Jump to content

Talk:Decolonization of the Americas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

By decolonize I would understand people leaving/abandoning the Americas. Would decolonialization not be more appropriate? --128.176.76.97 18:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I am neutral towards this proposed move since there also is Decolonization of Africa --Astrokey44 04:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map error

[edit]

I don't think it is correct to say that Alaska was decolonized by 1799. It was part of Russia, a European power, until 1867, at which time it became part of a country with its capital in the Americas. To anyone who is good with manipulating images: could the color of Alaska be changed? Thanks. Ufwuct 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright i have changed it to reflect this and other colonies too, such as New Spain, Spanish Florida, Mosquito Coast and French Louisiana, with the US part of Oregon Country grey as never been colonised. I think this is correct now --Astrokey44 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

[edit]

What about Greenland?, this article lacks of information about Greenlands current status. JC Febraury 26 2007, 8:15 (PST)

It's since been added to the article's list of non-sovereign territories. -- Beland (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire

[edit]

New Hampshire declared independence in January 1776, six months before the United States of America was created with the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, New Hampshire, not the United States, was the first post-colonial sovereign country in the Americas.

Editing the article to reflect this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougOfDoom (talk • contribs) 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of New Hampshire#Revolution: 1775–1815 actually specifically says that's not true. -- Beland (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History of Rhode Island#Revolutionary era, 1775–1790 affirms Rhode Island declared independence before the United States as a whole. But this article gives the independence date as 1783, which is when it was actually recognized. And that happened at the same time for all thirteen colonies. Probably not worth a mention here. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russians missing

[edit]

There's a glaring gap in the absence of info on Russian colonization; Russian America and Fort Ross have different "expiry dates" and the lower-latitude extensions of Russian America (1799 and 1821) have yet to be dealt with; the problem in this region is that the colonial histories are intertwined, and it was ]]terrus nullius]] formally from 1818 to 1846 and parts of BC remain so today, in fact....I'll give a Russian section some thought, but still pondering various points about BC....I tried to stay NPOV but the legal facts did ahve to be included here; it's not a foregone conclusion that all BC First Nations will follow the path fo the Nisga'a Lisims government, either....Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention of Russian America to the intro. -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peru

[edit]

Recently there was some edit-revert action regarding Peru. Some insisted on using the date July 28, 1821, others - December 9, 1824. I support the 1824 date, as per History of Peru and Peruvian War of Independence and the infobox on Peru page - where 1821 is noted as "declared", but 1824 as "consolidated". A quote from Peruvian War of Independence: "...San Martín proclaimed Peruvian independence after reaching Lima the following year. Royalist strongholds remained throughout the country and in Upper Peru, so it was not until four years later that the Spanish Monarchy was definitively defeated at the Battle of Ayacucho" So the 1821-1824 period was the period of the war, and only after that independence was achieved (regardless of Peru declarations earlier or Spain recognition later).

Anyway, please, let's discuss things first here - before changing/reverting/etc. Alinor (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put back 1824? Alinor (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Independence was declared in 1821, and José de San Martín is considered the first Head of State of independent Peru. It is not a matter of chosing between dates. The 1824 battle of Ayacucho was the last battle of south american independence wars, and thus the end of the royalist resistance. And the table shows declaration dates, not end-of-the-conflict dates (as it is clear by the USA example). I'm reverting again.
BTW, there are some other flaws regarding spanish american dates (i.e. Uruguay: battle of Las Piedras was not a declaration of independence) or colonial names (i.e. Bolivia at the moment of independence was de facto a part of Viceroyalty of Peru, since the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata was long inexistant -the colonial name of the region that is currently Bolivia was Upper Peru; i.e. Uruguay whose colonial name was Banda Oriental). But these are certainly debatable. The previous one, I'm afraid it is not.
--190.176.7.155 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted my reversal of Peru date, as I saw the USA date. Probably it would be better to clearly define what does "independence date" means, as the dates are not congruent (some are declaration dates, some are not). --190.176.7.155 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same regarding "colonial names", some spanish colonies are named by Viceroyalty, others by (subordinated) Captaincies General (i.e Venezuela vs. Chile), some by other non-administrative division or no link to any colonial entity (i.e. Cuba). I'd choose the colonial regional names (Governorates, Captaincies, Audiences) for the more consistent examples of continuity between a historical regional and an emancipated state (Paraguay, Upper Peru, Banda Oriental, Captaincy General of Venezuela, Captaincy General of Cuba, etc.) --190.176.7.155 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be a consistency, but I am not sure we should disregard the higher-level administrative divisions. Could we make some arrangement like "Mosquito, New Spain" (not real example)? Alinor (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, that would be a fine solution. --190.176.7.155 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial name of Central América

[edit]

The name of central america during the colonial times wasn't the viceroyalty of new spain (México), this because it didn't belong to new spain it had it's own goverment and connection to Madrid via Antigua Guatemala (In that moment the capital of Guatemala and the rest of the general captaincy). Central america (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica) and Chiapas in that moment formely part of Guatemala belonged to the "Capitanía General de Guatemala" and it gained it's own independence the 15 of september of 1821. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.197.125.134 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central American Independence fact

[edit]

A related process took place in Spain's North and Central American territories with the Mexican War of Independence Mexico obtained it's independence In 1810. The Mexican army then entered Central America and helped achieve their independence in 1821 by a coalition uniting under the Mexican Army of Agustín de Iturbide and the Army of the Three Guarantees. Unity was maintained for a short period under the First Mexican Empire, but within a decade the region had also split into various nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loerad10 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonization in Quebec

[edit]

Many in the sovereignist movement in Quebec understood their cause as a part of the international process of decolonisation. I think it should be somehow noted in the Canada section. [[1]] ThoMiCroN (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sint Maarten in the Caribbean belongs to the Netherlands

[edit]

I noticed that the FRENCH part of Saint Martin is mentioned but not the Dutch half. Below is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for the Dutch owned part of the island:

Sint Maarten (Dutch pronunciation: [sɪnt ˈmaːrtə(n)]) is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands N0w8st8s (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply]

Both are now included. -- Beland (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Alternate theory

[edit]

The last few days edits contain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH andd a definite but strange alternate WP:POV regarding the US and decolonization. It flies in the face of the sourced info in the article and IMO does not belong there. The person using the IPs is free to post their theories in the many places available to them on the internet but, again, they do not belong here. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strange theory -- it's what the question of being "decolonized" looks like from the point of view of the First Nations people, who have been under one form of colonial rule or another since Europeans arrived in the Americas. The anonymous contributor is absolutely correct -- the Americas will not be "decolonized" until the descendants of original occupants of the land regain sovereignty over their respective territories and enjoy the same level of self-determination enjoyed by the Europeans who colonized the hemisphere. I just wish the guy would write about it in a Wikipedia-approved manner with cites and sources instead of doing it in a way that is guaranteed not to stick. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I take your point and have altered the title of the thread. Since the article supports the current academic approach to this subject I would think that a separate section would be needed rather than altering what already exists. BTW how is it going to be determined who the "original occupants" for each section of the country were. Migrations of the various peoples who were on this continent before Europeans arrived occurred over centuries. Add to that the fact various native groups pushed out, conquered and even enslaved other native groups the subject would need its own article to cover all of the details. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a white guy. Figuring out what meanings Native people make of their sovereignty and how they work out the issues they will have to confront is a question for First Nations people to deal with. As an uninvited guest in their house, I don't see why my opinions should be of any interest to them. PaulCHebert (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One further item. The IP(s) are only focusing on the US. Presumably the same criteria that PCH mentions applies to both North and South America. Seeing as there were indigenous groups (see Yaghan people} as far south as Tierra del Fuego before any Europeans arrived the entire structure of the article would have to change - not just the section for the US. MarnetteD|Talk 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

[edit]

However, through a series of letters written by L'Ouverture, it became clear that he grew open to equal human rights for all that live in Haiti. The letters make clear that, similar to how the United States Constitution was ratified, the enlightenment ideas of equality and representation of the people created an impact of change against the status quo that sparked the revolution. The letters detail the great concerns L'Ouverture felt due to a conservative shift in France's legislature after the revolution in 1797. L'Ouverture's greatest fear was that these conservative values could give ideas to the French Government to bring back slavery. In the letters, L'Ouverture stated that the enlightenment has proven to forever change the way a captive society thinks after L'Ouverture refuses to let the French send him and his people back into slavery. For example, he says: "[W]hen finally the rule of law took the place of anarchy under which the unfortunate colony had too long suffered, what fatality can have led the greatest enemy of its prosperity and our happiness still to dare to threaten us with the return of slavery?" Ultimately, slavery was abolished from French colonies in 1794 and Haiti declared Independence from France in 1804. 2601:84:4601:A2D0:8CE4:CE29:ECFA:1DAB (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

como pt nao dividiu o br?o grao pa e ma separado do estado do br era o que as repartições do sul e norte isso nao explica a unidade imposta artificial forçada e sim a anexação a força pois muitas americas tugas nao queriam o br o rio e mercenarios da marinha inglesa anexaram a força ma pi ba pa etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.33.45 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American independence being de-colonisation

[edit]

Given the independence of America gave indepedence to the settler colonists and not the settled, and just led to increased colonialism in the Western part of the continent, can it really be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the US was absolutely NOT the first "the first independent, foreign-recognized nation in the Americas" as the article claims with no citations. Many indigenous nations had been recognized as sovereign by Europe for AGES by 1776. Plus "the Americas" are not a monolithic place, and there were many, MANY Indigenous nations recognized as independent and sovereign by other indigenous nations for millennia before Europe ever came along. Delvethedragon (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name?

[edit]

Can we change the name to "Liberation of the Americas" to highlight the power and autonomy of the peoples of the Americas in their quest for self-determination against European despots? Peoples of the Americas chose to free themselves; Europe did not just let go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4C80:4EB0:60BE:DFCA:514C:6F27 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that idea. I think the current name is more general and seems more neutral. What do other people think? Mattsnod1993 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tables near the end

[edit]

All of the "Gained independence from [...]" tables seem to just repeat information given elsewhere in the article and are overall just unnecessary bloat. Should they be removed? Jone425 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 4 months and nobody else has commented on the matter, decided to do this under WP:BOLD, I'm 95% sure everything in there was duplicated from the Timeline section --Jone425 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move

[edit]

We are goinjg to have to move this back to the real term. Obviously a misunderstanding ...no withdraw - only some decolonization Moxy🍁 12:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed
Moxy🍁 19:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 May 2025

[edit]

Decolonization of the Americas → European withdrawal from the Americas – "Decolonization" is an extremely loaded and controversial word to employ when talking about the article content. The decolonization article itself says "The meanings and applications of the term are disputed." This particularly holds in the Americas, where there are zero independent indigenous countries. Is that actually decolonization? Some might argue yes, others might argue no. My point is not that it isn't decolonization, but that the question of whether it was decolonization creates problems. Therefore, I propose the page title be changed to this descriptive title that avoids controversy. Evaporation123 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic reading for understanding. We are here to help facilitate learning by using academic terms...so that our reader can search the terms used in the sourcing of the article. Using the term withdrawal is very misleading considering no one has withdrawn.... In fact more and more non Indigenous people immigrate to the country constantly. Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples#Settler colonialismMoxy🍁 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That linked article supports my concern that decolonization can be too problematic of a term for the Americas. The phrase European withdrawal would be understood as withdrawal of European countries, not European-descended people. But perhaps if that itself is too complicated, how would you feel about "Withdrawal of European countries from the Americas"? Evaporation123 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to follow the terms used in the sources other than that it is called WP:Original research. There is simply no Google hit for anything like this. Moxy🍁 23:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any sources that explicitly describe it as decolonization? Searching up "decolonization of the Americas" does not bring up anything of the sort either. Evaporation123 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An overview of political aspects can be found at WILLIAMS, MELISSA S. “Political Responsibility for Decolonization in Canada.” Political Responsibility Refocused: Thinking Justice after Iris Marion Young, edited by GENEVIEVE FUJI JOHNSON and LORALEA MICHAELIS, University of Toronto Press, 2013, pp. 78–101. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt5hjv43.8 Moxy🍁 00:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy, can you clarify your position on the appropriateness of the current article title, setting aside the suitability of the proposed alternative? The sources you have shared, that I am able to access, all point to problems with the current title consistent with the nominator's concerns. The article's lead says The American Revolution was the first [decolonization] in the Americas and the section on Canada suggests decolonization was completed when What few political links that remained between Canada and the UK were formally severed in 1982 with the Canada Act. Your Queen's University source says In Canada and the US,[…] colonial usually means Eurocentric. It goes on to describe "decolonization" as an ongoing, unfinished task, with Eurocentric culture and worldview still dominant. The book you shared below follows similar themes. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decolonization is the process.... not the outcome. Decolonization hasn't happened anywhere fully so I'm not sure what people unfamiliar with the topic are supposed to find it with a made-up title. No Europeans have withdrawing from anywhere I don't know where this made up title comes from (zero sources provided). Basically going out of our way to make the article useless for research. Moxy🍁 21:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s helpful. Perhaps the project would be better served by addressing the content to better reflect current decolonization discourse, rather than contort the title to fit the article’s incomplete scope. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the sources I’ve seen on the history of the Americas (or of a part of it) characterise it as gaining of independence, not decolonisation. Independence movements in the Americas? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searching "decolonisation of the Americas" brings up loads of sources about the present day, decolonisation is with regard to the indigenous peoples, not the settlers Kowal2701 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with regard to the indigenous peoples, not the settlers" And how would we cover Mestizo and Métis populations, which claim ancestry from both groups? Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an oversimplification on my part, but that appears to be how the scholarship approaches it Kowal2701 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed as it is not really used. While the term "decolonization" may have a disputed meaning, this article does fit one of the meanings, of "ceasing to be a colony, and gaining independence" in an administrative sense, but yes not cultural. Cannot see any worthy alternatives which academia have since coalesced around instead. DankJae 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Decolonization has not occured in many nations and territories in the Americas. Yuchitown (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in concurrence with @DankJae's & @Myceteae's contributions. It seems that this is more of a content issue than a title issue, especially considering the absence of a high-quality alternative. Fakedaen (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Whose land is it Anyway? A Manual for Decolonization -The Decolonization and Reconciliation Handbook" (PDF). Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC. Retrieved 2025-05-19. Moxy🍁 06:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point this book is meant to make; like the above thread, this directly supports my position. Unlike other regions of the world (e.g., Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc.) Canada and the United States—by far the two most powerful states in the Americas—remain colonial governments. Fakedaen (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain how we define decolonization in this article. Per the main article on the topic, the definition used by the United Nations clarifies that the population of the colony has a fundamental right to self-determination: "The decolonization agenda championed by the United Nations is not based exclusively on independence. There are three other ways in which an NSGT can exercise self-determination and reach a full measure of self-government (all of them equally legitimate): integration within the administering power, free association with the administering power, or some other mutually agreed upon option for self-rule. [...] It is the exercise of the human right of self-determination, rather than independence per se, that the United Nations has continued to push for." Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the use of "decolonization" here seems a bit off in some ways (though it's hard to think of an alternative)—e.g., the inclusion of the U.S. & Canada seems to imply here that their respective independences were a form of decolonization? And Canada's section makes no mention of the Indigenous peoples at all.
IMO this article is a bit all-over-the-place and could use some revision; the sections are in an odd order, some sections don't really fit and would probably make more sense as their own articles (e.g. the lists of sovereign & non-sovereign territories), and the Caribbean is receiving rather minimal attention. Not sure if these considerations would affect the move decision or not though. Fakedaen (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, per nom. Many countries in North and South America - including Canada, Mexico, the US, Brazil, Argentina, etc. - remain settler colonial states. Thus, decolonization has not occurred. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous decolonization..... It's a process..YouTube vid Moxy🍁 22:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
…which this article barely covers. Sharing multiple sources that highlight the mismatch between the article's title and its content is unhelpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that this is a content dispute and no title has been proposed that is a better fit for the current content. Inventing a descriptive title that is unfamiliar and misleading or inaccurate in its own way is the wrong solution. The article should be updated to reflect the actual scope of "decolonization in the Americas" discourse. Diving into the content discussion is beyond the scope of an RM.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought a descriptive title with "independence" would be the right move but after reading the comments and portions of the article I became persuaded that "decolonization" is recognizable and natural to a general audience and that what the article describes presently does align with various scholarly definitions, even if incompletely. "Decolonization" is an umbrella term that includes historical and modern perspectives on national independence as well as present-day issues of Indigenous sovereignty, Eurocentrism, imperialism, and white supremacy in the Americas. The content can be thoughtfully broadened under the current title to describe the scope of the subject. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would even make sense to split them into two separate articles? Although this article does describe decolonization in a technical sense, I'd imagine most people wouldn't necessarily recognize the withdraw of European powers from the Americas as decolonization, and that "independence" would probably make more sense in that particular context (with the "Decolonization of the Americas" article being more directly focused on the issues you mentioned)—albeit, I suspect having two similarly-named articles might provoke confusion and/or future debates about combining the articles into one anyways. Beyond that, I still agree that there's currently a misalignment between the content and the title and that the issue here seems to primarily be that the article content itself needs a revamping. Fakedaen (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "most people" have a sophisticated view of decolonization nor would they see a problem with the article as it stands. Of course, a well-written encyclopedia entry should rectify that. I still think the best course of action is for knowledgeable editors to add content to this article to align its scope with the actual scope of the subject per reliable sources. Eventually, a split may be appropriate or even necessary. Maybe the article that looks more or less like the current one gets named Independence or maybe two new, better titles become apparent when there is content to judge. Perhaps there will be a brief summary, like a broad concept article, with multiple daughter articles. This article is already rather long, but with its title already taken and no clearly better alternative, editors should feel free to expand it to give due weight to the rest of the decolonization of the Americas discourse. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's roughly what I was thinking as well; I'm too busy to make any substantial edits right now but I might take a swing at it at some point (but others should be bold in the meantime!). I also think this article could stand to be shorter overall—especially considering that there's already a dedicated List of sovereign states and dependent territories in the Americas article which could be linked in the see also section of this page (albeit, not containing some of the predecessors, but they could probably be added to that). But that's an issue for a fresh talk topic I think ツ Fakedaen (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decolonization_of_the_Americas&oldid=1291920558"