You must log in or # to comment.
I would think of it as a difference in active participation. A colonist is just someone who lives in a colonized place, a colonizer is one who actively engaged in territorial expansion and flag planting activities.
Yes. See the discourse on the “slave owner” vs “slaver” debate that happened in academia a few years ago.
One implies a simple connection to a opaque action, the other places the actor as a direct perpetrator of the action.
Colonist is passive while colonizer is active.
Colonist bypasses the whole concept of colonizing and treats the colony as a fait accompli, and the person as just someone who happens to live there.
Colonizer makes it clear that the person is engaged in colonizing.
