I've just taken a look at the book as well – peeking at the index: colonialism, p49, pp164-76. I trust you; is it really not within those pages? I'm disappointe

I've just taken a look at the book as well – peeking at the index: colonialism, p49, pp164-76. I trust you; is it really not within those pages? I'm disappointed, too. That being said, you're right –– this has gotten into a bit of a side track, and I'm not about to re-scour through the book to see precisely what argument she's making, and the level of generality she stated it, either! (My summer reading list is full.) I wonder if Eugenia's comments should actually be a historical argument – that way, multiple explanations can co-exist on different levels, rather than trying to find the most parsimonous theory and excluding the rest. But I'm not about to find out, and, even then, I figure a good historical explanation does need at least a dissertation's worth of work and evidence :)