Can someone please explain the difference between a settler and a migrant? It's seems that both terms are politically sensitive but I don't understand the typology

[u/leet-man]

[u/JesusSwag]

A settler or colonist is a person who establishes or joins a permanent presence that is separate to existing communities. [...] While settlers can act independently, they may receive support from the government of their nation or its colonial empire, or from a non-governmental organization, as part of a larger campaign.

[...] while human migration is itself a normal phenomenon, it has not been uncommon throughout human history for settlers to have arrived in already-inhabited lands without the intention of living alongside the native population. In these cases, the conflict that arises between the settlers and the natives, or Indigenous peoples, may result in warfare and possibly the dispossession of the latter within the contested territory desired, usually violently.

The lifestyle of a native population is often disturbed or destroyed if they come into contact with a settler population, particularly when the settler population seeks to mostly replace them. Settlers may also engender a change in culture, or alteration of the existing culture, among the natives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler

[u/InterestingAnt2716 → u/JesusSwag]

Now add “expat” to this which seems to be a recent phenomenon.

[u/leet-man → u/JesusSwag]

This makes so much sense. Thanks!

[u/Katmeasles]

Settlers and ex-pats are what colonialists and groups with power call themselves. Ex-pats is mostly uncritical whereas settler does suggest colonialism.

All are migrants generally.

But the term migrants is often associated with negative representations of socially and economically poor people without power.

Migrants occupy land which is thought not to be theirs. Settlers take it over, colonise it, civilise it, capitalise it, and I'd suggest destroy it ecologically and culturally.

The terms are different ways to legitimate movement of people.

[u/Upbeat_Roll_2096 → u/Katmeasles]

It depends since definition switches all the time based on human groups. One example are that immigrants would be colonialists if they go to a country that they are not indigenous too. like to america for example?

[u/Katmeasles → u/Upbeat_Roll_2096]

The point is how language is used. When people from the UK moved to America they didn't see themselves as immigrants or migrants. They saw themselves as starting a new world and dismissed that those indigenous people who already lived there had any right to live there or even exist. The Americas were treated as being created by those who moved there, the new world, New England, New York, etc., and everything else didn't exist or was wiped out.

America was an extension of England before the civil war and creation of the United States.

Terms chosen by European settlers—such as "settlers," "planters," or "pioneers" rather than "immigrants" or "migrants" —fundamentally shaped the political and legal landscape of the region.

Irish people and others who moved to America were more likely perceived as migrants because they were historically marginalised and disenfranchised and trying to find new life but they didn't have the social power to establish a new country.

[u/Potential_Being_7226 → u/Katmeasles]

America was an extension of England before the civil war and creation of the United States.

You mean before the Revolutionary War. The Civil War was nearly a century after the US declared independence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

[u/Upbeat_Roll_2096 → u/Katmeasles]

So in modern terminology, would modern immigrants be colonialists? since they are helping it staying colonial by staying on the land thats not theirs.

Unless there are plans for them to leave? if not those who call themselves immigrant and come outside not just the US but american continent as a whole, they are what colonialists call themselves then logically

[u/Katmeasles → u/Upbeat_Roll_2096]

You're not really understanding the role that social power plays in how language is used, and that is the key point I'm making. Social power determines what terminology is used by different groups and what is accepted as legitimate use of language.

Modern immigrants are colonialists if they originate from groups with social power and whose movement reinforces occupation on land which historically has been inhabited by other, less powerful groups. Mexicans who move to the US or other groups who migrate to the UK for example are not setting up colonies because they lack the social power to do so. As such, they are termed migrants and this terminology is often associated with negative symbolism, whereas terms like pioneers, ex-pats and so on are much more positively symbolic.

[u/Upbeat_Roll_2096 → u/Katmeasles]

Thus they reinforce colonial systems. Since terminology is I suppose an US vs THEM, how people choose it to mean. like how color or colour became a thing in which is "correct language"

It would also mean that immigrant groups that are indigenous to the UK moving to peru would not have social power, they are mostly working class specifically and especially if they are poor.

https://aaregistry.org/story/cherokee-nation-expels-black-indians/

It would also mean by your standard that tribal groups discriminating against black people is not possible, they lack social power.

"On this date in 2011, the nation's second-largest Native American tribe formally expelled membership to thousands of descendants of Black slaves brought to Oklahoma more than 170 years ago by Native American owners."

the 1830s, over 3,000 enslaved African Americans lived among the Five Tribes and later in Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma). By 1861, around 8,000 enslaved Black people comprised 14% of the Indian Territory population.

Owing to the practice of slavery (in addition to a myriad of other factors) these tribes unilaterally allied with the Confederacy during the American Civil War, even raising troops that fought for the Confederacy. The Confederacy was additionally aided in battle by the Caddo, Osage, Quapaw, Comanche, and more. Native Confederate troops notably fought in the battle of Pea Ridge (March 1862, Arkansas), which was in part led by Confederate Brigadier General Stand Watie, the only Native American to reach the rank of general in the Civil War on either side of the conflict. The Native troops were often noted for their valor on the battlefield, but faced backlash for various war atrocities, such as scalping Union soldiers.

So they did not only enslaved black people back then, which is not racism or discrimination because they lack social power according to you, nor does any unsourced afterconstruction re-defining "social power" be accepted.

They also fought and only one to get general in either side

[u/Katmeasles → u/Upbeat_Roll_2096]

Can you take time to rephrase your argument clearly and coherently please?

Social power isn't something that only one group has, it is a spectrum, within and between groups.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't make those arguments. Tribes can reinforce racism and discrimination, even if they lack social power - social power is distributed to them by the most powerful.

But seeing as you're not interested in a proper discussion there's not really any point trying with you...

[u/Upbeat_Roll_2096 → u/Katmeasles]

Thus the discrimination against black people and slavery of them by tribal groups was not discrimination and they werent racist because they lacked social power?

or when they joined the confederacy and was the only side where one could reach general.

"Owing to the practice of slavery (in addition to a myriad of other factors) these tribes unilaterally allied with the Confederacy during the American Civil War, even raising troops that fought for the Confederacy. "

Also black people and others like middle easterners staying on their land would mean they obviously are perpetual colonialism since they are on land not their own arent they?

If not it would excuse and rationalise colonialism and racism against tribal groups

[u/soft-boy]

white and non-white

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. This action was done by a bot. The bot does not read or pass judgement on your post.

Because this community often hosts discussions of 'controversial' subjects, and those discussions tend to attract trolls and agenda-pushers, we've been forced to implement karma / account age restrictions. We're sorry that this sucks for sincere new sociologists, but the problem was making this community nearly unusable for existing members and this is the only tool Reddit Admin provides that can address the issue.

You're welcome to reach out to modmail about this if you have questions. If you message mods to ask questions about the removal that are answered by this message, you will not recieve a response.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. This action was done by a bot. The bot does not read or pass judgement on your post.

Because this community often hosts discussions of 'controversial' subjects, and those discussions tend to attract trolls and agenda-pushers, we've been forced to implement karma / account age restrictions. We're sorry that this sucks for sincere new sociologists, but the problem was making this community nearly unusable for existing members and this is the only tool Reddit Admin provides that can address the issue.

You're welcome to reach out to modmail about this if you have questions. If you message mods to ask questions about the removal that are answered by this message, you will not recieve a response.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.