I think it's because the Danish West Indies are no longer Danish since 1917... but I kind of agree that colonial issuers should be under their coloniser (e.g. French Cochinchina/Indochina under France along with French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, etc., or British West Africa and British East Indies under UK along with British West Indies), but that's a bigger debate that will probably go on forever since we can't please everyone.
both Greenland and the Faeroe Islands both have "neutral" representatives in the Danish parliament. So you can consider them as being a Danish commonwealth.
The Danish West Indies were "sold" to the Americans to protect the Panama canal investment, and that was that. Any way the islands were not profitable for the Danes, so it was OK to sell them. The Danish West Indies have absolutely no official connection to Denmark since they belong to the US.
In Wikipedia you can read this : The islands were eventually sold for 25 million dollars to the United States, which took over the administration on 31 March 1917, renaming the islands the United States Virgin Islands.
Quote: "CassTaylor"I think it's because the Danish West Indies are no longer Danish since 1917... but I kind of agree that colonial issuers should be under their coloniser (e.g. French Cochinchina/Indochina under France along with French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, etc., or British West Africa and British East Indies under UK along with British West Indies), but that's a bigger debate that will probably go on forever since we can't please everyone.
Cass its not about to please myself its about doing things right. Now we see Gold Coast ( Uk Colony) under Ghana . Demerara and Essequibo under Guyana, British Palestine under Israel but not Danish West Indies so why ? DWI are better then examples i provided ?
Regards,
Damian
Quote: "Sjoelund"Hi,
both Greenland and the Faeroe Islands both have "neutral" representatives in the Danish parliament. So you can consider them as being a Danish commonwealth.
The Danisg West Indies were "sold" to the Americans to protect the Panama canal investment, and that was that. Any way the islands were not profitable for the Danes, so it was OK to sell them. The Danish West Indies have absolutely no official connection to Denmark since they belong to the US.
In Wikipedia you can read this : The islands were eventually sold for 25 million dollars to the United States, which took over the administration on 31 March 1917, renaming the islands the United States Virgin Islands.
Ole
Ole,
If you closer DWI was a colony of Denmark so what happen with other colonies ? Goald Coast go under Ghana, New Guinea, German New Guinea went under Papua New Guinea. Rhodesia under Zimbabwe Sarawak under Malaysia , Ragusa under Croatia so going this way DWI should be placed under United States as you mention above US Virgin Islands are part of USA
Ps.
You are right i wrongly want to move DWI to Denmark the correct place is USA
Thanks ! its really good tool !
I check the Danish West Indies and say they are Danish.. so why arent under denmark or USA ?
The Danish West Indies were a Danish colony in the Caribbean (now known as US Virgin Islands). The Danes established the place in the 17th century, striking a deal with the British to leave the islands alone. In 1916 the Danes sold the islands to the USA, which prevented them from becoming German as these were also interested in the place.
Most of the colonies are under today's country:
Gold Coast were Uk Colony and we can find under Ghana.
Only I see that here is something wrong or im the crazy one ?
Not physically..... That's where the territory rule plays, physical connection. DWI were only under the Danish Government until 1917 so were ruled until then by DK. But the 3 islands never sailed to DK to be physical connected to DK; hence they are now connected to US via the ruling principle.
Quote: "Sjoelund"Hi,
since the territory is NOT connected to DK, but quite a few thousand miles away, it would and should not be under DK.
Ole
But WAS connected to Denmark obviously, and is right next to it in the country list. Best solution in my view.
I agree with this^, 2nd option would be to put it under DK directly even
I also think that DWI should be placed under Denmark. Because coins are from Danish era.
This is the best option. Using territorial rule should be under USA
Regards,
Damian
Your decision is very odd Jarek, there were not any strong argument about staying this country as it is. Maybe its just to please yourself ?
Regards,
Damian
I don't want to see British India moved to the United Kingdom for example.
Would you also move Danish India to Denmark?
To me that really doesn't make sense.
It's easy to find Danish East Indies in numista, so no problem for me. Now if it was possible to place a given country in several places, then I would agree the have DEI as is and then again under Denmark, but the numista ruler (Xavier) hasn't given us that possibility yet!
Quote: "Sjoelund"Hi,
I'm supporting Jarek.
I don't want to see British India moved to the United Kingdom for example.
Would you also move Danish India to Denmark?
To me that really doesn't make sense.
It's easy to find Danish East Indies in numista, so no problem for me. Now if it was possible to place a given country in several places, then I would agree the have DEI as is and then again under Denmark, but the numista ruler (Xavier) hasn't given us that possibility yet!
Ole
Ole, as Jarek mentioned we use territorial rule, that is why British India and others are under India which is correct ones. DWI are not by this rule. So what rule works in this example ?
Understand. Thanks for the explanation. What about dependent territory ? Are they integral part of "mother" country or not ?
....
Ps Jarek i apologize for being so rude. It was not appropriate behavior ;/
Regards,
Damian
