Settlers Versus Migrants
17th November 2023
Until very recently, the term “decolonization” was familiar only to those within the hothouse of contemporary academia. The concept figures prominently in “cultural studies,” “ethnic studies,” and “postcolonial studies”—pseudo-disciplines that serve to disseminate leftist propaganda on campus. Decolonization supporters endorse the process of returning “occupied” lands to the groups who were displaced or marginalized by “settlers.” As much as academics talk about this topic, they say precious little about how decolonization is to be achieved. That’s smart, because short of the “colonizers” deciding to pick up and leave, “decolonization” can only be achieved through bloodshed.
These scholars don’t have any qualms about a little bloodletting if it advances the cause of social justice. Still, most are usually smart enough not to say the quiet part out loud. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks on Israel, they couldn’t conceal their exuberance. On X/Twitter, a writer from Teen Vogue asked, “What did you think ‘decolonization’ meant? Papers? Essays? Vibes? Losers.” The idea was that we shouldn’t be offended by the brutality of Hamas: this is simply how decolonization works. This sentiment, “liked” by thousands of social media users, is an open endorsement of ethnic violence. One is left to wonder why the American university (historically, our loudest institution when it comes to opposing any warfare) has never challenged decolonial rhetoric, leaving it to flourish on campus.
Since the attacks last month, many universities have shown that they don’t simply tolerate these ideologies: they tacitly endorse them. Given that it is garden-variety campus activism, aiming to abolish the “decolonizing” rhetoric that justifies violence against “settlers” is something of a fool’s errand. We are better off pursuing a deeper understanding of the hypocrisies and contradictions inherent to decolonization, so we might more effectively challenge its claims and undermine its power. These contradictions are best illustrated by contrasting the usage of two related terms in public discourse: “settler” and “migrant.”