PROUD of his wonderful achievements, civilized man looks down upon the
humbler members of mankind. He has conquered the forces of nature and
compelled them to serve him. He has transformed inhospitable forests
into fertile fields. The mountain fastnesses are yielding their
treasures to his demands. The fierce animals which are obstructing his
progress are being exterminated, while others which are useful to him
are made to increase a thousand-fold. The waves of the ocean carry him
from land to land, and towering mountain-ranges set him no bounds. His
genius has moulded inert matter into powerful machines which await a
touch of his hand to serve his manifold demands.
With pity he looks down upon those members of the human race who have
not succeeded in subduing nature; who labor to eke a meagre existence
out of the products of the wilderness; who hear with trembling the roar
of the wild animals, and see the products of their toils destroyed by
them; who remain restricted by ocean, river, or mountains; who strive to
obtain the necessities of life with the help of few and simple
instruments.
Such is the contrast that presents itself to the observer. What wonder
if civilized man considers himself a being of higher order as compared
to primitive man, if he claims that the white race represents a type
higher than all others!
Before accepting this conclusion which places the stamp of eternal
inferiority upon whole races of man, we may well pause, and subject the
basis of our opinions regarding the aptitude of different peoples and
races to a searching analysis. The naïve assumption of the superiority
of the European nations and their descendants is obviously based upon
their wonderful achievements. We conclude that, as the civilization is
higher, the aptitude for civilization is also higher; and, as the
aptitude for civilization presumably depends upon the perfection of the
mechanism of body and mind, the inference is drawn that the white race
represents the highest type of perfection. In this conclusion, which is
reached through a comparison of the social status of civilized man with
that of primitive man, the tacit assumption is made that achievement
depends solely, or at least primarily, upon the aptitude for an
achievement.
The assertion of a higher aptitude of the European nations leads at once
to a second inference relating to the significance of difference in type
between the European race and the races of other continents, or even of
differences between various European types. The line of thought which we
unconsciously pursue is about as follows. Since the aptitude of the
European is highest, his physical and mental type is also highest, and
every deviation from the white type necessarily represents a
characteristic feature of a lower type.
That this unproved assumption underlies our judgments of races, appears
from the fact, that, other conditions being equal, a race is commonly
described as the lower, the more fundamentally it differs from the white
race. Its effect may also be noticed in the long-continued discussions
of the occurrence of anatomical peculiarities in primitive man which
would characterize him as a being of lower order in the zoölogical
series, and in the emphasis laid upon the non-occurrence of such traits
in primitive man and their occurrence in the European race.
The subject and form of these discussions show that the idea dwells in
the minds of investigators that we should expect to find in the white
race the highest type of man.
In drawing inferences from social distinctions, the same point of view
is frequently held. It is assumed, that, as the mental development of
the white race is the highest, it also has the highest aptitude in this
direction, and therefore its mind is supposed to have the most subtile
organization. As the ultimate psychical causes are not so apparent as
anatomical characteristics, the judgment of the mental status of a
people is generally guided by the difference between its social status
and our own: the greater the difference between their intellectual,
emotional, and moral processes and those which are found in our
civilization, the harsher the judgment on the people. It is only when a
Tacitus finds the virtues of past stages of the life of his own people
among foreign tribes that their example is held up to the gaze of his
fellow-citizens, who probably had a pitying smile for the dreamer who
clung to the ideas of a time which they had left far behind.
In order to understand clearly the relations between race and
civilization, the two unproved assumptions to which I have referred must
be subjected to a searching analysis. We must investigate in how far we
are justified in assuming that achievement is primarily due to
exceptional aptitude, and in how far we are justified in assuming that
the European type—or, taking the notion in its extreme form, that the
North European type—represents the highest development of mankind. It
will be advantageous to clear up these points before we take up the
detailed inquiry.
In regard to the former point, it might be said, that, although
achievement is not necessarily a measure of aptitude, it seems
admissible to judge the one by the other. Have not most races had the
same chances for development? Why, then, did the white race alone
develop a civilization which is sweeping the whole world, and compared
to which all other civilizations appear as feeble beginnings cut short
in early childhood, or arrested and petrified in an early stage of
development? Is it not, to say the least, probable that the race which
attained the highest stage of civilization was the most gifted one, and
that those races which remained at the bottom of the scale were not
capable of rising to higher levels?
In order to find an answer to these questions, let us consider briefly
the general outlines of the history of civilization; let our minds go
back a few thousand years, until we reach the time when the
civilizations of eastern and of western Asia were in their infancy. As
time passed on, these civilizations were transferred from one people to
another; some of those who had represented the highest type of culture
sinking back into obscurity, while others took their places. During the
dawn of history we see civilization cling to certain districts, in which
it is taken up, now by one people, now by another. In the numerous
conflicts of these times the more civilized people were often
vanquished. The conqueror, however, learned the arts of life from the
conquered, and carried on the work of civilization. Thus the centres of
civilization were shifting to and fro over a limited area, and progress
was slow and halting. At the same period the ancestors of the races that
are now among the most highly civilized were in no way superior to
primitive man as we find him now in regions that have not come into
contact with modern civilization.
Was the civilization attained by these ancient people of such character
as to allow us to claim for them a genius superior to that of any other
race?
First of all, we must bear in mind that none of these civilizations was
the product of the genius of a single people. Ideas and inventions were
carried from one to the other; and, although intercommunication was
slow, each people which participated in the ancient development
contributed its share to the general progress. Proofs without number
have been forthcoming which show that ideas have been disseminated as
long as people have come into contact with one another, and that neither
race nor language nor distance limits their diffusion. As all have
worked together in the development of the ancient civilizations, we must
bow to the genius of all, whatever group of mankind they may
represent,—Hamitic, Semitic, Aryan, or Mongol.
We may now ask, Did no other races develop a culture of equal value? It
would seem that the civilizations of ancient Peru and of Central America
may well be compared with the ancient civilizations of the Old World. In
both we find a high stage of political organization: we find division of
labor and an elaborate ecclesiastical organization. Great architectural
works were undertaken, requiring the co-operation of many individuals.
Animals and plants were domesticated, and the art of writing had been
invented. The inventions and knowledge of the peoples of the Old World
seem to have been somewhat more numerous and extended than those of the
races of the New World, but there can be no doubt that the general
status of their civilization was nearly equally high.[1] This will
suffice for our consideration.
What, then, is the difference between the civilization of the Old World
and that of the New World? It is essentially a difference in time. The
one reached a certain stage three thousand or four thousand years sooner
than the other.
Although much stress has been laid upon this greater rapidity of
development in the Old World, I think that it is not by any means proof
of greater ability of the races of the Old World, but that it is
adequately explained by the laws of chance. When two bodies run through
the same course with variable rapidity, sometimes quickly, sometimes
slowly, their relative position will be more likely to show accidental
differences, the longer the course which they run. Thus two infants a
few months old will be much alike in their physiological and psychical
development; two youths of equal age will differ much more; and two old
men of equal age may, the one still be in full possession of his powers,
the other on the decline, due mainly to the accidental acceleration or
retardation of their development. The difference in period of
development does not signify that the one is by heredity structurally
inferior to the others.
Applying the same reasoning to the history of mankind, we may say that
the difference of a few thousand years is insignificant as compared to
the age of the human race. The time required to develop the existing
races is entirely a matter of conjecture, but we may be sure that it is
long. We also know that man existed in the Eastern and Western
Hemispheres at a time that can be measured by geological standards only.
Penck’s recent investigations on the glacial age in the Alps have led
him to the conclusion that the age of man must be measured by a span of
time exceeding one hundred thousand years, and that the highly
specialized civilization of the Magdalenian is not less than twenty
thousand years old. There is no reason to believe that this stage was
reached by mankind the world over at the same period, but we must assume
as the initial point the remotest times in which we find traces of man.
What does it mean, then, if one group of mankind reached the same stage
at the age of a hundred thousand years as was reached by the other at
the age of a hundred and four thousand years? Would not the life-history
of the people, and the vicissitudes of its history, be fully sufficient
to explain a delay of this character, without necessitating us to assume
a difference in their aptitude to social development? (See Waitz.) This
retardation would be significant only if it could be shown that it
occurs independently over and over again in the same race, while in
other races greater rapidity of development was found repeatedly in
independent cases.
The fact deserves attention, however, that at present practically all
the members of the white race participate to a greater or less degree in
the advance of civilization, while in none of the other races has the
civilization that has been attained at one time or another been able to
reach all the tribes or peoples of the same race. This does not
necessarily mean that all the members of the white race had the power of
originating and developing the germs of civilization with equal
rapidity; for there is no evidence that the cognate tribes which have
all developed under the influence of a civilization originated by a few
members of the race, would not, without this help, have required a much
longer time to reach the high level which they now occupy. It seems to
show, however, a remarkable power of assimilation, which has not
manifested itself to an equal degree in any other race.
Thus the problem presents itself of discovering the reason why the
tribes of ancient Europe readily assimilated the civilization that was
offered to them, while at present we see primitive people dwindle away
and become degraded before the approach of civilization, instead of
being elevated by it. Is not this a proof of a higher organization of
the inhabitants of Europe?
I believe the reasons for this fact are not far to seek, and do not
necessarily lie in a greater ability of the races of Europe and Asia.
First of all, in appearance these people were alike to civilized man of
their times. Therefore the fundamental difficulty for the rise of
primitive people—namely, that an individual who has risen to the level
of the higher civilization is still looked upon as belonging to an
inferior race—did not prevail. Thus it was possible that in the colonies
of ancient times society could grow by accretion from among the more
primitive people.
Furthermore, the devastating influences of diseases which nowadays begin
to ravage the inhabitants of territories newly opened to the whites were
not so strong, on account of the permanent contiguity of the people of
the Old World, who were always in contact with one another, and
therefore subject to the same influences. The invasion of America and
Polynesia, on the other hand, was accompanied by the introduction of new
diseases among the natives of these countries. The suffering and
devastation wrought by epidemics which followed the discovery are too
well known to be described in full. In all cases in which a material
reduction in numbers occurs in a thinly settled area, the economic life,
as well as the social structure, is almost completely destroyed.
In addition to this, it may be said that the contrast between the
culture represented by the modern white and that of primitive man is far
more fundamental than that between the ancients and the people with whom
they came in contact. Particularly, the methods of manufacture have
developed so enormously, that the industries of the primitive people of
our times are exterminated by the cheapness and large quantity of the
products imported by the white trader, because primitive man is unable
to compete with the power of production of the machines of the whites,
while in olden times the superior hand-product rivalled the hand-product
of a lower type. When a day’s work suffices for obtaining efficient
tools or fabrics from the trader, while the manufacture of the
corresponding implement or material by the native himself would have
required weeks, it is but natural that the slower and more laborious
process should be given up speedily. It must also be considered that in
several regions, particularly in America and in parts of Siberia, the
primitive tribes are swamped by the numbers of the immigrating race,
which is crowding them so rapidly out of their old haunts that no time
for gradual assimilation is given. In olden times there was certainly no
such immense inequality in numbers as we observe in many regions
nowadays.
We conclude, therefore, that the conditions for assimilation in ancient
Europe were much more favorable than in those countries where in our
times primitive people come into contact with civilization. Therefore we
do not need to assume that the ancient Europeans were more gifted than
other races which have not become exposed to the influences of
civilization until recent times (Gerland, Ratzel).
This conclusion may be corroborated by other facts. In the middle ages
the civilization of the Arabs had reached a stage which was undoubtedly
superior to that of many European nations of that period. Both
civilizations had sprung largely from the same sources, and must be
considered branches of one tree. The Arabs who were the carriers of
civilization were by no means members of the same race as the Europeans,
but nobody will dispute their high merits. It is of interest to see in
what manner they influenced the negro races of the Soudan. At an early
time, principally between the second half of the eighth century and the
eleventh century of our era, the Soudan was invaded by Hamitic tribes,
and Mohammedanism was spreading rapidly through the Sahara and the
western Soudan. We see that since that time large empires have been
formed, and have disappeared again in struggles with neighboring states,
and that a relatively high degree of culture has been attained. The
invaders intermarried with the natives; and the mixed races, some of
which are almost purely negro, have risen high above the level of other
African negroes. The history of Bornu is perhaps one of the best
examples of this kind. Barth and Nachtigal have made us acquainted with
the history of this state, which has played a most important part in the
history of North Africa.
Why, then, have the Mohammedans been able to civilize these tribes, and
to raise them to nearly the same standard which they had attained, while
the whites have not been capable of influencing the negro in Africa to
any considerable extent? Evidently on account of the different method of
introduction of culture. While the Mohammedans influence the people in
the same manner in which the ancients civilized the tribes of Europe,
the whites send only the products of their manufactures and a few of
their representatives into the negro country. A real amalgamation
between the more highly educated whites and the negroes has never taken
place. The amalgamation of the negroes by the Mohammedans is facilitated
particularly by the institution of polygamy, the conquerors taking
native wives, and raising their children as members of their own family.
The spread of the Chinese civilization in eastern Asia may be likened to
that of the ancient civilization in Europe. Colonization and
amalgamation of kindred tribes, and in some cases extermination of
rebellious subjects, with subsequent colonization, have led to a
remarkable uniformity of culture over a large area.
When, finally, we consider the inferior position held by the negro race
of the United States, although the negro lives in the closest contact
with modern civilization, we must not forget that the old race feeling
of the inferiority of the colored race is as potent as ever, and is a
formidable obstacle to its advance and progress, notwithstanding that
schools and universities are open to them. We might rather wonder how
much has been accomplished in a short period against heavy odds. It is
hardly possible to say what would become of the negro if he were able to
live with the whites on absolutely equal terms. Miss Ovington’s
discussion of the opportunities of the negro in the United States is a
convincing proof of the inequality of the conditions of economic advance
of the negro and of the white, even after the abolition of legal
inequality.
Our conclusion drawn from the foregoing considerations is the following:
Several races have developed a civilization of a type similar to the one
from which our own had its origin. A number of favorable conditions
facilitated the rapid spread of this civilization in Europe. Among
these, common physical appearance, contiguity of habitat, and moderate
difference in modes of manufacture, were the most potent. When, later
on, civilization began to spread over other continents, the races with
which modern civilization came into contact were not equally favorably
situated. Striking differences of racial types, the preceding isolation
which caused devastating epidemics in the newly discovered countries,
and the greater advance in civilization, made assimilation much more
difficult. The rapid dissemination of Europeans over the whole world
destroyed all promising beginnings which had arisen in various regions.
Thus no race except that of eastern Asia was given a chance to develop
an independent civilization. The spread of the European race cut short
the growth of the existing independent germs without regard to the
mental aptitude of the people among whom it was developing. On the other
hand, we have seen that no great weight can be attributed to the earlier
rise of civilization in the Old World, which is satisfactorily explained
as a chance. In short, historical events appear to have been much more
potent in leading races to civilization than their faculty, and it
follows that achievements of races do not warrant us in assuming that
one race is more highly gifted than the other.
After having thus found an answer to our first problem, we turn to the
second one: In how far are we justified in considering those anatomical
traits in regard to which foreign races differ from the white race as
marks of inferiority? In one respect the answer to this question is
easier than that to the former. We have recognized that achievement
alone does not justify us in assuming greater mental ability for the
white race than for others, unless we can sustain our claim by other
proofs. It follows from this, that differences between the white race
and other races must not be interpreted to mean superiority of the
former, inferiority of the latter, unless this relation can be proved by
anatomical or physiological considerations.
It may not be amiss to illustrate by an example the logical error which
is committed with great ease and great frequency. In a painstaking
investigation made a few years ago, Mr. R. B. Bean demonstrated certain
characteristic differences between the form of the whole and of the
parts of the brain of the Baltimore negro and of the Baltimore
white,—differences which consist in the form and relative size of the
frontal and occipital lobes and in the size of the _corpus callosum_.
The interpretation of the difference is, that the smaller size of the
anterior lobes and of the _callosum_ indicates a lower mental
development, a conclusion which has been refuted by Franklin P. Mall. It
may suffice here, where we are interested chiefly in the logical fallacy
of such conclusions, to call attention to the fact that a comparison of
long-headed and short-headed individuals of the same race—or, let us
say, of long-headed North French and of short-headed Central
French—would result in similar differences, but that in a case of this
kind the inference regarding greater or lesser ability would not be made
with the same readiness.
There is, of course, no doubt that great differences exist in the
physical characteristics of the races of man. The color of the skin, the
form of the hair, and the configuration of lips and nose, distinguish
the African clearly from the European. The question to decide is, What
relations have these features to the mental aptitude of a race? Two
points of view may be brought forward in relation to this question.
First, we may claim that a race in which peculiarities are found that
are characteristic of lower stages in the animal series will be in all
respects of an inferior type. Secondly, we may direct our attention
primarily to the central nervous system and investigate whether the
anatomical structure in one race is superior to that found in another
race.
To illustrate the former viewpoint, I will mention a few of the
formations in man which have been described as characterizing lower
races, because they are found as typical developments in animals. One of
these is a variation in the form of the temporal bone, which in man is
ordinarily separated from the frontal bone by the sphenoid and parietal
bones. It has been found that in some individuals the temporal bone
encroaches upon the sphenoid and parietal, and comes into contact with
the frontal bone. This formation is the prevalent one among the apes. It
has been proved that this variation is found among all races, but with
unequal frequency.
The peculiar formation of the tibia known as platycnemism (lateral
flatness) has been observed in skeletons of the oldest remains of man in
Europe, and also in the skeletons of various races. Other
characteristics which remind us of lower forms are peculiarities in the
formation of the articular surfaces of tibia and femur, which have been
found in a number of human types; the _os Incæ_, or interparietal bone,
which occurs among all races, but most frequently among the Peruvians
and the inhabitants of the ancient pueblos; the smallness of the nasal
bones and their synostosis with the maxilla; the so-called pre-nasal
fossæ; and certain variations in the arrangement of arteries and of
muscles. All these variable features are found among all races, but the
degree of variability is not everywhere the same. Presumably such
variations may be considered human characteristics which have not yet
had time to become stable, and which in this sense may be considered as
still in process of evolution. If this interpretation be correct, it
might seem that we can consider those races in which the characteristic
human features are more stable as those which are more highly organized.
It is also possible to arrange the races according to various typical
features in such a manner that one appears farthest removed from the
types of higher animals, others less so. In all these arrangements the
gap between man and animal is a wide one, and the variations between the
races are slight as compared to it. Thus we find, that, in comparison to
the skull, the face of the negro is larger than that of the American,
whose face is, in turn, larger than that of the white. The lower portion
of his face has larger dimensions. The alveolar arch is pushed forward,
and thus gains an appearance which reminds us of the higher apes. There
is no denying that this feature is a most constant character of the
black races, and that it represents a type slightly nearer the animal
than the European type. The same may be said of the broadness and
flatness of the noses of the negro and the Mongol.
If we accept the general theories of Klaatsch, Stratz, and Schoetensack,
who consider the Australian as the oldest and most generalized type of
man, we might also call attention to the slenderness of the vertebræ,
the undeveloped curvature of the vertebral column, to which Cunningham
first called attention, and the traits of the foot, which recall the
needs of an animal living in trees, and whose feet had to serve the
purpose of climbing from branch to branch.
In relation to the interpretation of all these observations, it must be
strongly emphasized that the races which we are accustomed to call
“higher races” do not by any means stand in all respects at the end of
the series, and are farthest removed from the animal. The European and
the Mongol have the largest brains; the European has a small face and a
high nose;—all features farther removed from the probable animal
ancestor of man than the corresponding features of other races. On the
other hand, the European shares lower characteristics with the
Australian, both retaining in the strongest degree the hairiness of the
animal ancestor, while the specifically human development of the red lip
is developed most markedly in the negro. The proportions of the limbs of
the negro are also more markedly distinct from the corresponding
proportions in the higher apes than are those of the European.
When we interpret these data in the light of modern biological concepts,
we may say that the specifically human features appear with varying
intensity in various races, and that the divergence from the animal
ancestor has developed in varying directions.
When all these differences between races are given, the question arises,
whether they have any significance in regard to mental faculty. I may be
permitted to disregard for the moment differences in the size and
structural development of the nervous system, and confine myself to the
mental significance of other traits. The general analogy of mental
development of animals and of man prompts us to associate lower mental
traits with theromorphic features. In our naïve, every-day parlance,
brutish features and brutality are closely connected. We must
distinguish here, however, between the anatomical characteristics of
which we have been speaking and the muscular development of the face,
trunk, and limbs, due to habitual activity. The hand, which is never
employed in activities requiring those refined adjustments which are
characteristic of psychologically complex actions, will lack the
modelling brought about by the development of each muscle. The face
whose muscles have not responded to the innervations accompanying deep
thought and refined sentiment will lack in individuality and refinement.
The neck that has supported heavy loads, and has not responded to the
varied requirements of delicate changes of position of head and body,
will appear massive and clumsy. These physiognomic differences must not
mislead us in our interpretations. But even without them, we are
inclined to draw inferences in regard to mentality from a receding
forehead, a heavy jaw, large and heavy teeth, perhaps even from an
inordinate length of arms or an unusual development of hairiness.
From a strictly scientific point of view, these inferences seem to be
open to the most serious doubt. Only a few investigations have been made
in relation to these problems, but their results have been entirely
negative. Most important among them is the elaborate attempt made by
Karl Pearson to investigate the relationship of intelligence to size and
shape of the head. His conclusions are so significant that I will repeat
them here: “The onus of proof that other measurements and more subtle
psychological observations would lead to more definite results may now,
I think, be left to those who _a priori_ regard such an association as
probable. Personally, the result of the present inquiry has convinced me
that there is little relationship between the external physical and the
psychical character in man.” I think all the investigations that have
been made up to the present time compel us to assume that the
characteristics of the osseous, muscular, visceral, or circulatory
system, have practically no direct relation to the mental ability of man
(Manouvrier).
We will now turn to the important subject of the size of the brain,
which seems to be the one anatomical feature which bears directly upon
the question at issue. It seems plausible that the greater the central
nervous system, the higher the faculty of the race, and the greater its
aptitude to mental achievements. Let us review the known facts. Two
methods are open for ascertaining the size of the central nervous
system,—the determination of the weight of the brain and that of the
capacity of the cranial cavity. The first of these methods is the one
which promises the most accurate results. Naturally, the number of
Europeans whose brain-weights have been taken is much larger than that
of individuals of other races. There are, however, sufficient data
available to establish beyond a doubt the fact that the brain-weight of
the whites is larger than that of most other races, particularly larger
than that of the negroes. That of the white male is about 1360 grams.
The investigations of cranial capacities are quite in accord with these
results. According to Topinard, the capacity of the skull of males of
the neolithic period in Europe is about 1560 cc. (44 cases); that of
modern Europeans is the same (347 cases); of the Mongoloid race, 1510
cc. (68 cases); of African negroes, 1405 cc. (83 cases); and of negroes
of the Pacific Ocean, 1460 cc. (46 cases). Here we have, therefore, a
decided difference in favor of the white race.
In interpreting these facts, we must ask, Does the increase in the size
of the brain prove an increase in faculty? This would seem highly
probable, and facts may be adduced which speak in favor of this
assumption. First among these is the relatively large size of the brain
among the higher animals, and the still larger size in man. Furthermore,
Manouvrier has measured the capacity of the skulls of thirty-five
eminent men. He found that they averaged 1665 cc. as compared to 1560
cc. general average, which was derived from 110 individuals. On the
other hand, he found that the cranial capacity of forty-five murderers
was 1580 cc., also superior to the general average. The same result has
been obtained through weighings of brains of eminent men. The brains of
thirty-four of these showed an average increase of 93 grams over the
average brain-weight of 1357 grams. Another fact which may be adduced in
favor of the theory that greater brains are accompanied by higher
faculty is that the heads of the best English students are larger than
those of the average class of students (Galton). The force of the
arguments furnished by these observations must, however, not be
overestimated.
First of all, the brains of not all eminent men are unusually large. On
the contrary, a few unusually small brains have been found in the
series. Furthermore, most of the brain-weights constituting the general
series are obtained in anatomical institutes; and the individuals who
find their way there are poorly developed, on account of malnutrition
and of life under unfavorable circumstances, while the eminent men
represent a much better nourished class. As poor nourishment reduces the
weight and size of the whole body, it will also reduce the size and
weight of the brain. It is not certain, therefore, that the observed
difference is entirely due to the higher ability of the eminent men.
This may also explain the larger size of the brains of the professional
classes as compared to those of unskilled laborers (Ferraira). An
additional number of restricting facts must be enumerated. The most
important among these is the difference in brain-weight between men and
women. When men and women of the same stature are compared, it is found
that the brain of woman is much lighter than that of man. Nevertheless
the faculty of woman while perhaps qualitatively different from that of
man, cannot be deemed to be of an inferior character. This is therefore
a case in which smaller brain-weight is accompanied throughout by equal
faculty. We conclude from this fact that it is not impossible that the
smaller brains of males of other races should do the same work as is
done by the larger brain of the white race. But this comparison is not
quite on equal terms, as we may assume that there is a certain
structural difference between male and female, which causes the
difference in size between the sexes; so that comparison between male
and female is not the same as comparison between male and male.
Notwithstanding these restrictions, the increase of the size of the
brain in the higher animals, and the lack of development in
microcephalic individuals, are fundamental facts which make it more than
probable that increased size of the brain causes increased faculty,
although the relation is not quite as immediate as is often assumed.
The reason for a lack of close correlation between brain-weight and
mental faculties is not far to seek. The functioning of the brain
depends upon the nerve cells and fibres, which do not constitute, by any
means, the whole mass of the brain. A brain with many cells and complex
connections between the cells may contain less connective tissue than
another one of simpler nervous structure. In other words, if there is a
close relation between form and ability, it must be looked for rather in
the morphological traits of the brain than in its size. A correlation
exists between size of brain and number of cells and fibres, but the
correlation is weak (Donaldson).
Notwithstanding the numerous attempts that have been made to find
structural differences between the brains of different races of man that
could be directly interpreted in psychological terms, no conclusive
results of any kind have been attained. The status of our present
knowledge has been well summed up by Franklin P. Mall, to whose
investigation I referred before. He holds, that, on account of the great
variability of the individuals constituting each race, racial
differences are exceedingly difficult to discover, and that up to the
present time none have been found that will endure serious criticism.
We may now sum up the results of our preliminary inquiry. We have found
that the unproved assumption of identity of cultural achievement and of
mental ability is founded on an error of judgment; that the variations
in cultural development can as well be explained by a consideration of
the general course of historical events without recourse to the theory
of material differences of mental faculty in different races. We have
found, furthermore, that a similar error underlies the common assumption
that the white race represents physically the highest type of man, but
that anatomical and physiological considerations do not support these
views.
-----
Footnote 1:
For authorities, see note to this page at end of book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------