Talk:Colonization/Archives/2021

Wrong definition?

the article states that the definition of colonization is:

"Colonization (or colonisation) is a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components."

but this definition looks more like the definition of expansionism and in fact, with this definition, there is no way to distinguish conquest with colonisation

for me, a much better definition of colonization is "process (through conquest, treaty or settlement in an unoccupied areas) that leads to the creation of a colony", and for colony "territory with its own government/administration/system of laws (due to its physical or cultural remoteness) but still dependent on a metropolis"

another apporach is to counsider that as an historical event and only counsider the colonization by europeans to america and then to africa/asia regardless other "similars events" throughout the history(which seems to be the "common" definition of colonization) but that seems the point of the article "colonialism" so I think the previous definition would be more relevent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.12.101 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the source Empire: A Very Short Introduction the definition of colonization is:

Colonization refers to large-scale population movements where the migrants maintain strong links with their or their ancestors' former country, gaining significant privileges over other inhabitants of the territory by such links. When colonization takes place under the protection of clearly colonial structures, it may handily be called settler colonialism. This often involves the settlers entirely dispossessing earlier inhabitants, or instituting legal and other structurs which systematically disadvantage them.

I don't have access to the full book but maybe this definition is wrong in the current article. --PJ Geest (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't like this definition, cause first of all colonisation are not settler colonisation and does not always involved local inhabitants and the last sentance just seems like a value jugement (what does "involves the settlers entirely dispossessing earlier inhabitants" mean? or what does he mean by "disadvantage" in "structurs which systematically disadvantage them"?).it looks more like a critique of colonisation than an actual definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.141.4 (talk • contribs) 12:21, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

AFAICS, @PJ Geest: has this right and the article currently has it wrong (see e.g., the quotes from the OED here) This appears to have impact in WP beyond this article; see, for example, this edit. I'm no expert but, barring objection, I propose that this article be edited to bring it into line with the OED definitions quoted by the source I linked above and harmonized with the Colonialism article. Also, see this, mentioned by PJ Geest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead definition should be based on a source, like here previously explained here. Not liking the definition based on source is not a good reason to replace the definition--PJ Geest (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your OED definition seems to be an exact copy of the one by your Howe source.

I have provided a second definition, which is by Marc Ferro from a book discussing colonization.

Now I get the feeling, since Ferro is not an english author that the understanding in social science and the english general use is somewhat different. I though think that Howe was focusing and talking about settler colonialism and not generally about colonization as Ferro does. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)