Effects Of Leibniz On Race

For the purpose of this paper, I will first discuss Leibniz’s view on race. I will then discuss why I think his views of enslavement of the unbaptized contradict his belief in the chain of succession. Following that, I will also discuss why I think his views also contradict his belief that all humans share the same reason and understanding.

Prior to the 17th century there was no word for race, instead, words like genus and natio were used as substitutes. Bernier was the first to use the term race in the modern context. He used it to explain that physical traits are rigidly correlated with races and that races correlate with regions. Leibniz believed that race can be defined as a group that tends to reproduce together. Leibniz also

This is the belief that all things emanate from God and God began this chain. The chain is a series of interlinked pieces and are all, in essence, the same. This is the progression of kindhood in that parents have children to continue the chain and then the children will continue the chain as well. In this chain it is not a continuum, instead, it consists of individuated entities. Leibniz further argues that there are three ontological domains mathematical, physical, and plants and animals. This, therefore, means that Leibniz is not a nominalist, which is to deny the existence of universals and abstract objects because he is committed to the unity of links in a generational series ensured by shared kindhood of all members. This leads into Leibniz’s belief that there is a plentitude of chains and there is no hierarchical succession of chains. Except in cases of mathematics or different entities they are stacked vertically but as for the same entity, they are all stacked horizontally. This, therefore, means that there is no possibility of racial inequality in the chains, but rather, that there is an identical essence transmitted from link to link. For Leibniz, what makes a creature human is not that it shows signs of humanity, but is possession of reason or understanding. Leibniz believed that if something possessed reason then they were a part of the generational chain that extends back to the

This argument is suspect. At that time those that were of European descent were more likely to have been baptized. While those of African descent were not. If his decision that those that have not been baptized can be enslaved without any moral concern, then it would naturally follow that those of African descent are more likely to be enslaved. This, of course, does present an issue with his argument that it is not based on race because a certain race will be inherently predisposed to becoming enslaved. Furthermore, to claim that enslavement has nothing to do with race would also be to ignore a section of his writing. Leibniz wrote, “To this end Ethiopians, Nigritians, Angolans, Caribbeans, Canadians, and Hurons fit the bill, without discrimination. What a lovely bunch of semi-beasts!” He does not classify these people exclusively on baptism or language, but rather, their place of origin, which in turn would be to classify them by their physical capabilities and skin