boazman said:
The study of race was considered as a science in the 18th and 19th centuries. It first began with Swedish zoologist Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) who applied biological classifications to human begins (rather reasonably), thus classified human into different races. The study of race continued throughout 18th and 19th centuries, often involvement various elaborated hierarchical schemes, charting of skull shape and measurement of intelligence. Scientists developed theories to explain the perceived differences between different races, arguing that some races are more evolved than others. It must be noted that study of race was not associated with emotional and irrational feelings at that time; on the contrary it was considered as part of rational science, with the purpose of organizing society better. There was not necessarily hatred involved, some may treated other races in a benign way, but still they were considered biologically different.
The term racism didnt appear until 1930s, when it was gradually accepted that theories of race was scientifically invalid; that biological differences between races are only superficial, and that treating other race differently is unjustified. It was only by then, that the study of race was termed as scientific racism. Thats why in academic field (at least thats what I was taught), the use of ethnicity is preferred to race, because the latter is an arbitrary classification and has little use in social sciences.
Were those 19th racial theorists racist then? Yes, they were, not because they held the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. I think many people overlooked that point that you dont have to commit hate crime to be called racist; holding the belief that race explains differences in human is already racist. And I think there is no need to deny that the era where Jefferson lived accepted the idea which we call racist now. It doesnt implies Western civilizations are racist, only that at some point of history they accepted racism; it doesnt mean the West invented racism, or they are the only civilizations capable of being racist.
I'm not even talking about the temperament of the person with certain views. I'm talking about the fact that when people hear 'racist' it implies to them the person was a bigot [or at least prejudiced]. And ...that 'race explains differences in humans' doesn't even mean the person thinks one race is superior, let alone means he is a bigot or prejudiced. I know some people have called this belief racism under certain terms, but its not what racism means to to the average person, and its certainly sticky to link the two uses--because you can both invalidate a belief through association, and tarnish a person's character through association.
I used Jefferson as an example for a particular reason. As I said he argued for the dignity of all races was benign towards blacks and wanted slavery ended. A lot of people assume his intellectual, academic view is enough to call him a 'racist', but racist to people implies bigotry. A lot of people do also assume he was a bigot. Its not even a matter of semantics (though I think it is--I don't think dictionary definitions really reflect the connotations of the term as people use it)---its a matter of not thinking that we should brandish someone as racist for just honestly, academically, holding a belief even if their mindset is not illiberal. It is like concluding just because someone challenges facts about the Holocaust they are necessarily anti-semitic--and while people assume this, it could be an honest academic dispute. I'm sure that there are people who will say someone is -necessarily- anti-semitic if they challenge the Holocaust but its not true.
Note that Jefferson as a person and whatever scientific views about race at the time can also be distinguished. If racism implies bigotry and prejudice, and Jefferson did not prejudge blacks or was not intolerant, that is one thing. One could still argue that a science that actually ascribed certain characteristics to people of certain races carries prejudices. And one might conclude that Jefferson just believed in something that applied in science had racist consequences. This is how people use the term racism to refer to a system of opression rather than a persons mindset; its referring to biases in institutions rather than people.
I would say the same thing about sexism regarding the 19th century. Even though sexism doesn't imply bigotry but a lower treatment; and though people in the 19th century popularly believed women had different roles, the belief was that they did not have inferior roles, that men and women just operated in different but equal spheres of society. Whereas sexism implies a diminishment of women. So I would say that calling an average 19th century individual sexist would not fit just like calling him a racist would not fit; its trying to apply our presumptions about race and gender beliefs on a different way of thinking. In either case, a 19th century person would be more willing to accept different positions for women or blacks because of their different positions historically. Remember that slavery did not start out as chattel slavery and many slaves ended up being free and owning slaves themselves. Race theories ended up being a way to justify slavery as societies became more dependent on it. Women because of social circumstance played certain traditional roles; if you went to a typical 17th century woman and told her she was being oppressed it would be humorous. Both the role and view of women started to change during industrialization and urbanization when society was changing. But theories about differences in sex were a way to explain and justify differences in social roles.
But the characterization of the beliefs in race as being entirely scientific in the 18th and 19th centuries is a little misleading. There was a lot of bad pseudo-science about race. But a lot of beliefs were not essentially scientific--in the empirical sense--but based in philosophy and connected to Historicism, in the same way as nationalism was. It was not a biological argument, but an argument that race was ienxorably tied to culture--ie blacks were in the position they were in because of who they were as a people , which on some level was grouped biologically. This btw does not contradict any empirical arguments against race theories.
While I find this theory too simple I still think it has truth;--- and my view is that in order to actually deal with racism and solve the problems of racism, we will have to admit and understand how race and culture have been connected historically. Which doesn't mean securely definining a certain group a certain way as to their aptitudes, because definitions are limited and limiting and I don't think people's aptitudes are limited based on race---it is more of a recognition of race as a real thing.
I also don't agree with postmodern argument that race is just a social construct that has no basis in biology at all. Its not an argument over percentage differences in genetics like people make it out to be, or surveys of classifiable differences between groups of people. Race in people this way is analagous to breeds of dogs--except that people are self-selecting. Nobody would argue that the difference between a scottish terrier and west highland white terrier is socially constructed, even though they can mate and may not empirically have distinctly classifiable traits. It would be foolish.
Different breeds of dogs, btw tend to have different behaviors---and this is one of the reasons race in the 19th century was examined in scientific terms. I think the analogy between animals and people is too simplistic, that the link between race and behavior depends on social psychology, and I think the extrapolation into notions of superiority were simplistic. I also don't think races are permanent as breeds aren't and because people self-select it sort of makes the other issues moot. But I would still defend the category of race as being factual and not 'imaginary'. Do you think thats enough for me to be a racist?
I don't think that when the term for scientific racism was developed that the person who coined it suspected race could be thought of scientifically in a way that wasn't prejudicial. Which is why it implies prejudice or bigotry.
