Talk:Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.

It's not a book, it's a short essay and it was not published in 1751. It was published in 1755. I rather doubt it influenced Darwin either. The link is currently dead. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Social contributions and studies by Benjamin Franklin
Article is almost entirely about only that one specific publication  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We often have articles about a book. In colonial times pamphlets were as important as books. Bernard Bailyn received his first Pulitzer Prize for The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, which is based on his analysis of the pamphlets written before the Revolution. Thus, for the time and place, this essay/pamphlet may be notable. Seeing its influence, and I've come across references often, I'd argue it deserves an article. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of final paragraphs
The article as it now stands emphasizes the final two paragraphs of Franklin's essay. I argue this gives it undue weight. We noted that the essay "... was cited by Adam Smith, David Hume, Samuel Johnson, Richard Price and William Godwin. It influenced Thomas Malthus in An Essay on the Principle of Population and, through Malthus, Charles Darwin." This is clearly a more substantial statement on its historical importance through out history and the world. The fact that Franklin's aversion to non-WASP immigration is something abhorrent to Western mores today is worthy of note but it was merely a footnote that Franklin threw in the end. It wasn't the main topic of his work. The article is about his work; and the modern reaction to a single paragraph shouldn't dominate the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A sensible thing to do would be to expand the treatment of responses to the article including other notable passages. Arided (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * More research is needed but it can't be original research. We have to reflect the secondary sources. I'd appreciate your help if you've read other books that discuss this essay; the article could benefit from a more extensive analysis. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the extended quote?
Jason_from_nyc, in this edit you claim "quote was sufficient". I can't argue with that -- it was a quote, it got me to think, it made me curious, etc. It does what it says on the tin. However is the longer quote (longer by one sentence) somehow superfluous? To my mind the slightly longer quote means something quite different from the shorter one. Specifically, the longer version shows Franklin's personal preference, leaving no doubt that his view was what modern thinkers would call "racist". The shorter quote is, on the other hand, a "racial" remark that is not overtly "racist". Per the "D" in WP:BRD I'd appreciate it if you explain the reason you prefer the truncated variant. Arided (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have quoted this paragraph 3 times, twice as inline quotes in the paragraphs and a third time as a block quote. We made it quite clear that he expressed bias. Adding "I could wish their Numbers were increased" doesn't tell us about the bias. We've already used quotes more than we've used secondary commentary. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Jason_from_nyc: Actually I think one of the inline quotes you're referring to is from paragraph 23, but in any case the rationale you've stated doesn't make it clear to me what is wrong with including one more sentence in the block quote, perhaps adjusting the surrounding text accordingly. It's not as though the ASCII bits are a scarce resource.  Furthermore, since the surrounding text is trying to talk about his bias (whether "universal" or "racist" or whatever) it seems best to try and include as much detail as possible for people to make their own opinion about what that bias is.  If the quote was excessively long, or written in excessively archaic English, I'd understand why it could be cut [or paraphrased] for readability.  But in fact, the paragraph is quite short and readable, and I don't see what would be wrong with including its full text.  Below I'll put in bold the portion of the quote that you're suggesting to use for the block quote: "Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Compexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."  It seems to me that any selection of words from the paragraph is a "selective bias" in its presentation of Franklin's thought.  If we're trying to represent a bias, let's try to faithfully represent his -- not ours.  Arided (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Relying on secondary sources means accepting their editorial selection and emphasis. The whole essay is available online for people to read. We're presenting the judgment of secondary sources, in this case historians, who can discuss this essay in the context of all of Franklin's work and a deep knowledge of the man. Cherry picking one sentence or another leads to our bias. Most historians and biographers don't discuss this essay because prejudice is not a recurring theme in Franklin's work. They don't see him as a racist. I found two major biographers (Woods and Brands) that did approach the topic and I included their commentary. Feagin and Seavey charge Franklin with racism but neither are historians. They don't have the credentials and their inclusion is WP:FRINGE.


 * Carl Van Doren is a major historian who does go into the topic in detail. His award-winning book, however, was written in 1938. The main emphasis of his several page discussion was to address the question of Franklin's bias against Germans. Let's remember that in 1938 there was considerable hostility towards Germans for their role in World War I and for the trends developing in Nazi Germany that will soon bring us into WWII. (In passing I find it ironic that Neo-Nazis would find solace in Franklin's writings.)


 * In summary, we should rely on secondary sources as to which sentences are important and why they are important. The broader question of Franklin's bias towards Germans has to be treated elsewhere as it involves more than this published essay. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Jason_from_nyc: OK, thanks for the further clarification. I understand what you're saying about relying more fully on reputable secondary sources, that makes sense.  I'll keep my eyes out for some of this further commentary.  A quick search on Google Scholar indicates that there's some material there.  It seems to me that in the long term we might dispense with the block quote entirely, if we have enough secondary sources.  For now I won't touch it, but will try to add some further secondary material -- including to other parts of the essay if I have time. Arided (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion in connection with white nationalism and/or white supremacy?
I see for example this claim on Stormfront.org (I'm gonna go ahead and assume that external links to that site are blocked):"I think it's a good idea to reclaim our Founding Fathers from those who've hijacked them to suit their interest. The reality is our founders were closer to White nationalist than Ron Paul or Glenn Beck." Assuming a scholarly source for this sort of claim can be found, it could be interesting to bring the discussion and terminology in here, as distinct from the term "racist". The quote from Franklin that we're discussing in the section above is used on Stormfront to support the claim "Ben Franklin was a White supremacist." Arided (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Followup: Here's one such scholarly quote, not specifically about the passage here, but apparently alluding to the sentiment it expresses. "[Don] Black [founder of Stormfront.org] says that his views on white nationalim and white separatisim, while they are presented as extreme by the mainstream news media, are really little different than the views of Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, who did not believe that an integrated black and white society was possible in America." - Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America (Cambridge University Press, 2003) edited by Carol M. Swain, Russ Nieli, page 154.

Followup: There is a quite thoughtful analysis of the essay, Benjamin Franklin on Demography & Whiteness by Andrew Hamilton on Counter-Currents Publishing, which is allegedly a "pro-white blog site".

Historians vs. Political polemicists
Let me argue that including non-historians, who are often writing for purposes of political advocacy, should not be included. They show little signs of being Franklin experts and often haven't even read his extended works.

1. Joe R. Feagin in "Racist America: roots, current realities, and future reparations" argues that America was and always has been racist and continue to be racist. He is a sociologist who shows no signs of Franklin scholarship. His cherry-picking advances his polemics but is not a source of historical scholarship.

2. Stephen Jay Gould in "American polygeny and craniometry before Darwin" fails to even mention that Franklin's focus was against German immigrants, whom Franklin called non-white. There is no sign that he read the essay nor the "Letter to Peter Collinson" that Franklin wrote in 1753 that details his concern with assimilating Germans. Gould was a well-respected biologist and expert on evolution but he has no expertise in Franklin studies and doesn't seem to have consulted with historians on the issue.

3. John Trimbur is an English teacher, not a historian. His essay "Linguistic Memory and the Politics of U.S. English" is excellent for the study of how English remained a dominant language. Franklin played an important role here but this essay is not about assimilation of Germans. Again, his "Letter to Peter Collinson" addresses that and it would be a fine addition to such a discussion.

While I applaud the many addition, especially concerning Malthus and Darwin, I have to argue against the three above (Feagin isn't new) as they don't rely on a full study of Franklin; they either cherry pick or mention the essay in passing. Let's remove the above three. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Trimbur isn't a polemicist, I think he should be included, particularly since he engages deeply with Franklin's essay from a unique (scholarly) perspective. I see your point on the other ones. Arided (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Trimbur is a scholar. Don't you think he should be quoted on his speciality, which is language and the establishment of English as the American identity? It's not clear he's a Franklin scholar but he has done research in the challenges (or fears) of multilingualism. He could certainly clarify Franklin's worry about German becoming a second if not dominant language. Let's remember that Dutch was once the language of New York but the overwhelming number of English immigrants changed the tongue of what was once New Amsterdam. Do you have a copy of Trimbur's essay; it seems to be behind a subscription wall. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I was using this copy: http://www.joycerain.com/uploads/2/3/2/0/23207256/linguistic_memory_and_politics.pdf Franklin is mentioned on pp. 5, 6, 7, 10.  The quote I had introduced in the article is near top of p. 7.  A bit later on Trimbur relies on
 * Roach, Joseph. Cities of the Dead: Circum-Atlantic Performance. New York: Columbia UP, 1996.
 * to help theorise the race-related stuff. Personally I think the combination of linguistic and racial identity that's going on here is an interesting one, and Trimbur seems to make very thoughtful points here.  I see some related points in "Indians and Colonists at the Crossroads of Empire: The Albany Congress of 1754" (p. 100).  Arided (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

An interesting essay in which the Trimbur tries to tie language and race based on these two paragraphs that Franklin promptly removed. He sees Franklin as arguing for the English language based on first arrival but augments this linguistic divide between Germans and English by a racial difference that removes even the Germans from the category of being white. As the author admits, these are “categories of his own invention” artificially constructed to give the English a special place and priority. Let’s remember that the whole purpose of Franklin’s essay is to argue on multiple grounds that England should devote more resources and help people the colonies. At this point he is a loyal subject of the crown.

The author doesn't show signs of reading more than two paragraphs of Franklin. In Franklin's letter to “Letter to Peter Collinson” (May 9, 1753) he praises Germans for possessing the virtues of “industry and frugality” and says that they “are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.” Still he finds their manners wanting; and creating a bi-lingual realm makes it hard for a civic order. Here he says “I am not for refusing entirely to admit them into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools … “ His main concern is for assimilation. His artificial racial “categories of his own invention” appear no where else including private letters. This suggests that language and culture is really his main concern as it is a recurring theme.

Here’s what I suggest. Let’s accept Trimbur’s contribution but highlight his specialty, language, which also seems to be Franklin’s primary concern. Let’s say: Trimbur finds that Franklin’s main concern over the growth of unassimilated Germans is the threat to English culture and language, becomes racial when Franklin concocts “categories of his own invention” to deny that Germans are whites. Or something like that. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And we can delete Franklin favored immigration of Anglo-Saxons, who he identifies as the only "White People" among the various peoples of the world. since we don't have to say it twice. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Jason from nyc, this seems excellent to me. Note: I agree that we shouldn't repeat, however I've deleted the block quote from Franklin, preferring the sentence you suggested to delete.  At this point I think there are enough secondary sources that we don't need the block quote. The narrative flow is well-sourced and seems to work better without the original quotes.  I hope this is satisfactory.  Thanks for the discussion! Arided (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)