“Colonialism is not quite the same as conquest”
“Even the most successful European colonizers were never able to fully pacify their possessions. The best evidence of that is that every single one of them (except Russia) eventually gave up their possessions because they were too much trouble to hold on to.”
____________________________________________
The Spanish conquistadores would beg to differ. Colonialism and Imperialism are both considered a conquest.
Not every single one of them. For instance, look at Britain...15 nations are under The Commonwealth Realm - 2.2 Billion people. Sovereign nations much like our Indian reservations.
The ones that left the British Empire...it was after decades, and in some cases centuries, of British rule.
That’s just one instance.
Let’s look at Mexico...Spain called it Viceroyalty of New Spain, and ruled it for 300 yrs.
500 yrs later it’s still being debated:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/10/777220132/500-years-later-the-spanish-conquest-of-mexico-is-still-being-debated
“The Spanish conquistadores would beg to differ. Colonialism and Imperialism are both considered a conquest.”
They can differ all they like, but we have different words for them because they are in fact different things.
“Not every single one of them.”
Yes, every single one of them (except Russia, as I said before, who still clings to some colonies in Siberia and the like).
“For instance, look at Britain...15 nations are under The Commonwealth Realm”
Commonwealth nations aren’t ruled by Britain, so that’s not a real objection.
“Sovereign nations much like our Indian reservations.”
No, Commonwealth nations are actual sovereign nations, unlike the Indian tribes, which have a very limited “sovereignty”.
“Let’s look at Mexico...Spain called it Viceroyalty of New Spain, and ruled it for 300 yrs.”
And yet, they rule it no more, because in the end, it was far too much trouble, despite the fact that Mexico was the richest gem besides India in the crown of the colonizers.