Yet often it was his own stubborn and uncompromising nature that defined his life – his choices paint a picture of a man who was unable to heed the words of others. This undendinly antagonistic nature cost him friends, honours and ultimately put him into the dark role of colonialist.

He was "stubborn and uncompromising", which makes him "antagonistic", therefore a colonialist and racist. That's a pretty low bar. I don't think it makes sense to define racism in a way that makes all 19th century naturalists racist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You could have also picked the dude that desecrated indigenous graves to do phrenology.

Edit: Jesus Christ you left out that this dude was a literal colonizer in New Zealand. He was an officer in a militia during the New Zealand Wars.

He was also a committee member of The New Zealand Company, which existed to systemically colonize New Zealand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_John_Swainson#New_Zealand_estate

So maybe it is slightly misleading to say he was labeled racist for being “antagonistic”??

[–] infinitepcg 2 points 1 year ago

Admittedly, I only checked this one article. I think it's hard to judge how evil he really was. Either way, not a hill I'm going to die on.