Talk:Settler colonialism

Palestine

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

• It does... (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

You're right. Alaexis_¿question? 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Non-notable book

User:Buidhe reverted my latest edit and argues that Empire of the People: Settler Colonialism and the Foundations of Modern Democratic Thought is a notable book and should be redlinked.

It doesn't seem like this book meets the GNG, and shouldn't be redlinked because it's not notable. I would just revert, but since this article has 1RR, I thought I would bring these here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Same also appears to go for Settler Capitalism by Donald Denoon. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you do a quick Google Scholar search? Empire of the People has several reviews, and is a straightforward WP:NBOOK pass [1]

Same with Settler Capitalism, which was still getting reviewed decades after being published! [2] (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Archetype?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On the other hand the article already cites:

• "SCS has privileged the analysis of the Anglo-settler world—primarily North America and Oceania."https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12659
• "they constitute the archetype of settler colonialism, the CANZUS states alone voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples"[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203085028-1/locating-indigenous-self-determination-margins-settler-sovereignty-lisa-ford
• [The Routledge handbook also suggests that the concept originated to describe British colonies (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)