Talk:Settler colonialism

Work

I am currently working on this article. Please discuss any changes or additions with me, I'll be glad to see how we can improve it. Not anymore, "thanks". Format aspects and so might be inconsistent because the article isn't complete yet. There is also many information that's missing which I'll add soon. --Rodrigo Cornejo 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel

I have removed that section because it's nothing but POV WP:OR unsupported by reliable sources. Most of the Jews who immigrated to Israel/Palestine were either refugees or Socialists - please use WP:RS to prove that is was "Settler colonialism" - and indeed, up to 1977 the Israeli politics was dominated by the left. The Palestinian Arabs left as a result of a 1948 Arab-Israeli War, instigated by Arabs - again, hardly "Settler colonialism". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel

The IUSSP is cited in Wikipedia many times [1]. So much for WP:OR and reliable sources. Besides, there are many sections in Wikipedia that contain OR and are tagged, not deleted. Same goes for POV disputes. As it goes for jewish settlers being socialist or refugees, they settled in a new land. So, they were settlers. Feel free to dispute if it's colonialism or not, but political ideology does not exempt one from being contradictory. Socialism doesn't make the jewish settlers there any better or worse - you are just appealing to the no true Scotsman fallacy. Palestinians left because the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was instigated by arabs... so next time the russian army attacks Chechenya I'll say it's every single russian's fault. There was no national military organization in the Arab Palestinian community at the time of the war, and the war efforts were mainly done by other arab countries. Then again, don't insert your POV claiming that since some arabs started a war, other arabs deserve to be displaced - that's a hasty generalization. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference you gave says nothing about "settler colonialism". The section you added is your original research. Meanwhile you have also violated WP:3RR. Please do not revert again. Thanks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rodrigo, please revert your emotional outburst[2] and I'll refrain from reporting you for 3RR. We can put this aside for the night and try discussing tomorrow in a rational way after a cool off. Thanks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indians in Fiji

Without knowing a lot about the subject, my impression is that the Indians in Fiji are an example of settler colonialism. --Richard 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR

http://books.google.com/books?q=settler+colonialism+israel&btnG=Search+Books That claim is outlandish. It's not OR to include a section discussing IF Israel has exibited the characteristics of settler colonialism. Then again, in the newly included section it is clearly stated that it could be so, but not that it is so. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As it was pointed out earlier, the content that you repeatedly reinsert is based on unreliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Care to read the above to see that the IUSSP is cited in Wikipedia many times [3] If you don't think (shall I say "believe"?) that that isn't a reliable source, maybe you should point out why. You haven't done so. Remember that there are other reliable sources apart from the Tel Aviv University --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time for you to get familiar with WP:RS and other WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"The International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) promotes scientific studies of demography and population-related issues. Originally founded in 1928 and reconstituted in 1947, the IUSSP is the leading international professional association for individuals interested in population studies."[4] Does this not comply with WP:RS? If so, why not? --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, have you read this? [www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s60/S64_02_dellapergola.pdf] Maybe if you read it we can talk about how it's unreliable.--Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A discussion based on reliable sources is not the same as a loose summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict which makes an allegation based on the title of this entry. Tewfik^Talk 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm disappointed a user with heavy involvement in this sort of subjects has come here to talk about my outlandish claims. Would you be so kind of pointing me to where I can get mediation from a neutral third party? Thanks in advance Tewfik. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I also encourage you to review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution. For the record, I said nothing of "outlandish claims"; the problem is that you've produced a summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict with no direct connection to this page's topic. Tewfik^Talk 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to my loyal opponents to provide me with trusthworthy sources so I can write the section that has caused such a stir. If you don't do so, I will just keep rephrasing the paragraph until you become so annoyed that you actually have to do something rational about it. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention "settler colonialism". This has been explained before. Please stop engaging in original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Settler colonialism in Latin-America

This section needs some reworking. Two points: 1) It is focused entirely on Mexico. 2) The voice it is written in, especially the last paragraph, feels biased. It seems to be speaking in a rather nationalist/leftist/populist voice, and when talking about the various 'privileged' immigrant groups takes on a nativist tone as well. Such claims may actually be true, but the way they are stated here has no place in a encyclopedia article. I added a Citation Needed at the end of that paragraph.--KobaVanDerLubbe 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exploitation colonialism

Hi, I think it's very important to write a complementary article to this page: exploitation colonialism 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OR again

I've removed this section to Talk:

While Israeli settlements aren't widely regarded as being an effort to "colonise" the territories which they occupy, there are allegations of that practice, involving the contentious nature of such settlements. It is worth noting that a number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League disagree with this assessment. Opponents to the policy of Israeli settlements have characterized said efforts as being colonialism even though the validity of either Israeli or Palestinian claims is a matter of an ensuing controversy.

Not only is most of the paragraph not about "settler colonialism", but the sole source used, Nasser al-Qidwa, is a former Palestinian Foreign Minister making a political speech - hardly a reliable source for this kind of claim. In addition, editorial comments like "it is worth noting" are un-encyclopedic. Please make sure your sources are reliable, and please ensure that your text matches those sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I used reliable sources extensively, consulted scholarly sources, framed the paragraph appropriately, added citations when needed, and quoted opinions and analysis hence not presenting them as facts. I believe that now the case has been *finally* settled. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Begging the question

Begging the question is a logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. When there is a dispute as to whether or not the Israeli settlements are in fact colonies, and you write "the colonies known as Israeli settlements are described by some scholars as colonies because..." you are engaging in begging the question, in the bolded part. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as is obvious, and it violates WP:ASF. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this section. See colony.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again: there is a dispute as to whether or not the Israeli settlements are in fact colonies. The sentence you are adding presents one side of the dispute, according to one scholar. Since there is a dispute, we can't begin that sentence with something ("the Israeli colonies are...".) that presents the desired outcome according to that side of the dispute ("they are colonies") as a forgone conclusion. Please read Begging the question if you still don't understand. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And once again, I refer you to the Wikipedia article colony, complete with definition. Where are the scholars that argue the Israeli colonies are simply settlements?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I understand the definition of colony. Now, there's a dispute as to whether or not this definition applies to the Israeli settlements, and not everyone agrees that it does (If this were not the case, then instead of saying "some scholars argue that..." we'd write "All scholars agree that.. " or "the consensus among political scientists is..." - and back that up with a reliable source). When a dispute exists, we can't describe them as settlements when introducing the dispute, as that is Begging the question. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you again; what scholars assert that the Israeli colonies are not colonies?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on whoever makes an assertion, it is not up to the other party to disprove the statement. If you want to assert as fact that the Israeli settlements are "settler colonies", or to claim that this is the scholarly consensus, you need to support that with a reliable source. A good starting point would be to source it to someone a little more prominent than the current obscure scholar who is being used to make a somewhat convoluted argument which does not even directly say the settlements are colonies. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A colony is a colony. Its characteristics define it. If the colonists prefer to call their colonies settlements, that's entirely up to them, but it doesn't change what they are.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

we call them settlements because that is the most common terminology used by reliable sources. Please don't change this to 'colonies", not here, and not on other articles , as you've been doing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Israelis living in the settlements don't call them settlements. The Wikipedia and common term is Israeli settlement. If you prefer, we can use the more neutral and descriptive term "Israeli town". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what their inhabitants call them, nor the Wikipedia term, nor the common term. I'm not insisting they can't be called settlements anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm insisting on the right to, on occasion, describe a colony as a colony. How "town" is more neutral than "settlement" escapes me. What neither of you have explained is why you find the term "colony" so objectionable, when it so accurately describes the "settlements" in question.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review begging the question and WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. So what's the problem?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SA relationship

This article is about settler colonialism - not about South Africa's or Israel's nuclear programs, or international relations. Please include only material related to settler colonialism - other stuff is irrelevant, and will be removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

re [5]:

I concur with Canadian Monkey. Writing of colonies or heavily-colonised West Bank is a foregone conclusion, while adding South Africa's UN support for the establishment of Israel and the nuclear collaboration is not pertinent to the article's subject at all. --tickle me 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The U.S.S.R. and the United States also supported the establishment of the State of Israel, and Israel's nuclear program is no more relevant to this page than that of the U.S.S.R. or China. By the way, this page is woefully inadequate in the latter regard, missing entirely a section on Tibet. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Tibet, but the fact that the only country in a continent where most of the population suffered rather than profited from colonies to support the state's formation was a supremacist state is pertinent.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, you are simply wrong. South Africa was not the only African country to vote for partition and recognize Israel, Liberia did so as well. As you well know’ Liberia was formed by freed slaves, surely that would be worth mentioning as well, if we followed you example? Secondly, you may not be aware, but at the time of the vote, only 4 African countries were UN members. Of these four, 2 supported, one abstained, and one, Egypt, a belligerent in the ensuing conflict who flaunted the UN decision and international law by invading Israel, voted against. Would it seem appropriate to you if, instead of the sentence you want introduced, we’d write something along the lines of “The only African nation to oppose the establishment of Israel was Egypt, a Monarchy under the control of the United Kingdom, who subsequently invaded Israel in violation of International law?”

None of this matters, though. This article is about settler colonialism, and the only material that is relevant to it is that which directly addresses the topic. You are welcome to believe what you like regarding the relationship, but please keep your POV out of this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion to improve the tone of the discussions here, could I ask everyone to focus on discussing the article, and not other editors? Often the simple action of removing the words "you" and "your" from a post, forcing everything to be written in the third person, can have an excellent calming effect. Thanks, Elonka 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on what's cited, I didn't introduce the references. If you're going to make reference to POV, you should back it up.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did - it is POV to cherry pick one example (SA) over others (Liberia), in order to advance an otherwise unsupported view (that SA supported Israel because it was an Apartheid government). Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was enlarging on material already in the text. I made no mention of Israel's flirtations with apartheid.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that's false. In this edit, you are the one who introduced the descriptor 'apartheid-era' into the discussion, but that is beside the point. It does not matter who introduced irrelevant content - if it is irrelvant, it does not belong. Israel's cooperation with SA on nuclear development is not relevant to this article, as numeroues editors have told you. Please don't re-introduce that material. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was describing apartheid-era South Africa, to distinguish it from the modern regime. I didn't refer at all to Israel's apartheid.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So first of all, you were wrong to do this. The 'apartheid era' began after the National Party took over in SA, in 1948. Second, since we're talking about a vote that took place in 1947, it's obvious we're not talking about modern SA, and there's no need for that "distinction". Finally, you added irrelevant material about nuclear cooperation. Please don't re-introduce that material. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

As a reminder, this article falls under the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and can be subject to editing restrictions. As such, I am reminding all parties that if there is a dispute at the article, that is essential that things be discussed at the talkpage. Don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 14:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim moved to talk.

I've moved the following unsourced claim to the Talk: page:

Such opinions have also been echoed in the diplomatic world, particularly in the non-aligned movement.

It looks like original research to me. Could someone please bring a source making this specific claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article was it?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, then yes, it does.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But it's currently unsourced, so it doesn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know where in the article it was, so I can have some idea of what we're talking about.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I take your silence for refusal?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't answer my question, and here's another; why would I have a source for a claim the only part of which I've seen is your excerpt above?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted it into the article, so one would imagine you've seen it before, in context; or are you simply admitting to blind reverts at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of sentences on Wikipedia, I don't remember them all though. Can't you just tell me where in the article you saw it? How hard is that?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's as easy for you to ascertain this as me. Review the edit in which you inserted this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, Jay. I've edited the article about seven times. I don't know which edit you're talking about, and I'm not sure you do either.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

The following paragraph is found in the article:

This allegations are placed in a scholarly framework in the light that within the foundations of [settler] cultural nationalism, we can identify one vector of difference (the difference between colonizing subject and colonized subject: settler-Indigene) "being replaced by another in a strategic disavowal of the colonizing act". The national is what replaces the indigenous and in doing so conceals its participation in colonization by nominating a new colonized subject - the colonizer or invader-settler" (Lawson 1995).

Could someone please explain what the first sentence is supposed to mean, and also explain which parts of the paragraph are quotations from a source and which are not? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, since it's unclear who or what is being quoted, and the paragraph itself makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"without much opposition"

Lapsed Pacifist has inserted the phrase "without much opposition" to the statement "Several scholars have argued, without much opposition, that...". I'm trying to assume good faith here, so perhaps he can tell me the source for this claim. Who says they made this argument "without much opposition"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any opposition, so perhaps we can amend it to "without any discernible opposition" if you feel that's more suitable. Are you aware of any scholars arguing the converse?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your claim that they argued "without much opposition". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question, and comment on my suggestion.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article content is governed by its main content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. In line with WP:V and WP:NOR, please provide a source for your claim that the scholars argued "without much opposition". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it that's a no, then?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your claim that they argued "without any discernible opposition". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Convoluted, repetitive, but a definite no, right?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a sourced based encyclopedia. Please provide reliable sources for your claim that they argued "without any discernible opposition". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, if your basis for inserting "without much opposition", "without any discernible opposition" or similar phrases into the article is that you haven't been able to find any opposition, then those phrases are by definition original research and cannot be in the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research - Russian and Polish Jews

I've moved the following original research to Talk:

• Jewish diaspora, particularly Russia and Poland (Israel, see Aliyah) New Aliyah - Modern Zionist Aliyot (1882 - 1948). The Jewish Agency for Israel, Department for Jewish Zionist Education.

As is painfully obvious, the source says nothing about colonialism, much less "settler colonialism". Please find sources that are actually on the topic of the article, which is Settler colonialism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your insistence is unreasonable. It is a bit as if you are insisting in a trial that the testimony of a witness who says that a suspect went out to get groceries shortly before a crime occurred cannot be admitted because the witness does not claim that the suspect committed the crime. There is a separate matter in this article concerning whether or not the effort to found the State of Israel was an instance of settler colonialism, but the simple fact of where the people who undertook that effort came from is independent of that matter. I'll give you a while to respond before I restore the text. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not restore the text without reliable sources that say this is a case of settler colonialism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V, and make sure that all sources used in the article refer directly to settler colonialism. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the articles you note, but, pending that review, I think your comments are unresponsive. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The "articles I note" are Wikipedia policy. Your comments weren't relevant to that. Find sources that refer directly to "settler colonialism", which is, of course, the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Several scholars"

The following unsourced claim has been in the article for a while:

Several scholars have argued that Israeli settlements in territories occupied since the Six-Day War, especially those which are hotly disputed, are instances of settler colonialism.

Aside from the obvious weasel words, can anyone provide a source for this claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of scholars that approach the subject of Israeli settlement within the context of settler colonialism. This is noted in Clive Jones and Emma Murphy's book, Israel: Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State, where the works of Richard P. Stevens ("Israel and South Africa: A Comparative Study in Racism and Settler Colonialism"), Samih Farsoun ("Settler Colonialism and Herrenvolk Democracy"), and George Jabbour ("Settler Colonialism in South Africa and the Middle East") are among those cited as sharing in this position.

Nigel Craig Parsons in The Politics of the Palestinian Authority also writes that

The nature of Israel as a settler-colonial state has been forcefully demonstrated by Rodinson [i.e. Maxime Rodinson) who cites a useful definition: "One can speak of colonization when there is, occupation with domination; when there is, and by the very fact that there is, emigration with legislation." The Jews attracted to Zionism emigrated to Palestine, and then they dominated it. They occupied it in deed and then adopted legislation to justify this occupation by law.

In other words, there is no shortage of scholars who share in this opinion. The only problem with the sentence as currently formulated is that it artifically limits this analysis to only those territories occupied in 1967, when many of the scholars who share in this viewpoint extend it to the territories occupied in 1948 as well. 82.102.241.12 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

British settlers in Ireland?

I think something is missing from this article...something quite important like... Plantations of Ireland...Plantation of Ulster.... It could also be added that tens of thousands of Irish were settled in the Caribbean and elsewhere as indentured servants by the British following the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, while their lands in Ireland were given to more British settlers. But perhaps the idea of white Europeans engaging in settler-colonial for centuries in another white European country is a bit too much too handle? History is not always comfortable but have no fear: to the British the irrational popish backward drunken Irish were not truly white; indeed they were more like apes, according to the most prevalent British stereotypes. Have a look at these historical portrayals of the Irish people as apes and drunks and much, much more. The Irish may be the second richest population in the EU in 2008,but that does not negate the enormous role of British settler-colonialism in Ireland's history bringing with it all the racism and sectarianism that marked colonial policy in other settler-colonies. You cannot whitewash this (clearly uncomfortable) European history of settler-colonial from this article. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article, unfortunately, is riddled with anti-settler POV. Keep in mind that even while there may be some merit to this point of view, and certainly the usually unfortunate fate of native populations should be covered in detail, Wikipedia should not be used for soapboxing. For instance, the following sentence:

"Mostly Europeans in origin, the settlers are those who traveled from European nation-states to comparatively underdeveloped territories with the aim of living there permanently, displacing the indigenous population and imposing social structures of their own making."

I find it hard to believe that the individual settlers who travelled from Europe had the displacement and subjugation of native peoples as their goal. This may have been the goal of some of the political leaders responsible for the colonisation programmes at the time (although certainly not all), but most of the settlers themselves had more mundane reasons for emigration, such as escaping from persecution or taking advantage of opportunities in colonies that didn't exist for them for one reason or other in the "mother country".

"Perhaps the most clear example of this difference is the British Empire, whose white population settled mainly North America and Oceania, exterminating in the process the native population"

Again, while there were pogroms and the like, the native persons of North America and Oceania have not been "exterminated" (see groups like Maori or Samoan, for instance). This wording makes it sound like the express purpose of settler colonialism was genocide, which is a claim that is not supported by contemporary documentation in this article.

"Racism often pervaded the settlers of new territories"

Unsourced, and uses the weasel word 'often'.

(about Mexico) "After that, it resulted in a dominant party system, in which a single political party controlled all affairs in a ruthless and irresponsible manner for 70 years."

You would be hard pressed to argue that the word "irresponsible" is not POV and/or OR here.

In addition, the list of European Diasporas seems to be rather arbitary. Taking, for instance, the case of Côte d'Ivoire, which seems to imply that there is a significant French settler population within the country. I would argue that this is not the case, as a mere 4% of the population of the country is of a non-African background, and of that, according to Demographics of Côte d'Ivoire, there are most probably at most 50,000 French, with a significant remainder of the 4% being made up of Lebanese and Vietnamese persons; countries and groups that were not noted for being involved in settler colonialism. The intent of this seems to be to make settler colonialism appear more widespread than it actually was.

I intend to attempt cleaning up and NPOV-ing this article over the next few days, but I'm well aware that this will likely be a controversial process, so I am posting here first to let everyone know my intent. I am happy to discuss any edit I make, and to reintroduce anything I remove if a reliable source can be produced to support it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

colonializations under way

South Korean settlers in Queens & Long Island, NY, as well as San Diego, CA, have gotten my attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmark12 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

pakistani's in yorkshire have mine 78.144.77.195 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're both confusing settler colonialism with immigration. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your confusing immigration with settler colonialism. Immigration implies a level of assimilation/integration. Allowing oneself to be absorbed by the host country you have migrated to. This is certainly not the case with immigrants in the multicultural age. Like colonial settlers, modern immigrants seek to retain their own cultures and identities, and impose their own social order on their host countries. Sharia law in Britain for example. Also like colonial settlers, modern immigrants to Europe want the indigenous population to vanish as they gradually replace them.--24.179.209.239 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jews = indigenous

By definition, Jews in Palestine cannot be settlers, because they are the indigenous. It is the Arabs who are the settlers in Palestine, because they are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula. "Palestinian nation" = Jews. --217.132.188.8 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the facts that many of the ancestors of modern Jews were converts to Judaism who lived outside what you could call the historic province of Palestine and that many ancestors of modern Arabs were adoptees of Arab culture who had no connection to the Arabian Peninsula. Those ancestors include Jews and Christians whose families had lived in the province of Palestine for centuries. It wasn't until the rise of Arab nationalism in the nineteenth century that many native speakers of Arabic actually started self-identifying as Arabs.     ←   ZScarpia   19:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Converts to Judaism are Jews just the same. Being Jewish isn't a solely genetic affair. It would be if "Born to a Jewish mother" were the only criterion, but owing to the other criterion, "Having undergone halachic conversion", Jewish ethnicity is a racially open one. Jews, whether biological or converted, and no matter where they are born, are the indigenous Palestinians. --217.132.112.112 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what the word indigenous means? And have you reflected that, unless there was a land bridge across what is now the Straits of Gibraltar when homo sapiens migrated out of Africa (or unless they were keen boaters), ancestors of most of human kind must have passed through or near the area in question?     ←   ZScarpia   13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)