This Is the History Behind the Awful Idea that Mankind Is Divided into Races

by Robert Wald Sussman
Robert Wald Sussman is the author of “The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea” (2014).


Recently, well known journalist, Guy Harrison, wrote a book on race, in which he stated that it wasn’t until he reached college and took his first anthropology course that he learned that biological races did not exist in humans. Of course many people in the United States are in the same situation as the strife in Ferguson, Missouri continues to make daily news. How can this be? Well it depends upon our history, upon our culture.
Europeans and Western European colonists of the United States first categorized “others” mainly with two fairly unchanging paradigms: polygenism and monogenism. Polygenecists (or pre-Adamites) believed that non-Western Europeans were not created by God but were on the earth before Adam and that physical characteristics and complex behaviors were biologically fixed and immutable. No environmental conditions could improve their lot. Monogenecists believed that all humans were created by God but that “others” had degenerated from the original ideal because they lived in less-than-ideal environmental conditions (either a bad climate and/or uncivilized social conditions). To monogenecists, these poor creatures could eventually be “saved” by introducing them to Western European civilization. Within both paradigms, Western Europeans were considered superior to other peoples or races.


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157298

     THE English guvment of the 18th Century used the legal concept of "Terra nullus" - declaring a place an unoccupied land - to make it possible for them to claim Australia as British territory, despite there already being a population of native peoples here...

TO make this shonky concept stick, they claimed that (unlike North America, South Africa or New Zealand, for example) there was no recognisable community organisation or national hierarchy..

PART of their case was to hand over classification of Australian Aborigines to those ethnogenicists back home in Blighty, as described in that above quote, to decree that Aborigines were a completely separate "subhuman and uncivilised race" ~ and as such weren't to be allowed any consideration, legal rights or identity as the original custodians of these lands !   THIS in turn provided the basis for the failure of Aborigines so often being legally and constitutionally neglected through to the 1940s and '50s and even in crtain issues through to the present days.. (That very same situation that the demented old crone sassy still erroneously tries to blame Veya and myself for..).

EVEN today, there are still professors with that "ethnogenecist mindset" among the anthropolgists and archaeologists in British universities who still refuse to hand over stolen native skeletons and body parts for repatriation to their rightful  homelands ~ to the point that the British Parliament eventually had to enact orders against those guilty Uni's..

UNFORTUNATELY, it is on a case-by-case basis ~ so that British academics will still be returning stolen native people to their homelands for decades to come !!!    

This part really stuck out to me:

it wasn’t until he reached college and took his first anthropology course that he learned that biological races did not exist in humans

A lot of people really let him down as he was growing up, if that's the case. That's a fundamental fact about humanity that people need to be taught as children -- you know, so they don't conduct every interaction they have with someone of a different skin color as though they're dealing with a different species ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:This part really stuck out to me:

it wasn’t until he reached college and took his first anthropology course that he learned that biological races did not exist in humans

A lot of people really let him down as he was growing up, if that's the case. That's a fundamental fact about humanity that people need to be taught as children -- you know, so they don't conduct every interaction they have with someone of a different skin color as though they're dealing with a different species ...

The reality is Ben we still refer to groups of people by races, where of course none exist biologically.
Look forward to reading this book.

Evening folks.
I'm surprised that such a book was necessary these days, knowing that throughout the scientific world it is accepted that all races originated from the same landmass, which we call Africa. From there humans began to spread out and, as they settled in different climates and environments they adapted, changed and evolved into what we now class as different races. The book highlights what was believed but we know different these days.

human races are like dog breeds, just a variation of appearance but close enough genetically to produce offspring with reasonable probability.


the book does sound interesting, as it does seem like it will counter some of the institutional racism so common in European retelling of history. Quite telling that both polygenism and monogenism are inherently racist and quite frankly absurd... the very idea that Europe is the correct environment for humans is crazy you will literally die by the weather with out significant clothing

veya_victaous wrote:the very idea that Europe is the correct environment for humans is crazy you will literally die by the weather with out significant clothing

And fairly elaborate shelter, and lots of fuel to burn for warmth, and agriculture, settlement, government and the power struggles that brings ... people who live in rainforests need so much less -- a roof to keep off the rain; to be within picking distance of their food ...

It's almost -- hear me out -- like people used to live in some miraculous garden that provided everything they'd need without them having to hardly lift a finger -- but then, people thought they were so smart that they ended up leaving the garden ... and then ...

Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

I did read (I cannot remember where), that Europe and the Middle-East did provide temperatures and a climate for humans to develop civilization more rapidly than they did in Africa, precisely because of those things Ben mentions. Humankind couldn't be 'complacent' as it could be in Africa and rainforested regions- you needed to be 'productive' to survive.

This idea isn't racist. The idea African society (and Aboriginal Australians) was behind Eurasian societies because they are 'biologically' inferior is both wrong AND racist. But humans developing at different rates in different environments is perfectly reasonable.

As to the book in the OP. As star says one wonders why the need to go over historic false beliefs about race. It doesn't mean race doesn't exist. On a certain level it evidently does. People are different, but that isn't a bad thing.

stardesk wrote:
Evening folks.
I'm surprised that such a book was necessary these days, knowing that throughout the scientific world it is accepted that all races originated from the same landmass, which we call Africa. From there humans began to spread out and, as they settled in different climates and environments they adapted, changed and evolved into what we now class as different races. The book highlights what was believed but we know different these days.

    A Pity you never learned biology formally, Star' ~ because if you DID have some academic/disciplined understanding of taxonomy, breeding and genetics, then you would have realised a long time ago that what you continue to erroneously refer to as human "races" are in fact, biologically speaking, more correctly referred to as varieties or breeds within the ONE human species (or one "race", though even that use is still technically incorrect..).

IF the 17th and 18th century ethnogenicists had been in the slightest, anywhere near being right, there would need to be THREE distinct sub-species of the Human Race ~ Negro, Asian and Caucasian. And this just ain't so..   FROM a strictly "scientific" viewpoint, there simply isn't any such thing as "human races"..

I TRIED to straighten you out on this issue last year, Star' ~ but for some reason known only to her and stephenmarra, sassy (as a mod' on Victor's former site) kept on deleting my posts...    

Hi Wolfy, yes obviously I know we are a variety of breeds, but surely those breeds are still humans. As Veya said above, there are many breeds of dogs but a dog is a dog.

Although it is still classified as human, there was a different breed, the Neanderthals, of which we later humans have only about 5% DNA. If you saw one walking down your high street it wouldn't look much different to yourself.

I'm not being rude Wolfy, but I think you've picked out one or two of my utterances and made a bigger issue out of them than necessary. I was mostly generalizing and not being scientifically specific. Ok Mate?

stardesk wrote:Hi Wolfy, yes obviously I know we are a variety of breeds, but surely those breeds are still humans. As Veya said above, there are many breeds of dogs but a dog is a dog.

Although it is still classified as human, there was a different breed, the Neanderthals, of which we later humans have only about 5% DNA. If you saw one walking down your high street it wouldn't look much different to yourself.

I'm not being rude Wolfy, but I think you've picked out one or two of my utterances and made a bigger issue out of them than necessary. I was mostly generalizing and not being scientifically specific. Ok Mate?

Hi Stardesk

That is the issue, you are looking skin deep and there is little variance between humans, as it will be on facial features etc, that is hardly anytyhing that will constitute a difference to what we call races. The reality is there is no difference based on groups of people where their brains for example will be vastly different to others. This is the problem because people may look different, which has only occured due to envoironmental changes, but has not created new species or races.
I think we need toget away from the concept of race, as it creates nothing but a wrong perception of people.
We our all humans and individuals, but still humans after all.

I agree didge that we should not focus on the concept of race as though it were biologically meaningful, as you say it isn't.

The problem with some conservative minded people (small c, I'm not referring to Conservative voters here- though most obviously are conservative minded people), is that they see stats on 'black people' and 'crime' and associate the two.

THAT is the problem.

Yet the problem isn't racial and shouldn't be portrayed that way. The problem (ironically) is racism. Society STILL treats black people differently, more so in America but also in the UK and Europe. They still have disadvantages white people do not have. In this sense the problem is race becomes self-perpetuating at times.

It links back to my earlier post. Environmental factors have more of an effect on 'groups' of people than pseudo-biological arguments about 'race'. But this is ignored by conservatives (small c), who prefer to simplify things for the sake of their weak arguments.

Eilzel wrote:I agree didge that we should not focus on the concept of race as though it were biologically meaningful, as you say it isn't.

The problem with some conservative minded people (small c, I'm not referring to Conservative voters here- though most obviously are conservative minded people), is that they see stats on 'black people' and 'crime' and associate the two.

THAT is the problem.

Yet the problem isn't racial and shouldn't be portrayed that way. The problem (ironically) is racism. Society STILL treats black people differently, more so in America but also in the UK and Europe. They still have disadvantages white people do not have. In this sense the problem is race becomes self-perpetuating at times.

It links back to my earlier post. Environmental factors have more of an effect on 'groups' of people than pseudo-biological arguments about 'race'. But this is ignored by conservatives (small c), who prefer to simplify things for the sake of their weak arguments.

+1

Brasidas wrote:

stardesk wrote:Hi Wolfy, yes obviously I know we are a variety of breeds, but surely those breeds are still humans. As Veya said above, there are many breeds of dogs but a dog is a dog.

Although it is still classified as human, there was a different breed, the Neanderthals, of which we later humans have only about 5% DNA. If you saw one walking down your high street it wouldn't look much different to yourself.

I'm not being rude Wolfy, but I think you've picked out one or two of my utterances and made a bigger issue out of them than necessary. I was mostly generalizing and not being scientifically specific. Ok Mate?

Hi Stardesk

That is the issue, you are looking skin deep and there is little variance between humans, as it will be on facial features etc, that is hardly anytyhing that will constitute a difference to what we call races. The reality is there is no difference based on groups of people where their brains for example will be vastly different to others. This is the problem because people may look different, which has only occured due to envoironmental changes, but has not created new species or races.
I think we need toget away from the concept of race, as it creates nothing but a wrong perception of people.
We our all humans and individuals, but still humans after all.

Getting the facts we are learning through to the rest of the human race is the biggest problem that I see. Especially when you have been controlled and fooled yourself for most of your life, you knowing how hard it is to be convinced. I would always put down racism being mainly Hitler and the Nazis fault. Admitting you got it wrong is one thing but living with the fact you have been fooled for so long and laid blame on the wrong people is another! Their divide has worked and still is working daily through the media, will this ever change.

captainJane wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Hi Stardesk

That is the issue, you are looking skin deep and there is little variance between humans, as it will be on facial features etc, that is hardly anytyhing that will constitute a difference to what we call races. The reality is there is no difference based on groups of people where their brains for example will be vastly different to others. This is the problem because people may look different, which has only occured due to envoironmental changes, but has not created new species or races.
I think we need toget away from the concept of race, as it creates nothing but a wrong perception of people.
We our all humans and individuals, but still humans after all.

Getting the facts we are learning through to the rest of the human race is the biggest problem that I see. Especially when you have been controlled and fooled yourself for most of your life, you knowing how hard it is to be convinced. I would always put down racism being mainly Hitler and the Nazis fault. Admitting you got it wrong is one thing but living with the fact you have been fooled for so long and laid blame on the wrong people is another! Their divide has worked and still is working daily through the media, will this ever change.  

The Nazis are the product of far older racism that stemmed around people forming such backward views of others through a pivalidged position. One where at that present view in time, one though nothing they did technically made therm more advanced. This again coming more off conquest, where it enables a nation to use this to their adavantge. It has only ever been a few innovative people that have heleped advance a society, yet as seen people seem to think they can benefit off this through nothing they have done and claim this knowledge as if it is their own, even though they had to be taught all this themselves. This is where the problem starts, people wrongly thinking they are adavanced when they are not, just taught like anyone else off a few others.
I agree it is going to be difficult, but classing people today into groups is not helping, where it is needed to prevent discrmination, i think it is also encouraging a divide between people in to racial groups. Class people by a nation, no matter their ethnic origins, would be a start.

Brasidas wrote:Class people by a nation, no matter their ethnic origins, would be a start.

I agree, but equally important would be to stop the divisions with nations (including religion) then we could make some progress.

OK

someone please define race
not in the pseudo and of course incorrect scientific sense since thats irrelevant to "everyday life"
but in the "wot we were talkin about" sense
I.e its far more commonplace colloquial sense.
Because all i see is didge repeatedly getting hung up about arguing there is no such thing as race (in a scientific sence...which of course is true) when clearly there ARE, in a colloquial, everyday sense, clearly different "races"

you are of course, in the furtherence of "political correctness", denying the above and simply replacing the term "race" with "breed"

which of course is just as tainted and offensive  (try telling a mixed race person they are "breed")





and then we end up with an argument that centers purely around semantics, whereby a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet (and incidently shit by any other name would smell just as bad)

try for once...before entering into a debat on such thing, to define your terms of reference......

Vic, it's just like the problems with the colloquial vs. scientific meanings of "theory." People hear about evolutionary theory and they assume it means a hunch or guess, like it might mean in ordinary conversation.

I think to be more accurate, we should be talking about species. There is only one extant species of human being. The term "breed" is actually a bit closer to what we mean by race, oddly enough -- different breeds of animals can reproduce, and they also tend to have physical similarities. Of course people would think to call white people and Latinos different "breeds" is offensive, but it's closer to what "race" really is than the term "species."

As a general rule of thumb, organisms are of different species if they can't naturally produce fertile offspring, or offspring at all. But as with everything, the line's a lot more fuzzy than we usually make it out to be.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:the very idea that Europe is the correct environment for humans is crazy you will literally die by the weather with out significant clothing

And fairly elaborate shelter, and lots of fuel to burn for warmth, and agriculture, settlement, government and the power struggles that brings ... people who live in rainforests need so much less -- a roof to keep off the rain; to be within picking distance of their food ...

It's almost -- hear me out -- like people used to live in some miraculous garden that provided everything they'd need without them having to hardly lift a finger -- but then, people thought they were so smart that they ended up leaving the garden ... and then ...

Cursed is the ground because of you;
   through painful toil you will eat food from it
   all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
   and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
   you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
   since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
   and to dust you will return.

ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUAL TALE (knowing where Eden is located http://www.visiteden.com.au/ )

The Great Serpent that gave the fruit of intelligent and free will to mankind(and even by Biblical definition is powerful enough to defy even the Abrahamic god), then kicked the Abrahamist deniers of the Serpents glory out of paradise forcing them to suffer the terrible fate of not knowing the glory of great southern land of the Serpent Paradise.

Then after 50,000 years the Evil Englishmen Rounded up their poor and downtrodden and sent them too the Mysterious Island inhabited by an Ancient people that had remained in paradise under the guidance of the glorious Serpent.

it has taken almost 200years but being close to the glorious serpent is purifying the Englishmen and causing them to open the Glorious Serpent paradise to others.

Vic, sadly I fear books like this are trying to solve the problem of racism the totally wrong way. Race of course exists in colloqial or superficial sense; what the book doesn't appear (I haven't read it) to do is to address why people of different races sometimes behave in different ways and experience the world in different ways.

It is all well and good preaching to some NF racist that 'race' doesn't actually exist, but that doesn't explain the superficial differences that are plain to see, nor the habitual differences. Environment, society and culture are far more important than biology in addressing why things are the way the way they are. I fear this book may do little in the way of approaching that point.

Actually I think both Victor and yourself Eilzel are looking at this the completely wrong way, as we are humans which because of boundaries we have invented to class a nation this has been used to define people as a race. For a start cultures are an ever changing process throughout history, where we already define people by ethnic groups, but even this starts to become mixed as more and more society intermingles through the coming together of so many in the modern era.

So the reality is what differences are there between groups of humans? Very little, languages, skin tones, and as stated cultural differences, as even facial differences are so different and diverse between any humans. So what is the differences you are looking for are nothing but inventions by humans themselves on where they have been born into, where no matter which one you take from anywhere in the world if you place someone born here and take them from birth into Africa they will learn the customs of that society, and visa versa taking someone from Africa and they are brought up here? What is the difference here in both the children, again nothing other than what advantages they will have in education and technology. So the bases of dividing people is based around wealth, which is hardly a bases to even define people.

The reality is because of the environments we grow up in have slightly changed humans based upon appearances, which is nothing to make a view we are in anyway that much in difference towards each other and thus if we go down the cultural route, this again as seen sees many societies bring about the best in many of these cultures. Now we have problems like religions, and ideas, but these are concepts, not something we are born with but learn.

So take away the fact someone is born in one place and then place into this who is advantaged, because again it has only been a few innovative people that have advanced a society and this has only come about through might, where a nation has had further wealth to enable it to do so. Then a whole society gains from this by an education system and nothing more. Again you take any child from any society and place them in an advantaged position and they will  adapt to what is being taught to them. So the only differences between humans is superficial most of which humans themselves invent, not something that is actual constant but for ever changing.

I mean take your view that you would see me as mixed race Victor, because being Irish, Sicilian, what does that mean exactly? That there is two different cultures, that when you break them down are not that much different based around a Catholic cultural society, again something invented, not something inherent in humans themselves. The fact is we need to get away from defining humans with any such differences, because the reality is they are inventions, not something we have naturally evolved into.

The concept of race, though boundaries invented set on land, is where problems of war have always been created. The concept of race is a modern invention within the last few hundred years and you have to ask is why people wish to still views humans as different, when again none really exist other than we have invented ourselves. hat you have to argue is why you want there to be a divide between people to classify them this way, when everything then is based around an elitist view of where people are lucky to be born, which of course is constantly changing as it always has done through civilizations rising and falling.

So basing a view point on inventions which can constantly change between people is neglecting to look at humans themselves and how they are taught and within what sphere they are born into and why this view to look differently wrongly categorizes humans as different, when the only difference is how and what people are taught, which is forever a changing process.
All I see by your view Victor is a reason to divide people, not for them to advance together. You have to show why there is a difference and if it has any valid meaning, where as far as I can see it has none.

Bras, just to illustrate one of your points a bit, it's been observed that there are more black people voting with the conservatives -- specifically because they want lower taxes -- in the U.S. now that at any point in the nation's history. It's still a very small percentage, but it's definitely gotten bigger.

Why is this? Simply because after decade upon decade of people working, fighting and dying for equal rights, we now have a decent number of black millionaires. And lo and behold, some of those privileged people take the "I'm all right Jack!" attitude and get greedy.

I think part of the problem here didge is that you are misinterpreting what vic said. Vic called out 'the point' to the book in the OP. What does it prove to have a book in the 21st Century claiming there is no biological grounds for 'race'?

It proves nothing. It is ineffectual on those (increasingly few) racists out there are, and is preaching to the converted where most in the western world are concerned.

Regardless of dismissing biological factors, race will still be acknowledged- and while it is wrong to claim you as mixed race when talking about Sicilian/Irish etc (these aren't races) others, like Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, are acknowledged and are simply terms used to talk specifically about groups the same way as men and women, gay and straight are used to talk about different groups of people. They make discussion easier to follow, to put it another way, they are simply words used so we don't have to spend a good amount of time describing what we mean:

(Ricky Gervais offers a good example in one of his stand up. When referring to a 'fat person' we often go out of our way not to say so, 'you know, the bubbly girl, gets out of breath just standing up, you know the big girl...'. Forgive the crassness of the comedy, but the point stands- the word-fat in this case- is just a descriptive short cut).

Humans invent many things. Why place higher standing on describing yourself as British- this is also a human invention. In fact to go to the extreme, ANY word we use to describe ourselves is an invention. I'd call myself 'a Guardian reader'. It doesn't mean I restrict my news consumption to that newspaper, or that I would vehemently oppose any other type of newspaper, or than the only way I can define myself is by what I read. But it is a descriptive term that makes discourse simpler- in the broadest sense, it allows for assumptions and generalizations- not always correct, but then we can challenge them.

In the case of race, people will always make dumb assertions and assumptions based on the colour of someones skin, and they can be rightly challenged too.

But we can't address the above mentioned problems or the environmental, societal and cultural factors by first insisting 'race' doesn't exist. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows race is not based on biological fact anymore than nationality is really defined by natural geological facts- but we use the terms (Caucasian, Mongoloid etc) so we all understand what we are discussing.

Completely disagree Eilzel to even define people as Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloidetc, as this is where the problem of racism first started with these classifications, which are nothing more than physical definitions for humans, which vary vastly. If you go down this road of distinctions it is the same to to class them as if somewhat different from each other when again the only difference is slight physical differences, which is unique to each individual.

What you have to ask yourself is why is there even a need to distinguish people this way into groups, when as stated we are all one race. This avenues leads to again the formulation of differences between humans, where none again really exist. I fail to see any relevance to it espcially in this day and age, where people of a multitude of ethnic groups can be of one nation, then what does it matter other than they are for example British and English. For example in America, you have Irish American or African American, thus defined from the root base area they descend from. Thus there is no purpose to defin people by Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid.

In fact the only reason we define people as white, black etc is to defend  against discrmination within many walks of life. There again should be no need to distinquish people this way but sadly there is due to racism, to protect them again from discrimination. If we then go to coultural sterotypes it also is a huge problem based around a percentage of people and how they act, again to based this on Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, is even worse in my opinion, even more so in this day and age where societies are so mixed.

Sorry I see no bases or a need to classify people this way, we are one race, why invent things that are not even required, because all that does is allow for discrmination.

The reality is all humans are very much capable of the same things, unless they have medical conditions, so why is there a need to seperate humans based again off skin colour or facial features, you are basically drawing a line between humans, all of which there is no requirment.

But like it or not didge, the words Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid exist and are descriptive of people from of with ancestry from particular parts of the world. The differences are superficial but still evident physically.

I understand Eilzel but again are they needed anymore when nations are so diverse in ethnic groups of people. To me the whole concept when it was invented was based around racial discrmination and like anything that can be used to discrminate should be confined to the dustbin.

and so....

Didge gets his nuts kicked in one night by a 7 foot tall black guy

his report to the police

I was attacked by a human

any one else

I was attacked by a coulored chap, probably, judging by his build of an eastern african descent......

Dear me, what makes you think I would say just human, where I would much more detailed than you, had dark coloured skin, short afro hair, with a goatee, dark eyes, was tall and well built, had a Londoner accent and a lisp, of Caribbean ethnic descent, all of which fits into all I have stated already. Again this is the same for what you would class as white race, which again would you even mention white?
Lets see.
The offender had very pale skin, had a Polish accent, with brown spiky hair, with green eyes etc. Thus there is no reference to race required, but ethnicity.


So basically your only reason for having to use such distinctions is on a criminal act. Talk about scrapping the barrel for a reason to use invented racial bullshit to continue,