Talk:Colonization

Archives (Index)

2012 2015 2016 2018 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Arab and Chinese colonialism

Although it is undisputed that Arabs and Chinese colonized territories in the course of establishing their empires, the article contains no mention of these historical events. Banderswipe (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please supply sources and descriptions. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead on current colonies

The last paragraph of the lead seems tendentious to me. In particular the references to Bermuda and that there have been "countless" referenda. In some cases those referenda have been in favour of retaining a territory's dependent status and they have not been removed from the list. Places like the Falklands, Gibraltar or Bermuda should not be classified as colonies in the lead without some qualification.

I tag @Nsae Comp who last edited that paragraph and may have views on the matter. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I left it as it is because I am not knowledgeable in the particular decolonization histories. But I was close to replacing it with my addition about the UN list. Maybe by not naming them, but rather saying that there are more territories than on the UN list that are contested regarding their colonial status. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove Bermuda now. That should be relatively uncontroversial given all the sources there refer to Puerto Rico.

I'll leave it a couple days and, if nobody objects, I'll try my hand at a more even-handed write-up. Jtrrs0 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The section on Classical period colonization describes ancient farm colonies displacing nomadic hunter-gatherers. The opening sentence of the article says, "... process of establishing control ... for the purpose of exploitation ..." Ancient "farmer-colonialists" displacing nomadic tribes is not the same as exploiting said nomadic tribes as farm labor. It follows that the definition of "colonization" in the opening sentence does not describe Classical period colonization. The inclusion of the word "exploitation" prevents the definition from applying to the case of Classical period "farmer-colonialists." Chino-Catane (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"Exploitation" does not only refer to exploitation of people. It can also mean exploitation of resources, such as land. The sentence is correct. Zero^talk 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Suppose an arbitrary but particular ancient group of farmers from an already-established agrarian society transferred themselves to a truly uninhabited piece of land, started farming it, and maintained associative relationships with the society from which they migrated. Would this instance have constituted "colonization"?

Second case: Suppose these farmers did displace nomadic tribes. They would not have "exploited" people but land instead; but what's the difference between "exploitative" farming of land versus non-exploitative farming of land? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(1) Yes. (Think of colonization of Mars to exploit the mineral wealth there.) (2) This question does not relate to the lead sentence. Nor is the lead sentence supposed to cover all the complexities of the topic. Zero^talk 04:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zero "Yes. (Think of colonization of Mars to exploit the mineral wealth there.)"

Per the follow up question, what is the difference between "exploitative farming" and "non-exploitative farming", with regards to Classical period migrating farmers? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't use either expression so I don't see the point of the question. All farmers exploit the land that they farm. To say that a colonizer exploits the land they colonize just means they make use of it for their own benefit. Zero^talk 03:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zero Thanks for the explanation. In your reversion summary you remark that "Ferro uses 'exploitation' repeatedly", but Ferro does not use the word "exploitation" on page 1 at all, the cited page. In the entirety of Chapter 1, Ferro uses the word "exploitation" once on page 8. He uses the word to summarize elements of a Portuguese film that describes "exploitation of those voyages". Your summary also remarks, "all three sources emphasise the use of force", but what does use of force have to do with ancient farmers exploiting uninhabited lands? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I scanned all of Ferro before writing and found that he repeatedly uses "exploit" in the same sense as our first sentence. This is my final reply. Zero^talk 03:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Per revision 1232615364, unless WP:RS can be produced explicitly stating the definition currently presented, I propose modifying the opening sentence to express the Ferro definition verbatim. Are there any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ferro does not give a single definition. He immediately asks "Has there been any change in the meaning of this term?" and over the following pages explains that there has been. Zero^talk 03:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitions from Charles Verlinden, "The Beginnings of Modern Colonization", Cornell University Press, 1970, pages ix and xii:

What in fact is the original meaning of "colonization"? The word derives from the Latin colere meaning "to cultivate," "to put to use," "to make of value." Therefore it is not surprising that the first meaning of "colonization" and of "to colonize" should be agricultural.

It was at this time [11th century] that the term "colonization" began to assume the meaning which it still carries today—that is, conquest followed by exploitation—together with the resulting unfavorable moral connotations which those two terms evoke in the minds of contemporaries.

This is a fair summary of the old and new meanings. I have no objection to giving both, but I strongly object to removing the second meaning which is the predominant one today. Zero^talk 04:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Does Verlinden offer a clearly stated definition of colonization like Ferro does? The opening sentence can state Ferro's definition. The second sentence can state Verlinden's definition. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, Ferro does not give a clearly stated definition. Zero^talk 08:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zero Ferro characterizes his opening sentence as a definition, though it would probably be more appropriate to call it a description. Whatever his opening sentence is labeled as, the sentence allows him to classify particular ancient social processes as "colonization". Does Verlinden offer a similar succinct description of "colonization" that includes the use of the string "exploitation" which he associates with "purpose"? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In his very next sentence, Ferro rhetorically asks "Has there been any change in the meaning of this term?" and over the following pages explains that there has been. So, Ferro calls his first sentence a definition, not the definition. Zero^talk 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is a definition that allows him to apply the term "colonization" to instances of particular ancient social processes, in general. This article discusses mentions "colonization" that occurred as far back as the 8th or 9th century BC, for which the modern understanding of the word "exploitation" may or may not apply. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• As a third opinion: I think the current opening sentence is a good definition and adequately supported by the cited sources. The excessive cleanup tags are not helpful; you've expressed your concerns here on the talk page, Chino-Catane, you don't need to decorate the article with them as well.

By the way the section of the article that says classical colonies displaced hunter-gatherers is is unreferenced nonsense, and should be removed. Hunter-gatherer societies disappeared from the Mediterranean thousands of years earlier. – Joe (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The word "exploitation" carries modern connotations that cannot be assumed to have applied in general to the motives of ancient "colonists" dating as far back as 8th or 9th century BC. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2024‎ (UTC)

I don't think that's the everyday meaning that readers will take from the lead. You can talk about the exploitation of renewable resources for energy generation or the exploitation of plants or animals by prehistoric peoples, for example, and there is no speculation on motive. Your reference says that "in moral and political philosophy" it has connotations of injustice (e.g. exploitation of labour), but we're not talking about moral or political philosophy. When say the ancient Greeks set up colonies to engage in the slave trade or the Romans settled veterans to pacify conquered territory, I don't think it's problematic to say that their motive was exploitation. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's true that "exploit" and "exploitation" can be used with a negative connotation. However, it is also true that a negative connotation is reasonable for the vast majority of historical instances of colonization. The fact that a small minority of instances (Viking colonization of Iceland?) can be found where the only "exploitation" was in the morally neutral sense of exploiting the natural resources shouldn't lead to us removing the majority definition. We should start with the meaning of the term as it is used today and leave the nuances for later. Zero^talk 12:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Papar have a bone to pick with you. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's why I added a question mark. I don't know the details of that case so I have no explicit opinion on it. How about Polynesian colonization of the South Sea islands? Zero^talk 13:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Just joking, don't worry. You've got me with Polynesia. Unless we count the moa? – Joe (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

To editors Joe Roe and Zero:
"...everyday meaning..."
When I google the string "most common use of the word exploitation" without quotations, the top of the returned search page reads, "Exploitation is most often used negatively, especially when it refers to taking advantage of people", pulled from a Dictionary.com page.

"...we're not talking about moral or political philosophy."
The lead section box declares this article is a member of the Politics category.

"...small minority of instances..."
Even a failure rate of 1 part in 1,000,000 should move you to modify this definition. This article represents the employment of some social study discipline. Whatever that discipline is, it should aspire to the standards of hard science. If you insist on using the word "exploitation" in the offered definition, then I propose modifying the opener to read, "Colonization is a process associated with ..." Although this would be an improvement, the sentence would still be problematic because it enumerates precise motives and does not describe cases like the aforementioned Papar. This is why Ferro's selection of the word "cultivation" is effective. An even better improvement would read, "Colonization is a process associated with establishing control over foreign territories for the purposes of cultivation, exploitation or possibly settlement ..."
Chino-Catane (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to defer to Google here. 'Exploit' is a plain English word that most people understand. I don't aspire to be a hard scientist, and neither does Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The point of contention here is the opinion, "I don't think that's the everyday meaning that readers will take from the lead." Two sources have been provided to demonstrate how this opinion does not reflect the perceptions of most English-speaking readers who are not experts with regards to this article's topic.

• The first source has been objected to with the claim, "we're not talking about moral or political philosophy". However, the response that "The lead section box declares this article is a member of the Politics category" has not been addressed.
• The second source has been responded to with, " 'Exploit' is a plain English word that most people understand" without offering a reason and WP:RS refuting the second source's assertion that, "Exploitation is most commonly used in a negative way, especially in the context of people who are being exploited for profit."

In summary, there exists no substantive objection to the proposed improvement that would read, "Colonization is a process associated with establishing control over foreign territories for the purposes of cultivation, exploitation or possibly settlement ...". Chino-Catane (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need Google or dictionaries to tell us what ordinary language means and I have in fact already provided two reliable sources that contradict your assertion in my first reply to you above. Similarly, I assume I don't need to find a dictionary to explain why "politics" and "political philosophy" are not the same thing?

That said, I don't have any objection to that suggestion, no. It retains the word exploitation, so I'm not sure why any of the above is relevant. – Joe (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Joe: The Dictionary.com assertion, ""Exploitation is most commonly used in a negative way" is not "contradicted" by the two instances provided.

• ' "politics" and "political philosophy" are not the same thing '
  

This is an acceptable response I will not investigate further. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

I object to "Colonization is a process associated with ..." on wording grounds because it isn't a definition at all. It says what colonization is associated with, not what colonization is. "Wood is a material associated with trees" doesn't define "wood", because leaves and chain-saws are also associated with trees. A definition would be more like "Wood is a structural tissue found in the stems and roots of trees". Zero^talk 13:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"object...on wording grounds because it isn't a definition at all"

WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

Does there exist a WP:RS that explicitly states as a definition, "Colonization is a process of establishing control over foreign territories or peoples for the purpose of exploitation and possibly settlement, setting up coloniality and often colonies, commonly pursued and maintained by colonialism."?

If not, this stated definition violates WP:OR. Inserting "is associated with" allows the notions of "colonization", "exploitation", "coloniality" and "colonialism" to be presented sequentially without violating WP:OR. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You are being far too literal here. We don't assemble articles by copying exactly what other articles say, that would be plagiarism. The lead is a summary of the article which is a summary of reliable sources, with each step of summarisation involves editorial judgement. – Joe (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the lead is presenting a precise definition of the term "colonization" as Zero remarked above, "I object ... on wording grounds because it isn't a definition at all". Quoting and citing a source is not plagiarism, which wouldn't apply here because the opening sentence is taken directly from nowhere. All these problems go away if the sentence starts with "Colonization is a process associated with...". Chino-Catane (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I came here after reading the notice posted at Wikipedia:Wikiproject History. I have two points I'd like to make:

1. You need to take this beef outside of the lead. If there's a need to define the concept, try finding high-quality sources that try to define the concept. And don't rely on just dictionaries. this is not Wiktionary. I would recommend starting out with [Oxford Reference and the likes. You should at all costs avoid phrase searches in Google Scholar or whatever, because that'll just land you in an unsolvable OR squabble.
2. I don't think I fully understand why "colonization" is a separate article in the first place. It seems to overlap quite nicely with either colonialism or the various articles on the history of colonialism, like European colonization of the Americas or whatever.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think I fully understand why "colonization" is a separate article in the first place."

This article draws equivalence between "Pre-modern colonization", "Modern colonialism" and "Post-colonial variants". This suggests to readers that all three topics are types of "colonization" as precisely defined in the opening sentence of the lead. In my opinion, this is problematic because it associates assigns features of "colonialism" to social processes that predate the concept's existence by 2700 years, e.g. Sabean colonization of Africa. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Colonialism and colonization are two different things. Colonialism is a type of colonization, to make it short, for the sake of not making this discussion even longer. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I must say I get all arguments, though I tend to favour the arguments for the current form, since it focuses on the two main uses of colonization: exploitation and settlement in a separated (aka colonial) space. As I said I get all arguments, including the mention of cultivation, so I would add in that regard that cultivation has also the meaning of civilizing and developing. If read in that way cultivation would underline that dimension of colonization, but I would argue that this is already covered by the term settlement, since settlement involves a certain civilizing and developing element. Thats why I understand both arguments, because cultivation is a fitting word, but it is also covered by settling. So as long as exploitation and settlement are kept I dont mind having it or having it not. Regarding the reference using cultivation: when this reference was introduced the lead did not elaborate like it does now, thus "cultivation" provided back then to summarise exploitation and settlement, while settlement was only used as the condition resulting from the purpose of cultivation and not like cultivation as a mode of the process of colonization. So for me the question is what cultivation can add that exploitation and settlement does not. It could highlight the civilizing and developing direction of settlement or colonialism, and settler colonialism particularly, to be more exact, and therefore it is as pointed out covered by settling. The use of the reference is in both cases okay for the current text because as I said and as others have pointed out the source does elaborate on cultivation by detailing colonization as exploitive and settling. Last but not least: I see also the argument of synthesis, but we do not need to quote the sources to do not synthesise and I think the sentence parts are not constructing any conclusions from the different references, allowing them to be sufficiently identified independently with the different sentence parts. Exploitation isnt mentioned in the quote about cultivation, but as now repeatedly pointed out, exploitation is no term that isnt used seldomly in the source or most other study about colonization. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tags

To editor Chino-Catane: You don't understand how to use the tag properly. It is not for putting your commentary in line with article text. The text argument is for the part of the article that you think is original research, not for your explanation.

This is incorrect usage: Joe killed his mother.{{original research span|text=This is obviously just made up.}}

Joe killed his mother.This is obviously just made up.

This is how you are supposed to use it: {{original research span|text=Joe killed his mother.}}

Joe killed his mother.

Neither the tag you used nor the one I used have an argument for stating reasons. Reasons are supposed to go on the talk page. Zero^talk 12:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I have mentioned this page at the History and International Relations wikiprojects in the hope of getting more involvement. Zero^talk 04:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel

Why should we take the word from United States researchers? They are the only country going against the UN and they are isolated on this 2A02:A03F:63D8:1C01:1FA0:B6BA:157E:96A9 (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest other text and sources we can use, or add them directly. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)