Expressing Gratitude for Settler Colonialism

This is a‍ portion of a speech delivered by Michael Knowles ​at Vanderbilt University on Tuesday, November 28, 2023.

The activist Left⁤ — from Hollywood to the⁤ newsrooms and especially on campus — has spent nearly two months smearing all ‌of history’s victors as “colonizers” and “settlers.” The reason for this uptick in “anti-colonial” activism is Hamas’ current war with the state of Israel, which the Left has accused of engaging in settler ⁤colonialism. And the most prominent⁣ defense of ​the modern Israeli state thus far has been to deny its status as a ⁣“settler” or “colonial” entity.

This, I think, is a bad strategy for a few reasons: first, ⁣because the Israeli state manifestly⁤ is a settler and⁣ colonial endeavor,‍ deriving from the Balfour Declaration of the British⁤ Empire during⁣ World War I, after which the Brits wrested the territory from the Ottoman Empire; two, more relevant to all of us,⁣ because‍ our own nation is similarly a settler and colonial project‍ deriving from the Treaty of Paris, in‍ which ‍the⁤ British Empire recognized the‌ United States‍ as an independent nation; and three, because all regimes in history⁣ have been established by ⁣settlers and colonizers of one ‌kind or ⁤another.

Not since Adam in the Garden of Eden‍ have any people⁤ sprouted out of the ground. (And in the case of Adam, you ⁣might recall, he had a little help.) Borders, nations, and regimes have changed for all of history⁣ as people have multiplied, shrunk, ⁤and moved around. The aim of‌ the “decolonization” activists is to ‍return land from the people who⁣ currently ‍possess⁤ it to the‌ people who previously possessed it.⁢ That does not ⁢seem to me to solve ⁤the problem. At best, it ‍only pushes the problem a little bit further back⁣ in history.

Decolonizing the Black Hills

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that ⁤the American government had illegally taken the Black Hills of South Dakota ‌— ‌the site of⁢ Mount Rushmore — from the⁢ Lakota Sioux. The Court ordered ⁤the⁣ government to pay ‌the Lakota⁣ the initial offering price of the land, plus interest,‌ coming out to a total of $106 million.

The U.S. had pledged in the⁤ Treaty of Fort Laramie in ⁤1868 to set ​the⁤ Black Hills “apart for‌ the absolute and undisturbed use‍ and occupation of the Indians,” thus⁢ ending Red Cloud’s ⁣War. Six years later, however, General George Custer entered the Black Hills amid⁣ reports of‍ gold ​found there. And then, attracted by Custer’s descriptions of the land and the resources on it, ‍settlers began to enter. Initially, the U.S. military ⁢tried ‍to honor the treaty and turn the settlers away. But the settlers kept⁢ coming, which led‍ President U.S. Grant to tell the military ⁢to stand down and stop opposing ⁤the settlement.

Eventually, with so many American settlers on ⁤the land, the ‌U.S. government decided that the only way to avoid another⁢ war would ‍be to pay‍ the Lakota‍ Sioux ‌for the land. Negotiations broke down, Custer led a ⁤charge, and the Indians,⁣ led by Sitting ⁢Bull and Crazy Horse, defeated Custer at ​the famous Battle of⁢ Little Bighorn.

The⁣ victory didn’t ‌last long. The ⁢Americans quickly defeated the rowdy​ Sioux. Still,​ the Sioux refused to surrender. But they also didn’t ⁢have any means to survive, having been stripped of their ‍weapons and horses. So in 1876, Congress made aid‍ to the Sioux ​contingent on ⁤their ceding the land to the United States. Some Sioux leaders agreed to a ⁢settlement — but not enough to satisfy the requirements of the Fort Laramie Treaty, which led to the Supreme ​Court case more ​than a century later.

The liberal Court ruled in favor ⁢of the Sioux in 1980 over the objections of the conservative Justice ⁣William Rehnquist. Notice, however, that the Court​ did not order the⁣ U.S. to give⁣ the ‍land back to the Indians. Not only would such an order⁤ have ‌been insane; ‍but it would also have been impractical. ‌It’s American land. A quarter-million Americans live there. Four U.S. presidents have⁢ their⁤ faces

‌What are the arguments for returning the ‌Black Hills to the Lakota Sioux, considering their original ownership⁣ and refusal of compensation?

⁤Fering price of $17.5 million as compensation. However, the⁤ Lakota Sioux refused the ⁤money, stating that their land was‍ not for sale. To this day, the Black Hills remain ⁤a point of⁤ contention between the United States government‍ and the Indigenous peoples.

The case of the Black Hills highlights ‌the complexity of the issue of decolonization. While ⁣it is true that the ‌American government acquired the land through ⁣settler colonialism, the⁣ question arises as to what should be done with the land now.‌ Should ⁣it be returned to the Lakota Sioux, as they were⁤ the original inhabitants? Or should it remain under American control, considering the vast infrastructure and cultural significance that⁢ has‍ been built ⁣upon it?

The ⁤issue becomes even more complicated⁢ when we consider that the ⁤United States,‍ as a nation, is also a product of settler colonialism. While the country was built upon ideals of freedom and ​democracy, it was also established through the displacement and marginalization of Indigenous peoples. To claim that the Israeli state alone is guilty of settler colonialism while ignoring our own history is‍ not only hypocritical, but it fails to address the root causes of the problem.

Furthermore,⁣ the ‌push for decolonization often overlooks the fact that settlers and colonizers are not a homogeneous group. Different settler and colonial projects have taken place throughout history, each with ​its own complexities and nuances. The idea of blanket decolonization ‍does not account ⁣for these differences and fails to provide ⁣meaningful solutions.

Instead of‌ focusing ​solely on decolonization, ⁣we⁤ should strive for a more nuanced understanding of history and its⁤ implications. This includes acknowledging the wrongs of ⁤the past and working towards reconciliation and justice. ⁣It ⁤also means recognizing that⁣ borders and nations have always been ⁤fluid‍ and subject to change.

The current wave of anti-colonial activism should not be dismissed, as it is essential for raising awareness of ​historical injustices. However, it is important to approach the ⁣issue with a critical⁢ mindset and seek‍ comprehensive solutions that address the‌ complexity ​of the problem.

In conclusion, the debate over settler ⁢colonialism and decolonization is a complex one that requires⁣ careful consideration of historical context and practical solutions. By acknowledging⁣ the complexities of ⁤our own nation’s history and engaging in meaningful dialogue, we can work towards a more just and inclusive‍ future. It is through understanding and empathy that we can‍ truly honor the struggles⁣ and aspirations of⁣ all peoples, past and present.