4 ms·

And yet we don't call what the Huns, Aztec, Chinese or Zulu did "colonialism" - why do you think that is, and does it change your point?

makomk 6y ago
We don't call what the Huns, Aztec, Chinese or Zulu did "colonialism" because it doesn't help the narrative. Notice how, in particular, there are plenty of people willing to call what happened to Ireland colonialism even though it involved solely neighbours and even though every single faction arrived there via England originally.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Ireland is probably better framed as (mostly) entrenched religious discrimination and subjugation on that basis (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws)
- randompwd 6y ago
  > even though every single faction arrived there via England originally The vikings & other nordics who bled in to early irish bloodlines didn't arrive via england.
  - discreteevent 6y ago
    Also a large genetic component of the Irish population is shared with people in the Iberian peninsula.
    - Veen 6y ago
      Yes, but the Iberian migration was just an earlier example of a long history of migrations and colonizations going back millennia. There was a time when the British Isles weren't populated by Homo Sapiens, and migrating people's found the lands empty (except for the occasional band of Neanderthals), but it's deep in pre-history and since then migration has almost always involved some level of population replacement and/or subjugation by new elites.
enkid 6y ago
I don't know why we don't call it colonialism considering we often call them empires and the process of empire is in some ways very linked to colonialism. All of these terms come from the Roman empire which created a multiethnic state dominated by two ethnic groups, the Romans and the Greek, with colonies of each around the Mediterranean. Perhaps its baggage from the 18 and 19 centuries when only Europeans, Americans, and Japanese had territories spanning continents in a form we would call colonies. The only reason the Japanese had those territories was because they thought an empire would stop them from being colonized themselves. ( This does not excuse the terrible abuses of the Japanese government.)
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Does "bloody conquest" sound better? Colonialism is a specific institution, it distinct and separate. It does not mean that mongoles were better, but they dealt with subjugated countries differently. They did not redraw borders of countries, or forbid people from mining their own salt. "After his morning bhajan, Gandhi waded in to the sea shore and picked up a handful of salt, proclaiming that with the handful of salt he was proclaiming the end of the British Empire. The police arrived and arrested thousands of national leaders including Gandhi. Gandhi's bold defiance of the salt law encouraged other Indians to break the law as well"
- enkid 6y ago
  The Mongols most certainly changed the borders of the countries they occupied. If that is the only criteria, then every conqueror is also a colonial power. There also were plenty of examples of conquerors applying specific economic laws to the conquered. For example, Muslim conquerors would impose a tax on Christians and Jews in their empires (the Jizya). Does that make them colonial powers? So how is colonialism a specific institution?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I am not sure what are you arguing for, are you actually claiming that colonialism was no different than any other conquests throughout history? The entire country India was ruled by a private company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy.
    - nickik 6y ago
      > The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. Back then there was not really the same concept of boarders. But you can be 100% sure that the Mongols picked sides in many local conflicts and simply layed down the law on things like grazing rights and many others things. > I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy. It really isn't. Sure colonialism from 1800 is not the same as 1200 century mongol conquest. But to draw a line between colonialism and all other types of conquest in human history is actually historically questionable. Comparing colonialism to other conquests at the same time is very apt. Empires impose institutions and take sides in local conflicts, enforcing new laws making deals with neighbours not to the advantage of locals and so on. Unless you can lay out a set of clear differences between colonialism and all other froms of one society taking over another, I see no reason to treat collonialism as seperate. > The entire country India was ruled by a private company And in other cases, for exmaple the mongol one specific branch of the family was put in command of a region and those families often engadged in trade of the resources from their part of the empire. There are lots and lots of ways empires manage their 'colonies', a quasi private 'company' is certaintly not typical but its also not ahistorical as far as I can see.
arp242 6y ago
We also don't call, say, the Spanish conquest of the Netherlands "colonialism", yet we still celebrate our independence from Spain (indeed, our entire royal house is based on this). I think it's mostly just a bit of a bikeshed over terminology to be honest; we could also call it "European conquest of Africa", or whatnot, but that's just the same as "colonialism" with a different name.

makomk 6y ago

We don't call what the Huns, Aztec, Chinese or Zulu did "colonialism" because it doesn't help the narrative. Notice how, in particular, there are plenty of people willing to call what happened to Ireland colonialism even though it involved solely neighbours and even though every single faction arrived there via England originally.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Ireland is probably better framed as (mostly) entrenched religious discrimination and subjugation on that basis (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws)
randompwd 6y ago
> even though every single faction arrived there via England originally The vikings & other nordics who bled in to early irish bloodlines didn't arrive via england.
- discreteevent 6y ago
  Also a large genetic component of the Irish population is shared with people in the Iberian peninsula.
  - Veen 6y ago
    Yes, but the Iberian migration was just an earlier example of a long history of migrations and colonizations going back millennia. There was a time when the British Isles weren't populated by Homo Sapiens, and migrating people's found the lands empty (except for the occasional band of Neanderthals), but it's deep in pre-history and since then migration has almost always involved some level of population replacement and/or subjugation by new elites.

enkid 6y ago

I don't know why we don't call it colonialism considering we often call them empires and the process of empire is in some ways very linked to colonialism. All of these terms come from the Roman empire which created a multiethnic state dominated by two ethnic groups, the Romans and the Greek, with colonies of each around the Mediterranean. Perhaps its baggage from the 18 and 19 centuries when only Europeans, Americans, and Japanese had territories spanning continents in a form we would call colonies. The only reason the Japanese had those territories was because they thought an empire would stop them from being colonized themselves. ( This does not excuse the terrible abuses of the Japanese government.)

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Does "bloody conquest" sound better? Colonialism is a specific institution, it distinct and separate. It does not mean that mongoles were better, but they dealt with subjugated countries differently. They did not redraw borders of countries, or forbid people from mining their own salt. "After his morning bhajan, Gandhi waded in to the sea shore and picked up a handful of salt, proclaiming that with the handful of salt he was proclaiming the end of the British Empire. The police arrived and arrested thousands of national leaders including Gandhi. Gandhi's bold defiance of the salt law encouraged other Indians to break the law as well"

enkid 6y ago
The Mongols most certainly changed the borders of the countries they occupied. If that is the only criteria, then every conqueror is also a colonial power. There also were plenty of examples of conquerors applying specific economic laws to the conquered. For example, Muslim conquerors would impose a tax on Christians and Jews in their empires (the Jizya). Does that make them colonial powers? So how is colonialism a specific institution?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I am not sure what are you arguing for, are you actually claiming that colonialism was no different than any other conquests throughout history? The entire country India was ruled by a private company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy.
  - nickik 6y ago
    > The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. Back then there was not really the same concept of boarders. But you can be 100% sure that the Mongols picked sides in many local conflicts and simply layed down the law on things like grazing rights and many others things. > I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy. It really isn't. Sure colonialism from 1800 is not the same as 1200 century mongol conquest. But to draw a line between colonialism and all other types of conquest in human history is actually historically questionable. Comparing colonialism to other conquests at the same time is very apt. Empires impose institutions and take sides in local conflicts, enforcing new laws making deals with neighbours not to the advantage of locals and so on. Unless you can lay out a set of clear differences between colonialism and all other froms of one society taking over another, I see no reason to treat collonialism as seperate. > The entire country India was ruled by a private company And in other cases, for exmaple the mongol one specific branch of the family was put in command of a region and those families often engadged in trade of the resources from their part of the empire. There are lots and lots of ways empires manage their 'colonies', a quasi private 'company' is certaintly not typical but its also not ahistorical as far as I can see.

arp242 6y ago

We also don't call, say, the Spanish conquest of the Netherlands "colonialism", yet we still celebrate our independence from Spain (indeed, our entire royal house is based on this). I think it's mostly just a bit of a bikeshed over terminology to be honest; we could also call it "European conquest of Africa", or whatnot, but that's just the same as "colonialism" with a different name.