A passage in Ludwig Gumplowicz’s “La lucha de razas” (1889) contrasts the supposed sincerity of so-called “primitive” peoples with the moral pretexts used by European powers to justify war. Gumplowicz argues that while tribal societies seek small, tangible gains, modern nations conceal economic motives behind lofty ideals such as liberty, faith, and civilization.

Quote:

“Only primitive men are more frank and more sincere and do not want to appear better than they are, while the wars of civilized nations are waged under the cover of all kinds of possible phrases, under the pretext of civilizing and political ideas, for freedom, for humanity, for nationality, for faith, or at least for the European balance. The truth is, a victorious European nation is not content with a few horses and donkeys like the Apaches, nor with flocks like the Kyrgyz, nor with a few goats like the Albanians. A victorious European people knows how to make millions from such a business.”

Summary

The passage contrasts “primitive” and “civilized” societies in their approach to war. According to the author, so-called primitive peoples are more direct and honest about their motives, whereas modern European nations cloak their conflicts in lofty ideals—freedom, humanity, religion, nationality, or geopolitical balance. Yet behind these moral justifications lies the pursuit of large-scale material gain. Unlike smaller, tribal societies that take livestock or goods as spoils, victorious European powers extract immense wealth through conquest, showing that economic exploitation, rather than humanitarian rhetoric, is the true driving force.

Analysis

The text serves as a critique of imperial hypocrisy. By contrasting “primitive” groups—portrayed as straightforward in their intentions—with European states that frame war in noble language, the author exposes a moral façade. The argument suggests that the ideological justifications of European warfare mask economic motives: the accumulation of wealth, territory, and political dominance.

This perspective aligns with broader critiques of 19th- and early 20th-century imperialism, in which colonial powers routinely used concepts like civilization, progress, and humanitarian duty to legitimize expansion. The reference to various ethnic groups (Apaches, Kyrgyz, Albanians) symbolizes smaller-scale, survival-based conflict, sharply distinguished from the industrialized exploitation of powerful nations.

The passage challenges the reader to question official narratives of war and to recognize how language can obscure real intentions. It implies that “civilization” does not necessarily lead to higher moral conduct; instead, it can result in more sophisticated forms of exploitation, justified through ideological rhetoric rather than admitted openly.

Source

https://www.google.se/books/edition/La_lucha_de_razas/9nHsAAAAMAAJ?hl=sv&gbpv=0