Oh Liberia... I thought that was one of the most obviously wrong answers. But I guess the key word here was "Europe."
I visited Ethiopia. They like to brag about being the only Africans never colonized. Though this seems like a hollow boast, as the Italians did control most of the country, albeit briefly. Most of the oldest buildings in Addis Ababa have an Italian signature. They still call the downtown area the Piazza. And they still have restaurants serving pizza everywhere. Doesn't seem very uncolonized.
To colonize is to impose your will, government, religion, politics and culture upon the place that you usurp. Ethiopia may still serve pizza, but that does not mean that they embraced the culture, religion or politics of Italy into the mainstream.
Italy invaded and occupied Addis Ababa and most of East Africa. They imposed their will, government, politics and culture upon the place for half a decade. And remnants of this imposition remain to this day.
No modern-day African country still has claims on it by European colonial powers. So... if an empire eventually relinquishing its claim on a land means that that land was never colonized, then no part of Africa was ever colonized by Europeans except maybe that one Spanish exclave that borders Morocco. Is there a time limit? Like the 5 second rule for food that falls on the floor? If you are colonized for 5 years it doesn't count?
You're mistaking 'colonised' and 'occupied.' Italy controlled the capital and around a third of the country and were resisted throughout by the Ethiopian Patriots. No lasting significant infrastructure or Italian population developed because they didn't have full control nor adequate resources.
Italy 'colonised' Ethiopia no more than Nazi Germany 'colonised' France.
No lasting infrastructure? You've never been to Addis Ababa, have you? And still, why is this a rule for what constitutes colonization? You're just making stuff up. There is not really a lot left in the USA that was built by the British. Are you going to say that North America was not colonized by the British Empire? The Spanish held the the Philippines as a colony for 333 years. But there is barely more evidence of them having been in Cebu or Manila than there is of the Italians being in Addis. Arguably less. According to Wikipedia there were 4,500 km of roads and 900 km of railway built in Italian Ethiopia. There are tons of buildings still standing. Like I said in my original comment, until recently the Ethiopians had not really built much else. Why doesn't anyone actually look stuff up before they comment? No lasting infrastructure... I'm sure you just typed that because it seemed true to you. But a simple google search would reveal it's not.
It is the Ethiopian's version of events that the war between Hailie Selassie and the Italian invaders went on this entire time and eventually ended in an Ethiopian victory. That's why they make the claim that the Italians never colonized them. I humbly submit this is inaccurate. Italy won the war. Hailie Selassie fled the country and went to London. The Italians set up shop, completely in control of the capital city and most of the country for years, and built a sh*t ton of infrastructure, much of which remains to this day. They only left later when, as part of World War 2, they got forced out by the Allies. I'm sorry if this hurts Ethiopian pride.
What is the difference between occupation and colonization? I know both terms carry with them a lot of political connotations and can be used, and misused, to try and prop up certain narratives. But I think realistically the difference between the two is an intent to stay on the part of the occupiers/colonizers.
If one country enters another country's territory uninvited, and they build only temporary military structures like barracks and fortifications before being forced out, this is an invasion.
If they do this but manage to largely defeat the defenders, and then build permanent structures like military bases or communications and transportation infrastructure, but they have no intent of actually sticking around permanently themselves and the presence is largely militaristic in nature, this is an occupation.
If they intend to stay and bring in people and families to live there, and they build permanent structures like churches, restaurants, administrative buildings
entertainment venues, permanent domiciles, court houses, schools, et cetera... then this is colonization.
The Italian Empire intended to stay in Ethiopia. They built many of these things. If the war had gone differently, they would have still been there for another 40 years.
Yes, I just type random things because they seem true and have never researched anything, ever.
I spent over a year there so I find your incohorent ranting bizarre - you contradict yourself, for one thing. In the broadest sense, the main difference IS permanency. The war DID happen, they didn't have the resources to stick around, and were ousted within 5 years.
If you spent a year there it's surprising that you are so ignorant about this and have to resort to making inaccurate ad hominem attacks instead of actually engaging in the conversation. but that's the Internet for you. Though 80% of your comment is insults, the 20% that tries to be a response I already refuted if you actually read what I wrote. Not going to waste my time on the semi-literate.
If any intelligent people out there actually wanted to have a civil discussion about this I'm legitimately interested in why anyone outside of Ethiopia takes this claim seriously. It's definitely not that the Italians built no lasting infrastructure (they did). Or that they weren't intending to stay there permanently (they were). Or that they were resisted by partisan fighters during the time that Italian East Africa was part of the Italian Empire (as the same thing occurred in most countries that were colonized in history). Or that they eventually left (as all colonial powers in Africa eventually did the same thing).
Is it some arbitrary cut-off in time? Have there been no efforts to colonize territory in history that failed after fewer than 6 years? And if so, what's the next shortest one? I'm not sure how to look this up. I know of numerous failed attempts by European colonial empires to colonize North America. Most of those failed in less than a year, though.
Wikipedia doesn't seem to suggest Jakarta was founded by the Dutch. Also, accept just "Leif" for Leif Eriksson, and just "Roundhead" and "Cavalier" (minus the plural s at the end?) And NATO and Warsaw Pact are fairly obvious, but might be better to make it more clear as so not to refer to SEATO, etc.
From what I gather this is the case. There allready used to be human settlement on the location of modern day jakarta, long before europeans arrived in indonesia. But around 1620 the old city (at that point in time called jayakarta) was destroyed and the dutch build a new city at/on the same location and called it batavia.
So in short you could say there allready was settlement, but the jakarta of today was build/established by the dutch ( I wouldnt really use founded..)
I believe what actually happened is that there was already a settlement néár where the Dutch would found the fort and town of Batavia, which then got incorporated into the city as it grew. But since the point from which the city grew was that Dutch fort, it's considered a city founded by the Dutch.
Kind of similar to the story of Calcutta (or Kolkata, if you need a different spelling that sounds identical in speech): There were already three villages at the mouth of the Hooghly river near where Fort William was founded by the British, but since the city grew out of the fort, Calcutta as a city was founded by the British.
I tried Konstantiniyye out of curiosity and was disappointed that it didn't even count as a type-in for Constantinople. Gotta agree, weaker even than the "first two" categories.
I did genuinely enjoy this quiz - thanks! For the Istanbul one, I can hear my old Greek teacher (I studied Classics at uni) spelling it out as "Buzdantion" with a "delta" in the middle - is that correct?!
Last hint must be updated: Guelphs and Ghibellines were rival factions in Florence, and such rivalry went on a while and is heavily reference in the Divine Comedy whose story takes place in 1300.
As an Italian I blanked out completely, I definitely suggest revising the hint
I don't think "Biggest cities originally founded by the Dutch" is particularly accurate. Both places have long histories before Dutch "arrival." In what sense did the Dutch originally found them? Even the names given by the Dutch didn't stick. Of course there is Dutch colonial history in both places, but this seems like one easy place to resist colonial narratives of history.
It's quite accurate. Manhattan had nothing resembling a "city" before the Dutch showed up. Jakarta is a little more ambiguous, but it's clear that the reason that Jakarta is a major center today is because of Dutch settlement.
Really just playing devil's advocate. I'll bow to conventional wisdom... and the Ethiopian tourism department.
I visited Ethiopia. They like to brag about being the only Africans never colonized. Though this seems like a hollow boast, as the Italians did control most of the country, albeit briefly. Most of the oldest buildings in Addis Ababa have an Italian signature. They still call the downtown area the Piazza. And they still have restaurants serving pizza everywhere. Doesn't seem very uncolonized.
No modern-day African country still has claims on it by European colonial powers. So... if an empire eventually relinquishing its claim on a land means that that land was never colonized, then no part of Africa was ever colonized by Europeans except maybe that one Spanish exclave that borders Morocco. Is there a time limit? Like the 5 second rule for food that falls on the floor? If you are colonized for 5 years it doesn't count?
Italy 'colonised' Ethiopia no more than Nazi Germany 'colonised' France.
If one country enters another country's territory uninvited, and they build only temporary military structures like barracks and fortifications before being forced out, this is an invasion.
If they do this but manage to largely defeat the defenders, and then build permanent structures like military bases or communications and transportation infrastructure, but they have no intent of actually sticking around permanently themselves and the presence is largely militaristic in nature, this is an occupation.
If they intend to stay and bring in people and families to live there, and they build permanent structures like churches, restaurants, administrative buildings
The Italian Empire intended to stay in Ethiopia. They built many of these things. If the war had gone differently, they would have still been there for another 40 years.
I spent over a year there so I find your incohorent ranting bizarre - you contradict yourself, for one thing. In the broadest sense, the main difference IS permanency. The war DID happen, they didn't have the resources to stick around, and were ousted within 5 years.
Why are you so upset?
Is it some arbitrary cut-off in time? Have there been no efforts to colonize territory in history that failed after fewer than 6 years? And if so, what's the next shortest one? I'm not sure how to look this up. I know of numerous failed attempts by European colonial empires to colonize North America. Most of those failed in less than a year, though.
So in short you could say there allready was settlement, but the jakarta of today was build/established by the dutch ( I wouldnt really use founded..)
Kind of similar to the story of Calcutta (or Kolkata, if you need a different spelling that sounds identical in speech): There were already three villages at the mouth of the Hooghly river near where Fort William was founded by the British, but since the city grew out of the fort, Calcutta as a city was founded by the British.
As an Italian I blanked out completely, I definitely suggest revising the hint