Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is an academic paper published in 2012 by scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang. The paper argues that decolonization refers specifically to the repatriation of Indigenous land and governance, criticizing the view that decolonization can be used as a broader term for social activism. It is considered influential in the field of decolonial studies.

The paper begins by defining decolonization as "the repatriation of Indigenous land and life".^[1] The paper goes on to criticize the United States as being illegitimate, having been established as a settler colonial state on unceded Indigenous land.^[2] Because the United States is an illegitimate settler-colonial entity the continued presence of settlers is also illegitimate.^[2] The paper uses Occupy Oakland as an example of a movement that obscured this by turning decolonization into a metaphor.^[1][2] Because the Occupy movement calls for a redistribution of land and wealth in equal proportions to all Americans (including settlers), it cannot actually result in decolonization, which requires the land to only be controlled by the Indigenous.^[1] Likewise, movements such as Black liberation are also incompatible with decolonization, because Black Americans are still settlers within Tuck's framework.^[1][3][4]

Tuck goes on to reject the concept of settler futurity as being incompatible with decolonization.^[1] Settler futurity is the view that settlers will have a presence in a society after decolonization.^[1] Tuck also rejects reconciliation between settlers and the Indigenous, because it presupposes that settlers will co-exist on Indigenous land.^[1]

Tuck's main point is that decolonization as a metaphor is a mechanism to enable the "settler move to innocence"—the recognition that a settler's presence on Indigenous land is legitimate.^[1] Tuck uses the example of colonial equivocation as an example of a settler move to innocence.^[1] Colonial equivocation is the notion that non-Indigenous but oppressed groups can claim to be victims of colonialism, and redressing their oppression can serve as decolonization.^[1] Tuck rejects this, saying that for other oppressed groups, "the attainment of equal legal and cultural entitlements, is actually an investment in settler colonialism."^[1]

The paper is influential in the field of decolonial scholarship.^[5]

The paper itself received mainstream attention after the October 7 attacks on Israel due to academics and students using the term "decolonization is not a metaphor" as a slogan when supporting the attacks.^[5][6][7]