Hume's Revised Racism

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4456956
AutoresJohn Immerwahr (autor de correspondencia)
Año1992
Volumen53
Número3
Páginas481
Fecha de publicación1992-07-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of the History of Ideas (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0022-5037 • E-ISSN: 1086-3222
EditorialJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2709889
OpenAlexW2313539732
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas28

While Hume is generally known as an enemy of prejudice and intolerance, he is also infamous as a proponent of philosophical racism. This reputation is based on a footnote which was widely quoted by racists and defenders of slavery. Although this footnote is frequently discussed by modem scholars as well, it is not generally known that Hume revised the note for the final and authoritative edition of his works. This revision, which was mistakenly omitted from an important edition of Hume's works, makes a difference to our understanding of Hume's racism. Basing his interpretation only on the early version of the note, for example, Richard Popkin has accused Hume of holding an especially virulent strain of racism. Popkin also, at least in his original study of Hume's racism, believed that Hume's views may have been a casual aberration rather than a considered judgment. 1 An analysis of the revisions suggests that Hume did not, in fact, adopt the most extreme form of racism. The revisions show, however, that Hume's racism was a considered and deliberate position, rather than an offhand remark. Looking at the changes in Hume's thoughts about race also gives us a new insight into Hume's relationship to James Beattie. Although Beattie was regarded by Hume as a bigotted silly Fellow, the revisions appear to be a response to some of Beattie's criticisms.2 At least on this subject Hume took Beattie quite seriously, and ironically it was Hume who was the bigot, not Beattie

Racism · Theology · Indian History and Philosophy · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism · Postcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies