Settlers

This is Joseph.

From Wikipedia, about the Acadians:

The Acadians (French: Acadiens) are the descendants of 17th and 18th century French settlers in parts of Acadia (French: Acadie) in the northeastern region of North America comprising what is now the Canadian Maritime Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the Gaspé peninsula in eastern Québec, and the Kennebec River in southern Maine. The settlers whose descendants became Acadians primarily came from the southwestern and southern regions of France, historically known as Occitania, while some Acadians are claimed to be descended from the Indigenous peoples of the region.

If we think that all non-indigenous peoples are settlers in North America, what is the endpoint for the Acadians? These people are all removed from France by around 300 years and clearly do not have the right to return, do they? 

Why am I using those specific words?

Well, if I were a person of Jewish descent, is there anywhere in the world where I would not be a settler? Because if there is not a right of return to an indigenous homeland for the Acadians (France) then we have a real issue with deciding what the options are for populations that have been away from their homeland for an extended period. This is rather central to the challenges of Israel.

Keep in mind that some of the latest arguments (settlers are not civilians) casts rather an ominous light over decolonial narratives. This is one that indigenous persons in Canada were quick to spot and immediately grasp that this had some unfortunate consequences:

Anyone trying to justify violence against civilians, especially women and children, using our Indigenous legacy is, at best, misguided. Our cause is about healing, justice, and resilience. It is not about perpetuating violence. If you aim to involve us in the Middle Eastern conflict bring waged against helpless civilians with the utmost brutality, be aware: such actions will find little support among those of us whose "Snu'wuy'ul" (traditions/teachings) are still intact.

Finally, I think that this has some real contradictions to the whole idea of refugees. People who leave a part of the world for a different environment are settlers, by any plausible definition. Yes, that includes the professor who argued that settlers are not civilians. It probably includes the historian at Cornell who found the attack exhilarating. Or the unions that applauded it. Or the professors. Canada is trying hard to come to terms with its colonialism past, but this seems to be the opposite of Truth and Reconciliation. 

But this post isn't about counting coup. It is to highlight the huge intellectual leap here that is being taken to tie these two streams of activism together. I used the Acadians as an example because their history starts in 1604 (yeas, 419 years ago). Many nations have changed borders or ceased to exist in that time period. The year 1604 is far closer to the Byzantine Empire than it is to today. 1604 was also the year after the death of Elizabeth the first and the Tudor dynasty was just ending in England. It was a long time ago. Furthermore, do we really think that the people who live in modern nations (like say Turkey, England, Sweden, Spain) are all the correct indigenous inhabitants? And if they are not, what might be the actual plan for the "settlers"? Because sending them back is a very . . . challenging idea.

So what is the path forward? Well, I think the settler distinction is useful when talking about power sharing and existing oppression. The homelessness rate of first nations persons in Canada is a disgrace, no way should it be nearly10x as high as non-first nations persons, and perhaps that might be a very good place to put government interest and resources. It is completely coherent to see ongoing oppression as completely unacceptable and the dissonance between the homelessness rate among first nations and the land acknowledgements are almost tragic.

The other thing that I will note is that I come from a very different vision of the nation state than most of my readers. I do not believe in blood and soil ethnonationalism. I see nationalism as a project that anybody can join in. Like with Rome, who allowed barbarians to join the Senate, the project is big enough to include everyone who wants to participate.  It doesn't mean that the state has been historically innocent but that anybody could become a Roman. 

In this modern world, I guess my beliefs make me an American:

America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'

Ronald Reagan, Campaign rally for Vice President Bush, San Diego, November 7, 1988

Ronald Reagan is not, to be clear, anywhere on my list of favorite politicians. Not sure he breaks the top 500, and that only because there is a limit to how many people I can remember to insert in front of him. But the sentiment he expresses is full of so much more hope and promise than the grubby promise of an eternity of deciding who is or is not pure enough to be a legitimate inhabitant. Or to quote somebody I like more: 

"If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective."

Martin Luther King Jr., Christmas sermon, Atlanta, Georgia, 1967.

So I am happy to rage against injustice. It would be nice to see more concrete progress on this front. But a tribal idea of humanity where we are all allowed only to live where we came from seems to be a much darker view of the world than I seek.