Maldonado bouchard et al 2015 contend that settler

Maldonado-Bouchard et al. ( 2015 ) contend that settler colonialism represents
itself as a linear narrative of inevitable progress, essentially the same in nature as the
line of unremitting colonisation portrayed in Rowse’s first model but with an
entirely reversed (and, hence, positive) valence. Maldonado-Bouchard et al. ( 2015 )
also equate franchise (or, in their terms, classic) colonialism with a circle of
invasion, exploitation and then return ‘home’, reminiscent of Rowse’s ( 2015 )
‘vicious circle’. As illustrated in Fig. 5 , model 1 requires settlers’ lines and
Model 1
Settler colonial progress / destruction
Model 2
Settler colonial progress / destruction
Indigenous society
Indigenous society
Fig. 5 Conceptualising
indigenous-settler relations
Colonisation, racism and indigenous health 91
123

Indigenes’ circles to co-exist in the same one-dimensional, but highly contested,
space. Conversely, model 2 locates indigenous society (akin to a franchise colony)
as only tangentially intersecting with settler society.
The linear and circular figures articulate the tension between sameness versus
difference as they apply to both to the colonial project and aspirations of social
justice (Kowal 2015 ). The continuum anchored at one end by conformity and the
other by divergence pertains separately to both health/social equity and cultural
distinctiveness. Some forms of social justice mandate equity in substantive
outcomes whilst stipulating that indigenous peoples remain culturally distinct.
Within the confines of the settler-state this equates to the view that the ‘destruction’
wrought by colonial ‘social control’ (i.e. the line in Fig. 5 interpreted as settler
colonial destruction) needs to be ‘rolled back’ through decoloniality as a
simulacrum of restoration to pre-colonial idyllic times where it is purported that
indigenous peoples enjoyed much higher standards of living. The contrasting linear
model (i.e. the line in Fig. 5 labelled as settler colonial progress) asserts that
colonialism can be beneficial via indigenous assimilation into both settler
health/social and cultural norms, with the corollary that pre-colonial times were
not particularly halcyon in nature and indigenous peoples will benefit from inclusion
into ‘mainstream’ society. In Australia, this view is epitomised by a recent trend
whereby public commentators (Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike) seek to
‘flatten’ this ‘vicious circle’ into the ‘line of progress’ (as per model 1 in Fig. 5 )
promised by settler coloniality, a one-dimensionality achieved at the price of
indigenous alterity (Neale ).
Turning to the circular model, we can see that it represents a form of settler
colonisation with elements evocative of franchise colonialism, in that the impulse to
exterminate indigenes inherent to settler-invaders is tempered by an urge to retain
their cultural capital such that it can be forged into a mantle of settler-
autochthonised legitimacy. In such a framework, cultural difference can be
exploited for the symbolic and material gain of settler-invaders. A certain
indigenous versus non-indigenous separation is retained whilst keeping indigenous
society tethered, like a balloon, to the march of settler pro 2013 gress and, hence,
open to the continued circulation of colonial/settler agents and structures. An
alternate interpretation of the circular model is, of course, that such a separation of
indigenous and settler social realms is necessary to avoid assimilation and preserve
cultural particularity and that indigenous thriving is possible without the continuing