Talk:Hamites

White supremacists at the origin of the term ?

There has an edit war been going on about the first two sentences of the lede, which currently read: "Hamites are the descendants of Ham, son of Noah, as described in Genesis. This terminology was borrowed from the Bible in 18th-century ethnology and linguistics by white supremacists to name a proposed division of the human race and the group of related languages they spoke." I think it is pretty clear that the term "Hamites" has frequently been used by white supremacists, but the question is whether those people who borrowed the term from the Bible were doing so in order to promote white supremacy. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh... It's one of those things that we'd need to stick closely to academic and specialist tertiary sources for. A lot of relevant works from that period are only accepted as true now by white supremacists, and most of those works were written with assumptions we now know to be racist... But there's a question of how many of them were really written to explicitly attack non-whites versus how much was just unintentionally hurtful product-of-its-era ignorance. While the later category is racist when repeated in earnest today, looking back on its original context it's sometimes the closest thing that era has to progressive views. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Of the three sources cited, I can't find anything about the publisher for the first. The second would absolutely be reliable for how the idea has affected African-Americans, and is the closest to supporting the text as presented -- though more on that in a second. The third source is not from an academic publisher.

The second source generally supports the text, though there are potential WP:DUE issues that I think require readjusting the lede. If the lede summarizes the body, and we want the first line/paragraph to summarize the lede as succinctly as possible, we should move the citation of Quiros's God With Us to the section "Hamitic hypothesis" to point out that some churches used the concept to justify slavery and segregation. From there, we add a line to the third paragraph of the lede mentioning this point as well. Then the first line should read:

Hamites are the descendants of Ham, son of Noah, as described in Genesis. This term was borrowed by Eurocentric anthropologists for a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races favored by white supremacists, and has since fallen into disuse.

Ian.thomson (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian.thomson, I think that was clear and helpful. Still, the first sentence has the form of a definition, but doesn't define the subject of the article. Maybe something like:

Hamites is the name formerly used for some North African peoples by Eurocentric anthropologists in the context of a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races favored by white supremacists. The term was originally borrowed from Genesis, where it is used for the descendants of Ham, son of Noah. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that is better. While a lot of my activity here tends towards pre-modern scholarship (which may have unfortunately left me negligent in placing the Biblical definition first), the modern usage does predominate in the article. Medieval usage (including premodern thoughts separating it from black skin) is found more in Curse of Ham. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The terms Eurocentric and white supremacists are irrelevant for the definition of the term and only reflect and channel the editor's political bias in the context of the discredited Hamitic hypothesis. The terms are loaded and the editor deliberately violates Wikipedia's NPOV. I suggest looking at the definitions compiled in the Oxford Reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.193.214 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede has to summarize the article. From the article, it is clear that the scholars who introduced the concept were eurocentric, and that they were white supremacists. Actually, the lede says less, because it says only that the concept was "favored by" white supremacists.

I think it necessary to include the context in which the concept was created in the defintion.

NPOV would be violated, if other - recent and scholarly - sources had been deliberately ignored. I don't think that is the case. If you know sources that contradict or modify the statements given in the article, please name them.

I personally don't know Oxford Reference, so I'd be happy if you could provide the link or a quote.

According to my experience, the editors who worked on this article (not talking about myself, of course) are quite sensible people and committed to WP rules like NPOV. So it's not necessary to "urge" somebody "to take action" and possibly not helpful to accuse somebody of "deliberately" violating NPOV. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The opening line currently reads: Hamites is the name formerly used for some North African peoples by Eurocentric anthropologists in the context of a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races favored by white supremacists.. I count two places claiming the term is discredited, and a further three places, devoted to calling the term racist. It's called poisoning the well. And remember that the "Hamites theory" also introduced another, complementary term still in wide use: the Semites, so named for supposedly being the descendants of Noah's other son, Shem. 91.178.25.6 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 and Ian.thomson: I'm not happy with the current lead. It looks to be sourced but the source doesn't mention Hamites or Eurocentric anthropologists. I'd prefer something more akin to the earlier lead but rewritten, eg "In the Bible/Torah Hamites are the descendants of Ham, son of Noah, as described in Genesis. This terminology was borrowed from the Bible in 18th-century ethnology and linguistics by white supremacists in the context of a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races favored by white supremacists." But only if it can be well sourced and is discussed in the body of the article. I think the biblical origin needs to be upfront in the lead. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Ian.thomson: the source doesn't mention Hamites I don't think it has to, because the claim is about the "model of dividing humanity into different races", which is exactly what the source talks about. The word "Eurocentric" seems to be a bit more problematic. I personally think it is a legitimate condensation of the source and the section Hamites#Constructing the "Hamitic race", but maybe other editors might call it OR. Since the article is about the 19th century usage of the word, I think the biblical origin should remain where it is now. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to make an edit on this. The current lede makes it appear that the Hamitic thesis was a purely European concept, but that ignores the significant buy-in in colonial and post-colonial East-Central Africa (see 1 or 2 as examples). For better or worse, and really the latter, most of its modern advocates are black. As a suggestion, how about:

In race theory, Hamites were a distinct racial group which inhabited parts of Northeast Africa. The term was originally coined by European and North American exponents of scientific racism and was based on the Book of Genesis, where it is used for the descendants of Ham. It is considered discredited.

—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The article only has a short paragraph on the role of the Hamitic theory in Rwanda, see the end of Hamites#Hamiticised Negroes. Expanding that would surely be a good idea.

I see some problems with your suggestion of a new lede: (1) Race theory is a redirect to "Race (human categorization)", which concentrates on race as a social reality. (2) Also Northwest Africa was seen as inhabited by Hamites. (3) I'd like to keep the expression "white supremacists", which I think to be well supported by the article. (4) Not only the term "Hamites" is discredited, but the whole idea of biologically distinct races is pure pseudo-science. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Rsk6400, it is not restricted to Rwanda. There are groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi, and South Sudan (possibly also Ethiopia) which subscribe to the same believe. I recently added some material on it at Hema people in the Congolese context.

I'm surprised by the lack of an article on race theory (I guess the obvious substitute would be Historical race concepts or scientific racism) but don't disagree with your points apart from (3). Although obviously also a form of racism, "white supermacism" is a term with specific meaning which doesn't readily apply to this subject. The Hamitic thesis was about drawing racial distinctions within a black population and contained obvious anti-semitic connotations.

I don't disagree with you that Hamitic theory is discredited. It is also obviously necessary to say that. However, I think a holistic critique of race theory is inappropriate for the first sentence of this article as a WP:CFORK and smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: I think the modern use of the Hamitic theory / myth is an important thing that is still missing in the article (except for that short paragraph). I don't feel able to add anything on it, so I'd be happy if you could provide something.

I just took a look at the article White supremacy. According to the definition given there, it has its roots in the age of colonialism, and that corresponds well with the section Hamites#Constructing the "Hamitic race". For me, a critique of race theory here is like stating at the beginning of an article about "The reindeers of Father Christmas" that "Father Christmas" is a myth: "Hamitic race" doesn't exist because there is no such thing as a (biological) "race". The reindeers of F.C. don't exist, because he doesn't exist. I don't think that's content fork. It's just stating what science says in the face of many people who like to believe in pseudoscience. I'm not sure that the thesis was about drawing racial distinctions within a black population, because originally it made North Africans Caucasian, i.e. they were no longer seen as "black", but as nearly white. I'm also not sure about the anti-semitic connotations. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the conversation of stating these distinctions need the presence of 'white supremacy.' There isn't such a thing as biological race, humans are the same species. The way 'race' is spoken about in society current (especially in the west) is not academic in nature. It's quite inflammatory and absent of scientific backing to make that claim. We can also examine recent comments from individuals like Nick Cannon to see comments within this vertical expand beyond a white supremacist issue. I have no idea why one individual feels the need disregard comments here. CrazyWalter05 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue of the opening sentence has not yet been resolved. The claimed source does not mention the words/ phrases "Hamite", "eurocentric" or "supremacist". In fact the words "eurocentric" and "supremacist" do not even appear in the body of the article. Even the original work from Sanders does not mention either word. Using them in the lead here is clearly inappropriate, unsupported and WP:SYNTH. It is probably OK to include a separate sentence (based on Sanders) connecting the Hamite issue to colonialism and slavery, but not to leave things as they are. Wdford (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Genetics not needed

One user has repeatedly inserted a section on "Genetics". It has already been reverted because "'Hamitic' is now considered obsolete classification, so a section on the genetics of the various (not necessarily especially related) groups that may (or may not) have been considered Hamites by the Bible is not relevant/appropriate."

Please give your reasons or refrain from inserting that section again. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The term is obsolete to you, perhaps. But when words like "racism" and "colonialism" and "scientifically discredited" are being flung around throughout the article, so discussion on the genetics of the Semitic Backflow into Northern and Eastern Africa is warranted. It in fact affirms that these early ethnographers were correct to believe what they could see with plainly with their eyes. I find the constant characterizations of these people's beliefs and motives to be petty, unscholarly, and frankly offensive. Perhaps they were merely trying to describe the world they observed around them. The science has proven them right. Why must you constantly impugn their motives? And what is this propensity to fling the word racist and its cognates around? I vote for removing all references to racism, etc, to stop declaring who or what is or is not racist, along with related moralizing adjudicating, and including the genetic backflow from the middle east in the discussion. Let's be scholarly and not political. It really is unseemly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@WirmerFlagge: I doubt that User:Rsk6400 would see this save for my mentioning them. We attempt to be scholarly, which means using reliable sources to discuss a subject. The term is obsolete academically. "Scientifically discredited" doesn't sound political to me. Racism is a fact and used by many sources. Ironically, to me you appear to be making a political appeal. If you are on a crusade to remove the word "racist" from our articles, you won't get far unless of course it isn't sourced. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Chill out, Doug. I'm not on a crusade to do anything. You really like characterizing others, don't you. Please, get off my back. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Problems of the article

I got the impression that some editors who worked on this article have the notion that Hamites are an Ethnic group. Others (to whom I belong) are attached to mainstream science that has ceased to use the concept of a "Hamitic race" or "Hamitic languages". I'm planning to revise the article, but for now I'm convinced that the article doesn't meet the criteria for a B-Class article. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Eurocentric ?

@Wdford: I don't think the word "European" is a good replacement for "Eurocentric". Samuel George Morton, mentioned in the article, surely wasn't a "European anthropologist". "European colonialism" is taken directly from the source, but in the source it is used for the time of the emergence of the concept, roughly meaning 15th to 18th centuries. The article mostly deals with the 19th / 20th centuries. And slavery in the southern US was not "European ... oppression". On the other hand, the definition in Eurocentrism describes exactly the world view of the early proponents of our theory. That word did not exist until the 1970's is not a reason against using it, because it was coined from the beginning to describe / criticize thoughts of the past. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that Eurocentric is the correct word. Granted that Morton etc were not European, but the afrocentrists were definitely not eurocentric. In addition it seems the word Hamite was invented before the advent of colonialism too. Perhaps the first sentence should be simplified to read: "Hamites is the name formerly used for some North African peoples, in the context of a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races which was developed originally by Europeans in support of discrimination and slavery." Wdford (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I like your solution very much, but I exchanged "discrimination" for "colonialism", since in those early centuries the experience of "discrimination" was largely restricted to free Blacks and native Americans living in direct contact with Europeans, i.e. to a small minority. I also deleted the sentence about afrocentrists and white supremacists because I think the "alike" of the source refers to a specific time, and was certainly not true for the 19th century. The term "white supremacists" has often been removed by vandals and has each time been restored by one of many constructive editors, so maybe its absence from the current version will lead to further discussion. I personally think that it is important to state that "Hamites" were not a neutral scientific theory, but a theory developed in support of white supremacy. This is sufficiently well expressed in your phrase, so that the word "white supremacists" is no longer needed. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem? because there seems to be no valid reason for ommiting the parts explaining how it was used by white supremacists and afrocentrics alike . It removes key context and drivers, creators behind the theory which needs to be in the summary. If you think that puts undue weight on afrocentrics and holds them to the same pedegree as white supremacists you can add to a lesser degree afrocentrics or remove that altogether. But the fact that the theories proponents being white supremacists and hamite being eurocentric is not something that is disputable. or undue. As well as how it relates to colonialism slavery etc [1]

There should be added how the theory itself is pseudoscience and pseudohistorical and discredited by modern scholars.[2] Not just how it's outdated . Giving it some past air of legitimacy.

Also sections on how this theory inspired and was used for genocide in Rwanda and how it was used by anthropologists to create pseudo historical myths about people in NorthEast Africa should also be included. Because these are all relevant. For now the summary needs cleaning, the way the whole article stands now it almost looks like a promotional propaganda for the hypothesis and its ideas Ragnimo (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "creators", I think by Europeans in support of colonialism and slavery is already very strong. And afrocentric authors surely were not involved in the original creation of the concept. Regarding Rwanda: Go ahead ! I don't think adding something about Rwanda would be problematic. Regarding the first source you gave: The book seems to be about the Curse of Ham, which was used by fundamentalist Christians to justify the enslavement of West Africans. This article is about the Hamitic theory, which was used by Western authors to divide Africans into "better" Hamites and "lesser" "Negroids". That's something different. Regarding pseudoscience: I could imagine a first sentence like Hamites is the name formerly used for some North African peoples in the context of a pseudoscientific model of dividing humanity into different races .... What do you think ? Regarding the article promoting the Hamitic theory: Could you name some examples ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, the opening is far too didatic for an encyclopedia, and while it is obviously true that scientific racism was used to justify imperialism and slavery in the 19th century (though not at the same time, neither by generally the same people), is absoluteley not a consensus that scientific racism was created to justify imperialism or slavery. Just because an idea was used for a purpose it doesn't mean that it was created with that purpose. There were racial scientists who opposed Imperialism, and many were actually abolitionists Knoterification (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The AABA (formerly AAPA) to which the introducing sentence is sourced, is the most respected international (sic) body of biological (physiological) anthropologists. If they publish a document, we may assume that they express consensus. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Samuel Morton invented the word “Negroid”

I don’t have access to Oxford etymology dictionary. According to etymology.com the first use of the word “Negroid” was in 1844. This is the same year Morton’s Crania Ægyptiaca was published. If anyone has a subscription for Oxford source I think they can prove it

https://www.etymonline.com/word/negroid

If anyone can prove this I’d kindly ask them to add this to the section “Negroid rather than Negro”.

On reference 50 I cited etymology.com. If anyone can find anything you can replace that reference. Thank you Markj573 (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Case for keeping “Negroid rather than Negro”

Because of the long rambling thread I decided to make a new section to make it easier to put my final arguments. In the latest version of the article I added a quote from Types of Mankind “inhabited by races unlike Asiatics, and equally unlike Negroes: but forming in anthropology a connecting link, and, geographically, another gradation. To say nothing of Egyptians proper, such were and are the Nubians, the Abyssinians, the Gallas, the Barabra, no less than the whole native population of the Barbary States.”

All these groups are people considered Hamites (see Sergi, which I had referenced in the latest version). Sergi also believed that Hamites are native Africans The latest version of the article shows Types of Mankind interpretation of Egyptians being Hamites (see latest image I uploaded, swarthy races Hamites. I also added a reference where they used the same image to strengthen their view the early Egyptians were Negroid. It’s just as relevant as Johnston who also identified Egyptians, Somali, Gala as Negroid. Rawlinson believed that Hamites (including Egyptians who are considered Hamites) were native to Africa, and an intermediate type between Caucasian and Negro

It’s established earlier in the article that Morton is an important figure in development of the Hamitic hypothesis. His changing views on the subject are very relevant to the Hamitic hypothesis. I want to emphasize there are different interpretations of the Hamitic hypothesis, as already stated Sergi didn’t believe they came from Asia

I’ll wait for third party to put in input but this is my case. The purpose of my recent edits were to tie in all these views with the Hamitic hypothesis, which should strengthen my case the additions should be added to this article Markj573 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for considerably improving the readability of your comment. Since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research (see WP:OR), I think that we can only use those sources if an explicite connection is made to "Hamites" - not by us editors, but by the sources, preferably academic secondary sources (see WP:PSTS for the difference between primary and secondary sources). The sources you used are all primary ones. An additional problem is that you combine sources by different authors, who have (or may have) their own specific theories and so cannot be combined into a single system.

An extra word about the Britannica article: It said that "Negroid" should be used instead of "Negro", not that it was used. Negroid was normally used as a technical term for a race (understood as a biologically distinct variety of humans) in the context of racist theories that have been totally debunked. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The Britannia article was saying “Negroid” was a more broad term, and that “Negro” was more specific pertaining to pure Negroes. The article contrasts the west African “Negroes” with the “Negroid Bantu”. Meaning the Bantu were less stereotypically Negro

I won’t make any more edits and just see what 3rd party arbitration says. I will concede to anything they say Markj573 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: west African negro doesn’t appear in the article, I was thinking about another work. Here is an exact quote [3]

”In this tract are found the true negroes; and their nearest relatives, the Bantu-negroids, are found to the south of the last-mentioned line.” “ the Bantu-speaking peoples in the southern portion of the continent is not certain, but as the latter appear to approach the Hamites in those characteristics in which they differ from the true negroes” Bantu-Negroids is literally Bantu-Negro likes [4]

“The suffix "-oid" means "similar to". Negroid as a noun was used to designate a wider or more generalized category than Negro”

Markj573 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I can cite this as a secondary source which should make my contributions valid “Ancient Egyptians in Black and White: ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ and the Hamitic Hypothesis”[5]

“ Another scholar worth noting for his claims about ancient dark-skinned Caucasians is Samuel George Morton (1799–1851), known as the father figure of the American school of ethnology and often cited for his influence on the Hamitic Hypothesis (Sanders 1969, pp. 527–28; Trafton 2004, p. 17; Baden and Moss 2014)”

“ With the transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, the Hamitic Hypothesis became more entrenched. Other scholars built upon Morton’s writings, and, with the help of Josiah Clark Nott (1804–1873) and George Robins Gliddon (1809–1857), the emerging field of Egyptology adopted and refined the White-Hamite concept (Gliddon and Nott 1854). By 1879, Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages (1810–1892) could comment on the irony of dark-skinned Caucasians while still accepting this racialization as a fact. He writes, “Amongst the Whites there are entire populations, whose skin is as black as that of the darkest Negro” (de Quatrefages 1879, p. 48). For example, he describes the Bishareen, a contemporary Egyptian tribe of people, as having “even a darker hue than the true Negro,” and later he notes that he finds it inconceivable that the ancient Egyptian looked any different from these dark Egyptians of his day (de Quatrefages 1879, pp. 50, 257). Thus, by the close of the nineteenth century, the Hamitic Hypothesis had established a well-respected racial (il)logic capable of circumventing its own admitted anxieties that the ancient Egyptians’ skin color (or other features) should lead them to be classified with other dark-skinned Africans rather than Europeans.“

The 1854 book cited is specifically Types of Mankind. I said earlier I wouldn’t edit but with this source I think I can include it Markj573 (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If you said something earlier, you should keep your promises. You still largely rely on primary sources, you use WP:EDITORIALIZING, and you are still combining sources (WP:SYNTH). Also, you should really be careful regarding punctuation, spelling and use of blanks. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you have determined the quote from Johnston is relevant I think we can restore “Negroid rather than Negro” and remove all quotes from Rawlinson. Morton and Types of Mankind are both important parts of the Hamitic hypothesis (see source provided). The parts about “it should be noted” should be removed and exact quotes from the text, including the images, should stay. I can even remove almost everything except exact quotes. I can also upload images from pages 238-239 with caption directly quoting the source without any commentary “strengthen our view that the Egyptians of the first dynasties were Negroid”

I have not engaged in synthesis because that means combining sources to come up with new ideas, which I have not done.

punctuation, spacing ext. can be handled by other editors

“Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.”[6]

For example the link to the etymology dictionary says that in 1844 Negroid meant hybrid, which I included in the text. The 1911 Encyclopedia says that the word Negro was reserved for those with the highest degree of Negro characteristics, and Negroid is a more general term. I did not synthesize a new conclusion Markj573 (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a new idea. Keep Johnston in “Hamitisiced Negroes” and add a new section of “recanted views on race of the Egyptians” which will only have 3 quotes. One from Morton and 2 from Nott and Gliddon. I will keep the two picture not have to upload any new ones

The secondary source I provided says Morton, Gliddon, Nott are all important figures in Hamitic hypothesis.

See pages 229-232 for Morton’s changing views on race of the Egyptians Markj573 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The title of the section can be changed Markj573 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The secondary source I provided says that black skin Caucasians are part of the Hamitic hypothesis. This makes Morton's quote relevant because he says they were black Caucasians

I provided quotes but minimized commentary in the latest revision Markj573 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know if there is a way for people to make a draft to review. Here is a link to the latest version I made [7]

In your comment you said “still not relevant”. Can you explain why it isn’t relevant Markj573 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking remove everything else from the section after the link to Morton’s letters to Gliddon. Other than that link there would only be the quote from Morton to Mr. Bartlett and no pictures. Rename it “Morton’s later views on race of the Egyptians”. I have two citations about Morton’s “father of scientific racism” and importance to Hamitic Hypothesis Markj573 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I withdraw the dispute. I was unaware of Wikis secondary source policy. Someone else could revive the section if they find secondary sources. I did provide a secondary source, someone else can make a judgement if that is enough. I have no further contributions Markj573 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s a surprising blind spot in academia, no source seems to acknowledge that Morton recanted much of his work on origins of Egyptians or that Nott and Gliddon called them Negroid”. I think it’s a certain kind of political correctness bias in academics (ironically) while racists would also overlook their new opinions.

what I mean by political correctness bias is they see these people as one dimensional racists and overlook that their opinions evolved over time. It was around 1846 when their opinions changed. They were racists but they did change opinions on some things.

Types of Mankind page 232 Markj573 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)