I’m seeing “settler colonialism” as a phrase used a lot lately, and I get it but am not sure of its analytic origins nor scope—e.g., how much does its formulation include the racism of American slavery? Is capitalism necessarily part of it, or could the expansionism of communism in some instantiations fit in there too?

In other words, what is included & what is missed by this phrase, which tbf is sounding increasingly rote and rather glib at times in more leftist discourse?

@krisnelson this is a really interesting question and I hope you get an answer. I’m particularly curious about the use of a modifier — what is implicitly signified as non-settler colonialism, and why does the distinction matter? (And what is settler-other things, but I think the non-settler colonialism question is more important.)

@mdekstrand I think the phrase is being used in a more expansive sense that it’s original usage, which is something like “colonialism and settler colonialism are premised on exogenous domination, but only setter colonialism seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers (usually from the colonial metropole).” https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0125.xml

But I’m curious if people are intentionally using it more expansively now.

Settler Colonialism

"Settler Colonialism" published on by null.

obo
@krisnelson hmmm. As the descendant of white settlers in the mountain West and the DIL of American missionaries to Africa those terms have specific and somewhat distinct meanings to me. Although I agree they can overlap.

@WhenISayJ there’s a decent summary here that helps explain the starting definition (and of colonialism versus settler colonialism): https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0125.xml

But I’m wondering if it’s being used even more expansively these days?

@krisnelson so the first part of that made sense to me - Australia and the US being "settler colonial" states in that the indigenous population was mostly eradicated. Especially since I've had white South Africans tell me, "you want to critique us, but we didn't kill off the natives." But as the description goes on the definition almost seems to swallow itself. Maybe it's sort of like "white supremacy," everyone says it, but also everyone defines it differently.
@WhenISayJ @krisnelson settler colonialism can also lead to apartheid as in South Africa and Israel/Palestine. Usually when the indigenous population is larger and not easily exterminated or when the international community won’t allow it
@krisnelson I tend to agree with Patrick Wolfe’s labor/land division. The American settler collective replaced Natives for their land but still needed black Americans for their labor, thus they constructed blackness around the one-drop rule, so that there will be more of them, but allowed more racial hybridity and assimilation when constructing Indigenous racial characteristics so that they will more easily disappear. Does not always hold, but quite incisive nevertheless

@eranzelnik Yes, that makes good sense to me, analytically. Thanks for pointing me to Wolfe on this.

It seems like some lay writers are using the term more as a shorthand for the negatives of the US (fair enough) but maybe are missing race and other factors at play in US structures of power & history as a result (could be problematic)?

But Wolfe clearly has a sense of both colonialism, settlement, and race, which seems quite powerful.

@krisnelson yeah Wolfe coined the phrase and was the most influential theoretician of it. Also, I am told, was a very good man and very active in support of indigenous peoples in Australia.