The halls of the Historisches Kolleg in Munich, which – ironically – used to be the residence of Gauleiter Adolf Wagner, saw a workshop take place that debated the complex relationship between two concepts that lie at the heart of not only NS-ideology, but many societal phenomena. Situated in the field of historical human-animal relations, the scholars discussed the potential interconnectedness of (non-human) breed and (human) race. On a purely lexical level, the shared terminology almost inevitably insinuates a strong correlation, however, the speakers problematized the relationship and offered more nuanced insights that serve to remind us once again to avoid premature conclusions.

As a scholar of human-animal history in the Third Reich, the workshop’s initiator MIEKE ROSCHER (Kassel/Munich) introduced thematical overlaps in the context of national-socialist practices and ideology revolving around race. Not only did the Nazis charge animal breeds such as the German shepherd dog symbolically as superior, but they also constructed a German identity partly based on animal attributes that were deemed as favorable. Regarding material practices, Roscher contextualized the culling of pet animals that lived in Jewish families as an indicator for the transgressive nature of the race category. By transferring the concept of human race on to animals, the extermination fantasies of NS-ideology crossed the species boundary and targeted non-humans as well as their human counterparts alike.

Naturally, before engaging in a substantial discussion of any topic, the participants needed to define the concepts that were the objects of their deliberations. BERT THEUNISSEN (Utrecht) opened the conference with a fundamental discussion of the relationship between breeding and eugenics, in which he briefly outlined and ultimately rejected three potential relationships – a causal relationship, a parallel, and a co-construction. The Dutch development of breeding exemplified the intricate nature of the concept of breed, which the speaker ultimately attempted to define as “boundary object”. This definition was to be discussed during the conference, however, in the ensuing discussion, critical questions about why and when breeding functions as a boundary object caused the concept to falter, and only one later contribution loosely referenced it again.

A conceptual history contextualized the lexical connections between breeding and racism, which seem obvious from today's perspective. JADON NISLY-GORETZKI (Kassel) argued in his contribution that the concept of breed was already older than previously thought, but that the imprecise terminology blurred the already more strongly framed and established idea of a breed. In the German-speaking world, various terms had been used since the 16th century, but more intensively since the 18th century, to distinguish one group of animals from another. Strikingly, contrary to later race and breeding theories, only externally recognizable characteristics defined breed, with blood playing no role in these early concepts.

In general, many contributions centered the externally recognizable physiology of both animals and humans, especially in the context of the standardization and awarding of breeds. ULRIKE HEITHOLT (Kassel) showed how the German Agricultural Society set itself the task of measuring various animal bodies assigned to a breed and awarding prizes to the best specimens at agricultural shows. The urge for standardization and differentiation led to an almost unmanageable number of measuring procedures that attempted to classify the external appearance of animals in a variety of ways. By holding competitions, the society wanted to incentivize breeders to reinforce the ideal they themselves had created.

The measurement of bodies was a standard tool of both racial anthropologists and physiologists – a distinction that could not always be made, as there existed personal overlaps and transfers of knowledge between human and animal objects of study. In particular, the analysis of human and non-human skulls in the field of phrenology became the preferred method for gaining insights into the development of animal breeds and human races in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the search for an indigenous Alpine people, the anthropologists combined assumed lines of development in the prehistoric African-European migration of humans and animals in order to find a measurable evolutionary simultaneity, as SOPHIE KÜSTERLING (Brig) and CHRISTINA SPÄTI (Brig) convincingly demonstrated. Although the attending scholars had agreed at the beginning that racism and breedism did not form a smooth parallel in their overall conception, clear parallels could be identified in sub-areas such as measurement methodology.

The famous eugenicist Karl Pearson also relied on phrenology in his experiments with dogs, which related to his ideas on racial hygiene. Like the Swiss anthropologists who wanted to examine Alpine evolutionary processes, Pearson combined his phrenological studies on dogs with the analysis of human skulls. With the results of his investigations, Pearson exemplified the growing overlap between race studies and animal biology at the beginning of the 20th century. TOM QUICK (Maastricht) further linked these overlaps to imperial ways of thinking that significantly influenced the work of Pearson and other physiological anthropologists and eugenicists. The emphasis on animal breeders as experts in racial theory or the animal experiments carried out by eugenicists demonstrated the interaction between (colonial) racist thinking, experiments and theories of animal breeding, and eugenic conceptions. Besides this analysis, the presenter made a case for scientific freedom, by showing a condescending dismissal of his article on the links between race and animal breeding, which amounted to an attempt to silence any gain in knowledge about potential parallels.

The British Empire did not hold the monopoly on linking their imperial and colonial racist worldview with aspects of animal breeding. Despite the hegemonic discourse of White superiority, farmers in the colony of German South-West Africa had to utilize both indigenous practices and animals to succeed in animal breeding. In the colonial discourse, positive characteristics were attributed to the German people and “German” breeds, crossing the species barrier. Humans thus shaped the animal body not only purely physiologically, but also symbolically. In doing so, the colonial narratives of the Germans' civilizing mission disregarded the actual events on the ground, which were rather shaped by indigenous influence, as DENNIS YAZICI (Passau) pointed out. The practice of cross-breeding with indigenous breeds made it possible in the first place for the “German” cattle to actually achieve characteristics such as resilience, with which they were charged semiotically.

Later Italian Fascist colonialism in East Africa also involved discourses and practices around race and animal breeding, even if a stronger policy of self-sufficiency was dominant due to the fascist drive for autonomy. The nationalist goals of fascist Italy transformed both East African land and animals into objects of various agricultural experiments aimed at maximum yield. Thus, MATILDE CASSANO (Milan) was able to prove that, from a fascist point of view, the entire colonial empire was only intended to serve the “pure” Italian people. This degradation affected indigenous animals and people as well as the country itself. Once again, a colonial-racist discourse dominated and determined the local practices of subjugation, which were justified with a narrative of superiority.

Thematically related, two further contributions discussed the long-term consequences of colonial structures and how they shape human societies, including the animals living in them. For example, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 sometimes also affected animals that were associated with them. Influencing factors from German and later Belgian colonialism shaped and favored the genocide, which occurred over 100 years later. In the context of colonialism, local cattle played a role that can hardly be overestimated, both as a livelihood and as a commodity. The obsession of colonial authorities with the size of Rwandan people and animals was inscribed in the reality of the genocide, as ANNE D. PEITER (La Réunion) demonstrated. To bring them closer to their own body size, the Hutu cut off both the Tutsi’s and their cattle’s legs, drastically affecting human and non-human bodies, driven by the effects of the colonial legacy.

In her keynote speech, SANDRA SWART (Stellenbosch) captivatingly demonstrated that human-animal relationships, which originated in the colonial context, can have a lasting effect on parts of (post-)colonial societies. Up until the 1950s, the South African Police had established the practice of using dogs as a policing tool, however, laws stipulated the dogs were only to be used as sniffer dogs, not as live weapons. The judges enforced this rule strictly, and pronounced clear sentences in cases where the dogs did attack humans. Due to the influence of the European use of attack dogs, a paradigm shift occurred in South Africa, according to which the police trained German shepherd dogs in attacks. In the apartheid state, the police attacked Black sections of the population in particular, and thus turned the dogs into henchmen of racialized violence, as a result of which the Black community still has a divided relationship with dogs to this day. As in the case of the Rwandan cattle, acts of violence, whose motivation can only be explained by the colonial background, were ultimately also directed against the dogs. The colonial legacy therefore not only affected different ethnic groups, but also always had an impact across species boundaries.

Historical human-animal relations not only influenced global structures such as colonialism and imperialism, but also achieved far-reaching significance on a local level. CHRISTINA MAY (Halle an der Saale), for example, showed that the predominant breed of cattle in the German Harz Mountain Region strongly influenced the region’s culture. Although environmental influences, political system changes, and economic interests sometimes drastically altered the physical appearance of the breeds, the animals continued to form a pillar in regional rites and folklore. Effectively, cultural narratives took up their physical changes and incorporated them into regional customs to create a cultural heritage.

The tension between supposedly authentic tradition and potentially disruptive new influences also shaped the conservation history of the Przewalski's horse, as MONICA VASILE (Maastricht) convincingly demonstrated. Researchers first described the breed in the 1880s, when only a few specimens still existed, and deduced that conversation efforts were due. Ironically, to preserve the authentic, natural breed, the breeders crossed the Przewalski horse with other, more “primitive” breeds, which they selected on the basis of phenotype. Therefore, once again, the breeders first had to determine the characteristics that supposedly formed the original shape of the breed in order to be able to base their selection on them.

In their entirety, the papers presented revealed the interconnectedness of breedism, breed, and race with the categories of state, colonialism, gender, reproduction, and elitism to varying degrees, even if they did not always formulate these in concrete terms. In his concluding comments, GABRIEL ROSENBERG (Durham, NC) problematized the relationship between breeds and breedism, and challenged the concept of racism underlying all comparisons and parallels, which the speakers mostly did not clearly outline and define. He situated his critique and further thoughts in a framework based on Foucault's concept of bio-power, which he underpinned with post-colonial, race-theoretical, and animal-historical insights. The state and underlying biopolitical institutions, especially in the colonial context, promoted a racism based on the profit-oriented use of non-human life. Such complex power relations favored the establishment of breeds that never existed as a universal concept, but were actively created by historical actors in a cultural context in order to assert their own interests. This circumstance was powerful enough to weaken supposedly established categories – a breedism without breeds is currently growing, which relies on gene modification measures and restricts the reproductive work of an animal population to just a few individuals.

Overall, the papers presented demonstrated the historical transformability of the category of breed in a wide variety of interwoven contexts. Different concepts of breed and breedism thus repeatedly encountered historically situated racisms and formed context-dependent points of contact, without the two concepts necessarily having to be mutually dependent. Although lexical and partly personal overlaps suggested a close connection in the emergence and development of breedism and racism, each point of contact must be examined and classified according to its individual historical context. Just as unique backgrounds and characteristics define the individual animal of a breed, the unique historical situation determines the relationship of breedism and racism.

Conference overview:

Mieke Roscher (Munich/Kassel): Welcome and Introduction

Section I: Eugenics and Breeding: Hereditary Discourses

Chair: Mieke Roscher (Munich/Kassel)

Bert Theunissen (Utrecht): Livestock Breeding, Eugenics, and Racism: Birds of a Feather?

Tom Quick (Maastricht): Karl Pearson and the Making of a “New Race” at the Start of the Twentieth Century

Keynote. Chair: Christof Mauch (Munich)

Sandra Swart (Stellenbosch): The Dogs of Apartheid: Race, Breed, and Power

Section II: Finding Origins: Nationalizing Breeding

Chair: Daniel Rosenberg (Durham, NC)

Sophie Küsterling/Christina Späti, (Brig): Of Cattle and Men: The Search for Racial Origin in 19th Century Switzerland and Austria

Jadon Nisly-Goretzki (Kassel): Degenerated Strains of Peasants and Cattle: Breeding Practices and Enlightenment Thought in Farm Account Books ca. 1750-1850

Ulrike Heitholt (Kassel): “Rasse” and German Cattle Breeding in the 19th Century

Section III: Breeding Racism: Colonial Legacies of Breeding

Chair: Sandra Swart (Stellenbosch)

Dennis Yazici (Passau): Between “Raceless” Cattle and “Pedigree Herds”. The Entanglement of Cattle Breeding and Racism in Colonial Namibia (1890-1925)

Matilde Cassano (Milan/Italy): Taming Eastern Africa. Farming and Breeding during the Italian Colonization.

Anne D. Peiter (La Réunion): Made Big / Made Small. On the History of Cattle Breeding and Racism in the Context of the Genocide against the Tutsis of Rwanda

Section IV: Spatializing Breed: Hybridizations

Chair: Bert Theunissen (Utrecht)

Christina May (Halle a. d. Saale): The Universal Cattle – Concepts of Body and Landscape in the Breeding of Harz Red Cattle

Monica Vasile (Maastricht): Breeding the Przewalski’s Horse: Hybridization, Wildness, and Genetic Diversity in the History of a Zoo-based Endangered Species

Gabriel Rosenberg (Durham, NC): Closing Comments