Preface: I am very aware of what is bad about colonization. It was and is a source of an ocean of unnecessary suffering. I am also in no way comparing local tribal power struggles with the genocide of Native Americans. I know that lots of folks out there, acting in bad faith, will ask a question like this as a way to justify colonialization, to lead to another question that tries to justify it, or just to get up to some hateful shenanigans. I am asking purely for informational purposes, and I am asking historians, specifically. I’m not here to grind any axe. The way groups with less power were/are treated was, and is, horrific- at all levels small and large. I am squarely on the side of the underdog - so to speak.
Now that you’re thinking that “thou protesters too much”- which is totally understandable, here is the question:
How fine a line is there between “colonization” and “local power struggle between groups”? There are many many examples that mainstream historians would clearly categorize as one or the other, but are there some conflicts with elements of both? Can one turn into the other and vice versa? I guess my reading is that ancient history was pretty much nothing but “we are conquering you, deal with it” see Alexander the Great, Roman Empire etc, with somewhat less as history moved forward. I know history is very complex, but is this one of the overall themes of history, away from a “might makes right” mentality? Thanks.
To be honest, as someone that wants to specialize in history of America I don’t know.
We define colonization as a process of explorations and creation of new towns and cities copying the city origin from architecture to culture; which means that native poblations will recive influence because the contact (violent or not, also, the colonizers will recive an impact that will help them develop their own identity). Sometimes it’s helped or administrated by the metropoli, other times is private iniciative. For South America we often talk about colonization since it was a hell of complex process with alliances (willingly or not), administration and laws, strategies, political relations, trade relationship, etc. It also can work for the native empires if you dig a little.
For the North I can’t talk since I’m still blank there, but I might tell that it was a failure of colonization due to problems and later the colonialism (which is the radicalizated form of colonial process with the race talk having a lot of influence), but I’m not the one that is gonna be a jury for this process as it was later than castilian colonization and harder due to european politics and more hostility from natives (since they knew what happend in the south) that made the relationship between settlers and natives rough; there are people that talk about the diferences of racial take in catholicism and protestantism, which facilited in the south the process of mestizaje.
So I will say that the answer, while kinda tricky, is clear. While there is a difference between conflicts and colonization, it can also be interpretated as colonization between natives if a group decides to settle in another territory that aren’t theirs in the time it happens and if another group is there they will do and recive an impact due to exchange, cultural influence or maybe war crimes if things go bad.
But this is an answer of someone that works with the “big bad evil guys” side of history, so while I try to comprend their perspectives and logic I might be wrong about this and if someone corrects me I will be glad to recive the correction.
Also, I feel glad that you want to learn from this face of history, people tend to use our work to justify their own complex and “hot takes” (you know, with all the anti-woke thing and that) and that gives us a really bad reputation as people think thanks to them that we are justifying horrors and we don’t care about victims and ways to repair them. And it doesn’t help that people tend to simplify things to make it easer to understand; sometimes working on this feels lonely and polemic, but those who decided this work do it to complement other works and help, in the job and to try to tell and teach society. You are always welcome to this side