Jump to content

Talk:Settler colonialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestine

[edit]

Why does this not have its own section? The most prominent example is not even mentioned her!

Why is this topic confined to post-15th century examples

[edit]

The definition of "settler colonialism" given in the article seems to apply equally well to colonialism as practiced by empires in previous eras, such as the Phoenician?Carthaginian quasi-empire, the empire of Alexander and his generals, the Roman empire, the Mongol empire, etc. Should not these also be included in the article? K.a.carroll (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.a.carroll you're right that the article needs a lot of work. However, you will have to look at the books about settler colonialism to find out what they cover and emphasize. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are starting to ask questions but in general I don't think you'll find this terms applied to non-European conquests involving population movements and we have to follow reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 12:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you will find it applied to older European conquests involving population movements, such as Greek settler colonialism in Sicily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Alaexis¿question? 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon for bumping this discussion but what sources have you found @Horse Eye's Back specifically calling ancient Greek colonialism in Sicily as "settler colonialism"? The Wiki page itself doesn't actually ancient Greek "settler colonialism"?
@K.a.carroll - in addition to comments said by @Alaexis and @Buidhe, it seems like the term "settler colonialism" is almost inherently Eurocentric and pertaining largely to the so-called "Age of Exploration" and the height of European (or Euro-descended countries like the Anglo-America's post-independence colonial empire) imperialism during the 15th to early 20th centuries.
Even on the page for the Conquest of the Canary Islands the opening section cites a journal describing the Spanish conquest of the Canary Islands and the Guanche people as the "first" example of European settler colonialism in Africa, cause I guess we're excluding the Roman province of Africa and the Greek dynasties of ancient Egypt. Similarly, I'm not seeing many reliable sources consistently calling the Roman province of Asia or Alexander the Great's South Asian, Central Asian and West Asian campaigns as among the first examples of European "settler colonialism" in Asia. And when I see terms like "colonist" being applied in reliable sources, they never refer to say, the Aztecs or ancient Egyptians the same way RS may call the British "colonizers". Or look at how Hawaiian King Kamehameha the Great is generally revered in Hawaii despite also being "colonizer" who lead a 30 year conflict to conquer various islands.
It's rather interesting since a country like Singapore seems like an extremely good example of so-called "settler colonialism" just like Taiwan. Only about 13.5% of the country's modern-day population belong to the Malay peoples, who are considered Singapore's "indigenous" population. The vast majority of the country is populated by, and largely dominated by (in social/political and ethnic demographics) Han Chinese and Indian descendants from migration waves to Singapore. Yet I have not seen an abundance of reliable sources describing Singapore as an example of "settler colonialism" the same way we call Australia, Canada, et al "settler countries". I have a feeling this is because Singapore was not populated by majority of European immigrants but reliable sources also discussing about how Taiwan may qualify as being an example of "settler colonialism" makes me wonder if the term may be applied in some sources to Singapore in the future.
What I think makes the term more rather confusing is how the term "settler colonialism" seems to also be tied to a specific definition of "indigenous" peoples, with the term "Indigenous" usually only being applied to the Native Americans/Pacific Islanders and some marginalized minorities like the Sámi peoples of Nordic Europe or the Irish Travellers. For example, I'm pretty sure countries like South Korea, Germany or Czech Republic (to name a few) do not officially recognize any "Indigenous" peoples whatsoever as defined under the United Nations or other related organizations. One may argue that this rather preposterous since ethnic South Koreans, Germans or Czechs would never say that their people are actually "indigenous" to say, Pakistan or Ethiopia. But unfortunately, it is what it is.
Ultimately, whatever reliable sources cite are what is featured on the page and my opinions are just that of one person. I don't work for any reliable news outlets or journals and we can't cite my own words that aren't published in any reliable source. What reliable sources do imply seems to paint "settler colonialism" as a specific kind of "colonization" to provide a more simplified or time capsule view of the world because literally every society/tribe/etc throughout human history has had to be "colonizers" to ensure the spread of their native language/culture/etc beyond their original borders and onto others. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of indigenous peoples is based on reliable sources not Wikipedia editor's opinion. Often the definition of being indigenous is about being subjected to colonization, if not this article is also not relevant. If you actually hit the sources, you can find settler colonial analyses of certain situations in Europe, such as Russian expansion, Plantation of Ulster, and Prussian and Nazi policies in Poland iirc. Sorbs in Germany have sometimes been referred to as an indigenous people but many countries are reluctant to officially recognize indigenous peoples. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2024

[edit]

Under the map of the colonial empires before the Seven Years’ War, the following settler colonial projects should be listed: Western Sahara (by Morocco), the Canary Islands (by Spain), Xinjiang & Tibet (by China), and Crimea & Siberia (by Russia/USSR). Maximations (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: It's a little unclear where are you asking this to be added? In the File:Colonisation 1754.png image itself? -- macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 21:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

@Cdjp1 Hello. I'm not quite sure how you arrived at the conclusion in your edit summary [1], but if you look at the sources, virtually all of the sources in the added section have one or more of the following words/phrases: “settler”, “colonial”, “colonialism,” or “settler-colonialism.”

We can see this if we look at the first 9 sources they appear in the text [see below] As per, WP:FIXFIRST, if you take issue with a particular source, please flag it instead of deleting the entire section! However, it is clear that there are multiple reliable sources that verbatim characterize the conflict as settler/colonial or describe policies of planting settlers.

You stated that there were a number of of “irrelevant sources” in the section. Which ones are you referring to?

  • Watenpaugh, K. D. (19 October 2022). In…Middle Eastern Studies, unspooling this argument…invites recasting the Ottoman State and the successor Republic of Turkey as a settler-colonial polity in fields beyond the genocide of the Armenians….From a historian’s perspective thinking about the Ottoman State as a colonial-setter state is a tool that….
  • Walker, C. J. (1988). …the scheme being put forward for the region's direct administration from Moscow will at least end its [Nagorno-Karabakh’s] colonial status within Azerbaijan…
  • Demoyan, H. "The region of Nagorno-Karabakhfought against external forces that sought to impose their dominance on the region….The struggle of the Armenian people of Karabakh against the Azerbaijani colonial rule is also …”
  • Camacho, Fernando Padilla (7 February 2024), The swift colonisation programme put in place by President Ilham Aliyev includes urban reorganisation and reoccupation of urban and rural areas.
  • Astourian, Stephan H. (5 December 2023), “In a way, imperialism built the nation [of Azerbaijan], its historiography, and its identity.”
  • Davis, Angela (9 February 2016) Ongoing efforts to create a popular intellectual environment within which to explore the contemporary impact of the Armenian genocide are central…to global resistance to racism, genocide, and settler colonialism." *Travis, Hannibal (31 December 2019), To view genocide, as did Raphael Lemkin… is to invite comparisons to such important Western projects as settler colonialism or the Vietnam or Iraq wars. In the case of Turkey, the thesis that not only the Armenians … were victims of a long-term process of colonization, Turkification, and Kurdification—across a variety of regimes—threatens the myth of Turkey as a moderate and secular state…
  • Jacobin article -- Aidan Simardone Beyond the tragic circumstances, Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states.
  • THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE. “referencing past and old Azeri architectural styles is an act of deception that tries to hide the military nature of such settler colonial projects.”

Vanezi (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'll restore the section per my comment above. Thanks! Vanezi (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that of the sources that explicitly mention settler colonialism, the majority refer to eastern Anatolia rather than Karabakh. It's also fair to say that the vast majority of sources are not using this terminology, which is a further indication that it's UNDUE here. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also fair to say that the vast majority of sources are not using this terminology
Please indicate which ones, I just quoted most of the sources. Vanezi (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the total RS published about the Armenian genocide or Armenia / Azerbaijan conflict. (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the citations use to justify that it is viewed as a case of, or analysed using a framework of settler-colonialism:
  1. Can be used, but it's not as clear as would be ideal, and as added I have concerns over the fact that the ellipses cover multiple paragraphs.
  2. Good source, should be used, should include quote.
  3. Doesn't really say settler-colonialism
  4. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  5. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  6. Does not say it's settler-colonialism, but that the efforts of Hrant Dink and the case of the Armenian genocide are important to building an intellectual environment for a variety of issues.
  7. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  8. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  9. I can understand how we use it to support settler-colonialism, though it doesn't specifically say settler-colonialism, needs other sources to support it.
  10. Good to use.
  11. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  12. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
  13. Doesn't say settler-colonialism
There's no issue I see in adding a section on Artsakh here, but you need to cut down a huge chunk of the non-relevant text you added, and use sources that actually support the points being made. You have some sources that can be used, but as shown from these first few, many of them are irrelevant.
As a final bit of clarification, sources that detail potential colonialism are not enough on their own, as the article focuses on settler-colonialism, the sources must specifically deal with settler-colonialism and not just broader colonialism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to actions taken, I did it as a complete removal due to working via mobile at the time. I am happy to work on re-adding it using better sources, but it is not in my current priorities, so if you are able to add in a first instances of a better edited version, I'll start building on that in the coming weeks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I don’t follow the numbering in your post. How do you feel about the following abridged section?
Several sources and human rights organizations interpret the conflict between Armenians and Turkey-Azerbaijan through the framework of settler colonialism. This framework emphasizes that Armenians are indigenous peoples seeking self-determination under imperial colonial powers. Since the mid 18th century Armenian territory within Eastern Anatolia was seized and allocated to Muslims, a policy which was influenced by the centuries-old Ottoman practice of population transfer (Sürgün) used to import Muslim colonists into conquered areas.
As you requested, I’ve removed most of the sources that that did not explicitly state “settler colonialism.” The following sources are those which focus on the following:
  • “settler” and ”colonialism”
  • “settler-colonialism”
  • direct comparisons to other settler-colonial states (e.g., Israel/United States)
Sources:
Watenpaugh, K. D. (2022).
  • In…Middle Eastern Studies, unspooling this argument…invites recasting the Ottoman State and the successor Republic of Turkey as a settler-colonial polity in fields beyond the genocide of the Armenians….From a historian’s perspective thinking about the Ottoman State as a colonial-setter state is a tool that….

Walker, C. J. (1988).
  • "The population of Karabagh was changing, from 91-2 per cent in 1939 to 80-5 per cent in 1970. Armenians were being encouraged to move out, and Azerbaijani colonists moved in. This was a kind of population manipulation that we can see in other parts of the world."

  • "Now, although it seems extremely unlikely that the unification of Armenia and Karabagh will take place, at least for the present, the scheme being put forward, for the region's direct administration from Moscow, will at least end its colonial status within Azerbaijan, and its resultant depopulation, as had happened in Nakhichevan."

  • "It was at this time especially that their proportional numbers in their land were reduced, when the Ottoman Sultan installed in Armenia Kurds from southern regions to guard the frontier with Persia."

Demoyan, H. 
  • "The region of Nagorno-Karabakh fought against external forces that sought to impose their dominance on the region….The struggle of the Armenian people of Karabakh against the Azerbaijani colonial rule is also …”

Travis, Hannibal (31 December 2019),
  • To view genocide, as did Raphael Lemkin… is to invite comparisons to such important Western projects as settler colonialism or the Vietnam or Iraq wars. In the case of Turkey, the thesis that not only the Armenians … were victims of a long-term process of colonization, Turkification, and Kurdification—across a variety of regimes—threatens the myth of Turkey as a moderate and secular state…

Jacobin article -- Aidan Simardone
  • Beyond the tragic circumstances, Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states.

THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE
  • “The blockade of the existing road, happening in parallel to the construction of the new road, as well as the blockade of this new road, showcases the settler colonial ambitions of the Azeri government…referencing past and old Azeri architectural styles is an act of deception that tries to hide the military nature of such settler colonial projects.”

Armenians in NYC Are Organizing for Palestinian Liberation. Erik VanBezooijen, (2024, August 06). Retrieved from https://jacobin.com/2024/05/armenians-kurds-palestinians-liberation-nyc
  • “Israel, Turkey, and Azerbaijan are all colonizers,” Nadia explained during our interview”...“They marched from the UN Headquarters to the Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Israeli consulates, carrying Palestinian and Armenian flags and homemade signs linking the Palestinian struggle to anti-colonial struggles across the world”

Mashinka Firunts Hakopia  ("On the Struggle for Indigenous Self-Determination in the Republic of Artsakh". Los Angeles Review of Books)
  • "A policy of Azerbaijani settlement was pursued in an express effort to 'dilute the Armenian majority' and fortify a settler-colonial campaign through Indigenous erasure. Today, settler-colonial logic suffuses the statements issued by Azerbaijan and Turkey’s autocratic rulers."

Suny, Ronald Grigor; Göçek, Fatma Müge; Naimark, Norman M., eds. (10 March 2011). "A Question of Genocide": 
  • The goal of the Ottoman policies was clear: to settle Muslim immigrants from the Balkans and the Caucasus in the six eastern provinces (Erzurum, Harput, Sivas, Diyarbakır, Van, and Bitlis) inhabited by a dense Armenian population. To this end, confiscated Armenian lands were handed over to the new refugees. In the meantime, genocidal destruction raged in full force. The Armenians and Syriacs were being massacred while the Muslim settlers were en route to replace them. However, some preparations were necessary for their successful settlement.

 Hovannisian, R.G. (2003). Hovannisian, R.G. (ed.). Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide 
  • The Ittihadists' demographic deliberations of 1913-14 and the pattern of muhajir settlement over the preceding generations owed a conceptual debt to a practice of population transfer (sürgün) that had been employed in the empire since the fourteenth century. Originally a method of importing Muslim colonists into conquered regions, the practice of sürgün had developed over time to incorporate punitive deportations of religious and other groups. Eastern Anatolia witnessed both manifestations of this practice, first as a recipient of a sort of internal Ottoman colonization by 'desirable' groups, then as a site of ethnic cleansing of the 'undesirable,' during which colonization continued as Muslim refugees were relocated into vacant Armenian dwellings.

Samuel Dolbee (The Washington Post)
  • ‘in a reminder of how the settler colonialism and racism of the United States has been emulated, Talaat added, in conversation with U.S. ambassador Henry Morgenthau, that the goal was to treat Armenians like Americans “treat the Negroes.” In his diary, Morgenthau added, “I think he meant like the Indians.”’
There are also other sources which do not explicitly mention settler colonialism, but are extremely close that could probably be included
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention:
  • “Artsakh was given to Azerbaijan under the colonial rule of the Soviet Union, without the consent or input of the majority Armenian population residing within.” [2]
  • Self-determination is further a recognized right of all peoples under oppressive colonial regimes…The land and the people of Artsakh – an historic Armenian territory granted to Azerbaijan by the Soviet Union – has never before been under the governance of the state of Azerbaijan. [3]
Vanezi (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no opposition to adding an abbreviated section with relevant to this article sources quoted above, I'll add an abbreviated version of the section. Vanezi (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not make much sense. How can Azerbaijan colonize its own sovereign territory? Lemkin Institute is not a scholarly source, and has a strong bias in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Cannot be used for statements of historical facts. Los Angeles Review of Books is not a scholarly source either, and the publication appears to be an opinion piece, as everything published there. Funambulist is not a scholarly source either. The sourcing is extremely poor for strong statements like this, in particular concerning Azerbaijan and its region of Karabakh. Grandmaster 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the article where you will find that settler colonialism is unrelated to the legal ownership of territory by a state (unless this control is used to facilitate the displacement and replacement of indigenous people, as arguably is happening in Karabakh) . Still I have some reservations about this section, at minimum its size is UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article from the leftist Jacobin that quotes a person called Nadia, who repeatedly refers to Israel as a "Zionist entity" (?!), and some people marching on street accusing Azerbaijan of colonialism. Another very bad source. Since when do we refer to street protestors with questionable views as reliable sources? I see no strong sources concerning Azerbaijan, especially considering that Armenian authorities were engaged in internationally documented illegal settling in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. [4] Grandmaster 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole section is WP:UNDUE. I see that Buidhe removed most of it. Cdjp1 analyzed most of these sources, and they do not discuss settler colonialism. As Buidhe noted above, most of them do not use the terminology, and do not mention Karabakh. As I pointed above, some others are of extremely poor quality, one is even anti-Semitic. To claim something as a fact in a wiki voice, one must demonstrate that it is generally accepted by reliable sources to call the process settler colonialism. A few occasional mentions of the word "colonist" or "colonialism" do not prove that there is a general consensus among reliable sources to call the process settler colonialism. And 1 or 2 publications in scholarly journals calling Azerbaijan's activity in Karabakh colonialism, while turning a blind eye to Armenia's own illegal settling activity in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan is still a minority view that should not be given undue weight. Therefore, I believe there should be no mention of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the article. Grandmaster 06:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:WIKIVOICE was never used. All statements were qualified with "Researcher X, said", or other qualifiers were used such as "interpret" or "framework": Various sources interpret the conflict between Armenians and Turkey-Azerbaijan through the framework of settler colonialism. This framework..."
Vanezi (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the above sources to be sufficiently good. Los Angeles Review of Books and Funambulist are not well-established sources on political affairs, first is a source on architecture, another for review of books, and both articles appear to be opinion pieces. The sources must be also reliably published. Lemkin is a small NGO that shows a clear bias, and is also not a source on history. As for Jacobin, while it is listed as generally reliable, context matters. One Jacobin article quotes an anti-Semitic person who calls Israel a "Zionist entity", and this person also accuses Azerbaijan of colonialism, per your quote above. The second article is by a journalist who makes questionable statements like: "Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states". This is not impartial reporting, by rather an expression of a personal strong opinion. WP:RSP also states that Jacobin is biased, and "editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions". Not the best source for an article like this that should be based an facts, and not strong or biased opinions. Also, Azerbaijan being a settler-colonialist is still a minority view, not a generally established fact. Grandmaster 12:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe I wouldn't mind your trim and I do understand your reservations about undue, however I don't think it's an undue case here and here's why:
Four sentences on an issue that has a number of sources is not WP:UNDUE. I abbreviated the section as per @Cdjp1 who stated "The section needs to be rewritten...[and]...I am happy to work on re-adding it using better sources." The following sources support the statement in the section "Various sources interpret the conflict between Armenians and Turkey-Azerbaijan through the framework of settler colonialism."
Your trimmed version suggests that it was only Nagorno-Karabakh that was subject to settler colonialism; however, multiple sources state that the other half of the Armenian Highlands (i.e., Eastern Anatolia) was also subjected to settler colonialism. The section should clearly indicate that these two distinct sections of the Armenian highlands were targeted. This section is merited given the number of sources and the direct comparisons of the Azeri/Turkish bloc to other settler colonial states like the USA[1][2] and Israel.[1][12] Vanezi (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE should be judged mainly by sources that are specifically about settler colonialism, particularly overviews—most of which are not focused on individual case studies, let alone the Armenian Highlands. (Thus, we need to rewrite the article to focus on overall trends instead of a list of examples). I personally think that we can only cite sources that explicitly mention "settler colonialism" to avoid OR. And I'd agree that the Jacobin source is not a suitable one to cite. (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Dolbee, Samuel (April 24, 2023). "What the environmental dimensions of the Armenian genocide reveal". The Washington Post. In a reminder of how the settler colonialism and racism of the United States has been emulated, Talaat added, in conversation with U.S. ambassador Henry Morgenthau, that the goal was to treat Armenians like Americans 'treat the Negroes.' In his diary, Morgenthau added, 'I think he meant like the Indians.'
  2. ^ a b Watenpaugh, K. D. (19 October 2022). ""Kill the Armenian/Indian; Save the Turk/Man: Carceral Humanitarianism, the Transfer of Children and a Comparative History of Indigenous Genocide"". Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies. 29 (1): 35–67. doi:10.1163/26670038-12342771. ISSN 2667-0038. Retrieved 25 July 2024.
  3. ^ Suny, Ronald Grigor; Göçek, Fatma Müge; Naimark, Norman M., eds. (2011-03-10). A Question of Genocide. pp. 62, 299. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195393743.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-539374-3. The goal of the Ottoman policies was clear: to settle Muslim immigrants from the Balkans and the Caucasus in the six eastern provinces (Erzurum, Harput, Sivas, Diyarbakır, Van, and Bitlis) inhabited by a dense Armenian population. To this end, confiscated Armenian lands were handed over to the new refugees. In the meantime, genocidal destruction raged in full force. The Armenians and Syriacs were being massacred while the Muslim settlers were en route to replace them. However, some preparations were necessary for their successful settlement.
  4. ^ Keucheyan, Razmig (2024-07-01). "Armenia, Gaza and the bitter ironies of history". Le Monde diplomatique. Retrieved 2024-08-19. Settlement was part of the Armenian genocide, too. It involved demographic engineering, moving Muslims...to eastern Turkey's Armenian provinces; historians of the late Ottoman empire call this 'internal colonisation.' It was a matter of eradicating the Armenians from the region.
  5. ^ "On the Struggle for Indigenous Self-Determination in the Republic of Artsakh". Los Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved 2024-07-31.
  6. ^ Walker, C. J. (1988). "Between Turkey and Russia: Armenia's Predicament". The World Today. 44 (8/9): 140–144. ISSN 0043-9134. JSTOR 40396038. Retrieved 25 July 2024. The population of Karabagh was changing, from 91.2 percent in 1939 to 80.5 percent in 1970. Armenians were being encouraged to move out, and Azerbaijani colonists moved in. This was a kind of population manipulation that we can see in other parts of the world...[the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict]...relates much more to the fact that Armenians were imperial subjects, and that the rulers of one of the regional empires had adopted a race-based expansionist ideology with deadly implications for Armenians. The issue could also be seen in terms of an unsatisfactory decolonisation from two 19th-century empires....Now, although it seems extremely unlikely that the unification of Armenia and Karabagh will take place, at least for the present, the scheme being put forward for the region's direct administration from Moscow will at least end its colonial status within Azerbaijan and its resultant depopulation, as had happened in Nakhichevan...The future for the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh is still uncertain, although they are unlikely ever to revert to the helotry that they have had to put up with for the past 67 years.
  7. ^ Demoyan, H. TURKEY AND KARABAKH CONFLICT At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries Historical and comparative analysis. Center for European and Armenian Studies. The region of Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenian Artsakh) being a historically Armenian-populated territory with a cultural and historical heritage characteristic of the Armenian civilization retained its semi-independent status and effectively fought against external forces that sought to impose their dominance on the region. The Karabakh conflict can thus be seen as a struggle between the trend towards further Turkification of the South Caucasus region and opposition to this process by the local Armenian element. In other words, this can be called a struggle between the expansionist newcomer ethnic community and the autochthons who for several centuries have been holding back the further spread of a foreign ethnic area both geographically and politically.
  8. ^ Simardone, Aidan. "Israeli Weapons Are Common to the Displacement in Nagorno-Karabakh and Gaza". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2024-07-30. Beyond the tragic circumstances, Armenians and Palestinians share a common struggle. Both groups are subjected to colonialism and slaughter supported by Western states...Western Armenia was ethnically cleansed during the Armenian genocide, Armenians in Azerbaijan were expelled after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Armenians are now being displaced from Artsakh. This pattern mirrors the situation in Palestine and the historical displacements in North America. In 2021, Azerbaijan began extending its control over Armenia, occupying 250 square kilometers without facing consequences for ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation. Azerbaijan's ambitions continue as it demands that Armenia surrender eight villages and the Zangezur corridor, a land strip connecting Azerbaijan with its exclave, Nakhichevan.
  9. ^ Babayan, Melsida (2023-10-25). "Urbanism and Infrastructure as Military Weapons in Artsakh". THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE. Retrieved 2024-07-30. The blockade of the existing road, happening in parallel to the construction of the new road, as well as the blockade of this new road, showcases the settler colonial ambitions of the Azeri government…referencing past and old Azeri architectural styles is an act of deception that tries to hide the military nature of such settler colonial projects.
  10. ^ "Statement on BBC HARDtalk Anchor Stephen Sackur s Interview with Artsakh State Minister Ruben Vardanyan". Lemkin Institute. Retrieved 2024-07-30. Artsakh was given to Azerbaijan under the colonial rule of the Soviet Union, without the consent or input of the majority Armenian population residing within.
  11. ^ "A Peace to End All Peace? Statement on the International Actors Sponsoring So-Called Peace Negotiations Between Armenia and Azerbaijan". Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. May 30, 2023. Self-determination is further a recognized right of all peoples under oppressive colonial regimes…The land and the people of Artsakh – an historic Armenian territory granted to Azerbaijan by the Soviet Union – has never before been under the governance of the state of Azerbaijan.
  12. ^ VanBezooijen, Erik. "Armenians in NYC Are Organizing for Palestinian Liberation". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2024-07-30. 'Israel, Turkey, and Azerbaijan are all colonizers,' Nadia explained during our interview'...'They marched from the UN Headquarters to the Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Israeli consulates, carrying Palestinian and Armenian flags and homemade signs linking the Palestinian struggle to anti-colonial struggles across the world.'

Failed verification

[edit]

I'm glad that you are trying to improve the article, Nsae Comp, but the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Settler_colonialism&curid=39353023&diff=1240202405&oldid=1240033998 is NOT supported by the cited sources as I pointed out earlier. Immigration may be to a society that originated in settler colonialism or not, but either way the distinction between immigrants and settlers remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mamdani writes : "Immigrants are unarmed; settlers come armed with both weapons and a nationalist agenda. Immigrants come in search of a homeland, not a state; for settlers, there can be no homeland without a state. For the immigrant, the homeland can be shared; for the settler, the state must be a nation-state, a preserve of the nation in which all others are at most tolerated guests." (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your considerate approach. I wanted to elaborate the paragraph based on the chapter in "The Settler Colonial Present". But I have to admit I had troubles to summarize it, particularly regarding the very different perspectives discussed. So Ill leave it to someone else who might do better and leave it as it is. Because I am fine how it stands, it was for me just a bit too simplistic and so I tried to bring in the different points from concepts histories. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your take. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The China section is incorrect

[edit]

the china section is written by without an understanding of the history of Xinjiang and Tibet, For example The Dzungars are not indigenous to the area and arrived AFTER the Han Chinese, the Han Chinese controlled the area starting from the Qin dynasty and during the Tang Dynasty expanded control as far as Kazakhstan. The Dzungars or the Oirats are the remnants of the Mongol Empire who colonized the area, The Qing Dynasty like the Ming dynasty was in constant conflict with the Mongols and which eventually led to the Dzungar genocide. 2600:4040:9900:C000:FD00:C331:4B6E:2ECF (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The China section links to things like the Dzungar genocide, but does not itself name them. Your point assumes that because from Han times, China repeatedly tried and at times succeeded in establishing tributary states among the tribes on its northern and western borders, the numerous nomadic/semi-settled tribes mentioned in very early and later Chinese chronicles (the various nomadic tribes, often referred to generally as 戎, who in later Chinese tradition these were considered to be ancestors of the Xiongnu who in turn had wrested power from their southern neighbours the Yuezhi, etc.etc) were under Chinese suzereignty from Han times onwards, so whoever gained regional ascendency after was a 'colonizer' unlike the Chinese. Secondly you are confused in writing:'Han Chinese controlled the area starting from the Qin dynasty'. The Han created their dynasty immediately after the Qin, and were not coterminous with it. I guess you are thinking of Han as an ethnonym, and not a political formation. One last point: we go by reliable sources, and the Djungar are mentioned in them as victims of Han colonialism. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Settler_colonialism&oldid=1242921302"