Ethnocentric ideas which
vaunted the perceived racial superiority of certain groups (most typically white
Europeans) increased in currency towards the end of the 19th century and
ultimately reinforced those inter-imperialist rivalries which led to the great
and wasteful conflagration known as the First World War. The rising influence of
Darwinist thinking as applied to the social field obviously fed into and
increased pre-existing chauvinisms particularly when the great powers were
engaged in direct competition for the pursuit of colonies. How widespread these
racial theories were and to what extent they managed to influence policy is
probably a matter of conjecture but there's no doubt that many British, French
and Germans (and Russian Pan-Slavists too we must imagine) in a post-Darwin
context were accustomed to explain their country's exalted status in terms of
their own specific fitness to govern; a special fitness derived from the
perceived superiority of the Aryan, Slavic or Anglo-Saxon 'race'. It is notable
too that the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe (Dreyfuss Affair, Russian pogroms,
discrimination against Jewish Poles etc.) seemed to coincide with the increasing
acceptance of many of these racialist doctrines.
The Frenchman Gobineau had published "Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" even before Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. He argued that race was the most important factor in determining the success of a civilization, that the 'Aryans' (by which I think he meant here the general European gene pool, almost equivalent to today's Indo-European) were evidently more equipped to lead as they had maintained more successfully the purity of their stock and that 'blacks' and 'yellows', the civilizations of Africa and Asia were 'evidently' not descended from Adam but belonged in fact to a different species. It is interesting in this case how Biblical authority is being marshalled as evidence as it allows him to disregard entirely the central Christian message as I understand it; "Do not do unto others as you would have done unto you".
Hitler visited the German adopted Englishman H.S. Chamberlain on his deathbed whose book, "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" (1899) was very influential and in which he propounded further on the notion of a master race which had gained its qualities through a long struggle for existence and by the process of natural selection. Johann Gottfried Herder, a German enlightenment thinker perhaps prefigured them all with his notion of the 'perfectability of the species' which is actually a very sympathetic account of racial differences - in so far as I don't recall him emphasising any inherent superiority in the varied 'racial groups' - but instead tended to look upon differences between groups as a natural consequence of their having a unique 'shaping' environment.
Again, Nietzsche in Ecce Homo would meditate endlessly on the varied climates to be found north and south of the Danube and convince himself how these had altered the physical constitutions of its inhabitants, not least himself. I mention Herder as it appeared to me when reading him that there was no intent on his part to establish the 'Germanic' peoples as being especially fit to govern, still less to suggest there was a 'master race'. It all goes back to the point of what use discoveries in science (such as natural selection ) are actually put to; as on their own they are morally neutral and simply await interpretation. For instance, liberal reformers in England were influential in establishing welfare policies in the 1870's on the basis of studies which seemed to confirm that many of the poor remained so on account of a 'natural inferiority' which could be explained via Darwinist principles. Here the science is mobilised for philanthropic purposes in contrast to the same science being used in the following generation to justify eugenics programmes in Nazi Germany.
But Germany certainly didn't hold the monopoly on such thinking. What is Kipling's "White man's burden" if not the tacit acknowledgement that the 'black' and 'yellow' races were born to serve (and prosper presumably) within the confines of a European-led colonialism. Former British Prime Minister Lord Rosebery in 1900 could ask, with no hint of irony; "What is Empire but the predominance of Race"? The arch imperialist Cecil Rhodes visualised a future alliance between Britain and the United States based on the solidarity of the 'superior Anglo-Saxon races' and also included the possibility of Germany in such a future partnership due to a presumed racial affinity between Teutons and Anglo-Saxons. Churchill would draw the same connection after the Second World War but this time call it an alliance of the "Anglo-phone" countries and his diaries on the various Palestinian uprisings are peppered with remarks that would be today considered racial slurs; if they weren't already becoming anachronistic. We could go further and cite Macauley's programme for Indian education or Disraeli's 'Crystal Palace Speech' but this would be superfluous; a crucial cornerstone to the logic of empire in the late 19th century is undoubtedly tied fast to notions of a racially derived superiority.
The Frenchman Gobineau had published "Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" even before Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. He argued that race was the most important factor in determining the success of a civilization, that the 'Aryans' (by which I think he meant here the general European gene pool, almost equivalent to today's Indo-European) were evidently more equipped to lead as they had maintained more successfully the purity of their stock and that 'blacks' and 'yellows', the civilizations of Africa and Asia were 'evidently' not descended from Adam but belonged in fact to a different species. It is interesting in this case how Biblical authority is being marshalled as evidence as it allows him to disregard entirely the central Christian message as I understand it; "Do not do unto others as you would have done unto you".
Hitler visited the German adopted Englishman H.S. Chamberlain on his deathbed whose book, "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" (1899) was very influential and in which he propounded further on the notion of a master race which had gained its qualities through a long struggle for existence and by the process of natural selection. Johann Gottfried Herder, a German enlightenment thinker perhaps prefigured them all with his notion of the 'perfectability of the species' which is actually a very sympathetic account of racial differences - in so far as I don't recall him emphasising any inherent superiority in the varied 'racial groups' - but instead tended to look upon differences between groups as a natural consequence of their having a unique 'shaping' environment.
Again, Nietzsche in Ecce Homo would meditate endlessly on the varied climates to be found north and south of the Danube and convince himself how these had altered the physical constitutions of its inhabitants, not least himself. I mention Herder as it appeared to me when reading him that there was no intent on his part to establish the 'Germanic' peoples as being especially fit to govern, still less to suggest there was a 'master race'. It all goes back to the point of what use discoveries in science (such as natural selection ) are actually put to; as on their own they are morally neutral and simply await interpretation. For instance, liberal reformers in England were influential in establishing welfare policies in the 1870's on the basis of studies which seemed to confirm that many of the poor remained so on account of a 'natural inferiority' which could be explained via Darwinist principles. Here the science is mobilised for philanthropic purposes in contrast to the same science being used in the following generation to justify eugenics programmes in Nazi Germany.
But Germany certainly didn't hold the monopoly on such thinking. What is Kipling's "White man's burden" if not the tacit acknowledgement that the 'black' and 'yellow' races were born to serve (and prosper presumably) within the confines of a European-led colonialism. Former British Prime Minister Lord Rosebery in 1900 could ask, with no hint of irony; "What is Empire but the predominance of Race"? The arch imperialist Cecil Rhodes visualised a future alliance between Britain and the United States based on the solidarity of the 'superior Anglo-Saxon races' and also included the possibility of Germany in such a future partnership due to a presumed racial affinity between Teutons and Anglo-Saxons. Churchill would draw the same connection after the Second World War but this time call it an alliance of the "Anglo-phone" countries and his diaries on the various Palestinian uprisings are peppered with remarks that would be today considered racial slurs; if they weren't already becoming anachronistic. We could go further and cite Macauley's programme for Indian education or Disraeli's 'Crystal Palace Speech' but this would be superfluous; a crucial cornerstone to the logic of empire in the late 19th century is undoubtedly tied fast to notions of a racially derived superiority.
No comments:
Post a Comment