Jump to content

Talk:Settler colonialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestine

[edit]

Why does this not have its own section? The most prominent example is not even mentioned her!

Why is this topic confined to post-15th century examples

[edit]

The definition of "settler colonialism" given in the article seems to apply equally well to colonialism as practiced by empires in previous eras, such as the Phoenician?Carthaginian quasi-empire, the empire of Alexander and his generals, the Roman empire, the Mongol empire, etc. Should not these also be included in the article? K.a.carroll (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.a.carroll you're right that the article needs a lot of work. However, you will have to look at the books about settler colonialism to find out what they cover and emphasize. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are starting to ask questions but in general I don't think you'll find this terms applied to non-European conquests involving population movements and we have to follow reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 12:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you will find it applied to older European conquests involving population movements, such as Greek settler colonialism in Sicily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Alaexis¿question? 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon for bumping this discussion but what sources have you found @Horse Eye's Back specifically calling ancient Greek colonialism in Sicily as "settler colonialism"? The Wiki page itself doesn't actually ancient Greek "settler colonialism"?
@K.a.carroll - in addition to comments said by @Alaexis and @Buidhe, it seems like the term "settler colonialism" is almost inherently Eurocentric and pertaining largely to the so-called "Age of Exploration" and the height of European (or Euro-descended countries like the Anglo-America's post-independence colonial empire) imperialism during the 15th to early 20th centuries.
Even on the page for the Conquest of the Canary Islands the opening section cites a journal describing the Spanish conquest of the Canary Islands and the Guanche people as the "first" example of European settler colonialism in Africa, cause I guess we're excluding the Roman province of Africa and the Greek dynasties of ancient Egypt. Similarly, I'm not seeing many reliable sources consistently calling the Roman province of Asia or Alexander the Great's South Asian, Central Asian and West Asian campaigns as among the first examples of European "settler colonialism" in Asia. And when I see terms like "colonist" being applied in reliable sources, they never refer to say, the Aztecs or ancient Egyptians the same way RS may call the British "colonizers". Or look at how Hawaiian King Kamehameha the Great is generally revered in Hawaii despite also being "colonizer" who lead a 30 year conflict to conquer various islands.
It's rather interesting since a country like Singapore seems like an extremely good example of so-called "settler colonialism" just like Taiwan. Only about 13.5% of the country's modern-day population belong to the Malay peoples, who are considered Singapore's "indigenous" population. The vast majority of the country is populated by, and largely dominated by (in social/political and ethnic demographics) Han Chinese and Indian descendants from migration waves to Singapore. Yet I have not seen an abundance of reliable sources describing Singapore as an example of "settler colonialism" the same way we call Australia, Canada, et al "settler countries". I have a feeling this is because Singapore was not populated by majority of European immigrants but reliable sources also discussing about how Taiwan may qualify as being an example of "settler colonialism" makes me wonder if the term may be applied in some sources to Singapore in the future.
What I think makes the term more rather confusing is how the term "settler colonialism" seems to also be tied to a specific definition of "indigenous" peoples, with the term "Indigenous" usually only being applied to the Native Americans/Pacific Islanders and some marginalized minorities like the Sámi peoples of Nordic Europe or the Irish Travellers. For example, I'm pretty sure countries like South Korea, Germany or Czech Republic (to name a few) do not officially recognize any "Indigenous" peoples whatsoever as defined under the United Nations or other related organizations. One may argue that this rather preposterous since ethnic South Koreans, Germans or Czechs would never say that their people are actually "indigenous" to say, Pakistan or Ethiopia. But unfortunately, it is what it is.
Ultimately, whatever reliable sources cite are what is featured on the page and my opinions are just that of one person. I don't work for any reliable news outlets or journals and we can't cite my own words that aren't published in any reliable source. What reliable sources do imply seems to paint "settler colonialism" as a specific kind of "colonization" to provide a more simplified or time capsule view of the world because literally every society/tribe/etc throughout human history has had to be "colonizers" to ensure the spread of their native language/culture/etc beyond their original borders and onto others. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of indigenous peoples is based on reliable sources not Wikipedia editor's opinion. Often the definition of being indigenous is about being subjected to colonization, if not this article is also not relevant. If you actually hit the sources, you can find settler colonial analyses of certain situations in Europe, such as Russian expansion, Plantation of Ulster, and Prussian and Nazi policies in Poland iirc. Sorbs in Germany have sometimes been referred to as an indigenous people but many countries are reluctant to officially recognize indigenous peoples. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archetype?

[edit]

While both are widely considered examples of settler colonialism, I think it's more accurate to say the archetype was the Anglo-American settlements. In comparison, the Zionist colonialization has not been as successful to date. In the US or Australia, there is no longer a Indigenous population significant enough to challenge political power in the country. We should strive for high quality sources which means looking at academic papers and books, not The Atlantic. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic article is opposed to the concept of settler colonialism as a frame of analysis. However, it is quoting Patrick Wolfe and other scholars in the field, who state that Israel is a far better example than the British settler colonies.
They based their analysis of settler colonialism primarily on Israel. Rather than East Timor, the British settler colonies, and what not. As the Wikipedia article should reflect what they claim: Israel is their given example. KlayCax (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you copy paste the quotes here? Maybe we can check if they are typical or perhaps cherry-picked. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfe and many of his fellow theorists tossed down a final desultory intellectual move. Surveying a worldwide tapestry of colonial oppressions and conquests, they insisted that a single nation offered the sharpest and most troubling example of settler colonialism: Israel... Wolfe wrote that Israel was unique for its Jewish founders’ deceptive ideological sleights of hand, their “self-hatred,” and the denial of its oppression and “extirpation” of the Arabs. “Zionism rigorously refused, as it continues to refuse, any suggestion of Native assimilation,” Wolfe wrote. “Zionism,” Wolfe insisted, “constitutes a more exclusive exercise of the settler logic of elimination than we encounter in the Australian and U.S. examples.” Wolfe (and most scholars of settler colonialism) based their theories on Israel, @Buidhe:. Wolfe argued that the British settler colonies often zig-zagged in and out of settler colonialism. In contrast, he saw it as a fundamental part of Zionism and Israeli identity as a whole.
According to Google scholar: Israel is mentioned 10x compared to any individual British settler colony. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.) KlayCax (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a misrepresentation of Wolfe's point of view. If you look up [the context he is talking about the difference between Zionism and most other forms of settler colonialism–Zionism never recognized assimilation at all. Given that this is a difference, it hardly suggests that Zionism is a typical or archetypical example of settler colonialism. (t · c) buidhe 04:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand the article already cites:
There certainly have been alternative conceptions. But I'm referring to the dominant opinion within the field, @Buidhe:. Albeit I know that it's somewhat controversial.
(But so is the field itself + which nations are "settler colonialist".) KlayCax (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't cite a the Atlantic for what is the mainstream opinion in the field. Wolfe is certainly important and reliable for his own view, but I'm not sure he is even arguing what you are suggesting. (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic is considered a WP: RS per WP:RSP. We certainly can cite them in this particular instance, @Buidhe:. By far, the field takes as its archetype Israel. Wolfe argued that the British settler colonies alternated between settler colonialism and alternative forms of imperialism. In contrast, he viewed Zionism itself as intrinsically settler colonialist. That's the difference. KlayCax (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic may be reliable for some topics (it's overrated imv), but the author of this article is not an expert in the field of settler colonialism or anything related. While I cannot read the full text, I am unsure if this is supposed to be straight journalism or an op ed/analysis (which would make it not reliable except for the opinion of the author). In any event, when there are a million scholarly sources it is hard to justify citing one that has much less expertise and academic rigor. If you think Wolfe disagrees with the overall statements about settler colonial studies, please cite him directly and not via the Atlantic. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's not an expert. But he cites people who are experts in settler colonial studies to state that. We can't use Wolfe's words (who has unfortunately passed away) to state there's a present consensus.
This is a case where WP: RS clearly applies. Of course it's a controversial statement to make: but so is the subject of settler colonialism in general. KlayCax (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a source that contradicts what the article states. I'm fine with keeping it reverted. If not, I don't see the objection here, as The Atlantic is considered a WP: RS per WP: RSP.
Zionism is widely seen as the best example of settler colonialism among those who support the concept/consider themselves scholars of settler colonialism. KlayCax (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability is not a blanket yes/no question and rsp is not intended to give you that. reliable sources are more a question of citing better quality and more authoritative sources that you can find/access. I do not consider the Atlantic to outweigh the multiple academic sources I found that came to an apparently different conclusion about the field. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the academic sources mentioned contradict including Israel in the lead, @Buidhe:. Wolfe and other scholars argued that the British settler colonies had period of territorial expansionism that could be classified as such. However, they were adamant in saying that these forms of settler colonialism were imperfect, and often absent in certain forms of their expansion, so the map itself is problematic. In WP: RS's Israel is the mostly common nature designated as settler colonalist. It's also important to not fall into an American-centric framework. (i.e. Most editors here are white people from North America. So the United States is the most common nation that comes into mind. But Canada took more land, Australia was often even more brutal through things such as the Black War, and Israel was seen by Wolfe and is seen by most scholars in the field as being the best archetype of what a settler colonialist state looks like. That is, Zionism is of itself is a form of settler colonialism that is more archetypical than the British settler colonies.) KlayCax (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which other scholars supposedly hold this view? Can you quote from the books they wrote (not a partisan Atlantic article)? I'm not opposed to mentioning Israel in the lead, because it is widely studied in the field, but I am not convinced that your version is accurate or based on solid sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2024

[edit]

Under the map of the colonial empires before the Seven Years’ War, the following settler colonial projects should be listed: Western Sahara (by Morocco), the Canary Islands (by Spain), Xinjiang & Tibet (by China), and Crimea & Siberia (by Russia/USSR). Maximations (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: It's a little unclear where are you asking this to be added? In the File:Colonisation 1754.png image itself? -- macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 21:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

@Cdjp1 Hello. I'm not quite sure how you arrived at the conclusion in your edit summary [1], but if you look at the sources, virtually all of the sources in the added section have one or more of the following words/phrases: “settler”, “colonial”, “colonialism,” or “settler-colonialism.”

We can see this if we look at the first 9 sources they appear in the text [see below] As per, WP:FIXFIRST, if you take issue with a particular source, please flag it instead of deleting the entire section! However, it is clear that there are multiple reliable sources that verbatim characterize the conflict as settler/colonial or describe policies of planting settlers.

You stated that there were a number of of “irrelevant sources” in the section. Which ones are you referring to?

  • Watenpaugh, K. D. (19 October 2022). In…Middle Eastern Studies, unspooling this argument…invites recasting the Ottoman State and the successor Republic of Turkey as a settler-colonial polity in fields beyond the genocide of the Armenians….From a historian’s perspective thinking about the Ottoman State as a colonial-setter state is a tool that….
  • Walker, C. J. (1988). …the scheme being put forward for the region's direct administration from Moscow will at least end its [Nagorno-Karabakh’s] colonial status within Azerbaijan…
  • Demoyan, H. "The region of Nagorno-Karabakhfought against external forces that sought to impose their dominance on the region….The struggle of the Armenian people of Karabakh against the Azerbaijani colonial rule is also …”
  • Camacho, Fernando Padilla (7 February 2024), The swift colonisation programme put in place by President Ilham Aliyev includes urban reorganisation and reoccupation of urban and rural areas.
  • Astourian, Stephan H. (5 December 2023), “In a way, imperialism built the nation [of Azerbaijan], its historiography, and its identity.”
  • Davis, Angela (9 February 2016) Ongoing efforts to create a popular intellectual environment within which to explore the contemporary impact of the Armenian genocide are central…to global resistance to racism, genocide, and settler colonialism." *Travis, Hannibal (31 December 2019), To view genocide, as did Raphael Lemkin… is to invite comparisons to such important Western projects as settler colonialism or the Vietnam or Iraq wars. In the case of Turkey, the thesis that not only the Armenians … were victims of a long-term process of colonization, Turkification, and Kurdification—across a variety of regimes—threatens the myth of Turkey as a moderate and secular state…
  • Jacobin article -- Aidan Simardone Beyond the tragic circumstances, Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states.
  • THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE. “referencing past and old Azeri architectural styles is an act of deception that tries to hide the military nature of such settler colonial projects.”

Vanezi (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'll restore the section per my comment above. Thanks! Vanezi (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that of the sources that explicitly mention settler colonialism, the majority refer to eastern Anatolia rather than Karabakh. It's also fair to say that the vast majority of sources are not using this terminology, which is a further indication that it's UNDUE here. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also fair to say that the vast majority of sources are not using this terminology
Please indicate which ones, I just quoted most of the sources. Vanezi (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the total RS published about the Armenian genocide or Armenia / Azerbaijan conflict. (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the citations use to justify that it is viewed as a case of, or analysed using a framework of settler-colonialism:
  1. Can be used, but it's not as clear as would be ideal, and as added I have concerns over the fact that the ellipses cover multiple paragraphs.
  2. Good source, should be used, should include quote.
  3. Doesn't really say settler-colonialism
  4. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  5. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  6. Does not say it's settler-colonialism, but that the efforts of Hrant Dink and the case of the Armenian genocide are important to building an intellectual environment for a variety of issues.
  7. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  8. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  9. I can understand how we use it to support settler-colonialism, though it doesn't specifically say settler-colonialism, needs other sources to support it.
  10. Good to use.
  11. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  12. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  13. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
There's no issue I see in adding a section on Artsakh here, but you need to cut down a huge chunk of the non-relevant text you added, and use sources that actually support the points being made. You have some sources that can be used, but as shown from these first few, many of them are irrelevant.
As a final bit of clarification, sources that detail potential colonialism are not enough on their own, as the article focuses on settler-colonialism, the sources must specifically deal with settler-colonialism and not just broader colonialism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to actions taken, I did it as a complete removal due to working via mobile at the time. I am happy to work on re-adding it using better sources, but it is not in my current priorities, so if you are able to add in a first instances of a better edited version, I'll start building on that in the coming weeks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I don’t follow the numbering in your post. How do you feel about the following abridged section?
Several sources and human rights organizations interpret the conflict between Armenians and Turkey-Azerbaijan through the framework of settler colonialism. This framework emphasizes that Armenians are indigenous peoples seeking self-determination under imperial colonial powers. Since the mid 18th century Armenian territory within Eastern Anatolia was seized and allocated to Muslims, a policy which was influenced by the centuries-old Ottoman practice of population transfer (Sürgün) used to import Muslim colonists into conquered areas.
As you requested, I’ve removed most of the sources that that did not explicitly state “settler colonialism.” The following sources are those which focus on the following:
  • “settler” and ”colonialism”
  • “settler-colonialism”
  • direct comparisons to other settler-colonial states (e.g., Israel/United States)
Sources:
Watenpaugh, K. D. (2022).
  • In…Middle Eastern Studies, unspooling this argument…invites recasting the Ottoman State and the successor Republic of Turkey as a settler-colonial polity in fields beyond the genocide of the Armenians….From a historian’s perspective thinking about the Ottoman State as a colonial-setter state is a tool that….

Walker, C. J. (1988).
  • "The population of Karabagh was changing, from 91-2 per cent in 1939 to 80-5 per cent in 1970. Armenians were being encouraged to move out, and Azerbaijani colonists moved in. This was a kind of population manipulation that we can see in other parts of the world."

  • "Now, although it seems extremely unlikely that the unification of Armenia and Karabagh will take place, at least for the present, the scheme being put forward, for the region's direct administration from Moscow, will at least end its colonial status within Azerbaijan, and its resultant depopulation, as had happened in Nakhichevan."

  • "It was at this time especially that their proportional numbers in their land were reduced, when the Ottoman Sultan installed in Armenia Kurds from southern regions to guard the frontier with Persia."

Demoyan, H. 
  • "The region of Nagorno-Karabakh fought against external forces that sought to impose their dominance on the region….The struggle of the Armenian people of Karabakh against the Azerbaijani colonial rule is also …”

Travis, Hannibal (31 December 2019),
  • To view genocide, as did Raphael Lemkin… is to invite comparisons to such important Western projects as settler colonialism or the Vietnam or Iraq wars. In the case of Turkey, the thesis that not only the Armenians … were victims of a long-term process of colonization, Turkification, and Kurdification—across a variety of regimes—threatens the myth of Turkey as a moderate and secular state…

Jacobin article -- Aidan Simardone
  • Beyond the tragic circumstances, Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states.

THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE
  • “The blockade of the existing road, happening in parallel to the construction of the new road, as well as the blockade of this new road, showcases the settler colonial ambitions of the Azeri government…referencing past and old Azeri architectural styles is an act of deception that tries to hide the military nature of such settler colonial projects.”

Armenians in NYC Are Organizing for Palestinian Liberation. Erik VanBezooijen, (2024, August 06). Retrieved from https://jacobin.com/2024/05/armenians-kurds-palestinians-liberation-nyc
  • “Israel, Turkey, and Azerbaijan are all colonizers,” Nadia explained during our interview”...“They marched from the UN Headquarters to the Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Israeli consulates, carrying Palestinian and Armenian flags and homemade signs linking the Palestinian struggle to anti-colonial struggles across the world”

Mashinka Firunts Hakopia  ("On the Struggle for Indigenous Self-Determination in the Republic of Artsakh". Los Angeles Review of Books)
  • "A policy of Azerbaijani settlement was pursued in an express effort to 'dilute the Armenian majority' and fortify a settler-colonial campaign through Indigenous erasure. Today, settler-colonial logic suffuses the statements issued by Azerbaijan and Turkey’s autocratic rulers."

Suny, Ronald Grigor; Göçek, Fatma Müge; Naimark, Norman M., eds. (10 March 2011). "A Question of Genocide": 
  • The goal of the Ottoman policies was clear: to settle Muslim immigrants from the Balkans and the Caucasus in the six eastern provinces (Erzurum, Harput, Sivas, Diyarbakır, Van, and Bitlis) inhabited by a dense Armenian population. To this end, confiscated Armenian lands were handed over to the new refugees. In the meantime, genocidal destruction raged in full force. The Armenians and Syriacs were being massacred while the Muslim settlers were en route to replace them. However, some preparations were necessary for their successful settlement.

 Hovannisian, R.G. (2003). Hovannisian, R.G. (ed.). Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide 
  • The Ittihadists' demographic deliberations of 1913-14 and the pattern of muhajir settlement over the preceding generations owed a conceptual debt to a practice of population transfer (sürgün) that had been employed in the empire since the fourteenth century. Originally a method of importing Muslim colonists into conquered regions, the practice of sürgün had developed over time to incorporate punitive deportations of religious and other groups. Eastern Anatolia witnessed both manifestations of this practice, first as a recipient of a sort of internal Ottoman colonization by 'desirable' groups, then as a site of ethnic cleansing of the 'undesirable,' during which colonization continued as Muslim refugees were relocated into vacant Armenian dwellings.

Samuel Dolbee (The Washington Post)
  • ‘in a reminder of how the settler colonialism and racism of the United States has been emulated, Talaat added, in conversation with U.S. ambassador Henry Morgenthau, that the goal was to treat Armenians like Americans “treat the Negroes.” In his diary, Morgenthau added, “I think he meant like the Indians.”’
There are also other sources which do not explicitly mention settler colonialism, but are extremely close that could probably be included
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention:
  • “Artsakh was given to Azerbaijan under the colonial rule of the Soviet Union, without the consent or input of the majority Armenian population residing within.” [2]
  • Self-determination is further a recognized right of all peoples under oppressive colonial regimes…The land and the people of Artsakh – an historic Armenian territory granted to Azerbaijan by the Soviet Union – has never before been under the governance of the state of Azerbaijan. [3]
Vanezi (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification

[edit]

I'm glad that you are trying to improve the article, Nsae Comp, but the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Settler_colonialism&curid=39353023&diff=1240202405&oldid=1240033998 is NOT supported by the cited sources as I pointed out earlier. Immigration may be to a society that originated in settler colonialism or not, but either way the distinction between immigrants and settlers remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mamdani writes : "Immigrants are unarmed; settlers come armed with both weapons and a nationalist agenda. Immigrants come in search of a homeland, not a state; for settlers, there can be no homeland without a state. For the immigrant, the homeland can be shared; for the settler, the state must be a nation-state, a preserve of the nation in which all others are at most tolerated guests." (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your considerate approach. I wanted to elaborate the paragraph based on the chapter in "The Settler Colonial Present". But I have to admit I had troubles to summarize it, particularly regarding the very different perspectives discussed. So Ill leave it to someone else who might do better and leave it as it is. Because I am fine how it stands, it was for me just a bit too simplistic and so I tried to bring in the different points from concepts histories. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your take. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Settler_colonialism&oldid=1240694507"