Talk:Colonialism/Archive 5

List of Colony Names

I believe these should be re-ordered alphabetically as there is no logic to the current order, but am too lazy to do it myself. So I hope some other editors will do this. ParthikS8 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Term "exploitation"

In economic literature this is called "extractive" colonialism. "Exploitation colonialism ... includes trading posts" Calling commercial exchange "exploitation" implies that the exchange is somehow unfair, due to coercion, deceit or other factors. But natives went willingly to coastal trading posts to exchange local goods for imported goods. By the same token all international trade could be called "Strambotik (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)exploitation".

Ottoman Sultanate as an European colonial power?

Ottoman empire was a great muslim sultanate and had nothing to do with European Christian colonialism. Please someone correct the article.--5.125.254.244 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and this issue has been talked to death in the past. Inevitably however when anyone removes them, they will cherry-pick sources that use the term "colonial", despite other sources mentioning that such a term is not so appropriate. To begin with, some sources state that the term is contested.

Ottoman colonialism is a relatively new and often debated concept [... which] does not fit the formal or informal colonialism molds, but instead denotes an alteration in Ottoman state perspective toward the outer provinces of the empire, in which a center desired centralized control over its periphery and reconstituted it as a colony.

— Stanton, Andrea L., et al., eds. Cultural sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: an encyclopedia. SAGE publications, 2012.

Other sources flat out criticise and reject the idea:

Note that while the Ottoman state was imperial in design and purpose, it also cannot easily bedefined as colonial in the sense that the term is used in the context of European colonialism(Gocek,2013, p. 79). There are at least two key differences. First, the Ottoman territorial possessions were largely contiguous. Second, while the Ottoman court was dominated by SunniMuslims, the Ottomans were not necessarily‘alien’to the societies they ruled over. Additionally,they recognized as well as acknowledged the diversity of the populations within their domain.From an historical point, this is hardly surprising. The Ottomans‘started as the rulers of a pre-dominantly Christian population’(Barkey2014, p. 471) and‘owed great deal of their successto the cooperation of local Christian elements’(Veinstein,2013, p. 121)

— Kadercan, Burak. "Territorial design and grand strategy in the Ottoman Empire." Territory, Politics, Governance 5.2 (2017): 158-176.

Moreover, we have clear sources that say it does not have colonies:

We should, moreover, clarify that we are referring here to “Ottoman colonialism” in the absence of colonies. It is a matter, therefore, of colonialism without colonies. For a critique of the theoretical construction of “colonialism… A criticism of this theoretical extrapolation does not mean, however, that the Ottoman Empire had no imperial ambitions; these were crystallized at the Berlin Conference on Africa organized in 1884-1885. In order to protect the imperial interests of their “Sublime State” in Africa, the Ottoman diplomats, who were great masters in the art of diplomacy, adopted a very “legalistic” approach and, during the final decades of the nineteenth century, they put forward arguments based on rights inherited from the past and the notion of precedent. To this end, the concept of hinterland was constantly used by the Ottomans.

— Türesay, Özgür. "The Ottoman Empire seen through the lens of postcolonial studies: A recent historiographical turn." Revue dhistoire moderne et contemporaine 2 (2013): 127-145.

(This is explicit and I thought should be enough to remove the section claiming the imperial provinces as colonies.)

And in the pen-ultimate paragraphs of this same source:

In concluding I would like to make one last criticism, this time of a general and fundamental nature and with a bearing on the very essence of this body of literature. This criticism concerns the use of the term colonialism, which is too loose, used as it is to designate all the phenomena noted above. In other words, I believe that it is inappropriate to refer to the new relationship that the imperial Ottoman center began to foster with its peripheral provinces from the middle of the nineteenth century as a type of colonialism. It seems to me that these historians, who are undoubtedly contributing to the enrichment of the historiography on the Ottoman empire of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by focusing on the centralizing administrative measures and the rhetoric connected with civilization during this period, have lost sight of the fundamental elements of modern colonialism, a historical phenomenon asserted during the second half of the nineteenth century. Of the four constituent elements of modern colonialism, it is only in the discourse concerning the Ottoman civilizing mission, without any racist or racial coloring, that we can see a certain influence from European colonialism affecting the world view held by the Ottoman bureaucrats from the imperial center. It is difficult, not to say ridiculous, to think of the existence of a modern colonialism without its underlying dynamics, above all if we are to rely purely on the existence of a discourse drawn from a few narrative sources.

— Türesay, Özgür. "The Ottoman Empire seen through the lens of postcolonial studies: A recent historiographical turn." Revue dhistoire moderne et contemporaine 2 (2013): 127-145.

And what would our interlocutors argue? They would bring sources which merely use the term, or use it in a restricted sense to refer to a Tanzimat and post-Tanzimat restructuring of the state, or attitude to certain nomads. Of the two sources currently in use, one of them is arguably not academic nor suitable for this topic, and another is simply using the term "colonialism".

On top of this, I have had a long argument above in the section Talk:Colonialism#Colonialism v Imperialism and Ottoman Empire, arguing for why if we take the liberal defintion of colonialism that some editors wish, we should arguably include all historical colonial empires, including the Romans etc. To further prove my point, here is a source referring to "Manchurian" colonialism of the Qing Empire, a laughable concept:

The Qing Empire of China was a colonial empire that ruled over a diverse collection of peoples with seperate identities and deserves comparison with other empires.

— Perdue, Peter C. "Comparing empires: Manchu colonialism." The International History Review 20.2 (1998): 255-262.

I was not bluffing above, if you seriously make this argument for colonialism, you literally should admit every single empire referred to in literature as "colonialists". But I don't see anyone listing the provinces of the Qing Empire do I? And when I made arguments above that "Colonialism" does not apply to contiguous land empires, and evidenced that (and a new source here explicitly links this with the Ottomans for those editors crying OR), all I see are editors unwilling to accept that. Some editors think that "X group were brutally treated", well in Empires throughout history, ethnic groups have been mistreated, genocidally killed etc. - that doesn't make them "Colonialists".

You know what is happening here? A few white, west-centric, would-be-orientalist editors are disturbed at the idea that the concept of "colonialism", that their forefathers invented, is only being applied to them. So what a better thing to do than to take an empire, that was politically a victim of western imperialism and colonialism, and spin it as a "colonial empire" with "colonies". Well I can't wait for our former colonial masters to add all the other empires of history (of course we know they won't do that, despite sources like the one above). Evidence of the west-supremacist, orientalist mindset is given here:

Those who identify colonialism and empire only with the West either have no sense of history or have forgotten about the Egyptian empire, the Persian empire, the Macedonian empire, the Islamic empire, the Mongol empire, the Chinese empire, and the Aztec and Inca empires

— D’Souza, Dinesh. "Two cheers for colonialism." Chronicle of Higher Education 10.1 (2002): 7-9.

Yes the Mongols and even the Aztecs were colonisers!

I rest my case.

Will we see some brave editor remove the Ottoman "Colonies"? Maybe. They'll then be reverted. Will the Qing Empire, the Roman Empire etc. all be added in? I'm sure our former colonial masters will catch on soon enough.

After all, what a better way to misdirect attention from your own history than to start back-projecting your crimes onto others? ParthikS8 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I should point out - I agree with the IP user that the Ottoman Empire is not Colonial, I don't necessarily agree with his assessment "a great muslim sultanate" ParthikS8 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Contiguity is irrelevant. The deciding factors are dominance and difference in ethnicity. Dominance is demonstrated through conquest, and the Turks conquered their dependencies through war. Many overseas colonies were multi-rthnic and contained populations descended from both colonizers and colonized, like Anglo-Burmese, Burghers, etc. T Ottomans "recognized as well as acknowledged the diversity of the populations within their domain". So did the British empire. Strambotik (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection?

This article now has the distinction of being the only non-redirect page within the en.wikipedia article space that is indefinitely fully protected, other than the Main Page (see Special:ProtectedPages). As far as I can tell, the stated rationale (persistent IP edits) is not consistent with our protection policy, which states that full protection is for Articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. You might ask whether that instead warrants 30/500 protection, but the same policy says that 30/500 protection should not be applied as a protection level of first resort, which to my mind would certainly preclude full protection from being used as a first resort, particularly in response to IP edits. My reading of the policy is that the appropriate level of protection here would have been pending changes review.

As to the particulars of the edits—namely, changing entries in a long and mostly unsourced list that apparently nobody is monitoring—wouldn't the obvious course of action here be to delete the list? Isn't this a better job for categories anyway? I just find it totally extraordinary that the first intervention here was to totally lock down the page—an intervention that seems to be applied to no other article on Wikipedia. Just for completeness, I'll note that of the 20 or so non-redirect or non-disambiguation page in article space that are fully protected for a finite amount of time, only one of them is protected for longer than a month; the others are protected only for days or weeks. Einsof (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the problems with disruptive/weird/pointed edits here will be indefinite so it makes sense that the protection be as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Even articles on perennially incendiary topics like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which attract trouble from logged-in users and not just IP editors, are left at 30/500 protection. Einsof (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow I completely misunderstood, not sure how I missed the WP:GOLDLOCK. Maybe because as you said its pretty much *never* used. You are entirely right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Graham87: Einsof appears to have made a number of excellent points and I was such an idiot to them I think the least I can do is help solve this mystery. Do you think you could elaborate on the reasons for the protection? I see this edit summary "disruptive editing, the fact that so many edits went by seemingly unchecked shows that the community cannot watch this article" [1] and I’m wondering what the background to such a decision is? Are there any other pages locked down in such a way? Whats policy or guideline are you operating under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Einsof and Horse Eye's Back: I was operating under the policy of WP:WRONGBUTTON ... seriously, I meant to use semi ... and thanks to my screen reader usage, I didn't notice what I'd done. I also don't mind the use of blindness as a metaphor like that. I've made this mistake before but have usually caught it in time. Graham87 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Graham87: Thanks, maybe I should have guessed it was a misfire. If nothing else, I got to refresh my memory of our page protection policies... Einsof (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

According to (source) should be added to the Israel as it reads right now as a subversive move to undermine the indigenous Mizhrahi populations. Gesorgod (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

List of colonies as an own article?

Hi everyone the list of colonies gets longer and longer and a similar list exists in Colonial empire.

I think it would allow different articles to use these lists in a combined way and enhance quality if these lists would be collected in a List-article.

I propose an article, to move the said lists, with either wording:

• List of colonial possessions and empires
• List of colonies and colonial empires
• List of colonies

I think it is though necessary to have a useable definition of what a coloial possession and colonial empire differentiates them from say a conquest and integration in an empire and thus excludes from the list.

For my part a colony is a nonintegrated territory of an empire, opposed to its integrated territories (e.g. Bohemia in the Holy Roman Empire, or any other territory of so many empires, etc.) ... imho Nsae Comp (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp: This is a good idea. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This could cause issues when it comes to places such as Egypt under Roman rule.

Was it integrated enough to be consider “part of the Roman Empire”, or was it separate enough to be a colony? What about Islamic conquest of Egypt? Was a colony, a caliphate in its own right, integrated?

It can get bogged down quickly.

However, the idea is amazing, so I’m hopeful that a very concrete definition that to which the article refers (or as concrete as definitions can get). Gesorgod (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Slave memorial Zanzibar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

Change List of United States colonies and protectorates, remove "Tangier International Zone (1924–1956)" Lantheon (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Impact of colonisation

The follow section should be removed:

European colonisation and development also changed gendered systems of power already in place around the world. In many pre-colonialist areas, women maintained power, prestige, or authority through reproductive or agricultural control. For example, in certain parts of sub-Saharan Africa[where?] women maintained farmland in which they had usage rights. While men would make political and communal decisions for a community, the women would control the village's food supply or their individual family's land. This allowed women to achieve power and autonomy, even in patrilineal and patriarchal societies.[56]

The cited pages do not attribute these changes to colonialism. It seems like the editor who added them just attributed it to colonialism. Therefore these paragraphs should not be on this page. 27.55.78.94 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Western expansionalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Western expansionalism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Western expansionalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

See also

I think Expansionism article should be linked here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.102.175 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Colonialism Definition and Perspectives

"Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas"

OK ... the modern Language-Nazis have got to this one too!

Why do we not then view Bantu, Mongol, Chinese, Singhalese, Arab, Turkic, Malay, Polynesian, ... expansionism in the same light? Seems to me the only 'one' people this term applies to are people from Western Civilisations.

Also the purposes of colonialism are not only to acquire power but to prevent other peoples being usurped by what one people would consider to be a greater evil or harm. Colonialism has in many instances preserved peoples and cultures that would otherwise have been lost. Can we have some balance in the article please. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:69E3:AFAC:A339:9187 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Why do we not then view Bantu, Mongol, Chinese, Singhalese, Arab, Turkic, Malay, Polynesian, ... expansionism in the same light?" Because it would conflate its meaning with imperialism. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

OK ... so why do we not speak of Arab imperialism? Look for example at the Swahili Coast which was run by Omani Arabs as a sort of mini precursor template of the British Empire for about 800 years. I have never heard that described in terms of imperialism (or colonialism). With regards to conflation: Conquest "is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas". I read the Imperialism Wiki and it seems that there is confusion there about what constitutes imperialism and what constitutes colonialism (one person characterising the difference as essentially down to geography another, free-market as opposed to monopolistic capitalism (the Leninist perspective apparently)). The opening definition of colonialism is typical of the Age but not I suspect, timeless. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:69E3:AFAC:A339:9187 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"On colonisers" section removal

This section is a summary of French poet Aimé Césaire's view on European colonisation yet it's under the title "on colonisers". Not only is it only talking about European colonisation but it adds nothing of value more than constantly reiterating European colonisers were "racist, sexist, otherwise xenophobic, or capitalist" and "[Europe] proceeds towards savagery". If a review of Aimé Césaire's 'Discourse on Colonialism' is deemed relevant to this page then this section should be titled something like "review of Discourse on Colonialism' or "Aimé Césaire's view on European colonisation". Currently, the section is stating Aimé Césaire's view on European colonisation as fact by literally just referencing his own work 'Discourse on Colonialism' - it doesn't make any sense. Sequenceses (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ireland?

As one would expect, Ireland is listed as a 'British colony' when it never actually was, at least in any legal sense, a colony of 'Britain'. In an extralegal sense the subject is at best controversial[2] and better left for another article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would love to see the reliable sources that prove that Ireland was not a de facto colony. The Banner talk 17:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

finance of colonialism

Transatlantic trade between Europe and America was possibly the main method by which the "colonialism of the Muslim world" was maintained.

~/////08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.51 (talk)/~ 43.242.178.51 (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Profitability of Colonialism

Under the “History” section, in the paragraph starting “Asking whether colonies paid, economic historian Grover Clark (1891–1938) argues an emphatic "No!"”

Would suggest adding:

Contrary to the narrative that denies major economic benefit from colonialism, there has been recent research demonstrating otherwise. For example, the research conducted by economist Utsa Patnaik and published by Columbia University Press. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765-1938.

Citation: Patnaik, U; Chakrabarti, S. (Eds.). (2019). Agrarian and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. Tulika Book. 2601:8C0:37F:B390:F5F6:FAC5:F8D8:4F9E (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguing that it was costly for colonies is not the same as arguing that it was profitable for the colonizer. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)