I’ve started reading A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling, and there's a little chapter where he covers early germ theory and Toxoplasmosis and ties it into themes of colonialism.
Part of me wonders if all this isn't just a pretext to do wordplay around a source's name... emphasis mine:
The dynamics of French-occupied Tunisia were hardly unique, or even uncommon, as noted by scholars of colonialism like Professor Daniel Butt […]
Many think that colonialism is a thing of the past, a dark stain on human history. Butt heads down a different path by defining colonialism as having three key features that persist into modernity. First, the colonial oppressors subjugate a group of people, typically by limiting their say in political and criminal justice decisions. In this case, France defanged the Tunisian government by populating it with French appointees and French allies. Second, the oppressors (according to Butt) wipe out the indigenous culture and replace it with the imposed customs of the colonists. The French achieved this by installing an array of schools where Arab and African children were taught the French language and European culture. Butt cracks down on the notion of benevolent colonialism with his third defining feature: the oppressors exploit their wards, such as through the levying of unfair taxes. France helped itself to Tunisia’s natural resources to fund a public health network (including the Pasteur Institute of Tunis), government offices, and roads. All three characteristics, taken together, make this very serious theory of colonialism, proposed by Professor Butt, whole.
This can’t be accidental.
