Little known Colonial powers .

Minchandre

Count of Crisco said:
Did Scotland ever have any colonies at any point ?I seem to remember readfing about some expedition launched in the 1700`s before the acts of union .
Click to expand...

The infamous Darien Scheme, attempting to settle what, in retrospect, is probably one of the densest and least-settleable stretches of land in the entire world (for example: the Pan-American Highway stretches continuously from Ushuaia (southern tip of Argentina, across the straits from Tierra del Fuego) to Prudhoe Bay (a port on the North Slope of Alaska)...except for a 100km or so gap precisely where the Scots tried to settle).

I'm not entirely certain how accurate this is, because there's a clear, clear political agenda, but a lot of Scots like to blame the Acts of Union on the national bankruptcy caused by this failed expedition, which is estimated by some to have basically destroyed a third or so of all Scottish wealth.
 

Amelikite

Minchandre said:
The infamous Darien Scheme, attempting to settle what, in retrospect, is probably one of the densest and least-settleable stretches of land in the entire world (for example: the Pan-American Highway stretches continuously from Ushuaia (southern tip of Argentina, across the straits from Tierra del Fuego) to Prudhoe Bay (a port on the North Slope of Alaska)...except for a 100km or so gap precisely where the Scots tried to settle).

I'm not entirely certain how accurate this is, because there's a clear, clear political agenda, but a lot of Scots like to blame the Acts of Union on the national bankruptcy caused by this failed expedition, which is estimated by some to have basically destroyed a third or so of all Scottish wealth.
Click to expand...
They blamed the English, because the English were clearly hostile to the Darien scheme. So were the Spanish. But the failure was a mostly Scottish affair.

The aim was to create an early portering version of the Panama canal.
 

Amelikite

New Zealand aimed to get its own South Pacific Colonial Empire. Making it potentially a Colony with colonie. In the end we only got Western Samoa and Tuvalu.
 
anotherlurker

anotherlurker

What is the difference between national territory and a colony anyway?

It cant be simply the distance from the rulers and those getting ruled - the Falklands (national territory) are 13.000 kilometers from London away while Finland (colony) was less than 100 kilometers from St. Petersburg.
 

Grand Prince Paul II.

anotherlurker said:
What is the difference between national territory and a colony anyway?
Click to expand...

Colonies are not part of the integral territory of the country.
They have a lesser status.

anotherlurker said:
It cant be simply the distance from the rulers and those getting ruled - the Falklands (national territory) are 13.000 kilometers from London away while Finland (colony) was less than 100 kilometers from St. Petersburg.
Click to expand...

Finland was not a colony.
It was an integral part of the Kingdom of Sweden and afterwards an autonom part of the Russian Empire.
The Falklands are more like (self-governing) colony because it is not a part of UK.
 
anotherlurker

anotherlurker

Grand Prince Paul II. said:
Colonies are not part of the integral territory of the country.
They have a lesser status.

Finland was not a colony.
It was an integral part of the Kingdom of Sweden and afterwards an autonom part of the Russian Empire.
The Falklands are more like (self-governing) colony because it is not a part of UK.
Click to expand...

I Probably shouldnt have taken the UK as an example - it's a weird place, they even get to have 4 football teams.

Usually the SSRs of Russia are seen as Russian colonies.
 

Tanc49

A colony is part of an empire in the sense it is a portion of territory which was foreign, often recently, and in which the people have a lesser or different status.
The big point is that the power does not and cannot emanate from the territory itself but from another part of the empire, the metropole.

For example: we had French people ruling over Western Africa but no African ruling over Metropolitan France. Likewise, we had people from every region at high status with no discrimination while the only West African people who got into power ruled over their own territory, but their legitimacy came from the metropole.


I believe that's a fairly comprehensive definition :)
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

Count of Crisco said:
Did Scotland ever have any colonies at any point ?I seem to remember readfing about some expedition launched in the 1700`s before the acts of union .
Click to expand...

In 1698-1700, the Scots tried to establish a colony on the east coast of the Isthmus of Darien (eastern Panama). The project was a complete fiasco. The first attempt was abandoned after a year with 3/4 of the settlers dead of malaria and starvation. Additional colonists were already en route, and the colony was restarted, but Spanish forces soon arrived and laid siege.

The Scots surrendered and the handful of survivors went home. The enterprise had sucked up most of the capital in Scotland; its bankruptcy left the Lowlands ruined and led to the Act of Union a few years later.

20th-century sailor Tristan Jones visited the area in the 1970s, and claimed to see among the Indians people who showed signs of descent from the colonists.
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

Tanc49 said:
A colony is part of an empire in the sense it is a portion of territory which was foreign, often recently, and in which the people have a lesser or different status.
The big point is that the power does not and cannot emanate from the territory itself but from another part of the empire, the metropole.

For example: we had French people ruling over Western Africa but no African ruling over Metropolitan France. Likewise, we had people from every region at high status with no discrimination while the only West African people who got into power ruled over their own territory, but their legitimacy came from the metropole.

I believe that's a fairly comprehensive definition.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that in 1892, Dadabhai Naoroji, a Parsi, was elected to the British Parliament - thus becoming in part a ruler of Britain. Canadian Andrew Bonar Law was an MP for over 20 years, and was PM in 1922-1923.

Another interesting case is Félix Éboué, a Guiana-born black who served as governor of the French colonies of Guadeloupe and Chad in 1936-1944.
 

Tanc49

Anarch King of Dipsode said:
Another interesting case is Félix Éboué, a Guiana-born black who served as governor of the French colonies of Guadeloupe and Chad in 1936-1944.
Click to expand...
Two things could be said about that, either that it was ok as he was governing a colony (and not a proper part of France).

The other explanation, which I would prefer, is that Guyane, like the sugar Islands couldn't really be considered colonies by that late. I don't have data on how they were viewed but I would think they were more like overseas territories (closer to Algeria) with a longer French history than even a lot of what would be considered metropole and, due to a lack of advanced surviving culture in these areas, perhaps no other history than a French history.

Granted, I did not know about Indian MPs but I would believe it would be a similar line of thinking, with the higher castes being considered as British due to a long-ish history together
 
Remitonov

Remitonov

Blumenau and other ethnic German colonies in Latin America come to mind, but by that time, it's almost absolutely guaranteed that they'll fall under the sovereignty of the respective countries, barring anything extreme enough to cause a total breakdown of government control.

Other than that, I'd like a continuing Scandinavian presence in North America (Vinland duh, but also New Sweden) and the Carribean (Swedish or Danish). I'm pretty sure the Danes would still have the Virgin Islands today had they not sold it to the US.

Also, who doesn't like Hospitaller domains. :D
 
Last edited:

NamelesStatistic

Banned
Grand Prince Paul II. said:
Not possible as long as Sweden insisted on keeping Russia's rightful Baltic clay.
Click to expand...

Wait does "clay" mean land/territory (is this some sort of European slang)? Or do you actually mean it literally as in resources for making ceramics?


To add to the discussion:
I would add Canada as a weird example: We nearly had our own Caribbean-beach colony: Turks and Cacos

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...-send-a-reporter-to-find-out/article19045062/

We could have finally escaped winter... :(

Oh well I guess we can always colonize Florida 6 months every year
 
Last edited:

NamelesStatistic

Banned
leopard9 said:
"Clay" is polandball slang for land.
Click to expand...

Ok I Googled what a "Polandball" is (admittedly with a bit of trepidation) and found it is a webcomic (thank god). Some of the comics look kind of clever. Is the "clay" thing maybe due to a polish to english translation error (ie. an english dictionary could spit out "clay" as a possible synonym for "land" or "earth")?

Either way I am glad I cleared up the meaning in this context.
 

riggerrob

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
These colonies lead to big financial problems for Scottland, themselves resulting in the Act of Union between Scottland and Britain.

Utter failure.
Click to expand...

.........................................................

Scots eventually built much of the British Empire as traders, missionaries, engineers and doctors. For example, many Hudson's Bay Company employees were recruited from the (Scottish) Orkney Islands by HBC ships bound for Rupert's Land.
After Rupert's Land was absorbed by Canada, Scots still dominated the banks and government in Halifax and Montreal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top