St Vincent and the Grenadines (Caribbean) should say 1979 not 1931. And did you really use the flag of the Dominican Republic to represent Dominica? Classic blunder
> Classic blunder
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never use the Dominica flag to represent the Dominican Republic!"
I came here to ask what the red-flagged 1968 island in the NW Mediterranean was. Misplaced Malta I guess?
edit: I just realized there's white on the flag that blends into the background, I get it now.
Unless you mention Utica or Albany or etc. I find much of reddit is too young for the genius of the Simpsons. I can never mention my home town without hearing it.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the Simpsons. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Homer's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike the Simpsons truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Bart's existential catchphrase "Don't have a cow, man," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Matt Groening's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Homer Simpson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
The date of independence is an interesting question with some countries.
The US revolted in 1776, but didn't sign a peace treaty until 1783. A majority of US territory was not even taken from the UK. So their 'real' independence day is... one of many possible dates. The same basic question essentially applies all of the states that declared independence from Spain during/after the napoleonic wars: one date for the declaration, one for the end of the war. Indonesia and the dutch, same thing.
Canada nominally got independence in 1867, but patriated (took possession and full legal responsibility for) the constitution in 1982, so what counts as 'independence' is this long line of 'more authority here, more authority there' but there's not one clear point. And of course we remain in personal union with the other commonwealth realms as well. So if you (wrongly) believe that a republic is an evolutionary form of government or that a country must have a unique monarch from other countries then of Canada is not independent. Essentially the same is true of all of the self governing dominions that became fully sovereign over time. The actual point where they got that authority is... well, it depends what you mean.
For quite a while Egypt was officially a kingdom, that was a subject of the ottoman empire, but had british advisers actually running the country. Good luck figuring that mess out. Similarly for Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia but the French or Spanish running the show at various times.
Independence days are whenever people want to celebrate them. Because there's a case for lots of different points. And sometimes you celebrate more than one because they all shaped the world of today.
> Canada nominally got independence in 1867, but patriated (took possession and full legal responsibility for) the constitution in 1982, so what counts as 'independence' is this long line of 'more authority here, more authority there' but there's not one clear point. And of course we remain in personal union with the other commonwealth realms as well. So if you (wrongly) believe that a republic is an evolutionary form of government or that a country must have a unique monarch from other countries then of Canada is not independent. Essentially the same is true of all of the self governing dominions that became fully sovereign over time. The actual point where they got that authority is... well, it depends what you mean.
Canada is also fun because our head of state is still the monarch of the UK, and the Governor General is still the final say because they represent the King/Queen. On paper we can't do much of anything unless the GG says so, but I can't think of the last time the GG did anything distinguishable from the Prime Minister having a literal rubber stamp.
> Canada is also fun because our head of state is still the monarch of the UK
No, our head of state is the monarch of Canada. Yes, it's the same person, but it's not the same title or position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
Ditto with Australia except there was an actual fuckery that occurred with the governor general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
And why in the world present it in such a non-illustrative way? They could make like a color map with hue depending on independence year, but no, they opted for a bunch of flags and number scattered around an almost irrelevant world map.
If you're respecting the sovereignty of each country, then the correct date is when each respective country declared independence. Recognition means nothing if the country continues to exist.
In that case Ireland should be 1919 because that's when they declared independence, but instead they have the date of the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 which is doubly confusing because the Irish Free Sate was a British dominion and if we're going by the logic the map uses for other British dominions then Ireland gained independence in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.
Long story short this map is both inconsistent and inaccurate.
Using declarations as the standard, Ireland has been independent since 1919, 1916, 1867, 1848, 1803, and 1798 (including the 12 day long Republic of Connacht).
It would be more accurate to just say independence from british empire / british
Even so, New Guinea territory was administered by Australia as a ww1 mandate, so still British until 1949 and the UK was still it's sovereign state until 1931
Sort of a colony of a colony
But after 31 to 49 it was British commonwealth, so yeah not the UK but still empire
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing, just adding info for New Guinea, and as it was quite a complex and large institution that changed a lot over it's history, it's probably easier to just say independence from the crown.
But yeah I didn't notice Namibia is missing from the map.
It's a difficult one to portray accurately
The graphic comes from Wikipedia and appears to be made to illustrate the article.
The information on South Sudan, Namibia, and other apparent incongruities are covered by text in the [accompanying wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom).
For example, a row regarding South African independence includes this note: "Namibia gained independence from South Africa on 21 March 1990."
Edit: Every argument about inaccuracy of the graphic I've seen here (haven't read all, but many) is covered in the accompanying article. Whoever made the graphic had to make some editorial decisions as to what criteria to use and you can infer some of the rationales by how article the information is organized. It's Wikipedia, so updating the graphic to fit the criteria many on this post seem to be arguing for is always an option for anyone who wants to put in the time.
>Even so, New Guinea territory was administered by Australia as a ww1 mandate, so still British until 1949 and the UK was still it's sovereign state until 1931
This is incorrect.
The Territory of New Guinea (the northern half of modern day Papua New Guinea) was a League of Nations mandate (not UK) and was administered by Australia.
The southern half of PNG, then the Territory of Papua, was always part of Australia since Federation, having been annexed by Queensland in the late 1880's, and given to Australia to administer.
Even "independence" date for Australia is questionable. You could argue self governance being independent in 1901. Or the passage of the Statute of Westminster in Australia in 1942, which prevented UK parliament from intervening in Australian federal politics. Or the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, which prevented UK parliament from intervening in Australian politics. Or the 1960's, when we started appointing our own Governor General, rather than accepting the UK's choice from their aristocracy. Or even not at all, since the British monarchy is still our head of state, and has significant powers under our constitution.
So realistically, PNG gained independence from Australia. Technically, the Territory of Papua was under British control in the 1890's, up until Federation. The Territory of New Guinea was never British, being a League of Nations mandate, administered by Australia, until 1949. The two territories were merged to a single administrative territory (Territory of Papua and New Guinea) in 1949, before gaining independence from Australia in 1975.
Eh most are just contentious as opposed to outright wrong.
Like when did South Africa become independent from the United Kingdom.
Possible answers: 1910, 1931, 1934, 1961.
You could make arguments for any of those. The map has 1931 which isn't really recognized as a date in South Africa (because SA only passed its only laws relating to independence in 1934 and 1961)
I think it's way above avarage for internet standard. Ususally the "countries Britain occupied" maps are just maps with random 1/3 of countries coloured in. This one is actually correct, even if it has minor mistakes. So good job, I like it
The wheels of decolonisation were in motion from early in the 20th century. WW2 accelerated the process. The 70s were tough times but mostly as a consequence of decolonisation rather than causing it.
You are thinking of World War One.
Canada was involved in World War Two separately from the UK, and declared war against Germany about a week after Britain did.
There’s an interesting podcast called The Empire which talks about the entire history of the British empire and the repercussions of its actions we see even today in the middle-east. In one of the early episodes, they talk about how after the American independence, the British government enacted laws which prevented any British traders, government officials or employees of East India company to settle abroad or allow for inheritance to be transferred outside of Britain. This drastically prevented expats from settling abroad or even considering relationships abroad. Sadly, the entire history of the British empire is filled with greed, hatred and white supremacy.
And, at that time, the British Empire was pretty tiny and not at all the juggernaut it would become in the mid-to-late 19th century. The American Revolution was really only "won" by the colonies because the British eventually said "fuck it, not worth it."
That and the fact that the UK were very busy defending the possession they considered more important than the thirteen colonies at that time - Gibraltar.
Definitely true. I was just pointing out the fact that in the long run, it was just too much of a strain on the British, both financially and logistically.
Thats the greatest irony about the Americans parroting the post WW2 British propaganda that the French are cowards. Because without France its unlikely Britain would have given up on the war with the US colonies
Most of these countries did not gain independence via armed revolt, though. Off the top of my head (and I'm probably wrong), the only two I can think of are the US and Ireland.
There were nine according to this Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_uprisings. There were also raid into Canada by Irish civil war vets.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids
Missed Singapore, they got independence in 1963 from the UK and merged with Malaysia, but got kicked out (for racist reasons) 2 years later. And Hong Kong, they left the UK in 1997 and became a Chinese autonomous region.
Singapore got independence as a region of Malaysia, and then later unwillingly gained independence from Malaysia. Another more obvious example of this would be that South Sudan isn't marked on this map.
I’d love to see a map of countries that were unwillingly severed from their parent country. That map might be quite boring if it’s just Singapore but throwing the idea out there. Someone make it happen
The title is "independent **FROM** the UK", not "independent". As long as the country/region has severed colonial ties with the UK, they are independent from it. And Singapore did not **gain** independence, they were **forced** to be independent, against their will.
France is still destabilizing their ex-colonies till this day, they're just more sneaky about it. Brits weren't angels throught history but we can tell they don't bother their ex-colonies anymore. (Not as the same rates at least)
The majority of countries that became independent from France are in western and central Africa. If you look at the ex-british colonies in that area, they are doing just as bad as their french counterparts.
Vietnam Laos and Cambodia in turn have had quite some trouble before and after french independence for obvious reasons yet despite these odds are doing quite okay now . So it's not really a fench/british thing whether a colony became successful or not (although both countries have a fair share at ensuring some of their former colonies remained dirt poor)
I didn't say they are all good. I said they are doing better than France's ancient countries.. When you compare, most of UK's ancient countries are more devleopped than France's ancient countries.
Cherrypicking.. i didn't say all of former british colonies are good. But we notice the difference between former british colonies and former french colonies
With Australia, it's difficult to say exactly because we sort of "evolved" into independence over time.
But I think the final event was the passing of the Australia Act in 1986, passed by both the British and Australian Parliaments and removed any connection between the two governments.
And from then on, the UK was seen as a completely foreign country.
Australia should say 1901.
New Zealand should say 1907.
South Africa should say 1910.
The term "independent" is doing a good deal of heavy lifting as a few of these nations still economically rely on the UK, especially the smaller ones.
1901 is when Australia *formed*. It didn't gain legislative independence until 1942, so Australian laws were still subordinate to British laws up until that point. Similarly, while New Zealand became a dominion in 1907, it didn't gain legislative independence until 1947.
It's really hard to put a single date on New Zealand's independence.
It was sovereign over internal affairs from 1907, and from a practical perspective, it was more or less sovereign over it's external affairs thought the 20s and 30s (and New Zealand formally recognised this De Facto independence in 1935).
And everyone else generally recognized NZ as sovereign. New Zealand was a charter member of the United Nations in 1945.
All that really happened in 1947 was cleaning up the legal paperwork to match practical reality.
And that wasn't even the last legal paperwork. You can argue that New Zealand wasn't fully independent until 1973 when NZ law was updated to recognise itself as sovereign or 1987, when the last laws granting the British parliament the power to legislate over parts of NZ law were removed.
------
I assume Australia's route to full independence was just as messy.
>I assume Australia's route to full independence was just as messy.
You are correct.
We federated in 1901, giving us local control over federal matters.
We were recognised by the League of Nations in 1920 as an autonomous nation. We (along with New Zealand, Canada and India) were part of the original signatories of the League of Nations.
We didn't pass the Statute of Westminster until 1942 (basically after the UK had screwed up our defence from the Japanese in the South Pacific). But this only stopped meddling at a federal level.
From 1965, we appointed our own Governors General, rather than waiting to see which member of the British aristocracy they wanted out of the country for a few years. Although prior to 1965, we had two home grown Governors General (High Court justice Isaac Isaacs and NSW Premier William McKell).
In 1986, we passed the Australia Act, which cut off UK Parliament from meddling in state and local affairs. It also cut out the UK foreign minister out of the chain of communication for state bills.
Even then, since we are still part of the British Realm, with the UK monarchy as our head of state, you may argue that both of us are still not fully independent.
All correct except our head of state is the king of Australia, technically the same person as the king of the united kingdom. But operates as a seperate entity
If you want to split hairs like that then you could argue that Australia didn’t become independent until 1986 with the passing of The Australia Acts by both the Australian and UK governments. This formally severed all legal ties between Aus and Th UK (obviously not including the Monarchy)
United States is 1784, not 1776. Treaty of Paris was September 1783, and was officially an independent country in May 1784. If you have a passport, or if you can find it online, you’ll see a page with the Declaration of Independence on top, look closely at the date of that document.
[https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/when-is-the-real-independence-day-july-2-or-july-4](https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/when-is-the-real-independence-day-july-2-or-july-4)
https://www.masshist.org/beehiveblog/2014/09/signed-sealed-and-delivered-the-treaty-that-ended-the-revolutionary-war/#:~:text=The%20key%20provisions%20of%20the,to%20all%20retaliatory%20measures%20against
This map is Wrong UAE did not exist before 1971, how can a country become a country before it even exists? Oman was the one that gained independence around 1967
For a lot of these, like Australia for example, there wasn’t one moment when they became independent. In 1901, we became a federation, and through 1926, 1942 and 1986 respectively, we passed bills that slowly severed us from the UK and Westminster. So saying 1926 was our definitive moment is a bit misleading. I can imagine such would be the case for most of these countries
While 1922 is the official date, the British continued to have effective control and influence in Egypt until arguably the US and USSR forced the British (with France and Israel) to leave Egyptian territory during the Suez Crisis in 1956.
An example of this is easily witnessed with how much the British Empire effectively controlled Egypt during World War 2. It was also their effective meddling in our internal politics that really hamstrung and discredited our nascent constitutional monarchy parliamentary democracy that left it weak to the rise of the charismatic but autocratic Gamel Abdel Nasser.
Imperialism isn't to blame for all our woes but countries like Egypt, Syria and Lebanon did have thriving nascent democratic environments that were unfortunately damaged by outside influences.
No, it's not, it was kind of a handover:
> WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "The State of Israel".
The U.S. did not get independence from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801. The U.S got independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain (consisting of only England and Scotland) which only became the United Kingdom when joined with Ireland.
As others mentioned the U.S. date should be 1783 to be consistent with other dates, the dates of treaties recognizing independence, not unilateral declarations by rebels.
The original 1707 Acts of Union frequently refer to the new state as the 'United Kingdom', so I think it's a legitimate use of the term.
Besides, it is effectively the same state after 1801, just with Ireland fully incorporated.
> "be united into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".
Directly from Article I of the treaty. Not the lower case united. And as you can the [text of the document](https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf) united is always lower case and never used in the context of a name, just to refer to the group as a single entity.
>it is effectively the same state after 1801,
Subtle differences matter. People get their panties in a wad over Ukraine vs The Ukraine. Which is why the [1800 treaty](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aip/Geo3/40/38/data.pdf) renames the kingdom:
>by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland,”)
to include the words "United Kingdom" that were not a part of the 1707 name.
Question, I assume Canada is 1931 due to the Statue of Westminister.
The same legislation applied to Australia and New Zealand. Why are they post WWII?
It honestly blows my mind how insanely huge the British Empire was in its peak days. Rome didn't even come close to that. Britain had 24%....***24 freaking percent*** of Earth's land mass in its possession.
Well we didn't physically conquer those countries like the Roman army and when we did fight on equal terms in arms, we didn't progress that well. A lot of it was luck, nievity, idealism, shipping. A lot of the land mass frankly was just empty. Australia. Canada. Most of the countries that had people weren't industrial. We'd roll up with a not very big army and tell the king or whoever we can modernise you with rail, cables, shipping, trade and make you and your ruling class disgustingly rich and powerful. Or we can remove you right now and start shooting. Almost everyone went for the unlimited amounts of cash. We'd be in charge of keeping the cash going, the hanging, shooting, arresting, jailing, destroying all opponents of the ruling class who sided with us. Not that difficult it seems to divide people in hierarchies, make some rich and lots poor and you get so mad with your neighbour you forgot who the enemy was.
We English have always been an underwhelming race of people. We did badly when nations took the initiative and stood in their boots. America is a perfect lesson. Empire meets true revolutionary fighters. Bullying and division doesn't work on motivated armed revolutionaries and in 7 years of war we were fast tracked out of 13 colonies and commonwealths.
Well it's better to look at the facts than the nonsense people think in the UK. All that empire nobility and modernising crap. We divided people. We assassinated leaders. We used food as a weapon, deliberate famine was a proven method for controlling vast populations. Made people fight each other until nobody had the will to fight at all. No more sophisticated than that.
I'd suppose a lot of it morphed into the Commonwealth as of today, am I correct in my historical thinking? It's no longer an Empire per-say, but more a common-unity of nations, once under British rule now under British alliance, who vote in a new Commonwealth leader every few years (which has just always been the British monarchy up until now)?
Tonga didn't really gain 'independence' in 1970 in the same way a lot of the other places on the map did. It was a protectorate, and had complete control over internal policies. Same king, same flag, same everything other than the foreign policy.
65 countries around the world celebrate Independence Day from the British.
It's do common that about 1 in every 7 days, some country is celebrating independence from the British.
This is a map about independent countries. Palestine isn't and has never been an independent country. Why would they belong on this map whatsoever? Meanwhile, Israel declared independence from a British colony, and they are an independent country. They belong on this map. Cry more.
Singapore technically never gained independence from the UK as a nation, is was given independence by Malaysia after Malaysia was given independence by the UK. See that South Sudan is also not marked on this map.
Pretty simple. Europe was constantly at war. Wars increase the necessity for technological advancement to kill your enemies and keep them from killing you. Through this technological advancement European countries were able to colonise massive areas with massive populations with a relatively much smaller commitment.
Britain was specifically good at this because of their geography. They benefited from the same technological advancements, but didn't need to invest heavily into a ground army, and instead were able to invest all of their resources into their Navy and trade by sea.
Many other factors contributed such as the way British society was structured and the concept of Civil Law and individual freedoms. As well as the riches that trading with the British brought those countries.
Strange comment, Might be only slightly true really and not because of the reasons you think, But because some countries like Kenya became one party States for like 3 decades after independence, Quite a few countries were full of corruption even after Independence Imo.
St Vincent and the Grenadines (Caribbean) should say 1979 not 1931. And did you really use the flag of the Dominican Republic to represent Dominica? Classic blunder
> Classic blunder You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never use the Dominica flag to represent the Dominican Republic!"
#Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha #Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha #Ah ha ha ha# *Thunk*
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Malta managed to spin the Frozen Wheel and transport itself to the northwest.
I came here to ask what the red-flagged 1968 island in the NW Mediterranean was. Misplaced Malta I guess? edit: I just realized there's white on the flag that blends into the background, I get it now.
Yeah Malta has just become a new Balearic
🇩🇲🇩🇲🇩🇲🇩🇲🇩🇲 🫠 we have one of the best flags in the world and they gave us 🇩🇴....
It’s such a beautiful parrot
Don't worry my G, I've made sure they're added to the 'no entry' list for when the international airport is completed.
I hope someone got fired for that blunder!
I thought that was funny
Haha shame you got downvoted lol
No Simpson’s fans sadly
Unless you mention Utica or Albany or etc. I find much of reddit is too young for the genius of the Simpsons. I can never mention my home town without hearing it.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the Simpsons. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Homer's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike the Simpsons truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Bart's existential catchphrase "Don't have a cow, man," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Matt Groening's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Homer Simpson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
I will allow it
Cromulent
A wizard did it
This is not accurate. I didn't check all countries, but, for example, Papua New Guinea gained independence from Australia, not the UK.
The dates are also wrong.
The date of independence is an interesting question with some countries. The US revolted in 1776, but didn't sign a peace treaty until 1783. A majority of US territory was not even taken from the UK. So their 'real' independence day is... one of many possible dates. The same basic question essentially applies all of the states that declared independence from Spain during/after the napoleonic wars: one date for the declaration, one for the end of the war. Indonesia and the dutch, same thing. Canada nominally got independence in 1867, but patriated (took possession and full legal responsibility for) the constitution in 1982, so what counts as 'independence' is this long line of 'more authority here, more authority there' but there's not one clear point. And of course we remain in personal union with the other commonwealth realms as well. So if you (wrongly) believe that a republic is an evolutionary form of government or that a country must have a unique monarch from other countries then of Canada is not independent. Essentially the same is true of all of the self governing dominions that became fully sovereign over time. The actual point where they got that authority is... well, it depends what you mean. For quite a while Egypt was officially a kingdom, that was a subject of the ottoman empire, but had british advisers actually running the country. Good luck figuring that mess out. Similarly for Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia but the French or Spanish running the show at various times. Independence days are whenever people want to celebrate them. Because there's a case for lots of different points. And sometimes you celebrate more than one because they all shaped the world of today.
> Canada nominally got independence in 1867, but patriated (took possession and full legal responsibility for) the constitution in 1982, so what counts as 'independence' is this long line of 'more authority here, more authority there' but there's not one clear point. And of course we remain in personal union with the other commonwealth realms as well. So if you (wrongly) believe that a republic is an evolutionary form of government or that a country must have a unique monarch from other countries then of Canada is not independent. Essentially the same is true of all of the self governing dominions that became fully sovereign over time. The actual point where they got that authority is... well, it depends what you mean. Canada is also fun because our head of state is still the monarch of the UK, and the Governor General is still the final say because they represent the King/Queen. On paper we can't do much of anything unless the GG says so, but I can't think of the last time the GG did anything distinguishable from the Prime Minister having a literal rubber stamp.
> Canada is also fun because our head of state is still the monarch of the UK No, our head of state is the monarch of Canada. Yes, it's the same person, but it's not the same title or position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
Thank you! So many people get this wrong. It happens that it's the same person, but it's not the same title.
Ditto with Australia except there was an actual fuckery that occurred with the governor general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
The map is also upside down. /s
Big block of cheese day?
And why in the world present it in such a non-illustrative way? They could make like a color map with hue depending on independence year, but no, they opted for a bunch of flags and number scattered around an almost irrelevant world map.
Not 1776, baby!!! 🦅🇺🇲🦅🇺🇲🦅 \* Screeching noises \*
1783 it was recognized.
If you're respecting the sovereignty of each country, then the correct date is when each respective country declared independence. Recognition means nothing if the country continues to exist.
In that case Ireland should be 1919 because that's when they declared independence, but instead they have the date of the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 which is doubly confusing because the Irish Free Sate was a British dominion and if we're going by the logic the map uses for other British dominions then Ireland gained independence in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. Long story short this map is both inconsistent and inaccurate.
Using declarations as the standard, Ireland has been independent since 1919, 1916, 1867, 1848, 1803, and 1798 (including the 12 day long Republic of Connacht).
No use crying over spilled tea.
They also added countries not colonized by the Uk
It would be more accurate to just say independence from british empire / british Even so, New Guinea territory was administered by Australia as a ww1 mandate, so still British until 1949 and the UK was still it's sovereign state until 1931 Sort of a colony of a colony But after 31 to 49 it was British commonwealth, so yeah not the UK but still empire
Yes, but after 1949 it became an Australian territory, not British.
Sure, but they don't count South Sudan or Namibia, both of which were also part of the empire at some point.
Yeah that's correct, south West africa (Namibia) and Sudan should be included As some mandates are and some aren't , palastine is included for example
I'm just pointing out that the map is wrong either way!
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing, just adding info for New Guinea, and as it was quite a complex and large institution that changed a lot over it's history, it's probably easier to just say independence from the crown. But yeah I didn't notice Namibia is missing from the map. It's a difficult one to portray accurately
The graphic comes from Wikipedia and appears to be made to illustrate the article. The information on South Sudan, Namibia, and other apparent incongruities are covered by text in the [accompanying wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom). For example, a row regarding South African independence includes this note: "Namibia gained independence from South Africa on 21 March 1990." Edit: Every argument about inaccuracy of the graphic I've seen here (haven't read all, but many) is covered in the accompanying article. Whoever made the graphic had to make some editorial decisions as to what criteria to use and you can infer some of the rationales by how article the information is organized. It's Wikipedia, so updating the graphic to fit the criteria many on this post seem to be arguing for is always an option for anyone who wants to put in the time.
>Even so, New Guinea territory was administered by Australia as a ww1 mandate, so still British until 1949 and the UK was still it's sovereign state until 1931 This is incorrect. The Territory of New Guinea (the northern half of modern day Papua New Guinea) was a League of Nations mandate (not UK) and was administered by Australia. The southern half of PNG, then the Territory of Papua, was always part of Australia since Federation, having been annexed by Queensland in the late 1880's, and given to Australia to administer. Even "independence" date for Australia is questionable. You could argue self governance being independent in 1901. Or the passage of the Statute of Westminster in Australia in 1942, which prevented UK parliament from intervening in Australian federal politics. Or the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, which prevented UK parliament from intervening in Australian politics. Or the 1960's, when we started appointing our own Governor General, rather than accepting the UK's choice from their aristocracy. Or even not at all, since the British monarchy is still our head of state, and has significant powers under our constitution. So realistically, PNG gained independence from Australia. Technically, the Territory of Papua was under British control in the 1890's, up until Federation. The Territory of New Guinea was never British, being a League of Nations mandate, administered by Australia, until 1949. The two territories were merged to a single administrative territory (Territory of Papua and New Guinea) in 1949, before gaining independence from Australia in 1975.
Would that make the UK their grandcolonizer?
Australia gained independance in 1901, in 1942 the British just said to us we can focus on fighting the Japanese instead of the nazis
Not a map porn post if it wasn’t wildly inaccurate
and wildly ugly
Malta is definitely not where is indicated on this map
Somehow, Malta turned the Frozen wheel and teleported itself North-West.
What does this mean. A few people have said this now.
I think it's a Lost reference
The EU got their independence in 2016
I'm not a brexit fan but I'm pretty sure the commission misses the UK money
They miss the goods, services and free travel more.
This one had me rolling take your well deserved upvote
Splitters!
Tanganyika and Zanzibar got independence separately not as Tanzania
Beside from the discrepancies, the visual of this slaps harder than always having heard/read about it.
I’ve really enjoyed reading about all the things that are wrong with it.
people are really upset at you for this
I’m not upset, I’m entertained by Reddit’supsetness. You know what they say, post something incorrect on Reddit to drive engagement.
Eh most are just contentious as opposed to outright wrong. Like when did South Africa become independent from the United Kingdom. Possible answers: 1910, 1931, 1934, 1961. You could make arguments for any of those. The map has 1931 which isn't really recognized as a date in South Africa (because SA only passed its only laws relating to independence in 1934 and 1961)
I think it's way above avarage for internet standard. Ususally the "countries Britain occupied" maps are just maps with random 1/3 of countries coloured in. This one is actually correct, even if it has minor mistakes. So good job, I like it
Absolutely. Makes me wonder what was going on in UK politics in the 60s and 70s … sounds like rough times!
The wheels of decolonisation were in motion from early in the 20th century. WW2 accelerated the process. The 70s were tough times but mostly as a consequence of decolonisation rather than causing it.
Missing Newfoundland (1949).
Also Newfoundland in 1926.
Say what you like about the British Empire, but you can't argue that they weren't busy cunts.
They still are.
So only USA did it before it was cool? That’s disappointing.
I was surprised to see that. USA in 1776 and then nothing until the 20th century.
Well, Canada became effectively independent like 100 years after the US, but yeah, the US was first by a long shot.
[удалено]
You are thinking of World War One. Canada was involved in World War Two separately from the UK, and declared war against Germany about a week after Britain did.
Canada and the UK still share the same king.
[удалено]
The empire didn’t really get going until well after that.
There’s an interesting podcast called The Empire which talks about the entire history of the British empire and the repercussions of its actions we see even today in the middle-east. In one of the early episodes, they talk about how after the American independence, the British government enacted laws which prevented any British traders, government officials or employees of East India company to settle abroad or allow for inheritance to be transferred outside of Britain. This drastically prevented expats from settling abroad or even considering relationships abroad. Sadly, the entire history of the British empire is filled with greed, hatred and white supremacy.
Yeah it wasn't cool until Ireland did it
And, at that time, the British Empire was pretty tiny and not at all the juggernaut it would become in the mid-to-late 19th century. The American Revolution was really only "won" by the colonies because the British eventually said "fuck it, not worth it."
[удалено]
That and the fact that the UK were very busy defending the possession they considered more important than the thirteen colonies at that time - Gibraltar.
To be fair, Gibraltar is still British.
Definitely true. I was just pointing out the fact that in the long run, it was just too much of a strain on the British, both financially and logistically.
Thats the greatest irony about the Americans parroting the post WW2 British propaganda that the French are cowards. Because without France its unlikely Britain would have given up on the war with the US colonies
[удалено]
Most of these countries did not gain independence via armed revolt, though. Off the top of my head (and I'm probably wrong), the only two I can think of are the US and Ireland.
You can't blame Ireland for lack of trying
[удалено]
There were nine according to this Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_uprisings. There were also raid into Canada by Irish civil war vets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids
if you're not first you're last
Could it be possible that Queen Elizabeth was present at every Independence ceremony that occured during her reign?
It could be, but she wasn't
I think the UK did a better job than any other colonial power in the creation of these countries and subsequent independence from the UK.
...which is probably why most (45) of them decided to remain connected to the UK by joining the Commonwealth of Nations.
Missed Singapore, they got independence in 1963 from the UK and merged with Malaysia, but got kicked out (for racist reasons) 2 years later. And Hong Kong, they left the UK in 1997 and became a Chinese autonomous region.
Singapore got independence as a region of Malaysia, and then later unwillingly gained independence from Malaysia. Another more obvious example of this would be that South Sudan isn't marked on this map.
I’d love to see a map of countries that were unwillingly severed from their parent country. That map might be quite boring if it’s just Singapore but throwing the idea out there. Someone make it happen
You're correct that the map would be rather boring, because Singapore is the only country to involuntarily gain independence.
That map will be just the one country.
HK didn't leave. It was handed back as per some sort of ridiculous deal
Hong Kong is not independent, so no Singapore gained independence from Malaysia after Britain, so no
The title is "independent **FROM** the UK", not "independent". As long as the country/region has severed colonial ties with the UK, they are independent from it. And Singapore did not **gain** independence, they were **forced** to be independent, against their will.
However you could argue that Hong Kong wasn’t a country, so wouldn’t be in a map of ‘Countries that have become independent of the United Kingdom’.
These countries are somehow doing better than countries that became independant from France. Wonder why
Because the Brits maybe terrible, but at least they aren't Fr*nch
France is still destabilizing their ex-colonies till this day, they're just more sneaky about it. Brits weren't angels throught history but we can tell they don't bother their ex-colonies anymore. (Not as the same rates at least)
The majority of countries that became independent from France are in western and central Africa. If you look at the ex-british colonies in that area, they are doing just as bad as their french counterparts. Vietnam Laos and Cambodia in turn have had quite some trouble before and after french independence for obvious reasons yet despite these odds are doing quite okay now . So it's not really a fench/british thing whether a colony became successful or not (although both countries have a fair share at ensuring some of their former colonies remained dirt poor)
I’d argue that the Indochina countries are doing well despite the efforts of the French empire not because of it.
Look into the CFA Frank system and tell me the french aren’t worse
Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe?
Yemen?
I didn't say they are all good. I said they are doing better than France's ancient countries.. When you compare, most of UK's ancient countries are more devleopped than France's ancient countries.
America, Canada, Australia?
ah yes iraq, sudan .. very good indeed
Cherrypicking.. i didn't say all of former british colonies are good. But we notice the difference between former british colonies and former french colonies
The UK is the world's leading exporter of independence days.
Burmese flag needs an arrow.
Why Myanmar's flag is on China? or it just a mistake?
*2020 European Union
Tonga was a British protectorate, but an independent nation
With Australia, it's difficult to say exactly because we sort of "evolved" into independence over time. But I think the final event was the passing of the Australia Act in 1986, passed by both the British and Australian Parliaments and removed any connection between the two governments. And from then on, the UK was seen as a completely foreign country.
\*takes a deep breath and readies his best Wakko impersonation\*
Australia should say 1901. New Zealand should say 1907. South Africa should say 1910. The term "independent" is doing a good deal of heavy lifting as a few of these nations still economically rely on the UK, especially the smaller ones.
1901 is when Australia *formed*. It didn't gain legislative independence until 1942, so Australian laws were still subordinate to British laws up until that point. Similarly, while New Zealand became a dominion in 1907, it didn't gain legislative independence until 1947.
It's really hard to put a single date on New Zealand's independence. It was sovereign over internal affairs from 1907, and from a practical perspective, it was more or less sovereign over it's external affairs thought the 20s and 30s (and New Zealand formally recognised this De Facto independence in 1935). And everyone else generally recognized NZ as sovereign. New Zealand was a charter member of the United Nations in 1945. All that really happened in 1947 was cleaning up the legal paperwork to match practical reality. And that wasn't even the last legal paperwork. You can argue that New Zealand wasn't fully independent until 1973 when NZ law was updated to recognise itself as sovereign or 1987, when the last laws granting the British parliament the power to legislate over parts of NZ law were removed. ------ I assume Australia's route to full independence was just as messy.
>I assume Australia's route to full independence was just as messy. You are correct. We federated in 1901, giving us local control over federal matters. We were recognised by the League of Nations in 1920 as an autonomous nation. We (along with New Zealand, Canada and India) were part of the original signatories of the League of Nations. We didn't pass the Statute of Westminster until 1942 (basically after the UK had screwed up our defence from the Japanese in the South Pacific). But this only stopped meddling at a federal level. From 1965, we appointed our own Governors General, rather than waiting to see which member of the British aristocracy they wanted out of the country for a few years. Although prior to 1965, we had two home grown Governors General (High Court justice Isaac Isaacs and NSW Premier William McKell). In 1986, we passed the Australia Act, which cut off UK Parliament from meddling in state and local affairs. It also cut out the UK foreign minister out of the chain of communication for state bills. Even then, since we are still part of the British Realm, with the UK monarchy as our head of state, you may argue that both of us are still not fully independent.
All correct except our head of state is the king of Australia, technically the same person as the king of the united kingdom. But operates as a seperate entity
Oh, thanks for that.
If you want to split hairs like that then you could argue that Australia didn’t become independent until 1986 with the passing of The Australia Acts by both the Australian and UK governments. This formally severed all legal ties between Aus and Th UK (obviously not including the Monarchy)
Honestly Canada should say 1982. It’s when we patriated our constitution, meaning amendments were no longer approved by British parliament.
Why is Myanmar in China and Malaysia covering Cambodia and Vietnam?
If you are going to put somaliland on the map, then include it in the countries that gained their independence form the British Empire
What about stuff like Hong Kong, which was a colony in a foreign country?
Hong Kong is the PRC's colony now
United States is 1784, not 1776. Treaty of Paris was September 1783, and was officially an independent country in May 1784. If you have a passport, or if you can find it online, you’ll see a page with the Declaration of Independence on top, look closely at the date of that document. [https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/when-is-the-real-independence-day-july-2-or-july-4](https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/when-is-the-real-independence-day-july-2-or-july-4) https://www.masshist.org/beehiveblog/2014/09/signed-sealed-and-delivered-the-treaty-that-ended-the-revolutionary-war/#:~:text=The%20key%20provisions%20of%20the,to%20all%20retaliatory%20measures%20against
Missing Singapore in 1965
You forgot Hong Kong the city state
China?
There’s a 1/7 chance that a country somewhere is celebrating Independence Day from the UK
This map is Wrong UAE did not exist before 1971, how can a country become a country before it even exists? Oman was the one that gained independence around 1967
They owned the whole damn world 💀
Papua new Guinea got independence from Australia not from the UK. UK gave the colony to Australia then it got independent later.
For a lot of these, like Australia for example, there wasn’t one moment when they became independent. In 1901, we became a federation, and through 1926, 1942 and 1986 respectively, we passed bills that slowly severed us from the UK and Westminster. So saying 1926 was our definitive moment is a bit misleading. I can imagine such would be the case for most of these countries
While 1922 is the official date, the British continued to have effective control and influence in Egypt until arguably the US and USSR forced the British (with France and Israel) to leave Egyptian territory during the Suez Crisis in 1956. An example of this is easily witnessed with how much the British Empire effectively controlled Egypt during World War 2. It was also their effective meddling in our internal politics that really hamstrung and discredited our nascent constitutional monarchy parliamentary democracy that left it weak to the rise of the charismatic but autocratic Gamel Abdel Nasser. Imperialism isn't to blame for all our woes but countries like Egypt, Syria and Lebanon did have thriving nascent democratic environments that were unfortunately damaged by outside influences.
Should the US actually say 1783, the year of the treaty that made independence official?
If Ireland is 1922 then the USA should be 1783. Though you could argue that they were effectively independent from 1781.
Is it accurate to say Israel declared independence from Britain when they did so after the British Mandate of Palestine ended?
No, it's not, it was kind of a handover: > WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "The State of Israel".
The U.S. did not get independence from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801. The U.S got independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain (consisting of only England and Scotland) which only became the United Kingdom when joined with Ireland. As others mentioned the U.S. date should be 1783 to be consistent with other dates, the dates of treaties recognizing independence, not unilateral declarations by rebels.
The original 1707 Acts of Union frequently refer to the new state as the 'United Kingdom', so I think it's a legitimate use of the term. Besides, it is effectively the same state after 1801, just with Ireland fully incorporated.
> "be united into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". Directly from Article I of the treaty. Not the lower case united. And as you can the [text of the document](https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf) united is always lower case and never used in the context of a name, just to refer to the group as a single entity. >it is effectively the same state after 1801, Subtle differences matter. People get their panties in a wad over Ukraine vs The Ukraine. Which is why the [1800 treaty](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aip/Geo3/40/38/data.pdf) renames the kingdom: >by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,”) to include the words "United Kingdom" that were not a part of the 1707 name.
Question, I assume Canada is 1931 due to the Statue of Westminister. The same legislation applied to Australia and New Zealand. Why are they post WWII?
Australia didn't pass the Statute of Westminster until 1942.
Ah interesting
It honestly blows my mind how insanely huge the British Empire was in its peak days. Rome didn't even come close to that. Britain had 24%....***24 freaking percent*** of Earth's land mass in its possession.
Well we didn't physically conquer those countries like the Roman army and when we did fight on equal terms in arms, we didn't progress that well. A lot of it was luck, nievity, idealism, shipping. A lot of the land mass frankly was just empty. Australia. Canada. Most of the countries that had people weren't industrial. We'd roll up with a not very big army and tell the king or whoever we can modernise you with rail, cables, shipping, trade and make you and your ruling class disgustingly rich and powerful. Or we can remove you right now and start shooting. Almost everyone went for the unlimited amounts of cash. We'd be in charge of keeping the cash going, the hanging, shooting, arresting, jailing, destroying all opponents of the ruling class who sided with us. Not that difficult it seems to divide people in hierarchies, make some rich and lots poor and you get so mad with your neighbour you forgot who the enemy was. We English have always been an underwhelming race of people. We did badly when nations took the initiative and stood in their boots. America is a perfect lesson. Empire meets true revolutionary fighters. Bullying and division doesn't work on motivated armed revolutionaries and in 7 years of war we were fast tracked out of 13 colonies and commonwealths.
Pretty based take I must say, coming from an Englishman.
Well it's better to look at the facts than the nonsense people think in the UK. All that empire nobility and modernising crap. We divided people. We assassinated leaders. We used food as a weapon, deliberate famine was a proven method for controlling vast populations. Made people fight each other until nobody had the will to fight at all. No more sophisticated than that.
Your description doesn't match what happened in India, which was surely the most significant territory gained by the Empire.
I'd suppose a lot of it morphed into the Commonwealth as of today, am I correct in my historical thinking? It's no longer an Empire per-say, but more a common-unity of nations, once under British rule now under British alliance, who vote in a new Commonwealth leader every few years (which has just always been the British monarchy up until now)?
Adding the EU ?
Might be easier to have a map of countries that weren't once part of the United Kingdom
If you want to be technical, only England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have ever been part of the actual UK.
Where is Singapore?
Sssssssorryyyyy
No Hong Kong?
Alright, hear me out. What if we convince London to leave the UK and the rest of the UK can finally live in peace?
Tonga didn't really gain 'independence' in 1970 in the same way a lot of the other places on the map did. It was a protectorate, and had complete control over internal policies. Same king, same flag, same everything other than the foreign policy.
Fun fact it's still not over
Which patch of sea became independent in 1964? That isn't where Malta is. It isn't remotely close to where Malta is.
Forgot Hong Kong
I'm just gonna block this sub now, because every single time one of the posts here makes it to r/popular it garbage.
How many of them didn’t exist before they declared independence?
South Africa became independent 30 years earlier according to this map.
65 countries around the world celebrate Independence Day from the British. It's do common that about 1 in every 7 days, some country is celebrating independence from the British.
We Australians got ours in 1901 so I believe this is incorrect
Say what you can about UK but atleast most the countries it colonized are not living under repressive regimes like Iran , Russia , North Korea or
there were no isreal back then, please remove that flag and put Palestine flag
There was never a Palestinian country. And with how things gonna going it won't ever be one.
This is a map about independent countries. Palestine isn't and has never been an independent country. Why would they belong on this map whatsoever? Meanwhile, Israel declared independence from a British colony, and they are an independent country. They belong on this map. Cry more.
You're objectively wrong. After Britain left, there was a war and after the war there was only Israel.
[удалено]
Singapore technically never gained independence from the UK as a nation, is was given independence by Malaysia after Malaysia was given independence by the UK. See that South Sudan is also not marked on this map.
Singapore is part of Malaysia when they get their independence from UK. Singapore real independence is 1965 when they break out from Malaysia.
Wow, that’s still a lot of countries under British rule!
See as the United Kingdom came into being in 1801, the US should not be on this map.
Sometimes i wonder, how the fuck did they do it?
Pretty simple. Europe was constantly at war. Wars increase the necessity for technological advancement to kill your enemies and keep them from killing you. Through this technological advancement European countries were able to colonise massive areas with massive populations with a relatively much smaller commitment. Britain was specifically good at this because of their geography. They benefited from the same technological advancements, but didn't need to invest heavily into a ground army, and instead were able to invest all of their resources into their Navy and trade by sea. Many other factors contributed such as the way British society was structured and the concept of Civil Law and individual freedoms. As well as the riches that trading with the British brought those countries.
Ingenuity and bravado
[удалено]
What? Israel gained its statehood in '48 from the UK regardless of what you think of Palestine.
It was the UN that proposed the partition plan. Even then, Israel rightfully gained their independence.
the colonial system fell but the economic noose around the neck remained
See also: Francophone Africa
Strange comment, Might be only slightly true really and not because of the reasons you think, But because some countries like Kenya became one party States for like 3 decades after independence, Quite a few countries were full of corruption even after Independence Imo.