Talk:Danish Empire

Norway

I'd say Norway should be featured here. Regardless of whether Norway was formally called a "colony" or not, the fact is that it was under the rule of the Danish crown, and was subordinate to Denmark during those years, so we should definitely count Norway as part of the Danish Empire. The dog2 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Norway should be included as it was part of Denmark during the empire. Notable buildings from that period and places where notable events happened in that period should be included. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. If that's the case, then it can be mentioned. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Colony

@The dog2: Was the Faroe Island a colony 1536–1849? I have never heard the word used in this context – except at Wikivoyage. How do we define a colony? –LPfi (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not The dog2 here, but everything that's in w:Danish overseas colonies + Norway (see the discussion above). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, colonial subjects do not have the same rights as people from the metropole. For instance, under colonial rule, the governor of Hong Kong was some white dude appointed by the Queen, and the Hong Kong people had no say whatsoever in who got to govern them. Meanwhile, the British people could vote in elections and choose their prime minister, albeit indirectly. Also, British citizens had right of abode in Hong Kong, while Hongkongers needed visas to visit Britain. So that's why we called Hong Kong a colony. If I'm not wrong, back then the Faroes were considered subordinate to Denmark, and and Faroe Islanders did not have the same rights as Danes. The dog2 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The Danish counterpart to the linked article makes a distinction between "biland" and "kolonier". From w:de:Biland:

"Ordet anvendes altid ved siden af og som markering af forskellen i forhold til egentlige kolonier."

approximately: The word is always used separately from and as a indication of the difference from proper colonies.

See also w:Talk:Danish overseas colonies#Iceland and the Faeroe Islands:

• "So 'dependencies', yes, but not 'colonies' - no more than Scotland and Wales are British 'colonies'."
• "In this article the Faroes and Iceland are not referred to as 'colonies', as they weren't, really"
• "it says 'Colonial status ended in 1948'"
• "Changed it and corrected a few other mistakes."

The word "colony" isn't used in the section about the Faroe Islands, only in the lead (without source, it seems) and in Legacy at the end (definitively without source).

–LPfi (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The word "colonies" in that article was reinserted later, in the lead with edit comments of "More changes to reflect move" and in Legacy by an IP edit without summary. I now undid this part of the edits. They seemed to have gone beyond the radar. –LPfi (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Danish influence on the Faroes

The article says that replacing Catholicism with Lutheranism was a Danish-Norwegian influence. Really? Was also the introduction of the telephone such an influence (more important in my opinion)? I think this is a symptom of trying to write about the islands as a colony. The Nordic gods were replaced by "Vite Krist" on the Faroe Island like on the mainland, and then came Lutheranism. Most outside influences probably came via Norway and Denmark, culturally as well as technical inventions (and the change of faith might have been forced on them like on other subjects). But what such influences are worth noting? I think we can mention the influence in general, which we do in the first paragraph on the islands, and developments that we find interesting (did the change to Lutheranism cause some surprising developments?), but we don't need to call the latter influences of the realm. –LPfi (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. The colonialism bit comes from the fact that the Faroe Islanders might still have been practicing Catholicism if it weren't for the Danes and Norwegians, and it's a colonial influence because this was forced by an external power, unlike the introduction of modern technology, which was not forced. (Disclaimer: all information I've added come from several Wikipedia pages or a few architecture blogs – finding online info on this subject isn't very easy, but this is true for nearly everything related to the Faroes) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We in Finland would still be practising Catholicism if it weren't for Gustav Vasa, and we weren't a colony. Any legal reforms that weren't universally welcomed were "colonial influence". The main question is whether it was an external power; is the king an external power? At that time their subjects (most of them) didn't choose their king any more. Swedish subjects in Lieksa certainly felt new taxes as being imposed by an external power, like those in Dalarna. –LPfi (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)