"The Baby of Biological Race": The Issue of Racial Science in Winthrop Jordan's White Over Black

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
H. Neptune
{"title":"\"The Baby of Biological Race\": The Issue of Racial Science in Winthrop Jordan's White Over Black","authors":"H. Neptune","doi":"10.1353/jer.2023.a897984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Are there currently venerated works of history-writing that, upon closer inspection, should embarrass us for their entanglements with white supremacy? White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550–1812 (1968) by Winthrop Jordan is one such text. A weighty historical study of English and Anglo–American \"thoughts and feelings\" about people of African descent in the colonies and the early republic, Jordan's book has won great professional acclaim within the North Atlantic for more than half a century. Yet, for all of this reverence, White Over Black betrays a deep and fatal problem and deserves reassessment as a disturbingly retrograde contribution to the historiography on racism. This monumental piece of scholarship advanced an essentialist conception of race as part of nature, as arising from natural distinctions between groups of people. Guilty of what Barbara Fields and Karen Fields have called \"racecraft,\" Jordan put the cart of racial difference before the horse of racism. Indeed, he deliberately challenged the assumptions of contemporary anti-racist scholars who emphasized race as an invention, complaining that they had \"thrown out the baby of race with the bathwater of racism.\" Maintaining that racism followed fundamentally from inherent racial difference, Jordan cast white supremacy, tragically, as an unconscious psychological response to the distinct physiology of Blackness. The result was a teleological narrative of racial domination. Though not intended to apologize for racism, White Over Black did nevertheless (ir)rationalize racism as the fatal product of inescapable biological difference. Carefully and critically read, Jordan's book provides an eloquent (pre)text for considering how a primordialist view of race subverts the project of effective anti-racist history-writing.","PeriodicalId":45213,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jer.2023.a897984","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Are there currently venerated works of history-writing that, upon closer inspection, should embarrass us for their entanglements with white supremacy? White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550–1812 (1968) by Winthrop Jordan is one such text. A weighty historical study of English and Anglo–American "thoughts and feelings" about people of African descent in the colonies and the early republic, Jordan's book has won great professional acclaim within the North Atlantic for more than half a century. Yet, for all of this reverence, White Over Black betrays a deep and fatal problem and deserves reassessment as a disturbingly retrograde contribution to the historiography on racism. This monumental piece of scholarship advanced an essentialist conception of race as part of nature, as arising from natural distinctions between groups of people. Guilty of what Barbara Fields and Karen Fields have called "racecraft," Jordan put the cart of racial difference before the horse of racism. Indeed, he deliberately challenged the assumptions of contemporary anti-racist scholars who emphasized race as an invention, complaining that they had "thrown out the baby of race with the bathwater of racism." Maintaining that racism followed fundamentally from inherent racial difference, Jordan cast white supremacy, tragically, as an unconscious psychological response to the distinct physiology of Blackness. The result was a teleological narrative of racial domination. Though not intended to apologize for racism, White Over Black did nevertheless (ir)rationalize racism as the fatal product of inescapable biological difference. Carefully and critically read, Jordan's book provides an eloquent (pre)text for considering how a primordialist view of race subverts the project of effective anti-racist history-writing.
“生物种族的婴儿”:温斯洛普·乔丹的《白人胜过黑人》中的种族科学问题
摘要:目前是否有受人尊敬的历史著作,经过仔细观察,会因为它们与白人至上主义的纠缠而让我们感到尴尬?温思罗普·乔丹的《白人对黑人:美国对黑人的态度》,1550–1812(1968)就是这样一本书。半个多世纪以来,约旦的书在北大西洋赢得了巨大的专业赞誉,这本书对英国和英美两国关于殖民地和共和国早期非洲人后裔的“思想和感受”进行了深入的历史研究。然而,尽管如此,《白人对黑人》揭示了一个深刻而致命的问题,值得重新评估,认为这是对种族主义史学的一种令人不安的倒退贡献。这一不朽的学术成果提出了一个本质主义的概念,即种族是自然的一部分,源于人群之间的自然差异。乔丹对芭芭拉·菲尔兹和凯伦·菲尔兹所说的“赛马术”感到内疚,他把种族差异的本末倒置。事实上,他故意挑战当代反种族主义学者强调种族是一项发明的假设,抱怨他们“用种族主义的洗澡水把种族的婴儿赶了出去”。乔丹坚持认为种族主义从根本上源于固有的种族差异,作为对黑人独特生理的无意识心理反应。其结果是种族统治的目的论叙事。尽管不是为了为种族主义道歉,但“白人对黑人”确实(ir)将种族主义合理化为不可避免的生物差异的致命产物。仔细而批判性地阅读,约旦的书提供了一个雄辩的(前)文本,用于思考原始的种族观如何颠覆有效的反种族主义历史写作项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Early Republic is a quarterly journal committed to publishing the best scholarship on the history and culture of the United States in the years of the early republic (1776–1861). JER is published for the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic. SHEAR membership includes an annual subscription to the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信