Minniecon rejects out of hand any such comparisons between Maoris and Aborigines. Accordingly, the second count in his indictment of the Powerful is based upon an offhand interjection made by King O’Malley during a parliamentary debate in 1901. O’Malley asserted that “an aboriginal is not as intelligent as a Maori. There is no scientific evidence that he is a human being at all”. His third count rests upon a parliamentary speech by Senator Ross Lightfoot characterizing “Aborigines in their native state” as “the lowest colour on the civilisation spectrum”. Minniecon interprets such observations as nothing more or other than insults to the dignity of Aboriginal people by the ubiquitous discourse of the Powerful. He declines even to acknowledge the possibility that Marsden, O’Malley, and Lightfoot may have had anthropological truth on their side.654 Prima facie, therefore, there is reason to suspect that Minniecon is engaged in a “subjective” exercise in ethnic advocacy rather than a disinterested search for the “objective” truth about racial differences and their effect on the interaction between British/European settlers and the indigenous peoples of Australasia. Such indifference to truth together with the incoherence of Minniecon’s argument supports Ernest Gellner’s suggestion that “[l]ogical coherence and social solidarity are inversely related”.655 Accordingly, Minniecon believes his own stories about the endless struggle between the Powerful and the Powerless not because they are true but because he believes they serve the interests of his tribe.
Cognitive dissonance poses no difficulties for Minniecon when he asserts that “[a]ccountability for wrongdoing is a fundamental principle of reconciliation” while calling for “a decrease in the number of our people in jail, because the number of our people in jail is criminal in itself”.656 Truth and logical coherence play second fiddle in Minniecon’s misguided campaign to promote the putative ethnic interests of Aboriginal Australians. His essay is not a bona fide work of Christian anthropology. Nor will the best interests of Aboriginal Australians be served by the constitutional recognition of culturally justified false beliefs.
Reconciliation and the Reality of Racial Differences
However often Minniecon or the other contributors to Speaking Differently reiterate their pious faith in the innate equality of all human beings, the reality is that dead white European males such as Marsden and O’Malley were rationally justified in their belief that Australian Aborigines are not as intelligent as New Zealand Maoris. Richard Lynn reports that “[t]he first attempt to estimate the intelligence of Australian Aborigines was made by [Francis] Galton” on the basis of traveller’s accounts in 1869. In “terms of the IQ scale, he estimated the Australian Aborigine IQ at 68.8. Subsequent studies of the intelligence of Australian Aborigines assessed by intelligence tests have shown that this was a fairly accurate assessment”. By comparison, psychometric investigations of Maori intelligence yield very different results. Broadly speaking, Maoris possess “IQs in the range between 81 and 96 with a median IQ of 90. The Maori IQs are consistently around 90 for reasoning, verbal, and non-verbal tests”.657
Since IQ “is the single strongest predictor of educational outcomes” it is clearly relevant to the debate over reconciliation. Urban anthropologist Frank Salter points out that “IQ alone explains more than half the variation in per capita income around the world”. Any rational discussion of the economics of development in Aboriginal communities must also take account of “the fact that IQ also correlates with invidious social indicators: unemployment, divorce, children born to single mothers, poverty, incarceration, chronic welfare, and dropping out of school. To these can be added poor health and reduced support by families and communities”.658
IQ differences are not the only innate characteristic relevant to an understanding of the plight of the Aboriginal peoples. Europeans and Aborigines were on divergent evolutionary paths for thousands of years. In Europe, farming cultures created “diets rich in carbohydrates and fatty meat, very different from the Neolithic diet Aborigines had until British settlement”. This accelerated “the evolution of the gut, resulting in changes to the pancreas and other organs”. The lifestyle changes, including milk and alcoholic beverages, created genetic differences between Aborigines and Europeans that “are plausible ultimate causes contributing to some Aboriginal medical issues, including kidney disease, diabetes, and alcoholism”.659
The outright refusal of Minniecon and his fellow contributors to Speaking Differently to confront, honestly and openly, the reality of racial differences suggests that their prescription for racial reconciliation in Australia rests upon culturally justified false beliefs which have subverted the commitment to truth and logical coherence so evident in the work of pioneering Christian anthropologists such as Samuel Marsden.
The Jewish Take-over of WASP Anthropology
What then is the nature of the culture shaping the practice of theological anthropology in contemporary Australian universities and colleges? The short answer is that the academic discipline of anthropology nowadays, even when practiced by professed Christians, is more accurately characterized as Jewish anthropology. This situation is due in large part to the remarkable achievements of Franz Boas, a German Jew who migrated to the USA in the late nineteen century. Boas was untiring in his opposition to the scientific racialism of his WASP peers in America.660 Ironically, the secular Darwinism infusing the works of WASP intellectuals such as Madison Grant paved the way for the eventual triumph of Boasian anthropology.661 The genteel scepticism and philosophical pragmatism characteristic of Anglo-American Protestantism in the early twentieth century effectively severed the link between physical and Christian anthropology that had been fundamental to Marsden’s world-view.662
At the time Boas appeared on the intellectual scene in America, it was widely “held that human groups, or races, passed through a series of stages: from savagery to barbarism and culminating in civilization”. This traditional view held that primitive peoples “lacked the necessary biological wherewithal to reach the highest stage”. Boas “declared war on the idea that differences in culture were derived from differences in innate capacity”. He insisted “that so-called savages did not differ in mental capabilities from civilized people, even if in their present state of existence they had not produced the artifacts or cultural achievements traditionally associated with civilized life”.663 In articulating his “conception of culture and his opposition to a racial interpretation of human behaviour,” Boas was not pursuing “a disinterested, scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question”. Instead, his “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups” was inspired by “an ideological commitment that began in his early life…and continued in America to shape his professional outlook”.664 Those ideological commitments were influenced greatly by his Jewish identity.
Indeed, in 1969 one American Negro scholar charged that Boasian “Scientific antiracism was concerned only secondarily with colored peoples”. William S Willis, Jr insisted that Boas and the other European Jews in his circle were primarily interested in forging the intellectual weaponry needed to combat anti-Semitism and achieve “domination of anthropology in the United States”.665 Certainly, Boas was spectacularly successful in pursuit of the latter goal. “By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish”.
As a consequence, “Jewish identifications and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the ‘invisible subject’ of American anthropology”.666 In the post-war period, “the most effective popularizer of Boas” in the USA and internationally was the Anglo-Jewish anthropologist, Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg). As well as writing books with such titles as Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, Montagu was the rapporteur responsible for drafting the UNESCO Statement on Race in 1950. This document insisted upon the “es
sential similarity in mental characters among all human groups”.667 With the co-operation of governments and the mass media, this controversial claim became and, as can be seen in Speaking Differently, remains the ruling orthodoxy in the academic world.
Paradoxically, however, the humanist universalism of academic anthropology now exhibits many of the characteristics of particularistic belief systems in closed, tribal societies. Kevin MacDonald notes, for example, that “Boas rarely cited works of people outside his group except to disparage them” while working strenuously to promote “the work of people within the ingroup”. In his view, “[t]he Boasian school of anthropology thus came to resemble in a microcosm key features of Judaism as a highly collectivist group evolutionary strategy: a high level of ingroup identification, exclusionary policies, and cohesiveness in pursuit of common interests”.668 Inevitably, such self-cloning academic communities typically produce a hegemonic culture in which loyalty to the in-group takes precedence over the values of truth and logical coherence.
Conclusion
A genuinely Christian anthropology is bound to conflict with “the Jewish roots and routes” of contemporary anthropology — most obviously in the field of theological anthropology.669 Christian scholars who choose to counter the current Jewish hegemony within the discipline of anthropology will find in Samuel Marsden an alternative to both “scientific racialism” and “scientific anti-racism”. Marsden recognized that the various races of mankind occupied different stages between savagery and civilization. But he rejected both the racialist view that all primitive peoples lack the biological capacity to ascend to a civilized state as well as the anti-racist mantra that all human cultures are equally worthy of respect.
Marsden regarded both Maoris and Aborigines as savage peoples but he believed that, given the “wonderful…power of God’s word,” the Maoris had the innate capacity to become a civilized people. He was confident that “[t]he time will come when human sacrifices and cannibalism shall be annihilated in New Zealand by the pure, mild, and heavenly influence of our blessed Lord and Saviour”.670 He was less optimistic about the future of Australian Aborigines. Still, Marsden clearly believed that, over time, the different races of mankind can be reconciled in Christ, thereby allowing even primitive peoples to rise on the scale of civilization. Not surprisingly, the Jewish sensibilities of Franz Boas and his followers were set in permanent opposition to any anthropology premised upon the spiritual sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But, it is only in Christ that people of one race can learn to see through the eyes of the other. Only through the medium of his Holy Spirit can social solidarity be reconciled with truth and logical coherence. Ray Minniecon and the other contributors to Speaking Differently fail to understand that reciprocity is the key to reconciliation. As Frank Salter has argued, recognition by the Australian nation of the Aboriginal peoples will be pointless and damaging to the interests of the Anglo-Australian people unless such recognition is reciprocal.671
To acknowledge the continuing relationship of Aborigines to the land and waters of Australia may be the right thing to do. But the Anglo-Australian nation is also entitled to a “secure sense of homeland”. The “acknowledgement of country” ceremonies commonly performed in schools, public meetings, and parliaments do not recognize that the dominant, Anglo-Australian, ethnic group also identifies itself with and is equally attached to the land and waters of Australia. Such ceremonies “should recognize the pioneers and settlers who opened up the land and over time identified with and bonded to their new homeland”.672 In this and other ways, Australian Aborigines should be encouraged to acknowledge their debt to the particular (British) people and the particular (Christian) faith which gave birth to and sustained the life of the Australian nation, thereby creating a common homeland.
Unfortunately, Minniecon refuses even to respect the work of Christian missionaries such as Samuel Marsden. In his view, they might as well never have existed: “Jesus did not walk off the boat in 1788. He was already here”.673 Moreover, by identifying the freedom of his people with the tribal God of Moses rather than with the unifying power of the Gospel, Minniecon signals his continuing allegiance to an essentially Jewish anthropology. Conversely, by renouncing loyalty to their own ethnic group in favour of membership in the abstraction known as humanity, the white Australian contributors to Speaking Differently make a similar confession of faith in Jewish anthropology. The renewal of Christian anthropology requires that scholars of all races eschew both the false pride of tribal chauvinism and the false humility of ethno-masochism. The pathway to reconciliation in Christ is a two-way street.
Postscript
This essay was my only opportunity in THL245 to tackle the reality of racial differences as a theological problem. Once again, Dr Meyers offered a thoughtful response and some legitimate criticisms:
Well, I thought this would be an interesting paper, and I wasn’t mistaken. I do think that it could have been stronger: you’ve spread yourself thin at some places by trying to fit too much into one paper. The whole Jewish anthropology section is interesting, but never fully integrated into the rest of the paper (this become clear…where you give a sweeping sentence about Minniecon’s allegiance to Jewish anthropology. I’m not denying that this might be a plausible claim; but it’s not a claim that you’ve established in the paper). So personally I would have liked to see you omit the Jewish section and to provide some deeper engagement with the positive contribution of Christian anthropology.
You hint at this in one paragraph — but for an essay in theological anthropology, I would have liked to see at least a few pages devoted to the positive elaboration of Christian anthropology, and how it might inform the discussion of reconciliation in Australia.
Still, in spite of these shortcomings, this was a typically Fraserian no-holds-barred foray into forbidden territory! The dinner conversations in your house must be very interesting…
Anyways, I’ve appreciated your lively engagement with this subject, and I hope you’ve learned something from all my banging on about the church fathers.
Ben
PS Am enjoying The Culture of Narcissism — thanks for the recommendation!
I was pleased to see that Dr Meyers had been reading The Culture of Narcissism. It is also difficult to deny that the essay is perhaps over-ambitious. At the same time, I thought he was being a trifle disingenuous in faulting the paper for its alleged failure to explore the positive work of Christian anthropology in bringing about racial reconciliation in Australia. Dr Meyers begs the question: What is a “Christian anthropology”? My thesis, simply put, is that a book such as Speaking Differently (the source of the quotation from Minniecon setting the parameters for the topic) actually works to erase the practical distinction between a Jewish and a Christian anthropology.
Thorwald Lorenzen makes that point explicitly when he asserts that “[t]he Judeo-Christian tradition provides a clear rationale for the universality of human rights”.674 His concept of universal human rights had its genesis in the fusion of Jewish anthropology with secular humanism. Its effect has been to displace the traditional understanding of God-given rights under Christian law. Such efforts to blur the boundaries between Judaism and Christianity are also a prominent feature of contemporary New Testament scholarship as I discovered in another subject THL303 Judaism and Early Christianity.
3: Flavius Titus Josephus: A Character Study
Biography
Josephus was a bundle of contradictions wrapped in an enigma. The son of a priestly family on both sides, he was born in Jerusalem in AD 37 as Yosef bar Mattathyahu (in Aramaic, or “ben Mattathias” in Hebrew). His life spanned the critical period in the life of the Christian church, from a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ until sometime around AD 100. A highly-educated and well-connected young man, Josephus undertook an important diplomatic mission to Rome when he was twenty-six. By virtue of his ability to make friends in high places, he managed to secu
re the release of several Jewish priests who were imprisoned there.675
Soon afterwards, back home in Judea, Josephus became a reluctant rebel general in the Jewish revolt against Rome, a war that, as he rightly predicted, led to in the destruction of Jerusalem.676 During the war, Josephus was captured by the Romans. Before the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus opened himself to charges of opportunism by “assisting the Romans with translation, interrogation, and negotiation”.677 Indeed, he proved himself so useful and agreeable to the victors that the imperial father and son, Vespasian and Titus, not only conferred Roman citizenship upon him but they brought him back to Rome. There, bearing the name of the imperial Flavian family, he lived in “an apartment in Vespasian’s former mansion on the Quirinal, and [received] an annual pension to underwrite his literary endeavours”.678
Armed with such benefactors, Josephus quickly made a career for himself as an enormously influential court historian. In a series of works which began with his account of The Jewish War, he interpreted the providential significance of Jewish history to ruling circles throughout the Empire. He continued that project with Jewish Antiquities and Against Apion. He also wrote a brief autobiographical Life of Flavius Josephus which dealt mainly with his activities as a general in Galilee before the siege of Jerusalem. The importance of his literary work was recognized widely both by his contemporaries and, especially, by Christian scholars, priests, and ministers during the almost two thousand years since his death.
Dissident Dispatches Page 38
