[SnoopJobbyJob]

[flagged]

[whearyou]

It was an interesting point to make 30 years ago when the orthodoxy did not include much of that perspective and general society didn’t think much about it.

At this point is it the orthodoxy, suffusing pretty much everything in intellectual public discourse, is no less oppressive than that which it replaced, and, subjectively, feels trite and reductive.

[billyoyo]

The article is just correctly identifying that late 1800s french colonial technocrats were predominantly white males.

The article isn't really making a particular point about this, it's just a quick aside. What are you referring to when you say "here we go again"?

[SnoopJobbyJob]

People in Europe are white. Of course engineers, politicians, cooks, street sweepers are going to be white.

Societies, not only in Europe, have historically been men-dominated. So, again, the elite is going to be mostly men.

It is relevant that what you call a "quick aside" was even made because it reveals the mindset and deeper agenda that pervades some parts of academia and political circles these days, which bluntly is anti-white (and, God forbid, male ones).

[seszett]

I'm not sure this analysis is totally correct though, after all without spoiling to much, an Indian prince features prominently in some of the best known stories of Jules Verne, and another of the famous ones is about a Chinese man.

And most stories take place with characters that are British or American bordering on parodies, rarely French people.

It's true that women are rarely important though.

Also disclaimer, I didn't read this article.

[BoingBoomTschak]

The role of epistemic superiority structures a persistent division throughout the Voyages between the white male scientist (in the singular) and ignorant natives (in the plural)’

The addition of completely unnecessary (to the comparison) "male" really paints this as flag waving.