"Interracial interbreeding, though often frowned upon in public, was hardly infrequent."
One could add inter-class breeding. Almost always frowned upon but human nature being what it is was very common. Once upon a time people in Scotland were proud to be descended "from the bastard line" or as they would say "From the Seventh Son of Hugh etc."
It is interesting to note that in the Spanish Empire interracial breeding was the rule rather than the exception (except for the highest class of Peninsulares). Hence Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico, Columbia are not and never have been "White Societies" but Mesitzo/Mulatto societies or what some call LA RAZA COSMICA.
Men (especially young men) want women and in my experience soldiers, sailors and Marines will seek their pleasures where they will thus spreading DNA. But spreading and passing on language and culture over the generations requires a more serious and permanent relationship.
So only in a society that accepts and embraced interracial breeding can assimilation of distinct populations be possible. At one time Frank and Gaul were distinct populations with different languages and backgrounds. Over time they became, more or less, one people with one language and one culture (in general). History gives hope that national and racial barriers and hatreds can be palliated over time even erased. Who today knows the hatred and fear of the "Long Haired Gaul" or of the Painted Pict. Or even of the Pagan Fjord Men (Lochlannoch ) the Vikings. Or of the slave catching Barbary Pirates? Time heals all wounds,
"Franklin did grieve for Frankie, but he understood, in a way people today often don't, that death is an unavoidable aspect of life. He saw with his own eyes much more of death than most of us do, and to some degree he got used to it." I think you have something here. I think back to my grandparents and my father's grandparents, aunts and uncles -all born in the 19th century. The lost many children in childbirth and in the early years. My father had an aunt who bore over a dozen children perhaps 14 but only three survived to adulthood. Death at sea or in the service of the Empire was very common place. My father's mother lost two brothers, a brother-in-law, and seven nephews and cousins killed in WW1. I remember my father telling me he was a small boy of 4 or 5 at the time that at Rosary Visitations and meetings the women all said over tears that it was a consolation that they would all meeting again in the afterlife. I remember him telling me that his mother was the only woman of that Govan group out of St. Anthony's parish whose husband had not been killed in the war. That generation were often called the "Teuchters" (the Tough Ones). They were knew how to endure hunger, cold, tropical heat, thirst , rain, storms and wounds. So there many be a core "human nature" but character is formed by the challenges of the enviornment and the age. No challenges no toughness.
May 16, 2022·edited May 16, 2022Liked by H. W. Brands
Again, some excellent observations. That distinction of understanding the humanity, despite it being not of your "race" (seen more as nationality from the original Greek origin of the word), makes the analysis very different and that nuance is completely lost today.
The humanity between slave black and white planter that Genovese highlights in Roll, Jordan, Roll (still the best slavery history, and one of the most well written historical books ever) is evident to show the reality (both evil and charitable) between different group. On the other side, the humanity Browning highlights in Reserve Police Battalion 101 is jarring. Many knew they were killing innocent humans who shared their Imago Dei, yet they continued on. It is such a dismissive line when people say, "they do not consider them human." The reality for the historian is much more difficult to analyze: why do they see them as human, and react the way they do. That is, again, where the historian makes his money (what money there is...)
One area I find fascinating on understanding humanity was the famous stevedore/philosopher Eric Hoffer. Despite being irreligious, he was appalled at the idea of Man and nature being one. He had a Garden of Eden sensibility of Man having dominion over nature, and its requirement to be a benevolent steward of it.
While Hoffer did not make the connection, Alfred Rosenberg's odious and rambling Myth of the Twentieth Century argued consistently that Man and nature are equals, and Man is just part of this larger nature: no better or worse. Not suggesting, Gaia New Agers are looking to round up undesirables, but there is a strong rejection of Natural Law/Western Tradition when we dismiss the nobless oblige Man has for the creation God gave us.
Thank you for letting us comment. Interesting thoughts.
I think Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind”, provides a lot of insight into human nature within the context of morality and politics. The book presents a fair amount of research results about the psychology of morality, including studies focused on different cultures around the world, to show there are some common themes of human morality. Haidt and collaborators have organized these themes in their “Moral foundations theory”, which proposes six foundations of morality: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression. [1]
The Righteous Mind also explains how much of our moral reasoning doesn’t follow from rational reasoning, but instead starts as moral intuitions for which we then develop rational justifications. I.e., human morality is emotional (or subconscious); not the results of rational deliberation. Hence reasoned arguments, particularly impersonal arguments over the internet, have limited ability to influence other people’s view around morality.
Thanks for the thoughtful and enlightening comment.
"Interracial interbreeding, though often frowned upon in public, was hardly infrequent."
One could add inter-class breeding. Almost always frowned upon but human nature being what it is was very common. Once upon a time people in Scotland were proud to be descended "from the bastard line" or as they would say "From the Seventh Son of Hugh etc."
It is interesting to note that in the Spanish Empire interracial breeding was the rule rather than the exception (except for the highest class of Peninsulares). Hence Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico, Columbia are not and never have been "White Societies" but Mesitzo/Mulatto societies or what some call LA RAZA COSMICA.
Men (especially young men) want women and in my experience soldiers, sailors and Marines will seek their pleasures where they will thus spreading DNA. But spreading and passing on language and culture over the generations requires a more serious and permanent relationship.
So only in a society that accepts and embraced interracial breeding can assimilation of distinct populations be possible. At one time Frank and Gaul were distinct populations with different languages and backgrounds. Over time they became, more or less, one people with one language and one culture (in general). History gives hope that national and racial barriers and hatreds can be palliated over time even erased. Who today knows the hatred and fear of the "Long Haired Gaul" or of the Painted Pict. Or even of the Pagan Fjord Men (Lochlannoch ) the Vikings. Or of the slave catching Barbary Pirates? Time heals all wounds,
"Franklin did grieve for Frankie, but he understood, in a way people today often don't, that death is an unavoidable aspect of life. He saw with his own eyes much more of death than most of us do, and to some degree he got used to it." I think you have something here. I think back to my grandparents and my father's grandparents, aunts and uncles -all born in the 19th century. The lost many children in childbirth and in the early years. My father had an aunt who bore over a dozen children perhaps 14 but only three survived to adulthood. Death at sea or in the service of the Empire was very common place. My father's mother lost two brothers, a brother-in-law, and seven nephews and cousins killed in WW1. I remember my father telling me he was a small boy of 4 or 5 at the time that at Rosary Visitations and meetings the women all said over tears that it was a consolation that they would all meeting again in the afterlife. I remember him telling me that his mother was the only woman of that Govan group out of St. Anthony's parish whose husband had not been killed in the war. That generation were often called the "Teuchters" (the Tough Ones). They were knew how to endure hunger, cold, tropical heat, thirst , rain, storms and wounds. So there many be a core "human nature" but character is formed by the challenges of the enviornment and the age. No challenges no toughness.
Again, some excellent observations. That distinction of understanding the humanity, despite it being not of your "race" (seen more as nationality from the original Greek origin of the word), makes the analysis very different and that nuance is completely lost today.
The humanity between slave black and white planter that Genovese highlights in Roll, Jordan, Roll (still the best slavery history, and one of the most well written historical books ever) is evident to show the reality (both evil and charitable) between different group. On the other side, the humanity Browning highlights in Reserve Police Battalion 101 is jarring. Many knew they were killing innocent humans who shared their Imago Dei, yet they continued on. It is such a dismissive line when people say, "they do not consider them human." The reality for the historian is much more difficult to analyze: why do they see them as human, and react the way they do. That is, again, where the historian makes his money (what money there is...)
One area I find fascinating on understanding humanity was the famous stevedore/philosopher Eric Hoffer. Despite being irreligious, he was appalled at the idea of Man and nature being one. He had a Garden of Eden sensibility of Man having dominion over nature, and its requirement to be a benevolent steward of it.
While Hoffer did not make the connection, Alfred Rosenberg's odious and rambling Myth of the Twentieth Century argued consistently that Man and nature are equals, and Man is just part of this larger nature: no better or worse. Not suggesting, Gaia New Agers are looking to round up undesirables, but there is a strong rejection of Natural Law/Western Tradition when we dismiss the nobless oblige Man has for the creation God gave us.
Thank you for letting us comment. Interesting thoughts.
I think Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind”, provides a lot of insight into human nature within the context of morality and politics. The book presents a fair amount of research results about the psychology of morality, including studies focused on different cultures around the world, to show there are some common themes of human morality. Haidt and collaborators have organized these themes in their “Moral foundations theory”, which proposes six foundations of morality: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression. [1]
The Righteous Mind also explains how much of our moral reasoning doesn’t follow from rational reasoning, but instead starts as moral intuitions for which we then develop rational justifications. I.e., human morality is emotional (or subconscious); not the results of rational deliberation. Hence reasoned arguments, particularly impersonal arguments over the internet, have limited ability to influence other people’s view around morality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
Very interesting, Matt. Thanks for the reference.