Settler Colonists vs. Naturalized Citizen vs. Native: what are the distinguishing traits?

[Arctish]

In another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

And I think Golda Meir provides a pretty good example of someone who was all three, native and naturalized and a colonist, at different times of her life.

Meir was "native" in the area around Kiev, where she was born and her family was from. She emigrated to the United States where she was "naturalized" and became a citizen. She later embraced Zionism and emigrated to Mandatory Palestine where she joined a Marxist-collectivist kibbutz. She did not attempt to join the existing Palestinian society. Her writings and statements indicate she wanted to help her fellow Zionists to form a separate society and nation. She was a "settler colonist" in Palestine.

 

[Tigers!]

The UN not having a definition of "indigenous" is not particularly or useful in this context as anyone can claim any definition that suits them.

 

[Tigers!]

In another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

And I think Golda Meir provides a pretty good example of someone who was all three, native and naturalized and a colonist, at different times of her life.

Meir was "native" in the area around Kiev, where she was born and her family was from. She emigrated to the United States where she was "naturalized" and became a citizen. She later embraced Zionism and emigrated to Mandatory Palestine where she joined a Marxist-collectivist kibbutz. She did not attempt to join the existing Palestinian society. Her writings and statements indicate she wanted to help her fellow Zionists to form a separate society and nation. She was a "settler colonist" in Palestine.

I accept that Meir wanted to form a nation that could include many societies.

 

[Arctish]

In another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

And I think Golda Meir provides a pretty good example of someone who was all three, native and naturalized and a colonist, at different times of her life.

Meir was "native" in the area around Kiev, where she was born and her family was from. She emigrated to the United States where she was "naturalized" and became a citizen. She later embraced Zionism and emigrated to Mandatory Palestine where she joined a Marxist-collectivist kibbutz. She did not attempt to join the existing Palestinian society. Her writings and statements indicate she wanted to help her fellow Zionists to form a separate society and nation. She was a "settler colonist" in Palestine.

I accept that Meir wanted to form a nation that could include many societies.

Can you provide any quotes that indicate she wanted more societies than just Jewish ones in the Jewish State she wanted to help build?

 

[Politesse]

This seems to me to be confusing three very different types of terms. Settler colonialism has a technical meaning of sorts within the social sciences. Naturalized citizen is a legal category. Native is a seldom defined folk category that means very different things depending on who is using it. You can compare apples to eggs all you want, but it is more likely to produce argument than knowledge.

 

[Tigers!]

In another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

Exactly which term do you wish me to define
Native?
Settler?
Colonist?
settler/colonist?
recent arrival?
long term resident?

And I think Golda Meir provides a pretty good example of someone who was all three, native and naturalized and a colonist, at different times of her life.

Meir was "native" in the area around Kiev, where she was born and her family was from. She emigrated to the United States where she was "naturalized" and became a citizen. She later embraced Zionism and emigrated to Mandatory Palestine where she joined a Marxist-collectivist kibbutz. She did not attempt to join the existing Palestinian society. Her writings and statements indicate she wanted to help her fellow Zionists to form a separate society and nation. She was a "settler colonist" in Palestine.

I accept that Meir wanted to form a nation that could include many societies.

Can you provide any quotes that indicate she wanted more societies than just Jewish ones in the Jewish State she wanted to help build?

The quote I thought was Meir's was actually said by King Adullah of Jordan to Meir, not the other way around.
I know of no other. Which may only mean I had not read enough of Meir.

 

[Arctish]

In another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

Exactly which term do you wish me to define
Native?
Settler?
Colonist?
settler/colonist?
recent arrival?
long term resident?

You quoted the part about "native". Start there, but please feel free to define any of the others on your list.

And I think Golda Meir provides a pretty good example of someone who was all three, native and naturalized and a colonist, at different times of her life.

Meir was "native" in the area around Kiev, where she was born and her family was from. She emigrated to the United States where she was "naturalized" and became a citizen. She later embraced Zionism and emigrated to Mandatory Palestine where she joined a Marxist-collectivist kibbutz. She did not attempt to join the existing Palestinian society. Her writings and statements indicate she wanted to help her fellow Zionists to form a separate society and nation. She was a "settler colonist" in Palestine.

I accept that Meir wanted to form a nation that could include many societies.

Can you provide any quotes that indicate she wanted more societies than just Jewish ones in the Jewish State she wanted to help build?

The quote I thought was Meir's was actually said by King Adullah of Jordan to Meir, not the other way around.
I know of no other. Which may only mean I had not read enough of Meir.

She was a prominent leader in the Jewish Agency for Palestine at a time when it was finalizing plans to force out non-Jews from lands she and her fellow Agency members wanted for their planned State. It's simply not believable that she was unaware of the planned ethnic cleansing when she was raising funds to help make it happen.

Even if she wasn't aware of Plan Dalet she was still a colonist. She moved to Palestine with the intention of helping her fellow Jewish immigrants take over part of the region and form a new state under a new government that would benefit themselves and others like them, not the resident population.

 

[Tigers!]

The quote I thought was Meir's was actually said by King Adullah of Jordan to Meir, not the other way around.
I know of no other. Which may only mean I had not read enough of Meir.

She was a prominent leader in the Jewish Agency for Palestine at a time when it was finalizing plans to force out non-Jews from lands she and her fellow Agency members wanted for their planned State. It's simply not believable that she was unaware of the planned ethnic cleansing when she was raising funds to help make it happen.

Even if she wasn't aware of Plan Dalet she was still a colonist. She moved to Palestine with the intention of helping her fellow Jewish immigrants take over part of the region and form a new state under a new government that would benefit themselves and others like them, not the resident population.

She sounds like she would have been right at home in 19th C. USA.

 

[Tigers!]

In another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

Exactly which term do you wish me to define
Native?
Settler?
Colonist?
settler/colonist?
recent arrival?
long term resident?

You quoted the part about "native". Start there, but please feel free to define any of the others on your list.

The word "native was used by you in your OP (emboldened for your reference.) I also note that you actually did not define the word "native yourself". How are you using the term?

The link you gave does not use the word "native" once so that is disappointing. Are you you using the terms native and indigenous interchangeably?

 

[Tigers!]

to sget there and upon arrivalIn another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

Exactly which term do you wish me to define
Native?

Born within a certain area (as you desctibe Meir during her time in Kyiv)

Settler?

Arrived in area from another area usually for or land work reasons. Have not come as part of an organised government or other institution's program but rather on their own initiative.

Colonist?

Have come as part of an organised government or other institution's program. Still on their own initiative but are given money, equipment, land to start out and upon arrival.

settler/colonist?

It can be a fine line between the two classes on any given definition

recent arrival?

Have arrived into a new area from another area. Came for work, school, medical, safety etc. Still finding their way around and planting roots. Usually given no gifts or much help on arrival.

long term resident?

A recent arrival, settler, colonist will with time become a long term resident. At this stage or probably not citizens but seriously considering it.

 

[Arctish]

Sorry about taking so long to respond. Difficulties logging in and a few real life issues got in the way.

to sget there and upon arrivalIn another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

Exactly which term do you wish me to define
Native?

Born within a certain area (as you desctibe Meir during her time in Kyiv)

That definition of native is okay for very casual conversations but it falls apart pretty quickly when you start talking about specifics.

For example, during World War II, 42 Unangax̂ villagers from the island of Attu were taken by force to Japan and held in captivity there until the end of the war. Four children were born to that community during that time. If we use the definition you offered then those children were Japan natives. But no one thinks of them that way, certainly not the Unangax̂ parents or the one surviving child. They are considered to be Native Alaskans and American citizens who were born in a foreign country.

Similarly, if a pregnant woman on an international flight goes into premature labor her child might be born in a random foreign country but that would not make the child "native" there. A kid whose parents are Maori would not be a Belgian native merely because a medical emergency caused him or her to be born in Antwerp.

And when you consider how the word "native" is applied to plants and animals it becomes even more clear that merely being born, hatched, or sprouted in a place does not make an individual "native" there. The term carries a connotation of belonging in some sense. It implies being part of a group with a long-term residence or connection to a place.

Settler?

Arrived in area from another area usually for or land work reasons. Have not come as part of an organised government or other institution's program but rather on their own initiative.

Colonist?

Have come as part of an organised government or other institution's program. Still on their own initiative but are given money, equipment, land to start out and upon arrival.

settler/colonist?

It can be a fine line between the two classes on any given definition

recent arrival?

Have arrived into a new area from another area. Came for work, school, medical, safety etc. Still finding their way around and planting roots. Usually given no gifts or much help on arrival.

long term resident?

A recent arrival, settler, colonist will with time become a long term resident. At this stage or probably not citizens but seriously considering it.

I don't disagree with any of the other definitions you have offered, so I guess the discussion is really about what makes someone or something "native".

In the quote that inspired this thread Derec asked why Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s were considered "native". I don't think that they were. I think that people who call all Palestinians "Arabs" and insist they're no different from Arabic people who live elsewhere might occasionally do that but again, that falls apart pretty quickly when you start talking about specifics.

Palestinians in Galilee were mostly Aramaic-speaking farmers, craftsmen, and owners of small businesses. Some were Sunni Muslims, some Shiite, some Chrisitans, some Druze, and some were members of smaller religious communities. They were very much like their Lebanese neighbors.

Palestinians in the Negev were mostly Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslims in semi-nomadic tribes with small concentrations of farming and businesses. The ones living in Gaza were very tribal and had a conservative traditional society much like the people of Yemen.

A Lebanese immigrant in the Negev would have a harder time adapting to the local culture than if they'd moved to Galilee. A Yemeni in Galilee would face a similar challenge to adapt to a new language and new customs. I don't think they'd be mistaken for "natives" except by someone who was unfamiliar with, or blind to, all the cultural differences.

 

[Tigers!]

Sorry about taking so long to respond. Difficulties logging in and a few real life issues got in the way.

to sget there and upon arrivalIn another thread a poster asked Why are Jews from Poland or Yemen who settled in Judea in say 1920s and 30s "settler colonists", while Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s "native"?

I think the most salient point in distinguishing a colonist from the others is whether an immigrant has the intention of joining an existing society or forming a new one, either by replacing it or by living separately from it.

I think the definition of "native" is a bit loose and we can argue over the details but IMO the definition used by the UN to describe Indigenous Peoples is generally useful in separating long-term resident populations from recent arrivals.

If you wait long enough recent arrivals will become long term resident populations. Again lack of acceptable definitions are not helpful.

How do you define the term?

Exactly which term do you wish me to define
Native?

Born within a certain area (as you desctibe Meir during her time in Kyiv)

That definition of native is okay for very casual conversations but it falls apart pretty quickly when you start talking about specifics.

For example, during World War II, 42 Unangax̂ villagers from the island of Attu were taken by force to Japan and held in captivity there until the end of the war. Four children were born to that community during that time. If we use the definition you offered then those children were Japan natives. But no one thinks of them that way, certainly not the Unangax̂ parents or the one surviving child. They are considered to be Native Alaskans and American citizens who were born in a foreign country.

Similarly, if a pregnant woman on an international flight goes into premature labor her child might be born in a random foreign country but that would not make the child "native" there. A kid whose parents are Maori would not be a Belgian native merely because a medical emergency caused him or her to be born in Antwerp.

A uprising number (to me) of countries offer citizenship based upon birth in that country unless a foreign diplomat. Including the USA.
Australia does not.
"Birth in Australia does not automatically grant citizenship unless at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident, or if the child spends the first 10 years of their life in Australia".

I don't disagree with any of the other definitions you have offered, so I guess the discussion is really about what makes someone or something "native".

In the quote that inspired this thread Derec asked why Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s were considered "native". I don't think that they were. I think that people who call all Palestinians "Arabs" and insist they're no different from Arabic people who live elsewhere might occasionally do that but again, that falls apart pretty quickly when you start talking about specifics.

So why then are Jews who emigrated to "The Mandate of Palestine" c.1920 -May 1948 or entered Israel after May 1948 considered by so many to be colonists? And thus not be allowed to stay or raise their families?

Palestinians in Galilee were mostly Aramaic-speaking farmers, craftsmen, and owners of small businesses. Some were Sunni Muslims, some Shiite, some Chrisitans, some Druze, and some were members of smaller religious communities. They were very much like their Lebanese neighbors.

Palestinians in the Negev were mostly Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslims in semi-nomadic tribes with small concentrations of farming and businesses. The ones living in Gaza were very tribal and had a conservative traditional society much like the people of Yemen.

A Lebanese immigrant in the Negev would have a harder time adapting to the local culture than if they'd moved to Galilee. A Yemeni in Galilee would face a similar challenge to adapt to a new language and new customs. I don't think they'd be mistaken for "natives" except by someone who was unfamiliar with, or blind to, all the cultural differences.

All true. But are they "natives"?

 

[Arctish]

I don't disagree with any of the other definitions you have offered, so I guess the discussion is really about what makes someone or something "native".

In the quote that inspired this thread Derec asked why Arabs from Yemen or Lebanon who settled in Judea in the 1920s and 30s were considered "native". I don't think that they were. I think that people who call all Palestinians "Arabs" and insist they're no different from Arabic people who live elsewhere might occasionally do that but again, that falls apart pretty quickly when you start talking about specifics.

So why then are Jews who emigrated to "The Mandate of Palestine" c.1920 -May 1948 or entered Israel after May 1948 considered by so many to be colonists?

Because a lot of them were, and said so.

Loudly.

The 1920s is when Zionists in Europe began announcing plans to create a Jewish State in Palestine and raising funds to buy weapons to arm Zionist settlers and establish new colonies. It was when newly arrived European Jews were becoming less likely to attempt to become Palestinian citizens or to integrate into Palestinian society. The 1930s is when Jewish immigration ramped up and the Irgun and Lehi started killing and kidnapping people to further their separatist plans.

Surely you know that by now.

And thus not be allowed to stay or raise their families?

???

They were allowed to stay. They were allowed to raise families. What makes you think they weren't?

Palestinians in Galilee were mostly Aramaic-speaking farmers, craftsmen, and owners of small businesses. Some were Sunni Muslims, some Shiite, some Chrisitans, some Druze, and some were members of smaller religious communities. They were very much like their Lebanese neighbors.

Palestinians in the Negev were mostly Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslims in semi-nomadic tribes with small concentrations of farming and businesses. The ones living in Gaza were very tribal and had a conservative traditional society much like the people of Yemen.

A Lebanese immigrant in the Negev would have a harder time adapting to the local culture than if they'd moved to Galilee. A Yemeni in Galilee would face a similar challenge to adapt to a new language and new customs. I don't think they'd be mistaken for "natives" except by someone who was unfamiliar with, or blind to, all the cultural differences.

All true. But are they "natives"?

*Ahem*

I don't think they'd be mistaken for "natives" except by someone who was unfamiliar with, or blind to, all the cultural differences.

The "not native" part is implied.

If you're asking about Jews, the ones whose ancestors had never left the region were indigenous to Palestine and therefore Palestine natives.

The descendants of Sephardic Jews rescued by the Turks who had settled in Palestine and whose families had not left the region sometime later would also have been "natives". They had four centuries of Palestinian heritage and no close ties to another region or culture.

The descendants of Jewish immigrants from the First and Second Aliyah might have been considered Palestine natives or they might not, depending on how much of the non-native culture of their parents and grandparents they retained.