> It's pretty amazing how such a small colonial power stayed under the radar for so long.

I'm biased because being Brazilian the history of the Portuguese empire wasn't exactly under the radar for us, especially during history lessons.

IMO Portugal never stayed under the radar, it just faded into its own disarray, they had all the tools and resources(its colonies and geographical position) to rule over the world but didn't due to widespread corruption and bureaucracy.

Portugal was more concerned with getting trade goods from the far east than trying to build up sub-Saharan Africa for most of it's history. It just so happened that when the Scramble for Africa started, Portugal already had toeholds all along the coast.

> The french still have colonies all over the world

They're not colonies if their inhabitants are full French citizens (which they are AFAIK). Are the Hawaii a US colony?

Semantically no, but in reality it is. Like many parts of the US, if they hadn't been flooded with American citizens they would have eventually regained their independence.

Not that I think independence is necessarily a good thing.

>> Semantically no, but in reality it is.

If you're still including French oversea departments in that statement, then you are out of your depth here, I must say. Do you know people from the French Caribbeans or Reunion? I do. If you had said they feel under-represented, not supported enough by their government (relative to other regions), or victim of racism, you would have been correct. But talks about being 'colonized'? I have basically never heard that. This is not even part of the discussion for them.

This is supported by their local political landscape: independentist-leaning parties are either anecdotical in size, or have changed their position on this topic. Hell, there are more overt secessionist parties on the French mainland itself (Britany, Corsica), which should tell you something.

This is also a weird remark to make, since France is known to still be very much a neo-colonial power that often interfere in their former colonies' politics, and seldom for the better. So if you're looking for nefarious colonialist behaviour, it's there, just not in their oversea departments.

No, I wasn't making any remark about French colonies as I was replying to a direct question about Hawaii.

I actually think unification is preferable to independence. Independence mainly seems to benefit the people in control.

Not only that, but Schengen rules are in place.

They do use a different currency, but it is pegged to the Euro.

While you make some good points, The british just renamed their the "commonwealth". is pretty inaccurate.

The Commonwealth includes countries like Australia, Canada and India. Britian doesn't dominate them.

See also Bermuda, Gibraltar, and the Falkland Islands.

There are two Australian examples that make me mad every time I think of them:

- U.K. nuclear testing

- the removal of Gough Whitlam

The Gough Whitlam thing was Australian domestic politics, and the palace only provided advice.

Yes it is crazy we still aren't a republic, but I think the dismissal was our own disfunction.

Well most of the British Empire unravelled soon after WW II because the country was broke and exhausted, hence there was little appetite for clinging onto those overseas possessions that began clamouring for independence.