One issue I note is that much of the decolonisation literature looks at the issue exclusively from the indigenous point of view and tends to frame the settler in somewhat monolithic terms as a cat's paw for a land-commodifying metropolitan capitalism.

Whereas, in Australia and New Zealand at least, the settler population often tended to define its own nationalism in social-democratic terms (getting away from the English class system) and, in New Zealand, in an actual fusionistic politics joining trade unionism to the grievances of the Māori under the First Labour Government (1935 to 1949), as per the parade that occurs in the second item of the following 1945 newsreel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mf7DN1ipVY., noticeably around 2:13..

Under these conditions, the more brittle sort of decolonisation discourse can actually misrepresent history in ways that add up to a divisive far-left hatchet job on social democracy, including New Zealand's globally influential mid-century social democrcy (often spoken of in those days in the same breath as Sweden, minus the eugenics).

So that today, for instance, we read a propos of the first Prime Minister of the First Labour Government, Michael Joseph Savage, that "Savage’s vision was funded by a lucrative refrigerated goods trade, colonialism in the Pacific, and the belief that Māori didn’t need to be included in social spending because they could “live off the land”. None of this makes much sense to people in a modern Aotearoa." (https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/14-03-2021/transformation-and-progressive-ghosts). Er, no, First Labour's vision of unionists joining force with indigenous activists, industrialisation, and affordable housing continues to make quite good sense , actually ...