On the Settler Colonial Present

This is an interesting theoretical book where Veracini argues that we can view much of today’s world through the lens of settler colonialism. Ultimately, he argues that “settler colonialism” is not “colonialism.” While colonialism is like a virus that transplants its structures into an indigenous population (or cell), settler colonialism is like a bacteria that kills other cells to make room for itself. He also argues that settler colonialism is not (im)migration. Rather than the entrance of a new inhabitant, settler colonialism is defined by motion (a group of people moving from one place to another) and domination. I don’t really disagree with these things (although viewing colonization/settler colonization in a pathological way is problematic.

However, I do disagree with him strongly when he argues about what to do about settler colonialism. Veracini finds that there are two ways out of a “settler colonial way of being”: One is “undoing the settler’s permanence; turning him into a colonial sojourner that will return ‘home,’ often to a ‘home’ he would have never visited.” As an example of this happening in the past, Veracini points to the whites of post-Apartheid South Africa, modern Zimbabwe, and post-independence Algeria. The second way is by “embracing exile” where indigenous people get sovereign rights again (note: with domination comes the idea that the settler colonizer is “sovereign” whereas a mere migrant is not. because of this, those reeling in the consequences of settler colonization also lose their sovereignty).

The first option is entirely untenable in many major former settler colonies: The United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. In these states, there are more “settlers” than indigenous people. Although I get the point, we have to ask at what point an individual, or a community becomes “indigenous.” Although I am not of Native American background, my family first arrived in what is now the United States in the mid-late 17th century. There arrival as settler colonists would have certainly been an act of violence, but those of us born in the eastern US since at least the mid 19th century also could—theoretically—be considered “indigenous.” Is there a specific amount of time we need to go back for a people to be considered indigenous? If I would not be considered “indigenous” in Veracini’s view, his book has a major hole: inconsistency. From my reading, I’ve gathered that Veracini is a major supporter of a strong Palestine, with rollbacks of the modern Israeli state. Because of this, he paints modern Israelis as settlers who are taking over Arab land (which I agree with on some level, but not entirely). But at what point did Arabs become “indigenous” to Palestine? We could argue, on some level, that they were not “indigenous” 1500 years ago. Following Veracini’s logic does not bring us anywhere. It just raises more questions.

Moreover, framing “homelands” as a possibility for descendants (or in Veracini’s idea—present) of settler colonizers is absolute nonsense. He admits that those going back to a “homeland” often would have never visited it, but politically this idea has the power to strengthen ultranationalist movements (sorry for Godwin’s law, but how many Bessarabian Germans had ever visited Germany before 1940?). I know I shouldn’t disagree with a book for its political implications, but I really do think that these political implications are important. To me, it echoes of white nationalist desires to cleanse Europe of multiculturalism to have a homeland for white people. I know Veracini isn’t a white nationalist—opposite side of the spectrum in fact—but this is still important to think about.

Veracini’s other option, embracing exile, really doesn’t mean anything. In addition to displacement, he argues that exile is characterized by disempowerment, but what does this mean? If disempowered, why wouldn’t settlers just resort to the first way out, which I talk about above?

I don’t mean for these criticisms to skew the book entirely, most of the theory in it is actually quite good, but I do think the book ends quite badly.