“[…] Extirpate or remove that vermine”:1

1 Jeffery Amherst, Official Papers, quoted in Fenn (2000, p 1575).

genocide, biological warfare, and settler imperialism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century

Abstract

Finzsch suggests four hypotheses, which are intrinsically connected and which form the basis for a theory labelled “Settler Imperialism”. First, he proposes a new definition of genocide, which is grounded in a different interpretation of the concept of the event. Secondly, he argues in favour of a sliding continuum of genocide that ranges from everyday practices to organized mass murder. Thirdly he indicates that phenomena which are commonly called genocide rest upon invisible everyday practices that do not appear on the radar of transgressions, forming different plateaus of a rhizomatic expansion, called settler imperialism. Lastly, Finzsch makes a case for the reality of a merciless, albeit low-intensity war against the indigenous populations preceding organized modern wars like the ones led in the 150 years of our epoch, but already using biological methods to drive away, decimate or annihilate indigenous populations. Two historical examples are used for this line of reasoning: the use of pathogens derived from the smallpox against Native Americans in North America during the French and Indian Wars in the eighteenth century and the probable employ of these pathogens in the destruction of the Dharug and Kurringgai in Sydney 1789. Although in the latter case irrefutable evidence for the application of the smallpox virus is missing, circumstantial evidence suggesting such appliance is very high. Colonial wars, like all wars, are aimed at the subjugation of the opponents under the will of the victorious party. In the case of colonial wars the vanquished is generally the indigenous population. As the alien in the 1996 Sci-Fi movie Independence Day wanted humans simply to die, settlers in the Anglosphere wished the Indigenous to simply disappear. It was totally acceptable that this goal was achieved through seemingly natural causes like loss of lands and diminishing ecospheres. Under certain conditions, however, the exterminalist discourse changed its register and the consequence was either low intensity warfare or biological warfare. Only when this turned out to be insufficient, settler imperialists increased the intensity of the exterminalist agenda and resorted to mass killings that surmounted the threshold of visibility.

Notes

1 Jeffery Amherst, Official Papers, quoted in Fenn (2000, p 1575).

2 Deleuze (1990).

3 Aviezer Tucker (2004, p 1).

4 Zalta et al (2002).

5 Lemkin, (1944, p 79). Tony Barta has made a similar statement in an article in 1987.

6 Deleuze (2006). For Deleuze, the event has three conditions: Extension, intension, individuation. Deleuze (1990, p 22).

7 Deleuze and Guattari (1987, pp 22–25).

8 Moses (2000).

9 I elaborated this concept in Finzsch (2006).

10 I follow Michel Serres in this. For Serres, the medium of communication—in this case the rhizomatic expansion of settler societies—is not only that through and across which messages pass, but also an environment within which expansion occurs—or fails to. What is communicated is not just the message, but the social collectivity itself. Serres and Schehr (1983, p 50).

11 Lewy (2007); Barta (2008); Finzsch (2008); Stannard (2008).

12 My article therefore runs counter to positions taken by Maxim Rodinson, Baruch Kimmerling and Ilan Pappé, not only because in my conceptualization of settler imperialism is limited to societies in the anglosphere, but also because I think that state-organized genocides are something different from settler imperialism. I also deny that Israel's policies in dealing with the Palestinians are generally genocidal, although I have to admit that my historical expertise concerning these issues is limited at best. Kimmerling (2003); Pappé (2006); Rodinson (1973).

13 Crary (1990, p 31).

14 Lee (2001).

15 Starkey dismissed this interpretation in 1988. Starkey (1998).

16 McGinnis, (1990).

17 Lee op cit. For a detailed discussion of the militia before and during the American Revolution, see Anderson (1984), Selesky (1990), Titus (1991) and Lee, op. cit. pp 279-281. See also Lenz (2007).

18 Galtung (1990).

19 Dederer has explained the bifurcation of the militia system in colonial North America as a result of the wars with Native Americans. Dederer (1990)

20 Michaux (1904, pp 192, 262).

21 The concept was used in Grinde and Johansen (1995). See also Catton (1994, p 76).

22 Bemrose (1966, p 53).

23 Foucault (1980, pp 142–143).

24 Smart (2002. p 93).

25 Foucault (1997, p 19).

26 Ibid, p 229.

27 Moses (2002, pp 19–25).

28 The UN definition of genocide emphasizes the criminal act as an event rather than the endurance and repetition of a social practice (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). The original definition by Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin was much more open to the composite nature and long-lasting aspect of genocides. Chalk and Jonassohn (1990, pp 8–9). Churchill was among the first historians to complain about the conceptual rigidity of the genocide definitions, Churchill (1997, p 71). See also Curthoys and Docker (2001). Genocides can be transformed into theatrical productions, which proves their general narratability, Skloot (1990).

29 Curthoys and Docker, op. cit. p 10.

30 Wolfe (2001); Wolfe (2006).

31 Churchill (1997), op cit, p 84.

32 Wallerstein claims that even under sixteenth century Spanish rule, the crown could not control the settlers in the colonies, Wallerstein (1976, p 188).

33 Curthoys and Docker, op cit, p 6.

34 Cook (1973).

35 Pulsipher (2001, pp 447–448).

36 Ibid, pp 440–441.

37 Deleuze and Guattari (1987), op cit. pp 351–355; Patton (1984, pp 61–64).

38 “Micro-politics” is a concept that was first defined by Michel Foucault, but extended and systematically applied by Deleuze and Guattari (1987), op cit, pp 208–231. See also Houle (2000). The rhizomatic territorialization of indigenous lands seems to have been typical for every frontier in the anglosphere except for “beachhead frontiers” like Sydney, NSW or Plymouth, MA, Connor (2002, p 26).

39 Dowd (1992, p 23). Squatters were a constant source of friction in Australia as well, Weaver (1996).

40 Vismann (1995, p 167).

41 Aboriginal acts of resistance against white expansion started with Pemulwuy in NSW (1790–1802) and continued to the armed resistance in Tasmania in the 1820s and to the bloody skirmishes in NSW and Victoria in the 1830s and 1840s, Newbury (1999); Willmot (1988); Medcalf (1993); Miller (1985); Pope (1989). For North America, publications about Indian resistance are numerous, Brownlie (2003); Churchill (2002); Fenelon (1998); Fischer (2002); Gouy-Gilbert (1983); Grounds et al (2003); Hu-DeHart (1984); Josephy (1993); Katz (1975); Richardson (1973); Senier (2001); Taylor and Franklin Pease (1994).

42 In Queensland, the Native Police was one of the most effective agents of genocidal acts. Moses (2000) op cit, pp 99–102.

43 Levene (1999).

44 Kappler.

45 Ibid.

46 Macaulay (1888, p 498).

47 Wheelis (1999, p 18).

48 Fenn, op cit, pp 1559–1561.

49 Williams (1721).

50 Evans (2002).

51 Miller (1956).

52 McGovern and Christopher (2007).

53 Campbell (2002, p 47).

54 According to Native American sources “This smallpox was sold to them shut up in a showy tin box, with the strict injunction not to open the box on their way homeward.” Fenn op cit. After they had arrived at the beaches of Lake Michigan, the Ottawa opened the box and various other cases included in it. They “[…] found nothing but mouldy particles in the last box. […] They wondered very much what it was, and a great many closely inspected [the box and its content] to try to find out what it meant […] pretty soon [there] burst out a terrible sickness among them.” Andrew J. Blackbird quoted in MacLeod (1992, p 50).

55 Fenn, op cit, pp 1552–1556. This recent interpretation is contradicted by older research. The interpretation hinges on the meaning of two words: Does “last spring” relate to the spring of 1763 or 1764? Knollenberg (1954, p 493).

56 Middlekauff (1982, p 55).

57 White (1991, pp 305–309).

58 Amherst to Johnson, August 27, 1763, in d’ Errico (2007).

59 General Jeffery Amherst to Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs George Croghan, August 7, 1763, in: NativeWeb, Inc. (2007).

60 Henry Bouquet to Jeffery Amherst, July 13, 1763, NativeWeb, Inc. op cit. See also Parkman (1991, p 648).

61 Henry Bouquet to Jeffery Amherst, June 23, 1763, three weeks before the first discussion of the plan. NativeWeb, Inc., op cit.

62 Jeffery Amherst an Henry Bouquet am 16. Juli 1763. NativeWeb, Inc. op cit.

63 Journal of William Trent, entry date May 24th, 1763, in: Harpster (1938, pp 103–104).

64 Parkman, op cit., p 649.

65 Kociumbas argues in the same direction. Kociumbas (2004, pp 81–82).

66 Wheelis, op cit, p 9.

67 Fitzmaurice (2003); Konishi (2007).

68 Judy Campbell's notion that the virus could not have survived a transport of several months is erroneous. Campbell op. cit. p 62. See McGovern and Christopher, op cit; Fenner (1988, pp 115–116, tab. 2.11).

69 “I can, therefore, only propose queries for the ingenuity of others to exercise itself upon: is it [the smallpox, N.F.] a disease indigenous to the country? […] It is true that our surgeons had brought out variolous matter in bottles, but to infer that it was produced from this cause were a supposition so wild as to be unworthy of consideration.”, Flannery (1996, pp 103-104). Ventilators to cool provisions were present onboard. See First Fleet Fellowship (2007).

70 Butlin (1983, pp.175, 21–22).

71 Agamben (2002, p 148).

72 Foucault (2000, p 137).

73 Mosse (1985, Introduction).

74 Gascoigne (2002, p 149); Hinton (2002).

75 Attwood and Forster (2003), op cit, pp 22–23. Unfortunately Attwood and Forster are unable to present Tim Rowse's oral contribution in an inter-subjectively tangible way.

76 Finzsch (2007).