The girls, aged 14 to 16, have come for settler training to learn how to occupy Palestinian land — breaking international law. “God promised us this land and told us if you don’t take it, bad people will try and take it and you will have a war,” says Emuna Billa, 19, one of the camp supervisors. “Why do we have a war in Gaza? Because we don’t take Gaza.”
Their guru is Daniella Weiss, a 79-year-old grandmother in a long skirt and patterned headscarf. Founder of the Nachala or Homeland movement, she has been setting up illegal settlements for 49 years and was recently put under international sanctions. “You will be the new emissaries,” she tells the 50 or so girls at the camp. “I call it redeeming, not settling and this is our duty.”
She unfurls a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories dotted with vivid pink house symbols to represent existing and proposed Jewish settlements. Not only are these all across the West Bank, but also in Gaza. Already 674 people have signed up for beachside plots there, she tells me, and “many more want to join”. When someone asks her about settling Lebanon she smiles and says, “Yes, there too”.
Settlers is absolutely pinpoint precise. There isn’t a need for a different word to describe what’s going on.
Settlers is not a superset of colonizers.
Hypothetical situations don’t matter. There’s no grand council of English language administration that considers every bizarre possibility and issues proclamations regarding them.
The words settler and colonist in science fiction were chosen to invoke our history and imply the question of weather human expansion beyond earth was right at best and used to sell space trades to the same people buying cowboy trades at worst.
I get that you believe that the term “settle” implies expelling others from a land, and if that were the case, you’d have a point. But I wonder if you’ve considered consulting a dictionary and the possibility that you’re mistaken.
What I’m saying is that “settlers” is a superset of what is happening here, since “settle” doesn’t imply anything beyond:
I’ve no doubt that you’ll push back on this and claim the definition in your head is better than those found in dictionaries, but the rest of us are just aware what it means.
I’m sorry, if you start with a dictionary definition you’re required to use the five paragraph format and start each one with a topic sentence.
Surely you aren’t seriously suggesting that because the dictionary doesn’t explain the etymology, nuance and history that you have yourself recognized, said nuance, etymology and history doesn’t exist?
That because the dictionary doesn’t say that settlers violently dispossess people of their homes it isn’t so?
May I see even one example of that from (let’s just keep it short, we don’t care about history here, right?) the last 124 years?
That ought to be easy. One example since 1900 of settlers just happening to come across a place to live without pushing some other population out or disrupting their lives or whatever.
Every place that is currently inhabited was settled at least one time when no others lived there. It really doesn’t matter that you want to set the goalposts somewhere that fits some niche definition you are cultivating. You simply don’t seem to know what the word means.
So no?
It ought to be easy! We’re talking about what words mean to people now, surely there’s an example of what you’re saying in the last 124 years that would reenforce the meaning you claim everyone understands!
Come on! Just one example of settlers bumbling their way into uninhabited land and living peacefully with the people around them in the last one and a quarter century!
In place of the dictionary, I recommend you read the book settlers instead.
So… does history matter here or not? Tough to set those goalposts is a way that isn’t paradoxical.
And no, I’m not going to contrive some example within your stringent framework because as far as I know one doesn’t exist. But, then I can’t think of any examples where humans moved in somewhere without breathable air either, so the presence of breathable air must be included in the definition of settle too, right? Do you realize how foolish your claim sounds. Just to clarify, I’m only asserting that “to settle” doesn’t require the taking of others land by definition. I said it does generally involve that because all habitable land is currently inhabited, but that is the only reason.
Binary question, does the term require taking land from others? Really think about that. Just because two things are related, even if inextricably linked, doesn’t mean the terms are unified to the same meaning. Just because we all breathe air doesn’t mean “to breathe” requires air. In fact, fish breathe quite differently. Eating generally involves chewing, but does the term “eat” necessitate chewing? Surely not, since many animals swallow food whole. Don’t some animals like birds, bees, wasps, opportunistic ants “settle” places after previous tenants have moved out of a location?
If a people migrated entirely out of a land, would the next people that made use of the land not be “settling” that land since they weren’t taking it? It sure feels to me like that is what you’re saying, and if you aren’t, then we don’t disagree. Settling is about coming to inhabit a place whether or not it is currently inhabited.
It doesn’t matter if you can contrive a situation (which has never happened) where someone is referred to as a settler but doesn’t displace someone else because that has never happened.
If over four hundred years, every time the word settlers is used to describe someone they were part of some project to displace someone else then it doesn’t matter that you can imagine some situation where that doesn’t happen, it means that the word settlers means kicking someone out of their home so you can live there.
I asked you to limit your search for peaceful settlers to 1900+ to make life easier on you since it’s shorter time and there’s lots of sources. If you can find a good example before then I’m open to it. The only thing I can think of is Iceland but that’s contentious because there’s the context of controlling fishing and trade routes even though there weren’t people living there permanently (this consensus is changing still and has changed in my lifetime).
Just for clarity, the word settlers came into use in the early 1600s, so examples of settlers from before then wouldn’t really be relevant since we’re talking about the meaning of the word.
What would convince you that you’re wrong and that the settlers are by definition part of the displacement of some other group? Would it be academic work?
It doesn’t mean that. Your inability or refusal to read a dictionary is your issue to deal with. I’ve lead you to the information. Now you just sound like a flat earther.
Every place that has ever been settled, has been settled at least once without inhabitants. You can use low order logic to arrive at that conclusion. But you don’t need to, as you are alive in the 21st century and seem to have access to the internet. Just go look at a dictionary. It is the only thing relevant here because a word’s definition is the only thing about which I have made assertions. If you are arguing connotative implications, I’ve already made it clear I have no issue with that.
If you just like to argue nonsense positions to hear your keyboard clack, cool. Have fun with that.
So you’re willing to choose the dictionary over all the history of the word, the etymology, all art portraying the ideas the word is associated with, the news, the present, piles of study about its meaning and the obvious fact that all settlement is dispossession.
Have you ever entertained the possibility that the dictionary is incomplete or not intended as a universal reference? That perhaps a few scant lines fail to communicate critical information that you might be missing?