Scientific Racism Again

8/19/2019 Scientific Racism Again

1/39

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

"Scientific" Racism Again?Author(s): Juan ComasSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1961), pp. 303-340Published by: on behalf ofThe University of Chicago Press Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2739858Accessed: 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 contentin 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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.76 on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 21:41:43 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2739858http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2739858http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/


2/39

tScientific"

acism

Again?

by uanComas

INTRODUCTION

"MIGHT

MAKES RIGHT"

has been,

through he

ages,suf-

ficient ustification

orterritorial

onquest,

economic

exploitation,

and the enslavement

of some

human

groups

by

others. n

time, however,

"might

makes

right"

eased to be acceptable,

nd

itwas necessary

or

dominantgroups to develop other argumentswhich

would permit hem,

with

a semblance

of

morality

nd

even of justice,

to continue

theirsocio-economic

on-

trol of greatregions

f the

world. f the people

domi-

nated

could

be shown o

be physically

nd

mentally

n-

ferior

o the

rulinggroup,

their

ontrol y

a "superior

race"

could

be

regarded

as fitting

nd logical;

hence

therise

of "scientific"acism,

evoted

ocollecting

ata

fromnthropology,

iology,

nd psychology

o support

theories

f "superior"

nd

"inferior"

aces.

Systematic

evelopment

of such

a doctrine

began

with

Gobineau

(1853),

and

in

the

second

half of

the

19th

century here

followed

a

constellation

f

racists,

headed by Otto Ammon,H. StewartChamberlain,

Ludwig Woltmann,

Vacher

de Lapouge,

Carl

Penka,

TheodorPosche,

saac Taylor,

etc.'

But this doctrine

became as

dangerous

s

it was

er-

JUAN COMAS

is full-timeResearch Professor

f

Anthropology

at the National University f

Mexico.

Born

in

1900,

he was

educated

at

the Escuela de

Estudios

Superiores

del

Magis-

terio,Madrid (Prof.,

921),

nd

the

University

f Geneva

(Ph.D.,

1939). The author and editor of many

works on

physical

an-

thropology, sychological testing, nd applied

social anthro-

pology, he has made importantcontributions o professional

anthropological activities n Latin America.

The present article,

submitted

to CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

on November 15, 1960,

n

Spanish,

was translated nto

English

and

sent for CA* treatment o 50

scholars, ncluding

the sign-

ers

of

the 1951 UNESCO

Statement n

Race,

and members

of

the editorial and advisoryboards of The

Mankind Quarterly.

Commentswere received fromR. A. M. Bergman, Kaj Birket-

Smith, etet Boev, Victot Bunak, Th. Dobzhansky,A. P1. lkin,

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. Wier-

cin'ski. hese are printed n full after he author's text and are

followed by a reply from the author.

CA* treatment f this article was complicated by a number

of

omissions nd incorrectly-renderedassages n its first

rans-

lation into English. Fortunately, omas' original Spanish

text,

without changes, is available in America Indigena,

vol.

21,No. 2, April 1961.

roneous during

the quarter-century1920-1945) that

began after

World War I and ended with the close of

World War

II.

Prejudice, discrimination,

nd

a

belief

in

racial stereotypespread and acquired powerful up-

port n workswritten or he purpose, s well as mono-

graphs which

were nterpreted nd used in a spiritof

racial discrimination. "Aryanism" or "Nordicism,"

colorprejudice especially gainst Negroes),prejudice

againstracemixture, nti-Semitism-all hesewere the

themes

f an

extensive iterature. ome of those who

were most representativef 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, nd Lothrop Stoddard.2

Opposed

to

this ctiveminority

f

"scientific" acists,

therehave been many anthropologists,iologists, sy-

chologists,

nd

geneticistswho were clearly nti-racist,

and

who publishedarguments o neutralize heperni-

cious effects

f racial

discrimination osteredy pseudo-

scientificnthropology. mongthemwere: F. Boas, R.

Benedict, W. M. Cobb, Gunnar Dahlberg,Th. Dob-

zhansky, . C. Dunn, M. J. erskovits, . A. Hooton,

J. uxley, 0.

Klineberg,

J. . F.

Kohlbrugge,

W.

M.

Krogman, .

S. B.

Leakey,

A.

Lipschutz,

H.

Lundborg,

M. F. Ashley

Montagu, G. M. Morant, H. Neuville,

Fernando

Ortiz,E. Patte,

Arthur

amos,

H.

L.

Shapiro,

T.

D. Stewart,

nd

H.

V.

Vallois. In

theirworks

many

solid

argumentswere

adduced

to

prove

the

erroneous-

ness

of

"scientific" acism.To

all outward

ppearances,

their

iewswere

tacitly

r even

openly ccepted, artic-

ularly with the

downfallof Nazism and Fascism,

the

socio-political

movements

nstigating

nd

fomenting

racialdiscrimination.

In

the

deological field,

his

victory

was

expressed

n

Article

2

of the

Universal

Declaration

of

Human

Rights, approved

and

solemnly proclaimed by

the

United

Nationson

December 10,

1948:

Everyone

s

entitledo ll the ights

ndi

reedomset

orth

in

this

eclaration, ithout istinctionf anykind, uch s

race, olour, ex, anguage, eligion, olitical r other pin-

ion,national r

social rigin, roperty,irth r other tatus.

1An

excellent

critical

summary

f

thisperiod

may be

found

in

Hankins

(1926).

2We did not

attempt to

compile

a

complete

bibliography

of

publicationsbetween 1920

and 1945 which

deal with the

pros and

cons of

"scientific" acism,

but cite only

those authors and

works

we considermostrelevant. The co-operation of colleagues would

render it

possible to make a

complete

inventory.

Vol.

2

No.

4

-

October

1961

303


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/39

A number f tepshave been takenby the UN and its

specialized gencies to implement his Declaration. At

its Sixth Session, the Economic and Social Council

askedUNESCO

to considerhedesirabilityf nitiatingnd recommending

the eneral doption f programmefdisseminatingcien-

tific acts, esigned o removewhat s generally nown s

racial

rejudice.

In response, he Fourth Session of UNESCO's Gen-

eral Conference dopted the following esolutions or

the 1950 programme:

The Director eneral

s

instructed:o study

nd

collect

scientificaterialsoncerninguestions

f

race;

o

give

wide

diffusion

o

the

cientific

nformation

ollected;

o

prepare

an educationalampaign

asedon

this

nformation.

This programwas followed.Aftermanymeetings

nd

a

full

nterchange

f

deas,

a

group

of

14

distinguished

anthropologistsndgeneticists nanimously dopted

n

1951 (final text,May 26, 1952) the

Statement

on

the

Nature of Race

and Race

Differences,

ommonly

known s the "Statement

n

Race," which accompanies

this article.Here we find learly xpressed heconclu-

sions at

which modern

ciencehas arrived

concerning

race and the

nterpretation

f racial

differences. odifi-

cation or rejectionof

the

scientificoncepts xpressed

in

theStatementmust

be based on new

facts nd ob-

servations

n the

fields

of

genetics,

nthropology,

r

psychology, hichwere

unknownn 1951. t

should

be

emphasized

hat

thisdocument

was not

ssuedby

an in-

ternational

ureaucratic

ommittee,

ut

by the follow-

ing

scientists

f

unquestioned

uthority

n

their espec-

tive

disciplines:R.

A.

M.

Bergman,G.

Dahlberg, Th.

Dobzhansky, .

C. Dunn, J. B. S.

Haldane, J. Huxley,

F.

M.

AshleyMontagu,A. E. Mourant,H. Nachtsheim,E. Schreider, .

L. Shapiro,J. C.

Trevor,H. V.

Vallois

and

S. Zuckerman.3

Furthermore,he

statementwas

examined and dis-

cussed at a

special session under

the chairmanship f

E. von Eickstedt

uring he Fourth

nternational

Con-

gress of

Anthropological and

Ethnological Sciences

(Vienna,

1952), which adopted the

followingresolu-

tion:

3The text

of the Statement on Race has been published,

al-

though not as widely as could be wished. t

is to be found

n

The

American

Journal of Physical Anthropology

0:363-68;

L'Anthro-

pologie 56:301-04; Archives Suisses d'Anthropologie

Ge'nerale

17:81-5; Qu'est-ce qu'une Race?

Paris: UNESCO (1952) pp. 83-

86; Le concept de race. Paris: UNESCO (1953) pp. 11-16; Comas

(1960):719-23.

4Actes du IV6 Congres

International

des Sciences

Anthropol-

ogiques et Ethnologiques 3:358-9,

Vienna, 1956.

Statement

n

the

Nature

f

Race

andRace Differences

BY PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND

GENETICISTS-JUNE 1951

1.

Scientists re generally greed that

all men living todaybelong to a single

species,

Homo

sapiens, and are derived

from a common stock, even though

there s some dispute as to when and

how different uman groups diverged

from his ommon tock.

The concept of race is unanimously

regardedby anthropologists s a classi-

ficatory evice providing a zoological

framewithinwhich the various groups

of mankind

may be arranged

and

by

means of which tudiesof evolutionary

processes an be facilitated. n its an-

thropological sense, the word "race"

should

be

reserved or groups of man-

kind possessing well-developed and

primarily

eritable

physical

differences

fromother groups. Many populations

can be so classified

ut,

because

of

the

complexity

f human

history,

here

re

also many populations

which

cannot

easily be fitted nto

a

racial

classifica-

tion.

2.

Some

of the

physical

differences

betweenhumangroups re due to differ-

ences

in

hereditary

onstitution nd

some to differences

n

the environments

in

which hey ave

been

brought p.

In

most cases, both influenceshave been

at work. The

science

of

genetics sug-

zests that the hereditary differences

among populations

of a single species

are the results

f theaction

of twosets

of processes.On the one hand, the

genetic omposition

f solated

popula-

tions s constantly

ut

gradually

being

altered by

natural selection

nd

by

oc-

casional changes mutations)

n

the

ma-

terial particles

(genes)

which control

heredity. opulations

are

also affected

byfortuitous

hanges n gene frequency

and by

marriage

ustoms.

On the other

hand, crossing

s constantlybreaking

down the differentiations

o set

up.

The

new

mixed populations,

in

so

far

as

they,

n turn, ecome

solated,

re

sub-

ject

to

the ame

processes,

nd

these

may

lead to further hanges.Existingraces

are merelythe result,

considered

at

a

particular

moment

n

time,

f the total

effect

f such

processes

n

the

human

species.

The

hereditary

haracters

o be

used

in

the classification

f human

groups,

the limits of

their variation

within

hese

groups,

nd thus he extent

ofthe

classificatory

ubdivisions dopted

may

egitimatelyiffer

ccording o

the

scientific urpose

n view.

3.

National,

religious,geographical,

linguistic

and

cultural groups

do not

necessarily

oincide withracial

groups;

and the cultural

traits

of

such

groups

have

nn

dePmnnstrated

cornnexioin

with

racial traits.Americans re not a race,

nor are Frenchmen, or Germans; nor

ipso facto s any other national group.

Muslims

and

Jews are no more races

than are Roman Catholics and Prot-

estants;

nor are

people

who

live

in

Ice-

land

or Britain

or India, or

who

speak

English or any other anguage,

or who

are culturally urkish 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 s habitually com-

mitted.

4. Human races can be, and have

been, classified

n

different aysby

dif-

ferent anthropologists.Most of them

agree

in

classifying

he

greaterpart

of

existing

mankind into at least three

large units,

which

may

be called

major

groups in French grand-races,

n Ger-

man Hauptrassen).Such

a

classification

does not depend on any single physical

character,

nor

does,

for

example,

skin

colour by itselfnecessarily istinguish

one

major group

from another.

Fur-

thermore,

o

far as it

has been

possible

to analyse hem, hedifferences

n

physi-

cal

structure

which

distinguish one

major group from nothergive no sup-

port to popular

notionsof

any general

"superiority" r "inferiority" hich re

304

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY




4/39

The Congress,

avingtaken cognizance f

the Declaration

on Race and Racial

Differencesssued

by

a

group

of

anthro-

pologists

and

geneticistsbrought together

by UNESCO,

declares

ts

approval of the opinions expressed n

this docu-

ment.

The Congress,

ecognizingthe possibilities

of relation-

ships between

biological and

psycho-racial actors, ecom-

mends that the study

of this problem be

pursued in close

collaborationwith

other

scientific isciplines, n

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 Soci-

ety"; 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

Spanish-

Cnrnas:

SCIF.NTTIF

RACISM

AGAIN?

speaking

countries.

Even

morerecently,

he

Interna-

tional

Social Science

Bulletin

has

been collecting

nd

printing

series

f studies

o

publicizerecent

nvestiga-

tions

ofrace

relations

hroughout

he

world.8

The events

ummarized

ere giveus reason

to

sup-

pose that,

s long

as new

facts

elating

o the

genetics,

anthropology,

r

psychology

f

humangroups

have

not

appeared,theproblem

of "scientific"

acism

has

been

overcome r

eliminated. n thatcase,ouronlyconcern

would be the

mplementation

f a world-wide

rogram

ofeducation

nd

informationesigned

o diminish

nd

eventually

xpunge

the emotionalprejudices

responsi-

ble

for

partheid in

South

Africa

nd for he

condition

of Negroes

in certain

areas of the southern

United

States,

s

well as

for

imilar, hough

ess virulent,

en-

sions

n other

parts

of the

world.

WHAT

ARE

THE

FACTS?

During

the past

15 years,

here

have

been

sporadic

instances fthe attitude fR. R. Gates,whichBoyd n

5The

pamphlets mentioned are listed under UNESCO

in the

bibliography. he series was brought together n 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), nd a Spanish edition s in preparation.

6Bibby,

Cyril.Education in racial and intergrouprelations. A

handbook of suggestionsfor teachers. Paris: UNESCO, no date.

7Comas, Juan.

La educacd6n nte la

discriminacidn

acial.

1958.

UniversidadNacional de Mexico.

8

International

Social

Science

Butlletin

0, No. 3,

1958;

13, No. 9,

1961.

sometimesmplied

n

referring

o these

groups.

Broadly peaking, ndividuals

elong-

ing to different

ajor groups of man-

kind are

distinguishable y virtue

of

their hysical haracters,

ut ndividual

members,

r small groups, elonging o

different

aces withinthe same major

group re usuallynot sodistinguishable.

Even themajor groupsgrade nto each

other,

nd

the physical

raits

by

which

they nd theraceswithin

hem re char-

acterized verlap considerably.

Withre-

spect to most, f not

all, measurable

characters,

he differencesmong in-

dividuals

belonging to the same race

are greater

han the differenceshatoc-

cur between the observed

averagesfor

two or more races within

the same

major

group.

5. Most anthropologists

o not in-

clude

mental

characteristics

n their

classification f human races. Studies

within

a

single

race have shown that

both nnate capacity

nd environmental

opportunity

determine the

results of

tests f intelligence

nd

temperament,

though heir

elative mportance s

dis-

puted.

When

intelligence

tests,

even

non-

verbal,

are

made on a

group

of

non-

literate

people,

their cores re usually

lower

than

those

of more

civilized

peo-

ple.

It has been

recordedthat

different

groups

f the

same race

occupying

imi-

larlyhigh

evelsof

civilization

mayyield

considerable

differences

n

intelligence

tests.When, however, he two groups

have

been brought

up from hildhood

in

similar nvironments,

he

differences

are usually

very light.

Moreover,

here

is good

evidence

that,given

similar p-

portunities,

he

average

performance

(that

s to

say, theperformance

f the

individual who

is representative

be-

cause

he is surpassed

by as many

as

he

surpasses), nd the variationround it,

do notdiffer

ppreciably

rom ne race

to another.

Even those

psychologists

ho

claim

to have found

hegreatest

ifferences

n

intelligence etween

groups

f different

racial origin,

nd have

contendedthat

they

re hereditary,

lways

report

that

some

members f

thegroup

of

inferior

performance

urpass

not merely

the

lowest

ranking

member

f thesuperior

group,

but

also

the average of

tsmem-

bers. n

any case,

t has never

been

pos-

sible

to

separate

members

f two

groups

on the basisofmentalcapacity, s they

can often

be

separated

on a basis of

religion,

kin

colour,

hair form

r

lan-

guage.

t is

possible,

hough

not

proved,

thatsome types

of

innate

capacity

for

intellectual

nd

emotional esponses

re

commoner

n

one

human

group

than

n

another,

ut it is

certain

hat,

within

single

group,

nnate

capacities

vary

as

much

as, if not

more

than, they

do

be-

tween

different

roups.

The

study

f the heredity

f

psycho-

logical

characteristics

s beset

with diffi-

culties.

We know

that

certain

mental

diseases

and defects

are

transmitted

fromone generationto the next,but

we

are

less

familiar

with

hepart

played

by

heredity

n

the

mental

ife

of

normal

individuals.

The

normal

ndividual,

r-

respective

f race,

is

essentially

duca-

ble. It

follows

hat

his intellectual

nd

moral

ife

s

largely

onditioned

by

his

training

nd

byhis physical

nd

social

environment.

It often happens that a national

group

may

appear

to be

characterized

by

particular

psychological

ttributes.

The

superficial

iew

would

be

that

this

is

due

to race.

Scientifically,

owever,

we

realize

that

ny

common

psychologi-

cal

attribute

s

more

ikely

o be

due

to

a

common

historical

and

social

back-

ground,

and

that

such attributes

may

obscure

the

fact that,

within

different

populations

consisting

f

many

human

types,

ne

will

find

approximately

he

same

range

of

temperament

nd

intelli-

gence.

6. The scientificmaterial available

to

us

at

present

oes

not ustify

he

con-

clusion

that inherited

genetic

differ-

ences

are

a

major

factor

n producing

the

differences

etween

hecultures

nd

cultural

achievements

f

different

eo-

ples

or

groups.

t does

indicate,

on

the

contrary,

hat

major

factor

n

explain-

ing such

differences

s

the cultural

ex-

perience

which

each

group

has

under-

gone.

7.

There

is no evidence

for

he

exist-

ence of

so-called

"pure"

races.

Skeletal

remains rovide

the

basis

of

our

imited

knowledge

about

earlier

races.

In

re-

gard to race mixture, the evidence

Vol. 2 *

No. 4

*

October

1961

305




5/39

1948

characterized

s not merely"racist"

but

rather

"super-racist,"

adding

withsome

optimism:

it eems

ecessary

o

call attention

o thefact

hat he

views

of Professor

ates

as expressed

n

thisbookare

probably

unique

nd

that

t s very

oubtful

f any nthropologist

r

any

geneticist

hares

ispoint

of view

to any

considerable

extent.

The

justification

f

the present

rticle

s

that

time

has

now

shown

Boyd's

optimistic

orecast

ohave

been

inaccurate.ndeed, it was destroyedwiththe appear-

ance

of the

first umber

f

The MankindQuarterly,10

supposedly

cientific

ournal

whose

contents

re

the

cause

ofprofound

oncern

o

those

nterested

n

racial

questions

nthe

biological

and

anthropological

ields

s

wellas

in

the

ocial

field.

The

racist rientation

f

The

Mankind

Quarterly

deserves

lose

and objective

scru-

tiny.

Here,

the

examination

s limited

to one

article

that

eems

representative-that

ublished

by Henry

E.

Garrett

nder

thetitle f"Klineberg's

Chapter

on

Race

"See

Boyd's

review

of

Gates'

Human

Ancestry

1948)

in

Ameri-

can Journal

of Physical Anthropology

6:385-87.

We have

ex-

pressed

our

own disagreement

with

Gates as

follows:

"Ruggles

Gates'

thesis

s merely

mentioned

lthough

we

completely

disagree

withhis positionbecause of the somatic hierarchyhe establishes

between

his

different

uman species"

(Comas

1957:515;

1960:572-

73).

10It

is subtitled:

An

International

Quarterly

Journal

dealing

with

race

and inheritance

n the

fields

of

Ethnology,

Ethno-

and

Human

Genetics,

Ethno-Psychology,

acial

History,

Demography

and Anthropo-Geography.

ol.

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.

and Psychology.

Review."

t is neither

urobject

nor

ourplace

to

answer

Garrett

n regard

o theerrors,

mis-

sions,

or twisted

nterpretations

f which

he

accuses

Klineberg,

specially

n

his section

on the

application

and

comparative

results

of intelligence

tests

among

Negroes

nd

Whites.

What

does

concern

s

is

Garrett's

general

approach:

his

generalizations

nd

conclusions,

which

exceed

the

imits

f a concrete

ritical

xamina-

tion

nd

become

n explicit

ulogy

f racial

discrimina-

tion; and his acceptanceof theexistence f

races

that

are

physically

nd mentally

nferior.

Our

intention,

then,

s

toanalyze

nd

appraise

Garrett's

rguments

b-

jectively

n

the

light

of the observations

nd

experi-

mental

data

provided

by

biology,

anthropology,

nd

genetics,

making

for

hispurpose

n

inventory

f

what

is known

n

these

fields

t

the present

ime.

Thus

we

shall

hope

to

arrive

t

a satisfactory

nswer

o

two

ques-

tions:

(1)

Does Garrett

mention

scientific

ata,

pub-

lished

before

1951,which

were

overlooked

r

wrongly

interpreted

y the

14authors

fthe

Statement

n

Race?

(2)

Have there

been any

publications

ince

1951

which

permit

basic revision

fthe

conclusions

nanimously

affirmed

n

the

Statement?

RACE

DIFFERENCES,

GENES,

AND

ENVIRONMENT

Garrett

begins

his article

with

the

following

tate-

ment

1960:

15):

Klineberg

etshimself

he

task f showing

hat

acial

or

ethnic

ifferences,

hen hey

ppear,

an

be

attributed

o

STATEMENT

ON

THE

NATURE

OF

RACE

AND RACE

DIFFERENCES

Continued

points o thefact hathuman

hybridiza-

tion

has

been

going

on

for

n indefinite

but

considerable

time. ndeed,

one

of

the

processes

frace

formation

nd

race

extinction

r

absorption

s

by

means

of

hybridization

etween

races.

As

there

is no

reliable

evidence

that

disadvan-

tageous

ffects

re

produced

thereby,

o

biological

justification

xists

for

pro-

hibiting

nter-marriage

etween

persons

of different

aces.

8.

We

now

have

to

consider

he

bear-

ing

of

these

tatements

n

the

problem

ofhuman

equality.

We

wish

to

empha-

size that

equality

of

opportunity

nd

equality in law in no way depend, as

ethical

principles,

upon

the

assertion

that

human

beings

are

in

fact

equal

in

endowment.

9.

We

have

thought

t

worth

while

to

set

out

in

a formal

manner

what

is

at

present

scientifically

stablished

con-

cerning

individual

and

group

differ-

ences.

(a)

In

matters

f

race,

the

only

char-

acteristics

which

anthropologists

have

so

far

been

able

to

use

effec-

tively

s

a basis

for

lassification

re

physical

anatomical

nd physiolog-

ical).

(b) Available scientific nowledgepro-

vides

no

basis

forbelieving

hat

the

groupsof mankinddiffern their

innate

capacity

or

ntellectual

nd

emotional

development.

(c)

Some biological

differences

etween

human

beings

within

a

single

race

may

be

as

great

as, or greater

han,

the

same

biological

differences

e-

tween

races.

(d)

Vast social

changes

have

occurred

that

have

not

been

connected

in

any

way

with

hanges

nracial

type.

Historical

and

sociological

studies

thus

support

the

view

that

genetic

differences

re of

little

significance

in determining he social and cul-

tural

differences

etween

different

groups

of

men.

(e)

There is

no evidence

that

race

mix-

ture

produces

disadvantageous

re-

sults

rom

biological

point

of

view.

The

social

results

f

race mixture,

whether

for

good

or ill,

can

gen-

erally

be traced

o

social

factors.

(Text

drafted,

at Unesco

House,

Paris,

on

8

June

1951,

by:

Professor

R. A. M.

Bergman,

Royal

Tropical

In-

stitute,

Amsterdam;

Professor

Gunnar

Dahlberg,

Director,

State

Institute

for

Human

Genetics

and Race

Biology,

University f Uppsala; Professor . C.

Dunn,

Department

f

Zoology,

Colum-

bia University,New York; Professor

J.

B.

S. Haldane,

Head, Department

f

Biometry,

niversity

ollege,

London;

Professor

M.F. Ashley

Montagu,

Chair-

man,

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,

erlin;

Dr.

Eugene

Schreider,

irecteur

djoint

du

Laboratoire

d'Anthropologie

Phy-

sique

de l'Ecole

des

Hautes

Etudes,

Paris; Professor Harry L. Shapiro,

Chairman,

Department

of

Anthropol-

ogy,

American

Museum

of

Natural

His-

tory,

New

York;

Dr.

J. C. Trevor,

Fac-

ulty

of

Archaeology

nd

Anthropology,

University

f

Cambridge;

Dr.

Henri

V.

Vallois,

Professeur

u

Museum

d'His-

toire

Naturelle,

Directeur

du

Musee

de

l'Homme,

Paris;

Professor

S.

Zucker-

man,

Head,

Department

of

Anatomy,

Medical

School,

University

f

Birming-

ham;

Professor

Th. Dobzhansky,

De-

partment

of

Zoology,

Columbia

Uni-

versity,

New

York,

and

Dr.

Julian

Huxley

contributed

o

the

final

word-

ing.)

306

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY




6/39

Comas:

"SCIENTIFIC"

RACISM

AGAIN?

nvironmentalndcultural actors.

e concedes

hat

mme-

diate

ndremote

ncestry ayplaya small

role;

but

the

environment,otthe

genes, eally

auses acialdifferences.

This statement

s

surprising,

ince

Klineberg

has never

taken

positionthat could be

interpreted

s

denying

the nfluence f

heredity

n

man's

physical

r

mental

characteristics. he

following quotations

make

this

clear 1956:

63, 84):

It is true hatthetest cores btained ytwodifferentgroupsre due tothe nteractionfhereditaryndenviron-

mental

actors

hich

annot

e

disentangled.

Individuals nd

families

re not

equally ndowed;

ome

are superiorn their nheritance

f

mental

apacity,

thers

inferior.o

one can safely

enythisfact.There

s

over-

whelming

videncen its

upport.

Consequently, arrett's

ssertion

s

erroneous nd

ten-

dentious.

Acceptanceof

the

important

role that

genes

and

hereditary

echanisms lay

ndetermininghephysical

and

mental

characteristics

f

an individual does not

preclude

recognition f the

influence

xerted

by

the

environment.t

was,

in

fact,

the

geneticists

who first

recognized he effectf environment n heredity. or

example,Sinnott,Dunn, and

Dobzhansky

ay (1950:

22):

We

have een

that,when

ndividuals

hathave the

ame

genotype

evelop n

different

nvironments,hey xhibit

more r

essdifferent

henotypes.very

enotypeeacts ith

its

environment

n itsown

pecialmanner;

ut f the ame

genotype

assomewhat

ifferentaterials o

work n, the

phenotypes ay

be appreciably

ifferent.

hat genotype

determiness the

eactions,he esponses,f the

rganismo

the

nvironment.

Boyd, in

his

chapter on

"Heredityand

Environ-

ment,"pointsout that one can observe all degrees f

plasticity f the

operation f genes n

regard o

environ-

mental

nfluences"

1950: 90). It

has been fully

stab-

lished that all

thefeatures

f adult

organisms re in

every ase the

result fan

interaction

etweenheredity

and

environment.

he genes

constitute

chemical ys-

tem

that

reacts o its

environment uring

the develop-

mental

period

to

produce certain

results,which

are

modified

ychanges n

eitherof

the twofactors.

he

actionof

hormones

nd

vitamins n

intensifyingr

can-

celing

out

the effects

f

hereditary actors s

also

well-

known.

It

can

be

deduced

then, hat

diverse nvironmental

conditions may produce different haracters,even

though

he

hereditary

tock

e

identical,

nd

vice-versa.

Environment

annot,

however,

ause

the ppearance

of

a

character

nless the

genotype

ontains the

required

factors.

It

seems

nnecessary

o

dwell

further n

a

matter hat

has been

thoroughly

larified.

rogman

1958)

offers

n

excellent

ummary

nd

ample

bibliography

n

the en-

vironmental

actors

ffectinghysical

growth.

Others

who have

made

important

ontributions

o our

knowl-

edge

of

the

effects f environment

n man's

somatic

featuresnclude

F. Boas, M. Goldstein,

C. E.

Guthe,

P. K. Ito,

G. W. Lasker,H. W.

Meredith,H.

L.

Shapiro,

and L.

Spier.

In short, heonly personswhodeny the nfluence f

environmentnd attribute otal

influence o heredity

are the racists, orwhom the Negroand the hybrid re

persons f nnate

and unmodifiablenferiority.

RACE

AND

INTELLIGENCE

Four stages, angingfrom esser

o greater echnical

complexity,may be observed n

the developmentof

racistmethodology or the purposeof discovering vi-

dence to support he claim thatnon-Whitesespecially

Negroes) are mentally nferior o

Whites. For greater

clarityndwiderperspective, e shall

note all 4 stages,

althoughthe firstnd second now

have only historical

importance,while Garrett's rguments

elongentirely

to the fourth tage.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERS

In the

first

tage, t was considered ufficient

o

estab-

lish differencesn physical ype,which

were accepted s

implicitly onnotingmental nferiority.

ut is it possi-

ble, biologically

peaking, o certify group to be supe-

rioror nferior

y such criteria s itsphysical haracter-

istics?More than 30 years ago, Vallois (1928: 254-59)

categorically

efuted

his position,

and demonstrated

convincingly

hat he

Negro

was

not

physically

nferior

to the White.

CRANIAL

CAPACITY

In

the second

stage, t was argued

that

the size of

the brain can

demonstrate he

mental

superiority

f

one

race

over nother.

Greater

ranial

capacity

was

sup-

posed

to indicate

greater ntelligence.

t the

beginning

of

the

20th

century,

Gladstone

(1902)

as well as

Lee,

Lewenz, nd

Pearson 1900) authoritativelyhowed hat

there

was

no relation

between ntelligence

nd cranial

capacity.n spiteof theirwork, heproblem ontinued

to be

debated. Investigations y

Reid and Mulligan

(1923), Murdock and Sullivan (1923),

and others on-

firmed

he observationsmade

20 years

arlier. n

1937,

however, . H.

Wells considered tpossible to say that

"the

Bushmanmustbe considered efinitely

nferior

n

cerebral

development

o the

European"

on

the

basis

of

eleven

endocranial asts.This completely ubjective

conclusioncan hardly

withstand ritical xamination,

either or

he

number

f

subjects

n which t was based

or for

he

generalization

t

established.

Actually,

here

s

no

basis

forthe

generalization

hat

Whites have

a

larger

cranial

capacity

and

hence are

more intelligent)than other humans. K. Simmons

(1942: 482-83), gives

the

following

tatistics:

Mean

capacity

f 1179

White

male

skulls

..

1517.49

c.

Mean

capacity

f 661

Negro

male

skulls .. .

1467.13

c.

Difference

etween series

......

........ 50.36

cc.

Mean

capacity

f

182

White

female

kulls

..

1338.82

cc.

Mean

capacity

f

219 Negro

female kulls ..

1310.94

cc.

Difference etween

series ......

........

27.88 cc.

These small

variations

n mean

capacity

f White

and

Negro

skulls

re of

ittle

ignificance.

ome

examples

of

cranial

capacity

n

male

series rom ther

groups

re

as

follows Hambly 1947):

Kaffirs,outh Africa,1422 cc.; Europeans (Czechs), 1438 cc.;

Vol.

2

*No. 4 *

October

1961

307




7/39

Polynesians

Moriori), 1454 cc.; Europeans

(Old

English),

1456 c.; Tasmanians,

1457 cc.; Melanesians Loyalty

sland),

1463 c.; Europeans

French),1473 cc.; Polynesians

Marque-

sas slands), 1475

cc.; NorthAmerican

ndians, 1514 cc.;

Cen-

tralEskimos, 558 cc.

Hence the widespread

idea that Whites

have the

greatest ranial

capacity and consequently

are the

most

intelligent s erroneous.

CEREBRAL STRUCTURE

Abandoning brain size as a criterion,the racists tried

to use

cerebral structure

nd complexityas

an argument

to support their

position. It should be emphasized

that

certainstudies,such as those

of Bean (1914) and Gordon

(1932), were undertaken

because

their authors were

pre-

disposed to believe

in the mental

inferiority f Negroes.

However,

Mall (1909), attempting

to classifyunidenti-

fied

brains according

to their degree of

cortical com-

plexity,

found approximately

the same

percentage of

"White" and "Negro" brains in each class.

Kohlbrugge

states 1935: 82):

The comparison f convolutions

nd sulci does not present

constant racial

differences. . . Each variation can be found

in differentaces f one has enough data.... Among a group

of

brains

belonging

to

distinct

aces, no one

is

capable

of

distinguishing

ne which corresponds o

an Australianfrom

a

European, nor one of

a genius from that

of a man of

average ntelligence.

J.

H. Lewis (1942)

reaffirmed he impossibility of an

anatomist's being

able to

distinguish

a

"Negro"

from

a

"White"

brain.

According

to G. Levin

(1937:

378):

Most of

the

"inferiorityigns"

have no

justification

o

be

regarded

s such. Studies on

the brains of

the so-called

n-

ferior

uman races

are as

yet

nconclusive.

Examinations

f

two or

three

brains

of

savage peoples,

which

have led

the

authors

o

draw conclusions

which

were

either

nsufficiently

groundedor erroneous, re not infrequent.

The "marks of inferiority"

n the brains of

outstanding

personalities

re

not

accidental,

but are

due

to

the same

phylo-

nd

ontogenetic

auses as

they

re

in

the brains of

people

of ordinary ntellectuality.

Connolly,

examining

White

and

Negro brains,

reached

these conclusions (1943: 390-91):

As

to

racial

differenceso

morphological

eaturewas found

to

be exclusively

haracteristic

f

either

the white

or

Negro

brain

.

.

.

[although

there are

differences

n

the

frequencies

of

morphological

eatures],

ifferent

requencies

f the

fea-

tures

do

not

enable us

to

tell

the

racial

provenience

of

an

individual

specimen....

In

any

case

the retention

of

primi-

tivemorphological eaturess notknowntohave anymental

correlate."

With

reference

to

the

progressive

increase in size of

the frontal lobe, Coon, Garn,

and

Birdsell

point

out

(1950:

101):

In these

nd

other

natomical

factors,

ne

might

ook

for

differencesetween

the brains

of men of

living races,

but

actually

too

little

nter-racial

rain

anatomy

has

been done

to

warrant eneralizations....

it

may

be

apparent

why

differ-

ences

between

races

n

brain

activity

nd

ability

cannot

yet

be determined nd why

the

evolutionary osition

of

the

brain has not been studied

n

living

people. That some

ndi-

viduals

exceed others n ability s well

known,but neurolo-

gists do not consider t likely that gross differences

n

the

capacityfor "intelligence,"however defined,will appear.

What

they xpect to see will be racial differences

n specific

functional

reas, n metabolism, nd in the degree

f develop-

ment of the association

systems. his, the most important

part ofevolution, nd the

one in which the most ignificant

racial

differencesre likely o appear, has not yet

even been

tackled.

We believe

this

conclusion is correct. Other

studies of

cerebral

structure n

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 afforded no

conclusions that would require modi-

fication of the judgments cited.

The

lack

of

sufficient

iological

data continues

to be

most pronounced with

respect to the American Negro.

W. Montague Cobb, who has reviewed

the

existing

in-

vestigations

and

publications

on

this

topic,

concludes

(1942: 188):

Many studies of

representative uality

have been

pub-

lished,but thesedo not

sufficeor dequate: inventory f the

physical,mental, and ecological characters f the

Negro;

registrationf

the

genetic

nd

environmental

henomena s-

sociated

with

his

hybridization;

ssessment

f

his

biological

quality;orprediction fhis 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 strictest

bjectivity.

PSYCHOLOGICAL

METHODS

We

arrive

finally,

at the

fourth

stage,

which utilizes

psychological

methods

forproving

the

"superiority"

of

certain races.

The

position

Garrett criticizes can

be

summarized as

follows:

a) Within

each group

there xist

ndividuals

with

greater

or lesser, etter rworse,mental ptitudes;

b)

These

aptitudes re

due

in

part

to

heredity

nd

in

part

to the

favorable r

unfavorable nfluence

f

environment

n

their

evelopment;

c)

At

present, sychological

nd

geneticresearch

has not

been able to

prove

the

existence f

innate differences

n in-

telligence ttributable

o "race."

Klineberg,

in

his

brief

pamphlet, gives

a

summary

not

only

of his own

views

but

also of research

by

other

psychologists

and

anthropologists,

carried out

among

Negroes, KentuckyWhites, Australians,

Samoans,

Indi-

ans of the

U.S.,

etc.

Garrett's critical

method of

dealing

with

these

data

is

disconcerting.

He

begins by ignoring

the

passages

in

which

Klineberg

refers to the

investigations

of S. L.

Pressey,

S. D.

Porteus,

S.

E. Asch,

M.

Mead, J.

H.

Rohrer, etc.; consequently,

he

considers

only

the

evi-

dence which

affects

Negroes

of the

U.S.;

and

finally

limits himself to discussion of certain

I.Q.

scores

in one

of

the

groups

mentioned. He offers "selective

migra-

tion"

as an

explanation

of the

higher I.Q.

of

Negroes

in

the

north as

compared

with

those

in

the

south, reject-

ing

the

interpretation

of a more favorable

environment.

Such

arguments

have

been used

for

25

years

against

the work of Garth (1931),

of Klineberg himself

(1935),

and of many other psychologists and

anthropologists

who for more than a

quarter-centuryhave been

gather-

ing evidence that there is no mental inferiorityof a

308

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY




8/39

Comas:

"SCIENTIFIC" RACISM AGAIN?

acial character mong non-White roups. t is useless,

therefore,o engage n a discussionwhich would only

repeatwhat has been said many times. On the other

hand, however,Garrett neglects the basic

problem:

Whether.Q. tests ave any validity s a measure f n-

nate mentalcapacity, speciallywhen administered

o

groups ifferentrom he ones on which the tests

were

standardized.A review of scientific pinion on this

scoremaybe

worth

while.

As ong go as 1914,Thorndikereferredo .Q. scores

among ifferentaces nd national groups, s "measure-

ments f differencesetweengroupswhich are distinct

to

an

unknown

egree n traitswhich re nfluenced y

trainingo an unknowndegree" Benedict 1940:

117).

Garth onfesseshathe began his workon the applica-

tionof tests o racial groups with the tacit conviction

that

markeddifferences

n

mental

processeswould

be

metwith"

1931: vii),

but

concludes hat

it

s useless

o

talk

bout

the

ncapacity

f so-called

inferior eoples'

when this

incapacity

s not verified

uring adequate

testing"1931: 101). C. C. Brigham, uthor

f

test sed

by the U.S. Army n 1921,which appeared to indicate

the

superiority

f

Nordics over

Alpine

and Mediterra-

nean groups, aterwrote 1930: 165), With the testswe

had we could not carry

ut

comparative tudies

f

differ-

ent national

and

racial

groups."

In his

work

on

the Mayas

of

Yucatan, Steggerda

(1941) devotes pages 74-88 to

a

discussion

of

his

at-

tempts to determinethe general intelligence

of the

Mayas by testing. e concludes p. 84):

in practicallyvery ase the performancef the Maya was

far

elow hat f theWhites n whommost ests

ave

been

standardized.wish orepeat

hat

he

esults

must

e inter-

preted

n

the ight f hemany

ifficulties

nvolved

n

admin-

isteringhe ests o theMaya.

If,

n

spite f these ifficulties,

he

onclusion

s warranted

that he ndian ntelligenceends obe nferiorothat f he

Whites,

ur

esults

n

general gree

with hose f

other

work-

erswhohave tudied ntelligencemongAmericanndians.

I

believe, owever,

hat

he ower cores

f the

Maya re

due

to

nadequate

ests or

measuring

ental

apacities

f

races,

although still

hink

hat omemental ifferenceso exist.

Other

workers

who have

made

similar

observations

are: J.

A.

Fitzgerald nd W. W.

Ludeman

(1926); W.

S.

Hunter nd

E.

Sommermier1922);

T.

R.

Garth

1931);

E.

C. Rowe

(1914);

H.

T.

Manuel and L.

S. Hughes

(1932);

T.

R.

Garth nd M. A. Barnard

1927).

Merton

and Montagu 1940: 401) sum up their iews s follows:

The fact

is that

intelligence ests, o-called,

measure

innumerableactorsmongwhich ativentelligencespre-

sumably

ne.

Whatever

heymay

be

claimed

o

be,

intelli-

gence

ests

renot measure f that

ingle

actor lone.For

children

nd college tudents,

t

has

been

shown

ime nd

time

gain

that hese ests

o notmeasure

ative

bility

r

intelligencepart

from

chooling,

hat he

tests

re

argely

measures

f

cholastic

r

experiential

ttainment. hat

ests

measure

s an

expression

f he

xperience-capacityquation.

Klineberg

concludes

the first

art

of his

pamphlet

with

two

pertinent uestions 1956: 62):

If

every

est

s

culture-bound,'

hat

s to

say,

ffected

y

the whole complex of previous education, training nd ex-

perience, an the use of tests ive us any information t all

about racial differences,r similarities,n intelligence?f we

cannot disentangle ereditary rom nvironmentalnfluences

in the results, as thetestingmethod ny relevance t all to

our problem?

Garrett is unwilling to analyze these basic

questions,

preferring o distract

the reader with completely subor-

dinate matter that does very ittle to support

his racist

conclusion.

We

turn

now

to

some

of the conclusions about the

problem of race and intelligence that have been pub-

lished

since 1951.

H. V. Vallois, referring

to

the problem

of

mental

characteristics, ummarizes

the attitude of anthropolo-

gists as follows (1953: 156):

Very recently . . . doctrines of political

inspiration have

proclaimed he ntimate

iaison betweenmentalcharacteris-

tics nd thevariations onsidered s racial.

If modern anthropologists ften take into

account phys-

ical characteristicsnly, t is forverydifferent

easons.Some

are convinced hatmentaldifferencesre trivial,

xcept those

attributable

o

the

type of cultureor to the evel of educa-

tion. Others thinkthat,

for

ack of preciseknowledge, he

problem s still too abstruse nd the mental characteristics

f

race too difficulto determine orthem o take them nto ac-

count. Thus practically

most modern anthropologists on-

sider only the physical

differences.

J. Henry

and M. E. Spiro (1953: 418) express them-

selves

thus:

Anthropologists

ad

rightly

urned

heir

acks

on theusual

intelligence tests,

for they realized

not

only that "intelli-

gence" tself

s a

term f

doubtful

meaning

but also that the

tests

used

to measure ntelligence

n our

culture examined

intellectual rocesses

nly n terms f therelatively ixed ate-

gories

f our

own

culture

nd

in

terms f the

pecific

ontent

of our culture.

We

mention the work

of Carothers

(1953) only

be-

cause 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 determin-

ist in spite

of

his

repeated

insistence on the

importance

of cultural

factors."

The

only

recent

work

which

sup-

ports

Garrett's contentions

is

Audrey

M.

Shuey's

Test-

ing of Negro

Intelligence, published

in

1958.

Shuey

reviews

and

interprets

more

than

280 publications

deal-

ing with the intelligence

of

Negroes,

arriving

at

conclu-

sions

which must

surely surprise many

of the

writers he

cites. She concludes

that

"all

point

to

the

presence

of

some native

differences

etween

Negroes

and Whites as

determined by intelligence tests." Ina C. Brown (1960:

544)

criticizes

Shuey

as

follows:

These

facts, owever, ogether

ith

ome

otherfactswhich

Dr.

Shuey ignores,point

much more

clearly

to

something

other

handifferences

n

native

ntelligence

nd

that

s to

the

verygreat

differences

etween

Negroes

and Whites

in

eco-

nomic

and educational

opportunities,

home

backgrounds,

civic

and

community articipation,

motivation,

ultural ex-

pectation

and

self

image.

There

may,

of

course,

be

some

native

differences

etween

Negroes

nd

Whites

but

as

of

now

we

have

no

way

of

proving

that

such differences o

exist,

while

the evidence

of socio-cultural ifferences

s

overwhelm-

ing.

Brown concludes with a prediction that

has unfortu-

nately been fulfilled:

Vol.

2

*

No.

4

-

October

1961

309




9/39

One can, however, redictwide

use of the book byWhite

Citizen's Councils and otherswho

are in search of material

which hey an interpret

s

scientific'upport

for heir

point

of

view.

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 interpreta-

tion by saying:

It should not be forgotten hatthe .Q. is based on a mean

calculated from certain group and consequently epends

on the selectionof the group.

Beals

and

Hoijer

have recently ummarized

the

prob-

lem as follows (1959: 212-13):

More recently sychologists ave

become ess

certain

f

the

validity

of

intelligence ests.

There are two reasons.

n

the

first lace, much evidence

has

accumulated

o show

that

in-

telligence' ssomething ery

ifficulto define

nd

that,

what-

ever t is, t is not

a

unitary

actor. his

means that

persons

who score

high

n

one kind of

testdo not

necessarily

o well

in all tests.... Secondly, it has

been recognized that even

if the ndividuals estedhave

been

carefully elected

for imi-

lar class and educational backgrounds, ome variationstill

remains n the environment. hese problemspoint up

the

great difficulties

n

identifying

ifferences etween

racial

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 ar-

gues (1952a: 280):

All

thosewho

have

any respect or

he factswill

agree

that

men differn theirmentality t least as widelyas in their

physique....

It

may be pointed out that

f

ndividuals

differ

in

intelligence-I

use

this

word for ack of

a

better-or

in

other mental

qualities,

then

groups

and

races of

mankind

may

be

expected

to

differ n

similar

respects

because

they

have evolved from

different

groups

of

ancestors. .

. .

That

such differences xist

is

abundantly

clear to

the unbiased

observer.

It would be

well

for

Gates to

provide

evidence

that,

just as there are indisputable physical

differences

be-

tween

Negroes and Whites, so

there exist certain mental

characteristics ommon to all Negroes as a race,

and

dis-

tinct

from

those characteristic

of Whites. Until this hap-

pens,

we

think that the

bias

rests

with

Gates,

and with

thosewho share his ideas on this point.

Neel

in

reviewing

Gates'

chapter

makes this

comment

(1952: 282):

I

cannot escape the impression

hat so much needs

to be

done to develop

mental tests he results

f

whichare

in

no

way

influenced

y

cultural factors

hat

t will

be some

time

beforethequestionof

innate

racial

differencesan be more

than

a

subject

for

speculation....

In

closing,

I

will

say just

a

word about

inherent

mental

differences

etween

the

races

of men. Dr. Gates'viewswouldnot find niversal

cceptance

among geneticists.

To sum up, a thorough review of scientificwritings

on the subject of race and intelligence

discloses no

notable anthropologist or geneticist whose discoveries

conflictwith the three pertinentparagraphs n the

Statement

n

Race.

RACE AND CRIME

In

ordernot to riskdistorting arrett's pinionson

this ubject,

t

will be well to quote him directly1960:

22):

Klineberg

tates

latlyhat no racialfactor as

been dis-

covered

o be responsible' orcrime.As usual, the fault

lies in the social environment.ndoubtedlyocialfactors

are mportant,ut t s hard o see how uch nfluencesan

excuse

he

iterallycandalous rime ate ftheNegro n the

United States. In

1954, the

FBI

reported Department

of

Justice,ol.25,no. 2) thefollowingatios f Negro o white

crimes:

ormurder heNegro/whiteatio s 16:1; for ob-

bery, 3:1; forprostitutionnd vice, 16:1; forrape,

6:1.

These ratios

old

despite he act hat heNegro

onstitutes

only

10%,

f the

general opulation. t requires degree

of

maginationotpossessedy he evieweroseeno racial

factor'n these igures.

The problemhere,

of

course, s the nterpretation

f

these tatistics.WVhato they eally mean? Do we not

need to know lso

in

what tate f the Union eachcrime

was committed nd where t was tried?Another et of

statistics

ould show

the rbitrarymannern whichthe

law is applied to Whites nd Negroes n different

tates,

often unishing he atter nd acquitting he former

or

identicaloffenses. e would also need to know the

spe-

cial

circumstances

f

each

case, ncluding he ocial and

economic

status

and

general environment f the of-

fender.

As

Merton and

Montagu have aptlyobserved

(1940: 386):

It is

stillpossible,

nd for ome

purposes elevant,

hat

incarcerated

riminals

re not

a

representativeample with

respecto ntelligence,

conomic

tatus,ace, ationality

nd

rural-urban

omposition)

f

those

who

ommitrimes. elec-

tivearrests,nd more mportantly,electiveommitments

in

terms f economic

tatus nd race are attested

ymany

conversant ith

the

facts;

he

differential

n

the

case

of

Negroes

eems

obe

especially

arked.

The

possibility

f a relation between

physicaltype

and

criminality

as stimulated

n extensive iterature

and

a

wide

variety

f

opinions

since

Lombroso;

the

works

f

Bonger,

De

Greef,Goring,Hooton,

Landogna

Cassone, Ottolenghi,Parmelee, Seltzer,

Sheldon and

many

others1"

re

proof

of this. But the

question

of

relating

ndividual

physical type

with

delinquency

s

irrelevant

o our

purpose. Here we aim to determine

whether he available information

upports

r

negates

Garrett's elief n the dea thatthe"racial factor" on-

stitutes

n

important

lement n

criminality.

Hooton

(1939)

studied

a total

of

17,076

riminals

n

prisons

nd reformatories

n the

United

States.

Among

themwere

Negro

and

Negroid criminals,

f whom he

states

that "lack

of

opportunity

nd

sheer

gnorance

and

primitiveness

re much more

mportant

actors

n

Negro

and

Negroid criminality

han

they

re

among

the

Whites"

p. 356).

Later he

adds,

"A

depressed

hys-

ical and social environment

determines

Negro and

Negroid delinquency

o

a

much

greater

xtent han

it

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

Commenting on the work of W. A. Bonger

(1943),

1'

See the discussionon "ConstitutionalTypes and Delinquency"in Comas (1960):348-55.

310 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY




10/39

Comas: "SCIENTIFIC"

RACISM

AGAIN?

ooton 1944:

230) expresses

he following

iews:

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

consti-

tution are severally

more important as etiological

factors

in

criminality han race,

anthropologically

determined.

Nation-

ality

and national

origins, with

their implications

of social

tradition

and specific racial blends,

are criminologically

far

more

meaningful than physical

combinations

in the individ-

ual wherebydiagnosis

can be

made.

Seltzer1950:

370) states:

It appears

fromthe 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

delin-

quents are

physically different

as a group from

non-delin-

quents

as a group, there

is no implication

of fixed criminal,

anthropological

types, inherent

criminality

or criminal

per-

sonality.

We

believethatwehave sufficiently

emonstrated

he

fact that

the weight

of modernscientific

uthority

s

entirely pposed

to Garrett's

nadequately

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 pro-

nouncement.

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

offers

dramatic

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

civ-

ilization

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

forth s

arguments

against

race mixture:

1. Davenport

nd Steggerda

n their

Jamaica

tudies

reported

hatrace

mixture

eads

to

physical

s

well as

mental

disharmonies.

These studies have been used since 1929 bydefenders

of

the

racist

thesis

that the

hybrid

is

inferior.

Garrett

fails

to

mention that Klineberg himself,

on

pages

77-78

of the workhe is

criticizing,

ncludes

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

inter-

pretation

of the biological

and mental consequences

of

race-crossing

n Jamaica,

thiswould

not affect he

gen-

eral problem.

Before and

after the Jamaica

studies,

many other investigations of race mixture have been

made, providingresultsentirely pposed to those of

Davenport nd Steggerda.

The

classic tudy hatBoas (1940: 138-48)carried

ut

in 1894, comparinghalf-blood ndians in the United

States with

theirEuropean and their ndian parents,

showed the

hybrids o

be

taller

and more fertile

han

the parental tocks.

Fischer (1913) studied the Rehoboth Bastards of

South Africa,

escendedfrom uropean

menand Hot-

tentotwomen, nd found that

their ffspring ere

ex-

tremely ertile,with an average

of 7.4 offspring er

woman,

and

thatthey howed no

defects

n health

or

constitution.

Franco-Annamite ybrids nCochin China

and

Ton-

kin were studied byHolbe (1914, 1916)

and

Bonifacy

(1911) respectively. he latter uthor states Neuville

1933a: 143):

The boys restrong, ealthynd

agile; they

re fond f

physical xercise nd often ake a lead

in

sports.

t first

smaller

han heir

uropean

laymates,hey qual

and

sur-

passthem nstature,ften t the geofpuberty,bout our-teen

years.

.

. One could

ay hat,

n

general,

he

mingling

of

Europeans

ndAnnamites

ives

eautiful

esults rom

he

physical oint

fview.

Asfor ntellectual

nd

moral

haracteristics,e adds:Their

shortcomings

re

the esult

fthefalse

osition

n

which

we

put

them nd of the

obscurity

nwhichwe

eave them.

The natives

of

the

sland

of

Kisar

(Timor archipel-

ago) are

the

product of mixture

among Mongoloid,

Indio-Malayan,

Oceanic

Negro,

and

European ele-

ments.The

study

made

by

Rodenwaldt

(1927) shows

that,

without

howinghybridvigor, heydisplay good

health,highfertilityaverageof7.3 children

er marri-

age)

and

no

particular hysical

eficiency.

Similarly, he complex racial mixture n Hawaii,

which

began

with the

discovery f the

slands by Cap-

tain

Cook

in

1778, has included

Polynesian,Chinese,

Japanese,Korean, Philippine and Euro-American le-

ments.Research by Adams

(1937), Dunn (1928), and

Sullivan

1927), among others, as revealedno signsof

degeneracy

nd much

evidence

of increasedfertility

and

longevityGillin 1948: 133).

The data

gathered y

Yun-kueiTao

(1935)

on

mixed

marriages

f

13

Germans

nd

32

Frenchwith

Chinese,

and on

the

71

children f

these

unions,

do

not

supply

any

evidence that

might

be

interpreted

s a

sign that

outbreeding

s

deleterious.

CarolineB. Day's study 1932)of50 mulattofamilies

in the

United

States,

whose

genealogies

were

ufficiently

known,

discovered

o

sign

of

physical nferiority. ei-

ther

did

the

studies

by

Herskovits

1928)

of

groups

of

Negroes, ndian-Negrohybrids

nd

Negro-White y-

brids.

Williams

1931)

made a

very

detailed

investiga-

tion

of

1574 Maya-Spanish

mestizos

n

Yucatan,

in

which

no

significant

ifferences

n

susceptibility

o ill-

ness

appeared

betweenthe mixed bloods

and

the

pure

stocks.

The

interesting

ase

of

the Pitcairn

Islanders,

de-

scended

from

English

mutineers rom

H.M.S.

Bounty

and

12

Tahitian

women,

has been studied and

de-

scribedby H. L. Shapiro 1931, 1936). Neuville (1933b)

Vol.

2

-No. 4- October

1961

311




11/39

gives

summary

f the

esults,

nd Shapirodiscusses

he

case

in

the

booklet,

Race mixture

(1956),

in

the

UNESCO

series

on

"The Race

Question

in Modern

Science."

t is

notedthat

he

slanders

xhibit

no

physi-

cal

defects

r

signs

of degeneracy

ue

to in-breeding.

Among

the 200

inhabitants

1936)

Shapiro

found

no

case

of serious

mental

deficiency.

heir

longevity

s

sur-

prising,

onsidering

hat

they

have

had

no permanent

medical ervices:

here

were

12 persons etween

65

and

86 years,

utof 200

inhabitants.

he

average

tature

f

thefirst enerationwas 177.8cm.,while thatofTahi-

tianwo

Documents

Scientific Racism Again