[1] Perm do both- the settler colonial project centers brown, black and indigenous life in similar ways- indigeneity refers to relationality, African relationality was erased as a result of the structures of slavery on the African continent through settler colonialism

“Decolonization is Not a Metaphor” instead intensifies the difference formulated by Wolfe between (1) Blackness as “expansive”, “inherited” through the one-drop rule “by an expanding number of ‘black’ descendants”; and (2) Indigenous peoples “racialized” as “subtractive”: “Native Americans are constructed to become fewer in number and less Native, but never exactly white, over time” (Tuck and Yang :12; see also Wolfe :387). This subtractive logic is propelled, not surprisingly, by the priority of land: “Native American is a racialisation that portrays contemporary Indigenous generations to be less authentic, less Indigenous than every prior generation in order to ultimately phase out Indigenous claims to land and usher in settler claims to property” (Tuck and Yang :12). What might animate the anti-Black logics of the one-drop rule dissolves except in a synthetic analysis that would collapse both “the racializations of Indigenous people and Black people in the US settler colonial nation-state” as “geared to ensure the ascendancy of white settlers as the true and rightful owners and occupiers of the land” (Tuck and Yang :12), which is to say both Indigenous and Black peoples are structured by a common settler-colonial project, even as Black people (insofar as “the US government promised 40 acres of Indian land as reparations for plantation slavery” [Tuck and Yang :29]) are also figured as proto-settlers. The grounding “settler” concept frays further when considering that (1) the “Indian Removal Act” also rendered native peoples unwilling settlers by relocating them to already Indigenous populated territories (Smithers :117–128); (2) Indigenous peoples remain Indigenous when they move or are forcibly moved, because indigeneity expresses relationality, not possession (Blackwell et al. :127; Radcliffe ); (3) in Latin America, creolisation has, complexly, been referred to as an “indigenizing process” (Castellanos :777; Jackson :42–44); and (4) African indigeneity meant a unique intensification of structures of slavery on the African continent through settler colonialism (Kelley ). The last two points also serve to underscore the Anglo-centrism of Tuck and Yang’s argument, as Canada and the United States remain their point of departure for understanding of the relation between Blackness and Indigeneity, rather than the Western hemisphere as a whole.