Quite obviously, Cosmo, I failed to get my point(s) across.
The following sentence, from your post, appeared to be in the present tense, and to be self-referential ("our" notions):
It's funny but our notions of race exist as snapshots of who was controlling what in the 19th century.
So, that was what I was responding to, not to the notions that 19th century imperialists may have held.
But even where they were concerned, those notions were much more bizarre than you perhaps allow for; while others were much more nuanced.
And let's not forget that right through the 19th century -- and well into the 20th century -- Europeans continued to grab one another's territory, as well as territory on other continents. And then there were the land-based European empires, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Russian Empire, the majority of whose subjects were "white" Europeans.
In other words, while the idea of race was certainly conscripted in service of 19th century imperialism, other ideas -- notably nationalism -- were equally influential. (True, the terms "nations" or "peoples" were used instead of "ethnic groups." But same diff.)
As for my point about "expansionist nations," I was just off on my own tack there. It just bugs me when, say, the Russians screech about "their" territorial integrity, when referring to the North Caucasus, which was conquered and annexed after a long and bloody war in the 19th century. They didn't respect the territorial integrity of those regions when they were trying to conquer them. Typical hypocrisy. Sort of a parallel with the American Indian case, which is why I brought it up.
I agree that throughout human history -- and pre-history -- conquerors generally have never given two farts in a high wind about invading other countries. Does that mean we should continue down that same path? Or that the victims of it should stop their bellyachin', since that is the inevitable "way of the world"? I am not sure I get your drift.
jbe |
