This historical metaphysical concept dictated a belief in real essences- or the thing in any object that makes that object what it is. This idea originated with Aristotle in The Metaphysics. According to Aristotle, all natural kinds possessed essential properties that could not be changed or transformed because they are innate. He states, “Each thing itself, then, and its essence are one and the same in no merely accidental way.” David Hume and Immanuel Kant were both later advocates for this ontology, and used it to argue in favor of polygenetics.
Hume, in On National Characters, makes his position on race felt in what is now a notorious footnote. He states,
“I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valor, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one Negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.” (pg. 252)
This belief is disturbing because it flies in the face of his own school of empiricism, experience, and reasoning. In the Treatise of Human Nature, Hume describes his methodology as such- “And as the science of man is the only solid foundation for the other sciences, so the only solid foundation we can give to this science itself must be laid on experience and observation.” (Pg. ) Yet, when it came to forming an opinion on nonwhites, Hume clearly did not follow his own criteria of making empirical inductions from observed cases. Instead, he allowed his personal prejudice to dictate a preconceived a priori conviction- that nonwhites were inferior.
As such, let us delve into this a little further by dissecting his argument. Premise A states: I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites.” Premise B states: “There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no science.” Premise C states: “On the, other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valor, form of government, or some other particular.” And, finally, his conclusion states: “Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men.”
Premise A entails many different things. First of all, by using the term species, Hume is implying that the innate thing that differentiated whites and nonwhites was permanent, fundamental, and immutable. He was further implying that this difference had nothing to do with either psychology or culture, since those things are changeable. If nonwhites could be influenced by environment, then they would be capable of civilization and merit- an argument that Hume was clearly not open too. Yet, since he did not explain what it was exactly that he was inferring here, we can only guess that he meant something like real essences. It should be noted that Hume belonged to a group of Philosophers who were valued for their theories of universal truth criteria based on observation, and for defining man in terms of mental and psychological characteristics. As such, this rationalist viewpoint dictated that an individual be judged not by his size, religious propensity, or skin color. This viewpoint, ironically, is what lets his argument in the backdoor since it forces one to commit to an ontology of real essences. And is Hume’s case, he is inferring that the essences that the white race are preferable to those innate to nonwhites. Yet, clearly, this is not truly an application of the universal truth criterion advocated by Hume in the first place. Subsequently, his racism casts serious doubt on his theory of human nature.
Premise B can easily be refuted by observing any of the many counterexamples that exist. On the African continent alone there were hundreds of civilizations that Hume could have observed such as the Egyptian Dynasties, the Berbers, the Benin, the Yoruba, and the Almohads, as well as the Mayan and Inca civilizations in the New World. And, since Hume is making a universal statement, by claiming that there has never been a nonwhite civilized nation, we only need one counterexample. So, clearly, Premise B cannot be deduced from proper empiricism.
Premise C makes the false assumption that the whites’ barbarous ways are somehow better or less treacherous than the nonwhites’ barbarous ways. But, by what virtue? Are we simply to consider white treachery less repugnant by definition? That’s a slippery slope, and one need only observe a single counterexample to refute this as well.So, if Hume’s beliefs were founded on empirical investigation and induction, then it can be deduced that he was an abysmal empirical scientist because, clearly, he is lacking empirical proof for his claim. There were simply too many counterexamples that he dismissed or ignored and critical data that disproved him. Furthermore, it is evident that Hume’s epistemology in this area was driven not by his proclaimed reason but rather by his conceptual racism.
Several of Hume’s contemporaries were critical of his bias. In particular, a Scottish philosopher named James Beattie took Le Bon David to task in an essay entitled An Essay on the Immutability of Truth (1770). Beattie goes after Hume’s assertion that he has empirically induced the conclusions that no nonwhite civilizations exist, which have achieved anything in the arts and sciences. He further claims that Hume’s reasoning is invalid because if his premises were correct then his conclusion would not naturally follow. Beattie states, “The Africans and Americans are known to have many ingenious manufactures and arts among them, which even Europeans would find it no easy matter to imitate.” Beattie’s other main objection was that the Europeans themselves were just as uncivilized 2,00 years earlier. He states, “One may as well say of an infant, that he can never become a man, as of a nation now barbarous, that it can never be civilized.” Beattie further attacks Hume for allowing his racist remarks to be used as a justification for slavery, which Beattie referred to as a “barbarous piece of policy.” Ironically, Hume’s response to Beattie was to call him a “bigoted silly fellow.” It should be mentioned that Hume went on to change the first two sentences of his footnote after this episode. They subsequently read, “I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, not even of individual eminent in action or speculation.”
Finally, it should be pointed out that Hume’s waffling was not politically innocent. In 1776 he held the Stewardship of the English Colonial Office, and was for a time the Under-Secretary of State. Importantly, at that time, Britain was fully engaged in what was a very lucrative slave trade. Slaving played a substantial role in the United Kingdom’s prosperity, and between 1650 and 1713 the country engaged in several wars for maritime dominance in order to preserve this wealth.