Gould – The Mismeasure of Man

The Mismeasure of Man: American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin (Chapter 2)

by Stephen Jay Gould

[Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. “Chapter 2” of The Mismeasure of Man. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. pp 62-104]

Points & Quotes:

“Racial prejudice may be as old as recorded human history t but its biological justification imposed the additional burden of intrinsic inferiority upon despised groups, and precluded redemption by conversion or assimilation. The ‘scientific’ argument has formed a primary line of attack for more than a century .” (62)

A Shared Context of Culture

“In assessing the impact of science upon eighteenth- and nineteenth-century views of race, we must first recognize the cultural milieu of a society whose leaders and intellectuals did not doubt the propriety of racial ranking—with Indians below whites, and blacks below everybody else. Under this universal umbrella, arguments did not contrast equality with inequality.” (63)

“There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Douglas debates (pg 66)

“I do not cite these statements in order to release skeletons from ancient closets. Rather, I quote the men who have justly earned our highest respect in order to show that white leaders of Western nations did not question the propriety of racial ranking during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” (66)

“Charles Darwin , the kindly liberal and passionate abolitionist,* wrote about a future time when the gap between human and ape will increase by the anticipated extinction of such intermediates as chimpanzees and Hottentots” (69):

The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Causasian, and some ape as low as a babon, instead of as at preent between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”

Charles Darwin, in Descent of Man, 1871, p. 201.

“Preevolutionary justifications for racial ranking proceeded in two modes. The “softer” argument—again using inappropriate definitions from modern perspectives—upheld the scriptural unity of all peoples in the single creation of Adam and Eve. This view was called monogenism—or origin from a single source. Human races are a product of degeneration from Eden’s perfection. Races have declined to different degrees, whites least and blacks most. […]
The “harder” argument abandoned scripture as allegorical and held that human races were separate biological species, the descendants of different Adams. As another form of life, blacks need not participate in the “equality of man.” Proponents of this argument were called ‘polygenists.” (71)

Etienne Serres (famous Fench medical anatomist, 1860) “settled on the theory of recapitulation—the idea that higher creatures repeat the adult stages of lower animals during their own growth. Adult blacks, he argued, should be like white children, adult Mongolians like white adolescents. He searched diligently but devised nothing much better than the distance between navel and penis—’that ineffaceable sign of embryonic life in man.’ This distance is small relative to body height in babies of all races. The navel migrates upward during growth, but attains greater heights in whites than in yellows, and never gets very far at all in blacks . Blacks remain perpetually like white children and announce their inferiority thereby.”

Charles White, an English surgeon, wrote the strongest defense of polygeny in 1799—Account of the Regular Gradation in Man […]
White’s criteria of ranking tended toward the aesthetic, and his argument included the following gem, often quoted. Where else but among Caucasians, he argued, can we find:

. . . that nobly arched head, containing such a quantity of brain . . . Where that variety of features, and fulness of expression; those long, flowing, graceful ring-lets; that majestic beard, those rosy cheeks and coral lips? Where that . . . noble gait? In what other quarter of the globe shall we find the blush that overspreads the soft features of the beautiful women of Europe, that emblem of modesty, of delicate feelings . . . where, except on the bosom of the European woman, two such plump and snowy white hemispheres, tipt with vermillion.

Charles White, 1799

Louis Agassiz—America’s Theorist of Polygeny

“In the early to mid-nineteenth century, the budding profession of American science … a collection of eclectic amateurs, bowing before the prestige of European theorists, became a group of professionals with indigenous ideas and an internal dynamic that did not require constant fueling from Europe. The doctrine of polygeny acted as an important agent in this transformation; for it was one of the first theories of largely American origin that won the attention and respect of European scientists—so much so that Europeans referred to polygeny as the ‘American school’ of anthropology.” (74)

Louis Agassiz’s (1807-1873) immigration to the US in the 1840s immediately elevated the status of American natural history. He also became the leading spokesman for polygeny in America.

Agassiz published his major statement on human races in the Christian Examiner for 1850. […] his argument : The theory of polygeny does not constitute an attack upon the scriptural doctrine of human unity. Men are bound by a common structure and sympathy, even though races were created as separate species. The Bible does not speak about parts of the world unknown to the ancients; the tale of Adam refers only to .the origin of Caucasians. Negroes and Caucasians are as distinct in the mummified remains of Egypt as they are today. […] approaching the end of his article, Agassiz abruptly shifts his ground and announces a moral imperative:

There are upon earth different races of men, inhabiting different parts of its surface, which have different physical characters; and this fact . .. presses upon us the obligation to settle the relative rank among these races, the relative value of the characters peculiar to each, in a scientific point of view.. . . As philosophers it is our duty to look it in the face (p . 142).

Louis Agassiz

“Agassiz’s world collapsed during the last decade of his life. His students rebelled; his supporters defected. He remained a hero to the public , but scientists began to regard him as a rigid and aging dogmatist, standing firm in his antiquated beliefs before the Darwinian tide. But his social preferences for racial segregation prevailed—all the more because his fanciful hope for voluntary geographic separation did not.” (82)

The American School and Slavery

“…the polygenist argument did not occupy a primary place in the ideology of slavery in mid-nineteenth-century America—and for a good reason. For most Southerners, this excellent argument entailed too high a price . The polygenists had railed against ideologues as barriers to their pure search for truth, but their targets were parsons more often than abolitionists. Their the- ory, in asserting a plurality of human creations , contradicted the doctrine of a single Adam and contravened the literal truth of scripture.” (101-102)

“The polygenists forced defenders of slavery into a quandary: Should they accept a strong argument from science at the cost of limiting religion’s sphere? In resolving this dilemma, the Bible usually won. After all, scriptural arguments for supporting slavery were not wanting. Degeneration of blacks under the curse of Ham was an old and eminently functional standby. Moreover, polygeny was not the only quasi-scientific defense available.” (102)

“The defenders of slavery did not need polygeny. Religion still stood above science as a primary source for the rationalization ·of social order. But the American debate on polygeny may represent the last time that arguments in the scientific mode did not form a first line of defense for the status quo and the unalterable quality of human differences. The Civil War lay just around the corner, but so did 1859 and Darwin’s Origin of Species. Subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science.” (103-104)

Terms:

monogenism—the belief that all human peoples share the same genetic origin

polygenism—the belief that different human races come from different genetic sources, and are thus different species

Annotation Summary for The Mismeasure of Man—Ch. 2

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “‘”fWO”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “American Pol~rgeny and Craniometry l)efore Darwin”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Blacks and Indians as Separate, Inferior Species”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “APPEALS To REASON or to the nature of the universe have been used throughout history to enshrine existing hierarchies as proper and inevitable : The hierarchies rarely endure for more than a few gen­erations, but the arguments, refurbished social institutions, cycle endlessly. for the next round of”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Racial prejudice may be as old as recorded human history t but its biological justification imposed the additional burden of intrin­ sic inferiority upon despised groups, and precluded redemption by conversion or assimilation. The “scientific” argument has formed a primary line of attack for more than a century “

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “A shared context of culture “

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “In assessing the impact of science upon eighteenth- and nine­teenth-century views of race , we :must first recognize the cultural ~ilieu of a society whose leaders and intellectuals did not doubt the propriety of racial ranking–with Indians below whites, and blacks below everybody else (Fig. 2.1). Under this universal umbrella, arguments did not contrast equality with inequality. One group-we might call them “hard-liners”-held that blacks were inferior and that their biological status justified enslavement and colonization. Another group-the “soft-liners,” if you will-agreed that blacks were inferior, but held that a people ‘s right to freedom did not depend upon their level of intelligence. “Whatever be their degree of talents,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “it is no measure oftheir rights.” “

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “All American culture heroes embraced racial attitudes that”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “would embarrass public-school mythmakers.”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Lincoln never”

Page 3, Underline (Blue):
Content: “Lincoln”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “abandoned a basic attitude, so strongly expressed in the Douglasdebates (1858): “

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and Ias much as any other man am in favor of having the superior assigned to the white race. position “

Page 5, Underline (Blue):
Content: “There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Lest we choose to regard this statement as mere campaign rhetoric, I cite this private jotting, scribbled on a fragment of paper in 1859: Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the Government of a God great enough to make and rule the universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to quip, so low a piece of demagogism as this (in Sinkler, 1972, p. 47). “

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “I do not cite these statements in order to release skeletons from ancient closets. Rather, I quote the men who have justly earned our highest respect in order to show that white leaders of Western nations did not question the propriety of racial ranking during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”

Page 5, Underline (Blue):
Content: “I do not cite these statements in order to release skeletons from ancient closets. Rather, I quote the men who have justly earned our highest respect in order to show that white leaders of Western nations did not question the propriety of racial ranking during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “In this context, the pervasive assent given by scientists to conventional rankings arose from shared social belief, not from objective data gathered to test an open question. Yet, in a curious case of reversed causality, these pro­nouncements context. were read as independent support for the political”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Charles Darwin , the kindly liberal and passionate abolitionist,* wrote about a future time when the gap between human and ape will increase by the anticipated extinction of such intermediates aschimpanzees and Hottentots. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Causasian, and some ape as low as a babon, instead of as at preent between the negro or Austra­ lian and the gorilla (Descent of Man, 1871, p. 201). “

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “* Darwin wrote , for example, in the Voyage of the Beagle: “Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled , beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) opn his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite dean. . . . And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we En­glishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.””

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Alfred Russel Wallace, codiscoverer of natural selection with Darwin , is justly hailed as an antiracist. Indeed, he did affirm near equality in the innate mental capacity of all peoples. Yet, curiously, this very belief led him to abandon natural selection and return to divine creation as an explanation for the human mind-much to Darwin’s disgust. Natural selection, Wallace argued, can only build structures immediately useful to animals possessing them. The brain of savages is, potentially , as good as ours. But they do not use it fully, as the rudeness and inferiority of their culture indicates. Since modern savages are much like human ancestors, our brain must have developed its higher capacities long before we put them to any use. “

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Preevolutionary styles of scientific racism:monogenism and polygenism “

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Preevolutionary justifications for racial ranking proceeded in two modes. The “softer” argun1ent-again definitions from modern perspectives-upheld using inappropriate the scriptural unity of all peoples in the single creation of Adam and Eve. This view was called monogenism–or origin fro :m a single source. Human races are a product of degeneration from Eden’s perfection. Races havedeclined to different degrees, whiites least and blacks most. Climate proved most popular as a primary cause for racial distinction. “

Page 10, Underline (Blue):
Content: “The “softer” argun1ent-again definitions from modern perspectives-upheld using inappropriate the scriptural unity of all peoples in the single creation of Adam and Eve. This view was called monogenism–or origin fro :m a single source. Human races are a product of degeneration from Eden’s perfection. Races havedeclined to different degrees, whiites least and blacks most. “

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):
Content: ” monogenism”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Samuel Stanhope Smith, president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), hoped that American blacks, in a climate more suited to Caucasian tempera­ ments, would soon turn white.”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The “harder” argument abandoned scripture as allegorical and held that human races were separate biological species, the descen­ dants of different Adams. As another form of life, blacks need not participate in the “equality of man.” Proponents of this argument were called “polygenists.””

Page 10, Underline (Blue):
Content: “The “harder” argument abandoned scripture as allegorical and held that human races were separate biological species, the descen­dants of different Adams. As another form of life, blacks need not participate in the “equality of man.” Proponents of this argument were called “polygenists.” “

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):
Content: “”polygenists.””

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “· Degenerationism was probablly the more popular argument, if only because scripture was not to be discarded lightly. Moreover, the interfertility of all human races seemed to guarantee their union as a single species under Buffon’:s criterion that members of a spe­cies be able to breed with each other, but not with representatives of any other group. B”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Buffon himself, the greatest naturalist of eigh­teenth-century France, was a strong abolitionist and exponent of improvement for inferior races in appropriate environments. But he never doubted the inherent validity of a white standard: The most temperate climate lies between the 40th and 50th degree of latitude, and it produces the most handsome and beautiful men. It is from this climate that the ideas of the genuine color of mankind, and of the various degrees of beauty ought to be derived. “

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Serres worked to document the signs of inferiority among lower races . As an anato imist, he sought evidence within hisspecialty and confessed to some difficulty in establishing both crite­ria and data. He settled on the theory of recapitulation-the idea that higher creatures repeat the adult stages of lower animals during their own growth (Chapter 4). Adult blacks, he argued, should be like white children, adult Mongolians like white adolescents. “

Page 11, Underline (Blue):
Content: “Serres”

Page 11, Underline (Blue):
Content: ” settled on the theory of recapitulation-the idea that higher creatures repeat the adult stages of lower animals during their own growth (Chapter 4). Adult blacks, he argued, should be like white children, adult Mongolians like white adolescents. He searched diligently but devised nothing much better than the dis­tance between navel and penis–“that ineffaceable sign of e1nbry­onic life in man.” This distance is small relative to body height in babies of all races. The navel migrates upward during growth, but attains greater heights in whites than in yellows, and never gets very far at all in blacks . Blacks remain perpetually like white children and announce their inferiority thereby. “

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “He searched diligently but devised nothing much better than the dis­tance between navel and penis–“that ineffaceable sign of e1nbry­onic life in man.” This distance is small relative to body height in babies of all races. The navel migrates upward during growth, but attains greater heights in whites than in yellows, and never gets very far at all in blacks . Blacks remain perpetually like white children and announce their inferiority thereby. “

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “White’s criteria of ran~ing tended toward the aesthetic, and his ar­ gument included the following gem, often quoted. vVhere else but among Caucasians, he argued, can we find . . . . that nobly arched head, containing such a quantity of brain. Where that variety of features, and fulness of expression; those long, flow-“

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “ing, graceful ring-lets; that majestic beard, those rosy cheeks and coral lips?Where that . . . noble gait? In what other quarter of the globe shall we find the blush that overspreads the soft features of the beautiful women of Europe, that emblem of modesty, of delicate feelings . . . where, except on the bosom of the European woman, two such plump and snowy white hemispheres, tipt with vermillion (in Stanton, 1960, p. 17). “

Page 13, Stamp (exclamationPointred)

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Louis Agassiz-America’s the!:orist of polygeny”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Ralph Waldo Emerson argued t”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “that intellectual emancipation should follow political independence. American scholars should abandon their subservience to European styles and theories. “

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “We have, Emerson wrote, “listened too long to the courtly muses of . Europe.” “We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds” (in Stanton, 1960, p. 84).”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “In the early to mid-nineteenthof American science “

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “nth century, the budding profession”

Page 13, Underline (Blue):
Content: “In the early to mid-nineteenth century, the budding profession of American science organized itself to follow Emerson’s advice. Acollection of eclectic amateurs, bowing before the prestige of Euro­ pean theorists, became a group of professionals with indigenous ideas and an internal dynamic that did not require constant fueling from Europe. “

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” Acollection of eclectic amateurs, bowing before the prestige of Euro­ pean theorists, became a group of professionals with indigenous ideas and an internal dynamic that did not require constant fueling from Europe. “

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “organized itself to follow Emerson’s advice.”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The doctrine of polygeny acted as an important agent in this transformation; for it was one of the first theories of largely American origin that won the alttention and respect of European scientists-so much so that Europeans referred to polygeny as the”American school” of anthropology. “

Page 13, Underline (Blue):
Content: “The doctrine of polygeny acted as an important agent in this transformation; for it was one of the first theories of largely American origin that won the alttention and respect of European scientists-so much so that Europeans referred to polygeny as the”American school” of anthropology. “

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), the great Swiss naturalist, “

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “immigration to America in the 1840s im1nediately elevated the status of American natural history.”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Agassiz also became the leading spokesman for polygeny in America. He did not bring this theory with him from Europe . He converted to the doctrine of human races as separate species after his first experiences with American blacks. “

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Agassiz may have been predisposed to polygeny by biological belief, but I doubt that this pious man would have abandoned the Biblical orthodoxy of a single Adam if he had not been confronted both by the sight of American blacks and the urgings of his polyge­nist colleagues . Agassiz never generated any data for polygeny. Hisconversion followed an immediate visceral judgment and some per­sistent persuasion by friends. “

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Agassiz published his major statement on human races in the Christian Examiner for 1850.”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Agassiz”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “presents his argument : The theory of polygeny does not constitute an attack upon the scriptural doctrine of human unity. Men are bound by a common structure and sympathy , even”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “though races were created as separate species. The Bible does not speak about parts of the world unknown to the ancients; the tale ofAdam refers only to .the origin of Caucasians. Negroes and Cauca­sians are as distinct in the mummified remains of Egypt as they are today. “

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Agassiz abruptly shifts hisa moral imperative-“

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “ground and announces a moral imperative-“

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “There are upon earth different races of men, inhabiting different parts of its surface, which have different physical characters; and this fact . .. presses upon us the obligation to settle the relative rank among these races, the relative value of the characters peculiar to each, in a scientific point ofview .. . . As philosophers it is our duty to look it in the face (p. 142). “

Page 19, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “For Agassiz, nothing inspired more fear than the prospect of amalgamation by intermarriage. White strength depends upon separation: “The production of halfbreeds is as much a sin against nature, as incest in a civilized community is a sin against purity of character. … Far from presenting to me a natural solution of our difficulties, the idea of amalgan1ation is most repugnant to my feel­ings, I hold it to be a perversion of every natural sentiment .. . . No efforts should be spared to check that which is abhorrent to our better nature, and to the progress of a higher civilization and a purer morality” (g August 1863). “

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Agassiz’s world collapsed during the last decade of his life. His students rebelled; his supporters defected. He remained a hero tothe public , but scientists began to regard him as a rigid and aging dogmatist, standing firm in his antiquated beliefs before the Dar­winian tide. But his social preferences for racial segregation pre­ vailed-all the more because his fanciful hope for voluntary geographic separation did not. “

Page 22, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The American school and slavery”

Page 22, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” the polygenist argument did not occupy a primary place in the ideology of slavery in mid-nineteenth-century ica-and argument Amer­for a good reason. For most Southerners, this excellententailed too high a price . The polygenists had railed “

Page 22, Underline (Blue):
Content: “the polygenist argument did not occupy a primary place in the ideology of slavery in mid-nineteenth-century ica-and argument Amer­for a good reason. For most Southerners, this excellententailed too high a price . The polygenists had railed “

Page 23, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “against ideologues as barriers to their pure search for truth, but their targets were parsons more often than abolitionists. Their the­ory, in asserting a plurality of human creations , contradicted doctrine of a single Adam and contravened the the literal truth ofscripture. “

Page 23, Underline (Blue):
Content: “against ideologues as barriers to their pure search for truth, but their targets were parsons more often than abolitionists. Their the­ ory, in asserting a plurality of human creations , contradicted the doctrine of a single Adam and contravened the literal truth of scripture.”

Page 23, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The polygenists forced defenders of slavery into a quandary: Should they accept a strong argument from science at the cost of limiting religion’s sphere? In resolving this dilemma, the Bible usu­ally won. After all, scriptural arguments for supporting slavery were not wanting. Degeneration of blacks under the curse of Ham was an old and eminently functional standby. Moreover, polygeny was not the only quasi-scientific defense available. “

Page 23, Underline (Blue):
Content: “The polygenists forced defenders of slavery into a quandary: Should they accept a strong argument from science at the cost of limiting religion’s sphere? In resolving this dilemma, the Bible usu­ally won. After all, scriptural arguments for supporting slavery were not wanting. Degeneration of blacks under the curse of Ham was an old and eminently functional standby. Moreover, polygeny was not the only quasi-scientific defense available. “

Page 23, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” S. A. Cartwright,a prominent Southern physician. “

Page 23, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “traced the problems of black people to inadequate decarbonization of blood in the lungs (insuf­ficient removal of carbon dioxide): “It is the defective … atmo­spherization of the blood, conjoined with a deficiency of cerebral “

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “rnatter in the cranium … that is the true cause of that debasement of mind, which has rendered the people of Africa unable to takecare of themselves” (from Chorover, 1979″

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “a disease of”

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Cartwright even had a name for it-dysesthesia,inadequate breathing. “

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Cartwright did not end his catalogue of diseases with dys­esthesia. He wondered why slaves often tried to flee, and identified the cause as a mental disease called drapetornania, or the insane desire to run away. “Like children , they are constrained by unalter­ able physiological laws, to love those in authority over them. Hence, from a law of his nature, the negro can no more help lov­ing a kind master, than the child can help loving her that gives it suck.” “

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The defenders of slavery did not need polygeny. Religion still”

Page 24, Underline (Blue):
Content: “The defenders of slavery did not need polygeny. Religion still”

Page 25, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “stood above science as a primary source for the rationalization ·ofsocial order. But the American debate on .polygeny may represent the last time that arguments in the scientific mode did not form a first line of defense for the status quo and the unalterable qu~lity of human differences. The Civil War lay just around the corner, but so did 1859 and Darwin’s Origi,n of Species. Subsequent argu­ ments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of sci­ence . “

Page 25, Underline (Blue):
Content: “stood above science as a primary source for the rationalization ·of social order. But the American debate on .polygeny may represent the last time that arguments in the scientific mode did not form a first line of defense for the status quo and the unalterable qu~lity of human differences. The Civil War lay just around the corner, but so did 1859 and Darwin’s Origi,n of Species. Subsequent argu­ ments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of sci­ ence .”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “from American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 58, No. 3. (Jun., 1956), pp. 503-507”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s