Talk:Colonialism/Archive 2

Picture of President Bush

The picture of George Bush denouncing Russia's foray into Georgia makes a clear point of stating that he did this five years after the invasion of Iraq. While true, this tidbit is either irrelevant, or is being used to suggest he is a hypocrite- Due to the terms of Wikipedia's policy of political neutrality, I propose deleting said excerpt.

• I agree, this bit seems to imply a hypocrisy. Too biased and should be edited Quark1005 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

...Then do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.235.239 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture and the text are relevant. American hypocrites remove unpleasant statements about US politicians and write negatively about the leaders of other countries. Great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.146.136 (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Imperialism Removal or Re-placement?

While Soviet 'Imperialism' in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union had negatives for those subjected peoples and countries, I am uncomfortable with its inclusion in an article about Colonialism and opposed to its placement in the Neocolonialism subsection. Neocolonialism refers to a specific kind of (capitalist) colonialism by former Western colonial powers after nominal decolonization in the 'Third World'. Soviet actions in Eastern Europe may have been imperial but they do not fit within the definition of neocolonialism and you will not find it discussed in the main article on neocolonialism for good reason. Shouldn't this topic be covered in an article on imperialism, not colonialism? Can anyone find legitimate texts discussing/characterizing 'colonial' features of Soviet bloc dominance? Thanks--David Barba (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoken of Neutral Point of View. "Soviet 'Imperialism' in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union had negatives.." had negatives for whom? What about positives? Education, employment, and medicare were guaranteed in Eastern Bloc. Is it bad? Soviets didn't trade slaves as Western imperialists in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.146.136 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Need to Remove "China in Africa" Section"

I do not think China's relations with Africa constitute neocolonialism, yet. They have established economic ties with African countries for natural resource exploitation, but this has not yet included the kind of military and political interventionism that constitutes imperialism, colonialism, or even neocolonialism. This relationship is so new that I think we ought to be cautious about its characterization. If there are no serious objections I will remove the section in the coming week.--David Barba (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with the Liberation of Goa

hi... We're trying to get up a functional wikipedia page regarding the capture of the Portuguese colony of Goa by the Indians in 1961. So far we have had abundant information from indian military and history sources, but are faced with a paucity of information when it comes to portraying the Portuguese side of the conflict. we would appreciate any inputs you can offer in this regard for The Liberation of Goa

Do forgive me for calling it the 'Liberation of Goa'. I imagine that it would be called differently by the portuguese, and we would want to reflect that too in the page.

Thank you. Tigerassault 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I think the picture of the world map showing the area of colonization will make a better headline image--Troop350 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The map "European colonies around the world in 1674" seems not to be correct in respect to Japan. The area marked green shows the island Shikoku. Shikoku never was colonized by the Netherlands. The Netherlands have held a trading colony at Dejima near to Nagasaki at that time. This is a small island at the Western side of Kyushu (perhaps to small to show it on this map), not the big island East of it.

The state of this article

This article has, unfortunately, mushroomed into a complete mess. Encyclopaedias should not be devoting whole paragraphs to analysis by one author (specifically Hannah Arendt) - for starters it reads like a freshman student's dissertation, it is also not good practice. I removed these sections. Gsd2000 22:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that such huge deletions should be a result of consensus. Also, dissertations are completed by individuals completing a doctorate. Kukini 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Kukini, do not place vandalism tags on my talk page. You first stumbled across this article yesterday, whereas if you even bother to look through the edit history of this article you will see I have been contributing since 12th March 2006 (although after a brief respite I have come back to find it has exploded out of control). What I was doing was not vandalism but being bold. Have some respect for your fellow Wikipedians. (Did you also actually read the very page on dissertation that you linked to? "a dissertation is a document that presents the author's research and findings and is submitted in support of candidature for a degree or professional qualification" - ie not just a doctorate. I happened to have done a dissertation for my undergrad many years ago). As for the article itself, I'm sorry but those paragraphs just do not belong in this article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a critical review of one author's research. I am removing them again. Rather than put them back, you should justify why they should be included. Gsd2000 11:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The following are some snippets from the section I removed. I hope it should make it clear to everyone why I am excising this whole segment from the article: "According to Hannah Arendt...", "Arendt underlined this contradiction...", "According to Arendt...", "Arendt clearly states...", "something which ... Hannah Arendt ... points out...", "Thus, according to Hannah Arendt...", "Hannah Arendt's reasoning ultimately leads her...". This is way too much overreliance on one particular source (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Check_multiple_sources). Furthermore, it adds unnecessary guff to an article that is already too long. There are various other areas where this article could be snipped down to size too. There is simply too much information in this article - information (ie text) has to be removed, and not reworded. Gsd2000 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Article size. Deleting important information is not a way to proceed. Contrary to what you say, information should be reworded if necessary, not removed. On such an important topic as colonialism, it is clearly impossible to cover correctly, without abusive simplifications, all the implications, events, etc. in a single Wikipedia page. Thus the need to use summaries. But, again, deleting content, especially concerning "hot issues" such as the role of the Church or the extermination (active or passive) of Native Americans is not acceptable. Thanks, however, for your effective improvements where you did choose to reword instead of deleting. Lapaz 16:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I do understand concerns of quality of editing, again, this should be improved, not deleted. Hannah Arendt was a way of introducing the difference between British & French colonialism, which is widely used in scholarly circles. If you find another way of dealing with this subject, please do it; else, I believe Arendt's part should be introduced again, and reworded if necessary. Lapaz 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time this morning to look at the actual text of the deleted paragraph so I'm going to make some general hand-waving assertions. I think the question should be... "If all reference to Hannah Arendt were removed from the deleted text, would it be appropriate to have that text in the article? In other words, does Arendt's work represent the mainstream of scholarly opinion on this topic?" If so, then I would keep the section and remove the "According to Arendt..." phrases except at the beginning of the paragraph. And then a footnote citation at the end of the paragraph. This keeps the paragraph from seeming like a paean to Arendt.

"Role of the Church or the extermination (active or passive) of Native Americans is not acceptable". This part must be present. Church supported colonization and atrocities. Lets face it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.146.136 (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the text about Arendt's perspective does NOT represent mainstream of scholarly opinion, then this should be clearly stated and the perspective should be summarized in a few short sentences. The rest of the text might deserve an article of its own.

Hope this helps.

--Richard 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, I fear that you think you own this article somewhat. You obviously took a dislike to my attempt to shorten it, and have come in and reverted large chunks. This is not really on. If articles are only ever reworded and not pruned then they will only get bigger and bigger. Gsd2000 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, whilst reverting you appear to have failed to read the article in its new state, so it contained duplicate information. Had you actually read the article, you would see that I did not delete the role of the church or the extermination of Native Americans: I merely summarised it far more succinctly than you did, whilst still retaining links to other articles for the reader to read more if they wish. Therefore I have reverted your wholesale reversions. Gsd2000 21:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And you readded the Banania thing, without contributing to the discussion here Talk:Colonialism#Y.27a_bon_banania. You appear to have taken a break from WP, which is fine, but you can't come back two months later and then immediately revert all the changes that have occurred in your absence. Gsd2000 21:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why individual authors are cited like this

Our NPOV policies pretty much prevent any analysis from being stated in Wikipedia's own narrative voice, and NOR prevents us from alluding vaguely to a consensus of historians. If our articles are going to have any coherent discussion of distinctions between related concepts or of causality, we need to attribute it. Frankly, in many cases, when I'm writing, I'd rather not leap through that hoop, and I think that the resulting prose can be a bit clunky, but I think it is generally of value, as long as the cited authors are reasonably representative of a wide current of thinking about the topic. Again, Wikipedia's rules pretty much force this, but I don't think any of us would want the articles to be reduced to a mere recitation of dry fact. That is chronicle, not history. - Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish, Portuguese and European Colonization

I have massively rejigged these sections. It read too much like a separate chronological history of the relevant countries and there was not enough on how the colonialism differed. One cannot talk of Spanish and Portuguese exploration in isolation from each other, so I merged these sections. Gsd2000 15:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your recent improvements. However, please be careful with deleting text, as not everyone may agree with that. The correct way is usually to spin-out articles if the main article is too long, not to delete text, which only oversimplify reality and history. I note in particular (I don't know if it's you or not, doesn't matter), that the part on the genocide of the Native Americans has been deleted. This is totally unacceptable, as this debate can't be escaped. Various sourced POV can be included, but deletion of it is not tolerable. The subject about The Roman Catholic Church and Colonialism is also a highly debatable issue, but should certainly not be escaped. The Valladolid Controversy is very famous and should be called by its name. Now, I haven't touched your deletion of the part on Hannah Arendt which you consider a "freshman dissertation". The proper way to proceed is to improve it, not delete it. Hannah Arendt, IMHO, is a key thinker of imperialism and colonialism, and thus qualifies as a reliable source. Your main argument in deleting it seemed to be that this was over-focusing on one thinker. Please do add others thinkers, instead of deleting her. Over all, again, thanks for your improvements! Lapaz 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, neither the church nor the destruction of the native population were "deleted", they were made more consise, to this: "...Spanish settlement of the New World was catastrophic: native peoples were no match for Spanish technology, ruthlessness or their diseases which decimated the indigenous population." "Spanish treatment of the indigenous populations provoked a fierce debate at home over whether Indians were human and if so, whether they were entitled to the basic rights of mankind. Bartolomé de Las Casas, author of A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, championed the cause of the natives, and was opposed by Sepúlveda, who claimed Amerindians were "natural slaves"." and "Religious zeal played a large role in Spanish and Portuguese overseas activities. While the Pope himself was a political power to be heeded (as evidenced by his authority to decree whole continents open to colonization by particular kings), the Church also sent missionaries to convert to the Catholic faith the "savages" of other continents. The Dominicans and Jesuits, notably Francis Xavier in Asia, were particularly active in this endeavour. Many buildings erected by the Jesuits still stand, such as the Cathedral of Saint Paul in Macau and the Santisima Trinidad de Paraná in Paraguay, an example of a Jesuit Reduction." If every angle of colonialism was discussed in depth then this article would become a book. It's an encyclopaedia. Be succinct, and link to other pages of interest to the reader. Please also remember that you are not the sole custodian of the article - to be honest, although I know you mean well, I find your "thanks for improving it" a little patronising. Gsd2000 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Spanish settlement of the New World was catastrophic:.." Where is this section? The blunt bias in the history articles in English Wikipedia makes Wiki history useless. Either we remove all genocide from Wikipedia (including Holocaust), or bring back and expand sections of "Church and the genocide of Natives", Belgium and the genocide in Congo, etc.

Going further. "The reasons for the practice of colonialism at this time include: The profits to be made." This euphemism implies some sort of fair trade. More accurate and honest statement would be "to rob and exploit natives". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.146.136 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Precursors of Colonialism

It would be nice if the article mentioned the precursors of Atlantic colonialism in the Mediterranean: the trade empires of the Italian city-states in the East, such as Venice and Genoa, which began with the Crusades, and the Aragonese Empire in the West. FilipeS 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we shall start from Classical Antiquity.--Nixer 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

Please have a look at the Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide, exterior advice is needed. Thanks, Lapaz 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated on the Herero and Namaqua Genocide and Lothar von Trotha, as there's just two editors (myself and one other) active right now, and we're going nowhere fast! Even if you don't want to get involved actively, keeping a watch on the page would be appreciated. Greenman 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1st/2nd European colonization wave subarticles

Lapaz, another thing you have done is to create sub-articles which are just duplicates of large chunks of the text in this article: The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century) and The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century). Not only are these not very encyclopaedic titles (who would search for them?), but they are also a subjective and arbitrary slicing of time, that could be sources of contention for other contributors. The same could potentially be said regarding the Age of Discovery, but at least this is a commonly used phrase in English. "The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)" is not. Furthermore, the fact that the same information now appears in three articles is going to make a nightmare for maintaining. I'm sorry, but I've listed these articles for deletion, here and here. Gsd2000 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the titles of the article can take place in the relevant talk pages. Personnaly, I consider the title "Age of Exploration" at least as flawed as chronological distinctions. Of course they can be argued, but globally I'm sure you don't consider New Imperialism to be the same thing as 15th century colonialism. And "Age of Exploration" is an expression with no scientific value, and completely ethnocentric (Europeans discover the world). Lapaz 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider "the Age of Discovery" flawed, it's a recognised phrase in the English language, like "the Middle Ages". This is an English language Wikipedia. There are so many things wrong with an article entitled "The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)" I don't know where to begin. (a) a "wave" that lasted four centuries? (b) during the middle of this "wave" a whole continent gained its independence from Europe? (c) this "wave" suddenly stopped on December 31st 1899? (d) how is anyone ever going to stumble across this article unless as a link from another article? I have an extensive library on European colonialism, and I haven't come across this term once. It's downright OR. Gsd2000 15:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To do...

This article is getting down to a more reasonable size again. The "French colonial empire" section stands out as being an unnecessary digression into detail (there is already an article on this topic), and I am poised to take a hammer to it. There should also be some discussion of white emigration to the British Dominions. Gsd2000 19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is to judge what is "unnecessary digression into detail"? Again, see Wikipedia:Summary style and size issues (next section). Please also be sure that I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies, in particular concerning the GFDL licence and other copyright issues. The problem is not that "I consider myself the owner of the article", but the fact that you delete whole sections of the article claiming they are "unnecessary". I simply disagree, and you can't justify deletion simply by arguing size issues. Especially when you oppose yourself to the creation of sub-articles. Lapaz 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to sub-articles. I am just opposed to the two sub-articles you created. Gsd2000 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000, you have a nice Goebbels style editing. Whenever the article says something you don't like you cut it because "it is too big and this section is irrelevant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.146.136 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Size and deletion of sub-articles

Please refer to Wikipedia:Article size: certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.. Encyclopedical content should not be deleted only because of size issue. This can be resolved, creating sub-articles such as the First European colonization wave (15th-19th century) and The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century). Of course, if you delete sub-articles than you can't deal with the long page issue. Now, if you have concerns about the title of these sub-articles, we can find consensus for it. Please also see Wikipedia:Summary style for information about how to do summary of sub-articles in the main article (here, Colonialism). Lapaz 14:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information" - yes, I agree, but not when it's covered and coverable in other articles. The issue is not whether the information is valid and useful. The issue is does it have to be covered under an article entitled COLONIALISM? No, it does not. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a book, an essay, a dissertation or a thesis. Gsd2000 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In a controversial article, I strongly recommend keeping the following types of edits separate; mixing them in one edit can make it very hard to know the editor's intent:

• Removal of information one thinks is not encyclopedic at all.
  • If that material is at all longstanding, one should expect to discuss this on the talk page. It's usually useful for the person making the removals to start that discussion, possibly before the fact but certainly at time of removal. You can either copy the material to the talk page or just link from the talk page to the edit that removes the information.
• Cutting material from the article simply because it is too detailed for this article.
  • When possible, the person making the cuts should refactor the material, and indicate overtly where it is going. If that person cannot see where to take it, they should, again, bring the material to the talk page, or just link from the talk page to the edit.
• Significant rewrites that do not change the article's coverage.
  • There is nothing wrong with mixing in typo corrections, removal of inherently POV phrases like "it should be noted", etc., with either of the above, but if (for example) you are majorly rewording for NPOV reasons, it is best not to mix this with massive edits that do other things, because it can be very hard for other editors to spot what has changed.
• Moving material around within the article.
  • If you are moving material around within the article, it is often best to move on one edit and reword on another. This cannot always be done (as when you are merging two paragraphs), but when it can it is really helpful, because then people can see the diff where the rewording took place. And it is particularly confusing to move some material and cut other material in the same edit. - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Middle East

I disagree with the deletion of the content on the Middle East. The Leagues of Nation mandates certainly is relevant in an article on colonialism. Lapaz 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you care to look carefully, the League of Nations mandates page is still there. It's just not five paragraphs of detail that should be covered in another article. There is no need to drill into the specifics of these mandates on an article on colonialism - mention them, yes, but allow the reader to click on the link to mandates if you want to read more about them. Doing justice to "colonialism" does not involve going into depth on every angle on it - look at the British Empire article for an equally large topic that is succinct and well structured. Gsd2000 14:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not details, but basic information.

Articles for Deletion

FYI, for anyone interested there are two AFD discussions going on at

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century) Gsd2000 11:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement on which parts to include

Gsd2000 has recently decided that large parts of the article were unnecessary "details." (old edit). On much of these points, I fail to see how and why they would be superfluous details. He has repeatedly argued that the article was "too long", thus attempting to justify deletion of various sections (which we may discuss case by case, as it is easier to solve disputes this way than mixing all issues together). Wikipedia:Article Size and Wikipedia:Summary Style clearly states that "size is no reason to remove valid and useful information", and spin-off articles may be created to solve such size problems. Thus the creation of The first European colonization wave and The Second European colonization wave articles, which Gsd2000 immediately asked for deletion. Henceforth, on one hand Gsd2000 argues that the article is too big so we should delete large parts of it; on the other hand, when attempts are made to solve this size issues, he simply argues that the sub-articles should be deleted. In Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, Gsd2000 may also read:

Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs:

* some readers need just a quick summary (lead section), * more people need a moderate amount of info (a set of multi-paragraph sections) * and yet others need a lot of detail (links to full-sized separate articles).

We must serve all groups.

Now, on the specific subsections Gsd2000 is repeatedly deleting — keep in mind that each Wikipedia article is supposed to stand-alone (you can't argue that because another article has some information that it shouldn't be included here — of course colonialism is a very large issue, that's why we need to make sub-articles! for ex., Herero and Namaqua Genocide... ). Lapaz 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation of sub-articles

Gsd2000 repeatedly deletes links to sub-articles The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century) and The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century), created to deal with the size issue. He claims we can't include them here & make spin-off, because he has asked for their deletion. For the time being, they have not been deleted, and they seem a simple way of breaking up the article into two different chronological periods. Lapaz 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of Amerindian people

He claims the issue shouldn't be included. It is, however, sourced and I can't see how an article on colonialism can fail to deal with this debate. Lapaz 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Middle East

He claims it is unnecessary. Why? I disagree. Lapaz 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are misrepresenting what I said. I edit your verbose paragraphs down, then you claim I have "deleted" it or I say it is "unncessary". Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or are you simply failing to read the article before simply reverting it back to your version that you like best? Gsd2000 02:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Church & missionaries

He claims there is unnecessary information. I disagree. Lapaz 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Church activity is a key part to understand colonialism. But Christians can't accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.146.136 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Leyes de Burgos and Code Noir

Gsd pretends they are irrelevant in an article on colonialism. I disagree. Lapaz 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You should not use inflammatory language such as "pretends". You are implying that it is fact that they are relevant and that I am telling a lie by suggesting that they are not, when in fact it can be argued either way. Gsd2000 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

US and French foreign interventions

Also claim they shouldn't be included. If I got him right, his argument is that this is related to "imperialism" and not to "colonialism". I fail to see how imperialism can be so clearly distinguished from colonialism!!! Note that the interventions mentioned do not include all of the wars, but those clearly related with colonialism and the subsequent decolonization. If colonized people hadn't struggled for their independence, much of these foreign interventions would have no object. Must clearly be included. Lapaz 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• At the very least we need something that ties together these two topics (and neocolonialism). There is a widespread and notable view among scholars that the end of direct political control at the time of formal decolonisation was, in many places, exactly that (the end of a formality), and nothing more. - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between the British type of colonization and the French one

Finally, Gsd2000 deleted the section which attempted to deal with the two rival models of colonization, British (indirect rule) and French (assimilation). He argued that it was a "dissertation" and that attributing it to Hannah Arendt made it POV-like. I don't know if it's a "dissertation", and it may certainly be improved. In this particular case, the reference to Arendt only provides some source for this, and the distinction between these two models is widely recognized in scholarly circles. I have not re-introduced this part, but wonder if some other user think the distinction between British & French colonization should be addressed (IMO, of course!), and if so, in which way (Hannah Arendt seems a main-stream enough author to provide some reference, but of course, many others could be used - or added, as to provide various sources for a consensual distinction). Here's the deleted passage. Lapaz 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, for what it is worth, historians of Africa tend to argue these days that there was more difference in the formal ideology than in the on-the-ground practice -- specifically that for dealing with the majority of indigenous people French methods were also "indirect", i.e. relied on coercively coopting indigenous leaders and their ascribed authority in order to limit personnel expenses on white colonial officials. (There was also religious discrimination against Muslims in access to citizenship for much of the colonial period, e.g. in Algeria). Conversely in at least some British territories there was a class of Africans who were "exempted from Native law" and fell under the same civil law as the colonizers. For both powers over time there was an increasing growth of African presence in colonial bureaucracies, especially after World War II but also varying with territory in both cases. The ideology does matter, of course, and there is significance -- including to the meaning of decolonization and debates over neocolonialism -- to the fact that évolués could be elected to the French parliament, e.g. Félix Houphouet-Boigny, later long-time president of Ivory Coast. But in many ways the ideologies matter mainly as alternative modes of justification. The fundamental characteristic distinction of citizen vs. subject, as Mahmood Mamdani puts it, was found across the colonial world, with the overwhelming majority of people colonized by the French being subjects not citizens.

Also, I think the passage from Arendt actually is quite misleading, because what she refers to as British "indirect rule" in the terms described, for the period in question (before World War II), must mean essentially the Dominions: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The vast majority of British territories were either Crown Colonies or protectorates, which were not part of the Commonwealth and "governed by local elites" to the extent the passage implies until after decolonization. Rather they were directly administered by the British, who incorporated local elites into their bureaucracy -- e.g. "chief" was a colonial official, which is why the same English word got applied to holders of what had been very different kinds of offices, why the British had to invent chiefs where people didn't have them, and reduce kings to so-called "paramount chiefs" (very problematic article btw), and why their responsibilities and functions tended to get homogenized within territories across ethnic lines, and also among different colonies. India might be argued to be somewhere between the status of most African or Caribbean colonies and the Dominions, I suppose -- but in Africa, even in territories with relatively large white populations like Southern Rhodesia, Swaziland or Kenya, British settlers had only an advisory role and governors ruled by decree.

Arendt is an interesting thinker, but as a philosopher may have been more attuned to ideals and ideologies rather than to practices that didn't necessarily match them, especially for the territories outside of the Dominions on the British side, and for local and regional governance on the French side. Ngwe 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments seem perfectly senseful. Maybe you could write, if you find some time, a short passage, including the ideological difference between both "models" (which has become a classic), and then a part on modern historiography and insistence on actual practices? Lapaz 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz - you disagree so you simply revert to your version (thereby reverting lots of my edits that you could not possibly disagree with, such as fixing typos)? How is that being constructive? Who says you are the sole authority on colonialism and the final arbiter? I have as much input to decide what is relevant as you do. Your waffly paragraphs still need to be cut down, not to mention your oddly worded English (e.g. "To poor fullfillment of the laws in many cases lead to inummerable protests and claims. In fact, the laws were so often poorly applied that they were seen as simply a legalization of the previous poor situation.", "After the American Revolution and the 1776 independence of the United States, the colonization was not quite finished.") corrected, and I shall continue to do so. Gsd2000 22:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spin-off & content dispute

This edit [1] marked "included again deleted parts and spin-off links supposed to deal with size of the article" is nothing of the sort. You just simply reverted the article, thereby deleting some rewording and additions I had made, which are shown with this diff [2]. Gsd2000 22:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What's more, you've created these spin-off articles and yet you refuse to allow (not that you are in a position to "allow" anything) the main article to be condensed? Where on earth is the logic in that? Gsd2000

Please do not reverse an argument I've used against you. This is called: sophistics, and is of course quite smart, but will not work with me. Let's be clear: you've been deleting large parts of the article, and when I created sub-articles to deal with your "article size" justification for these deletions, you've asked for deletion of these sub-articles. So don't accuse me now of "refusing" you of whatever: as you point out yourself, I am not in a position to "allow" or "refuse" you anything. Instead of getting angry at me because you can't discuss your moves here, make your point here, clearly, and I'm sure that if you find rational arguments — and I hear what you say: apart of your despicable attitude (calling me a vandal, attacking my English because you can't attack the text itself), you've made some good points, of course! — although I think (i'm not sure) that the parts you've selected weren't written by me, but that's beside the point; honestly, I don't care much about what you think concerning my English, the point is to deal with the article not me.) This takes me to the last point: entitling a subsection on me is what I call an ad hominem attack. I'm sure you speak English well enough to know what this means. Now, let's deal with the content of the article. Thanks, and don't worry, you're free enough to edit however you want. Just make sure to explain to everybody why you want to delete parts on, say, the destruction of the Amerindian people (to stay on a subject you surely know quite well). Cheers! Lapaz 00:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem that I see with your contributions is that they get lost in minutiae, and lose sight of the bigger picture. The result is an incoherent article consisting of a banded-together collection of unconnected paragraphs that fails to give the overview it should, and instead delves relatively deeply (for an article entitled "colonialism") into seemingly random and specific aspects of it. Your argument against my attempts to prune this article are essentially of the following form:

• A) sentence S is on a topic related to colonialism
• B) any and all information related to colonialism is relevant to an article on colonialism
• C) therefore, removal of sentence S constitutes removal of relevant information
• D) relevant information should not be removed from a Wikipedia article
• E) therefore, sentence S should not be removed

Well, the logical conclusion of that is an article that contains every single piece of information known to humanity relating to "colonialism". I justify my actions on the grounds that "B" is a false premise. You take the destruction of the Amerindian people as your example, but note that I did not remove all information about it, and I left in links to the Valladolid Controversy and Population history of American indigenous peoples. Calling this a "deletion" is just incorrect. I'm just trying to say in 10 words what you say in 100, or even 1000. Gsd2000 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't deal with colonialism starting from the 15th century (some would want to start with the Roman Empire...) in 100 words. Of course we have to go into details to explain how it happenned. Of course we're not going to deal with all of the details here, in this article. But we have to organize this article as to make it a valid place to start looking for info on Wiki about Colonialism. This is the only page on Wiki which can centralize such info (simply because it's called "Colonialism"). "We're not going to write a book", but you know Wikipedia is not limited by size. So, of course we have to give a quick picture here, but I don't consider this edit to be the way to proceed. You've been rude enough to call me vandal when you do that! Although clearly you don't have consensus for it! If you remove this info, you have to place it somewhere else. That's why I created the "two waves" sub-articles. Please try to find consensus and a way to resolve this dispute instead of edit-warring, calling me vandal, etc. And, please understand that what you consider "unnecessary detail" may not be so in the eyes of everybody. Hence, you correctly stated that you maintained the link to the Valladolid Controversy (which, for strange reasons, seems quite unknown in the US — I know you're not American, just noting this by the way), but you made it so that it appeared as a simple debate. I take this one, simple, "detail" to show you what I don't agree with you: you may consider the Valladolid Controversy has irrelevant, and only worth mentionning passing by. However, I totally disagree with you: it was the main debate in the Spanish Empire at this time, is popularly known (except in the States, but it has given rise to a film, etc.), concerned the existence of souls (other part which you changed although it is important to note that they were asking themselves if they had souls: this is a religious debate, not just some biological questionning about if these "monkeys" were human beings) in native Indians, etc. Don't be surprised if I revert your massive deletion soon. Lapaz 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Don't be surprised if I revert your massive deletion soon." - all your good words and attempt to portray yourself as an honourable contributor are spoiled by that last sentence. This is my main issue with you: anything goes, as long as it's what you want. Two can play at this game though - it's called an edit war, and it gets everyone nowhere. Gsd2000 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting this article up - five "eras" not two

Instead of the two "wave" subarticles implemented by Lapaz, I propose the following divisions (I'm just describing the concepts here, I'm not suggesting the exact wording).

• 1 Initial Expansion - Portuguese capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the American Declaration of Independence in 1776.
• 2 First Era of Decolonization - Independence of the USA, Haiti, Spanish America and Portuguese Brazil, 1776-1820 or so. This was a significant era and deserves its own section - settler colonies achieving maturity, loss of attachment to the mother countries and desire to rule themselves. It also saw the death-knell for Spain and Portugal as colonial powers.
• 3 Second Era of Expansion - initially India, Australia, South Africa, through the Scramble for Africa, the Pacific, the acquisition of Spain's remaining colonies by the USA, to the end of WW1. Jumping in at the New Imperialism misses out a whole segment of history.
• 4 Inter-war Period - redistribution of German/Turkish colonies as mandates to the Allies, rise of Japan. During this time there wasn't any advancement of European colonialism (save for a bit of Italian activity).
• 5 Second Era of Decolonization - WW2, to 1997, with the return of Hong Kong to China.

Comments? Gsd2000 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this proposal better than the break up by centuries. --Richard 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Pleased to hear that you accept considering dividing the article into various parts (this makes a change from your August 20 considerations: "There is simply too much information in this article - information (ie text) has to be removed, and not reworded." (sic). Now, you want to divide it into five parts? Why not? The more information there is, the best it is. There is only one fundamental point I disagree with: cutting it into geographical-national articles. This limits the scope of the article, and enforces a nationalist POV which we don't need here. Colonization was a global process, and could be called in fact "globalization" (if someone knew what this latter term meant). I see no reason to divide it into specific, national histories — we've all had that in school, Wikipedia surely can open up specific histories for us. This is not only an international argument I'm making here: it is, simply, a historical fact: on what criterias would you divide history according to nationalistic lines, apart of the national history you've been brough into? Especially when nation-states are so young... and didn't exist, for most of them (if not all), during what I've called (heresia!!!) the "first wave" of colonization.

Furthermore, I don't see how "Age of Exploration" is more scientific than dividing this topic along chronological lines. Of course, you can argue that dates don't fit well; you can also argue that the world has lived — and lives — according to different time-lines & periods; you may also argue, as the Annales School pointed out decades ago, that there are at least three time-lines to consider, short time-lines (human lives, basically); medium short-lives (generations and societies' memories); long time-lives (milleniums); we could add an extra-long time-live (the state of the planet, if not the universe), etc. Dates are always questionnable, so it's rather easy asking for deletion of my easy division under that argument. The point is, we've divided that article between these two "waves", because they are easy & obvious distinctions to make. If you need to question them, please do so, this will provide for an interesting article. But censoring is not the way to go.

I'll risk repeating myself: dividing into a "Haitian Revolution", "Age of Exploration", "History of Australia", etc., is in my POV not a good way to proceed, because it divides everything according to national lines, whilst colonialism was a global enterprise. As an aside, your "second era of decolonization" seems to forget that the Party of Congress was founded in 1885, and that many anti-colonialism movements became quite serious after WWI. Seems like you're forgetting all the first part of the 19th century; is that so because you don't consider thinking history according to time period? Lapaz 00:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How am I forgetting the first part of the 19th century? I mention South Africa, India and Australia as examples. Read up what was happening in those lands during the first part of the 19th century. Gsd2000 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And, decolonization does not mean anti-colonialism - you are confusing the two. Anti-colonialism existed as long as colonies did, even if there were not organised movements. Decolonization is when a metropole hands over (either voluntarily or involuntarily) sovereignty to a colonial government and recognises its independence. Gsd2000 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, take it easy, you're not forgetting anything (I'll let aside your obvious remark on anti-colonialism & decolonization — that doesn't make it more difficult to consider that decolonization suddenly sprang out in 1945; you know very well that such wasn't the case, and that to address decolonization, we can't ignore the organization of national liberation movements). Just, my point is: why should we only divide according to geographical lines? Why would a global, chronological approach not be legitimate? My idea is dividing into both lines: this way, the reader can choose if he wants an article only about "Colonization in... (North Africa/North America/India/British Empire/Dutch Empire/Middle East, etc. — note that even according to these divisions, we have to face the problem of dividing into geographical colonized lands, or according to the imperial colonizing powers"; or if he rather reads an article about Colonization from X to Y (I'll let the problem of exact date aside for the time being, but you see that geographical divisions don't make it easier than chronological divisions) or rather Colonization from W to Z. IMO, both approaches are legitimate, this is why I don't understand your firm opposition to the latter one. And, by definition, if we have an article called "Colonialism", this is a general article, which should address all. Of course, we can divide it according to geographical lines. But also according to temporal lines. Actually, you've seen that both have been done (and, far from removing content, it should be completed, as large parts are missing), probably because one can't go without the other. You seem to be afraid of repeating content from one page to another: but that is unavoidable: history is multidimensional, and if we concentrate on the history of colonialism, it is very hard to forget, for ex, the Cold War. The only problem is in focusing on colonialism and not on the fight between USSR, China, Europe & the US, but rather on the colonized people & states — which were of course involved in the Cold War struggle (that's actually the definition of the Cold War, that one couldn't avoid being taken into it). Lapaz 01:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your point on the national articles, and can see the validity of temporally-divided forks containing cross-national information. I still think though that the five themed chronological divisions (which can still overlap slightly) are more intuitive. One does not have to - nay, one should absolutely not, ignore the organization of national liberation movements outside of the "second decolonization era" section, for that section is just for the decades when the national liberation movements finally got what they wanted. Again you seem to be confusing anti-colonialism and decolonization. Also, I fail to see how you are arguing against a section entitled "Decolonization" when you yourself had put this era under "The Second European Colonization Wave". Gsd2000 01:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have adjusted the proposal above to take into account Lapaz' point regarding the need for temporally-divided forks containing cross-national information (not just subheadings), and added a comment from Richard that appeared on a AfD page that I have now retracted. For the record, the original state of the talk page prior to these tweaks appears here: [3]. Gsd2000 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Role of the USSR and China

USSR was a colonialist empire, China still has Tybet. Double standards. Xx236 12:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article ignores Russian colonialism, the result of which was the biggest existing empire. Xx236 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be described under "imperialism". Gsd2000 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The map shows Russia as a colonialist state. Xx236 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF is 'Tybet'? :) 86.16.139.140 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fork

I moved the history section to a new article, History of colonialism, in the same way that, e.g. India only briefly mentions its history and has a forked article History of India. As someone mentioned in the splitting debate, "colonialism" should primarily deal with the concept. Gsd2000 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's addition of "Ireland" to settler colony list

Firstly, Ireland was not a "settler" colony. The link provided by the anon IP [4] in his/her edit comment was to Plantations of Ireland. Fine, but if (s)he reads on within the paragraph, (s)he will read: "A fourth category may be considered for plantation colonies". Ireland was not a settler colony in the same vein as Canada, Australia etc. Gsd2000 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, it fulfills all of the characteristics of a settler-colony, most especially in the north of Ireland. A quick perusal of all academic textbooks on the conflict will confirm this. A read of, for instance, Michael McDonald's Children of Wrath (1986) will give you a detailed study of this. Frank Wright's Two Lands One Soil also treats the settler-colonial aspect of the conflict in depth. Unlike certain wikipedia editors these are political scientists whose specialisation is the conflict. These individuals know precisely what are the features of an academicaly defined settler-native conflict, and therefore a settler colony. They do not have some common understanding it it but rather a precise academic grasp of what settler-colonialism entails. As McDonald put it in his study of British colonial rule in Ireland, '[the settlers] wanted to turn the colony to their purposes, not those of the home country. The home country viewed the colony as a means to other ends, while the settlers regarded the colony- and especially their control over it- as the inviolable foundation of their position'(1986, page 18). And such was the way in Ireland, and the reason the Irish were never brought into the fold: the settler position of control depended upon exclusion of the natives, and because settlers ran the government policies (such as the Penal Laws which excluded all native Irish Catholics from power) reflective of their interests rather than the British state's were used.

In the second place, the definition of plantation colonies in this article does not correlate in its fundamentals with that in the Plantations of Ireland article. In Ireland the persons planted were given a dominant position and the natives were given a subservient position within the settler-colony. As such, the superior position given to those settlers planted in Ireland made the Plantations in Ireland contrast fundamentally with the position given to those who were brought in and planted in Barbados etc. This superior position of those British settlers who were brought into the British state in Ireland during the Plantations ensured they were settler-colonialists, with all the privileges attached to that designation. To equate the social position given to British settlers in Ireland with the social position given to African slaves who were settled in Barbados is, with all due respect, disingenuous in the extreme. 89.100.155.123 14:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way equating the British settlers in Ireland with African slaves in Barbados. The equation is between plantation master in Ireland and plantation master in Barbados. Gsd2000 22:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ireland shouldn't be included. If you're to do that then by rights A LOT of different parts of Europe should all be mentioned in the same vein-Josquius December 16, 2006

And that shouldn't be done because...? It would move the focus away from traditional interpretations of colonialism, which might have difficulty with the idea of Ireland being a prototype for Anglo-Caledonian expansion into America.

194.46.228.47 22:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed this. I've already put in the three principal English settler-colonies in sixteenth-century Ireland. These settler colonies are not disputed by any historian of Ireland. The settler plantation of Laois was renamed Queen's County and Offaly was renamed King's County. The Antrim colony was established by Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577), and worked in co-operation with the First Earl of Essex. In all three cases, settlers were brought from England. I'll go back and footnote all this now, just in case any non-Irish wikipedian has difficulty seeing the difference between Ireland in 1557 and Ireland in 2007. I think the mistake they are making is that they are viewing colonialism as a bad thing; the English in sixteenth-century Ireland were very proud to be colonialists. 86.42.98.32 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

maps

I think the maps is confusing. I don't think Russia was a colonyialist power, and if it was, I think that the USSR in map 2 should show up as one too. The same about China and some other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.86.167.241 (talk • contribs) 31 October 2006.

Russia clearly was a "colonialist" power in the truest sense of the word (viz. Russian settlers moving east along Trans-Siberian railroad all the way to the Russian Far East,) and China, while not necessarily having possessions far from its core, clearly ruled a variety of subject nations (Uighars, Mongols, Tibetans, just to name three.) 209.195.164.34 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Map inaccurate with regard to China

Outer Mongolia technically remainder part of China proper until the 1920s. The 1914 map should reflect Mongolia's status as a Chinese possesion. 209.195.164.34 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay-style edits

I've reverted a recent edit which added a lengthy essay. The section on benign colonialism suffers from similar problems. The references need to be integrated into the text, as noted above.JQ 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge benign colonialism

Merge benign colonialism to Here proposed 22:13, 31 March 2007 (without any reasons given nor section begun by)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge I was not the one to propose this merge, but definitely approve of it (POV-fork). Lapaz 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Yes, I agree it should be a section in this article. Rexparry sydney 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- on general principle the other title can be a main article covering that aspects of the article, this one contain a synopsis of that so called pov-fork, which last I knew, was a valid technical term. This article is already giving a length warning, and everything on a topic including the kitchen sink obfusticates information more often than not. Since both have style problems, I'd rather see some progress in becoming better written in both places before I could support such. // FrankB 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge After having read both pages, I agree that there should be some sort of merge. Either by including benign colonialism as a part of colonialism, or by adding a short section with a link to the benign colonialism page. Bookaddict 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The two periods of Norwegian imperialism

I think it would make sense to make an article about the two imperialistic periods in Norwegian history and add it to the Colonial empires template. The first period is during the Middle Ages when Norway ruled a large empire which included Iceland, Greenland, the Faroes, Shetland, the Orkneys, etc. The second is the period of so-called ishavsimperialisme ("ice sea imperialism"), which began in the second half of the 19th century and lasted roughly until World War II. This is when Svalbard and Jan Mayen was added to the Kingdom of Norway, Bouvet Island, Peter I Island and Queen Maud Land became Norwegian dependencies, the failed attempt to annex eastern Greenland as Erik the Red's Land took place, etc. Any opinions? -- Nidator 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we ban this guy?

125.234.205.161 keeps trying to vandalize this. It's getting annoying. Somebody? The Last Melon 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

His contribs show they have only edited this page. I put another warning template on his page. If he goes thru the whole range of warning levels, then report it to WP:AIV. Merbabu 07:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

picture: ethiopia was never colonized!

the piicture at the side shows all the european colonies in dark blue. correct me if i'm wrong but ethiopia was never colonized. i sincereley doubt the 5 year occupation by italy counts cuz if it does then po;and and france were colonized by germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.7.92 (talk) 22:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopia is commonly seen as a former Italian colony. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nationalism. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

this is where you are wrong80.171.55.196 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor subject/verb agreement correction from English teacher

Hi - I'm assigning this article to students for background to a book they're reading. Just noticed a very tiny grammar ding. Incorrect sentence here:

The questions of miscegenation; the alleged ties between colonial enterprises, genocides — see the Herero Genocide — and the Holocaust; and the questions of the nature of imperialism, dependency theory and neocolonialism (in particular the Third World debt) continues to retain their actuality.

questions CONTINUE to retain their actuality. Not continues. Writer got tangled up in a long sentence and forgot to make the verb agree with the multiple subjects in number. I am not registered but I will take the liberty of fixing anyway. Hope you approve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.43.6 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor problem

Will someone please explain the difference between colonialism and conquest?67.161.166.20 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Colonialism/Imperialism?

In the lead the article does state that Imperialism and Colonialism are often times used interchangebly, although their meanings are slightly different. Would the Arab Caliphate, Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Persian Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc. all be considered "colonialists?" Generally I've only heard the term colonialism associated with the 16th-20th century phenomonen that took place in an emerging European power. Clearly, 19th century colonialism took an entirely different nature than prior imperial excursions that were simply bent on taxing vassal nations. Modern colonialism had a capitalistic element to it and was not solely tied towards taxation, but was also driven by expanding the mother country's markets and access to raw materials and cheap labor.

I suppose there are similarities, particularly the cultural imperialism of Rome and Arabia, which has parallels to cultural impositions by the British and the French (by the end of Arab and Roman conquests, the Europeans were all convinced that they were Latins like the Italians, and even today most West Asians and North Africans still consider themselves Arabs due to the fact that they cannot identify with their pre-Islamic histories), but in other cases, like the Mongols and Persians, the vassal states generally had no ties to the mother state with the exception of imposed taxation by a foreign imperialist. Even in such cases, the Arabization of North Africa and West Asia was unintended - the Ummayads at one point attempted to make it illegal to convert to Islam I believe because they were losing their tax base. Clearly taxation was still the only real element of previous imperialistic ventures. Language and culture were not imposed in those cases. I don't necessarily think "colonialism" has ever been associated with the empires of antiquity or the middle ages. They weren't propping up puppet governments in their "colonies" as modern empires do, and in most cases, the indigenous peoples were never displaced. If they had been, then it would be unlikely that Spain, Portugal, Iran, the Balkans, etc. would have ever been reconquested, because the indigeneous peoples would have no longer existed, even though they do and still do. They were simply conquered and taxed, but they were not be displaced, relocated, governed by puppet leaders, forced to purchase overpriced goods from the mother country, etc. like modern empires would do to them. - 68.43.58.42 07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing that no one has responded to the above comment. Apparently there is such a strong demonization of Western Civilization out there that words are being redifined faster than the dictionaries can keep up. No dictionary I've come across defines colonialism as this article does. This needs to be justified. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Morocco

Why Morocco seem to be colonized by France in the map of 1900? Morocco signed the protectorate agreement (Fez) with France and Spain in 1912, and it wasn't completely occupied until 1934. And He declared its independence in 1944 which had been confirmed by France and Spain in 1956. Someone should correct that map, I don't know how. Koumed (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Morocco was a subject of political diplomatic tension in 1910-11, when the German Empire claimed, but hadn't colonized a large section of western Morocco already recognized an "integral" French colony. Both the French and Spaniards (the northernmost section was an "integral" Spanish territory), included the British and U.S. governments objected to Germany's claims of Morocco. In 1912-13, the German Empire abandoned any disputed land claims and became further involved in national competition that lead to preparation of World war I in Europe. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Imperialism Removal or Re-placement?

While Soviet 'Imperialism' in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union had negatives for those subjected peoples and countries, I am uncomfortable with its inclusion in an article about Colonialism and opposed to its placement in the Neocolonialism subsection. Neocolonialism refers to a specific kind of (capitalist) colonialism by former Western colonial powers after nominal decolonization in the 'Third World'. Soviet actions in Eastern Europe may have been imperial but they do not fit within the definition of neocolonialism and you will not find it discussed in the main article on neocolonialism for good reason. Shouldn't this topic be covered in an article on imperialism, not colonialism? Can anyone find legitimate texts discussing/characterizing 'colonial' features of Soviet bloc dominance? Thanks--David Barba (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Need to Remove "China in Africa" Section"

I do not think China's relations with Africa constitute neocolonialism, yet. They have established economic ties with African countries for natural resource exploitation, but this has not yet included the kind of military and political interventionism that constitutes imperialism, colonialism, or even neocolonialism. This relationship is so new that I think we ought to be cautious about its characterization. If there are no serious objections I will remove the section in the coming week.--David Barba (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IF08Ad02.html

Asia Times Online :: China News - Military backs China's Africa adventure

- Riplo (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that Chinese embassies in Africa have military attaches, as other country embassies have, and as they have in other continents. However, it seems odd to assign this topic a section in the present article when China's relations with Xinjiang and Tibet which are far more precisely colonial, get only a little sentence. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not establish how China in Africa is colonialism. Further, we should not be here discussing whether it actually is colonialism, or whether it will be soon, etc. That's original research. The very fact that China in Africa is listed on this page implies that it is, so we either need to find more evidence of it (ie, reference noted opinion, rather than gather our own for synthethis), or get rid of it quickly for the reputation of wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Merbabu--David Barba (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be no objections. I will remove it. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no solid evidences of China colonialising Africa. Though Zheng He did travel to Africa but no records were made he was called to colonailise that country. One of the famous known country that was once under China in ancient times was Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neocolonialism cleanup now happening

Judging by the recent comments, here, there seems to be the beginning of a consensus of cleaning up the neocolonialism section. Here's the problem as I see it:

• none of the subsections of "Neocolonialism" are what people who talk about neocolonialism mean by neocolonialism.

The exception to this is the French foreign intervention section. Neocolonialism is the domination of formerly colonised states by their former colonial power. The left and right can argue if this exists or not in the wikipedia article, but including Hungary 1956 or the Chilean coup of 1973 is Imperialism, not neocolonialism. Chinese involvement in Africa COULD be Economic Imperialism (or some such), but it isn't neocolonialism as previously defined. If we can reach a concensus on this, then I would ask folks who have strong emotional attachments to this section to copy their content, cause it will be erased from here. I would suggest we then work on a summation of the Neocolonialism article to get stuck in here. T L Miles (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think I'm wrong here. "Neo-colonialism" appears to be used in Latin America OUTSIDE those nations which were occupied by the US (under even the broadest definition of colonialism), and thus has a usage for those states which were not subject to 19th/20th century colonialism. The problem is, if that's included then any developed country messing with any underdeveloped country is neocolonialism, making the term almost meaningless. I would suggest this vaguer usage point be defined and then pointed to a fuller article (perhaps broken up by imperial power or age) which may already exist. Then define neocolonialism and point to the article of the same name (no more than two paragraphs here). Editors: please weigh in on this idea before I mess with your stuff. T L Miles (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you came around to see way neocolonialism is a necessary part of the article- although I don't really think the term is meaningless. I agree with you that the section should be rewritten and condensed. Right now it is the only section of the colonialism article with its own subsections, a hodgepodge of topics without balance for relative relevance to topic, China in Africa would be an example (really should only be a sentence or two with link at most). I think we should get rid of the subsections and condense/summarize them into 4-5 paragraphs, directing attention to the main article. The problem here is the question of what should be cut out and how to present the topic without possibly whitewashing this controversial and important issue. Jingoists from the US and Europe love deleting this kind of stuff from wiki. Anyone have ideas? I suggest we brainstorm a draft before a solitary person rewrites it to avoid edit fights. Perhaps I should put this in another discussion, but in the same vain of redoing the Neocolonialism section I think we should condense the "Soviet Imperialism" section, maybe rename it "Soviet Occupations".--David Barba (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll post on this discussion page before I make any changes here. I'll have to do some digging for a summary of the wider current usage of Neocolonialism ( as basically "a new type of indirect colonialism", and criticisms of such usage). I'll then make some additions to the main neocolonialism article, and offer some proposed summaries here. Hopefully others will offer similar summaries, and we can find a good concensus language. Your idea of its scope/length looks good and I'll try to offer something that fits that. Next two weeks maybe? Cheers. T L Miles (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This neocolonialism segment reads like a "B" students final paper at an accredited community college. It's really poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.205.163 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed to first map

The first map, "World map of colonialism in 1800" which is intended to give the state of play of colonialism at 1800 is misleading in regard to Australia. In 1800 British knowledge of Australia's interior was zero. The Blue Mountains, just 48 kilometres west of Sydney, were regarded as impassible until crossed by Blaxland, Wentworth, and Lawson in 1813, who penetrated to a spot just 70km west of Sydney. It was not until the middle decades of the 19th century that a clear idea of the interior of the continent began to emerge from a number of truly heroic expeditions (see the European exploration of Australia). So the area coloured pink merely indicates the claimed but unexplored area of Australia, known then as New South Wales. In fact it wasn't until Matthew Flinders expedition around the continent (1800-03) proved definitively that New South Wales in the east and New Holland in the west were (as was widely believed) one continent that he dubbed Australia. The map should be corrected, showing just a pink spot on the east coast indicating the Sydney. Provocateur (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern colonies

Before anyone gets too wound up by the mention of Tibet & West New Guinea; the only internationally agreed standard on what is a colony is UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 Principles 4 and 5; both territories seem to fulfil the requirements. Of course in West New Guinea's case it was traded by the United States from the Netherlands to Indonesia as a colony, the bill of sale known as the New York Agreement is quite clear that it is a colony. Under the New York Agreement it remains a colony until such time as Term 18 is fulfilled; i.e. allowing all male and female who are not foreign national to vote on the question of Self-determination.

Under the United Nations resolutions 1514 and 1541 West Papua is definitely a colony; as Indonesia, the Netherlands and the United States were all members of the UN when they supported UN resolutions 1514 & 1541 in December 1960 there is no question about recognition of the authority of Principles stated in those two resolutions.Daeron (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible weasel words

"It is essentially a system of direct political, economic and cultural intervention by a powerful country in a weaker one." Perhaps a definition of what weak is would be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.86.59 (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Corporate colonialism

On May 17, 2006, the corporate colonialism article was merged into this one. Now, two years later, I can't find the words "corporate" or "corporation" anywhere on this page. Since the decision was to merge the article rather than delete it, should there not be some information here about the role of corporations in colonialism? Esn (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Neocolonialism would be a better choice.--David Barba (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing. The article mainly talked about the role of officially detached corporate entities during the classical European colonial era (though it also extended the trend into the present day). I just think that maybe the word "corporate" or "corporation" should be mentioned at least once somewhere in this article, because otherwise it makes no sense for the above-mentioned article to redirect here. Esn (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, please do.--David Barba (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning article up

Some of the segments like interventions and Soviet Occupation need to be cut down or just direct the reader to respective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.205.163 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you really need to provide an edit summary and justify what you're doing. Each time. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems important to distinguish between colonialism as a political or philosophical entity and colonization as an event. That founds the additionally important distinction for the concept that neocolonialsm is nonexistent in American history since the practice of colonialism has never ceased. Therefore American colonialism cannot have a post or neo. To merge colonialism, neocolonialsm, and colonization (or colonisation) confounds the fundamental differences an encyclopedia should explain. Globocol (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonialism of the west in the 1600s friction with the far East

I have friends from China, Japan and Vietnam. Im a chinese myself. I had read reports and history books. China was very open during Emperor Zhu Di and Admiral Eunuch Zheng He days. But when the west started to invade asia, going around to colonialise any country they went. It became one of the reason for China, Korea and Japan especially Japan's Edo Period why at that period to have a close door policy from trading with the west in order to protect their own religon and culture. That's why also christians were persecuted severely ever since then in China and Japan. Its also this reason that Japan continue to hold the hatred and sparked World War 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)