Forum:Cat Terminology: Pioneers vs settlers vs colonists

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Cat Terminology: Pioneers vs settlers vs colonists

As I have been looking through the cats, I have seen these terms used, and as more material comes in, there will be lots more of them. But they are all kind of similar in meaning.

To a US audience, these terms imply certain periods of US history, but if we are global, then really we need a term that applies with no implicit meanings to Polynesian colonizers, as much as it does to Europeans landing in NZ, as it does to the US westward expansion/ seizure of American indian lands.

• Can we collapse all these meanings to one term- meaning first insertion of an ethnically coherant group into an area previously not inhabited by that group. Settlers or colonizers does it for me. Don't care which one. If there is more than one term, I'd like us to make it clear what the difference is.

~ Phlox 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the point in calling the US westward expansion as siezure of indian lands. I am sure the Maoris were equally displaced. But maybe I am just being a sensitive American. Will 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey- nothing new. Nothing to be embarassed about. Rome seized Gaul, visigoths seized X, Vikings seized Y. No different in North america. More powerful take over lands of less powerful. Just being historically accurate. But whatever- most of my ancestors participated in that seizure, and only a handful sufferred from it. But OTOH maybe I was being a sensitive American too (the ones that were here 50,000 years before some other folks were).

Getting back to the point of the question though, I was not proposing "Folks seizing lands from the downtrodden" as the generic term. I believe I proposed "settlers". I just didn't see the point of using several different terms for the same sort of thing. No big deal if people want to continue in the current pattern though. ~ Phlox 06:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)