When translating between English and Turkish, one of the words I find a bit problematic is “colonisation” (English) and “sömürgecilik” (Turkish). The reputation of the concept in the two languages and its cultural and historical reflection give the feeling that they do not really mean the same thing. This is it…

“Colonisation,” the English word, is defined as the “subjugation of a people or area, especially as an extension of state power.” In this, there is a positive notion of the “extension of state power.”

“Sömürgecilik,” the Turkish word, is defined as “A state’s expansion or desire to expand by bringing other nations, states, communities under its political and economic dominance.”

However, this is not the main deal; the root words in both languages say it all. “Colony,” which means “an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control,” is derived from Latin’s “colonus“—a tenant farmer. Thus, the English language “perceives” colonisation as a way of making gains out of another man’s land.

In Turkish, the root word is sömürmek, which literally means “to gain unfair and continuous benefits from someone or something.”

Considering this nuance, I would generally prefer to translate colonisation as “kolonizatörlük” and sömürgecilik into English as exploitation, depending on the context.

My curiosity prompted me to wonder about how this concept is referred to in the Arabic and Yoruba languages. Interestingly, they also express it with different emotions. The Yoruba call it “imunisin” (forced servitude), while the Arabs refer to it as “isti’mâr” (occupation).

It seems that the sentiments of the two peoples are quite different. The Yorubas might not have seen the English people taking their land; they only saw them forcing their people to work for the crown of England, while their children chanted “God save the Queen” in school.

In Arabic, the concept is not really a human-human relationship but, like in Turkish, an issue of “usurping.” The Arabic word “isti’mâr” is even more interesting because it is derived from the root word “amara,” which means “to live,” and “isti’mâr” would literally mean an attempt to establish a settlement. That is occupation, similar to what the Jews did and continue to do in Palestine.

There is no doubt that the Turks do not want “sömürgecilik,” the Yorubas do not want “imunisin,” and the Arabs do not want “isti’mâr,” but what about the English? They are likely to embrace colonisation because it brings them benefits. They are only “tenant farmers” seeking to reap the rewards.