Encyclopedia of Race and Racism VOLUME 1 a–f John Hartwell Moore EDITOR IN CHIEF S S SAINT MARTIN DE and validity came public authority, and with this public authority came the usurpation of that authority in the PORRES gray zone of ‘‘pseudoscience,’’ usually only distinguish- SEE Porres, Martin de, St. able as such in retrospect. The term pseudoscience refers to any work that appeals to the authority of science despite being meth- odologically flawed or incompetently reasoned, even if SANTABARBARAPLAN carried out by credentialed scientists. Such misrepresen- tations are usually caused by a conflict of interest, SEE El Plan de Santa Barbara. whether it be personal ambition, class or financial inter- ests, or ideological commitment. Racism, the attribution of inferiority to large natural groups of people, is a relatively recent idea. To the extent SCIENTIFIC RACISM, that ancient peoples held various groups in different degrees HISTORY OF of regard, this was predicated on nonracial features—such as the ability to speak Greek, dignified behavior, or valor— Scientific racism is the act of justifying inequalities between natural groups of people by recourse to science. and to the extent that they recognized differences of phys- It is the result of a conjunction of two cultural values or ical appearance, these carried no codes of social rank (Isaac ideologies: (1) that natural categories of the human spe- 2004; Snowden 1948) and each was considered to be a cies exist and are of different overall worth; and (2) that local variation, not a continental quintessence. The concept science provides a source of authoritative knowledge. of race was a product of the rise of scientific biological These ideas arose separately, but at about the same time taxonomy, which is the formal clustering of animals ana- in the late seventeenth century. lytically into groups, along with a parallel dissolution of The rise of science in the seventeenth century chal- large groups of animals into their constituent smaller lenged the authority of other forms of knowledge—such groups. Scientific racism, then, being predicated on newly as revelation and meditation. In particular, two new emerging concepts of science and of race, must be regarded forms of knowledge came to assume privileged positions: as a Euro-American product of the last three centuries. This mathematical generalization (most famously embodied in obviously does not mean that group hatreds have not the work of Sir Isaac Newton [1642–1727]), and empiri- existed elsewhere and at other times, but only that they cal demonstration or experiment (in the works of early have usually not been based upon a theory of race and were scientists such as Galileo, William Harvey, and Robert not considered to be validated by science; they thus fall Hooke). Along with newly emerging standards of truth outside the scope of scientific racism. 1 Scientific Racism, History of Subspecies of Homo sapiens, rearranged from Linnaeus American European Asian African Color Red White Yellow Black Temperament Irascible, impassive Hearty, muscular Melancholy, stern Sluggish, lazy Face Thick, straight, black hair; broad nose; Long blond hair, Black hair, Black kinky hair, silky skin, short harsh appearance; chin beardless blue eyes dark eyes nose, thick lips, females with genital flap, elongated breasts Personality Stubborn, happy, free Sensitive, very smart, creative Strict, contemptuous, greedy Sly, slow, careless Covered by Fine red lines Tight clothing Loose garments Grease Ruled by Custom Law Opinion Caprice SOURCE: Reprinted from systema Naturae, 10th ed., 1758. Table 1. Early taxonomic practice relied on an intellectual usage of the term, in which groups of people, diversely framework that was largely intact since the time of the constituted, could be called ‘‘races,’’ and their essences ancient Greeks. Real, existing creatures, human or other- could be defined in accordance with whatever they were wise, were considered to be deviants or degenerates from taken to be. Concurrently, the natures of large continental an ideal form, whose true nature was perfect, transcen- ‘‘races’’ could stand as formal taxonomic entities. Thus, dent, and otherworldly. As applied to people, this races could exist within races, or they could crosscut other involved specifying features that were not necessarily races. Because the attributes of the Irish, Italians, or Jews accurate descriptors, but rather represented the under- were Platonic essences taken to be inscribed in the very lying form or essence of which real people were simply cores of the people in question—by virtue of simply being imperfect embodiments. Thus, the Swedish botanist- born into the group—it did not much matter what an physician Carl (Carolus) Linnaeus (1707–1778) could individual representative looked like or acted like. These formally define the European subspecies as having long, were not so much group-level generalizations, which have flowing blond hair and blue eyes, regardless of the fact always existed as folk taxonomies, but group-level scien- that most of them did not actually possess these charac- tific definitions, which were something new. teristics. His purpose was to describe the idealized form that underlay the observable variation. Likewise, his THE ORIGINS OF RACES descriptions of Africans as lazy or Asians as greedy was A French scholar named Isaac de la Peyre`re published a intended to be a statement of their basic natures, not controversial hypothesis in 1655. He suggested that cer- necessarily an empirically based generalization. tain biblical passages were consistent with multiple divine Clearly Linnaeus was inscribing popular or folk prej- creations of people, of which the story related in Genesis udices upon the continental groups he was formally defin- was only one. These ‘‘Pre-Adamites’’ were the progeni- ing. To some extent he recognized this, as he grouped the tors of the most divergent forms of people, who might Lapps, or Saami, (Scandinavian reindeer-herders) within thereby be considered to be different in both nature and the European subspecies; he consciously strove to roman- origin, as they were the product of different creative acts ticize the Saami, even as they were commonly ‘‘othered’’ in by God. La Peyre`re was subsequently invoked as the both popular and scholarly minds. Human taxonomy thus founder of a school called polygenism, which gained pop- served to formalize social ideologies about sameness and ularity in the nineteenth century as American scholars difference. increasingly sought to justify the practice of slavery by By the end of the eighteenth century, German zool- recourse to science (although that had not been La Peyr- ogist and anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach e`re’s intent). had jettisoned the personality and cultural traits used by As the slavery debate crystallized in America and Linnaeus in favor of only physical traits. However, he also Europe, the scientific issues centered on whether races modified the Linnaean system by ranking, rather than had a single origin (monogenism) or separate origins (poly- simply listing, the races (Gould 1998). Moreover, scholars genism). Monogenists tended to invoke a literal reading of at this time began to apply the previously informal term the Book of Genesis in support of abolitionist politics, ‘‘race’’ (which had been used by the French naturalist which also necessitated the development of explanations Count de Buffon to refer to a local strain of people) to for the emergence of human physical diversity since the the formal Linnaean subspecies. The result was a parallel time of Adam and Eve. They thus tended to be biblical 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RACE AND RACISM Scientific Racism, History of literalists, social liberals, and early evolutionists, a fusion of 1862. A similar schism took place in France, with the ideologies that may seem incongruous from a modern formation of Paul Broca’s Socie´te´ d’Anthropologie de Paris. standpoint. Polygenists rejected biblical literalism in favor Ultimately, the Darwinian naturalists would side with the of textual interpretation, yet they held to a strictly creation- monogenist ‘‘ethnologists’’ against the polygenist ‘‘anthro- ist view of human origins in which people are as they always pologists,’’ whose societies and cause would become obso- have been. This view was used to support the oppression of lete before the end of the century (Stocking 1987). presumably inferior peoples. The linkage of these ideas can be seen in the writings CRANIAL SIZE AND SHAPE of the Count de Buffon, whose Histoire Naturelle was one There is a crudely materialist proposition that identifies of the most widely owned and read works of the French the qualities of one’s mind by the features of one’s brain. Enlightenment. A monogenist, Buffon surveyed human While this affords a theoretical basis for modern neuro- diversity in 1749 and included a stinging digression on physiology, it also has proved very easy to overvalue. In the treatment of Africans: practice, this overvaluation has ranged from the estima- They are therefore endowed, as can be seen, with tion of intelligence based on the size of the brain to excellent hearts, and possess the seeds of every inferences of personality from the bulges on particular human virtue. I cannot write their history with- parts of the skull (phrenology). Indeed, the most prom- out addressing their state. Is it not wretched inent nineteenth-century craniologist, Dr. Samuel George enough to be reduced to servitude and to