Thursday, January 31, 2013

Racial Performativity


Today during our discussion of Locke, I found it really interesting how his anti-essentialist attitude towards race was very reminisce of different gender theory essays. Many people believe that if you see someone's outward appearance (their body, their gender presentation, their race, their clothing) that you can extrapolate very specific and personal attributes about them based on their essential nature. The impact of believing there are essential natures to things like race and gender allows for hierarchies to be formed.
A brilliant philosopher Judith Butler made famous the idea of 'gender performativity'. She posits that someone acts in particular ways NOT because it is how a person of a particular sex acts naturally, but rather because society conditions then to act in certain ways. When a young boy is reprimanded for acting in a 'womanly' way, his gender presentation is being reinforced through punishment. People are performing when they act as a certain gender, because there is no real way to be a gender. Butler says the way to get away from gender performativity is to stop gender essentialism. She says we must break down the believed natural connection between sex and gender and acknowledge it as a cultural influence.
Reading Locke, it was hard not to see the similarities in his argument. People believed that different races essentially acted differently based on genetics. White people were predetermined to be one way, black people another, etc. I think our classroom discussion agreed with Locke. Children are not born with some sort of basketball gene or hockey gene, but rather they are conditioned (possibly in a similar way to how boys and girls are conditioned to act like their gender is socially expected to act) by their cultures to be a certain way. Do you think race is performed in a way similar to gender?
When society has stereotypes, expectations, and cultural norms, it's hard for people to not see them influencing their actions. Locke says that can't just get rid of race because of how important it has become in society. Do you all agree? Personally I think it would be impossible to erase race (as well as gender) from discussion because of how influential it is in all of our actions.

What is race? Is it "real"?

Today's lecture put a lot into perspective. Our discussion sort of clarified some of the questions we have been attempting to answer, but, of course, raised an even larger question to tackle: Is race real?

At the beginning of the course, we learned that the term "race" first appeared in 1684. Considered "scientific" at the time, race was defined as a major division of humanity displaying a distinctive combination of physical traits that are transmitted through a line of descent. So basically, race was thought to be a genetic factor. We now know, however, that there is no single genetic marker for race, and after breaking down the major points of Alain Locke's argument, we arrived at a new meaning for race. Race is now a peculiar selective process for certain culture traits and a resistance to others, which is characteristic of all types and levels within a cultural organization. In his article, Locke argues that it is not race that expresses culture, but rather culture that produces a culture- or social-type.

So, is race real? In other words, is it genuine in existence? To say the least, yes and no. Here's a quick video that I found to help explain this loaded question.




From the video and class lectures, we know that race was not originally used in the discrimanatory context as we know it today. However, with time, race has exhibited social consequences.

It is safe to say that, technically, race is not "real," but rather a social construct with so much power that it has been able to survive throughout centuries. As the video states, "Racial divisions were perpetuated in the interest of groups that wished to maintain power and social exclusion." I think this is still a valid point even in today's society, which leads to covert racism. It is hidden in the fabric of society, covertly suppressing the individuals being discriminated against, such as residential segregation and those citizens who live in poverty. For example, when we think of people who live in inner city projects, we automatically think of African Americans, and consequently those who live in the "projects" tend to have a lower socioeconomic status than those who live in the suburbs.

Basically, I agree with Locke's account of race. It is now defined by cultural characteristics of people within society. What is your opinion on this topic? Do you think race is real? And do you think it's safe to say that certain characteristics of a group of people help define their "race?"

Montagu's "Race"

Both readings for today’s class by Locke and Montagu come to the general consensus that the term race is meaningless. While Locke tries to give it a new meaning, Montagu advocates for dropping it completely. At the end of class, Dr. J said that no matter what, we all know what people mean to communicate to us when they refer to races even when not explicitly stated. Montagu writes that race is meaningless and artificial. The term of race seems to be holding us back in some ways. So why do we as a society generally feel the need to maintain a strong grasp around this constructed term? In Montagu’s example of the “race omelet”, it is evident that the assumptions and associations made do not have any basis in nature or the right to be accepted. How does this term that Montagu states was invented for convenience carry so much weight still to this day? These are questions that I have been wondering about more and more over the course of the semester. One possible explanation is that people feel the need to classify in order to better understand their own place. What I mean by this is that by rashly making discriminations based on physical appearances, talents, social status, etc., we as humans attempt to understand our individual role in society. Although it is not always helpful or even healthy to constantly compare, it is a part of human nature. Our preferences become a part of who we are. Historically, when it comes to race, people are hyper sensitive to differences and similarities. But when we have so many alternative ways to compare (occupation, age, hobbies, etc.) why do we feel the need to use race? The stereotypes today are just as relevant now as they were in earlier times. In fact, any example that strays from these fabricated stereotypes is viewed as an anomaly when they could just as easily have been the norm because neither is consistently found in nature.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Hegel Everywhere

To be honest, the first time I read Hegel's essay I only partially understood the ideas he was trying to convey, but our class discussion really helped to expand on some of the concepts he wrote of and frankly, I find them insightful. Now I can't stop thinking about how Hegel's ideas apply in my everyday life. In class we spoke about his idea of thesis vs. antithesis as it relates to Christianity. Hegel wrote that progress could only be made by the negation of the antithesis through synthesis. Synthesis meaning that the conflict between the thesis and the antithesis is resolved but they stay true to their values.

Christianity, which was embodied by the Europeans, is the most developed religion as it synthesizes the divine and the human, the innocent and the guilty, the virgin and the mother, etc. Hegel makes the claim that the "principle of the European mind is, therefore, self-conscious reason which therefore takes an interest in everything in order to become present to itself therein." In order to understand this quote we have to understand that Hegel believed that it wasn't descent that divided man but instead, it was rational. He wrote that "man is implicitly rational; herein lies the possibility of equal justice for all men and the futility of a rigid distinction between races which have rights and those which have none." In writing that he explains the relationship between Africans and Europeans and how the rationalizing Europeans sought to govern the Africans who were like children. This drive was backed by the mindset that for years to come, the conditions would stay like they were in his time period. Of course, with Hegel's division of races by rationality, he allows for the potential of educated Africans to be equal to Europeans. In other words, the only thing that keeps races equal to one another is rational, or in a more commonly used term now, knowledge! Knowledge is power people!

Professor Johnson drew the parallel to how Rhodes treats service and how there is a mindset that we sometimes go out and "help" others in need without fully understanding their situation. This is the same mindset that Europeans had with the Africans. As a Bonner scholar and a Christian, Hegel's ideas and the parallels to the modern day that we draw are more and more evident as I start to wonder in what other ways his ideas take relevance in my life.



Really...Where Are We Going?


            Thursday’s class session left me with quite a bit to ponder. A lot of which had to deal with the direction of human progression piece. It was brought to the fore that Hegel was an idealist believing that the progression of human history will reach an end in which all humans will know a pure form of rationality and freedom. The follow up was whether or not we are headed in that direction. My response: Nope.
            I think that ultimately rational human minds have a desire to attain a utopia in which trivial things fail to clutter mental space and equity in every aspect of life are enjoyed by all. Call me a pessimist, but as long as society has a superiority complex topped with a sense of entitlement, there will never be equity among people. Someone brought up the role of technology and how it creates more troubles for the mind. Our rapidly evolving technological advances are indeed solving old problems while creating an entirely new set of problems to concern ourselves with; it is a positive reflection of the ever evolving mental capacity of the mind but it has its side effects. Perhaps with the example of technology what we are hinting at but failing to recognize completely is that increased rationality brings increased sophistication. The ability to be rational exists independently of the characteristics of a good heart. People are still victims of physical slavery (e.g. persons in sex/drug trafficking, child soldiers,to some extent the working class), but exponentially more hazardous is mental slavery. Those invisible systems that we (through the process of oversimplification) equate to cultural structures confine people to a specific mindset. A little is given in hopes that it is perceived to be a lot yet the marginalizing system still remains where the problem continues to have the potential to manifest in different forms. The only progression that I foresee happening is that we continue to get better at hiding the truth. With time we will continue to get better at this game and develop better systems to hide in plain sight. Are we really moving in the right direction? Or is our progress a mechanism in the continuously evolving machinery that conceals the truth? What's valid in adopting Hegel's view of the future?

Hegel Let the Dogs Out




In my eyes, Hegel’s theory of a thesis and an antithesis was so broad that it could have been misinterpreted. My hypothesis is that if Hegel’s process of negation prohibited the integration of other cultures such as Africans and stopped it from becoming unified, then there was never an attainable synthesis. How Hegel perceives Africa as underdeveloped makes them disqualified of proposing a thesis or an antithesis. Just as if an infant has no position to argue against their parents, Africa has no position to argue against their hierarchical parents (in this case, Europeans). There is no ground for Africans, Americans, or Asians to make an opposition based on Hegel’s prehistorical perspective. This can only lead me to believe that Hegel’s philosophy came from racist roots. Even though his relationship of thesis and antithesis is proven by the relationship of many other ideas and objects, it isn’t as visible on his view on race because there isn’t a possible synthesis.
Hegel’s racial views have blinded them in this case and therefore he isn’t a true Geist. I do believe that Hegel was approaching a theory of a different idea though-Dogmatism. Dogmatism is “the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Instead of approaching the relationship with Africans with a paternalistic nature, I believe that Hegel was telling the Africans of their belief with this certainty as a result of his racist judgement. Another reason I think Hegel supports Dogmatism is because it is really just an argument based on circumstances that give a mental justification of why something is. Hegel’s teachings are way too vague in my eyes. Even though he does this to give an explanation to all of reality, no final opposition can ever be made with justification. If this is the case, then Hegel's concepts and questions will only show a separation of reflection and will never reach a resolution.
I know my thoughts here presented may seem a little scattered but you have to realize they are from the blurred mind of Hegel. My questions are generally over the idea of Dogmatism. Where do you think the differences lie in the teachings of Hegel in comparison to someone that practices Dogmatism? Also, do you think if Hegel didn’t have a racial scrutiny his monism would be flawed? 

The Hoax


After our discussion in class about Hegel, I began to think about the reasoning behind his thoughts. Hegel wrote this text in the 19th century just a couple years before the civil war in the Americas. While he disproves the thought of different human species, he still renounces in the fact that through nature white people are the most developed form of humans. Hegel describes this process as such, “But decent affords no ground for granting or denying freedom and dominion to human beings. Man is implicitly rational; herein lies the possibility of equal justice for all men and the futility of a rigid distinction between races which have rights and those which have none. The difference between the races of mankind is still a natural difference, that is, a difference which, in the first instance, concerns the natural soul.” (39) It seems that Hegel is searching for any semi-logical way to distinguish between races.
This thought brought the film Django Unchained by Quentin Tarantino to my attention. Within this movie Leonardo DiCaprio plays a slave owner by the name of Calvin Candie. The slave master Calvin Candie has to continually demoralize his slaves in order to sustain his perceived hierarchy over them. There is even a point in the film where he goes into detail on why the Negro is born to be submissive through nature, just like we see in Hegel description. However, in a cast interview for the movie Leonardo illustrates his experience portraying Calvin Candie and the thought process behind his actions.


Through this clip and other resources I am starting to get the feeling that many slave owners like Calvin Candie knew that natural submission of the Negro was really a hoax. Yet, they also knew how vital slaves were to sustain the lifestyle that they were living. He had to pound in the fact that they were not on the same playing field to keep his position as master. And I am also sure that there a million other false tales for why Negros are suppose to make good slaves.      

Hegel and History


Hegel’s view of African people and history made me think, as Mallory brought up in her post, of what I learned in high school about Africans (and for that matter, Native Americans), slavery, and the history of African-American people in the United States.  While there was a discussion about the struggles of African-American people, usually in the unit on Martin Luther King, Jr. that we covered once a year, there was never a discussion of the contributions of African-Americans outside of the context of the Civil Rights Movement.  It was sort of as if, between slavery and 1954 when Brown v. Board occurred, there was nothing really going on with African-Americans themselves.  Any progress was largely the result of benevolent white men, most notably Abraham Lincoln, intervening on behalf of black people. 

Hegel writes of Africans in slavery, “They are sold, and let themselves be sold, without any reflection on the rights or wrongs of the matter.”  Certainly, this is an oversimplification, just as the Master Narrative related to the Civil Rights Movement is an oversimplification, which serves a social and political purpose.  Hegel sets up a paternalistic situation, and it seems familiar to the story that we tell about social and legal progress in the United States. 

Lincoln, Steven Spielberg’s recent movie, tells the story of the passage of the 13th Amendment.  I really enjoyed it.  Daniel Day-Lewis is awesome.  Despite this, when my friends and I left the theatre, we all felt a little strange about it.  Something was off.  Yesterday, my roommate and I were discussing it again.  She had seen it again and said, “I just kept thinking, ‘Where is Frederick Douglass?’”  Good question.

There are very few black people in the movie.  Obviously, there were no African-Americans in Lincoln’s cabinet, but the only black people we see are soldiers, in a sort of hero-worship moment with Lincoln, and servants.  It’s all Lincoln (as the title would suggest), and that’s fine to an extent, but it also seems to erase the actions of African-Americans at the time.  Lincoln is the hero, tirelessly defending justice by himself.  There’s one point where they literally put the flame of a lantern over Lincoln speaking, making him the light of the nation.  He was a great man and leader, but it has to be a bigger story than that. 

My question is: If we continue to present history this way, how far are we from erasing the contributions of African-Americans?  How do we get away from a paternalistic attitude and move toward a recognition of the agency and contributions of black people, whether in Hegel’s Africa or the more recent history of the United States? 

Thoughts on Hegel


Hegel states that there is a progression of sophistication in all cultures, excluding the “prehistoric” African ones, that moves towards higher rationality and freedom. In class, Dr. J expressed agreement with this claim, and posed the legitimacy of the statement to us. Tim stated (if I am putting it correctly, if not, please correct in the comments) that our rationality has been developed and manifested through higher forms of technology and science, but that this has not had an effect on our freedom.

Purely in terms of racial equality, and the ability for each race of humans to live under similar rules and standards, i.e. without having their freedom imposed upon by others, it seems that the advancement of rationality has led to increased racial freedom.

Given what we know genetically about the different races of humans, that is, that we certainly cannot be divided (scientifically) into different species, it would seem to hold true that the more racially conscious and cultured one person is, the less likely they are to be prejudiced against another race of human beings. This is supported by what a few different students argued about in class: that humans are not necessarily going to make hierarchical discriminations, but perhaps just that the potential for those discriminations exists and can be brought forth by certain circumstances.

Throughout the history of man, from the point at which new races were introduced and began to procreate, through the evolution of racial philosophy (as Dr. J said, there is a marked difference between Hegel’s method and those “frothing rants” of a less complex bigot), there has been increased rationality and increased freedom. So, my thesis is: given the massive spread of ideas and facts throughout online media in our current age, humans have a wider access to the knowledge leading to the conclusion that different races are equal in rational capacity and human worth. Therefore, our striving for increased rationality has led to increased freedom among the different races.

One supporting the antithesis to my thesis might point towards racial profiling in the news and the wide reach of white-power websites, or perhaps to the negative stereotypes perpetuated in hip-hop culture and catalyzed through YouTube and other mass-distributing online sources. I’m not sure I have an answer to that, although I might point out that those problems seem quite less intense (freedom inhibiting) than those in years past. Obviously full racial equality and freedom has not been reached, but I think there is evidence to show that it is a goal and point that human culture is striving towards.

In Defence of Hegel's Bullshit

Obviously, Hegel's clearly race-based essentialism doesn't mix well on the twenty-first century palate; however, I think it is important to give Hegel, whose work has influenced every thinker that succeded him, a second look. Unlike Bernier and Kant, Hegel at least allows for the possibility of "progress."
(Note: on many maps, the representation of Africa is drawn smaller, and the Northern Hemispher much larger, which is another act of subtle condescension. On this map, that is somewhat the case as well, however, I loved it so, there it is.)


As an 18th century idealist, he understood the world in a much different way than we do today. At that point in time, there were many philosophers who bought into the concept of historical progression; meaning, over time, with the advancement of culture and philosophy and science, society would become more and more sophistocated, resulting in an absolutely free human being at some point down the line. Thinkers like Francis Bacon--the dude who said "Knoweldge is Power" and believed it literally--calculated this progression from a perspecitve of Cultural Universalism. (In other words, they thought their culture was the culture.) Under this dogmatic metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology, ect., these thinkers did not allow for multiplicity, or variation--there is one truth, one god, and one way to live. Thus, when a dude like Hegel looks down from his high horse, not realizing it isn't high at all but on a horizon, he does so with paternalism, condescension, and a blase attitude toward African people becauce of their difference. (I hesitated to even use the word African, because clearly, at the time, the people signified by that word did not understand themselves to be within such a category, so using it, in a certain way, reinforces the same kind of paternalism that we are trying to undermine in class).

To emphasize this point, I wanted to include a short excerpt from a novella entitled, The Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad.

"Now when I was a little chap I had a passion for maps. I would look for hours at South America, or Africa, or Australia, and lose myself in all the glories of exploration. At that time, there were many blank spaces on the earth, an dwhen I saw one that looked particularly inviting on a map (but they all look that) I would put my finger on it and say, When I grow up I will go there. The North Pole was one of these places, I remember. Well, I haven't been there yet, and shall not try now. The glamour's off. Other places were scattered about the Equator, and in every sort of lattitude all over the two hemispheres. I have been in some of them, and . . . well, we won't talk about that. But there was one yet--the biggest, the most blank, so to speak--that I had a hankering after"(42 Conrad, emphasis added).

Told within a Frame Narrative, this paragraph comes from a vagabond sailor called Marlow, who is reflecting upon his youth. As a young boy--white, male, and European--he already sensed the power of his priviladge--he could literally go anywhere in the world he wished. From the Western vantage point, explorers literally brought these "blank spaces" into existance within the collective consciousness of their respective countries; the whole concept of "discovery" presupposes that no person had ever been to the place being discovered, when in fact families, communities, people, lived there for centuries, living, dying, thriving, struggling, long before any European "discovered" their land. Undoubtedly, Hegel shared this same sense of empowerment, same sense of self-righteousness. He used that hubris to justify an oversimplified, mean, and unanalytic description of Africa, which I, and anyone who reads it, ought (some things are just true) to find despicable. That same attitude, for generations, justfied colonization, forced-assimlation, slavery, and genocide. Luckily, we are in an age now that recognizes the value in difference; however, there are still lingering palimsets of paternalism, and lingering vesiges of a terribly dehumanzing outlook. Even now, the Western world fails to recognize the contingency of its perspective, or the value of respect, recognition, and kindness for other cultures unlike its own.

In what ways do the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa parrallel acts of colonization and emperialism? How can we, as an American population, go about building a relationship with foriegn countries that does not in any way efface, ignore, or underestimate the irrefutable damage that the Western powers inflicted, and continue to inflict, upon them? Is such a relationship possible? How do things like community service, missionary groups, and aid organziations go about helping communities in need without reestablishing this paternal diametric?

Hegel, Y U NO like Africa?

I honestly don’t know if this is going to turn into a real question, but let me rant for just a minute, because class Hegel pretty much made me angry. See, I just can’t understand the reasoning behind his ‘all Africans are children’ and ‘Africa had (nor ever has had) any bearing in the history of the world’ idea.

As Africa is ‘prehistorical’ in Hegel’s mind, doesn’t that still mean it’s a part of the world’s history? Even if the entire continent is filled with naïve ‘children,’ they contributed something. Even if Africa’s the infantile state of the world, doesn’t it at the very least show the beginnings of the world? I mean, Europe had to develop from something, right? Probably from a similar state he claims Africa to be in. Something cannot just spring up out of nothing. It takes time for nations - let alone an entirely integrated, codependent set of countries - to form.

Okay, so Africa’s not Europe. Doesn’t mean it’s any less a part of the world: it cannot physically be denied. Although culturally/socially, Europe ignored Africa and decided that there was nothing worthwhile it or its people had to offer. one people demonized, the one people Europe decided not to take influence from. So that makes it irrelevant?

Hegel writes in 1830, well into the developing stage of the Americas, at a time in which the Atlantic Slave Trade was whittled down to a profession. Who cleared the land? Raised the crops?  Practically single handedly built the US? Yeah, African slaves. Again, whether or not you regard Africans as impotent, did they not directly have a hand in the US’s development? How can you blatantly deny Africa’s relevancy to World History when there is so much physical evidence proving otherwise?

Granted Hegel probably had no idea about the future, but in US society, we cannot deny the relevancy of Africa or African-American peoples. Indeed, the historical effects of our slavery are so great that there is no realm that goes untouched: political campaigns, legislature, education, economics, state and local law enforcement… I may be of the minority when I say this, but I think about everything in the terms of race. There is no way for me to disconnect the world today and the effects of slavery. Yet Africa and its people have no influence?

Final thought, and probably the most bothersome: Hegel might be somewhat correct. Honestly reflect on how much you know about slavery, the various African cultures, the continent’s contemporary issues. Now, reflect on how much is openly published in magazines, newspapers; reported on the nightly news. How much you were taught in school? And I mean high school, private or public, not Rhodes college. How much *honest* (and that being the key word) information is printed in state-issued textbooks? I think on how much more the US denied, misrepresented, and altogether omitted from my education, and it’s disgusting. I can remember spending maybe 4-5 chapters total on slavery, revolution, emancipation, and the Civil Rights Movement.

If we continue to deny Africa’s influence and continue to denigrate its people, is Hegel really that wrong in saying Africa is irrelevant?

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Effects of Experience on Ethnic Identification


As I read both Bernier and Kant’s thoughts on the idea and definitions of both race and ethnicity, I could but contemplate the implications such a discussion has on my own brother who is biracial. While he has both black and white ancestry, the darkness of his skin urges the superficial eyes of our society to view him as a member of the black race. This external evaluation of one’s heritage based upon placing an individual in a particular race category due to varying degrees of skin color follow both philosopher’s arguments. This practice is also consistent with both the past and current practice of our society to focus an individual’s identity around the fairly crude structure of skin color. However, shortly after my brother was adopted when he was two, my parents changed his name from a fairly non-traditional name to one which is commonly used throughout the Judeo-Christian society. Furthermore, at this young age, my brother was moved from the Urban area surrounding Baton Rouge to the suburbs of Houston. In this area, my brother was surrounded by a white neighborhood, white friends, and, quite simply, a white society. For this reason, my brother has told me that he probably identifies more with the white community than I myself do.

Because of this, I believe race as defined by Bernier and Kant is insufficient in properly categorizing cultural identifications. Thus, it is my argument that the philosopher’s definition of ethnicity best accounts for possible variations in race and cultural identification. For example, legally my brother, despite the color of his skin, is a Landolt and as such, at least on paper, he can be thought of as a member of a white family. Therefore, legally and arguably culturally, my brother is ethnically white. If this is true, ethnicity is based upon not only a legal transferal of name but also upon a changed empirical response due to a changing cultural environment. Thus, my brother is both racially black while being ethnically white. Quite honestly, I did not expect this massive diversion in definitions between these two ideas, and yet, at least to me, this seems to be the only rational conclusion based upon my existing understanding of these two terms. As such, my brother seems to exist as a complete contradiction as his race seems to come into conflict with his ethnicity, or cultural identification. This leads me to conclude that the empirical experience is integral to our understanding of ethnicity due to varying ethnic groups being formed as a result of religion and cultural identification. What are the effects of this assessment? Can race and ethnicity truly be independent of one another?

Is Science Enough


In our reading of Kant I found it interesting how meticulous he was about every detail concerning each race. I know that Kant is a very rational philosopher, but the claims he makes in order to prove his point in his piece Of the Different Human Races are astonishing. It seems that one of Kant’s main focuses was to make a very strong and clear distinction between white Europeans and every other race on the globe. Yet, interesting enough he goes about this through a scientific approach in order to legitimize his claims.

As Kant begins to describe the causes of the different races he goes into detail about certain seeds indigenous to the different climates through a term he calls natural predisposition. Through this process these seeds can lead to certain species adapting specific characteristics needed for survival in their respected environments, such as thicker skin or an extra layer of feathers. Over time within these environments air, sun, and diet all have the capabilities to modify the growth of the body of an animal. He closes this thought stating that these adaptations or new species are just deviations from an original genus.  

With his theory of the deviations through the original genus, Kant describes the many characteristics of the other species that disqualifies them from being the original genus. Kant begins by deferring the Lapplanders due to their poor stature. “Displaced into an arctic region, human beings had gradually to take on a smaller build. This is because with a smaller build the power of the heart remains the same but blood circulation takes place in a shorter time.” (15) Kant also ventures to disqualify the other extreme climate found in Africa. Kant states that, “the humid warmth generally promotes the strong growth of animals. In short, all of these factors account for the origin of the Negro, who is well-suited to his climate, namely, strong, fleshy, and agile. However, because he is so amply supplied by his motherland, he is also lazy, indolent, and dawdling.”(17)  

To follow up his observations Kant finally describes the original genus of human beings. Here he claims that due to the perfect balance of hot and cold regions, the area of the old world must indeed have produced the perfect blend and original form of human beings. Consequently, since this was a new subject of study and Kant had some convincing arguments for the time, these acquisitions were believed by the public.

Today we might mock such acquisitions, but we have yet to evolve beyond the recognition of race. It was only about 70 years ago we had a mass genocide because of a similar theory of the perfect form of human beings. As well as, how after 9/11 every Middle Eastern person became a terrorist in the eyes of the United States. Also, I believe President Obama’s was the first president to mention LGBT rights during his inauguration. So is humanity finally realizing how to coexist with different races and ethnics or will we just find another way to classify ourselves in the future?

What's Next?


Bernier and Kant carefully illustrated in their essays the basic format for what race is and the unique ways it would be classified. Herder, a student of Kant’s Physical Geography lecture declares that race derives from a difference in ancestry that does occur here or includes the most diverse races within each of these regions in each of these colors. This was such a rebellious thing to say but it became applaudable with his orderly reasoning of a “Divine Intellect”. Herder takes not a scientific, but religious approach when explaining his theory that the whole course of a human being’s life consists on transformations. The continuous use of religious based pronouns  emphasize his attempt to explain how “One and the same species is humankind on Earth.” Herder preaches, “He stages and destroys, refines the figures, and revises them after He has transformed the world around them.”

Christianity brings Herder to many fixed conclusions but I thought the most relevant point to that Herder made was that man is created in the image of God. The transformations that regional differences were made by Kant were rejected by Herder his modified approach. Herder mentions a valid argument when questioning why at one point in history elephants lived in Siberia and North America, not Africa. The same can be said for human beings which alters the correlation between environmental differences and race. Herder evaluates Kant by questioning, “Who is capable of classifying four or five races on the bases of their geological and environmental differences?” If Herder’s theory is correct and God is control of these transformations that have taken place in humans, then wouldn’t our racial differences be continuos? If this is the case, then the explanation of what Kant believes race is becomes invalid. 

“An eighty-year old man has renewed his entire body at least 24 times. Who can follow the change in matter and it’s forces throughout the whole human realm on earth in all of the causes of it’s changing. For no wave in the stream of time is the same as the other.”
The best way to know what to expect from the future is to observe our past. If one is to take note of the natural catastrophes that have taken place (i.e: earthquakes,floods,droughts,plagues, floods) there must be some correlation to a shift in culture. If the shift is large enough, the result could possibly be an alteration of an overall culture. The past has shown that humans will adapt to settlements that have undergone treacherous natural occurrences. With this continuous geographical shift Herder mentions,“If humans lived in these areas at that time, how different they were from those that live there now!” This is where I find myself asking yet another perplexing question regarding our future. In some way, history is bound to repeat itself. I’m not saying that there is a modern day Ice Age predetermined for humanity but if Herder’s theory is correct, then there should be another natural catastrophe that will rearrange our accustomed lifestyle somewhat like our ancestors experienced but also vastly new and different. Given this, what NEW race can we expect or prepare for?

Thoughts on Kant


The one thing that I could not shake from my head after Thursday’s class was the definitions of monogenesis and polygenesis and why people would choose to believe in one definition of the human race over another.  I have monogenesis defined as human beings belong to the same genus or origin and can reproduce properly with other human beings to create fertile offspring no matter how different they look.  And I have polygenesis defined, as different human beings are similar but not related, they are separate local creations of different human species.  By definition it was pretty straight forward which one made more sense according to my beliefs and thought process and that was monogenesis.  I figured that any human could reproduce with another human and have fertile offspring so monogenesis is right we spring from one origin.  Does this opinion of mine correlate with the fact that I am a Christian, yes of course it does, but that was my initial thought after class, that monogenesis won hands down.  But this past weekend I started to challenge my belief on this monogenesis theory because I would see people of different race, ethnicity, etc and just think to myself “yes we are all human beings, but at the same time there’s something different about you and something different about me.” I believe this difference starts at the surface of skin color but it does not end there.  Something we didn’t talk about much in class was Bernier and Kant’s observations of the physical differences between races.  This just sparked an idea in my head that our different racial traits could be reason to believe in polygenesis.  The question I have is why can’t our skin color define our different species of human beings?  I don’t find it so farfetched that we stem from the same origin and deviated into different races, variations and varieties.  Overall, I am very confused about which is right and which is wrong when it comes to monogenesis and polygenesis because Kant is very contradicting of these theories and of himself, as he seems to discredit his intellect on the matter at the end of his essay. In conclusion, I am sticking with my belief in monogenesis because of our identical human DNA and because it aligns with the idea of an artificial division which makes the most sense to me in our society today. My question for the class would be what is a strong case for natural division and against artificial division?

Would "Race" Still Exist Without the Help of Kant?


The origin of race is something I can honestly say has never crossed my mind. Out of ignorance, I assumed the idea of race is something that has existed since people of different racial backgrounds and ethnicities discovered one another.  After reading Immanuel Kant’s essay, “Of the Different Human Races”, written in the 1770’s, it shocked me that this was only one of the first attempts to try to divide the world into sections using only racial and physical concepts. After looking further into the text it became clear to me that the idea of race was only doomed to rise to the attention of humans at some point in time, and I’m surprised it was not sooner.
The categorization of Kant’s racial divisions’ elicited some ideas that seemed to have been agreed upon by the majority at that time. White’s and Negros were different. Asians and Negros were different. Whites and Native Americans were different. The list goes on and on.  Now, why these differences existed was a heavily debated topic, however, one idea remained consistent; the external physical construct and skin complexion of these groups were unavoidably different. I also noted stereotypes that Kant addressed, such as Negros being lazy, indolent, dawdling, and stinky, which were ideas present long before the production of his essay. It’s hard for me to believe that until Kant, or even Bernier, came along writing about “human races” the world as a whole was oblivious to at least some derivative form of this notion. Even if neither philosophers nor scientists labeled different races by name, I still believe some theory of “race” would have played a major role in our society, just the same as it does today. Innately, humans are programmed to make note of differences. Whether it is differences in physicality, language, culture, or so on, humans are intrigued by differences and try to make some sort of sense out of them. Grouping people, animals, plants, or whatever may have you together based on differences help us find commonalities within those grouped together yet also helps us figure out what makes members of different groups dissimilar. It seems to bring more order to the universe. Unfortunately, this may lead to stereotypes associated with certain groups, many of which may be untrue. Welcome to the 21st Century.     
 I often wonder what life would be like if I was not labeled an “African American” but after giving it further thought, I’m not sure life would be much different.  

Bernier, Kant, and Obama


While watching the inauguration speech Obama touched on things that relate to this course. “Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.” Obama being the first black president in American history and realizing how far society and civilization have come from the ideas of Bernier and Kant. Bernier and Kant’s explanation of how the different races were formed seems completely out of touch with what we know today and we question how they could even begin to think that they had the correct answer to the question that stumped them all. Kant’s point on how he believed race and physical features were the best way to distinguish and categorize humans instead of by what they actually know or by who they are is something that is so completely foreign to what I have ever known. My mother told me to never judge a book by its cover and here that is all Kant is doing. The Lapp people or the Eskimos knew things that Kant probably never would, like how to build an igloo in little under an hour, but he demeans them to creatures based on physical appearance. What I also really found interesting was the fact that he found beauty in all races. Well I did not find it interesting because I think anyone can be beautiful, I found in interesting that he recognized that all races could be beautiful. In the Django post it was brought to light that how some slaves were house slaves because they were prettier than the other slaves. 

Most people in later history did not want to acknowledge them period, let alone their beauty. Thomas Jefferson being one that comes from American history. He was so racist he did not believe blacks were even capable of having thoughts or recognizing anything beautiful or create anything that is beautiful. Jefferson and Kant were similar in believing that blacks were not human, but Kant was in a different time and it’s hard to belive that as founding father who was so fervent for independence and freedom could be in favor of slavery. I wonder what what Thomas Jefferson would be saying about Obama being president today.

Bernier and Kant’s interpretation of race was also very set on the church and it’s hard to believe that such a drastic thing like this could be backed up by the church because we are taught to love all. Also the fact that they were the ones to first bring to light that there might be a difference between humans based on the color of their skin.