Bioweapons and AMR are methods of expanding colonialism and oppressing Indigenous peoples

When analyzing the complex role that warfare plays in our collective history, the role of biological warfare is often overlooked. Within the overwhelming instances of medical imperialism in human history, the protagonists in social explanations of colonial events are always human (Jansen, 2014). This is not to say that the historical and social analysis of colonialism necessarily ignores disease, agriculture, chemicals, or technology, but that these are 24 considered as “external” factors — nature, tools, obstacles, resources – whose role is essentially considered to be passive in the greater scheme of geopolitical conflict (Smithers, 2014). Yes, perhaps the Plasmodium falciparum that used the bodies of mosquitoes as a vehicle for infection during World War I simply interacted with the activities of their human agents, and nothing more. But they do, indeed, simultaneously make possible a variety of social and historical processes. Furthermore, advances in immunology show that human cells must actually cooperate with the bacteria that enters the body: immunity turns out to be a conversation between bodies and microbes. In this sense, disease becomes a relationship between pathogens and humans, and consequently, the trafficking of bacteria and other pathogens across land and oceans become political players in human history. This requires us to expand our definition of genocide, widening our understanding of the term to a greater interpretation of what harm and violence can look like. To do so, we must understand genocide as a sliding continuum that ranges from everyday practices to organized mass murder. There is a juxtaposition of our understanding of genocides — we often conceptualize them as singular events that are irrefutably intentional and violent (i.e the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, etc.) Though historical analyses of many colonial and imperial wars indicate that a more sinister end of this “sliding spectrum” exists. Biowarfare According to Norbert Finzsch, “historical phenomena which are commonly called genocides rest upon invisible everyday practices that do not appear on the radar of transgressions, forming different plateaus of a rhizomatic expansion, called settler imperialism” (Finzsch, 2008). Essentially, he makes a case that “low intensity” war against the indigenous populations through utilizing biological methods to drive away, decimate, or annihilate indigenous populations is still a form of organized method of warfare, but historical narratives tend to ignore or downplay their violence, as the violence can be attributed to “external” factors (i.e. pathogenic infections, environmental factors, innate immunity, etc.). Bio-power, which is a concept developed by Michel Foucault and later redefined by Giorgio Agamben, was first conceived as the type of kAnowledge that would help the maximization of life. Bio-power, Foucault argued, emerged initially with the movement towards improved health in the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Foucault stated, “Death was gradually ceasing to torment life so directly [...]. Western man was gradually learning what it meant to be a living species in a living world, to have a body, conditions of existence, probabilities of life [...]. For the first time in history no doubt, biological existence was reflected in political existence; the fact of living was no longer an inaccessible substrate that only emerged from time to time, amid the randomness of death and its fatality; part of it passed into knowledge’s field of control and power’s sphere of intervention” (Foucault, 1978). This bio-power is not only exercised over the individual body, but also over the body of groups and larger communities, through the medical control of its vitality (e.g. reproduction, mortality, health, etc.) — that is to say legislative or governmental control, and regulation of populations. Thus, if we take into consideration the time period in which the initiation of bio-power is situated, bio-power simply becomes the continuation of war in relation to race – it includes the possibility of not only destroying a political foe, but also to destroy an adversary race as a whole. In Jansen’s anthropological model of biowarfare, human behavior can affect disease transmission in four areas: (a) exposure to the agent, (b) shedding of the disease agent from an infected human host, (c) creation of man-made habitats in which the transmission cycle can be completed, and (d) diffusion of the transmission system from one place to another. Historical findings indicate that the infection and the massacre of over 70% of the Native American population was instigated by the intentional weaponization of smallpox by European imperialists (Stearn, 1945). Although modern medicine was still in its infancy in the early 17th century, even with the limited knowledge of the time, it is reasonable to speculate that the European immigrants to the New World, and ultimately the Native Americans, understood that smallpox was a disease that could spread not only as a result of direct person-to-person contact, but also by clothing once worn by persons with smallpox. The use of biowarfare against indigenous populations is not unique to the colonization of the Americas, but has occurred throughout history in various parts of the world. The deliberate introduction of smallpox by British settlers to the Aboriginal population in Australia is one such example of the devastating impact of biowarfare on indigenous communities. This practice can be seen as an extension of colonialism's violent project to eliminate or subjugate “othered” populations. Such biowarfare can also be seen as a means of reducing the resistance of indigenous populations to other forms of exploitation and control. The use of biowarfare, therefore, can be seen as a deliberate tool of colonialism that reflects a larger system of oppression. Biopower, as theorized by Foucault and Agamben, operates not only on individual bodies but also on the collective health of populations. In the case of colonialism and biowarfare, this power is exerted to weaken, or eradicate the health and vitality of indigenous communities, making them more vulnerable to other forms of exploitation and control. The regulation and control of indigenous peoples' health is also a way for colonial powers to exert their dominance and reinforce their legitimacy as benevolent caretakers of “inferior” populations. In this sense, biopower can be seen as a means of perpetuating the larger system of oppression that colonialism 27 represents. In the 21st century, the disproportionate impact of antibiotic resistance on marginalized communities, including indigenous populations, highlights the ongoing legacy of colonialism and systemic oppression. Indigenous children in Canada are three times more likely to be infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria compared to non-indigenous children. This underscores the need to not only address the scientific and medical aspects of antibiotic resistance, but also the social and political factors that perpetuate health disparities. The impact of antibiotic resistance on marginalized communities is indicative of a larger system of oppression that has perpetuated health disparities for generations.