Thanks for posting the notice of the translation of Marc Ferro's
Colonization: A Global History. I would like to raise a few questions
about this work.
(1) I wonder how far back in time Ferro takes the Russian, Japanese,
Turkish and Arab cases. More generally: is it the case, as seems to be
implied by your notice, that the work, despite its title, actually refers
only to the modern era (though colonization is at least as old as human
settlement)? If so, is this simply a matter of the author's limited time
and energy, or does he believe that there was such a sharp break somewhere
in history that the history even of such reasonably documented
colonizations as the Greek and Roman can safely be omitted in a global
history of colonization?
(2) You label it a study of colonialism (a policy), though it labels
itself a study of colonization (a movement of people). Which? It could be
both, or either. If Ferro studies, say, the Plantation of Ulster, would he
look at Cromwell (the colonialist in the case), or the transplanted Scots
(the colonists in the case), or both?
Regardless, Ferro's book does sound like a first step to a much-needed
evolutionary and comparative study of both colonialism and colonization, in
light of 5000-plus years of world system history, and by comparison across
world systems. I wonder if anyone on the list is aware of other efforts to
expand the comparative perspective and time horizon of such study. Have
studies of Phoenician, Greek and Roman colonizations been done in
comparative perspective? Chinese? Indian?