Okay, so I'm not going to lie. The idea that
"race," as we know and use it today, was nonexistent before
(according to how we're using it in class) the 17th century, pretty much blew
my mind.
Professor J made an interesting point in class on Thursday: would race
be seen by humans in nature? (I’m assuming this is without social/cultural
development and responses to race as we have them.) Physically and
geographically, there would be no reason for a white caveman to interact
with a black caveman or for either of them to interact with a
"hindustani" caveman, but hypothetically, would they make the
difference among themselves based upon their skin? I honestly don't think they
would. Prof. J made a great follow up comment when she proposed that height,
weight, strength, and even sickness would be seen more of a threat than mere
skin tone.
Funny thing, though, is how scientific and mathematical the thinking behind the
racial divides became. But that's Kant, and if we know anything about Kant,
it's that he likes mathematical balance. His rationale behind having two “base
races,” the extremes in coloration (i.e., white and black), that gave way to
the spectrum of colorations we have today is very interesting to me. Although
Kant’s arguing for monogenesis, his
theory (to me) still doesn’t fit the bill. If there are two “base races,” from
which everyone else sprang, is there really one race that created such polar
opposites? With his deviation theory, which is the truly deviant race, if there really is one. Kant offers us
his theory, of course, but it’s just not good enough for me. His theory only
stands on the supposition that monogenesis is a truth. I wonder what ya’ll
think about this.
That’s not necessarily to say I wholly believe in
polygenesis, though. The use of the polygenesis theory to dehumanize a people
usually follows in tandem with social/cultural development. However, I kind of
like the idea that ‘adam’ and ‘eve’ weren’t the whole beginnings of a 7 billion+
population. Makes me feel better to think that I’m not a product of thousands
of years of incest. Haha
But beliefs aside, I think it’s an interesting
subject to contemplate. And I think we can
have these conversations because today we know that color doesn’t denote ‘better’
or ‘worse/ lesser-than.’ We know they don’t denote humanity. Or intelligence. Or
aptitude.
So in a roundabout way, I guess I’m trying to ask what we think of Kant’s
monogenesis theory. And I figure this can actually be a discussion because we’re
not all Christian, and neither will we be persecuted for not being Christian
(that’s not to dump all these problems on Christianity. Or any of the ‘big
three’ religions. They’re just a big part of the world’s development, is all I’m
saying).
The idea of thousands of years of incest always bothered me, too. And then, after Noah, it happened again.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Noah, your question really made me think of the Curse of Ham, which is the ridiculous interpretation of the curse of Canaan in Genesis that suggests that Ham, Noah's son, received a curse from God that turned his skin black. To start, nobody ever explicitly preached this to me. I'm not even sure how I know about it or where I heard it, but I remember knowing about it even as a child. I'm assuming it was an older relative or a particularly racist conversation overheard somewhere, but it's kind of disturbing to know that the idea that black skin is a curse from God has just sort of been floating around my head for most of my life.
I don't believe it, just like I don't believe the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah and Jonah and Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego (although given that the curse of Ham isn't even built from any actual words in the Bible, it's a little different). All that is to say, I think it's interesting to think about the ways in which we manipulate our lives to fit our foundational texts and, more often it seems to me, our foundational texts to fit our political, social, and economic needs. I think that Kant needed to try to be true to the logical workings of his mind but could not separate himself from his historical and religious context in many ways and that his work on race reflects that conflict.
Since you've brought up religious texts, and our willingness to magically come to the same conclusion as dogma, I'm thinking about Mormons. In their bible, too, the deviation, dark skin, is a negative mark from god. Not only does it display their deviation from the true doctrine, but in Kant's case, their deviation from the root genes as well. In Mormon theology, once the brown folks accept the true religion, they'll be white (again) and rejoin their bretherin... on... their own planet... yeah. Sarah, weren't we in that class together? *ah...* good times. ;)
DeleteWhat troubles me most about Kant and Hegel is their obsession with empiricism. Given that moment in time, it makes total sense; however, there is still clearly an epistemological lean towards science today, often to a fault. The idea that there is an absolute truth, or an absolute answer to every question occludes access to an array of benign multiplicity. Christian dogmatism, Scientific dogmatism, or any kind of dogmatism that not only ignores the potential for alternative epistemologies, but also actively assails those who do not subscribe to certain set of beliefs, ought to be done away with. I am not vying for absolute subjectivity, but simply an open mindedness that encourages healthy debate, and discourages all forms of absolutism. I totally agree with Mallory, Kant didn't convince me either; however, I don't think he asked the right question, so I kind of wrote him off from the get go. As Hegel points out, this question shouldn't and need not be answered.
ReplyDeleteAnother professor of mine, Dr. Judaken, said something in Antisemitism that I think is appropriate here. On the first day of class, he told us that we were all "mongrels." Our ancestors first came out of Africa, and the different peoples of the earth are the result of thousands of years of interbreeding. I rather like that formulation. It's sobering.
ReplyDeleteI believe the idea of monogenesis to the extent that I think theories of evolution adequately explain the origin of all animals on earth, but I don't buy the thought that all humans have descended from a perfectly white, perfectly brunette pair. Our history is certainly far messier than that, though I suppose we have no sure-fire way of knowing. I agree with Sarah, in that I think Kant's theory is heavily influenced by his historical and religious context, whether consciously or unconsciously. It's complicated further by the fact that Kant never actually left Konigsberg, his hometown and the place where he taught philosophy. He had little encounter with people from distant lands, outside of sideshow circuses designed to awe with visions of the exotic and terrifying, and the writings of others, like Bernier, who conflated difference and inferiority.
The more I think about it, the more I'm like, "Oh my gosh. This is all so much!" I am a Christian, and often times I forget that there are so many other interpretations of how humans came to be. I've always been open to hear another person's take on how humans were created and how we have evolved into our present form. Since I grew up in a Baptist church, I was taught that all man was created from Adam and Eve, and a lot of times, it is hard for me to look at the world from a completely different perspective.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do believe in monogenesis, but then, when I think of how it relates to race, the two do not connect. So the question rises, "which one is correct?" It is hard for me to make that decision because what I've been taught from a religious perspective is completely opposite from what I have been taught from society.
I don't know about the society bit. I don't really think we should base our ideals or thoughts on what society tells us. At least not for ourselves. Reflect on society and its institutions, yes, but when it comes to your personal beliefs: at the end of the day, it's all on you.
DeleteAnd I'm not trynna start any religious debate here, but I'd like to offer this thought, since I found it insightful. While taking Professor Terem's Islamic Civilization course, she offered an interesting take on the modern Muslim's task: matching nature with holy text. How can one deny what they plainly see happening in nature if the text refutes it? The task is not so much denying one or the other, but synthesizing the two since (as a holy text dictated by god) scripture is infallible. Some Muslim scholars say that nature, as a product of god, is in its own way infallible, one cannot deny it. However, if there does seem to be a discrepancy between it and text, one misunderstands the text.
I think this parallels with the modern Christian's task. Just because we have science and empirical data does not mean one must reject doctrine. But neither does it mean we reject science solely because we have doctrine. Just because god (however one defines 'god') 'works in mysterious ways,' does not mean we cannot understand the physical world around us to better understand the world or ourselves, for that matter.
Just a thought.
I feel like no matter if you believe in science/evolution or have a Christian/religious belief, Kant's monogenesis theory makes the most logical sense. Because if you believe in some sort of evolution that would mean that everything stemmed from one beginning and obviously if you have a CHristian background everyone stems from them. I do agree with you in denouncing Kant's theory of two base races and coming from two perfectly white and brunette couple. I just disagree with polygenesis as a whole purely because of the definition of the term and the fact that it supports a natural division between humans which is not a proven fact. So to answer your question I agree with Kant's monogenesis theory to an extent and because it supports the idea of an artificial division which I think is evident in society.
ReplyDeleteMonogenesis over polygenesis. I agree with Kant that race is in fact an artificial division and not a genetic one. Professor Johnson made a comment on how we classify president Obama as the first black President and her comment really threw me off. She presented the idea that If race was a genetic division we have to ask the question, if Obama's parents are one black and one white, shouldn’t president Obama have the same chance of being considered white? I had never considered the statement in that way and that really opened my mind to the different ways of how we can define race. Although, I still do not believe that polygenesis constitutes as one of these ways. The idea that humans proliferated from multiple origins is one that we cannot scientifically prove and belief in the idea can only pave a way for people to find a human stratification in races. In other words, even if polygenesis were a viable option I would choose not to accept it at all for the betterment of all society.
ReplyDelete