What Does 'De-colonize' Mean?

Original Date: December 6, 2023

Author: Tim Platnich

To answer this question, it seems logical to start with some understanding of what it means to 'colonize'.

People migrate. The earliest homo sapiens migrated from Africa to the Middle East, Europe and Asia in repeated waves. Was the first migration a form of colonization? What about the subsequent migrations? Did homo sapiens colonize the Neanderthals who arrived in Europe first?

What about the first-peoples of the Americas - were they colonizers?

What about the migration of non-English and non-French people to Canada after Confederation? For example, did the Ukranians and Germans who moved to western Canada in or about the late 1800s and early 1900s colonize western Canada? What about the migration of Chinese populations to urban centres where 'Chinatowns' were/are established. Was (and is) this colonization?

There is talk of colonizing the Moon and Mars? What does this mean?

There are different contexts in which colonization, however defined, occurred. One context is where people have migrated to unpeopled lands through random migration and not through some government organized endeavour. The earliest migrations out of Africa are an example of this context.

Another context is where people from an existing state, such as Ancient Greece, or Phoenicia, settled in a new territory with or without government support or involvement. Massalia (modern date Marseille, France) was a Greek colony. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. These colonies were established in areas where there were pre-existing local inhabitants. It appears that these colonies occurred with little antagonism with the locals. Was this form of colonization illegal or immoral? Based on what legal or moral code then existing? Is it logical to apply legal and moral codes from today back in time?

The Romans were colonizers. Their form of colonization was typically accompanied with military force. Romans were placed in control of conquered territories including the residents thereof. The Romans did not distinguish between indigenous locals and locals that were previous colonizers. For example, Greek colonies in the south of Italy were conquered by the Romans and re-colonized.

Is it the aspect of 'conquering' that occurs simultaneously with colonization that is morally offensive? Or is any kind of state sponsored migration, whether benevolent or not, the hallmark of colonization?

Do former colonizers have any rights against subsequent colonizers? At what point do colonizers become the indigenous population visa vis subsequent colonizers?

Let's look at English history. Before the Celtic migration, there were people in England which included those that built Stonehenge. Were the Celts migrants or colonizers? Then along came the Romans. By any definition, it seems, the Romans colonized England. They forcefully took over the territories and government of the Celts. The Celts either fled to other parts of the island or became part of the Roman colony of Britannica. The Romans left in or about 410 CE and there was a new migration of peoples: Angles, Saxons and Jutes. It is unlikely that these migrations were state sponsored in any sense. Was this colonization?

After several centuries came the Vikings and their indirect progeny, the Normans. More colonization?

Is colonization (and de-colonization) restricted only to certain regimes or certain times? Why would it be appropriate to restrict the term to certain regimes or certain times?

Most commonly, the term 'colonization' refers to colonization by European states that occurred sometime after about 1400 CE. It is far from clear why this limitation makes any logical sense. For example, why should Muslim-Arab colonization that occurred between about 400 and 1400 CE be excluded? This colonization had the same attributes: it was largely state sponsored conquest and concurrent migration. Muslim-Arabs conquered much of the Middle East, Northern Africa, and most of Spain and Portugal.

So, what does de-colonization mean in all of these different contexts? History cannot be re-written. Lands, first colonized, cannot be given back to Nature. This would be absurd. Where lands were first colonized by one people, should those lands belong to those first colonizers forever? Does Europe need to be returned to Neanderthals? Do the Americas need to be returned to the first-peoples? On what principle: first come, first always?

Let's assume that a return of land to Nature or to the first people's proven to inhabit them is off the table. What then can de-colonize mean?

One argument seems to be that all of the cultural aspects of the colonizers should be reversed. The colonizers can stay but their culture must be banished. For Canada, let's say, the following cultural elements would need to be banned: the English and French languages; the civil code in Quebec and the common law in the rest of Canada; democratic political institutions; all Christian, Muslim and other non-native religions; the scientific method including logic, mathematics and empiricism; modern technology; modern economics including financial systems and so on. We would have to revert to the culture that existed at the time of colonization. This is just as impossible as having all non-first peoples leave the Americas.

What about in the historical context where first colonizers were re-colonized? Should England be returned to the pre-Celts. Everyone not of that extraction must go. Or, if they remain, the original culture must be re-established. Or should England be returned to the Celts? Where should the line be drawn? Do we just pick our favourite culture and restore everything back to that culture and people?

Given the forgoing, does de-colonization come down to claims for reparations?

If so, this a thorny issue. It involves weighing the pros and cons of past colonization by the particular colonizer. It involves comparing what happened under colonization with what, theoretically, would have happened without colonization by the particular colonizing entity.

Africa was colonized by a number of European nations including England, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy, more or less at the same time. In attempting to quantify reparations owed, say by England, one can't just assume that the English area of colonization would have remained free of any colonization by another power. In all likelihood, if not England, it would have been someone else. So one may have to consider what particular harm resulted from English colonization as compared to colonization that may have occurred under a different state.

The situation is similar for North and South America. There were four competing nations for the New World: Spain, France, England and Portugal. Would Brazil have been better off under Spanish control?

Some may argue that the various regions would have been better off with no colonization. But is 'no colonization' a realistic possibility? Given the sparse population of what is now Canada, can it reasonably be expected that the European powers, upon discovering an indigenous population, would have just packed up and went home?

No doubt that some specific actions by a colonizing power, by government as it were, caused specific and identifiable harm. In these cases, reparations may be appropriate. But, general reparations for general harm caused by colonization over decades or even centuries, is problematic.

What could de-colonization mean beyond reparations? Certainly it cannot mean re-writing history. It cannot mean that all the migrants that moved into an area over spans of time must pick up and leave. This is an impossibility.

De-colonization could mean 'reconciliation'. But this term is just as vague.

In the case of indigenous peoples, in addition to reconciliation and reparations, it could mean a sharing of power. Can it truly mean 'sovereignty'? In a narrow sense it could, provided there is a defined territory and a defined population within that territory. The people of that territory would define their own 'sovereign' and be governed thereby without direct affect on people living outside of the sovereign area. But any sovereignty, or power sharing, that results in a minority veto over the majority of the population is not workable. That would mean governance by an unelected minority over a majority. No majority would accept such an arrangement. The recent failed constitutional referendum in Australia is evidence of this fact.

It seems those calling for de-colonization must define their terms precisely. Only then can these terms be considered.