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.

So only the places where the indigenous people were near completely removed and replaced by Europeans are considered colonized by your definition. I guess it's a good thing you weren't running the empire back then or there would be a lot fewer people on earth right now.

To be clear I don't actually disagree with your larger argument that makes sense for countries that were created by those of European descent to learn about European history.  It is useful in understanding the creation of the United States Government.

I just have a problem with your definition of colonized. "they remained their own people and they still are their own people." These weren't just places that were allowed to live as they had previously, they were forced to adopt new customs, laws, borders, etc. In many places, there were multiple distinct groups of people but to Europeans, they were all the same and forced together. Whether they like it or not (and I am guessing not) European culture was forced upon them and is now part of their history. It feels offensive to say they weren't really colonized. 

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.

But you just called Ghana a colony and I find my description more consistent

Why do you get angry about what people did “back then”? Utterly pointless, unhelpful and nonsensical. I’m afraid getting angry about anything in history will do nothing to change it, so you’d be better off simply learning what is good to do and not so good to do and moving forward. Origins of science and maths and literature and art etc etc are all fascinating yet if you’re learning the core subject (maths for example) it’s utterly irrelevant who, what and where “discovered” the equations etc - it matters only that those who are learning it understand it now, in the present, to be able to do something useful with the knowledge. It’s good to keep the knowledge alive of who, what and where, for historical and cultural purposes, but pressing home the ethnicity or culture of the time of the supposed discoverers of anything is unhelpful and time consuming. Furthermore, being through the education system in the UK, I was never taught about the wonderful, magical European discoverers of everything under the sun; I was simply taught the core subject. I really don’t know where people get this idea that Europeans dance about the place thinking they’re the greatest species of anything ever in the whole universe, but it’s not the reality at all and most people are just trying to live their lives the best they can today. 

I have to remind you that you called Ghana a colony, not me. And if you have to do these mental gymnastics to keep your definition consistent, maybe think more about it. Personally, I'm getting more and more confused by your definition and I do not know what a colonial country even is. Is it the colonizer or colonized. In my definition Ghana, India, US, Mexico, etc were all colonized. It's clear, consistent and easy to understand in my view what a colony is then. I don't need to really explain it beyond when an invader took control and ruled over a region in anyway. 

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

I'm an Aeronauthical Engineer.

Umm.......... Good for you mate

I think the point he’s making is he’s clearly had university education to a high level...

And?