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 21^st 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.

Herder and Language

What struck me most about Herder's argument, in the excerpt we read from his Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Humankind, was his insistence that we refer to the different peoples of the world as simply that: people. The word race, he claimed, is the wrong one, because it suggests that those different peoples are entirely different in kind. He puts emphasis on the importance of culture and language in the development of a nation, instead of physiognomy. He notes the distinct differences of each individual human that separates that one from every other on the planet. People and peoples are particular, but even in our particularity we are like one another. Each of us has the capacity for reason and use our intellect to seek "unity," or truth.

I was surprised by Herder, because his notion is remarkably egalitarian and seems to fly in the face of the prevailing notions of his time. In many ways, the phenomena that we classify as racism is a result of the language that allows one to justify another's oppression. By classifying others on the basis of race, and by, as Kant does explicitly, relegating that entire race to the status of subordinate, one opens up a kind of ethical vacuum in which one can justify much while sacrificing little of one's material goals. Because this other is something entirely other and because that other is not a "people" (like the one making this evaluation), the one's ends can be valued as greater, superseding any of the other's goals or desires. The division of the world into races becomes an excuse for exploitation.

On the other hand, it's harder to hurt someone who you know as a person, a fellow human being with his or her own purposes and desires. When you recognize the other's face as a human one, you meet and treat that other according to your own ethical standards. You don't meet her or him as you would a dog, or a beast of burden, or a hostile animal. Such an ethical meeting is the foundation of human community. But it is the case that we sometimes (often as a result of our upbringing or socialization) meet others solely or primarily as Blacks or Hispanics or Whites (this same might apply to women, as well, and perhaps men), and relegate their entire personhood to this mere description. They appear to us as members of a race (or gender), not as individuals and not as members of the same nation. This leads to division, and impedes our understanding of each other. If unchecked in times of social upheaval, the relegation of individuals on a massive scale to the status of other can lead to oppression and violence.

All this was a somewhat roundabout way of saying that the words we use have distinct importance, as does the way that we meet others, and that the language we use can often cloud our attempts to find common ground. If what we are seeking is some kind of truth, then we might do well by regarding Herder's words (slightly paraphrased):

[Those] who succeed in banishing mistakes from creation, lies from our memory, and insults from our nature are to the realm of truth just what the heroes in the fables were to the first world; they reduce the number of monsters on earth.

The Thought of Monogenesis and Race: Kant vs von Herder

I’ve been trying to figure out what exactly I wanted to talk about all day. But I was flipping through the pages of my book, and I found a comparison between Kant and von Herder. We did not discuss the passage by von Herder in class on Thursday, but the similarity between the two is the notion of monogenesis. As we learned in class, monogenesis is the idea that all humans have the same origin or genus. Both Kant and von Herder refer to the concept of monogenesis in some form, but they are in opposition when it comes to defining races.

In Kant's piece, he describes monogenesis through natural division, which is based on identifying distinct lines of descent according to reproductive relations. According to this theory, he says all human beings anywhere on earth belong to the same natural genus, because they always produce fertile children with one another even if we find great dissimilarities in their form. So, basically, he's saying if we all belong to the same genus, we're connected in some way, like a family.

Similarly, von Herder supports monogenesis. The very first statement he makes in his article is no matter how different the forms in which humankind appears on earth, it is still everywhere one and the same human species. In other words, no matter how many differences humans possess, we are still one and originate from the same human species, thus we are from the same genus.

So what was interesting to me is the fact  that while both refer to and support monogenesis and how we all belong to the same genus, the concept of race is a completely different story. Kant describes four different races, and argues that race is the most helpful tool to organize humans. von Herder, however, sees no reason for the concept of "race." He argues that there are neither four nor five races. We are all one, and our "colors" run into one another.

If we think of this truly from the notion of monogenesis, there really should not be distinct "races." If we all belong to the same genus, then we are all the same species, period. I found it interesting that while Kant is trying to denounce polygenesis, he's still supporting the idea that there are, in fact, different races and the racial characteristics are permanent across generations. How is this possible? If we are all from one genus, or one "Adam," how can we be divided into races?

My question is, what are your interpretations of monogenesis and race? Do you think the two related? or are they two completely different concepts?

Kant and Monogenesis

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).

On Hegel's "Anthropology"

Following from Kant and Bernier, Hegel establishes categorical differences between races consequent from the varied geographical locations where the aforementioned races inhabit. He goes into quite some detail articulating generalized caricatures, or physiognomies, of each race in order to establish a clear picture of these differences. (Importantly for Hegel, these differences are necessary rather than contingent.) Unlike Kant, Hegel has no interest in arguing in favor of either the Polygenesis or Monogenesis theory; According to his "Anthropology," all human beings are unequivocally rational beings; therefore, no person ought to be under the dominion of any other person--no matter what race. The debate surrounding these two theories, at its basis, stems from a political, sociological, and economic need to justify, legitimize, and ordain the enslavement of one person to another. That being said, Hegel nonetheless goes on to cast the Negro race as essentially child-like, which becomes an unambiguous declaration of necessary paternalism: "Negroes are to be regarded as a race of children who remain immersed in their state of uninterested naivete"(40). Hegel declares that the entire continent of Africa, with the exception of the Arab populations on the Mediterranean (who just happen to look more European), is a homogenous entity, despite the differences in language, epistemology, metaphysics, and ontologies from one African population to the next. Within a semiotic diametric, Hegel defines caucasians positively against a negatively defined Negro race. Whereas Negroes are devoid of rationality, culture, and intellectual ambition, Caucasians are essentially a thinking population. Similarly, the Mongols, for example, engage in aimless expansion, which is destructive rather than constructive. This small clarification is necessary, because the Caucasian population also engages in expansion, but with a purpose--colonization; In fact, it is the white man's moral obligation to colonize. The more despotic the population, the more in need they are for the word of God. Furthermore, Hegel goes to great length to elaborate upon the Metaphysics of each group. The Negroes find their gods in material objects in the world, implying a communion with the natural world. Whites, on the other hand, have transcended this "limited" perspective in favor of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God, not grounded in the material: "The European mind strives to make manifest the unity between itself and the outer world. It subdues the outer world to its ends with an energy which has ensured for it the mastery of the world"(43). Hegel embraces the Baconian empirical dictum, "knowledge is power." Within this Manichean dogmatism, Whites have the privilege and divine responsibility to hold dominion over the Earth. By occluding multiplicity, he effectively underscores the necessary racial Hierarchy that he initially seemed to undermine.

The Physicality of Race and Django Unchained

So, to start, here’s a preview of Django Unchained:

The movie follows a freed slave, Django (Jamie Foxx) and a bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as they first execute a number of wanted men and then search for Django’s wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who has been sold to a particularly cruel slave master. 

There are dozens of race-related issues in the film, ranging from Quentin Tarantino’s liberal use of the n-word to the slave dolls that were being sold in relation to the film to whether or not the film contains messages of African-American agency and liberation or just reinforces a series of stereotypes.  Related to our class on Thursday, though, I want to ask y’all about the physical distinguishers and the “science” of race presented in the film. The pseudo-science attached to racism makes an appearance.  At one point, the plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), explains the differences between African-Americans and whites using phrenology.  He notes the dimples in a black slave’s skull as evidence of a tendency toward submissiveness.  Beyond the phrenology, there are many points in the movie where the characters focus on the difference between field slaves and house slaves.  Broomhilda is, as Django says, too pretty to be a field slave.  He is referencing both her physical appearance and her skin tone.  

This pseudo-science used to justify racism doesn’t seem to make many modern-day appearances.  However, as we discussed in class, skin color is still the central piece of our race-based judgments and that doesn’t seem to have changed much since Bernier and Kant.  I had a classmate in high school whose mother could pass for white, and when she was born, a mix-up in nurses landed her in the white nursery, where none of her family could visit.  My classmate noted in a discussion on race that his mother’s lighter skin tone allowed her a number of privileges throughout her life. Even though nobody outside the Klan really breaks out a skull to defend racism anymore, the assumptions attached to that skull seem to remain in the assumptions based on skin color. 

I wanted to ask, and I know these are huge questions: what do y’all think has changed or remained the same with regard to our understanding of race?  Kant and Bernier are obviously making moral judgments in their descriptions of physical difference.  What moral judgments do we now attach to skin tone and physical appearance?  How are the conversations about skin color and identity that we have now related to those presented by Kant and relayed in Django?

Kant and Bernier in an Ethnocentric/Eurocentric World

It is a part of human nature to try to classify, label, and divide the different segments of our lives. Having more classifications means having a better general understanding of the information which is constantly bombarding our senses relating to the social world in which we live. Human beings like simplicity. Being able to internalize aspects of life into categories which form schemas held us to better organize our knowledge of society and makes things simpler for us. Bernier and Kant were some of the first individuals to officially divide human beings up into separate races. Bernier proudly declares his “division of the earth” into four (or five) distinct races; while Kant, similarly, attests to the existence of four separate human races. The majority of their arguments and declarations seem to be based upon observations of physical variations well as their correlation to geographical and environmental differences. As we discussed in class, it is understandable to some degree that upon first being confronted by peoples who appeared so outwardly different from themselves, the Europeans would have wanted to know more about them and to know why such variations existed. But, at the same time, I think that the use of race as a way to categorize physical differences between human beings quickly (perhaps almost instantaneously) became attached to much wider implications. Judgmental undertones make themselves apparent in the writing of both authors, Kant and Bernier. Bernier described the skin tone of those living in the Indies as being akin to a disease writing of “that shade of yellow…that ugly and livid paleness of jaundice.” Additionally, he speaks of the blacks living on the Cape of Good Hope as being “small, thin, dry, ugly…” He compares them to common beasts telling of the way in which they eat carrion “whose entrails they twine round their arms and neck, as one sees here sometimes with our butcher’s dogs, that they may eat them when they want…” Kant’s diction reflects similar biases which are illuminated in his characterization of behavioral attributes of the non-European races. He writes, for example, “Because he [the Negro] is so amply supplied by his motherland, he is also lazy, indolent, and dawdling.” Ethnocentrism and naïve realism highlight both Kant and Bernier’s work. Kant’s conclusion that the lineal root genus of the human race must be the white European further exemplifies these facts. The lack of reflexivity exhibited by these author’s, however, would not have been specific to them as individuals. Eurocentric philosophy dominated the discourse of (Western) Europe for hundreds of years. Even after taking the social context into account, however, I still find the hierarchy that was slowly put into place on the basis of race to be extremely problematic. I wonder if there was any way in which the circumstances could have been altered so as to create a feeling of unity and equality among races rather than the stratified tension that came to be. Do we as humans have the innate tendency to compare ourselves to others? Is it in our nature to strive to create conditions that are the most favorable to us as individuals? Does our own ethnocentrism today still color our perceptions about the society in which we live and continue to dictate our current understanding of the past?

Race Visibility

     I'm sure that many people will discuss the fact that our readings primarily focused on the physical aspects of race. It's unsurprising that the first published essay on race was mostly about the differences in appearance that Bernier saw. In a culture where race or discussion about race did not really exist, as Dr J mentioned in class, these foreign people would seem bizarre and worthy of attention. If Bernier could not communicate with any of the other people he met, all he really had to work with for his essay was what he could visibly see. While it would seem like we should have progressed beyond Bernier, and in many regards we have, we still have similar discourse and perceptions in our society. If someone has multiple racial backgrounds, he or she will most likely be identified by whatever is most visible to other people. The most obvious example of this is President Obama. Obama has multiple racial heritages, however, he is discussed primarily as 'black' or 'African American'. He is hailed as our first black president, which is true, but this is hugely because of how people perceive him. People see him as a black man, thus they project that singular racial identity onto him--despite multiple sources saying exactly what his racial background is. It's curious to see that Bernier and much of America share similar ways of describing race.
    It was mentioned in class how in our society race signals a lot because of the history and modern culture our society has with racism. However, as it was also pointed out, Bernier himself was putting value judgments and words within his descriptions of other races. The Lapp people were beastly 'creatures'. He seemed to imply good things when other races had European like qualities. Do you think this is just because of a tendency to assume one self is the 'proper' way thus anything else is a deviation, therefore possibly bad? Without the history, why did Bernier write the way he did?