...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Egyptomania and American Racism

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Egyptomania and American Racism
ausar
Member
Member # 1797

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ausar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

Egypt land : race and nineteenth-century American Egyptomania
By: Scott Trafton
Type: English : Book : Non-fiction
Publisher: Durham : Duke University Press, 2004.
ISBN: 0822333759 0822333627

http://chnm.gmu.edu/egyptomania/about.html

"Introduction to Types of Mankind"
Types of Mankind: or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological, and Biblical History (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1854)

No single publication was more infamous or influential in the history of nineteenth-century American Egyptomania than Josiah Clark Nott and George Robins Gliddon?s 1854 Types of Mankind. Over 800 pages long, carefully compiled and lavishly illustrated, packed with data and provocative conclusions, Nott and Gliddon?s Types of Mankind was an instant classic, a best-selling scientific textbook that went through over a dozen printings and which stayed in print until the turn of the century. It rocketed Nott and Gliddon to fame, forever associated them with a very particular school of thought, and cemented their place in American scientific history. It is also one of the most racist texts ever written, a classic of American racism as much as American science, and is today considered the highwater mark of American scientific racism.

Josiah Clark Nott was from Mobile, Alabama, a medical doctor and slaveholder who performed experiments on his slaves and had strong beliefs in black inferiority. Gliddon was British, a businessman, politician, and public lecturer who had once been vice-consul to Cairo and who had made a name for himself as a popularizer of the relatively young field of Egyptology. It was Gliddon who was contacted in the 1830s by the Philadelphia physician Samuel George Morton with a request for any specimens of ancient Egyptian skulls; Morton was collecting data on crania for his ongoing research into fixed racial differences, and Gliddon happily obliged. Over the years, the relationship between these three men grew, until they were seen as the center of a loose-knit group of scientists and historians which became known as the American School of Ethnology: a school of scientific thought which understood its threefold mission to be the proving of inherent differences between different racial groups, the ranking of these groups in hierarchical order (from ?low? to ?high?), and the establishing of these differences as so ancient as to date from human origin itself. In other words, members of the American School of Ethnology believed that different racial groups were in fact separate species, and thus had separate points of origin.

The American School was, as might be imagined, at immediate odds with mainstream Christians. By arguing that whites and blacks had different origins, Nott and Gliddon were contradicting the account of a single human origin found in the Book of Genesis. But not only was this not a problem for the American School, it was seen as a virtue: Nott especially was a fierce opponent of the account of human origin found in the Bible, and believed that what he called ?parson-skinning? was a necessary step in the battle between the ?fictions? of the Bible and the ?truth? of racial science.

Interestingly enough, however, the American School championed many of the classic virtues of western science: objectivity, rigorous logic, and the quest for ultimate truth. Indeed, through these skirmishes with the traditional Christian story of Adam and Eve, Nott and Gliddon, for all their racism, represent an important if often overlooked moment in the history of the clashes between Christian belief and the theory of evolution. It would be some years, of course, before the term ?evolution? would be used in America ? and in fact Nott thought that, by implying an evolutionary connection between humans and other primates, Darwin had gone too far towards implying a connection between whites and blacks ? but an often forgotten footnote to the history of the American School is that, by initially challenging the authority of the Biblical account of human creation, it helped to lay the groundwork for the acceptance of the theory of evolution in America.

Nevertheless, the American School is still very justifiably best known for its claims regarding fixed racial differences and the theory of ?multiple origins.? As it is for its mode of argument: as proof both of the fallibility of Biblical chronology and of the ancient separations between the races, the American School focused on ancient Egypt. Evidence from ancient Egypt, it was argued, proved both that humans had predated the date often given to the Garden of Eden, and that, even at this extremely remote date in ancient history, ?Negroes? and ?Caucasians? had always been separate species ? one inferior, one superior. With Types of Mankind, Nott and Gliddon ushered in a new age in American racism.

This selection from the Types is the Introduction. Signed by Nott, it outlines the terms of the argument of the book: that ethnology is the study of the variety of human species, that Egyptology provides the best evidence available for the age and progress of these different species or ?types of mankind,? and that the combination of ethnology and Egyptology shows the permanent inferiority of the Negro type.

Browse scholarship by topic:
Art & Architecture
History
Literature
Religion
Science

http://chnm.gmu.edu/egyptomania/scholarship.php?function=detail&articleid=39

Egypt Land : Race And Nineteenth-Century American Egyptomania - New Americanists (PAP) -US-
TRAFTON, SCOTT
2004/11 (Duke Univ Pr) ISBN:0822333627 US$23.95


Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 2 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tropicals redacted
Member
Member # 21621

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for tropicals redacted     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've read this book, it was the first one I read on thr Egyptian race question when I came across it some five years ago. Had no idea it had been contentious since the 19th century.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ausar says:
The American School was, as might be imagined, at immediate odds
with mainstream Christians. By arguing that whites and blacks had
different origins, Nott and Gliddon were contradicting the account of a
single human origin found in the Book of Genesis. But not only was this
not a problem for the American School, it was seen as a virtue: Nott
especially was a fierce opponent of the account of human origin found in
the Bible, and believed that what he called ?parson-skinning? was a
necessary step in the battle between the ?fictions? of the Bible and the
?truth? of racial science.


Hmm interesting post, and the same pattern continues today. Assorted
Racists, who bible thump claiming this and that, have time and time again
been forced to distort and deny the plain speaking of their own Bible, to
maintain their racism. And as noted above there are no "separate racial
origins" set forth in the Bible, so racists who agree with Nott and Gliddon
have to twist themselves in knots to invent them, or deny their own holy
book.

Likewise, there is no "curse of Ham" against black people in the Bible.
Any such claim is completely bogus, as demonstrated by knowledgeable
theologians, laymen and scholars alike. The bogus "curse" had to be
invented by racists.

If anything, the writings of Moses demonstrate that the first large scale
civilizations were by the dusky descendants of Ham, namely Nimrod, son
of Kush. And of course along with Kush, Egypt or Mizraim is also a son
of Ham. Moses was pretty clear on this in Genesis 10. And The Sons of
Mizraim are those renowned for handling the bow and shield- Cush, Lud, etc..


 -

Jeremiah 46:9- "let the mighty men go forth: Cush and Phut that handle
the shield,
and the Ludim that handle the bow."

Isa 66:19 also refers to Pul or Put and Lud "that draw the bow."

Per scholar David Goldenberg 2003 The Curse of Ham:
"In a description of the foreign contingents in the Egyptian army at the
battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E, Jer 46:9 says: "Let the warriors go
forth, Kush and Put who grasp the shield. And the Ludim who grasp and
draw the bow.".. However because Lud is grouped with Kush in Jer 46:9
and Ezek 30:5 and because Put, whether it is to be identified with modern
Somalia or Libya is in Africa, most scholars today agree that Lud too is in
Africa. And just as the bows, so too the shields of the Kushites must have
made an impression. Apparently their striking feature was also their size.
Similarly Strabo (17.1.54) mentions the Ethiopians' long oblong
shields."

--David M. Goldenberg. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
--------------------------------------------------------------


s it is for its mode of argument: as proof both of the fallibility of
Biblical chronology and of the ancient separations between the races, the
American School focused on ancient Egypt. Evidence from ancient Egypt,
it was argued, proved both that humans had predated the date often given
to the Garden of Eden, and that, even at this extremely remote date in
ancient history, ?Negroes? and ?Caucasians? had always been separate
species ? one inferior, one superior. With Types of Mankind, Nott and
Gliddon ushered in a new age in American racism.


Again interesting. One can see then why Egypt is so important. It was not
"Afrocentrics" that first used Egypt with reference to any "racial" angle,
but whites like Nott and GLiddon that specifically targeted Egypt as a
primary instrument to prove the inferiority of the Negroes vis a vis the
"Caucasoid" races. Here again is an excellent demonstration of white
hypocrisy- condemning "the Afrocentrics" for "obsession with race and
Egypt" when in fact it is Eurocentrics who made Egypt a central plank of
their race theory hierarchy- Nott and GLiddon being prime exhibits.

Diop roundly lashed out at this white hypocrisy:

 -
^^ ..The same hypocrisy that applies to Arabized Egyptian types today..


Signed by Nott, it outlines the terms of the argument of the book: that
ethnology is the study of the variety of human species, that Egyptology
provides the best evidence available for the age and progress of these
different species or ?types of mankind,? and that the combination of
ethnology and Egyptology shows the permanent inferiority of the Negro
type.


Good you bring this to our attention. Interestingly, the biased Stephen
Howe, who railed against "racial obsessions" of "Afrocentrism" in his book
carefully avoids any mention of this prominent book by well received
white scholars, that SPECIFICALLY uses Egypt to prove black inferiority.
Howe goes into excruciating detail on a number of very obscure black
writers- to build up his case re "obsessed Afrocentrics" but skips one of the
major books in this area of the 19th century- with authors who use Egypt
as a primary racial pillar in arguing black inferiority. He even gets into
mentioning Rosicrucanism in the 18th century but maintains a strange
silence on Nott and GLiddon. Now why is that? - except to cover white
hypocrisy, and early white use of Egypt as a racial club to bash and
disparage black people?

In view of the above, and alongside all the other reasons, blacks have
every right to critically examine Egypt, including questions of race and
ethnicity, and to respond to white hypocrisy and racism, that uses, and has
been using Egypt as a club against their people. It was white racists like
Nott and Gliddon that first forged Egypt into such an anti-black instrument.
Black folk have no option other than pushing back with the actual truth,
and this they have done, in a long line of struggle and testimony, that
continues down to this day, of which this website, and others, forms a part.

 -
 -

"Come the three quarters of the world in arms,
and we shall shock them."

--King John

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Battle of Adwa, an interview with Raymond Jonas, Harvard.

http://youtu.be/gV48Sz8Dfjw

Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tropicals redacted
Member
Member # 21621

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for tropicals redacted     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But what counts in reality is the phenotype." Thanks, been looking for this quote.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3