Because resources are extracted for the profit of the colonizers and not the locals, who are being suppressed and purposefully supplanted. Seriously man, this is not really very controversial, Morocco isn’t really behaving all that nicely down there.

Tell me again how the locals are suppressed and resources stolen from on the Falklands? What are we even talking about, grass and sheep?

what you described is that rich countries can have colonies because the colonized likes it but poor ones can't. I also forgot to mention Greenland in Europe (sic).

what you described is that rich countries can have colonies because the colonized likes it but poor ones can't. I also forgot to mention Greenland.

Many people do consider those colonies. However, the Falklands/Malvinas had no native population (plot twist: the French were there first). Northern Ireland's position raises questions about Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man.

I think Hawai'i is a better example than California. Hawai'i was a constitutional monarchy, with fully developed law courts etc. California was the fringe of Mexico and the Spanish Empire, and not so well organised. I have heard Puerto Rico described as a colony many times before. But again, I would say there is a better example: American Samoa.

As for the French, like the USA, they are pretty much in denial about colonies. There were people in France who considered Algeria an integral part of France right up until the end.

All of those regions are colonies or former colonies. The main difference is that Western Sahara is being actively colonized right now whereas all of those regions were colonized 100+ years ago. Falklands were uninhabited before European settlement btw