That’s fair, it’s a question of the way we talk about things - obviously the movements of cultures and peoples is complex and things don’t necessarily line up perfectly between culture and genes. Yes, Palestinians (and Lebanese) are both Arabs yet also descended from Phonecian peoples. The Phonecians didn’t go anywhere, they were just Hellenized and Christianized until they were assimilated with their Greek and later Roman overlords. And the process of Arabization was a replacement of culture and language more than a replacement of peoples; but that’s why I asked about the Arabs of Morocco. They have plenty of Berber blood, after all; but you still considered the Arabized Moroccans to be colonizers in that context.
That’s what I mean about all this being far more complicated in this region than in places where colonization happened a couple hundred years ago at most (which is a super eurocentric way of looking at things I might add, because there was plenty of colonization in the Americas before Europeans show up - but you all know what I mean anyways).
Aren’t there Arabs in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria? Were the Jews not colonizers when those nations were perpetually threatening them with extermination?
They went a lot of places. All the major islands in the Mediterrenean uncluding Sicily and Sardinia were settled by the Phonecians, and numerous sections of North Africa including the best known Carthage.
I meant, they didn’t just disappear from the northern Levant where they came from. Yes, they did go many other places but by sending offshoots not by up and leaving the Levant as an ethnic group.
There was a little (I’m thinking the Inca, mostly - who were you thinking of, that you say “plenty”?), but so? That was also as bad as the European colonization.
I suppose IMPERIALISM may be a better term than Colonialism. But groups that were wiped out before European contact and left us no writing system to name them by, like the Mississippians, certainly conquered and subjugated their neighbors.
My point isn’t to justify European colonialism, it is to point out that when we say “Native Americans are the indigenous people” we are being ridiculously oversimplistic, because Native Americans moved around and conquered each other just like any other large group of people. It’s fine if we are trying to understand the interaction between Europeans and others during the Colonial era, but analyzing Phonecian relationships with Celtiberians through the same lens, for example, is oversimplistic.
Definitely. The Inca had both, but the Aztecs, the Maya, etc definitely were Imperialistic but not colonialist.
We don’t actually know that. They developed a hierarchical society with strong internal imbalances maintained by violence, but we can’t say for sure it was all by conquest rather than cultural assimilation.
Not when we consider the current colonial relationship in the USA, where Native Americans are subject to clear oppressive hegemony.
What happened between groups in the distant past isn’t significant.What happened in the more recent past, that continues to happen, very much is.
Yes, analyzing the US’s relationship with Native American tribes and peoples is definitely one of the situations where I strongly agree that this lens is appropriate.
With a lot of somewhat recent discussions of terminology applicable to groups, it seems that some people bring up the issue of who gets to choose a definition or terms for a certain group. I imagine that if you asked many Palestinians, “colonialists” would be among the most complimentary terms used. It does not surprise me that Israelis would prefer to be characterized by some term other than colonialists.
So, Joseph is the descendant of a Jewish family that fled Poland in 1937, and he lives in israel. Beth is the descendant of a Jewish family that has lived continuously in Israel for over a thousand years. Neither of them has deliberately taken actions to further the colonial project, but both benefit from being in a dominant power relationship with the colonized people. Joseph is a colonizer, and Beth is not, is that correct?
On a slightly different note, there’s an interesting editorial in WaPo today about the issue. I don’t know nearly enough history to evaluate its claims, but it might be worth reading:
There are a few native-born Israelis who refuse to be drafted into the IDF, at a personal price since military service is compulsory plus this is by no means a popular position, but I have no idea of the absolute numbers each year. They still live/study/work in Israel, though, unless they move out (10–20 thousand Israelis each year do migrate to other countries, but not necessarily for ideological reasons, could be just to further their career or find a better school district for their kids or other personal reasons). Everybody, including Palestinians with Israeli citizenship or residence is just living their lives, though, so “living in Israel” is not a good criterion for picking out colonizers.
What about the groups people choosetoself-identify as? Should we ignore that, or should we accord them the basic respect of allowing them to choose their own identity?
Someone can claim whatever ethnic identity they wish. What a decent, civilized person will not do is treat them differently; your cultural identity is your business (and is often incomprehensible to outsiders, anyway.) Regrettably, that sort of division seems to be growing here, not declining. Violence will increase; I figure by the end of the year we’ll see bricks and Molotov cocktails used against Jewish businesses. A Muslim child was stabbed in the USA.
Maybe they’re both conscientious objectors; or maybe they’re both 16; or maybe they’re both blind; or maybe they’re both toddlers. I’m not entirely clear how that matters. (If age matters, at what age is Joseph definitely a colonizer?)
At this point, then, it seems that “colonizer” is a “sins of the fathers” label, an indicator of ancestry rather than a term with any political force. If two people can have relevantly similar experiences and behaviors, but one’s a colonizer and the other isn’t, I’m not sure how useful the term is.
If they both served in the IDF, it blurs the lines as then they both have “deliberately taken actions to further the colonial project”
Ancestry + ongoing privilege. vs merely ongoing privilege by ethnic association, as Beth has.
My wife is a colonizer. Hell, my mother was a colonizer.
It’s a label, nothing more. I didn’t claim it was inherently useful. Except in one very important aspect:
You can only have some of the people living in you be colonizers if you were a colony.
but by sending offshoots not by up and leaving the Levant as an ethnic group.