I use the term “imperialism” in a sense of pure opprobrium. It designates the subjection and exploitation of nonwhites
through colonial domination or some other, more subtle and modern, device—but always with the aid
of latent or manifest force . . . To clear the air further: my condemnation of imperialism in geography is directed
at no individual; the science as a whole is to blame . . . The field after all, was born and raised in the homelands
of imperialism . . . Thus, the modal academic geographer is white, Western, and probably an honest believer
in the rightness of some form of imperialism (perhaps under a different name). If he [the predominance of the
masculinist view of the world was so taken for granted by Blaut at the time that there was no need to include
“male” in his description of the “modal” geographer or the language used to designate “him”] disagrees on
certain subjects with his [sic] colleagues in other Western countries, he [sic] nevertheless shares with them a
common set of values and beliefs concerning the non-white, non-Western world. He [sic] therefore purveys a
science that has the imperialistic affliction at its very core.