Beyond European Exceptionalism September 26–28 2019
University of Basel
Petersgraben 27, 4051 Basel

Maps provided by Cornell University PJ Mode Collection of Persuasive Cartography


Conference Report

Click here to view the conference report.

Written by Tom Menger, University of Cologne.

Conference Program

Thursday, September 26

6:15 p.m.–7:45 p.m.

Lecture hall 101, Old University (Rheinsprung 9)

Keynote: Agency, Cooperation and Oligarchy
Wolfgang Reinhard (University of Freiburg)

There are plenty of necessary conditions of successful European expansion and control. But the sufficient condition of success consists in a combination of agency, cooperation and oligarchy. Colonialism is almost never the consequence of a particular government’s master plan but as a rule produced by the initiative of individuals such as discoverers, merchants, missionaries – or bandits (cf. Fieldhouse). In addition, for geographical, political and last but not least financial reasons colonial rulers have no choice but to cooperate with a majority of indigenous people such as soldiers, administrators, or servants. Finally, in many cases cooperative colonialism results simply in the combined domination of European and native oligarchies at the expense of native subjects. This threefold concept may even serve as a general theory of colonialism, and as a more convincing one than the usual alternatives produced by historians and social scientists.

Friday, September 27

9:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology
(Petersgraben 27)

Comparing Colonialism: Introductory Remarks
Axel T. Paul (University of Basel)

10:00 a.m.–10:45 a.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Conquest and Founding of Cities: Forms of Colonization in the Greco-Roman World
Hans-Joachim Gehrke (University of Freiburg)

Due to the fact that the basic term of the conference’s topic derives from Latin, but mainly in order to give this topic a deeper historical background, it seems to be adequate to look for features comparable to colonialism in ancient Greece and Rome. My paper thus aims at giving an overview of different kinds of migration processes, establishment of settlements abroad, and conquest of territories. It will focus on their respective causes, dimensions, forms, and resulting effects, and it will end with a typology that might be helpful in “comparing colonialism”.

11:00 a.m.–11:45 a.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Were the Muslim Arabs who Conquered the Middle East Colonialists?
Robert Hoyland (New York University)

In the course of the seventh century Muslim Arabs successfully conquered lands and peoples from Morocco to Afghanistan; they founded cities in their newly acquired territories, settled in them, ruled from them and extracted resources, both physical and human, from their hinterlands. This sounds like eminently colonialist behavior, but there are reasons to pause and reflect on this point. There is the general problem of applying modern terms to pre-modern situations; for example, in a world where states have a clear sense of borders, it is more evident when one power trespasses upon the realm of another, but what about a world where borders are fluid and shifting or even seen as non-existent? Then there are the specific circumstances of the late antique Middle East, which was dominated by the empires of Rome and Persia, both of which aspired to supremacy. Can the Muslim Arab defeat of these states and occupation/exploitation of their lands be characterized as colonialism as opposed to revolt against domination? And how did the Muslim Arabs conceive of their own conquests, what were their intentions and should we factor them into our assessment of the nature of their rule? These and other questions will be considered by this paper.

11:45 a.m.–12:30 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Ottomans in Syria: "Turkish Colonialism" or Something Else?
James Reilly (University of Toronto)

Syria under Ottoman rule offers material for comparisons of colonialism and for interrogating the concept. The Ottoman Empire governed the predominantly Arabic-speaking population of the Syrian lands for 400 years (1516-1918) with just one short interruption (Egyptian rule, 1831-1840). Over these centuries the Ottoman authorities, who were mostly Turkish speakers from Anatolia and the Balkans, resettled Turkish tribes and (later) Circassian populations into the Syrian lands. Authorities assigned land revenues to locally based officials to assure the flow of resources to the imperial center. The Ottomans co-opted powerful Arab Bedouin sheikhs, showering them with honors and payments to ensure the sheikhs’ goodwill and security of trade routes. Cooperative rural strongmen in the hill and mountain districts received imperial recognition and privileges. These included scions of powerful Kurdish families appointed to administrative and military posts, as the Ottomans looked to bring them and their retinues into the service of the sultanate. In this light, Ottoman rule in Syria bears at least a superficial resemblance to modern (Western or European) colonialism, including implantation of new populations, economic exploitation by administrators, and co-optation of “warlike” or “tribal” communities into the imperial structure.


In the final phase of Ottoman rule, during the decades preceding the First World War, the empire developed modern bureaucratic state institutions. Syria’s Arab and Arabized elites mostly came to identify with the Ottomans’ 19th-century state-building project and they remained loyal to the sultanate till the end. A dissident elite minority became, in turn, the pioneers of Arab nationalism whose hopes of inheriting power from the defeated Ottomans were dashed by French and British colonial ambitions. However, nationalists subsequently wrote modern history curricula, which downplayed close ties between Ottoman rulers and Syrian elites. Syrian Arab nationalist history characterized the entire 400-year period of Ottoman rule as a dark night of “Turkish colonialism.”


This paper will examine Ottoman rule in Syria to explore questions around empire, state-building and colonialism. From early centuries of patrimonial and household rule, to the later construction of modern bureaucratic governance complete with a constitution and elected parliament, the sultanate transitioned from a powerful pre-modern empire to a beleaguered and defensive-minded modern state. Rather than representing “Turkish colonialism,” the Ottomans’ experience in Syria illustrates the challenges and perils of revamping an older imperial structure in order to withstand new and unfavorable modern circumstances.

2:00 p.m.–2:45 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

An Entangled History of the British and French "Imperial Nation-States" in the Age of Revolutions, c.1770–1850
Tanja Bührer (University of Bern)

Until the 1980s, historians of world regions outside Europe were focussing on local forces and actors and became so empirically specialized and detached both from European imperial centres and each other that they could not be incorporated into a broader context anymore. Imperial historians always thought about the centre, but in terms of a one-sided Eurocentric focus on metropolitan implementation of modernization projects on the ‘peripheries’. Historians of European states, however, assumed that national history was untroubled by imperial projects and could be understood without reference to their empires. This paper aims to bring the conventionally separate narratives of the French and British histories of national state building and their histories empire building together. It claims that crucial dynamics and formative forces for both national and imperial governance lay at the very confluence of these fields. Furthermore, this contribution argues, in order to place a comparative approach into the appropriate historical context and perspective, the French and British ‘imperial nation states’ in the period of transition from early modern to modern times must basically be understood as entangled histories.

The American and French Revolutionary Wars led to protracted and fierce Anglo-French inter-imperial competition that also considerably shaped these rivals’ cross-cultural interaction with local societies. At the same time, however, settlers and imperial servants on the spot continued to cooperate and live socially and culturally entangled lives. The extraordinary mobilization for money to fund the worldwide war efforts revealed financial and administrative weaknesses of the British and French monarchies and pushed them into programs of administrative reforms. At the same time, metropolitan politics began to discuss imperial crises as scandals of colonial corruption that were stirring the awareness of the necessity to harness imperial wealth and power in the national interest. French and British anti-corruption reforms of imperial service mainly aimed to disentangle the different normative orders imperial agents were embedded and to separate the practices of mixed public and private tasks as well as the overlapping social and professional interconnections. The purpose of this paper is to underpin these arguments through some illustrative examples from the French settler colonies in the Caribbean and the emerging British Herrschaftskolonie in South Asia, where the reforms additionally targeted cross-cultural social and professional entanglements.

2:45 p.m.–3:30 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Colonialism at the Fringes of Empire: Reassessing Afghanistan's Place in the British Colonial History, 1857–1900
Francesca Fuoli (University of Bern)

In the decades that followed the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British colonial state in India pursued a policy of consolidation and administrative systematisation. More strikingly, at the same time, it also pursued active territorial expansion along its northern frontiers, something that has often been overlooked in historical writing on the period. In the north-west, the British incorporated Baluchistan, Dir, Swat, Hunza, Chitral, Kashmir, pushing their frontier upwards. In the case of Afghanistan, they attempted to break up the region into a number of colonies to which they applied alternatively the models of the Indian Princely States and of the directly ruled domains. As a consequence of these policies, Afghanistan went from being a loose political entity to becoming the state we know it today. This paper shows that this late expansion in South Asia continued many of the forms and strategies pursued during the early days of the East India Company conquest, thus questioning historians’ arguments about a radical shift in the quality and outlook of the modern colonial state in the second half of the nineteenth century. It argues that at the fringes of empire, the British continued to be comfortable with ideas and practices of colonisation that were not part of Western modernity and which continued to embed native power and politics into their empire-building.

The case of Afghanistan re-focuses the debate on the meanings and boundaries of colonialism, especially when pursued without formal rule, and what should be understood under colony. In this context, this paper engages with the contradictory ideas that the British Indian government applied during its territorial expansion: they combined ideas of modern international boundaries and Westphalian statehood with blurred ideas on sovereignty and territoriality. Afghanistan became a ground of experimentation where colonial officials themselves refused to box their understandings of Afghanistan’s place within the British empire in clearly defined categories. They continued to use terms such as protectorate, sphere of interference, buffer state and colony interchangeably, without precisely laying down their meaning. The ideas of statehood and colonial influence elaborated in this context would be taken, via military expeditions and boundary commissions to, among other regions, Eastern Africa and the Arabic Peninsula, thus highlighting the empire-wide importance of this case study.

3:45 p.m.–4:30 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Contradictions of British Colonialism in the Uganda Protectorate
Klaus Schlichte (University of Bremen)

Social transformation and social inequality was observed in all African colonial governments during the 20th century. But how did colonial administrations address this? What kind of political attitudes came to the fore in their conception of social change and in the remedies designed to deal with it? Based on the case of Uganda but including literature on other cases, this paper will try to answer these questions and connect its observations with a more programmatic perspective on historical international political sociology.

Saturday, September 28

9:30 a.m.–10:15 a.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Imperial Trajectories: The Constant Remaking of German Rule in South West Africa
Matthias Leanza (University of Basel)

Comparative case studies often focus on what remains stable over time. By emphasizing what is typical for a case in contrast to other cases, they tend to neglect both slow-moving, incremental change and disruptive events, eventually leading to crises and surprising turning points. However, considering the temporal character of social reality does not necessarily lead to a complete rejection of comparative perspectives in the social sciences. The divergent trajectories on which phenomena of a certain kind evolve can in fact be compared with one another. This also holds true for processes of colonial expansion and rule. By tracing the constant remaking of German rule in the “protectorate” of South West Africa over a period of roughly three decades (c. 1884–1915), this case study seeks to illustrate why it is so important to understand colonialism as an open and dynamic process that can manifest in many different ways. First, in the 1880s, parts of modern-day Namibia became a German “sphere of influence,” later morphing into an “imperial borderland,” characterized by a moving frontier, settler farming, and wars of conquest. After the Herero and Nama genocide (1904–1907), South West Africa was eventually on its way to becoming an “imperial province” with established borders, a rigid system of forced labor, and an expanding civil administration. With each step, the character of the colony changed fundamentally.

10:15 a.m.–11:00 a.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Bureaucratic Tools of Emergency and Citizenship in the Colonial Past and Present: Israel/Palestine and India
Yael Berda (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Investigation of bureaucratic repertoires of classification of population, well studied practices of identification, registration, mapping and zoning, demand a discussion on the how colonial practices, designed to control subjugated populations, have become organizing principles of the modern state, that draw the boundaries of political membership and participation.

Focusing on administrative colonial legacies facilitates an analysis of the impact of historical colonial rule, with the rise of contemporary colonial forms of power.  Rather than investigating continuity and change, the paper underscores how colonial bureaucratic practices, were embedded in the organizing principles of the modern state.  The paper examines Israel's military government over the Palestinians 1949-1966 in "security zones", and its practices of population classification, with classification practices of Palestinians in Israel's contemporary military rule over the Occupied West Bank.  Against the backdrop of a permit system in India's border with Pakistan after partition, we understand how mundane colonial practices of monitoring movement, became the administrative boundaries of citizenship.

11:15 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Indigenous Settler Colonialism? Rethinking Comanche, Lakota and Apache Expansions in North America
Janne Lahti (University of Helsinki)

This paper rethinks setter colonialism in the American West by asking if certain Indigenous expansions might qualify as “settler colonial,” what would this indicate for our efforts to take Indigenous history seriously, and how would this complicate our understandings of the traditional settler-Indigenous dichotomy not only in the West but potentially globally?   In recent years more and more historians have stressed Indigenous power and agency. Pekka Hämäläinen, Ned Blackhawk, Juliana Barr, and Karl Jacoby, among others, have examined different shapes and different temporal and geographical spaces of Indigenous rule that intersected with European imperial rivalries or Anglo-American settler colonial expansions but that did not necessarily confine themselves to either. This paper takes this line of thinking one step further, asking if it is possible to consider alternate readings of settler colonialism that may make locating its temporal and racial moorings far from clear cut in North American history – meaning that settler colonialism is not exclusive white, Anglo-American, and that in the trans-Mississippi West it does not start in the 1820s and 1840s with the white settlement of Texas, the wagon caravans traversing on the Oregon Trail, and the US-Mexican War. Perhaps settler colonialism reached the Great Plains with the powerful expansions of the Lakotas and the Comanches in the 1700s and early 1800s? Both cases involved many of the typical settler colonial characteristics: conquest and long-range migration (Lakotas came from the Great Lakes region and the Comanches from the Rocky Mountains), making other people’s land one’s own, and the intent of permanent residency. These expansions encompassed efforts to replace previous Native American groups, such as the Pawnees, the Crows, and the Apaches. In fact, Lakotas were still engaged in rapid growth at the time when US settler colonialism started to invade their terrain in the mid-1800s. So we potentially have competing, dynamic, and simultaneous Lakota and white settler colonial projects clashing on the Plains. This paper also compares the Lakota and Comanche expansions on the Plains to the Apache exodus (as they were forced to relocate due to the Comanche invasion on the southern Plains) and their subsequent expansion on the domains of the Spanish and Indigenous peoples residing in modern-day US-Mexican borderlands. What set this Apache invasion apart from the Comanche and Lakota conquest, and was it perhaps colonial but not necessarily settler colonial?

2:00 p.m.–2:45 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Where Russia Was "Ahead" of Europe: Russia's State Colonialism in Comparative Perspective
Michael Khodarkovsky (Loyola University Chicago)

This paper argues that the Russian empire was a colonial empire in denial. Similar to other European empires, Russia’s policies and practices were colonial in nature. It was particularly so in the Asian parts of the empire, where Russian expansion evolved from a non-settler to a settler form of colonialism. However, unlike other European empires, Russian authorities consistently and consciously denied Russia's colonial nature. What distinguished the Russian empire from its European counterparts was the dominant role of the state and a type of state colonialism that European empires began to practice at a much later stage. 

2:45 p.m.–3:30 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Japanese Colonialism and the Geopolitics of Population, Race and Nation in the Korean Imagination
Jin-kyung Park (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul)

This paper examnines the discourse of population, nation, and race in Korea under Japanese rule (1910–1945). Jinkō mondai (人口問題) or the population problem is one of the most frequently Japanese words that appeared in the pulications of Govvernment-General of Korea (GGK), scholarly books, general magazines, newspapers, and so on. Not only GGK employees, state-commissioned researchers, scholars, and physicians on the colony but also politicians, colonial theorists, and journalists on the metropole of the Japanese Empire actively participated in the production of colonial discourse of the “population problem” on the Korean Peninsula. As imperial Japan approached the colony to cope with the problem of “overpopulation” in the metropole and to mobilize the Korean population as the crucial human resources of the empire, Korea occupied a central space in Japan’s project of population mangement in its empire building. Beginning in the mid 1930s, high-ranked officials, such as Ugaki Kazushige, governor-general (1927, 1931–1936) and those who followed him situated the Korean Peninsula in the global geopolitics of the population and race. They called to re-conceptualize the world population problem from the position of the colored state (kokka) and colored races (yūshoku jinshu), as Western empires and the white race (hakujin jinshu) dominated approximately 90 percent of the global territories. In the imagination of Ugaki and other colonialists, imperial Japan had to awaken the colored state and colored races and to emancipate them from the exploitation of white imperial powers. To do so, the propagation of the population in such vital colonies of Japan as Korea was inevitable in the colored races’ global fight against Western imperialists under the “guidance” of imperial Japan. To this end, it compels us to explore more about Japan’s use of the Korean colonial population in its imperial project and the legacies of pronatalist state population policies, which helped turn the population size of approximately 13 million at the beginning of colonial rule to 25 million in 1945 excluding roughly 4 million overseas emigrants, in post-1945 Korea. At the same time, we remain curious about whether the “population problem” was exclusively debated within the circle of the Japanese colonialists. How did the colonized envision the population problem (ingu munje, 人口問題) of the Korean Peninsula and the empire? In what ways, was the discourse of population interconnected with that of the Korean race and nation (minjok)? How did the Koreans respond to the governor-general’s call to end the global struggle over the land, territory, and natural resources under the domination of the white population and race? By reflecting on these questions, this paper will bring into light the geopolitics and biopolitics of the population in Korea and the Japanese Empire, the only non-Western empire of modern times. In doing so, it will help us understand the emergence of the global population problem in the twentieth century from the non-Western imperial standpoint.

3:45 p.m.–4:30 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Imperialism and Colonialism: A Meaningful Distinction?
Krishan Kumar (University of Virginia)

Some  scholars, such as Moses Finley and D. K. Fieldhouse, have tried to establish a distinction between imperialism and colonialism, reserving the latter for those colonies where European settlers established a strong presence, sometimes coming to constitute a majority by the elimination of the indigenous inhabitants (e.g. in the Americas). On this understanding, India in the British Empire would be an example of imperialism but not of colonialism, owing to the relatively few Europeans who settled there.

There is some value in this distinction, which overlaps to some extent with that between land empires (imperialism) and overseas empires (colonialism). But I want to argue that the distinction obscures more than it illuminates. There are many commonalities between the different parts of empires, whether or not there are majority settler populations.  The distinction also makes it difficult to compare modern and ancient empires, since most of the ancient empires did not – unlike the modern ones – involve large transfers of the metropolitan population. Popular usage does not generally distinguish between imperialism and colonialism, and in this case popular usage might be right!

4:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Lecture hall, Musicology

Final discussion

Colonial expansion is a common, nearly universal phenomenon in human history. Though colonialism has shaped the modern world in many ways, it is not limited to modernity. Conquering foreign lands and subjugating other people(s) are basic processes in the formation of empires and states, and they existed long before the modern era. This interdisciplinary conference, hosted by the Department of Sociology at the University of Basel, seeks to explore varieties of colonialism throughout history and to uncover their common features. But, by comparing different areas, periods, and forms of colonial expansion and rule the conference will also examine the (possibly) unique characteristics of modern European expansion.


Hans-Joachim Gehrke is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Freiburg (Breisgau) and  the Director of Outreach at University College Freiburg, Germany. He was a Professor of Ancient History at the Universities of Würzburg, FU Berlin and Freiburg (1982-2008), and President of the German Archaeological Institute (2008-2011). He is member of the Academia Europaea, the Leopoldina. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften and the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. His research and publications range widely, from Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greece to the Roman Republic and Empire, from social and political history to the history of political concepts and theories. His main publications include Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (1985); Geschichte des Hellenismus (4rd edn. 2008); Alexander der Grosse (6h edn. 2013, trans. into many languages), Geschichte der Antike: Ein Studienbuch (4nd edn. 2013), and Geschichte als Element antiker Kultur (2014).

Professor Hoyland read Oriental Studies at Oxford University, where he subsequently wrote a doctoral thesis on non-Muslim accounts of the rise of Islam (Seeing Islam as Others saw it, 1997). The emergence of Islamic civilization has remained a key focus of his research and is the subject of his latest book (In God’s Path: the Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, 2014). The desire to better understand this phenomenon has led him down many different avenues of study: pre-Islamic Arabia (Arabia and the Arabs, 2001), epigraphy (“The Content and Context of Early Arabic Inscriptions”, 1997), papyrology (“The earliest attestation of the Dhimma of God and His Messenger and the rediscovery of P. Nessana 77”, 2014) and the late antique Greco-Syriac world ([with Simon Swain et al.] Polemon’s Physiognomy, 2007, and Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle, 2011). One avenue, archaeology, has become a passion for him in its own right and he has been involved in excavations in Syria, Yemen, Israel/Palestine and Turkey/Kurdistan. He has now embarked upon the excavation of the city of Partavi/Barda‘a in modern Azerbaijan, which was the capital of the Christian kingdom of Caucasian Albania and the site of the first Muslim garrison in eastern Caucasus.

Michael Khodarkovsky (Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1987; B.A., Kalmyk State University, Elista, Russia, 1977) is a Professor of History at Loyola University Chicago, where he teaches courses in Russian empire, comparative empires, colonialism, and Western civilization. Khodarkovsky is a historian of the Russian Empire who specializes in the history of Russia's imperial expansion into the Eurasian borderlands.  His books examined the relationship between the expanding Russian state and the non-Christian peoples across the colonial frontiers, notably in Where Two Worlds Met: the Russian State and the Kalmyk Nomads, 1600-1771 (1992), Russia’s Steppe Frontier: The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (2002), and Bitter Choices: Loyalty and Betrayal in the Russian Conquest of the North Caucasus (2011).  He co-edited a book that explored the impact of organized religion, missionary work and religious conversion on Russia's non-Christian population in Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia (2001). Most recently he took a detour from his traditional interests to explore Russian and Soviet history in 100 vignettes that became his most recent book, Russia’s 20th century: A Journey in 100 Histories (2019) and to contribute frequent opinion editorials to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other media. He is now back to completing his past and current book project on a broad comparative history of the Eurasian empires from 1500s to 1850s.

Krishan Kumar is University Professor, as well as William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia. He was previously Professor of Social and Political Thought at the University of Kent at Canterbury, England. He received his undergraduate education at the University of Cambridge and his postgraduate education at the London School of Economics.

Professor Kumar has at various times been a Talks Producer at the BBC, a Visiting Scholar at Harvard University, and a Visiting Professor at Bristol University; the University of Colorado at Boulder; the Central European University, Prague; the University of Bergen, Norway; and the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris. He has also been a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.

Among his publications are Prophecy and Progress: The Sociology of Industrial and Post-Industrial Society; Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times; The Rise of Modern Society; From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society; 1989: Revolutionary Ideas and Ideals; The Making of English National Identity; and Visions of Empire: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World.

Mr. Kumar's current interests focus on empires and imperial peoples. Related interests include nationalism and nation identity, Europe, global history, and problems of historical sociology.

Interview 2016 DSC_6740.jpg


Agency, Cooperation and Oligarchy

University of Freiburg

Wolfgang Reinhard


Conquest and Founding of Cities: Forms of Colonization in the Greek-Roman World

University of Freiburg

Hans-Joachim Gehrke


Were the Muslim Arabs who Conquered the Middle East Colonialists?

New York University

Robert Hoyland


Ottomans in Syria: “Turkish Colonialism” or Something Else?

University of Toronto

James Reilly


An Entangled History of the British and French "Imperial Nation States" in the Age of Revolutions, c. 1770–1850

University of Bern

Tanja Bührer


Colonialism at the Fringes of Empire: Reassessing Afghanistan’s Place in the British Colonial History, 1857–1900

University of Bern

Francesca Fuoli


Contradictions of British Colonialism in the Uganda Protectorate

University of Bremen

Klaus Schlichte


Bureaucratic Tools of Emergency and Citizenship in the Colonial Past and Present: Israel/Palestine and India

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Yael Berda


Indigenous Settler Colonialism? Rethinking Comanche, Lakota and Apache Expansions in North America

University of Helsinki

Janne Lahti


Where Russia Was "Ahead" of Europe: Russia's State Colonialism in Comparative Perspective

Loyola University Chicago

Michael Khodarkovsky


Japanese Colonialism and the Geopolitics of Population, Race and Nation in the Korean Imagination

Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul

Jin-kyung Park


Imperialism and Colonialism: A Meaningful Distinction?

University of Virginia

Krishan Kumar

I completed graduate work in History at the American University of Beirut (1981) and Georgetown University (1987). Since 1987 I have taught modern Middle East History at the University of Toronto. My work focuses on Syria and Lebanon during the Ottoman period. Published books are: A Small Town in Syria: Ottoman Hama in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (2002), The Ottoman Cities of Lebanon: Historical Legacy and Identity in the Modern Middle East (2016), and Fragile Nation, Shattered Land: The Modern History of Syria (2019).

Jin-kyung Park is Professor of Korean Studies and Associate Dean at the Graduate School of International & Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS) in Seoul, Korea. She received her PhD in the Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Prior to joining HUFS, Dr. Park was an assistant professor in the Department of Historical & Cultural Studies/Women & Gender Studies Institute at University of Toronto. Professor Park’s research focuses on cultural studies and the history of colonialism, medicine, gender, and race in 20th-century Korea. Her recent articles have appeared in journals including Cultural Studies, Journal of Women’s History, and Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies. She is currently working on a monograph titled Yellow Man’s Burden: Medicine and Biopolitics in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945.



Axel T. Paul

Axel T. Paul

Matthias Leanza

Matthias Leanza


Supported by


Seeing Basel