Tuesday, October 27, 2015


My email pal Sean once told me that historical Jesus studies needs a good kick in the arse. How true. The same can be said of Darwin studies and even the history of science, especially as it relates to evolution. When will we wake up and be truthful about what the evidence tells us?

Every time I come across a book or article on scientific racism in the 19th century, they always do the same thing. They make it seem like it was an aberration that was endorsed only by lesser figures. Charles Darwin is never mentioned or at best a glancing comment on his racism is offered. Same goes for Thomas Huxley. We have enforced this forgetfulness that scientific racism was a mainstream position. The top-notch scientists of the day promoted it. And every one of them would have sworn that their “racism” was objective and based soundly on the evidence.

How did the best scientists of the day go so wrong? How could they have so deceived themselves? These questions never get asked because we live in denial that it ever happened.

At the end of the American Civil War, Thomas Huxley gave a brief lecture entitled “Emancipation—Black and White” (the white part referred to women). He was glad that slavery was finally at an end in the west, but he emphasized that half the arguments brought in favor of abolition were wrong. In particular, the argument of equality between the races was dead wrong, as far as he was concerned: “no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man … The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins …”

Scientific racism went deep. It was not just a slight mistake. And science was not self-correcting about this. No profession is self-correcting. It is only when plenty of criticism from the outside makes inroads that science makes corrections.

We not only have ignored mainstream science’s devotion to racist ideas, but we have failed to take note of many of the anti-racists who were trying vainly to make a course correction. In 1864, just one year before Huxley’s lecture, Alfred Wallace made some interesting remarks on the subject. They were offered in a discussion following someone else’s paper delivered at a meeting of the London Anthropological Society. Unfortunately, we don’t have a record of Wallace in his own words, but rather a summary made by a third party. If we can trust the summary, Wallace made the following points:

He began by agreeing that the Negro is intellectually inferior to Europeans. “The only question to be determined,” he said, “was, how far that inferiority extends.” He then went on to challenge any ideas of inferiority by arguing, in effect, that these opinions are not based on any evidence. We have only seen Negroes in the most unfavorable conditions. How can one draw any fair conclusions from that? “We had never seen the negro under favourable circumstances. We had always seen him either as a slave or perfectly free without any stimulus to exertion … We had not yet seen the negro under the circumstances that would show him to the greatest advantage.” Wallace also made the point that if Negroes seemed to avoid work unless pressed by necessity, the same was true of all mankind (i.e., including white people), so that was no argument for inferiority.

A year before Huxley firmly stated his racist leanings, Wallace was already rebuking such thinking. We forget that, along with the fact that mainstream science ignored him and other anti-racists. Racism, in other words, went so deep that it forced the best scientists of the day to distort their view of the evidence and they would not pay attention even when their errors were pointed out. We ought to pay that more heed than we have—if only because it means that the dangers of mainstream science making mistakes is still with us.

© 2015 Leon Zitzer


  1. Great work, .Mr Zitzer!

    I recently stumbled on a Nicolaas Rupke YouTube video you might like. I can't cut and paste so you'll have to Google it if you would like to see it. Rupke's resembles yours.

    1. In case you did not see my response below or above (because I did not click reply last time), thanks again. Next time I am at the library with my headphones, I will take a look at the video.

    2. I finally got a chance to see the Rupke lecture on the youtube video. I liked it as far as it went. But it is awfully strange to me that he would be silent about Darwin's scientific racism and focus on Huxley, who was certainly racist too. He is right that academics are afraid to criticize anyone in the Darwin camp, hence the silence on Huxley. But this applies even more to Darwin.

      One lesser point I would dispute is blaming scientific racism on polygenism, as Rupke does. This is an error that Stephen Gould avoided. The fact is that racism developed when monogenism was the dominant view. As far as racism goes, there really is no difference between polygenism and monogenism. They both emphasized that races today can be ranked from inferior to superior. Gould saw that clearly. Rupke seems to have missed it.

  2. Correction to last sentence: Rupke's argument resembles yours.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Thanks for the info. I looked it up and found the video, but I have to do this from the library, and will need my headphones. I'll bring the headphones next time and check it out. Rupke looks like a very interesting author. Thanks again.
    Leon Zitzer