Talk:Colonialism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colonialism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Top‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Caucasia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Oceania Top‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are colonies on uninhabited or previously uninhabitable lands not mentioned? With possible Moon-, Mars-, or deep-sea-colonies popping up in media all the time the topic should be part of the article, shouldn't it?

Question 2A02:3037:205:98A0:DC0C:2EBF:ADDC:52D0 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not yet a reality. The Banner talk 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't a reality during the peopling of the world? If not how does colonizing barren wastes constitute more coloniality than lush terrestrial ecosystems? 2A02:C7C:D5F6:A300:B5A8:24B9:F5FF:A369 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands are mentioned. Wikipedia is a reflection of what is written in reliable sources; there has been very little discussion of the colonisation of uninhabited lands in sources because it only happened in a handful of small-scale cases. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are/were there any significant colonies on uninhabited or previously uninhabitable lands? All I can think of are a few small islands and perhaps the antarctic claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think the Falklands and the Azores are the only two cases of any real scale. After that it's Pitcairn Island-level stuff.

And frankly one could reasonably ask if it makes any conceptual sense to include such cases within the definition of colonialism; the only thing that makes them distinct from all other migration of humans into new, uninhabited territories is that they took place much more recently (because of accidents of geography) and under the auspices of states which did colonialism elsewhere. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

neocolonialism

If in fact the world does get colonized (again) we can just pretend that we don't live on the planet Earth.

12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 103.245.194.28 (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

colonization of Palestine

colonization of Palestine by UK/Israel/USA is not mentioned enough (it is not mentioned at all in Migrations section) 194.63.133.126 (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do the United States maintain colonies in the region? Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 'hypothesis' that colonialism never ended, but has only grown in ever more exponential growths since the '40s / '90s (the usual 'cutoff' dates) and that 'so-called' "decolonisation" and "nationalisms" were merely newer advancements of colonialism that have eclipsed all previous 'stages' (such as the 19th/16th cent.s) combined ?? And that it began close to 600 years ago with the planting of the first tomato/potato/cinchona in the old world?

And here defines 'Europe' (the 'coloniser continent') as including everything between what is currently known's - West/North Iran, Arabia/ME, Red sea/Gulf of Aden, Iceland and South Mediterranean/Gibraltar, and even parts of Ethiopia and Somalia¹!('per the definitions of "known world", "Abrahamic" and "Caucasoid") while considering to be part of the 'New World' the entirety of modern/historical Russian territory (except for the the extreme northwest) as well as 50% of Ukraine (particularly east, central, south) 2402:E280:3D1D:563:C007:4085:1E64:1CEB (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¹And, for the sake of 'convenience', United States + the other developed countries of the 'Americas' 2402:E280:3D1D:563:C007:4085:1E64:1CEB (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 'bizarre' unorthodox theory I read somewhereQuestion 2402:E280:3D1D:563:C007:4085:1E64:1CEB (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonialism is the exploitation..." does not reflect a neutral point of view

“Colonialism is the exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group” is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, as required by Wikipedia NPOV.

Instead, it is an application of revisionist history to advance a political view that has become deeply embedded in Wikipedia editors to the point where they operate within a bubble of self-confirming bias.

To say colonialism is exploitation is to take sides - the colonists are bad, the indigenous people are victims. While this may be correct, it is not neutral. Neutrality means to observe but not judge - to understand what is happening, not to apply value judgements.

From a neutral point of view colonialism is about

the movement of a peoples who posess superior technology (ships, navigation, firearms) that enables them to move to a new land and become local inhabitants
population growth in which the existing homeland becomes too small to support a commonwealth or land control creates an inequitable hierarch
money-making by finding resources that are abundent somewhere else but scarce at home
adventurism
disposal of petty criminals, dysfunctional family members, other socially undesirables by putting them on seagoing ships.

It is based on the evolutionary fact that while humans look different based on adapatation to a local environment (people closer to the equator have darker skins to protect from a stronger sun, for example), they all are homo sapiens - a species that kills its own species, and is hard-wired to establish and enforce hierarchies of power by the control of other people's lives, liberty and property.

This current Wikipedia definition of colonialism is nothing more than an attempt to use a neutral medium to shift the hierarchy of power that occured after one region on the planet (Europe) experienced a technology explosion that gave it tools to voyage that took its people all over the world, tools of power in the form of superior weaponry, tools of husbandry in the form of farming, and complex law that enabled a small leadership group to organise large numbers of subservient peoples by developing the concept of employment, where one works for someone else voluntarily for pay, provided one does what one is told. Contrast this to less sophisticated societies where the economies were tribal (an extended family that cooperates for survival), slave based (which was practiced in many indigenous societies now portrayed as exploited, when by these terms, they were exploiters), or strong-man societies where a principle rises to the top by conquest, using fear and force to get others to do their bidding.

Human history is a history of movement. Home Sapiens displaces Neanderthals. Basques colonise Wales. Anglo Saxons invaded England and killed the Celts. Vikings came to France and the King let them stay because he would lose, whereupon they become Normans (Norsemen). Normans sailed over to England and won the Battle of Hastings claiming England as their own. British East India Company and the British Navy become tools of global expansion and control 1/6th of the planet. And that's just the British Isles. Colonisation - the movement of a people from one homeland to establish another has happened all over the planet for as long as their have been humans. If there was someone already there, there would be winners and losers.

I will not bother replacing the language in the article, because the believers in what has been written dominate Wikipedia, and it will just result in bickering. However, it is disappointing because I am writing an important research document now, and find it useful to quote Wikipedia not as the source of truth, but the Wisdom of Crowds. However, in this case, it fail.

I invite the editors of this page to try again. Akonga (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]