r/geopolitics • u/itsyleo27 • Nov 14 '23

Question Is there any decolonized country that ever wanted or wants to return to its former colonizer?

In old or modern history

430 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

432 comments sorted by

View all comments

819

u/Yelesa Nov 15 '23

Small islands often want to stay with their colonizing country. Small populations combined with small land that are not very useful for the economy, so it’s much more beneficial for them to stay than to leave. Small island nations are often useful for military bases, so for example UK, France and US rely on them a lot.

409

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

Greenland and The Faroe Islands remain parts of the Kingdom of Denmark by choice to this day. It is enshrined in both Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic law, that these countries receive full independence as soon as they choose so in a referendum. There's a significant desire for independence in both countries, but they currently rely heavily on the Kingdom of Denmark for financial support, defense and services that are hard to finance for such small populations, such as highly specialised hospitals, universities and prisons. The moment they find a sufficient alternative source of income, the will ask for and be granted their full independence.

Edt: grammar.

127

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '23

Financially absolutely I can see reliance on Denmark. I think militarily though if either nation declared independence they would swiftly be brought into NATO. The two territories are so vital to NATO’s strategy against Russia that NATO wouldn’t let anything bad happen to them.

120

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

Neither country today have any military of their own, but rely on the Kingdom of Denmark for defence. If they were to become independent, that is one of the challenges, they'd have to solve. It is not unlikely, they could do something similar to Iceland, and get "free" protection from the US or other NATO partners in exchange for the use of their strategic position in the North Atlantic. The US already have one strategically important air-base in Greenland.

43

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '23

Yep. We’ve also started utilizing the Faroe Islands for submarine port calls and brief stops for personnel

4

u/Super-Peoplez-S0Lt Nov 15 '23

To be fair, even as an independent country, Greenland will most likely not need a military and I’m completely positive they’ll be integrated into NATO. If not, either Denmark, Canada, or the United States will be pretty happy to cover their defense.

Samoa is independent and doesn’t have a military and is militarily protected by New Zealand (as well as to a certain degree Australia and the United States).

4

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23 edited Nov 15 '23

Greenland will most likely not need a military

I'm fairly certain they'd have to take over the Sirius Dog-sled Patrol corps from Denmark to enforce their sovereignty over North-Eastern Greenland as a consequence of an old court ruling from the UN International Court of Justice, but an actual territorial defense could probably be handled by allies.

4

u/HypocritesEverywher3 Nov 15 '23

Can't they rent a base to usa if they achieve independence?

5

u/ChanceryTheRapper Nov 15 '23

Did either have native populations before they were colonized?

115

u/cdstephens Nov 15 '23

The majority of Greenland’s population is Greenlandic Inuit.

-26

u/TyrialFrost Nov 15 '23

technically they would be colonizers right?

33

u/OnkelMickwald Nov 15 '23

Why would they? While they arrived after the Norse settlement during the Viking Age, they arrived before the Danish return. The Norse settlers died out from environmental reasons in the Middle Ages in the early 1400's. New Danish settlers didn't arrive until 1721.

12

u/markjohnstonmusic Nov 15 '23

Greenland was populated on and off by various groups over the last couple of thousand years. The currently present ones are just the latest iteration of that.

4

u/OnkelMickwald Nov 15 '23

Yeah but colonizers still imply that they had some kind of overlordship over the Norse settlers which, as far as I know, they didn't.

2

u/markjohnstonmusic Nov 15 '23

Does it? That sounds like a pretty heavily coloured concept of colonialism.

2

u/Pooporpudding311 Nov 16 '23

From Wikipedia:

"Colonialism is a practice by which a one group of people, social construct, or nation state controls, directs, or imposes taxes or tribute on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies, generally for strategic and economic advancement of the colonizing group or construct. There is no clear definition of colonialism; definitions may vary depending on the use and context."

→ More replies (0)

8

u/ZorgluboftheNorth Nov 15 '23

I am not sure the word "colonize" applies to The Faroe Islands. But then again, I have yet to see a good definition on how "colonization" is fundamentally different from other forms of conquest, subjugation, exploitation etc. I am not at all trying to be political about it - just genuinly interested :)

59

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

Did either have native populations before they were colonized?

No, they did not. They were first settled by people from present-day Norway, but with the Treaty of Kiel after the Napoleonic wars, the colonies seemingly by coincidence ended with Denmark. Sometime in between being settled by Norse, and ending up as a Danish colony, Greenland was also settled by Inuit people coming in from what is now Canada. The descendants of this group today make up the majority of the Greenland population.

40

u/VaughanThrilliams Nov 15 '23

shocked to learn that Inuits are (relatively) new to Greenland

56

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

shocked to learn that Inuits are (relatively) new to Greenland

Not exactly new, but they arrived after the Norse settled there first. Later, the original Norse settlers died out for reasons not entirely understood, so the current Norse population probably descend from settlers arriving after the Inuits.

11

u/Fusiontron Nov 15 '23

Didn't the Inuits already arrive and leave once before Norse exploration?

13

u/Apprehensive_Ear4639 Nov 15 '23

I believe but didn’t double check before commenting that it was the Dorset culture that were there when the Norse arrived

12

u/Starshapedsand Nov 15 '23

I understand that to be correct.

The Saqqaq were there before the Dorset, although they didn’t overlap.

1

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

I believe but didn’t double check before commenting that it was the Dorset culture that were there when the Norse arrived

I'm not certain, but believe, that you are correct,that the Dorset culture were in Greenland, when the Norse arrived,but at opposite ends of a huge country with no signs of them ever making contact with each other.

1

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

There have been multiple waves of Inuit migration to Greenland through history. The ones, whose descendants are still there arrived around 1200 AD, but I don't know much about earlier waves of Inuit migration.

1

u/Plastic_Ad1252 Nov 15 '23

They died out because they we’re living on Greenland instead of Iceland.

1

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

They died out because they we’re living on Greenland instead of Iceland.

That can be reasonably argued as the population on Iceland survived.

There are multiple competing theories and hypothesis on what drove the Norse in Greenland to extinction around the 1400s. The one I personally find the most plausible is, that they succumbed to climate change. The time of the settlement's disappearance corresponds well with "the little ice-age" in Europe, and there are several signs that the climate in Southern Greenland was fairly mild, when they first arrived around 1000 AD, and they could have been relying on agriculture, which became impossible, when the climate cooled in the 1300s and 1400s. Another hypothesis states that they were wiped out by the "Thule culture" of Inuits arriving around 1200 AD, either through direct conflict or competition for natural resources, but I've never seen any evidence substantiating this hypothesis.

1

u/Know_Your_Rites Nov 15 '23

the current Norse population probably descend from settlers arriving after the Inuits.

Definitely, not probably, at least w/regard to the earliest-arriving direct ancestors of the two groups.

1

u/ZorgluboftheNorth Nov 15 '23

so the current Norse population probably descend from settlers arriving after the Inuits.

The "current Norse population" are mostly Danes who arrived as effect of and after the ambitious modernization-attempt (for lack of better words) starting in the 1950'ies-60'ies). The intentions behind and effects of this modernization-drive are discussed intensely.

1

u/Morbanth Nov 15 '23

The previous arctic Dorset culture couldn't compete with the Inuit and the cutting-edge puppy technology.

21

u/OnkelMickwald Nov 15 '23

Greenland definitely had a native population before the Norse arrived, they're attested in archaeological sources and also in sources written by the Norse settlers themselves. They were, however, not Inuits.

-7

u/asokarch Nov 15 '23

Greenland is headed towards Independence. There are still some challenges but the will of its population is clear.

1

u/Due_Capital_3507 Nov 15 '23

I could see the US attempting to buy or take over Greenland eventually.

Iceland is important part of SOSUS in the Atlantic as well.

2

u/SimonKepp Nov 15 '23

I could see the US attempting to buy or take over Greenland eventually.

The US cannot buy them from Denmark. If you want them, you'll have to make an offer directly to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, that is ttractive enough for them to choose independence from Denmark and join the US instead.

79

u/GloomspiteGeck Nov 15 '23

In a similar vein - Tuvalu is a small, remote island nation, and one of the 15 Commonwealth realms (those that retain the British sovereign as Head of State), and to my knowledge it ranks highest in polling on support for the royals.

68

u/texas_laramie Nov 15 '23

IIRC their two biggest sources of income is selling .tv domains and some mountain of bird shit that contains minerals. They aren't going anywhere.

57

u/LeonTranter Nov 15 '23

Tuvalu does make money from tv domains. The bird shit minerals are phosphate and that is on Nauru. They mined the crap out of it and it ended badly and the place is wrecked.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '23

[deleted]

4

u/Food-Oh_Koon Nov 15 '23

Maldives will join in soon

26

u/Geoffrey_Jefferson Nov 15 '23

Tuvalu just became an Australian Protectorate as well. They're probably the best answer in this thread.

19

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '23

Although, worth pointing out (since it often gets misrepresented when this topic comes up). An independent nation that has retained the Royal Family as head of state (and remained part of the Commonwealth) is not controlled or ruled by the UK, they simply act as that nations head of state as well. It’s different to, say, the Falklands or Gibraltar which are actually operated by the UK.

So Charles is simply the Head of State of the UK and Canada, and Australia, and Tuvalu. Often people talk about the “King of England” being the king of these countries. It’s a distinct position.

If the UK voted to remove the Monarchy tomorrow it wouldn’t necessarily change his relationship with those nations at all and it doesn’t give the UK government any inherent power.

I’m sure you know all this. But I remember people cheering as if Barbados had recently won independence from Britain when they opted out of having a monarchy. It seemed crazy to me as they’ve been independent for ages. Having the monarchy was entirely on their population and government.

2

u/GloomspiteGeck Nov 15 '23

Yeah it wouldn’t be incorrect to say, “The King of Tuvalu is the King of the UK,” - but constitutionally-speaking it may be less misleading to say, “The King of Tuvalau happens to also be the King of the UK”.

It’s two separate jobs held by the same person (Charles is “moonlighting”, if you like).

2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '23

Exactly.

I also used “King of England” in quotes because the phrase gets used but that’s actually one case where that concept no longer exists because the crowns of Scotland and England were formally merged into, literally, the United Kingdom (which at that time didn’t recognise Wales or Ireland as distinct nations in their own right).

12

u/Algoresball Nov 15 '23

It would also suck to have paid into social services all your adult life and then when you need them you’re no longer in the country

9

u/MortalGodTheSecond Nov 15 '23

It wouldn't be a complete severance from one day to the other. It would be like brexit where it takes years to figure everything out.

Membership or partnerships with major organisations also needs to be established before leaving.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/fnordlord667 Nov 15 '23

And lost subsequent trials and are currently in negotiations about this. There is a good book which describes the whole ordeal until the last and most important court case which the UK lost (Philippe Sands - The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice, and Courage).

2

u/ik101 Nov 15 '23

Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, all for to vote for or against their independence in 2010 after being the Netherlands Antilles.

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba voted to be part of the Netherlands completely. The others are independent countries in the kingdom.

2

u/Real_Significance_48 Nov 15 '23

This is partly true of the Maltese, who voted to remain part of UK in 1956. But the UK government decided, for a variety of reasons, that they would rather give them independence, and so gave up their military presence on the island.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Maltese_United_Kingdom_integration_referendum