uncolonized countries
D Bedell
not entirely trivial:
I would like to know what nation in the world has never been colonized,
conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
or a territory.) Any candidates?
--David Bedell, U. of Alabama (dbed...@ua1vm.bitnet or @ua1vm.ua.edu)
Aaron P Hantman
Shane L. Willerton
Shane Willerton
Rhodes College
wilsl@Rhodes
Paul Rich
domination and its present monarchy is a comparatively recent creation.
Paul Rich
Aaron P Hantman
can't think of anyone ever controlling Sweden (besides the Swedes).
-Aaron Hantman
Tapani Hietaniemi
> How about Sweden and Norway?
- Sweden is OK.
- Norway is a new construction and became independent in 1905.
- Turkey is a good candidate: one must go down deep in history before
one faces any kind of "foreign" conquest.
- And no alien power ever governed the whole Russian ground, either.
with best regards
Tapani Hietaniemi
drummond andrew
the land, though.
Andrew Drummond
<adru...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Thomas Spencer
Russia be one? I don't mean the U.S.S.R. but Russia proper. I know you
would get into the grey area of the Nazis during World War II but it seems
plausible. That's true you also have Napoleon! I don't know--do those two
count as "colonizers?" As you can tell, my knowledge of Russian history is
somewhat "second hand." There may be other problems that I don't know about.
Iceland sounds good to me. So does Sweden. Norway unfortunately was occupied
(colonized?) by the Nazis during W.W. II. But Norway was crushed under the
heel of the Nazi boot. I don't think Russia proper was. I don't know.
Someone let me know about what they think about this.
Tom Spencer
Grad Student, Indiana University
Yngve Skramm
ages and they became the dominant (only?) population on Iceland. Even on
Greenland and in north America, the vikings settled.
Yngve Skramm,
University of Oslo
Norway
Fragano Ledgister
--
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
fled...@weber.ucsd.edu
TOM HADY
mind. I all the accounts I have read of the settlement of Iceland by
the Vikings, I can not remember ever seeing mention of an indigenous
population. Was Iceland, in fact, empty of people when the Vikings
settled?
--TOM HADY, National Economy & History Branch, Economic Research Service
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture -- VOICE: 202-219-0780 FAX: 202-219-0391
BITNET: HADY@ERS INTERNET: HA...@ERS.BITNET
(Any opinions mine alone, to be valued at their marginal cost!)
Walter Felscher
Vladimir, Susdal, Moskva ... . The territory of Novgorod escaped occupation
by having its prince, Aleksandr Jaroslavovich, declare himself a vassal of
the Khans. The South and East of Russia remained occupied and governed
by the "Golden Horde" for about 240 years.
Walter Felscher, Tuebingen
paul buckingham
to remove Russia from the list. The Mongols dominated 'Russia' or
the land area later to become Russia in the 12th-14th centuries. Also,
at one point during the Time of Troubles from about 1598-1613, a Polish
army (in 1611?) invaded Russia taking Moscow. They placed their own
candidate for Tsar on the throne and a Polish army garrisoned the Kremlin
for a short time until the late 1612 when a few Russians were able to
raise an army and drive out the Polish Tsar.
Paul Buckingham
pbu...@andy.bgsu.edu
...dyela davno minuvshikh dnyey,
predan'ya starinyi glubokoy...
...deeds of days long vanished,
traditions of deep antiquity...
Pushkin
~`vp2v46
Ken Koester
>I would like to know what nation in the world has never been colonized,
>conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
>within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
>has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
>or a territory.) Any candidates?
>
>--David Bedell, U. of Alabama (dbed...@ua1vm.bitnet or @ua1vm.ua.edu)
Um. How about Ethiopia and Afghanistan? Switzerland, perhaps. Someone
mentioned Turkey, but that depends on how narrowly you define the country;
seems like folks have been overrunning Asia Minor since neolithic times (-:
Jim Cocks
>Russia, in 1240, was overrun and defeated by the Tatars - including Kiev,
A minor quibble, but as I recall this overrun was by the Mongols,
under Jenghis Khan. What is now southern Russia was partitioned
out to Jenghis Khan's eldest son Jo"chi and later became known as
the Kipchak Khanate. The Mongols themselves expressed annoyance
at always being confused with the Tatars, the Turkic peoples of the
steppes.
It is true that Jenghis Khan's armies were made up of Tartars as
well as Mongols and that as time went on the western khanates became
almost totally Turkic. But the initial conquests were done by
Mongols under Jenghis Khan and by his successor Mongols up, I believe,
to the time of Tamerlane, who was Turkic.
Russia was'nt freed of the Mongol yoke until Ivan III the Great when
he refused to pay tribute to the reigning khan of the Golden Horde,
as the Kipchak Khanate was then known. This also marked the dis-
solution of the Golden Horde and was either at the very end of the
15th century or the beginning of the 16th.
--Jim Cocks
Bob Pasker
>- Turkey is a good candidate: one must go down deep in history before
> one faces any kind of "foreign" conquest.
uh, the turks themselves are "occupiers": genghis khan in, i believe,
the 10th century, came from the turkic lands in central asia.
also there was some guy named alexander of macedon, if i remember
correctly, who had a little eastbound excursion.
--
-- bob pasker
-- r...@netcom.com
--
Jim Cocks
>Um. How about Ethiopia and Afghanistan? Switzerland, perhaps. Someone
Afganistan changed hands so many times its hard to keep track. For
starters, Jenghis Khan invaded it and partitioned it out to one of
his leading generals, Jagatai and it became a part of the Jagatai
Khanate which included all of Transoxiana. Persia was given to
Hu"la"gu" who incorporated Afghanistan into his empire initiating
much fighting with the Jagatites. It was subsequently overrun by
Tamerlane. During this period there were many occupations of
Afganistan, all by people not indigenous to it. Likewise, for the
time preceeding Jenghis Khan.
--Jim Cocks
drummond andrew
does the original question about colonization cover, or how long was it meant
to cover?
Andrew.
JOHN K. STEMMER
influence during WWII, but don't know that it was occupied, and I don't know
about its history further back.
As for Switzerland, what happened to it during Napoleonic times? I'm not sure.
John Stemmer
Ste...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Sharon Michalove
>
>>Um. Switzerland, perhaps.
Switzerland was occupied by the Austrians. Remember William Tell?
Sincerely, Sharon
Sharon D. Michalove
Assistant to the Chair for Undergraduate Affairs
Department of History, UIUC
309 Gregory Hall, 810 South Wright Street
Urbana, IL 61801
217-333-4145
ml...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
*************************************************
In the eyes of cats, all things belong to cats.
Old English Proverb
*************************************************
Gary Daily
>I would like to know what nation in the world has never been colonized,
>conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
>within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
>has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
>or a territory.) Any candidates?
>
How about the U. S. of A.? --always lived and practiced "the best
defense is a good offense" approach.
gary w. daily, ISU
Walter Felscher
as mythic as Rip van Winkle.
I would suggest to consult some easily accessible sources. Already the
Encyplaedia Britannica will do.
Walter Felscher, Tuebingen
Ken Koester
>>Ken Koester asks:
>>
>>>Um. Switzerland, perhaps.
>
>Switzerland was occupied by the Austrians. Remember William Tell?
>Sincerely, Sharon
>
Afghanistan & Ethiopia. While we are at it, would any Pacific islands fit
the bill, or did they all become trustees/possessions of some other power?
Thomas Spencer
How about the U.S. of A.?--always lived and practiced the best defense is a good
offense approach.
Well, the U.S., I would argue had its origins as the colonial possessions of
several different powers (Britain, France, Spain--you remember those guys?).
While one could argue that "since the U.S. became a nation it has never been
colonized"--certain parts of it came from the scattered parts of different
nation's colonies. I don't know. Again, we get to the question of how to
define the American "nation" as described in the original question. I would be
tempted to argue that America became a distinct "nation" or "group of people"
while still under the colonial influence of Great Britain and, arguably, France
and Spain as well.
Oh well. I don't know if this helped anyone. Hell, I don't know if it helped
me very well. I've been writing too much stuff in the late 19th Century. This
stuff is out of my league I guess.
Later,
Tom Spencer, Indiana University
Paul Rich
inhabited). Since they evidently had no indigenous population and since the
survivors of the _Bounty_ who settled there have lived a communal life ever
since - the British representative lives thousands of miles away in New Zealnd
- their satrap might qualify.
Paul Rich
Ken Koester
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:40:28 CDT D Bedell said:
>>I would like to know what nation in the world has never been colonized,
>>conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
>>within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
>>has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
>>or a territory.) Any candidates?
>>
>
>defense is a good offense" approach.
>
If you are going by the technicality of when a nation gave itself a name
hoisted a flag, and took a seat at the U.N., there would be dozens of new
comers that could make the claim. Doubt that is what the original question
meant. So far, Sweden comes the closest, but I would regard as a "tainted"
case (-:
n.whyte
think its parliament was suspended by the Danes for a few decades in the early
nineteenth century.
Nicholas Whyte
N.W...@UK.AC.QUB
Peter Brush
the Ainu colonized by "Japanese" from the Asian mainland
through Korea in the new stone age? Yes, it all depends on
how far back we choose to go.
Peter Brush
BRUSHPW@SNYPLAVA
Plattsburgh, NY
Donald R. Kelly
American at heart !
Don Kelly
PG&E
Min Xu
people? Will, since the join of the 300 German States, they have never been
conquered beside taken some land after the war (as punishment), if a country can
be made of different ethenical group, in which most of the world is, there is
very few that matches.
Marv Fletcher
colonized. However, I would suggest that they did find aboriginal remains on th
e island, though apparently they were gone when the mutineers arrived. HOwever
Britain had claimed it from the mid1700s and it is still a British possession (
the Queen is on their stamps), though administered from New Zealand. I do not t
hink it falls into the uncolonized countries group.
An interesting discussion and more fun than looking it up in an encyclopedia.
Marv Fletcher
Ohio Univ
C R Pennell
Does Liberia count> Can Africans re-colonise AFrica?
China?
Richard Pennell History
C R Pennell
: Paul Rich suggested that possibly Pitcairn Islands might fall into an area not
: colonized. However, I would suggest that they did find aboriginal remains on th
: e island, though apparently they were gone when the mutineers arrived. HOwever
: Britain had claimed it from the mid1700s and it is still a British possession (
: the Queen is on their stamps), though administered from New Zealand. I do not t
: hink it falls into the uncolonized countries group.
AH now THERE'S a point, can an uninhabited country be properly called a
country. If it can't can it be colonised in the accepted sense?
Mauritius, St HElena, Tristan d Cunha, the Azores, Kerguelen Island, South
Georgia please stand up.
Robinson & Gallaghar, where are you in our hour of need?
Richard Pennel History NUS
Paul Rich
settlement later being placed in the uncolonized classification.
I did point out that the Pitcairn Islands had a British commisioner in New
Zealand, but that after all is more of a mail tranfer and shipping office
operation than it is a colonial administration.
But if some evidence of past habitation is considered pertinent, than I would
suggest South Georgia as not having ANY taint. There is a modest
historiography thanks to a book by Shackleton's son, the inevitable postage
stamps as a sign of soverignty, and even the recent melodrama of Argentine
invasion as a side operation during the Falkland/Malvinas war.
But South GEorgia might fail as an example if people insist that its
connection with Britain is a colonial one. Then however you have to argue that
the inhabitants (admittedly small in number, perhaps thirty or so) would like
some different political arrangement.
Paul Rich
Virginia Lunsford
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:40:28 CDT D Bedell said:
> >I would like to know what nation in the world has never been colonized,
> >conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
> >within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
> >has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
> >or a territory.) Any candidates?
> >
>
> How about the U. S. of A.? --always lived and practiced "the best
> defense is a good offense" approach.
>
> gary w. daily
The American Civil War seems to throw a wrench into this
response, as the Confederacy did see itself as a separate, sovereign
nation that was "conquered" and "occupied" by the Union Army.
Virginia Lunsford
Grad. Student, Dept. of History
Harvard University
Virginia Lunsford
By all accounts, Iceland was indeed empty of people when the
Scandinavians (primarily Norwegians) settled there in the ninth and tenth
centuries. (They also brought Celtic slaves, whom they kidnapped from
present-day Ireland.) Some records suggest that Irish monks once used the
island as a spiritual retreat, but this was a more of a seventh century
phenomenon, and moreover, they never established any sort of permanent
settlement. Iceland, however, does not qualify as one of your "never been
governed by an outside party" list: in 1264, the Norwegians formally
brought it under their domain; later, the Danish assumed control. The
modern nation of Iceland did not assume full independence until the 1940s
(1944 I believe).
Virginia Lunsford
Graduate Student, Dept. of History
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA USA
MARTIN FOX
of "nation" is. Is it a mass of land? A collection of people?
How loosely defined can a nation be? I find a tenedancy in all of
my classes to use terms without carefully defining them. This
lack of defintion is understandable, as we have language, but
demonstrations of the consequences of this I see here, as there
seems to be some shades of difference between what the members
of this list believe "nation" means, which is by any account
a concept fundamental to the study and understanding of history.
May I suggest we look at longevity of nations rather than searching
for nations indepedent of ANY control? As this disscussion has demonstrated,
such things are not particularlly easy to find.
Allow me to suggest Japan for the distinction of remaining from control
for the longest time I know of.
Having said that, I'd also like to raise the question when we should consider
one nation begginning and another ending. Compare the Govt. of the U.S.
today to U.S in the late 18th cent. I would say its quite a different
Government, yet still we're ostensibly the same nation. Do governments
end with changes of administration? How does this differ from revolution?
-Martin Fox
Rhodes '96
W.J. Paul Haynes
country displays a disturbing eurocentric bias.
Surely the indigenous people of North America would
consider it a colonized territory.
Paul Rich
Bhutan?
Vatican City State?
Sovereign State (Enclave) of the Knights of Malta in Rome?
The Maldives -- The British never put anybody THERE, although it was
technically part of the Empire.
Paul Rich
Don W.
>country. If it can't can it be colonised in the accepted sense?
How about Antarctica? Looks to me like it's been colonized
in one form or another.
Don W. (Don...@CSUS.Edu)
Don W.
>influence during WWII, but don't know that it was occupied, and I don't know
>about its history further back.
>As for Switzerland, what happened to it during Napoleonic times? I'm not sure.
Hasn't archeological research in Switzerland discovered
prehistoric houses built on pilings in lakes? Speculation is
that raising the drawbridge, as it were, would have made the
settlements very difficult for would-be colonizers to attack
from land. If so, then the presence of such structures would
indicate that "colonizers" or at least invaders may have been
a persistent nuisance in Switzerland at one time.
Don W. (Don...@CSUS.Edu)
A. Haggard
>prehistoric houses built on pilings in lakes? Speculation is
>that raising the drawbridge, as it were, would have made the
>settlements very difficult for would-be colonizers to attack
>from land. If so, then the presence of such structures would
>indicate that "colonizers" or at least invaders may have been
>a persistent nuisance in Switzerland at one time.
>Don W. (Don...@CSUS.Edu)
In the interests of defining our terms, perhaps we should distinguish
between colonizers, invaders, and casual burglars who might have
lived in the lake next door. "Officer, my car has been colonized
by the underclass..."
Amos Haggard.
George Welling
Maybe the only Zuid Flevoland (Southern Flevoland) will qualify as never
colonized, since it was taken from a former sea-arm after the second world war
by the Dutch. Noord Flevoland (Northern Flevoland) was made before the second
world war and hence was occupied by the Germans for five years.
Also the Maasvlakte, a stretch of land gained from the North Sea on the Dutch
coast west of Rotterdam and Lauwersmeer, a polder which formerly was part of
the Wadden Zee have been won from the sea after the second world war..
(yes, God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands)
--
,,,
(o o)
+-------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo--------------------------------+
| George M. Welling - dep.Alfa-Informatica HCI - Faculty of Arts |
| University of Groningen, PObox 716, 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands |
| phone: +31 50 635474 fax: +31 50 634900 e-mail: wel...@let.rug.nl |
| GHETA - ftp-site for historians : tyr.let.rug.nl dir: pub/gheta |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
() ()
Paul Shuttle
In a previous article, knut....@smi.uib.no (Knut S. Vikor) says:
>As this discussion has amply shown, the question of "what nation/country"
>has never been colonized/occupied etc. is meaningless. Unless you define
>your terms clearly, you will find that all peoples have been moving back
>and forth, and "invaded" or "occupied" each other at regularl intervals.
>The concept of "foreign rule" as we think of it, is a modern one. E.g. was
>Richard Lion-Heart an English ruler or a foreigner?
> The best suggestion so far is probably Sweden.
What about the Finns, Kvaens, and Sami colonized by Swedes in what is now
northern Sweden?
--
Paul Shuttle Internet: aa...@freenet.carleton.ca
Centretown, Ottawa, Ontario
"Minerva's Owl begins its flight only in the gathering dusk..." - Hegel
las...@cgsvax.claremont.edu
It is a natural fact that New Jersey has never been colonized by any outside
nation or power. If you have ever lived in New Jersey for any length of time
you would immediately see why. I particularly recommend an aromatic drive on
what is commonly referred to as "The Jersey Turnpike", or perhaps a memorable
stay in one of New Jersey's culturally rich cities, say Fort Lee or, even
better, Trenton. Yes, like various bugs and four legged mammals, New Jersey
has evolved a unique set of characteristics which have throughout history
protected it from external domination. Various parts of Southern California
are adapting this technique as well.
Matthew Lasar
claremont graduate school
claremont, CA
las...@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Gary Livingston Hewitt
>It is a natural fact that New Jersey has never been colonized by any outside
>nation or power. If you have ever lived in New Jersey for any length of time
>you would immediately see why. I particularly recommend an aromatic drive on
>what is commonly referred to as "The Jersey Turnpike", or perhaps a memorable
>stay in one of New Jersey's culturally rich cities, say Fort Lee or, even
>better, Trenton. Yes, like various bugs and four legged mammals, New Jersey
>has evolved a unique set of characteristics which have throughout history
>protected it from external domination. Various parts of Southern California
>are adapting this technique as well.
Please note -- New Jersey has been successfully colonized by the New
York Giants (Exit 18E is their stronghold), and there are occasional
threats of Philadelphia incursions (that would be exit 4). Although
there are also archaelogical data that point to Swedish colonization in
the 17th century, near proto-exits 2 and 3. The Trump Period (off the
ACExp) has not been suitably studied and will make a good dissertation
on late-20th-century NY and Las Vegas imperialism.... :-)
On the other hand, I'd rather live in Trenton than in the San whatever
valley -- I can see a blue sky today, and can count on seeing one the
rest of the summer....
Gary ("Garden State" resident, Exit 9 (or 8A))
P.S. Did you know NJ grows as many peaches as Georgia (this could be
false)?
--
Gary L Hewitt glhe...@phoenix.princeton.edu
"To sum up all; there are archives at every stage to be look'd into, and
rolls, records, documents, and endless genealogies -- In short, there is
no end of it." --Laurence Sterne, _Tristram_Shandy_
TOM HADY
>Gary ("Garden State" resident, Exit 9 (or 8A))
>P.S. Did you know NJ grows as many peaches as Georgia (this could be
>false)?
>--
million pounds of peaches in the years 1989-91, while New Jersey only
averaged 76 million. Maybe New Jersey peaches are smaller? :-)
TOM HADY BITNET: HADY@ERS INTERNET: HA...@ERS.BITNET
Bob Pasker
>On 28 Apr 1993 18:25:39 GMT Gary Livingston Hewitt said:
>>Gary ("Garden State" resident, Exit 9 (or 8A))
>>P.S. Did you know NJ grows as many peaches as Georgia (this could be
>>false)?
>million pounds of peaches in the years 1989-91, while New Jersey only
>averaged 76 million. Maybe New Jersey peaches are smaller? :-)
yeah, and all the ones from new jersey are classified as toxic waste.
bob "once from exit 18A" pasker
--
-- bob pasker
-- r...@netcom.com
--
David Bedell
> conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
> within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
> has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
> or a territory.) Any candidates?
As the originator of the above question, I have followed the discussion
but have refrained from taking part until now. Since postings seem to
have died down, I'll clear up some loose ends and present my conclusions.
1. Unconquered Outposts
As was pointed out, the control of certain remote settlements has never
changed hands since the date of permanent settlement. The islands of
Pitcairn, Norfolk, Jan Mayen, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, Reunion,
Kerguelen, etc., might fall into this category, as well as certain
Russian, US, Canadian, and other countries' settlements in desert lands
that had been neglected by nearby native peoples (like maybe Las Vegas?).
But I would contend that all of these are at least nominally "governed by
an external power"--the mother country. Depending on your political
viewpoint, they are either part of a larger nation, or they are nations
which have not yet gained independence. Compare the COMOROS, which were
never conquered by anyone (they were empty when the French and Africans
arrived), but they were subject to France for a long time before they
became independent. Other outposts did change hands: ICELAND was an
autonomous settlement which submitted to Norwegian authority and was
later transfered to Denmark before it finally regained independence.
Likewise, MAURITIUS and the SEYCHELLES were French, then British, then
independent.
2. Voluntary Power-Sharing
For the sake of improved security--perhaps to avoid occupation by a third
power--some nations have agreed to union with, or annexation by, or
protectorship under another nation. This was apparently the case with
SWEDEN, maybe also TONGA and HAWAII. LIECHTENSTEIN's status in the
Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation may have been more or less
voluntary. But this is still loss of autonomy and "government by an
external power," even if (at first) they were happy with the arrangement.
3. Almost but Not Quite
Some nations have enjoyed a remarkably long period of independence,
sometimes surviving from the beginning of history right up to the 20th
century. (I ignore prehistory here--my question was about a nation
"within the period of its known history.") If we accept that DENMARK
held a dominant position within the Kalmar Union of Scandinavia, then
it apparently kept its independence except for the Prussian occupation
of 1864 and the Nazi occupation during WWII. Some Pacific islands were
relatively fortunate: NIUE was not annexed until 1900; TONGA became a
British protectorate only in 1905, and has since regained independence.
JAPAN, as pointed out, has been independent except for the US occupation
after WWII (conquest of the Ainu by the Japanese was a prehistoric, not a
historic, event). ETHIOPIA is a borderline case: while the Italians
occupied the capital, massacred the inhabitants, and held power from
1935-41, "certain regions of Ethiopia, however, were never conquered"
(_Encyc. Brit._). SAN MARINO lay within the boundaries of the Roman
Empire, but apparently there is no record of inhabitation before the
establishment of an independent Christian commune in the 4th century.
However, it is disqualified because it fell briefly under the control of
Cesare Borgia in 1503. THAILAND is not disqualified by its WWII alliance
with Japan (which was contracted precisely in order to preserve a
delicate independence, just as Thailand was earlier friendly to Britain
in order to avoid the colonial fate of its neighbors); nor is it
disqualified because the Thais conquered the previously established
Mon and Khmer nations (this was prehistoric, and anyway would not
disqualify the Thais themselves); its fumble occurred during the Burmese
occupations of 1569-84 and again in 1767.
4. A Red Herring
Although the territory of Thailand was taken from the Mons and Khmers,
and the territory of Japan was taken from the Ainu, the Thais and the
Japanese were the respective conquering, not conquered, nations. The
Thai nation (nation = race or people) and the Japanese nation were not
subjugated until much later. So couldn't it be argued that the NORMANS
were always the conquerors, first in Normandy and later in England?
Haven't they (as Normans before 1066 and as Norman-English afterwards)
always had the upper hand? Unfortunately, I don't think the
Normans can still be said to exist as a nation, any more than the MANCHUS
who conquered the Chinese and became Chinese. There are probably other
such examples of conquering peoples who established a perfect record of
autonomy and then left the stage of history. Are there any still around?
The TURKS, maybe, as opposed to Turkey?
5. The Winners
LIBERIA is "the only Black state in Africa never subjected to colonial
rule" (_Encyc. Brit._). This claim is sullied a bit by the fact that,
when first established as a nation, it consisted of native Africans
under the rule of a Black American elite who themselves had previously
been slaves.
BHUTAN has a relatively short history, but it has been autonomous
throughout. The British "advised" it on foreign affairs, and India has
taken the same role since 1949, but Bhutan remains a sovereign nation.
NEPAL, or at least the dominant GURKHA people, has always been
independent. Like Bhutan, it accepted British "guidance" as the price
of independence.
Corrections, quibbles, and counter-examples are welcome.
--David Bedell, U. of Alabama (dbed...@ua1vm.bitnet or @ua1vm.ua.edu)
J Sullivan
Newfoundland was a crown colony that achieved responsible government, then
autonomous Dominion status, followed by a reversion to direct royal rule
during the 1930's, and then finally annexed itself into the Canadian union.
Mike Pitre
Sorry, another case of colonization. The native peoples of newfoundland
the Beothunk (not sure on spelling) aren't around anymore, but if they
were, I'm sure they would agree - as would the aboriginal people of
Tasmania who share their fate.
--
Mike J. Pitre
Origin: Ottawa's National Capital Freenet
ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca
75020,54 (cis)
Gary Livingston Hewitt
Newfoundland was originally colonized by the French in the seventeenth
century, settled by some fisherman who also made a bit of money trading
with the Indians for furs, etc. I believe the English either conquered
or were surrendered the island after Queen Anne's War (1702-13) in the
Peace of Utrecht, after which they boozed up their garrison, who
harassed the French inhabitants who had sworn some allegiance to the
English, who then left (an effective expulsion of the French, if not
particularly well-planned or systematic like that of the Acadians).
They never thought about expelling the Indians, though -- no money to be
made there....
Gary
mikias.k...@gmail.com
> This is a trivia question, but one which struck me as interesting and
> not entirely trivial:
> I would like to know what nation in the world has never been colonized,
> conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power--at least not
> within the period of its known history. In other words, what nation
> has an uninterrupted history of autonomy? (By "nation" I mean a people
> or a territory.) Any candidates?
>
tkis...@gmail.com
The brave Gurkhas of Nepal fought against well armed british forces with a sword and khukuri but never let themselves down. If ypu want more information of it you can search for Anglo-Nepalese war in wikipedia.
Thank you
