Aaron Moore
12 Feb. 2007

The Negro Question

Thomas Carlyle

In his speech, "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Questions," it appears to me that Carlyle is not so much proposing a line of action than attempting to mold the minds of his audience. He is a propagandist. He is dealing in symbols and rhetoric. With this in mind, here is a summary of his speech:

He begins by asserting that now that they are emancipated, the Jamaican blacks are lazing around and doing literally nothing but gorging themselves on pumpkins, while the sugar crops rot. He paints a picture of utter absurdity, in which everything going to waste: the white men's lives, the black man's able labor, and the valuable crops. He sees it as a well-working, beneficial machine in pieces simply because people have for some reason decided to take it apart. He suggests that it is so absurd because if someone only put the pieces together it would be working again. He further suggests that God himself desires for productivity from the land and the black man, and that this would lead to a nobler West Indies.

In terms of practical thoughts on the matter, he argues that the black man has no right to the West Indies, and that it is only through the white man's genius that he is able to laze away in Jamaica, and that the island was cultivated through the blood of English noblemen.

Here are some descriptions which caught my immediate interest: "Our beautiful Black darlings," "those excellent horse-jaws of theirs," "beautiful muzzles up to the ears in pumpkins," "indolent two-legged cattle." It is obvious that Carlyle is describing blacks in very animalistic terms, encouraging the notion that blacks are not worthy of human rights. His flagrant racism is rather shocking to one of my cultural background, which is why it jumped out at me more than anything else.

After filtering through the language and attitude of the speech I asked myself to what end his advice pointed. First of all, to explain why his advice is right, he claims the support of God. This seems to me a thin cloth covering his real motive, self-interest. He wants the product of the black slavery machine. Perhaps he also identifies with the rest of his race and feels superiority over the freed blacks and shame at the idea of equality. In this he would wish to protect his racial pride.

His argument, which takes as its evidence doubtful facts and the supposed favor of God, falls flat due to it's total lack of substantial support.

John Stuart Mill

In response to the published speech by Thomas Carlyle, Mill produced a very reasoned and strait-forward counter-response. He was a philosopher and it shows in his writing. Here is a summary of his article:

First Mill counters the assumed facts of Carlyle's speech by providing solid evidence that suggests otherwise. The sugar market statistics show that the blacks are not lazy like Carlyle thinks, for example. Then Mill proceeds to explain the motivation for the emancipation, not sentimentality, but rather morality. Finally Mill refutes the value of work for works sake, which is the sum of Carlyle's substantial argument.

By contrast, Mill was a breath of fresh air. His carefully reasoned and objective article meshed much better with a post-civil-rights-movement mind. Carlyle was airy, full of redundancy and flourishes of language. Mill was packed with content.

As support Mill brings facts with sources cited. Further, he draws support from general conceptions of morality and religion. Also, since his goal is to demolish the argument of his opponent, his strategies in this are also a source of support. When he challenges Carlyle to come up with a definition of work that would serve for philosophical analysis of intrinsic worth he finds nothing suitable. This acts to jam a wedge into Carlyle's argument. Mill finishes with what he does best, philosophical inquiry. He builds an argument against Carlyle based purely on philosophical principles.

I would inevitably side with the anti-racist in this argument. However, when I stand back and look at the discussion objectively, Mill has created the more solidly defended point. Carlyle was certainly more colorful, though.