Patriotism in colonies

Don't act like a coward.

We fucked them over. The same thing that we did to India, EU was going to do to us. So be glad that we learned from our history.

No they felt no remorse.

By
>I heard that they actually feel more or less frogy
I meant before algierian war. I don't give a fuck about "muh islamization" I want to learn history

Spanish Colonial Subjects fucking did. From Latin America to the Philippines, majority of Spanish colonists saw themselves as loyal to the Spanish throne. From the late 1500s-1700s, the only requirement to be such was that you were Catholic and loyal to whosoever's ass sits in the Spanish throne. There were uprisings, yes, but these were usually labor/rights related with very few cases of Separatism (i can only think of 2 prior 1800s.

Except Spain had to fucking ruin it all by being snooty bastards. The cunts in the mainland were """racist"""" to the people in the colonies, and I say ""racist"" because they extend it to the colony-born Pure Spanish as well. It pissed off the elites of the colonies who became angry that their loyalty went unrewarded. People in Latin American/Southeast Asian colonies were LITERALLY DEMANDING to be part of the Spanish kingdom as full blown, direct subjects with equal rights to the Spanish peninsula and representation. When Spain denied them that, they went Nationalist Separatist.

Other colonial Empires were BTFO in wars, but Spain literally chose the future it chose. Not only was the SPanish colonial period a missed opportunity in wealth, it was also a missed fucking opportunity in making Spain greater than it is now.

They had a referendum and 99.72% voted for independence.

Once a colonial power goes into relative decline, the native view of them declines because it was only built upon fear and technological marvel anyway. Not any sense of patriotism or belonging. Then it is just a matter of time before they leave or get defeated like: , because nobody likes a weakling.

i'm not acting like a coward, but the indians weren't like the fucking native americans by any means

granted we used cheap labour, but social reform WAS happening.

Eh, Colombian here, some of us did it because the Elites were greedy fucks and went WAAAH at Spanish attempts to curtail their abuses, and so adopted liberalism & nationalism memes to get them out.

But yes, many other LatAms wanted to be part of Spain only to be assmad when they told to gtfo.

>If the railroads could have been ripped out and taken with us, we would have taken those too.

The Eternal Anglo, everyone!

>but Spain literally chose the future it chose

Spain's future was irrelevancy, unemployment, and debt. I guess it is in better shape than any of its former colonies, but that is like being a one-eyed king on the island of the blind.

Don't agree people in the colonies were racist to the people in the colonies at all. "Indiano" itself had a positive meaning in every context: rich, prosperous, traveled, etc, and people in Spain tend to think foreign means better.
The problem was mostly economics like always. The Spanish Crown was protecting against slavery, and preventing the elites from gaining more territories in Hispanoamerica, and banning opium trade in Philippines. Just examples, is way more complex than just that.

This sort of 'Colonialismz waz good and shieet' is how we got into the EU in the first place, why we have so many fucking refugees and immigrants, and why we gave up everything to become US vassals. Fuck off.

what

what even is this post

Common sense.

EU is a modern Colonialist trap.
USA is a Modern Empire.
Justification for Immigration came from the Commonwealth.

No lasting good has ever come to anyone by one power trying to rule over another. Stop trying to pretend that it does, and we can learn to be Enlightened Isolationists again.

>Welcome to Veeky Forums, it's basically /pol/ with dates but we pretend to be intelligent

*Enlightened ETHNOCENTRIC Isolationists again

imagine unironically writing this post

He is not wrong you know....

This should be UK's endgame.

...

Depends.

Most cases no.

>you weren't even conscripted
because the UK already had volunteers because the indian economy was fucked.
it was either
>join the police
>join the army

The metropolitan was distant.
"assimilating" was a losing game if you were an native.
Colonial management was distant but also very present.

As far as the Russian Empire was concerned it differed. Some Armenians, Georgians, Turkmen, etc. would gladly fight for the Russians and consider themselves Russian. Others lashed out at the suppression of their languages and customs and poor living standards.

Isn't Russia empire more Imperialist?

Yes, but I meant the non ethnic Russians that lived there.

Russia was one of the "Old" Empires which actually included its peripheries rather than just used them as the Colonialists did.

Was OP's question in relation to the people who came from the Imperial nation or the native people who lived there? I imagine the actual colonists would have been far more accepting of the empire than the natives.

Kek you're retarded. Back then and even today Indiano meant shit and only shit, and maybe cheap labour too. You can talk with the most Asiatic looking fuck in the Peruvian highlands and he'll claim to be white. Native was and is not something to be proud of typcially, sadly alot of the time its something for them to feel remorse about, they know life would be better for them if they were white.

T.Peruano

Nope. Just look at what happened to Britain.

Also by "Colonies" were not just talking colonial settlers, but also natives who got invaded. And besides (most) of the colonial powers emerged in a time when Nationalism was the craze and therefore were loath to include other people in the state-identity. As far as they were concerned they were nations with pet territories.

Meanwhile, the likes of Russia, Spain were the old empires. Sure they too went nationalist in the 19th century, but they spent centuries of not giving a shit about your race- and at times even fucking religion- so long as you're loyal to the throne and did what it wanted you. Basically in old empires you had the feeling that the peripheries were part of this grand state thing, as opposed to colonial empires where you feel like you're just being used by a core entity.

The West Africans that were under German rule did. Askaris were infamous for their rabid German nationalism and the German military treated askaris as more or less equally which irked the other colonial powers to no end. One charge of the French and British during WWI was that since Germans treated their Askaris as equals, and allowed them to watch over white PoWs and do literally anything that wasn't an officership, they were upsetting the colonial balance. With that being said, outside of the askari, German colonial subjects tended to fucking hate the Germans and with good reason.

Holy shit those digits

depends. Early indian agitation was for home rule and for dominion status with india, and it was tacitly implied by the british that home rule would come after WW1 was over.
The brits went back on their promise because it is their nature, and put indian nationalism on the fast track. The more moderate members of the congress party were shunted out or changed their stances, and complete independence began to gather steam.
Then gandhi came in and threw a spanner in the works.

Askaris got paid money.
In the colonial economy where jobs weren't much of a thing bring a soldier was pretty common.

Toulouse Louverture led the Haitian Revolution but at the same time considered himself a loyal revolutionary. The original intention was to do the same thing the Parisians did at the Bastille and kick out the oppressors in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Only then the revolution ended so Louverture was killed and everything went to complete shit.

Many Askaris MOVED to Germany after the war was over, though, for reasons beyond the economic.