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)
I would settle for "settlers". They created or enlarged settlements, which we have as a generic term for anything from a hamlet to a megalopolis. Not all of them were colonizers. (In New Zealand, most of the land Europeans settled on had been purchased, though history suggests that some of the deals were unconscionable bargains and the communal ownership meant that many former "owners" felt dispossessed. Some land was confiscated as punishment. Some had been conquered by other Maori tribes not long before Europeans arrived.) Robin Patterson 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note we also have Category:Immigrants to COUNTRY and Category:Emigrants from COUNTRY. As there are millions of these kind of people, these categories may be broken broken down into:
  • Category:Immigrants to Massachusetts, United States
  • Category:Emigrants from Yorkshire, England
  • Category:Immigrants to Plymouth County, Massachusetts, United States
  • Of course, pre-1776 immigrations may be different:
  • Category:Immigrants to Plymouth County, Massachusetts
So bascially we get sort of similar categories:
  • Category:Immigrants to Plymouth County, Massachusetts
  • Category:Settlers of Plymouth County, Massachusetts
  • Category:Colonists of Plymouth County, Massachusetts
  • Category:Pioneers of Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Any thoughts? -AMK152(TalkContributions 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Immigrants categories[]

We already have these, with matching "Emigrants" categories and eventually "Migrants from ... to ..." categories, all fitting together nicely. If any proposed "pioneers" or "colonists" or "settlers" are at risk of duplicating the "immigrants", I don't want them; what's the opposite of "pioneer"? Robin Patterson 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Resided in ..."[]

Already by the time the above was written, we had (at least potentially) the "Category:Resided in Greene County, Ohio" group of several thousand categories. Even more reason, I suggest, not to have to consider categories named for pioneers, settlers, plunderers, colonists. Robin Patterson 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But, since writing that, I have seen that Wikipedia has a category for "early settlers" of somewhere. Not early by First Nation standards, but lots of people don't care about them. I guess I have no objection to some "Early settlers in ..." or "Early settlers of ..." categories (matching Wikipedia naming if practicable) as a bit of distinction from all the later settlers; preferably subcategories of "Resided in ...". Robin Patterson 09:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)