Knopf, 225 pp., $6.95
A century ago, a voice of British liberalism described the 'Chinaman' as 'an inferior race of malleable orientals.'[1] During the same years, anthropology became professionalized as a discipline, 'intimately associated with the rise of raciology.'[2] Presented with the claims of nineteenth-century racist anthropology, a rational person will ask two sorts of questions: What is the scientific status of the claims? What social or ideological needs do they serve? The questions are logically independent, but the second type of question naturally comes to the fore as scientific pretensions are undermined. The question of the scientific status of nineteenth-century racist anthropology is no longer seriously at issue, and its social function is not difficult to perceive. If the 'Chinaman' is malleable by nature, then what objection can there be to controls exercised by a superior race?
Review, 9032 words
To read the full text of this piece, please choose one of the following options:
|
If you are already a subscriber to the Review's electronic edition, please sign in: |
To subscribe to the electronic edition, please press the button below. |
To purchase access to this article for $3, please press the button below. |