Geskiedenis Podcasts

Die oorsprong van wetenskaplike rassisme?

Die oorsprong van wetenskaplike rassisme?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Moderne wetenskaplike rassisme het gedurende die tyd van die verligting wyd versprei. Is daar 'n enkele persoon wat as die 'vader' van moderne wetenskaplike rassisme bestempel kan word?


Daar is geen universeel erkende 'vader van wetenskaplike rassisme' nie, alhoewel 'n aantal name voorgestel kan word.

Een voorbeeld is die Franse edelman Arthur de Gobineau, vandag die beste onthou vir die baanbrekerswerk in die konsep van 'n Ariese meesterras. Sy berugte 'N Opstel oor die ongelykheid van die menslike rasse, gepubliseer in 1853, het 'n magdom ander rasseteorieë geïnspireer, insluitend die van die Nazi's. Dit het daartoe gelei dat sommige Gobineau as 'die vroegste beduidende intellektuele rassis' bestempel het[1] of die "vader van rassistiese ideologieë"[2].

Terwyl dit vandag aan Gobineau toegeskryf word, kan die voorlopers van die meesterras -konsep nog baie verder teruggevoer word Henri de Boulainvilliers in die vroeë 18de eeu. Boulainvilliers, ook 'n Franse aristokraat, het aangevoer dat die Germaanse adel van Frankryk ras -beter is as die Galliese onderklas. Hy het die konsep ontstaan ​​om skedels te meet om ras te bepaal, en beweer dat Germaanse aristokratiese skedels groter was[3] - 'n gebruik wat later deur die Nazi's berug gemaak is.

Die Sweedse bioloog Carolus Linnæus, vandag beter bekend as die 'vader van die moderne taksonomie', bied nog 'n vroeë voorbeeld. Sy Systema Naturæ word vandag beskou as een van die "grondtekste" van wetenskaplike rassisme[4], en het die menslike ras in vyf "variëteite" omskryf. Alhoewel dit nie naastenby so virulent was soos sommige van die ander nie, en eerder wetenskapliker in sy benadering, verbind Linnæus nietemin fisiese kenmerke met emosionele, intellektuele en ander sielkundige eienskappe. Dit het daartoe gelei dat sommige deur hom beskou is as "die oorspronklike stigter van wetenskaplike rassisme"[5].

Die dominee Robert Malthus, wat vandag meer bekend is omdat hy die naamgenoot van Malthusianisme was, afgeweer van meer eksplisiete vorme van rassisme. In plaas daarvan het hy teen welsyn geveg, omdat die inmenging van armoede deur goddelose die 'ongeskik' bestendig is - 'n retoriek wat ons vandag as sosiale Darwinisme erken. Hierdie konsepte word erken as 'n inspirasie vir die klassieke definisie van wetenskaplike rassisme[6] soos geformuleer deur Allan Chase, wat in sy 1980 -werk Nalatenskap van Malthus noem hom die stigter van wetenskaplike rassisme[7] - ondanks die feit dat Malthus self nie ras as 'n faktor beklemtoon nie.

Laastens is daar die Jamaikaanse planter Edward Long wat in 1774 'n bose tirade gepubliseer het waarin Afrikane beskryf word as ingebore minderwaardig aan blankes. Hy het aangevoer dat slawerny van Afrikaners 'n noodsaaklikheid is, aangesien hulle te geestelik, fisies en moreel gebrekkig was om hulself te regeer - alles baie gerieflik vir 'n planter wat op slawe -arbeid staatmaak. Getiteld Geskiedenis van Jamaika, Long se werk was sonder wetenskaplike meriete, maar wyd gelees en aanvaar, en word nou beskou as 'n deurslaggewende ontwikkeling in wetenskaplike rassisme.

Bronne:

[1] Nucci, Larry, red. Konflik, teenstrydigheid en teenstrydige elemente in morele ontwikkeling en opvoeding. Psychology Press, 2005.
[2] Barkan, Elazar. The Retreat of Scientific Racism Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[3] van Galen Last, Rick en Ralf Futselaar. Black Shame: African Soldiers in Europe, 1914-1922. Bloomsbury, 2015.
[4] Burton, Jonathan en Ania Loomba. Race in die vroeë moderne Engeland: 'n dokumentêre metgesel. Springer, 2007.
[5] http://www.saobserver.com/single-post/2017/04/18/Scientific-Racism
[6] "Die verdraaiing van wetenskaplike en historiese feite om die mite van twee verskillende rasse van die mensdom te skep." - Allan Chase
[7] Brantlinger, Patrick. Donker verdwyning: diskoers oor die uitwissing van primitiewe wedrenne, 1800-1930. Cornell University Press, 2003.


Sosiale Darwinisme en die oorsprong van wetenskaplike rassisme

Die 'Origin of species by natural selection', Charles Darwin (1809-1882) se meesterstuk, is in November 1859 gepubliseer- al twaalfhonderd en vyftig eksemplare was op die eerste dag uitverkoop. Sedertdien het Darwin se idees 'n omwenteling in die hele uitgangspunt van evolusionêre biologie gemaak en die konsep van naturalisme vervang as 'n verklaring van menslike evolusie.

In hierdie artikel sal ons egter die sosiale, ekonomiese en kulturele impak van Darwin se teorie bespreek. Sosiale Darwinisme, soos dit genoem word, het 'n impak op die vorming van die huidige geopolitieke omgewing van die wêreld. Die huidige onluste in die Verenigde State en die Verenigde Koninkryk gemotiveer deur rasse -ongelykheid het diep wortels. Daar kan nie ontken word dat rassisme sedert die vroegste tye bestaan ​​het nie, maar in hierdie artikel sal ons die geskiedenis en impak van sosiale darwinisme op die hedendaagse rassisme ondersoek.

Thomas H Huxley (1825-1895)-ook bekend as Darwin se bulhond, het die uitdrukking Social Darwinism in 1861 geskep. Die eerste gebruik van die term "Social Darwinism" in Europa word egter toegeskryf aan 'n Franse joernalis genaamd Emile Gautier (1853-1937) ). Die konsep van sosiale Darwinisme het die idee van "survival of the fittest" en "natural selection" geleen uit Darwin se biologiese evolusieteorie en het dit toegepas op ekonomie, sosiologie en politiek. Dit is 'n mengelmoes van ideologieë wat gebruik is en steeds gebruik word om kolonisasie, imperialisme, rassisme, sosiale ongelykheid en eugenetika te regverdig.

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was 'n Engelse ekonoom en 'n invloedryke geleerde. Malthusianisme is 'n teorie van eksponensiële bevolkingsgroei in vergelyking met die lineêre groei van voedselvoorsiening en ander hulpbronne. In sy boek "An essay on the Principle of population" beskryf Malthus hierdie oënskynlike verskil tussen bevolkingsgroei en voedselvoorsiening. Malthus het geglo dat die bevolking deur voorkomende en positiewe kontrole beheer kan word om die voedselvoorraad met die bevolkingsvlak te balanseer. Die ramp in Malthus word beskryf as 'n bevolking wat ongemerk bly, verdubbel homself elke vyf-en-twintig jaar of styg in 'n meetkundige verhouding, sodat die bevolking binnekort sy voedselvoorraad oorskry.

Darwin was bekend met Malthus se konsepte en is beïnvloed deur sy idees. Hy het die Malthusiaanse bestaanstryd die basis van sy natuurlike seleksie gemaak. Hy het 'n ooreenkoms gesien tussen boere wat die beste voorraad in selektiewe teling kies, en 'n Malthusiese filosofie. Die baie uitgebreide bewoording op die titelblad van sy boek, by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, dui op sy siening oor ras superioriteit. In The Descent of Man skryf hy “We civilized men …. doen ons uiterste bes om die proses van uitskakeling na te gaan, ons bou asiele vir die onbeskaamdes, gestremdes en siekes. Dus, die swak lede van die samelewing propageer hul soort. ”

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), 'n Engelse polimaat en 'n sosioloog, was die eerste wat die term "survival of the fittest" beskryf het. Spenser was 'n baie groot voorstander van die utilitaristiese filosofie en het geglo dat 'n sosiale stelsel wat voorsiening maak vir armes en behoeftiges uiteindelik die algemene groei van die samelewing nadelig is, aangesien dit die voortbestaan ​​van die swakkes en die siekes bevorder, wat lei tot 'n algehele vertraagde groei. Sy konsep van oorlewing van die sterkstes impliseer dat die natuur ondoeltreffendheid uitskakel- enige pogings om hierdie proses te vertraag, sal die algehele voordele vir sterk rasse benadeel. In sy werk, Social Statics (1850), het hy aangevoer dat imperialisme die beskawing gedien het deur die minderwaardige rasse van die aarde te verwyder.

Francis Galton (1822-1911) was 'n Engelse polimaat en Darwin se half neef, gefassineer deur Darwin se werk, en het dit sy lewensmissie gemaak om variasies in die menslike bevolking en die implikasies daarvan te bestudeer. Galton het sy boek The Hereditary Genius in 1869 gepubliseer- hy het die fisiese eienskappe van vooraanstaande mans en die erfenis van fisiese sowel as intellektuele eienskappe breedvoerig bestudeer. Galton het in hierdie boek geskryf: Laat ons doen wat ons kan om die vermeerdering van die rasse wat die beste geskik is om 'n hoë en vrygewige beskawing uit te vind, aan te moedig, en nie uit 'n verkeerde instink om die swakke te ondersteun nie, voorkom dat sterk en hartlike individue binnekom. ”

Eugenika bevorder die uitsluiting of uitskakeling van menslike rasse wat as laer beskou word as die behoud van superieure rasse, wat uiteindelik tot die algehele verbetering in genetiese kwaliteit kan lei

Dit was Galton wat die konsep van eugenetika (wat goedgebore beteken) voorstaan. Eugenetika bevorder die uitsluiting of uitskakeling van menslike rasse wat as laer beskou word as die behoud van superieure rasse, wat uiteindelik tot die algehele verbetering in genetiese kwaliteit kan lei. Eugenetika het in die vroeë 1900's momentum gekry met die stigting van Britse en Amerikaanse Eugenetiese verenigings. Winston Churchill het die British Eugenics Society ondersteun en was 'n ere -vise -president van die organisasie. Churchill was van mening dat eugenetika agteruitgang kan oplos en misdaad en armoede kan verminder. Eugenetika bevorder praktyke soos genetiese sifting, geboortebeperking, huweliksbeperkings, sowel rasseskeiding as die opneem van geestesongesteldes, verpligte sterilisasie, gedwonge aborsies en swangerskappe. Theodore Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., en vele ander prominente burgers was uitgesproke ondersteuners. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) het geskryf: "Die enigste fundamentele en moontlike sosialisme is die sosialisering van die selektiewe teling van die mens." Hy het voorgestel dat die staat kleurgekodeerde "voortplantingskaartjies" uitreik om te voorkom dat die genepoel van die elite deur minderwaardige mense verdun word. Diegene wat besluit het om kinders te hê met houers van 'n ander kleurkaartjie, sal met 'n swaar boete gestraf word. In die Verenigde State is wetenskaplike rassisme gebruik om slawerny in Afrika te regverdig. Samuel Cartwright (1793-1863) het die term "drapetomania" bedink, wat beskryf word as 'n geestesversteuring van slawe wat probeer het om van hul gevangenes weg te hardloop- die toestand is behandelbaar beskou. 'Negers, met hul kleiner brein en bloedvate, en hul neiging tot traagheid en barbaarsheid, moes net goedgunstig gehou word in die toestand van onderdanigheid, ontsag en eerbied wat God bepaal het. Die neger is [toe] betower en kan nie weghardloop nie, ”het hy gesê.

Die etos van eugenetika is opgeneem in Nazi -Duitsland se rassebeleid. Hitler regverdig die beleid van sterilisasie van gebreke, onwillekeurige genadedood en die holocaust gebaseer op 'rassehigiëne', 'n term wat geweldige gewildheid in die Nazi -Duitsland gekry het. Na die tweede wêreldoorlog, weens Hitler se aanpassing van eugenetika, was daar 'n skerp afname in die gewildheid van hierdie beleid, ten minste op staatsvlak.

Die wortels van die idee dat die wit rasse beter, intelligenter, sterker en hoër op die evolusionêre leer is, is uiteenlopend en multifaktoriaal.

Die tydperk van Europese verligting, gevolg deur imperialisme wat deur sosiale Darwinisme saamgestel is, het die konsep oor eeue versterk. In Swede is die praktyk van gedwonge sterilisasie voortgesit tot 1970. In die VSA het onwillekeurige sterilisasie van vroulike gevangenes tot in 2010 plaasgevind.

Moderne evolusionêre wetenskaplikes en molekulêre bioloë verwerp die idee van ras -superioriteit op grond van oorerflike genetika. Die superioriteit van 'n mens bo 'n ander, gebaseer op ras, kleur, geloof en seks, is moreel en eties verkeerd. 'N Beter wêreld sou 'n wêreld wees sonder vooroordeel en rassisme.

Die skrywer is 'n chirurg met 'n belangstelling in teologie en geskiedenis


Wetenskaplike rassisme - oorsprong van wetenskaplike rassisme - Georges Cuvier

Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), die Franse natuurkundige en dierkundige rassestudies, het wetenskaplike poligene en wetenskaplike rassisme beïnvloed. Cuvier het geglo dat daar drie verskillende rasse was: die Kaukasiese (wit), Mongoolse (geel) en die Ethiopiese (swart). Hy het gedink dat Adam en Eva Kaukasies was en dit was die oorspronklike ras van die mensdom, en die ander twee rasse het ontstaan ​​deurdat oorlewendes in verskillende rigtings ontsnap het nadat 'n groot katastrofe die aarde 5000 jaar gelede getref het. Hy het teoretiseer dat die oorlewendes in afsondering van mekaar geleef het en afsonderlik ontwikkel het.

Cuvier het gedink die Kaukasiese skedel was die mooiste vorm. Hy verdeel die mensdom in drie rasse: wit, geel en swart, en beoordeel elkeen vir die skoonheid of lelikheid van die skedel en die kwaliteit van hul beskawings. Volgens Cuvier, 'n Europeër, was die Wit ras bo, en die swart ras onder.

Cuvier het oor Kaukasiërs (Europeërs) geskryf:

Die wit ras, met 'n ovaal gesig, reguit hare en neus, waaraan die beskaafde mense van Europa behoort en wat vir ons die mooiste van almal lyk, is ook beter as ander deur sy genie, moed en aktiwiteit.

Oor Negros het Cuvier geskryf:

Die neger ras. Dit word gekenmerk deur 'n swart gelaatskleur, wollerige hare, saamgeperste schedel en 'n plat neus, die uitsteeksel van die onderste dele van die gesig en die dik lippe, wat dit blykbaar benader tot die aapstam: die hordes waaruit dit bestaan, het nog altyd gebly in die mees volledige toestand van barbaarsheid.

Een van Cuvier se leerlinge, Friedrich Tiedemann, was een van die eerste persone wat 'n wetenskaplike stryd teen rassisme onderneem het. Hy het aangevoer op grond van kraniometriese en breinmaatreëls wat hy geneem het van Europeërs en swart mense uit verskillende dele van die wêreld dat die destydse algemene Europese oortuiging dat negers kleiner brein het en dus intellektueel minderwaardig is, wetenskaplik ongegrond is en bloot gebaseer is op die vooroordeel van reisigers en ontdekkingsreisigers.

Beroemde aanhalings wat die woorde georges en/of cuvier bevat:

& ldquo Amerika is die enigste nasie in die geskiedenis wat wonderbaarlik regstreeks van barbaarsheid tot agteruitgang gegaan het sonder die gewone beskawingsinterval. & rdquo
& mdash Toegeskryf aan Georges Clemenceau (1841 �)

& ldquo Evolusie is die beleidswet: Darwin het dit gesê, Sokrates onderskryf dit, Cuvier dit bewys en dit vir altyd bevestig in sy artikel oor The Survival of the Fittest. . & rdquo
& mdashMark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835 �)


Was Jefferson 'n 'wetenskaplike rassis'?

'In een van my seminaarbesprekings', skryf UVA -professor Peter Onuf (nou emeritus) in Die gedagte van Thomas Jefferson, '' Een jong vrou het skielik gevoel dat sy 'nie hier hoort nie', dat Jefferson vir haar gesê het dat daar geen plek vir haar in sy 'akademiese dorp' is nie. ' ” Die jong vrou, wat deur Onuf opgelei is oor Jefferson se minagting vir Swartes, het vermoedelik besef dat Jefferson nooit 'n swart persoon by die instelling sou toegelaat het nie, sou hy nog lewe. Onuf verkondig Jefferson ronduit: 'Jefferson het lank genoeg geleef sodat sy rasse -denke kon ontwikkel. Dit het nie. ” ek

Die idee dat Jefferson rassisties was, word algemeen aangeneem en ongetwyfeld is die opvatting onder historici. Ek het aangevoer dat hierdie siening om verskeie redes verkeerd is. ii Hier fokus ek op net een - die wetenskaplike basis vir Jefferson se rassisme, of Jefferson se verklaarde "wetenskaplike rassisme".

'N Groot probleem in die kritieke literatuur is dat Jefferson rassisties genoem word asof alle mense duidelik is wat' rassisme 'beteken en behels. Ek begin dus met 'n definisie van 'rassisme'.

Rassisme = df Die vooropgestelde idee dat die mensdom in verskillende biologiese groepe verdeel is (dit wil sê rasse), dat sekere rasse beter is as ander, en dat enige superieure ras geregtig is om 'n minderwaardige ras as minderwaardig of met minagting te behandel.

Daar is ook 'n aansienlike hoeveelheid literatuur wat beweer dat Jefferson se rassisme axiaal of gedeeltelik wetenskaplik was. Annette Gordon Reed skryf oor "die pseudo-wetenskaplike rassisme in Jefferson's Aantekeninge oor die staat Virginia.'Sy voeg dan by:' Daar kan geen twyfel bestaan ​​dat Thomas Jefferson diep en diep rassisties was nie. ' iii Andrew Burstein erken dat 'rassisties' anachronisties is, aangesien 'die ideologie wat ons as rassetoleransie ken ... eers in die twintigste eeu bestaan ​​het', en kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat daar ander, meer duistere woorde is. Ten spyte van die voorbehoud, gebruik hy vrylik 'rassisme' dwarsdeur die boek. Onmiddellik na sy voorbehoud, ter illustrasie, skryf hy: "Klasagtergrond of streeksidentiteit was nie die enigste bepalende faktor vir Jefferson se rassisme nie, maar sy gehegtheid aan die boeke in sy biblioteek was ook belangrik." iv Verwysing na die boeke in Jefferson se biblioteek kan slegs sy wetenskaplike boeke beteken - bv. dié van Buffon, Cuvier en Hogarth - daarom is sy rassisme ongetwyfeld wetenskaplik. Paul Finkelman sê: “Jefferson was altyd diep toegewyd aan slawerny en selfs nog meer vyandig teenoor die welstand van swartes, slawe of vryes. Sy proslawery -sienings is nie net gevorm deur geld en status nie, maar ook deur sy diep rassistiese sienings, wat hy deur pseudowetenskap probeer regverdig het. ” v Sulke verslae, in ooreenstemming met my definisie van "rassisme", is "wetenskaplik" deurdat Jefferson die skuins wetenskap van sy tyd as regverdiging vir sy skuins standpunte gebruik het.

Maar wat beteken dit presies dat rassisme wetenskaplik is?

Aan die een kant is daar die casuistiese tesis (TC): Jefferson se rassisme was wetenskaplik deurdat dit die soort wetenskaplike literatuur gevorm het wat hy gelees en geassimileer het. Sy diep en diepgaande haat teenoor Swartes het gelei tot 'n selektiewe, gerasionaliseerde benadering tot die wetenskap wat hy gelees het, en hy het slegs die wetenskaplikes gelees wie se standpunte gemaklik met syne was.

Aan die ander kant is daar die pseudowetenskaplike tesis (TP): Jefferson se rassisme was wetenskaplik omdat die voorste wetenskaplikes van sy tyd verkeerde opvattings oor ras gehad het. Hulle beoefen dus pseudowetenskap, nie wetenskap nie. Hier is Jefferson skuldig aan wetenskaplike rassisme, omdat hy gewillig hul verkeerde sienings vereenselwig.

Voordat ons dit evalueer, laat ons kyk na 'n kort maar verteenwoordigende blik op die 'wetenskap', in die breë verstaan, van Jefferson se dag.

'Ras' is 'n oorsig van die idee dat die waargenome fisiese verskille (bv. Velkleur of haartekstuur) tussen mense wat geografies van mekaar geïsoleer is oor tyd biologies verklaar kan word. Die term het ontstaan ​​toe natuurkundiges uit die agtiende en negentiende eeu probeer om die verskille tussen spesies lewende dinge te ondersoek, na die verduideliking van die waargenome verskille tussen mense. Die verskillende rasse - en natuurkundiges het gewaag oor die presiese aantal soorte - het vir die meeste natuurkundiges 'n hiërargie gevorm. Europeërs was geneig om aan die top te wees Afrikane was geneig om onder of naby die onderkant te wees.

In die tiende uitgawe van Systema Naturae(1758) het Carl Linnaeus vier spesies primate gelys: Homo, Simia, Lemur, en Vespertilio. Simia het baie spesies primate ingesluit (byvoorbeeld ape en orangoetangs) Homo slegs mense ingesluit. vi Teen die tiende uitgawe het Linnaeus, met behulp van geografiese ligging en velkleur, mense in vier subspesies gegroepeer. Onder Homo diurnus, het hy gesê:

1. Homo rusus, cholericus, rectus (rooi man biljoos [kwaad], regop of eerlik Americanus)

2. Homo albus, sanguineus, torosus (blanke man [hoopvol], gespierd of vlesig Europeus)

3. Homo luridus, melancholicus, rigidus (geel man met 'n swartbek [depressief] man, onbuigsaam of hard Asiatiese)

4. Homo niger, phlegmaticus, laxus (swartman flegmaties [stolid], lui of ontspanne Afer)

Onder Homo nocturnus, gee hy 'n lys van Ourang Outang, wat daarop dui dat die belangrikste verskil tussen mense en orangoetangs 'n gewoonte is - mense is daaglikse orang -oetangs, nagtelik.

Comte de Buffon, in "On the Degeneration of Animals" (1766) en "On the Epochs of Nature" (1778), het gesê dat blootstelling aan sekere soorte voedsel en grond mettertyd tot "die algemene en konstante karakters waarin ons herken die verskillende rasse en selfs nasies wat die menslike genus saamstel. ” vii Klimaat en voedsel, wat swak geskik is vir menslike groei, bevorder degenerasie van die mens. Beskaafde lewe sou menslike ontaarding voorkom en die verbetering van die interne vorm bevorder deur beter voeding en 'n mate van mak klimaat.

Oliver Goldsmith, in 'N Geskiedenis van die aarde en 'n geanimeerde natuur (1774), het volgehou dat daar ses 'variëteite' van mense is: die persone 'wat in die poolstreke voorkom', die 'Tartar -ras', 'suidelike Asiatiese', 'negers van Afrika', 'inwoners van Amerika' en ' Europeërs. ” Negros ("hierdie somber ras van die mensdom"), Asiatics (lafhartig en vroulik) en Amerikaners (onnadenkend en ernstig) was degeneratiewe variëteite. viii

“Georges” Cuvier in Le règne dier (1817) het probeer om alle geskape wesens in 'n 'natuurstelsel' te rangskik volgens 'natuurlike metodes' en volgens 'ware fundamentele verhoudings'. ix Daar is drie "rasse" van mense, die "eerste orde" van soogdiere, vir Cuvier: "die Kaukasies of wit, die Mongools of geel, en die Ethiopiër of neger. ” Kaukasiërs het pragtige ovaalkoppe, uiteenlopende gelaatskleure en verskillende haarkleure, en bestaan ​​uit die mees beskaafde nasies. Mongole het hoë wangbene, plat gesig, smal en skuins oë, reguit swart hare, karige baard en 'n olyfkleur. Hulle het groot ryke gehad, maar is 'stilstaande'. Negers, "beperk tot die suide van die berg Atlas", het 'n swart gelaatskleur met skerp en wollerige hare, saamgeperste skedel en 'n plat neus. Hulle hordes “het nog altyd in die mees volledige toestand van volslae barbaarsheid gebly”. x

Die filosowe en estetici het min gedoen om die status van Swartes te verbeter.

David Hume, 'n afskaffer, skryf onbeskaamd in 'n voetnoot na "Of National Characters" (1748) oor swart minderwaardigheid. 'Ek vermoed dat die negers natuurlik minderwaardig is as die blankes. Daar was amper nooit 'n beskaafde nasie met die gelaatskleur nie, en selfs nie 'n enkele vername persoon nie, hetsy in aksie of spekulasie. Geen vernuftige vervaardigers onder hulle nie, geen kunste, geen wetenskappe nie. ” Hy pleit vir 'n 'oorspronklike onderskeid tussen hierdie rasse van die mens'. XI

William Hogarth in Die analise van skoonheid (1753) verklaar dat wit, 'die naaste aan die lig', die mooiste is, terwyl alle kleure 'hul skoonheid absoluut verloor as hulle nader aan swart kom', wat duisternis verteenwoordig. xii

Edmund Burke, in 'n werk oor die mooi en die verhewe (1757), stel dat duisternis meer verhewe is en 'n groter uitwerking op die passies as die lig het. xiii Omdat dit verhewe is, is dit produktief van terreur. 'Swart sal altyd iets melancholie bevat, want die sensoriese sal altyd die verandering van ander kleure te gewelddadig vind, of as dit die hele kompas van die gesig inneem, sal dit dan donker wees en wat van duisternis gesê word, sal wees hier van toepassing. ”

Immanuel Kant was oortuig dat swartes 'n natuurlik gebrekkige ras was. Met inagneming van die gevoelens van Hume, skryf hy in Waarnemings oor die mooi en die verhewe (1764) dat nie een Swart iets bygedra het wat “groot in kuns of wetenskap of enige ander lofwaardige kwaliteit” was nie. Hy som: "Die verskil tussen hierdie twee rasse van die mens is so fundamenteel, en dit blyk net so groot te wees met betrekking tot verstandelike vermoëns as in kleur." xiv

Hierdie versmelting van die 'wetenskap' van Jefferson se tyd toon dat daar algemeen geglo word dat swartes as 'n ras of subspesie van mense deur baie van die mees gewaardeerde wetenskaplikes van sy tyd as minderwaardig of gebrekkig beskou is. Jefferson - wat aangevoer het dat swartes minderwaardig was as blankes, 'n voorsprong van skoonheid, intelligensie en verbeelding Notas oor Virginia xv — daardie literatuur toegeëien. Moet hy 'rassisties' genoem word as gevolg van die weergawe wat hy ontvang het? xvi

Dit is moeilik om die kwessie objektief in die Verenigde State te bespreek, gegewe die geskiedenis van rassevooroordeel en die groot aantal onuitspreeklike wreedhede wat deur blankes uitgevoer is namens hul vermeende rasse -meerderwaardigheid. Blote uitdrukking van 'rassisme' is dikwels voldoende om 'n mens se bloed te kook. Die vraag kom egter terug: sou dit rasioneel gewees het as 'n man, wat in die wetenskap van Jefferson se tyd was, die wetenskaplike uitsprake oor biotiese klassifikasie, insluitend rasseklassifikasie, heeltemal verwerp het?

Om die vraag te beantwoord, wend ek my tot 'n evaluering van die proefskrifte en pseudowetenskaplike tesisse - TC en TP.

Daar is twee gewigtige probleme met TC. Eerstens spreek Jefferson nêrens 'diep en diep' vyandskap teenoor swartes uit nie. Hy gedra hom vriendelik teenoor sy slawe - hy was baie geliefd by die meeste - hy skryf deurgaans van slawerny as 'n ramp, en hy het as prokureur en wetgewer opgetree om die instelling uit te roei. Boonop het hy, ondanks minderwaardigheid, erken dat hulle dieselfde regte het as alle ander mans. Hy skryf aan biskop Grégoire (25 Februarie 1809): "Wat ook al [Swartes se] talent is, dit is geen maatstaf vir hul regte nie. Omdat Sir Isaac Newton beter was as ander in begrip, was hy dus nie heer oor die persoon of eiendom van ander nie. ” Tweedens het Jefferson nie 'n selektiewe siening gehad van die wetenskaplikes wat hy oor ras gelees het nie. Die toonaangewende wetenskaplikes en denkers van sy tyd - byvoorbeeld Linnaeus, Buffon en Cuvier - het swartes as 'n minderwaardige ras beskou. Tog was hulle ook geneig om Indiane en Asiërs, dikwels almal nie-Europeërs, as minderwaardig te beskou. Dit behoort geen verrassing te wees nie. Die oorwinnings van die wetenskaplikes van hulle tyd - bv. Bacon, Priestley, Buffon, Harvey, Locke, Boyle, Cuvier, Kepler, Galileo, Linnaeus en veral Newton - was 'n wonderlike wetenskap in die dag en al hierdie manne was Europeërs . Dit is dus duidelik waarom natuurkundiges die Europeërs as die hoogste van die rasse beoordeel het. Die werke van sulke natuurkundiges verraai egter geen aanduiding van haat nie, en die bewerings van die natuurkundiges word so opgestel hulle is nie immuun teen hersiening nie, gegewe swaar bewyse van die teendeel. Die navorsing van sulke natuurkundiges oor die verskille tussen spesies en tussen rasse van mense - navorsing wat tot dusver nog nooit gedoen is nie - het die tafel gedek vir wetenskaplike ondersoek na die ooreenkomste tussen spesies en tussen die rasse van mense -nl., vir die evolusionêre biologie van ons tyd. TC is onhoudbaar.

Daar is ook 'n probleem met TP - die gewigtige probleem van die definisie van "pseudowetenskap" as "valse wetenskap", wat Finkelman blykbaar doen, en om Jefferson as rassisties te klassifiseer omdat hy valse wetenskap aangeneem het. As 'pseudowetenskap' bloot valse wetenskap is, dan sal byna alles wat vandag onder die naam van die wetenskap gaan, pseudowetenskap wees, en byna al die wetenskap van die verlede - bv. , Ptolemaeus se geosentriese siening van die heelal, Descartes se teorie van draaikolk, Priestley se phlogiston -teorie, Werner se Neptunisme en selfs Newton se gravitasieteorie - moet as pseudowetenskap gekategoriseer word, aangesien dit nie die toets van die tyd geslaag het nie. Dit lyk onnodig. Ptolemeus se geosentriese model van die heelal, met behulp van Aristoteles se valse fisika, blyk verkeerd te wees, maar dit was steeds wetenskaplik. Copernicus se heliocetriese model het ook gewerk onder die valse fisika van Aristoteles, so dit was nie 'n beter verduideliking van die waargenome verskynsels as Ptolemaeus nie. Pseudowetenskap kan nie valse wetenskap beteken nie.

Tog is pseudowetenskap, hoewel dit nie valse wetenskap is nie, 'n slegte wetenskap sommige sorteer, sodat ons nie haastig TP hoef te begrawe nie. Een manier om uit te vind wat pseudowetenskap slegte wetenskap maak, is om te probeer omskryf presies wat goeie wetenskap goed maak.

Na aanleiding van neo-positiewe benaderings, vir 'n hipotese behoorlik wetenskaplik, moet dit voldoen aan sekere kriteria van toereikendheid. Dit moet ten minste in beginsel ondubbelsinnig verifieerbaar wees, en dit moet verwoord word ten opsigte van sekere ander kriteria vir toereikendheid - dit wil sê eenvoud, vrugbaarheid, omvang en konserwatisme (die laaste voorwaarde is weliswaar vaag). dit is pseudo-wetenskaplik as dit ten minste in beginsel nie ondubbelsinnig geverifieer kan word nie, of as dit nie verwoord word met betrekking tot die ander kriteria van toereikendheid nie. xvii Om Jefferson dus van wetenskaplike rassisme te beskuldig, is om hom daarvan te beskuldig dat hy in beginsel onontbeerlike hipoteses rakende Swartes van sy tyd opstel of dat hy die ander kriteria van toereikendheid vir wetenskaplike hipoteses verontagsaam.

As ons estetiese aansprake eenkant hou, is dit duidelik dat baie van die bewerings wat Jefferson aangaande Swartes in syne gemaak het Notas oor Virginia was reguit of ten minste in beginsel toetsbaar: bv. om in intelligensie minderwaardig te wees teenoor blankes, groter ardens te hê as blankes met vroue, minder verbygaande as blankes in hul rou, gelyk aan blankes in die geheue, minderwaardig aan blankes in verbeelding, en gelyk wees aan Blankes in moraliteit. xviii Dit is dus moeilik om hom daarvan te beskuldig dat hy die toetsbaarheid kan vermy.

Alhoewel die ander kriteria - eenvoud, vrugbaarheid, omvang en konserwatisme - modern is, lyk dit nie ongemaklik om wetenskaplikes van Jefferson se tyd ten minste implisiet erkenning van hul verdienste te hou nie. Dit is in ooreenstemming met die wetenskap van Jefferson se tyd dat die minderwaardigheid van swartes in ooreenstemming was met die getuienis tot beskikking van natuurkundiges soos Buffon en Cuvier. Dit is waar dat sulke natuurkundiges gewerk het binne die raamwerk van 'n model met baie vals of twyfelagtige hipoteses - bv. Scala naturae, teleologie en die relatiewe onbuigsaamheid van spesies - maar dit gebeur in alle gevalle van wetenskaplike praktyk. Die openbaarmaking van die gebreke van die model deur volgehoue, passievolle studie van natuurverskynsels het gelei tot die implosie van die model en dekades later tot die aanneming van 'n nie-teleologiese raam en 'n meer fluktuerende begrip van 'spesies'- Van Darwin Die oorsprong van spesies (1859). Kortom, die wetenskaplikes van Jefferson se dag was gelei deur oorwegings van eenvoud, vrugbaarheid, omvang en konserwatisme, maar die min beskikbare data het hulle die geleentheid gebied om die gebreke van hul model te sien. Die idees oor verskillende rasse en dat daar 'n hiërargie tussen die rasse was, was 'n ongelukkige gevolg van 'n gebrek aan relevante gegewens, en hierdie begrippe het beslis Jefferson se denke oor swartes gevorm. Met die aanbreek van die gene -teorie, kon wetenskaplikes ontdek dat 'ras' 'n wetenskaplik onduidelike kategorie is, hoewel dit nog 'n heuristiese waarde het. xix

Hieruit kan 'n mens Jefferson nie meer blameer omdat hy die toonaangewende wetenskap van sy tyd vereenselwig het nie, maar dat 'n agt-eeuse filosoof die skuld kan kry dat hy glo dat die son om die aarde wentel. As daar bewys kan word dat hy rassisties is, is dit nie vanweë sy assimilasie van die wetenskap van sy tyd nie.

Ek eindig waar ek begin het - met Onuf. Watter ervarings moes Jefferson gehad het, watter boeke moes hy gelees het om die evolusie in sy rasse -denke aan te moedig, sê Onuf wat hy moes gehad het? Dit is die ervarings en boeke waartoe Onuf, 'n kontemporêre kritikus, toegang het, nie die ervarings en boeke waartoe Jefferson toegang gehad het nie.

ek Peter Onuf, Die verstand van Thomas Jefferson (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007), 206–8.

ii M. Andrew Holowchak, "Jefferson oor Afro -Amerikaners," Pligsgetroue korrespondent: filosofiese opstelle oor Thomas Jefferson (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012), 203–28 and “‘A Convenient Defect of Vision’: Jefferson’s View of Blacks,” Framing a Legend: Exposing the Distorted History Of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2013), 211–44.

iii Annette Gordon Reed, Thomas Jefferson en Sally Hemings: 'n Amerikaanse omstredenheid (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997), 134. I ask, Can a deep and profound racist practice “pseudo-scientific racism”?

iv Andrew Burstein, Jefferson’s Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 120.

v Paul Finkelman, “The Monster of Monticello,” Die New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?_r=0, accessed 12 Nov. 2014.

vi Linnaeus was uncomfortable with excluding humans from Simia.He writes in a letter to Johann Georg Gmelin (25 Feb 1747): “I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that follows from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me.” From Justin E.H. Smith, “Natural History and the Speculative Sciences of Origins, The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy, red. Aaron Garnett (New York: Routledge, 2014), 723.

vii Georges-Louis Leclerc Buffon, “De la dégénération des animaux,” Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, vol. 14 (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1766) , 313–16, and “Des époques de la nature,” Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière: supplément, vol. 5 (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1778), 1–254.

viii Goldsmith also rejected the notion, held by some (e.g., Benjamin Rush), that Negroes’ skin was a “leprous crust”—the result of disease. Oliver Goldsmith, An History of the Earth, and Animated Nature, 8 vols. (Philadelphia: Edward Poole, [1774] 1823), 239–250.

ix Baron Cuvier, The Animal Kingdom, Arranged in Conformity with Its Organization, trans. H. M’Murtrie, vol. 1 (New York: G & C & H Carvill, 1831), 4–6.

x Baron Cuvier, The Animal Kingdom, 52.

xi David Hume, “Of National Characters,” Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary, red. Eugene F. Miller (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987), 208n10.

xii William Hogarth, The Analysis of Beauty, Written with a View of Fixing the Fluctuating Ideas of Taste (Pittsfield, MA: [1753] 1909), 190–1.

xiii Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (London, R. and J. Dodsley, 1757), 62–63 and 148.

xiv Immanuel Kant, Observations of the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime, trans. John T. Goldthwait (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 110–11.

xv Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, red. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1954), 138–39.

xvi There were of course notable exceptions like Condorcet (Réflexions sur L’esclavage des Nègres) and Bernardin de Saint Pierre (Voeux d’un solitaire).

xvii M. Andrew Holowchak, Critical Reasoning and Science: Looking at Science with an Investigative Eye (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009), 245–47.

xviii Thomas Jefferson, Aantekeninge oor die staat Virginia, 138–39. Verification or falsification of such claims, of course, nowise tells us if the causes are biological or environmental.


Facing America's History of Racism Requires Facing the Origins of 'Race' as a Concept

W hen we look back on 2020, the emblematic photos of the year will undoubtedly include images of crowds gathered around toppled, spray-painted statues. The indictment of these monuments has focused the country&rsquos attention on how the history of slavery in the United States casts a long shadow that stretches all the way from the Middle Passage and Jim Crow to the protracted record of police violence against African Americans that led to the Black Lives Matter movement in the first place.

The histories of slavery and racism in the United States have never been more pertinent. This is also the case for the comparatively understudied history of ras as a concept, without which it is impossible to understand how Europeans and their colonial &ldquodescendants&rdquo in the United States engineered the most complete and enduring dehumanization of a people in history.

The logic behind the history of race initially seems deceivingly clear: to justify the forced deportation of 400,000 Black Africans to North America (and another eleven million to other parts of the Americas between 1525 and 1866), Europeans and their American heirs found it necessary to debase and revile their captives. Yet today&rsquos racism is more than a malignant byproduct of the 19th-century American plantation system it also grew out of an elaborate and supposedly &ldquoscientific&rdquo European conception of the human species that began during the Enlightenment.

By the early decades of the 18th century, the Continent&rsquos savants and natural philosophers no longer automatically looked to the Bible to explain the story of the human species. Intent on finding physical explanations for natural phenomena, naturalists employed more &ldquoempirical&rdquo methods to solve one of the biggest &ldquoanthropological&rdquo questions of the day: why did people from Africa, millions of whom were already toiling in European plantations, look different from white Europeans?

By the 1740s, one could find a dozen or more purportedly scientific explanations. Some claimed that blackness came from vapors emanating from the skin others claimed that black skin was passed on from generation to generation via the power of the maternal imagination or from darkened sperm still others asserted that the heat or the air of the Torrid Zone darkened the humors and stained the skin.

The dominant &ldquoanthropological&rdquo concept that emerged around 1750 was called degeneration, which can be understood as the precise opposite of what we now know to be true about humankind&rsquos origins. In contrast to the model that shows how evolution and successive human migrations from the African continent account for humanity&rsquos many colors, degeneration theory maintained that there was an original and superior white race, and that this group of humans moved about the globe and mutated in different climates. These morphological and pigmentation changes were not seen as adaptations or the results of natural selection they were explained as a perversion or deterioration of a higher archetype.

Medical practitioners stepped in to flesh out that vague narrative, creating the basis for the idea of what we now call race. Anatomists, in particular, dissected the bodies of supposedly degenerated Africans, and published numerous now-shocking articles on the supposed damage of living in a tropical climate: black brains, black bile, black sperm and even race-specific black lice.

The most bigoted of European physicians attributed specific organ-based liabilities to Black Africans, including indolence and diminished cognition. Not surprisingly, these falsehoods and the methods that produced them flourished in the United States: in 1851, Samuel A. Cartwright identified two &ldquodiseases&rdquo associated with Africans. The first was a mental illness he dubbed drapetomania, which caused slaves to run away. Die tweede was dysaesthesia aethiopica, a type of lethargy that struck Africans who were not enslaved or overseen by whites. His cure: anointing them with oil, and applying a leather strap.

Europe also bequeathed Americans with the very category of &ldquorace.&rdquo By the 1770s, German figureheads including Emmanuel Kant and J.F. Blumenbach&mdashthe latter of whom coined the term Caucasian because he believed that the original prototype race originated in the Caucus Region&mdashaffirmed that new biometric and anatomical discoveries justified the use of the modernistic word ras to distinguish among human subspecies.

Racial classification schemes provided the most powerful framework for understanding the divide between white and Black. Some naturalists took this one step further, proposing that Africans actually formed a different species entirely. Predictably, this latter idea was adopted by some members of the proslavery lobby in the United States.

Progressive thinkers, abolitionists and, eventually, formerly enslaved people including the writer Olaudah Equiano began critiquing the roots and effects of racial prejudice as early as the 1770s. And yet, even as scientific research has confirmed just how wrong Enlightenment theories of race were, many of the most rearguard and unscientific European notions regarding race have remained deeply embedded in the American psyche, not to mention in the arsenal of the Alt Right. Indeed, the immigration policies of the Trump Administration, in insisting that immigrants from certain countries are less desirable than others, are effectively resurrecting centuries-old notions about the supposedly deterministic nature of race.

Racialized thinking, especially when weaponized by our politicians, must be repudiated at every turn. Part of an effective rebuttal to such malicious positions may come from extending our understanding of racism to include the anecdotal, spurious and pseudoscientific birth of these ideas centuries ago. This may ultimately be something that every American can agree on: wherever we come from, we are all the unfortunate heirs of a deadly and illegitimate science.


Social Darwinism and the origins of scientific racism

The “Origin of species by natural selection”, Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) masterpiece, was published in Nov 1859- all twelve hundred and fifty copies were sold out on the first day. Since then Darwin’s ideas have revolutionised the entire premise of evolutionary biology and superseded the concept of naturalism as an explanation of human evolution.

In this article, however, we will discuss the social, economic and cultural impact of Darwin’s theory. Social Darwinism, as it is called, has an impact in shaping the current geopolitical environment of the world. The current riots in the Unites States and the United Kingdom motivated by racial inequality have deep seated roots. There is no denying the fact that racism has existed since time immemorial, but in this article, we will review the history and impact of social Darwinism on modern day racism.

Thomas H Huxley (1825-1895) – also known as Darwin’s bulldog, coined the phrase Social Darwinism in 1861. However, the first use of the term “Social Darwinism” in Europe is attributed to a French journalist called Emile Gautier (1853-1937). The concept of social Darwinism borrowed the idea of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” from Darwin’s biological theory of evolution and applied this to economics, sociology and politics. It is a mishmash of ideologies that was and still is used to justify colonisation, imperialism, racism, social inequality and eugenics.

Darwin and the “survival of the fittest”:

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was an English economist and an influential scholar. Malthusianism is a theory of exponential population growth in comparison to the linear growth of food supply and other resources. In his book “An essay on the Principle of population” Malthus describes this apparent disparity between population growth and food supply. Malthus believed that through preventative and positive checks, the population could be controlled to balance the food supply with the population level. The Malthusian catastrophe is described as “a population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years, or increases in a geometrical ratio”, so that population soon exceeds its food supply.

Hitler justified the policies of sterilization of defectives, involuntary euthanasia and the holocaust based on “racial hygiene”, a term that gained tremendous popularity in the Nazi Germany

Darwin was familiar with Malthus’s concepts and was influenced by his ideas. He made the Malthusian struggle for existence the basis of his natural selection. He saw a similarity between farmers picking the best stock in selective breeding, and a Malthusian philosophy. The very extended wording on the title page of his book, by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, are suggestive of his views on race superiority. In The Descent of Man, he wrote “We civilised men…. do our utmost to check the process of elimination, we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus, the weak members of society propagate their kind.”

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) an English polymath and a sociologist was the first one to describe the term “survival of the fittest”. A very big proponent of utilitarian philosophy, Spenser believed that a social system that provides for the poor and needy is eventually detrimental to the overall growth of the society as it promotes the survival of the weak and the infirm leading to an overall retardation of growth. His concept of survival of the fittest implied that nature eliminates inefficiency- any efforts to slow this process will impair the overall benefits to the strong races. In his work, Social Statics (1850), he argued that imperialism had served civilization by clearing the inferior races off the earth.

The Rise of Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movement:

Francis Galton (1822-1911) was an English polymath and Darwin’s half cousin, fascinated by Darwin’s work, he made it his life’s mission to study variations in human population and its implication. Galton published his book the Hereditary Genius in 1869- he extensively studied the physical traits of eminent men and the inheritance of physical as well as intellectual attributes. Galton wrote in this book: “Let us do what we can to encourage the multiplication of the races best fitted to invent, and conform to, a high and generous civilisation, and not, out of mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent the incoming of strong and hearty individuals.”

It was Galton who championed the concept of eugenics (meaning well born). Eugenics promotes the exclusion or elimination of human races deemed to be inferior with the preservation of superior races eventually leading to the overall improvement in genetic quality. Eugenics gained momentum in the early 1900’s with the formation of British and American Eugenics societies. Winston Churchill het die British Eugenics Society ondersteun en was 'n ere -vise -president van die organisasie. Churchill believed that eugenics could solve “race deterioration” and reduce crime and poverty. Eugenics promoted practices such as genetic screening, birth control, marriage restrictions, both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill, compulsory sterilization, forced abortions and pregnancies. Theodore Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and many other prominent citizens were outspoken supporters. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) wrote: “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.” He proposed that the state should issue colour-coded “procreation tickets” to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. In the United States, scientific racism was used to justify African slavery. Samuel Cartwright (1793-1863) coined the term “drapetomania” which was descried as a mental disorder of slaves who had tried to run away from their captives- the condition was deemed treatable. “Negroes, with their smaller brains and blood vessels, and their tendency toward indolence and barbarism, had only to be kept benevolently in the state of submission, awe and reverence that God had ordained. The Negro is [then] spellbound, and cannot run away,” he said.

The ethos of eugenics was incorporated into Nazi Germany’s racial policies. Hitler justified the policies of sterilization of defectives, involuntary euthanasia and the holocaust based on “racial hygiene”, a term that gained tremendous popularity in the Nazi Germany. After the second world war, due to Hitler’s adaptation of eugenics, there has been a sharp decline in the popularity of this policy, at least at a state level.

The roots of the idea that the white races are superior, more intelligent, stronger and higher on the evolutionary ladder, are varied and multifactorial. The age of European enlightenment, followed by imperialism compounded by social Darwinism, has reinforced the concept over centuries. In Sweden, the practice of forced sterilisation was continued till 1970. In the US, involuntary sterilisation of female prisoners occurred as late as 2010.

Modern day evolutionary scientists and molecular biologists dismiss the idea of race superiority based on hereditary genetics. The superiority of a human over another, based on race, colour, creed and sex are morally and ethically wrong. A better world would be world without prejudice and racism.

Suhail Anwar is a surgeon with an interest in theology and history


Unravelling racism

Far from justifying racism or driving a new eugenics movement, the emerging understanding of race is likely to lead to a more equitable society.

Certainly, an understanding of the factors that shape people’s unconscious prejudices can be used either cynically or in positive ways. And an understanding of the factors that make people more sensitive to race and outgroup fear can help to disarm potential demagogues.

Writing about the “Roots of Racism” article at Crikey.com earlier this week, Noel Turnbull asked how we might use an improved understanding of the origins of racism to elevate societies like Australia where outgroup fear is shaping the political landscape. His suggestion bears repeating in full:

One way to encourage the slower, more rational thoughts, which also encourage our better angels is very much in the hands of politicians. For instance, if it was left to a vote capital punishment would never have been abolished in many Western countries but politicians took the leap on moral grounds helped by extensive public campaigns. When politicians reverted to pro-capital punishment atavism, such as former Victorian Liberal opposition leader Alan Brown, their leadership came under threat. In contrast one of his successors, Jeff Kennett, was extraordinarily principled on questions such as race and just refused opportunities to add to the fires and the atavistic comments while publicly demonstrating a strong commitment to multiculturalism.


The Lingering, Powerful Legacy Of “Scientific Racism” In America

Writing about the class of 2017’s performance on the newly redesigned SAT, Catherine Gewertz notes, “The number of students taking the SAT has hit an all-time high,” and adds cautiously:

More test takers and higher scores, albeit misleading ones, are the opening discussion about one of the most enduring fixtures of U.S. education ― standardized testing as gatekeeping for college entrance, scholarships, and scholastic eligibility.

However, buried about in the middle of Gewertz’s article, we discover another enduring reality:

Throughout its long history, the SAT, like all standardized testing, has reflected tremendous gaps along race, social class, and gender lines notable, for example, is the powerful correlation between SAT scores and takers’ parental income and level of education as well as the fact that males have had higher average scores than females for the math and verbal sections every year of SAT testing (the only glitch in that being the years the SAT included a writing section).

The SAT is but one example of the lingering and powerful legacy of “scientific racism” in the U.S. Tom Buchanan, in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, punctuates his racist outbursts with “It’s all scientific stuff it’s been proved.”

Buchanan represents the ugly and rarely confronted relationship between “scientific” and “objective” with race, social class, and gender bigotry. In short, science has often been and continues to be tainted by bias that serves the dominant white and wealthy patriarchy.

Experimental and quasi-experimental research along with so-called standardized testing tends to avoid being implicated in not only identifying racism, classism, and sexism, but also perpetuating social inequity.

As I noted recently, since Carol Dweck and Angela Duckworth have produced mainstream scientific studies and published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, their inherently biased work has been nearly universally embraced ― among the exact elites who tend to ignore or outright reject the realities of inequity and injustice.

As just one example, Duckworth grounded her work in and continues to cite a Eugenicist, Francis Galton, with little or no consequences.

Racism, classism, and sexism are themselves built on identifying deficits within identifiable populations. Science allows these corrupt ideologies to appear factual, instead of simple bigotry.

“Scientific” and “objective” are convenient Teflon for bias and bigotry they provide cover for elites who want evidence they have earned their success, despite incredible evidence that success and failure are more strongly correlated with the coincidences of birth ― race, social class, gender.

It takes little effort to imagine a contemporary Tom pointing to the 2017 SAT data and arguing, “It’s all scientific stuff it’s been proved.”

Such ham-fisted scientism, however, mutes the deeper message that SAT data is a merker for all sorts of inequity in the U.S. And then when that data have the power to determine college entrance and scholarships, the SAT also perpetuates the exact inequities it measures.

The SAT sits in a long tradition including IQ testing that speaks to a jumbled faith in the U.S. for certain kinds of numbers and so-called science when the data and the science reinforce our basest beliefs, we embrace, but when data and science go against out sacred gods, we refute (think climate change and evolution).

Science that is skeptical and critical, questioning and interrogating, has much to offer humanity. But science continues to be plagued by human frailties such as bias.

Science, like history, is too often written by the winners, the oppressors. As a result, Foucault details, “[I]t is the individual as he[/she] may be described, judged, measured, compared with others, in his[/her] very individuality and it is also the individual who has to be trained or corrected, classified, normalized, excluded, etc.” [1]

“Scientific racism,” as a subset of science that normalizes bigotry, allows the accusatory white gaze to remain on groups that are proclaimed inherently flawed, deficient, in need of correction. “Scientific racism” distracts us from realizing that the tests and science themselves are the problem.

And thus, we must abandon seeking ever-new tests, such as revising the SAT, and begin the hard work of addressing why the gaps reflected in the tests exist—a “why” that is not nested in any group but our society and its powerful elite.

[1] Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. Ed. P. Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books, p. 203.


Earliest examples of scientific racism

This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since October 2007.

According to Benjamin Isaac's The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton University Press, 2006), roots of scientific racism may be found in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Other authors (such as the French author Raphaël Lagier, Les races humaines selon Kant - Human Races According to Kant, 2004 [5] ), however, reject this claim, highlighting the very different scientific frame created in the 19th century with the birth of modern biology, making any interpretation of continuity between Ancient racist theories with modern scientific racism hazardous at best. B. Isaac discussed in his book the alleged role of Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen and many other notable figures in the gradual formation of the modern scientific racist worldview. He presents for instance the 5th-century BC treatise Airs, Waters, Places by Hippocrates as a prime instance of early (proto)scientific racism, and links Pseudo-Aristotle's suggestions to Hippocrates: "The idea that dark people are cowards and light people courageous fighters is found already in Airs, Waters, Places. " [6] He also quotes Vitruvius (70-25 B.C.) who, relying on the racial theories of Posidonius, wrote "those races nearest to the southern half of the axis are of lower stature, with swarthy complexions, curly hair, black eyes and little blood on account of the sun. This poverty of blood makes them over-timid to stand up against the sword. On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed ready to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity." [7]

Regular publications on race and other claimed differences between people of different geographical locations began at least as early as the eighteenth century. The 17th and 18th century were marked by natural history, in which the concept of evolution had no sense. Early attempts at distinguishing various races had been made by Henri de Boulainvilliers (1658-1722), who divided the nation of France between two races, the aristocratic, "French" race, descendants of the Germanic Franks, and the Gallo-Roman, indigenous race, which comprised the population of the Third Estate. According to Boulainvilliers, the descendants of the Franks dominated the Third Estate by a right of conquest. In the exact opposite of modern nationalism, the foreigners had a legitimate right of domination on indigenous peoples. But contrary to later, scientifically-justified theories of race, Boulainvilliers did not understand the concept of race as designing an eternal and immutable essence. His account was not, however, only a mythical tale: contrary to hagiographies and epics such as Die lied van Roland, Boulainvilliers sought some kind of scientific legitimacy by basing his distinction between a Germanic race and a Latin race on historical events. But his theory of races was completely distinct from the biological concept of race later used by nineteenth century's theories of scientific racism.

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-78), a Swedish botanist, physician and zoologist, who laid the bases of binomial nomenclature (the method of naming species) and is known as the "father of modern taxonomy" (the science of describing, categorizing and naming organisms) was also a pioneer in defining the concept of "race" as applied to humans. Binne Homo sapiens he proposed four taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories are, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, en Europeanus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later skin color. Each race had certain characteristics that were endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were reddish, stubborn, and angered easily. Africans were black, relaxed and negligent. Asians were yellow, avaricious, and easily distracted. Europeans were white, gentle, and inventive. [8]

In addition, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), Carolus Linnaeus defined Homo anthropomorpha as a catch-all race for a variety of human-like mythological creatures, including the troglodyte, satyr, hydra, and phoenix. He claimed that these creatures actually existed, but were in reality inaccurate descriptions of real-world ape-like creatures.

He also defined in Systema Naturæ Homo ferus as "four-footed, mute, hairy." It included the subraces Juvenis lupinus hessensis (wolf boys), who he thought were raised by animals, and Juvenis hannoveranus (Peter of Hanover) and Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champagne). He likewise defined Homo monstrosous as agile and fainthearted, and included in this race the Patagonian giant, the dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Hottentot.

Edward Long, a British colonial administrator, created a more simple classification of race in Geskiedenis van Jamaika (1774). The next year, Johann Blumenbach published his thesis, On the Natural Varieties of Mankind, one of the foundational work of scientific racism. Blumenbach, however, supported monogenism, according to which all mankind had a common origin, against Samuel von Sömmering and Christoph Meiners, who supported polygenism, the view that separate races originated independently.


Die Institute for Creation Research

Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial hatreds. As a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing whatever about race. Neither the word nor the concept of different "races" is found in the Bible at all. As far as one can learn from a study of Scripture, the writers of the Bible did not even know there were distinct races of men, in the sense of black and yellow and white races, or Caucasian and Mongol and Negroid races, or any other such divisions.

The Biblical divisions among men are those of "tongues, families, nations, and lands" (Genesis 10:5,20,31) rather than races. The vision of the redeemed saints in heaven (Revelation 7:9) is one of "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues", but no mention is made of "races". The formation of the original divisions, after the Flood, was based on different languages (Genesis 11:6-9), supernaturally imposed by God, but nothing is said about any other physical differences.

Some have interpreted the Noahic prophecy concerning his three sons (Genesis 9:25-27) to refer to three races, Hamitic, Semitic and Japhetic, but such a meaning is in no way evident from the words of this passage. The prophecy applies to the descendants of Noah's sons, and the various nations to be formed from them, but nothing is said about three races. Modern anthropologists and historians employ a much-different terminology than this simple trifurcation for what they consider to be the various races among men.

Therefore, the origin of the concept of "race" must be sought elsewhere than in the Bible. If certain Christian writers have interpreted the Bible in a racist framework, the error is in the interpretation, not in the Bible itself. In the Bible, there is only one race&mdashthe mens race! "(God) hath made of een, all nations of men" (Acts 17:26).

What Is a Race?

In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a "variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.

For example, Charles Darwin selected as the subtitle for his book Oorsprong van spesies the phrase "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is clear from the context that he had races of animals primarily in mind, but at the same time it is also clear, as we shall see, that he thought of races of men in the same way.

That this concept is still held today is evident from the following words of leading modern evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:

It is clear, therefore, that a race is not a Biblical category, but rather is a category of evolutionary biology. Each race is a sub-species, with a long evolutionary history of its own, in the process of evolving gradually into a distinct species.

As applied to man, this concept, of course, suggests that each of the various races of men is very different, though still inter-fertile, from all of the others. If they continue to be segregated, each will continue to compete as best it can with the other races in the struggle for existence and finally the fittest will survive. Or else, perhaps, they will gradually become so different from each other as to assume the character of separate species altogether (just as apes and men supposedly diverged from a common ancestor early in the so-called Tertiary Period).

Most modern biologists today would express these concepts somewhat differently than as above, and they undoubtedly would disavow the racist connotations. Nevertheless, this was certainly the point-of-view of the 19th century evolutionists, and it is difficult to interpret modern evolutionary theory, the so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis, much differently.

Nineteenth-Century Evolutionary Racism

The rise of modern evolutionary theory took place mostly in Europe, especially in England and Germany. Europeans, along with their American cousins, were then leading the world in industrial and military expansion, and were, therefore, inclined to think of themselves as somehow superior to the other nations of the world. This opinion was tremendously encouraged by the concurrent rise of Darwinian evolutionism and its simplistic approach to the idea of struggle between natural races, with the strongest surviving and thus contributing to the advance of evolution.

As the 19th century scientists were converted to evolution, they were thus also convinced of racism. They were certain that the white race was superior to other races, and the reason for this superiority was to be found in Darwinian theory. The white race had advanced farther up the evolutionary ladder and, therefore, was destined either to eliminate the other races in the struggle for existence or else to have to assume the "white man's burden" and to care for those inferior races that were incompetent to survive otherwise.

Charles Darwin himself, though strongly opposed to slavery on moral grounds, was convinced of white racial superiority. He wrote on one occasion as follows:

The man more responsible than any other for the widespread acceptance of evolution in the 19th century was Thomas Huxley. Soon after the American Civil War, in which the negro slaves were freed, he wrote as follows:

Racist sentiments such as these were held by all the 19th century evolutionists. A recent book 4 has documented this fact beyond any question. In a review of this book, a recent writer says:

A reviewer in another scientific journal says:

The Modern Harvest

In a day and age which practically worshipped at the shrine of scientific progress, as was true especially during the century from 1860 to 1960, such universal scientific racism was bound to have repercussions in the political and social realms. The seeds of evolutionary racism came to fullest fruition in the form of National Socialism in Germany. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a contemporary of Charles Darwin and an ardent evolutionist, popularized in Germany his concept of the superman, and then the master race. The ultimate outcome was Hitler, who elevated this philosophy to the status of a national policy.

However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionist. Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading evolutionary anthropologists of our century, said:

With respect to the question of race struggle, as exemplified especially in Germany, Sir Arthur also observed:

In recent decades, the cause of racial liberation has made racism unpopular with intellectuals and only a few evolutionary scientists still openly espouse the idea of a long-term polyphyletic origin of the different races. 10 On the other hand, in very recent years, the pendulum has swung, and now we have highly vocal advocates of "black power" and "red power" and "yellow power", and these advocates are all doctrinaire evolutionists, who believe their own respective "races" are the fittest to survive in man&rsquos continuing struggle for existence.

The Creationist Position

According to the Biblical record of history, the Creator&rsquos divisions among men are linguistic and national divisions, not racial. Each nation has a distinct purpose and function in the corporate life of mankind, in the divine Plan (as, for that matter, does each individual).

No one nation is "better" than another, except in the sense of the blessings it has received from the Creator, perhaps in measure of its obedience to His Word and fulfillment of its calling. Such blessings are not an occasion for pride, but for gratitude.

Verwysings

* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

Cite this article: Morris, H. 1973. Evolution and Modern Racism. Acts & Facts. 2 (7).



Kommentaar:

  1. Medal

    Die verstaanbare boodskap

  2. Percival

    Also that we would do without your brilliant phrase

  3. Morr

    Na my mening is u verkeerd. Skryf vir my in PM, ons sal praat.

  4. Doumi

    Stem heeltemal saam met haar. Die idee van ?? goeie ondersteuning.

  5. Abdul-Qahhar

    Dit is korrekte inligting.

  6. Kajizragore

    Yes ... I guess ... the simpler the better ... everything ingenious is simple.

  7. Job

    Onwaarskynlik. Dit lyk onmoontlik.



Skryf 'n boodskap