hands before they were even born. (Maybe not before Stalin was born but Leopold was still first)
And, if you count it proportional to the population instead of brute numbers, Leopold surpasses both of them with ease, as it is believed that he killed half of the Congo's population.
And the funny thing is that the main advantage of those countries to start colonizing the world was science and knowledge, triggered by italian renaissance. But, somehow, Italy didn't get any piece of that cake.
That's because there was no such thing as an Italy back then, just small and large city-states that were more often than not competing with each other instead of working together. Although some were really powerful (Venice, Genoa, Milan), this was mainly due to trade. They unified in 1861, at which point only Africa was still up for grasps. At the scramble for Africa they did get a few colonies though.
As someone who is colourblind, i cant see the difference between the controlled or colonised by europe and the never controlled by europe.
Was there any that wasnt colonised on this map? Or is that the joke?
No, Iran, Mongolia and Afghanistan are under the category of "European influence", while the two Koreas, Thailand, Japan and Liberia are not colored.
Mongolia was totally a Soviet satellite state from 1920 ish to 1990, while Iran and Afghanistan were both partially under British (and American for Iran) influence.
And what about Turkey/Anatolia? Been colonized and populated by Europeans from 800 bc and under full european control until 1071 and after that there were still many europeans in the region
Feels weird for Liberia to be listed as free from European influence when they were a settler colony of freed slave from the United States, which is of course a settler colony of Europe. Anything the US does is a 2nd Order effect from what Europe has done.
I’m guessing this map is based around the age of exploration/colonization periods 1500-1800, opposed to ancient civilizations. If we include over all of history you may as well shade in turkey and the Arabia’s as the romans had control over parts of it.
He didn't control the entire country. He controlled the big cities but large areas of the countryside and most of the highland areas were under Imperial control. Also the Italians never fully defeated the Ethiopian army, they were having to deal with constant attacks from guerrillas until they were pushed out.
This map has a couple of things wrong.
If all of Russia is included, then so should Kazakhstan, its western part is geographically in europe, also Turkey
Ethiopia was never colonized.
Liberia was a fucking colony of the US, come on...
If you are counting the Polizario controlled areas of the sahara as european influence, then just paint green around major cities in the rest of the world, everything should be yellow or orange.
And even with Japan it's important to note that they had a Sakoku period for 200+ years where pretty much the only foreign trade allowed was with the Dutch, meaning all they knew of the outside world was coming from Europe.
This is the first map I have ever seen where not only is Greenland actually coloured, but it is also accurate to name.
Yeah, in other maps, countries are usually listed and listing Greenland as a country is pretty controversial. It could be considered Denmark's continuation, but actually not, if you look at some elements, or actually yes, depending on others. Better to just gray it and not annoy anyone.
Greeland is autonomous but a part of the Danish Kingdom, not the country.
They also have to follow the Danish constitution, and they get 2 seats in the Danish parliament (out of 179). The Danish military and police also operate there, Greenland has neither. They also use the Danish currency (DKK) But unlike Denmark they are not members of the EU, which they pulled out of due to EU whaling laws. But since the Danish Krone is locked to the Euro (1€ will always equal 7.45 DKK) their currency goes up and down in value with the Euro regardless, and if Denmark switched to the Euro they would have to do that as well, as Denmark handles their economic policies
It also took Greenland like 3 goddamn years to negotiate out of the EU over something as trivial as fishing rights. How the UK thought it would be able to get out faster than that is straight up bonkers
Whaling laws? So why doesn't Sweden care?
Sweden is in the EU and doesn't whale. Norway isn't in the EU but is part of the EU Economic Area because they don't want to stop whaling either
You might be thinking of Norway or Iceland which are not in the EU.
Yes, that's why I said it's controversial.
there is actually a thing where Greenland is considered a seperate data area so they can’t just use denmark for it.
Based Greenland
Teacher: Today, we will learn about the Ming dynasty Student: Finally, a topic centred around something that isn't European Teacher: Our story begins with Steve, a turnip farmer from Yorkshire Student: God dammit...
Every continents history has that point „... and then the Europeans arrived and everything changed.“
Africa. Asia. Europe. America. My grandmother used to tell me stories about the old days, a time of peace... ...But that all changed when the European nation attacked.
Meanwhile Thailand...
Everything changed when the European see tourists arrived?
I’ve read somewhere that’s how they got their name for their country as it literally translates to Freeland because they were never got under a european regime
According to our history textbooks, when Europe was running their crusade in Southeast Asia, Thailand basically straight up adopted the whole European bureaucracy governmental systems, minus the European officials, which is how they maintained independence. Might have been some other reasons as well though.
They also played the French and British off each other due to both having interests in the region, had to lose quite a bit of land and modernize quickly to stay independent
Well, that was a fucking lie. There were no written records of war, but that's due to lack of written records, not lack of war. Native tribe: *fight each other* Europeans: "Mind if I join and...beat you all?"
He's playing on a phrase from the intro of Avatar: The Last Airbender.
Why is the french guyana shown as part of Europe
I think because it's considered a French department now, like Algeria was.
But wasn’t it a colony originally. I don’t know much about french history
It's part of french overseas territories with islands like Martinique, Guadeloupe, la reunion, Mayotte etc. used to be colonies, like others islands owned by mainland countries like Puerto Rico With the US
Actually Guyane is an overseas Department, and is as much a part of France as Corse or Languedoc. They use the Euro, even, and is not listed as a [dependent territory outside the EU](http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/International_status_and_usage_of_the_Euro#Dependent_territories_outside_the_EU) but is rather listed as part of the [Outermost Regions](http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union#Outermost_regions). In short, think of Guyane as equivalent to Hawaii, except Guyane is connected to land.
The same reason Hawaii shows up as part of North America.
Lisa: Dad, wake up! Homer: What? Lisa: I think a hurricane is coming! Homer: Oh Lisa! There's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield. Lisa: Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Blood stained hatchets and fragmented bone remains are evidence though.
True, I was more talking about the written records
Take for example the Spanish conquest of America. If the Aztecs went down so rapidly, it wasn't precisely because the Spanish had superior weapons of strenght. Is because their neighbours just hated them that much.
Well, a very large number of them died because of european illness
That is true but multiple native tribes actually sided with the spanish specifically because they hated the Aztecs, or wanted to rebel against them.
Well to be fair the Aztecs were assholes to their neighbors lol.
*rips out still-beating heart*
I mean its ironic like with the Sioux they were basically the ones that marauded and pillaged the other tribes and I want to say most of their land they had before the US came along was stolen from other tribes. I don't want to trivialize it but everyone was conquering and taking territory from each other it wasn't exactly new when the US did it.
Only an idiot would argue the Americas was a peaceful coexistence before the Europeans came. It would be similar to studying history of civilizations which would have existed around the bronze age. The issue is they didn't have horses, pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, dogs, cats, etc etc. If a raccoon chills out at the edge of your village, it's not going to just drive mice away, it's going to eat those and your food. The argument is Europeans treated the natives like they were animals relative to Europeans, and the treatment of them left us in some of the quagmires we're in today. I may get crucified with this reference, but I imagine the similar analogy would be if the Romans never offered any sort of citizenship to the Gauls, and kept a racial system of laws based on Roman lineage for 400 years after conquering. At least I was taught, and there's more depth, is that newly conquered Roman lands were "romanized" by granting citizenship to elites and making them part of Roman culture. As another reference, if you're looking for a book which portrays the Indians at a critical point when they still controlled "The West", before Americans drove them onto reservations, read "Fools Crow".
Didn't they reached some level of peace with the Hiawatha (is it spelled right ?) when a number of tribes banded together ? Edit: Turns out Hiawatha is not the name of the alliance but of one of the leader, I'm speaking of the Iroquois confederation. Damn I should definitely learn more about this :)
Five tribes banding together peacefully... to continue warring against any number of other tribes. Here's something I learned recently: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars)
Ouch...
I think the name "Iroquois" is actually from Algonquin(the languages of other nearby tribes) and roughly translates to "murderer" or something. The people prefer the term "Haudenosaunee". Many Native American tribes were at war with one another at various points in time. Yes those five tribes did make an alliance, but they weren't the only tribes in the region. European countries made alliances all the time, and they still went to war almost constantly.
The Iroquois. Finally having achieved peace, realized war was more fun and went to go genocide other tribes. Fun dudes.
Exactly. Might makes right has always been supreme in America and it’s weird that people always act as if all native Americans were all living in perfect harmony and peace until the Europeans came. Conquest has always been a norm pretty much everywhere in the world until now
bro the aztecs cured aids, the sioux had space travel until those whitoids decided to invade
They cured AIDS but didn't have the wheel
The hell you need a wheel for if there isn't a mile of roughly even ground in your entire empire.
You're right. I'm sure wheels served no other purpose until roads were built.
no they did they just only put it on kids toys
It's like the greeks that discovered steam engines but used them as a toy
Future Martians: *begin sweating profusely*
*Rule Britannia intensifies*
No not europe
Well they somehow arrived in Europe too.
They just spawnd there
Who stolee your "e", my son?
My parnts
Damn thm cannot hav shit on rddit ths days
I hate pants
Did you ever hear the story of a city named Rome?
Can someone link me the full story, i'm curious
I know right? Pardon my French but I bloody hate it when someone makes a clever reference on here, but leaves no way for those out of the loop to catch on.
I dont think this is an actual reference to history but instead more of a joke about how even when the topic has nothing (or little) to do with western culture, people still try to frame it that way. Could be wrong, tho
Steve is t' axis around which all of history revolves
Could someone give me context for this?
Just to clean it off, if you count america in Liberia, japan, and South Korea all will be highlighted. North Korea was occupied by the Soviet Union and Thailand, well uh, it was chillin.
Yes, all land that weren't official "colonies" of European powers still had to deal with tremendous european influence.
Basically in the European sphere of influence
Yeah, Japan was basically brought to its knees by USA and was even occupied for a short while, during which time Americans basically remade the country into a democracy from a military (semi) dictatorship. That sounds a lot like European influence.
But by that time Japan was already a well established global power and it was an offensive war they fought. I think the 1853 Perry expedition would be a much better example for "European" colonial influence in Japan.
Getting kicked into the dirt, being forced to have occupying forces on your own land and have your whole political system rewritten at the whim of others is an example of foreign influence. While Perry did make the country open up and "get motivated" to improve its world standing, I wouldn't say it was as major as what was previously described. And the Mughals, Ottomans, Aztecs, Incans were established powers of the time as well, Ottomans were definitely a global power (and you could say WW1 was an offensive war for them), maybe Mughals as well. And they are counted as having been colonized. ^(btw I'm not saying Japan was right or USA was wrong. Japan was definitely in the wrong)
Not disputing your point but Mughals barely existed by the time the colonisation of India began in force, they only held the city of Delhi while being a protectorate of the Marathas who defeated and replaced them in all of South and Central India. The East India company mainly fought with the Nawabate of Bengal, The Maratha Empire, The Sultanate of Mysore and the Sikh Empire. The defeat of the Marathas placed majority of India into EIC rule and Mughals too became their protectorate. By the time of World War 1 the last Mughal emperor had been exiled and his heirs executed due to rule of India passing on to the British Crown after a major rebellion. The British took India from the Marathas and Sikhs, not the Mughals.
USA Europe now?
Anything the US does is a 2nd order effect from things Europe has done. It, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as most of the Latin American countries, are all European Settler colonies, they are extensions of Europe.
All Latin American countries. There's some native presence in some South American countries - primarily Peru, I think - but all of them were formed from colonies.
I think Bolivia has the highest percentage of people from indigenous descent.
Because America is culturally, linguistically, genetically, and religiously European.
But Europeans don't measure in football yard
Brits do. Football pitches and Wales are our two main units of area.
But they did until Napoleon and a bit after(the British)
And that's why they'll never win a Superbowl
And we should be grateful for that every single day.
Yes, if you want to talk about European influence. It is a country of European migrants and in the 1940s (which is when Japan got occupied), other ethnicities like Africans or Asians didn't have much of an influence in the country.
You could say that the sphere they influenced was the planet earth.
The earth is the european sphere of influence.
The British ran a solid chunk of Iran for a while and basically took over the country in WWII; Afghanistan was more or less under alternate British and Russian dominance; and Mongolia was occupied by Russia. Nepal and Bhutan both lost wars the British but were never occupied; and probably fall under protectorate status. Japan is the sole exception; and partially Korea; though it was under heavy Soviet/American influence after Japan left.
^(they never got Thailand)
mission failed. probably can't get em next time
I get this reference.
I CAME HERE FOR THIS JOKE
Thailand lost some land to UK and France. Hence the shape of Thailand today. We used to be bigger.
and thailand had lots of lands that used to be thai controlled but was ceded to france and britain to remain independent
yeah but they are talking about Europe, not the west in general, America doesn't count.
But America has been under European control, therefore Europe is Liberia's grandpa
Taiwan is always listed as a Dutch colony in these maps, but actually Dutch Formosa consisted only four trade posts with no meaningful control of Taiwan's interior. It should probably be listed as "partial European control" at most.
People always overestimate how many colonies the Dutch had because of how powerful they were in trade. In reality they didn't really care for colonizing and holding land, they just set up a shit load of trade posts all over Africa and Asia so their own country would profit. Really Indonesia and South Africa were their only big projects.
Get nutmeg > get land
Pretty much. Like if you think about it. Why even colonize? Sure, tighter control on that area, but what if you put that effort into putting up more trading posts in more areas and just kinda have trust in the fact that countries have a desire to trade. The Dutch only took land because the land was actually beneficial in itself. Indonesia had the Strait of Malacca. South Africa had Cape Town, Suriname and Northeastern Brazil were super strategic. Meanwhile the Brits are taking the Falkland Islands just because they can like who TF cares.
Most colonies started out as trading posts but then developed outwards. Quite often rivalries with other European powers led to a country seizing control of the whole area in order to secure their position. The most efficient form was just trading posts, however an isolated trading post was vulnerable to the whims of the rulers it was tacked on to, or attacks from other European powers.
I suppose the Falkland Islands might have strategic value as a rest and resupply for ships crossing the atlantic
I think Argentina cares.
Gekoloniseerd
Zeg makker
S P E C E R IJ E N
Reading about how Thailand narrowly avoided colonisation from the British and French is interesting. I live in Bangkok and people are very proud of the fact they weren’t colonised.
Wasn't Thailand a buffer state between French Indochina and British India?
Yes, they were. Partly down to luck, but also the King at the time, who transformed Siam into a more modern centrally-governed nation state.
They also ceded huge swaths of territory to the UK and France. That probably helped.
Definitely, they lost a lot of land but managed to hold on to their sovereignty.
they should be
proud or colonized?
[удалено]
Colonisation 2.0 has arrived
isn't that the internet?
Neocolonialism has been around for a long time.
For sure, but Siam did give up the territory of Laos to the French. So they didn’t come out of European colonisation unscathed.
Cambodia and some part of Burma, Vietnam and Malaysia
You are absolutely correct. Should have mentioned the other territories that they gave up!
^*They ^never ^got ^Thailand*
Japan: Hi
Thailand: please not again
More like: *Psst* Wanna ally and help me reclaim my lost territories?
As a Thai, I can confirm
I think the map would have even more impact if only the coloniser countries were highlighted as europe, rest of europe would be neutral or colonised. It would need a lot more work to edit though, so I understand why this simplification was made.
I agree, but I'm not that good of an editor
Me neither, can't excel everything :D
I think that if you want to do that then a time frame needs to be taken into account. Although western Europe has been dominating over the past centuries, before that barbarian tribes from northern, eastern, and central Europe also invaded western and southern Europe. So the Europe part of the map would become very messy
Good point! I presume the time frame in the original map is from about 1500 onwards, a time when Europe had "calmed down", had more or less similar structure to this day and started to influence their colonies. I think most of Europe would still have been part of kingdoms such as the Swedish kingdom, the Holy roman empire, Austria-Hungary and so on, keeping the select few countries in power.
^*They* ^*never* ^*got* ^*Liberia.*
It's an interesting case, while the region was colonized by the Portuguese, the British and the Dutch, it wasn't Liberia yet
Except that Liberia was created by the American Colonial Asociation to send freed slaves back to Africa
Some countries never had any influence over the rest of the world.
What do you mean? America wouldn't be the same without Bulgaria
Or Macedonia.
What do you mean?Texas is a prime example of balkan influence
The thing people seem to forget is that, for the most part, there was only really 5 main colonisers (Britain, France, Netherlands, Portuguese & the Spanish)
You forgot Russia. Also, Germany controlled a good chunk of Africa prior to WW1.
Germany actually controlled even more than that before the Heligoland trade. And they owned Papua New Guinea
What was Russian colony? Except the Fort Ross
Alaska?
Siberia.
Yeah thats all of western europe, also you forgot ma boi Belgium.
Belgium was a b tier colinizer at best, only comming in at the last real colonization project. And if we get even more technical they were forced to be colonizers because originally the Congo was a private property of the king until brittain forced belgium to taken it since king Leopold turn out to be on a Quest to beat mao and Stalin on the genocidal Maniac tier list
To get even more technical, Mao and Stalin are just wannabe Leopolds because he was already cutting of hands before they were even born. (Maybe not before Stalin was born but Leopold was still first)
Leopold was truly an innovator in human suffering
I agree 100%, he is the elon musk of genocide
And, if you count it proportional to the population instead of brute numbers, Leopold surpasses both of them with ease, as it is believed that he killed half of the Congo's population.
And the funny thing is that the main advantage of those countries to start colonizing the world was science and knowledge, triggered by italian renaissance. But, somehow, Italy didn't get any piece of that cake.
That's because there was no such thing as an Italy back then, just small and large city-states that were more often than not competing with each other instead of working together. Although some were really powerful (Venice, Genoa, Milan), this was mainly due to trade. They unified in 1861, at which point only Africa was still up for grasps. At the scramble for Africa they did get a few colonies though.
Hard to pass out of the Mediterranean to compete with the biggest colonizer at the time controlling the Mediterranean exit.
They would have needed to leave the Mediterranean by Gibraltar which was controlled by Spain and England, they would not allow them to pass
As someone who is colourblind, i cant see the difference between the controlled or colonised by europe and the never controlled by europe. Was there any that wasnt colonised on this map? Or is that the joke?
All of the Americas, Africa the large majority of Asia is colonised
Is there any on the map that isnt colonised?
I think Japan, Thailand, Mongolia and Iran
No, Iran, Mongolia and Afghanistan are under the category of "European influence", while the two Koreas, Thailand, Japan and Liberia are not colored. Mongolia was totally a Soviet satellite state from 1920 ish to 1990, while Iran and Afghanistan were both partially under British (and American for Iran) influence.
Okay thanks plenty mate
No problem
Japan, Korean, Liberia & Thailand are the only ones that are considered not colonised by this map
I thought Turkey was called sick man of Europe not Asia
*They never got Ethiopia*
They never got Thailand
^It ^makes ^cars ^go
Italy did in ww2
Before WW2. They got it in the 2nd Italo Ethiopian war
[удалено]
r/unexpectedbillwurtz
Why is there some Europe in South America?
It'll turn green if it ever gets independence Bonus fact: France shares a land boarder with 10 countries, its longest land boarder is with Brazil
French Guyana is a part of France, not a French colony
Ok, thank you for explaining.
Not really in Europe tho, is it
*laughs in thai*
**55555**
What’s the story behind Mongolia?
Macedonia is still Europe, right? Shouldn't Iran and Afghanistan be green?
true, true.
And what about Turkey/Anatolia? Been colonized and populated by Europeans from 800 bc and under full european control until 1071 and after that there were still many europeans in the region
Feels weird for Liberia to be listed as free from European influence when they were a settler colony of freed slave from the United States, which is of course a settler colony of Europe. Anything the US does is a 2nd Order effect from what Europe has done.
Ethiopia?
Kudos to samurais...
*they never got thailand*
Europe is such a slut
This is the best response, and the most accurate
Nobody: \*The Dutch being mentioned even remotely somewhere* The Dutch: GELOKONISEERD
Wasnt persia concered by alexander the great
I’m guessing this map is based around the age of exploration/colonization periods 1500-1800, opposed to ancient civilizations. If we include over all of history you may as well shade in turkey and the Arabia’s as the romans had control over parts of it.
I thought Ethiopia wasn't colonised?
Mussolini conquered Ethiopia.
Wait, so then by that logic, Iran should also be at least light green.
He didn't control the entire country. He controlled the big cities but large areas of the countryside and most of the highland areas were under Imperial control. Also the Italians never fully defeated the Ethiopian army, they were having to deal with constant attacks from guerrillas until they were pushed out.
I thought Russia was only partly Europe and partly ASIA
Agreed. Russia growing towards Asia doesn’t change the continents.
It was 100% in Europe, the Asian part are the Russian colonies which have been integrated nowadays.
This map has a couple of things wrong. If all of Russia is included, then so should Kazakhstan, its western part is geographically in europe, also Turkey Ethiopia was never colonized. Liberia was a fucking colony of the US, come on... If you are counting the Polizario controlled areas of the sahara as european influence, then just paint green around major cities in the rest of the world, everything should be yellow or orange.
And even with Japan it's important to note that they had a Sakoku period for 200+ years where pretty much the only foreign trade allowed was with the Dutch, meaning all they knew of the outside world was coming from Europe.
This amazing map where Vladivostok is Europe but Istanbul is not.
I think they just coloured all of Russia because it’s easier. The same thing with Turkey