Skip to content

1.2 The Settler-Genocide Nexus

1.2 The Settler-Genocide Nexus

To fully grasp the violence and ongoing challenges faced by Indigenous communities under settler-colonialism, it is essential first to understand the dynamics of settler-colonialism itself. This is crucial for understanding the broader themes of settler-colonial body politics, biopower, necropolitics, and militarisation.

Unlike traditional colonialism, where the colonisers exploit the resources and labour of the colonised while maintaining a degree of separation, settler-colonialism is characterised by the settler’s intent to replace the Indigenous population permanently. As Patrick Wolfe has pointed out, settler-colonialism “destroys to replace.” (Wolfe 2006, 388)1. The focus is not just on exploitation but on the erasure of Indigenous people, their cultures, and their claims to the land.

In the case of Palestine, the rise of Zionism in the late 19th century and the subsequent establishment of Zionist settlements marked the beginning of a settler-colonial project aimed at creating a new Jewish state. This project was further enabled by the British Mandate following World War I, which facilitated the displacement of Indigenous Palestinians and the establishment of a settler society. The Nakba in 1948, where over 770,000 Palestinians (Sitta 2001)2 were forcibly expelled from their homes, was a pivotal moment in this settler-colonial process, leading to the significant disruption of Palestinian society.

The settler-colonial project in Palestine did not end with the Nakba. Instead, it evolved, with Israel continuing to assert control over Palestine through military occupation and settlement expansion. The settler state’s goal of erasing Indigenous presence and claims to the land has persisted, albeit through increasingly sophisticated and multi-faceted means of violence and, as of October 2023, fast genocide. While the word ‘genocide’ might be relatively new, the same cannot be said about what it entails. Raphael Lemkin (Lemkin 1944)3 defined genocide as a coordinated plan of various actions aimed at destroying the essential foundations of the life of certain groups with the intent to annihilate these groups. However, his definition encompassed not only physical acts of violence but also efforts to dismantle a group’s cultural, linguistic, and economic existence, making it a broad and comprehensive concept.

Nevertheless, when the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drafted and adopted in 1948, the definition was narrowed significantly and has been criticised (see, for instance, Moses 2010; Schabas 2009; Wakeham 2022)4 5 6 for its vagueness and for the exclusion of other groups, such as political groups, and the omission of cultural genocide, a concept that Lemkin and others viewed as critical.

The exclusion of cultural genocide from the final definition was largely due to political pressures from Western nations, which sought to avoid implicating their colonial and settler-colonial histories and practices. Cultural genocide, as initially conceived, included actions like the forcible transfer of children, prohibition of language, and destruction of cultural institutions. These acts were intended to destroy a group’s cultural identity, but they were not included in the final Convention, which focused on physical acts of mass killing. Hence, the understanding of genocides remains narrow in both public understanding and within international law.

The debate over the definition of genocide continues, particularly regarding whether cultural destruction should be recognised alongside physical extermination. This debate reflects broader tensions between the need for a clear legal framework and the complex realities of historical and ongoing atrocities. Critics such as William A. Schabas (Schabas 2009)5, A. Dirk Moses (Moses 2010)4, and Pauline Wakeham (Wakeham 2022)6 argue that the current definition is insufficient to capture the full scope of actions that can lead to the destruction of a group, thus limiting the utility of the Genocide Convention in preventing and punishing all forms of genocide.

Colonial conquest often results in cultural genocide, or ethnocide, by systematically marginalising and erasing the cultural identities of Indigenous peoples (Burger 1987)7. Within these colonial settings, ethnocide involves the denial of an ethnic group’s right to enjoy, develop, and disseminate its own culture and language, leading to the disintegration of the group as a distinct entity, even if they are not physically destroyed.

Expanding on the concept of ethnocide, Sheri P. Rosenberg and Everita Silina (Rosenberg and Silina 2013)8 introduce the concept of “genocide by attrition,” which describes a slow-moving process of genocide that does not involve immediate mass killings but instead a gradual destruction of a group through state and non-state policies. These policies may include forced displacement and denial of healthcare, food, and other essential rights, leading to the slow, systematic destruction of a group over time. Rosenberg and Silina argue that this form of genocide is complex and prolonged, challenging the more traditional, immediate perceptions of genocide.

Pauline Wakeham (Wakeham 2022)6 connects the concept of genocide by attrition with settler-colonialism, noting that the ongoing and structural nature of settler-colonialism often results in genocidal processes that are not immediately recognised as such. Wakeham critiques the tendency to dismiss the experiences of Indigenous nations as too diffuse to be labelled as genocide. She challenges traditional legal and scholarly definitions of genocide, which often focus on brief, intense episodes of violence, by arguing that settler-colonialism perpetuates a continuous, albeit sometimes subtle, genocidal structure.

Wakeham also critiques Patrick Wolfe’s (Wolfe 2006)1 theory, which distinguishes between “elimination” and “genocide” in settler societies, arguing that this distinction can obscure the persistent, cumulative effects of genocidal practices in these contexts. She points out that even policies that seem non-genocidal on the surface can contribute to the broader genocidal framework within settler-colonial societies. This framework, rooted in the knowledge that “invasion is a structure, not an event,” (Wolfe 2006, 388)1 continues to impact Indigenous communities beyond initial acts of frontier violence.

In summary, the discourse surrounding genocide, particularly in colonial and settler-colonial contexts, has evolved to recognise the importance of understanding genocide as a complex, ongoing process rather than a singular event. This includes acknowledging forms of cultural genocide and genocide by attrition, which may not involve immediate physical destruction but nevertheless aim to systematically erase the cultural and social existence of a group over time.

In her work, Pauline Wakeham (Wakeham 2022)6 argues that settler-colonial societies have strategically used tactics like obfuscation, wilful blindness, and racist narratives to disguise and facilitate prolonged genocidal processes against Indigenous peoples. These tactics have enabled these settler-societies, despite their self-proclaimed status as liberal democracies, to avoid accusations of genocide. Wakeham emphasises the need to move beyond rigid legal definitions of genocide, which often fail to capture the complex and evolving nature of these genocidal processes. She introduces a framework to trace the interconnected and cumulative nature of these policies and practices, highlighting how they collectively create a web of harm that intensifies over time, operating within the persistent structure of invasion. By tracing how these policies and practices interlock over time, Wakeham provides a conceptual lens to understand the slow erasure of Palestinian identity, agency, and episteme as part of an extended, denialist genocidal project.

Building on Wakeham’s insights and related scholarship on genocide by attrition, I introduce the concept of slow erasure to more precisely capture the layered, embodied, and epistemic dimensions of elimination in settler-colonial regimes. While genocide by attrition describes the gradual destruction of a people through the denial of basic needs and protections, slow erasure foregrounds how settler-colonial power targets the Indigenous body as the site of identity, knowledge systems, and agency. This formulation brings together biopolitical, necropolitical, and epistemic violence to show how elimination unfolds not just through neglect or deprivation, but through the deliberate dismantling of ontological and political presence. The concept of slow erasure therefore contributes to genocide and settler-colonial studies by articulating how settler-colonialism enacts an ongoing unmaking of the Indigenous.

I draw on the work of scholars like Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel (Alfred and Corntassel 2005)9, who argue that Indigenous identity is not a static trait but is actively constructed and shaped by the ongoing struggle against colonial forces that seek to erase and assimilate Indigenous cultures. This contemporary form of colonialism often involves the erasure of Indigenous histories and geographies.

Alfred and Corntassel highlight a shift from overt physical eradication to more insidious forms of cultural and historical erasure. Drawing on Frantz Fanon’s (Fanon 1963)10 insights, they argue that colonialism distorts and devalues the history of oppressed peoples, erasing their past to dominate their present. I see this erasure not merely as neglect but as a deliberate attempt to reshape history and geography to favour the settler-colonial state’s agenda. Alfred and Corntassel also caution against allowing the colonial narrative to dominate discussions of Indigenous lives. I agree that it is crucial to emphasise narratives that highlight Indigenous rights to resist.

References

  1. Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native." Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4): 387--409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240. ↩↩↩

  2. Sitta, Salman Abu. 2001. The Unfolding of the Holocaust - Palestine Remembered. Https://palestineremembered.com/Acre/Right-Of-Return/Story433.html\ #Table3. ↩

  3. Lemkin, Raphael. 1944. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ↩

  4. Moses, A. Dirk. 2010. "Raphael Lemkin, Culture, and the Concept of Genocide." In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, edited by Donald Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses. Oxford University Press. ↩↩

  5. Schabas, William. 2009. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. ↩↩

  6. Wakeham, Pauline. 2022. "The Slow Violence of Settler Colonialism: Genocide, Attrition, and the Long Emergency of Invasion." Journal of Genocide Research 24 (3): 337--56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2021.1885571. ↩↩↩↩

  7. Burger, Julian. 1987. Report from the Frontier: The State of the World's Indigenous Peoples. Cultural Survival Report 28. Zed Books. ↩

  8. Rosenberg, Sheri P., and Everita Silina. 2013. "Genocide by Attrition: Silent and Efficient." In Genocide Matters: Ongoing Issues and Emerging Perspectives. Routledge. ↩

  9. Alfred, Taiaiake, and Jeff Corntassel. 2005. "Being Indigenous: Resurgences Against Contemporary Colonialism." Government and Opposition 40 (4): 597--614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00166.x. ↩

  10. Fanon, Frantz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press. Grove Press. ↩