Life Conditions vs. Race Traits: Hoffman and Jefferson

A theme present in both the works of Hoffman and Jefferson is the idea of race traits and life conditions. In their most simple forms, race traits seem to be characteristics about a person, or group of people, which are determined solely by their race. On the other hand, life conditions are the external factors, such as climate and the nature of a slave’s master, which, like race traits, have an impact on the person’s behavior and characteristics.

In Hoffman’s text “Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro,” Hoffman attempts to explain higher rates of disease and death among “inferior” races as not a result of their particular life conditions, but rather due to their specific race traits. While discussing the increased rates of death of the Hawaiian race, Hoffman notes how, “It is not, therefore, to any unfavorable conditions of life but to a race trait, an inordinate amount of sexual immorality, that Mr. Bishop attributes the downward tendency of the race…” (Hoffman 322).  Hoffman seems to attribute increased rates of disease and death among a particular race as not a result of, for example, a new introduction of disease into the area by new comers, but rather as a result of a specific race’s natural tendency to “sexual immorality” that causes their higher rates of disease and death. In order to prove why this increased rate of disease and death is a result of natural race traits rather than life conditions, Hoffman looks at the improvement of life conditions with the introduction of European civilization into these “troubled” regions. As Hoffman notes, “With every possible chance that improved conditions of life could offer, with all the churches and schools that were needed, with willing hands ready to help, to support, to save,–this race, ‘sweet, generous and interesting,’ has in the short space of three score and ten years been reduced to less than one-fourth its original numbers” (Hoffman 323). Hoffman only specifies schools and churches when looking at the improvement of life conditions, which seems to suggest that an improvement of life conditions really means an improvement in the ability to cultivate one’s mental capacities. In a study concerned with the extinction of races, it would seem that an improvement of life conditions would include something along the lines of medical care. While Hoffman notes that there were people who where there to help and save, he does not specifically note what they where helping and saving. Were they trying to help the health of these diseased groups of people, or their morality, for example? What he also fails to do, which was undoubtedly impossible at the time of his research, was to conduct a study on the rate of disease and death before the introduction of Europeans into these areas. Maybe this would have produced a different result.

Jefferson also has a similar discussion regarding life conditions versus race traits. Jefferson provides a rather lengthy comparison between the black slaves found in American society and the white slaves found in Roman society. Whereas the acting out of the white slaves was due to the cruelty of their masters and their particular life conditions under Roman rule, the anger of black slaves in America was attributed to their race traits. After noting the harsh treatment of the white slaves under Roman rule, Jefferson notes:

Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, inasmuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their master’s children…It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction. (Jefferson 4)

Not only does Jefferson suggest that a determinant of superiority is the ability to cultivate one’s mental talents, such as artistic and scientific ability, but he also suggests that it is the nature of a race that determines their mental ability, and thus their superiority.

What is most striking about these pieces is their tendencies to define inferiority and superiority as a result of natural race traits, rather than the external influences of life conditions. Going back to our discussion on Kant and Hegel, what are Hoffman and Jefferson really trying to prove with their distinction between race traits and life conditions? If one were to say that Native Americans, for example, were more susceptible to disease because of the introduction of Europeans and their “new” diseases into the environment, what does one gain claiming that this is a peculiarity of the Native American race, and not a life condition? Is there something to say about the claim that race traits are natural? If life conditions can change, for example, by the introduction of European churches and schools, does the claim that, in Hoffman’s case, higher rates of disease among people of color is a result of life conditions threaten the superiority of the white race? More simply stated, if these traits of races are impacted by life conditions and easily changed by a change in life conditions, is inherent inferiority in races no longer natural? Lastly, why do people such as Jefferson, Hoffman, Kant, and Hegel tend towards the idea of natural race traits and natural inferiority? Is there no white superiority, for people like Hoffman and Jefferson, if inferiority is not natural? 

References:

Jefferson, Thomas. “Equality .” Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia. 1784.

Rederick, Hoffman L. Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. New York: MacMillian Company, 1896.

 

The Survival of Immanuel Kant’s Theory on Race

Both Kant’s and Hegel’s texts were interesting to read. Both of these texts operate outside of the field of critical race theory not only because of their age, but also because they do not assume that race is a social construction. Both of these texts went to great lengths to prove the origins of certain races and why races differ.

Kant’s text entitled “Of the Different Human Races” was intriguing because he seems to suggest that racial difference can be attributed to different climates, as well as “interbreeding” between different groups or races. While Kant discusses this idea throughout the entirety of his essay, he first mentions this when he notes, “Races are deviations that are constantly preserved over many generations and come about as a consequence of migration (dislocation to other regions) or through interbreeding…” (Kant 9). Kant’s analysis of the different races also suggests, in a pseudoscientific way, that different iron levels in plants produce different colors of plants, and hence different colors of humans are a result of different iron levels in their blood. Kant notes this when he states:

We now justifiably account for different colors of plants by noting that the iron content of certain identifiably distinct plant juices varies. Similarly, since the blood of all animals contains iron, there is nothing to prevent us from accounting for the different colors of the human races by referring to exactly the same causes. (Kant 19)

It is rather strange how Kant compares plants and animals in order to account for their differences in color. Nonetheless, all of Kant’s “scientific” analysis was founded upon the assumption that there are four distinct races, namely “…(1) the white race; (2) the Negro race; (3) the Hun race (Mongol or Kalmuck); and (4) the Hindu or Hindustani race” (Kant 11).

Many would agree that Kant’s analysis of the races is outdated and false. Nonetheless, Kant’s text associates certain characteristics, such as laziness, with black people and these characteristics seem to have survived the test of time. While analyzing black people, Kant notes how, “…humid warmth generally promotes the strong growth of animals…However, because he is so amply supplied by his motherland, he is also lazy, indolent, and dawdling…” (Kant 17). According to Kant, black people live in a climate, which allows for the growth of strong animals. This idea associates black people with animals and this association is still seen today. For example, there are many cartoons that associate President Obama with monkeys.

While this image (taken from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/18/new-york-post-cartoon-race) may seem harmless upon first glance, many have found that the creators were specifically picturing President Obama as the dead ape. Hence, President Obama is associated with an animal, a convention which was clearly laid out in Kant’s “Of the Different Human Races”. Not to mention, President Obama is not the only black person who has ever been associated with monkeys. It seems that it is common to associate black people with monkeys in modern society.

Another example, initially laid out by Kant, is the laziness of black people as a whole. As noted by Paul Ryan:

This association of black people with laziness is common in modern-day society, and is often seen by the connection between black people and welfare. Interestingly enough, evidence seems to suggest that black people are not the largest recipients of welfare, rather poor white people are the largest recipients. For example, a Huffington Post article has found that the majority of people receiving food stamps are actually white, not black (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html).

Thus, my question is this: how has Kant’s theory survived the test of time? More simply stated, how has Kant’s analysis of black people, namely that they are animalistic and lazy, persisted until today? After reading his theory, it is clear that it is based upon pseudoscientific findings. Nonetheless, society is still unable to break away from these pervasive ideas about black people. Assuming that race is a social construct, how can these aspects of Kant’s theory still be employed today? If race is a social construct, and some in society still believe that black people are animalistic and lazy, could this suggest that what Kant’s theory is really getting at is how race is socially constructed, rather than a scientific principle? Did Kant’s analysis, in this sense, cave in on itself?

References:

Kant, Immanuel. “Of the Different Human Races.” Bernasconi, Robert and Tommy L. Lott. The Idea of Race. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2000. 8-22.