Is the Negro a Beast? A Reply to Chas. Carroll's Book Entitled "The Negro a Beast" Proving that the Negro is Human from Biblical, Scientific, and Historical Standpoints
Reviewed date: 2024 Sep 5
238 pages
Schell's 1901 book is a response to a racist book published a year earlier wherein Charles Carroll argued that only pure-blooded whites are men, and everyone else is a mere beast created by God to serve mankind. Carroll's book advances a wicked idea and dresses it up with twisted history, twisted science, and twisted Scripture. Schell's book eviscerates Carroll's lies.
I am sure that my time reading Carroll's racist book and Schell's rebuttal was not well-spent. But when I get a stupid idea in my head (like reading a woke anti-racist book from 1901) I have to run it down to completion. So here it is.
I didn't take detailed notes, so the following are summary thoughts and unorganized notes.
Soul vs spirit
Schell draws a distinction between soul (which animals possess) and spirit (which only humans possess). I don’t agree with the distinction, but I take his point that whatever it is that God imbued humans with, the animals don’t have it. And apparently there is a distinction in Greek (see Hebrews 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:23).
And hey! Schell is talking about Hebrew and Greek, which is something Carroll never did. Did Carroll even know Hebrew or Greek? There’s no evidence in his book to suggest that he did.
According to Schell, animals have mortal bodies, mortal minds, and mortal souls. Humans have mortal bodies, but due to the infusion of a spirit, humans have immortal minds and immortal souls.
Schell points to belief in an afterlife and the worshiping of a higher power as evidence of an immortal mind, which consequently means an immortal soul, and thus is a human being. Even the remotest, most isolated and primitive tribes in Africa believe in an afterlife and worship gods, and thus they are human.
Argument from moral conscience
Schell makes a moral argument, that it is man’s conscience which prompts him to act morally, unlike Carroll’s claim that morality is a product of the mind. Schell rightly points out that animals have no moral intuition. “The Negro possesses the moral faculty the same as the Caucasian” and is thus clearly a man.
Just read the Bible: beast means wild animal
This is the best part of the book. Schell digs into the Bible and uses its plain meaning, which anybody can see, to display the sheer brazen lie of Carroll's claims. Schell eviscerates Carroll’s claim that the word “beast” in the Bible refers to the Negro. Simply looking at the actual Hebrew word, and the Greek translation of that word in the Septuagint, puts to rest Carroll’s lie. The word means literally a beast, a wild animal. Schell points out many references to “beast” in the Bible that can only possibly mean animal, so Carroll’s cherry-picked examples are shown to be worthless. Just reading the Bible plainly—even with no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek—is enough to sink Carroll’s claims. Indeed, Schell mainly just quotes Carroll’s examples, then reads ahead a few more verses to show how Carroll’s interpretation is ridiculous on its face.
Natural variation, not amalgamation
Carroll had argued that the various colored races of mankind (Malay, Mongolian, and Indian) were the product of mixed-blood descendents of white-Negro pairings, which he called amalgamation. (Side note: was this a common term in 1900?) Schell disagrees, pointing out a number of problems with Carroll's idea. Instead, Schell suggests that natural variation is the cause. While Schell is undoubtedly right, he spent quite a bit of time veering off into Larmarckian evolution (although he doesn't use that term). That's the idea that acquired traits can be passed to one's children. He also claims that a woman's actions and ruminations (mere thoughts!) can imprint characteristics upon the child in her womb, and mentions that he's seen it happen. So, there's that.
Ham
Schell also spends quite a bit of time arguing that dark-skinned people are the descendants of Ham. He looks at biblical, archaeological, and historical evidence to make the case. Fortunately Schell doesn't claim this is due to a curse, or that there is anything inherently inferior or problematic about dark skin. This theory of Hamitic origin directly refutes Carroll's claim that God created negroes in the garden of Eden. And while I disagree with Carroll, Schell's biblical linguistic evidence (and his other evidence) seems remarkably thin.
Civilizations
Schell points out that Carroll is lying when he claims no non-white civilization ever existed. There is ample evidence in the historical and archaeological record, which Schell provides.
The Gospel
I was heartened to see that Schell addressed Carroll's false gospel. According to Carroll, the gospel we should be preaching is the Plan of Creation: that God created man, created beasts (the Negros) to serve him, and charged man with ruling over the beasts and extending his dominion over the whole earth. Man failed to do that, instead amalgamating and filling the earth with mixed-blood offspring. So God wiped them out in a flood and started over. Unfortunately, Noah's descendents went right back to amalgamating and once again filled the earth with mixed-blood offspring. God had promised not to wipe mankind out in another flood, so he picked Abraham and started a nation who would heed his commands. They strayed into amalgamation, so God sent prophets to warn them, but the people didn't listen. Finally God sent his son Jesus to preach against the sin of amalgamation, but they killed him. Jesus's mission was a failure: the Christian religion that Jesus started soon descended into the same error, preaching that the negro was a man. The proper way forward for the human race depends upon 1) murdering outright every mixed-blood creature, 2) properly treating the negroes as beasts whose purpose is to labor for the pure-blooded Adamic man (that is, white men), and 3) extending dominion over the whole earth. Once that dominion spreads over all the earth, that will usher in the new millennial reign.
That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Schell points this out, and presents the true gospel. That we are sinners, that we broke God's law and are under judgment, that Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sin, and that if we repent of our sins and put our trust in Jesus that we will be born again and be forgiven for the sins we have committed. When we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit we will be "fully restored to God's image of righteousness and true holiness." (In classic Church of God understanding, Schell presents this baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, separate and distinct from the salvation which comes when we repent and believe.)
Overall thoughts
I'm relatively impressed with Schell's work here. He has grounded his case in Scripture, and it's a sound case. The parts that he grounded in history, archaeology, and science are good too, but limited by the understanding of the time. (This was published in 1901.) Finally, I see in Schell's words a true love for his fellow man, meaning every human being. That fruit of the spirit is absent entirely in Carroll's work.