Question to non-Americans

[Eagle367]

Ka-pi96 said:

Eagle367 said:

Because former colonies are more than Australia, US and Canada. As I said, most of the world is a former European colony. And the Europeans of those times did some pretty effed up things like the British in India used to hang Hindus wrapped in cow skins and Muslims wrapped in pig skins for defying their rule as an example. It wasn't all bad but if you know about Islam and Hinduism, that's some messed up shit. So I hope that tells you why it would make me angry.

eh, not really to me. When I think of the former colonies I think solely of the countries where the majority of people are of European origin. The others are people that existed before and still exist now. They may have been conquered by colonial empires, but they were never really colonised, they remained their own people and they still are their own people.

So the only countries that I would call former colonies are those that literally wouldn't exist if they hadn't been colonies such as the US, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

Like Ghana for example, it was a British colony, but I wouldn't think of it as a colonial country. It's its own country, the people were already there and are largely the same as they were before, it's completely different to the above mentioned countries.

You just contradicted yourself mate. Ghana was a former colony. So was Palestine and Syria and Pakistan. The British and French basically made the modern middle Eastern map because most of the places there were colonies and they drew squiggly lines how they saw fit. That's how the  mess of the modern middle east was made. Hong Kong was a British colony and that's why one country two systems exist(ed). Pakistan and Bangladesh probably wouldn't exist if India wasn't a British colony. Mass genocide and population replacement aren't qualifiers for a place to be a colony.