Talk:Diaspora

Word has no definition?

"This has since changed, and today there is no set definition of the term because its modern meaning has evolved over time" - how can you have a word with "no set definition"? All words in a language"evolve over time", which is precisely why we have dictionaries. They provide both historical and current meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.63.16 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed wrong source

Editor ChronoFrog (started & stopped editing in 2016) was apparently chased out of WP, anyway, the cuckoo's egg he left us with damaged the article. I stumbled on the book by J.N. Tubb , which -at least for the first of the 2 alleged "quotations" present on the page- was introduced by ChronoFrog (see here). I lack the patience to check if it was ChronoFrog who brought it in again for the second time. Both times it was based on a mistake - either a honest one, or an attempt to make some POV thesis look more plausible. I've now removed the "source" altogether. If anyone can find something useful for this topic in the book, here it is:
<ref>{{harvnb|Tubb|1998|pp=13–14}}</ref>
{{cite book |last1= Tubb |first1= Jonathan N. |title= Canaanites |year= 1998|publisher = University of Oklahoma Press |isbn= 0-8061-3108-X |url= https://archive.org/details/canaanites00tubb |url-access= registration |page= [https://archive.org/details/canaanites00tubb/page/40 40] |quote= The Canaanites and Their Land.}}

The 1st use claims that the Canaanites are the proven ancestors of the main three different groups of Jews: Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrachi. It looks like an intentional "spin" rooted in ChronoFrog's personal agenda:

• Tubb pp.13–14 can in no way be construed as to suggest what's written there. Logically, a link must be proven between the Canaanites and the enumerated ethnic groups; pp. 13-14 do nothing of the kind.

The 2nd use is so wrong, it's beyond comprehension:

1. At Google Books there is unrestricted access to p. 40, unlike at the indicated archive.org URL.
2. "The Canaanites and Their Land." is not a "quote"; maybe a heading?
3. It's NOT on p. 40.
4. Page 40 only deals with the excavation site at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, and there is NOTHING, not a single word there about any diaspora.
   

So NOTHING in this two "quotations" looks relevant or correct. I'm afraid that there might be more such junk in the article. Arminden (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

First use in English

The page currently states that the OED Online has the first use of the word "diaspora" in English being in 1876, in the context of Protestant evangelism in continental Europe. However, it actually appeared in an 1856 biography of the Wesleyan James Hutton, and was used in a review of the same book appearing in both the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser and the Wells Journal of 31 January 1857. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"The largest Asian diaspora, and in the world, is the Indian diaspora"

India will be the world's most populous country sometime this year, many of its people would benefit from emigration, and many countries would benefit from having more Indians and better curry... but no the Chinese diaspora is presumably much larger.

This claim is unsourced and any supposed source would need to be checked against bias and knowing what it was even talking about. Our article on Overseas Chinese pegs that total at 40m. Might be wrong. More likely on the low end, especially in Southeast Asia. Might include populations we don't include here. That might run up against the fact ethnic Han often consider themselves Chinese and American/British/Australian/Botswanan/whathaveyou. Might run up against the fact Chinese minorities might not consider themselves 'Chinese' as English understands it—basically Han most of the time—even while they're in China or just across the Burmese border.

There needs to be greater clarity next to the Indian claim and a sourced explanation of the number used for the Chinese. (Currently this article passes by that total in silence.) — LlywelynII 14:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Diaspora and Colonization: A False Etymology?

Sociologist Stéphane Dufoix (The Dispersion: A History of the Word Diaspora. p. 28.) makes a compelling case that there is no basis for the idea that "diaspora" originally referred to Greek colonization or Greek settlement.

Unless we can back up the references on this article which currently endorse that idea, and I mean by going back and checking the Greek originals they invoke but don't cite, we need to remove all such references.

It's certainly interesting that so many articles and books endorse the idea. Maybe the general confusion is worth mentioning? But Dufoix brings actual, convincing evidence that no connection between the word "diaspora" and Greek colonization existed, and until we can find evidence to the contrary, I think we need to start removing references to the idea.

There are several such references, which is why I wanted to bring this up in the Talk page before I just started deleting. Forfinneganssake (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We've already clarified on this article that the word accomodates in summary those who identify with a land, whilst being away from that land. Any definition prior to that, like "exile" or a "forced displacement" is secondary to the established meaning; if we trim references to Ancient Greece and Greek, we have to continue to do so with others for continuity and readability. Please bring citations foward proving the original meaning of diaspora before removing cited information though, as there does seem to be sources provided that confirm references to a Greek, Hellenic diaspora intially. Per WP:RELIABILITY, those sources are good enough. JJNito197 (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we "trim" references. I'm saying that the second line in the article, which reads, "Historically, the word was used first in reference to the dispersion of Greeks in the Hellenic world," appears to be factually incorrect. There are similar such lines.

I've already started to bring citations as I edit, as you've already seen. We can all make sure that we maintain continuity and readability as we make these needed changes. Forfinneganssake (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, if we adapt that sentence without removing the part about the Jewish diaspora it makes even less sense, as the word wasn't first used in the Septuagint. We can leave the fact that the word originates in Greek, and by proxy the Hellenic world, and by proxy Greeks for historicity purposes. If we remove the "first used" part, we need to rid the first paragraph of unhelful terminology in the modern-day context, being that the first and last sentences summarise the definition succinctly and is all-encompassing to those who identify as belonging to a diaspora. Many moved countries willingly, that doesn't make them "exiled" or "displaced forcefully". These are specific terms and can only be applied in specific cases. Some people think that diaspora means foremostly "exiled peoples", "displaced peoples", or as a result of "colonisation", which is antiquated in the modern-day context. Alternatively, we can remove the entire sentence or adapt the sentence accordingly per talk page consensus if needs be. JJNito197 (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The word was first used in the Septuagint! Robin Cohen, a scholar largely responsible for spreading the idea that the word once referred to Greek colonization, admits he was wrong in the most recent edition (2022) of his book Global Diasporas. Earlier editions of Cohen's book are cited by several of this article's sources (for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on diaspora).

Here's what Cohen writes: "The earlier the word diaspora can be used to describe the variety of ancient Jewish, Greek and (soon after) Armenian dispersions, the sooner the range and riches of the term can be validated and freed of its narrow Deuteronomistic legacy.... However, I will readily concede that in the case of the ancient Greek settlements, etymologists, theologians and a significant section of historians and classicists could reasonably regard this as illegitimate." (pp. 186–87; my italics)

In other words, Cohen thinks applying the word before the Septuagint is theoretically useful, but he admits it's not historically accurate.

Even with that admission, Cohen tries to cite Kevin Kenny's Diaspora: A Very Short Introduction as evidence that the word was used before the Septuagint. Unfortunately for Cohen, Kenny (on p. 2) cites Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, II, 27. As this article now shows in the etymology section, Thucydides doesn't use the word diaspora in that passage.

I agree with everything else you wrote. My only concern is that this article be accurate. And on the point that the word originally referred to Greek colonization or settlement, which is not accurate, it needs to be updated. I can even concede that the Septuagint is the first known use of the word, but it is the first, as I hope you agree based on these sources. Forfinneganssake (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I can work with that cessation, but for practicality sake, we could remove the sentence altogether. On the contrary, I think it would be useful to specify that the Greek usage, oral or written, contrasts with with the later exilic theme in the Septuagint, focusing particularly on its inception. I agree with you that the word diaspora is historically affiliated with the scattered Jews mentioned in the Bible, and thus it should be given its due weight in the etymology and definition subheaders beneath the lead. It can be given the preeminent space of the first diasporic community of note mentioned on that second paragraph? I think that the first paragraph is supposed to summarise the article, and it does so exceptionally well without the second sentence. Regarding that cite, given that Cohen is still leaving the option to be debated with the usage of "could", it is not really conclusive as revelatory as his eureka moment seems. But his conclusion does beg answers for certain questions... Let us not forget that Cohens understanding of the word is in regards to it being of a similar usage to that desribed in the Septuagint, which we've already affirmed is an outdated appropriation of the original meaning: διασπορά (diaspora) "scattering". Does the mutual understanding we have for a word come from its root or its (re)application? JJNito197 (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's remove the sentence altogether, as you suggest. A historical definition can wait for its section.

Cohen's "could," I sense, is an attempt to save face after 25 years spreading an inaccuracy. As if his version of things might, historically, still be plausible.

No, I'm certainly not trying to contest the many (re)applications of the word, which now have their own validity. These have the priority in an article like this. Forfinneganssake (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem with this, and yes it should be explained in greater detail later on in the article as you are doing. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

dia+spora Etymology in Greek

Zeus is not a part of the etymology. The Greek meaning was "sowing (seed)." This was done by hand, hence "scattering." Liddell Scott and Jones, the standard Greek lexicon, gives examples of metaphorical uses of the root verb, diaspeiro, meaning "scattering abroad" and "squandering" (by scattering to the winds) in Herodotus and Xenophon (5th cent BCE), and passive voice "to be scattered abroad" in Sophocles (5th cent BCE) and "scattering troops abroad" in Thucydides (5th century BCE).

διασπείρω ¹

to scatter abroad, throw about, of money, Hdt.; δ. λόγον Xen.: to squander, Soph.:—Pass. to be scattered abroad, aor2 διεσπάρην [α^], id=Soph.; of soldiers, Thuc. Meerkat77 (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Native Americans/American Indians

Would it be worth mentioning the internal displacement of Native Americans/American Indians in the United States? I think it is safe to say that the majority of Indians no longer live in their pre-Columbian ancestral homelands. Some Indians were forcibly removed by the federal government while others voluntarily migrated from reservations to metropolitan areas in search of better opportunities. This would probably belong in the Internal diasporas section since most Indians still live in the United States. I noticed that the See Also section contains links to the articles about the Trail of Tears and the Long Walk of the Navajo. 2601:246:5180:87E0:149E:107D:C874:3998 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect/Incomplete "World's Largest Diaspora" Section

In the third paragraph of the article, it is mentioned how India's diaspora "is the world's largest diaspora, with a population of 17.5 million." However, in the Polish Diaspora page, the Polish diaspora is stated as to have "...roughly 20,000,000 people of Polish ancestry living outside Poland, making the Polish diaspora one of the largest in the world." The Polish diaspora should, at the very least, be mentioned due to this fact, and that the article mentions the Chinese diaspora which only has a population of 10.7 million. 2601:246:5400:ED80:D95D:41F9:9A4D:9508 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)