Misunderstanding
the
Concept of Race
Today, in the UK and other dominant-European nations around the world, the term race is still used to describe varied groups of humanity, just as it was almost 200 years ago! This outdated perspective on race is and has always been inaccurate. I submit that this term should be used to describe humanity as a whole, in other words, the human race. After all, the current accepted academic knowledge is that we are all of us one people, even though there are many obvious physical differences between us. Underneath these differences, all humans share several similarities. We all have an innate desire to reproduce and stay alive. This is achieved with food, water, and shelter; all humans need to expel waste in the exact same manner; all humans need to consume energy in the exact same way; and all humans have created social rules to promote their longevity to accomplish these base similarities. Of course, there are many other aspects of humanity that are also shared; however, at a base level, this is what members of humanity need to do to stay alive. Why do some humans tend to focus on the differences rather than the many similarities that all members of humanity share?
Being Thought of as Different
There are members of society who are ostracised by institutions and other members of the same society, simply because they have some differences. This may be due to reasons such as ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexuality, or even education. While this is not a new phenomenon, many members of contemporary British society are surprised that this type of discrimination still takes place. A 2019 survey by Opinium reported that racial abuse against ethnic minorities, rose from 64% in January 2016 to 76% in February 2019, a situation recently heightened by the decision of the British people to no longer be governed by externally foreign European institutions (Booth, 2019). Being classified as different is at the heart of this essay, as it seeks to address this issue by analysing the discourses surrounding this form of prejudicial dislike, paying particular attention to the unique forms of discrimination against people of African descent in British society (the same concerns also exist in other European and Asian dominant nations). In the first instance, the essay will take a historical look at the initial descriptions prescribed to African people by Europeans in order to shed light on the earliest impressions Africans made on European people. It will also seek to ascertain if any sociohistorical impressions have remained an integral part of British societal discourses on African people, which will be followed by an analysis of the ideology that promotes who is considered to be normal and why African people are regarded with disdain because their appearance and ethnicity are dissimilar to the general populace.
When Africans Became Different
For as long as Europeans have been aware of the continent of Africa and its people, Africans have always been regarded with wonder, mystery, and a sense of dread. However, the initial records of European encounters with Africans indicate a respectful acknowledgement of the high civilisations and wealthy kingdoms on the African continent by the nations of the European Peninsula. The Europeans realised that the African civilisations they came into contact with were ancient and, as such, had been established long before their own nations existed (Clarke, 1997). In the fourth century, Greek historians provided great detail on some of the African kingdoms. Herodotus provides several commentaries on the wonders of Kush and her people, where he writes about the wealth of the land and the beauty of the people (Herodotus, 2013).
Similarly, Diodorus writes extensively about the wonders of the Kushite and their civilisation (Diodorus, 1933). It is not until the fifth century that Europeans began to refer to the Kushites according to the colour of their skin, as opposed to using the name related to the kingdom, culture, and heritage of Kush. In many instances, they were regarded as being burned by the sun, so much so that the Greeks then began to refer to the Kushites as Aethiopians, which means ‘sun-burnt face’ (Snowden, 1971).
Tsri suggests that this was the period in which Europeans finally began to regard Africans with disdain. At this time in European history, the colour black had wholly negative connotations in all their languages and within their cultures. When they decided to no longer refer to a people by their own name and culture, but instead to refer to them as being burned by the sun, it suggested a distinct shift in their perceptions of Africans in general (Tsri, 2015). By the time of the Roman Empire, Africans were regarded as headless humanoid beings of the Blemmye tribe, with faces in their chests, as recorded in the maps of Mela (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 ). Throughout the Middle Ages, it was believed that the Blemmyes resided in Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya, and India (Kline, 2001). This depiction of Africans as being sub-human has remained an integral aspect of European discourse for over a millennium, based primarily on the difference of their appearance to the European. Instead of loose hair, the Africans have curly wool like hair, instead of the pale pink like complexion the European is accustomed to, on the continent the Africans have a skin that has a rich brown hue from the lightest tan through to the darkest brown, which was and still is regarded with a begrudging admiration by many.
By the eighteenth century, Europe was still inclined to focus on that which made the appearance of the African markedly different from their own. The methods and techniques being used to highlight these differences, would in this century be based on the newly formed sciences of anthropology, psychology, phrenology and anatomy. These scientific methods would also aim to stipulate that these differences were indicative of a natural inferiority in comparison to the European.
Whilst some of the physiological differences are of course accurate, unfortunately many other differences were simply imagined and accepted as evidence of European superiority over all other members of humanity, especially those of differing ethnicities. It is during this period, that the image and perception of African people, who were once regarded with a sense of wonder and admiration for their civilised societies and kingdoms, eventually came to be looked upon as primitive uncivilised savages (DeGruy, 2005).
One such example of this scientific bias can be found in the work of Dr. Carl von Linnaeus (1735), the preeminent biological scientist of his time. Linnaeus was the first to accurately categorise the entire known animal and plant kingdoms into unique classifications. This landmark system of taxonomy is still used in contemporary educational systems. While the work of Linnaeus has proven to be of immense value to our understanding of life within the plant kingdom and animal kingdom on Earth, the application of this same work to the unique classifications of humanity did not receive the same exacting scientific input. Linnaeus correctly asserts that the largest groups of humanity differ in appearance based on the level of melanin within the skin. However, when he begins to describe the moral and intellectual traits of humanity, his conclusions show a clear bias based on what may have been his individual opinions, and not the scientific method:
‘Homo Americanus as reddish, choleric, contented, and regulated by custom; Homo Europeaus as white, fickle, sanguine, blue-eyed, gentle and governed by laws; Homo Asiaticus as sallow, grave, dignified, avaricious, and ruled by opinion; and Homer Afer as black, phlegmatic, cunning, lazy, lustful, careless and governed by caprice’ (Cited in DeGruy, 2005).
These opinions assumed the superiority of Linnaeus and his European counterparts, over and above all others. Linnaeus states the native American is content and governed by tradition, the native European is gentle and governed by laws, the Asian is avaricious and governed by opinion. However, when it comes to the African, he is described as lazy, careless, highly sexualised, being governed by a senseless disorder and disregarding traditions or laws. Due to Linnaeus’s standing within the scientific world, his classifications gave birth to the science of anthropology, and as such proved to be a major influence on all his successors in this new field.
These ‘scientific’ descriptions of imagined differences between the African and the European, would significantly contribute to the discourses of difference within European societies (Haller, 1996). During the nineteenth century, phrenology was another scientific method used by European scientists to claim the superiority of the European over all other members of humanity, by specifically highlighting the differences between them. Whilst the initial work of taxonomy by Linnaeus was based on scientific methodologies, phrenology was always just a theory, yet it was regarded as a highly respected form of science, and its conclusions as scientific evidence. Phrenology was used to determine the traits and personality of an individual, based on the shape, ridges and overall size of their skull. It was believed these characteristics of the skull could accurately determine the level of intelligence as well as the personality of the subject (DeGruy, 2005). The use of phrenology to determine the intellect of humans, was manipulated to further prove the superiority of the European over all other ethnic groupings of humanity. This remained a popular choice for determining the intellect of an individual well into the twentieth century, and played a significant role in establishing a sense of superiority within European societies based on the differences that were being identified ‘scientifically’. The writings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1893) were very popular during this period, especially his Sherlock Holmes novels, where the protagonist is known for his great intellect. One of his most popular stories, is The Final Problem where Holmes finally meets the equally intellectual Professor Moriarty. During this singular meeting the Professor immediately makes a phrenological analysis of Holmes’s cranial ridge, surprised that he has “less frontal development, than I would have expected” (Doyle, 2019). This exchange is cited to evidence how this theory became a part of the social discourse of the time, and as such an accepted manner of differentiating the levels of intelligence for human beings. However, a century later, phrenology was finally proven to be unfounded as a theoretical framework. In its place, the new science of psychology would now be the indicator to determine the levels of intelligence within people.
The Discipline of Psychology
Sigmund Freud (1913), who is still recognised as the father of modern European psychology, has been extremely influential not only to his successors within the field of psychology but to the accepted concept of mind globally. Freud’s theories set the standard for psychology as a discipline within all European dominated societies. However, throughout his writing Freud made many derogatory references to some of the ancient human societies and their peoples. Of course, it should be noted that Freud was very much a product of his time, so the comments that we know to be wholly prejudicial and denigrating to ancient African civilisations were in this period wholly acceptable and as such believed to be accurate. In essence, Freud’s social views on Africans and other non-European ethnicities were in keeping with this period. These views would have been considered legitimate in large part, due to the now well-established discourses surrounding the supposedly savage like nature of Africans, with no reference to their once great civilisations. In Totem and Taboo, Freud theorises on the initial reasons for the development and evolution of religion within the so-called uncivilised and primitive societies of humanity. In his theory he speaks of the savage cannibalistic nature of African and Asian peoples (Freud, 2001). The field of Anthropology at this time held similar views on the so-called primitive races, providing an example of how Freud’s theories were also accepted into other fields of science.
The Discipline of Anthropology
The 1898 expedition of the Cambridge Anthropological Society to the island nations of the Torres Straits in British New Guinea, was specifically designed to ascertain the intellectual capacity of the inhabitants of these small nations, in comparison to the Europeans. Members of this expedition, reported using the most modern, and up to date scientifically based psychological tests, to determine the levels of intelligence of the local inhabitants: ‘for the first time trained experimental psychologists investigated ... a people in a low state of culture.’ (Cited in Guthrie, 1976) The members of the expedition believed these particular techniques indicated that the inhabitants of the Torres Straits were of lower intelligence (Guthrie, 1976). A century later, and psychological techniques such as these became very popular for determining the intellect of an individual. By the late twentieth century, there were several well received publications seeking to reassert that levels of intelligence are a direct consequence of the specific physiological ethnicity of an individual. Hernstein and Murray (1981) suggest just this, although they also assert the environment may play a part in this. Rushton (1995) seeks to justify the use of the eighteenth-century term ‘race’ to describe the various groups of humanity as well as their levels of intelligence. Lyn and Vanhanen (2002) ascribe to the theory of economic wealth being a direct result of levels of intelligence within a nation. Once again, the ontological concepts of difference, that have slowly taken shape within European societies since antiquity, can be seen to still influence the discourses taking place within modern European societies.
Modern Views of Racial Difference
In contemporary times, this focus on the differences between the African and the European still appears to be of particular relevance to societies that are dominated by the European or the Asian. The practice of institutionalised racism in the fields of psychology and psychiatry within the health sector, are recognised as the descendants of the prejudicial form of psychology practiced since the eighteenth century. The ubiquitous nature of this type of institutionalised racism was first highlighted by Kwame Ture (1967) for its pervasive nature within societies dominated by Europeans: ‘… far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type[institutional racism] originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than the first type [overt racism]’ (Carmichael and Hamilton, 1967, p. 4). One need only take a cursory glance at the various mediums of communication to see that the same character traits depicted by Linnaeus in the eighteenth century, in relation to the African, still appear to be an integral aspect of the social discourse, discussed throughout this essay. An example of how these stereotypical ideologies of difference are promoted on television is analysed by Hall (1981), when he discusses the manner in which the traditional European views of the ‘native’ are an important aspect of their social entertainment. The positive depiction of the gentle ‘native’ is portrayed as the uncivilised, yet noble, primitive who is happy and content with their lot in life. Conversely, Hall relates the imagery popularised in the eighteenth century of the savage, with recent forms of entertainment on television. Hall states ‘the bad side is portrayed in terms of cheating and cunning, and, further out, savagery and barbarism.’ Hall goes on to demonstrate this with reference to the type of characters the African is chosen to play, invariably as the savage native ready to cause untold damage to the innocent European (Hall, 1981, p. 21).
The Role of Media in Highlighting Differences
Another example of the focus on difference, can be seen by the way news reporting agencies portray Africans in their stories. In America, the aftermath of the destruction caused by hurricane Katrina, left parts of New Orleans in a devastated condition, with the living conditions of the residents seriously affected. Thousands of residents needed support from the government just to survive. Analysing this coverage in relation to the depiction of Africans effected by this catastrophe, Sommers (2006) brings attention to the disparity of language when discussing displaced African Americans looking for food and displaced European Americans in the same situation. When the news agencies reported the African American looking for food in the store, they were described as committing the criminal act of looting, yet when male and female European Americans were shown moments later collecting goods from a store, the reporter suggested that they had merely found the items floating past the store. This contemporary attitude promotes Linnaeus’s (1735) claims that it is the African who is not governed by law, whereas the European is. The ideology of being different, must of course have as a foundational premise the ideology of what is considered to be normal. As a European American within a European dominated society, DiAngelo (2012) discusses the topic of White privilege, and the sense of belonging she feels in her life, no matter where she goes and who she speaks to she feels a sense of belonging. So, when DiAngelo switches on the TV to watch a show or a movie, she will immediately see that the main characters are ones she can relate to, if she picks up a book or magazine she will see characters like her and feel that sense of belonging. DiAngelo goes on to state that ‘in virtually every situation or context deemed “normal” or valuable in society, I belong ... This belonging is a deep and ever-present feeling that has always been with me’ (DiAngelo, 2012, p. 135). As non-Europeans living in European dominated societies the sense of normality is not a label afforded to those who look different to the general populace. This apparently consuming need to focus on the differences previously highlighted, are given prominence within European dominated societies, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
Concluding Remarks
In providing a comprehensive and chronological depiction of the highlighted differences, as demonstrated by European scientists and academics over the centuries, this essay sought to demonstrate the ontological basis of differences ascribed to the various groups of humanity. More importantly, the aim was to demonstrate how these differences fed into the socio-historical discourses that have been an integral aspect of European social thought from the time of GrecoRoman antiquity up until the twenty first century. By providing evidence of the earliest presentations of the African people by Europeans, and the important role of language at this time, it was demonstrated how the initial complementary and respectful relationship between the two cultures gradually deteriorated over time. As the centuries past and Africans were being regarded as subhuman, the focus on differences continued unabated for over a millennium. Much of the evidence provided in this essay highlighted how the socio-historical discourse of difference became, and remained, an integral aspect not only of British society, but also the former British colonies that are still dominated by Europeans. Contemporary examples of eighteenth-century prejudice were shown through the various forms of entertainment and the style of news reporting on television. When discussing the concept of what is considered normal in these societies, the ideology of White privilege is suggested as the primary driver behind this. In order for Europeans to maintain their sense of superiority and power within their own societies, and globally, it is believed they will maintain the ideology of White privilege. Due to their financial dominance in the world, the maintenance of White privilege will be achieved by constantly highlighting the economic differences between themselves, and those who are seen to be different and as such considered less intellectual and therefore less capable.
References
Booth, R. (2019) Racism rising since Brexit vote, nationwide study reveals. [Online] Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/racism-on-the-rise-since-brexit-votenationwide-study-reveals (Accessed: 14 December 2019).
Carmichael, S., Hamilton, C.V. (1992) Black Power: The politics of Liberation. London: Jonathon Cape Ltd.
Clarke, H. (1997) Why Africana History? [Online] Available at http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/afprl/clarke/why-africana-history-by-dr.-john-Henrik-Clarke (Accessed: 15 December 2019).
DeGruy, J. (2010) Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome: Americas Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing. Portland: Joy DeGruy Publications Inc.
DiAngelo, R. (2012) What Does it Mean To Be White? Developing Racial Literacy
Doyle, A.C. (2019) The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes [epub], Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911) Mela, Pomponius [Online], Available at: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Mela,_Pomponius (Accessed: 16 December 2019).
Freud, S (2001) Totem and Taboo. Abingdon: Routledge Classics.
Guthrie, R.V. (1976) Even the Rat was White a Historical View of Psychology. New York: Harper and Row.
Haller, J (1996) Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority 1859-1900. 2nd edn. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hernstein, R.J and Murray, C. (1981) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
Kline, N.R. (2001) Maps of Medieval Thought: The Herford Paradigm. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Lynn, R and Vanhanen, T. (2002) IQ and The Wealth of Nations. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Macaulay, G.C. (2013) The History of Herodotus [Project Gutenberg] Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm (Accessed 15 December 2019).
Oldfather, C.H. (1933) Diodorus of Sicily. London: William Heinemann Ltd. Rushton, J.P. (1995) Race, Evolution and Behaviour. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Snowden, F.M. (1971) Blacks in antiquity: Ethiopians in Greco-Roman experience. London: Harvard University Press.
Tsri, K. (2016) ‘Africans are not black: why the use of the term ‘black’ for Africans should be abondoned’, African Identities, 14(2), pp. 147-160. doi: 10.1080/1472583.2015.1113120.
Ture, K., Hamilton (1967)