Questions of Settler-Colonialism in the U.S.

The question of settler-colonialism and its place in the web of contradictions in the U.S. have resurfaced, and of the Communist Party's position, so it bears addressing. Without a concrete answer to these questions, our party's ability to help build a mass movement and unite the working class will be weakened significantly.

Settler-colonialism is a form of colonialism that is different from regular, or franchise, colonialism. Rather than wanting to exploit the Indigenous population, like in franchise colonialism, settler-colonialism seeks to drive an indigenous population off their land by any means necessary and exploit it for the profit of the private owners of the means of production.

The United States was formed on a settler-colonial basis. What is a more disputed question, however, is whether settler-colonialism still exists. It should be clear that setter-colonialism still exists in this country, exemplified by Indigenous communities' constant and ongoing struggle against it and for their rights and sovereignty. Indigenous communities have to fight for recognition of their treaties, defend from environmental degradation by illegal pipelines, medical and police malpractice and racism, theft of community resources with legal rights totally disregarded.

The trail of tears and the near extinction of the buffalo serve as examples of historical atrocities committed by settler-colonialism, though it should be stressed that settler-colonialism is not an "event" but actually a structure of oppression. Individual white settlers were incentivized to settle land based on price, entrepreneurship, and the competition with other sources of labor such as the influx of immigrants and slaves. We're seeing the atrocities of settler-colonialism right now in Israel, with the settlements in the West Bank, the genocide in Gaza, the 76 years of occupation, and the constant violation of Palestinian rights within Israel itself as well as apartheid. Settlers without a direct connection to the state will steal homes, block aid trucks going into Gaza, or produce fabricated stories and videos for news and social media to justify the atrocities. If this represents contemporary settler-colonialism in Israel, how then does it appear in the U.S.?

It must be stressed that settler-colonialism laid the basis for the further development of capitalism as a mode of primitive accumulation, and settler-colonialism only came into existence due to the development of capitalism and the pursuit of profit. Capitalism drove the process of settler-colonialism. However, as Lenin noted, American capitalism developed at a rate never seen before and ultimately, as settler-colonialism "closed the frontier" and Indigenous people were driven onto reservations and more of their land became occupied, settler-colonialism as a system began to shrink. The amount of land-relations to be destroyed and exploited became increasingly small. As monopoly capitalism developed within the U.S., settler-colonialism evolved within the context of this development. The enforcement of colonial law no longer was done by individual settlers, but by the capitalist class. It became primarily driven not by the homesteader and the pioneer, the petty landowners of the 18th and 19th centuries, but the big landowners of agricultural and industrial capital. Especially when putting into consideration the rapid industrialization of the country, the proletarianization of most of the population, and the shrinkage of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Big companies have taken over the role of exploiting Indigenous lands, rather than individual settlers, with the permission and helping of the capitalist state

This became evident by big companies taking over the role in exploiting Indigenous lands rather than individual settlers with the permission and helping of the capitalist state. There are many judicial cases concerning oil and land rights that could be looked at. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz writes about this in her book An Indigenous People's History of the United States.

By the 20th century, settler-colonialism had done its dirty work by almost wiping out the Indigenous population, from a population of over 60 million before Columbus' voyage in 1492 to 237,196 in 1900. The struggle against settler-colonialism and capitalism became increasingly intertwined, more so than ever before.

This leads into the most controversial question, who constitutes a settler in the United States today? Are all white workers settlers like some believe? We first have to understand what it means to be Indigenous, and what it means to be a settler. As these two social relations are linked to each other through the dynamics of settler-colonialism. Nick Estes, a citizen of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, said in Our History is the Future regarding the history of our people:

"Next to the maintenance of good relations within the nation, an individual's second duty was the protection of communal territory. In the east, the vast wild rice patties and seasonal farms that grew corn, beans, and squash demarcated Dakota territory. In the west, Lakota territory extended as far as the buffalo herds that traveled in the fertile Powder River country. For Dakotas, Lakotas, and Nakotas, territory was defined as any place where they cultivated relations with plant and animal life; this often overlaid, and was sometimes in conflict, with other Indigenous nations."

With this, we can conclude that Indigeneity is a social relation defined by the persistence of long-standing communal links and Indigenous identities in a specific place. The relationship to a specific homeland or territory is important, but the loss of direct ties to land does not rule out Indigeneity. Rather, the continuity of belonging to a particular mode of life and community is essential.

A settler is a one who is outside these land-relations, and plays an active role in negating them. This does not mean that one has to personally enforce colonial laws, rather it means that they directly benefit from the participation in the destruction of these land relations. There are many factors to being a settler. An important factor of being a settler, though this is not the sole characteristic, is being a socio-political citizen of a settler-colonial society. This means that "in law and in social practice, one has the full rights of belonging to the settler-colonial nation, and is recognized as such in ideology."

The question arises: what does it mean to be a socio-political citizen in the US? What does that entail and what defines it? If we go based solely on race lines, arguing that being white is what makes one a socio-political citizen and therefore all white people are settlers, then we have to ask: what about the Black bourgeoisie? We could go based solely on class lines to define this, but that also carries contradictions. What about those who objectively enforce colonial laws but aren't bourgeois? Like the police or the army? All these factors have varying weights, but none are the sole nor main characteristic of being a settler as they're all important and interact with each other.

Being a settler depends on actively exploiting a dominant population in active use of the land, expropriating their agriculture, and laboring them upon their soil. Even with the force of its armies, the capitalist class could not have completed the task of violence on its own since there was simply too much to be done. In that sense, being a settler played a unique role. As we witnessed later in Klan deputies and today's armed West Bank settlers, it was an early manifestation of a fascist paramilitary that was de facto supported by the state. It has evolved in the current context of the development of monopoly capitalism in the US.

The capitalist class are very much settlers, as they directly profit from the destruction of Indigenous land relations and the violation of their sovereignty and drive settler-colonialism in the US.

The capitalist class are very much settlers, as they directly profit from the destruction of Indigenous land relations and the violation of their sovereignty and drive settler-colonialism in the US. Those who are part of arms of the state, such as the army or police, are settlers as they are involved and work within a system which personally enforces colonial laws, and soldiers and officers harass tribal members daily and incarceration rates for Native American people are 4 times higher than the rate of white people. Native Women are particularly targeted. We also see those workers who work under companies who exploit Indigenous lands and engage directly in the destruction of these land-relations as settlers, as these workers directly benefit from it and participate in the destruction of these land-relations. We should also include those who gain residencies or employment at the expense of Indigenous land-relations, as well as those in bordertowns and engaged in bordertown violence. Bordertowns, as defined by The Red Nation in their book The Red Deal, are:

"…settlement[s] sitting outside of a Native reservation. Some examples include Gallup, New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Winslow, Arizona, and Rapid City, South Dakota. Bordertowns emerged from the dispossession, relocation and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous people. The function of a bordertown is to exploit the identity, labor, and death of Indigenous people."

Most white workers do not see the benefits of settler-colonialism.

Most white workers do not see the benefits of settler-colonialism because it is no longer dominant or ubiquitous as it once was. Land relations have continuously been destroyed, confined to the land within reservations. Due to the dominance of capitalism, and the finiteness of these land relations in modern day, most white workers do not see the direct benefits of settler-colonialism and neither do they participate in the destruction of these relations. White workers, of course, do benefit from the ideological superstructure of white supremacy which has maintained itself in a systemic form, defined by the dominance of capitalism. However, while white supremacy is a tool used to oppress Native Americans, it is different from settler-colonialism, though both are connected. Ultimately the working class has a material interest in ending capitalism and any system of oppression as it divides the working class and makes their collective power weaker.

If white workers aren't settlers, what are they? Some analysts of settler-colonialism use a third term, arrivants. Coined by Kamau Brathwaite and elaborated on by Jodi Byrd, the term is used to "signify those people forced into the Americas through the violence of European and Anglo-American colonialism and imperialism around the globe." This is still, however, unsatisfactory because it still produces a non-answer when non-Native folks of white descent don't actively exploit Native lands or play an active role in the negation of Indigenous land-relations as part of their social relation.

All social relations, as Marx outlines in the German Ideology, depend upon one's relations to the means of production. White people are only exposed to the ideology in the predominate quality and quantity determined by the material conditions to which they are subjected. Therefore, an individual's "choice" regarding how they relate to the means of production is determined by their level of consciousness. This decision is a privilege. Regardless, this only indicates that, at best, their privileged opportunities expose them to a higher degree of bourgeois class entry (more often than not, this embodies them into the petty bourgeois in an attempt to attain that higher level). This still remains the basic concept of false consciousness that Engels categorized, even if there is a crumb of truth in factors of luck.

There were settlers who oftentimes were promised their own land and homes in order to escape being poor. That's what the ideological basis of settlerism was alongside the invention of racism, it has simply changed form today. Today, in an attempt to escape "the rat race," white people can struggle with their other oppressed workers or adopt a false white supremacist consciousness, but they will always be workers until their class relations change.

We can tweak the definition of arrivant to be something more broad to fit this analysis, such as those who are part of social structures which dissolve those land-relations, but lack the citizenship and agency of settlers, or we can coin a new term to define those who do not fit into any of the existing three categories such as descendant. A descendant is one who is a descendant of any of the other three categories, whether that be indigenous, settler, or arrivant, but do not fit into either of these three categories. This new term would take the definition of the former suggestion. That being, those who are part of social structures which dissolve those land-relations, but lack the citizenship and agency of settlers. However, this is not conclusive.

Therefore, I call on the party to continue discussing this issue to develop these theories through the process of democratic centralism, and applying theory to practice. I also call on the party to focus its sights on the development of an Indigenous Commission which would work on developing theories relating to settler-colonialism and indigenous liberation, as well as focusing on the work of indigenous struggles.

We should recognize that these categories are not static. They can change and have done so. For example, there are historic examples of arrivants becoming settlers due to their participation in the destruction of indigenous land-relations. Like the Black buffalo soldiers who fought on the side of Manifest Destiny.

To end settler-colonialism in the United States, realize self-determination for the Indigenous nations, and decolonize the U.S., capitalism itself must also be ended.

All of this ultimately leads us to the conclusion that to end settler-colonialism in the United States, realize self-determination for the Indigenous nations, and decolonize the U.S., capitalism itself must also be ended. Socialism cannot be realized without decolonization, without addressing the settler-colonial question. We must tear down the prison house of Indigenous nations. Landback and the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty is only the start of it, rather than the end. It is a part of the minimum program. As Joe Sims said in his Main Report to the 32nd National Convention :

"And we know that a huge debt still has to be repaid to the victims of the genocide and slavery. And that repayment must include upholding Native peoples' demand for Land Back, restoration of sovereignty and compensation for its violations, upholding treaty rights, harm reduction, and shared responsibility. I mean at a minimum. And that's a beginning, not the end."

Images: Rally against the Dakota Access Pipeline by Fibonacci Blue (Attribution 2.0 Generic CC BY 2.0); Bay Area American Indian Two Spirits at the 2022 San Francisco Pride Parade by Gabriel Classon (Creative Commons 2.0); MMIW Awareness Native American Woman Artwork For The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Version 2 by Pawan Singh / Printerval (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Comments

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.