So historically it seems to me that decolonization of settler colonies such as Algeria and Zimbabwe involved the uprising of the majority indigenous population against a minority (although sometimes sizable), and typically the deportation of settlers and/or white flight. I know that most indigenous decolonialists in settler colonies like Canada and the US don't seek to deport settlers, but obviously revolution requires numbers to work. That said I think further questions on how a decolonial revolution in a settler colony could play out is beyond the scope of this community.
Also bonus question: in regards to slave rebellions, which were successful without having an overwhelming majority of the state being slaves? I'm under the impression that is a key reason why the reason American rebellions failed while Haiti was successful.
Okay thanks, hope these aren't weird questions.
I can only speak of my experience as a Canadian, but AFAIK 3-4% of first nations people is on the high end of things for any given region, with I think 5% overall in the country. That doesn't even begin to approach a critical mass for a revolution or even a major revolt.
The settler-colonial state of Canada is already built. As workers we need to bring first nations peoples into the fold and not only recognise the unique struggles they face as colonised peoples, but also the struggles we have in common as workers and comrades.
I think North America is probably the least likely area to ever be decolonized. Things definitely became a clusterfuck as soon as they started importing enslaved peoples from elsewhere on the planet.
I'm not aware of any point in history where a settled colonial population representing a majority of the population in that area was removed by members/descendents of the native population.
I'm also unconvinced that modern majority-slave Gulf states will see successful rebellion prior to Armageddon in our lifetimes. The US has sold so much military hardware and surveillance technology to those places...
I’m not aware of any point in history where a settled colonial population representing a majority of the population in that area was removed by members/descendents of the native population.
If we're going really far back... :thinking-about-it:
Gauls removed Greeks from Marseilles. Indigenous Greenalanders and Canadians might have killed off some early Viking settlements. Irish got rid of the Norse in Meath, but they ended up just mingling into the population. But all of these are sort of small city areas, really depends on what you describe as an 'area' or colony really...
Phoenicians got kicked out of southern Spain. Not comfortable with describing whatever the hell the Reconquista was but the Muslims did take over the majority of the peninsula and vice versa. Very back and forth there.
Could say Czechia removing the Nazi sided Germans (re: the majority of Germans) from the country was an act of successful decolonization. Used to be that Czechia had almost no border that didn't have Germans on it, almost entirely enveloped and very difficult to defend. And the Germans were over us for many hundreds of years and if the Nazis had won our culture wouldn't exist at all. Probably one of the closest things I can think of. Maybe Finland against the Swedes, and the Balkans against the Turks?
When Lief Ericson landed in Vineland (modern day Newfoundland, Canada) in about 1000 CE, he settled at a place now known as L'Anse aux Meadows. The Norse people were reportedly in conflict with people they called Scraelings, which would be the indigenous people of Newfoundland, the Beothuk people.
While the Norse were successfully repelled from the new world, the next invaders (the french and spanish) unfortunately were not.
The Beothuk people were hunted (yes actually hunted) to extinction. Genocide and mass killings. The last Beothuk woman died in slavery in about 1820.
Ultimately its all a matter of timescale, its possible we might decolonize in the future but who knows what will cause it. Might just be simple as a climate breakdown of society making it beyond difficult for pale people to survive in such sunny tumultuous environments. If the climate forces us to be outside and not use AC all the time, that is. Theres a reason the South, Australia, and other sunny settler colonial areas were so low population. Nonstop burning.
Personally I just don't think white people should be anywhere thats too sunny and thats a majority of North America, like its an actual medical detriment if you are pale, huge risk of skin cancer. Very few places have UV ratings that are very good for pale people and as climate changes shits gonna get weirder. I've even read some paradoxical reports that the American Southeast will become very good for pale people because it is going to suddenly become very cloudy all the time there.
Incorrect, but of course the Communists did agree with the idea and all the wikipedia articles on English sites say it wasn't (without citation!) so of course muh victims of communism will tally that one up. Part of my family lived along the border and a couple hundred Germans stayed in their town and even a quarter of our family had German last names and spoke German and Czech fluently and werent disturbed. But they were disturbed nonstop by the German locals for marrying into a Czech family, including some being murdered.
