Scientific Racism Again

"Scientific" Racism Again?
Author(s): Juan Comas

Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1961), pp. 303-340
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2739858
Accessed: 05-06-2015 21:41 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.76 on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 21:41:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RacismAgain?
tScientific"
byJuanComas
INTRODUCTION
"MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" has been, throughthe ages, sufficientjustificationfor territorialconquest, economic
exploitation, and the enslavementof some human
groups by others. In time, however, "might makes
right"ceased to be acceptable,and it was necessaryfor
dominant groups to develop other argumentswhich
would permitthem,with a semblanceof moralityand
even of justice, to continue their socio-economiccontrolof greatregionsof the world. If the people dominated could be shownto be physicallyand mentallyinferiorto the rulinggroup,theircontrolby a "superior
race" could be regarded as fittingand logical; hence
racism,devotedto collectingdata
theriseof "scientific"
biology,and psychologyto support
fromanthropology,
theoriesof "superior"and "inferior"races.
Systematicdevelopmentof such a doctrine began
with Gobineau (1853), and in the second half of the
19thcenturytherefolloweda constellationof racists,
headed by Otto Ammon, H. Stewart Chamberlain,
Ludwig Woltmann,Vacher de Lapouge, Carl Penka,
Theodor Posche,Isaac Taylor, etc.'
But this doctrinebecame as dangerousas it was er-
1An excellent critical summaryof this period may be found in

Hankins (1926).
is full-timeResearch Professorof Anthropology

at the National Universityof Mexico. Born in 1900, he was
educated at the Escuela de Estudios Superiores del Magisterio,Madrid (Prof.,1921),and the Universityof Geneva (Ph.D.,
1939). The author and editor of many works on physical anthropology,psychological testing,and applied social anthropology, he has made importantcontributionsto professional
anthropologicalactivitiesin Latin America.
The present article, submitted to CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
on November 15, 1960,in Spanish, was translatedinto English
and sent for CA* treatmentto 50 scholars,including the signers of the 1951 UNESCO Statementon Race, and membersof
the editorial and advisoryboards of The Mankind Quarterly.
Commentswere received fromR. A. M. Bergman,Kaj BirketSmith,Petet Boev, Victot Bunak, Th. Dobzhansky,A. P1.Elkin,
Alexander Galloway, Henry E. Garrett,R. Ruggles Gates, R.
Gayre, Gutorm Gjessing,J. B. S. Haldane, Sir Julian Huxley,
Ashley Montagu, H. Nachtsheim, Clarence P. Oliver, S. D.
Porteus, Milan F. Pospifil, B. gkerlj,A. Thoma, and A. Wiercin'ski.These are printedin full afterthe author's text and are
followed by a reply fromthe author.
CA* treatmentof this article was complicated by a number
of omissionsand incorrectly-rendered
passages in its firsttranslation into English. Fortunately,Comas' original Spanish text,
without changes, is available in America Indigena, vol. 21,
No. 2, April 1961.
JUAN COMAS
roneous during the quarter-century

(1920-1945) that
began afterWorld War I and ended with the close of
World War II. Prejudice,discrimination,and a belief
in racial stereotypes
spread and acquired powerfulsupport in workswrittenforthe purpose,as well as monographswhich were interpretedand used in a spiritof
racial discrimination."Aryanism" or "Nordicism,"
color prejudice (especiallyagainst Negroes),prejudice
againstrace mixture,anti-Semitism-allthesewere the
themesof an extensiveliterature.Some of those who
were mostrepresentative
of this period and viewpoint
wereE. M. East and D. F. Jones,R. R. Gates,H. Gauch,
H. F. K. Gunther,H. L. Gordon,Madison Grant,N. H.
Hall, J.A. Mjoen, F. J. Oliveira Vianna, A. Posnansky,
Charles Richet,and Lothrop Stoddard.2
Opposed to thisactiveminorityof "scientific"racists,
therehave been many anthropologists,
biologists,psychologists,and geneticistswho were clearlyanti-racist,
and who published argumentsto neutralizethe perniofracial discrimination
cious effects
fosteredby pseudoscientific
anthropology.Among themwere: F. Boas, R.
Benedict, W. M. Cobb, Gunnar Dahlberg, Th. Dobzhansky,L. C. Dunn, M. J.Herskovits,E. A. Hooton,
J.Huxley, 0. Klineberg,J.H. F. Kohlbrugge,W. M.
Krogman,L. S. B. Leakey,A. Lipschutz,H. Lundborg,
M. F. Ashley Montagu, G. M. Morant, H. Neuville,
FernandoOrtiz,E. Patte,ArthurRamos, H. L. Shapiro,
T. D. Stewart,and H. V. Vallois. In theirworksmany
solid argumentswere adduced to prove the erroneousnessof "scientific"
racism.To all outwardappearances,
theirviewsweretacitlyor even openlyaccepted,particularly with the downfallof Nazism and Fascism,the
socio-politicalmovementsinstigatingand fomenting
racial discrimination.
In the ideological field,thisvictorywas expressedin
Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, approved and solemnly proclaimed by the
United Nations on December 10, 1948:
is entitled
Everyone
toall therights
settorth
andifreedoms
in thisDeclaration,
without
distinction
of anykind,suchas
race,colour,sex,language,religion,politicalor otheropinion,nationalor socialorigin,property,
birthor otherstatus.
2We did not attempt to compile a complete bibliography of
publications between 1920 and 1945 which deal with the pros and
cons of "scientific"racism,but cite only those authors and works
we consider most relevant. The co-operationof colleagues would
render it possible to make a complete inventory.
Vol. 2 No. 4 - October 1961
303
A numberofstepshave been takenby theUN and its

specializedagencies to implementthisDeclaration. At
its Sixth Session, the Economic and Social Council
askedUNESCO
cation or rejectionof the scientificconceptsexpressed

in the Statementmust be based on new factsand observationsin the fieldsof genetics,anthropology,or
psychology,
whichwereunknownin 1951.It should be
thatthisdocumentwas not issuedby an inemphasized
to considerthedesirability
of initiating
and recommending
thegeneraladoptionofa programme
ofdisseminating
scien- ternationalbureaucraticcommittee,but by the following scientistsof unquestionedauthorityin theirrespectificfacts,designedto removewhatis generallyknownas
tive disciplines:R. A. M. Bergman,G. Dahlberg,Th.
racialprejudice.
Dobzhansky,L. C. Dunn, J. B. S. Haldane, J. Huxley,
In response,the Fourth Session of UNESCO's GenF. M. AshleyMontagu,A. E. Mourant,H. Nachtsheim,
eral Conferenceadopted the followingresolutionsfor E. Schreider,H. L. Shapiro,J. C. Trevor,H. V. Vallois
the 1950programme:
and S. Zuckerman.3
Furthermore,the statementwas examined and disTo studyand collect
The DirectorGeneralis instructed:
ofrace;togivewide cussed at a special session under the chairmanshipof
scientific
materials
concerning
questions
information
to thescientific
diffusion
collected;to prepare E. von Eickstedtduringthe FourthInternationalConan educationalcampaignbasedon thisinformation.
gress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences
(Vienna, 1952), which adopted the followingresoluThis programwas followed.Aftermanymeetingsand
tion:4
a fullinterchangeof ideas, a groupof 14 distinguished
and geneticistsunanimouslyadopted in
anthropologists
3The text of the Statement on Race has been published, although not as widely as could be wished. It is to be found in The
1951 (final text,May 26, 1952) the Statementon the
AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology10:363-68; L'AnthroNature of Race and Race Differences,commonly pologie
56:301-04; Archives Suisses d'Anthropologie Ge'nerale
knownas the "Statementon Race," whichaccompanies 17:81-5; Qu'est-ce qu'une Race? Paris: UNESCO (1952) pp. 83thisarticle.Here we findclearlyexpressedthe conclu- 86; Le concept de race. Paris: UNESCO (1953) pp. 11-16; Comas
sions at which modernsciencehas arrivedconcerning (1960):719-23.
4Actes du IV6 Congres International des Sciences Anthropolrace and theinterpretation
of racial differences.
Modifi- ogiques et Ethnologiques 3:358-9, Vienna, 1956.
on theNatureofRace andRace Differences

Statement
BY PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND GENETICISTS-JUNE 1951
1. Scientistsare generallyagreed that

all men living todaybelong to a single
species,Homo sapiens,and are derived
from a common stock, even though
there is some dispute as to when and
how differenthuman groups diverged
fromthiscommonstock.
The concept of race is unanimously
regardedby anthropologistsas a classificatorydevice providing a zoological
framewithinwhich the various groups
of mankind may be arranged and by
means of whichstudiesof evolutionary
processescan be facilitated.In its anthropological sense, the word "race"
should be reservedfor groups of mankind possessing well-developed and
primarilyheritablephysicaldifferences
fromother groups. Many populations
can be so classifiedbut, because of the
complexityof human history,thereare
also many populations which cannot
easily be fittedinto a racial classification.
2. Some of the physical differences
betweenhumangroupsare due to differences in hereditaryconstitutionand
in the environments
some to differences
in whichtheyhave been broughtup. In
most cases, both influenceshave been
at work. The science of genetics sugzests that the hereditary differences
304
among populations of a single species

are the resultsof the action of two sets
of processes. On the one hand, the
geneticcompositionof isolated populations is constantlybut graduallybeing
alteredby natural selectionand by occasional changes(mutations)in the material particles (genes) which control
heredity.Populations are also affected
by fortuitouschangesin gene frequency
and by marriagecustoms.On the other
hand, crossingis constantlybreaking
so setup. The
down thedifferentiations
new mixed populations, in so far as
they,in turn,become isolated,are subject to thesame processes,and thesemay
lead to furtherchanges. Existingraces
are merelythe result,consideredat a
particularmomentin time,of the total
effectof such processeson the human
species.The hereditarycharactersto be
used in the classificationof human
groups, the limits of their variation
withinthesegroups,and thustheextent
subdivisionsadopted
oftheclassificatory
maylegitimatelydifferaccordingto the
scientificpurposein view.
3. National, religious,geographical,
linguisticand cultural groups do not
necessarilycoincide withracial groups;
and the cultural traitsof such groups
have nn dePmnnstrated cornnexioin with
racial traits.Americansare not a race,

nor are Frenchmen,nor Germans; nor
ipso facto is any other national group.
Muslims and Jews are no more races
than are Roman Catholics and Protestants;nor are people who live in Iceland or Britain or India, or who speak
English or any otherlanguage, or who
are culturallyTurkish or Chinese and
the like, therebydescribable as races.
The use of the term"race" in speaking
of such groups may be a serious error,
but it is one which is habitually committed.
4. Human races can be, and have
been, classifiedin different
waysby different anthropologists.Most of them
agree in classifyingthe greaterpart of
existing mankind into at least three
large units,whichmay be called major
groups (in French grand-races,in German Hauptrassen).Such a classification
does not depend on any singlephysical
character,nor does, for example, skin
colour by itselfnecessarilydistinguish
one major group from another. Furthermore,so far as it has been possible
in physito analysethem,thedifferences
cal structure which distinguish one
major group fromanothergive no support to popular notionsof any general
whichare
"superiority"or "inferiority"
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
The Congress,havingtaken cognizanceof the Declaration

on Race and Racial Differencesissued by a group of anthropologists and geneticistsbrought togetherby UNESCO,
declaresits approval of the opinions expressedin thisdocument.
The Congress,recognizingthe possibilitiesof relationships between biological and psycho-racialfactors,recommendsthat the studyof this problem be pursued in close
collaborationwith other scientificdisciplines,in particular
social psychology.
The second stage of UNESCO's campaign against
race prejudice and discrimination was the preparation
and publication of short booklets grouped in 3 series:
"The Race Question in Modern Science," "The Race
Question and Modern Thought," and "Race and Society"; altogether 19 booklets have been published to
date.5 Lastly, UNESCO has issued two other booklets:
one, by Cyril Bibby,6 for teachers in English-speaking
countries; and the other, by Juan Comas,7 for Spanish5The pamphlets mentioned are listed under UNESCO in the
bibliography.The series was brought togetherin English in 1956
in The Race Question in Modern Science. New York: Whiteside,
Inc. and William Morrow& Co. There is a French edition (Paris:
1960),and a Spanish edition is in preparation.
6Bibby, Cyril. Education in racial and intergrouprelations. A
handbook of suggestionsfor teachers. Paris: UNESCO, no date.
7Comas, Juan. La educacd6nante la discriminacidnracial. 1958.
UniversidadNacional de Mexico.
to these
sometimesimplied in referring
groups.
Broadlyspeaking,individualsbelongmajor groups of maning to different
kind are distinguishableby virtue of
but individual
theirphysicalcharacters,
members,or small groups,belongingto
differentraces within the same major
groupare usuallynot so distinguishable.
Even the major groupsgrade into each
other,and the physicaltraitsby which
theyand theraceswithinthemare characterizedoverlap considerably.With respect to most, if not all, measurable
characters,the differencesamong individuals belonging to the same race
thatocare greaterthan the differences
cur between the observedaverages for
two or more races within the same
major group.
5. Most anthropologistsdo not include mental characteristicsin their
classificationof human races. Studies
within a single race have shown that
bothinnatecapacityand environmental
opportunitydetermine the results of
testsof intelligenceand temperament,
thoughtheirrelativeimportanceis disputed.
When intelligence tests,even nonverbal, are made on a group of nonliteratepeople, theirscoresare usually
lower than thoseof more civilizedpeople. It has been recordedthatdifferent
groupsof the same race occupyingsimilarlyhighlevelsof civilizationmayyield
in intelligence
considerabledifferences
tests.When, however,the two groups
Cnrnas:
SCIF.NTTIF
RACISM
AGAIN?
speaking countries.Even more recently,the International Social Science Bulletin has been collectingand
printinga seriesof studiesto publicizerecentinvestigationsof race relationsthroughouttheworld.8
The eventssummarizedhere give us reason to suppose that,as long as new factsrelatingto the genetics,
of humangroupshave not
or psychology
anthropology,
appeared, the problem of "scientific"racismhas been
overcomeor eliminated.In thatcase, our only concern
would be theimplementationof a world-wideprogram
ofeducationand informationdesignedto diminishand
eventuallyexpunge the emotionalprejudicesresponsible forapartheid in South Africaand forthecondition
of Negroes in certain areas of the southernUnited
States,as well as forsimilar,thoughless virulent,tensionsin otherpartsof theworld.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
During the past 15 years,therehave been sporadic
instancesof theattitudeof R. R. Gates,whichBoyd in
8 International Social Science Butlletin10, No. 3, 1958; 13, No. 9,
1961.
have been broughtup fromchildhood

the differences
in similarenvironments,
are usuallyveryslight.Moreover,there
is good evidence that,given similaropportunities,the average performance
(that is to say, the performanceof the
individual who is representativebecause he is surpassedby as many as he
surpasses),and the variation round it,
do not differappreciablyfromone race
to another.
Even those psychologistswho claim
in
to have foundthegreatestdifferences
intelligencebetweengroupsof different
racial origin,and have contended that
theyare hereditary,always reportthat
some membersof the group of inferior
performancesurpass not merely the
lowestrankingmemberof the superior
group,but also the averageof its members.In any case, it has neverbeen possible to separatemembersof twogroups
on the basis of mental capacity,as they
can often be separated on a basis of
religion,skin colour, hair formor language. It is possible,thoughnot proved,
that some typesof innate capacityfor
intellectualand emotionalresponsesare
commonerin one human group thanin
another,but it is certainthat,withina
single group, innate capacities vary as
much as, if not more than,theydo betweendifferent
groups.
The studyof the heredityof psychois beset withdiffilogical characteristics
culties. We know that certain mental
diseases and defects are transmitted
fromone generation to the next, but
we are lessfamiliarwiththepartplayed
byheredityin thementallifeof normal
individuals.The normalindividual,irrespectiveof race, is essentiallyeducable. It followsthat his intellectualand
moral life is largelyconditionedby his
trainingand by his physicaland social
environment.
It often happens that a national
group may appear to be characterized
by particular psychologicalattributes.
The superficialview would be that this
however,
is due to race. Scientifically,
we realize thatany commonpsychological attributeis more likelyto be due to
a common historicaland social background, and that such attributesmay
obscure the fact that,within different
populations consistingof manyhuman
types,one will findapproximatelythe
same rangeof temperamentand intelligence.
6. The scientificmaterial available
to us at presentdoes not justifytheconclusion that inherited genetic differences are a major factorin producing
betweentheculturesand
thedifferences
peocultural achievementsof different
ples or groups.It does indicate,on the
thata major factorin explaincontrary,
is the cultural exing such differences
perience which each group has undergone.
7. There is no evidenceforthe existence of so-called "pure" races. Skeletal
remainsprovidethebasis of our limited
knowledge about earlier races. In regard to race mixture, the evidence
305
Vol. 2 *No. 4 *October 1961

1948 characterizedas not merely"racist" but rather

9 adding with some optimism:
"super-racist,"
to thefactthattheviews
to call attention
itseemsnecessary
Gatesas expressedin thisbook are probably
of Professor
or
ifanyanthropologist
uniqueand thatit is verydoubtful
shareshis pointof viewto any considerable
anygeneticist
extent.
The justificationof the presentarticle is that time
has now shownBoyd's optimisticforecastto have been
inaccurate.Indeed, it was destroyedwith the appeara
anceof thefirstnumberof The Mankind Quarterly,10
the
are
contents
whose
journal
scientific
supposedly
cause of profoundconcernto thoseinterestedin racial
questionsin thebiological and anthropologicalfieldsas
well as in thesocial field.The racistorientationof The
Mankind Quarterlydeservesclose and objective scrutiny.Here, the examination is limited to one article
publishedby Henry E.
thatseemsrepresentative-that
Garrettunderthetitleof "Klineberg'sChapteron Race
"See Boyd's review of Gates' Human Ancestry(1948) in American Journal of Physical Anthropology 6:385-87. We have expressed our own disagreementwith Gates as follows: "Ruggles
Gates' thesisis merelymentionedalthough we completelydisagree
with his position because of the somatic hierarchyhe establishes
between his differenthuman species" (Comas 1957:515; 1960:57273).
10It is subtitled: An International Quarterly Journal dealing
with race and inheritancein the fieldsof Ethnology,Ethno- and
Human Genetics,Ethno-Psychology,Racial History,Demography
and Anthropo-Geography.Vol. 1, no 1., July 1960,72 pp. (Ed. R.
GAYRE of GAYRE. Associate Editors: HENRY E. GARRETr AND R.
RUGGLES GATES.) 1 Darnaway Street, Edinburgh 3, Scotland.
A Review." It is neitherour object nor

and Psychology.
our place to answerGarrettin regardto theerrors,omisof which he accuses
sions, or twistedinterpretations
Klineberg,especiallyin his sectionon the application
and comparativeresults of intelligencetests among
Negroesand Whites.What does concernus is Garrett's
general approach: his generalizationsand conclusions,
whichexceed the limitsof a concretecriticalexaminationand becomean expliciteulogyofracial discrimination; and his acceptanceof the existenceof races that
are physicallyand mentallyinferior.Our intention,
then,is to analyzeand appraiseGarrett'sargumentsobjectivelyin the light of the observationsand experimental data provided by biology,anthropology,and
genetics,makingforthispurposean inventoryof what
is known in thesefieldsat the presenttime. Thus we
answerto twoquesshall hope to arriveat a satisfactory
tions: (1) Does Garrettmention scientificdata, published before1951,which were overlookedor wrongly
by the 14 authorsof theStatementon Race?
interpreted
(2) Have therebeen any publicationssince 1951 which
permita basic revisionof the conclusionsunanimously
in the Statement?
affirmed
RACE
DIFFERENCES,
GENES,
AND ENVIRONMENT
Garrettbegins his article with the followingstatement(1960: 15):

Klinebergsetshimselfthetaskof showingthatracialor
to
whentheyappear,can be attributed
ethnicdifferences,
STATEMENT ON THE NATURE OF RACE AND RACE DIFFERENCES Continued

pointsto thefactthathuman hybridizationhas been goingon foran indefinite
but considerable time. Indeed, one of
theprocessesof race formationand race
extinctionor absorptionis by means of
hybridizationbetween races. As there
is no reliable evidence that disadvanare produced thereby,no
tageouseffects
biological justificationexists for probetweenpersons
hibitinginter-marriage
races.
of different
8. We now have to considerthebearing of thesestatementson the problem
of human equality.We wish to emphasize that equality of opportunityand
equality in law in no way depend, as
ethical principles,upon the assertion
thathuman beings are in factequal in
endowment.
9. We have thoughtit worthwhile to
set out in a formalmanner what is at
present scientificallyestablished concerning individual and group differences.
(a) In mattersof race, the only characteristics which anthropologists
have so far been able to use effecare
tivelyas a basis forclassification
physical(anatomicaland physiological).
(b) Available scientificknowledgepro306
vides no basis forbelievingthatthe

groups of mankind differin their
innate capacityforintellectualand
emotionaldevelopment.
between
(c) Some biological differences
human beings withina single race
may be as greatas, or greaterthan,
bethe same biological differences
tweenraces.
(d) Vast social changes have occurred
that have not been connected in
anywaywithchangesin racial type.
Historical and sociological studies
thus support the view that genetic
are of little significance
differences
in determiningthe social and culbetween different
tural differences
groupsof men.
(e) There is no evidencethatrace mixture produces disadvantageousresultsfroma biologicalpointofview.
The social resultsof race mixture,
whetherfor good or ill, can generallybe tracedto social factors.
(Text drafted, at Unesco House,
Paris, on 8 June 1951, by: Professor
R. A. M. Bergman,Royal Tropical Institute,Amsterdam;ProfessorGunnar
Dahlberg, Director,State Institutefor
Human Genetics and Race Biology,
Universityof Uppsala; ProfessorL. C.
Dunn, Departmentof Zoology,Columbia University,New York; Professor

J. B. S. Haldane, Head, Departmentof
Biometry,UniversityCollege, London;
ProfessorM.F. AshleyMontagu, Chairman, Department of Anthropology,
Rutgers University,New Brunswick,
N.J.; Dr. A. E. Mourant, Director,
Blood Group Reference Laboratory,
Lister Institute, London; Professor
Hans Nachtsheim, Director, Institut
fur Genetik,Freie Universitat,Berlin;
Dr. Eugene Schreider,Directeuradjoint
du Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Physique de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes,
Paris; Professor Harry L. Shapiro,
Chairman, Department of Anthropology,AmericanMuseum of Natural History,New York; Dr. J. C. Trevor, Facultyof Archaeologyand Anthropology,
Universityof Cambridge;Dr. Henri V.
Vallois, Professeurau Museum d'HistoireNaturelle,Directeurdu Musee de
l'Homme, Paris; ProfessorS. Zuckerman, Head, Department of Anatomy,
Medical School, Universityof Birmingham; ProfessorTh. Dobzhansky, Departmentof Zoology, Columbia University,New York, and Dr. Julian
Huxley contributedto the finalwording.)
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
RACISM AGAIN?
environmental
and culturalfactors.
Comas: "SCIENTIFIC"
He concedesthatimmediateand remoteancestry
mayplay a smallrole; but the
environment,
not thegenes,reallycausesracialdifferences. environmentand attributetotal influenceto heredity
are the racists,forwhomthe Negro and the hybridare
This statementis surprising,
since Klineberghas never personsof innateand unmodifiableinferiority.
takena positionthat could be interpretedas denying
the influenceof heredityon man's physicalor mental
RACE AND INTELLIGENCE
characteristics.
The following quotations make this
Four stages,rangingfromlesserto greatertechnical
clear(1956: 63, 84):
complexity,may be observed in the developmentof
It is truethatthe testscoresobtainedby two different

and environgroupsaredue to theinteraction
of hereditary
mentalfactors
whichcannotbe disentangled.
Individualsand familiesare not equallyendowed;some
are superior
in theirinheritance
others
of mentalcapacity,
inferior.
No one can safelydenythisfact.There is overevidencein itssupport.
whelming
Consequently,Garrett'sassertionis erroneousand tendentious.
Acceptance of the importantrole that genes and
hereditary
mechanismsplayin determining
thephysical
and mental characteristics
of an individual does not
preclude recognitionof the influenceexerted by the
environment.It was, in fact,the geneticistswho first
recognizedthe effectof environmenton heredity.For
example, Sinnott,Dunn, and Dobzhanskysay (1950:
22):
We haveseen that,whenindividualsthathave thesame
genotypedevelopin different
environments,
theyexhibit
moreorlessdifferent
phenotypes.
Everygenotype
reactswith
itsenvironment
in itsownspecialmanner;but if thesame
genotype
has somewhat
different
materialsto workon, the
phenotypes
maybe appreciably
different.
Whata genotype
determines
is thereactions,
theresponses,
of theorganism
to
theenvironment.
racistmethodologyfor the purposeof discoveringevidence to supportthe claim thatnon-Whites(especially

Negroes) are mentallyinferiorto Whites. For greater
we shall note all 4 stages,
clarityand widerperspective,
althoughthe firstand second now have only historical
importance,while Garrett'sargumentsbelong entirely
to the fourthstage.
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERS
to estabIn the firststage,it was consideredsufficient

in physicaltype,whichwereacceptedas
lish differences
But is it possiimplicitlyconnotingmental inferiority.
a group to be supeble, biologicallyspeaking,to certify
rioror inferiorby such criteriaas itsphysicalcharacteristics?More than 30 years ago, Vallois (1928: 254-59)
categoricallyrefutedthis position, and demonstrated
convincinglythattheNegrowas not physicallyinferior
to theWhite.
CRANIAL CAPACITY
In the second stage, it was argued that the size of

the brain can demonstratethe mental superiorityof
one race overanother.Greatercranialcapacitywas supposed to indicategreaterintelligence.At thebeginning
of the 20th century,Gladstone (1902) as well as Lee,
showedthat
Lewenz,and Pearson(1900) authoritatively
Boyd, in his chapter on "Heredity and Environthere
no
relation
and cranial
was
between
intelligence
ment,"pointsout that one can observe"all degreesof
In spiteof theirwork,theproblemcontinued
capacity.
plasticityof theoperationofgenesin regardto environmentalinfluences"(1950: 90). It has been fullyestab- to be debated. Investigationsby Reid and Mulligan
(1923), Murdock and Sullivan (1923), and othersconlished that all the featuresof adult organismsare in
firmedthe observationsmade 20 yearsearlier.In 1937,
everycase theresultof an interactionbetweenheredity
however,L. H. Wells consideredit possible to say that
and environment.The genes constitutea chemicalsys"the Bushmanmustbe considereddefinitely
inferiorin
tem thatreactsto its environmentduringthe developto the European" on the basis
cerebral
development
mental period to produce certain results,which are
of eleven endocranialcasts.This completelysubjective
modifiedby changesin eitherof the two factors.The
conclusioncan hardlywithstandcriticalexamination,
actionofhormonesand vitaminsin intensifying
or caneitherforthenumberof subjectson whichit was based
celingout the effects
of hereditaryfactorsis also wellor forthegeneralizationit established.
known.
Actually,thereis no basis forthegeneralizationthat
It can be deduced then,that diverseenvironmental
Whites have a largercranial capacity(and hence are
conditions may produce differentcharacters,even
more intelligent) than other humans. K. Simmons
thoughthehereditarystockbe identical,and vice-versa.
(1942: 482-83), givesthe followingstatistics:
Environmentcannot,however,cause theappearance of
a characterunless the genotypecontains the required
Mean capacityof 1179 White male skulls ... 1517.49cc.
factors.
Mean capacityof 661 Negro male skulls ... . 1467.13cc.
It seemsunnecessaryto dwellfurtheron a matterthat
50.36 cc.
........
Differencebetween series .......
has been thoroughly
clarified.Krogman(1958) offersan
Mean capacityof 182 White femaleskulls ... 1338.82cc.
excellentsummaryand ample bibliographyon the enMean capacityof 219 Negro femaleskulls ... 1310.94cc.
vironmentalfactorsaffectingphysical growth.Others
........
27.88 cc.
Differencebetweenseries .......
who have made importantcontributionsto our knowledge of the effectsof environmenton man's somatic These small variationsin mean capacityof White and
Some examplesof
featuresinclude F. Boas, M. Goldstein,C. E. Guthe, Negro skullsare of littlesignificance.
P. K. Ito, G. W. Lasker,H. W. Meredith,H. L. Shapiro, cranial capacityin male seriesfromothergroupsare as
follows(Hambly 1947):
and L. Spier.
In short,the onlypersonswho deny the influenceof
South Africa,1422 cc.; Europeans (Czechs), 1438 cc.;
Kaffirs,
307
Polynesians(Moriori), 1454 cc.; Europeans (Old English),

1456cc.; Tasmanians,1457cc.; Melanesians(LoyaltyIsland),
1463cc.; Europeans (French),1473 cc.; Polynesians(Marquesas Islands),1475cc.; NorthAmericanIndians, 1514 cc.; CentralEskimos,1558 cc.
Hence the widespread idea that Whites have the
greatestcranial capacity and consequently are the most
intelligent is erroneous.
CEREBRAL STRUCTURE
Abandoning brain size as a criterion, the racists tried

to use cerebral structureand complexity as an argument
to support their position. It should be emphasized that
certain studies, such as those of Bean (1914) and Gordon
(1932), were undertaken because their authors were predisposed to believe in the mental inferiorityof Negroes.
However, Mall (1909), attempting to classify unidentified brains according to their degree of cortical complexity, found approximately the same percentage of
"White" and "Negro" brains in each class. Kohlbrugge
states (1935: 82):
The comparisonof convolutionsand sulci does not present
constant racial differences. .
. Each variation can be found
in different
racesif one has enoughdata.... Amonga group
of brains belonging to distinctraces, no one is capable of
one which correspondsto an Australianfrom
distinguishing
a European, nor one of a genius from that of a man of
averageintelligence.
J. H. Lewis (1942) reaffirmedthe impossibility of an
anatomist's being able to distinguish a "Negro" from
a "White" brain. According to G. Levin (1937: 378):
What theyexpect to see will be racial differences

in specific
functionalareas,in metabolism,and in thedegreeof development of the association systems.This, the most important
part of evolution,and the one in whichthe mostsignificant
racial differences
are likelyto appear, has not yeteven been
tackled.
We believe this conclusion is correct.Other studies of
cerebral structure in non-White groups-Zulu, Battak,
Chinese, Australian, Bushman, etc.-such as those by
Bianchi (1934, 1936, 1938), Bork-Feltkamp (1933, 1934),
Shellshear (1937), Slome (1932), and Woollard (1929),
have affordedno conclusions that would require modification of the judgments cited.
The lack of sufficientbiological data continues to be
most pronounced with respect to the American Negro.
W. Montague Cobb, who has reviewed the existing investigations and publications on this topic, concludes
(1942: 188):
Many studies of representativequality have been published,but thesedo not suffice
foradequate: inventoryof the
physical,mental, and ecological charactersof the Negro;
registration
of thegeneticand environmentalphenomenaassociated with his hybridization;assessmentof his biological
quality;or predictionof his future.
This deficiency in scientific information about the
biology of American Negroes, African Negroes and
other non-White groups, needs to be remedied with all
possible speed and with the strictestobjectivity.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
METHODS
We arrive finally,at the fourth stage, which utilizes

methods for proving the "superiority" of
psychological
Most of the "inferiority
signs" have no justificationto be
certain races.
regardedas such. Studies on the brains of the so-called inThe position Garrett criticizes can be summarized as
feriorhuman races are as yet inconclusive.Examinationsof
follows:
two or three brains of savage peoples, which have led the
authorsto draw conclusionswhichwere eitherinsufficiently
a) Within each group thereexist individualswithgreater
groundedor erroneous,are not infrequent.
or lesser,betteror worse,mentalaptitudes;
The "marksof inferiority"in the brains of outstanding
b) These aptitudesare due in part to heredityand in part
personalitiesare not accidental, but are due to the same
to the favorableor unfavorableinfluenceof environmenton
phylo-and ontogeneticcauses as theyare in the brains of
theirdevelopment;
people of ordinaryintellectuality.
c) At present,psychologicaland geneticresearchhas not
been able to prove the existenceof innate differences
in inConnolly, examining White and Negro brains,
telligenceattributableto "race."
reached these conclusions (1943: 390-91):
Klineberg, in his briefpamphlet, gives a summary not
no morphologicalfeaturewas found
As to racial differences
only of his own views but also of research by other
of eitherthe whiteor Negro
to be exclusivelycharacteristic
psychologists and anthropologists, carried out among
brain . . . [although there are differences in the frequencies
Negroes, Kentucky Whites, Australians, Samoans, Indifeaof
the
of morphologicalfeatures],different
frequencies
ans of the U.S., etc.
turesdo not enable us to tell the racial provenienceof an
Garrett's critical method of dealing with these data is
of
retention
In any case the
primiindividual specimen....
disconcerting. He begins by ignoring the passages in
tivemorphologicalfeaturesis not knownto have any mental
which Klineberg refers to the investigations of S. L.
correlate."
Pressey, S. D. Porteus, S. E. Asch, M. Mead, J. H.
With reference to the progressive increase in size of
Rohrer, etc.; consequently, he considers only the evithe frontal lobe, Coon, Garn, and Birdsell point out
dence which affectsNegroes of the U.S.; and finally
(1950: 101):
limits himself to discussion of certain I.Q. scores in one
In theseand otheranatomical factors,one mightlook for
of the groups mentioned. He offers "selective migrabetween the brains of men of living races, but
differences
tion" as an explanation of the higher I.Q. of Negroes
actuallytoo little inter-racialbrain anatomyhas been done
in the north as compared with those in the south, rejectto warrantgeneralizations.... it maybe apparentwhydiffer- ing the interpretationof a more favorable environment.
ences betweenraces in brain activityand abilitycannot yet
Such arguments have been used for 25 years against
be determinedand why the evolutionaryposition of the
the
work of Garth (1931), of Klineberg himself (1935),
brain has not been studiedin livingpeople. That some indiand
of many other psychologists and anthropologists
viduals exceed othersin abilityis well known,but neurolowho for more than a quarter-centuryhave been gatherin the
gists do not consider it likely that gross differences
ing evidence that there is no mental inferiorityof a
capacity for "intelligence,"however defined,will appear.
308
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
racial characteramong non-Whitegroups.It is useless,

therefore,
to engage in a discussionwhich would only
repeatwhat has been said many times.On the other
hand, however,Garrett neglects the basic problem:
WhetherI.Q. testshave anyvalidityas a measureof innate mentalcapacity,especiallywhen administeredto
groupsdifferent
fromthe ones on which the testswere
standardized.A review of scientificopinion on this
scoremaybe worthwhile.
As longago as 1914,Thorndikereferredto I.Q. scores
amongdifferent
racesand nationalgroups,as "measurementsof differences
betweengroupswhichare distinct
toan unknowndegreein traitswhichare influencedby
trainingto an unknowndegree" (Benedict 1940: 117).
Garthconfessesthathe began his workon the applicationof teststo racial groups"with the tacitconviction
in mental processeswould be
thatmarkeddifferences
metwith"(1931: vii), but concludesthat"it is uselessto
talkabout the incapacityof so-called'inferiorpeoples'
when this incapacityis not verifiedduring adequate
testing"(1931: 101).C. C. Brigham,authorofa testused
by the U.S. Armyin 1921,which appeared to indicate
the superiorityof Nordicsover Alpine and Mediterranean groups,laterwrote(1930: 165),"With thetestswe
had we could not carryout comparativestudiesof different national and racial groups."
In his work on the Mayas of Yucatan, Steggerda
(1941) devotes pages 74-88 to a discussionof his attempts to determinethe general intelligenceof the
Mayas by testing.He concludes(p. 84):
in practically
everycase theperformance
of theMaya was
farbelowthatof theWhiteson whommosttestshavebeen
I wishto repeatthattheresultsmustbe interstandardized.
pretedin thelightofthemanydifficulties
involvedin administering
theteststo theMaya.
theconclusion
is warranted
If,in spiteofthesedifficulties,
thattheIndianintelligence
tendstobe inferior
tothatofthe
ourresults
in generalagreewiththoseofotherworkWhites,
erswhohavestudiedintelligence
amongAmerican
Indians.
I believe,however,
thatthelowerscoresoftheMayaaredue
to inadequatetestsformeasuring
mentalcapacitiesofraces,
do exist.
althoughI stillthinkthatsomementaldifferences
Other workerswho have made similarobservations
are: J. A. Fitzgeraldand W. W. Ludeman (1926); W. S.
Hunterand E. Sommermier
(1922); T. R. Garth(1931);
E. C. Rowe (1914); H. T. Manuel and L. S. Hughes
(1932); T. R. Garthand M. A. Barnard (1927). Merton
and Montagu(1940: 401) sumup theirviewsas follows:
The fact is that intelligencetests,so-called,measure
is preinnumerable
factors
amongwhichnativeintelligence
sumablyone. Whatevertheymaybe claimedto be, intelligencetestsarenota measureof thatsinglefactoralone.For
it has been showntimeand
childrenand collegestudents,
timeagain thatthesetestsdo notmeasurenativeabilityor
thatthe testsare largely
intelligence
apartfromschooling,
attainment.
Whattests
or experiential
ofscholastic
measures
oftheexperience-capacity
is an expression
measure
equation.
Klineberg concludes the firstpart of his pamphlet
with two pertinentquestions (1956: 62):
thatis to say,affected
If everytestis 'culture-bound,'
by
the whole complex of previous education, trainingand experience,can the use of testsgive us any informationat all
about racial differences,
or similarities,in intelligence?If we
cannotdisentanglehereditary
frome nvironmental
influences
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
in the results,has the testingmethodany relevanceat all to

our problem?
Garrett is unwilling to analyze these basic questions,
preferringto distract the reader with completely subordinate matter that does very little to support his racist
conclusion.
We turn now to some of the conclusions about the
problem of race and intelligence that have been published since 1951.
H. V. Vallois, referring to the problem of mental
characteristics,summarizes the attitude of anthropologists as follows (1953: 156):
Very recently .
. doctrines of political inspiration have
proclaimedthe intimateliaison betweenmental characteristicsand the variationsconsideredas racial.

If modern anthropologistsoften take into account physreasons.Some
ical characteristics
only,it is forverydifferent
are trivial,exceptthose
are convincedthatmentaldifferences
attributableto the typeof cultureor to the level of education. Others think that,for lack of precise knowledge,the
of
problemis stilltoo abstruseand the mental characteristics
race too difficult
to determineforthemto take theminto account. Thus practicallymost modern anthropologistsconsider only the physicaldifferences.
J. Henry and M. E. Spiro (1953: 418) express themselves thus:
had rightlyturnedtheirbackson theusual
Anthropologists
intelligence tests,for they realized not only that "intelligence" itselfis a termof doubtfulmeaningbut also thatthe
testsused to measure intelligencein our culture examined
intellectualprocessesonlyin termsof therelativelyfixedcategoriesof our own cultureand in termsof thespecificcontent
of our culture.
We mention the work of Carothers (1953) only because of the criticisms of it by Jules Henry (1954) who
points out that Carothers produces no evidence to
prove his assertions, and by J. Victor Monke (1954:
360), who characterizes Carothers as "a racial determinist in spite of his repeated insistence on the importance
of cultural factors." The only recent work which supports Garrett's contentions is Audrey M. Shuey's Testing of Negro Intelligence, published in 1958. Shuey
reviews and interpretsmore than 280 publications dealing with the intelligence of Negroes, arriving at conclusions which must surely surprise many of the writersshe
cites. She concludes that "all point to the presence of
some native differencesbetween Negroes and Whites as
determined by intelligence tests." Ina C. Brown (1960:
544) criticizesShuey as follows:
These facts,however,togetherwithsome otherfactswhich
Dr. Shuey ignores,point much more clearly to something
in nativeintelligenceand thatis to the
otherthandifferences
between Negroes and Whites in ecoverygreat differences
nomic and educational opportunities,home backgrounds,
civic and communityparticipation,motivation,cultural expectation and self image. There may, of course, be some
betweenNegroesand Whitesbut as of now
nativedifferences
do exist,
we have no way of proving that such differences
is overwhelmwhile the evidenceof socio-culturaldifferences
ing.
Brown concludes with a prediction that has unfortunately been fulfilled:
Vol. 2 *No. 4 - October 1961
309
One can, however,predictwide use of the book by White

Citizen's Councils and otherswho are in search of material
whichtheycan interpretas 'scientific'supportfortheirpoint
of view.
RACE AND CRIME
Further confirmation of the true worth and scope

that can be attributed to I.Q. tests was presented by
M. Reuchlin (1959: 24), who concluded an extensive
critical examination of their application and interpretation by saying:
It should not be forgottenthatthe I.Q. is based on a mean

calculated froma certain group and consequentlydepends
on the selectionof the group.
Beals and Hoijer have recentlysummarized the problem as follows (1959: 212-13):
have become less certainof the
More recentlypsychologists
validityof intelligencetests.There are two reasons. In the
firstplace, much evidencehas accumulatedto show that 'into defineand that,whattelligence'is somethingverydifficult
ever it is, it is not a unitaryfactor.This means thatpersons
who scorehighin one kind of testdo not necessarilydo well
in all tests....
conflictwith the three pertinentparagraphs in the

Statementon Race.
Secondly, it has been recognized that even
if the individualstestedhave been carefullyselectedforsimilar class and educational backgrounds,some variation still
remainsin the environment.These problemspoint up the
in identifyingdifferencesbetween racial
great difficulties
groups.
Before closing the discussion of mental differences
among races, and the possible ways to measure these, it
seems necessary to refer to an opinion with which we
radically disagree.
R. R. Gates has recently insisted that there exist
normal mental differencesof racial character. He argues (1952a: 280):
All thosewho have any respectforthe factswill agree that
men differin their mentalityat least as widely as in their
physique.... It maybe pointed out thatif individualsdiffer
in intelligence-I use this word for lack of a better-or in
other mental qualities, then groups and races of mankind
may be expected to differin similar respectsbecause they
In ordernot to riskdistortingGarrett'sopinions on
thissubject,it will be well to quote him directly(1960:
22):
Klinebergstatesflatlythat'no racialfactorhas been discoveredto be responsible'forcrime.As usual, the fault
lies in the social environment.
Undoubtedly
social factors
are important,
but it is hardto see howsuchinfluences
can
excusetheliterally
scandalouscrimerateoftheNegroin the
United States. In 1954, the FBI reported (Department of
Justice,
vol.25,no. 2) thefollowing
ratiosofNegrotowhite
crimes:formurdertheNegro/white
ratiois 16:1; forrobbery,13:1; forprostitution
and vice, 16:1; forrape, 6:1.
TheseratiosholddespitethefactthattheNegroconstitutes
only 10%,of the generalpopulation.It requiresa degree
ofimagination
notpossessed
to see no 'racial
bythereviewer
factor'in thesefigures.
The problemhere,of course,is the interpretation
of
thesestatistics.WVhat
do theyreallymean? Do we not
need to knowalso in whatstateof theUnion each crime
was committedand whereit was tried?Anotherset of
would showthearbitrarymannerin whichthe
statistics
law is applied to Whitesand Negroesin different
states,
oftenpunishingthelatterand acquittingtheformerfor
identicaloffenses.
We would also need to know the special circumstances
of each case,includingthesocial and
economic status and general environmentof the offender.As Merton and Montagu have aptly observed
(1940: 386):
It is stillpossible,and forsomepurposesrelevant,that
are nota representative
criminals
incarcerated
sample(with
and
economicstatus,
respectto intelligence,
race,nationality
rural-urban
of thosewhocommitcrimes.Seleccomposition)
and moreimportantly,
selectivecommitments
tive arrests,
in termsof economicstatusand race are attestedby many
in the case of
conversant
with the facts;the differential
marked.
Negroesseemstobe especially
a word about inherentmental differences

between the races
of men. Dr. Gates' viewswould not finduniversalacceptance
among geneticists.
The possibilityof a relation between physicaltype

and criminalityhas stimulatedan extensiveliterature
and a wide varietyof opinions since Lombroso; the
worksof Bonger,De Greef,Goring,Hooton, Landogna
Cassone, Ottolenghi,Parmelee, Seltzer,Sheldon and
many others1"are proof of this. But the question of
relatingindividual physical type with delinquencyis
irrelevantto our purpose. Here we aim to determine
whetherthe available informationsupportsor negates
Garrett'sbeliefin the idea that the "racial factor"constitutesan importantelementin criminality.
Hooton (1939) studieda total of 17,076criminalsin
in the United States.Among
prisonsand reformatories
themwere Negro and Negroid criminals,of whom he
states that "lack of opportunityand sheer ignorance
are much moreimportantfactorsin
and primitiveness
Negro and Negroid criminalitythan theyare among
theWhites" (p. 356). Later he adds, "A depressedphysical and social environmentdeterminesNegro and
Negroid delinquencyto a much greaterextentthan it
To sum up, a thorough review of scientificwritings

on the subject of race and intelligence discloses no
notable anthropologist or geneticist whose discoveries
1' See the discussionon "ConstitutionalTypes and Delinquency"

in Comas (1960):348-55.
have evolved from different groups of ancestors.
. .
. That
such differencesexist is abundantly clear to the unbiased

observer.
It would be well for Gates to provide evidence that,
just as there are indisputable physical differencesbetween Negroes and Whites, so there exist certain mental
characteristicscommon to all Negroes as a race, and distinctfromthose characteristicof Whites. Until this happens, we think that the bias rests with Gates, and with
those who share his ideas on this point.
Neel in reviewing Gates' chapter makes this comment
(1952: 282):
I cannot escape the impressionthat so much needs to be
done to develop mental teststhe resultsof which are in no
way influencedby cultural factorsthat it will be some time
can be more
beforethe question of innate racial differences
than a subject for speculation....
310
In closing, I will say just
does in the case of Whites" (p. 369).

Commenting on the work of W. A. Bonger (1943),
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Hooton (1944: 230) expressesthe followingviews:

This reviewer, as a result of a considerable experience in
this kind of work is of the opinion that economic status,
social environment, ethnic tradition and individual constitution are severally more important as etiological factors in
criminalitythan race, anthropologically determined. Nationality and national origins, with their implications of social
tradition and specific racial blends, are criminologically far
more meaningful than physical combinations in the individual whereby diagnosis can be made.
Seltzer(1950: 370) states:

It appears from the evidence on hand that the delinquent
may be conceived as a biological product as well as a product
of the environmental forces about him. Although delinquents are physically different as a group from non-delinquents as a group, there is no implication of fixed criminal,
anthropological types, inherent criminality or criminal personality.
the
demonstrated
We believethatwe have sufficiently
factthat the weightof modern scientificauthorityis
entirelyopposed to Garrett's inadequately documented

contention that Negroes are inherently more inclined
to crime than Whites.
RACE
MIXTURE
Here is Garrett's statement,word forword (1960: 21):

Klineberg quotes with approval the UNESCO Statement
on Race to wit that 'There is no evidence that race mixture
as such produces bad results from the biological point of
view. The social results of race mixture, whether for good or
ill, are to be traced to social factors.' There are many data
which conspire to dull the authoritarian ring of this pronouncement. Davenport and Steggerda in their Jamaica
studies reported that race mixture leads to physical as well
as mental disharmonies. The weak, disease-ridden population
of modern Egypt offersdramatic evidence of the evil effects
of a hybridization which has gone on for 5000 years. In
Brazil, coastal Bahia with its negroid mixtures is primitive
and backward as compared with the relatively advanced civilization of white southern Brazil. In the West Indies, the
civilization is advanced almost exactly in the degree to which
the populations are unmixed with the Negro. Haiti is an
unhappy example of what the Negro can do when left to
govern himself.
Let us carefully examine the cases that Garrett puts

forthas arguments against race mixture:
1. Davenportand Steggerdain theirJamaicastudies

reportedthatrace mixtureleads to physicalas well as
mentaldisharmonies.
These studies have been used since 1929 by defenders

of the racist thesis that the hybrid is inferior. Garrett
fails to mention that Klineberg himself,on pages 77-78
of the work he is criticizing,includes a fair inquiry into
Davenport and Steggerda's conclusions. He also fails to
mention that the volume in which Klineberg's chapter
appears also has a chapter by H. L. Shapiro, entitled
"Race Mixture," in which the Jamaica case is carefully
and objectively analyzed and rebutted. But even if, for
the sake of argument, we were to accept Garrett's interpretation of the biological and mental consequences of
race-crossingin Jamaica, this would not affectthe general problem. Before and after the Jamaica studies,
many other investigations of race mixture have been
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
made, providingresultsentirelyopposed to those of

Davenportand Steggerda.
The classicstudythatBoas (1940: 138-48)carriedout
in 1894, comparinghalf-bloodIndians in the United
States with theirEuropean and theirIndian parents,
showed the hybridsto be taller and more fertilethan
the parentalstocks.
Fischer (1913) studied the Rehoboth Bastards of
South Africa,descendedfromEuropean men and Hottentotwomen,and found that theiroffspring
were extremelyfertile,with an average of 7.4 offspringper
woman,and that theyshowed no defectsin health or
constitution.
Franco-Annamite
hybridsin Cochin China and Tonkin were studied by Holbe (1914, 1916) and Bonifacy
(1911) respectively.The latterauthor states(Neuville
1933a: 143):
The boysare strong,
healthyand agile; theyare fondof
physicalexerciseand oftentake a lead in sports.At first
smallerthantheirEuropeanplaymates,
theyequal and suraboutfouroftenat theageofpuberty,
passthemin stature,
teenyears.. . . One couldsaythat,in general,themingling
resultsfromthe
ofEuropeansandAnnamites
givesbeautiful
physical
pointofview.
andmoralcharacteristics,
Asforintellectual
he adds:Their
are theresultofthefalsepositionin whichwe
shortcomings
in whichwe leave them.
put themand of theobscurity
The nativesof the island of Kisar (Timor archipelago) are the product of mixture among Mongoloid,
Indio-Malayan, Oceanic Negro, and European elements.The studymade by Rodenwaldt (1927) shows
that,withoutshowinghybridvigor,theydisplaygood
health,highfertility
(averageof 7.3 childrenper marriage) and no particularphysicaldeficiency.
Similarly,the complex racial mixture in Hawaii,
which began with the discoveryof the islands by Captain Cook in 1778, has included Polynesian,Chinese,
Japanese,Korean, Philippine and Euro-Americanelements.Research by Adams (1937), Dunn (1928), and
Sullivan (1927), among others,has revealedno signsof
degeneracyand much evidence of increased fertility
and longevity(Gillin 1948: 133).
The data gatheredby Yun-kueiTao (1935) on mixed
marriagesof 13 Germansand 32 Frenchwith Chinese,
and on the 71 childrenof theseunions,do not supply
any evidence that mightbe interpretedas a sign that
outbreedingis deleterious.
Caroline B. Day's study(1932) of 50 mulattofamilies
in theUnited States,whosegenealogiesweresufficiently
known,discoveredno sign of physicalinferiority.
Neitherdid the studiesby Herskovits(1928) of groups of
Negroes, Indian-Negrohybridsand Negro-Whitehybrids. Williams (1931) made a verydetailed investigation of 1574 Maya-Spanish mestizosin Yucatan, in
in susceptibilityto illwhichno significantdifferences
ness appeared betweenthe mixed bloods and the pure
stocks.
The interestingcase of the Pitcairn Islanders, descendedfrom6 EnglishmutineersfromH.M.S. Bounty
and 12 Tahitian women, has been studied and describedby H. L. Shapiro (1931, 1936). Neuville (1933b)
311
Vol. 2 -No. 4- October 1961

givesa summaryof theresults,and Shapirodiscussesthe

case in the booklet, Race mixture (1956), in the
UNESCO series on "The Race Question in Modern
Science."It is noted thatthe islandersexhibitno physical defectsor signs of degeneracydue to in-breeding.
Amongthe 200 inhabitants(1936) Shapiro found no
Their longevityis surcaseof seriousmentaldeficiency.
prising,consideringthat theyhave had no permanent
medicalservices:therewere 12 personsbetween65 and
86 years,out of 200 inhabitants.The averagestatureof
the firstgenerationwas 177.8 cm.,while that of Tahitianwomenis 171.4cm. and thatof themutineers170.6
cm.-an average heightinctease of 5 cm. As for their
therewere7.44 childrenper couple in the first
fertility,
generation,9.1 in the second,and in the third5.39 at
the timethe studywas made. Shapiro concludes(1956:
361):
As faras theevidencegoes,then,thePitcairnexperiment
leads
merely
lendsno supportforthethesisthatracemixture
to the
or at bestproducesa breedinferior
to degeneration
superiorparentalrace.In fact,we see in thiscolonysome
and
variation
foran extended
vigour,
supportforheightened
of twodiversestrains.
issueof themingling
fora successful
In thebibliographythereaderwill findmoresources
of informationon this theme,including the work of
Lipschutz(1944: 249-305),AshleyMontagu (1947: 100133) and Neuville (1933a).
Many such specificstudiesof race mixturehave thus
made possible generalizationsquite opposite to that
whichGarrettmakeson thebasis of a singlestudy,carried out in Jamaicain 1929.
data whichcomModernexperimentalgeneticsoffers
plement the direct observations made on mixed
groups,makingit possible to distinguishthe elements
in racial phenotypesthat are due to environmentalinfluenceand thosethatcorrespondto hereditaryendowment.
The supposed correlationbetweenrace mixtureand
degeneracyor biological weakness was derived from
studiesof mixturesofindividualsbelongingto themost
impoverishedsectorsof both groups in question. And
this occursas the resultof endogamyas well as exoghas nothingto do withit. In point
amy; cross-breeding
of fact,human familiesin which endogamyhas been
consistently
practicedare frequentlymarked by a degree of degeneracyequal to or even greaterthan that
whichGarrettpurportsto findin cross-breeds.
Endogamy also serves to reveal the hereditarypotentialitiesof a group, since it bringsout all the recessivehereditarytraitswhich would remain latent if
theyexistedin one of the parentsonly. In such cases,
if the characterin question is undesirable,the logical
and necessarystepis exogamiccrossing(miscegenation)
so as to introduce a dominant hereditaryfactor to
counter the undesirable recessivecharacter.In other
words,endogamymakesrecessiveanomaliesand defects
visibleor tangible,whereasexogamytendsto extirpate
or,at theleast,minimizethem.
The sameline ofreasoningcan be applied in thecase
and aptiof useful hereditarytalents,characteristics,
in generalterms
tudes.Hence, it is impossibleto assexrt
ofendogamyor exogamyon thedescendthattheeffects
ants of such unions are good or bad. The natureof the
312
resultin each case dependson thegeneticcharacteristics

of the individuals interbreeding.
If half-breedsin a particularcountryare treatedby
law or customas second-classcitizens(fromthe social,
economic,and politicalpointofview),it is highlyprobable that theirculturalcontributionswill not be commensuratewith their innate abilities. Under a rigid
caste systemin which thereis no possibilityof a halfbreed's raising himselfabove the social status of the
lower-casteparent,clearlyany assessmentof the effects
ofracial miscegenationshouldnot be based on thelevel
attainedby individualsof mixed blood. On the other
hand,undera systemwheremeritalone is the basis for
social classification,the achievementsof half-breeds
would be a verydefiniteindication of theirintrinsic
qualities.
It mightbe appropriatehere to include an opinion
on theeffects
ofrace mixtureby Davenport(1928a: 1314), the onlyauthoritywhoseworkGarretthas cited as
of mixed bloods:
a proofof the inferiority
deofhumanhybridity
consequences
of
the
The question
this
Unfortunately
analysis.
mandsthemostcarefulscientific
Firstof all, it is
withmanydifficulties.
questionis fraught
to studyit purely
It is difficult
one thatarousestheemotions.
It is probablethat,whereour own race is inobjectively.
the
volved, deep-seatedinstinctsare aroused-especially
instinct
of'race-purity.'
It isoftencalledprideofrace.Apparmade up of a
entlythisrace purityis a complexinstinct,
impulses.. . . Thereis no single
numberofmoreelementary
Someof them,likethe
rulethatappliesto all racialhybrids.
FrenchCanadian-Indian
and theChinese-Hawaiian
hybrids
seemtoshowhybrid
vigor.Other,liketheEurasians,
hybrids
Someare devoidof beautyof form
showan enfeeblement.
whileothersareregarded
bythewhitesas particuand figure,
.. Perhapswe can onlysaythat,apartfrom
larlyattractive..
whichthehybrid
peopleshowas comthegreater
variability
depends
paredwithpurerstocks,theresultof race-crossing
is not
natureof thecross.Race-crossing
upon theparticular
injuriousper se, butmaylead in somecasesto a disharmony
in thephenotype.
A morerecentwriter,JacquesMillot (1952: 69) sums
up as follows:
to an opinionwhichprevailsamongthepublic
Contrary
and fedbypowat large,basedon someinexactobservations
is in no waya
a personof mixedancestry
erfulprejudices,
.... The idea oftheinferitohisprogenitors
prioriinferior
as a dogma,is a phenomeonce considered
orityofhybrids,
These
and socialfactors.
tiedto psychological
non directly
arealmostalwaysobligedto liveundermoredifficult
hybrids
thanindividuals
of theso-calledpureraces.They
conditions
in falsepositions,
rejectedbyboth
findthemselves
frequently
of theracesfromwhichtheyare descended.. . . Far from
race mixturebestowsin mostcases
beingdisadvantageous,
It is a realphysion itsproducts.
vigorand fecundity
greater
stimulus.
cal and intellectual
In his brief note entitled "Disadvantages of Race
Mixture,"Gates (1952b) says:
on thenatureofrace,
UNESCO statement
In themodified
ConAnthropological
issuedat the FourthInternational
7, we findthe incautious
gressesin Viennaon September
affrmationthat"There is no evidencethatrace mixtureproduces disadvantageousresults from a biological point of
view."
The statement, of course, was not "issued" by the
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
FourthInternationalCongressof Anthropologicaland
EthnologicalSciences,whichmerelyapprovedthe text,
as pointedout at the beginningof this article.In any
case,we shouldbe pleased to have Gatesgive any scientificreason that would justifyhis qualificationof the
Statementas "incautious."The instancehe cites,"that
sickle-cellanaemia occurswithmuch higherfrequency
in AmericanNegroeshaving some whiteancestrythan
in AfricanNegroesofpure descent,"whichhe considers
"ample evidencethatrace mixturecan be disadvantageousin itsracial effects,"
is in our opinion amplycovered by the quotation fromDavenport cited above:
"theresultof race-crossing
dependsupon theparticular
natureof the cross.Race-crossingis not injurious per
se."
PerhapsGates could anticipatewhat in his opinion,
would have been the resultsof endogamiccrossesbetweensome of those White ancestorswho apparently
werethecarriersof the sickle-cellanemia gene. Are we
in errorto supposethatin such case a highfrequencyof
this fatal disease would have been obtained, even
had not taken place?
thoughrace-crossing
2. The weak, disease-riddenpopulation of modern
Egyptoffersdramaticevidence of the evil effectsof a
hybridization
whichhas gone on for5000 years.
This surprisingand categoricalstatementraises several questions:Can Garrettdescribethe ethniccomposition of Egypt throughoutthose 5,000 years?What
weretheracial elementsthatmixed duringthisperiod?
Were theythe same duringthe courseof 50 centuries?
Where,when,and bywhomwere thestudiesmade that
permitGarrettto call the Egyptianpopulation "weak"
and "disease-ridden"?
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM AGAIN?
Ramos concluded that "Nothingjustifiesthe idea that

theBrazilianmestizoshave anycharacterofinferiority"
(1947: 459).
4. In the WestIndies, thecivilizationis advanced almostexactlyto thedegreeto whichthepopulationsare
unmixedwiththeNegro.Haiti is an unhappyexample
of what the Negro can do when leftto governhimself.
This statementis extremelybroad and vague; and it
seems incomprehensiblethat a scientistcould make it
withoutprovidinga solid basis of factsand research.
While it is only applied to Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico,
the Dominican Republic, Jamaica,and the Lesser Antilles,it could equally well include Venezuela,Panama',
Mexico, and variousCentralAmericancountrieswhere
racial mixturewith a Negroid componentis evident.
We hope that Garrettcan prove what he so lightly
affirms.
One wonderswhetherGarrettconsidersthatNegroes
constitutea singleraceby thesimplefactofbeing dark,
and whetherall of themare consequentlyincapable of
self-government.
If so,how would he explain thesocial,
political, and economic differencesamong different
groupsofNegroesin Africa-byheredity,
or byenvironment?Does he class all 15 new Negro nations as unhappyexamplesof self-government;
and does he expect
the developmentof Nigeria to be the same as that of
Congo?
In closingthissectionof the article,we mustemphasize how much Garrett,as well as Gates,speaksofracial
mixtureand attacksthe Statementon Race, but exclusivelycitesexamplesand casesrelatingto theNegroand
the Negro hybrid.For our part, we believe that the
criticismand thediscussionshould be broadened to include race mixturein the widestcontextpossible,i.e.,
among all human groups.We trustthat Garrettand
Gates have not introduceda new discriminationand
considerthat mixturewith the Negro is distinctfrom
and "worse"thanthatwithotherhumans.On thissupposition,would not the greatmajorityof the hispanoamerican nations, whose populations include a high
percentageof Indian-Whitehybrids,also be considered
inferior;and would theynot be cases of what Garrett
describesas "unhappy examples" of self-government?
The consequencesof "scientific"racismare tragic,but
occasionallytheresultofitsattitudesis amusingor ludicrous.And it seemsso to me in thiscase.
3. In Brazil, coastalBahia with its negroidmixtures

is primitiveand backwardas compared with the relativelyadvanced civilizationof whiteSouthernBrazil.
Again Garrettpostulatesa directcorrelationbetween
race mixtureand a low level of civilization,as a conseof the
quence of the biological and mental inferiority
hybrid.This outlook was characteristic
of thatheld by
a group of Brazilian racistsin the firstquarterof this
century:Nina Rodrigues, Euclides da Cunha, Silvio
Romero,and Oliveria Vianna, none of whom,happily,
werebiologistsor anthropologists.
The truesituationin Brazil is quite unlike thatsupposed byGarrett.Our knowledgeofBrazil enablesus to
the errorof attributingthe supposed backwardaffirm
ness of the Bahia coast to a Negroid admixture.Does
Garrettknow theculturallevel of citieslike Bahia and
Recife?Has he any knowledgeof the ecological conditionsand oftheattemptsoffederaland stateauthorities CONCLUSIONS
in Brazil to overcomeor minimizethoseenvironmental
obstaclesthatslow agriculturaland industrialadvance
(1) Garrettdoes not adduce a singlepiece of informain the northeastof Brazil? How would he explain the
tionofa scientific
characterwhichproveshis contention
undeniable scientificand culturaleminenceof Rio de
thatNegroesand hybridsare "inferior"human groups.
Janeiro,manyofwhoseinhabitants-includingthosein
(2) He builds his argumentson incompleteevidence
intellectual,industrial,and politicalcircles-arecharac- which could mislead the non-specialistreader,and enterized by what Garrettdescribes as "Negroid mix- courages race prejudice and discriminationthrough
tures"?It mightbe useful for Garrettto read one of
pseudo-scientific
arguments.
the worksof the late ArthurRamos, particularlythe
(3) We would welcomebeing informedof any existing anthropological,psychological,or geneticevidence
chapterson racemixturein Brazil (1947: 361-462).As a
resultofhis studies,and thoseofmanyofhis colleagues, whichwas not takeninto considerationby the authors
Vol. 2 -No. 4 *October 1961
313
of the Statementon Race or which has since come to

light.Lacking such data, we believe we are justifiedin
Garrett'sarticleas an example of racist
characterizing
propaganda,masqueradingas scholarlydiscussion.
To conclude, we quote some phrases of Hooton's
whichseem to apply with full forceto Garrettand his
associatesof The Mankind Quarterly.The illustrious
Harvardanthropologistwrote (1926: 81):
on racialsubjects,
usuallynotprofessional
Certainwriters
characassociateculturaland psychological
anthropologists,
evidence.
withphysicaltypeson whollyinsufficient
teristics
attribute
to thephysical
commonly
Theseracepropagandists
of mankindto whichtheyimaginethat they
subdivision
belongall or mostof the superiorqualitiesof
themselves
mentaland moral.Theytalkof thepsyphysical,
mankind,
of thisor thatraceas if theywere
characteristics
chological
demonstrated.
objectivetangibleproperties,scientifically
thatphysical
froman a priori
typeshave
assumption
Starting
Comments
By R. A. M. BERGMAN*
I quite agreewiththe ideas expressed
by Comas. A fewweeks ago I discussed
with a group of interestedlaymen the
value of the termsused when the concept of race is discussedwith reference
to the human group.
It is veryremarkablethatone should
meet then with every possible sin
against logic.
1. Everybodyagreesthatthe discriminants in diagnosing racial groups
shouldbe permanent,i.e., genetic,characteristics.Notwithstandingthis agreement,environmentalcriteriaare regularly applied, such as the area where
people live ("Armenids,""Turanids"),
or the language theyspeak ("the Latin
("a race
race"), or theirculture-pattern
of hunters"),or theirpolitical organization ("the Frenchor the Englishrace").
2. The words "evident" and "important" are indiscriminatelysubstituted
for one another. It is stated that race
are evident; this is in many
differences
cases true, but why should these differencesbe importantfromthepoint of
view of biology?In fact,it is hard to see
how theycould be: whetherthese differencesoriginatedall at once or in an
irregularsequence,theymusthave originated in an already very complicated
organism,which could maintain life
only througha very great number of
between the compointerrelationships
nent parts: in such complicatedorganisms, minor changes (although these
may occasionally be very "evident"
ones) can occur withoutdisturbingthe
equilibrium upon which life depends.
On the other hand, it is quite impossible to imagine biologicallyimportant
changes which would not immediately
314
psychologicalcorrelates,theyattemptto refereverymanifestationof the psychologicalqualities assumedto be the exclusive propertyof this or that race to the physical type in
question.
Great men of whateverperiod are claimed to be members
of the favoredrace on the basis of theirachievementsand
sometimeswith a total disregardof physicalcriteria.In no
case has any seriouseffortbeen made by such ethnomaniacs
to isolate a pure racial type and to studyeitherits mental
qualities or its material culture. The fact that most if not
all peoples are raciallymixed is consistently
ignored.While
some of the conclusionsof such writersmay be correct,none
of themhave been scientifically
established.
We feel that it can never be said often enough that
scientists,more than any other group, have a moral obligation to remain faithfulto the famous maxim of Jose
Marti: Wordsare not for destroyingtruthbut forre-
vealing it.
destroylife. Let us take as an example

changesin the skin: a difference
of pigmentationmay be of no importanceat
all forlife;while a changein permeabilitymay be less conspicuousbut incompatible with life.
3. Lack of clarityin the wordingof
an observation can induce an unfoundedjudgment.We may take as an
example: "the lazy native." The exact
descriptionin a numberof cases should
have been: "a nativesuffering
frommalaria is not prone to do heavy work."
There is indeed a negative correlation
between malaria and propensity to
work,but thisis by no means restricted
to a specificrace-group.
4. Extrapolatingis oftendone in the
formof a generalization,whichthen assumesthevalidityof an observation.An
example here is the expression "the
clever Chinese." We know that cleverness,whateverit maybe, in all probability is spread throughoutthe group of
Mongols in much the same way as
throughthe group of Whitesor thatof
Negroes.
5. Passingfromthedescriptionofone
organ to a judgmentabout the value of
another.A man may be a profoundor
an indifferent
thinker,but in any case
he is neitherthe one nor the otheronly
because he has an abundant or a scant
pigmentationof his skin.
6. The concept of correlationneeds
to be distinguishedfrom causal relations. Two groups of schoolchildren
may differin the colour of their eyes
and in the quality of theirschoolwork.
These characteristics
will show a positive correlation,but the one is not the
cause of the other.
7. Comparisons between groups
should be made only with components
showingthegreatestpossiblesimilarity.
A comparisonbetweena groupof schol-
ars belongingto one race and a group

of farm workersof another race will
perhaps show certain differences;but
the correlation that can be demonstratedwill not be due to the race factor,and perhaps not even to the social
difference.
When an attemptis made to compare
the least endowed people of two racial
groups, there is no differencein the
quality. Similarly,I do not think that
there will be a differencebetween a
group of scholarsappertainingto one
race and a similargroupof anotherrace.
In the courseof the past year I studied
the problem whethera specificracial
pathologyhad been establishedin the
medical literaturethat appeared in the
formerDutch East Indies in the past
one hundred years,but I found none.
(Bergman 1960).
[Amsterdam,17.3.61]
By KAJ BIRKET-SMITH*
Beforecommentingon Comas' paper
I must emphasize,first,that I do not
want to excuseracismof any kind or in
any form;and second, that I am not a
physical anthropologistand probably
know no more about physical anthropology than any ethnologistwith a little biological training.
As forthe restI may be verybrief.I
quite agree that so far no racial differences in mental facultieshave been established.However,ifsuchfacultiesare
to a certain extent hereditary(I am
thinking of identical-twininvestigations), there is also a possibilitythat
some mental traitsmay be raciallydistinctive.I do not, of course, refer to
such extremelycomplex conceptsas intelligence,ability,disposition,etc.; an(d
above all I want to stressthata possible
in mind does
proofof racial differences
not implyany evaluationor "marking"
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
as inferior,
superior,or thelike.
What we need is expressed in the
resolutionof the 1952Vienna Congress:
an unbiasedstudyof the problem.The
results,whatevertheymay be, may of
coursebe misused.But we do not want
to stopthe studyof nuclear physicsbecause atomicpower can be misusedfor
bombs.
[Copenhagen, 18.2.61]
By P. BoEv*
Many believed that afterthe Second
WorldWar the destructionof Fascism
wouldbringan end to racismonce and
an elementof the
forall, as constituting
basicpreceptsof Nazi ideology.But this
has not been borne out by events. In
one formor another,articlescontinue
to appear in support of racism. Ordinarily,theyno longer speak of "pure"
races, but of racial psychologicaland
as an apology
intellectualdifferences,
forcolonialismand racial subjugation.
And forthisreason the articleby Juan
Comas has come as a timelyintervention, for which he should be warmly
congratulated.We fullysupporthis introductorystatementsand share his
anxietythat the menace of "scientific"
racism, used for political speculation,
has not been removed. But we think
that his list of fightersagainst racism
should be extended to include others,
and above all ProfessorKarl Saller of
Munich, who even before the Second
World War, in the veryheart of Nazi
Germany,had the courage to take a
resolute stand against racial theories,
for which he was banished from his
University,and his works suppressed.
Anothername thatis perhapsunknown
to the men of learning in the West is
thatof theeminentBulgarianbiologist,
the late Academician ProfessorMetodi
Popoff.He was one of the fewscientists
in the small countries,who on the eve
of the Second World War in lectures
and writingsresolutelydenounced racist theories.The monarcho-fascist
governmentof those days prohibited his
lectureson the subject.
We trust that Comas' article may
serveto tracethe workof otherfighters
against racism and to appraise their
merits.
Here we should mentionour support
of the 1951 UNESCO Statement on
Race, although certain problems have
clarifiedand might
not been sufficiently
be furtherdiscussedand more precisely
and scientificallyformulatedby some
internationalcongressor symposiumon
theproblemofraces: theproblemof the
influenceof environmenton changes
in the hereditaryconstitution,for instance,as well as the genetic terminology;whetherthegenusis a materialcarrierofheredity;whatexactlythephenotypeand genotypeare, and so on. What
is important,however,is the fact that
Comas:
this declaration has been draftedin a

spiritconforming
to-thefactsofmodern
science,and thatits aim is to serve the
promotionof humanenessand progress.
We do not have at hand manyof the
worksquoted by Comas, so that I am
unable to judge the work of Garrett.
Thus, I shall limitmyselfto whatComas
has written.I agree with him that the
main factorimpelling developmentis
environment,and not some changeless
genera.It then followsthat the human
races are not eternal,and that theyare
made manifestor disappear in thevarious stages of human development.A
change in the race follows change
of environment,because environment
has helped in its creation.I fullyagree
withComas' view thatit is preciselythe
racistswho reject the influenceof environmenton the origin,development,
and disappearance of the races. They
do thisin an attemptto prove that the
Negroes are of an inherentlylower order by birth,and that theyare not susceptible to change in the progressive
sense.
We considererroneousGarrett'sconception that Negroes are intellectually
inferiorto Whites.Here too,we support
theview of Comas,who correctly
quotes
a numberof authoritiesto reject scientifically and convincingly Garrett's
stand. In our modern timeshardlyany
anthropologistswould wish to contend
that there are any physicaldifferences
betweenWhitesand Negroes,and even
less so as regards the morphologyof
the brain. Recent scientificprogress,
particularlythe study of morphology,
physiology,biochemistry,and the development of the brain, has made it
clear thatthe essenceof human thought
cannot be measured by the volume of
cerebral matter,nor by physiological
or psychictests(of the type sometimes
applied at present,and which Comas
furtheranalyzes).This can be measured
only by the quantity of neurones, or
ratherby theirdelicate setting-a problem about whichwe stillknowbut little.
Accordingly,we cannot assume thatwe
have at presenta methodthatis able to
assess intelligence,or delineate differences in the intellectual standards of
people. The functionof the brain is far
too complicated,and cannot be identified with the functionof an internal
secretiongland or the functionsof the
otherorgansof thebody.So forthe moment there are no testscapable of determiningthe quality of a certainpsychic processor inbornmental faculties.
We agree with the view, expressedby
Merton and Montagu, that these tests
do not actually measure intelligence,
but ratherexperimentalcapacitiesand
acquired knowledge.
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
We all know that,because of the social conditions in which Negroes are

placed, theaveragelevel of theirknowledge and cultureis far inferiorto that
of Whites.But it is quite anotherproblem to know what the Negroes would
be ifgivenopportunitiesforbettereducation and a highermaterial and spiritual culture. In this connection it is
worth remembering Charles Mountford's work about the "cinnamoncoloured people and the red sands"where the well-knownAustralian ethnographergives high appraisal to the
moral nature of the Australian Aborigines.Shall we mentionthe Australian anthropologist,Prof. Doguid, who
brought up two orphaned Aborigine
girls,and proved that when placed in
the same environment,theydid better
in their studies and music than the
Whites?From theseand manyotherexamples, aptly illustrated by Comas'
article as well, one is bound to arrive at the conclusion that all people
on earth,irrespectiveof their particular race, are susceptibleof progressand
development.It is all a matterof affordingthem the necessaryopportunities. In this connection,one should reject the arguments put forward by
Audrey Shuey; and Ina Brown's criticismmeritsfull support.
We are also of the opinion that the
viewspropoundedbyGates (resembling
thoseof Garrett)are entirelyracist,and
thathe erroneouslyrelatesman's spiritual qualities (whichin a large measure
are the productof education) to intellectual capacities,and links themwith
race.We all knowthatthehumanbeing
is susceptibleto education,particularly
at an early age. Much as intellectmay
be inherited,it constantlychanges under the influenceof environment.
Klineberg is rightwhen, in the discussionof race and crime,he pointsout
that the race is not guilty of crime.
We share the interpretationgiven by
Comas of crime statisticsfurnishedby
the Federal Bureau of Investigationof
the United States. One can in no way
accept race as a factor determining
crime.Crime should be viewed not as
a biological phenomenon, but as the
offspringof one or another social environmentwhich has led to law-breaking. Even if we were to admit that in
the U.S.A. there are more crimescommittedby Negroes than by Whites,we
should take into account the social environmentin which the Negroes have
been placed. Let us not forgetJeanValjean's fate in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. In any case, the view that Negroesare born criminalsis scientifically
entirelywithoutground.
of
The problemof the intermingling
Vol. 2 -No. 4- October 1961
315
races and its consequences has been

clearlyset in the UNESCO report,and
have agreedwithit. Here
mostscientists
the factsare evident,and theyconfirm
the views of the scientistssigning the
declaration,also accepted by Comas. It
is known that in the animal world
cross-breedingproduces prolific hybrids.The same is true of the human
races,and thereare no scientificdata to
show that human hybridsare biologicallyor mentallyinferiorto the parent
stock.
In this connection one should not
take as an example uncultured or socially backward peoples, because the
factorsdeterminingtheirculturemight
consciouslyor involuntarilybe taken
as factorsdeterminingintellect.That is
what Garretthas done, when pointing
to Haiti, Jamaica, Brazil, and Egypt.
We consider these examples to be incongruous,and can in no case agree
withhimthatthebackwardnessof Haiti
is due to its hybridpopulation. Garrett
seemsto ignoresuch prominentfactors
as arrestedsocial and economic development,whichare due, not to racial inbut to other causes. Here
termingling,
numerousexamplesmightbe quoted to
refuteGarrett'sview and support that
of Comas. One could draw examples
from the present-daypeoples of Asia
and look back into history.We realise
thatmany Mongolian racial typeshave
made theirwayinto the ethnogenesisof
the Russian and other peoples. Our
own paleoanthropologicalsurveyshave
shown that the old Bulgars were a
Turkic people, and consequentlya contact type between the Mongolian and
White races. After the Bulgars mixed
withtheSlavs,theyfoundeda powerful
Bulgarian State,whichbetweenthe 9th
and the 14th centurieswas one of the
most highlyculturedof its time. Such
examples can be found in every part
everyperiod
of theworldand reflecting
of human history.Comas is right in
his thesis that there is no question of
biological or mental inferiorityin
the hybridizationof the major human
races.
In conclusion,we should like to add
that the anxietywhich Comas feels is
fullyjustified.It is time forall anthropologists and the leadership of the
World Union of Anthropologicaland
Ethnological Associations to give this
problem their renewed consideration,
in thelightof theUNESCO Report and
Juan Comas' warning against neoracism.Would it not be a good idea if
some time during the year were designated a "month for the fightagainst
racism,"whenauthoritieson thesubject
could read lectures in the spirit proclaimed in the remarkable UNESCO
declarationon the racial problem?
[Sofia,25.4.61]
316
By V. BUNAK*
I subscribeto the opinions of Comas
about racial differencesin mental activity.To his analysis,I should like to
add a few commentsof a more general
nature.
1. It is necessaryto treat separately
two aspects of mental activity:its content,and its mechanism(the processes
of thinking).
2. The individual contentof mental
activity-a store of knowledge,a circle
of habitual association,etc.-is a partof
the commoncultureof a given society.
Though separate individuals play unequal partsin culturaldevelopment,the
achievementsof a culture are readily
adopted by thepredominantpart of the
societyindependentlyof its members'
differencesin mental capacities. It is
clear that even the most eminent persons of past epochs could not easily
adopt thementalassociationsproduced
by contemporarytechnologyand culture.
3. Unequal rate of culturaldevelopment is a resultof numeroushistorical
conditions.There is much archeological evidence,forinstance,which shows
that the transitionfromthe Neolithic
culture to that of the Bronze or Iron
Age did not take place simultaneously,
even in populationsof identicalanthropological type.A predominantpartof a
groupunderstableconditionsfullymasters a store of ideas that are necessary
for the life of the population. Otherwise,thesocietycould not have existed.
4. The processof highernervousacas well as manyothercomplicated
tivity,
functionsof an organism,cannot be divided into stepsof different
qualitative
levels. To which of the many componentsof psychicactivityshould preference be given: celerityin theassociation
of ideas, or the quantity of ideas involved? The exactnessof reproducing
in the memory,or their
representations
extentand volume?The discriminating
functionor the generalisingfunction?
Variationsof all thesecomponentscombine verydifferently;
theycompensate
for one another,primarilycharacterizof mentality.
ing typologicaldifferences
5. The broadest method for determiningthe typesof highernervousactivitywas workedout by I. P. Pavlov.
For the determinationof thesetypesin
man, the well-knownRussian physiologistproposedthebiographicalanalysis
of an individual.Such a studycan give
resultsonly if we take into
satisfactory
considerationthesocial and naturalenvironmentof the personstudied.
The investigationof the types of
highernervousactivitymeritsconsiderbut
able attentionfromanthropologists,
thislarge fieldof researchhas remained
untouched until now. The important
role of endogenous predispositionin

the developmentof mentaltypesis well
attestedby variousinvestigations.
6. As for the I.Q. and similar tests,
they characterisethe peculiarities of
mental typesno more than the examination of the individual's fitnessfor a
certainkindof practicalactivity(thatof
a driveror a bookkeeper) and do not
characterisehis type of mentality.It
would be desirablefor the significance
of the I.Q. fortypologicalstudiesto be
by
discussedin CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY
specialistsin the psychologicalsciences.
7. Valuable data forthe comparative
analysis of mental activity in nonEuropean ethnic groups can be obtainedfromthestudyof certaincustoms
to
and games.Many observationstestify
the high developmentof constructive
and analytical activityin the hunting
tribes,e.g. sketching
and food-gathering
of geographical maps, playing with
cord-loops("cat's cradle" in Australia),
etc.
8. The structuralvariations of the
brain do not belong among the charactersthatare suitable forthe separation
of racial types. Modern physiology
(complicated interactionbetween the
cortexand subcorticalpart, the role of
reticularsubstance)has shown that the
morphologicalvariations of the brain
are not directlyconnectedwiththevariationsof theelementsof highernervous
activity.These facts,it is clear, do not
diminishthevalue of cerebralmorphology for the anthropologicalsciences.
[Moscow, 11.3.611
By THEODOsIus
DOBZHANSKY*
Faced with a revival of "scientific"

racism, one is tempted to treat the mat-
terwith the silent scornit so richlydeserves.The temptationmustbe resisted,

however,lest some people should be
misledby a spuriousvindicationof race
bigotry.Comas has provideda splendid
reviewand analysisof the situation.It
mayperhapsbe usefulto add a warning
against exaggerationswhich some writers bent on combatingracism are unwittinglymaking.
Human equalityis not predicatedon
geneticidentity,or even on identityof
ability; its ideal is not making people
identicalbut givingtheman equalityof
opportunity.It is absurd to thinkthat
only identical twins can be equals. To
imply that recognitionof genetic diversitymightjustifyracismis to justify

it; to contend that mankind is not a
polytypic species differentiatedinto
races of variousordersis to give racists
an openingforan easydebatingsuccess.
Genetic diversity is not an unfortunate
deviation from an ideal state but an
adaptive responseof life to its environments.Biologically considered,culture

is an adaptive contrivanceto make peoCURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
ple diverse,not to make them alike.

Geneticand culturaldiversitytogether
than
accomplishthis more effectively
eithercould separately.
For at least 10,000,and perhaps for
1,000,000years,man has been adapting
his environmentsto his genes more
often than his genes to his environments.This supremacyof cultureover
biologywill doubtless continue in the
foreseeablefuture.All healthyindividuals ofHomo sapiens have a capacityto
acquire a culture,any one of the culturesthatmankindhas developed anywhere.This capacity is one of man's
biological species characteristics,like
walking erect, the approximately 9month pregnancy term, or the nonopposable big toe. It is, however,a fallacy to think that specificor ordinal
traitsare not subject to genetic variation. Phenotypicplasticitydoes not exclude genotypicvariety.There may be
variationsin the degreeof plasticity;or
in that some of the functionsor roles
which exist within a culture may be
more congenial,and hence more easily
learned than others.Equality of opportunitystimulatesthe division of labor
ratherthansetsit aside. It is onlywitha
reasonable approach to an equality of
beopportunitythatgeneticdifferences
tween individualsand populations can
become clearlymanifest.Inequality of
opportunityhides, distorts,and stultifiesgeneticdifferences.
The contentionof racistsis thatsince
races
culturalachievementsof different
are so obviouslyunlike, their genetic
capacities for achievementare just as
It is, however,a matterof eledifferent.
mentarygeneticsthat the capacities of
individuals,populations, or races cannot be discovereduntil theyare given
an equality of opportunityto demonstratethesecapacities.Wisely or otherwise, many people prefer self-government even to good government.To
demonstrate"equal" capacities for cultural achievement,all races need not
reproduce copies of whatevercivilization we happen to regard as the quintessenceof enlightenmentand discernment. Given an opportunity,people
may arrange their lives in different
ways.Without adopting the viewpoint
of extremeculturalrelativism,one may
neverthelesshope that mankind may
profitby this diversitymore than it
mightgain by a monotonoussameness,
even of the most"advanced" kind.
[New York, 18.2.61]
be. Where geographicalseparationand

adaptationhave been a processof many
generations, this could be expected.
Further,such groups as the Australian
Aborigines,who have been isolated for
thousands of years as nomadic foodgatherers,may be in some degree biologicallyspecialized,or mayretainsome
such specialization from an early human phase. But we still have to learn
whetherthis is more than a matterof
some differences
in bony structure(e.g.
eyebrowridges and slope of forehead)
and in average size of brain compared
with the European or Mongoloid average.
In practical affairs,however,i.e., in
policies and attitudesaffectingthe differenthuman groups,myview was implied in a contribution to Human
Rights,a UNESCO publication of the
views of selected philosophers and
scholarsas backgroundmaterialforthe
drawing-up of the United Nations
Charter (Elkin 1949; compare Elkin
1943, 1944). Irrespectiveof the conclusions that physicalanthropologistsand
"comparative" psychologists might
eventually reach, Australian Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, and other
races which have been dubbed primitive,are entitledto the same charterof
human rightsas the races we termcivilized or advanced.
Underlyingthisdeclarationis the im"primplicationthatsuchdark-skinned,
itive" races can appreciate and benefit
fromthose rights,adapt themselvesto
modern civilization, and take their
places in the world's political and economicsystem,
e.g. as Tonga does. In our
presentstate of knowledgethismay be
an act of faithor hope. S. D. Porteus,
having applied specially-devisedpsychological tests to Australian Aborigines, concluded that such would be a
vain hope. Later on, after working
amongst other racial groups, he concluded further that the Australians'
handicap in thisregardwas not as great
as some of the latter.If Porteus' tests
as he hoped (Porteus
were culture-free,
1932, 1937), then the Aborigines,for
example, are "biologically" incapable
of adaptation to Westerncivilization.I
disputed this at length,but could not
produce any biological evidence or the
resultsof psychologicaltesting.I could
only argue that individual Aborigines
whom I knew were clear and quick
thinkersin the sphere of social strucBy A. P. ELKIN*
ture, and on the basis of their tradiThere are differencesbetween the tional dogmastheyarguedlogicallyand
populations generallycalled races, but philosophically. Moreover, their apthe question of superior and inferior praisal of phases of the contact situahas no anthropologicalrelevance.Some tion,seemed to me veryrational (Elkin
1932).
groups may be better adapted to one
Clearly,I was by implicationmaking
typeof environmentthan otherswould
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
an act of faithand hope, based on special cases and on personal observation.

Moreover,I cannot at thisdate, nearly
30 years later, point to any full-blood
Aboriginewho has adopted our civilization. Individualshave provedsuccessful in someof our technicaland artistic
skills,but theyhave not adopted our
values in thespheresof space, time,and
property.The obvious hindranceis the
heritage of nomadic, food-gathering
values, and the still influentialbackground of tribe, clan, and kinship.
Whetheror not a biological factoris involvedhas yetto be determined;but we
act in administrationas though there
wereno suchfactor.On theotherhand,
when in 1936 at a Conferenceon Native Education in Honolulu, I referred
to casesof apparentlysuccessfuladaptation to civilization,a South Australian
ethnologistassured us that any such
cases were "mixed-bloods."And again,
I mustadmitto-daythatanyAborigines
who have played, or are playing,a responsible role as citizensare part-Aborigines. These include trained nurses,
including a matron; trained teachers;
Christian ministers; and semi-skilled
workers.They are few,but theirnumbers grow,for prejudice is decreasing.
However,in spite of good scholarships
to theUniversityof Sydney,whichI am
building up, so far therehave been no
applicants. Indeed, veryfew part-Aboriginal children remain at secondary
schoolbeyondthecompulsoryage, even
when State Governmentswill assist
themto do so. The explanation here is
not obviouslybiological,for these children are mostly about quarter-caste.
The social handicapswill eventuallybe
overcome.When theyare, the truetest
of abilitywill come, and also the bearing of miscegenationon such ability.
I have referredto theAustralianAborigines in particular, and mentioned
the Papuans and Melanesians, partly
because theseare recognizedas distinct
races, but mainly because most of the
currentargumentregardingracial inferioritycentres on the American or
AfricanNegro,and arouses strongfeelings. Even Comas saysin the foregoing
"'Scientific'Racism Again?" that
of
theonlypersonswhodenytheinfluence
environment
and attributetotalinfluence
to heredityare the racists,forwhomthe
Negroand thehybridarepersonsofinnate
and unmodifiable
inferiority.
This implies that there is an ultraracism abroad in the form of "antiNegroism"as therewas duringthe closing decades of Negro slavery in the
U.S.A., when anthropologywas invoked
to justifythisinstitution.If so, it should
be exposed. A dogma of "innate and
unmodifiableinferiority"
of the Negro
317
and the hybrid,presumablywith the

implicationthat the Negro is a deadend specialization,is contraryto scientificknowledgeand theory.If therebe
such scientificmalefactors,theyshould
be exposed.
In somewhatcalmer,thoughat times
disturbed,waters the centralityof the
Negro problem was evident at a 5weeks' Seminar on Race Relations in
Honolulu, 1954. In spite of effortsto
turnthoughtsto the Middle or Far East
and the Pacific, this problem of the
Americanand Africancontinentsand
adjacent islands dominated the discussions.To many of those presentit was
the live issue, and of course this issue
is geographicallywidespreadand "hot"
politically.For me, however,with no
personal involvementwith the Negro
problem, race questions are not "bedevilled" by the social and political
heat which is generatedon the spot in
partsof thosecontinents,and which influencesthe attitudesand values of all
concerned, even academically, with
Negro-Whiterelations.
Further,apart fromthe Negro question,revulsionfromdoctrinesof racism
is apt to colour discussionof race difference. Thus, the Statement on the
Race Question issued on July18, 1950,
drawn up primarilyby social anthropologists,was born of revulsionto Nazi
racismand its terribleconsequences.As
an understandablereaction, emphasis
on the scientificbaselessnessof racism
tended to avoid the biological phenomenon of race whichhad been so grossly
pervertedby political racists.In spite,
too, ofAshleyMontagu's elaborationof
the Statement,which in any case reflectedhis viewsand phraseology,it did
not satisfy physical anthropologists,
even though the opinions of some of
themhad been soughtbeforeit received
its final form.Consequently,the later
"Statementon the Nature of Race and
Race Differences,"issued by physical
anthropologistsand geneticistsin June
1951,was opportune. It was in parts a
compromise,and indicativeof prevailing uncertainty.However, in view of
in
our ignorance and of the difficulty
such conditionsforunanimouscommitindicated
tee agreement,it satisfactorily
the position pro tem. Moreover, the
UNESCO booklet, The Race Concept
(1952),which contained the textof this
1951Statementtogetherwithcomments
was a useful
and criticismsby scientists,
correctiveto extremepositionswhether
on the side of environmentor of heredity.
The psychologistsand social anthropologists on the one hand, and the
and geneticists
physicalanthropologists
on the otherhand, agree that both social and biological (hereditary)factors
are involved,but neitheryetknowsthe
318
relative importanceof the two factors

or theirmannerof interaction.It is the
age-oldproblemof body-mindrelationship over again, but in thebroaderfield
of heredityand culture.Therefore,it is
unfortunatethat research and discussion should be clouded by derogatory
terms,such as "levellers"and "racists."
Comas objects stronglyto Garrett's
criticismof a chapterby Klinebergon
"Race and Psychology,"and so provides
anotherepisode in this endless debate.
But whetherGarrett'sargumentbe specious or not, a psychologistis not a
racistbecause he disagreeswith Klineberg's interpretation of intelligence
tests.He mightbe stupid,but is he necessarilyevil?And is it reasonable to say
that the new journal, The Mankind
Quarterly,is the medium of "scientific
racism" because Garrett contributed
thiscriticalarticleto it and because his
was dubbed a sufellowassociate-editor
in 1948?I understandthatthe
per-racist
journal has been foundedforthe laudable purpose of reviewingracial questions. But to be concernedwith questions of race is not to adopt a racist
orientation.S. D. Porteus had to face
this sortof criticismyears ago because
his testsseemed to show that,fromthe
point of view of educabilityforcivilization,someraceswould not be successful
(Porteus 1937:210-13). I was not aware
thathe was a racist;and certainlya scientistwho is studyingracial differences
is not a racistbecause of thisline of research. Thus, F. H. Hankins was a
sound criticof "racialisttheories,"yetin
his Introductionto the Studyof Society
(1928:136-45, esp. 136-37) he stated
that the Negro brain was 10 per cent
smaller than that of the White and of
somewhatdifferentconformation,and
that this was strongpresumptiveeviin average mental
dence of differences
endowment.Indeed, he feltreasonably
confidentthat
Darwin's view of racial mental differences be emphasized.

Further, the contents of the first
number of the new quarterlydo not
suggestthat the journal is devoted to
racist propaganda. Ruggles Gates's
and
noteson his studiesofrace-crossing,
Gayre'scriticismof ultra-polymorphists,
are no more concerned with racism
than Sir Charles Darwin's essay on
"World Population." If, however,the
journal becomes a vehicle for racism,
my nominal association with it as a
member of the Honorary Advisory
Board will cease immediately,because
for30 yearsI have devotedmyself(1) to
proclaiming the rights of Australian
Aborigines,Papuans, and Melanesians
to the same freedomsand opportunities
as ourselves,(2) to influencingGovernmentsto framepolicies which will ensure such rights,and (3) to accepting
responsible roles in administrationin
this sphere.
If, however,the journal encourages
the study of race, of race differences,
and of race problemssuch as the interaction of hereditaryand social factors,
it will do good service.But as forthese
futile argumentson "pure races," the
disharmonicresults of miscegenation,
of inthe contradictory
interpretations
terracialintelligencetestsand suchlike,
"a plague on both your houses," for
neitherlistensto the other.
[Sydney,10.3.61]
By ALEXANDER GALLOWAY*
It is a safe generalisationthat "all
men are normal"; but whetherthe corollaryto thisis thatsome men are more
normal than others,or that there is a
wide range of normalvariationin normalcy,is a matterof choice. Many of us
prefer the latter corollary,since "racists" seem to find themselvesat one
end or theotherof thisnormalrangeof
normalcy.They seem to suffereither
as regardsthosementalcapacitieswhich froma Herrenvolkcomplex or froma
the quasi-paranoid inferiority complex.
are testedby the testingpsychologist,
Negroas a racialgroup,but not as a par- Hence the spate of tedious wordiness
ticular individual, has been definitely on race which has bombarded the
provento be inferiorto the White.
world in the past 15 years.
Later research may have shown that
The physical anthropologiston the
Hankins was incorrectin factsand in
whole has been contentto make honest
but he was not a racist observations,and from these observainterpretation,
because he took account of "hereditary tionshas been able to say: that man is
a Negro, thatone a Bushman,and that
psychologicalcharacteristics."
Whetheranyof theEditorsand mem- one a Caucasian. A littleman under 5
feethigh,with a yellow skin and pepbers of the Honorary AdvisoryBoard
of The Mankind Quarterlyare racists percornhair, and with a small face in
or not, I do not know. The only two proportionto the size of his calvaria,is
a Bushmanwhetherhe is seen in Kalawhom I know well are not racists,and
I did not read into Ruggles Gates'sHuhari or in Piccadilly or on FifthAveman Ancestrya thesisof "somatichier- nue; and thatbeautifultall blonde ridhuman spe- ing a bicycleis a Nordic whethershe is
archybetweenhis different
cies" as Comas did. To classifyman into seen in Copenhagen or Trincomalee.It
is as easy as that.
4 fundamentalgeographicalgroupsand
It is the "racist" who drags in deto call these species is not in itselfto
The
and superiority.
proclaima "somatichierarchy,"even if greesof inferiority
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
racist is a strangeemotional blend of

quasi-metaphysician,
quasi-philosopher,
and propagandistwithan innate capacity forquoting his fellowsout of context.A good example of thisis Comas'
quotationfromWells:
In 1937,however,L. H. Wells considered
it possible to say that "the Bushman must
be considereddefinitelyinferiorin cerebral
development to the European" on the
basisof eleven endocranial casts.This completely subjective conclusion can hardly
withstandcritical examination, either for
the number of subjects on which it was
based or for the generalization it established.
Comas thenfollowsthiswitha seriesof

statistical statements on White and
Negromale and femaleskulls.The releto see. Wells is
vance of this is difficult
a physical anthropologistand as such
deals in physicalterms.When he writes
of cerebral development, he means
physicalcerebraldevelopment.For instance, a specificfeatureof the Bushman brain is the exposed insula,which
is also a feature of the brain of any
young Negro or Caucasian child. The
exposed insula is just another pedoof theBushman,
morphicmanifestation
but an exposed insula does not mean
thattheBushmanis anylessskilledwith
his bow and arrow than is the gerontomorphictoxophilist.So let there be
no confusionbetweenphysicaldevelopment and mental developmentor between morphologyand function.
It is greatlyto be regrettedthat scientistscan bedevil this great moment
in human biological history-themoment of awakening of the emergent
peoples-with their racial arguments.
This servesno purpose whatsoever.It
would be a greaterserviceif theywould
lend theirefforts
to assistingpractically
in this awakening,rather than indulging in armchair squabbles. But if
squabble theymust,let them squabble
over thisone: "All men are equal" is a
statementwhichis widelyaccepted,but
withqualifications,the usual one being
"before the eyes of the law." A better
qualificationis "all men are bornpotentiallyequal." It is this potential which
is the vital thing,and which is so evident in emergentpeoples. Let the armchair squabblers ponder over this potentialism,and help and advise those
workingin the fieldon how to measure
this potential, how to guide it in the
proper channels so that it will soon
come to fullflower.
Anthropologyis the Study of Man,
and the aim of such studyis his understandingand advancementand not his
debasingby squabbles.
[Kampala, Uganda, 23.2.61]
BY HENRY E. GARRETTA
The Editor of CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY has kindly sent me the article by
Comas:
Juan Comas entitled"ScientificRacism

Again?" with the request that I comment on this paper and especially on
Comas' criticisms
of myreviewof Klineberg's chapter in the 1956 UNESCO
race book. After reading Comas' remarkscarefullyseveral times,I am inclined to thinkthatperhaps Editor Sol
Tax may also have sent me Comas'
paper because he wasn't always quite
sure himselfjust what Comas is trying
to say.
After a warm-up of several pages,
Comas tees offon my paper and gives
me several gratuitoussideswipesas he
ploughsahead. But it is soon clear that
myreviewof Klinebergis onlyan opening gambit,so to speak,and thatComas
had soon decided thathe needed a far
wider canvas on which to tell his story.
In brief,Comas' paper is a prolix repetition of most of the argumentsfor
equalitarianismwhich have been aired
thesemanyyears,witha fewof themore
choice propaganda gimmicksthrownin
forgood measure.I shall commentfirst
on his referencesto myarticle,and then
attempta briefevaluationof therestof
his piece.
In the July 1960 issue of The Mankind Quarterly,I reviewedKlineberg's

Race and Psychology,which is one of
several chaptersin the UNESCO book
called The Race Question in Modern
Science. What I undertookto do was to
show that the evidence which Klineberg presents to "prove" the nonexistence of native race differencesis
feeble, often misinterpreted,and is
woefully inadequate to justify his
sweepingconclusionthat"The scientist
knowsof no relationbetweenrace and
psychology."Comas writes:
It is neitherour object nor our place
to answerGarrettin regardto the errors,
of
omissions,or twistedinterpretations
whichhe accusesKlineberg.
This decisiongives away Comas' case. I
disagreed with Klineberg's evidence,
and this is all. To be sure,in pointing
up the errorsin Klineberg'swork,I had
to show thattherewere oftenracial differenceswhere he found equality; and
this necessitated appeal to statistical
data. If Comas had had anythingto say
worthsayingabout mypaper,he should
have shownin detailwhereI was wrong
and Klinebergright.I did not proclaim
any new theoriesof "White supremacy"
nor propose the burning of any fiery
crosses.Hence, Comas' statementthat
mypaper is "an expliciteulogyof racial
discrimination"is, in fact,sheer nonsense; and I suspectComas knows it is
nonsense.
Comas statesthatI overstatedKlineberg'sclaimsforenvironmentas a cause
of racial differences.This, I submit,
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
would have been quite a feat,as Klineberg has spent his entire professional
life tryingto substantiatethe environmentalhypothesis.Of course-being an
astuteman-Klineberg does make a bow
to heredityas a cause of racial differences, but his bow has become little
more thana nod withthe passingyears.
Comas concludesas follows:
In short,theonlypersonswho denythe
influenceof environment
and attribute
totalinfluenceto heredityare the racists,
forwhomthe Negroand the hybridare
personsof innate and unmodifiableinferiority.
This astounding drivel reveals a lot
about Comas' mentality.I don't know
anyonewho attributes"total influence"
to heredity,or who claims the Negro to
be unmodifiablyinferior.Apparently
Comas does knowsuch people.
Again, Comas statesthatI offerselectivemigrationas an explanation of the
higherI.Q.'s of Negroes in the North
as compared with those in the South.
Comas' interpretation
is in error.What
I did show is that Klineberg'sdata on
selectivemigrationare too meager to
offerstrongevidenceforor against this
hypothesis.Comas stringsout a list of
authoritieswhom (he says) I failed to
consider.For once he is right.I referred
only to Klineberg because I was concernedonlywiththe evidenceforselective migration offered by his own
studies.
Finally, Comas deplores my contradiction of Klineberg'soptimisticstatement that thereis "no racial factorin
crime." There is a curious confusion
here.What I actuallydid was point out
that the literallyscandalous record of
the AmericanNegro for crimesof violence showsclearlya strongassociation
betweenrace and crime.I did not conclude fromthiscorrelationthat the Negro has a special "crimegene" or that
all Negroesare criminal.I do thinkthat
the Negro's relative immaturityand
childishness predispose him to emotionally-motivated
crimes;and that his
much betterrecord in the South than
in the North representsthe southern
lawman'sknowledgeand understanding
of this immaturity.But I did not say
thisin myreview.
Having disposedof mypaper, Comas
coversthe waterfrontin the restof his
essay, discussingrace and genes, race
and intelligence,and finallyracial mixture-apparently his main interest.
Comas' discussionof brain size and intelligence is tedious and irrelevant.I
doubt that anyone thinks that mere
brain size has any markedrelationship
to intelligence.One of thelargestbrains
on recordis thatof an idiot. Moreover,
brain weight is, of course, related to
319
Vol. 2 No. 4 *October 1961

body size. Comas lists in his bibliog

of the 21 great civilizationsof the past
raphythename of J. C. Carothers(The
not one was Negro. To be sure, the
AfricanMind in Health and Disease: d
"magnificentcivilizations,"as the cul1953, Worlc
studyin ethnopsychiatry;
tural anthropologistcalls them,which
Health Organization), but Carother'
once existedin West Africawere ahead
workis mentionedonly to disparageit
of the environs,but were hardly on a
This is probablyfor good reasons. Ca
par with the thenwell-developedcivilirothershas reported histological evi
zations in Italy, France, and the Near
denceto showthatthebrain of theAfri East. Timbuktu with its "great univercan is less well developed than that o
sity"was in facta Moslem tradingcenthe European, especiallyin the fronta ter,and the "university"
a largemosque
lobes; that EEGs of Africansare mor
with a few teachers.All the historical
like those of European children thar evidenceshowsthe Africanto be immaEuropean adults; that the Africanha
ture(and in thatsense inferior)in relaan "auditorybrain" ratherthana visua
tion to the European. Should American
one. If furtherresearchshould substan Whitesunder the emotionalgoading of
tiate thislast finding,it mightaccoun
various pressure groups become conin part for the Negro's deficiencyir
vinced that it is their"duty" to absorb
dealing with visual symbols-words the Negroesnow livingin thiscountry,
numbers,diagrams. Again, M. Gebe:
our culturewould inevitablydeteriorate
and R. F. Dean in theirpaper "Devel
intellectually,morally,and materially.
It is too greata riskto takein the name
opment rates of African children ir
of abstractkindness.In fact,it could in
Uganda, (The Lancet, 1957,p. 272) re
theseyearsof "cold wars" spell the difport that Uganda infantshave nearl,
ferencebetween survival and destructwicetheearlygrowthrate of Europear
tion.
children,but that theirprecocityfade
Comas uses all of theold propaganda
out at about 3 years.Thereafterthes(
dodges, of which I shall mention only
childrenare retardedas comparedwit]
Europeans, and reach their maturit, three:
1. Derogatory terms.-Apparen tly
much earlier. The general rule is tha
anyone who believes in genetic racial
the shorterthe infancy,the sooner th(
is a "racist."If he findsthat
differences
peak in mentaldevelopmentis reached
the white man does better than the
Geber's and Dean's observationsfitir
black on a mentaltesthe is a "bigot"; to
well with many studies of schoo
find the opposite is commendableand
achievementofNegrochildrenin Amer
"scientifically"
acceptable.I suppose by
ica. In testsof school achievement,Ne
analogy that anyone who believes in
gro childrenlag moreand more behinc
Whitechildrenas theyprogressthrougi genetic sex differencesis a "sexist."
What name Comas would apply to
the grades.
thosewho believe childrento be "menLike Klineberg,Comas is willing t(
tallyinferior"to adults,I do not know.
accept the evidence frommental test
I suggest"sadist"; it isn't too relevant,
when it "provesequality." If it doesn't
then the testis at fault. Comas quoter perhaps, but it has a good nastyring.
Again, Comas quotes froma reviewof
Merton and Montagu (1940) to the ef
fectthatmentaltestsare reallymeasurer Shuey'sbook (The TestingofNegro Inof the "experience-capacityequation.'
telligence,1958) in which the reviewer
statesthat thisbook will be acceptable
Despite the fact that this statementi
to the "White" Citizens Councils. It
20 yearsold, and neitherauthor is ar
happens that the Citizens Councils do
expert in mental testing,this is not a
bad definitionof intelligence.How else not use the adjective "White." To be
strictlyfair,I suppose it would be apdoes intelligencemanifestitselfsave as
propriateto referto the NAACP as the
abilityto profitfromexperience?
"Black and/orTan" NAACP. Afterall,
Comas' treatmentof racial mixingre
slursworkbothways;and he who dishes
veals considerable emotional involve
ment.I would agree thatracial mixinp it out must also be prepared to take it.
2. Rhetorical questions.-Comas ofis sometimes advantageous, that th(
ten resortsto such ringingqueries,and
resultinghybridmay be physicallyat
sometimes the answers he might get
tractive (for example, the Chinese
would surprisehim. For example, he
Hawaiian crosses)and apparentlyintel
ligent. But this does not mean thal deplores mystatementthat Haiti is an
widespread amalgamation of Negroee unhappy example of what the Negro
can do when leftto governhimself.He
and Whites is desirable or morallyim
asks, "Does he class all 15 new Negro
perative. Quite the contrary,in fact
The Negro has nothing to offerthe nations as unhappy examples of selfgovernment?"The answerto thisone is
White man. Over some 6,000 years ol
a resounding YES-and contemporary
historicaltime,the black Africannevei
devised an alphabet, built up a great historyas revealed in the daily newspacivilization,created a literatureor sci- persfullycorroboratesthisjudgment.
3. Lists of authorities.-It is an old
ence, or producedanygreatmen. Toynbee, the Britishhistorian,has said t;hai propaganda trickto stringout a long
320
list of names as authorityfor almost

every statement; and this often impresses the naive reader. Some of
Comas' authorities are undoubtedly
authentic,but some are the same men
found over and over "fronting"for almost any crusade or cause. The physical anthropologists(1951 statement)
who sayunequivocallythatgiven "similar opportunity"the average performance on a mental testof one race does
not "differappreciably" from that of
anotherare out of theirfieldand should
have knownbetter.A flatstatementof
this sort-withoutqualification-is simply not true.
In closingI cannot do betterthan to
quote the statementof a distinguished
physical anthropologistwho describes
Comas and his colleagues so well that
he mightalmosthave had themin mind.
C. S. Coon in The Studyof Man (1954:
187-88) writes:
More seriousare the activitiesof the
and soft-pedalers
who
academicdebunkers
itself.Basing
operateinsideanthropology
theirideas on theconceptof thebrotherhood of man, certainwriters,who are
considerit
mostlysocial anthropologists,
immoralto studyrace,and producebook
afterbookexposingit as a "myth."Their
is thatbecausethestudyofrace
argument
once gave ammunitionto racial fascists,
who misusedit, we should pretendthat
races do not exist.Their pruderyabout
race is equalled by theirhorrorof Victorianpruderyabout sex. These writers
are not physicalanthropologists,
but the
public does not knowthe difference.
It is about time it did.
[Charlottesville,Virginia,1.3.61]
By R. RUGGLES GATES*
The effusionof Juan Comas on what
he calls "scientificracism" is the most
extremeexample I have seen of political propaganda completely divorced
fromscientificfact.A man who will descend to such perversionsof scientific
truthin theinterestsof propaganda forfeitsthe rightto be consideredscientific
or fair-minded
by thosewho have made
factual contributionsto the subject of
race. To dignifythe Nazi propaganda
of 30 yearsago as "scientific"racismis
an insult to science. Such a statement
could onlybe made by a man who is so
wrapped up in grosslymisleadingpropaganda thathe has no interestin scientifictruth.
Comas' attack is on the Mankind
Quarterly,foundedin 1960forunbiased
considerationof the factsof race; but
his personal attackon me is a complete
both of myworkand
misrepresentation
of my views. He refersto two of my
books published before 1949 and ignores nearly all my publications since
that date, including all my studies of
race crossing,of whichhe is well aware.
In thelast decade I have been, so faras
I know, the only anthropologistexCURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
tensivelyengaged in the analysis of

races in the only way theycan be analyzed,i.e.,by thegeneticstudyof racial
crossesin 2 or 3 generations.During this
timeI havepublishedsome30 paperson
racial crossingand relatedmattersconcerningrace,whichhave developednew
scientificpoints of view. Many racial
crosseshave been studiedon all thecontinents,
and as a resulta new branchof
science-racial genetics-has gradually
developed.All referenceto thisworkis
carefullysuppressed by Comas in his
desire to promulgatea purely propagandistview.
I firstpointed out 25 years ago that
each racial crosshas to be consideredby
itself.This involvesnot only the qualities or inheritedcharactersof the two
racesinvolvedin any cross,but also the
social and climaticmilieu as well as the
population densitiesin whichthe crossing takesplace. Paying attentionto all
theseaspects,I have concludedthatcertain racial crossesare advantageous,or
at least not disadvantageous,in certain
areas and times,as thosewill know who
have read mypapers. How can any reasonable person pretend that the problem of crossingbetween Eskimos and
Nordics in Alaska or ArcticCanada is
the same as that between Negroes and
Whitesin the United States?A verydifferentconditionhas to be faced when,
as in America, the bulk of the White
population are against universal crossing withNegroes.Anyquestionof "better" or "worse" between the races is
submerged in the widespread feeling
againstmiscegenation,
whichcannot be
put down to mere prejudice.
This feelinghas been embitteredfor
millions by the attemptto force integration of schools on the Southern
states in the name of uniformityor
"freedom."It is againstthisnaturalfeeling and the long historybehind it, that
thepropaganda of people like Comas is
directed.
That the increasing opposition to
miscegenationis fullyjustifiedis confirmedby various recentdevelopments
regardingthe primaryraces. These developmentsin knowledge are ignored
in orderto keep the people ignorantof
whatis involved.Insteadof a forthright,
honest,and unbiased approach to the
subject of races, Comas and his kind
would substitutepropaganda based on
ignorance, and suppression of truth
whereverit interferes
withtheirwishful
but misdirectedthinking.
In the originaltranslationof Comas'
article several large sections were
omittedwhich are now printed in the
new translationjust received. One of
these sectionsshows such an extraordinary lack of integritythat it must be
cited. Referringto my note in Nature
on the "Disadvantages of Race Mix-
Cnmas:
ture,"Comas firstmisquotesme. I said

that the UNESCO statementon race
was issued at the Congressin Vienna.
He misquotesme as sayingit was issued
by the Congress.This may appear trivial, but much worse is to follow.
Having askedme to "justify"myaffirmationthatthe UNESCO statementon
race mixturewas "incautious,"he goes
on to referto the fact,which I cited
from Lehmann, that sickle cell anaemia, a fatal disease, is much more frequent in American Negroes of mixed
descentthan in pure AfricanNegroes.'
The other case I cited, that countless
deaths of Caucasian infantsare a result
of prehistoric crossing between the
Basques and peoples speaking IndoEuropean languages in Europe, is ignored because it is evidentlyunanswerable.
A recentpaper of Scudderet al. in the
Mankind QuarterlyNo. 2 shows that
the dangersof sensitization(with a fatal result) for the Kidd, Kell or Duffy
antigensare much greaterwhen White
blood is given to a Negro or Negro
blood to a White.
I have interruptedmy other writing
to put down thesefewnotes. I deplore
propaganda as recorded in this article
because it is a setbackto scientifictruth.
The subject is much too large to be
taken up here in detail. Consequently
thispaper by Comas will be dealt with
in future numbers of the Mankind
Quarterly,if any of his statementscan
be found to be sufficiently
detachable
frompropaganda to merita reply.
[London, 28.2.61]
By R. GAYRE*
It seems to me that Comas' article
adds nothingof material value at all.
It is largelyan expressionof a certain
kind of sociological fundamentalist
faith, with the accompanying smearworddenigrationin the use of the term
work
"racism"forthosewhosescientific
is groundedupon theclassicalevolution
of these groups of sciences, and who
have refusedto be stampededinto denials of the achievementsof scientific
work prior to the past 3 decades. It is
verydisquieting to find,so long after
the collapse of Hitlerism,anthropological and sociological work being distortedand coloured by the obvious necessityto denyat any cost the influence
of heredity,and the natural groupings
of mankind which have always been
Reference may be made to one other
point. In a contribution on race origins
writtenthreeyearsago forGedda's De Genetica Medica, which is now shortlyto appear, agreementis expressedwith Darwin's
view that the primary races of mankind
are most conveniently treated as sub1
species.
SCIEFlNTTFTIC
RACTSM
AGAIN?
manifestand stillare, forwhatsome of

us can only conclude are political and
ideological ends on the part of those
whose principal weapon in their armoryis the denigrationas "racists"of
any who hold to the historicprinciples
in anthropology.
One would be much more impressed
with the viewsof Comas if he couched
his argumentin languagewhichdid not
involve the injection of political concepts. A distortionof science in order
to justifywhat are consideredsociologically desirableends (and by thatdistortion to tryto prove that race does not
are superexist; that racial differences
ficial; that mankind is ratherthe creatureof a so-called"social heredity"than
of a genetic inheritancewhich is as
manifestin the mental and emotional
qualities of man as in his physicalqualities)is as reprehensibleas Hitler's Herrenvolkconcepts,which were a similar
distortionof science for political and
ideological ends.
Because of the very considerable
numberof people who will read Comas'
statementsin thispublication,it is necessarythatthe authorswho are attacked
by him should answer them. But as it
would be trespassingtoo much upon
the hospitalityof CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY to do so at any lengthin thispublication-since the replieswill of necessity require to be of some extentfacilitieswill be givenin The Mankind
Quarterlyfor them to make theirconsidered replies to these aspersions.
[Edinburgh,17.2.61]
By GUTORM GJESSING*
Comas probablywas not the only anthropologistwho feltsomewhatembarrassed and uncomfortableon reading
Garrett'sarticle. As a member of the
HonoraryAdvisoryBoard of The Mankind QuarterlyI certainlywas. Yet the
inheritanceof mental traits,of course,
is a perfectlylegitimatescientificproblem. Since natural selectionand mutation have operated in the biological
evolutionof man,theymayequally well
have producedmental changesor modificationspartly explaining the ethnic
of mentaltypes.As I am
differentiation
however,I do not know
not a geneticist,
whetheror how geneticsor physicalanthropology can solve this problem
alone. But obviouslynobody else does
either.
It is thereforequite apparent thatwe

need an entirelynew approach, theoretical,methodological,and factual,to
a problemwhich,in point of fact,is of
great importance.I have not been able
to detect anythingnew in Garrett'sarticle, either in method or in factual
data. Does thismean that Comas' com-
321
prehensiveand thoroughstudy is unnecessaryand superfluous?I am afraid

not.
Yet,neitherComas nor myselfis able
to look disinterestedlyat this whole
question. Garrettcertainlyis not. We
all have our preconceptions,and it is
well to be aware of this. Hence, I feel
that one important factor is all too
often overlooked in this discussion,
namelythe enculturationof the scholars and scientiststhemselves.(I prefer
Herskovits' concept "enculturation,"
whichis more comprehensivethan "socialization," used by social psychologists and sociologists.)This does not
mean, however,that I do not consider
Comas' case a strongone. To my mind
he has veryadequatelyrefutedthe main
argumentof Garrett'sarticle.
Comas' own article certainlyhas a
stronglypolemical tone-as had Garrett's-butthisis probablyunavoidable,
since all available sources have been
drained dryby thirstyracistsand antiracists.Comas' impressivebatteryof argumentscan, however,get considerable
support from human ecology, ethnology,social anthropology,and sociology,
apart fromsocial psychologyand physical anthropology(including genetics),
whichup till now have almostmonopolized the battlefield.But I do not think
the mattercan be finallysettled until
all thesefieldsof studyare corporately
mobilized, and intensivefield work is
conducted by such teams in different
ecological and socio-culturalenvironments. This again would probably require a highlysophisticatedmethodology. The massive concentration on
intelligence levels at the expense of
othermental propertiesis, in any case,
scarcelyfruitfulas long as intelligence
is definedexclusivelyby scholarsenculturated in Western intellectual needs
and logical categories.Clinging to I.Q.
tests when cross-cultural-or "crossracial"-comparisons are concerned is
since seriobviouslyveryunsatisfactory,
ous doubt has been cast on theirvalidProity,even in European school-tests.
jective tests,such as Rorschachs etc.,
have also been shownto be too dependent on the enculturationof the scholars
involvedin both theirmakingand their
interpretation.
As long as physical anthropologists
and geneticistsare not able to give us
really conclusive evidence of the genetic inheritanceof mental properties,
it is, in my opinion, not permissibleto
disregardthe findingsof cultural and
social anthropology(and social psychology)about theformationof stereotypes,
"mechanic" and "organic solidarity,"
in-groupand out-groupcontrasts,European-American ethnocentrism, "nationalcharacters,"ethnicendogamy,the
combination of "mechanic" and "or-
322
ganic solidarity"resultingin need for

expansion,etc.
territorial
And, of course,the whole discussion
also poses thequestionof thelegitimacy
of the "ivorytower,"of the right,in the
presentworldsituation,to adhereto the
classicaldogmaof "scienceforsciencing
alone," which in point of fact means
givingsupportto the statusquo in global political affairs.This mightwell be
the real pivot of the discussionabout
the"crisisofanthropology."In anycase,
havinglived under Germanoccupation
during the war, and thus having seen
the disastrousconsequences of "scientificracism" as well as of "the-man-inracism,I formy part reject
the-street"
such loosely-foundedviews as Garrett's
with a perfectlyclear intellectualand
moral conscience. But as soon as the
and genetical
physical-anthropological
evidence forhis view becomes convincing, I am prepared to change my attitude.
AlthoughI agreealmostentirelywith
Comas' article, I should like to make
one reservationas far as his endorsing
theUN "Declarationof Human Rights"
is concerned.From an anthropological
point of view, this declaration,in my
opinion, is rather unfortunate.The
"Statementon Human Rights"put forward by the AmericanAnthropological
Association should carry considerable
weight;althoughframedin a combinationof termsfromphilosophyand theosocial anretical structural-functional
thropology,it probably could have
been formulatedstill more clearlyand
[Oslo, 3.3.61]
convincingly.
By J. B. S. HALDANE*
I regretthatI have not seen the first
editionof The Mankind Quarterly.But
I shouldlike to add twoitemsto Comas'
Bibliography:
The Socialist Party of India publishes a Quarterlycalled Mankind. I
am not in agreementwithall statements
in thisjournal. But the translationsinto
English (sometimesby theirauthors)of
recent poems in the Telugu language
are, in my opinion, good evidence for
high intellectual and aesthetic attainmentsof theirauthors.
I am quoted as authorof a joint declaration.I gave myown viewsin a book
called Heredityand Politics(1938); and
since a joint declarationis inevitablya
compromise,theyare betterrepresented
there,forgood or ill. NaturallyI have
changed some of themin 23 years.Perhaps, however,I mayquote a paragraph
fromit on race crossing:
I begin with a remark whose extreme
simplicityshows the extraordinarylack of
realismwhichis usuallyfoundin the discussionof this matter.When people say

is a bad thingor a good
thatracialmixture
thingtheygenerallydo not say whether
to the firstgeneration
theyare referring
or to latergenerations.
Now any breeder
animalswillat oncerealisethe
ofdomestic
greatdifference
involved.In poultrybreeding we use the firstcrossbetweenpure
racestoa considerable
extent.It is uniform
and vigorous,
and oftenbetterthaneither
of the originalraces.We do not carryon
further
becauseweknowthatin thesecond
generationwe shall get a considerably
greatervariation,and generallya certain
lossof thevigourfoundin thefirstgenerationof thecross.I can quite imaginethat
in a worldundera eugenicaldictatorship
(if you can imagineanythingso unpleasant) the large bulk of the population
would be drawnfromthe firstcrossbetwveen
two pure races,which would be
carefully
kept apart,while the firstcross
wouldnot be allowedto breedfurther.
It
would be quite consistent
withthe belief
in theimportance
of racialpurityto hold
that such an organizationof the world
would be desirable.
As an anthropologist,Comas must
have asked himselfa questionwhichhe
did not try to answer in his article:
When we studyany human culture,we
findthatit includesa numberof beliefs
whichare held on no rational grounds,
even if such beliefsappear to be commoner in culturesother than our own.
We ask whatis thefunctionof thesebeliefs; and it often turnsout that they
stabilizethesocietyin question.We may
or maynot go as faras Marxistsin seeking for such a function.But obviously
a beliefin the virtuesof "noble blood"
stabilizesa societyin which class membershipis largelyfixedat birth,and is a
bad joke in one whereit is based on the
acquisition of wealth. Now the beliefs
both in racial inequality and in racial
equality may be held on irrational
grounds,for example on the basis of
hypothesesabout thewishesof theCreator,which,in myopinion,are oftenhidden fromus. I am inclined to believe
that there are innate statisticaldifferences in variouscapacitiesbetweendifferenthuman races-but I have no idea
whichraces are superioror in what respects.It seemsequally irrationalto believe in inequalityon the evidence before us, or in equality on a priori
grounds.I returnto thispoint later.
The irrational and dogmatic belief
in equalityis largelyfoundamong people who have been treatedunjustlyor
have seen otherstreatedunjustlyon account of theirracial origin. It used to
be found among a few people who
hoped that the British Empire would
develop as the Roman Empire did. If
this had happened, which it did not,
India would now be the dominantpart
of that Empire. The contrarybelief,
which may not be expressed in racial
terms,is held not only by apologistsof
colonialism,but by Europeans who observe that Europe (or at any rate western and southernEurope) is less important than it was, and wish to assure
themselves that this is a temporary
nbenomenon.
CURRENT
A recent book hv Mr. ArANTHROPOLOGY
thurKoestler,The Lotus and the Robot, is a good example of this kind of

wishfulthinking.I quote two passages a thousandyearsor so, to finda negativ
fromit.
correlationbetween past achievement,
"The East," he considers,"is less in- in any cultural fieldand capacities fo
terestedin factualknowledgeof the ex- such achievementwhen full opportuni
ternalworld" than in "essentialBeing"
ties are given for it. I do not take this
theoryseriously.But it is perhaps as
(p. 81). If so it is curiousthatPanini in
India distinguishedbetween dicotyle- likelyto be trueas any otherracistthedons and monocotyledonsover 2,000 ory.It would of coursebe hard to prove,
yearsago, thatwe have to consultChi- because to give novel opportunities
nese records for sunspots and super- means a profoundalterationof a socia]
novae 1,000 years ago, that almost all
system.
our starnames are Arabic,and so on.
Such a hypothesiswould help to acThe Japanese, I read on p. 187, count forthe cyclesof culturalrise and
"could no doubt masterthe vocabulary, fall which are a featureof human hissyntax,and grammarof a Westernlan- tory.But economicand political factors
guage,if theywere willingto adopt the maybe moreimportantthanbiological.
matter-of-fact
typeof thinkingand the We simplydo not know. What I have
logical categorieswhichthe structureof writtenmay be nonsense.But I do not
the language implies." It would be in- thinkwe know enough to disprove it.
terestingto know in what way the peo- If this is so, the promulgationof nonple who, not so long ago, sank two Brit- sense may have a certainvalue in demish battleships and defeated several onstratingwhatsortsof data are needed
Britisharmiesdepartedfrommatter-of- to disproveit.
[Calcutta,28.2.61]
factthinkingwhile doing so. No doubt
theirstatesmenthoughttheywould win By SIR JULIAN HUXLEY*
the war. But so did those of Germany
Juan Comas' reviewis a usefulrefutaand Italy. Mr. Koestlerdoes not tell us
tion of Garrett'sarticle, which I had
whether these gross defects in Asian previouslyseen and with which I prothought processes, which he traces foundlydisagreed. However, I have a
back for 2,500 years,are due to genes, numberof minor criticisms:
climate, diet, or what. It is probably
1. I should have thoughtthat very
saferto leave dubious assertionsunex- few geneticistsexpressviews as radical
plained. There has of course been an
as Klineberg's,in minimisinggenetic
unparalleled outburstof matter-of-fact effectsand racial characteristics.
thinkingin Europe sinceA.D. 1560or so.
2. I should not have thoughtit true
It is now spreadingto othercontinents. thatall racistsattribute"total influence
I mayhave been peculiarlyfortunate, to heredity."
but I have found a ratherhigher me3. As regardsthe alleged inferiority
dian capacityforobservingthe external of the Negro, Comas mighthave cited
world in my studentsin India than I
their definite superiority in certain
did in England. The sample is far too fieldsof athletics.
small to warrantany conclusions.How4. My major criticismis that Comas
ever,it may be a general rule that civi- does not use his termscorrectly.This is
lized human societies are generallyso
most significantin regard to the term
organized that the capacities most ad- "outbreeding." This he sometimes
mired in them tend to lower the effec- equates with miscegenation.However,
tive fertilityof their possessors.This
miscegenationis a technicaltermdenotwas certainlyso for the capacity for ing crossesbetween ethnic strainsthat
sanctityin medieval Europe, and for differin a majorway,whereasoutbreedin WesternEurope and
money-making
ing is a general termmerelydenoting
North America in the last century. that membersof a singlefamilyline or
Among the reasons for such a correla- group,of any biological dimension,do
tion are those adduced by Kinsey and
habitually cross,to a greateror lesser
his colleagues,and the habit (noted by degree, with members differingfrom
R. A. Fisher) of sociallysuccessfulmen themselves.There is always a balance
marryingheiresseswho, because they betweenoutcrossingor outbreedingand
belong to small families, statistically inbreeding in all organisms except
carry more genes for infertilitythan those which habitually self-fertilise
or
other women. The exceptions to this rely entirelyon asexual reproduction.
rule occuramongminoritiessuch as the
5. There is no attemptto deal with
Jewsin Europe and the brahmanas(in
the theoreticallyquite valid objection
colloquial English,brahmins)of India.
that the excessive variation always
In these minoritieslearning is valued, brought about as the result of wide
and commonlyrewardedby earlymar- crossesmay be deleteriousin some reriage.
spects. Thus, whereas some degree of
If the general, rule were true we
is valuable, e.g. in respect
heterozygosity
should expect, at least among peoples of hybridvigour,and indeed seems alwhichhave included a literateclass for m^ostun?iversal,
yet extremevariations
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM AGAIN?
are theoreticallyquite likely to be inadaptive and deleterious.

[London, 3.3.61]
By ASHLEY MONTAGU*
Juan Comas, in his admirable essay,
draws attention to a phenomenon
which will, it is to be feared,be long
with us-the phenomenon of racism.
This will continue foryearsto require
the vigilantattentionof scientists.Racist propaganda, fromwhateversource
it emanates,imposesan obligationupon
the scientistto deal with it in the light
of the facts.Events duringthe last generation have taught us that it is no
longer possible to ignore the activities
of racists,or to dismissthemas beneath
notice.
Views relating to race, when propounded withinthe open forumof science, require especial attention from
forthe authorityof the scienscientists,
tist,in an age in which science has become the secular religionof the day, is
likely to carrygreat weight with the
public.
Let me begin, then,by sayingthat I
am unreservedlyin agreement with
everythingthat Comas has writtenin
his paper. It would, indeed, be hard to
improveupon it. Having seen a copyof
The Mankind QuarterlyI inclined to
the view thatit would undoubtedlydie
of its own inanition. I was somewhat
concernedto see thenamesof severalof
mycolleaguesas membersof the honoraryadvisoryboard; knowingthemwell,
I was certain that they had been unaware of thenatureof thejournal when
they accepted the invitation to lend
theirnames to itspurposes.1
Comas quotes Merton and Montagu
on the significanceto be attachedto intelligencetests.I should, if I may,like
to draw attentionto a paper by Dobzhanskyand Montagu (1947) on natural selection and the mental capacities
of mankind,in which the authorshave
discussedtheevolutionaryfactorswhich
renderit probable thatin the courseof
human evolution natural selectionhas
favoredthe behaviorallyplasticor educable ratherthan those who were possessedof some special trait.All the evidence at our disposal supported this
of the evolutionaryprocinterpretation
ess with respect to the evolution of
man'smentalcapacities,and theconclusion that was drawn, namely,that because natural selection put a premium
upon the general trait of educability
ratherthan upon any special trait,the
mental capacitiesof mankindprobably
1 For an account of the circumstancesunder which one member of the Honorary
AdvisoryBoard of The Mankind Quarterly
resigned,see skerlj (1960).
323
in anymarkedwayamong
did notdiffer
any of its genogroups.'

This interpretation of mankind's
mental evolution and kinship has been
widely accepted by scientists, and I am
acquainted with no attempted rebuttal
of it. This interpretation is, of course, a
theory,but so also is the theory of natural selection. Mention is here made of
the 1947 paper by Dobzhansky and
Montagu for the reason that it brings
support to, and is consistent with, the
evidence derived from every unbiased
and culture-free test-by which I do not
mean the culture-bound intelligence
tests devised in the Western world for
application to persons socialized and
educated in the Western world, but
rather to the experience of those who
have had abundant opportunities of
judging for themselves the mental capacities of non-literate peoples of every
kind among whom they have lived. I
refer to the observations made repeatedly among the Australian Aborigines,
and to the quite remarkable but little
known fact that in the nineteen-eighties
"the aboriginal school at Ramahyuck,
in Victoria, stood for three consecutive
years the highest of all state schools of
the colony in examination results, ob-
tainingone hundredper centof marks"
(Mathew 1899). The italics are those of

the reporter, the Rev. John Mathew,
who preceded his startling statement
with the remark, "In schools, it has
often been observed that aboriginal
children learn quite as easily and
rapidly as children of European parents."
Carpenter's account of the astonishing mechanical abilities of the Aivilik
Eskimo of Southampton Island is another case in point. Carpenter writes
(1955: 131-45)
If arctic literaturerarely mentions the Eskimos' mechanical aptitude, it is simply
because it is so often silent about those
thingswhich are taken for granted about
Eskimo life. Yet all observers to whom I
have spoken agree there is somethinghere
not easily explained. I have heard many
storiesabout Eskimo mechanics,some difficult to credit were it not for the fact that
their achievementscan be daily observed.
Aivilik men are first-classmechanics.
They delight in stripping-downand reassemblingengines,watches,all machinery.
I have watched them repair instruments
which American mechanics,flowninto the
Arcticforthis purpose, have abandoned in
despair. Working with the simplest tools,
often hand-made, they make replacements
of metal and ivory. Towtoongie made a
hinge for me, so small I had to hold it
directly before my eyes to see how it
worked. Omowyak took a driving shaft
froma large engine and, findingit too large
for his own engine, reduced the diameter
by a third,in the most ingenious manner,
with only simple hand tools. No engine is
2
Genogroup,a new term,suggestedto me
by Sir Julian Huxley, as defininga population possing a commonalityof genes which
distinguishesthemfromother populations.
324
beyond repair. Admittedly,some are oddlooking affairsby the time the Aivilik are
throughwith them,but they run.
Carpenter's observations put Garrett'sstatisticswhere theybelong. One

may wonderhow the Aivilik would do
on intelligencetestsadministeredand
ingeniouslyanalysed by Garrett?One
alreadyknowshow the AustralianAborigineswould do, for one of the membersof the HonoraryAdvisoryBoard of
The Mankind Quarterly,Stanley D.
Porteus,has told us, in twobooks which
constitutemonumentsto the method
by which intelligencetestsshould not
be cross-culturally
administeredand the
erroneousinferenceswhich should not
be drawn from them (Porteus 1931,
1937).
With respectto Negroes and intelligence tests,the evidence is clear that
when Negroes enjoy improved socioeconomic conditionstheydo betteron
intelligenceteststhanWhiteswho have
not enjoyed such improvedconditions.
The famousU.S. Armyintelligencetests
of World War I abundantlytestifiedto
thatfact,but owingto certainpressures
at thattime,the fullanalysisof thedata
and the conclusions drawn from that
analysis were not permittedfull publication (Montagu 1944). When, in
March 1944,thescandalousproceedings
were institutedby U.S. Representative
AndrewJ. May of Kentucky,whichsuccessfullypreventedthe use by the U.S.
Armyof Benedict and Weltfish'sThe
Races of Mankind, I recalculated the
statisticsof the published findingsof
theU.S. Armyintelligencetests,forMr.
May had objected to "a claim in the
book thatsurveysindicatedthe average
Negro in New York, Connecticut and
Massachusettswas theintellectualequal
of the average white residentof Kentucky,Arkansasand Mississippi"(Washington Times-Herald,April 28, 1944).
Upon re-analysisthe resultswere even
more strikingthan Mr. May had mis-
stated them or than they had been

statedin the originalreport.The usual
statementin the literatureis thatOhio
Negroeswith a score of 45.5 did better
on the Comprehensive Alpha Tests
than did the Whites fromfour Southern states. May objected to this as
"prejudiced," and it was in order to
verifythe original findingsof the U.S.
Armyintelligenceteststhat I re-examined the figures.May also objected to
pamphleton the
the Benedict-Weltfish
sincethe
groundthatit was unscientific,
artisthad depictedAdam and Eve with
navels. This, indeed, was a delicate
touch,whichgreatlyappealed to me as
an anatomist.I have always regretted
that so gifteda casuistas Mr. May did
not spend his finaldays in a monastery
ratherthan as he did, in jail forcertain
activitiesin connection
sleight-of-hand
with governmentcontractsat the very
timehe was being so exercisedover the
navels of Adam and Eve. However,all
was not loss,forupon the stimulusprovided by Mr. May's objections,restudy
of the data to whichhe objected led to
the discoverythat,farfromoverstating
,ormisrepresenting
the actual resultsof
the U.S. Army intelligence tests, the
factshad been understated,and if there
it had
had been any misrepresentation
from
been in a directionverydifferent
that suggestedby Andrew J. May.
While the ArmyIntelligencetestsreported the findingson Whites from48
statesand the Districtof Columbia, in
the case of Negroesdata were available
for only 24 states and the District of
Columbia. In the discussionwhich follows,thisshould be borne in mind,for
it is quite possible that had data been
available forNegroesfromall thestates
of the Union, severalmorestateswould
have shown higher median scores for
Negroes than forWhites of some other
states.
Analysis of the data on the intelligence tests carried out on Negro and
TABLE 1
ARMY
COMPREHENSIVE
COMPARED
Southern
States
Arkansas
Mississippi
North Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Alabama
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Texas
Tennessee
South Carolina
ALPHA
WITH
TESTS:
NEGRO
WHITE
RECRUITS
RECRUITS
FROM
FROM
NORTHERN
11 SOUTHERN
STATES
STATES*
Median
Score
Northern
States
Median
Score
35.60
37.65
38.20
39.35
41.10
41.35
41.50
43.00
43.45
44.00
45.05
Ohio
Illinois
Indiana
New York
45.35
42.25
41.55
38.60
* Computed from the Data in R. M. Yerkes, Psychological Examining in the United

StatesArmy,Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences,XV, 1921,pp. 690-691, Tables
205-206.
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
White recruitsduring World War I

showed that NorthernNegro recruits,
on the average,did betteron the tests
thanSouthernNegro recruits.The tests
also showedthat Negroes fromcertain
Northernstates,on the whole, did betterin theteststhanWhite recruitsfrom
almost all the Southern states. The
medianscoresof the groups concerned
are shownin Table 1.
FromTable 1 it will be seen that the
Negroes from Ohio, with a median
score of 45.35, did better than the
Whitesof 11 states,all of whichhappen
to be Southern.The Negroesof Illinois,
witha score of 42.25, and the Negroes
of Indiana, with a score of 41.55, did
betterthan theWhitesfrom7 Southern
states, while the Negroes from New
York with a score of 38.60 did better
than theWhitesfrom3 Southernstates.
Everybit of available evidence indicates that the Negroesfromthe Northern states who did better than the
Negroesand Whitesfromthe Southern
statesshown in Table 1, did so not by
virtueof any inbornadvantages,but because of the social, economic,and educational advantages enjoyed by the
NorthernNegroes in comparisonwith
thoseenjoyedby SouthernNegroesand
Whites.
Marcuse and Bitterman(1946) have
shown that the scores made on these
tests are significantlycorrelated with
the yearlyeducational expendituresof
the states fromwhich the testsubjects
were drawn, as well as with the per
capita incomeprevailingin thosestates.
These facts are well brought out in
Table 2. As Marcuse and Bittermanremark(1946:23),
It is probablymostwarrantedto conclude
from the correlationspresented here that
Beta scores,like Alpha scores,are strongly
influencedby cultural factorsconcomitant
with the socioeconomiclevels of the states.
Most of us, I thinkwould agree with

Julian Huxley (1949:185) that
the geneticvariabilityof the human species
is so well distributedthat the average genetic differencebetween differentclasses or
social groups and differentnations or
ethnic groups is negligible or small in its
effectscompared with the improvements
which can be effectedthroughbetterliving
conditions and education.
Comas:
maica (as elsewhere)led to physicaland

mental disharmonies,just as Garrettis
anxious to prove the Negro inferiorto
theWhite. It is themarkof thegenuine
scientistthat he is interested,not in
provingtheories,but in discoveringthe
truth.Let us consider Garrett'sclaim
that"Davenportand Steggerdain their
Jamaicastudiesreportedthatrace mixtureleads to physicalas well as mental
disharmonies."What are the facts?
Some of the hybrids measured by
Steggerda showed a combination of
"long armsand shortlegs." "We do not
know,"writesDavenport (1929:471)
whether the disharmonyof long legs is a
disadvantageous one for the individuals
under consideration.A long-legged,shortarmed person has, indeed, to stoop more
to pick up a thingon the ground than one
with the opposite combination of disharmonyin the appendages.
This generalizationis based on the

grand totalof 3 out of4 Brown(hybrid)
Jamaicans, a generalization which is
made by Davenport as if it applied to
his own findings on the Jamaican
Browns as compared to the Jamaican
Blacks and Whites. H. S. Jennings
(1930) ratheruncriticallyadopted this
generalizationand made it part of the
basis of a discussionon the possible ill
effectsof hybridization,which constitutesthe only unsatisfactory
section in
an otherwiseadmirable book.
W. E. Castle,more than 30 yearsago,
cogentlydisposed of both Davenport's
and Jennings'generalizationsbystating
the plain factsas representedbyDavenportand Steggerda'sown figures(Table
3).
It will be seen from the figuresin
CORRELATIONS
AND MEDIAN
ALPHA
(1910)
Beta (white)b
Beta (Negro)b
BETWEEN
SCORES,
AND PER
theBlacksseemtodo betterin simplemenand with numericalseries

tal arithmetic
than the Whites.They also followbetter
fordoingthings
directions
complicated
these uncomfortabledisclosureshad to
be explained away. The "explanation"
offeredby Davenport constitutesone of
the most remarkablein the whole historyof this subject. "It seems a plausible hypothesis," writes Davenport
(1929:469)
for which thereis considerablesupport,
that the more complicateda brain, the
more numerousits 'associationfibers,'
the simit performs
the less satisfactorily
ple numericalproblemswhicha calculatingmachinedoesso quicklyand accurately.
2
MEDIAN
BETA
ANNUAL
EDUCATIONAL
CAPITA
AGAIN?
Table 3 that the arm length of the

Brownsis, on the average,six-tenthsof
a centimetergreaterthanin blacks,and
1.1 centimetersgreaterthan in Whites;
and theleg lengthof theBrownsis twotenths of a centimeterless than in
Blacks. Presumablyit is here that the
"disharmony" is alleged to exist. It
should, however,be evident that the
in total stature
orderof the differences
is so small-at most not more than 21/2
centimeters(1 inch) between Brown
and White-and the disparitybetween
arm and leg lengthsso minute,that it
becomes utterlyridiculous to suggest
that such differencescould made the
in stoopingor in the
slightestdifference
efficiency
with which things could be
picked up.
Traits in which the Browns were
found to be intermediate between
Whites and Blacks, are never referred
to as such by Davenport,but always as
"inferior."It is not surprising,therefore,that when Davenport found that
TABLE
RANK-ORDER
RACISM
"SCIENTIFIC"
SCORES
INCOMES
FOR THE VARIOUS
STATES
EXPENDITURES
(1919)*
Educational Expenditures
Per Capita Population
4-17 Years
Per Capita
Income
Alpha a
(White)
.64 (.81)?
.50
.67
.72 (.76)c
.67
Alpha a
(Negro)
.65
Marcuse & Bitterman, "Notes on the Results of Army Intelligence Testing in World
At this point I should like to com- War
I," Science CIV, 1946,231-232.
ment on Garrett'srevival of the race- a Alpha tests were given to literates.
Beta tests were designed for illiterates and foreigners.
mixturedisharmonycanard, with pare Figures in parentheses are comparable correlations with median Alpha scores.
ticular reference to Davenport and
Steggerda'sRace Crossingin Jamaica.
TABLE 3
In the firstplace, let it be recordedthat
LIMB PROPORTIONS
AND STATURE IN JAMAICANS
Steggerda dissociated himself from
Davenport's interpretationof his findBlack
Brown
White
ings. Steggerdadid the fieldwork,and
Davenportwrotethereport.So muchis, Arm length in cm
57.3 ? 0.3
57.9 ? 0.2
56.8 ? 0.4
in justice, owed to the memoryof an
92.5 ? 0.4
92.3 ? 0.3
92.0 ? 0.4
Leg length in cm
able scientist.Davenportmostcertainly Total stature in cm
170.6 ? 0.6
170.2 + 0.5
172.7 ? 0.7
tried to prove that race mixturein Ja-
325
This is veryelegantindeed. Even when

theBlacksdo betterthan theWhitesan
argument must be devised whereby
theirachievementis turnedinto yetanother evidence of their inferiority!As
Lancelot Hogben (1960:17) has remarked of Davenport's "hypothesis,"
"It would be paranoid to attributea
mischievousintentionto any whose criteriaof reasoningare so sub-standard."
It would be equally paranoid to accuse
Garrettof disingenuouslyciting Race
Crossingin Jamaica in supportof the
miscegenation-disharmony
hypothesis.
Castle, in reviewingthe book in 1930,
stated the facts only too accurately
(1930:605).
We like to thinkof the Negroas an inferior.We like to thinkof Negro-white
of the whiterace.
crossesas a degradation
We look for evidencein supportof the
idea and tryto persuadeourselvesthatwe
have foundit evenwhenthe resemblance
is veryslight.The honestlymade records
tella verydifofDavenportand Steggerda
ferentstoryabout hybridJamaicansfrom
that which Davenportand Jenningstell
about themin broadsweepingstatements.
The formerwill neverreach the ears of
eugenicspropagandists
and Congressional
committees;
the latterwill be withus as
thebogeymenofpure-raceenthusiasts
for
thenexthundredyears.
One finalpoint: Why is it that Garrettand otherslike him are so anxious
to prove the Negro inferior?Quite obviously science and truth are not involved here, except as devices behind
thescreenofwhichthe truemotivations
of such persons find expression.How
manytimeswill it have to be reiterated
that human beings are not "races" or
groups" of any kind, but persons,each
endowed with a unique colligation of
potentialities which require development in a stimulatinghuman environment?It mattersnot one whitwhat the
statisticalfindingsmaybe on any group
as comparedwith another.The factremains, and will always remain, that
such findingscan have no relevancefor
the simple principle that all men, by
virtueof theirhumanity,have a right,
and should be affordedeveryopportunity,to fulfillthemselves.None of the
findingsof physicalor culturalanthropology,or of psychologicaltests,can in
any way affectthis principle,which is
an ethical one-an ethical principle
whichhappens,in everyway,to be supportedby the findingsof science(Leake
1947). [Princeton,New Jersey,2.15.61]
By HANS NACHTSHEIM*
As one of the authors of the 1951
Statementon Race, I wish to say thatI
perfectlyagree with Comas' article.
Neither in the field of anthropology
nor in the field of genetics have any
publications appeared in the past decade which compel us to correct our
Statement.
[B erlin-Dahilem,
2.3.61]
326
By CLARENCE P. OLIVER*
Without attemptingto discuss Comas' paper, I should like to state my
opinions about what one might wish
to see done.
We should continue to collect and
disseminateinformationabout the genetics of man. Currentlywe have very
little informationabout the genetic
basis for most human traitsexcept the
more simply inherited, pathological
ones.
Geneticists, including those interested in human genetics,recognizethat
both environmentand heredityare effectivein the developmentof a phenotype. We no longer subscribe to the
expression"Nature or Nurture."An environmental agent can cause certain
phenotypes. Sometimes heredity is a
Often
strongeragentthanenvironment.
a geneticistcan determine that gene
action is influencedby a specificenvironmentalcircumstance.
Some of us believe thatit is advisable
to determine the distributionpattern
of genes and genotypesin our populations,and thatit shouldbe done rapidly
and withaccuracy.This involvesno inregardlessof
tentto aid discrimination,
what some people say, nor to bolster
preconceivedtheories.The purpose is
to know ourselvesforwhat we are. We
factsare
can hope that aftersufficient
available, speculation will be less involved in discussionsabout group and
racial characteristics.This hope may
not be realized, because biological interpretationsand sociological theories
do not alwaystread the same pathways.
We should expect groups to differ
genetically,if one has been isolated
fromthe other. This should not be a
surpriseto anyone and should not disturbanyone.What we need fora more
sympathetic understanding of our
fellow-menis to know wherein the
groupsare similarand whereintheyare
different.We should determine just
selectionis, and whichenhow effective
vironmental agents affectwhat gene
expressions.It is important to learn
about gene interactionresponsiblefor
one phenotypeas we measure or identifyit. We know verylittle in human
geneticsabout the multipleeffectsof a
singlegene or gene pair. One gene may
have a control in the developmentof
manytraits.A recessivegene pair in the
fruitflycauses or conditionsdefectsinvolving the eyes, claws, pulvilli, and
female ducts. It also reduces viability
and fertility.We know that the gene
has a secondaryeffecton viabilityand
fertilityin this organism,because we
can and do studytheactionof thegene.
Some complexesin man involvefertility
as well as morphologicalvariants,but
we know verylittle about them. Espe-
cially we lack informationabout possible slighteffectsof the genes on viability.

Mental developmentin man in the
normalrangehas not been subjectedto
critical genetical studies as yet. I believe, though, that methods for the
studywill be discovered.It will be an
importantstep for all of us.
I have one commentto make about a
specificstatementin Comas' paper. He
advocatesor leaves the impressionthat
we should have exogamic crossingto
balance a known deleteriousrecessive
gene. If the traitis too undesirable,the
procedure will merelykeep the deleterious genes in our genepool, which
is already overloaded and in which
more arise by mutation. Also it is
possible and perhaps probable that
a deleteriousrecessivegene has a harmful effecton the individual who is heterozygous-notnecessarilya verystriking effect,althoughviabilitymightbe
reduced.As a consequence,I would suggest that the known heterozygoteor
homozygotewith the undesirable trait
be advised of the possibleconsequences
in his descendantsif he transmitsthe
gene. It is possiblethatI have read into
the statementsomethingthattheauthor
did not intend. If that is not correct,I
stillaccordhim a rightto his own opinion.
Until genetics,biochemists,and physgatheradequate inical anthropologists

formation about the genetical backgroundof mentaldevelopment,we can
betweenthosewho
expectcontroversies
advocate a strong cultural effectand
those who consider hereditya strong
agent. Probably we should not expect
an understandingto be reached with
our presentknowledge.Nor do we want
a societyof absolute conformity.
Everyone has a rightto expresshis opinion,
but he should grant the same rightto
others.A person who believes that he
has informationto support his belief
has a rightto setup his own hypothesis.
However, any hypothesis,regardlessof
the person who made it, is subject to
studyto get to the truth,and no one
knowswhatthetruthwill be.
Unfortunately,the term "racist" is
used withoutdiscriminationby writers.
In our societyone findsa tendencyfor
people to generalizeand to group individuals on the basis of commonoccupation, association in an effort(whether
politicalor religiousor otherwise),common nationality,and other combinations.What is knownor believed about
one in the groupis applied to all others
in the same group. Apparentlythis is
true if anyone shows an interestin racial studies,regardlessof motive.He is
in a differentgroup and he wants to
or rastudypopulation characteristics,
cial characteristics;therefore,he is
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
calleda racist.I do not suggestanything

to do about it, but I intend to remain
interestedin human genetics.
[Austin,Texas, 23.3.61]
By S. D. PORTEUS*
In acceptingthe editorial invitation
to commenton the materialrelatingto
race differences,I was undecided
whetherto pay attentionto the heavy
artilleryof the statementissued by a
groupof anthropologists
and geneticists
or to deal with the light but elusive
cavalryrepresentedby Comas' strangely
titled article "'Scientific' Racism
Again?".I have chosen the firstalternative.
However,using the militaryanalogy
of defenceand attackwould misrepresent my own position in the matter,
whichis not far frommidwaybetween
the two opposing forces-whichmeans
that I shall probablybe hit fromboth
sides.
As far as the facts set forthby the
joint statementare concerned,I have
littleor no objection to make. I would
subscribeto its definitionof race and
its account of how differences
between
races have developed and been maintained;I would agreethatwhatphysical
and mental differences
do exist are the
productof both culturaland hereditary
forces;I, too, am averse to adding 'up
those differencesso as to make judgments of general racial superiorityor
inferiority;
I am heartilyin accordwith
the inconclusivestatementof the evidence for or against inequality, indicatedrepeatedlyin themanifestoby the
use of suchphrasesas "no demonstrated
connexion between cultural and racial
traits,""scientificmaterial available to
us at present," "possible but not
proved,"-all of which leave the question open.
It is only when certaintyis rather
dogmaticallyexpressed that I would
question the statement.One example
is the fact that "withindifferent
populationsconsistingof manyhuman types,
one will find approximatelythe same
range of temperament and intelligence." If these "populations" mean
races, I would regard the affirmation
as being at present unprovable. We
certainlydo not have any surveysbearing on that point. Obviously,since imbecility can occur in both Australian
Aboriginesand Whites, the lowest racial levels are equivalent; but I would
hesitateto believe that the highestlevels are coterminousuntil, of course,
there appears an aboriginal Shakespeareor Einsteinor evena fewEdisons.
Then, too, I would avoid such indefinableprovisosas "given equal opportunities average performancesof one
race do not diffSer
fromthatof another,"
and suchvague pronouncements
as "the
Comas:
normal individual,irrespectiveof race,

is essentiallyeducable," and any implications that conditioningis more important than hereditary qualities. I
would considerit imprudentto attempt
to sum up the relative importanceof
natureand nurturein the development
of any individual,whethernormal,subnormal, or supernormal. These are
merely criticismsof the form of the
statement,not the facts. In so many
directionsdo we need more evidence
that some of the positive implications
of the racial manifestodepart therefore
fromscientificcaution.
What pleases me most is that these
anthropologistsand geneticistsare not
afraid to accept and define the term
race. To the extentthat theyagree that
differences
do occur betweenracial aggregations,theyare "racists."I certainly
would not personally,and in the same
sense,disclaimthe designation.But the
with
factthatI am heartilyin sympathy
furtherexplorationof race differences,
whether mental, temperamental, or
physical,surelydoes not make me more
or less of a racist;willingnessto investigate does not set one apart fromthe authorsof thestatement.That willingness
is thesole reasonformyacceptinga position on the list of the editorial advisorsof The Mankind Quarterly.
Since the presentuncertaintyis due
to the lack of valid methodsformeasone would naturally
uring differences,
expect some acclaim for any conscientiouseffort
to deal withtheproblem.In
1929 I spent 8 monthsin Australia attempting to gain some insight into
aboriginalmentality,and in 1934 used
6 monthsof traveland work in Africa
fora similarpurpose. I believed that if
existedtheirinvestigaracial differences
tion among primitivepeoples should
be more illuminatingand possiblyeasier than if ethnicgroupsof highercultural statuswere chosen.
Since the Maze testswhich I devised
in 1914 had proved to be much more
easilyapplicable to all typesand conditions of men than other tests,I made
them the mainstayof my studies. The
two books which reportedmy resultsThe Psychologyof a PrimitivePeople
and PrimitiveIntelligenceand Environment-metwith a finereceptionexcept
among anthropologists.If at that time
geneticistscould have got into the act,
theywould doubtlesshave shown similar disapproval.Possiblymyratherpretentioustitlesoffended.I supplemented
Maze examinations with other tests
which seemed relatively culture-free,
and devised others. In all these comparisons, the Maze showed the most
For example, the
marked diffSerences.
Bushmen tested only 7.56 years, and
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
the Sakai of Malaya 8.02 years, as

againstAborigineswithno missioncontacts 10.47 years, and Central Australians 12.08 years.Thus, in spite of all
of the test,theAboriginesdid
criticisms
surprisinglywell. No African group,
even thosein Missionschools,equalled
the Central Australian average. The
S.D.'s did not varygreatly.
All of these testshad one weakness
that now is apparent, but which the
critics,not havinghad muchexperience
withtestingthe intelligenceof any subjects, primitiveor otherwise,failed to
seize upon. This was the fact that so
little examining material was then
available that preliminarypractice or
was not given. Travel in
fore-exercise
Australiaand
centraland northwestern
the Kalahari Desert also was so difficult
that time for individual examinations
was limited. If only the characterizationof thisworkby one anthropologist,
"the givingof mazes to 25 nativesin a
three-daysojourn," had been correct,
more reliable resultsmighthave been
achieved! In 270,000 square miles of
the Kalahari therewere estimatedto be
only6,000Bushmenleft,or roughlyone
to 40,000 square miles,while in a million square milesof the Australiancontinent, only about 30,000 aboriginals
anthrolived. Only an armchair-borne
pologistsittingin New York Citycould
have envisagedsuch a briefenquiryas
possible.
Despite the demand for evidence on
which exists to this
racial differences,
day, the anthropologists were not
pleased with my efforts.Some were
mostindignantat any claim that these
were pioneer investigations.In their
view, all anthropologistswere psychologists,particularlySpencer and Gillen
in Australia,thoughtheydid not mention David Livingstone,who was my
predecessorin describingsome partsof
the Kalahari whichI visited.Othersaccepted thepioneeringclaim,but turned
theirscornon to the testsused,particularly the Maze.
One reviewerin the London Times
expressedthe opinion that mazes and
formboards and dot-estimationtests
were merely"baby plays" and puzzles
completelyoutside the interestof savages. Even such an authorityas Klineberg commentedon my subjects' "frequent lack of interestin the whole procedure," which somehow I had failed
to notice. As regards Maze performance, I was more worried about the
over-concernwith the tests shown by
the Aboriginesand the Bushmen than
of attitude.Some
with any indifference
old men's persistencein completingthe
whole serieswas quite a hindrance.One
half-blindindividual, whose records I
Vol. 2 -No. 4* October 1961
327
did not plan to use and to whom I had

givenonlythe earlymazes,complained
to the interpreter
thatI had given him
only the baby ones, thus anticipating
thereviewer'sinsight.
In this respectI am not dependent
solelyon myown observation.Fry and
Pulleine, two medical anthropologists,
examined some Iliaura tribe members
who lived 200 miles northeastof Alice
Springsin Central Australia. The authorswere impressedwith the difficulty
of the tests.They say: "While watching a native at work on these problems,one can almost feel the intensity
of the mentalstraininvolved."
Du Bois, in her workamong the people of Alor, also noted that the examiner could tell when the mazes became
difficult
to her subjectsby the increase
of body odor! My commentwas that
any of the White man's testingdevices
that could make an aboriginal strain
himselfmentally,or an Alorese sweat,
must be of absorbinginterest.A formboard was often boring, a Maze test
never. Kilton Stewartgave Maze tests
to Ainu in northernJapan, to Senoi
and Sakai in Malaya, to illiteratesin a
Chinese poorhouse, to Bajou or "seagypsies"of Borneo, to Negritosin Luzon, and reportedsimilareager interest
and desireto succeed.
But in spiteof thishighlevel of motivation evinced in working on a test
devised in an alien culture,some anthropologiststhoughtthe whole effort
a waste of time.Herskovitstook a very
dimviewofwhathe called my"trustfulness" in believing "that something
called race is a determiningfactorin behavior," and characterizedthe testing
of racial intelligenceas "a tragi-comedy
in the historyof science." Apparently
none of thesecriticswas inspiredto go
out and show us how the job ought to
be done. If thereis any tragedyof science in the matter,it is that therewas
no attemptby psychologiststo supplement or validate these early studies,
and thatin defaultof otherstudies,we
are compelled to discuss them today.
Disintermentofold bones is not a pleasant task,but if that is all the evidence
thereis, the job mustbe done.
Though the firstburstof enthusiasm
over mental tests has subsided, the
down-gradingof which Klinebergonce
spoke does not seem to be affecting
the
Maze. For a testseries 47 yearsold, it
seems to enjoy a remarkablyincreasing
vitality.In the past 12 years,investigationscarriedout by workersotherthan
the author have shown that of all the
testsnow available in the psychological
kitbag,the Maze is consistently
themost
sensitive to the drastic brain damage
effected
by lobotomyand otherformsof
psychosurgery,
the definitivereportbeing Smith'sarticlein Mental Science in
328
1960. In the past 5 years,experienceindicates clearly that it is the only test

whichreflectsmentalchangesfollowing
the routine administrationof tranquilizing drugs. Thirty years ago, O'Shea
showed that experiand her co-workers
Vitamin B deficiency
mentally-induced
also causes marked deterioration in
Maze performance.
There are new uses of the Maze that
were not available 30 years ago. The
qualitative scoringreveals reliable differencesbetween delinquent and nondelinquent temperaments,while the
most recent developmentis an index
of flexibilityas against rigidity,which
can also be used as a measureof subconscious memory.In short,the Maze as a
measure of human adaptability has
esteem
moved forwardin psychologists'
rather than the reverse.Not even its
earlyanthropologicalcriticscould now
regardit as a "comic puzzle."
This merelyleads up to the idea that
the time is now ripe forcontinuedunprejudiced, impartial enquiry into the
realityand possible significanceof raAs regardsthis,I have
cial differences.
several suggestions.UNESCO should
take the initiativein forminga committee containing,if such exist, scientists
who have carriedout mentaland physical studies of racial groups-excluding
the chair-borneexperts.Such a committee could discussand recommendmeasuring devices that would be properly
applicable.
Secondly, I would suggest that the
subjectsof studiesof mentalityshould
be a very primitiverace, such as the
AustralianAborigines,who are unlikely
to have their national sensitivities
wounded by such an investigation.Scientificworkerswho are not averse to
hardshipsin pursuitof truthcould still
number.
findthemin sufficient
should adeThirdly, UNESCO
quately support the work and underwritethe cost of publicationof reports,
whichshould be joint if possible,independentifotherwise.
Lastly,I would recommendthat until the cow's teeth have been counted,
a moratoriumbe called on name-calling, accusationsof prejudice, and even
the use of quotation marksas a none
too subtle formof derogatorycitation.
Twentyyearsago I suggestedto Klineberg that we join forcesin an expedition to Australia,work togetherupon
an agreed-uponprogram,and issue a
joint report.A great deal of misunderstanding and bickering might have
been saved if this scheme had been
found to be practicable.
Chasing primitivesover large continent sectionsis now beyondmypowers,
but I should be verymuch interestedin
such a co-operativeproject,more especially if it was not aimed at proving
racial superiorityor its reverse.I came

back frommyjourneyswitha greatreof the naspect forthe resourcefulness
tive,and therealizationthaton his own
ground and dependent upon his own
heritage,he was a much better man
than I was when it came to adapting
himself to extreme living conditions.
When it was a case of his adaptability
to my kind of life the case stood very
What mighthappen if we
differently.
could exchange cultural backgrounds
is not wortharguing.Does this sound
like racial prejudice or super-racism?
Perhaps, therefore,without being
I can continue to
dubbed unscientific,
regard the Maze differencesthat have
been demonstratedas evidence of ethnic group differencesin mental and
temperamentalabilities;and because of
the undoubted relationship between
Maze performanceand brain damage,
drug deterioration,and vitamin deficiency,as well as arrestedmental developmentand social maladjustment,I
as having
still regard those differences
greatpotential significance.But immediately any competent psychological
investigationproduces comparable evidence to the contrary,I shall not hesitate to abandon that position. So far,
resultsobtained by those who believe
in the mental equality of all mankind
seems to me so microscopicin extent
that controversyon the subject is irrelevant until we have more facts to
[Honolulu, 4.3.61]
argueabout.
By MILAN F. POSPISILL
The propagationof racial hatredand
the maintenance of racial prejudices
are in directopposition to the mission
of science and incompatible with its
principles.
All important research, up to the

present, shows the absurdityof such
tendencies,which for various reasons
have been artificiallynourished in
many partsof the world.Althoughthe
real aims of thesetendenciesare political or economic,theyare oftencovered
with"scientific"arguments,to thenursing of which a handful of people lend
thusbesmirchingthe names
themselves,
of all honestscientificworkers.
It is thereforevery praiseworthyof
UNESCO, promotedby UNO, to have
of the factsby
setin motionverification
real, qualified scientists.The result of
this effortis set beforeus in the Statementon Race, withtheformulationsof
which I fullyagree-as surelywill all
who examine thisquestion impartially,
withoutbeing burdened with all sorts
of prejudices and preconceptions.The
statementis reallya positiveevaluation
of presentideas about the humanraces.
The authorsgive theirdefinitions;they
note the causes of the origin of races,
and especiallythe completelack of any
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
proofof thesuperiority
of one race over
others.This lastfactis also convincingly
proved by Comas' article,richlydocumented by scientificarguments and
based on a detailed studyof the literature.
All thatis said here about the equality of the major races is true, in still
greatermeasure,of the so-called small
races-racial typesand the like-within
thechiefraces.
Originally, anthropologistshad recourseto a division of the major races
into certain small groups in order to
facilitatethe characterizationof individual populations. In time, however,
this detail became the real subject of
the work of some anthropological
schools. However, when powerfulpolitical tendenciesbecame entangled in
this research, demagogic phrases replaced scientificvalues; and racism,in
all its diversity,made its appearance
in Europe.
All the Czechoslovakanthropologists
opposed racism.ProfessorV. Suk, especially, in a series of works ("On the
Question of Human Races on the Basis
of Precipitin Test and Isoagglutinations"; "Die Wilden Mitteleuropasder
Mythusder Rasisten"; Races and Racism), condemned racism and tried to
prove the equality of all races. In the
conclusion of his work Races and Racism,he says:
The summaryof the teachingsof AnHuman Anatomy,Pathology,
thropology,
and the teachingsof the Scienceof Behaviour,showplainlythatall racesofMan
are of monophyletic
origin:theracialdiscrimination
has no scientific
foundation.
Others, such as Matiegka, Valsfk,
Mal', etc., have made similar statementsconcerningthisquestion.
The question of the so-called small
races is, according to our view, artificially constructed.It startswith the assumption that the inhabitants of
Europe are composedof a certainnumber of racial typesand theirmixtures.
The numberof theseracial typesdiffers
according to differentauthors. Most
often they suppose the existence of
the Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine,
Dinaric, and certain other races; but
even among these authors there is no
uniform agreement about which elementsare originaland whichsprangup
by crossing.From thisdisagreementwe
can already see the weak foundations
on which the whole problem is built
up. There is also the question of the
existence of the types themselves.No
one has ever examined a population
composedof pure types,simplybecause
such typesdo not exist.The criteriafor
membership in the individual types
were established quite arbitrarily,
without deep theoreticalfoundations.
It is a question, therefore,of purely
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
conventionallyestablishedfacial-types, queringAmericanIndians in the name

to whichcertainnames are ascribed.
of Queen Isabella, and entreatingSt.
It is true that certaintypesare more James' and the Virgin Mary's aid; or,
oftenfound in certainregionsthan in
in our time, Mussolini invading Ethiothers,but we mayfindall of themrep- opia in the name of the 2,000-year-old
resented in differentmeasures in any Roman civilization,or Hitler, in the
part of Europe. And we cannot expect name of the "geneticallysuperiorNoranythingelse, when we consider the dic race," convertingEurope into a concomplex process of migration among centrationcamp and almost extermithe inhabitants of Europe, from the nating the Jews.The real background
NeolithicAge to the presentday.
forall theseactions lay-and still liesThe belief in theseracial typesis at
in thedomain of economicfailure.The
the same time the expressionof belief workingmasseshave to be psychologiof the metaphysicalthesis "nordisches callypreparedforforeignconquests,or
Erbgut" (or any other) which is still to be convincedby theirrulersthat the
asserted,contraryto the laws of ge- real troublemakers
are theJews,theNenetics,in spite of all crossingsand mix- groes,the Chinese,the Slavs, and so on
ings. It is the absolute negation of the and so forth.
concept of evolution, because it supRacism, like any other irrational
poses the immutabilityof a certain kind of thinking,properlybelongs to
number of traits over a long period. the area of psychologicalphenomena.
The best evidence to the contraryis Consequently, racism should not inthe process of brachycephalization volve anthropology,although anthrowhichhas been takingplace in Europe pologists,as citizens,should indicate to
during the past centuries,and which the public that racism is not a matter
clearlyaffectedone of the most impor- of geneticsor human biology. Rather,
tant racial criteria-thecephalic index. it is a matterforpsychology,and prefSimilarly,at the present time we can
erably,for psychiatry.
see a change in body heightas a result
However, I consider Comas' article
of theinfluenceof thephysicalenviron- very important, although his case
ment. This was also supposed to be a
against The Mankind Quarterlycould
racial feature,and was formerlyheld have been greatlyenlarged,as he himto be correlatedwith the lengthof the self certainlywas aware when reading
skull. Today, however, it has been
the articlesby Cruickshankor Purves,
proved thatsuch a correlationdoes not for instance,or some of the book reexist,and thatotherracial featuresare views.Even theEditorialis not without
also inherited independently of one
interest,as it stressesthat "during the
another. By this demonstration we
last two decades there has been a desimultaneouslycontradictthe hypothe- cided tendencyto neglectthe racial assis of the genotype-theracial typeas a
pects of man's inheritancefor the sowhole. It appears that the racial type cial." Those two decades precisely
is a collectionof featureswhichare not coincidewiththetimeelapsed since the
bound to one another.
racistwritingsof the Nazi "anthropoloFor theabove-statedreasons,I do not gists."Surprisingas it mayappear, The
regard the existence of the so-called Mankind Quarterlywas startedin Scotsmallracesas a reality;and hence think land, not in Germany.But it is quite the
thattherecannotbe anyproblemabout same, whethersuch a review (or perthe superiorityof one race over others. haps even a movement)begins in one
[Bratislava, 15.3.61] place or another:if it is racist,we must
fightit as scientistsand humanists,as
By B. SKERLJ*
plain citizensof the modern world, as
Racism is only one of the devicesre- Homines sapientes. Racists still think
sortedto by an aggressorwho is exper- of theirneighborsas did the Primitives
iencinginternaldifficulties
forwhichhe who called themselvesin theirlanguage,
requires a scapegoat,or who needs to "Man," implicitly meaning that the
convince his own people, and even- otherpersonwas not a man and theretually the whole world, that he has fore mightbe killed. It is a verylong
a God-givenvocationto "save" thepeo- way,indeed,fromthisconceptof "man"
ple or the world.
to the real scientificconcept of Homo
The underlyingreasons calling forth sapiens, in which everyman is a memthese devices are much the same, ber of the same species and therefore
whether the aggressorswere the Ro- each other's fellow and eventuallyhis
mans, more than 2,000 years ago, sub- friend. Apparentlyracists are still in
duing other nations in the name of a
the firststageof culturalevolution,like
highercivilization;the Moslems in the primitive (head) hunters-cf. Purves'
Middle Ages overrunningNorthAfrica article"The EvolutionaryBasis of Race
and large areas of Europe in the name Consciousness"(1960) in The Mankind
of Mohammed; theSpanish armiescon- Quarterly.
329
aspects-aspectswhich,by the way, are

closely intertwined-of human evolution. Throughout the ever-changing
forms of epochs and cultures, and
breakingthroughthe contradictionsof
divergentwordings,Homo sapiens has
steadily been searching for that uniformethicalsystemwhichis to function
"noiselessly"and with finalperfection;
derivedfromthe inner laws of the nature of human species,it is to be of an
NaturalSelectioncould only have encausal character:it is called
absolutely
dowedthesavagewitha braina littlesuperiorto thatof an ape, whereashe actu- upon to give a fullydetailed explanaally possessesone but verylittleinferior tion of implicit principles.An immeto thatof the averagemembersof our diate penalty has to be paid for any
learnedsocieties.
irresponsible interference with the
AfterWorld War II, it became clear working of this complicated system,
to almost everyone that the Melane- strivingfor ever greater perfection;a
sians are changing their culture very heavy price has to be paid for such
interferenceoriginatingfromthe lack
quickly(Mead 1956).
As Comas shows throughouthis arti- of any comprehensiveoutlook on the
issue involved. Social measures which
cle, Garrett's "imagination" (to use
Garrett'sown word) is not veryimpos- leave the biological nature of "Man
ing, indeed. The question remains: the Unknown" out of account, impair
What is crime? Are there absolute it biologically; and biological interference that ignores the social aspects of
crimes?Headhunting,forinstance,is a
crime in our culture; in various other human evolution risks leading society
culturesit was not; and it stillseemsnot towards some kind of "Brave New
to be so in a racist"culture,"as amply World."
One of the gravelyincompetentinproved by the Nazis who hunted Jews
terventionsof the latter category is
and otherpeople duringWorld War II.
racism, whose pseudo-scientifictheory
The definitionof "crime" depends on
and cruel practicesare knownonly too
the society,not on genetic factors.I
thinkComas is aware of this,too, while well. In forcefulwording, and with
classical clarity and conciseness, the
-apparently-those around The Mankind Quarterlyare not. Perhapstheedi- UNESCO "Statementon Race" has set
forth everythingthat objective scientorsare pleased to have startedsuch a
reaction against their new review; tificresearchand human good-willcan
tell mankind about the race problem.
nevertheless,I am glad to have had
the opportunity to protest against However, the hope that the Statement
theirmisuseof my name (Akerlj1960), put an end to a shamefulperiod of hisas I am glad now that The Mankind tory has, apparently, not been completely fulfilled.The venture of The
Quarterlyhas provokeda discussionin
Mankind Quarterly conveys the imCURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY.
pressionthat it wants to re-open PanAs to the UNESCO Declaration on
Race, I think that at least one Slavic dora's box. And the fact that a scienanthropologistshould have been in- tist of Gates' calibre is participating
in such an undertaking renders the
cluded among the drafters,if for no
other reason than the fact that it was initiative nothing less than tragical.
their countries that felt most of the Fortunately,the scientificconscienceof
practical side of racism; millions were anthropologistshas not remained silent. ProfessorSkerlj (1960) instantly
imprisoned as prisoners of war or
placed in concentrationcamps, to ex- and decisively reacted to the Quarterly'sneo-racisttone. And now Juan
perience Nazi culture at firsthand.
Nevertheless,I gladly subscribeto the Comas again marshals the solid facts
Declaration, though the whole prob- that refutethe doctrine of "superior"
lem and the definitionof "race" are not and "inferior"races. There is nothing
settledyet.
[Ljubljana, 8.3.61] in theirstatementsto whichI would not
and ethically,I
subscribe:scientifically
share their views without any reservaA.
THOMA*
By
tion. May I take the liberty,however,
The highlyintricatesystemof ideas of carryingtheir argumentationa few
called ethicsis by no means some sort steps further.
The outlook on the race question,
of a teleological superstructureartificiallybuilt up by highbrowswho have both in theoryand in practice,is more
thanis generallythought.
turned away from life. The self-con- differentiated
trolling and self-correcting
systemof Four kinds of standpoints and attimutual relationshipsbetween human tudes can be distinguishedin this doindividualsand groupsis deeplyrooted main.
1. Raci.sm.It.stheoryestablishesdifin both the biological and the social
Accordingto myexperience,I.Q.s are
apt to test the testersbetter than the
tested.At least for investigatingracial
differences,
I do not know any reliable
I.Q. test(thoughthismay be myfault).
It should be rememberedthat in the
19thcenturyA. R. Wallace, as well as
Miklukho-Maklay,
found that Melanesians are as clever as Whites. In 1869,
Wallace wrote (Eiseley 1955):
330
ferencesin value between the biologically more or less definablegroups of

mankind.Its practicediscriminatesbetween these groups, for the benefit
of some and to the detrimentof others
(Niirnberg law, Apartheid), down to
the veryannihilationof the latter.
2. Counter-racism.
As faras its theory
is concerned,the group suffering
from
discriminationsimply turns the ideas
of the discriminators
against the latter.
In the 1930's, for instance, several
Polish scientiststhoughtto counteract
the racistideologyof the Third Reich
by tryingto prove that Poland was the
countrywhere the greatestpercentage
of "pure Nordic types" occurred (cf.
Mydlarsky1951). The practiceof counis a primitiveadequate-reacter-racism
tion: the hatred felt by the oppressors
for the oppressedgives rise, in the oppressed, to hatred for the oppressors.
Without making any distinction,the
oppressed discriminateagainst the discriminatorsas a group,regardlessof individual attitudesor responsibilities.In
this reaction the oppressors discover
legal groundsand justificationfor still
stricterdiscrimination,which only enhances the hatredfeltby the oppressed,
and so on. As a result,should anybody
on eitherside stand up for true equality,the otherside will regardhis action
as deceptionor hypocrisy.In thisfeedback-fatal to both parties-the responsibility for the crimes committedby
the oppressed falls back upon the oppressors, for counter-racismhas, of
course,been broughtinto existenceby
racism.
3. Anti-racism.
Its theoryis the scientificrefutationof the doctrineof racial
inferiority.Its practice is the social
strugglewaged to put an end to all
kinds of discrimination.The intention
is thoroughly
humane and, as Comas' argumentssignificantly
prove, it can adduce factsderivedfromexperimentand
observationin supportof its theses.Its
rationalistic argumentationhas, however, failed to achieve full success: it
has not convincedeverybody-eitherin
Edinburghor in South Africa.The explanation lies, perhaps,in the factthat
the essence of anti-racismis but a negation. Let me recall the fundamental
idea of Thomas Mann's "Mario und
der Zauberer": it is not enough to condemn evil; in order to combat it sucwe mustaffirm
cessfully,
somethingnew
whichis trueand good. I thinkthisnew
and positive thingdoes not have to be
invented in our special field-at the
most,it mustbe givena name. And the
best suited name is:
4. Anthropologicaluniversalism.Its
theory is based on the circumstance
that the thesis,accordingto which the
equalityin value of the human races is
not only a given fact but a necessarily
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
given fact, can be substantiated;the

geneticmechanismof its coming into
existencecan be graspedin itscausality,
and its processcan be traced with the
help of the evidence of human paleontologyand prehistory.Human populationsdisposingof any kind of culture
and any kind of gene-contentare the
bearers of universal values. In their
practicalactivity,the adherentsof anthropologicaluniversalism,by mobilizing theactivesolidarityof all mankind,
wish to help the groups which, owing
to geographical,economic,and historilag behind the front
cal circumstances,
ofmoderncivilization,to manifestfully
their hitherto hidden values so that
these can develop unhamperedfor the
benefitof humanity.'
The full theoreticalexplanation of
the universalistoutlook is, naturally,
beyond the scope of this comment; I
shall tryto expound it in detail in a
study now under preparation. Here I
wishto raiseonlya fewprincipalpoints
and deduct some main conclusions.All
modern opinions agree that the group
of the Euhomininae-which emerged
fromthe variable primitiveHominids
-is of monogeneticorigin.It is an elementaryfact that the remnantsof the
materialcultureof thisgroup testifyto
an ever increasing improvementand
show,in the Upper Paleolithic period,
significantdifferentiationwhich has
rapidly increased ever since. It seems
whollyimprobablethat thisprogressis
only the resultof the accumulationof
inventionsand traditions,and of learning. The intellectual facultiesof Man
pass througha processof evolution: a
Sinanthropus,born,by some miracle,a
fewhundredmillenia later than his period,would not have been able to build
the Great Wall even if instructedby
the most competent scientistsof the
Chinese imperial court. The complex
phenomenonwhich we call culturelittle by little took the place of the biological processes. Man not so much
adapts himselfby morpho-physiological
adaptation to changingenvironmental
circumstances,but rather vanquishes
themwith his intelligence,throughsocial co-operationand with his implements.Thus, the demands imposed by
an increasingly complicated culture
submittedthe intellectual facultiesof
Man to orthoselection,whose pressure
naturallygrowswith the complexityof
the tasksto be solved and with the increase in the stock of knowledge accumulatedby previousgenerationsand
passed on by speech. It seems also beyond doubt that definitetrends(Weid-
enreich 1947) manifest themselvesin

human evolution: cerebralization,gracilization, the reduction of dentition
and jaws, and many other enantioplastic changes mutual-lyacting upon one
another in a highlycomplicated way,
fall under this heading. The tempo of
is quite characterthis transformation
istic. The relative homogeneity(with
the sole divergence,to some extent,of
the Mauer jaw) of thePithecanthropus,
Sinanthropus,and Atlanthropuspopulations, separated from each other by
considerable distances, immediately
strikesthe eyes of experts accustomed
to the greatmorphologicalvariationof
the primates. The explanation evidently lies in their proximityto the
commonroot. The available findsthat
followin the sequence of timeare characterizedpreciselyby increasedheterogeneity.In the sole Eem-interglacialin
Europe, we findthreesuch sharplydivergentformsas Saccopastore,Fontechevade, and Ehringsdorf.On other
continentswe findfossiltypesthat tare
more difficult to synchronize, but
morphologically very divergent, too
(Ngandongand Saldanha-BrokenHill).
And in the Old-Wiirm we find the
mostaberranthuman form,thatof the
classicNeanderthalMan. The typemaking its appearance with the Upper
Paleolithic (the taxonomicproblem of
calling it Homo sapiens, or H. sapiens
sapiens,or even by the neutraltermof
Neanthropus, is irrelevant here) is
again more uniform,the homogeneity
being indicated, in the firstplace, by
featuresmarkedby the trend.With recent man, thishomogeneityis most explicit. A joke was twice played on the
present writerby his colleagues, who
asked him to name the race of an unmarkedskull. The reply in both cases
was: "I don't know, but it is probably
Europid." In fact, the firstwas from
New Guinea, the second from Korea.
The error,in both cases, might have
been due, of course, to my ignorance.
I believe, however,that it expresseda
fact, namely the increasing predominance of the general evolutionary
trend, pointing towards uniformization. Body and mind being inseparable, it is impossiblefor morphological
to deand intellectual transformation
velop independentlyof each other.Intelligence is determined multifactorially,and-throughpleiotropiccontrolnumerousotherfeaturesare co-selected
with it, not to speak of the manifold
functionalinteractions.The increasing
morphologicalhomogeneizationof Ne' Should anyone be confusedby this unanthropicMan is bilaterallyand caususual and pragmaticdivision,1 and 2 could
ally connected,in the infinitespiral of
secondary
and
primary
called
also be
and reaction,with cultural deaction
offensive
and
defensive
4
racism,and 3 and
velopment and with the increasing
anti-racism.
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
selectivepressureupon the mentalaptitudes. The same orthoselectivemechanism that makes the physical appearance of recent man more and more
homogeneous necessarily entails the
consequence that human populations.
livingin thesame temporalhorizonareof identical value as far as theirintellectual faculties are concerned. Thisthesisis not only born out by the observation that any human population
todaybringsforththe same average intellectual performancesunder equal
conditions.The Australian Aborigines.
-having the mostprimitiveculturesof
all populations today-still live in the
Mesolithic (alithic cultures are generally consideredsecondary),thus lagging about 10,000 years behind the
present-dayfrontof culture.The pace
of culturaldevelopmentmustbe measured with time itselfand not with the
special featuresof the contentof culturaldevelopment,forbeyonda certain
degree of development its regression
withthe timeco-ordinateautomatically
changed,and moved over,in the last 3
centuries, into an asymptoticphase.
Estimating the culture-creatingphase
at roughly half a million years, this
means a 1-metre-widewave cutting
through a 50-metrecourse. In other
words,the processof culturaldevelopment workswith a marginof errorof
1/50 (or 2 per cent), which is quite
negligible. An extraordinary homogeneityindeed! As the influenceexercised by geographical, economic, and
historicalfactorson cultural development is well known-as is also the extentof thatinfluence-itis obvious that
the only explanation for a strikingly
narrow margin of variations,i.e., the
resistanceto externalfactors,must be
sought in the fact that, so far as the
evolution of innate faculties is concerned, all mankind progressedin a
strictlysynchronisedway.
In order furtherto examine the allimportantproblemof race and psyche,
we must distinguish 3-if perhaps a
little arbitrarilydefined-aspectsof the
human psyche:
1. Consciousness.The delimitationof
the Ego from the outside world. No
verification is required to prove that
this indivisible, elementaryquantum,

which makes all the qualitative difference between man and animal, is one
of the featuresof everynormalhuman
being.
2. Intelligence. The receptiverecognition of interrelationsentailing the
purposefulnessof activities.It follows
fromwhathas been said above thatperformancesattained in this field-the
only one where differencesin value
could be registered-are,on principle
331
Vol. 2 * No. 4 * October 1961

itarydeterminationis, to a verylarge
extent,multifactorial.In this case we
recur to various calculationsof heritability in order to approximate the
measure of heredityand the effectof
environment.It is commonknowledge
that the examinationsconductedso far
have undeniably proved the great influenceexercisedby heredityupon psychical characteristics. However, attempts to estimate the proportion of
hereditaryand environmentaleffects
have failed. The customaryestimations
of heritabilitybased on the additive
theoremhave consideredthe phenotype
as the resultant of additive impulses
thatare independentof each other-impulsesthatcome fromthegenotypeand
the peristasis of random directional
distribution.But this pattern is much
more valid for cattle than for man.
Characteristicscontaining certain psychophysicalelements,as for instance,
hereditarymusical aptitudes, are the
easiest to analyse. It is, however,this
veryexample which best shows the ineptitude of the additive theorem.The
musical parents of a musical childwho has inheritedhis musicalaptitudes
-will surely teach their offspringto
play some instrument.Thus, heredity
and environmentare in positivecorrelation. On the other hand, the greater
the talentinherited,the greaterforthe
individual is the joy of music and the
successachieved in it, and the greater,
therefore,the impulse that he will receive to intensifyhis musical studies.
The relation betweenheredityand environmentis thuscharacterizedby multiplicative interaction.It is, however,
to evaluate the degree of
verydifficult
correlation and interaction,and the
proportion of the effectsof heredity
and environmentcan but roughlybe
approximated.Besides, we cannot fail
to mentionthatmusical personshave a
tendencyforassortativemating.
This probably also holds for characterological features,in the case of
in another . . ." This possible remainboth individualsand populations. It is
ing variationof typesand formsof re- verypossiblethatMan, afterhavingdisaction must be examined by research covered some impressivecharacteristic
workaccomplishedin the fieldof "the in himself,elevatesit to thestandardof
varietiesof temperament,"or, to use a
an ideal of education and self-educamore correctexpression,of character- tion; and as a result,social stimulation
ology.To give a more detailed analysis will, by some complicated interplay,
of this hypothesis,we shall adduce a
help the shaping and preselectionof
few concrete examples, in order to the corresponding characteristicfeathrowlight upon the universalistout- tures.Such a complicatedsituationprelook, from the point of view of both ventsus fromstatingto whatextentthe
theoryand practice.
characterologicaldivergencesbetween
When examiningthegeneticsof nor- populations can be attributedto difmal psychicalproperties,we come up
ferencesin gene frequency,and to what
of method.It is al- extent theyresult fromenvironmental
against a difficulty
mostimpossible,in thewhole of a func- and cultural factors.I cannot referto
tioning psyche, to delimit a certain my own experiencesin this field,so I
well-definedfeature. The "character- wish to point here to a primaryand
istic"artificially
selectedis, in itself,the well-known phenomenon. Drawing a
outcomeofcomplexprocesses.Its hered- straightline on the map of the Old
and so far as aptitudes are concerned,
equal withall contemporaneoushuman
populations.The degreeof the generaland the form
ization of interrelations,
of activity,are not biologicallygiven;
they depend on education. It is the
form,the content,and the workingof
the variouscultures,and the social organization (depending on environmental, economic, and historical factors)which determinethe position of
theindividualwithintherange of mankind's spiritual and cultural achievements. Individual aptitudes are sufficientlysupple forany individual,taken
out of the parents'society,to assimilate
the cultural degree of the receiving
population.Everycivilizationfunctions
withuncannyassuranceunder its own
fromthe astute hunting
circumstances,
methodsof the Pygmiesdown to modern technicalcivilization.The question
whetherthe recognitionof the phylogenetic relations of a fossil skull requires more logic and constructive
fantasythan the inventionof some resourcefultrap, is one I cannot answer.
betweenthetwo
The decisivedifference
taskslies in the factthatthe solutionof
the formerrequires the accumulation
of much more knowledgethan that of
the latter.The conditionsunder which
environpopulationslivingin different
mentsstartout forthe extensionof the
world are unequal. Taking an analogy
fromEuropean civilization,it would be
futile,fromthehistoricalpoint of view,
to discusswhetherthe achievementsof
Archimedes or those of Newton required greater mental effort.Human
intelligencealways operates on a cultural level allowed by the "drag" of
natural environment,
yetthathas been
historicallyalreadyattained.
3. Character. The UNESCO Statement contains a passage which says:
"It is possible,thoughnot proved,that
some types of innate capacity for intellectual and emotional responsesare
commonerin one human group than
332
World in the direction northeastsouthwest-say, from Yokohama to

Brazzaville-we finda determinedand
continuous cline of emotional behaviour along that line. There is the high
degreeof innerdisciplineof the yellowskinnedpeople on the one end, and the
high degree of affectivity
of the black
races on the other. (The situation of
the whiteman is perhapsintermediary,
but an anthropologistcolleague belonging to another race can surely determine thismuch more exactlythan I, a
European.) But what is the meaningof
these divergencesso far as values are
concerned?Whichis themoreprecious:
stoicalindividuality,or theviolin of joy
and pain? The heroic denial of life,or
the passionate love for it? Such questions are senseless.All theseare bearers
of universal values, making evident
now this,now the other side of manifold human nature. These patternsof
behaviour do not, in themselves,mean
differences
in value; on the contrary,it
is obvious that the greatest possible
characterologicalvariation is the most
advantageousforthe population in the
ever-changing
historicalsituations.
One of the fundamentalthoughtsof
Keith (1948) is that the initial units of
human evolution were small human
groups.Altruismand self-sacrifice
were
the virtueswithin the group, but unsparing egoism and oppression were
virtues in inter-grouprelationships.
These groups have constantlygrown
since, and our generationis, perhaps
not too far away fromthe state of affairswhere humanityitselfwill be the
unit of solidarity.Even in the frameworkof thisfinalformation,characterological variation is highly advantageous. Is the integrationof a variegated
and many-sidedhumanitymore useful
and more efficient
than the agglomeration of grey,uniformmasses?The existence of characterological variety,
whetherrestingon genetic grounds or
not, is of universal value to all mankind. Our everydaylife would be very
poor if all of us were homozygotesto
the same genes. To expressit with an
analogytakenfromthe fieldof culture:
how much poorer would humanitybe
if Dante, Hafiz, and Tolstoy had had
but a singlelanguage and a singlestock
of cultural traditionsat theirdisposal.
It is, therefore,
the universalinterestof
mankindthatall itsgroupsshould,with
their specificvalues, and by their cooperation,contributeto the prosperity
of the whole. It is the dutyand interest
of us Europids and of us Mongolids to
help the totalityof Negrids assimilate
moderncivilizationand culture.Moreover,it is the commontaskof the three
of us-and a veryurgentand magnificent task at that-to save the smaller
races and the natural peoples which
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
are about to perish,and to contribute

to the complete unfolding of their
hiddenvalues. Today the whole world
relishesNegro music. We learn astonishingfactsabout the artistictalentsof
Australianchildren, talents which at
once become manifestwhen the children,for the firsttime, take coloured
pencils in their hands at school. The
namesof someAustralianpaintershave
even reached Europe (e.g. Albert Namatjira). Why deprive ourselves of a
futureAustralian Michelangelo? Humanitytoday is at the thresholdof immense common tasks to solve, and we
can ventureto say thatperhapsthe role
of biological adaptabilitymust not be
underestimatedin their solution. In
space researchtheremaybe tasksahead
which can be best tackled by Eskimo,
Pygmy,or Bushman scientistsand technicians. Saving the smallest and the
weakestis trulya taskworthyof human
dignity,and it is the calling of the
anthropologistto make this conscious
in all, by vanquishingphilistineindifference.Praiseworthy
initiativesare not
lacking,one of them being the LatinAmericanindigenistamovementwhich
considersLas Casas its spiritual ancestor,and among whose outstandingrepresentativesJuan Comas also belongs.
I, as a universalist,am of the opinion
that each leaf falling frommankind's
tree forever impoverishesthe whole
crown.
[Budapest,14.61]
By A. WIERCIN'SKI*
I fullyagree withthe severecriticism
of racistconceptionswhich is included
in this highlyimpressiveand veryvaluable article by Comas. That part of
the articledealing with the problemof
the vitality of hybrid populations is
especially interestingand convincing.
The references
collectedbyComas seem
to prove the general conclusion that
there is no scientificevidence for the
existenceof mentaldifferences
between
racially differentpopulations which
cannot be explained in termsof environmental factors,in the broadest
senseof thisexpression.
Being in suchagreementwithComas,
I should like to considerin more detail
some questions arising mainly in connection with the UNESCO Statement
on Race accompanyingComas' article.
The racial problemstouched on there
seemto be verycomplicatedand to need
some terminologicalclarificationsand
restrictions.
In viewof thehistoricaldevelopment
of racist speculations,especially those
involvedin Nazi Germany,I agree that
who
thosescientistsor pseudo-scientists
assume the existence of highlysignificant differencesin mental characters
connectedwithculturalcapacityof differenthuman races,and who recognize
Comas:
themas a leading factorin the history

of mankind,should be considered adherents of racism. But this does not
mean that all anthropologistswho believe (it is stillprimarilya matterof belief) in correlationsbetween types of
psychological reactions and units of
racial classificationshould necessarily
be called racists.
The present knowledge of the subject,as maybe seen fromComas' article,
completelydisprovesthe racistspeculations, but the question of the abovementioned correlationsremains open.
It is clear enough that the results of
bestudies of psychologicaldifferences
racial units depend on
tween different
the meaningof the term"race" as it is
used fordistinguishingcomparablehuman groups. When it has a meaning
correspondingto "human populations,"
there may be advanced the objection
that the mental differencesobserved
betweenethnically,socially,or economically limitedinterbreedinggroups can
always be interpretedentirelyin the
lightof ethnic,social, or economicfactors.
In other words, when comparisons
are made betweensuch units as, forexample, Chinese, Russian, French,
Gypsy,or Hindu caste samples, there
always existsthe possibilityof explaining all the mental differencesthat
emergeas being conditionedby factors
in the historicaldevelopmentof these
populations, since this is also, at the
same time,responsiblefortheirgenesis.
Therefore, it might be of interestto
touch slightlyupon the same problem
of the general concept of race.
Accordingto Point 3 of theUNESCO
Statement,it is the lack of necessary
coincidencebetween racial groups and
"national, religious,geographical,linguistic and cultural groups" that emphasizes the last phrase of this point:
"The use of the term'race' in speaking
of such groups may be a serious error,
but it is one which is habituallycommitted."
However, a considerablemajorityof
therecentdefinitions
of the term"race"
seem to referto populations thatare no
less in contradictionto the literalsense
of the above-citedUNESCO formulation.
In contemporaryanthropologytwo
main trendsin thestudyof race maybe
distinguished:(a) thepopulationistconcept,based on thedefinitionof a race as
an interbreedingpopulation; and (b)
the individualist concept, which assumesthe possibilityof establishingthe
racial affinitiesof individuals independentlyof theirethnicorigin (Wiercifiski1958).
Broadly speaking, the firstconcept
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM AGAIN?
mixed
definesa race as an interbreeding
population, and racial differencesas
differences
betweenpopulations in the
frequenciesof genes determiningdiagnosticfeatures.
Some definitionsof this kind have
been collected in a paper by Ashley
Montagu (1950), from which the following statementsmay be selected for
illustration:"A race is a more or less
isolatedpopulationof thespeciesHomo
sapiens which differsfromother populations of the same species in the incidence of one or moregenes" (Eppling);
"If races are incipient species,nations
could be regardedas incipientracesbut
only if theymaintain theirboundaries
long enough" (A. Keith).
Montagu himself,more closely followingthe theoryof geneticbalance in
population, writes simply (1950:320):
"A much mixed population may be a
race in preciselythe same sense as a
long isolated population which is in
geneticequilibrium."
Since the term "race" is applied to
interbreeding
populations,thereshould
be no objection to its application to
traditional nationalities, social strata,
or regional populations-in brief, to
everygroup of people in which there
occurs,moreor lessrandomly,theinterbreeding process constitutinga mixed
population. But, race as a population is
exactlythe unit which can scarcelybe
accepted in the lightof Point 3 of the
UNESCO Statement,since the boundaries limitingthe interbreedingprocess in man are ethnic, political, geographic,or religious.
Still anothertraitof the populationist concept of race may be easily demonstrated,if it is taken as a basic unit
forracistspeculations.The reasoningis
very simple: when the term "race" is
applied to a panmictichuman population, racial discriminationis directed
against a population and not against a
more or less small number of individuals constitutinga given anthropological type in the individualist concept.
The sociotechnicalefficacy
of the first
concept was well understood by the
Nazis who, afterintenseargumentsbetween Guntherand J. Kaupe (see Studencki 1938 for details), accepted AlfredRosenberg'spopulationistconcept
of a "GermanRace." It is fullyreflected
in the anti-semiticNazi laws, of which
thereadermayfindillustrativeexcerpts
in Keiter (1941). Those discriminated
against were not the individuals showing a common set of physicalfeatures,
but simplyall membersof the Jewish
religious group.
Anotherexample is racism in South

Africa,wheretheso-called"coloredpeo-
333
ple" are discriminatedagainst because

and not their
of their ethnic affinity,
physicaltype. A Hindu, in spite of a
morphologicalappearance thatmay be
fromthat of an Italindistinguishable
ian or Spaniard, will sufferfrom this
only because of his
samediscrimination
ethnic origin-simply because he is
Hindu.
These remarks,of course,are not intendedto mean thatthe modernpopulationist concept of race necessarily
leads to racism,while the individualist
concept does not; but only that the
formercan open the way forthe worst
kindof racism,i.e., the bio-nationalistic
type,which is directed against whole
populationsand not againstindivduals
representinga given racial type which
is strictlydefined morphologically.
Returningto the question of mental
differencesbetween human races, the
objection should be repeated that the
use of the term"race" in a populationist sense preventsour separatingthe influenceof non-biological (i.e., environmental) determinantsfrom the racial
ones.
But it seemspossibleto avoid thisdifficultyby applying suitable individual
typologicalanalysisto answerthe quesoccur
tion: do psychologicaldifferences
between physically distinguishable
groupingsof individuals belonging to
one and the same population, and living under nearly identical conditions?
If statisticallysignificantdifferences
between morphologically different
membersof theinvestigatedpopulation
should appear, theyshould be studied
in other populations as well, but in
reference to these same typological
subgroupings.If, for example, psychological characters in the individuals
assignedto the racial typecalled Mediterranean (i.e., showing a similar appearance in head shape, facial traits,
complexion, etc.) always differin this
samedirectionfromthoseofindividuals
of Alpine type within all the populations investigated,then the conclusion
are
may be drawn thatsuch differences
correlatedwith the distributionof sets
of racial features.
Of course,thiskind of analysisshould
only concern individuals of the same
economic and social status. It would
also be possible to make more direct
investigationswithout relation to selected typology,namely by use of the
method of surpluses applied for suitably arithmetizedcombinationsof categoriesof diagnosticracial featuresand
the resultsof proper psychologicaltesting, assuming their independent association. This same analysismustbe repeated in differentpopulations, and
must give identical or very similar
points of significantsurpluses.
[Warsaw,l.3.613
334
Repiy
because we are not familiarwith the

workshe may have publishedon physical anthropology,biology,genetics,or
similar sciences.
The Editorial in the second number

of The Mankind Quarterly (October
1960, p. 4) confirmsour view when it
saysthatthejournal has received"a few
abusiveletters"concerningthecontents
of the preceding number, and adds,
"whateverthe status of the writersof
these letters,they can be considered
littlebetterthan cranks"(italicsmine).
Finally,the Editor'sreactionto gkerlj's
resignation from the Advisory Board
(Man, vol. 60, November1960,pp. 17273) seems a reaffirmation
of the racist
inclinationof The Mankind Quarterly.
3. Commenting on our statement
concerning "the somatic hierarchy
[Gates]establishesbetweenhis different
human species" (p. 306, footnote 9),
Elkins says, "To classifyman into 4
fundamentalgeographical groups and
to call these species is not in itselfto
proclaima 'somatichierarchy.'"
Actually,Gates recognizes5, not 4,
speciesof thegenusHomo (Gates 1948:
367): australicus, capensis, africanus,
mongoloideus,and caucasicus, and in
several places clearlyestablishesa "somatic hierarchy"among these species.
Here are some examples: Referringto
Homo australicus,Gates says,"It is in
effecta survivorfroman earlier evolutionarylevel" (1948:156-57); accepting
Shellshear'sresults,he writesthat the
brainof the Bushwomanis "veryprimitiveand simple"(p. 159); he assertsthat
in the brain of the AustralianAborigines (p. 160) "the new corticalareas are
not developed to the extent that they
are in higherraces" (italics mine); acceptingWells' thesis,he statesthat"the
Bushman mustbe considereddefinitely
Garrett's
generalapproach:his generaliza- inferiorin cerebral
developmentto the
tions and conclusions,
which exceed the
limitsof a concretecriticalexamination European" (p. 160); he says,"It is not
and becomean expliciteulogyofracialdis- withoutsignificancethat the two most
crimination;
and his acceptanceof theex- primitive species of living mankind,
istenceof races that are physicallyand Homo
australicusand Homo capensis,
mentallyinferior.
have smallerbrainsthananyothermodAnd we presented evidence to docu- ern men" (p. 162).
mentthisstatement.
These quotationsseemto us sufficient
2. Elkin doubts that The Mankind justificationforsayingthatGates recogQuarterlyshould be considereda jour- nizes a somatic hierarchy,at least benal of racisttendency"because Garrett tweenEuropeans on the one hand, and
contributedthiscriticalarticleto it and
Bushmenand AustralianAborigineson
because his fellow associate-editorwas the other.
dubbed a super-racist
in 1948." The raTo conclude, I would referElkin to
cist characterof Garrett's article has myreplyto Garrett,because I hope that
been fullyproved,and is reaffirmed
in in it he will see why I am convinced
his Comment.As for Gates' racism,be- that The Mankind Quarterly indeed
sides his 1948 book we have noted a
publishes articles by the "scientific
similar tendencyin two of his works malefactors"who he thinksshould be
that have been published since 1952. exposed.
On commentsof ALEXANDERGALLOMoreover, Garrettand Gates are the
associateeditorsof The Mankind Quar- WAY: Gallowaypointsout thatthestateterlyand have undoubtedlygiven it its ment "All men are equal" is incorrect,
scientificand ideological orientation. biologicallyspeaking,and that it must
We do not allude to its Editor, Gayre, be replacedby"All men are bornpotenBy JUAN COMAS
I am gratefulto the many commentatorsfor theirvaluable contributions
and suggestionsconcerningthe subject
of this discussion.This is proof of the
interestthat the problem arouses,and
showsthe diversityof viewpoints,aims,
and interpretationsthat presentthemselves beforea question as complex as
that of "racism."
Careful reading of each of the commentsindicatesthat the greaterpart of
them express opinions that generally
coincide with those of the writer.Fortunately,they also include new data
which complementthe original article.
They should be of great benefitto the
reader.
We shall discusshere only thosecommentsthatpresentpointsof controversy
or at least need some explanation.
Hence we shall let pass withoutreply
the comments by Bergman, BirketSmith,Boev, Bunak, Dobzhansky,Gjgssing, Haldane, Montagu, Nachtsheim,
Posplsil, gkerlj,Thoma, and Wiercii'ski,since we concurwiththeiropinions
and conclusions.
On commentsof A. P. ELKIN: Elkin
presentsdata and opinions with many
of whichI am in agreement.I wishonly
to clarifyseveral points:
1. Elkin is rightwhen he says"a psychologistis not a racistbecause he disagrees with Klineberg's interpretation
of intelligencetests."But the problem
set forthin my articledid not referto
this particular case, but rather to (p.
306)
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
tiallyequal." I agree thatthe firststatementis inaccurateas long as the existence of biological differences,both
individual and racial, is evident. But
thesecondstatementlends itselfto misunderstandingand, in my opinion,
would be clearer if it said: "All men,
regardlessof race, are born potentially
equal."
I concur with Galloway's opinion
thata "racist"is a "propagandistwith
an innate capacity for quoting his fellowsout of context."But when he objects on this ground to my quotation
from Wells-"the Bushman must be
considereddefinitelyinferiorin cerebral development to the European"he overlooksthe facts(a) that thisquotationwas previouslycited in the work
of a racist(Gates 1948: 160), who used
it as an argumentin favor of the superiorityof the European to the Bushman, and (b) that I went on to say (p.
307): "This completelysubjectiveconclusioncan hardlywithstandcriticalexamination, either for the number of
subjectson which it was based [eleven
endocranialcasts]or forthe generalization it establishes."I have the greatest
respectforWells' work,but in thisparticularcase I do not see the least possibilityof acceptingas valid his definitive and generalized conclusion,when
it concernednot skullsbut endocranial
casts,and a verysmall numberof these
(7 males and 4 females).
Galloway adds that"Comas then follows thiswitha seriesof statisticalstatements on White and Negro male and
female skulls. The relevance of this is
difficultto see." The passage (p. 307)
concernscranial capacity.If I negated
the validity,in this respect,of Wells'
discriminatory
conclusion,based on 11
endocranial casts, I considered it anthropologicallyand statisticallyjustifiable to present contradictorydata
about mean capacityin 4 seriesofskulls,
male and female, White and Negro,
whichconstituteda totalof no less than
2,241.
On commentsof SIR JULIAN HUXLEY:
Aftershowinghimselfto be in general
agreementwith my article, and indicating his profounddisagreementwith
Garrett'sarticle,Huxley points out "a
number of minor criticisms."I am in
complete agreement with the corrections he has indicated in points 1, 3,
Comas:
As for point 2 ("I should not have

thoughtit true thatall racistsattribute
'total influenceto heredity'"), I confess
thatI do not followhim. To the degree
that the racist thesis depends on the
suppositionthatthereare races thatare
"inferior"and "superior"in the biological sense, environmental influence
mustbe denied, since it necessarilyinvolvessomaticor psychologicalchanges
which would modifythe a priori hierarchizationthatis the basis of racism.
On commentsofCLARENCE P. OLIVER:
Oliver, without discussingthe article,
sets forthwith great clarity his own
opinion as a geneticistabout the complementaryaction of heredityand environmenton the phenotype: "An environmental agent can cause certain
phenotypes.Often a geneticistcan determinethat gene action is influenced
by a specific environmental circumstance," and "Mental developmentin
man in the normalrange has not been
subjectedto criticalgeneticalstudiesas
the
yet." This amplifiesand reaffirms
view expounded in the article. His illustrationof the possible consequences
of exogamic crossingwhen deleterious
recessivegenes are involved is particularlyapt. But in statingthat "the term
'racist' is used without discrimination
by writers,"he must referto the general public, rather than to geneticists,
biologists,and anthropolpsychologists,
ogists,most of whom have a clear and
concreteconceptionofwhatis meantby
"racism"and itssocio-economicand po-
litical implications.
On comments of S. D. PORTEUS: Since
Porteus' commentsare directed at the

UNESCO Statement on Race rather
than myarticle,I feel no obligation to
reply, notwithstandingmy complete
disagreementwith some of his statements.On the other hand, he gives a
valuable report on the interpretation
of theresultsof psychologicalinvestigations among the Australians,Bushmen,
Sakai, etc., particularlythe application
of Maze tests.
He also suggeststhatUNESCO establish a committeeof scientistswho have
carriedout mentaland physicalstudies
of racial groups, in specific circumstances. This idea has positive merit,
particularlyif such a committeeexand 5.
cludes, as Porteusproposes,"the chairborne experts."This could be the basis
Concerning point 4, it should be
noted thatmy originalmanuscriptwas for gatheringvery objective data conwrittenin Spanish, and that the only cerningthe relative importanceof natermsused in this language are mesti- ture and nurturein the physical and
zaje and hibridacion.It is the translator mental developmentof any individual
who must take directresponsibilityfor of any race.
the possiblyincorrectuse of the terms
It would obviouslybe necessaryto esoutbreeding, miscegenation, outcross- tablish identical environmentalcondiing,mingling,cross-bDreedilng,
exogamic tions for the subjects, perhaps by
etc.
c-rossing,
gatheringinto a boarding school for
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
18 or 20 years a group of newly born

childrenbelonging to different
human
groups (Australians,Bushmen, Sakai,
Chinese,mestizosof all kinds,Negroes,
Whites, etc.), who could live and be
educated together.Such an experiment,
under the supervisionand directionof
a selected team of teachers,psychologists,anthropologists,
etc.,would allow
us to observe the limitationsand the
hierarchization,if theseexist,of different individualsand races; i.e., it would
give us the possibilityof evaluating,in
each case, the hereditaryfactor,and
verifyingwhether,as the racistsassert,
the innate physicaland mental superiorityor inferiority
existingamong individuals is applicable to "races." I have
no doubt about the finalresult;but the
experimentwould serve to destroythe
doubt in thoselike Porteus,who writes,
"Obviously,since imbecilitycan occur
in both Australian Aborigines and
Whites, the lowest racial levels are
equivalent; but I would hesitateto believe thatthehighestlevels are coterminous until,of course,thereappears an
aboriginal Shakespeare or Einstein or
even a fewEdisons."
On commentsof R. RUGGLES GATES:
Gates prefersto regardmyarticleas an
attackon himpersonally,and thenduly
proceeds to accuse me of propagandist
efforts.However, he fails to refuteor
even to attemptto refutethe arguments
and conclusionsI presented.
Accordingto Gates:
his [i.e., Comas'] personal attack .
. is a
both of my
completemisrepresentation
workand of my views.He refersto two
ofmybookspublishedbefore1949and ignoresnearlyall mypublications
sincethat
to thisworkis caredate.... All reference
fullysuppressed
by Comasin his desireto
a purelypropagandist
view.
promulgate
I referin thearticleto theracistpoint
of view shownin threeworksby Gates:
Human Ancestry(1948), "Genetics and
Normal Mental Differences" (1952),
and "Disadvantages of Race Mixture"
(1952). It is unnecessaryto examine all
his works to reach the conclusion that
Gates is a racist.I do not considermyselfcompetentto make a criticalanalysis of Gates' work as a botanistor as a
geneticist; what is being considered
hererelatesto his conclusionsand interpretationsconcerninga polyphyleticexplanation of hominidorigin,as well as
his studiesof race crossing.And forthat
purpose the referenceto 3 of his publicationsis morethanenough,especially
since in none of the others does he
modifytheopinionswhichhe expresses
here.
In discussing my comment on his
"Disadvantages of Race Mixture"
(1952),Gatesattributesto me,withmost
335
levity,"an extraordinary
extraordinary
and triesto justifyhis
lack of integrity"
statementin the followingmanner:
1. He accuses me of misquotinghim
by saying"by the Congressin Vienna"
when I should have said "at the Conto read my
gressin Vienna." It suffices
articleto see thatmyquotation is absolutely correct: "at the Congress in
Vienna" (p. 312). The matteris indeed
trivial,as Gates himselfsays; but I am
notaccustomedto alterquotations,and
Gatesshouldread morecarefullybefore
makingsuch an assertion.
2. Gates accuses me of not mentioningan example of thedeleteriouseffects
of race crossingwhich he cites (1952:
896), sayingthat it "is ignoredbecause
it is unanswerable."This example is as
follows:
The Rh negative gene, which is responsible for the death of countless Caucasian
infants and foetuses,has been traced to
prehistoriccrossing between the Basques
and peoples speaking the Indo-European
languages. These probably [italics mine]
began at least as early as the Neolithic;
but their effectson the death of European
infants and foetuses (erythroblastosis)are
still unabated.
My omissionwas intentional,not because the example was "evidentlyunanswerable,"but for preciselythe opposite reason: because it falls outside
of scientificcriticismnot only in its interpretationbut also in the factswhich
it sets forth.Could Gates satisfymy
curiosityon these points: What proof
has he of this "prehistoriccrossingbetweentheBasques and peoples speaking
the Indo-European languages"? What
facts has he to support his statement
that "these crossesprobably began at
least as early as the Neolithic"? What
are the data informingus of the percentageof incidence-in case theyexist
-of the Rh negativegene in theseseparate prehistoricgroups of men before
the Neolithic, and how did he obtain
them?
This is a typicalexample of unscientificsubjectivity;but I am alwaysready
to correctmystandifI receiveobjective
and satisfactoryanswers to the questionsraised.The briefreferencesto the
worksof Scudder (October 1960) and
Gedda (still unpublished) in no way
modifythe argumentsof my article or
of myreply.Gates may "deplore propaganda," but his commentsreallyconstitute propaganda againstmiscegenation
and the integrationof schools in the
U.S.A. He even suggeststhat the very
prejudices of the Southerner in the
U.S.A. representsa scientificbasis for
such prejudice.
On commentsof HENRY E. GARRETT:
I have no intentionof conductingthe
discussionin the tone chosenby Garrett
by replyingto his inappropriatephraseology and judgments;but it does seem
336
necessaryto refutecertaingratuitousassertionsand to point out some surprising contradictions:

1. Garrett says, "I disagreed with
Klineberg'sevidence,and thisis all....
I did not proclaimany new theoriesof
'White supremacy'."What I said was
(p. 306):
"I don't know anyone who attributes

'total influence' to heredity,or who
claimstheNegro to be unmodifiably
inferior."
In the matterof criminality,
Garrett
statesin his Comment,"I did not conclude fromthiscorrelationthatthe Negro has a special 'crimegene' or thatall
What does concernus is Garrett'sgen- Negroes are criminal."What then did
eral approach;hisgeneralizations
and con- Garrettmean to say in 1960 when inclusions,whichexceedthelimitsof a con- vokingthe"racial factor"to explain the
cretecriticalexaminationand becomean higher crime rate of Negroes in the
explicit eulogy of racial discrimination, U.S.A.?
and his acceptance
of theexistence
ofraces
4. In the problem of intelligence
thatare physically
and mentallyinferior.
testsmy basic question was "whether
Garrett nowhere refersto the proofs I.Q. testshave anyvalidityas a measure
given in supportof my statement,and of innate mental capacity, especially
theirvalidityis thusapparentlygranted. when administeredto groups different
2. Garrettsaysthat "Comas' paper is fromthe ones on which the testswere
a prolix repetitionof mostof the argu- standardized."I relied on a series of
mentsforequalitarianism[italicsmine] opinions by internationallyrecognized
which have been aired these many investigators.I do not considermyself
years."Later he accusesme of using "all
a psychologistor an expert on mental
of the old propaganda dodges," and
tests,since for many years I have diadds, "Apparentlyanyonewho believes rectedmyprofessionalintereststoward
in geneticracial differences
is a 'racist.'"
other fields. However, I may remind
It is only necessaryto read mypaper
Garrettthatmy courseswith J. Piaget,
to be convincedthatnowheredo I speak E. Claparede, and R. Dottrens at the
of racial equalitarianism,but ratherat Universityof Geneva,as well as mylater
various points I refer to racial differ- workon didacticpedagogy,gave me acences whichobviouslydo exist.What I
tual experience-including published
have dealt with throughoutis the al- results(Comas 1933, 1934, 1940)-with
leged "superiority"or "inferiority"of the limitedvalue of such testsapplied
such differences
as a functionof race. It
to Spanish rural schoolswhen theyhad
is in relation to thispoint that Garrett been preparedand standardizedforurdoes not presentthe slightestevidence ban areas.Their value is evidentlyeven
to contradictmystatements.
less when applied to groupsas different
3. Even at the risk of wearyingthe as those called "Western civilized
reader, I must once more point out Whites" and "primitivenon-Whites."
some of the many expressionsused by Garrett'sfailure to replyor even refer
Garrett which are obviously self- to this essentialproblem only servesto
contradictory:
confirmmypoint of view.
5. Included in the "propaganda
In theWestIndies,thecivilization
is advanced almost exactlyin the degree to dodges" attributedto me by Garrettare
whichthe populationsare unmixedwith rhetoricalquestionsand listsof authorithe Negro.
"an old propaIn Brazil,coastalBahia withitsNegroid ties, and he refersto
a long list of
out
trick
to
ganda
string
is primitive
mixtures
andbackwardas comadvancedciviliza- names as authority . . . and this often
paredwiththerelatively
tionofwhitesouthern
Brazil.
impressesthe naive reader." He adds
Haitiis an unhappyexampleofwhatthe that "Comas' discussion of brain size
Negrocan do whenleftto governhimself.
and intelligenceis tedious and irreleSpeakingof the highercrimerate for vant."
Negroes in the U.S.A. (according to
The only answer to such absurdities
F.B.I. statistics),Garrett adds, "It re- and gratuitousjudgmentsis to cite here
quires a degreeof imaginationnot pos- the standardsset by the Editor of CURsessed by the reviewer[i.e, Garrett]to RENT ANTHROPOLOGY
for the manusee no 'racial factor'in thesefigures."
scriptssubmittedforpublication:
In his commentson my paper he afA 'ReviewArticle'is a majorsurveyof
firmswith a resoundingYES his belief
in "all 15 new Negro nations as un- knowledgeon any topic relevantto the
sciences of man. . . . A review article may
happy examples of self-government" be a reviewof literature,
a
data,research,
similarto the case of Haiti.
method,etc.,and its limitsmaybe drawn
or someother
It is quite clear that for Garrettthe in termsof time,geography,
criterion.It should generallyinclude a
environmentalfactorplays no part in
delineationof its baseline,or a concise
these instances; it is skin color which summary
ofpastdevelopments
whichthen
determinesthe higheror lower civiliza- servesas the baseline.Its topicshouldbe
tion, the larger or smaller crime rate, ambitiousin scope,and the coverageof
that topiccomprehensive,
well illustrated
and the betteror worseformof govern- by
concretecases,interpretative,
and forment.But-in flagrantcontradictionto ward-looking.
It shouldcontainan extenthe above-he writesin his comments, sivebibliography.
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
I have tried to meet these requirementsin myarticle,whetheror not it

pleasesGarrett.
6. A newerrorby Garrettis applying
to me theparagraphfromCoon (1954:
187-88)whichrefersto "certainwriters
who are mostlysocial anthropologists,
considerit immoralto studyrace, and
producebook afterbook exposingit as
a 'myth'."The fact is I am a physical
anthropologist
occupied formanyyears
withtheproblemsofhumanraces,without ever for a moment considering
thema myth(Comas 1941, 1942, 1943,
1945,1946,1951,1957,1960).
7. The repeatedinsinuation,utilized
so frequently
by Garrettand Gates,that
my articleis a premeditatedattack for
propaganda purposes compels me to
ask: What kind of propaganda is referredto?-for personal gain?-for political ends?-for what policy? I regret
thatboth authors are incapable of ac-
Bibliography
ABEL, W. 1937. tber Europaier-Marokkaner
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC
RACISM
AGAIN?
knowledging scientific disagreement

with greaterobjectivity,without ulterior or hidden motivesof any kind. I
am seeking the truth. But unfortunately,in his commentsGarrettoffers
not a single instancewhichwould permitme to change what I have said. To
avoid futuredistrustor misunderstanding,I wishto recordthatmyanti-racist
conviction,that is to say my refusalto
admit (withoutirrefutableexperimental proofs or observation) the alleged
somaticor psychic"superiority"or "inferiority"of any human race with respect to the others,was set forthand
publishedat theverytimewhenNazism
was at its apogee and when its victory
over the whole world seemedimminent
(Comas 1941,1943, 1945). So let me not
be accused of opportunism.
8. Referringto the section "Racial
Mixture," Garrett declares that this

topic is "apparently his [i.e., Comas']
main interest."The extensivetreatment
of thissubject in myarticleowes to the
fact that Garrett(1960:21) devoted to
"Race Mixture" a sectionin his article
where-as we saw and criticizedin due
course-he makesseriousand unproved
generalizationsregardingthe "inferiority" of Negroesand mestizos.
9. Garrett attempts to weaken my
concrete argumentsby attributingto
me "considerable emotional involvement" in the discussionof "racial mixing." But since the use of concretedata
in a scientificdiscussion is correlated
with increased objectivity and decreased emotion,the reader can judge
for himself which of us, Garrett or
Comas, has the greater emotional involvement.
1945. Race and democratic society.

New York: J. J. Augustin.
BONGER, WILLEM ADRIAAN. 1943. Race and
crime. New York: Columbia University
COMAS, JUAN.
Press.
und Europaer-AnnamittenKreuzungen.
ZeitschriftfurMorphologie und Anthro- BONIFACY, AUGUSTE L. M. 1911. Les M6tis
Revue Anthropolofranco-tonkinois.
pologie 36:311-29.
gique 21:259-66.
ADAMS, ROMANZO C. 1937. Interracial marA. J. VAN. 1933. Reriage in Hawaii: A studyof the mutually BORK-FELTKAMP,
cherches sur 88 cerveaux de Chinois.
conditioned processes of acculturation
L'Anthropologie 43:503-39.
and amalgamation. New York: Macmillan.
---. 1934.Results of researchon 18 brains
AMMON, Orro. 1890. Anthropologische
ofBattaks.Verhandlingenderkoninklijke
Untersuchungen.Jena.
Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam 33:1-31.
und
--. 1895. Die Gesellschaftsordnung
ihre natiirlichenGrundlagen.Jena.
BOYD, WILLIAM C. 1948.Review of: Human
1900. L'ordre social et ses bases
Ancestry,by R. RUGGLEs GATES. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
naturelles: Esquisse d'une anthropo-socn.s., 6:385-87.
lologie. Paris.
BEALS, RALPH L. and HARRY HoIJER. 1959.
---. 1950. Geneticsand the Races ofMan.
An introduction to anthropology. New
Boston: Little Brown.
York: Macmillan.
BRIGHAM, C. C. 1930. Intelligence tests of
BEAN, R. BENNETT. 1914. A racial peculiarimmigrant groups. PsychologicalReview
ityin the pole of the temporallobe of the
37:165.
Negro brain. Anatomical Record 8:479BROWN, INA C. 1960. Review of: The Test93.
ing of Negro Intelligence,by AUDREY M.
BENEDICT, RUTH. 1940. Race: science and
SHUEY. American Anthropologist62:544.
politics. New York: Modern Age Books.
mindin
CAROTHERS,J.C. 1953.The African
1--.1941.Spanish edition. Mexico: Fondo
health and disease: a study in ethnode Cultura Econ6mica.
psychiatry.World Health Organization
BERGER,CHARLES A. 1941. "Human psychoMonograph No. 17. Geneva.
logical inheritance,"in Scientificaspects
of the
of the race problem (ed. H. S. JENNINGS). CARPENTER, E. 1955. Space concepts
Aivilik Eskimos. Explorations 5:131-45.
Washington, D. C.: Catholic University
[AM*]
of America Press.
CASTLE, WILLIAM E. 1926. Biological and
BERGMAN,R. A. M. 1960. Rassenpathologie.
of race-crossing.
consequences
social
Fortschritte der Medizin July-August
American Journal of Physical Anthro1960:3-24.
[RAMB*]
pology 9:145-56.
BERRY, BREWTON. 1951.Race relations: The
--- 1930. Race mixtureand physicaldisinteractionof ethnic and racial groups.
harmonies. Science 71:603-06.
Cambridge: Houghton MifflinCo.
CHAMBERLAIN, HOUSTON S. 1903. Die
BIANCHI, L. 1934, 1936. Contributo alla
Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunmorfologia del cervello degli Zulu.
derts.Munich: F. Bruckman.
Archivio Italiano di Anatomia e di
Embriologia 33:518-666; 34:1-176.
--. 1911. The foundations of the nine--.1938. Contributoalla encefalometria
teenthcentury.New York: J.Lane Co.
nelle razze umane. Monitore zoologico
COBB, W. MONTAGUE. 1942.Physical anthroitaliano 49:53-70.
pologyof the AmericanNegro. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 29:
BOAS,FRANZ.1940. Race, language and cul113-223.
ture. New York: Macmillan Co.
1933. Las pruebas mentalesy

de instruccion.Revista de Pedagogia 12.
Madrid.
1934. La prdctica de las pruebas
mentales y de instruccion.Madrid.
1940. Como se comprueba el trabajo
escolar. Mexico.
1941. 6Existe una raza judia? Mexico.
1942. La sistematicaracial en M6xico. El Mexico Antiguo 6:31-39.

1943. El mestizaje y sutimportancia
social. Primer Congreso DemograficoInteramericano. Mexico. Reprinted in
Acta Americana 2:13-24 (1944) .
1945. La discriminacion racial en
America. America Indigena 5:73-80,
161-70.
1946. Las razas humanas. Mexico:
Biblioteca Enciclopedica Popular.
1951. Los mitos raciales. Paris:
UNESCO. (editions in English, French,
German, Italian, Russian, Hindi, Arabic).
1957. Manual de antropologia fisica.
Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
1958. La educaci6n ante la discriminacion racial. Mexico: Universidad Nacional.
--. 1960. Manual of physical anthropology.Springfield:Charles C. Thomas.
1961a. Inter-racial relations in
Latin-America: 1940-1960.International
Revue of Social Science 13, no. 2. Paris:
UNESCO.
1961b. Les relations raciales en
Ame'riqueLatine depuis 1940. (in press).
CONNOLLY, C. J. 1941-1943. The fissural
pattern in the brain of negroes and
whites. A merican Journal of Physical
Anthropology28:133-66; 29:225-65; n.s.
1:363-403.
COON,C. S., S. M. GARN, and J.B. BIRDSELL.
1950. Races: A study of the problems of
race formation in man. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas.
DAHLBERG, GUNNAR. 1943. Race, reason and
rubbish: a primer of race biology. New
York: Columbia UniversityPress.
of
DAVENPORT, CHARLES B. 1917. The effects
race intermingling.Proceedings of the
337
American Philosophical Society 56:364GATES, R. R. 1946. Human genetics. New

York: Macmillan.
68.
---. 1925.Notes on physicalanthropology
--. 1948.Human ancestryfroma genetiof Australian Aborigines and blackcal point of view. Cambridge: Harvard
white hybrids. American Journal of
UniversityPress.
PhysicalAnthropology8:73-94.
--. 1952a. "Genetics and normal mental
--. 1928a. Race crossing in man. III
differences,"in The biology of mental
Session de l'Institut Internationale
health and diseases pp. 277-81. 27th
d'Anthropologie,Amsterdam,1927, pp.
Annual Conference,Milbank Memorial
9-14. Paris: E. Nourry.
Fund. New York: Paul D. Hoeber, Inc.
--. 1928b. Are there genetically based
--. 1952b. Disadvantages of race mixmental differencesbetween the races?
ture. Nature 170:896.
Science 58:268.
GILLIN, JOHN P. 1948. The ways of men,an
---. 1929. Do races differin mental caintroductionto anthropology.New York:
pacity?Human Biology 1:70-89.
Appleton-Century.
---. 1930. Some criticismsof "Race cross- GLADSTONE, REGINALD J. 1902. A prelimiing in Jamaica." Science 72:50142.
nary communication on some cephalometricdata bearing upon the relation of
DAVENPORT,CHARLES B., and MORRIS STEGthe size and shape of the head to mental
GERDA.1929. Race Crossing in Jamaica.
ability. Journal of Anatomy and PhysCarnegie Institute of Washington, Pubiology 37:333-46.
lication 395.
GOBINEAU, JOSEPH ARTHUR, COMTE DE. 1853.
DAY, CAROLINEBOND. 1932.A studyof some
Essai sur l'inigalite' des races humaines.
Negro-White families in the United
Paris: Firmin-Didot.
States.Harvard AfricanStudies 10. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.
--. 1856. The moral and intellectualdiversityof races. (Translated by H. Hotz.)
DOBZHANSKY,TH., and M. F. A. MONTAGU.
New York.
1947. Natural selection and the menGOLDSTEIN, MARCUS S. 1943. Demographic
tal capacities of mankind. Science 105:
and bodily changes in descendants of
587-90.
[AM*]
Mexican immigrants.Austin: Instituteof
DOVER, CEDRIC. 1937. Half-caste. London:
Latin American Studies, University of
M. Secker and Warburg, Ltd.
Texas.
DUNN, LESLIE C. 1928. An anthropometric
GOODENOUGH, F. L., and D. B. HARRIS. 1950.
study of Hawaiians of pure and mixed
Studies in the psychologyof children's
blood based upon data collected by Aldrawings.PsychologicalBulletin 47:369fred M. Tozzer. Papers of the Peabody
433.
Museum 11, No. 3:85-211.
GORDON,
H. L. 1932. The brain of the East
EAST, EDWARD M., and DONALD F. JONES,
African native. British Medical Journal.
1919. Inbreeding and outbreeding; their
genetic and sociological significance. GRANT, MADISON. 1921. 4th ed. The passing
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
of the great race. New York: Charles
Scribner'sSons.
EISELEY,L. C. 1955."Fossil man and human
--. 1933. The conquest of a continent.
evolution," in Yearbook of anthropology
New York: Charles Scribner'sSons.
-1955 (ed. WILLIAM L. THOMAS, JR.), Pp.
61-78. New York: Wenner-GrenFoundaGUNTHER, HANS F. K. 1927. The racial eletion.
[BS*]
ments of European history. (Translated
by G. C. Wheeler.) London & New York.
ELKIN, A. P. 1943. Wanted a charter for
the peoples of the south-west Pacific.
--. 1929. Rassenkunde Europas. Mit
Sydney.
[APE*]
besondererBeriicksichtigungder Rassen1944. Citizenshipfor the Aborigines.
geschichte der Hauptvolker indogermanischer Sprache. Munich: J. F. LehSydney.
[APE*]
manns Verlag.
---.
1949. "The rightsof man in primitive society,"in Human rights,a sympo- HALDANE, J. B. S. 1938. Heredity and polisium prepared by UNESCO, pp. 226-41.
tics.London: Allen and Unwin. [JBSH*]
London.
[APE*]
HALL, H. N. 1924. Are the various races of
FISCHER, EUGEN. 1913. Die Rehobother
man potentially equal? Proceedings of
Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem
the American Philosophical Society 58:
beim Menschen. Jena: G. Fischer.
208-31.
---. 1930.Europaer-Polynesier-Kreuzung. HAMBLY, W. D. 1947. Cranial capacities, a
ZeitschriftfiurMorphologie und Anthrostudy in methods.Fieldiana: Anthropolpologie 28:205-09.
ogy: 36, No. 3.
FITZGERALD,J. A., and W. W. LUDEMAN.
HANKINs, FRANK H. 1926. The racial basis of
The
of
chil1926.
Indian
intelligence
civilization;a critique of the Nordic Docdren. Journalof ComparativePsychology
trine.New York: AlfredA. Knopf.
6:319-28.
HENRY, JULES. 1954.Review of: The African
FLEMING, R. M. 1939. Physical heredityin
mind in health and disease, by J. C.
human hybrids. Annals of Eugenics 9:
CAROTHERS. AmericanAnthropologist56:
55-81.
929-31.
GARN, STANLEY M. 1954. Cultural factors HENRY, JULES and MELFORD E. SPIRO. 1953.
and problemsin human genetics.Human
"Psychological techniques: projective
Biology 26:73-75.
testsin fieldwork," in Anthropologyto1961. Human races. Springfield:
day (ed. A. L. KROEBER), pp. 417-29. ChiCharles C. Thomas.
cago: Universityof Chicago Press.
GARRETT, H. E. 1960. Klineberg's chapter
HERSKOVITS, MELVILLE J. 1928. The A merion race and psychology.MankindQuarcan Negro: A study of racial crossing.
terly1:15-22.
New York: AlfredA. Knopf.
GARTH, THOMAS R. 1931. Race psychology; HEUSE, GEORGES A. 1953. La psychologie
a study of racial mental differences.
ethnique. Paris: J.Vrin.
New
York: McGraw-Hill.
--.1954. La psychologie des Noirs. De
GARTH, T. R., and M. A. BARNARD. 1927.
l'anthropologie psychologique ai l'ethThe will-temperature of Indians. Journal
nographie politique appliquees. Proof Applied Psychology11:512-18.
blemes d'Afrique Centrale 7: 169-94.
338
1955.L'anthropologie psychologique.
Paris.
1957a. ittudespsychologique sur les
Noirs soudanais et guineens. Essai de
standardisationtechnique en psychologie
racial. Revue Psychologique des Peuples
12:35-68.
---. 1957b. Biologie du Noir. Materiaux
et recherches.
HOFFMAN, F. L. Brussels. 1923. The
problems of Negro-White intermixture
and intermarriage.Eugenics in race and
state, 2:175-188. International Congress
of Eugenics, 2nd Session. Baltimore.
HOGBEN, L. 1960. "The race concept," in
Man, race, and Darwin. New York: Ox[AM*]
ford UniversityPress.
HOLBE, T. V. 1914, 1916. Metis de Cochinchine. Revue Anthropologique 24:
281-93; 26:449-66.
HoOTON, E. A. 1923. Observations and
queries as to the effectof race mixture
on certain physical characteristics.Eugenics in race and state 2:64-74. International Congressof Eugenics, 2nd session.
Baltimore.
1926. Methods of racial analysis.
Science 63:75-81.
1939. Crime and the man. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.
1944. Review of: Race and crime,
by W. A. BONGER. American Journal of
Physical Anthropologyn.s. 2:229-30.
HUNTER, W. S., and E. SOMMERMIER. 1922.
The relation of degree of Indian blood
to score on the Otis intelligence test.
Journal of Comparative Psychology 2:
257-77.
HUXLEY, J. S. 1949. Heredity east and west.
[AM*]
New York: Schuman.
KEITER, F. 1941. Kurzes Lehrbuch der Rassenbiologie und Rassenhygiene fur
[AW*]
Mediziner.Stuttgart.
KEITH, A. 1948. A new theory of human
[AT*]
evolution. London.
KLINEBERG, Orro. 1935. Race differences.
New York: Harper & Bros.
1941. "Mental testingof racial and
---.
national groups," in Scientificaspects of
the race problem (ed. H. S. JENNINGS):
Washington, D. C.: The Catholic Universityof America Press.
KOHLBRUGGE, J. H. F. 1908. Untersuchungen tiber Grosshirnfurchender Menschenrassen.Zeitschriftfur Morphologie
und Anthropologie 11:596-609.
1911. Kultur und Gehirn. Biologisches Centralblatt 31:248-56, 309-16.
1935. Le cerveau suivant les races.
Bulletins et Memoiresde la Societe d'Anthropologie.Paris: serie 8, tome 6:61-84.
KROGMAN,W. M. 1958. A guide-outlinefor
the studyof Physicalgrowthin children.
Philadelphia.
LEAKE, C. D. 1947. "Ethicogenesis," in
Studies and essays in the historyof science and learning (ed. ASHLEY MONTAGU), pp. 261-75. New York: Schuman.
[AM*]
LEE, ALICE, MARIE A. LEWENZ, and KARL
PEARSON. 1900. The correlation of the
mental and physical charactersin man.
Proceedingsof the Royal Societyof London 71:106-14.
LEE, EvERErr S. 1951. Negro intelligence
and selective migration: a Philadelphia
test of the Klineberg hypothesis.American Sociological Review 16:227-33.
LEVIN, G. 1937. Racial and 'inferiority'
characters in the human brain. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
22:345-80.
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
LEWIS,J.H. 1942.The biologyof theNegro.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

LIPSCHUTZ,ALEJANDRO. 1944. El Indoamericanismo y el problema racial en las
Americas. Santiago, Chile: Editorial
Nascimento.
LUNDBORG,HERMAN. 1921. Hybrid typesof
the human race. Journal of Heredity 12:

274-80.
--. 1931. Die Rassenmischung beim
Menschen.Bibliographia Genetica 8.
MAISTRIAUX,R. 1957. L'intelligence noire
et son destin. Brussels: Editions Problemes d'Afrique Centrale.
MALL, F. P. 1909. On several anatomical
charactersof the human brain, said to
varyaccordingto race and sex with especial referenceto the weightof the frontal
lobe. American Journal of Anatomy 9:
1-33.
MANUEL, H. T., and L. S. HUGHES. 1932.
The intelligence and drawing ability of
young Mexican children. Journal of Applied Psychology16:382-87.
MARCUSE,F. L., and M. E. BITTERMAN.1946.
Notes on the resultsof armyintelligence
testing in World War I. Science 104:
231-32.
[AM*]
MATHEW, J. 1899. Eaglehawk and crow.
London: Nutt.
[AM*]
MEAD, MARGARET.1956. New lives for old.
New York: W. Morrow.
[BS*]
MERTON, ROBERT K. and M. F. ASHLEY
MONTAGU. 1940. Crime and the anthropologist. American Anthropologist 42:
384-408.
MILLOT, JACQUES. 1952. Biologie des races
humaines. Paris: Collection Armand
Colin.
MJOEN, JON ALFRED. 1922. Harmonic and
unharmonic crossings. Eugenics Review
14:35-40.
--. 1923. Harmonic and disharmonic
race crossing.Eugenics in race and state,
2:41-61. International Congress of Eu-
genics. Baltimore.
---.1928.
beim MenRassenmischung
schen. Ijje Session de l'Institut Interna-
tionale d'A nthropologie,Amsterdam:pp.

14-21. Paris: Librarie E. Nourry
--. 1929. Rassenkreuzung beim Menschen. Volk und Rasse 2:72-77.
MONKE,J. V. 1954. Review of: The African
mind in health and disease, by J. C.
CAROTHERS.Human Biology 26:358-60.
MONTAGU,M. F. ASHLEY. 1944. The intelligence of southern whites and northern
Negroes. Psychiatry7:184-89.
[AM*]
1945. The intelligence of northern

--.
Negroes and southern Whites in the
First World War. American Journal of
Psychology68:161-188.
--. 1947. 2nd ed. Man's most dangerous
myth: The fallacy of race. New York:
Columbia UniversityPress.
--. 1950. "A consideration of the concept of race. Cold Spring Harbour
Symposia in Quantitative Biology
15:315-20.
[AW*?]
MURDOCK, K. and Louis R. SULLIVAN. 1923.
A contribution to the study of mental

and physical measurements in normal
children. American Physical Education
Review 28:209-15, 278-88.
MYDLARSKI, J. 1951. Niedomagania w
w
rozwoju
antropologii polskiej
miedzywojennymdwudziestoleciustanjej
obecny-i
prspektywy
na
przyslosc.
Przeglad Antropologiczny17:1-33. [AT?]

NEEL, JAMESV. 1952. "Discussion" in The
biology of mental health and diseases,
pp. 281-82. 27th Annual Conference,
Comas:
"SCIENTIFIC"
RACISM
AGAIN?
Milbank Memorial Fund. New York:

--. 1937. The brain of the aboriginal
Paul D. Hoeber, Inc.
Australian.A studyin cerebralmorphology. Philosophical Transactions of the
NEUVILLE, HENRI. 1933a. L'espece, la race et
Royal Society of London 227, No. 545:
le metissage en anthropologie. Archives
293-409.
de l'Institut de pale'ontologie humaine.
Memoire 11. Paris: Masson.
SHUEY, AUDREY M. 1958. Testing of Negro
intelligence.Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P.
- . 1933b. Les metissagesde l'ile de PitBell Co.
cairn. L'Anthropologie 43:267-88; 485SIMMONs, KATHERINE. 1942. Cranial capac501.
itiesby both plastic and water techniques
OLIVEIRA VIANNA, F. J. 1938. Rarxa e
with cranial linear measurementsof the
assimilargto. 3rd edition. Sao Paulo:
Reserve Collection. Human Biology 14:
Bibliotheca Pedagogica Brasileira.
473-98.
ORTIz, FERNANDO. 1946. El engaino de las
SINNorr, E. W., L. C. DUNN and TH. DOBrazas. Havana.
ZHANSKY. 1950. Principles of genetics.
PARK,ROBERT EZRA. 1950.Race and culture.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.
9KERLJ, B. 1960."The Mankind Quarterly."
PASTORE, NICHOLAS. 1949. The nature[AM, BS, AT*]
Man 60:172-73.
nurture controversy.New York: King's
SLOME, I. 1932. The Bushman brain. JourCrown Press.
nal of Anatomy 67:47-58.
PATTE, ETIENNE. 1938. Race, races, races
STEGGERDA, MORRIS. 1941. Maya Indians of
pures.Paris: Hermann & Cie.
Yucatan. Carnegie Institute of WashingPEARSON,KARL. 1898. On correlation of inton Publication No. 531.
tellectual abilitywith the size and shape
STODDARD, LOTHROP. 1920. The rising tide
of the head. Proceedingsof the Royal Soof colour against whiteworld supremacy.
ciety of London 69:333-42.
New York: Charles Scribner'sSons.
---. 1905. On the relationshipof intelliSTUDENCKI, S. 1938. Podstawy "rasizmu"
gence to size and shape of the head and
niemieckiego. Przeglad antropologiczny
to other physical and mental characters.
[AW*]
12:635-73.
Biometrika 5:105-146.
[MP*]
SUK, V. 1955.Races and racism.
PORTEUS, S. D. 1931. The psychologyof a
primitivepeople. New York: Longmans
SULLIVAN, Louis R. 1927. Observations on
Green.
Hawaiian somatology. Memoirs of the
Bernice P. Bishop Museum 9, No. 4.
---. 1937. Primitive intelligenceand environment.
New York: Macmillan.
Chinesen1935.
YUN-KUEI.
TAO,
Europ'aerinnen-Kreuzung. Zeitschriftfur
POSNANSKY,ARTHUR. 1943. Que es raza. La
Morphologie und Anthropologie33:349Paz: Instituto Tiahuanacu de Antropol408.
ogia, Etnografia y Prehistoria, La Paz,
Bolivia.
TAYLOR, ISAAC. 1895. The origin of the
Aryans. London: W. Scott Ltd.; New
PURVES,D. 1960. The evolutionary basis of
York: Charles Scribner'sSons.
race consciousness.The MankindQuarTYLER, LEONA E. 1947. The psychologyof
terly 1:51-54.
[BS*]
human differences.
New York: AppletonRAMOS, ARTHUR. 1947. Introducao a antroCentury-Crofts.
pologia Brasileira. Vol. 2. As culturas
europeias e os contactos raciais e culUNESCO. The Race Question in Modern
turais.Rio de Janeiro.
Science:
Racial myths,by J. COMAS.
REID, R. W. and J.H. MULLIGAN. 1923. ReRace and biology,by L. C. DUNN.
lation of cranial capacity to intelligence.
Race relations and mental health by
Journal of the Royal Anthropological
MARIE JAHODA.
Institute 52-53:322-31.
Race and psychology,by 0. KLINEBERG.
REUCHLIN, M. 1959. La definitiondu QuoRace and culture,by M. LEIRIS.
tient d'Intelligence. Biotypologie
20:13Race and history,by C. LEVI-STRAUSS.
24.
Race and society,by K. L. LITTLE.
REUTER, E. B. 1931. Race mixture; studies
The significanceof racial differences,
by
in inter-marriage and miscegenation.
G. M. MORANT.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
The roots of prejudice, by A. M. ROSE.
RICHET, CHARLES. 1919. La selection huRace mixture,by H. L. SHAPIRO.
maine. Paris.
The Jewishpeople: a biological history,
by H. L. SHAPIRO.
RODENWALDT,ERNST. 1927.Die Mestizen auf
Kisar. 2 vol. Batavia, Java.
UNESCO. The Race Question and Modern
Thought:
ROWE, E. C. 1914.Five hundred forty-seven
The Catholic Church and the race quesand two hundred sixty-eight Indian
tion, by Yves M. J. CONGAR.
children testedby the Binet-SimonTest.
Buddhism and therace question,by G. P.
Pedagogical Seminary14:454.
MALALASEKERA and K. N. JAYATrILLEKE.
SELTZER, CARL C. 1950. Constitutional
Jewishthoughtas a factorin civilization,
aspects of juvenile delinquency. Cold
by L. ROTH.
SpringHarbor Symposiaon Quantitative
The ecumenical movementand theracial
Biology 15:370-72.
problem, by W. A. VISSER'T HOOFT.
SHAPIRO,HARRY L. 1929.Descendants of the
Race and Society:
UNESCO.
mutineersof the Bounty. Memoirs of the
Les Elites de couleur dans une ville
Bernice P. Bishop Museum 9, no. 1.
bresilienne,par THALES DE AZEVEDO.
---. 1931. Race mixture in Hawaii. NatProblemes raciaux: l'egalite par la loi,
ural History 31:31-48.
par MORROE BERGER.
Contactsde civilisationsen Martinique et
1936. The heritage of the Bounty.
en Guadeloupe, par M. LEIRIS.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Races et classesdans le Bresil Rural, sous
SHELLSHEAR,J.L. 1936. The brain as an inla directionde CH. WAGLEY.
dex of race. Yearbookof theRoyal Prince
Alfred Hospital Med ical Officers'Associ- VACHER DE LAPOUGE, G. 1888.De l'inegalite~
ation,pp. 21-36. Sydney.
parmiles hommes.Paris.
Vol. 2 a No. 4 *October 1961
339
VALLOIS,HENRIV. 1928. Les Noirs sont-ils

une race inf6rieure?JJje Session de lInstitut International d'Anthropologie,
Amsterdam,pp. 254-59. Paris: Librairie
E. Nourry.
--. 1953. "Race," in AnthropologyToday (Ed. A. L. KROEBER),
Pp. 145-62. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
WAGNER,
K. 1932. The variabilityof hybrid
populations.American Journal of Physical Anthropology16:283-307.
340
D. 1938.Variabilityin race
hybrids. American Anthropologist 40:
680--97.
WIERCIN'SKI,
F. 1947. The trendof human

evolution. Evolution 1:221-36.
[AT*]
WILLIAMS,
WALLIS, WILSON
WEIDENREICH,
L. H. 1937. The statusof the Bushman as revealed by a study of endocranial casts. South African Journal of
Science 34:365-98.
WELLS,
A. 1958. Dziedziczenie typu

antropologicznego. Materialy i prace
antropologiczne43:71. Wroclaw. [AW*]
GEORGE D. 1931. Maya-Spanish
crosses in Yucatan. Papers of the Peabody Museum 13, No. 1.
H. H. 1929. The Australian aboriginal brain. Journal of Anatomy 63:

207-23.
WOOLLARD,
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY

Scientific Racism Again

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Scientific Racism Again

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

"Scientific" Racism Again?

Author(s): Juan Comas

1An excellent critical summaryof this period may be found in

is full-timeResearch Professorof Anthropology

roneous during the quarter-century

Vol. 2 No. 4 - October 1961

A numberofstepshave been takenby theUN and its

cation or rejectionof the scientificconceptsexpressed

on theNatureofRace andRace Differences

1. Scientistsare generallyagreed that

among populations of a single species

racial traits.Americansare not a race,

The Congress,havingtaken cognizanceof the Declaration

have been broughtup fromchildhood

Vol. 2 *No. 4 *October 1961

1948 characterizedas not merely"racist" but rather

A Review." It is neitherour object nor

Garrettbegins his article with the followingstatement(1960: 15):

STATEMENT ON THE NATURE OF RACE AND RACE DIFFERENCES Continued

vides no basis forbelievingthatthe

Dunn, Departmentof Zoology,Columbia University,New York; Professor

It is truethatthe testscoresobtainedby two different

racistmethodologyfor the purposeof discoveringevidence to supportthe claim thatnon-Whites(especially

to estabIn the firststage,it was consideredsufficient

In the second stage, it was argued that the size of

Polynesians(Moriori), 1454 cc.; Europeans (Old English),

Abandoning brain size as a criterion, the racists tried

constant racial differences. .

. Each variation can be found

What theyexpect to see will be racial differences

We arrive finally,at the fourth stage, which utilizes

racial characteramong non-Whitegroups.It is useless,

in the results,has the testingmethodany relevanceat all to

. doctrines of political inspiration have

proclaimedthe intimateliaison betweenmental characteristicsand the variationsconsideredas racial.

Brown concludes with a prediction that has unfortunately been fulfilled:

Vol. 2 *No. 4 - October 1961

One can, however,predictwide use of the book by White

RACE AND CRIME

Further confirmation of the true worth and scope

It should not be forgottenthatthe I.Q. is based on a mean

conflictwith the three pertinentparagraphs in the

Secondly, it has been recognized that even

United States. In 1954, the FBI reported (Department of

a word about inherentmental differences

The possibilityof a relation between physicaltype

To sum up, a thorough review of scientificwritings

1' See the discussionon "ConstitutionalTypes and Delinquency"

have evolved from different groups of ancestors.

such differencesexist is abundantly clear to the unbiased

In closing, I will say just

does in the case of Whites" (p. 369).

Hooton (1944: 230) expressesthe followingviews:

Seltzer(1950: 370) states:

entirelyopposed to Garrett's inadequately documented

Here is Garrett's statement,word forword (1960: 21):

Let us carefully examine the cases that Garrett puts

1. Davenportand Steggerdain theirJamaicastudies

These studies have been used since 1929 by defenders

made, providingresultsentirelyopposed to those of

Vol. 2 -No. 4- October 1961

givesa summaryof theresults,and Shapirodiscussesthe

resultin each case dependson thegeneticcharacteristics

Ramos concluded that "Nothingjustifiesthe idea that

Vol. 2 No. 4 October 1961

Vol. 2 No. 4 October 1961