I agree that it was a sign of impending genocide, a pre-cursor to objectification of people that led to the Holocaust. But back then, it was acceptable to subjugate the uncivilized with whatever means available- to many, not just the Germans. But perhaps it was because the Germans also took this step, and so immersed themselves in ideological and supposed biological superiority, that they were so easily able to murder masses of people without offending the general public. Where pure genocidal intent may have been lacking in the cases of Africa, the fact that they did not care about the African's lives also shows their indifference toward those not of the [Volk] empowered majority.

It is true to note that "race" was a word used infrequently until the 1600s, until it became a way to justify actions such as slavery. This turning point is one that stays even today; after all, what is 'race'- what distinguishes race from ethnicity? In this sense, the racism which resulted in genocide was one which defined race in terms ethnic ancestry- quite literally blood- and so attributed positive characteristics to their 'superior' Volks blood. Meanwhile, the negative characteristics to those 'bad blood', and then justified their elimination as elimination of inferior bloodlines.

It reminds me of the American Constitution's 3/5 Compromise, which counted enslaved blacks as 3/5 person, from almost a century earlier. But in fact, looking over the course of human history, it is more accurate to say that racial equality [as a fact] is a new concept. After all, where there is inequality and imbalanced influence, discrimination in the interest of the majority power emerges. Nationalistic superiority was an overarching theme of WWII later on. Even today, the Chinese government's sentiments of Han superiority have forced Uighurs into labor camps. Blacks in majority-white society (or really as a minority of any nation if you consider examples of those in Japan, Korea, Philippines, Brazil, etc.) still face varying levels of discrimination everyday life, the least of which may be bias in social media like those described in the beginning of the article. So against these odds, I hope that the modern notions of racial equality will end up as a turning point of the next millennia, rather than an outlier.

It is possible to think why this field of study came to be- science in its most primitive form is about discovering the origins of everything, so with the imperialist era, increased exposure to the new lands and its inhabitants brought about renewed curiosity. Combined with the common racism of the time, it is then even more plausible why they would want to study what makes people different. However, what is unbelievable is just how influential it was. Not only did such biased findings get published, they created an entire new field of science. Be it both the public or academia- or perhaps because of academia, the public even more so- believed it to be the truth enough that it was an established fact. Thus, it opens discussion on what makes a 'science' Science- and whether it could happen again. It is not impossible to think that if people in power, for a goal like colonialism, are also the ones to fund academia and academia, influenced by its bias alongside such an investor, pushes its 'factual' narrative, that a new study of complete falsehood could be created.

This goes into my own thoughts about what defines "civilization"- because its association is primarily made in terms of Western/European heritage. However, it is subjective to say that they are more or less civilized simply on a white and/or biased notion of what civilization means. Instead, it would be interesting if it changed to 'differently' civilized; wouldn't that change the whole perspective? By acknowledging the existence of civilizations outside of the white man's family, can't we change the underlying racial narrative of what it means to be 'civilized'?

This fundamental idea of this is from the Marxist "Bourgeois Nationalism." In a world where everyone should fight to be equal (in class) with their fellow man, society instead fights against itself on the basis of nationalism. However, this "nationalism" created upon the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, etc. is false; it is simply a means for the capitalists to divert the public attention from the inequality of [the] classes in order to preserve their own interests.

In my own opinion, this is not necessarily wrong, in that oftentimes a nation is simply held together via economic interests. In turn, those leaders associated with a nation find some commonality in order to affirm their position among their constituents. Why else are demographics important in the political and business spheres? Collective interests of the top and united identity [nationalism] of the people consolidate power efficiently. Thus, although there is some truth to this Marxist theory, I would argue that the fundamental point of a nation is to consolidate power, rather than simply a means to distract from the proletarian struggle. Rather, it is human nature to judge and categorize, find strength in similarity and feel caution towards the unknown- which is why these tactics work in the first place. (I'll end here or otherwise this may turn into an essay instead.)