Settler occupation can never be complete against a place’s deep local historicity

Evidence

Finally, and perhaps most pressingly given the latter example and the contexts with which I have been pre-occupied throughout the book, “occupation” suggests invasion and control of a place not one’s own, as asserting and governing a place presumed to “belong” to others. And this latter sense – or attempt to force sense – as a prelude perhaps to making that place one’s own through settlement. A settlement, in turn, which could never be complete, the grounds of tension between organic being with its longstanding, its deep local historicity, and the ahistoricity of invasive or settler presence. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 1850

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Settler occupation is inherently ahistorical and thus never complete; Pre-colonial past cannot be faithfully represented at all; Settler placenaming was an anxious orientation practice, not just erasure — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror…, 1117 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Settler occupation is inherently ahistorical and thus never complete #corroborates (0.92)
• Full cultural assimilation cannot erase ineradicable traces of another place #corroborates (0.85)
• Settler placenaming was an anxious orientation practice, not just erasure #expands (0.72) — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger, 1117
• Pre-colonial past cannot be faithfully represented at all #qualifies (0.70)