4 ms·

> Kind of crazy just how late it was decolonized: 1975. Actually it was fully decolonized in 2002. Independence didn't lead to real independence. Europeans, a

> Kind of crazy just how late it was decolonized: 1975. Actually it was fully decolonized in 2002. Independence didn't lead to real independence. Europeans, americans, russians, etc fought over "independent" angola for 37 years after 1975. The last foreign troops "officially" left in 1989. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War > You don't really think of 20th century Portugal as having remnants of empire. Portugal officially returned macau to china in 1999. Now that is shocking. A small nation of 10 million keeping territory from a nation of 1.4 billion until 1999. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Macaus-Return-to-China-353703 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Macaus-Return-to-China-3537... Also portugal kept gao from india into the 60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa It's pretty amazing how such a small colonial power stayed under the radar for so long. Most european empires still have overseas colonies. The french still have colonies all over the world. The british just renamed their the "commonwealth". And former european colonial powers still exercise power over much of africa, middle east, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict#Battle_of_Konna_and_French_intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict#Battle_... It's now under the banner of "democracy and freedom and etc" rather than to bring "civilization". European colonization just got rebranded. That's all.

danmaz74 9y ago
> The french still have colonies all over the world They're not colonies if their inhabitants are full French citizens (which they are AFAIK). Are the Hawaii a US colony?
- coredog64 9y ago
  Not only that, but Schengen rules are in place. They do use a different currency, but it is pegged to the Euro.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- MisterPC 9y ago
  Semantically no, but in reality it is. Like many parts of the US, if they hadn't been flooded with American citizens they would have eventually regained their independence. Not that I think independence is necessarily a good thing.
  - Hasknewbie 9y ago
    >> Semantically no, but in reality it is. If you're still including French oversea departments in that statement, then you are out of your depth here, I must say. Do you know people from the French Caribbeans or Reunion? I do. If you had said they feel under-represented, not supported enough by their government (relative to other regions), or victim of racism, you would have been correct. But talks about being 'colonized'? I have basically never heard that. This is not even part of the discussion for them. This is supported by their local political landscape: independentist-leaning parties are either anecdotical in size, or have changed their position on this topic. Hell, there are more overt secessionist parties on the French mainland itself (Britany, Corsica), which should tell you something. This is also a weird remark to make, since France is known to still be very much a neo-colonial power that often interfere in their former colonies' politics, and seldom for the better. So if you're looking for nefarious colonialist behaviour, it's there, just not in their oversea departments.
    - MisterPC 9y ago
      No, I wasn't making any remark about French colonies as I was replying to a direct question about Hawaii. I actually think unification is preferable to independence. Independence mainly seems to benefit the people in control.
nl 9y ago
While you make some good points, The british just renamed their the "commonwealth". is pretty inaccurate. The Commonwealth includes countries like Australia, Canada and India. Britian doesn't dominate them.
- rangibaby 9y ago
  There are two Australian examples that make me mad every time I think of them: - U.K. nuclear testing - the removal of Gough Whitlam
  - nl 9y ago
    The Gough Whitlam thing was Australian domestic politics, and the palace only provided advice. Yes it is crazy we still aren't a republic, but I think the dismissal was our own disfunction.
- ZanyProgrammer 9y ago
  See also Bermuda, Gibraltar, and the Falkland Islands.
mrisoli 9y ago
> It's pretty amazing how such a small colonial power stayed under the radar for so long. I'm biased because being Brazilian the history of the Portuguese empire wasn't exactly under the radar for us, especially during history lessons. IMO Portugal never stayed under the radar, it just faded into its own disarray, they had all the tools and resources(its colonies and geographical position) to rule over the world but didn't due to widespread corruption and bureaucracy.
- sageikosa 9y ago
  Portugal was more concerned with getting trade goods from the far east than trying to build up sub-Saharan Africa for most of it's history. It just so happened that when the Scramble for Africa started, Portugal already had toeholds all along the coast.
tragomaskhalos 9y ago
Well most of the British Empire unravelled soon after WW II because the country was broke and exhausted, hence there was little appetite for clinging onto those overseas possessions that began clamouring for independence.

danmaz74 9y ago

> The french still have colonies all over the world They're not colonies if their inhabitants are full French citizens (which they are AFAIK). Are the Hawaii a US colony?

coredog64 9y ago
Not only that, but Schengen rules are in place. They do use a different currency, but it is pegged to the Euro.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
MisterPC 9y ago
Semantically no, but in reality it is. Like many parts of the US, if they hadn't been flooded with American citizens they would have eventually regained their independence. Not that I think independence is necessarily a good thing.
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
  >> Semantically no, but in reality it is. If you're still including French oversea departments in that statement, then you are out of your depth here, I must say. Do you know people from the French Caribbeans or Reunion? I do. If you had said they feel under-represented, not supported enough by their government (relative to other regions), or victim of racism, you would have been correct. But talks about being 'colonized'? I have basically never heard that. This is not even part of the discussion for them. This is supported by their local political landscape: independentist-leaning parties are either anecdotical in size, or have changed their position on this topic. Hell, there are more overt secessionist parties on the French mainland itself (Britany, Corsica), which should tell you something. This is also a weird remark to make, since France is known to still be very much a neo-colonial power that often interfere in their former colonies' politics, and seldom for the better. So if you're looking for nefarious colonialist behaviour, it's there, just not in their oversea departments.
  - MisterPC 9y ago
    No, I wasn't making any remark about French colonies as I was replying to a direct question about Hawaii. I actually think unification is preferable to independence. Independence mainly seems to benefit the people in control.

nl 9y ago

While you make some good points, The british just renamed their the "commonwealth". is pretty inaccurate. The Commonwealth includes countries like Australia, Canada and India. Britian doesn't dominate them.

rangibaby 9y ago
There are two Australian examples that make me mad every time I think of them: - U.K. nuclear testing - the removal of Gough Whitlam
- nl 9y ago
  The Gough Whitlam thing was Australian domestic politics, and the palace only provided advice. Yes it is crazy we still aren't a republic, but I think the dismissal was our own disfunction.
ZanyProgrammer 9y ago
See also Bermuda, Gibraltar, and the Falkland Islands.

mrisoli 9y ago

> It's pretty amazing how such a small colonial power stayed under the radar for so long. I'm biased because being Brazilian the history of the Portuguese empire wasn't exactly under the radar for us, especially during history lessons. IMO Portugal never stayed under the radar, it just faded into its own disarray, they had all the tools and resources(its colonies and geographical position) to rule over the world but didn't due to widespread corruption and bureaucracy.

sageikosa 9y ago
Portugal was more concerned with getting trade goods from the far east than trying to build up sub-Saharan Africa for most of it's history. It just so happened that when the Scramble for Africa started, Portugal already had toeholds all along the coast.

tragomaskhalos 9y ago

Well most of the British Empire unravelled soon after WW II because the country was broke and exhausted, hence there was little appetite for clinging onto those overseas possessions that began clamouring for independence.