Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland? (Read 135534 times)

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #275 –
In short, colonies. There's clearly the main/centre versus other/periphery relationship in every case, historically conqueror versus conquered. The word for it used to be colony. Since there's no other word invented for this meanwhile, the word for it is still colony.

In 13th century, Pope Innocentius III announced Northern Crusades. Germand and Danes conquered Livonia (Latvia) and Estonia. Swedes conquered Finland. That's how colonisation worked at that time.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #276 –
Quote from: ersi on
In short, colonies. There's clearly the main/centre versus other/periphery relationship in every case, historically conqueror versus conquered. The word for it used to be colony. Since there's no other word invented for this meanwhile, the word for it is still colony.

Yes, I agree. "Autonomous country" it's a farse. Real countries don't needs adjectives. "Country" says it all.

The only advancement in this area was made by the Portuguese "Estado Novo" when we started calling to colonies "ultramarine provinces", integrant parts of the Nation. But, of course, you're not aware of this nor I expect you to be.
Quote from: ersi on
In 13th century, Pope Innocentius III announced Northern Crusades. Germand and Danes conquered Livonia (Latvia) and Estonia. Swedes conquered Finland. That's how colonisation worked at that time.

Ahh, the good times. When even pagans obeyed to the Pope...  :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #277 –
Quote from: ersi on
In short, colonies.

We tend to think of colonies as non-self-governing entities. Of course there are degrees of everything, but in any case the former colonies have become decreasingly that which we think of when we say "colony" over the past half century.

Quote from: Belfrager on
The only advancement in this area was made by the Portuguese "Estado Novo" when we started calling to colonies "ultramarine provinces", integrant parts of the Nation. But, of course, you're not aware of this nor I expect you to be.

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba are municipalities within the Netherlands (the country).

Quote from: Belfrager on
Yes, I agree. "Autonomous country" it's a farse. Real countries don't needs adjectives. "Country" says it all.

The countries that make up the Kingdom of the Netherlands are just called countries. Looking at Danish Wikipedia, keeping in mind I don't speak Danish:

Quote from: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongeriget_Danmark
Kongeriget Danmark (eller Danmarks Rige) er et konstitutionelt monarki, som består af Danmark i det nordlige Europa og statens to selvstyrende områder: øgruppen Færøerne i Nordatlanten og øen Grønland, som geografisk hører til det nordamerikanske kontinent men geopolitisk til Europa.

The Kingdom of Denmark (also called the Danish Realm) is a constitutional monarchy, which consists of Denmark … and the state's two self-governing (selvstyrende) territories/regions (områder).

The reason I opt to view this as territories or regions for the time being is that Denmark itself is called a "land" (country) on Danish Wikipedia, the plural of which is "lande". Presumably it's felt that "territory" implies too little autonomy compared to country, but they may not be full "lande" the way e.g. Curaçao is indeed a land (this time Dutch, not Danish, and it definitely means country).

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #278 –
To me an independent Country is a Nation, meaning that it needs to be three things: a sovereign territory, with a sovereign People and a sovereign State. It helps to have it's own language...
The territory doesn't needs to be necessarily adjacent.

Colonies are a different matter. Starting with that a colony is not a country (at least while it is a colony).
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #279 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Quote from: ersi on
In short, colonies.

We tend to think of colonies as non-self-governing entities. Of course there are degrees of everything, but in any case the former colonies have become decreasingly that which we think of when we say "colony" over the past half century.

"We" meaning you colonisers? Because to me (belonging to a regularly/periodically colonised people) the "self-governing" aspect is totally irrelevant. "Self-governing" is a ludicrous concept invented and granted by a central government, whereas the thing that really matters is independence.

A colony is not defined by a degree of self-government or lack of it. It's defined by the relationship to the mainland/motherland. When such a relationship exists, then it's a colony. When there's no such relationship, i.e. the country is independent, then it's not a colony.

Renaming a former colony to "land" or "country" as if on a par with the mainland (which is also called "land" or "country") makes the colonial relationship between the mainland and periphery ambiguous. This only serves to wipe the colonial past under the rug, while keeping it in effect in practice. It makes the colonisers feel they are not colonisers anymore. Self-deception.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #280 –
The Norse settlements in Greenland and Canada were classic colonies. The islands (Iceland, Faroe, Shetland, and the rest) one by one came under direct control of the Norwegian crown, though they de facto had significant independence. When Norway came under control of the Danish crown, so did these territories, some which were subsequently pawned off to the Scottish crown. When Denmark picked the wrong side in the Napoleonic wars, Norway, but not the territories, was lost to the Swedish king (a French Napoleonic lieutenant promoted to royalty after Sweden lost Finland to Russia). 

The original colonies on Greenland failed, so Denmark recolonised the island. Norwegians later tried to occupy parts of Greenland, unsuccessfully.

The Faroe Islands and Greenland are both one vote away from independence. The US in particular has eyed Greenland for a long time, as a buffer state in case of a future conflict with Canada no doubt. An independent Greenland, and their 50,000 inhabitants, could easily fall into the US sphere of influence.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #281 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
Ahh, the good times. When even pagans obeyed to the Pope...   :)


Yes, the Roman Catholic period in Scandinavian history. Lots of conquest on religious terms and forcible conversions with fire and iron.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #282 –
Quote from: jax on

Quote from: Belfrager on
Ahh, the good times. When even pagans obeyed to the Pope...   :)


Yes, the Roman Catholic period in Scandinavian history. Lots of conquest on religious terms and forcible conversions with fire and iron.
I presume natives were pacifists...
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #283 –
Quote from: ersi on
Renaming a former colony to "land" or "country" as if on a par with the mainland (which is also called "land" or "country") makes the colonial relationship between the mainland and periphery ambiguous. This only serves to wipe the colonial past under the rug, while keeping it in effect in practice. It makes the colonisers feel they are not colonisers anymore. Self-deception.

A significantly more accurate way to define what I (as a stand-in for the Dutch/Belgians/French/English) mean by "colony" is the term wingewest. Gewest means territory, and I think win should be fairly self-evident. It is, in short, a territory on which foreign rule is imposed and its purpose is to provide profit of some kind to the motherland, typically in the form of resources (e.g. coal, oil, cotton) or money (which is basically still resources except you sell them instead of using them yourself). Take away the lack of autonomy, remove the profit, and you haven't got a colony in any kind of traditional sense.

As far as the renaming and whatnot goes, the respective things that happened (some islands to become municipalities within the Netherlands, others to become countries within the Netherlands but without de jure independence from the Netherlands) were the result of what is supposed to represent the will of the local people. That is, they had a vote on it and chose to become countries within the kingdom. The only thing I can tell you is that there are preciously few Netherlandic Dutch people around there nowadays, which incidentally is another difference with a traditional colony, which would have a constant stream of fresh administrators etc. coming in from the motherland.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #284 –
Aye but when those Pagans obeyed the Pope is was usually due to terrible violence. Even up to when Italy was forcibly united the then Vatican State which had more territory was covered with a violent military and Police State style so the new United Kingdom of Italy did do something positive! The one consolation for shrinking the violent Papal State was that they no longer got boiled in oil or torn to bits. They just modernised those things.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #285 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Take away the lack of autonomy, remove the profit, and you haven't got a colony in any kind of traditional sense.

So, when the territory has autonomy, nominal or perhaps even substantial, and it provides no other profit than merely serving as a possession to the motherland, then it's not a colony? What is it then? If the answer is none better than the vaguest and broadest "land" or such, it's not an answer. Really, as long as the motherland versus possession or mainland versus periphery relationship is there, it's reasonable to call it a colony.
 
Quote from: Frenzie on

As far as the renaming and whatnot goes, the respective things that happened (some islands to become municipalities within the Netherlands, others to become countries within the Netherlands but without de jure independence from the Netherlands) were the result of what is supposed to represent the will of the local people. That is, they had a vote on it and chose to become countries within the kingdom. The only thing I can tell you is that there are preciously few Netherlandic Dutch people around there nowadays, which incidentally is another difference with a traditional colony, which would have a constant stream of fresh administrators etc. coming in from the motherland.

That's what colonies have become these days. In terms of administration, they are more a burden than a source of easy income. Often enough the only economic potential they have now is tourism. And as Jax said, there are places like this one vote away from independence, while others have nominal independence. This doesn't change the fact that for the time being they are colonies or, if you like, former colonies, but it's shorter to say colonies without any loss of accuracy of meaning.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #286 –
For defining what a colony is it doesn't matter at all what the colony is. What matters is what the "colonizer" says.
It's a colony, it's a colony. No, it's a hwrehfqekfhcwe, than a hwrehfqekfhcwe will be.
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #287 –
Quote from: ersi on
This doesn't change the fact that for the time being they are colonies or, if you like, former colonies, but it's shorter to say colonies without any loss of accuracy of meaning.

That seems little different than saying that because a few of the aforementioned countries are monarchies they are basically the same as France under le Roi-Soleil without any loss of accuracy or meaning. Of course in spite of that it's reasonable enough in principle to say that a colony in the ancient world generally means one thing, a colony in the Age of Discovery another, and a colony in the twenty-first century something different as well. The existence of a kind of center versus periphery relationship would be their logical commonality. You're welcome to try to change English practice, but in the meantime prepare to communicate with a lack of clarity. :P

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #288 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

You're welcome to try to change English practice, but in the meantime prepare to communicate with a lack of clarity. :P

Actually, I greatly win in clarity and brevity, when you compare "colony" with "land" or "territory". The latter are broad ambiguous words requiring lots of clarifying context in order to achieve any specificity of meaning. The former is specific all by itself. "Colony" may seem anachronistic, but it's well-defined and straight to the point.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #289 –
Quote from: ersi on
"Colony" may seem anachronistic, but it's well-defined and straight to the point.

It's precisely because the word colony is well-defined that these aren't colonies. When an obese person loses weight they may not be skinny just yet, but there comes a point when they cease being obese. The center/periphery relationship of a country like Curaçao hasn't really been de jure with the Netherlands ever since becoming a country and has been de facto primarily with its larger neighbor Venezuela for quite a bit longer than that. Perhaps it requires de jure independence like Suriname decided to acquire in the 1970s so shed the last bit of lingering fat, but to insist that Curaçao is still obese is not in the interest of clarity. Instead, it's in the interest of anti-colonial rhetoric. Perhaps such rhetoric is well-deserved; perhaps it's quite effective (after all, it's made me think more about something so far removed from my daily life than I have in years); but rhetoric it is.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #290 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Quote from: ersi on
"Colony" may seem anachronistic, but it's well-defined and straight to the point.

It's precisely because the word colony is well-defined that these aren't colonies. When an obese person loses weight they may not be skinny just yet, but there comes a point when they cease being obese.

This analogy does not apply. Being obese versus skinny is an assessment compared to an independent standard of normalcy or averageness, but being a colony is a relationship to a motherland or mainland, regardless of what's going on in the world otherwise. Being a colony is the fact that the country has a motherland which exploits it or determines its autonomy/independence.

Curaçao is an island in South America that is politically subject to the Netherlands in Europe. That's a pretty clear colonial relationship. Can Curaçao simply lose weight to cease to be a colony? You are saying that colonies have ceased to be colonies by mere passage of time. Really, it takes a severance of the colonial relationship to end the status of colony and to gain political and economic self-reliance and independence.
 

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #291 –
Quote from: ersi on
Being a colony is the fact that the country has a motherland which exploits it or determines its autonomy/independence.

By that definition Curaçao and the other former Dutch Antilles do not seem to be colonies. Curaçao chooses to be one of the four countries that currently constitute the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It could also freely choose to leave the kingdom. The Netherlands could similarly leave the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for example to become a republic, leaving the Kingdom to the other three constituent countries — wouldn't that be fun? ;)

Quote from: ersi on
You are saying that colonies have ceased to be colonies by mere passage of time.

No, the primary aspect is autonomy and self-determination. An real colony couldn't possibly be "one vote away from independence." It would need something like an armed revolution. The passage of time plays a role too, of course, in that you might say this autonomy was merely granted by the colonizer back in 1955. But the same autonomy that came with being a constituent country has now been the norm for two generations.

Quote from: ersi on
Really, it takes a severance of the colonial relationship to end the status of colony and to gain political and economic self-reliance and independence.

But what if a de jure change wouldn't de facto change much if anything? I mean that both ways. In the former colony of Belgian Congo, most of the industry and such was still controlled by Belgian companies. I believe the common term for that type of relationship is neocolonialism. In contrast, the in your view still-colony of Curaçao is effectively completely independent except for its disproportionally strong navy. Note economically, for example, that Curaçao's currency is the Guilder, not the Euro. (And a Netherlands Antilean Guilder that has been separate from the Dutch Guilder since 1940, mind you, not since the introduction of the Euro in 2001.)

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #292 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Curaçao chooses to be one of the four countries that currently constitute the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It could also freely choose to leave the kingdom.

In other words, like Faeroe and Greenland, Curaçao is one vote away from independence. Until then, it's a colony. "Curaçao chooses" and "freely chooses" is false. Did Curaçao choose to be colonised originally? No, it was captured by the will of the Netherlands alone. The same way, it has been given the freedom to vote for independence by the will of the Netherlands alone. Curaçao didn't choose either of this.

Quote from: Frenzie on

The Netherlands could similarly leave the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for example to become a republic, leaving the Kingdom to the other three constituent countries — wouldn't that be fun? ;)

When Curaçao leaves the Kingdom of the Netherlands, there will still be Kingdom of the Netherlands. When Kingdom of the Netherlands "leaves" it, there will be no more Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands will morph into a different regime. That's the difference between colony/periphery and motherland/mainland/heartland.

Similarly, as long as peripheral republics were leaving Soviet Union, Soviet Union was still standing. But when Russia left it, Soviet Union collapsed, because Russia was its heart.

Quote from: Frenzie on

No, the primary aspect is autonomy and self-determination. An real colony couldn't possibly be "one vote away from independence." It would need something like an armed revolution. The passage of time plays a role too, ...

The separation may be violent/barbaric or civilised/diplomatic, it doesn't change the fact that it's a separation, a severance of the colonial relationship. And it doesn't matter in what age it occurs. These days the colonisers like to use their fuzzy politically correct language, it won't change the fact that they are colonisers who historically conquered and currently still keep colonies.

Quote from: Frenzie on

Quote from: ersi on
Really, it takes a severance of the colonial relationship to end the status of colony and to gain political and economic self-reliance and independence.

But what if a de jure change wouldn't de facto change anything? I mean that both ways. In the former colony of Belgian Congo, most of the industry and such was still controlled by Belgian companies. I believe the common term for that type of relationship is neocolonialism. In contrast, the in your view still-colony of Curaçao is effectively completely independent except for its disproportionally strong navy. Note economically, for example, that Curaçao's currency is the Guilder, not the Euro. (And a Netherlands Antilean Guilder that has been separate from the Dutch Guilder since 1940, mind you, not since the introduction of the Euro in 2001.)

It can be interesting to discuss the various degrees and forms of colonisation and post- and neo-colonialism, but let's be clear - they are all variations of colonisation. Great Britain has the longest and widest colonial history and it has employed very different approaches in different places, some encounters turned out rather friendly, as long as they managed to dupe the locals into believing it was an equal business relationship, but it was actually all colonisation.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #293 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Speaking about Baltic States, I read that Estonian Airlines stopped flying. Nice stewardesses they had.

As long as Estonian Air operated, I preferred to start my flights anywhere else but Tallinn. Flights from Tallinn were somehow considerably more expensive than to go to Helsinki or Riga or Vilnius and start there. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the long-serving CEO of Estonian Air, Tero Taskila, a Finn, was consistently earning the highest CEO salaries in Estonia while his airlines company made heavy losses. The next CEO for a few years, Jan Olof Palmer, a Swede, was advertised as a saviour for the company, even though his career up to that point suggested a master of bankruptcies. The suggestion proved correct and the company has been liquidated now. On the upside, I see now that flights starting at Tallinn airport have become affordable.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #294 –
Are you aware, ersi, that no American airlines have every been "profitable"… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #295 –
As I understand it, a certain infamous Protestant organization in Scotland that has a fondness for the color Orange will begin it's marches again within the next two months.

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #296 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Are you aware, ersi, that no American airlines have every been "profitable"… :)

I am aware that Americans do these things wrong as a matter of principle.

National airlines are not meant to be profitable. Insofar as they are a strategic function, they have to be there. Just like digestion or breathing has to be there, no matter how inefficient or unprofitable. Does it make sense to economise at the expense of your own digestion? Does it make sense to outsource your breathing so you can spare your own lung muscles?

The downfall of Estonian Air followed from the idea that the activity has to be economically efficient and they took a CEO who promised corresponding results - in exchange for egregious money of course. In the end, everybody lost painfully. Not even Latvians are this stupid. It's always embarrassing when Latvians are smarter...

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #297 –
Quote from: ersi on
I am aware that Americans do these things wrong as a matter of principle.
Ah! I see you've caught Howie's disease… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #298 –
This getting ridiculous. The same person repeating this stuff when it is as obvious as the sun that this is and ENGLISH LANGUAGE forum for goodness sake!  :down:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: What's going on in Scandinavia, North Atlantic, Baltic States and Scotland?

Reply #299 –
Quote from: ersi on
National airlines are not meant to be profitable. Insofar as they are a strategic function, they have to be there. Just like digestion or breathing has to be there, no matter how inefficient or unprofitable. Does it make sense to economise at the expense of your own digestion? Does it make sense to outsource your breathing so you can spare your own lung muscles?

Poor Estonians... you really don't realize what is waiting for you...
Forget rationality and national values and say hello to serfdom. Wellcome to (German's) Europe.
A matter of attitude.