Talk:Settler colonialism

1, 2 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smiles.2 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CarletonFP (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethanpurnell, Joroy4400 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ewk'sik'nii13. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkw2015, Dokemaw, Mackamarine (article contribs).

Settlers

Any inhabited area of the world has been settled at some stage. This has been the mode of how people spread around the world. Why single out, when White people did that in historical times? --105.0.6.230 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Settler colonialism is a specific interpretation of colonialism that has a substantial body of historiography behind it. The general phenomenon is not under dispute. The above discussion is more about specific instances and whether or not they can be understood in this analytic framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Stoneman (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is extremely biased. Instead of laying out basic facts, it lays blame to certain cultures. I think the entire page should be scrapped and written from the start without pointing blame at certain nationalities or certain ethnic groups as well as not stating certain modern cultures were destructive by another which is biased as well UltraViolet2000 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Autocorrect above changed my sentence. It should say not stating modern cultures were destroyed by another which is biased as well UltraViolet2000 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

The opening section of the article is incoherent.

The first two paragraphs of the article read well for the most part. It's the 3rd that's just plain confusing. The first two paragraphs introduce the concept of settler colonialism (except for that part that compares it to "normal" colonialism. What is "normal" colonialism? What makes that type of colonialism normal and not settler colonialism?) But anyway, then we get to the 3rd paragraph, which starts with the phrase "Settler colonialism is generally discussed in terms of the one-way flow of British values." Uh, what? What do "British values" have to do with ancient Greek settlers? Or Japan in the middle ages? (And what are "British values" anyway?)

I would suggest the entire 3rd paragraph needs to be completely reworked, or else moved to another section or even completely scrapped. I would do it, but I don't know enough about the topic to make any informed changes. But as someone who came to this article because it's linked to from a page on Greek colonisation, I found the introductory section to be incoherent in the way it suddenly jumps from an introduction to the topic to an emotionally charged diatribe against the British.Ddaveonz (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers."

This seems a rather restrictive definition. It definitely would not apply to pretty much any African colony, many of which have been described as settler colonies. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eldomtom2; it seems poorly formulated. The whole reason European settler slavery practices were "ended" in the past few centuries is that Europeans re-discovered what older civilizations had known for millennia: that it's far more efficient to have an underclass of laborers who are forced to obtain their own food and housing and to take care of their elderly, than to have slave owners directly micro-manage all of those things. It doesn't end up being desirable to replace indigenous societies, just to yoke them to the new settler society; they and their labor are a resource to be extracted, too.

Even in the case of Nazi Germany and Lebensraum ideals, their economy became immediately addicted to Jewish slave labor and compelled labor from the Slavs who they were supposedly going to annihilate and replace in Eastern Europe. They'd never have been able to give up Untermenschen labor to do all the work themselves—being Prussian nobles with a laboring Slavic underclass was too recent a memory.

I haven't come across a good single definition yet, but all of the European settler societies where the settlers became an aristocracy or other upper-crust dominating laboring underclasses seem to be categorized as settler colonialism in the sources I'm browsing through; complete displacement, or even an attempt to displace the existing population, doesn't seem necessary. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

The latest edit to the section pertaining to Israel-Palestine adds the following:

The Zionism movement leaders were publicly talking of a compulsory transfer of the native population in Mandatory Palestine since the 1930’s, such as in this letter to his son, Ben-Gurion wrote “...I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

The first major wave of depopulation of the native Palestinians happened in 1948, when 700,000 Palestinians were led to leave their villages and towns in today’s Israel. Historians such as Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris, who analysed unclassified IDF archives, concluded that the major reasons behind the Palestinians exodus were expulsion, intimidation, and fear of massacres and rape.

I'm not going to touch this myself, as I haven't yet made 500 edits, but I have some concerns about this addition:

• It's poorly written.
• The quote from Ben-Gurion, which is cited as being from to a 'letter to his son' (presumably the 1937 Ben-Gurion letter), is actually from the minutes of the meeting of Jewish Agency Executive, 12 June 1938.
• The above quote is used without any context.
• I would suggest this quotation would be better placed in the article about population transfer. Especially in light of the subsequent expulsion of approx 800,000 Jews from centuries-old communities elsewhere in the region.
• Referring to the 'native population' and the 'native Palestinians' is controversial, and does not represent a NPOV. Many Jews would argue that Palestinian Arabs are not native to the Levant, as they trace their lineage to the Arabian Peninsula, and the 7th century Muslim conquest of the Levant (itself a textbook example of settler colonialism), while Jews trace their lineage directly to the Levant. I would suggest using the more objective term 'existing Arab population' instead.

Michael Jacobson (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

First: when someone with less than 100 edits takes upon himself to "Enforcing 500/30 restrictions on editing content related to Israel-Palestine conflict"..hmmm, that's a bit rich. I am glad you will abstain from editing the article until you have reached 500 edits.

Secondly: your statement "while Jews trace their lineage directly to the Levant": Huh?? AFAIK, the Jews were also "immigrants"; in Biblical history: with Abraham; (historically it is another matter: too bad en.wp does such a bad job of differentiating between what the Bible says, and what other sources/archeology says). (And I will not even mention the Khazar theory). Also; some argue the Palestinian population descends (partly) from converts (see eg Yatta). Alas, when we go more that a thousand years back: we are, AFAIK, on very uncertain ground. But: If we look at "recent history" (= the last few hundred years); 'native Palestinians' is not controversial at all: it is a fact.

Thirdly: I actually agree that the section could be better formulated and sourced (eg, page-number); I will try to work on that next week (or if anyone else would care to do so before me?) - Just now I am a bit occupied with Lebanon-articles, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

the levant includes Mesopotamia, which is where the bible says the Jews originally cam from , and the Khazar theory has been thoroughly discredited- only anitsemites still bring it up,. But this is just one of the points Michael.jacobson raised, which you did not address when you restored that material