Misplaced Pages

Historical race concepts: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:16, 11 July 2007 editJL-Bot (talk | contribs)Bots561,678 editsm fixing internal & interwiki links to proper syntax← Previous edit Revision as of 19:32, 16 July 2007 edit undoFred.e (talk | contribs)4,524 edits 19th century race scholars: --> 19th centuryNext edit →
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
While the 17th century did not have systematic notions of racial difference, ] led to the development of social and political institutions, such as ] in the ], that were later justified through racial theories (cf. Gossett 1997:17). While the 17th century did not have systematic notions of racial difference, ] led to the development of social and political institutions, such as ] in the ], that were later justified through racial theories (cf. Gossett 1997:17).



=== ''Society Must Be Defended'': the "race struggle" discourse ===
In ''Society Must be Defended'' (1978-79), ] traced the "historical and political discourse" of "]" to the "]" and ]'s end of reign. According to him, it was the first example of a popular history, opposed to the classical juridical and philosophical discourse of ]. In Great Britain, it was used by ] or ] against the ]. In France, ], ], and then ], ] and ] reappropriated this discourse. In a series of lectures, ''Society Must be Defended'' (1978-79), ] proposed that the "]" traced to the "]" and the end of ]'s reign. According to him, it was the first example of a popular history, opposed to the classical juridical and philosophical discourse of ]. In Great Britain, it was used by ] or ] against the ]. In France, ], ], and then ], ] and ] reappropriated this discourse.


=== François Bernier's ''New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it" (1684) === === François Bernier's ''New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it" (1684) ===
The first comprehensive classification of humans into distinct races is believed to be ]'s ''Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent'' ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in ] (Gossett, 1997:32-33). Bernier distinguished four "races": The first comprehensive classification of humans into distinct races is believed to be ]'s ''Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent'' ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in ] (Gossett, 1997:32-33). Bernier distinguished four "races":
[[Image:800px-Francois_Bernier_Racial_Definitions_lapp_fix.png|thumb|This map shows the racial classification scheme of
{{François Bernier Racial Definitions}} François Bernier]]


Bernier's race classification had a political message. At the time, races were distinguished by ], facial type, cranial profile and amount, texture and color of hair (see ]). Though many experts declare these to have little relationship with any other heritable characteristics, they remain persuasive due to the ease of distinction based on physical appearance. One term for this now-discredited form of classification is the ]. Bernier's race classification had a political message. At the time, races were distinguished by ], facial type, cranial profile and amount, texture and color of hair (see ]). Though many experts declare these to have little relationship with any other heritable characteristics, they remain persuasive due to the ease of distinction based on physical appearance. One term for this now-discredited form of classification is the ].
Line 19: Line 20:
Because of interracial breeding, such classification is weak in that it is difficult to classify some borderline individuals. (Contrast the difficulty of determining to which group a child of mixed parentage belongs with the much more clear-cut decisions involved in determining membership in ]). In other words, ''racial purity'' has no clear biological meaning. It is clear, though, that for an extended period of time after ''Homo sapiens''<nowiki>'</nowiki> first migrations from ] (probably around 80,000 BCE) and before the rise of wheeled and seagoing transportation (around 3,000 BCE), geographically isolated groups of people underwent some degree of divergent evolution. Whether that degree was high enough to merit strict taxa beneath the species level is a question discussed by human biologists since the 1800s. It is a complicated issue full of semantic and emotional pitfalls, with much at stake on the consensus for all who look upon science as the bedrock authority for decisions in their daily lives. Because of interracial breeding, such classification is weak in that it is difficult to classify some borderline individuals. (Contrast the difficulty of determining to which group a child of mixed parentage belongs with the much more clear-cut decisions involved in determining membership in ]). In other words, ''racial purity'' has no clear biological meaning. It is clear, though, that for an extended period of time after ''Homo sapiens''<nowiki>'</nowiki> first migrations from ] (probably around 80,000 BCE) and before the rise of wheeled and seagoing transportation (around 3,000 BCE), geographically isolated groups of people underwent some degree of divergent evolution. Whether that degree was high enough to merit strict taxa beneath the species level is a question discussed by human biologists since the 1800s. It is a complicated issue full of semantic and emotional pitfalls, with much at stake on the consensus for all who look upon science as the bedrock authority for decisions in their daily lives.


==18th century race scholars== ==18th century==
===Carolus Linnaeus=== ===Carolus Linnaeus===
{{Section-stub}}
{{Carolus Linnaeus Racial Definitions}}


===Blumenbach's racial classification system=== ===Blumenbach's racial classification system===
Line 29: Line 30:
His Mongolian race included all ]s and some ]s. This is a separate concept from the ] as defined by ], which included ]s, ]s, and ]. Blumenbach excluded Southeast Asian islands and Pacific Islanders from his definition as he considered them to be part of the Malay race; and American Indians as he considered them to be part of the ''American'' race. He thought they were not inferior to the race he called Caucasian, and were potentially good members of society. Ethiopians included the peoples of most of Africa. His Mongolian race included all ]s and some ]s. This is a separate concept from the ] as defined by ], which included ]s, ]s, and ]. Blumenbach excluded Southeast Asian islands and Pacific Islanders from his definition as he considered them to be part of the Malay race; and American Indians as he considered them to be part of the ''American'' race. He thought they were not inferior to the race he called Caucasian, and were potentially good members of society. Ethiopians included the peoples of most of Africa.


== 19th century race scholars == == 19th century ==
Among the 19th-century naturalists who defined the field were ], ], ], ] (''Races of Man and Their Geographical Distribution'', ]). Cuvier enumerated three races, Pritchard seven, Agassiz twelve, and Pickering eleven. Among the 19th-century naturalists who defined the field were ], ], ], ] (''Races of Man and Their Geographical Distribution'', ]). Cuvier enumerated three races, Pritchard seven, Agassiz twelve, and Pickering eleven.


===Louis Agassiz's Racial Definitions=== ===Louis Agassiz's Racial Definitions===
].]]
{{Louis Agassiz Racial Definitions}}
{{section-stub}}


===Thomas Huxley's Racial Definitions=== ===Thomas Huxley's Racial Definitions===
] wrote one paper, ''On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870)'', in which he proposed a distinction within the human species, 'races', and their distribution across the earth. Huxley's paper was rejected by the ] and this became one of the many theories to be advanced and dropped by the early exponent of ]. Despite rejection by Huxley and the science community, the paper is sometimes cited in support of racialism.<ref>{{cite book | last=Di Gregorio | first=Mario A | authorlink= | coauthors= | title=T.H. Huxley's place in natural science | publisher= | date=1984 | location=New Haven | pages= | url= | doi= | id= }}</ref>
{{Thomas Huxley Racial Definitions}}
(])
{{section-stub}}

===Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau=== ===Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau===

==20th Century racial scholars== ==20th Century racialialists==
===Stanley M. Garn's Racial Definitions===
<!-- EDIT COMMENT: images should be thumbed and presented with text to EXPAIN the racialist propositions inherent. They contain no substantive or verifiable information. They need articles if they are notable and that should include what they are notable for. ===Stanley M. Garn's Racial Definitions===
{{Stanley M. Garn Racial Definitions}} {{Stanley M. Garn Racial Definitions}}
===William Henry Boyd's Racial Definitions=== ===William Henry Boyd's Racial Definitions===
Line 48: Line 54:


===Jan Czekanowski's Racial Definitions for Europe=== ===Jan Czekanowski's Racial Definitions for Europe===
{{Jan Czekanowski racial definitions}} {{Jan Czekanowski racial definitions}} -->
Researchers in the decades following Blumenbach classified the Malay and American races as branches of the Mongolian, leaving only the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian races. Further explication in the early and mid twentieth century, arrived at four primary races: Researchers in the decades following Blumenbach classified the Malay and American races as branches of the Mongolian, leaving only the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian races. Further explication in the early and mid twentieth century, arrived at four primary races:{{fact}}
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] or ] * ] or ]

* ]
with a small number of less widespread races. with a small number of less widespread races.



Revision as of 19:32, 16 July 2007

This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (April 2006) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The historical definition of race was an immutable and distinct type or species, sharing distinct racial characteristics such as constitution, temperament, and mental abilities. These races were not conceived as being related with each other, but formed a hierarchy of inherent value called the Great Chain of Being with Europeans usually at the top. As time progressed, Darwin's theory of evolution was applied to races. By this time, anthropologists considered humans to be related to each other. The word "race," interpreted to mean common descent, was introduced into English in about 1580, from the Old French rasse (1512), from Italian razza, which may have been derived from the Latin word generatio (a begetting). The etymology can be further traced back to Latin gens (clan, stock, people) and genus (birth, descent, origin, race, stock, family) which in turn comes from the Greek γένος (race, stock, or family).

This late origin for the English and French terms is consistent with the thesis that the concept of "race" as defining a very small number of groups of human beings based on lineage dates from the time of Columbus. Older concepts that were also at least partly based on common descent, such as nation and tribe, entail a much larger number of groupings.

17th century theories of racial difference

While the 17th century did not have systematic notions of racial difference, colonialism led to the development of social and political institutions, such as slavery in the New World, that were later justified through racial theories (cf. Gossett 1997:17).


In a series of lectures, Society Must be Defended (1978-79), Michel Foucault proposed that the ""historical and political discourse"" traced to the "Revolution of 1688" and the end of Louis XIV's reign. According to him, it was the first example of a popular history, opposed to the classical juridical and philosophical discourse of sovereignty. In Great Britain, it was used by Edward Coke or John Lilburn against the monarchy. In France, Boulainvilliers, Nicolas Fréret, and then Sieyès, Augustin Thierry and Cournot reappropriated this discourse.

François Bernier's New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it" (1684)

The first comprehensive classification of humans into distinct races is believed to be François Bernier's Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684 (Gossett, 1997:32-33). Bernier distinguished four "races":

File:800px-Francois Bernier Racial Definitions lapp fix.png
This map shows the racial classification scheme of François Bernier

Bernier's race classification had a political message. At the time, races were distinguished by skin color, facial type, cranial profile and amount, texture and color of hair (see scientific racism). Though many experts declare these to have little relationship with any other heritable characteristics, they remain persuasive due to the ease of distinction based on physical appearance. One term for this now-discredited form of classification is the typological model.

Because of interracial breeding, such classification is weak in that it is difficult to classify some borderline individuals. (Contrast the difficulty of determining to which group a child of mixed parentage belongs with the much more clear-cut decisions involved in determining membership in species). In other words, racial purity has no clear biological meaning. It is clear, though, that for an extended period of time after Homo sapiens' first migrations from Africa (probably around 80,000 BCE) and before the rise of wheeled and seagoing transportation (around 3,000 BCE), geographically isolated groups of people underwent some degree of divergent evolution. Whether that degree was high enough to merit strict taxa beneath the species level is a question discussed by human biologists since the 1800s. It is a complicated issue full of semantic and emotional pitfalls, with much at stake on the consensus for all who look upon science as the bedrock authority for decisions in their daily lives.

18th century

Carolus Linnaeus

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

Blumenbach's racial classification system

On the basis of his craniometrical research (analysis of human skulls), Blumenbach divided the human species into five races: the Caucasian race; the Mongolian or yellow; the Malayan or brown race; the Negro, Ethiopian, or black race; and the American or red race.

His Mongolian race included all Northeast Asians and some Central Asians. This is a separate concept from the Mongoloid race as defined by Carleton S. Coon, which included Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians. Blumenbach excluded Southeast Asian islands and Pacific Islanders from his definition as he considered them to be part of the Malay race; and American Indians as he considered them to be part of the American race. He thought they were not inferior to the race he called Caucasian, and were potentially good members of society. Ethiopians included the peoples of most of Africa.

19th century

Among the 19th-century naturalists who defined the field were Georges Cuvier, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering (Races of Man and Their Geographical Distribution, 1848). Cuvier enumerated three races, Pritchard seven, Agassiz twelve, and Pickering eleven.

Louis Agassiz's Racial Definitions

This map shows the racial classification scheme of the naturalist Louis Agassiz.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

Thomas Huxley's Racial Definitions

Thomas Huxley wrote one paper, On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870), in which he proposed a distinction within the human species, 'races', and their distribution across the earth. Huxley's paper was rejected by the Royal Society and this became one of the many theories to be advanced and dropped by the early exponent of evolution. Despite rejection by Huxley and the science community, the paper is sometimes cited in support of racialism. (see also:)

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau

20th Century racialialists

Researchers in the decades following Blumenbach classified the Malay and American races as branches of the Mongolian, leaving only the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian races. Further explication in the early and mid twentieth century, arrived at four primary races:

with a small number of less widespread races.

Carleton Coon's Racial Definitions

The 20th century racial classification by American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, divided humanity into five races:

Coon assigned even some populations on sub-Saharan Africa to a broadly defined Caucasoid race, leading to charges that peoples with recorded ancient civilizations were being defined out of the black race, in order to depict the remaining "Congoid" race as lacking in culture.

Coon and his work were widely accused, even at the time, of obsolete thinking or outright racism, but some of his terminology continues in use to a lesser degree even today, even though the "-oid" terms now have negative connotations.

See The Races of Europe, for further information.

J.D. Clark map of African distribution

Africans were of many different types, shapes and colors, and extended from South Africa to the tips of northern Africa. Development was from a single species according to the multiregional hypothesis of evolution combining Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and other humans. These changed over time from a generalized African or Africoid type, due to interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and other vehicles of evolution, into the dominant Homo Sapiens of today.

Criticism of the biological significance of the notion of "race"

In Blumenbach's day, physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., went hand in hand with declarations of group moral character, intellectual capacity, and other aptitudes. The "fairness" and relatively high brows of "Caucasians" were held to be apt physical expressions of a loftier mentality and a more generous spirit. The epicanthic folds around the eyes of "Mongolians" and their slightly sallow outer epidermal layer supposedly bespoke a crafty, literal-minded nature. The dark skin, relatively sloping craniums and other common traits among "Ethiopians" were taken as wholesale proof of a closer genetic proximity to the other great apes, even though the skin of chimpanzees and gorillas beneath the hair is whiter than the average "Caucasian" skin, that the thin lips characteristic of "Caucasians" are actually closer in form to the lips of lower primates, that "high foreheads" can be seen in orangutans and some monkey species, and that the straight and relatively profuse body hair of Europeans is considerably more "ape-like" than the sparse, tightly curled body hair of "Ethiopians". By Coon's day, group physical characteristics were, for the most part, unhitched from assessments of group character and aptitude, and, since then, those maintaining the mere reality of physical group traits are often suspected of carrying the old malign racism.

Criticism of the new biological significance of race often accompanied the development of racial theories. In Society Must Be Defended (1978-79), Michel Foucault showed how, from a historical and political discourse of "race struggle", the notion of "race" was discussed in scientific terms in the 19th century by racist biologists and eugenicists. Psychoanalysis, he argues, was instrumental in opposing this dangerous form of essentialism, which would lead eventually to the Nazi "state racism".

Many significant criticisms also came from the school of Franz Boas beginning in the 1920s. During the mid-1930s, with the rise of Nazi Germany and its prominent espousing of racist ideologies, there was an outpouring of popular works by scientists criticizing the use of race to justify the politics of "superiority" and "inferiority". An influential work in this regard was the publication of We Europeans: A Survey of "Racial" Problems by Julian Huxley and A. C. Haddon in 1935, which sought to show that population genetics allowed for only a highly limited definition of race at best. Another popular work during this period, "The Races of Mankind" by Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, argued that though there were some racial differences, they were primarily superficial, and in any case did not justify political action. Claude Lévi-Strauss' Race and History (UNESCO, 1952) was another milestone in the critique of the biological "race" notion, arguing in favor of cultural relativism through the famous metaphor of cultures as different trains crossing each others in various directions and speed, thus each one seeming to progress to himself while others supposedly kept immobile. The question of whether "race" was at all a useful scientific concept has been in continuous debate since that time, becoming especially politicized during and after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

References

Footnotes

  1. Di Gregorio, Mario A (1984). T.H. Huxley's place in natural science. New Haven. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. The American Heritage® Book of English Usage A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996. Entry on "Race"

Bibliography

  • Augstein, Hannah Franziska, ed. Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760-1850. Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press, 1996. ISBN 1-85506-454-5
  • Dain, Bruce R. A Hideous Monster of the Mind: American Race Theory in the Early Republic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-674-00946-0
  • Banton, Michael P. Racial Theories. 2nd ed. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-521-33456-X
  • Bowcock AM, Kidd JR, Mountain JL, Hebert JM, Carotenuto L, Kidd KK, Cavalli-Sforza LL "Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: a study with DNA polymorphisms." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991; 88: 3: 839-43
  • A. M. Bowcock, High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites, 1994, Nature, 368: pp.455-457
  • Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1975-76. Trans. David Macey. Eds. Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana. City: Picador, 2003. ISBN 0-312-20318-7
  • Gossett, Thomas F.. Race: The History of an Idea in America. 1963. Ed. and with a foreword by Shelley Fisher Fishkin and Arnold Rampersad. Oxford, England: Oxford UP, 1997. ISBN 0-19-509778-5
  • Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. Rev. and expand ed. New York: Norton, 1996. ISBN 0-393-03972-2
  • Hannaford, Ivan. Race: The History of an Idea in the West. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1996. ISBN 0-8018-5222-6
  • Rick Kittles, and S. O. Y. Keita, "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", African Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, No. 2,1999, p. 1-5
  • Shipman, Pat. The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. 1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-674-00862-6

See also

External links

Dictionary definitions

Web sites devoted to the history of "race"

Categories: