Forgetting for a moment about the English term "slave", it's interesting that in Italian slaves are called "schiavi", with the singular "schiavo", while in old Romanian we used to called Slav people (who were different from us, Romance-speaking people) as "șchei", with the singular "șchiau/schiau", the second form at singular pretty similar to the independently formed "schiavo" from Italian (which means "slave", like I said).
> colonialism didn't really care about the colour of your skin
This is a step too far; if there's any home of white identity it's in the colonies that largely eradicated the natives, such as the US and Australia. Worldwide, people are racist against black people like Americans are. It's American tropes about black people that have traveled all over the world. Even the British, who had their own brutal African colonies, are racist towards black people through borrowed American language and imagery. Native British racism largely revolves around South Asia, just as native French (and Italian) racism is largely obsessed with Arabic-speaking North Africa.
Historically, this is quite wrong. By the late 19th to early 20th c., "white" identity in the U.S. had essentially become a way of providing all European immigrants with one common, shared identity thus obviating prejudice towards some European nationalities especially wrt. Central Europe (hence Germans, but also Slavs). To a significant extent, this is comparable to how self-identification as "white" is understood today, as well. There's nothing in such self-identification that implies prejudice against people of color.
Roman identity also fits within the ingroup-outgroup frameworm but not quite immutable. It involved such odd priorities by modern standards like retiring a "gaulic stereotype" class of gladiators after the conquest of Gaul because they were Roman now, even if many were slaves it became "politically incorrect".
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/758v1g/how_d...
Modern Greece never engaged in colonialism.
But go back 2500 years ago, ancient Greek city states established colonies around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_colonisation
Similarly, while it is true that in recent centuries Greeks have been more often the victims of imperialism than the beneficiaries of it, Greece did produce one of the greatest imperialists of all time, Alexander the Great; and the Eastern Roman Empire was for centuries one of the Mediterranean's great empires, and despite its name was for most of its history far more Greek than Roman
One reason is that if you want to go back 2500 years, that certainly covers e.g. the Zulu empire and its own conquering of of neighouring tribes, the Aztec or the Inca empires, various Indian empires and kingdoms and so on - in which case the whole conversation loses its meaning because everyone has been a colonialist at some point. Of course, it's clear that the conversation is carried out in the context of European colonialism and in particular of the colonisation of Africa by European powers.
Another reason is that when we speak of the Greek colonies around the Mediterrannean we speak of new, often independent, cities founded by people originally from cities in the Greek mainland, rather than an invading, occupying force who came to subjugate an indigenous population, pillage the natural riches of its land and send it back home, as in European colonies.
Finally, we don't know of any big deportation or mass slaughter or enslavement of indigenous populations in the case of Greek Mediterrannean colonies and there is every reason to assume that many new cities were founded without a drop of blood being shed. There is generally no historical record of big invasions or military campaigns etc. leading to colonisation. The story is very different than what we call "colonialism" today.
>> Similarly, while it is true that in recent centuries Greeks have been more often the victims of imperialism than the beneficiaries of it, Greece did produce one of the greatest imperialists of all time, Alexander the Great; and the Eastern Roman Empire was for centuries one of the Mediterranean's great empires, and despite its name was for most of its history far more Greek than Roman
I have to say that I find this line of reasoning very unfair, as a Greek, given that in a different context I've been very often told that I'm not really Greek because real Greeks lived two thousand years ago, that I can't really draw a direct line of descent to Pericles, or Socrates, or Aristotle (I'm not really trying), that Alexander the Great was not really Greek but Macedonian (and incidentally my country should shut up and let North Macedonia have its name because it totally owns it) and that I look too blond and fair-skinned and pale-eyed to be Greek anyway.
In short, it seems to me that too many people have tried to tell me things about Greek history but not necessarily because they care about history, more because they want to score some points in some silly debate that I'm not interested in. I hope you recognise the danger and avoid this line of thinking yourself.
Also, your statment that Byzantium was "far more Greek than Roman" deserves a thorough debunking but this comment has grown too large already, for which I apologise. Suffice it to say that the Byzantines -and the people living in the Greek peninsula at the time- considered themselves Roman not Greek. Even today we say we are "Ρωμιοί", Romans.
Finally, regarding Alexander- Alexander's empire wasn't an empire of the Greeks, it wasn't an empire of the Macedonians, even, it was Alexander's empire and nobody else's. And when he died, it died with him because his superpower stopped working. Alexander wasn't Greek. He wasn't Macedonian. He wasn't even human. Alexander was a superhero- and like a superhero he stood above all men and did things only superheroes and demigods can do. We can learn nothing from him about the lives of ordinary people.
But if it is true that everyone has been a colonialist at some point, how thereby is it that the "whole conversation loses its meaning"? One might instead say that's an important fact that needs to be considered in the conversation, but often isn't.
> Of course, it's clear that the conversation is carried out in the context of European colonialism and in particular of the colonisation of Africa by European powers.
But is that too narrow a context? And part of the debate is about whether what those European powers did was somehow historically novel, or whether it was fundamentally a continuation of what everyone else had been doing for all of history? If one views what they did as historically novel, then what Greeks did 2500 years ago is irrelevant; if one views it as just a continuation and intensification of the historical norm, then it has more relevance.
> Another reason is that when we speak of the Greek colonies around the Mediterrannean we speak of new, often independent, cities founded by people originally from cities in the Greek mainland, rather than an invading, occupying force who came to subjugate an indigenous population, pillage the natural riches of its land and send it back home, as in European colonies.
Were these lands colonised by the ancient Greeks uninhabited terra nullius? Or did they already have an indigenous population, which the Greek settlers may have displaced? Also consider that there were two types of European colonialism – extractive colonialism in Africa, Asia (and certain parts/periods of the Americas), and settler colonialism in the Americas (other parts/periods), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. The former involves removal of resources, the later involves insertion of a new population. Ancient Greek colonies were settler colonialism not extractive colonialism.
> There is generally no historical record of big invasions or military campaigns etc. leading to colonisation
Back then, far fewer written records were produced than were in more recent centuries, and what written records were produced have been mostly lost. I wouldn't assume that just because we don't have records of something happening, that therefore it didn't happen.
Also, the British colonisation of Australia didn't involve any significant military campaigns, at best a few skirmishes, and some massacres too. (In military terms, the colonists and the indigenous were very unevenly matched, much more so than in North America for example.) If there was a pre-existing indigenous population displaced by ancient Greek colonies, it could easily have been hunter-gatherer tribes.
> given that in a different context I've been very often told that I'm not really Greek because real Greeks lived two thousand years ago
Anyone who tells you that is an idiot. Of course you are a real Greek.
> more because they want to score some points in some silly debate that I'm not interested in
What silly debate do I want to engage in? It sounds like maybe you've been burnt by debates with North Macedonian nationalists whereas my sympathies have always been with Greece in that dispute.
> considered themselves Roman not Greek. Even today we say we are "Ρωμιοί", Romans.
Yes. But even though Ρωμιοί derives etymologically from the city of Rome, the Latin influence on Constantinople's culture was relatively small (strongest in the legal system). I think the term really referred to Constantinople's claim to be the Second Rome, the political (and even theological) successor of the First Rome, not to a claim that its people were of the same culture and ethnicity as First Rome's. Greek Ρωμιοί are not a Latin or Italic people, Latin Romani are.
I find this a little unfair, given that many white people do not have a colonial past and some have themselves been subject to colonisation and imperalism. This includes most of the peoples of Eastern and Southern Europe, i.e. the Slavs and also my people, Greeks. While Russia had an Empire and colonies in Asia, it never really colonised Africa [1]. Other Slavic countries never had colonies [2] and neither did us Greeks who were ourselves enslaved by the Ottomans for much of our pre-modern history and were a protectorate of the Great Powers saddled by them with a foreign kingly dynasty [3] during the time that the Western Europeans where having their little moment in Africa, in the 1880's.
So it's no point feeling "animus" towards all white people- certainly not towards one's Polish mother. It's no use lumping all "Europeans" together, either. I would go as far as to say that even the majority of people in countries that were colonial powers, like Britain or France, did not really partake in the riches pillaged from Africa and its people, because it all stayed in the hands of monarchs and aristocrats who often didn't treat their domestic population any better than the people of faraway lands and certainly didn't hold them in much greater esteem. If you hail from a long line of pig farmers and washerwomen that lived in poverty and squalor while their "betters" partied in India - how can you be held responsible for the latters' behaviour?
And then there were the white people colonised by other white people, as in the colonisation of Ireland by the English during the 1550's, by settling it with Protestants and establishing... plantations [4]. Has anyone asked the Irish how they feel about the great British Empire? [5]
If we're going to have a historically nuanced debate about colonialism (and not just race and racism, which are somewhat independent, in my view) then we should have a nuanced debate and discuss the fact that colonialism didn't really care about the colour of your skin, only about the degree to which you were inhabiting land with useful resources that could be taken from you and exploited for the glory of Empire (and the enrichment of its elites).
________________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_colonialism#Imperia...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_colonialism
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_modern_Greece
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland
[5] Oh, but it's complicated, I know... probably because of the settlement by Protestants as above.