On Settler Colonialism

Just as including He/She/They in your bio was recently considered an ‘in’ thing (at least until a few months ago), the term ‘Settler’ is also laden with symbolism, solidarity, and wokeness. But like many academic constructs, it does not always hold up to strong scrutiny.

Settler colonialism originally referred to the process by which colonial powers used migration as a policy to establish control over territories. Examples include the French in Algeria, the British in Rhodesia, and the Boers in South Africa. Over time, this theory evolved into a broader indictment of certain modern nations—such as Australia, the United States, and Canada—arguing that their very existence is rooted in the violent dispossession of indigenous peoples, rendering them inherently illegitimate. While this claim carries strong emotional appeal, its foundations remain contentious.

Who, after all, are the original inhabitants of a land? If all humans emerged from Africa and spread across the world over thousands of years, where does one draw the line between native and settler? The assumption that indigenous ways of life were superior, peaceful, and in harmony with nature is also rarely scrutinized. More recently, settler colonial theory has expanded its scope to critique modern institutions—governance structures, popular culture, gender norms, monogamy, and religion—framing them as extensions of colonial dominance. While the theory calls for justice, it often lacks a clear vision for the future.

In ‘On Settler Colonialism‘, Adam Kirsch argues that when this theory is applied to the U.S., Canada, and Australia, it remains largely confined to academic discourse—journal publications and seminar discussions. But when applied to Israel, the consequences often take a more sinister and violent turn. When Algerians expelled them, the French had France to return to. But when settler colonial theorists advocate for the end of Israel, they implicitly justify radical violence or ‘resistance’ – depending on one’s perspective. For a conflict as protracted and complex as Israel-Palestine, the settler narrative does little to break the deadlock.

This excerpt on Arafat’s own disdain for the comparison of his movement with that of the Native Indians was telling:

In the discourse of settler colonialism, however, indigeneity has a meaning beyond chronology. It is a moral and spiritual status, associated with qualities such as authenticity, selflessness, and wisdom. These indigenous values stand as a reproof to settler ways of being, which are insatiably destructive. And the moral contrast between settler and indigene comes to overlap with other binaries—white and nonwhite, exploiter and exploited, victor and victim. Until recently, Palestinian leaders preferred to avoid the language of indigeneity, seeing the implicit comparison between themselves and Native Americans as defeatist. In an interview near the end of his life, in 2004, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat declared, “We are not Red Indians.” But today’s activists are more eager to embrace the indigenous label and the moral valences that go with it.

A reckoning with their bloody histories is essential for all colonial powers. Acknowledging past omissions and commissions, atoning for wrongs, and enshrining the rights of indigenous populations are responsibilities that every colonial power must undertake. India’s constitutional safeguards for the ‘Adivasis’ can be argued to be one such move. No? However, portraying entire populations as perpetual sinners who must constantly live in guilt leads to no tangible positive outcomes.

Image Source