Settler Colonialism, Race, and the Law. Natsu Taylor Saito

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ other forms of empire or expansion in world history.22 Finally, colonialism is not only a structural relationship, but also an “ideological formation” in which, “rejecting cultural compromises,” “the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and of their ordained mandate to rule.”23

      The construction and imposition of racial identities facilitate colonial administration, but also go beyond that to render racialized privilege and subordination more or less permanent. Anghie calls this the “dynamic of difference”—an “endless process of creating a gap between two cultures, demarcating one as ‘universal’ and civilized and the other as ‘particular’ and uncivilized, and seeking to bridge the gap by developing techniques to normalize the aberrant society.”24 Colonial domination is justified only to the extent that “civilization” is being promoted and, thus, the colonized must be rendered perpetually inferior.25 As historian Lorenzo Veracini explains, “A triumphant colonial society is a state of affairs where . . . the promised equality between colonizer and colonized . . . is forever postponed, where colonizer and colonized know and ultimately retain their respective places.”26

      The contemporary construct of “race” has functioned as a kind of shorthand for the cultural differences used to justify colonialism’s “civilizing mission.” This mission, in turn, has served—and continues to serve—as the rationale for the exploitation of the land, labor, and natural resources of those deemed Other. Race has the added benefit, from the colonizers’ perspective, of being considered a “scientific” descriptor of physical characteristics, serving to perpetuate the dynamic of difference by linking cultural attributes identified as savage, barbaric, or otherwise uncivilized to relatively immutable biological factors.27 Racialization allows colonial administrators to claim they are uplifting and civilizing “the natives” through assimilationist measures intended to eradicate Indigenous identities while simultaneously invoking characteristics they claim are innate to “cap” the political, social, or economic rights of the peoples subjected to their rule.28

      It is an oversimplification, however, to posit racism (at least as we now understand the term) as the driving force of colonialism, for factors other than perceived racial differences have served the same purposes in other eras. Thus, for example, before Europe could engage in colonial expansion, the various peoples and nations of that region had to be “Europeanized,” a process that involved the conquest and assimilation of many “pagan” peoples indigenous to the region we now call Europe.29 In this process, religious and cultural differences were emphasized to justify political domination and consolidation.30 As European colonialism extended out of what had become Europe into Africa, Asia, and the Americas, “race” emerged as a shifting political and social construct that conveniently incorporated the notion of more and less civilized peoples and provided markers of “difference” relied upon by colonizing powers to justify their ventures.31

      Generally speaking, the characteristics summarized above apply to all European (and many non-European) colonial encounters of the past several centuries. There are, however, some significant distinctions between external and settler colonial formations. External or “classic” colonialism has been characterized rather famously by Jürgen Osterhammel as “a relationship of domination between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders.”32 Decisions are made and implemented by colonial administrators in pursuit of interests often defined in a distant metropolis; they generally involve exploitation of the land, labor, and natural resources of territories where, for the most part, the colonists do not intend to settle permanently.33 By contrast, settler colonists plan not only to profit from but also to occupy permanently the territories they colonize.34 These divergent purposes have resulted in distinct colonial narratives and forms of social organization. Their differences are explored in more detail below, as they help explain why the global movement for decolonization had so little effect on settler colonial regimes, and why analyses of internal colonialism that rely on classic colonial models have been inadequate to explain racialized domination and subordination in the United States.

      External Colonialism

      European colonialism emerged as participation in networks of trade—initially in spices, textiles, precious metals, and enslaved humans—evolved into assertions of exclusive control over these and other profitable resources.35 This control rested on the colonial powers’ claims to “own” the territories from which these resources were obtained. In this respect, external or “classic” colonialism can be seen as a form of imperialism, defined by Michael Doyle, an international relations scholar, as “a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society,” a control that is “achieved by force, by political collaboration, [or] by economic, social or cultural dependence.”36

      According to Osterhammel, external colonies were “usually the result of military conquest, often after extended phases of contact without land claims.”37 They were primarily acquired for purposes of economic exploitation and governed in an “autocratic” manner by a “relatively insignificant” number of colonial administrators “who return[ed] to their mother country after completing their assignments.”38

      The logic and law of colonialism were developed by and among those European states that recognized each other as “civilized.”39 International law as we now know it evolved from the agreements initially entered into between these powers, each interested in minimizing conflicts with the others so that its economic and military resources could be put to more profitable ends. The sovereignty of non-European societies was not recognized within this legal framework, and the colonizing states developed what were, in essence, non-compete agreements to respect each other’s claims to territories not encompassed within recognized states.40

      Colonial boundaries were artificially imposed, often from afar, as a result of these agreements.41 Territorial demarcation tended to reflect the relative political, economic, and military strength of the European states involved rather than the local population’s historic understanding of the (often permeable) geographic boundaries and patterns of land use that had evolved in relation to local topography or ecosystems. As a result, the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples were often divided between colonial powers, and any given colony might incorporate many different nations and peoples.42

      Colonial regimes developed extensive political and administrative structures to ensure the subjugation of these peoples and the efficient exploitation of their resources.43 Local systems of law and governance were rendered dysfunctional, and dual legal systems frequently imposed different rights and responsibilities on the colonizing and colonized populations.44 As Europe industrialized, colonial administrations increasingly emphasized the creation of roads, railroads, and communication infrastructure, the consolidation of agricultural plantations, and the development of sanitation and educational or training programs. These initiatives were often described in terms of the colonizers’ “civilizing mission,” but in fact were vital to their goals of efficient resource extraction and the creation and maintenance of a productive—that is, profitable—workforce.45

      In external colonies, the representatives of the colonizing powers tended to identify with and maintain allegiance to their countries of origin. Assigned to colonial outposts for some fixed period of time, these residents did not see themselves as permanently settling in the colony; rather, they intended to return to their homes in the metropolis, or “mother country,” at the end of their assignments or upon retirement. For this reason, Veracini describes classic colonial narratives as circular, “an Odyssey consisting of an outward movement followed by interaction with exotic and colonised Others in foreign surroundings, and by a final return to an original locale.”46 While in the colonies, the administrators’ self-identification as British, or French, or Belgian, for example, may have intensified as a result of their immersion in a society that was structured to ensure that their rights and status were contingent upon not being “native” to the colony.47

      By contrast, СКАЧАТЬ