1

Ethnological Theories of Race/Sex in 19th Century Black Thought: Implications for the
Race/Gender Debate of the 21st Century
Tommy J. Curry
(Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race, Naomi Zack, ed. [New
York: Oxford University Press, 2016])
Everywhere and always the Negro has been interested rather in expression than in action;
interested in life itself rather than in its reconstruction or reformation. The Negro is, by natural
disposition, neither an intellectual nor an idealist like the Jew, nor a brooding introspective like
the East Indian, nor a pioneer and frontiersman like the Anglo-Saxon. He is primarily an artist,
loving life for its own sake. His metier is expression rather than action. The Negro is, so to
speak, the lady among the races.
-Robert E. Park
Africa is woman; her races are feminine.
-Jules Michelet
Though unstated, history continues to assert itself as the justification for the significance
concepts like race, class, or gender have in our philosophical analyses. To say that gender or race
functions historically in some particular waythat our category is historicalis to suggest that
the idea has empirical substance, and in the case of categories like race, class, or gender a
peculiar realness needing our immediate philosophical attention. Despite the reliance of Africana
philosophers, as well as race and gender theorists, on history to legitimize the causal relationship
between their asserted category or categories and the phenomena one aims to attend, there has
been no historical analysis in Africana philosophy investigating the assertion that categories like
race, class, and gender, as currently deployed, can in fact capture the reality of our present
moment, much less the dynamics between and within groups over the past two centuries. It is
common practice for Black philosophers to simply assert that the ideas of 19th century thinkers
like W.E.B. DuBois, Martin R. Delany, or Anna Julia Cooper, who wrote about racism, manhood,
womanhood, and labor, can be expressed within our configurations of race, class, and gender in
the 21st century. When figures disagree, it is asserted that their differences of opinion are
explained by their particular location as raced, classed, and gendered. DuBois or Douglass
believe (x) because they are men or patriarchal, whereas Anna Julia Cooper believes (y) because
she is a woman. In place of careful historical surveys of the eras from which these authors
emerge, philosophers articulate history as a function of totalizing cognitive narrativespicking
and choosing the examples they believe constitute proof that their rendering(s) are in fact true.
Specific cultural and popular understandings, as well as evidence of the scientific consensus of

the times, are thought to be irrelevant to these philosophical analyses, despite being not only
prevalent in the period Black figures emerge from, but held by the figures themselves. Because
philosophy lacks an empirical method to test its claims (be it archival, quantitative, etc.), only the
outcome the analysis is held in high regard. The actual ideas of race or sex held by these Black
thinkers are thought to be history, not philosophy, because the meanings these terms had in the
19th century simply do not resonate with the political projects deemed philosophical in the 21st
century. Stated differently, historical accuracy, or the actually known and verifiable facts of the
matter, are taken to be irrelevant to how philosophers theoretically situate the relationships
between historic thinkers, or how the racial, economic, or sexed groups these figures are taken to
represent are thought to relate to each other. Labeling an analysis history as opposed to
philosophy is a commonly accepted disciplinary dictum, thought to legitimize all sorts of
revisionism to text and time, in an effort to make the chosen thinker relevant to our current
philosophical projects.
However, it is possible to articulate the difference between 19th century ethnological
understandings of race, class, and gender, and our contemporary deployments of these categories.
In the 19th century, gender only existed amongst civilized races. It was this very division between
what we now think of as the masculine and feminine that positioned the superior races claim of
evolutionarily developed sex roles over the androgynous character of savage races. Founded
upon analogy, many contemporary ventures into the study of race and gender in Africana
philosophy mistakenly assume that manhood and womanhood are synonymous to masculinity
and femininity, and thereby imply the presence of a dominant or hegemonic masculinity structure
and patriarchy in the Black community. Under ethnological systems of thought, races were
gendered as proof of their evolutionary development above other races. This meant that there
were no shared categories of manhood or womanhood across racial groups. The white man was a
member of a completely difference species than that of a Black man. Rather than simply being
political designations or derision against the female sex, designating races as feminine or ladies
indicated their racial temperamentwhat they were capable of thinking, or aspiring towards
their spiritual strivings.
The voluminous historical works in this area of study cannot be surveyed in one essay,
but a relatively modest intervention can be introduced. I argue that ethnological understandings
of race included the masculine and feminine as part of its meaning, thereby making gender an
ethnological or racial designation. Under 19th century ethnological thinking, races were gendered,
not bodies biologically designated as male or female by sex. The members of the racial group
expressed either the masculine or feminine personality of that racial group which meant that even
in a dominant racial group like the white Anglo-Saxon, femininity is a masculine trait
something only possible in a patriarchal race. Historically, ethnology is associated with
biological determinism and thought of a science of white superiority. In point of actual fact,
ethnology was not only adopted to some extent by all of the historical thinkers Africana
philosophy concerns itself with in the 19th century, but was the scientific justification used to
explain racial uplift ideology as the evolutionary progress of savage races to the realm of
civilization.

The Science of Ethnology: Its Assumptions and Study

The origins of disciplines have always been subjects of contention. The origin and distinction
between ethnology and anthropology is no different. The American Ethnological Society was
founded in 1842, only months apart from the Ethnological Society of London, and it is their
modern ethnology, whose approaches had the benefit by Charles Darwins Origin of the
Species in 1859 and Adolf Bastians work in racial psychology and idealism, which concerns us
here. By the 1890s, ethnology was regarded as a specialized science dedicated specifically to the
ends and origins of racial contact. A.K. Keanes Ethnology: Fundamental Ethnical Problems; the
Primary Ethnical Groups regards ethnology as a specialized field of anthropology dedicated to
understanding the structural differences, which have to be gauged by comparative anatomical
studies (1909, 2). Emphasizing the niche of racial contact, Keane sees ethnology as that branch
of general anthropology which deals with the relations of the different varieties of mankind to
each otherfrom both the physical and psychological sides (2). In the 19th century, ethnology
proceeded by the comparative method, coordinating its facts with a view to determining such
general questions as the antiquity of man; monogenism or polygenism; the geographical centre
or centres of evolution of dispersion; the number and essential characteristics of the fundamental
human types; the absolute and relative value of racial criteria: miscegenation; the origin and
evolution of articulate speech and its value as a test of race; the influence of the environment on
the evolution of human varieties, on their pursuits, temperament, religious views, grades of
culture; the evolution of the family, clan, tribe and nation (2).
With the rise of anthropology, however, there was some concern that the term ethnology
was too narrow. It was recognized by at the close of the 19th century that anthropology itself was
concerned with two aspects of mankind: the physical and the ethnical or social. As Juul Dieserud
(1908) maintains in The Scope and Content of the Science of Anthropology It would therefore
surely seem that for purposes of classification we are at the present state of anthropology
perfectly justified in adopting two main subdivisions of our science, viz., Physical anthropology
or Somatology and Ethnical anthropology also called Psychical and Culture anthropology (17).
While Dieserud nonetheless believed that Ethnology alone is too narrow (17), he was aware of
a need for a term able to capture the venture as psycho socio-cultural science (17).
Anthropology and ethnography were concerned with the somatological classification of the races
(Deniker 1904, 280-298), while ethnology (ethnological anthropology, ethnical science) was
interested in the racial character and the evolutionary temperaments of the racestheir final end.
Rather than seeking to discover through evidence the actual character and aims of the specific
races, ethnology sought to rationalize the supposed superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon race to
all others. As J.S. Haller (1971) explains ethnology was the comparative and developmental
study of social man and his culture. Concerning himself with the science of culture, the
ethnologist enumerated the conditions and modes of existence of specific non-Western peoples,
and only touched tangentially upon the contemporary problems of Western life (710). The
ethnologist was primarily interested in the nature and end of racial temperament (psychology).
The ethnologist differed from the sociologist in that he did not study his own society, and used
evolution as their foundation, making liberal use of his studies of human thought and
institutions in their embryological stage to suggest the same unilinear phylogeny for the
advanced civilizations (710). The German ethnological tradition launched by Bastian shared
proximity to imperialism. As Haller remarks The ethnologist thus walked an unstable course
between his science and his assumptions in the nineteenth century, offering suggestions in and
out of his discipline, and generalizing about human behavior in its various aspects (710).

Phylogeny involved more than simply charting the taxonomy of human groups emerging
as the victors in the struggle for survival. For the ethnologist, evolution disclosed the intent of
history, it revealed which groups should survive the struggle against nature, and intimated the
hierarchies established by nature between them. The personality, the racial character of the
surviving groups were then understood as proof of developmental differences marking the
distance between those who are superior and those who are inferiorand it is these groups
ordered by nature that the ethnologists studied under the designation of races. Ethnological
science was not simply imposed by white scientists, but assimilated by 19th century Black
intellectuals. It was the basis of the cultural assumptions used to articulate many of the positions
contemporary scholars consider to be radical Black political theory, as well as those like the
protection of the home, which many of the same scholars would deem conservative.

The Inequality of Race as the Distance from the Masculine and Ones Closeness to the Feminine
Amongst race scholars in the United States, Arthur De Gobineaus Inequality of the Human
Races remains a constant reminder and example of biological racism at the dawn of the 20th
century. However, what is often not commented upon in this text is the origin racial inequality
has to the dominance of the male or female characteristics of the race. It is Gobineaus belief that
every human activity, moral or intellectual, has its original source in one or other of these two
currents, male or female; and only the races which have one of these elements in abundance
(without, of course, being quite destitute of the other) can reach, in their social life, a satisfactory
stage of culture, and so attain to civilization (1915, 88). Civilization is founded upon the
masculine or female principle operating to build a republic. Gobineau insists that institutions
invented and molded by a race of men make the race what it is. They are effects, not causes
(40). Unlike our 21st century theories of social constructionism, Gobineau holds that the creations
of our society emanate from the inner personality and substance of races. The male nations look
principally for material well-being, the female nations are more taken up with the needs of the
imagination (89). The superiority of the German stock is birthed from the generational
accumulation of blood from male races, while degenerate European races are accepting more
feminine blood to their South. This is the foundation from which philosophy and poetry,
language and literature grow. The mark of races male and female principle is so remarkable that
De Gobineau actually argues that:
If a degraded people, at the lowest rung of the racial ladder, with as little significance for
the " male " as for the " female " progress of mankind, could possibly have invented a
language of philosophic depth, of aesthetic beauty and flexibility, rich in characteristic
forms and precise idioms, fitted alike to express the sublimities of religion, the graces of
poetry, the accuracy of physical and political sciencesuch a people would certainly
possess an utterly useless talent, that of inventing and perfecting an instrument which
their mental capacity would be too weak to turn to any account (182).
The result of the racial divide between the Negro and the Anglo-Saxon is that Black men
and women could not share the genders established within the dominant race. The 19th century
ideas of race, and gender (if such a term can even apply to Black Americans) were the result of

complete differences in evolutionary-species-kind between racial groups. Because of evolution,

this meant that every race would have different gendered kinds within its group despite its
grasping of civilization. Non-white/savage/primitive groups were altogether denied the specific
race-gender distinctions that whites had, because such distinctions were specific to, the exclusive
mark of the civilized white races. In this sense, there were no categories or universals which
captured the shared historical experiences between these groups. Commenting on British racial
taxonomies, Anne McClintock (1995) argues:
Racial stigmata were systematically, if often contradictorily, drawn on to elaborate minute
shadings of difference in which social hierarchies of race, class and gender overlapped
each other in a three-dimensional graph of comparison. The rhetoric of race was used to
invent distinctions between what we would now call classes. At the same time, the
rhetoric of gender was used to make increasingly refined distinctions among the different
races. The white race was figured as the male of the species and the black race as the
female. Similarly, the rhetoric of class was used to inscribe minute and subtle distinctions
between other raced. The Zulu male was regarded as the "gentleman" of the black race,
but was seen to display features typical of females of the white race (55-56).
Consistent with McClintocks historical schema, 19th century ethnologists categorized the
Negro as the racial instantiation of white females. Franz I. Pruner-Bey argued the black man is
to white man what woman is to man in general, a loving being and being of pleasure (cited in
Hunt 1863, 39), while Carl Vogt remarked that The grown-up Negro partakes, as regards his
intellectual faculties, of the nature of the female child, and the senile white. He manifests a
propensity for pleasure, music, dancing, physical enjoyments, and conversation, while his
inconstancy of impressions and of all the feelings are those of a child (cited in Dunn 1866, 25).
The Negro race was designated as female as a mark of its uncivilized lack of the masculine. In
this sense, gender was a property of races that led to the divisions between sexes within the
raceit did not imply the ideas of privilege and identity as it does today. Like other primitive
races, the Negro was thought to be too savage, and degraded, to have evolved gender distinctions
between the male and female sex. In an anthropological, not political, sense, Black men did not
yet met the evolutionary register to be men, no more than Black women were women. Blacks
were anatomically sexed, but strove towards gendered divisions as an indication of their ability
to achieve racial uplift and attain civilization.

Racial Uplift as Evolutionary Doctrine

The 19th century ethnological-anthropological perspective on race formed the condition that
made racial uplift possible for Black men and women, since racial manhood, just like lady-like
womanhood, was necessary for evolutionary development and political progress. Evolution was
accepted by Black and white thinkers alike and endorsed by some of our most well-known Black
women thinkers as the basis of racial uplift. Louise Newman (1999) explains:
As the personal and political struggles of Anna Julia Cooper, Ida B. Wells, and Mary
Church Terrell suggest, civilization, racial progress, and womans protection within the

home were interconnected in ways that made it impossible for black women to repudiate
altogether the prevailing ideologies of the cult of domesticity and true womanhood. Like
their white counterparts, black women reformers also used evolutionist discourses of
civilization to justify their own social activism. They asserted their duty to elevate and
uplift the masses of black women, upholding the values of domesticity, chastity,
temperance, and piety that the white middle classes considered to be evidence of a
civilized race (9).
Ironically, it is perhaps the quote Anna Julia Cooper is most well-known for which actually
demonstrates Newmans point about the salience of evolutionary thought amongst Black women
reformers. In an 1886 essay entitled Womanhood: A Vital Element in the Regeneration and
Progress of a Race, Cooper (1998) argues:
The late Martin R. Delany, who was an unadulterated black man, used to say when
honors of state fell upon him, that when he entered the council of kings the black race
entered with him; meaning, I suppose, that there was no discounting his race identity and
attributing his achievements to some admixture of Saxon blood. But our present record of
eminent men, when placed beside the actual status of the race in America to-day, proves
that no man can represent the race. Whatever the attainments of the individual may be,
unless his home has moved on pari passu, he can never be regarded as identical with or
representative of the whole. Not by pointing to sun-bathed mountain tops do we prove
that Phoebus warms the valleys. We must point to homes, average homes, homes of the
rank and file of horny handed toiling men and women of the South (where the masses
are) lighted and cheered by the good, the beautiful, and the true,--then and not till then
will the whole plateau be lifted into the sunlight. Only the BLACK WOMAN can say
when and where I enter, in the quiet, undisputed dignity of my womanhood, without
violence and without suing or special patronage, then and there the whole Negro race
enters with me (63).
Today this quote is taken to assert that Anna Julia Cooper argues that Black women, because of
their identity as Black and women are the (intersectional) key to the race and racial progress.
But, what Cooper is actually saying is that the race can only advance on equal footing within the
homes of the rank and file of the race. The masses must be lifted up. Because homes are
reflective of the status held by the women of the race, then women must be civilized to achieve
true racial uplift. This is why Cooper insists that the average homes of working class men and
women must be advanced pari passu, or on equal footing with the most exceptional of the race.
The motivation to develop gender division amongst the Black middle class was not politics, but
the application of ethnological science. Cooper believes the civilization of America is superior to
other world cultures because of the role the good woman has in sustaining the home (53-54).
Unlike the races of the East whose homes are impure, the power of American civilization was
recognized by nations across the world as the natural product of the homage Americans paid to
womenthe influence of an American woman in home is all-powerful (E.C. 1880, 26), as it
nurtures manhood.
In the 19th century, such distinctions between men and women, the status of the home,
and the condition of a races women, indicated the evolutionary stage of the race. The
fundamental nature of womanhood was to develop manhood in the race, not as an independent
political trajectory from Black patriarchy as usually maintained, but as a shared racial
characteristic. The race is just twenty-one years removed from the conception and experience

of chattel, just at the age of ruddy manhood (61), remarks Cooper. To make the race (more
masculine) civilized, mothers and the development of homes were fundamental. Anna Julia
Cooper was clear on this point: A stream cannot rise higher than its source. The atmosphere of
homes is no rarer and purer and sweeter than are the mother in those homes. A race is but a total
of families. The nation is the aggregate of its homes. As the whole is sum of all its parts, so the
character of the parts will determine the characteristics of the whole. These are all axioms and so
evident that it seems gratuitous to remark it (63).
Coopers view was not unique, it was the established evolutionary program of the time.
In his 1883 essay, The Black Woman of the South: Her Neglects and Needs, Alexander
Crummell calls for a domestic revolution to remedy the neglect of the Black woman in the
South. To advance the home, the Black woman in the South must first be taught the science of
domestic economics by Christian women of intelligence and piety so they may learn the ways
and habits of thrift, economy, neatness, and order; to gather them into "Mothers' Meetings" and
sewing schools; and by both lectures and "talks" guide these women and their daughters into the
modes and habits of clean and orderly housekeeping (Crummell 1891, 76). However, If you
want the civilization of a people to reach the very best elements of their being, and then, having
reached them, there to abide, as an indigenous principle, you must imbue the womanhood of that
people with all its elements and qualities. Any movement which passes by the female sex is an
ephemeral thing. Without them, no true nationality, patriotism, religion, cultivation, family life,
or true social status is a possibility (79).
Crummell claims manhood may bring innovation to a people; The male may bring, as an
exotic, a foreign graft, say of a civilization, to a new people. But what then (79)? How do such
traits become permanently embedded within the race? The answer is: womanhood, specifically
her power of regeneration. Cooper models her understanding of racial development being
dependent on the status of the woman on Crummells The Black Woman of the South. She
acknowledges Crummells previous work on Black women in the South as that of a prophet or
Moses (Cooper 1998, 60). When Cooper then says that the position of woman in society
determines the vital elements of its regeneration and progress (1998, 59), her claim rings as true
because it has been the acknowledged origin of Americas rise in power and civilization for the
better part of the 19th century. Beyond Cooper and Crummell, this view was widely held among
the Black women social scientists of the late 1800s. In her keynote address to the 1897
womans meeting of the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory, Ms. Lucy Laney held:
Motherhood, honored by our blessed Master, is the crown of woman hood. This gives her
not only interest in the home and society, but also authority. She should be
interested in the welfare of her own and her neighbors' children. To woman has been
committed the responsibility of making the laws of society, making environments for
childrenThe chief joy of home is mother (Laney 1897, 57).
To build homes, the race needs men to protect the lady-like character of the Black
woman. Black women need men who can let their interest and gallantry extend outside the
circle of their aesthetic appreciation; men who can be a father, a protector, a brother, a friend to
every weak, struggling unshielded girl (64). The Black woman in the South needs chilvary,
regardless of her station. It is the protection of her honor and sexuality by Black men from the
lower classes of white men that the colored girl of the South needs. Cooper observes that the
Black girls in the South are often without a fatheror stronger brother to espouse their cause

and defend their honor with his lifes blood (61). As husband, as father, by name, Cooper calls
for Black men to take up their manhood to advance the cause of the race and womanhood. In
calling for Black men to protect, she is laying claim to a schema of racial advancement, the
division of roles, and the protection of weaker women. She is calling for a gendered division of
the sexes within the race.
As Glenda Gilmore observes in Gender and Jim Crow, By admonishing men to fulfill
their potentials, Cooper executed an end run around patriarchy. Ideal patriarchy should not limit
women; it only did so when the man in question was stunted. In fact, men could take womens
striving as a useful early warning sigh to encourage them to exercise patriarchy more
strenuously. If women were gaining in the race of life, men should run faster (Gilmore 1996,
44). Gilmore claims that Cooper never addressed the problem that her reasoning createdthat
is, if patriarchy ceases to limit women, is it still patriarchy?by calling the hand of the
patriarch (44). However, if we look at Anna Julia Coopers recommendation as an articulation
of evolutionary doctrine rather than politics, we understand there is no tension between the
manhood and womanhood of the race, if fact they necessitate and depend on each other.
The move from savagery into the register of the civilized was thought to bring with it
obligations and white respect for Black humanity. It was assumed that white society would be
able to recognize civilization amongst the notable Black classes, despite race. This assumption
was the grounding for much of the activism of Black intellectuals, journalists, and poets during
the late 1800s. Michelle Mitchell argues in Righteous Propagation: African American and the
Politics of Racial Destiny after Reconstruction that Concerns for sexual purity, child rearing,
habits of cleanliness and self-improvement enabled club women and race men to promote certain
modes of behavior to instruct their brothers and sisters on how to attain a range of ideas
(Mitchell 2004, 84). For Black Americans, who saw themselves as the Best men and women of
the race, there was a demand that class serve as a marker of manhood and womanhood
(Gilmore 1996, 75). Because class denoted intra-racial divisions, those who had elevatedthe
upper classtook responsibility to improve the (uncivilized) rank and file. Because of their
own embrace of Victorian manners and morals, middle-class Black men and women worried
constantly about poor black peoples public activities (75). Instead of simply being a gendered
or patriarchal assertion about the status of Black people, racial uplift was a concerted effort
between race men and women to create distinctions and specialized gender roles among the
lower classes. Given the missionary aspects of Black manhood and womanhood, Kevin K.
Gaines argues in Uplifting the Race: Black Leadership, Politics, and Culture in the Twentieth
Century that racial uplift actually describes a black middle class ideology, rather than a black
middle class (Gaines, 1996, 14). Gaines continues that It was precisely as an argument for
black humanity through evolutionary class differentiation that the black intelligentsia replicated
the dehumanizing logic of racismhowever problematic, the bourgeois cultural values that came
to stand for intra-racial class differencessocial purity, thrift, chastity, and the patriarchal family
affirmed their sense of status and entitlement to citizenship (4). For the contemporary scholar,
this means that the meanings and beliefs commonly attached to gender or Black
patriarchy/masculinity/femininity are in fact class ideologies not the actual state of gender
(which could only possibly possessed by Black elites) amongst Blacks in the 19th century.

Conclusion

Manliness and manhood were civilizational terms used by whites and Blacks in the 19th century
to describe both the solidified racial hierarchies of their day, and the malleable racial aspirations
of the Black men and women of tomorrow (Mitchell 2004, 58). Africana philosophy remains
unaffected by the mountainous work on race, gender and sexuality during the late 1800s and
early 1900s outside of philosophy, despite holding that racism, classism, and patriarchy are its
primary intellectual (and interdisciplinary) concerns. Philosophy interprets gender ahistorically.
Gender is intuited as distinct from the category of race, then intersectionally engaged to establish
its prior historical relation in theory.
Read historically, gender, like race, is a colonial category. Colonialism was often justified
as an effort to save the savage from themselves, from their brute males: For over a century,
Westerners had presumed that primitive women were overworked, sexually abused, or otherwise
badly treated by men of their cultures (161). Similarly, Gail Bedermans notes that Savage
(that is, nonwhite) races, had not yet evolved pronounced sexual differences-and, to some extent,
this was precisely what made them savage. Savage men had never evolved the chivalrous instinct
to protect their women and children but instead forced their women into exhausting drudgery,
cultivating the fields, tending the fires, carrying heavy burdens. Overworked savage women had
never evolved the refined delicacy of civilized women (Bederman 1995, 28).
Ethnological designations made the white-Anglo-Saxon the father and mother of the
female and child races. It was the white races duty to civilize the lower races. His burden
utilized imperialism and colonization to spread civilization, while the white woman was the
mother and teacher of the savage races, they were her children. Philosophers have a tendency to
view slavery and colonization in heteronormative terms (Zack 1997), with sexual violence being
directed towards the racialized female, but history has shown that conquest involved multiple
erotics making white men and women the rapists of enslaved and colonized men as well (Foster
2011). Because the inferior races were deemed female and children, white men and women used
their colonies to exorcise their sexual fetishes without contradiction or penalty.
Gender did not exist within the Negro race in the 1800s in ways that mirror its current
usages. As such, many of our contemporary notions of feminism, race, and gender assume a
distance between thinkers that did not historically exist. Acknowledging this distance between
the past and our present increases the accuracy of our theorizations, allowing us to critically
assess the categories, movements, and thinkers we make central to our conceptual projects.
Considering ethnologys role in uplift ideology generates a new historiography that would not
only address what is lacking in our present conceptual models, but enables us to better
understand what historical Black thinkers were aiming towards and motivated by in our
interpretation of their texts.

10

References
Bederman, Gail. 1995. Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the U.S.,
1880-1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
Cooper, Anna Julia. 1998. "Womanhood." In The Voice of Anna Julia Cooper, by Charles Lemert and
Esme Bhan, 53-71. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefiend Publishers Inc.
Crummell, Alexander. 1891. "The Black Woman of the South: Her Neglects and Needs." In Africa and
America: Addresses and Discourses , by Alexander Crummell, 59-82. Springfield: Willey &
Company.
Deniker, Joseph. 1904. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnology. New York: The
Walter Scott Publishing Company.
Dieserud, Juul. 1908. The Scope and Content of the Science of Anthropology. Chicago: Open Court Press.
Dunn, Robert. 1866. "Civilisation and Cerebral Development: Some Observations on the Influence of
Civilisation upon." Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London, 13-33.
E.C. 1880. "Woman's Influence." Otago Witness, May 22: 26.
Foster, Thomas. 2011. "The Sexual Abuse of Black Men during Slavery." Journal of History and
Sexuality 20 (3): 445-464.
Gaines, Kevin. 1996. Uplifting the Race: Black Leadership, Politics, and Culture in the 2oth Century.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Gilmore, Glenda. 1996. Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North
Carolina, 1896-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Gobineau, Arthur De. 1915. The Inequality of the Human Races. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Grinder, Robert E. 1969. "The Concept of Adolescence in the Genetic Pscyhology of G. Stanley Hall."
Child Development 40 (2): 355-369.
Hunt, James. 1863. On the Negroes Place in Nature. London: Trubner & Co.
Jr., John S. Haller. 1971. "Race and the Concept of Progress in Nineteenth Century American Ethnology."
American Anthropologist 73: 710-724.
Keene, A.H. 1909. Ethnology: Fundamental Ethnical Problems; the Primary Ethnical Groups.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laney, Lucy. 1897. "Address before the Woman's Meeting." In Social and Physical Condition of Negroes
in Cities, by W.E.B. DuBois, 55-58. Atlanta: Atlanta University Press.
McClintock, Anne. 1995 . Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. New
York: Routledge.
Mitchell, Michelle. 2004. Righteous Propagation: African Americans and the Politics of Racial Destiny
after Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press .

11
Newman, Louise. 1999. White Women's Rights: The Racial Origin of Feminism in the United States. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Zack, Naomi. 1997. "The American Sexualization of Race." In Race/Sex: Their Sameness, Difference,
and Interplay, by Naomi Zack, 145-155. New York: Routledge.