DEMÉTRIO MAGNOLIOne Drop of Blood: History of The Racialist ThinkingEnglish version of:Uma Gota de Sangue: História do Pensamento Racial. São Paulo: EditoraContexto, 2009How to cite this book: MAGNOLI, D. Uma gota de sangue: história dopensamento racial. São Paulo: Editora Contexto, 2009. 385p.Since the book was published only in Portuguese, this is a guide for the nonspeakers to understand it, thus references cited by the author are not listed.
About the authorDemétrio Magnoli is a sociologist, PhD in Human Geography by the University of SãoPaulo and member of the Group of Analysis of the International Conjuncture(GACINT) of the University of São Paulo. He writes columns to newspapers such asFolha de São Paulo, O Estado de São Paulo and O Globo. He was the editor of thebooks History of Wars and History of Peace, both published (in Portuguese) by theEditora Contexto. You can e-mail him at email@example.com
SummaryINTRODUCTION – EXCESS OF COLORPART I – THE WHITE MAN´S BURDEN A history of blood The science of races A mission in Africa Classifying the natives Nation as a lineage Hitler and the crisis of race In the beginning it was the Volk A perfect Volk Laws of Nuremberg Victory in defeat The rejected race Revolution in Soweto Apartheid as norm Norm as an exception Afro-Americans The sense of citizenship The confusion of races Triumph of multiculturalism Ford Foundation and the policies of differences Nations inside the nation Meeting in Durban Minorities from all over the world, unite yourselves!
PART II – ONE DROP RULE Loving Day Melting pot Jim Crow Equality and difference The whole and the parts The vote of Anthony Kennedy Barack Obama: the speech Black into white Miscegenation as a solution The mixed in USA and in Brazil Freyre at Pelourinho The yarn of Durban Indio muerto indio puesto (dead Indian deposed Indian) The interrupted revolution The Tableland and the West The communitarian plurinational Estate Inventing the Camba nation Booty of warPART III – BACK TO AFRICA The empire against the traffic The principle of freedom A Christian home in Africa The real distinctions nature did From Zanzibar to Congo
The Pan-African dream Africa as a metaphor: Du Bois Africa as a destiny: Garvey Pan-Africanism reaches Africa A speech out of place African mix Black Economic Empowerment Seals of authenticity We had to teach how to hate The three sons of Gahanga From one myth of origin to another Hutus in power The gears of the genocide The evil namesPART IV – ORIENT Restoration of castes Caste makers The castes and the nation One million mutinies The sons of the soil Malay supremacy A racial nationalism The social contract in crisis A country for all?
PART V – INDUSTRY OF IDEOLOGIES Diseases of blacks A Pan-African disease? The import of a speech Aids in the racialist pot Health against miscegenation Abolition of abolition An African homeland? Palmares, the metaphor War and peace among races Pedagogy of race Racial hornbooks The color of poverty Statistics on the perch The talented 10% Racial tribunals A young lady of clear skin and blue eyes Rivers that never meet Redemption without return Naturally ambivalent beings Starting again?
INTRODUCTION – EXCESS OF COLOR Frederick Douglass was born as a slave, in a poor house in Maryland in 1818.His mother died when he was 7 year-old. Probably, she was born from the union of anAfrican and an American Indian. The boy never knew his father, but he had theinformation that he might be a white man, probably the owner of those lands and ofhimself. Anyway, when his presumed father died, he was 12 year-old and wastransferred to the Auld family in Baltimore. Sophia Auld, the wife of his new owner, was not just somebody. Without tellinghis husband, and disobeying the law, she alphabetized the boy. Through Sophi,Douglass discovered The Columbian Orator, a collection of patriotic speeches andpoems where he found the idea of equality among the human beings. In the followingyears, he had several owners and even taught some slaves to read the New Testament atSunday classes in a black church. In 1838, in a second trial, he succeeded in escaping,dressed as a sailor, through train and vapor, to New Bedford, Massachussets, where hebecame one the most important leaders of abolitionism in USA. Douglass´ speech of 4th July was pronounced in 1852, at Corinthian Hall ofRochester city, New York, a place nowadays transformed in a parking zone where otherabolitionists presented their speeches, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Dickensand William Lloyd Garrison. Between the escape from slavery and the invite to speechat the American national date, Douglass collaborated with the Antislavery AmericanSociety, wrote his precocious autobiography that was a great success, visited Irelandand Great Britain and edited abolitionist journals. In his overseas trip, he legalized hiscondition of a free man, bought by British friends, and had a meeting with ThomasClarkson, the greatest British abolitionist, who would die some months later, at the ageof 81 year-old. The North Star, one of the journals he created, had as label the phrase„the Law doesn´t have sex – the Truth doesn´t have color – God is the Father and we allare siblings‟. The pathway of Douglass towards the abolitionist movement was open by ameeting with Garrison, the editor of the journal The Liberator, who spoke to anabolitionist audience. The ex-slave was then 23 year-old. Invited to tell about his life, hemade such an impression in the respectful abolitionist, who was also a reporter and areformer, son of Canadian immigrants. These two men worked together until aphilosophical divergence took them apart. Garrison considered the American constitution as an abominable slaverycontract and in 1854 he even fired it publically, provoking an animated fuss. Douglassreflected deeply over the matter and, under the influence of Lysander Spooner, ananarchist-individualist, concluded that, in opposite to Garrison, the constitution was
basically an anti-slavery document. In the constitutional text, the institute of slavery wasimplicit in sections 2 and 9 of the 1st article that mentions “all the other persons” (theslaves) or the import of persons (the slavery traffic). However, it is only explicit in afailed proposal of 1861 that aimed to prohibit the congress to interfere in anti-slaverystate laws and in the famous 13th proposal of 1865 that abolished slavery. Douglassextracted from this and mostly from the constitutional principle of equality the reasonsfor his appraisal to the fundamental text of the American nation. Douglass accused, at the 4th July of 1852, not against the fundaments of theUSA, but against its betrayal. The abolitionism of Douglass represented an adhesion toUSA, not the country of slavery, but the one of the freedom as announced in the Declareof Independence and in the Constitution. He tried to convince the radical abolitionistJohn Brown to not put into action his plans to organize an armed revolution in the Southand disapproved the attack to the federal weapons of Harpers Ferry, in WesternVirginia, the first and unsuccessful act of this abolitionist project. With the beginning ofthe civil war, partially started by Brown´s attitudes, Douglass claimed for all the blacksto adhere to the federal troops and in 1863 he spoke to Abraham Lincoln about thetreatment that was given to those soldiers. After the war, he defended the universal voting and the women´s rights. Duringthe years of the reconstruction, a short period of liberal changes in the states of the oldconfederation, Douglass was the chief of a federal bank devoted to the development ofthe black communities of the South, gave support to the repression against the Ku KluxKlan and served as a diplomat in Haiti and Dominican Republic. In 1876, hepronounced his most touching speech in the inauguration of the Memory toEmancipation (also known as the Memorial to Lincoln) in Washington. The reconstruction ended in 1879, when the old Southern elites conquered backthe control of the government of the states. As a reaction, a movement claiming theblacks to leave the South appeared. Douglass strongly reproved this initiative and tookthe word in the reunions of this movement to dissuade the blacks, under a booingaudience, from the idea of physical separation. He claimed for resistance and under theworst conditions he believed in the dream of the single nation. Anna Murray Douglass, the wife with whom Frederick lived since he escaped,died in 1882. Two years later, he married Helen Pitts, a white feminist of New York,defying the taboo against interracial marriages. In 1888, in the Republican Convention,a member voted in Douglass as a candidate for the Presidency. In an event inJacksonville, in Florida, 120 years later, one day before the presidential elections,Barack Obama concluded his speech citing Douglass: “ You don´t imagine for a singleminute that the power will give anything without a fight”. From Douglass to Obama, passing by Martin Luther King, an anti-racial cordgoes through two centuries of the history of USA. These three men, under differentcircumstances, were raised as the announcements of the principle of equality andinsisted on see the American nation through this point of view. However, a powerful
side of the American history was born around the myth of the races, which means, theprinciple of the difference, not of the equality. Douglass fought against the slavery andwon, but, even before his death, he lived to see the first segregationist laws be edited.Luther King fought against these laws and also triumphed, but at the moment he waskilled, the myth of the races reappeared with its plenty vigor under the paradoxicalforms of reverse discrimination policies. Obama got apart from these racial preferencepolicies and defined himself as a mixed man, in a country that classified its citizensaccording to racial criteria. At the time of Douglass, both science and common sense believed that thehumankind was divided into races. This belief had lost credit when Luther Kingconducted the march for civil rights. Spite this event, the idea of race was re-introducedin the law a few years after the murder of the leader that not only preached for equalitybut also nourished the dream of a nation where nobody would be judged by their skincolor. At the moment when the congress and the Supreme Court adopted theinterpretation of the constitution as wanted by Douglass, the political doctrine ofmulticulturalism re-emerged and again challenged the principle of the equality. Sincethe decade of 1970 and under the approval of black leaders, they reactivated the motorsof programs that make the skin color criteria for distinguishing the candidates andgovernment contracts, public jobs and admission to universities. „Afro-Americans‟: an expression created together with the multiculturalism, isnothing more than a post-modern reflex of the old vision of Africa as a patria of a race.It was precisely this vision imported from the classical racism that guided the main draftof the black movement in USA, before and after Luther King. It is this vision thatsustains the projects of policies of political racial preferences in Brazil. The relationshipbetween skin color, geographical and racial origin is present in Africa. Mia Couto, a Mozambican writer, discuss the disapproval of the young people ofhis country regarding the identity of the famous soccer player Eusébio da Silva Ferreira,born in Mozambique and hero of the Portuguese selection of the World Cup of 1996.He affirms himself as being Portuguese of nationality and heart. According to MiaCouto, „the example of Eusébio reveals many other phantoms. Is there a reason for theblack Africans can´t be converted into „something else‟? If there are whites who areAfricans, blacks that are Americans, why the black Africans can´t turn into Europeans?‟ The writer proceeds: „There are nowadays many blacks who were born inEurope. They studied, grew and absorbed values. They are citizens of the countrieswhere they were born. They will have European kids and grandkids. They shall neverfall into a trap of claiming a ghetto, a species of a second-class citizenship named asAfro-European‟. Race is, precisely, the vindications of a ghetto. The name of this ghetto isancestry. The life of a person who defines their place in the world in racial terms isorganized by loops, either real or fictitious, that connect them to the past. But modernitywas inaugurated by an opposite perspective that is mixed with the rights of the
citizenship. The citizens are equal in front of the law and they have the right to createtheir future, spite of their family origins or blood relations. The racial policies are,however, a denial of the modernity. However, the multiculturalist denial of the modernity is a recent event. Thescience of the races appeared at the end of the XVII century, together with the Frenchrevolution and the consolidation of the concept of citizenship and continued intoextremely depraved practices of the Second World War. The policies of racialpreferences were disseminated in the post-war, not much after the Universal Declarationof the Human Rights and the worldwide repudiation of the Nazi racism. The message ofthe multiculturalism is that the principle of the equality can be a beautiful declaration,but the real truth is formed by the essential differences of the human groups. The scientific racism planted the races in the soil of nature, defining them ashuman families separated by their biological essences. When science demolished thisbelief, the multiculturalism replanted the races on the soil of the culture. The argumentof the multiculturalists is that the races are social and cultural entities. Based on this, theracial policies, that seemed to disappear at the time of the opening of the Nazi fields, re-appeared triumphantly in many points of the Planet. The production of races does not make an exigency of differences in skin color.It is enough, as the Nigerians, Kenyans and Rwandese know it deeply, the elaborationof a historical narrative organized as starting from ethnic paradigms and, mostimportantly, the inscription of racial groups in the texts of the law. The distribution ofprivileges according criteria of ethnicity or race records in the consciences the sense ofracial pertinence. Race is a self-succeeded prophecy. The races were presented as very old entities, with roots attached to the spring ofthe times. In fact, they are modern identity constructions or, at least, recent re-elaborations of diffuse identities of a deeper past – as well known by Indians, Malaysand Bolivians. Race is the fruit of the power of a Estate that rejects the principle of theequality among the citizens. The American affirmative policies based on race served as model for SouthAfrica and Brazil. In South Africa, the principle of the racial difference, glued in thelaws and consciences since the colonization until the apartheid regime, gave the logicalscenario for the new policies of preferences of the black economic empowerment. InBrazil, in the contrary, the principle of the political equality finds support in thepowerful identity speech of mixing, which has blurred the frontiers of race. Even so, inname of the multiculturalism, the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso tried todivide the citizens between blacks and whites and the following government of LuísInácio Lula da Silva supported the introduction of the first racial laws of the Brazilianhistory. In the last year of the XX century, the scientists who sequenced the humangenome declared the death of the races. The myth of the races, however, instead of
dissolving as an anachronistic belief, something comparable to the old belief in witches,persists or re-sprouts in the political spheres, denying the ideas of equality. Like if theykeep saying Douglass that the 4th July will never be his day.PART I – THE WHITE MAN´S BURDENA history of the blood Classify is to put objects or ideas in order. Mankind has classified since itsremote times. The most general rules of classification, exposed by Aristotle, are knownby almost everybody. One: the items must be grouped in classes the most homogenousas possible. Two: each new specific item must be grouped to the class to with it sharesthe most similar characteristics. Third: a new item with too many differentcharacteristics must originate a new class. Order requires hierarchy. When the classes are considered as items, they can begrouped into sets bigger and bigger. The superior set is the Universe. Below it, there areless and less heterogeneous groups until the most inferior level, where the classesremain. All hierarchical levels receive names, as well as the sets and classes. Order isdone. In Biology, classification is named taxonomy, a word that has spread out intoother fields of knowledge. The taxonomical hierarchy of the life beings is organized intoeight principal levels, since the kingdoms to the species. Classifications obey to rules,but always use a snooze of subjectivity. In the biological taxonomy, ordering all levelssuperior to species contains some degree of arbitrariness. But the species, the mostinferior level, was given a special characteristic: according to the dogmas of the conceptof biological species, each species represent a real unity from nature. Regarding the animal kingdom, a species is a group of organisms that can crossnaturally and give raise to fertile descendants, according to the usual definition. Thus,the species are not a product from the mind of the taxonomist, but of the nature itself.The frontiers among the animal species are clearly defined, and it is enough for thetaxonomist to collect enough data from nature. However, this gets too complicatedwhen developing a complete classification that comprises the extinguished life beings.The biota reflects the end points of innumerable branches of the evolutionary tree. Theextinguished organisms are related both among themselves and the living biota. Howcan science classify the fossils that are in intermediary positions? So, through this pointof view, even the taxonomical level of species is somehow impregnated by
arbitrariness, since the classification is derived from a human act –and human-centered-of making a temporal cutting and put in order only the recent biota. Below the species, there are only sub-species or geographical races. Thissecondary level of classification is deeply arbitrary. The frontiers among sub-species arenever static since, by definition, individuals from one sub-species can cross with theothers. Also, to the biological classification, it is not needed to subdivide the speciesinto sub-species. The imaginative fabrication of sub-species is an act for theconvenience of the researcher and even this practice has been more and morequestioned. One species is separated from the others by the abyss of the reproductiveisolation. One sub-species is separated by the others only by morphological orphysiological differences or by living in a particular geographical area. The sub-specieswere defined starting from the identification of some characteristics clearly differentinside the same species. When just a few characteristics are seen, it is not easy to definethe differences inside the population, so, the term race is used. The appearance of the computers and sophisticated multivariable analysis hasenhanced the spectrum of characteristics investigated. The scenario has changed, notdue to any natural modification, but to the greater power of investigating it. So, thescientists saw a continuum of variations inside each species, not only superficialcharacteristics. The imposition of sub-species makes such screening even more difficultand leads to that important information get lost. So, again, naming geographical raceshas lost popularity among the biologists. The first trials of ordering humanity by classifying it into races are dated fromthe end of the XVII century. 100 years later, starting from analysis of the skull, theGerman doctor Johann Friedrich Blumenbach proposed a classification of the humanbeings in the races Caucasian (white), Asiatic (yellow), Malay (brown), Ethiopian(black) and American (red). Although classification is an Aristotelian attitude,Blumenbach did not apply classificatory rules to compose his racial picture. Instead, theused the Platonic notion of ideal type. From this notion, abstract models would serve asicons of the races and all the real persons would be grouped according the similaritieswith those icons. One more century has passed until this theme of racial classification derived toappreciations that connected Biology and History. At the times of Charles Darwin, it gotusual to think about racial hierarchies in terms of intellectual abilities and explain thecultural and economical features of the societies as being related to the racialpotentialities. However, in the XIX century nobody understood their own racialclassification. Georges Cuvier reduced the races into 3, James Prichard found 7, LouisAgassiz enhanced them to 12, Charles Pickering said 11 and Thomas Huxley suggested4. Things even got worse at the XX century with the discoveries of the explorers and theanthropologists. Joseph Deniker numbered 29 races in 1900 and Egon von Eickstedtlisted 38 in 1937, while other systems proposed more than one hundred of races. Even
before these systems collapsed, Darwin had registered the difficulties of identifyingclear differences among the human races, although he somehow seemed to believe inthe racial superiority of the Europeans. Biology recognizes mono-typical species (species with only one race) and poly-typical species, where there are many distinct races. Human species is monotypic, andthat´s why it was historically impossible to reach to a consensual racial classification.Modern genetics has shown that individual differences inside the continentalpopulations can be even greater than the differences among the populations. Also,revealed that so-called differences among the races are just superficial physicalcharacteristics, controlled by an insignificant portion of the human genome. The skincolor, the most iconic feature of the racial characteristics is a mere evolutionaryadaptation to different levels of ultraviolet solar radiation, expressed in less than 10genes from a total of more than 25 thousands of genes of the human genome. Out of Africa is the name of the model predominant in Paleoanthropology toexplain the origin of the anatomically modern humans. According to this model, all thehuman beings descend directly from the same African population, which was formedaround 200 thousand years ago. This population of Homo sapiens expanded quickly,colonizing Asia and Europe and substituting the precedent human sub-species, which bythe way were also originated from older African migrations dated of around one millionyears ago. The human genetic variation is greater in Africa and decreases as the distancefrom this continent enhances. This supports the model of Out of Africa, since it is inaccordance to a small migrant group came from a broader stock of genetic variations.The arrival of the modern humans occurred around 60 thousand year ago in Asia and 40thousand years in Europe. In the scale of time of the human evolution, this means„yesterday‟. Anyway, the human groups never stopped migrating. “Regarding thehuman diversity, the absence of races can be explained precisely under the lights of thefact we are a young and mobile species, while it is required time and isolation fordistinct genetic groups appear. When the contemporaries of Darwin experienced innumerable human racialclassifications, there were already enough scientific data to at least put into doubt theseefforts. Spite of it, the idea that the human beings were divided into races had anincontestable hegemony. This willing to impose a natural order in mankind needs anexplanation external to the sciences of the nature.The science of races Aristotle nourished an elevated evaluation of the Hellenic race, endowed withspirit, intelligence and ability to govern. The Europeans also had the attribute of the
spirit, but the cold climate made them with low intelligence and a weak ability togovern. Inversely, the Asiatic were smart, but they had no spirit and lived permanentlyunder slavery. Ethnocentrism is a trace common in all peoples and eras. The ancient Egyptiansnamed themselves as „men‟ while their neighbors were rustic, ignorant and were nomore than „Libyans‟, „Africans‟ or „Asiatic‟. Herodotus, the Greek, described theethnocentric system of the old Persians, who used concentric circles. In the China ofMing dynasty, between the XIV and XVII centuries, it was consolidated a conception ofa system centered in own China similar to the Persian one. The graphic representationof this conception put in a nuclear position the “Empire of the Center”, which wassurrounded by an inner circle of vassal Estates –such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam- andfor an external ring of barbarians habiting non-civilized areas. The European version – the eurocentrism- got articulated at Renaissance underthe mode of a historical thinking. At that time, the Europeans made the notion of ClassicAntiquity and converted the Greco-Romanian civilization into the fountain of a singularand superior European tradition. But many analphabet peoples, such as the PuebloIndians of New Mexico and the Siberian Ostiaks of the Yenisei river draw ethnocentriccosmic diagrams and the Inuit of Greenland believed in the beginning of the XXcentury that the European explorers were sent from backward peoples to learn withthem their virtues and good manners. The Inuit, of course, didn´t know that thoseEuropeans had pejoratively called them as Eskimos, which means, „eaters of crudemeat‟. Throughout history, in the most diverse ethnocentric contexts, the word race hasbeen used with descriptive finalities and senses associated to type, variety, ancestors.However, this word got its modern sense, of a general division of mankind supported inphysical characteristics, under the eurocentrism of the XVIII century. The burst of theconcept was the campaign against the traffic of slaves and the institute of slavery. Since old times, the societies enslaved persons as a result of wars or debts, butthis act never needed a legitimization based on physical or mental differences. TheBible, with its insistence over the essential unity of the mankind, seemed to condemnthe slavery of Africans, largely practiced by the Europeans since the colonization of theNew World. To overcome such difficulty, it was told that the slaves were pagans or thatNoah had thrown a malediction of the slavery over the descendants of his son Ham,black. Another further step was given by the English colony of Virginia, when itdecreed in 1667 that the converted to Christian could be kept under slavery as apayment for the paganism of their ancestors. The scenario deeply changed with the philosophy of the Lights that postulatedthe natural equality among the humans, a principal that became the center for theabolitionists. If the human beings are born free and equal due to a destination at thesame time divine and natural, how could the institute of slavery conserve?
The first scientific theories of the division of mankind into races offered ananswer to this dilemma with deep economic implications. Carolus Linnaeus, the fatherof the biological taxonomy, suggested in the XVIII century a division of the Homosapiens into four races, based on the geographical origin and skin color: Americanus,Asiaticus, Africanus and Europeanus. Obviously, the Europeanus race was the mostintelligent, gentle and creative, while the Americanus were stubborn and choleric, theAsiaticus suffered from inborn difficulties of concentration and the Africanus were notable to escape from laziness and laxity. Linnaeus had a fertile imagination, as he alsodescribed fantastic persons, such as the Homo anthropomorpha as the troglodytes, theHomo monstruosus as the Alpine dwarfs and the Patagonian giants and the race of theHomo ferus, of men created and nourished by wild animals. Thomas Jefferson, in Notes of Virginia State, in 1787, thought that theunfortunate differences of color and even of talents are a serious obstacle to theemancipation of the blacks. He waited from science a conclusive word about the races,but recommended that, when free, the blacks should be kept away from mixing. Among the naturalists of the XVIII century, an acid debated was raised about thecommon or separated origin of the human races. The defenders of the first hypothesis,monogenic, used as an argument the definition of species proposed by Georges-LouisLeclerc, where the individuals of one given species could never fertilize representativesof other species. The defenders of the second idea, polygenic, contested this definitionand pointed out fertile hybrids generated from the crossing of wolves, jackals and foxes. A crucial book in the articulation of the racialist thinking is the Essay on theinequality of the human races, from the French aristocrat and diplomat Arthur deGobineau. Published between 1853 and 1855, the Essay said the history was derived,foremost, from the racial dynamics. Mankind would be divided into three great racialcomplexes – white, black and yellow – and the historical progress would dependdirectly or indirectly from the white races. All the great civilizations would have theorigin, directly or indirectly, in the white races and particularly in the Arian family.Mixing the races would degenerate the mankind, with disastrous impacts on thecivilizations and empires. This Gobineauish notion of racial purity inspired the anti-mixing laws of USA and the Nazi Germany. Gobineau called the science, but he never forgot to support his conclusions onbiblical interpretations. In his book, he said that „Adam is the founder of our whitespecies, this must be certainly admitted. It is clear that the Texts want us to understandlike this, since from him the incontestable white generations has descendant‟. The ideathat the human races were originated by different ancestors inspired the AmericanJosiah Clark Nott, translator of the book of Gobineau from French to English, to supportthe polygenists in the scientific environment of the United States. Being a disciple of the French Cuvier, the greater adversary of the pre-Darwinistevolutionism, the Swiss naturalist Agassiz migrated to USA in 1846, where he quicklywas converted to polygenism. Agassiz was among the stronger defenders of abolition,
but was also a strong enemy of miscegenation. He, more than any other, wrote as ascientist, claiming for objectivity and being away. However, the never censored himselfregarding political opinions. Referring to the future of the blacks in USA in letters sentduring the Civil War, he wrote: „Social equality, I consider impracticable at any time. Itis a natural impossibility, derived from the inherent character of the black race‟.Science, this way, gave the answers to the questions of Jefferson. Agassiz was fluent but he never carried out the hard work of grouping empiricalproofs of his theory. The working scientist was the doctor Samuel G. Morton, thefounder of the American school of ethnology. Morton dedicated to collect andinvestigate skulls of the different human races. He died in 1851 and left a collectionwith more than one thousand skulls and two main studies: Crania Americana (1839) andCrania aegyptiaca (1844). Agassiz saw in those studies the evidences for thepolygenism. Although Morton refused to adopt the thesis that could shake the biblicalmyth of the creation, his disciples Nott and George Gliddon became enthusiastic ofpolygenism. In both the Crania, Morton started from the principle that the size of a skull is anindirect indicator of intelligence and gave himself to prove his previous thesis of racialhierarchy. The works don´t reflect a conscious intention of falsifying results, but ratherconstitute on an illustration of how an illusion is capable of directing the procedures ofthe scientists towards the wanted conclusions. Using selective methods, analysis andstatistics unsustainable, the most applauded empiricist of his time produced detaileddraws in which the Caucasians had the greater skulls and the blacks divided with theAmerican Indians the inferior positions. The division of the races into subgroups gaveto the scientist even the opportunity of showing the Teutonic family of the Caucasiangroup in the top of the list of skull abilities. Revising his collection of skulls andoriginal tables, Stephen Jay Gould evidenced the many mistakes committed throughoutthe work and proved that the differences were statistically insignificant. The pioneer essays of a science of the races were placed in a picture purelydescriptive that excluded the concept of evolution. The scientific racism was borntogether with the modern evolutionism, at the second half of the XIX century, when thediscussions between monogenic and polygenic lost interest. The publication of theclassical book of Darwin in 1859 practically cancelled the creationist arguments andestablished the concept of unity of human species. The triumph of the monogenism wasthe basis over who was developed an anthropology that confirmed the inborndifferences among the races and insisted on the racial hierarchies formulated by thenaturalists from the previous era. Measuring the skulls continued to be a fundamental practice for the science ofthe races. The French doctor Paul Broca, who left important discoveries in neurologyand was also a pioneer in the physical anthropology, elevated the measurements ofskulls to the apex of glory by applying sophisticated methods of statistical analysis. Inthe Anthropological Society of Paris that he founded at the same year the book of
Charles Darwin was published, Broca defended the study of skulls as a mean to identifythe differences among the races. He concluded as: „in general, the brain is bigger inmature adults than in elders, in men than in women, in eminent men than in ordinarymen, in superior races than in inferior races…‟ Other equivalent conclusions, there is anoticeable correlation between the development of intelligence and the brain volume. Contrary to other colleagues, Broca did not manipulate numbers and liked topresent himself as an example of scientific objectivity. His zeal to rigor led him toaccuse a German anatomist who sustained the non-existence of differences in the skullvolume of blacks and whites on being left by his pre-formed ideas. It was precisely thiszeal that provoked on him an extreme difficulty: indeed his researches had shown thatthe skull of the blacks was smaller than those of whites, but they also showed that theskulls of Eskimos, Lapps, Malays and Tartarians were bigger than any of the others,included the „most civilized peoples of Europe‟. The solution to not dismantle a work ofyears and years was to select the data that were convenient to the previous thesis,denying value to the other data. Broca then concluded that „the skull volume doesn´ttake a decisive part in the intellectual rank of the races‟, but also that „a small brain sizeis a mark of inferiority‟. Broca measured everything possible in the skulls, keeping himself loyal to bothhis numbers and his prejudice. Many times, his measurements contradicted his theories– and invariably he concluded that it was needed to measure other more relevantfeatures. His pathway as a scientist is a model, in an individual scale, of the generalpathway of the science of the races that demonstrated all the times a previouslyelaborated thesis.A Mission inside Africa Alexis de Tocqueville published The Democracy in America between 1835 and1840. Like his contemporaries, he believed that mankind was divided into races, whichwas not an impediment for him to register acute observations regarding racial prejudicein USA. By a comparison between old and modern slavery, he noticed that inmodernity, the immaterial and ethereal fact of slavery was combined in a more fatalmanner with the material and permanent aspect of racial differences. The modern slave is a foreigner and a stranger in racial terms, explainedTocqueville. The abolition of slavery does not abolish this essential difference that is anatural fact. The smart traveler understood that, in the contrary, the idea of segregationtended to get stronger – and not get weaker- with the progressive dissolution of slavery:„the prejudice that repels the blacks seems to enhance in the proportion that the blacksare not slaves anymore and the inequality gets worse in the manners as the differencesget blurred in the laws‟. This observation should not be exclusive of the reality of USA.
The imperial adventure in Africa started with the expeditions financed bygeographical societies and other private (but supported by the governments) entities, atthe second half of XIX century. The reports of their discoveries, spoken in newspapersor also personally in conferences that were great political and intellectual events,hypnotized the European public opinion, giving support for the colonial enterprises. The starting point of the so-called division of Africa was the Conference ofBerlin (1884-1885) that was carried out under the sign of the complete elimination ofslavery and black traffic. In the following decade to the Conference, the Europeanpotencies draw, through mutual treatises and treatises with African kingdoms, thefrontiers of the colonial territories. The scientific racism reached the apex exactly onthis period, working as an important ideological function of legitimating theimperialism. The science of races gave the first steps toward abolitionism. But it consolidatedafter the slavery thematic got behind, substituted by the imperial annexation of Africanand Asiatic peoples. The concept of intrinsic inequality among races could conciliatethe illuminist principle of equality and the imperialist principle that could not workwithout the support of the European public opinion. The civilizing mission of theEuropean countries was the „white man´s burden‟, in the famous title of the poem ofRudyard Kipling, published in 1899. In the words of the French diplomat and colonialadministrator Jules Harmand, wrote in 1910: „it is necessary to accept as a principle andstarting point the fact that there is a hierarchy of races and civilizations and that we arefrom the superior civilization. The basic legitimacy of conquering the native peoples isthe conviction of our superiority, not only our mechanical, economical and militarysuperiority, but foremost our moral superiority. Our dignity is based on the principle ofequality and it founds our rights to direct the rest of mankind‟. Evolutionism indicated to the scientists what they should search for, if theywanted incontestable proofs of racial hierarchy. In 1866, the German zoologist ErnstHaeckel, a noticeable scientist and a broadcaster of Darwin´s ideas, formulated thetheory of recapitulation, under the what the embryonic development of the mostcomplex animals reflected the whole life tree. „Ontogeny remembers phylogeny‟ wasthe synthetic expression of that time. This theory experienced a great success andjumped the walls of Biology and invaded the lands of Psychology, even being adoptedby Sigmund Freud. The scientific racism converted immediately into recapitulation, saying that theindividuals of the inferior races walked incompletely the paths of the evolution of thespecies. So, if the embryonic stages of human beings recapitulated the reptiles, fishesand inferior mammals, the adult stage of individuals of an inferior race reflects theinfant stages of the superior races, and the infant stages of the inferior races reflected theadult stages of our monkey ancestors. So, it was drawn the objectives to the scientistsdevoted to measuring skulls and skeletons: to identify in samples of the inferior racesthe aspects corresponding to the children of a superior race or also of the simians.
Like in many other examples, practice anticipated theory. The atlas of naturalhistory and geography of the XIX century brought, routinely, comparative illustrationsof facial and cranial aspects of African blacks and monkeys. Types of Mankind, themost common manual in USA, published in 1854 by the polygenic Nott and Gliddon,compared heads of chimps, orangutans and gorillas with black Argelians. At this time,under the travels of the explorers, an excitation about the races run through Americanand European public, as reflected in the febrile great interest in the „human zoos‟. The human zoos were ethnologic expositions of exotic human types. The oldestexhibition of this gender was the one of Saartjie Baartman, the „Hottentot Venus‟, aSouth African Khoi slave exposed in London and Paris between 1810 and 1815.However, a broader consumer market for the exhibition of „inferior races‟ configuredaround the decade of 1870, when London, Paris, New York, Amsterdam, Antwerp,Hamburg, Milan and Barcelona started to have expositions that attracted two to threecents of thousands of visitors and offered attractions such as African and New Zealandpygmies, Nubian blacks, Apaches, Eskimos and natives of Samoa or Surinam. In thepeak of the colonial run to Africa, the Universal Exposition of Paris of 1889 offered tothe visitors the contact with four hundred Indian peoples and a walk inside a blackvillage. Parallel to it, the editors published innumerable encyclopedias and illustratedatlas that presented the diversity of human races, with their possible intellectual andcultural hierarchies. Even in 1958, the human zoos survived: at the UniversalExposition of Brussels, there was a Congolese and an African village exposed.However, with recapitulationism, those popular figures of scientific racism got a moreelaborated evolutionism structure. At the entrance of the Natural Academy of Sciences of USA, in Philadelphia,there is a plaque in memory to Edward Drinker Cope, the most celeb Americanpaleontologist of the XIX century. Cope identified dozens of species of dinosaurs andgot involved in the „war of bones‟, a dirty dispute for scientific primacy with his rivalOthniel Charles Marsh, which extended from 1877 to 1892, exhausting resources andenergies from both. Cope was a Lamarckist in a time where Darwinism was triumphant.He started from recapitulation to formulate some of the most common arguments for theimperialism. In Cope´s vision, women, the Southern Europeans and the poor personsrepresented inferior human forms whose evolution was cut at earlier stages from the oneof the Nordic whites. The basis of the pyramid of human evolution, however, wasoccupied by the blacks, whose inability to create complex civilizations was written in animmature anatomy with weak legs and lacking of „those important elements of beauty:nose and beard well developed‟. The proofs of the infantilism of these inferior humanswere never limited to anatomy, but had diverse branches in psychology. Emotionally,women, blacks and others were similar to white children or teens. The pre-historic artwas similar to the draws of children. The esthetic sense of the wild peoples wasreflected on children´s conceptions of beauty.
The British Herbert Spencer had an important paper in broadening theideological field of the scientific racism. Although he was known as the champion ofsocial-Darwinism, Spencer derived this philosophical system from the concept ofcharacters inherited by use or disuse. In Spencerism, not only the biological evolution,but also the development of civilizations could be explained over this Lamarckist basis.According to him, the superior social organisms – which means, the complex industrialsocieties – were fruits exclusively from the white race and pointed to something as afinal stage of evolutionary equilibrium. As a rule, the philosophers of that time had amodest influence over the great public, but Spencer was a noticeable exception: whenhe died, in 1930, his books sold more than 350 thousands of units in USA and anotherso in the United Kingdom, contributing to the popularity of the explanation of the socialquestion in biological terms. The idea of a straight social evolution, through successive technological andcultural stages that conducted mankind from wilderness to civilization, gained acomplete anthropological model with the American Lewis H. Morgan. In the chapter ofopening of his classic book of 1877 he wrote: „the same way we can´t deny that portionsof the human family existed in wilderness stage, other portions in barbarism and othersstill in a civilized stage, we can´t also deny that these three distinct conditions areconnected in natural and necessary sequence of progress‟. The positivism of Morganoriginated the theory of cultural development that had a long impact over anthropologyand inspired Marx and Engels. In the triumphant march of Morganian progress, theArian and Semite families detached from the others starting from a mild period ofbarbarism and the Arians got the leadership of the civilization period. The febrile interest of that time of the themes of evolutionism and heredityreached the field of criminality with the Italian Cesare Lombroso, the creator of thedoctrine of the uomo delinquente. The criminal anthropology founded by Lombrosoaffirmed that the tendency to crime was not only inborn and inherited but also that couldbe discovered by the investigation of the anatomical features of the persons. Thecriminal behavior reflected the gross instincts of beasts that had perpetuated asevolutionary defects in some persons. The external signs of uomo delinquente – astigmata – included the „enormous jaws‟, the „high molar bones‟, the „extreme size ofthe orbits‟ and „the ears in form of loop‟. In his theory, Lombroso postulated that the inferior animals had criminalinstincts and that criminality was the norm among the wild human groups. With suchideas, the criminologist arrived to Africa and, in an ethnological work of 1896,identified the stigmata of the Sudanese Dinkas of Nile. At those years of end of century,the peoples of Africa and Asia had been extensively classified by the Europeanethnology.
Classifying the natives Writing in 1851, the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon defined: „beinggoverned is to be watched, inspected, spied, directed, subordinated to law, numbered,regulated, listed, indoctrinated, controlled, examined, evaluated, censored and rewardedby creatures that don´t have neither the rights nor the sapience nor the virtues to dothat‟. The generalized intrusion of the Estate in the private life of people is a recentphenomenon that is coincident to the beginning of the industrial era and comes togetherwith the modern census. Being governed – Proudhon didn´t say, only suggested – is tobe surveyed. The imperialist powers brought the modern census to the colonies. At thismoment, they made collective identities based on concepts of ethnicity and race. Investigating the census conducted by the British on Malaysia, the sociologistCharles Hirschman registered progressive changes in the categories used to classify thepopulation and a general sense that guided such changes: „as the colonial period wentfurther, the surveyed categories became more visibly and exclusively racial‟.Throughout the process, the religious identities tended to disappear or to getsubordinated by the racial identities. The racial identities acquired a increasingstandardization and less ambiguous meanings. Something similar occurred in theneighboring Oriental Dutch India (the nowadays Indonesia). Malays and Indonesians used fluid identity systems, referred in many distinctcriteria and with a broad local variability, such as the social position, the occupation andreligion. In the pre-colonial census, the governors were moved by a practical sense: toidentify the lieges available to be taxed and military listing. The consolidation of thecolonial administrations provoked the introduction of regular and broad census, focusedon the classification and quantification of the population. With dissemination of thescientific racism, the categories were organized around race and ethnicity. By the logicof the colonizers, which had nothing to do with their lieges, stereotyped identity labelswere imposed to all. Among other repercussions of this, there are the appearances of the„Chinese‟ from Malaysia and Indonesia. In the British colonies of Malaysia, around 1870, explains Benedict Anderson,„one non-taxed Southern Asiatic could have their own life, happy or not, without theweaker perception that they were named like that from the superiors‟. But this situationwould not last long. In the following decades, the new systems of education, health,justice, security and migration were organized in the basis of the categories of thecensus, making from the invented labels a quotidian element in the life of the persons.Soon, the imagined identities of the colonial administrations filtered into theconsciences and coagulated under the form of racial and ethnical communities. The academic usage of the word ethnicity began in XIX century. In general, thisword was meant to indicate a social group defined by the ideas of ancestry and commonculture. However, the cohesion of ethnical communities is not supported by any
objective similarity, but, as the anthropologist Siegfried Nadel explained more than ahalf century ago, „it depends on a theory of cultural identity that ignores or discharge asimmaterial the existent variations and ignores or neglects the uniformities presentedaway from the selected borders‟. Thus, according to Nadel, the ethnic communitiesderive from „a similarity accepted as a dogma‟. Ethnologists participated together with militaries and bureaucrats for the colonialconquest of Africa. Their ethnical descriptions and classifications didn´t reflect the localloyalties that were very relevant to the communities, but resulted only from ananthropological dogma. In the southern Africa, the hunters and nomads from theKhoisan language were named as „bushmen‟ in opposition to the „men‟ properly said. Inthe colonialist mind, those primitive beings were more than a single race, they were anew species, placed somewhere as intermediate between humans and monkeys. Among the natives considered to be humans, there are many examples ofcommunities invented by the European knowledge men who were entrusted to put inorder the diverse ethnological view of the continent. The explorer Henry MortonStanley, during the establishment of a private colony in the Belgian Congo for the kingLeopold II, discovered the Bangals, a very developed tribe. That sign was enough for, in1907, the different clans of that region had gained the status of a new ethnicity, in anofficial work of the ethnography of the peoples of Congo. The Dinks of the SouthernSudan, in fact many distinct clans, were accidentally converted into an ethnical group,due to a mistake of an explorer that took the personal name of a local chief as thegeneric denomination of a group. Similarly, sixty clans of the Luo language form thenorth of Uganda became the Acholi ethnicity because the word shooli was used byArabian traders to refer to those clans. The imagined order of the administrators tended to become as a real order, feltand lived as the ethnical classification entered in the census and the laws. In the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, since 1924, the British administration physically separated the northernMuslim southern population from the southern rural groups, prohibiting the circulationof natives among the two parts of the territory and promoting Christian in the south. TheDinks started to act as an ethnical community at the time of the independence of Sudan,in the decade of 1950, in opposition to the Islamic and pro-Egyptian placed in Cartumand they kept acting like that throughout the Sudanese civil wars, ended by a fragilenegotiation in 2005. If, in Sudan, the Dinka were raised as a British desire to Christian the south, inthe protectorate of Uganda, the Acholi recognized themselves as an ethnical group inopposition to the British policies of favoring the old kingdom of Buganda in the south.Due to the British policies for recruiting workers, the Acholi and other northern groupsgave labors to the Ugandese colonial army, which became a military ethnocracy andseeded the land for the many successive coup d´états of the independent Uganda. Since1987, Acholiland is the focus of war of the Resistance Army of the Lord, a bloodyChristian guerrilla that aims to establish a theocracy based on the Acholis traditions.
The colonial ethnogenesis in Africa reflected the conceptions of world of theEuropeans, but also had a pragmatic objective to gain the support of the traditionalchiefs. The British, with their system of indirect government, created the severalethnicities that served for their intention of imposing order. Referring to the modernTanzania, colonized by Germans and transferred as a protectorate to United Kingdom,the historian John Iliffe explained: „the idea of tribe was already present in the nucleusof the indirect government of Taganica. Refining the racial thinking common at thetimes of the Germans, the administrators believed that all the Africans came from atribe, the same way as all the Europeans belonged to a nation‟. This mistake, however,worked as a prophecy: „The British believed (wrongly) that the natives of Taganicacame from tribes; the natives created tribes to work inside the colonial context”. The ethnologists devoted to the classification of the natives imagined that theethnicities constituted a variety of great racial families and that each one was singled byan old, immanent and closed culture. Under the lights of the theory of cultural evolving,they tried to situate each group in a specific point of the line of the progress, identifyingthe more developed and the more underdeveloped ethnicities. All these beliefs sufferedthe fire of the critics of the German-American Franz Boas, who dissociated culture frombiology and created a new floor for Anthropology. Boas started his conceptual revolution inspired with the contact with the Inuit ofBaffin Island, in an ethnographic research started in 1883. This experience revealed tohim the risks to try to understand different cultures from the occidental point of view.He early perceived that the theory of cultural evolution did not clarify anything abouttheir objects of study, but said a lot about the inefficiency of methods and predominantconcepts in Anthropology filled up with the notion of racial superiority. He concludedthat the elements of a culture have a genuine meaning only inside their own culturalcontext. Ethnology considered the culture as something inherent to a human group. Boaswas against this essentialist approach, showing that culture is a dynamic notion, referredin defined situations and local contexts, hence subjected to a continuous process of re-elaboration. His anthropological program was based on the historic method, as herecognized the singularity of the phenomena and the compromise of articulatingnarrations based on empirical data. The objects of study of the modern anthropologyshould be seen as historic subjects: agents capable of act creatively inside their culturalcontext, modifying it and giving new meanings to their social existence. In the vision of Boas, the concept of race had no relevance. Truly important wasthe eye that creates a race. The following text was written in 1928: “We are easilybetrayed by general impressions. The Swedish are blond, with blue hairs, tall and withlong heads. This idea makes us to create our ideal model of a Swedish and forget thevariations found in Scandinavia. If we speak about a Sicilian, we think about a dark andshort person with dark eyes and hairs. People different from this type are not in ourminds when we think about a typical Sicilian. The more uniform is a people, the
stronger we get impressed by the typical. All countries are shown to us as inhabited by acertain type, whose facial characteristics are determined as of the most commonoccurrence. However, this nothing says to us in respect to their hereditary compositionand the extension of their variations. The type is formed subjectively, based on ourquotidian experience.” The anti-racist anthropology emerged from the peak of the imperial racism. Ithad to wait for two decades, Nazism and the Holocaust to occupy the center of thepolitical arena.Nation as a lineage The French constitution of 1793 lasted for only a few months, but it was retainedas the most important legal document of the Revolution. It defined citizenship as acontract of the inhabitants of a territory and conceded the rights of citizenship to theforeigners living in France for at least one year and to „any foreigner considered by thelegislative body to be in need of human treatment‟. But the romantic reaction to Lightsconnected nation to blood and imagined a national community as linked by loops ofancestry. The Prussian philosopher and poet Johann Gottfried Herder is the originalfountain of this reaction. Together with the young writer Johann von Goethe, he startedthe movement of Sturm und Drang, an angry shout against the French universalism anda literary platform to the expression of emotion and national specificity. Speak German,you German: this calling was supported by the idea that the poet creates his surroundingnation when he confers voices to the ancestral turbulence of the feelings and thinking ofa people. In the thinking of Herder, culture is a hallmark of differences. The appeal to apast of traditions glued in the national soul, spoken one century before the unification ofthe German Estate, worked as the cultural mark of a territory: „It was like that thatcertain German intellectuals, without any power as class and any union as a nation,responded to the illuminist apostles of a universal civilization (without forgetting thethreaten of industrial domination), through the celebration of the indigenous Kulturen oftheir nations‟. Since the Germany of Herder was not an Estate, the philosopher substituted itfor the political-juridical concept of nation, formulated by the illuminists and sacred bythe French Revolution, by the concept of „folk nation‟. Nation would be a naturalorganism, born in old times and that needed protection and nourishment. The culture,not the law, embraced the nation so that the national survival would need theconservation and glorification of its culture. The spirit of the folk (Volk), expressed in
the folklore, would occupy the center of the national organism. A German is a Germanbecause they share a culture; a foreigner could never become a German by agovernment decree. The right of the blood raised against the rights of land of theFrench. Herder was far away from being a fanatic. He never opposed the feelings againstreason, but tried to incorporate the second into the first. He didn´t mix the German Volkwith the Prussian nationalism. He abominated the absolutism and, for the surprise ofmany, declared his support to the French Revolution. Although he shared the anti-Judaic prejudices, he believed in the essential unity of mankind. The romanticnationalism of the XIX century selected fragments of the Herderian thinking and mixedthem with new ideas – markedly the concept of race. In the diverse panel of the romantic production of nation, under the impulses ofthe editorial industry and the public system of education, the modern national languagesappeared, as well as the paradigms of national literatures and also the national historicnarratives. The imagined community by the nationalism anchored its legitimacy in animmemorial past and in a natural territory. Not all romantic nationalism was racist, butthe notions of races and ethnicity developed crucial papers in the delimitation ofnational and foreigner. In Europe, the anti-Semitism gained a new meaning: the Jews,who were religious foreigners, converted into ethnical foreigners. Richard Wagner saidin 1850 that they were intrinsically unable to compose the true German music. In USA,with the abolition of slavery, it was consolidated the idea that the Republic of theEquals, the brilliant city in the top of the hill, in the celeb phrase from the speech of thepuritan John Winthrop, was a nation of whites. The senses of nation and race mismatched in the French Revolution and re-approached in the romantic naturalism. In the volume 13 of the Encyclopédie de Diderote D´Alembert, published in 1765, the entry for race defines: extract, descent, lineage;those referring both to ascendants and descents form a same family: when it is noble,this word is synonym of „being born‟. The entry for nation, which is in volume 11,refers to the popular dictations that highlights peculiar characteristics of each nation(licentious like a French, jealous like an Italian, serious as a Spanish, malicious as anEnglish, proud as a Scottish, drunk as a German), but essentially it was placed in thefields of the rights to the land. The decisive part is: „a considerable amount of personsthat inhabits the extensions of a country, bordered by certain limits and that obeys to asame government‟. In its medieval meaning, nation was an aristocrat lineage, articulated by bloodloops. In the beginning of XVIII century, the French Charles Montesquieu applied theword to designate only the aristocracy and the high clerk, not the common people. Butthe illuminists cut the cord that linked the nation form naissance or „blue blood‟ and therevolutionary irruption of the Third Estate connected it firmly to the ideas of a politicalcontract and of a territory. The separation between nation and lineage is evidenced inthe Encyclopédie, a French work and an expression of the current conceptions of the
XVIII century. The romantic nationalism restored the old cord, but in new words. Theromantic nation was not aristocratic, but was an ethnical lineage: the Volk, the wholepeople, looped by an organic culture deeply in the blood. The Germany of Hitlerconducted this notion to its ultimate and tragic consequences.Hitler and the crisis of the race In the Putsch of the Brewery, 16 Nazis were killed at the failed trial of coupd´état of Adolph Hitler of November 1923, but only one of them was a member of thehigher circle of the Nazi Party. This man was Ludwig Maximilian Erwin vonScheubner-Richter, a German from the Baltic who was born in Riga, Latvia and thathad fought together with the counter-revolutionary of the Russian Revolution and wastransferred to German in 1918. The intellectual influence of this man, who was side byside with Hitler when he was shot, was filtered in the book The Myth of the XXCentury, written by his comrade of migration Alfred Rosenberg, also a German fromthe Baltic and also a counter-revolutionary. Furthermore, the book of Rosenberg suffered influences from the eugenicistthinking of the American Madison Grant, but drank directly from the ideas of the bookThe Foundations of the XIX Century, published in Germany in 1899, from the BritishHouston Stewart Chamberlain, a follower of Gobineau. In the vision of Chamberlain, aline of continuity unites, through the German peoples, the classic Europe to thecontemporary: „these barbarian, that threw themselves naked to the battles; these wildpeople that suddenly raised from the forests and dumps to inspire a civilized world andcultivating the terrors of a violent conquest reached by the solely strong hand; they werethe legal heirs of the Helens and of the Romanians, blood of their blood and soul oftheir soul‟. The Europeans, fountain of the Western civilization, would pertain to only onesingle great racial trunk, the Arians, the most advanced amongst all. The main axis ofthe Arian trunk would be constituted by the Nordic or Germanic peoples that hadrescued the classical civilization from the destruction of a decadent Romanian Empiresubmitted to the domination of the Jews and other non-Europeans. In Chamberlain, thescientific racism of the XIV century became the racist nationalism of the XX century,that found a complete and extreme expression in the Nazi German. The idea of the superiority of the Arian race was not new and had beendeveloped, noticeably, by Gobineau. The anti-Semitism was very old and suffered adeep transformation by the racial thinking of the XIX century. The novelty was in thearticulation of those notions to a philosophy of history that gave to the Germanicpeoples the fundamental paper of guaranteeing the continuity of the classical traditionby separating it from the degrading Jewish influences. The eugenism was expressed in a
very broad way that escaped from the vials of Biology and invaded the sphere ofculture. The racial thinking of that time did never contest the mixture of races itself.Chamberlain imagined that all racial trunks, included the Arians, was generated by amixture of original races. However, the elements of the pot could not be excessivelydistinct, under the risk of producing mongrels, a concept parallel to cur dogs. The Jews(Homo judaeica, in his denomination) was inside this category, since they would bederived from the low viable crossing of the true Semitic, the Bedouin Arabian, theHitite or Syrian. This miscegenation would have resulted in the reunion of the worsttraces of the first, such as the „Jewish nose‟ and the attraction to usury and from thesecond ones, the anti-intellectual inclination. Without the leadership of the Germans, theArians could not have escaped from the sick miscegenation and following degradation. The book of Chamberlain was received with many praises form the British pressand scholars. In the other side of the Atlantic, however, the critical voice of theAmerican president Theodore Roosevelt lifted up. In a summary written in 1913,Roosevelt predictably concurred with the generalized idea of the superiority of the whiterace, but considered ridiculous the German ideology: „All he says about this forced useof the word humanity could be, in a greater proportion of truth, said in relation to thewords named as Teutonism and Arianism. The way he uses these words are equivalentto his personal likes and dislikes‟. The repulse of the Jews and the idea that they were incompatible to the Germanculture were central elements in the essays of the musician Richard Wagner.Chamberlain moved to Austria, married Eva Wagner, daughter of Richard and became avery active German nationalist. He supported German against the country where he wasborn and even took part in the Nazi Party. Hitler and Joseph Goebbels visited him a fewtimes in his residence and almost all the Nazi umbrella went to his funeral in 1927. Twoyears before, the newspaper of the Nazi Party qualified his books as a gospel of themovement. The Myth of the XX Century was published in 1930. As Chamberlain,Rosenberg believed that humanity was an empty concept: only races had soul. Also ashis muse, he insisted on the corruption of the Arian blood by miscegenation of the otherraces and the historical contrast between the Nordic-Arian race and the Jews. He wasinterested in the degradation influences of the Semites over culture and art, rejected thetraditional Christianity and defended the idea of a religion of the blood that expressedthe nobility of the Arian character and had expressions in the Indo-European paganism,in Brahmanism, in Zoroastrism and in the primitive Christianity. The ProtestantReforming was an advance, though limited, towards the correct point. The racism of Rosenberg promoted the Nordic theory, where the axis of theArian race was made up by the group of the Nordic peoples: the Germans, the British,the Scandinavians, the Dutch and the Baltic. The Arian race was something broader,including the peoples of the south of Europe, the Berbers of the north of Africa and
even the Slavic of Eastern Europe, which for Hitler formed an inferior race. The blacksand the Jews occupied the lowest places of the pyramid of the races. In the historical interpretation of Rosenberg, the cosmopolitism, the democracyand the Bolchevism – the three, emanations from Judaism – threatened to destroy thecivilization. Only the myth of the blood (the race-nation) could restore the order in theworld. “Chaos was placed as an almost conscious programmatic goal. As the finalconsequences of a democratically disintegrated, the anti-natural messengers of anarchyannounced their presence in all the great cities of the Globe. The explosive material canbe seen in Berlin as well as in New York, Shangai or London. As a natural defenseagainst this worldwide danger, a new experience spreads out as a mysterious fluid overthe Globe. This idea places concepts such as people and instinctive race and consciouslyin the center of their thinking. It is linked to the supreme values organically establishedin each nation, around their feelings develop, determining the character and the color ofculture starting from the past. What was partially forgotten, partially neglected issuddenly recognized by millions as their work: live a myth and create a character‟. Rosenberg called the German people to action. It needed to retake the long andglorious tradition of the „Nordic-Arian race‟ and lift a Estate, a Empire based on themyth of the blood. The racial mysticism of Heinrich Himmler was not supported by the network ofphilosophical and historical references of Rosenberg. The all-powerful chief of the SS(a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party) who supervised the system of fields ofconcentration and extermination reached to be the number 2 in the Nazi hierarchy.However, he was never a scholar, but rather a fanatic bureaucrat and his ideas of racewere not original. Himmler entered very young to a mystic fraternity of followers of Ariosophy, anesoteric system that grew from a late reappearance of romanticism movement and wasinspired in the medieval German paganism. The idea of superiority of the Arian racewas written in Ariosophy. Himmler studied Agronomy in Munich and spent some timein an aviary, getting interested in animal crossing. These experiences left him toimagine a scheme of physical improvement of the German population by a directedselection that would make it completely Nordic. According to a biographer, Himmler told that he always held the Bhagavad Gita,an Arian text written in Sanskrit extracted from the Indian epic Mahabharata. This oldtext allowed him to place himself in the position of the Hero Arjuna and conductwithout fear nor guilty the Holocaust procedures. In his order of ideas, exterminatingthe Jews was a crucial element of this eugenic work based on mystical reasons.
“In the beginning it was the Volk” The celeb phrase of Benito Mussolini – everything for the Estate, nothingagainst the Estate, nothing out of the Estate – is an adequate synthesis of the fascistdoctrine, but it doesn´t serve to characterize Nazism. The Nazi totalitarianism, incontrary of the fascists, did not start from a celebration of the Estate, but from theglorification of the people (Volk). One year after he reached power, in 1934, Hitlerexplicated once more his position: “Foreigners perhaps say that Estate created us. No!We are the Estate! We don´t follow the orders of no powers except of God, who createdthe German people! The Estate depends on us!” In the Fascist Manifest of 1932, Mussolini wrote that it is not the people thatmake the Estate, but the Estate makes the people. In Mein Kampf, published 7 yearsbefore, Hitler wrote that the authority of the Estate can never be a final itself, because ifit was true, any type of tyranny would be sacred and inviolable. „We must never forgetthat the highest objective of the human existence is not the maintenance of a Estate, butthe maintenance of the race”. In 1938, this theme reappeared in a speech in Salzburgand Führer said: „in the beginning was the Volk and after that the Reich appeared‟. Hitler was a romantic revolutionary whose vision of history was in conflict withthe institutions created by modernity – among them, the Estate. However, his north hadnot been always described in the same way: sometimes, he used the word Volk, othertimes, race. One should not conclude that he identified Volk with race. The historyresearcher John Lukacs showed that, in Hitler´s thinking, the Arian race was neverclearly defined and was never defined as the German people. Also, Hitler did not likevery much the primitive and mystic racism of Himmler and he had his suspicions on theglorification of the immemorial past of the Germans. There are significant registers of Hitler´s denial to the book of Rosenberg, whichhe considered unintelligible and contaminated with mysticism. Rosenberg tended tocompare the Volk to the Nordic-Arian race, while Hitler distinguished clearly theseconcepts. In a piece of the speech he pronounced to officials in Platterhof hotel, inBayern, in 1944, he said that „Volk and race are not the same thing. Race is acomponent of blood, while the Volk is not composed by a single race, but two, three,four or five different racial nuclei.‟ In the same speech, he denied that existed, from thegenetic point of view, a Jewish race, but he declared that „we use the expression Jewishrace as a matter of convenience. Politically, Hitler was foremost an extreme nationalist – the more fanaticamongst all. The race, as everything else, was subordinated to the conveniences of thisnationalism. If the racial advertisement was able to contribute to awaken the passions ofnationalism in the German people, it was in fact just an instrument for the supremefinality. But Nazism can´t be seen as a legitimated heir of the racial thinking of the XIXcentury: in fact, it evidenced a crisis of the hierarchical system of the races.
The hate nourished the thoughts of the Nazi chief. He knew the efficiency of thehate as a powerful political instrument. Hitler hated the Jews. He believed in thehistorical anti-Semite myths, reproduced in similar version in many books, such as theones of Chamberlain and Rosenberg. He had no doubts about the truth in the Protocolsof the Sapiens of Zion, the famous fraudulent report of the worldwide Jewishconspiracy created by the political police of the czarist Russia of the first years of theXX century. But his anti-Semitism only got stained in another picture of references,personal and contemporary. The anti-Semite tradition converted the Jews in the representation of usury andcosmopolitism. In the narration of the Nazi leaders, the Jews were the incarnation of theinternational finances and, mostly, they were noticeable for the inability of creating atrue nation. All of this appears in Chamberlain and Rosenberg, as well as in MeinKampf and many other speeches of Hitler. But the Hitler´s hate against the Jews derivedbasically from his interpretation of the German lost of 1918. The surrender of the First World War conducted Hitler into the paths of politics.In his conceptions, the highest nation tasks were to overcome the traumatic loss and torestore the national proud. In his eyes, an imminent war was inevitable and it wasneeded to learn with the lessons of this first tragedy. The first lesson: the Jews were theculpable of the loss. To Hitler, the Jews controlled the politics of France, had a dominant position inthe USA and constituted a powerful group in the high circles of the British power.German had been curved in front of an enemy coalition organized by the Jews.However, the most important was the internal enemy: the Jews formed a fifth-columninside the German nation. The loss of 1918 could have been avoided since militarily thewar was not lost. Everything ruined when the fifth-column called the workers toinsurrection, destroying the German capacity of fighting. The humiliation of Germanyand the slavery imposed to the Germans by the Treatise of Versailles were direct fruitsof the actions of the Jews. Because of that, the destiny of German depended on theresult of the historical fighting against the Jews, which would only end with the totalannihilation of one of the sides. In general, the racism of Hitler was not more intense than many of contemporaryothers, either inside or outside Germany. His specificity was in his obsession against theJews, or, in other words, to the war without army, carried out inside the white race,between the Jews and the German Volk. The Jews, that had taken by assault the powerin the Bolshevist Russia, threatened to totally destroy the German nation. But, if so,how could the inferiority of the Jews be sustained? The explanation is present in MeinKampf: „although among the Jews the instinct of auto-preservation was not weaker, butmuch stronger than other peoples and although the intellectual abilities of the Jews areat least equal to other races, the Jews don´t have the most important requirements of acultivated people. In the Jewish people, the disposal to sacrifice doesn´t go further thanthe simple instinct of personal preservation. In their case, the racial feeling of solidarity
is nothing more than a primitive instinct of aggregation, similar to many found in otherorganisms of this world.‟ Lacking of spirit of sacrifice and of a true racial solidarity, selfish and cowards,the Jews would go into endless conflicts one against the other if they were left alone inthe world. Because of this, they were not able to organize themselves in a territorialEstate and the Jewish Estate has absolutely no territorial border. The Jews formedEstates inside the Estates, being parasites of nations. The anti-Semitic racism of Hitler was not based on Biology, being distinct fromthe scientific racism that was in fashion. The incurable problem of them was ofhistorical and cultural order. Hitler in fact partially believed in the dogmas of thephysical and intellectual differences among the races and in the conventional racialhierarchy. But this was not his most important interest. Under the destiny of glory of theGerman Volk, his absolute reference, the essential was the war against the Jews. In thatwar, the advantage of the Germans was in the idealist spirit. It was the paper of Nazismto develop it to the ultimate consequences.A Perfect Volk In the time that many members of our Parliament of the Lords marry withdaughters of millionaires, it is reasonable to think that our Senate is characterized, astime goes by, by an uncommonly acute perception for business, and probably also for alower pattern of honesty than in the present. Francis Gaulton wrote this snappy evaluation. He really believed in what he wassaying. He created in 1833 the word eugenics and defended the legal delimitation of themarriages and the size of families related to the inherited virtues and defects of thecouples. In an intellectual atmosphere enchanted by the idea that the science haddiscovered the secrets of the division of humanity into races and of heredity, the„science of eugenics‟ soon gained followers and invaded the universities. The eugenicinvestigations received many funds from foundations such as Rockefeller andKellogg´s. Under the influence of Galton, the government of Theodore Rooseveltinstituted a commission of heredity in USA, with the mission of stimulating the physicaland intellectual perfection of the race. Laws for sterilization with eugenic aims werecreated in some American states after 1907. Other countries, such as Sweden andSwitzerland, conducted official eugenic programs. A first international conference of eugenics was carried out in London in1912und the presidency of Leonard Darwin, son of the celeb naturalist and a tirelessdefender of the science of eugenics and the adoption of public policies of eugenics. The
following conferences were carried out in New York in 1921 and 1932. In this thirdconference, the Swiss psychiatric Ernst Rüdin was elected as the president of theInternational Federation of the Eugenic Societies. Rüdin was the chief of the mostprestigious scientific institutions in the fields of psychiatry and genealogy in Germanand soon became an enthusiast of Nazism. When the Nazis reached the power, theysupported on his international recognition and his intellectual authority to conduct thegreater eugenic program of History. Hitler disdained the mystic racialism, but glorified the science and passionatelyran after the ideal of purification of the Volk. Such idea had already been fullydeveloped in Mein Kampf: „the Estate is only the recipient and race is what it contains.The Estate can only have a meaning if it preserves and protects it. Otherwise, the Estatehas no value‟. As a consequence, the eugenic program occupied a central place inHitler´s thoughts: „it will be a task of the Estate of the people to convert the race into thecenter of the community life. The Estate should guarantee the purity of the raciallineage that will be preserved. It should proclaim that the children are not the mostvaluable resource that a nation can have. It should understand that only the healthychildren should generate children; and that there is only one blasphemy, named asparents that are sick or evidence inherited defects bring kids to the world and in suchcases, it is a great honor to avoid doing this‟. Germany was the first and only Estate officially eugenic with the promulgationof the law for prevention of the sick inherited descendant, in July of 1933. The lawconferred to the Estate the power of sterilizing the portrayers of diseases that weresupposed to be inherited, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy and maniac-depressiveinsanity. Blinds, deaf and other portrayers of other deficiencies could be also sterilizedif the official doctors diagnosed inherited causes for those problems. Also, the personsaddicted to alcohol were listed in the law. A complete judicial system was constituted to decide over requests forsterilization. In the basis of this system there were districts of eugenics courts, made upby a judge, a public doctor and a doctor specialized in eugenics indicated by the Reichand that carried out secret judgments. The sentences of these courts could be contestedin a supreme eugenics court that was part of the Supreme Court and was composedsimilarly to the district courts. The inspiring model of the Nazi law was the eugenics laws adopted in severalstates of USA. The American eugenicists saw in the German law a refinement becauseit had a national aspect, giving uniformity of criteria and applications that did not existin USA. A commission of American eugenics visited Germany to know the courts. Atthe end of this visit, the secretary of the American Eugenic Society, Frederick Osborne,saluted the German initiatives as maybe the „most important experiment ever tried‟. Under this judicial apparatus, in 1937 225 thousand of persons had beensterilized and at the end of the Nazi regime, the total reached 400 thousand, while inUSA there were about 30 thousand sterilizations. The courts worked in flexible criteria
and political recommendations of not cutting the extension of the experiment. The goalto perfectioning the Arian race, freeing the German people from impurities, should notbe hijacked by scientific controversies of the inherited nature of some diseases. It wasbetter to prevent and, even though some individual injustices, to ensure the future of thenation. The processes were surrounded by meticulous scientific scenery and many timesthe courts submitted the individuals under threaten of sterilization to tests of intelligenceto clarify some doubts. One thing brings the others. Soon after the beginning of the experiment, Hitlerdetermined the sterilization of habitual criminals, what was carried out starting from theLombrosian hypothesis of a natural and inherited tendency to criminality. Since theprocess were carried out secretly, the law converted into a pretext for a general ethniccleaning. In 1937, they sterilized several children born from the union of Germans andsoldiers of the north of Africa that participated from the occupation of Germany at theend of the war. The scientific nucleus of the Nazi program was organized in the Institute KaiserWilhelm of Anthropology, Heredity and Eugenics, founded in Berlin in 1927 and of theHadamar Clinics, the principal psychiatric hospital used in the program of euthanasiaAction T4. As a general essay of the Holocaust, T4 functioned officially between 1939and 1941, period when it had fulminated more than 200 thousand people classified aspsychopaths, incurable paralytics, schizophrenic or mentally disabled. Hitler, directly,took the decisions for deflagrating the genocide operation. Initially, the victims were children under 3. Months later, as the war began, thekilling machine got developed, swallowing children and adults. In January 1940, insteadof the slow and expensive method of lethal injection, carbon monoxide started to beused. The corpses were incinerated. The families received false declarations of death,which were part of the camouflage strategy. However, due to the proportions that theprogram reached, the secret didn´t last too long and many protests multiplied, comingmainly from the religious men. In August 1941, T4 was suspended. The Nazi eugenism was not lifted in a vacuum nor was a simple import from theAmerican eugenics movement. It had roots in the peculiar evolution of the Germanmedicine during the second half of XIX century, from which the movement for racialhygiene appeared. The starting point was the diffusion, among the German psychiatrics, of thetheory of degeneration, formulated by the French Bénédict Morel in 1857. According toit, since the original sin of Adam and Eve, mankind divided, according to climate,feeding, habits, in a normal and healthy variety or an abnormal and sick one, bothreproducing. The transmission of the abnormal characteristics would make theindividuals more and more sick generation after generation, until the extinction ofcontaminated groups or families. The German psychiatrics removed all the religiouslanguage and connected it to brain and nervous system. This way, they created a strongnexus of the theory of Lombroso to the inborn delinquent.
In the beginning of the century, the theory of degeneration had overcome thedomains of psychiatrics, being converted into a medical dogma of generalized use. Thehealthy bodies resisted to infections, but the abnormal bodies would receive the agentsof the diseases. The notion of inherited transmission completed the explicative model,giving almost a magical diagnosis of the individual diseases. The next step was carriedout by the gynecologist Friedrich Wilhelm Schallmayer, who published in 1903Heredity and Selection in the Process of the Life of the Nations, the foundation book ofthe German movement of racial clearance. Schallmayer transferred the idea of heredityfrom a Lamarckian context to a Darwinist conception. Also, under the impact of thesocial-Darwinism at that time in fashion, he destroyed the borders that separated suchparadigms to medicine and opened a horizon for the interpretation of the social questionthrough the biological concept of degeneration. “The mad men constitute an enormous burden to the Estate”. The diagnosis ofSchallmayer, a dogma of the German eugenism from what the Nazis extracted terribledeductions, had a double meaning. By one side, it wanted simply to say that theefficiency of a nation was reduced by the deviation of resources destined to the care ofthe inborn abnormal persons. By other side, that the cares were a waste of work, since,instead of reducing the abnormal population, it stimulated its enhancement as itprolonged the life of the sick people who would then generate more sick children. Schallmayer should not be seen as a racist of the school of Gobineau. Hisprincipal book suffered strong criticisms of social scientists and specialists in publichealth. In the debates he carried out, the founder of the movement of racial hygiene gotclearly distinguished from the ideologists of the supremacy of the Nordic-Arian race, ashe expressed doubts regarding the superiority of the white race over the yellow race.Actually, he considered that a policy of a racial superiority lacked of scientificfundaments and could only lead to a political and moral anarchy. Also, it is not correct to draw a line of direct continuity of Schallmayer and theT4 program. In the vision of the fanatics of Arianism, eugenism represented aninstrument for the perfection of the race of Volk and should be concentrated inenhancing the Nordic element in the German population. Schallmayer never agreed withthe idea that the mental ability of a person had anything to do with their racialpertaining. His movement of racial hygiene was based on inherited differences amongthe individuals, not in cited differences among racial groups. The Nazi eugenism hadelements from both conceptions. The German Society for Racial Hygiene was founded in 1905. In 1911, eightyears before the death of Schallmayer, a group of eugenicists aligned to the Arianismcreated secretly a Nordic Circle inside that institution. Slowly, the German eugenismgot the colors of the Arian supremacy, in a process concluded only after the arrival ofthe Nazis to power. In this trajectory, the concept of racial hygiene gave place to theword Rassenhygiene, of markedly racist connotations, never employed by Schallmayer.In its letter, the eugenicist law of 1933 confirmed the conventional ideas of racial
hygiene that hadn´t became a policy of Estate before the appearance of Nazism. But inits practical appliance, that law served perfectly to the specific finalities of Ariansupremacy. The Institute Kaiser Wilhelm worked as the scientific center of the Nazieugenism. His most detached scientists were Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer. The first,old colleague of Schallmayer and one of the founders of the Nordic Circle, defendedsince long time before the renewal of the German Volk through the implantation of ruralcolonies in fields to be conquered from Russia. Such fields would be freely given tomodel couples that would be obligated to form a family with at least five children. Thesecond researcher, affiliated to the Nazi Party since its beginning, was named by Hitleras the chancellor of the University of Berlin. Under Nazism, the biologist Otmar von Verschuer assumed the direction of theKaiser Wilhelm, in place of Fischer. Verschuer was the academic orientator of the post-doctoral thesis of Josef Mengele, the angel of death, official of SS and medical chief ofthe extermination field of Auschwitz. Recent researches indicate that Mengele was alinking chain between the field of death and a network of centers for research wheremany scientists worked orientated by Kaiser Wilhelm. By the monster of Auschwitz,human samples obtained in the gas chambers were sent to the Berlin institute and tomany high standard university departments. Verschuer never suffered a process and in1951 was gifted with a title of merit of the University of Münster, where he was thechief of an important laboratory on genetics.Laws of Nuremberg In the last page of Mein Kampf, Hitler articulated his racial program to hisexpansionist project: “An Estate that in a time of racial adulteration is devoted topreserve the best elements of the racial stock shall be one day the Lord of Earth”. But toturn into the Lord of Earth, the Nazi Estate must resolve the Jewish question. Theanswer to this problem provoked the most terrible genocide of History. The seeds of the Holocaust can be found, all of them, in Mein Kampf. Hitler´sbook, differently from the anterior tradition of the racial thinking, inserts the notion ofrace in a coherent geopolitical picture, around the Nazi Estate created the decision of thefinal solution (Endlosung). One side, the theme of the Arian race was subordinated tothe imperative of the German nationalism. Other, the Jews were identified as the mortalenemies of Germany. The extermination machine was put into functioning starting fromthese two considerations. However, it is equivocated to consider the final solution asdirect or inevitable fruit of the doctrine of Hitler.
The process that culminated into the decision of the final solution was notdeveloped in the plane of the ideas, but the one of a policy of Estate. Intellectually, theattitude of Hitler in front of the Judaic question didn´t change between 1919 and 1945.But, in the beginning of this trajectory, his ultimate objective was not to physicallyexterminate the Jews, but rather expulse them from Germany. Throughout time, diversepolicies for the Jews had been defined, according to the international situation. Theextermination was only decided when the world war assumed a threateningconfiguration to the future of the Nazi Estate. The program of the Nazi Party of 1920 was to reserve the German citizenship tothe Arians, exclude the Jews from public jobs and from the press and expulse the Jewsthat had immigrated after the beginning of the First War. Additionally, that programsaid that, in case of necessity, the Estate should expulse all the foreigners. Thiscombination of tactic and transitory decisions lasted until the Nazi Party reached thepower. In the end of 1928, the starting point of the successive crisis and elections thatconducted him to the government, Hitler declared that the Jews could only be toleratedin German under the condition of foreigners. In the perspective of Hitler, the Jews did not essentially represent a problem ofinternal politics. The Jews were the worldwide enemies of Germany and, thus, thesolution of the Judaic question was embraced to the question of the place of the Germannation in Europe and the world. Apparently, during many years the Nazi leaderrestrained his tendency of expulsing the Jews from Germany imagining that they wouldbe valuable as hostages. In this order of ideas, the Nazi control over the German Judaiccommunity would help to dissuade the enemies to attack Germany before its warmachine got fully consolidated. Hitler saw with good eyes the Zionist project of creating a Jewish Estate, but hedidn´t believe this could be ever concreted. In the same order of ideas, the evaluated thepossibility of deportation of all the Jews of the world to a reserve, but discharged it as itwould need an improbable international cooperation. The spectrum of the exterminationhad never got away from the declarations and confidences of the Nazi leader. However,his genuine hate was always subordinated to the reason of Estate, hence to the nationaland international political situation. In Mein Kampf, Hitler offers an analysis of situation of the beginning of theFirst World War that clarifies his approach to the Judaic problem. Remembering theexplosion of patriotism that was typical of that moment of the conflict and the sacrificeof the soldiers in the battle fields, he evaluated that moment as the time to removeeverything that might oppose to the national spirit. The fire of his criticism was directedto the Kaiser because of the omission in destroying the criminals and the worms (theJews) that acted as fifth-columns of the German nation. A future opportunity such asthat could not be wasted. As explained by Phillippe Burrin, this moment is crucial tounderstand the mind of Hitler: “Writing after the loss, he gave retrospectively a doublevalue to the quick decision he intended to apply. An imaginary value, since this