Casey Petett
Assignment 6
The Europe portrayed Africans as sub-human races that were uncultured and primitive. Europeans, however, viewed themselves as being more advanced than other cultures. The media would present stories that portrayed Africans as violent sexual predators through stories of alleged rape. Scientists also would reinforce these stereotypes using science that proved the European as superior and any other people as being less. Europeans used these portrayals of Africans to ensure the preservation of the purity of their culture, which also made certain that their power would be intact.
The occupation of the Rhineland by African soldiers elicited a strong response from Europeans. Newspaper articles written in various cities criticized the actions of France. White Europeans were civilized, while blacks characterized by “savagery and unbridled passions, appetites, and instincts” (Campt, 52). The articles further warned against miscegenation because Europeans would not simply become uncivilized, but their entire genetic stock would be polluted (Campt, 52). The end of WWI already threatened the status of Germany in Europe, but the use of African soldier further threatened Germany’s power. Germany felt that their position made them the nation that would preserve culture in Europe.
Eugenics and other sciences that were popular in Europe discouraged the intermingling of the different races and encouraged the purity of the white race. These scientists placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Africans at the bottom. Africa look uncivilized and primitive compared to Europe (Stone, 95). Europeans from different political parties adhered to Eugenics, which shows how influential the science was (100). In Great Britain, the middle-class especially used eugenics to express their concerns about their own power. The middle-class used eugenics to further distinguish themselves from the lower-class (94). Eugenics was used to reinforce racial stereotypes in order to preserve Europe’s power and purity.
Overall, Europe felt that the presence of Africans would deteriorate the white race. The primitive aspects of the African race would cause the genetic stock of the Europeans to go down. Europeans felt that the stereotypes of the sexually aggressive African would pollute the white culture. Africans were the opposite of how Europeans viewed themselves, which caused fear of miscegenation. Newspapers and science reinforced these views and swayed public opinion against the introduction of foreigners into Europe. Boundaries needed to be established between the two races in order preserve the established racial hierarchy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your comment about the fact that Europeans felt that the presence of Africans would deteriorate the white race. I think that the Africans in Europe were considered the other because of this fear that the Europeans had. They felt that the Africans would take over their countries, their jobs, their wives, their lives and would mix in with them so much that eventually they would take over. During this period, ideology changed and the intellectual class of Europe felt that there was something in their genetic make up that made them, the Europeans the superior class, better and above all others. (This is evident even in WWII with what Hitler did) This thought caused them to depict the Africans as savages and monsters.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy to see how far science has come from eugenics. I agree with your statement that eugenics helped further the European's notion of superiority.
ReplyDeleteIn the mindset of the time I think the use of African soldiers by the French was a surprising idea. The French knew how much the Germans hated the Africans, viewing them as the other and eventually also discriminating against the "Rhineland bastard."
It's also sad to still see parallels within today's society as well. The idea of a group taking over "American" jobs, lives and even the sanctity of marriage. It's disturbing to think some of these ideologies are still around and even widely believed in this country.
Your response touched on a number of issues related to negrophobia that I thought were direct and on-target. After reading your response, I felt remiss in my failure to mention the role that the media played in disseminating negrophobic views. The media of the time (and even today) plays a prominent role in disseminating scientific advances and discoveries. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to us that newspapers and popular magazines would have been quick to publish the latest “scientific” accounts of race and genetics. While it is true that scientists did not really understand the role of genetics (the DNA molecule would not be discovered until the 1950s), they overstated the role of genetics in human social development. The fact that scientists believed they should categorize and rank people according to their race provides us with an insight into the minds of those who lived a century or more ago, not to mention the importance of the subject of race. Additionally, the fact that some many middle-class Europeans bought into the views of the scientific community reinforces this influence.
ReplyDeleteI also neglected to mention in my essay how eugenics represented a middle-class response to perceived threats from above and below. Middle-class Britons and other Europeans lived in societies where class standing still mattered; it may have been the most important social characteristic. At a time when the British middle-classes were still trying to reduce the political power of British aristocrats and elites, and when they felt threatened by the rising socialist or communist movements from the working class, British middle-class people had to turn to some ideology to justify their position in society. I bring this up because in Stone’s article he linked British negrophobia to the fear of the poor. The poor were regarded as feebleminded, incapable of providing for themselves and, therefore, constituting a drain on public resources. Britons lumped Africans, Jews, and Asians together; they all represented foreign, imported threats to what it meant to be British.
Your points on miscegenation were all equally valid, and formed the basis of my response to this question. Miscegenation was linked to the eugenics movement which was concerned, as you noted, about keeping the racial stock, the bloodlines, pure. As I mentioned in a response to one of our classmates, this fear evolved into terrifying dimensions in Germany. Yet, it started with Germany’s reaction to the children of biracial unions in Germany’s colonies, and morphed into something new with the introduction of French colonial troops into the occupied Rhineland following World War I. The fears and hatred generated by the presence of these troops would ultimately morph again with the rise of Hitler and gave way to the Holocaust, the ultimate attempt to keep a nation’s bloodline pure.