User:Simadk/sandbox

“The logic of elimination” is a term used to refer to the idea that a settler-colonial force both requires and is generated by the destruction of indigenous peoples and society (Barker & Lowman). This term was coined by Patrick Wolfe in 2006 in his well-known article titled Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Wolfe discussed his logic of elimination in relation to settler-colonialism, which he describes as not a historical event but rather a persisting and ongoing structure (Wolfe, 2006:402).

The term “logic of elimination” was developed by Wolfe in order to distinguish settler-colonialism as separate from genocide (Wolfe, 2006:387). Wolfe defines genocide and settler-colonialism as distinct, although both, in reference to European practice, employ the use of the human categorization of race (Wolfe, 2006:387). More specifically, Wolfe applies the settler-colonial logic of elimination to the opposing ways that Indian and Black people have been racialized in the US, through the “one-drop rule” for Black people, where any, even the most miniscule amount of African ancestry rendered that person Black. Indian people were and still are racialized in the US through blood-quantum regulations with the reverse effect taking place, where possessing any amount of non-Indian blood stripped an individual of their indigeneity (Wolfe, 2006:388). The juxtaposition that arises from racializing these two groups of people is that, while the reproduction of Black people as slaves expanded their owners’ wealth, the same cannot be said for Indians in the US because their reproduction obstructed the access of settlers to land and territory, thus making their existence counterproductive (Wolfe, 2006:388). In this example, racialization of African American took place for the purposes of exploitation through enslavement, while racialization of Indigenous populations occurred for the purposes of elimination.

The logic of elimination is what distinguishes settler-colonialism from genocide. Settler-colonialism destroys to replace and makes claims not to be the first peoples of a land but rather that settlers could make better use of the land; however not all occurrences of settler-colonialism are genocidal, although they are eliminatory (Wolfe, 2006:389; Kēhaulani Kauanui, 2016). The logic of elimination, unlike genocide, avoids the degree of destruction but rather focuses on control over spatial movements, biocultural assimilation, the purposeful introduction of disease, and mass killing of native populations (Crotty, 2018). Furthermore, the logic of elimination is not so much about the destruction of physical bodies, but rather the elimination of the native as native (Kēhaulani Kauanui, 2016).

Wolfe discusses the different ways that assimilation occurs by an eliminatory settler-colonial power. One method of assimilation used by settler-colonial powers occurs through force of violence. One example given by Wolfe is the Israel-Palestine conflict, where the Israeli Law of Return employs the use of non-violence to expel native Palestinians through the ethnically exclusive immigration of Jews everywhere to their “motherland” (Wolfe, 2006:401). This instance of assimilation contributes to the active elimination of native Palestinians by indirect force. Another example of assimilation given by Wolfe is that of “new colonialism”, a term used by John Wunder in reference to American assimilationist policy in the late 1800s that sought to attack every aspect of Native life through discourse - such as religion, language, political freedom, and cultural diversity (Wolfe, 2006:400).

It is important to note that the logic of elimination is a continuous feature that exists both before and after the consolidation of the state by settler colonialists (Barker & Lowman). The distinction that sets apart the logic of elimination from genocide is the fact that settler colonialists are concerned with the destruction of the native only to the extent that is required for the possession of territory by the settlers (Barker & Lowman). This point helps to explain the reason that societies founded through settler colonialism, such as Canada and United States, make limited efforts to define and protect some Indigenous rights through the politics of recognition, through policy that recognizes and protects cultural and individual aspects of native identity that are not equivalent to indigenous sovereignty (i.e. control of the land) (Barker & Lowman). In this way, the native individual is recognized by state policy, however native sovereignty is denied because it (ownership over the land) comes into direct conflict with the interests of the settler-colonial power. Thus, the logic of elimination operates in this manner by effectively removing the threat that indigenous sovereignty presents to the settler colony.

Bibliography

Barker, A. & Lowman, E. B. Patrick Wolfe''. Global Social Theory''. Retrieved from https://globalsocialtheory.org/thinkers/patrick-wolfe-2/

Crotty, T. (2018). Beyond Genocide: a comparative analysis of the elimination of Australia’s Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people. Emerging Scholars in Australian Indigenous Studies, 2-3:1, 32-37. Retrieved from https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/student-journals/index.php/NESAIS/article/view/1470/1583

Kēhaulani Kauanui, J. (2016). A structure, not an event: Settler Colonialism and Enduring Indigeneity. Lateral 5(1). Retrieved from http://csalateral.org/issue/5-1/forum-alt-humanities-settler-colonialism-enduring-indigeneity-kauanui/

Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native''. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4).'' Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623520601056240