Printer Friendly

Settler colonialism and genocide: when hunter-gatherers and commercial stock farmers clash.

From about the turn of the century, the field of genocide studies has experienced intensified engagement around the meaning of the concept of genocide itself. In the process, scholarship has moved beyond Holocaust-centric views of genocide as concentrated and immediate mass killing, and returned to an approach more sympathetic to the capacious outlook expounded by Rafael Lemkin, the originator of the term, (1) which takes account of a much wider spectrum of social destruction. In this context, colonial and, in particular, settler colonial mass killings have become a significant focus of attention. Some scholars argue that cases where the degree of settler dispossession and slaughter destroyed the ability of indigenous societies to reproduce themselves biologically and culturally constitutes genocide, (2) while others dispute this on a variety of grounds, usually citing a lack of intent on the part of perpetrators. The near eradication of aboriginal peoples in settler colonies as diverse as those in southern Africa, Australia, and the Americas has served as a battle ground over whether these demographic collapses were unintended consequences of economic competition, or exhibit the necessary intent to constitute genocide.

While writing and researching the annihilation of Cape San society, primarily caused by Dutch-speaking stock farmers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and trying to locate this episode in global historical context, it appeared to me that a particular subset of settler colonial confrontations--those in which livestock farmers linked to the global capitalist market clashed with hunter gatherers -were particularly catastrophic in their outcome. The frequency with which encounters of this kind resulted in the near complete destruction of forager societies raises the question why this particular format of settler colonial conflict seems overwhelmingly predisposed to eradicatory violence.

It is possible to identify a number of shared features in conflicts between hunter-gatherers and market-oriented stock farmers in settler colonies across the globe that served to intensify hostilities and tilt the balance toward genocide. This analysis explores those factors that I consider fundamental to promoting genocidal outcomes in clashes of this kind. While there were many other contributors to exterminatory violence between hunter-gatherers and commercial stock farmers, and each conflict was unique, the primary facilitators identified here were not only common to case studies globally but also instrumental to escalating the violence to genocidal levels.

The nature of commercial stock farming

In the first instance, the nature of commercial stock farming itself was a major contributor to the escalation of bloodshed to genocidal levels. One of the crucial dynamics at play in pastoral settler colonies was the rapid occupation of sweeping expanses of land characteristic of capitalist stock farming especially when entering virgin territory. Unlike colonizing crop farmers who tended to be sedentary, marking out longer term occupancy of land with fences and hedges, and tending to expand incrementally and contiguously, commercial stock farmers needed extensive pastures and were inclined to be on the move. (3) Stock-keepers were usually engaged in a constant search for pasture and water, particularly in drier environments. Indeed, dry spells and drought accelerated their dispersal beyond the fringes of colonial settlement. They were generally not bound by the confines of ranches even where they laid formal claim to such holdings. Registered farms on pastoral frontiers were often used as bases from which flocks and herds were moved in transhumant fashion and vast stretches of countryside were treated as communal grazing. Distance from ports and markets was far less of a concern to stock farmers than their crop-growing counterparts as in most cases animals were capable of transporting themselves to desired destinations. This was especially true of animals raised for meat.

Case studies across the temperate colonial world confirm that settler advances were relatively slow and conflict with indigenes localised until colonies turned to large scale pastoral farming. Few colonies were established as pastoral ventures from the start and it was usually growing demand from the metropole or some sector of the global trading network that sparked the shift to commercial stock farming. Increasing demand for their produce encouraged stock keepers to expand their flocks and herds, as well as their official landholdings and to move into new territory beyond the limit of colonial settlement. Economic booms usually set in motion spectacular frontier advances and the rapid stocking of land, especially with cattle and sheep, but also with pigs, goats, horses and other domesticated animals. (4)

Not only did stock farmers shift frontiers rapidly and occupy the best land, they also commandeered resources critical to the survival of hunter-gatherer communities. Commercially farmed herds and flocks consumed large amounts of land for grazing and water, and routinely exceeded the land's carrying capacity. This damaged the ecosystem, often altering it permanently for the worse. Invasion by commercial stock farmers had an immediate, and often devastating, impact on the region's foraging societies whose seasonal migrations were disrupted, and whose food supplies and other foundations of life were severely compromised. The introduction of large numbers of domesticates undermined indigenous hunting, fishing and gathering activities to the extent that communities might soon be suffering malnutrition or even be facing starvation. Conflict was almost unavoidable as both hunter-gatherers and stock farmers were in direct competition for the same environmental resources, especially land, water and game. Foraging bands suddenly found that they were denied access to sacred locales, traditional hunting grounds and watering places such as springs, pools and river frontages. Livestock contaminated and exhausted water supplies, trampled edible plants, disrupted foraging activities and displaced herds of game, a primary source of food for hunter-gatherer peoples. Importantly, colonists decimated herbivore populations -whether antelope in Africa, bison in North America, kangaroos in Australia or guanaco in Latin America--and other wild animals with their guns, permanently depleting a key resource. Hungry bands thus often had little option but to target settler stock for sustenance. (5)

The result, almost inevitably, was spiraling levels of violence as afflicted indigenous peoples resisted encroachment, and settlers in turn retaliated, usually with excessive and indiscriminate force. Hunter-gatherer communities typically resisted settler invasion using guerrilla tactics of raiding and maiming stock, slaying herders isolated out in pastures, and attacking farmsteads, usually at night. Stock farmers responded with individual acts of slaughter, informal militia activity, and on occasion, initiated retaliatory offensives in alliance with colonial state forces. Such conflicts often culminated in open warfare and exterminatory onslaughts on the part of colonial society. The weakness of the colonial state and its tenuous control over frontier areas gave settlers, who had access to arms, wide discretion to act against indigenes.

There is another significant way in which the nature of stock farming amplified violence against indigenous peoples. Given the need for extensive landholdings or a transhumant lifestyle to graze animals, stock-keeping settlers were widely dispersed in small numbers across open landscapes. They were thus vulnerable not only to attack but also to severe economic setbacks from indigenous retaliation. This set up an anxiety-ridden existence for stock farming communities, making them prone to over-reaction to threats, as well as to pre-emptive violence against perceived enemies. They were usually suspicious of all indigenes, and fearful of raids, revenge attacks, uprisings, or collusion with indigenous servants. Frontier stock-keepers seldom went about their business unarmed and were constantly alert to the possibility of indigenous aggression. Situations of pervasive anxiety punctuated with sporadic violence are likely to give rise to extreme othering of enemies. And hunter-gatherers were prone to the harshest forms of racial stereotyping because their lifestyle placed them at the polar opposite of European settler societies' perception of themselves as "civilised" and part of humanity's highest incarnation. This undoubtedly weakened settler restraints against violence toward, or the killing of foragers, especially where their labour was not deemed essential. It is no surprise that in pastoral settler societies shoot-on-sight vigilantism, informal militia activity, and even state-sponsored eradicatory drives were common. (6)

International capitalist markets

A second dynamic tipping the balance toward exterminatory violence was that access to world markets and a concomitant desire among colonists to accumulate wealth encouraged both intensive exploitation of natural resources for short term gain as well as a resort to annihilatory practices to eliminate obstacles or threats to the colonial project be they vegetation, animals or indigenous peoples. This impulse, although present from the very start of European colonisation, intensified markedly with European industrialisation and the rapid growth of world markets through the nineteenth century. Settler rapacity excited by opportunities for profit during economic booms often proved deadly for indigenous communities. Ensuing busts and retreat of pastoral frontiers seldom resulted in much of a reprieve for hunter-gatherer communities as in many cases the damage had already been done and it was usually a matter of time before abandoned land was re-occupied again.

The privatisation and commodification of natural resources, especially land, a defining characteristic of capitalist economies, undermined foraging societies fundamentally. Systems of land tenure based on exclusive usage, fixed boundaries, registration of title deeds, alienability and permanent settlement were completely foreign to hunter-gatherer world views and effectively excluded them from legal ownership of vital resources. Privatization generally meant the permanent loss of such resources and that settler claims were backed by the legal apparatus and ultimately, the armed might of the colonial state. Economic and political imperatives in variably resulted in the colonial state supporting settler interests and land confiscations, even in cases where both metropolitan and local governments tried to curb frontier violence and restrain settler aggression.

Their ability to claim legal title to natural resources in many instances gave settlers cause for going on the offensive against indigenous peoples and, no doubt, reason for justifying such violence to themselves. Although different legal regimes applied to different colonies, one is nonetheless able to generalise about the impact of the role of law in the making of mass violence in settler regimes broadly. Significantly, the absence of the rule of law on the frontier favoured settlers who had superior firepower and were generally able to confiscate land and resources as well as perpetrate violence against indigenes with impunity. Much of this violence was committed with the knowledge and connivance of the colonial state. And when the rule of law was eventually implemented with the closing of the frontier, it was heavily biased in favour of settlers, and operated as an instrument for confirming their claims to the land and consolidating their control of it. (7)

The access that frontier communities had to world markets, their metropole and settled parts of colonies also meant access to resources, technologies and ideologies that made mass violence toward indigenes all the easier to perpetrate, and extermination all the more comfortable to contemplate. Ships carrying men and supplies with which to settle and conquer; guns and ammunition with which to kill; horses and wagons with which to transport goods inland; centralised political institutions through which to organise dispossession and mass violence; and a wide array of tools, the sophistication of which indigenous societies could not hope to match, were among the more obvious advantages frontier settler society derived from continued contact with its Western wellsprings. Less tangibly, such contact helped reinforce the ideological underpinnings of violence perpetrated against indigenous peoples. Cultural and religious chauvinism, ideas of European racial superiority and entitlement, as well as jingoistic imperialism, were fortified by continued settler contact with their European and colonial bases, and played important parts in promoting violence toward indigenes. Racial ideologies

A third common characteristic favouring exterminatory violence was the influence of Western racist thinking that dehumanized the hunter-gatherer way of life as an utterly debased form of existence, comparable in many respects to that of animals and proof of their racial inferiority. For agers were cast as the lowest of the low in the racial hierarchy, with particular groups often the object of speculation that they formed the 'missing link' between humans and animals. Hunter-gatherers were generally perceived as not owning their territories but merely residing on them, much as animals do, because they were allegedly not making productive use of it. Though modulated by local imperatives, the generalised image of unused land inhabited by dangerous, godless savages bereft of morality, reason or any form of refinement, and importantly, obstructing the advance of "civilisation" and economic development, usually underlay settler rationales for both land confiscation and accompanying mass violence. Stereotyped as immune to "civilizing" influences and their labour unsuited to settler needs, hunter-gatherer populations were often regarded as expendable.

One of the consequences of racial thinking was that supposed racial traits were generally regarded as inherent and the entire "race" being judged in terms of them. Blanket racial condemnation of "the savage" helped foster indiscriminate as well as exterminatory violence. Commercially-based pastoral settlers across the globe thus had little difficulty justifying the killing of indigenous women and children as well and did so in remarkably similar fashion, claiming that the women bred bandits and that children grew up to become enemies. "Nits make lice" reasoning was an inexorable part of racist discourse. (8)

Racist theorising, especially from the latter part of the nineteenth century when Social Darwinism became popular, often anticipated the dying out of "the savage." This further encouraged violence against indigenes and fostered an extirpatory attitude within frontier society as their demise was seen as inevitable, the outcome of an inexorable law of nature of the fit supplanting the unfit. Settler killing of indigenes could thus be interpreted in apositivelight, of being in step with nature and ridding humanity of an encumbrance. (9) Because forager subsistence needs were irreconcilable with those of the settler economy, colonial society viewed the foraging way of life as one to be eliminated, whether neutralized by means of segregation in reserves, forced acculturation into some subordinate status in the colonial order, or outright extermination. In many cases the forces propelling settler expansion radicalised over time in ways that favoured the most extreme of these options; where commercial stock farming was the mainstay of the colonial economy, they nearly always did.

Although often cast in racial terms and shot through with racist rhetoric, genocidal struggles between hunter-gatherers and commercial stock farmers were not primarily racial in nature. They were essentially about incompatible ways of life vying for the same scarce resources and the right to occupy the land. Racist ideology played an essentially enabling and justificatory role in these conflicts. Racism provided a rationale for dispossessing indigenes and their dehumanisation made it easier to ignore their suffering, exploit, kill or exterminate them. (10) That economic competition rather than race was at the heart of these conflicts is demonstrated by Edward Cavanagh's study of the Griqua, a mainly Khoikhoi-speaking people in the northern Cape. After successfully turning from subsistence to commercial pastoralism in the 1810s and 1820s as a result of market opportunities opened up by British occupation of the Cape Colony, the Griqua became as enthusiastic and deadly slaughterers of San as European colonists and effectively cleared the Transorangia region of hunter-gatherer bands. (11)

Superior military technology

A fourth contributor to genocidal outcomes in clashes with hunter-gatherers was the advanced military technologies available to insurgent pastoral settlers, which gave them huge advantages in situations of conflict. Superior technologies of war both aided processes of dispossession and played a role in escalating violence to exterminatory levels. Not only did their big military advantage make mass violence easier to perpetrate, but meant that colonial forces, both formal and informal, could act with relative impunity. This technological gap also helped to confirm settler views that their enemies were racially inferior.

Most obviously, access to firearms gave settlers and their surrogates massive military ascendancy over hunter-gatherer adversaries. Even the relatively primitive front-loading muskets available prior to their replacement by rifles in the latter half of the nineteenth century were far superior to the stone-age weapons used by hunter-gatherers. Muskets had a range far greater than that of forager weapons such as spears, darts, or bows and arrows-at least double the distance of the last-mentioned, which had the furthest reach. This allowed colonists to pick off enemies from a safe distance. Guns fired in volleys were particularly effective when the enemy was massed together. From the mid-nineteenth century onwards, the availability of much more accurate and rapid-firing rifles greatly tilted the balance in favour of colonists. Pistols were used in closer engagements, as were sabres and knives.

Horses not only gave colonial fighters the ability to cover long distances rapidly but also manoeuvrability and advantages of height in close skirmishing. Horses were particularly effective in flat open country with low scrub and were invaluable in situations requiring hot pursuit. The combination of guns and horses amplified the settler military advantage in warfare for, as historian William Keleher Storey explains, the pairing allowed colonial forces to travel like cavalry and attack like infantry. (12) Small contingents of armed, mounted settler militia were thus able to defeat much larger throngs of indigenous fighters on foot using traditional weapons.

For all these advantages, stock farming communities in many cases nevertheless had difficulty quelling hunter-gatherer resistance. The basic reasons were that frontier areas were vast, pastoral settlers thin on the ground, environments often hostile, and the target populations sparse, mobile, self-reliant and exceedingly well adapted to their surroundings. In general, settlers' military advantage did not count all that much on the frontier unless their fire-power could be concentrated at strategic times and places. This was vital to allowing relatively small groups of colonists to confiscate land and destroy indigenous populations. Conflict on pastoral frontiers in many instances radicalised to the extent that settler violence became indiscriminate and virtually every indigene a potential victim irrespective of age or gender. Demographic imbalances

Demographic imbalances played a significant role in the genocidal destruction of indigenous societies in various ways. Most obviously, the sheer weight of numbers and resources that settler colonial projects were able to muster would in time and with continued immigration overwhelm hunter-gatherer societies. (13) The communicable diseases interlopers carried, to which indigenes had low immunity, compounded these in equalities. Disease often wreaked atoll greater than direct killing and sometimes indigenous communities were compromised even before direct contact was made.

A related factor was that on most frontiers severely skewed gender ratios led to excessive sexual violence toward indigenous women. The more remote and undeveloped the frontier, as pastoral frontiers tended to be, the greater the gender disparity was likely to have been. On some pastoral frontiers the ratio between settler men and women were as high as 10:1. What is more, frontier men tended to be a hard, uncompromising and rough lot who behaved in sexually predatory ways toward indigenous women in particular. This, together with racial stereo typing of indigenes as barely human, led to rampant sexual violence toward native women and the spreading of venereal disease. Assault, abduction, rape and sexual slavery were common on many frontiers. Venereal infection was sometimes so widespread it was a major hindrance to the ability of communities to reproduce themselves biologically. Not only were infected women often unable to conceive or bear foetuses to term, but sexually transmitted diseases by themselves sometimes killed large proportions of populations-on occasion surpassing other diseases and direct killing in impact. Sexual violence was thus of central import to the destruction of indigenous societies. The nature of hunter-gatherer society

Finally, the nature of hunter-gatherer society itself contributed to genocidal outcomes when faced with an aggressive settler pastoral presence. Whereas the hunter-gatherer way of life in some ways was extremely resilient, it in other ways was vulnerable when under sustained attack or when it faced prolonged disruption of economic activity. Hunter-gatherer society was inherently resilient because it consisted of small social groups scattered over large areas, often in inhospitable and remote landscapes. It was, in addition, extremely flexible, mobile, superbly adapted to its environment, and able to live off the land. On the other hand, because hunter-gatherer communities subsisted off the current offerings of nature, were dependent on seasonal cycles of regeneration, and produced virtually no surplus, the severe ecological disruption and despoilment caused by invading commercial stock farmers represented an immediate and acute threat to their foundations of life.

Foraging societies were also vulnerable in other ways when faced with prolonged, systematic violence. Because of its small scale and relative lack of social differentiation, almost any form of organised violence against foraging peoples took on the aspect of total war, and bloodshed on any appreciable scale started assuming genocidal proportions at the level of the band and of sociolinguistic groupings. That there was likely to be a blurring of distinctions between warriors and non-combatants in hunter-gatherer society, and that settler violence was often indiscriminate rather than targeted at fighters or stock raiders, made this doubly so. It was not unusual for entire indigenous communities to be held responsible for the actions of a few or of individuals, and for collective punishments in the form of massacres and random killings to be meted out. The small scale social structure of forager societies also meant that women and children usually found themselves in the frontline of fighting and thus extremely vulnerable to being slaughtered or captured. Being taken prisoner, which in most cases meant serving as forced labourers or being integrated into colonial society in a servile status, was an integral part of the genocidal process because it was as destructive of indigenous society as killing its members. A clearcut pattern in settler mass violence toward hunter-gatherer society was to slay the men, take those women not killed as domestic and sexual drudges, and to value children as sufficiently malleable to be trained for a life of servile labour.

The dispersed format of their social order meant that hunter-gatherer fighters were routinely outnumbered in hostile engagements, even when attacked by relatively small militia or paramilitary units because individual hunting bands seldom had more than eight or ten men of fighting age and often no more than four or five. Forager bands, though they did not have hereditary leaders, were on occasion able to combine fighting forces under the command of temporary war chiefs. They were, however, unable to sustain such initiatives for long as the lack of centralised political structures must have made co-ordination difficult. More to the point, hunter-gatherers did not produce enough of a surplus to maintain anything resembling an army in the field. The low densities of hunter-gatherer societies was an asset for as long as invading settlers lacked the strength or the will to embark on systematic killing campaigns against them. It appears to have become a decided liability when colonists went on concerted, eradicatory drives. (14)


The cumulative effect of the six fundamental factors identified here go along way toward explaining why, in sustained clashes between foragers and commercial stock-keepers, exterminatory violence was not so much an aberration as normative. The counter-example of San communities in Botswana's Ghanzi district cautions against making absolute claims in this regard, though. The San communities of the Ghanzi district of western Bechuanaland did not suffer exterminatory violence when colonised in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Afrikaans-speaking Boer stock farmers from the Cape Colony partly because they were able to exploit different ecological niches to those appropriated by these settlers and partly because they received some protection from the colonial state and missionaries. The region was relatively rich in game and the Ghanzi settlers were not eradicatory in their hunting practices, leaving the San with a major source of sustenance largely intact, in addition to the plant foods they were able to forage in open spaces between widely scattered settler farms. This meant that initial contact was far less conflictual, allowing for a means of rapport to develop between the two groups, for relations of paternalism to be established, and for many San to be taken up as farm labourers. (15) Very importantly, although they had access to markets the Ghanzi boers, because of their isolation and the semi-desert environment, were more in the nature of subsistence pastoralists than capitalist ranchers.

The Ghanzi example, in addition, indicates that the main driver intensifying conflict between hunter-gatherers and commercial stock farmers to exterminatory levels was the international market for commodities that the latter produced. It was ultimately this market's ability to absorb large quantities of produce and create the prospect of substantial wealth for producers that helped spur immigration to colonies, and propelled stock farmers beyond the margins of colonial settlement. It stoked ruthlessly exploitative attitudes and a sense of entitlement to the land and its resources among settlers. It would also appear that the most significant proximate factor giving impetus to genocidal violence was indigenous resistance, as this is what precipitated exterminatory attitudes, actions and policies within the settler establishment. It is not surprising that settlers reacted with extreme hostility and in concert when they perceived their lives and livelihoods to be at risk. It is equally predictable that colonial and metropolitan governments would support the settler cause or allow settler violence to take its course when the economy suffered or the colonial project itself was threatened. It was the settler population rather than the colonial state that tended to be the main perpetrators of violence when commercial stock farmers overran the territories of hunter-gathering peoples. These were in essence what Allison Palmer described as 'societally-led' rather than "state-led" genocides. (16)

This article attempts to demonstrate that where pastoralists producing for capitalist markets invaded the territories of hunter-gatherers, the global economic system tended to bring together the practices of metropolitan and colonial governments, the interests of providers of capital and consumers of commodities, and the agency of local actors ranging from governors to graziers in remote outposts in ways that almost invariably fostered exterminatory violence. (17) The fate of the Cape San, Australian Aborigines, as well as hunter-gathererer peoples that once inhabited substantial swathes of the Americas testify to this.

Mohamed Adhikari

University of Cape Town

(1) Rafael Lemkin coined the term in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944).

(2) This encapsulates my own understanding of genocide. For further elaboration see Mohamed Adhikari, The Anatomy of aSouth African Genocide: The Extermination of the Cape San Peoples (Cape Town: UCT Press, 2010), 12-13.

(3) For an extended analysis of the impact of agriculture on genocidal thinking and practice globally see Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination From Sparta to Darfur (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), especially 29-33, 166-68, 252-53; Hugh Brody, The Other Side of Eden: Hunters, Farmers and the Shaping of the World (New York: North Point Press, 2000).

(4) See for example Raymond Evans, "'Plenty Shoot 'em': The Destruction of Aboriginal Societies Along the Queensland Frontier", in Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, ed. A.D. Moses (New York: Berghahn Books, 2004), 163; Brendan Lindsay, Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012), 135-36.

(5) See for example Pamela Watson, "Passed Away? The Fate of the Karuwali", in Moses, Genocide and Settler Society, 177-78; Benjamin Madley "California's Yuki Indians: Defining Genocide in Native American History", Western Historical Quarterly 39, no. 3 (Autumn, 2008): 31415; Adhikari, Anatomy of a South African Genocide, 36-37.

(6) For examples of how anxiety intensified racial animosities among settlers in unfamiliar landscapes see Lorenzo Veracini, Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 81; Timothy Bottoms, Conspiracy of Silence: Queensland's Frontier Killing Times (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2013), 43-44.

(7) Lisa Ford, Settler Sovereignty: Jurisdiction and Indigenous People in America and Australia, 1788-1836 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 85; Bruce Kercher, An Unruly Child: A History of Law in Australia (St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1995), 1-18.

(8) For some examples see Lynwood Carranco and Estle Beard, Genocide and Vendetta: The Round Valley Wars and Northern California (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1981), 63; Carl Lumholtz, Among Cannibals: Account of Four Years Travels in Australia, and Camp Life with the Aborigines of Australia (Firle: Caliban Books, 1979), 373; Adhikari, Anatomy of a South African Genocide, 73.

(9) Patrick Brantlinger, Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800-1930 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003); Russell McGregor Imagined Destinies: Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939 (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1997).

(10) For extended analysis of the dehumanisation of racial others see David Livingstone Smith, Less than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2011).

(11) Edward Cavanagh, Settler Colonialism and Land Rights in South Africa: Possession and Dispossession on the Orange River (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 34-39.

(12) William Keleher Storey, Guns, Race and Power in Colonial South Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 36. See also Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 237; Alfred Crosby, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 23-24.

(13) Tony Barta "Relations of Genocide: Land and Lives in the Colonisation of Australia", in Genocide in the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death, eds. I. Walliman and M. Dobkowski (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1987), 240; James Belich, Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 178-79.

(14) See for example Lyndall Ryan, "'No Right to the Land': The Role of the Wool Industry in the Destruction of Aboriginal Societies in Tasmania (1817-32) and Victoria (1835-51) Compared", unpublished paper, Violence and Honour in Settler ColonialSocieties Conference, University of Cape Town, December 2012; Robert Gordon, "Hiding in Full View: The 'Forgotten' Bushman Genocides of Namibia', Genocide Studies and Prevention 4, no. 1 (April 2009).

(15) Mathias Guenther, "Independence, Resistance, Accommodation, Persistence: Hunter-gatherers and Agro-pastoralists in the Ghanzi Veld, Early 1800s to Late 1900s' in Ethnicity, Hunter-Gatherers and the 'Other': Association or Assimilation in Africa, ed. S. Kent (Washington: Smithonian Institution Press, 2002), 87104.

(16) Alison Palmer, Colonial Genocide (Adelaide: Crawford House Publishing, 2000), 3.

(17) Patrick Wolfe, 'Structure and Event: Settler Colonialism, Time and the Question of Genocide' in Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, ed. A.D. Moses (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 104.
COPYRIGHT 2014 The World History Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Special Section: Genocides in World History
Author:Adhikari, Mohamed
Publication:World History Bulletin
Article Type:Essay
Date:Mar 22, 2014
Previous Article:Letter from the President of the World History Association.
Next Article:Determinism to agency: exploring environmental origins and reciprocal models of genocide in Rwanda and Namibia.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |