"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."
Jesus Christ. I always thought Franklin was one of the ‘good ones’ so to speak of the Founders.
At least, in that last sentence, he acknowledged that he was speaking of his own (culture’s) preference, rather than some absolute superiority. That’s better than most white folks would have thought then, I’m pretty sure.
Why do so many insist on dismissing these “judgments” (I would rather call them “revisionist histories,” in a non-pejorative sense, that complicate our heroic-romantic views of the past) by saying that these were the “standards” of the time? There were plenty of anti-racists during Franklin’s time who would have been aghast at what he wrote. In fact, Franklin himself was one such man. He published the first German language newspaper in the new world BEFORE he wrote the passage in the original post. He later renounced his anti-German views, as well.
[QUOTE=Benjamin Franklin]
“And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion;”
[/QUOTE]
It’s enough to make me question whether Ben Franklin had actually met any Swedes.
One would think so… There was that New Sweden colony on the Delaware river – before Franklin’s time, but I assume the Swedish colonists didn’t all move back to Sweden just because a different colonial power took over the territory.
Well, he says “swarthy complexion” and then goes into some weirdness about how much sunlight they’re reflecting up into space… so it seems like he’s talking about actual skin color.
When you judge an historical figure for their racial attitudes, do you judge them at the end of their life or during the middle?
Franklin wrote this piece when he was a 45 year old Briton, in 1751. Which is to say that the popular image of the wizened old man with the severe mullet is not this guy. In fact, when he republished this essay in later years (1760 and 1761), he removed these paragraphs (it was his opponents who put it back in when they republished the paper in 1764, to discredit him).
Another interesting edit: In its original form, the essay criticizes the use of slaves thusly:
(My emphasis)
In later editions, Franklin softened the argument that slaves were inherent thieves. It’s almost like he was tempering his attitude. (And, it could be argued, the essay as a whole is a criticism of using slaves to fill the labor void in America):
Finally, some context. Franklin’s essay was in response to a law passed by Mother England that limited the expansion of iron manufacturing in the colonies. Franklin’s argument was that this was not wise, since America’s vast frontier represented an opportunity for England to expand its population (and, as a consequence, its influence). Franklin, a proud Briton and a proud colonist, is countering the idea that England needed protection from colonial competition by encouraging British expansionism. He larger point is an economic one, but he finishes with an appeal to the mindset of the time, which is that the “races” were in a competition to overtake the world.
From what you quoted, I question whether he was even originally making a racial claim about the “thieving nature” of black people, as opposed to a sociological claim about the thieving nature of enslaved people:
In other words, Franklin’s saying that it’s natural for an enslaved worker who doesn’t share in the benefits of his labor to be neglectful of his work. Likewise, it’s natural for an enslaved worker who’s prevented from earning things he wants by working for them to steal things he wants instead. Neither of those observations is necessarily dependent on the enslaved worker’s race.
Mind you, I’m not trying to argue that Franklin wasn’t a racist, at least in some ways and at some times: it would be very odd for an 18th-century white Briton to be completely non-racist. I’m just saying that it’s not clear that this particular statement about slaves naturaly being thieves is specifically racist in nature. What you refer to as a later “softening” of the claim strikes me as more of a clarification.
