Britannica 1911 example

 

From: Deborah
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 8:38 am
Subject: Britannica 1911 example

Here is an example of the commonly acceptable style of discussing race and racial differences and racial characteristics of 100 years ago.

Deborah

FULA
FULA (FULBF, FELLATAIT or PEuL5), a numerous and powerful African people, spread over an immense region from Senegal nearly to Darfur. Strictly they have no country of their own, and nowhere form the whole of the population, though nearly always the dominant native race. They are most numerous in Upper Senegal and in the countries under French sway immediately south of Senegambia, notably Futa Jallon. Farther east they rule, subject to the control of the French, Segu and Massena, countries on both banks of the upper Niger, to the south-west of Timhuktu. The districts within the great bend of the Niger have a large Fula population. East of that river Sokoto and iti tributary emirates are ruled by Fula princes, subject to thi control of the British Nigerian administration. Fula are settlec in Bornu, Bagirmi, Wadai and the upper Nile Valley,1 but have no political power in those countries. Their most southerly emirate is Adamawa, the country on both sides of the upper Benue. In this vast region of distribution the Fula populations are most dense towards the west and north, most scattered towards the east and south. Originally herdsmen in the western and central Sudan, they extended their sway east of the Niger, under the leadership of Othman Dan Fodio, during the early years of the I9th century, and having subdued the Hausa states, founded the empire of Sokoto with the vassal emirates of Kano, Gando, Nupe, Adamawa, &c.

The question of the ethnic affinities of the Fula has given rise to an enormous amount of speculation, but the most reasonable theory is that they are a mixture of Berber and Negro. This is now the most generally accepted theory. Certainly there is no reason to connect them with the ancient Egyptians. In the district of Senegal known as Fuladugu or Fula Land, where the purest types of the race are found, the people are of a reddish brown or light chestnut color, with oval faces, ringlety or even smooth hair, never woolly, straight and even aquiline noses, delicately shaped lips and regular features quite differentiating them from the Negro type. Like most conquering races the Fula are, however, not of uniform physique, in many districts approximating to the local type. They nevertheless maintain throughout their widespread territory a certain national solidarity, thanks to common speech, traditions and usages. The ruling caste of the Fula differs widely in character from the herdsmen of the western Sudan. The latter are peaceable, inoffensive and abstemious. They are mainly monogamous, and by rigidly abstaining from foreign marriages have preserved racial purity. The ruling caste in Nigeria, on the other hand, despise their pastoral brethren, and through generatiori~ of polygamy with the conquered tribes have become more Negroid in type, black, burly and coarse featured. Love of lu~ury, pomp and finery is their chief characteristic. Taken as a v hole, the Fula race is distinguished by great intelligence, frankness of disposition and strength of character. As soldiers they- are renowned almost exclusively as cavalry; and the race has produced several leaders possessed of much strategical skill. Besides the ordinary Negro weapons, they use iron spears with leatherbound handles and swords. They are generally excellent rulers, stern but patient and just. The Nigerian emirs acquired, however, an evil reputation during the I9th century as slave raiders. They have long been devout Mahommedans, and mosques and schools exist in almost all their towns. Tradition says that of old every Fula boy and girl was a scholar; but during the decadence of their power towards the close of the 19th century education was not highly valued. Power seems to have somewhat spoilt this virile race, but such authorities as Sir Frederick Lugard believe them still capable of a great future, The Fula language has as yet found no place in any African linguistic family. In its rudiments it is akin to the HamitoSemitic group. It possesses two grammatical genders, not masculine and feminine, but the human and the non-human; the adjective agrees in assonance with its noun, and euphony plays a great part in verbal and nominal inflections. In some ways resembling the Negro dialects, it betrays non-Negroid influencesin the use of suffixes. The name of the people has many variations. Fulbe or Fula (sing. Pullo, Peul) is the Mandingan name, Follani the Hausa, Fellatah the Kanuri, Fullan the Arab, and Fulde on the Benue. Like the name Abate, white, given them in Kororofa, all these seem to refer to their light reddish hue.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Britannica 1911 example

Deborah wrote:

Here is an example of the commonly acceptable style of discussing race and racial differences and racial characteristics of 100 years ago.

This is an excellent indication of why the "political correctness" line is entirely beside the point. The question is not whether Steiner's racial doctrines are or were "commonly acceptable". The question is not whether they are or were immoral, pathological, or anything else. The question we have been debating is quite simply, are some of these doctrines racist? I politely recommend that those who answer "no" to that question pay attention to just which question they are answering.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Britannica 1911 example

Deborah:

Here is an example of the commonly acceptable style of discussing race and racial differences and racial characteristics of 100 years ago.

Peter Staudenmaier:

This is an excellent indication of why the "political correctness" line is entirely beside the point. The question is not whether Steiner's racial doctrines are or were "commonly acceptable". The question is not whether they are or were immoral, pathological, or anything else. The question we have been debating is quite simply, are some of these doctrines racist? I politely recommend that those who answer "no" to that question pay attention to just which question they are answering.

Daniel:

Peter, the above is a perfect example of how you are unable to move from the printed words that mean what you want them to, to the what the author intended when he or she wrote or spoke the words. The question is not whether or not Steiner's words can be made to look racist if properly arranged. The question is whether Steiner's concepts, as expressed in his words, are or are not racist.

Deborah was attempting to show how language that at first glance might appear to be racist can actually express ideas that themselves are not racist. Deborah is not arguing that Steiner or the Encyclopedia Britannica were actually expressing ideas that are racist, only that both use language in a way that today would probably be easily confused for racism. In both cases, it is necessary to use a little historical imagination and try to understand what the author was thinking, and judge that; getting overly excited about the appearance of the word "race" or "Negro" in the text and claiming that this proves racism is historically naive. Polemically useful, but historically naive.

I maintain that Steiner's concepts are not racist. I do not deny that Steiner can be made to look racist with enough selective quotation.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Britannica 1911 example

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

The question is whether Steiner's concepts, as expressed in his words, are or are not racist.

I very much agree. That is indeed the question I had hoped to address here. Steiner's concepts include the following: that some races are higher than other races, that some races are backward while others are advanced, that the negro race is substantially determined by childhood characteristics, that black people do not belong in Europe, and so forth. Those concepts are racist, no matter what words one uses to express them. Maybe you could explain again why you think that these concepts are not racist. Thanks,

Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

April/May 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind