Humanities desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 11[edit]

Is this a colony?[edit]

During the 19th century, Europeans scrambled for Africa, cutting away bits and pieces. Okay, so that's a colony. Also, around the same time, there was no Poland or Latvia or Lithuania or Czechoslovakia. So, does that mean modern-day Poles are really descendants of the people who were colonized by the Russians? Even today, the United States includes Puerto Rico and Samoa and Indian Reservations. Are they American colonies? Are the people there American citizens or American colonists? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're being too tied into trying to fit every situation of a limited number of simplistic categories. Merely because you can draw minor similarities between two different situations doesn't mean the situations are meaningfully identical. Poland was not, in any meaningful sense, a "colony" of Russia. It was an autonomous region which had been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Imperialism and colonialism are similar in some ways, but only superficially, and "taking land from your neighbor" is not generally seen as colonizing. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and have been since 1917 (see Jones–Shafroth Act). American Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens, though they can move freely to the mainland and acquire citizenship after a certain period of residency. See American Samoa#Nationality. All residents of Indian Reservations are citizens of the U.S. and have been since 1942 (see Indian Citizenship Act). --Jayron 32 14:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Partition of Poland (it was split between Prussia, Austria and Russia) would usually be referred to as annexation rather than colonisation, although the difference between the two is not exactly clear-cut. The original meaning of a colony was a community from one culture being established in the territory of another (usually seen as less developed by the coloniser); examples are the 16th century Roanoke Colony and the 17th century Jamestown settlement. I believe that calling a whole territory a colony was a later development. The US has been particularly careful to avoid calling its overseas acquisitions "colonies", although it's hard to see much difference between the administration of the United States Virgin Islands and the neighbouring British Virgin Islands which is plainly a colony and was officially referred to as such until 1983. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a pretty accurate description; colonies are by nature exploitive and remote; there is little-to-no attempt to assimilate the native population; their either removed (British North America) or enslaved (Congo) and the land turned over to the conquerers. In the cases of imperial annexation, we see plenty of examples where the local population, and often the local government, is left in place, with the conquering empire taking a much less overt control over removing the local population and replacing it with its own; power structure may change, but the people remain as they often have. It's important to note that these definitions are not strictly, bold lines and mutually exclusive, for example Ireland is often described as having been colonized by the English despite being quite close geographically, because of how England treated Ireland, by actually sending settlers and displacing local populations, i.e. the Plantation of Ulster, which is a distinctly colonial process. On the other side, Russia never really colonized Poland, they merely took over the power structure; any Russian migration into the former Polish lands was more natural and not a deliberate attempt to settle the land, which is not to say that it was all rosy during Russian control of Poland, but what it wasn't was colonisation. --Jayron 32 16:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is correct about the Russian policy in Russian Poland. In Prussian Poland, on the other hand, the government's policy was to displace the ethnic Polish population and replace it with ethnic German colonists. See Prussian Settlement Commission. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A link to colony might also be helpful. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:852E:7393:15B7:B79E (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be if the article were better quality. The initial definition in the lede section is too vague to be useful (and has been tagged as such for some time). The "definition" section of the article is not a definition in any sense of the word, but a discussion of Roman Empire colonies, which may or may not be all that useful for understanding how modern usage works. The rest of the article is a few random lists of ancient and modern dependent territories which may or may not meet any reasonable definition of "colony". --Jayron 32 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some more thinking about this, and I think it may be more helpful here to understand what is meant (in the modern sense) by European colonialism, which as a concept is tied to the economic theory known as mercantilism. According to mercantilism, a colony is an exploitive venture: its main purpose is as a source of cheap raw materials to be sent back to the mother country to process into finished goods for exports. Colonies in the sense we usually use the word have those features: You have a mercantile class who is sent to organize a workforce, extract raw materials, and ship it back to the home country. THAT is what makes a colony a colony. Other forms of dependent territory would not meet that definition. In that sense, that's why the British Virgin Islands were labeled a "colony"; as just like the rest of the Caribbean, those islands were true colonies of Britain: Slaves or cheaply-paid workers were importated to the islands to grow crops (mostly sugar cane), which was shipped off-island for processing. Names are stubborn things, which is why it wasn't until 1983 that the name was changed, long after it stopped acting like a colony economically. The U.S. Virgin Islands were not colonies of the U.S. in that they had not had the mercantile purpose of a true colony for the U.S. (the U.S. being based on a capitalist rather than mercantilist economic system has a different relationship with the acquisition of raw materials and the flow of goods), they were dependent territories of the U.S., after previously having been colonies of Denmark. --Jayron 32 23:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if that's what a colony is, by definition, what would you say about the Thirteen Colonies, or later developments like the South African Dutch settlements or the British settlements in Australia, New Zealand, and Rhodesia? They were a good deal more comparable to the ancient Roman and Greek concept of colonies, in which a significant population of the mother country goes to live in another place and recreate the society of the mother country. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of British colonies established after the end of the slave trade and we colonised places of virtually no economic value, like the South Sandwich Islands, mostly to stop other powers from getting them first. The US acquisition of Hawaii was blatantly colonisation in the 19th century sense of the word. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britain attempted to treat the Thirteen Colonies as mercantile colonies for a long time. Remember what colonialism in the Mercantile Age was supposed to work like: 1) obtain land that has raw materials you need 2) provide workforce you use exploitively 3) extract raw materials from that land. 4) Restict economic growth in colonies deliberately to focus purely on raw material extraction; industry and external trade happen only with parent country, NOT colonies. Everything I just described the is how the 13 colonies were treated by Britain. Colonists were sent to work the land and provide raw materials for Britain; naval stores, furs and agricultural products like rice and cotton were the main raw materials that Britain was extracting. Colonists were mainly the workforce and had little in the way of political rights; remember the whole taxation without representation thing the Colonists got up in arms over? The other part of the work force was slaves, which were considerably numerous; and self-evidently, they did not have political rights either. Economic growth was legally restricted by all sorts of laws that prevented trade and industry in the 13 colonies, the Navigation Acts, Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Intolerable Acts, Townshend Acts, etc. On the second point, European colonization of Africa is still based on this model, but the colonizers aren't the workforce, they're the management of the colonies. Africa already had a sufficient population to work all of the mines and fields and whatnot, and so didn't need to have colonists or slaves imported to work those areas. What they needed was white people to manage such (essentially enslaved) workforce, and then support staff for those white people. That's how it was coloninized, but it was still colonized primarily for the purpose of raw material extraction; Southern Africa and all the countries you note were British colonies for the sole purpose of providing mineral wealth to Britain in the form of raw materials and precious goods. They were NOT merely some sort of romantic terra nullius for the British to go set up little Britains around the world. The white settlers did do that, but largely the purpose of those White settlers was to establish political control and thus maximize control over the flow of raw materials. Do you think its any coincidence that the main political force in British South Africa (Cecil Rhodes) was primarily involved in running mining companies? --Jayron 32 11:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "colony" comes from the idea of a "settlement".[1] Hence, Jamestown would qualify as a colony, while 19th century Poland would not. It's easy to see why an isolated collection of ants could be called a "colony". (What the ants themselves might call it is unknown.) Any kind of isolated settlement can be called a "colony", hence the term "nudist colony" (a label which I gather that actual nudists don't care for, but that's beyond their ccntrol.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course plenty of middle cases where it is difficult to decide if annexation or colonisation should be used. See for example the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy, which was the continuation of the takeover of Africa through colonisation. See also the expansion of Russia into far away Siberia and Central Asia. Were Siberia and Central Asia colonised, or annexed? It took place at the same time as when Western Europe took over their colonies, after all, so why not consider them successful colonisation attempts? But Siberia starts was next door to European Russia, just like Poland, so should it be annexation? It is a continuum, not a set of categories. And there are other names for land grabs. --Lgriot (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very apt and well explained. --Jayron 32 15:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism is almost gone. It has become something new/different called Neocolonialism. --Kharon (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it never really went away. What happened is the American model of imperialism has taken over; by replacing government power with corporate power, countries can exploit workers in other nations in the same way that they used to, but the governments of those countries are insulated from the negative impression of colonialism because they are insulated by the layer of corporatism. Private corportations act as power structures in the same way that governments do, but are not perceived in liberal and neoliberal tradition as government, so they are not bound to the same responsibilities as governments. Simply put, America got very successful at outsourcing it's exploitive colonialism to corporations, such that the government can pretend it doesn't happen. America as a society benefits from such colonialism in the exact same way that Mercantile age powers benefit from government-sponsored colonialism, but the American government keeps its hands clean from the nasty side products of colonialism. All of that is essentially what Neocolonialism is. --Jayron 32 11:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this corporate colonialism as new as you suggest? Hudson's Bay Company, etc. Discus. Hayttom (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also East India Company. The South Sea Company engaged in the slave trade unwillingly. I don't see how it can be said that the British "enslaved" the workforce of the Gold Coast, for example. The people could work in the mines or not, as they chose. Slavery was abolished in 1834. From pt:wp:

Província ultramarina é uma divisão administrativa criada pelo Estado Novo português e atribuído por este às colónias portuguesas, nomeadamente Angola, Guiné, Moçambique, São Tomé e Príncipe, Cabo Verde, Macau, Estado da Índia e Timor.

A primeira colónia atribuída esta designação foi o Estado da Índia, em 1946, como forma política de evitar que Portugal nos fóruns internacionais fosse considerado uma potência colonial. As outras colónias portuguesas passaram a ter esta designação no ano de 1951, abolindo assim o conceito de "Império Colonial Português". Esta designação apareceu devido à renovação do Conceito Ultramarino Português e ao consequente aparecimento de uma nova Política Ultramarina Portuguesa e de uma Solução Portuguesa.

O regime político de Salazar e Marcello Caetano consideravam que esses territórios não eram colónias, mas sim parte integrante e inseparável de Portugal, considerando-o como uma "Nação Multirracial e Pluricontinental".

Em 1975, esta designação perdeu o seu significado após a Revolução dos Cravos pois todas as colónias portuguesas, à exceção de Macau, se tornaram independentes de Portugal. Macau passou a designar-se de "Território chinês sob administração portuguesa", pois localizava-se, obviamente, na China, e por isso esta designação perdurou até 1999, quando Macau, a última colónia portuguesa, foi transferida para a soberania da República Popular da China.

[Província ultramarina [overseas provinces] is an administrative division created by the Portuguese Estado Novo [New State] and attributed by them to the Portuguese colonies, namely Angola, Guinea, Mozambique, St Thomas and Prince, Cape Verde, Macao, State of India and Timor.

The first colony attributed this designation was the State of India, in 1946, as a political form to avoid that Portugal in the international forums might be considered a colonial power. The other Portuguese colonies passed to have this designation in the year 1951, thus abolishing the concept of "Portuguese Colonial Empire." This designation appeared due to the renovation of the Portuguese Overseas Concept and to the consequent appearance of a new Portuguese Overseas Politics and of a Portuguese Solution.

The political regime of Salazar and Marcello Caetano considered that these territories were not colonies, but truly an integral part and inseparable from Portugal, considering it as a "Multiracial and Pluricontinental Nation".

In 1975, this designation lost its significance after the Carnation Revolution when all the Portuguese colonies, with the exception of Macao, became independent of Portugal. Macao passed to be designated "Chinese territory under Portugueseadministraation", thus located, obviously, in China, and for that the designation lasted till 1999, when Macao, the last Portuguese colony, was transferred to the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.]

After the revolution the people grumbled that the newspapers were still calling the colonies "overseas provinces". They said "They should call them colonies, because that's what they are." 46.208.167.127 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wall at the American-Mexican border made of, and how long is it?[edit]

I think it's an actual physical wall. I recall seeing pictures of it. The problem is, the borderline is mostly desert. So, wouldn't the desert be enough of a barrier? How do Mexicans even cross the border anyway and survive the desert? Is this border similar to the one between the Koreas or different? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the article titled Mexico–United States barrier do you have further questions about after you had read it? --Jayron 32 16:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apparently there is another title called Mexican-American border. Weird. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it weird? The Mexican-American border is not the same thing as the barrier along the border. The article on the border is already so long, that a split probably makes sense. And the article on the barrier is linked to multiple times within the article on the border. Including prominently in the Mexico–United States border#Barrier section. And even the section on the barrier within the border article already answers the question of what it's made of and how long it is. The article on the barrier does of course also link to the article on the border, including in the very first sentence. You've been on the RD for going on 6? years IIRC, if you haven't learnt by now that we have multiple article on multiple different things, and they often link to each other where relevant, you might as well just give up. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's got a case of "The Mondays"... on Wednesday! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on feedback received here and else I've rephrased my reply.

Could you explain why you think it's weird?

The Mexican-American border is related to but different from the barrier along the border. The article on the border is quite long as is the article on the barrier, so a split probably makes sense. Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive encyclopaedia, so where necessary, there may be multiple on different but related subjects if it's not possible to cover these in a single article without creating one that is overwhelming long. (And probably confusing, if someone only wants to learn the basics of something, but instead comes across an extreme level of detail on one specific area.)

Note that the article on the barrier is linked to multiple times within the article on the border, so even if you just came across the article on the border this should not be a problem. In fact there's a prominent link in the Mexico–United States border#Barrier section. And besides that section seems to answer your question of what it's made of and how long it is.

You've seemed to ask separate albeit related questions in your comments from those in your subject heading which is always confusing. If you feel the article on the barrier does not adequately cover these seperate questions there are several links to the article on the border in the article on the barrier, including in the very first sentence so even if you just read what Jayron32 suggested, you should have come across the article on the border.

You've been asking questions on the RD for a long time, often being directed to articles. If you want to learn more, it'll be very helpful if you're able to read articles sufficiently. Including where necessary, links to related articles or sources which are likely to cover your questions inside those articles. And preferably finding these articles yourself where possible. As said, by Jayron32, if there are specific parts of your question which aren't covered by the articles, you're welcome to seek clarification here although I would suggest Korean Demilitarized Zone and Desert#Human relations would also be important reads. (Noting of course as the first articles makes clear, not everyone does survive the desert, and not all people illegally crossing at the Mexican-American border from the Mexican side are Mexicans.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists v. republicans in Belfast[edit]

I find it interesting (although not surprising) that there were and are political divisions between neighborhoods in Belfast: some are largely republican, e.g. Falls Road, Belfast, and others are largely loyalist, e.g. Shankill Road. Why? I can imagine two simple reasons: that this wasn't the case before the Troubles, but violence and military policy made it outright dangerous (or at least very highly inconvenient) to live in a neighborhood with others from the opposite side, so minorities on both sides gradually moved away and settled in areas where they agreed with the majority; or that before the Troubles the natural inclination to live with one's friends and compatriots (and not to live with one's un-friends) produced self-segregation, so the Troubles saw comparatively little population exchange. So basically, I'm saying "it was that way beforehand, so the Troubles reinforced the existing status" or "it wasn't that way beforehand, but it arose in connection with the Troubles". Is either of these correct? If so, which one's fundamentally closer to being right, or if both are quite wrong, what's the fundamental reason for this population distribution? Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can probably imagine, this is really secondary to the religious divisions, i.e. the neighbourhoods were actually divided along Catholic or Protestant lines before the Troubles. (Now that I think of it, this is not very helpful!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it helpful? You point to my second suggestion and say that it's basically the correct answer. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I realized as I posted that all I really know is anecdotes from my wife's extended family in Belfast, haha. But based on their stories there have been sectarian religious neighbourhoods for generations, back to the 1920s. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to read about the lead up to the Troubles at Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. The divisions have been there for a very long time. You might find the quotes in [2] interesting as a background to the civil rights issue. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At an early stage of the Troubles, there was a campaign by paramilitaries of "burning-out" the houses of those from the rival community, so those areas that were a mixed quickly became single-community; there is safety in numbers. In this street on the border between two areas, all the houses owned by Catholics had been burned by Protestants (August 1969). Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't entirely over even now. See [3] for instance about some families being driven out of their homes in the last few weeks. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of both. Some areas were heavily one side or the other pre-troubles and then the sectarian violence led to the remaining minority community leaving. Other areas were mixed but ended up with one community. Look at the election results for Belfast Dock constituency in the regional parliament for example. Until the 1960s it was marginal, often electing Unionists, who would have been supported by the protestant community. During the 1960s it started to trend nationalist but was still nearly 40% Unionist. The equivalent area today would be New Lodge, which is over 90% catholic on the census figures. I've friends who work for Sinn Féin and they told me that their polling figures there are 85%+ with any Unionist candidates getting derisory vote shares of less than 1%. Valenciano (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, may I point out that we have an article on this topic, with some data? Secondly, the OP appears to assume that Northern Ireland was entirely peaceful prior to 1969. In fact, there was a brutal civil war in 1919-22 with considerable violence in the North, and a much older tradition of threatening political violence even before that, with regular riots throughout the 19th century. More importantly, both sides banned intermarriage and Roman Catholics were forbidden to attend integrated schools, so it was almost impossible to have an integrated household (which is the fast track to integrated neighbourhoods). It's a couple of decades since I studied this, but my sense is that there has always been self-segregation: what changed in 1969 was that the boundaries become set in stone. There is good census data for Ireland, the full records have been published up to 1911 and (unlike GB) the Irish census has always included religious data, so someone has almost certainly given found the answer to your question already: the late Emrys Jones certainly published on the topic. I can't find a definitive study, but you can find out more here, here and if you have academic access here. Or look at the records yourself. Matt's talk 10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly common for politicians to just avoid the problem of adults not mixing happily by foisting the problem onto their children. However the research does not indicate that forced desegregation works, see [4] for instance. If the parents want it then it will work -- but if the parents are not convinced their prejudices pass on to the children in the desegregated schools and the problem can be worse than before. People don't get to automatically like each other just by mixing, this is just some wishful thinking. Dmcq (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting link, which will obviously take time to read & digest. Your point is helpful, but I think that you perhaps interpreted my claim as being broader than I intended. If intermarriage and integrated education are taboo, then there will be (almost) no integrated (cross-community) households. You can build walls between black and white. If intermarriage, followed by integrated education of the children of such marriages, is permitted, then you get shades of grey, which makes it harder to draw lines. Obviously people can and do draw such lines, but it becomes harder. And this causal mechanism relies entirely on the parents' choices, not (as you suggest) the state imposing anything onto children. However, I look forward to learning more from the empirical data that you have provided. Matt's talk 14:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think strong laws dealing with discrimination at work and ensuring even small companies don't discriminate in their employment would be far more successful. Children learn to follow their parents, adults learn more by their own experience. It may be though I'm indulging in something like [5] in my conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland which seems to be broadly supported by the Nationalists (if not thge Loyalists) and legislation including The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and the Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. How effective this is, I don't know, but it exists. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]