7 Shares 0



7

0







An interesting series of events have taken place recently with the sudden rise of the so called “oathkeepers”- a group of frustrated white militia ranchers in the United States that decided to take up arms against the Government of the United States; claiming restoration of “land rights” that they are constitutionally and righteously defending through these means. Setting aside that a shootout and arrest have taken place, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate to the readers that based on the response and the nature of the events that have taken place in relation to the “oathkeepers” this is a critical event and case study in not only understanding the globalized oppression against indigenous peoples attached to settler colonialism- focusing on the Israel-Palestine connection in particular- but to also necessitate the incorporation of critical terrorism studies when assessing and linking race and conflict.

The Oregon Oathkeepers and Settler Colonialism in the United States

First and foremost, we must understand the system of settler colonialism and what it entails in relation to the operational logics prevalent in the institutional and structural psyche of this state apparatus. Through the personification of settler colonialism we see the logics of elimination, expansionism, exceptionalism, denial and racialization which in turn produce securitization. This theoretical framework helps explain the genocidal consequences faced by indigenous peoples through historical and contemporary policies and laws that aim to eliminate indigenous peoples, expand through cessation and usurpation of their lands and territories, justified by religion, superiority or higher morality, backed by a denial of the factual nature of such events that have taken place against indigenous peoples; all of which are driven and justified by racism in essence- meaning fear and xenophobia as the foundation- reflected in securitization of indigenous peoples.

Applying this theoretical framework in Oregon, United States in relation to the “Oathkeepers”- you have a militia of white rancher settlers; the representation of a historical continuum of the Rogue River Wars of 1855-1866 that perpetuated the genocidal essence of settler colonialism justified by Methodist or Puritanism's religious or theological supremacy. The expansionism is reflected in the Mining Industry, the very point of contention in this particular conflict and focal point of settler colonialism in general-the expansionist economy. The exceptionalism is demonstrated in both the government’s decision from the Federal Bureau of Land Management in relation to these ranchers “land rights” as well as the title of “oathkeepers” as a symbol and demonstration of moral exceptionalism with their righteous attitude as a justification for both parties to terrorism and settler colonial racism against indigenous peoples. The denial is reflected in the fact that indigenous peoples are non-existent in this very conflict particularly with the fact that the lands that these militia ranchers claim “rights” to are indigenous peoples lands of the Paiute. The elimination is reflected not only with the ommitance of the fact that these lands are indigenous and the rights are pertaining to indigenous peoples, the militia men were potentially threatening the archives that include information some of which are not limited to ancient villages and ancestral sites. The end result has been the logic of securitization; whereby you have systemic and omnipotent terrorism imposed against indigenous peoples historically as far back as the Rogue River Wars all the way to these contemporary events including the failure of the settler colonial state to respond to such settler conduct as terrorism due to the racialization of terrorism and security. Henceforth it is at this juncture that the need for critical terrorism studies arises given that the securitization of indigenous peoples is further demonstrated in Oregon with their pre-dominance in the prison industrial complex.; a by-product of the logics of settler colonialism.

Israel and the Palestinians- A Comparative Analysis

To add further to the discussion and to bring forth coherence to the surface in relation to this topic, the equivalence can be applied with the State of Israel as a settler colonial state and its handling of settlers as well as both parties conduct in relation to the Palestinians; indigenous to the historic land of Palestine.

The system of settler colonialism and its logics of elimination, expansionism, exceptionalism, denial and racialization are evident and part in parcel in the foundation of the State of Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. First, the planning of the logic of elimination of the indigenous peoples of Palestine commenced in 1799 during the French and Napoleon’s presence in the region, inherited thirty years later by the British and executed in 1948 in the form of ethnic cleansing historically that continues today in an incremental fashion- a process known to the Palestinians as Al Nakba. The expansionism is seen today with the non-stop and steadily increasing settlement expansion and settler incursion and usurpation of the remaining Palestinian territories initially in the currently blockaded Gaza Strip that were dismantled through Israel’s Disengagement Plan of 2003 after steadfast indigenous armed resistance but continuing today in the West Bank Palestinian territories. These acts and conducts are in continued violation of International Law as per a recent and damming Human Rights Watch Report which includes the presence of corporations and industries facilitating and reaping the benefits of the expansionism for colonial economic adventurism at the expense of the indigenous peoples. The logic of exceptionalism is demonstrated in the State of Israel’s and its settlers ideological foundation of Zionism that perpetuates a racist driven higher morality, manifest destiny and a ‘chosen people’ complex of superiority- justified by religious nationalism- overtly demonstrated by the state sponsored and protected settler population in those territories in both their violence and claim to “land rights.” In fact, as with the emergence of the “Oathkeepers” in Oregon who want to use terrorism against the establishment in response to violations of their “land rights”, a group by the name of HaMered group which translates to “the rebellion” in Hebrew want to “restore” a Jewish monarchy by overthrowing the government for not meeting their demands for “land rights.” The denial is demonstrated in many factors such as the former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s statements that Palestine or Palestinians never existed; similar statements of which were reiterated by former Republican candidate Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, the denial of Israel’s ethnic cleansing policies and tactics that continue today as well as the acts and conducts that violate the indigenous rights of the Palestinians further demonstrate this logic of denial being put into practice. Last but not least, the racialization is clear with the essence of Zionist ideology fueling the expansionism, exceptionalism and elimination of indigenous peoples of Palestine, thereby producing the securitization logic implemented against indigenous peoples of Palestine reflected in but not limited to their predominance in the prison industrial complex. Again, the need for critical terrorism studies in understanding this contextual circumstance is crucial given that indigenous peoples are portrayed, perceived or labelled as terrorists when they are resisting settler colonial oppression. The reality is that the failure to acknowledge the source of terrorism in the settler colonial relationship between the State; whether it is the United States or Israel and their respective indigenous peoples is disturbingly shortsighted when analyzing such racial, supremacist and conflict situations.

Therefore, given the similarities in both contexts used to demonstrate the globalized aspect of the situational circumstances perpetuated by settler colonialism and their logics against the indigenous peoples of those settler colonial states, terrorism studies cannot be omitted from the analysis of race and conflict; specifically the necessity for a critical terrorism studies lens to be incorporated in the study of race and conflict. Failure to do so perpetuates race and conflict given the racialization of terrorism and security that we see in world analysis today, especially when the indigenous peoples in both contexts decide to engage in similar activities receiving a response that is belligerently more punitive.

In fact, statements written in an Oregon paper during the Rogue River Wars reinforce and cement the fact that not only is the context disturbingly similar from an ideological standpoint but also, the contemporary does not look much different unless terrorism is seen differently and astutely. The statements made were as follows:

“The Indians are ignorant, abject and debased by nature, whose minds are as incapable of instruction as their bodies are of labour. They are heroes only when women and children are to be murdered. They have nothing in common with humanity but the form. And God has sent us to destroy them as he did the Israelites of old to similar tribes. There is no evidence of sympathy or favor for Indians in the people or authorities of Oregon, in the present emergency.”