He spoke against racism with scientific arguments as early as the 19th century: two historians put the spotlight on anthropologist Nikolai Miklucho-Maclaywar, who opposed the questionable theses of his own teacher: the famous Ernst Haeckel.
He is also called the “German Darwin” – the biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834 to 1919) from the University of Jena made a decisive breakthrough in the theory of evolution: he developed it scientifically and successfully communicated it to the general public. But the great researcher also had a dark side: Some of his theses on the evolutionary history of humans had bad consequences. From Haeckel’s anthropology there are direct links to social Darwinism, racial hygiene, eugenics and racial studies.
Anthropological theses with dark echoes
“Haeckel assumed that humanity today consists of different species that differ in their level of development. Some are closer to a hypothetical pre-human ancestor, others are already developed, ”explains Uwe Hoßfeld from the University of Jena. His colleague Georgy S. Levit adds: “This division into higher and lower races is the core of all discriminatory racism.”
As the two historians report, Haeckel had been unusually unscientific in developing his theory of the differently developed groups among today’s people and had not remained true to himself. Because according to his own claims, living beings in their immediate environment must be examined in order to recognize their biological fitness as well as differences within a species and different species. In his anthropological theses, however, he had refrained from collecting such scientifically sound data. He may have simply adapted to the zeitgeist. Because the speculative and derogatory explanations for human evolution fit well with the views of the colonial era.
As part of their historical research, Hoßfeld and Levit have now shown that there was, however, a scientifically sound contradiction. And it came from a student of Haeckel of all places. The Russian-born naturalist Nikolai Miklucho-Maclay (1846 to 1888) had studied in Jena near Haeckel for a few years from 1865. In the end, he even worked as his assistant and went on joint research trips with him. At some point, however, there was a rift and their ways parted, the historians report.
Scientifically based contradiction
In 1870, Miklucho-Maclay then went on a research trip to New Guinea to investigate the Papuan people. This goal was probably no accident, historians report. Miklucho-Maclay apparently wanted to make up for what his teacher had failed to do. Haeckel described the Papua in his work “Natural History of Creation” from 1868 as a representative of a primitive species that should be closest to the prehistoric man. The characteristics of the Papuan hair, its way of life and its language are proof of this. But all this information was based on hearsay only – Haeckel never entered New Guinea or experienced the Papua personally. Miklucho-Maclay, on the other hand, spent over a year with the Papuans during his first stay. Five more trips should then follow.
As historians report, Miklucho-Maclay’s writings contradicted his teacher’s claims. When making his argument, he strictly adhered to the scientific rules. Haeckel, too, was actually convinced that all organisms adapt to their living environment and that there could be different geographical variations within one type. In the case of his anthropological theses and the consideration of the Papua, Haeckel had apparently ignored this.
In the course of his empirical research, Miklucho-Maclays, on the other hand, was able to document that the Papuans also correspond to an intrinsic variation of humans. He then finally formulated the statement that the Papuans are to be recognized as full members within humanity and that their rights must be protected. “There have been thinkers who have spoken out clearly against racism, such as Alexander von Humboldt. But Miklucho-Maclay was the first anti-racist to emphatically support his point of view through evidence-based, long-term field research, ”sum up Hoßfeld and Levit.
But the anthropologist died very early and, unlike Haeckel, could hardly reach a broad public. “Unfortunately, his work had little impact on science and society at that time. Had she received more attention, racist ideas that did so much damage, especially in the 20th century, might have been nipped in the bud, ”the two historians conclude.
Source: Friedrich Schiller University Jena, technical article: Frontiers in Zoology, doi: 10.1186 / s12983-020-00358-w