In last week’s reading by Bolin, the author differentiates between war/genocide/terrorism and disaster, noting that the former involve complex political factors that set them apart from environmental and biological disasters discussed in most disaster literature. In what ways does the Finzsch reading help to bridge the divide between these two types of calamities and why might it be important for a course like this one to include a discussion of settler imperialism and smallpox in this nation’s history?
How does Finzsch’s/Deleuze’s redefinition of “event” relate to Mills’ discussion of political exception and how might we take this redefinition and apply it to our discussion of disasters?
How do our discussions of the construct of nature come into play in these examples of biological warfare (probable example, in the case of Australia)?
For instance, what role does “nature” play in the discourses of primitivism and savagery that justified the biopolitical processes that rendered indigenous lives disposable?
What advantages did smallpox offer as a weapon against indigenous populations in terms of its implementation and results?
Finzsch names ecocide as a “seemingly natural cause,” but in what ways might biological warfare fall under this umbrella as well?
The postfirst appeared on .