Talk:Colonialism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Proposed Merges

The idea of merging this article with the Colony and Colonization articles has been proposed and discussed at length. These discussions have been archived at Talk:Colonialism/Proposed Merges. They have also been retained in this Talk Page for the time being but may eventually be archived as time goes on.

If you wish to propose a merger with the Colony and Colonization articles, please read those discussions before making your proposal. The decision was made with only four votes so it is plausible that the consensus may change. However, we would appreciate it if you familiarize yourself with the arguments for and against the merger before initiating a new proposal.

--Richard 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

goals of colonialism

--Confuzion 03:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)i think political control, moreso than economic control, is the goal of colonialism

• Dr Ondawame wrote quite a good paper a few years ago pointing out that Colonialism is the act or art of justification for colonisation.

In national terms colonization is the act of raping another nation, where as colonialism is the act of claiming the victim benefited from the rape. In other words the act of colonization is the imposing of your alien goverance and theft or other exploiting of the local resources for the benefit of the alien power. Whereas the act of colonialism is the act of people claiming they were doing it 'help' lesser human beings,or claiming you were helping them by mining their un-realised resources, or to educate 'primitives', or to 'civilize' the savages who were not speaking your language and wearing your style of clothing.

Also, in agreement to something which User:Confuzion wrote above, I would concur that Colonization is always about 'political' control first, and the economic exploitation second. Without imposing your foreign goverance, your abuse of their resources would only be common theft or abuse; it is only an act of colonization when you are claiming you have a governing right to abuse those foreign people and properties.58.107.10.239 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

benefits of colonialism to native peoples

I won't edit the article, but I would like the article to point out something: although colonialism is undoubtedly bad and its effects are tremendous, it contributed throughout history to civilize peoples which were still in the Stone Age, like in Africa.

No, I think that was a goal or motivation of colonialism. Whether or not those aims were worthy or successful should be addressed separately. There is a wide literature on the "civilizing mission" and ideas such as Kipling's The White Man's Burden.

Just to clarify, the continent was well beyond the 'stone age', various societies had well developed ceramic, metal, textile technologies, complex political systems, and so on.Zandrous 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why we even have this heading.There are no benefits of colonialism. It was an evil system that destroyed Africa. Second, African people were civilised long before Europens set foot in this continent. Colonialism did not bring civilisation to Africa.FediM

"Africa" did not exist before colonialism - it was a European concept imposed on the continent. The post colonial history of africa sadly shows that it needed no help from Europe in destroying itself.

If not for colonialism we would all be very "sheltered" from the worlds religion and ideology. And, how do you think WW2 woud have been if colonization hadn't exsisted before? The axis would have easily taken control of the world in a few years. Live with it, your ancestors did, thats why your here today. Complaining about the past is only complaining about the present and if you can type on the internet I dont see much reason for complaint.

Maybe if you really consider it if there was no colonialism in the heart of the Europeans maybe there would not have been any world wars. Why? because the desire to colonise a society is brought up the superiority complex; which was the reason behind the two wars. The axis wanted to expand, thus colonise other states and the result all of us know.

Colonialism still exists, now it's called globalism. Corporations grabbing up cheap resources and labor from piss poor, backward regions that we made that way in the first place. At least when nations were doing it it was more transparent than now.

Colonialism may seem like a bad thing according to politically correct ideals, but in fact it did help in each nation's sense of growth and self-strengthening. Nations want to conquer as much territory as possible, and colonialism allowed them to cross the barrier between a fledgling country, and a future superpower. There are so many people who used colonialism in the past as a way to advance their society... the Roman empire, Ghengis Khan, all the way up to the United States' first colonies, and don't forget British rule and expansion into the Indies and other islands and areas. Colonialism may seem brutal and politically incorrect, but it has helped many countries become what they are today.

That's exactly what Hitler said--for the German people to be great, they need lebensraum. Sorry, but we really need to consider other ways of "advancing our societies" besides conquest, enslavement, genocide, etc. against other people. As for "politically correct," note that "political correctness" is usualy the monopoly of the colonizer. Only when colonial rule is successfully challenged can we start to talk about "political correctness" as something opposed to colonialism. The reason this happened, of course, is that people all over the world successfully rebelled against colonial oppression, leading eventually to a widespread recognition that European and Japaneses colonialism was a brutal and exploitative system. Anyway, if we are going to talk about "benefits" we should be very specific to avoid falling into a very ideological "white man's burden" argument. It needs to be recognized that this is an enormously complex topic as there were always winners and losers in every colonial process. Even colonially-induced famines had their winners, after all (e.g. grain speculators).

I was glad to see this post was started. If we are to study the negative effects of colonialism, we should also study the positive effects. We can condone the way in which they did it but the European colonial powers did 'civilize' the world. The isolated parts of the world still live in the 'stone age' flip through an issue of National Geographic's. Of course, in our current society of Social Marxism, i.e. political correctness, these statements will be interpreted as racist. Sadly, it is revisionist history to ignore one side of the issue and only focus on the other.

"...The post colonial history of Africa sadly shows that it needed no help from Europe in destroying itself."

This is a good example. Parts of the continent still live in hunter-gatherer tribes. In terms of behavior, Africans are the same as they were before European intervention. For the 'civilized' parts of Africa the only difference is they now use Western technology, e.g. guns, to kill each other instead of more primitive means.

"The reason this happened, of course, is that people all over the world successfully rebelled against colonial oppression..."

You're neglecting an important factor in the end of colonialism. Of course, the 'successful rebellions' were a key component to this but not the only one. The British Empire fell apart because they couldn't afford to keep it together following WWII.

"If not for colonialism we would all be very "sheltered" from the worlds religion and ideology."

Exactly, specifically for us Americans, we wouldn't be here. This means we wouldn't be bickering on our computers through the internet because they also wouldn't exist. There were lasting benefits of colonialism and they should be acknowledged along side the negative impact of colonialism.

Map

The map is somewhat subjective. For example, it lists the USSR as a colonial empire, but not China. --Delirium 01:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Australia is also not listed as being colonised

New Map

I think we should attach a map of the Western colonies in 1914. Much more of the world was colonised in 1914 than in 1945.

Map Errors

The map has many errors. It is supposed to be a map of 1945, but still shows Japan as having its colonial empire of 1939 when by 1945 Japan had lost its empire. Also it shows all of Sakhalin Island as part of Japan's colonial empire and this was not the case (only in 1925 did Japan control all of the island). The map also shows Libya as an Italian colony in 1945 when it was a joint British-French trusteeship. Italian Somaliland should also be coloured British since it was handed over to British control from 1945-1950 and only in 1950 returned to the Italians. I've also noticed that the map does not colour in the Dominions as colonies (which is understandable, as by 1945 they were not really considered "colonies"), but a number of the Dominions were themselves colonizers: Australia in New Guinea and Nauru, New Zealand in Samoa, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and Nauru and South Africa in South-west Africa.

• With some diffidence and only partial success I've uploaded a version of the map with some corrections. I tend to agree that 1914 is perhaps a more relevent milestone Humansdorpie 10:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

colonialism / imperialism

can someone please lay out for me the similarities and differences between Colonialism and Imperialism? thanks, Kingturtle 06:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i am wondering this too, what is the difference between conquering a place and colonialism? doesn't seem much different. why the term colonialism? -- unsigned comment

Let's see. Why not consult Wikipedia? Read the Imperialism article and then read this article, Colonialism. The major difference is that Colonialism is based on colonies or settlements. These colonies are usually directly owned by the colonial power although sometimes they may be nominally independent and rules through a puppet ruler.

Imperialism differs from colonialism primarily in its use of indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.

Imperialism was initially coined as a phrase to describe colonialism but colonialism started to fade after 1945 with the independence of many former colonies (India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, etc). It became unacceptable to have a colonial empire based on the subjugation of people in the colonies. Thus, the British, French and Dutch empires slowly broke up as the colonies became independent.

Imperialism continued, however, as a phrase to describe Western capitalistic international trade and banking (e.g. American imperialism). Although it was hardly ever used in this sense, the term could also have described Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe.

--Richard 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Map(s)

I don't think a single map can possibly do justice to this topic. What we ought to have are a series of diachronic maps showing the various colonized territories (and their dates) for each nation in question. We could make one section for each of the ten nations listed in the template at the bottom of the article in which we briefly describe the extent and policies of the colonizing powers, with "main article" links underneath the headings. This anachronous map of the British Empire is a good example of what I'm talking about. --Peter Farago 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Italian flag

Since in Colonial Empires it's used the imperial flag of Russia and Germany, it should be used also the imperial flag of Italy, with Savoy's coat of arms.

Unpopular viewpoint? Islamic colonization

This is likely to prove to be an unpopular viewpoint here, but has anyone given consideration to posting examples of Islamic colonization to provide a more balanced point of view for this article which seems to focus exclusively on European colonialism? Examples of Islamic and other non-European colonization throughout history and up to and including the present day would be appreciated by many. -- Planders 01:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article could do with a history of colonialism section, beginning with Greco-Roman colonialism. My expertise, if it can be called that, does not extend to ancient times though. Gsd2000 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Colony

I fail to see how colony and colonialism can be separate articles, and think that colony should be merged into colonialism. Colonialism is the act of establishing and maintaining colonies! There is already far too much duplication in the imperialism/colonialism space (although, imperialism/colonialism should be separate articles - re the above request for clarification between imperialism and colonialism, I have tried to articulate the difference in the first paragraph). Discussing the history of colonialism involves discussing the history of colonies, talking about types of colonialism is talking about the types of colonies. et cetera.... If I don't hear a good reason not to merge the two, I will attempt to do so within the next couple of weeks. Gsd2000 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Colonialism is the act of establishing and maintaining colonies!" No. Colonialism and post-colonialism are discourses that cover a wide spectrum of historical phenomena and pinning a simple dic-def on them doesn't work; true colonies, or settler socities, are only one type. The British Raj is an example of colonialism, but the British Raj wasn't an attempt to colonize the Indian sub-continent with Britons. Marskell 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my distinction between settler colonies and dependency colonies (sometimes referred to as "colonies of exploitation"). (Settler colonies may be contrasted with dependencies, where the colonizers did not arrive as part of a mass emigration, but rather as administrators over existing sizeable native populations, exercising control by use or threat of force.) You are failing to understand that "colony" does not equal "settler colony". The British Raj was a dependency. I made this perfectly clear in the article. Gsd2000 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge-1

I am "failing to understand that "colony" does not equal "settler colony"." Then why are you using an overly-simplistic first sentence that is going to leave a reader believing that exact point? Marskell 15:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is "Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory, by the establishment of colonies." One dictionary I have to hand says it is "A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.". Why is that overly simplistic? It's a good definition of the word. If the reader reads on, they will get to the "types of colonialism" section, and then see that "colony" doesn't have to mean "settler colony". Not everyone coming into this article has made the assumption that you have, incidentally. Gsd2000 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on an (incorrect) assumption. You say "true colonies, or settler socities (sic), are only one type". Yes, settler societies are one type of colony, but they cannot be considered as "true" colonies, as if other types of colony are not really colonies. I believe this to be clearly demonstrated by the fact that there was a British cabinet post for the Secretary of State for the Colonies - the "colonies" in question were not simply the white colonies. Gsd2000 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me take a step back and put it this way. Say "colony" and 9 out of 10 people are thinking Jamestown, Roman legionnaires settling in Iberia, or perhaps domes on Mars. That is, a new community to which settlers from a controlling power emigrate. As for dictionaries, they support this reading.

• MW: "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state."
• Oxford: "1 a country or area under the control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country. 2 a group of people of one nationality or race living in a foreign place."

By "true" I meant that, conventionally, colony implies settlers. There are other types of colonies--we're not disagreeing there. But people aren't going to read it that way. The first sentence needs expanding. Marskell 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A red flag should go up in your head any time you find yourself saying things like "9 out of 10 people think that...". That is not the way to contribute to a debate, because it is your impression that 9 out of 10 people think the way you do. Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with those dictionary definitions. You are incorrectly assuming them to mean that they apply only to the instances of settler colonies. How can one people control another unless they send some of their people (governors, civil servants, engineers, traders, bankers, plantation owners, soldiers etc, wives and children of the aforementioned) to live in that foreign place? And you still haven't answered my argument above, that "I believe this to be clearly demonstrated by the fact that there was a British cabinet post for the Secretary of State for the Colonies - the "colonies" in question were not simply the white colonies." Even more tellingly, when the white colonies became dominions, they were administered by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies administered the very colonies that you consider do not fall under the strict definition of the term (India excepted, which had its own Secretary of State). So, does your impression of the strict usage of the term "colony" outweigh the nomenclature used by the British authorities over decades, if not centuries, when administering their own colonies, settler and non-settler? I think not. Gsd2000 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it and I think it better clarified now. I wasn't making any incorrect assumptions but concerned that a reader might with the simpler sentence. Marskell 17:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it needed clarification - only someone with the same view as you would need clarification (and if they have that view, then they are hardly coming into this article with a view to learn - it is more likely they are here to edit). Anyway, Sunday afternoon beckons, and I rest my case here. Gsd2000 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge-2

I took a deep breath and did not present an ad hominem response. I would appreciate the same, OK?

I have not suggested the British or anyone else didn't consider non-white dependencies "colonies" or that we should not and I'm not sure what you're taking "my view" to be. I have only suggested that the general definition (let's say in the "conventional historical" rather than "strict" sense) indicates settlers. Again, "a country or area under the control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country." How can you not read that as = settler colony given that the term is sitting right there? Note that MW doesn't even make reference to control/dependent administration: "a body of people living in a new territory..." (i.e., settlers) and NOT "a body of administrators controlling a newly conquered territory..." Marskell 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are using these definitions as supporting your case for what the "general" or "conventional historical" definition of what a colony is. For the OED definition, in your argument you only cite definition (1) which does refer to settlers, but you fail to mention (2), which does not. For the MW definition, you equate a "body of people living in a new territory" to mean "settlers" (when any form of colonialism requires a body of colonizers, however small, even if they and their children and their children's children aren't there for the long haul) and then you use this as the basis for your argument. Your own assumption about how others use the term "colonialism" forms a factual premise of your own argument, which you then use to prove your conclusion. However, your conclusion is false if your premise is false, and I believe I have shown that it is. Gsd2000 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To get back on-topic, ie to merge or not to merge, I suggested that "colonialism is the act of establishing and maintaining colonies". In retrospect I would slightly alter that and say "colonialism is the act or policy of establishing and maintaining colonies". Your response was "No. Colonialism and post-colonialism are discourses that cover a wide spectrum of historical phenomena". (I think we should not muddy the discussion by introducing post-colonialism - it is impossible to "post-colonize" a territory, so I will ignore that bit). One of your edits to the article was commented "colonialism is NOT synonomous with the act of creating colonies". I can understand distinguishing theories of and discourses on colonialism to the act itself, but what is colonialism, above and beyond the act or policy of establishing and maintaining colonies? Gsd2000 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed you to a very specific definition hinging on settlers. Oxord's second point is a vague underscoring of its first. If it's so absolutely taken for granted that "colony" may conventionally denote non-settler jurisdictions, why can you not point me to the def making that clear? Before repeating an above point, let me say that commonsensical and anecdotal arguments are allowed on talk pages. I stand by the spirit of my "9 of 10" above. IMHO, a "colony" is usually taken to mean a mother country group emigrating to a conquered territory and making it their own, not merely soldiers and sailors administering the place. The conventional definition of colony includes settlers. Do you disagree with that to the point that we should not clarify it? What the hell is wrong with clarifying it? Circular lead sentences ("white is the quality of whiteness", "colonization is colonies") suck and don't tell the reader anything.

(1) Rather than viewing Oxford's second point as a "vague underscoring of its first", I view it as a more general version of the first. (2) I already have pointed you to a definition making that clear - the British government's own definition, which does not hinge on interpretation of that definition, as you are doing with those dictionary entries. (3) "commonsensical and anecdotal arguments are allowed on talk pages" - just because it's a talk page doesn't mean you should descend into forms of argument that a serious academic discussion would not involve. I am yet to see you provide evidence beyond your own beliefs about what nine out of ten others believe and your own interpretation of dictionary entries that I also believe back up my own views. I can turn that back on you and say exactly the same thing: I believe that nine out of ten people go with the more general definition. It's time for you to start pointing me towards some sources. Here's one for you: [[1]] - where Hong Kong is referred to as a "former British colony". Hong Kong was not a settler colony, yet here it is being referred to as a colony by a news organisation. Here's another: [[2]] - "Belgium rounds on former colony" - again, the Democratic Republic of Congo was not a settler colony, but it is being referred to as a colony. [[3]] - "France already has at least 500 troops in its former colony". A book by Cohn [[4]] entitled "Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India", not a settler colony. I could go on, but I'm bored. Gsd2000 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge-3

So yes, back on point. "What is colonialism, above and beyond the act or policy of establishing and maintaining colonies?" Colonialism is an attitude of mind and a set of assumptions conquerors impose on the conquered (reinforced by but not limited to direct power). Further! "Colonialism" is an academic discourse that has arisen since the inter-war period to analyze that attitude of mind and its effects. You don't want to muddy the waters with post-colonialism?... Well, you can't not. We can't sit here and talk about colonialism while ignoring post-colonialism, which has hijacked a large part of the arts academy. In that vein...you started this thread with a merge idea but you also "sectionized" and expanded the article. I like the latter idea! The page should be expanded and clarified further, not merged. A simple way to think of it: "colony" is a concrete noun while "colonialism" is an abstract one and they denote related but distinct topics. Merging the two is a disservice to Wiki readers. Marskell 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing the study of the subject and the subject itself. The suffix -ism comes from the Greek noun suffix -ismos and means “the act, state, or theory of” the word it is appended to (in this case, colonial, or "Of, relating to, possessing, or inhabiting a colony or colonies"). This maps neatly onto my definition of colonial-ism as the "act or policy of establishing and maintaining colonies". That's what colonialism is. It's strange because you began by arbitrarily restricting the definition of "colonialism" to the establishment of settler colonies, and here you are now suggesting it is also a "state of mind" (what state of mind exactly - triumphant or guilty colonizers, or welcoming or repressed colonized?), a "set of assumptions conquerors impose on the conquered" (I'm not sure how one "imposes" assumptions on others, incidentally), and an "academic discourse that has arisen since the inter-war period to analyse...." (people were analysing this long before then - try reading Bartolome de las Casas' - "the first and fiercest critic of Spanish colonialism in the New World" - A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, written in 1542). Tell me, if you are a colonialist, what does that mean in your book? What does the "history of colonialism" refer to - a history of the act or policy of establishing and maintaining colonies, or a history of an academic discourse that has arisen since the inter-war period to analyze an attitude of mind and its effects"? Gsd2000 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This page should tackle both the subject ("act and state") and its study ("theory of"). This fits if the title is colonialism; it doesn't fit if the title is colony. "That's what colonialism is" is reductionist. Your definition might be sufficient in a poli-sci text, but not, say, in a literature or cultural studies context where attitudes, justifications, "Other" construction, etc. etc. are the meat of the study. Note that the first substantial page on a google search (after Wiki entries) is an English dept [5] and it defines the concept in terms of race. A "history of colonialism" would incorporate that kind of analysis alongside the "facts on the ground." Africa was partitioned in the late 19th century ("the act or policy of establishing and maintaining colonies") + the partition of Africa was justified based on the assumption of white superiority ("an attitude of mind"). And no, I haven't leapt from definition to definition here: you asked what is colonialism above and beyond acts and policies and I offered a suggestion. I'm not saying your definition is wrong, just incomplete.

Fair arguments, although I do think that you are again blurring the study of the subject and the subject itself. The "theory" of colonialism does not equate to the study of colonialism any more than the communist theories equate to the study of communist theories. If you are a colonialist you are someone that ascribes to colonialism, not part of an academic movement. FYI - the Encarta encyclopaedia lumps the two together, whilst Britannica keeps them separate. You have to agree that if Encarta sees fit to merge the two, then it is at least a notion that we in Wikipedia can entertain, so I would be interested to hear others' opinions (as well as yours). Gsd2000 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I keep saying this and you keep not hearing it: I am not suggesting and did not suggest we should limit this to settler colonies. You're hammering away at this but we're not disagreeing about it. I apologize if "true colony" was poor word choice. But see, for instance, our own page: "Originally, as with the ancient (Hellenic) Greek apoikia, the term colonization referred to the foundation of a new city or settlement." Again, I'm thinking of Phonecian settlers founding Carthage or English settlers founding Virginia, not merely the administration of already inhabited territories. Perhaps I'm the only person concerned that people will continue to read it this way but it's a perfectly legitimate content concern. Marskell 09:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was hammering away at your claim that "conventionally", for "nine out of ten people", and for your interpretation of the dictionary definitions you quoted, colonies equals settler colonies. Gsd2000 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think (I hope!), we're close to seeing that we're not really in disagreement about definitions. In "(my) interpretation of the dictionary definitions (I) quoted, colonies equals settler colonies." Once more (in bold italics no less!): I do not believe that colony exclusively equals settlers. I have not said that. I am concerned that Wiki-readers may "conventionally" assume that idea, and that we should clarify it. If I made a mistake here, it was assuming initially that you were glossing in favour of colony because you wanted to emphasize colony = settlers, when indeed we are both commenting against that idea. Marskell 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge-4 A small lecture

• Without making a close and thourough reading all the forgoing tonight, let me add here that the Colony==Settlers arguement is empty and has been settled long ago by a whole shit load of several centuries of texts by qualified experts in history and the social sciences. i.e. it is a matter of idioms, in particular technical idioms in some very exacting scholarly fields and not of dictionary definitions, which are a collection of local language conventions always years behind the practice (usages) of the specific people it is written to serve and reflect. See some of the articles on language, but that whole line of arguement is specious and flys in the face of technical usage. For Pete's sake, people haven't been able to agree on proper spellings, all for numerous attempts at establishing a uniform widely accepted spelling standard, and you expect an exact dictionary definition, in the face of what experts decide sitting in their respective commissions on what terms to apply to their fields to settle a technical matter over the experts and their accepted usages?

The idea of combining these two articles has got to take those several techical distinctions into account for it is not our place here on wikipedia to tell the scholars how to do their jobs, but to collate, organize and report on what they publish; and thus, equating the two terms would in my experience be violating WP:NOR— as would requiring a some arbitrarily size of settlement for a country practising mercantilism and colonialism to have a valid colony by some cooked up (original research) formula— Both would be an untenable fringe theory, or linguistic stretch by misapplying terms too literally, cause that ain't the way it's discussed and defined. The proper idiomatic terms are Colony, and colonialism, but the one is a place usually obtained under the push from the other (the other way is by warfare), a belief system part of the economic theory of merchantilism.

• The French built a colonial empire both superior too and larger than the British (late starters) without much settler involvement whatever. India was the called the Jewel of the Orient, and it was a diadem in the French crown under Richelieu and Mazarin; only to later become the Crown Jewel of the British Empire because of conquest. Like the Dutch and Portugese, neither nation sent shoals of settlers half-way around the world, but only token populations, and those entities were refered to then and still are, as colonies. As in most things, Money was the key, and the spice trade and silk trade were the reward of holding that divided land. But French India was far larger and stronger than the British holdings, until the colonies became a prize of war.

It wasn't fashionable to leave France, the largest, richest, most powerful, most prestigious, and most populous nation in Europe to settle anywhere; same for the prosperous Netherlands, though it can be argued they were themselves a colony of Spain. The unusually large numbers of setters to North America generally had ulterior motives— religious persecution and lack of religious freedoms, or the promise of lands, not tied into ancient fuedal estates where one had to be beholdened to a landlord class of nobles and wealthy merchants. The Spanish did not export large bodies of people, and neither did the Porteguese. Nonetheless, they were all of them staunch believers in Merchantilism and did everything they could from the mid-1400's—early-1500's to expand and establish colonies, however thinly populated, excepting the British, who eventually had to play a lot of catch up ball; in the early days of the colonialism, they weren't even fielding a team.

Thus the establishment of New France and French India were both two of the largest terratorial land grabs under colonialism and quite successfully lucreative until the French, hampered by an absolutist officer class gradually lost their naval supremacy, then their parity to the Dutch and British, before, and then, especially during the Seven Years War to the British, who started the era as a third rate power and ended up as a de facto superpower. But that took decades to happen, nearly a century, and four wars with the Dutch and several major one's with the French and Spanish, and it happened because the British believed in colonialism daughter of mercantilism as the necessary route to national strength, so they continued investing in fleet units, while the other countries counted their coin. The French suffered a further military debacle in the Battle of the Nile, loosing most of their ready fleet, and causing Napoleon Boneparte to abandon plans to force a land route and survey a canal through the Suez in 1798 for even the egalitarian French Revolutionaries running that sorry excuse for a government believed in merchantilism and therefore colonialism. The French goal was to re-conquer the lost Jewel of the Orient-- India.

I hope that helps you all get 'off the dime' and settle on the real question— is a 'place class discriptor' equatable to a 'sociopolitical philosophy'. My vote is below. Best wishes to all. FrankB 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your thoughts, but it is a bit cheeky, writing an essay yourself and expecting others to read it but "without making a close and thourough reading all the forgoing"!  :-) If you are going to contribute to the debate, you should at least (pretend to) understand it thus far, before offering your own opinions. We did actually resolve that discussion, colony == settlers. Back on topic: As I said above, Encarta has a combined article for the two, so at least one other encyclopaedia considers it acceptable. The main reason I suggested a merge is because there is duplication in the articles. Colony absolutely does not equal colonialism, but one can quite easily fold discussion of the former into the latter, and it would not be misleading to do so. The only reason for opposing it that I can see is if you are a semantic purist, but then - encyclopaedias ain't dictionaries. Gsd2000 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry if it came off cheeky—time was pressing, but with an electronic format and without the overhead of setup and printing costs, when it comes to matters factual, topical, or such I tend to be inclusionist and counter-mergist. This is directly in line with WP:Btw and also in-line with the Foundation guideline goal of having an article title for each article title in all other encyclopedias, so that I essentially view such hair splitting as counter-productive. Duplication is a good thing—repetition and redundancy is the foundation and cornerstone of education. So what if the two have overlap. We are trying for a comprehensive recap of most all human knowledge, not to avoid titles that a given reader might search for. In a nutshell, when we merge too often, we cut down the utility of the encyclopedia as a whole as we have no way to predict what thought process, and hence word sequence drives a 'user-non-editor' (i.e. customer) to define whatever search string he/she picks. I try to keep in mind that the article hopping reader is most likely to be aged 9-17, or perhaps the even larger population of people sans university education who are trying to establish a base level of crystalized knowledge—as opposed to ones that have had at least some training in researching in a set of college prep High School courses or higher education experiences. In sum, I'd rather their (perhaps) less optimally technical search string be rewarded with knowledge, even if it is overlapped by a better article, than have a total miss which may damp their momentary enthusiasm to pursue what might have been a near-whimsical exploration. Nuff said. FrankB 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• BTW-Thanks for calling that little dash of text an essay... It was much more spontaneous and far less time consuming than THAT! FrankB 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh - well, you labelled it a "lecture" yourself! :-) Fair points. If you remove the merge suggestion I would not offer any objection to that. (I was the one that put it in). Gsd2000 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

==Merger Vote (Colony and Colonialism - note this is not a vote on a proposed merger of Colonization and Colonialism) == (now closed)

• Strong Never — See Talk:Colonialism#Merge-4_A_small_lecture for many reasons. FrankB 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree — Encarta has them merged, and to claims of semantic inequality I would say that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but an encyclopaedia. In order to avoid duplication of information and effort (particularly regarding its history - which considering colonialism is mostly a thing of the past is most of the discussion), colony could quite easily be discussed under colonialism without being misleading. Gsd2000 11:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colonialism usually refers, today, mostly to 19th century colonialism. Colonies in Ancient Greece and other historic colonies should have an article for themselves. Beside, "colonialism" is a historic phenomenon for which thousands of pages are not enough to describe it, while "colonies" is the description of a certain kind of "state". Lapaz 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per User:Fabartus and Lapaz --Richard 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I removed the merge with colony tag - retracting my merge suggestion in the light of other users' arguments. Gsd2000 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Different types of colonialism and pros & cons of it

This article attempts to discuss the general phenomenon of colonialism and then said "advocates point out at economic and political infrastructures leading to modernization & democracy", while "critics argue that there was no economic development and that even today there is still neocolonialism" (to go quickly). Before discussing the debate on colonialism, I think we should first separate different colonies in different sections. What point is there in saying "colonialism was good or bad" if we don't even know if we're refering to the US or Africa? Second, the opposition itself between advocates & critics is artificial. The huge majority of historians consider that 19th century colonialism involve a form of racism, which is definitely not a good point, but they also point out at technical achievements. So, even (historian) advocates of colonialism agree, in this case, that there was a form of racism in it. This should'nt be overviewed. Third, the argument about "modernization & democracy" is yet another argument, that should be put in a specific place (it is the argument that economic growth brings about democracy, which is a whole debate which should have a separate article if it hasn't already). Finally, although some critics do say that economic domination is still on-going, some critics will agree with advocates of colonialism in saying that they have seen economic growth. They just don't think this growth brought about democracy, and they argue that it wasn't worth the price. As the opposition is structured now, it seems that critics don't believe in the fact that roads and railroads were made, while advocates don't see any form of racism in 19th century colonialism. I therefore think we should make different subsections for different types of colonialism (I've seen that Andalucia in Spain is linked to here, but I doubt that we're talking about this Arab rule of Spain when we deal about the pros & cons of colonialism. Even if we where, it would be wrong, because it is a totally different historic phenomenon from, let's say, the 19th century French or German empire.) Lapaz 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with colonisation (comments?)

Although I don't endorse the merge with colonies, because I think this could make another article and design another reality, I do think colonisation should be merged here (one is a verb, while the other is a noun, but they refer to the same reality). Is there any support for that move? Lapaz 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. Colonialism is absolutely not equal to colonisation. Welsh folks colonised Patagonia, but that was not Welsh colonialism. ps both colonialism and colonisation are nouns. Gsd2000 18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

pps dicdefs: COLONIALISM - A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies/exploitation by a stronger country of weaker one; the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country; COLONISATION - the act of colonizing; the establishment of colonies; "the British colonization of America". Gsd2000 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. So maybe the actual merge should be between colonies and colonisation? Lapaz 01:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) By the way, have you got further info about thise colonisation of Patagonia by Welsh people? I'll be interested at it... Beside, you're right, colonisation is a noun, but it's a verb (to colonize) that has been made a noun. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and, going further than simple dictionary definitions, IMO, when most people hear "colonialism" or "colonisation", they are refering to the same historic phenomenon. Again, I'll also appreciate more about this colonisation of Patagonia by Welsh people. Why wasn't it colonialism? Lapaz 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, reading again, seem you think it's wasn't "Welsh colonialism", that is, colonialism supported by the Welsh state. But then, shouldn't this example be put in Colonies? Furthermore, does colonialism always, in all cases, refers only to state? I mean, sure colonialism is related to state and imperialism and so on, but state are made of people... And I'm sure that if enough Welsh people had gone out there in the cold this would have interested their state, wouldn't it? In other words, your only saying that the Welsh had a settler colonie down there. So why wouldn't that be a form of colonialism? Before being imperialism (and "imperialism" is a specific concept), colonialism is also a movement of emigration from Europe. In other words, you are defining a priori what is and what is not colonialism. But why would we all agree with your definition? Better than a dictionnary, I think in this case what we need is definitions from historians... Lapaz 02:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

More info here Welsh settlement in Argentina. FYI Wales isn't (and wasn't at the time) a state - it's a principality of a kingdom. The Welsh settlers colonized an area, but this was in the existing state of Argentina. I'm also reminded of a colony of Germans in Venezuela that was featured on BBC News recently and that one in Chile set up by fleeing Nazis. These colonies were not answerable to a metropole that had dispatched the settlers - they were/are answerable to the nation in which the "colonists" reside. I guess another analogy is Chinese emigration - there are large communities of Chinese around the world - this pattern of emigration has been occurring for hundreds of years but it was never sanctioned by the Chinese authorities - indeed, it was banned at one point. We shouldn't confuse the act of colonisation with the policy of colonialism. Gsd2000 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll read carefully this, but anyway, they are a lot of various colonies in South America, most notably German, but also French, Welsh as you point out, etc. That one in Chile is called Colonia Dignidad. However, since I've seen on your user page that you have a rather extensive bibliography on colonialism, would you report yourself to the first chapter of the part on imperialism in Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism? Arendt explains the opposition between nation-states and imperialism, which was an opposition between politics & economics. I'm pointing out to that, because Arendt thus explains that colonialism was an economic movement (what someone kind of strangely called corporate colonialism, although I'd also propose to merge that here, because it's not at all separate from ordinary colonialism), before even being state imperialism. Of course there is various colonies in the world, but before we enter historic debates, I think we really should ask ourselves on the legitimity of having ten articles describing the same stuff. Again, this is not a dictionnary. This article about Welsh settlement in Argentina would be perfect, I think, in the "See also" (or in maintext) of the Colonies article, rather than on colonisation. Again, I don't know you, but I'm sure most people understand the same historic phenomenon when talking about "colonisation" and "colonialism". Arguing on historical grounds, then I'll argue that this Welsh settlement in Argentina was part of the global colonisation historical movement, but that for various reasons, it didn't lead to a state under the dependency of the UK. It could have though, if things had happened differently. I more or less agree with your distinction between the very common act of colonisation and the policy of colonialism (although it surely could be discussed), but I think that what you mean by this type of "colonisation" would be better treated in the "colonies" article. After all, the point is not in arguing endlessly, because I'm sure we can argue endlessly on definitions, but just to improve the navigability of Wikipedia. Then we can always put a disclaimer on top of the page (this article doesn't refer to ...) Lapaz 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Last point. If there really is so "huge a difference" (sic) between colonisation and "colonialism", how come we all agree to call decolonization the movement that tried to put an end to colonialism? I don't think that I need a dictionnary to show you that "decolonization" should be the reverse of "colonisation", do I ? Lapaz 02:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Last last! Would you also kindly have a nice look at colonisation. Doesn't it seem to you that contents on this page and on that page interfere together? Of course, we haven't yet put here a section about "space colonialism", but since we're discussing "19th century colonialism", and that we will inevitably discuss the European colonization of America, surely someone will add here Roman colonies, and so... To not merge that will just duplicate contents, because contents over there are perfectly appropriate here. Lapaz 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Is it possible to have THIRD PARTY OPINION? I really think the merge is justified and necessary in order to avoid content forking, but Gsd2000 seems really opposed to it. Lapaz 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you open a request for comment? Gsd2000 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Banania propaganda?

There is a caption in this article that describes Banania as a propaganda method. Banania is a milk chocolate drink, not propaganda. While the depiction of the negro is understandably inacurate and acurately depicts the rascist ideologies of the time, the wrapper of the container was designed to make it seem exotic in an attempt to entice people to buy it, it was not necessarily an attempt to make people think of negros negatively.

While the depiction seems to be related with the French colonial empire, it seems to me that it is a Belgian commercial: the text is in two languages French and Dutch (French: 'Y a bon Banania' = 'there is good Banania', Dutch: 'Het beste ontbyt' = 'The best breakfast'). There is only one country in the world where both French and Dutch are spoken, and this is Belgium.

Have you heard of King Leopold and the Belgian Congo? The 'negro' used to make an item appear exotic does not serve that purpose alone, in a wider sense it reinforces the prevelent social discourse of the era.139.133.7.37 11:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge corporate colonialism here

I propose to merge corporate colonialism here, it won't be much work & I think it is a POV fork: we can't legitimately distinguish "state" & "corporate colonialism", all colonial studies show that the two are intrinsecally (?) mixed together, and that indeed "corporate colonialism" is one of the main reason behind the New Imperialism period, and of course one of the main factor of modern neocolonialism. Any comments? Lapaz 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Lapaz 11:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

discovery vs. rediscovery

Is this an important distinction to make? As far as the Spaniards and most of Europe was concerned, they didn't know about the Americas. Yes, maybe the Vikings knew about it but they were a different culture in a different time. AFAIK, there was little exchange of information between them and the Europe of the 15th century.

--Richard 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear why I brought this up. Someone just changed "discovery of the Americas" to "rediscovery of the Americas". I reverted the change and this is my discussion of why I thought "rediscovery" was unnecessary.

--Richard 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term "rediscovery" was meant to refer to the first settlers of the Americas, the Native Americans (should be pretty obvious from their name don't you think?). They were the first and that should be acknowledged. Mandar_Pips

Mandar Pips is right. Although the term "discovery" may be used, it is widely contested and historically false for various reasons. However, in order to prevent future reversal of it, I think that it should be explained. If you can add some info on that Mandar, that would be welcome ! Lapaz 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure of this article is inconsistent

There was a major heading (==European colonization of the Americas==) and a bunch of subheadings underneath. In scanning the article, it became clear that the appropriate major heading was "History of colonialism" with "European colonialism of the Americas" being the first subheading.

However, there is a problem in that the subsections are inconsistent. Most of the History section is about European colonialism with only a subsection about Japanese imperialism. Then there is a section about the French colonial empire and no similar sections about the British, Spanish, Dutch and even American colonial systems.

Look, we should either talk about who the colonial power was or where their colonial empire was. Mixing both together leads to the current mess. Thus, it would work great to have the following subheadings:

• British colonialism
• French colonialism

. . .

• Japanese imperialism

or, as an alternative,

• Colonialism in the Americas
• Colonialism in Africa

. . .

• Colonialism in Asia

I prefer the first approach but mixing the two approaches is just crazy-making.

--Richard 03:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is quite a mess. Look, I've recently did a lot of edits the article was really short and didn't say much when I first had a look (in December), and four months later almost no real progress had be done. This is a good question you pose about this "mixing the two approaches", we really ought to think about it and choose the best solution. As you point out, a lot more has been done on France, that's because I'm more familiar with its history. Globally, we also have to distinguish two main waves of European colonialism, the one that started with the "discovery" of the "New World", and New Imperialism starting in the 1860s. Now, concerning if we choose geographic approaches or more political-based approaches (depending on the states), both have good arguments for them. Geography is important: the Caribbean has a global cultural and historical unity which has consequences to this day (look at Haiti's situation today). Henceforth, the Caribbean is not Asia. However, as Hannah Arendt points out, and which is a common analyze of historians, there are important differences between the two rival "colonization models", the British & the French one (indirect rule vs. assimilation). I think that it is a good idea to keep the first section which has been done by User Gsd distinguishing various types of colonialism. Although mixing various approaches may be a bit confusing, it would surely be the most "rich" analyze, showing various aspects of the same phenomenon. We mustn't be scared of the lenght of the article: this is supposed to be the main article on colonialism, thus with a global dimension. I think, however, that it should include only the specific phenomenon of European imperialism, starting from the (re)discovery of the Americas (Roman colonies and space colonization are addressed in the colonization article, and it would be really confusing to mix such phenomenons together). So, on the basis that here we speak about European imperialism, the global dimension of it should be treated, dividing it in three main parts: the first wave of colonization (starting 15-16th century), the second wave (New Imperialism, 1860s and on, although in some cases, such as in Algeria it started as soon as the 1830s), and the third wave, which overlaps with the second, that is the decolonization (I say overlap, because the Indian National Congress, one of the first national liberation party, was founded as early as 1885, in the middle of the Scramble for Africa). To conclude, I don't know what others users think, but although mixing too much the two approaches will be confusing, I think we may proceed on a case-specific approach: again, it is difficult to legitimate separating the Caribbean in the various empires, the colonization there has been globally the same (Atlantic slave trade, sugar plantations, and common geographical-cultural area to this day), while we do have to point out the differences between the British & the French model. The aim of this article, although it may enter in too many details right now (concerning the French colonial empire, I don't know — let's not forget that this a try, and that others sections are supposed to be improved also), is thus giving a general view of it, with articles in subsection. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#If a section is a summary of another article, that may help us. I hope you contribute! Lapaz 14:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the passage on Hannah Arendt's analysis, which is now in the "European colonization of the Americas" subsection, should be moved to "types of colonialism"? Lapaz 14:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning geographical vs politic-based approach, the Middle-East is like the Caribbean examples: we can't cut Lebanon and Palestine in two just because one was under British mandate and the other under French mandate! Lapaz 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I really think we can't avoid mixing both approaches, it would be too limiting and arbitrary to choose one over the other. As long as we have specific sub-articles to deal with this problem, we should be able to overcome it. Lapaz 15:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) We just have to use common sense to not repeat ourselves too much. Lapaz 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Settler colonies

Settler colonies is still red. Shouldn't we make it redirect either to "settler" or to "colonies"? (If we need to make a separate article afterward, that can be done). What do you think Gsd2000 ?

Chronology of colonialism

Why would a quick chronology of colonialism not be in line with the "spirit of the article"? I'll be grateful for some explanations. Lapaz 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If that means making this article larger I'd suggest not. This needs to be drastically cut and info moved to sub-articles or simply removed if sub-articles have it covered. Marskell 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that may sound discouraging given all the work you've done. Do keep up the good work but on this one it may be time reevaluate proportion and emphasis! Marskell 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the above question about a "chronology of colonialism", the question should be "what purpose would it serve?". I could understand a "chronology of British colonialism" or a "chronology of French colonialism" but why a "chronology of all colonialism"? How would a single chronology that mixes colonialism by various countries help the reader?

--Richard 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

About the chronology: maybe because "British colonialism" wasn't, after all, so different from "French colonialism"?

Lapaz 10:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I moved it but I kept a subsection for it. A chronology always come in useful, that's one of the few uncontroversial things (?) about Wikipedia. Although the article may be currently unbalanced (sgth I don't contest), we do need to keep in mind that an article about "colonialism" is necessarily going to be big... or empty! We can't just make subsections with two-sentences résumés, titled "British", "German", "Spanish", etc. and get out of here like that! We must address the global issue of colonialism, which, in order to avoids any POV wars, precisely needs facts — I'm inclined to think that once you know the facts the article Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization becomes less controversial. In other words, we should copy-edit what's on now, but that doesn't mean moving everything to other pages; this means finding an intelligent way to reduce the size without reducing the content, i.e. making a good résumé. Thanks for feedback! Lapaz 10:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Waay too darn long...

This article is 82kb in size which is beyond the recommended 30kb - 50kb maximum length. Please refer to WP:SIZE.

--Richard 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reviewed this article briefly and it is waaay too long. Stuff needs to be moved out to subsidiary articles and replaced with summaries.

I would push for more detail to be put into the subsidiary articles and for new sections to be built around British and Spanish colonialism. I'm not sure if Dutch colonialism deserves it's own section.

Also, if the fall of the USSR deserves a section, why not have a section on Soviet colonialism / imperialism?

I understand that some people think that there is not a single dimension along which this article can be organized but the current article just seems to be a mish-mash.

--Richard 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"The fall of the USSR" subsection was made to adress the question of "Soviet imperialism". It is easier to find such examples of effective "colonialism" where they are wars of national liberation. Lapaz 10:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we only talk about Soviet imperialism in the context of the fall of the USSR. Why not a section on Russian imperialism which was the precursor of Soviet hegemony. It's like talking about the British Empire only by focusing on post World War II decolonisation.

--Richard 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're in for writing a section on British & Spanish colonialism, then please go for it!

Lapaz 10:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I probably won't write a section but I have restructured the article to make it more readable. One of the restructuring edits allowed me to put in a reference to the Spanish colonization of the Americas article which was an important missing reference.

--Richard 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's too long, as the current subsection on the "French colonial empire" might be, then we can always find a solution later (moving the text & leaving a résumé). The point is to address on this page the whole issue of colonialism, this necessarily takes place. We can't just have separate pages on "French colonialism", "Dutch colonialism", "British colonialism", and treat them according to modern nation-states, as if there was not a "global" phenomenon called "colonialism" which can be analyzed. The 16th and 17th first wave of colonialism certainly can't be separated either from the second wave, although they were mainly Spanish & Portuguese. Well, I hope you do see the point to speak of "colonialism" from a global perspective. Lapaz 10:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in principle but the fact remains that this article is still waaay too long and, at the same time, there are huge gaps (e.g. Russian imperialism / Soviet hegemony, Japanese imperialism, Chinese imperialism).

I don't claim to have the definitive answer to this problem but I would like us to acknowledge the issue and discuss possible solutions. One idea that I have been kicking around is a History of Colonialism article which would mesh well with your Chronology of colonialism article. Thus, a lot of the historical detail in this article could be moved to that article and just a summary of the key events could be left in this article.

--Richard 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They are many articles of this size. Colonialism is an important subject, it needs size (Special:Special:Long pages). This is an history of colonialism, creating another will just move the problem around. I agree that we must synthetize it the most possible, but not at the price of losing insight. Lapaz 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes "less is more". Length isn't the only or even the best metric to use. Readability is. However, the longer the article is, the more likely it is that there will be readability issues.

You say that this article is "a history of colonialism". It is only that because you say it is (that is, you have conceived it as such and are having trouble envisioning it as anything else). The problem is that the historical details make it very difficult to put in anything else.

Imagine for a second that you simply removed the historical stuff completely and put it in another article. What would be left? The stuff about types of colonialism and the impact of colonialism.

That's actually pretty important stuff that is being overshadowed by the excessive emphasis on historical detail. It's really quite reasonable to have an article about colonialism which contains a summary of the history and then an article about the history which provides a lot more detail. Thus, we could add a lot more about colonialism in this article and still have room in the history article to add more detail. Instead of one 82kb article, we could have two 60kb articles and the both would probably be more readable than this one is now.

--Richard 20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, quite to the contrary. Actually, a lot of historical "details" are still missing! (you point out some of them — I know I've forgotten many, and some - such as the Herero Genocide - are not necessarily details, but often overshadowed by more "political" history such as the 1904 Triple Entente, etc.). Now, if apart of having a quick history of colonialism (providing a general view with hyperlinks to specific subjects — that's the point of Wikipedia, isn't it?), which is necessary (I was actually stunned to see the page see short for so long a time; probably shows what may be the effects of systemic bias...) — we can think about if it should stay here or move elsewhere — you propose a "typology" of colonialism and a part on the Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonisation. As you see, I moved this part to a specific article, because, to be honest, I am way too afraid of it transforming itself into a fight about rival opinions with a section "positive" values & another "negative" values. Furthermore, I think that before someone began voicing his opinions about that, maybe it would be nice having first a look at an article recensing the history of colonialism in one way or the other. Thus, if I see it right, you may argue that it's better to exclude the history of colonialism from here to move it to a separate article & reintegrate the "impact & evaluation" here... I don't know about that... The last point, it seems (until we find another way to present colonialism) is the typology, which was the main part of the article in December, and is still present here in the first section (settler, dependencies, etc.) and "British vs. French". This is probably the part that should be expanded, comparing French & British. All & all, if I get it well, you are asking the place of each of these three "subsections" (or ways to approach the phenomenon of colonialism) in relation to this main article. This is something we should be able to work out! Lapaz 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Actually, I don't know if you know about those stuff & how you create them, but if we follow your suggestions of breaking it up in at least those three parts (which is already done in a way or another), and maybe even breaking up an eventual History of colonialism into History of colonialism from the 15th century to the 18th century and History of colonialism from the New Imperialism period to post-decolonization, this will make at least 4-5 articles relating to colonialism as a global event (and not as specific to nation-states ; we can't be satisfied with covering colonialism empire by empire, it just isn't reasonable!): the main Colonialism one, Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization, one or two articles concerning specifically it's complete history, more the Chronology of colonialism (notwithstanding decolonization, which can't be considered separate from colonialism for obvious reasons, and neocolonialism and postcolonialism — which it would be a POV-fork to separate them from colonialism). These articles in turn direct to specific articles such as European colonization of the Americas (which is broken up in Spanish colonization of the Americas, etc.). Thus, maybe we should do in this case as they did in "European colonization...": create a "Colonialism" template with most of these articles in to ensure better navigation? I don't know if you have a clue of how to do that or where to look for, but it does allow to enlarge this article according to whichever views you propose, doesn't it? Lapaz 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PPS: As an example of what I mean by the POV-fights concerning "Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization", how can you not have a historical section about Colonialism#The destruction of the Amerindian population and the Atlantic slave trade ? This is what I mean about the necessary interference between the "purely" historical parts and the "moral" parts... I mean, IMO, not including such a part in the "impact & evaluation" article is in itself a POV fork: how are you supposed to "judge" (I don't know what's really the use of that but anyway) the "value(s)" of colonialism without describing the slave trade & the extermination of the Amerindians (by germs or by guns, as the other guy puts it, doesn't change much to the end-result for them...)? Lapaz 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'a bon banania

The badly structured sentence Y a Bon Banania tries to make the racist point that Negroes don't know how to speak properly.

This sentence is wrong. I don't deny that racism was present in french colonialism. But Y'a bon slogan was inspired directly from the language of the soldats where the product was first distributed. If this senegalese soldats used a bad syntax that was because the french use to teach them a simplified form of french. [6] -- Pixeltoo 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the phrase was "pidgin French". Thus, the poster may not be proper French but it may simply have been using the "pidgin French" that the natives knew how to speak. The "racism" of the poster may be a modern-day interpretation that reads a racist intent into something that was perhaps more innocuous. "Pidgin" dialects spring up everywhere where two languages meet. Creole and Spanglish are examples.

--Richard 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at how much comments this image has brought, especially in comparison with others sections. I've not replied to them yet, but I do have to signal that this picture is usually represented in French textbooks as an example of racist colonial propaganda, and that's exactly why it's been inserted here: it's a classic enough example not to be controversial. It seems I was mistaken however, since various comments here tend to contest this interpretation. Racism is not necessarily explicit & aggressive, it also exists in such advertising, which seems inocuous but, along with Colonial Exhibitions, had a main role in forming the popular consciousness of "having an Empire". Lapaz 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, it was not pidgin French. By the way the link above is not only dead, but is a blog. Lapaz 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the image and the caption. The image also has "Het Beste Ontbyt" written on it, which is Dutch, not French, for "the best breakfast". Given the pidgin French, the image is possibly originally Belgian (?). Either way, the information is grossly biased and inaccurate (why Dutch if it is a French advert?), and seemingly based on an unreliable source: who actually knows what the image is, where it's from, and so forth? It's gone now, since any attempt to fix it will constitute original research, in my opinion. And I had probably better stay away from "history" articles from now on, lest my blood pressure go through the roof. Byrgenwulf 20:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This cacao advertisement was very common and may be found in high-school manuals. The poster here uses Dutch because it is Belgian. As parts of Belgium speaks French, Belgium has always been close to France and it is no surprise that the same advertisement was used in France & Belgium. Lapaz 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Byrgenwulf told me about this discussion regarding the Y'a bon banania advertisement. I am a native Afrikaans speaker, a language which derived from Dutch, and I can therefore read Dutch since all native Afrikaans speakers learn Dutch literature at school. I also studied Dutch and Afrikaans at undergraduate level, so I can say with absolute certainty that "Het Beste Ontbyt" is Dutch for "the best breakfast". The same phrase in Afrikaans would be "Die Beste Ontbyt". There is also a Wikipedia article about Banania, which includes the French version of the same advertisement sporting the French byline "Petit Dejeuner Familial". [[Image:Banania2.jpg]] You may thus wish to rather include the French version in the article, together with appropriately balanced commentary. I would argue that the advertisement shows how colonial sentiment permeated the common consciousness, rather than indicating any official government involvement. It is also interesting to see that the current logo of the company in question still employs the image of a Senegalese infantryman, albeit a more cartoonish representation. --Draegora 10:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Assassinated anticolonialist leaders

I rv your displacement of the "list" of assassinated anticolonialist leaders, Richard, because I think it is pointless to have a sentence stating that: "Many anticolonialist leaders were assassinated in more or less obscure circumstances in the 1960s, whether by foreign powers or internal enemies, sometimes supported by foreign powers who more or less openly supported dictatorships (for example, France and its ties with the Françafrique)." if you do not include a non-exhaustive list of assassinated leaders. Names have to be provided in order for this to be something else than simple opinion in the air. BTW, a list of assassinated people already existed, and is linked to: this small enumeration of assassinated people is far from being exhaustive, and I doubt that we can understand the historical phenomenon of decolonisation if we forget these obscure assassinations: decolonisation was paid for by the colonized with their lives. All the work provided here for this article has been an attempt of escaping opinions fight concerning the value of colonialism on behalf of a factual account of what happenned in five centuries, and this needs names, places, dates... Precisions in order not to speak in the air. This doesn't means a list of assassinated anticolonialist leaders could not be created, but if the aim of such an entry is simply not naming the names in relevant subsections in relevant articles, than I don't see the use of it. I hope you understand my point, fare well & please continue with your contributions, I'm letting way a bit... Lapaz 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As you might expect, I disagree. I understood your reasoning before I moved the list but, despite your intent, it's just too long a list and doesn't belong in the midst of the article text. It would be better to name 4-5 names without details and then reference a longer list at the bottom of the article. However, rather than get into a revert war over this, I ask you to consider my point and make the proposed changes if you agree.

--Richard 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you are asking for an exhaustive list. I'm certainly not going to go against your wish, if you really think that's better, all right. I'll try to take out some names, but as I've pointed out above, the list is far from being exhaustive and was already reduced in the first hand. And there is no point at all in reducing it to one name which everybody knows, since the list is there to show that it's not exceptionnal. It seems that what bother you is the "list" form of it, or am I mistaken? Lapaz 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it quickly, I do really think that it's not large. What is the point of moving it in a separate section since this list concerns the decolonisation? It has been put in the form of a list because it's easier to do that when you have to enumerate some facts, but what is the point of giving "four names without details"? Again, the list and details could make an article in themselves, they've already been reduced to maximum. We can't speak about the phenomenon of "decolonisation" just by saying generalities,again, we need precisions: names, facts, places, dates. The rest is thin air. Lapaz 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the need for evidence. I'm just suggesting that we could provide a more compact format and links to the rest of the evidence elsewhere. You may feel that you want to club the reader over the head with the evidence but putting too much information is more likely to cause the reader to just skip over all of it. I would be happier if you had 5-7 names without details but having each name be hyperlinked to a more detailed description as it is now.

Yes, I do think that the list format is perhaps part of what puts me off. How selecting 4 assassinations and dedicating one paragraph to each with a non-bulleted list (i.e. comma-separated) of the rest of them?

Play around with it. I'm not trying to weaken the evidence, I'm trying to improve the readability.

P.S. I wasn't asking for an exhaustive list but, if you have an interest in building one, then it should either go at the bottom of this article or in a separate article.

--Richard 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization of articles related to colonialism

Lapaz, I think we are starting to work off "the same sheet of music" now. You may have interpreted my "way too long" comment as intended to delete content whereas now you have come to see that my focus is on adding content but in subsidiary articles. I will discuss the specific organizational ideas that you mentioned at a later time. For now, let's talk general principles.

I do have some experience doing this kind of stuff in Wikipedia. One of my first projects as a Wiki editor was splitting off Adaptation to global warming from Mitigation of global warming. My focus has been on the articles Mitigation of global warming and Adaptation to global warming with some work on Effects of global warming.

The other (and more major) project has been working on reorganizing the articles related to the Aztec civilization. I have worked with other editors to organize those articles and to create navigation templates. One other editor (User:Pietdesomeres) has been very helpful and knows more about templates than I do. If we need to, we might be able to call on him as a resource.

Curiously, Piet and I actually met while working on the Hernan Cortes article. Of course, as we migrated towards the Aztec articles, we have joined forces with two other editors who were already working on the Aztec article.

I can't tell you all the stuff that we've done to Aztec-related articles in the past couple months but, suffice it to say, the series of Aztec-related articles is much improved and much better organized now than it was when we started. In fact, we are currently trying to push Aztec to be a featured article.

Along the way, we have created three templates: Template:Spanish colonization of the Americas, Template:Aztec and Template:Pre-Columbian. These were originally Piet's creations but I learned from his example and I know how to create a basic template. I'm just not as good as he is at creating more sophisticated templates (like Template:Pre-Columbian). It's not rocket science, though. You can figure out the basics by visiting the template and clicking on "Edit page".

I have also created a couple of WikiProjects (WP:AZTEC and WP:Pre-Columbian). I think we need a WikiProject for Colonialism. I'll create one in the next couple days.

There's a lot of work in front of us but I'm up for it if you are.

--Richard 15:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias due to lack of Worldwide View

There is a complete lack historical perspective in this artical. Reading it you would think that colonialism started with a Papal bull in 1481, a view of history so biased it boarders on racism. Where is the islamic colonisation of the middle east and north africa, the Roman empire, the Ethiopian empire, the Aztec empire, China (wasn't allways one big country) or even Alexander the Great with his building of whole cities and getting his armies to marry locals. I'm sure there are many more in history, so can we add some more info to make this less POV.Hypnosadist 14:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See Colonisation and Colony for other examples of colonialism. This page obviously refers to European colonialism which started in the 16th century, it is not biased but a necessity to separate things which have nothing to do together (what's the common point between the scramble for Africa and the Aztec empire? Before making hasty judgments about people ("racist"!!???), take the time to explore Wikipedia, and if you are willing to contributes about other forms of colonialism, please refer to the pages above mentionned. Thanks Lapaz 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, without agreeing that we should include the various empires listed by Hypnosadist, I think there is some validity to the point he is making.

We do have to decide if this article is about modern European colonialism or modern colonialism. Either way, this article is NOT about the history of imperialism from Persia through Alexander, Rome, China, etx. However, it is worthwhile to consider modern colonialism in the context of ancient practice.

Europeans didn't invent colonialism from thin air. There was a legacy of imperialism going back to time immemorial. What Europeans did was blend imperialism, religion and mercantilism into a unique blend which we now call colonialism. This point isn't explained well in the text and could be if we spent more time on it than on the detailed history of colonialism (cf. my suggestion above about putting the history in a separate article.)

What are the commonalities between the British empire and the Roman empire? What are the differences? How about the Spanish empire?

I'll give you one difference. The Romans, being pantheistic and perhaps not taking their religion all that seriously, did not insist that the people they conquered adopt their gods. Well, not until they became Christians, that is.

Were European colonial empires more evil than their predecessors? If so, how? Or is it just that our standards of conduct have changed?

I'm not suggesting that we come up with our own assessment of colonialism. I am curious, though, whether the verdict of historians is uniformly negative. In any event, some additional context would help this article.

--Richard 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz you make my point for me, the artical is called Colonialism NOT European colonialism from the 16 century onwards. Your (and most of the previous editors) assumption that colonialism = European colonialism is why i made such a strong comment. This artical on colonialism should be on the whole of colonialism through time, with links to the specific articals. As to what empire's should be referenced in this history i don't care strongly as long as it pre-dates 1481.

Richard your comments about the Roman empire are half right, as the did take thier religion seriously but it was also part of thier Colonial stratagy. When the Romans first conquered a people they would honour the local gods often with building or adding to temples. The Romans success as colonisors is demonstrated with Constantinopal becoming the capital.Hypnosadist 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on the article's name, let's focus on its contents and see how "colonialism" articles are done here. They are various series, such as European colonization of the Americas (divided into Spanish colonization of the Americas, etc.); Colonization of Africa; European colonies in India, etc. Then they are the main articles colony, colonisation and colonialism. Why should "colonialism" treat mainly of the European colonization and of the New Imperialism period? Maybe because that's what most people have in mind when they think "colonialism"? Maybe also because, as this article demonstrates, dealing with only this colonialism is already more than enough for a page? I hope you contribute Hypnosadist, but before you start saying "this article should be about...", maybe you should have a look around. The articles on colony and colonisation are still rather poor, treating the Roman colonization in a small paragraph.

I do not think there is much point in comparing the Roman Empire with the British or Spanish Empire, apart in a short allusion stating this famous difference. It is not our duty to judge the values of neither of them, and comparing incomparable things is quite difficult.

Thus, this article starts with the 15th century, because we're dealing with this type of colonialism here, and I don't think it's going to improve the quality of the article mixing it up with all sorts of different things. Following Hypnosadist's outburst, I put a "disclaimer" on top to refer to colonization if one is looking for other examples. If you really think there is a sense in comparing those different empires, I suggest that it is done on that page.

Finally, Richard, if you want to explain the "blend of imperialism, religion and mercantilism" which we now call "colonialism", you know that size isn't that serious a problem & we can always solve it later. Instead of focusing on "how" the article should be done, why not write it before? We shall see afterward if we need to organize in a different manner. The same goes on the name: if the name is really the only reason for Hypnosadist' indignation, we could change it. But that shouldn't be done right now, since if you have a look in what's been effectively written, you will see that we already have this article, Colonization, Colony, Impact and evaluation of colonialism, European colonization of the Americas, etc. etc. etc. So we have at least three articles (colonization, colony and colonialism) which bear similar titles. If we want to make a very general page gathering all the "universal history" of colonialism albeit its fundamental heterogeneity, than this will necessarily demand to merge "colonization" and "colony" into "colonialism", and then create a second page "European colonialism" or something like that. However, votes for merging "colonization" and "colony" here have failed before, as you may see on this talk page. Lapaz 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lapaz and Richard. To answer your point Lopaz my main complaint was the title, but now i see that the whole area needs a bit of TLC. I often edit controversial topics so hence why i came to the talk page first to voice my concerns, it was not workshy laggardism. I'll put forward my views on this whole are in a few hours.Hypnosadist 15:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am being laggard in working on this article because I have other stuff I'm doing in Wikipedia at the moment and in real life. I also don't feel well qualified to write a lot in this article so I'm hoping somone else will write the bit about "blend of imperialism, religion and mercantilism". I wonder, Lapaz, do you agree that this is an accurate description of modern (i.e. 15th-20th century) Western colonialism?

I didn't know about the Impact and evaluation of colonialism article until today. I think that's a content fork and needs to be merged into this article. If everybody else agrees, we should propose a merge into this article.

--Richard 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was splitted from here in order not to get it here too large... I think the fork is justified as this "impact & evaluation" concerns moral judgment on colonialism, and I think that before issuing such judgement, it may be better to read this page, if a logical order is to be found in an encyclopedia which doesn't, by essence, follow such an order. Lapaz 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Impact and evaluation of colonialism should stay as it is very important info, and as a rule more information is better. Also the division of concecpt and value judgements on the effects of that concept is important as Lapaz says.

My feeling is that the main article Colonialism should be more of a Hub for the very large amount of info on colonialism through Human history. The article giving a deffinition of the concept and the different ways this was done (british vs french vs ?). The different mechanisms used to achive the objective of colonialism ie: Language, Religion, Money and Force. And finally a chronology of colonialism, with links to European colonization of the Americas and other articals most appropriate for each event. A discription of each would allow the artical to put in context the numbers of people involved, the reasons claimed for colonisation etc. and then show where in wikipedia to get more info on that subject or the people involved.Hypnosadist 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"This exploitation of natural resources form the bases of today's terms of unequal exchange between nations" - I find this statement biased. It's marxist terminology, makes the argument the west benefited more(when it is arguably the other way around or simply equal), 'exploitation of resources' is necessary for progress and modernization. Under the section on missionarys it should be mentioned the impact of people like david livingstone, who were horrified by the slavery and the cannibalism, inspired many people to come to africa not to exploit them but to help them. Lightningstrikes 23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, please let me know if the current form of the "list of assassinated people" is better that way? Following your suggestion , I've kept only a few very famous names (although my view on that may be a bit different since I'm obviously not a native English speaker...). Lapaz 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, your English is pretty good although I did find a few awkward locutions in the text which I fixed. I will continue doing so as I find them.

As far as the current "list of assassinated people" goes, yes, I do like it a lot better. Thank you. I couldn't find it at first because I was looking for a shortened version of the previous bulleted list and didn't realize that you had turned it into prose which is a huge improvement. I like this version better partly because it improves the flow by not interrupting the reader with a long list of names and dates but also because it allows the reader to focus on what happened rather than just clubbing the reader with a long laundry list of names and dates. I wonder if you would consider separating this paragraph into three paragraphs: One on coups and assassinations, another on support of authoritarian regimes and a third on "dirty wars".

Question: When people think about this stuff, they mostly think about the CIA. Is there evidence that the UK, France and USSR also engaged in this sort of stuff? If so, we should mention it.

Also, I couldn't find a reference to the original list of asssassinations. I thought the idea was to either move it to the bottom of the article or to another article. The information you had in the list is important. I just didn't like having it in the middle of the article.

Finally, I'm wondering why there was no mention of Ngo Dinh Diem, the assassinated President of South Vietnam. I know there is dispute about CIA involvement but there seems to be a body of opinion that argues that the CIA facilitated the assassination if only by removing protection. The argument is that Kennedy himself gave up on Diem and felt that he had to be removed.

I will probably come back later to discuss the specific wording of this section and we will probably need to discuss the tone of the article (i.e. there are possible arguments that the current text is too POV anti-US, pro-leftist). Well, this may be true of the whole article but it's a huge topic and I don't have time to get into it right now.

--Richard 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Hypnosadist's proposition, I urge you again to have a serious look at colonization and colony and to think about which article would make the best "hub". I must warn you that the method of trying to define "colonialism" as an universal concept and then send to specific historical articles seems to me doomed to failure. Colonialism is not an "universal phenomenon", it takes various forms depending on specific historical conditions, which explains why I insist that we can't compare the incomparable, and that any general discussion about "colonialism" must be restricted to one specific form of colonialism. Although British col. is not the same as French one, I do think we can gather both under the same concept, because of various historical factors & chronology. I do not think we can consider the Roman colonisation in the same way. Just one example: New Imperialism period involves nation-states, while the first wave of European colonization involved empires... Lapaz 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Lightningstrike's comments, I'll be pleased to have you mention the many positive effects of the good charity of well-intentioned people in Africa and other countries of "savages" and "primitives" people who need priests to save their souls and young adults taking their free time to dig wells in poor villages... Let us not forget, however, that the Church and the Army, spiritual & temporal power, collaborated in this well-oiled domination mechanism, and that wars are not only fought with weapons, but also with images... If you can argue that colonialism has been more profitable to the colonized people than to the colonizers, I'll be interested in which sources you use, and point out to you the existence of the Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization article, created to address this "controversy". Lapaz 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If this article is supposed to be about European colonialism, why don't we just move it to European colonialism then? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's supposed to be about European colonialism but about modern colonialism (as opposed to colonization in ancient, classical and medieval times). However, most colonialism in the modern-era (defined roughly as post-1492) has been European, the major exception being Japan. After World War II, colonialism transformed into economic imperialism and so we're really talking about a specific relationship between colonies and the "mother country" that lasted from roughly 1492 through the 1960s.

--Richard 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone seen ASIA?

Hey, why aren't the colonies in Asia Pacific wriitten in this article. Where's the part about the Portuguese colonization of coastal cities in India and Malaysia during the 1500s, British India, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, the Spice Islands, Hong Kong, the Boxer Rebellion, French Indochina, Australia and New Zealand, European colonies in Japan, Malaya, the colonization of the Pacific, the Russian colonization of Siberia, Machoukuko, and the Chinese annexation of Tibet. Obviously this article is biased.

-23prootie 8:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why 23prootie deleted the above message after writing it. He/she raises perfectly valid points. There IS a lot missing especially about Asia. I wouldn't say the article is deliberately biased. It's just that there's more work to do. Hey -23prootie, why don't you help us and write some of what you see as missing?

--Richard 05:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious!

U.S. section deals with U.S. support for Third World juntas, but Soviet support of Idi Amin, Kim Il-Sung, DERG, Gaddaffi, and tons of others goes unmentioned? How hipocritical. And "liberation movement"... what garbage....

Maybe Cold War is the place to deal with that? Lapaz 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Beside, if you do have NPOV information to add, please be bold. Lapaz 22:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism in Europe - Yugoslavia and other stuff

I wonder is the dessolution of Yugoslavia really belongs to this topic? Is it possible at all to call such things "colonialism"? Could it be at all colonialism in Europe? Was Czechoslovakia also a "colonial state" before its dessolution? Were Slovaks "colonized" by Czechs?--Nixer 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to imply that it was colonialism. Rather, it aims at adressing the issue (since people lift it from time to s time) of the Soviet Union. The subsection is largely insufficient, maybe a specific article could be created (what should we call it?) The main issues to be adressed overlap, of course, with the Cold War. But probably a few points should be underscored:

• the USSR's ideological and material support to liberation fronts (quite a subject: see Moscow shaky support to the Communist Party of China, which took the power in 1949 with hardly any support from the Soviet Union);
• Eastern Europe, which is not a case of "colonialism" as not any case of domination of one country (or "empire"?) on another can't be qualified as "colonialism", which is not only a material domination but also an ideological project of civilization of coloured races (however, the question has to be addressed as every so and often someone comes in and say: "hey, the USSR!");
• last but not least, the Soviet Union's dislocation. Again, I find the idea of qualifying the USSR's domination on the Second World as "colonialism" as hard to defend, but I think this can precisely be shown with the example of Yugoslavia etc. On the other hand, the Yugoslavian wars, which were hardly "liberation wars", contrast with the Chechen Wars, and the problem of colonialism in Chechnya is doubtlessly more acute. Is it really colonialism? could it be still argued; but there is all the appearances of a national liberation struggle which has deep historical roots.

Concerning the Balkans, the wars were probably more the backlash of the frozen state of affairs in 1919, and have been interpreted as such: the problem of the Balkans is of course the imbrication of various ethnic groups sharing the same territories. Hence, as for ex. Hannah Arendt brillantly demonstrated, the principle of self-determination (one people, one state) was doomed to failure in the Balkans. This problem was suspended by the creation of Yugoslavia & then Tito's federation, but never eliminated. Tito's disappearance and the fall of communism only unleashed these various nationalisms which already existed before WWI and of which none could be really satisfied without leasing the others. While colonialism might be said the struggle for self-determination, the Balkan wars (which continues in what strategists call "low-intensity conflicts", which may however may be more lethal than "high-intensity conflicts", in particular in Kosovo region and Macedony - the edit wars on some Balkan-related articles here on wikipedia testimony to these conflictual nationalisms) are rather the sign of the failure of the principle of self-determination — and thus, in a sense, the reverse of anti-colonialist struggles. The Balkans always were the region which, torn apart between the Ottoman Empire, Czarist Russia and Austria-Hungary, mark the failure of the principle of "one nation, one state". Hence the Austro-Marxists defined a concept of nationality based on citizenship, not territory, which would later influence left-wing Jewish groups and modern supranational conceptions of citizenship. Although this might seem to take us far away from the subject of colonialism, it tries to addresses to the contrary the roots of the anticolonialist struggle for self-determination. Lapaz 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So I suggest all the stuff related to Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe to be removed.--Nixer 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. It is confusing colonialism and imperialism to include them. Gsd2000 12:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)