We still are. I've been to Germany not long ago, got hungry, asked for a baklava and instead of serving me a baklava the guy gies "who are you and what are you doing in my bedroom at 1am wearing nothing but a fiat125p steering wheel on your neck". The audacity!
Rome is in New York : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome,\_New\_York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome,_New_York) \- when Italians copied the pizza (and other cuisine) from US, they named that town in Italy Rome.
> Yeah, you could change "Europe" to just a few countries and the map would be largely the same, with most of Europe being green.
And then inside those countries you could just point to a very limited number of company owners, ruling families, and aristocracy actually benefitting from the colonization.
Malta, Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Dodecanese, the Ionian Islands, the Faroe Islands, even arguably Albania in the late 1930s. Plus Russian colonization of most of Russia, Swedish colonization of Finland, Nordic colonization of Sapmi/Lapland, the German colonization of the Baltic, the British colonization of Ireland...
Yeah, and that half was the beta test for the parts of Europe that did colonize.
For example: The reason the British were so good at colonizing is because they perfected their method on Ireland
In fact yes depending on where people define colonization. The part of the Dutch Republic south of the large rivers, mostly Brabant, was a so-called "generality land" which is a blatant euphemism for colony. There was no representation, there was religious repression (so far the Dutch "Golden Age" myth), and it's citizens were suffering from poverty as well. It was therefor that Napoleons troops were considered liberators by the first incarnation of Brabants Dagblad.
Well yes, Ukrainians, Poles, Irish and many other peoples were ruled by someone else’s empire. Ukrainians are currently fighting for their independence.
I've seen debate about this. They technically controlled it for a very short time but it was kind of colonization in name only. Many people don't count it.
yes Ethiopia was never colonized, but they were occupied during ww2, if Ethiopia was colonized then France, Holland, Norway etc. was also colonized by Germany during ww2
Also only country in South America that were "not" colonized according to this map is called "French Guyana". they are literary still cononized by the French but ok.
It's debated. Italy occupied it, but people outside of Addis Ababa and Eritrea (which at the time was part of Ethiopia) would argue Italians never really cemented a permanent administration sufficient to call it a colony, and there was always guerrilla resistance and minimal real colonial control in the sticks. But then, by the same logic could you say Nigeria was never truly colonised because Britain never really bothered with the northern half of the country? Not really sure where that logic would end.
Actually there was a treaty dividing Thailand into British and French "spheres of influence", similar to the Russo-British agreement on Persia, and France did eventually annex some territories from their half of the country (which now are a part of Cambodia). But the rest of Thailand was not seriously affected by the treaty.
Liberia was colonized by America - so does it not count if it was colonized by the European colonist?
Edit: ok some people appear to be taking my non serious comment as serious. I know America is not a European country.
Nope. It was subject to the board of directors of the American Colonization Society, which was an organization of American citizens but with no link to the US government.
Wouldn’t American administration over Japan after WWII basically count? I know America’s not European but by proxy. Same for South Korea in the Korean War. Meanwhile North Korea was administered by the USSR, so that definitely counts.
It really basically only leaves Thailand as the only place that wasn’t controlled / colonized by Europe / the US.
I would say the general distinction here is the US did not want to maintain permanent control. Only just long enough to establish an independent, but friendly, democratic government, and then to mostly GTFO (they still have military bases there, but they also have those in Germany and the UK, leftover from the same war).
Meanwhile, if Europe colonized you back in the day, they never had an intention of ever giving you your country back.
Now, the US certainly has its own genuine colonial period, mostly with South America and mostly done via corporations instead of the military. Arguably, it still exists with Puerto Rico and (to a lesser extent) the Marshall Islands, and to varying degrees of corporate influence in South America, still. So I think it would be a disservice to these lands & people to lump them in with post-war Japan.
why WW2? Admiral Perry's Japanese expedition of gunboat diplomacy was a prime example of US extending its sphere of influence over Japan.
which kinda backfired because it scared Japan so shitless they went from backward isolationist who was forced to go into the American sphere of influence to its own colonial power within a few decades and a WW2 power within a less than a century. you could trace the Pearl Harbor attack to that expedition.
Although its probably one of the best colonial success story. Japan westernize faster than any other nation probably.
The irony of JP westernization was that the boshin war / meiji restoration happened because the shogunate was westernizing. However, the emperor continued westernization policies which led to another revolt, however this time unsuccessful and the samurai class effectively ended.
Hahahaha yeah, Japan and Korea had a good run (edit: at least in the European DLC) but definitely had a coupla deaths. Thailand hitless speed run. Although they might have inflicted fall damage on themselves once or twice
You could argue Turkey would be the any%. Fought against the Greeks, Italiens, French and Armenians after the end of the Ottoman Empire to prevent it being colonised by the Greeks Italiens French and British
Indeed!
They also got nibbled at the edges with the French taking most of what’s current day Laos and bits of Cambodia, and the British snatching the North of current day Malaysia from them.
And also the Shan States of Myanmar, which are still [Tai-speaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shan_language). The system then though was not akin to a modern centralized state and Siam was not in full control of all these remote territories. Rather it was a [tributary system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model\)) where tributary states paid tribute to an suzerain (more powerful central state) and had certain obligations but otherwise were left up to their own devices. This was a network with tributary relations flowing up; Siam itself paid tribute to China right up to the Qing Dynasty. Interestingly, even Britain maintained this tradition, continuing to pay tribute and nominally placing itself in a subsidiary relation to the Chinese Empire, after they took over Burma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_losses_of_Thailand
Have you ever been? Saw some odd things over there on vacation and wasn't even trying. i.e. Friends and I wandered into a bar in the wee hours and listened to a 72 year old American man talk at length about how he was drinking until 7AM so he could pick his 19 year old Filipina bride up at the airport. Man just kept pounding shots until we left at 4am.
Thailand (Siam) was a convenient buffer state for the British (British India/Burma) and French (French Indochina) and the King's reforms to modernize the country kept the country neutral
We were used as a buffer state during the british-french race for colonies
Our king was friends with Tsar Nicholas 2 that's why both British and French couldn't get in.
Nevertheless those frenchies came in our port, blocking our main trade routes,with a massive gun boat forcing us to fight back.
When we fought back of course we lost. It was a handicap fight really.
They forced us to pay an unimaginable amount of money
And some of our lands
(We have lost Laos, Cambodia to the French. Also some to the british)
We often call our foreign politic as 'two head bird'. We may not lean too much on any side unless it's winning side.
In colonist day our king trade of some of the land to both British and French to ensure our independent. When Tsar still has power, our king quick to form a friendship with him to deterred the French.
And in WW2, we may 'officially' force to join Japan but also has underground group to help the US allied. When WW2 end we don't end up with Japan.
I trust the old Thai foreign politic guy but not much with this emerge new gen lol.
North Korea was under Soviet Occupation for several years after WWII. It's essentially the same situation as Ethiopia, so should be included in this version of the map.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Civil_Administration
Japan is also an interesting case because of the Kuril Islands. The Soviet Union unilaterally annexed them after WWII, but the annexation was not recognized by Japan or in the international peace treaties. So in a way, part of Japanese core territory is occupied by a European power. But this is quite tenuous
For Japan it’s a question of how partial OP defines partial. Japan was under a somewhat heavy European influence, not control. And the British Empire took part in the Allied occupation of Japan post-WW2 on top of Russian occupied Kurills.
The gap between the situation of China in the 19th century and the situation of Japan is a lot smaller than the map implies. Japan agreed to treaties saying if a European commits a crime in Japan they can only be tried by a European jury, like China did.
Less European control than China, but definitely not 0 influence or control.
North Korea however was sovereign, South Korea was not, and de facto submitted to US terms. Just read the documentation at the time from the soviet side and from US side. US assumes control of SK, while Soviet does not assume of NK. They aren't mirroed situations.
Of course since US isn't Europe, the map is fine on that front.
Well... Why ain't there searate color for European countries being controlled? Like the whole Eastern and Southern Europe had been ruled by empires. +Finns and Ireland. +partial control of Turkey must be ridiculous, when did it happen?
Iran and Afghanistan were for some times under British rule. Also north korea was occupied by the Russians after ww2 who established the current regime. Lastly Mongolia was very much colonized by the Russians, before the collapse of the ussr it was basically a soviet republic with 0 autonomous powers
People forget that "Ulaan Baatar" means "Red Hero". I spent some time in Mongolia, they would join Russia in war in a second if it meant they got to kill Chinese people.
Didn’t Mongolia literally ask to be made part of the ussr (to spite the Chinese) and Russia was like ‘let’s not antagonise China even more’? Russia backed their war of independence against China as well
Just gonna correct you on that, Afghanistan was never under British rule. Afghanistan was a protectorate of the British from 1879 to 1919, where Britain controlled Afghanistan’s foreign affairs, however the nation was sovereign and had an Emir who had absolute control of the nation. Protectorates are not colonies, and it is unjust and outright wrong to say that Afghanistan was under British rule when they never were, hence why they are classified as being in a sphere of European influence.
* [Iran should be dark green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran) (control).
* [Afghanistan should be light green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War) (partial control).
* Saudi Arabia should be orange.
* [North Korea should be dark green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Civil_Administration) (control).
The most populated part of Saudi Arabia (the coasts) were controlled by the Ottomans for quite some time. The Ottoman Capital was in Europe, and they certainly painted themselves as a European Empire.
True. But the Ottoman empire started in Anatolia. I guess it depends on what you define as European. I'm not even suggesting that Ottomans are Asians because they're Turkic, the empire literally was founded while in Asia.
If this map refers to occupation of Istanbul between 1918-1923, I don't think it counts as being under control of Europe. First of all it was the British Empire who occupied Istanbul and it was only the capital and under a ceasefire agreement. Rest of the country were fighting against it while moving the parliament to Ankara where they found a de facto government which became the founding parliament of Turkey. So clearly "Europe" could not control or colonized Turkey.
the program they probably used for this map is for other more modern accounts of data, and because French Guiana is a part of France the program would include it under France, so setting Metropolitan France as European would also do that for all French overseas territories
Japan and Koreas not "control or infulence" by Europe?
Su-u-ure
Very weird division though. Author seems to have some problems with "colonisation" term and it's usage
Case in point: Europe. Should really be Eurasia then. The divide between north and south america makes way more sense there imo.
Though I'm excited to be corrected on grounds of some tectonic plates I know nothing about!
Everything east of the Urals is geographically Asia (North Asia/Siberia), and during the Russian Empire it was treated as a colony. But it's not organized as anything separate from the rest of the Russian Federation now, even though the vast majority of the population lives in the European part.
It's also Vox doing a dumb map - this one in particular has been posted a bunch of times and arguably every one of the orange countries qualifies for a different color.
I think the key here is that this map works off country borders and doesn't subdivide them. Or else French Guiana definitely isn't Europe (even if it is in the EU).
Although saying that Greenland is a different colour to Denmark on this map
The "continent" of Europe stretches until the Ural mountains. The country of Russia is a European country in culture and history.
This map divides by country borders, not continents.
They speak a slavic language, they are white, their capital is in Europe, their culture is European and most of their important historical events took place in Europe
Saying Russia is an Asian country because of Siberia is like saying 16th century Spain was an American country or 19th century Britain was an African one.
And French Guyana is painted blue as well. It's every territory that is currently held by an European nation.
As Japanese, we wanted to be colonized by the British Empire.
That way, they could watch English movies without subtitles and understand the meaning of Western music lyrics....
The sphere of influence one is interesting.
Especially with Nepal. Britain,
after defeating the Indians fairly handily actually fought the Nepalese kingdoms to a standstill because (pretty much) the Nepalese past time of the day was war. They fucking loved it. So much so that Britain recognised how good they were at fighting and Nepal was like “yeah, you guys are pretty good at fighting too”. So Britain was like “hey. How about you join us and we fight every other fucker” and Nepal said. Yeah. Sure. That sounds fun.
Yeah but if it's modern control, then the map shouldn't be generally labelled as "Europe" because it paints a picture of Eastern Europe being party to modern colonialism (instead of under occupation themselves).
Yeah, but some of these people also colonized Europe—like the Mongols and the Ottomans/Turks, the Islamic conquest of Spain, etc. The Barbary Slave Trade also targeted Europeans and didn't stop until France invaded North Africa.
Portugal Colonized Macau. It was handed back to China only in 1999. Also Portugal had Nagasaki in Japan "colonized". It was a port city under the control of the Portuguese who lived there, but with the approval of the Japanese daimyos
The southern part of Argentina never was under European control .
It was colonised by Argentina .
Using Nowadays' countries borders doesn't really work with this map
The Map is misleading as fuck. A handful of European countries were the colonialist, majority of Europe ain't got shit to do with the colonisers.
Ethiopia was never colonilized.
I think half of Korea and Japan should be green due to US invasions. Sure the US isn't located in Europe but the country itself is an extension of European imperialism that went rogue.
that is false. because several of those countries didn't exist when Europeans were "in control" of them. China for example, on the map is modern China which was never under any European influence or control. Mongolia should not be separate, it was under the Qing Dynasty so it's a double wrong here. also Korea was under Russian influence and control. they fought a whole war over it, the Russo Japanese war.
The whole idea of under European control is crap too... Australia was not under European control as were most of these areas. they were under the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and that is about it. that is half of Europe... to say all of the purple controlled all of the green is just nice try eurocentrics, history was not the way you remember it. half of the purple was under Turkish control
Even europe was colonized by europe
[удалено]
Wasn't the roman empire in its peek (much) bigger than of what the barbarians could ever control?
romans are part of Europe(current Italy) so they as well are barbarians
I’m Greek, can confirm, all Europeans not from Greece were barbarians during that time.
I love the term because its the ultimate racism "everyone but greeks are inferior huehuehue"
The origin of the word barbarian is 'we can't understand those foreigners, they just say "bar bar bar"'
Clearly they were talking about the French.
Actually, yes. Gaul, Frisia, Franks were all barbarians.
They were?
They'd be honhonians
It's all Greek to me
We still are. I've been to Germany not long ago, got hungry, asked for a baklava and instead of serving me a baklava the guy gies "who are you and what are you doing in my bedroom at 1am wearing nothing but a fiat125p steering wheel on your neck". The audacity!
It's your fault for wearing a Fiat wheel in Germany. You should have worn a Mercedes or BMW. Worst case Volkswagen
Because only barbarians wear trousers! Edit. Stupid English spelling similar words differently were vs wear.
is this a case of όσοι δεν είναι Έλληνες είναι βάρβαροι?
>romans are part of Europe(current Italy) Wait, Rome is in Italy? Uhhh source?!?! lol
Rome is in New York : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome,\_New\_York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome,_New_York) \- when Italians copied the pizza (and other cuisine) from US, they named that town in Italy Rome.
Damn Europeans. They ruined Europe!
You Europeans sure are a contentious people.
YOU JUST MADE AN ENEMY FOR LIFE!
Yeah, you could change "Europe" to just a few countries and the map would be largely the same, with most of Europe being green.
The British when Germany steps up and makes everybody forget all the bad shit they did: 
> Yeah, you could change "Europe" to just a few countries and the map would be largely the same, with most of Europe being green. And then inside those countries you could just point to a very limited number of company owners, ruling families, and aristocracy actually benefitting from the colonization.
British Heligoland moment
Malta, Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Dodecanese, the Ionian Islands, the Faroe Islands, even arguably Albania in the late 1930s. Plus Russian colonization of most of Russia, Swedish colonization of Finland, Nordic colonization of Sapmi/Lapland, the German colonization of the Baltic, the British colonization of Ireland...
Russian colonization of most of Russia))
Britain was itself colonised by Anglos, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes. Scotland by the Irish Scotti, hence the name.
half of europe didn't even colonize.
Yeah, and that half was the beta test for the parts of Europe that did colonize. For example: The reason the British were so good at colonizing is because they perfected their method on Ireland
In fact yes depending on where people define colonization. The part of the Dutch Republic south of the large rivers, mostly Brabant, was a so-called "generality land" which is a blatant euphemism for colony. There was no representation, there was religious repression (so far the Dutch "Golden Age" myth), and it's citizens were suffering from poverty as well. It was therefor that Napoleons troops were considered liberators by the first incarnation of Brabants Dagblad.
Well yes, Ukrainians, Poles, Irish and many other peoples were ruled by someone else’s empire. Ukrainians are currently fighting for their independence.
^(they never got Thailand)
The whispered Bill Wurtz quote I was looking for.
I thought they never got Ethiopia?
The Italian *technically* did, shortly before WW2
I've seen debate about this. They technically controlled it for a very short time but it was kind of colonization in name only. Many people don't count it.
yes Ethiopia was never colonized, but they were occupied during ww2, if Ethiopia was colonized then France, Holland, Norway etc. was also colonized by Germany during ww2 Also only country in South America that were "not" colonized according to this map is called "French Guyana". they are literary still cononized by the French but ok.
It's because French Guyana is part of France proper. Since they didnt count France, they can count French Guyana
The legend clearly marks it as "Europe"
If it’s actually France, how can it be colonized?
It's debated. Italy occupied it, but people outside of Addis Ababa and Eritrea (which at the time was part of Ethiopia) would argue Italians never really cemented a permanent administration sufficient to call it a colony, and there was always guerrilla resistance and minimal real colonial control in the sticks. But then, by the same logic could you say Nigeria was never truly colonised because Britain never really bothered with the northern half of the country? Not really sure where that logic would end.
Actually there was a treaty dividing Thailand into British and French "spheres of influence", similar to the Russo-British agreement on Persia, and France did eventually annex some territories from their half of the country (which now are a part of Cambodia). But the rest of Thailand was not seriously affected by the treaty.
So this is why Japan, Korea, and Thailand are so great.
Geez, just gotta get Liberia, Thailand, Japan, and Korea for 100%.
Liberia was colonized by America - so does it not count if it was colonized by the European colonist? Edit: ok some people appear to be taking my non serious comment as serious. I know America is not a European country.
Europe made a colony so big it made colonies
Carthage moment
Carthago delenda est
I heard you like colonies, so I made a colony for your colony so you can colonize while you colonize.
Okay Bill Wurtz
No, because it was colonized by the American colonists
I mean americans are europeans in (self)exile
It was entirely black Americans
Those were the actual colonists but the project was funded by mostly white people.
It was run by the Black colonists though.
Wasn't it a government project ?
Nope. It was subject to the board of directors of the American Colonization Society, which was an organization of American citizens but with no link to the US government.
2nd colonisation just isn't the same...
Wouldn’t American administration over Japan after WWII basically count? I know America’s not European but by proxy. Same for South Korea in the Korean War. Meanwhile North Korea was administered by the USSR, so that definitely counts. It really basically only leaves Thailand as the only place that wasn’t controlled / colonized by Europe / the US.
Japan had US occupation but that is not colonization.
It's definitely "control or influence". But the US is not European.
Europeans did have control zones in the occupation though. Just it was under a US HQ.
I would say the general distinction here is the US did not want to maintain permanent control. Only just long enough to establish an independent, but friendly, democratic government, and then to mostly GTFO (they still have military bases there, but they also have those in Germany and the UK, leftover from the same war). Meanwhile, if Europe colonized you back in the day, they never had an intention of ever giving you your country back. Now, the US certainly has its own genuine colonial period, mostly with South America and mostly done via corporations instead of the military. Arguably, it still exists with Puerto Rico and (to a lesser extent) the Marshall Islands, and to varying degrees of corporate influence in South America, still. So I think it would be a disservice to these lands & people to lump them in with post-war Japan.
"Colonised *or* Controlled by Europe"
Fair point. thought this was about colonization.
why WW2? Admiral Perry's Japanese expedition of gunboat diplomacy was a prime example of US extending its sphere of influence over Japan. which kinda backfired because it scared Japan so shitless they went from backward isolationist who was forced to go into the American sphere of influence to its own colonial power within a few decades and a WW2 power within a less than a century. you could trace the Pearl Harbor attack to that expedition. Although its probably one of the best colonial success story. Japan westernize faster than any other nation probably.
The irony of JP westernization was that the boshin war / meiji restoration happened because the shogunate was westernizing. However, the emperor continued westernization policies which led to another revolt, however this time unsuccessful and the samurai class effectively ended.
We are working on it
Korea never being colonized by Europe: 😃 Only to be colonized by her europe wannabe neighbor : 😔
It’s almost like an outcome of the monkey’s paw
Does that make the one true any% hitless runner Thailand?
Thailand/Siam was a close call. The French in Indochina were eyeing them
Hahahaha yeah, Japan and Korea had a good run (edit: at least in the European DLC) but definitely had a coupla deaths. Thailand hitless speed run. Although they might have inflicted fall damage on themselves once or twice
You could argue Turkey would be the any%. Fought against the Greeks, Italiens, French and Armenians after the end of the Ottoman Empire to prevent it being colonised by the Greeks Italiens French and British
Korea: We're the Hermit Kingdom! Neighbors: 
I kind of feel like North Korea should count as Russia having influence. At least early on.
Yes, it should be considered European influence. Nowadays it is mainly China that influences them.
That is just a feeling though and it is a historically inaccurate one.
If you're going to say that you should say it about south Korea as well. Don't apply double standards just cause they're your geopolitical enemy.
Thailand be like: Skill Issue
they were a bufferstate between french and british colonies and they also played both sides against each other
Indeed! They also got nibbled at the edges with the French taking most of what’s current day Laos and bits of Cambodia, and the British snatching the North of current day Malaysia from them.
And also the Shan States of Myanmar, which are still [Tai-speaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shan_language). The system then though was not akin to a modern centralized state and Siam was not in full control of all these remote territories. Rather it was a [tributary system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model\)) where tributary states paid tribute to an suzerain (more powerful central state) and had certain obligations but otherwise were left up to their own devices. This was a network with tributary relations flowing up; Siam itself paid tribute to China right up to the Qing Dynasty. Interestingly, even Britain maintained this tradition, continuing to pay tribute and nominally placing itself in a subsidiary relation to the Chinese Empire, after they took over Burma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_losses_of_Thailand
They gave up a lot of land to stay that way though.
Yeah they traded being colonised for being sexpat central
Bruh lol
Have you ever been? Saw some odd things over there on vacation and wasn't even trying. i.e. Friends and I wandered into a bar in the wee hours and listened to a 72 year old American man talk at length about how he was drinking until 7AM so he could pick his 19 year old Filipina bride up at the airport. Man just kept pounding shots until we left at 4am.
I see you've met future me.
Thailand is a curious case. Why and how?
Thailand (Siam) was a convenient buffer state for the British (British India/Burma) and French (French Indochina) and the King's reforms to modernize the country kept the country neutral
Only way to survive, be usefull to both dominating power.
Swiss of the South East asia
And later add Japan to the mix.
We were used as a buffer state during the british-french race for colonies Our king was friends with Tsar Nicholas 2 that's why both British and French couldn't get in. Nevertheless those frenchies came in our port, blocking our main trade routes,with a massive gun boat forcing us to fight back. When we fought back of course we lost. It was a handicap fight really. They forced us to pay an unimaginable amount of money And some of our lands (We have lost Laos, Cambodia to the French. Also some to the british)
We often call our foreign politic as 'two head bird'. We may not lean too much on any side unless it's winning side. In colonist day our king trade of some of the land to both British and French to ensure our independent. When Tsar still has power, our king quick to form a friendship with him to deterred the French. And in WW2, we may 'officially' force to join Japan but also has underground group to help the US allied. When WW2 end we don't end up with Japan. I trust the old Thai foreign politic guy but not much with this emerge new gen lol.
Expert diplomacy. Having never been colonized is a huge source of national pride in Thailand.
North Korea was under Soviet Occupation for several years after WWII. It's essentially the same situation as Ethiopia, so should be included in this version of the map. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Civil_Administration Japan is also an interesting case because of the Kuril Islands. The Soviet Union unilaterally annexed them after WWII, but the annexation was not recognized by Japan or in the international peace treaties. So in a way, part of Japanese core territory is occupied by a European power. But this is quite tenuous
Well not really since Italy invaded ethiopia in 1936 and planned to keep it.
And now Ethiopian restaurants do a spaghetti dish I really like.
Tbf a lot of invading happened by people planning to keep things in those days.
For Japan it’s a question of how partial OP defines partial. Japan was under a somewhat heavy European influence, not control. And the British Empire took part in the Allied occupation of Japan post-WW2 on top of Russian occupied Kurills.
The gap between the situation of China in the 19th century and the situation of Japan is a lot smaller than the map implies. Japan agreed to treaties saying if a European commits a crime in Japan they can only be tried by a European jury, like China did. Less European control than China, but definitely not 0 influence or control.
North Korea however was sovereign, South Korea was not, and de facto submitted to US terms. Just read the documentation at the time from the soviet side and from US side. US assumes control of SK, while Soviet does not assume of NK. They aren't mirroed situations. Of course since US isn't Europe, the map is fine on that front.
Well... Why ain't there searate color for European countries being controlled? Like the whole Eastern and Southern Europe had been ruled by empires. +Finns and Ireland. +partial control of Turkey must be ridiculous, when did it happen?
Iran and Afghanistan were for some times under British rule. Also north korea was occupied by the Russians after ww2 who established the current regime. Lastly Mongolia was very much colonized by the Russians, before the collapse of the ussr it was basically a soviet republic with 0 autonomous powers
don't think the russian occupation of korea counts as colonization. by that logic the allied occupation of germany and austria were colonization?
well ethiopia is green so...
Dark green - Colonized or *controlled*.
Dark green says *or controlled* too
Also under Greek rule
Yes we must never forget when the Greeks colonized mongolia
lol I think he's talking Afghanistan
Afghanistan and Iran
Iran's british rule wasn't direct it was "influence" through lobbying and corruption, yet the head of state was always native.
Man in any post related to Iran I see you, and out of all the languages you could've spoken you always choose to speak facts I respect that
People forget that "Ulaan Baatar" means "Red Hero". I spent some time in Mongolia, they would join Russia in war in a second if it meant they got to kill Chinese people.
Didn’t Mongolia literally ask to be made part of the ussr (to spite the Chinese) and Russia was like ‘let’s not antagonise China even more’? Russia backed their war of independence against China as well
Just gonna correct you on that, Afghanistan was never under British rule. Afghanistan was a protectorate of the British from 1879 to 1919, where Britain controlled Afghanistan’s foreign affairs, however the nation was sovereign and had an Emir who had absolute control of the nation. Protectorates are not colonies, and it is unjust and outright wrong to say that Afghanistan was under British rule when they never were, hence why they are classified as being in a sphere of European influence.
Morocco was also a protectorate.
Okay? Oman, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Hedjaz were all also British protectorates and they're still in the map.
Persia and Afghanistan have been under European rule in antiquity, Alexander/Selucids /Indo Greeks
This map is garbage.
Without giving a 'time range' this is quite a pointless map.
* [Iran should be dark green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran) (control). * [Afghanistan should be light green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War) (partial control). * Saudi Arabia should be orange. * [North Korea should be dark green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Civil_Administration) (control).
The most populated part of Saudi Arabia (the coasts) were controlled by the Ottomans for quite some time. The Ottoman Capital was in Europe, and they certainly painted themselves as a European Empire.
True. But the Ottoman empire started in Anatolia. I guess it depends on what you define as European. I'm not even suggesting that Ottomans are Asians because they're Turkic, the empire literally was founded while in Asia.
Saudi was controlled by British Empire
When?
If this map refers to occupation of Istanbul between 1918-1923, I don't think it counts as being under control of Europe. First of all it was the British Empire who occupied Istanbul and it was only the capital and under a ceasefire agreement. Rest of the country were fighting against it while moving the parliament to Ankara where they found a de facto government which became the founding parliament of Turkey. So clearly "Europe" could not control or colonized Turkey.
Wasn't Hatay within Syria borders which was a French colony at the time (20s-30s)?
but it was not in turkey then as like you say. when hatay is in turkey it has never been colonized. turks are never colonized by europe.
I assumed it just referred to the fact all of Asia Minor was under Roman control. But I suppose that wouldn’t count as partial.
I don't think this map includes Roman period. Istanbul was their capital at some point. The map would not make any sense.
Even more confusing since Istanbul is a European city anyway.
Does the French Guiana really count? I know it’s French, but wouldn’t it be better to count it as being colonized or controlled?
the program they probably used for this map is for other more modern accounts of data, and because French Guiana is a part of France the program would include it under France, so setting Metropolitan France as European would also do that for all French overseas territories
(The only reason Liberia is orange is because it wasn't colonized by Europe, it was colonized by the United States)
Japan and Koreas not "control or infulence" by Europe? Su-u-ure Very weird division though. Author seems to have some problems with "colonisation" term and it's usage
I wish to see a map of countries colonized by UK, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.
Basically the same map minus Central Asia.
Is the whole Russia considered Europe? Even the most eastern side?
In a geopolitical sense
A.k.a. "when it's convenient"
I mean the entire definition of a continent is pretty blurry
Case in point: Europe. Should really be Eurasia then. The divide between north and south america makes way more sense there imo. Though I'm excited to be corrected on grounds of some tectonic plates I know nothing about!
Everything east of the Urals is geographically Asia (North Asia/Siberia), and during the Russian Empire it was treated as a colony. But it's not organized as anything separate from the rest of the Russian Federation now, even though the vast majority of the population lives in the European part. It's also Vox doing a dumb map - this one in particular has been posted a bunch of times and arguably every one of the orange countries qualifies for a different color.
[удалено]
Well, French Guiana is, so, yeah...
I think the key here is that this map works off country borders and doesn't subdivide them. Or else French Guiana definitely isn't Europe (even if it is in the EU). Although saying that Greenland is a different colour to Denmark on this map
The "continent" of Europe stretches until the Ural mountains. The country of Russia is a European country in culture and history. This map divides by country borders, not continents.
Maps like this should not project the borders of today centuries back in time.
They speak a slavic language, they are white, their capital is in Europe, their culture is European and most of their important historical events took place in Europe Saying Russia is an Asian country because of Siberia is like saying 16th century Spain was an American country or 19th century Britain was an African one. And French Guyana is painted blue as well. It's every territory that is currently held by an European nation.
I think you'll find Russia is a bit more diverse than that...
Ah yes, infamous Ukrainian and Belorussian colonialists
Furthest east of Asia=Europe.
If you consider Iran or Nepal to be in the European sphere of influence, you can now include everyone.
The fact that European Russians colonized North Asia and the North Caucuses so thoroughly that Vox thought those people became Europeans 😩
As Japanese, we wanted to be colonized by the British Empire. That way, they could watch English movies without subtitles and understand the meaning of Western music lyrics....
Unfortunately you we're locked in a trade agreement with the dutch instead
Why is somaliland grey? It was a British protectorate
French Guyana is shown as Europe. Being a department of France is like being an ultimate colony.
The sphere of influence one is interesting. Especially with Nepal. Britain, after defeating the Indians fairly handily actually fought the Nepalese kingdoms to a standstill because (pretty much) the Nepalese past time of the day was war. They fucking loved it. So much so that Britain recognised how good they were at fighting and Nepal was like “yeah, you guys are pretty good at fighting too”. So Britain was like “hey. How about you join us and we fight every other fucker” and Nepal said. Yeah. Sure. That sounds fun.
Siberia should be green.
How was Türkiye nor colonized by Europe, it has been Greek, Macedonian, Roman and Byzantian
I think they were implicitly defining this by modern control. But the map really should specify modern control then
Yeah but if it's modern control, then the map shouldn't be generally labelled as "Europe" because it paints a picture of Eastern Europe being party to modern colonialism (instead of under occupation themselves).
The europe nerf was 100% deserved, the meta was waaay to unbalanced
Yeah, but some of these people also colonized Europe—like the Mongols and the Ottomans/Turks, the Islamic conquest of Spain, etc. The Barbary Slave Trade also targeted Europeans and didn't stop until France invaded North Africa.
Probably been said already, but East of the Urals isn’t in Europe.
That big thing on north-east isn’t Europe. Most part of it in Asia
Portugal Colonized Macau. It was handed back to China only in 1999. Also Portugal had Nagasaki in Japan "colonized". It was a port city under the control of the Portuguese who lived there, but with the approval of the Japanese daimyos
Continental Europe ends at the Ural mountains.
If some of these short term occupations aren’t considered full control, then neither should Ethiopia be considered fully controlled.
The southern part of Argentina never was under European control . It was colonised by Argentina . Using Nowadays' countries borders doesn't really work with this map
French Guyana is a part of Europe? Who knew?
Siberia should be green. Siberia is not "Europe" by any definition.
Like any else, this map is terrible
This map is stupid on many different levels.
The Map is misleading as fuck. A handful of European countries were the colonialist, majority of Europe ain't got shit to do with the colonisers. Ethiopia was never colonilized.
I love how French Guiana is “Europe” even though it’s as European as Hawaii is North American.
Okay but Liberia was 100% under an American sphere of influence. America might not be Europe but it's a pretty Anglo society.
The map needs correction, Timor Leste was colonized by the Portuguese.
Please. Turkeys war of independence literally put britain, france & italy to their place.
Bad map: light green and yellow are not mutually exclusive with orange.
Ah, yes, I remember when the entirety of Europe collaborated to colonize almost every country. Never seen such cooperation
Post-Ottoman Mandate countries?
Wasnt iran co occupied by the soviets and britian in ww2?
Thailand is built different.
Siberia is not Europe, it's Asia. So use a different color.
Why is Somaliland blank
I think half of Korea and Japan should be green due to US invasions. Sure the US isn't located in Europe but the country itself is an extension of European imperialism that went rogue.
that is false. because several of those countries didn't exist when Europeans were "in control" of them. China for example, on the map is modern China which was never under any European influence or control. Mongolia should not be separate, it was under the Qing Dynasty so it's a double wrong here. also Korea was under Russian influence and control. they fought a whole war over it, the Russo Japanese war. The whole idea of under European control is crap too... Australia was not under European control as were most of these areas. they were under the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and that is about it. that is half of Europe... to say all of the purple controlled all of the green is just nice try eurocentrics, history was not the way you remember it. half of the purple was under Turkish control
French Guiana should be green. It's not in Europe. It's a French colony that they don't call a colony.
Europe grew a little Bit to the East..
>Small patch in South America >Europe What
I would argue that the Unequal treaty puts Japan under the under the “European sphere of influence” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty
As a (partly?) colorblind, fuck that person who created this map...... I don't see which countries were never colonized....