The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Race, polygenesis and equality: John Crawfurd and nineteenth-century resistance to evolution
Abstract
SUMMARYThe nineteenth-century Orientalist and ethnologist, John Crawfurd, publicly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in 1868. Crawfurd was a leading advocate of polygenesis but also a supporter of racial equality. In 1820 he published his History of the Indian Archipelago, where he advocated granting household suffrage to all races in the British colonies. After finishing a career in the East India Company in 1828 he became the foremost expert on South-East Asia in Britain. Crawfurd became a regular writer on ethnology and Asian affairs for the Examiner newspaper and in the 1860s he was President of the Ethnological Society of London. Accounts of nineteenth-century anthropology in Britain characterise debate around race as falling into two camps: advocates of monogenesis and advocates of polygenesis. In the United States of America, advocates of polygenesis were often associated with advocates of slavery and racial inequality. Recent research has demonstrated that Charles Darwin’s hatred of slavery drove him to write Origin of the Species to demonstrate the unity of the human species and reject the polygenesis position. This paper explores Crawfurd’s ideas and demonstrates that a belief in polygenesis in the nineteenth century did not necessarily equate with a belief in racial inequality.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“From the 1830s onwards, many British people were attracted to the theory of polygenesis, which rejected the Biblical teaching that all humans were descended from a single couple and instead taught that each of the five races of man had evolved separately from primates (Knapman 2016).”
From Historicizing Modern Slavery: Free-Grown Sugar as an Ethics-Driven Market Category in Nineteenth-Century Britain (2020) · cites this paper as Knapman 2016
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smith, A., & Johns, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04318-1 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Knapman, G.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Knapman, Gareth
- ORCID
- Knapman, Gareth
- Venue
- History of European Ideas
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-05-18
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 909-923
- ISSN
- 0191-6599 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-541X
- OpenAlex
- W2394665966
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 13 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- History of European Ideas (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History of Science and Natural History
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Influence
- Keywords
- John Crawfurd, polygenesis, monogenesis, racial equality, Charles Darwin, anti-evolutionism, Orientalism, ethnology, British colonial rule, Southeast Asia, slavery, 19th-century anthropology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review