How do you define "deep rooted"?
Several generations-old settlements.
IIRC the British did start colonizing these countries at the end of the 19th century/beginning of 20th century.
How do you define "deep rooted"?
The legal issue here is not whether Harold Godwinson was the legal king and Guillaume usurped himTanc49 said:I object to this statement, the Normans had the right to come and Guillaume was the rightful heir to the crown of England, unlike Harold, this impious impostor!
*my claim above is in no way related to me being from Normandy*
A more reliable way is to stick a sword, musket or Maxim machine gun up the nose of the would be coloniser. People don't tend to colonise lands where they get run out (eg 19th century Italians from Ethiopia, 1st century Romans from the east bank of the Rhine). Manhatten is an exception to the general rule that colonies are usually obtained by brute force (before or after a chief has been duped into signing over land).Julius Vogel said:So we are all agreed then, the best way to prevent colonialism is an independent Land Registry office, where all ownership, leasehold or other rights or interests in property are registered so all comers can properly check such rights before sale and purchase of land?
You're forgetting Kenya and Rhodesia.
Rhodesia- Somewhat deeper roots- Local born White population was in generation four in Ian Smith's day though a large share of Whites were descended from post WW2 immigrants. In the four decades since the Smith government went down to defeat the White population has dropped a sparse handful of unfortunate elderly with nowhere else to go.
Where they did find them, eg Argentina, Euorpeans were more than happy to work on a more equitable basis. Equitable that is as long as you don't step out of line. The moment you in go the gunboats and marines.understandable reasons) wanted to deal with other nation-states of the same sort. In the absence of such nation-states, conquest and direct rule seemed the best alternative.
The less European you looked and behaved, the more likely that you would have order imposed on you. The behaviour bit is important because whilst the Chinese and Japanese did not look like Europeans to the same degree, Japan "caused less trouble" and hence had to pay less indemnities. That gave it the money it needed to buy in European technology, experts, etc.Of course, it helped if the difficult locals were mere "bloody wogs" or "sauvages non civilises". Who could blame you for imposing order on such?
Where they did find them, eg Argentina, Euorpeans were more than happy to work on a more equitable basis. Equitable that is as long as you don't step out of line. The moment you in go the gunboats and marines.
The less European you looked and behaved, the more likely that you would have order imposed on you. The behaviour bit is important because whilst the Chinese and Japanese did not look like Europeans to the same degree, Japan "caused less trouble" and hence had to pay less indemnities. That gave it the money it needed to buy in European technology, experts, etc.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. All three had a lower level of technology than the Japanese, ran badly afoul of the British and got conquered.I would have to disagree with this. In Africa, the British came across the Zulu, Benin and Yoruba kingdoms and yet things did not turn out like they did with Japan. The three I've mentioned weren't nation states in the western sense but they were polities with their own political leaders, laws and customs.
Not really. They defeated the Italians at Adwa.I think its also useful to mention Abyssinia which was for the most part left alone by the Europeans in the 19th century(there was I beleive a lone British punitive expidition.)
And some were for excess population.