can we say there's no history or nation during illegal colonial

>>73232922
Define "colonial"

Wasn't Korea colonised by the Japanese at some point? You lot seem to be doing OK

>>73232922
in america we lightly cover the precolumbian civilizations, but the true 'starting point' of our history is the pilgrims, so prior to american revolution we basically study expatriate/colonial brits

for places like hawaii (your pic related) i believe precolonial history is covered more in depth, alongside the history of the rest of the country

>>73232922
The US are the 13 colonies.

>>73232922
I heard Japan was colonized by the United States.

>>73233043

after world war II? if you mean 'the japan colonized by america', yes.


>>73232959

yeah, had been colonized 'illegally' from 1910 to 1945.

>>73233034

then, do americans see the starting point of independent country(I mean, U.S) as July 4th, 1776? I heard the day U.S recognized its independence is September 3th, 1783. If so, why do they do like that?

History books describe the fight and the importance of freedom, how the British used our country for their benefit and how are country & its regions were before colonization.
Strangely enough, history seems to stop at Independence.

>>73233269
1776 was when we declared our independence, we see that as the official start of the country. 1783 iirc was when other countries began to recognize the US as such. So until 1783 our 'country' was entirely occupied with expelling the british and did not do very much in the way of national affairs until the british ceded and recognized us

>>73233381
You have a buzzard view of history there was no expelling British, George Washington was British it was a civil war against the crown authority not English people.

>>73233332

then, Do Indian history books or Indians say there were histories, indian nation, and own soverreignty(which was robbed by U.K, but actually indian own possession)?

File: least rare.jpg (25KB, 600x578px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x578px

>>73233408
british loyalists/army you fuckwit

>>73233409
India was founded by England but victors write history books.>>73233409

>>73233332
pretty much the same here. history books paint the spaniards as cruel oppressors, americans too, but to a lesser degree; since they did help remove the japanese, which history books also paint as cruel oppressors.

>>73233435
You seem to think founders had no connection to England or English people, they saw themselves as English men and demanded rights of English men.

>>73233409
Before British, India was divided by kingdoms and sultanates and such. The books mostly described the massacres of Indians, the freedom struggle which started in 1857, droughts and barren lands resulted by the British colonization.

In California we learn about our state history first beginning with native americans

>>73233463

Hitler broke England's back, it made independence higher possibility and later, a reality

>>73233487
b-but muh railways pajeet

>>73233513
Why?
USA has nothing to do with amerindians but whatever I have no power or authority.

>>73233469
that has literally no bearing on the mere dates of events which is what i was trying to tell korea anon

>>73233544
Railways were never made for Indians, they were made for English goods

>>73233562
In India.
What are most developed parts of India the ones with most British presence or ones with least?

>>73233551
You know except the lived here and some still do. Dumb cunt.

>>73233588
Imo Bombay (now Mumbai) was the most developed city of India with underground sewer lines and public transport. It was basically a cleaner version of London. Back then it had no open sewers. Not sure of the ones with least British presence.

>>73233631
Has nothing to do with us state of California which has nothing to do with Amerindians, state was founded in English for whites and auxh, what illegal occupants were doing where and what don't matter.

>>73233551
there's a certain irony to making a post like that in a thread about colonialism. I like it. have a (You)

>>73233687
No one in England had power or authority in the territories governed by the elites of English society.

In Korea(both south and north), we describe the period colonized by japan as "the period when our sovereignty was illegally robbed" cause korea has existed for over 1000 years as a distinct nation with a strong tradition of national identity but japan empire ruined all of them just in about 35 years. League of nations and Cairo Conference acknowledged the annexation of korea and japan was nullity from the begining, so we learn that we had our own counrty, nation, and sovereignty even under the japanese rule. (of course, our sovereignty was illegally robbed.)

>>73233715
So what?
Your country is literally founded on the backs of dead indians. You even made the buffalo extinct ffs.

I love Murika btw, just sayin

>>73233795
What are you tracking about?
What people happen to be murdered or killed in the past is irrelevant, is state IS the only staye in the continent.

>>73233857
US state*

>>73232922
Kek you chinks rightfully belong to China
Go pay tribute to China kim

>>73232959
They were a Chinese vessel foe who knows how long

>>73233332
>>73233463
Must've been hard being a colony of a completely different race
America was pretty much Britain + freedom and the latams are kind of almost Spanish

Are Indians cucks to brits while flips cucks to Spaniards ? Be honest

>>73232922
Very nice, it ended too soon.

>>73233675
>state was founded in English
California was originally a Spanish colony dumbass

>>73234098
USA state of California was founded in English and by Englishman.

>>73234180
You have the Englisb skills of my Mexican gardener.

>>73232922
We were part of the glorious Roman Empire before the independence.

>>73233675
>>73234180
Are you literally retarded ?

>>73234180
Alternative facts I guess

>>73234312
I hate arguing with niggers and spics.

>>73233332
>>73233409
>>73233451
>>73233463
>>73233487
>>73233544
>>73233562
>>73234078
First off, there was no India. There wasn't even a fucking Punjab identity. The Brits came and unified a bunch of tribal ethnics into one group.
>w-we wuz oppressors n shieeet
A unified India (which is much more than it's ever been in your history) is much. much stronger and more relevant than a weakened one.

Not to mention the Brits weren't unnecessarily cruel. We built hospitals aand accepted you into our schools.

Your welcome Pajeet.

>>73234402
* which is much more now

>>73234378
Don't pull the nigger card unless its called for retard, you're literally just wrong

>>73234424
I can't argue with a baby, I won't ever respond to nigger spic flag of USA.

because we were colonized before much if any writing happened, that process itself isn't depicted badly if at all

however it's depicted that they didn't really give a shit about us and they just wanted our tax monies

>>73234477
Did Finland exist before "colonization"

>>73234402
to be fair, the Spaniards also did help unify our country under one identity, (although it is flawed, as it was spawned from the united desire for independence) which is also why we still call ourselves Filipinos.

they also did help develop the islands, even though it was late (about 200 years late), and their funds were dwindling (due to their nth civil war at the time), by granting us spanish citizenship in 1812, allowing natives to study in Spain by the latter half of the 19th century, creating the first bank here in 1828 (El Banco Español Filipino, now known as Bank of the Philippine Islands), and a number of schools that still stand today that still stand today.

Our history classes are very anti-spanish for some reason, probably american influence but I'm not totally sure.

>>73234532
did earth exist before steam age

>>73234606
Were there people who saw themselves as finns, or multiple tribes.

>>73234634
ancient roman texts describe a barbaric group called finns but it all refers to the turku area, the southwest coastal portion

but the turku area is called "finland proper" even in finnish, so it ain't some new thing

the deep forests were probably all considered lapp, full of demons and witchcraft

in kalevala north is full of cold, death and misery

north is nothing but evil

even hell is a frozen place somewhere in the north

>>73233754
What's your point? What is it so important for you?

>>73234698
although there wasn't heaven so it wasn't like you got punished for being in hell

>>73232922
there wasn't anything resembling a national consciousness in Australia before colonisation. Even after colonisation people tended to describe themselves by whatever colony they were a part of. New South Welshman were considered separate Victorians and Western Australians had (and still have) a healthy dislike for every other colony.
It was only really with world war 1 that the unified australian identity began to form

>>73235914
Truth. You were a [insert name of state]er first, a Briton second, and an Australian third.

>>73235993
>a Briton second
not quite

>>73232922
Spain is probably a footnote in latin american education
>"these guys were evil they stole our gold blablah" >>73234535 >>73233463
I dont get why they only focus in the bad parts tho
After all spanish was a modernized country that brought new goods and technologies
Is this why we arent even told about the Filipinas in school? Was it harsher than south america

>>73234402

>the Brits weren't unnecessarily cruel.

Yeah, and the massacres, famines, droughts and using Indians for WWII were totally not cruel.

>>73236148
>massacres
Proofs
>famines, droughts
Out of their control
>using indians for WWII
Perfectly justifiable

Pre-colomial era, we admit we were separated shits
>Hindu-Buddha kingdoms
>Muslim kangdoms
Colonial era, we admit these guys are nutso but we also admit they unified us.
>swamp-nigger and barbosa
>japan-aniki
Post-co era, revolution fervor followed by meh too much effort
>great south east asia co-prosperity sphere
>KGB vs CIA
>papua liberation
>east timor? what east timor?

>>73236085
Every country likes to think that it's way is the best I suppose

>>73236085
>i don't get why they only focus in the bad parts tho
indeed.

you did help modernize, and also bought new goods (many of our traditional dishes today uses goods that you bought from mexico), and some of our most notable companies and schools today date back from the 19th century.

>was it harsher than south america
afaik they were about the same to the natives in the americas as in here.

desu, I really don't know why they left these parts out, probably to help us cultivate our own identity and distance ourselves from our former colonizers, but again, I'm not entirely sure. the only thing I'm sure about is that the Spaniards weren't necessarily cruel, while the Americans weren't necessarily good, either.