While We Wait: The Next Generation

[EQandcivfanatic]

I've been mulling over a few things in preparation for the next fifty years of ABNW. I'd like to therefore ask the people here opinions on the fun issue of decolonization. Namely, is it inevitable no matter the circumstances?

I've heard several theories on decolonization, the difficulty of course is applying them to NESing in general and ABNW specifically. I hope to learn which of these opinions is considered bunk or gospel by the general population. Here's a quick summary of the different theories I've heard (some conflicting):

1. WW2: Without the war, decolonization would have been impossible, because of the massive global instability caused by the conflict.

2. Anti-imperialist superpowers: WW2 on its own was not enough to start up decolonization, instead it was thefact that the two predominant powers, the USA and USSR, were both anti-imperialist that led to political pressure to end imperialism across the world.

3. Economic motivation: Europeans began to believe that colonies could make more money when independent, therefore, decolonization occured.

4. Nationalism: the belief that no matter what, the mere existance of different ethnic and racial groups within the colonies meant that decolonization was certain given enough time.

5. Liberalism: The idea that the believed inevitable rise of liberalism brought about political pressure to end colonial control, particularly in Britain.

6. Education and development: Some argue that when the colonial infastructure and educational systems are developed, the people in the region develop their own separate identity or believe themselves to be deserving of their own nation.


So in summary, what's the consensus here, where does the truth of decolonization lay in the minds of NESers? Based on the different theories, decolonization in ABNW could begin within the next few updates in some regions or never. Thoughts? Comments?

 

[North King]

Briefly, since that's all I have time for.

1. Bunk.
2. Neither, partly true but far, far, from the whole truth.
3. Bunk.
4. Possible. Probably part of a combination.
5. Which Liberalism? You mean the modern-day US convention? Yes, that was part of it.
6. Part of it.

 

[Abaddon]

Can you find enough time to briefly explain bunk 1 please?

Its not a disagree, merely want to understand

 

[North King]

It just seems like independence came waaaaaaaaay too long after World War Two (except in the case of British India) for it to be the primary factor. This is most definitely not my field of expertise in history, though.

 

[Abaddon]

Cheers. My field of expertise isn't even history, thats the start of the problem!

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

in regards to #1: There's also the idea that the losses of the war weakened the colonial powers to the extent that they were unable to deal with the unrest which emerged that much later. Though this can be debated with the Suez Crisis, where the Brits and French had the power to smash Egypt, but were thwarted by the USSR and USA, giving some strength to argument #2

 

[Lord_Iggy]

European nations were able to hold onto their colonies for a period of time significantly outlasting World War II. If that had been the cause, these nations would have all lost their colonies immediately. Also, in a few senses, the Soviets and Americans were playing a new imperialist game of their own.

 

[bombshoo]

It just seems like independence came waaaaaaaaay too long after World War Two (except in the case of British India) for it to be the primary factor. This is most definitely not my field of expertise in history, though.

But didn't WWII allow for the Nationalist movements to grow in strength and influence in many cases? A lot of decolonization seems to be a a result of cases where the colonies were fighting with or against the Axis on their own and not only figured out they could defend and even govern themselves but were better off for it... Indonesia, Indochina, the Middle East and China seem to be the best examples of this. (I'm aware most of the countries in the Middle East and China were not technically colonies, though they were certainly victims of Western Imperialism and a good deal of their post-war policies are clearly a result of that).

To me it seems the main area where the colonies were unaffected by WWII was Sub-Saharan Africa. That might be because of either lower development, and/or the lack of action seen there in WWII.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Perhaps then, according to bombshoo, decolonization really has to be addressed exactly on a case by case basis? Of course on the other hand, in the regions that he mentioned, preexisting governments had existed long before European colonial indirect or direct rule.

India is considered by some people to be the rock which led to the avalanche of decolonization, that took place immediately after WW2, and the independence movement used the war well to their advantage to gain more and more power. That'd be the best argument in favor of point #1.

 

[das]

2. Neither, partly true but far, far, from the whole truth.

The USSR was very anti-imperialistic, in that it really and sincerely wanted to dismantle the overseas colonial empires that all happened to belong to its natural enemies, give or take. The USA was consistently less so, I agree. And ofcourse this was not the only and not the main reason.

3. Economic motivation: Europeans began to believe that colonies could make more money when independent, therefore, decolonization occured.

Err? It's more that for several decades until then, many European politicians kept yammering about how the colonies were a horrible finance sink and getting rid of them/outsourcing them to native governments was wise. And, ofcourse, after WWII the expenses became a bit too great for the weakened economies to bear. WWII made decolonisation inevitable within two or (if everyone decides to be suicidal and NESsery) three decades by undermining the colonial empires at home and on the spot; that is the sum of its relevance.

Nobody that mattered really cared about the colonies making money.

4. Nationalism: the belief that no matter what, the mere existance of different ethnic and racial groups within the colonies meant that decolonization was certain given enough time.

Their mere existence did not by itself necessitate decolonisation; conversely, a great deal of cultural assimilation would not have prevented it, but would've changed its nature, probably for the best.

6. Education and development: Some argue that when the colonial infastructure and educational systems are developed, the people in the region develop their own separate identity or believe themselves to be deserving of their own nation.

Pretty much it, local economic and political development was in the long-term moving towards a heightened degree of self-government anyway. WWII and various other factors sped things up and gave us the awful but newsworthy Africa we all know and love instead of something more developed and stable.

It just seems like independence came waaaaaaaaay too long after World War Two (except in the case of British India) for it to be the primary factor.

Ha. I was going to agree with you on that point, but you're approaching it from exactly the opposite chronological direction.

No, to reiterate WWII did cause heavy damage to the colonial powers and after that it was purely a matter of time. No matter how much help the Europeans received, no matter how capably they sometimes handled the crises and (more importantly) no matter how incompetently the colonial separatists often acted, it could only win them a few more decades.

Perhaps then, according to bombshoo, decolonization really has to be addressed exactly on a case by case basis? Of course on the other hand, in the regions that he mentioned, preexisting governments had existed long before European colonial indirect or direct rule.

Well, ofcourse there were significant regional differences, mainly between Asian and (sub-Saharan?) African colonies due to their pre-colonial history and everything that it dictated. Still, if to a lesser extent, the same factors applied there.

 

[bombshoo]

I think we need to break decolonization up into trends that happen because of certain events. It isn't one broad trend. I would argue there seems to be five stages of decolonization.

1. The first stage where the Americas gained independence. Already happened in ABNW.

2. The early 1900s-WWI stage where the weakening of the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires caused Eastern Europe to break away into independent states. The British Commonwealth states of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and Canada also reached a greater level of autonomy at this time though I am not enough of an expert to say what lead to this other than for Ireland.

3. The Post WWII stage where most of Asia and North Africa achieved independence. This seems to be like you said, they had pre-existing governments before colonization and so a feeling of national identity never quite left the building. Also WWII gave the colonies a chance to gain more power and use leverage to enforce their independence in various ways.

4. The Cold War stage. I would say this is the stage where Soviet influence and having reached a certain level of development made the biggest difference. Unlike in Asia, most of the African countries had to build a national identity from scratch. A few "stragglers" in Asia and the Americas also achieved independence at this time. Malaysia, Suriname, the South Arabian states, Papua New Guinea, the return of the Panama Canal Zone and some others.

5. The Post Cold War stage. Mostly caused by the break up of the Soviet Union (Which we won't get into for obvious reasons). The few other notable things in this era are Namibia, Belize, Brunei, Hong Kong and Macau which seem to be released mostly due to (or to avoid) pressure resulting from a more progressive way of thinking internationally. Overall I would say this is the era where economic reasons seem to matter the most.

This was mostly off the top of my head, and I'm sure this isn't as great as it good be, but when dealing with decolonization I would look for trends that are similar to the five mentioned.

 

[das]

Arguably the American decolonisation and the Afro-Asiatic decolonisation are tied only tangentially. The former dealt with settler colonies whereas the latter almost exclusively dealt with exploitation colonies.

 

[bombshoo]

Arguably the American decolonisation and the Afro-Asiatic decolonisation are tied only tangentially. The former dealt with settler colonies whereas the latter almost exclusively dealt with exploitation colonies.

I agree with this for the most part, though I would certainly call some American colonies exploitative. Haiti and the other purely plantation colonies probably being the best examples.

 

[Angst]

Questions for das.

Marduk-apla-iddina II the Incredibly Annoying

What, really?

River fleets figured prominently in Chinese civil wars (and in the Russian Civil War, though that last one is notable for some of the most bizarre weapons, tactics and techniques ever and so isn't a good example). River boats were at least as important to the (early) Cossacks as horses.

Please enlighten us!

 

[North King]

I agree with this for the most part, though I would certainly call some American colonies exploitative. Haiti and the other purely plantation colonies probably being the best examples.

Well, yeah, but the United States, Australia, and Argentina all effectively formed Neo-Europes. Mexico, Peru, and so on weren't, but they also had some pretty strong Native traditions that still exist onto today; moreover the Spanish Empire was never particularly strong. Africa, on the other hand, never became very white, even in the case of South Africa; that is the difference das was highlighting unless I'm missing something huge.

 

[das]

What, really?

He was very annoying; I think he seized power in Babylon and got chased out of it at least three times over, and he meddled around just about everywhere else and with everyone in the northern Persian Gulf region. Assyrians assembled entire fleets and invaded (then-extant Persian Gulf) islands (something they never did before, to my knowledge) just to track him down and failed. Anyway, most of the wars against him took place in the "Sealand" and southern Babylonia in general, and I seem to recall the Assyrians used river flotillas in the marshy regions there especially.

Please enlighten us!

I won't go into detail (not right now, anyway), but: [wiki]tachanka[/wiki]s, armoured trains, confiscated river steamboats, [wiki]aerosan[/wiki]i, more armoured trains because they were awesome, and that's just off the top of my head. Means of transportation were sparse, so everything that moved was confiscated and sometimes even used on the frontlines; similarly, normal weapons were often scarce as well, so local partisan commanders and what have you often had to improvise. The cavalry war was notable in its own part, as are those tanks we somehow captured from the British. Also: armoured tractors?

EDIT:

even in the case of South Africa; that is the difference das was highlighting unless I'm missing something huge.

That's it, though I must point out that South Africa did have many essential traits of a settler colony, and its decolonisation was accordingly very different from such processes elsewhere in Africa.

 

[Thlayli]

American 'colonization,' with the exception of the Philippines, took much more of an economic protectorate role. Even the interventionism in the Caribbean was in large part an attempt to secure American commercial interests by establishing puppet governments. In some cases, like Puerto Rico, these relationships were formalized into permanent dependencies of US government, in other cases like Cuba, Haiti and Panama they were gradually abandoned.

The lack of pressure or competition from a nearby or regional Great Power made the impetus for the US to actually acquire and/or permanently annex colonial territory rather low. Not to mention there was a significant anti-imperialist strain of American political thought as early as pre-Spanish American War, that gradually evolved into the isolationist movement.

 

[North King]

That's it, though I must point out that South Africa did have many essential traits of a settler colony, and its decolonisation was accordingly very different from such processes elsewhere in Africa.

Some of the traits, yes, but enough were missing that I don't think it can be called a settler colony. At the very least it is most definitively not a Neo-Europe, in that some 85% of the population (IIRC, too lazy to look up actual figures) was and is still Native, and a minimal amount of the native biota was replaced by Eurasian plants and animals. Hell, the largest biological invasion into South Africa was that of the prickly pear cactus, which is an American plant of all things.

 

[das]

Some of the traits, yes, but enough were missing that I don't think it can be called a settler colony. At the very least it is most definitively not a Neo-Europe, in that some 85% of the population (IIRC, too lazy to look up actual figures) was and is still Native, and a minimal amount of the native biota was replaced by Eurasian plants and animals. Hell, the largest biological invasion into South Africa was that of the prickly pear cactus, which is an American plant of all things.

I was thinking more about socio-economic structure, especially in the southern parts of the country. Those seem rather more relevant to decolonisation than the ecology.

 

[Abaddon]

Sorry..........................