What I will grant you is that the application of genetic science as a veneer to excuse identity-based extermination is European. Where I will push back on that is with the seemingly insinuated concept that such a veneer is because Europeans are somehow especially bad people, as opposed to a relatively small collection of actual for-realsies nazis being the first to use it.
What you wrote here is exactly what I am talking about. I never said, claimed or argued that Europeans were “especially bad people,”. You added that yourself because you are hearing an attack that I did not make.
First off, If "using a veneer of scienciness to excuse identity-based extermination and oppression" is the only thing you're trying to communicate, you're doing a really spectacularly bad job of it. For example:
No I'm treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity. Good lord., that is not an interpretation of my argument, and it is also just wrong historically. The kind of identity that is inescapable, meaning you are born into it, legally marked by it, and permanently stuck inside it, simply did not operate the same way in the ancient world.
This suggests that your point is not that germans used genetics to try to justify the same basic identity-based violence that has been around for a really long time, but rather that the entire concept of using identity itself as the basis for violence was the new"colonial" idea.
That is the thing I'm challenging, because it is not true. Inescapable identity is not a colonial idea, it existed before europe was even a thing. I honestly don't get how you can keep repeating this same claim in the face of actual reality, Gospel. Indian untouchables were born to their identity, they were legally marked by it and could not escape it - and that caste system was in place 3000 years ago. In what way do you think that's materially different? Why do you think that the inescapable identity of untouchables is somehow excused from your claim? In some periods of time, jews could assimilate into a culture, but over and over again throughout their entire history, their jewishness was viewed as an inescapable identity that could never be overcome.
That is your emotional connection to whiteness talking, not my argument. Nothing I said implied that Europeans are naturally worse.
Dude, just knock this off already. I don't have an emotional connection to whiteness, and it's both insulting and racist of you to say so. You're essentially arguing that the only possible reason I could disagree with you is because of the color of my skin, and if I only had a different skin color, I would obviously see things differently. You're implying that I lack the ability to reason and form valid conclusions because I'm white. FFS, you're forcibly applying an inescapable identity to me that I don't actually have. So just stop.
My point was about the historical development of the modern identity system, not about anyone’s personal identity.
At this point, I don't know what you mean by "modern identity system". So how about you rewind all the way to the beginning and explain what the actual crapola you mean here, because it makes no sense at all.
Sure, sure. People being enslaved on the basis of their ancestry and traded as belongings of a higher caste of people is totally more egalitarian than current developed society.
