denies the racial inferiority of the Negro, and the racial
deterioration of the Mulatto, must consistently hold that
mongrelization of the South is positively desirable; and we should
esteem him not the less, but the more, for boldly defending it.[17] For
if such miscegenation involves no declination from the Caucasian
standard, then there is no reason whatever against it. On the other
hand, there are strong reasons that favour it (as Bryce himself admits,
p. 27, it "has two great merits"); in particular, it would bring about
speedily and permanently a settlement of the race question, and a
settlement far more amicable than is otherwise possible. There is no
escape from this conclusion; and no disclaimer, however honest, can be
adequate. The inference of approval, from non-hostility to
miscegenation, is immediate and unavoidable; and we may justly hold our
opponents to the logical consequence of their teachings, however
earnestly they may reject it.
[17] Mongrelization of the world has, in fact, been ably and
honestly, however mistakenly, championed on quasi-scientific
grounds by distinguished ethnologists--a grave error in science,
but no moral reproach. With such must be ranged the mighty
journal that "stands alone in its field," exponent of the highest
civic life yet unfolded on this continent. In the edition of Dec.
26th, 1895, in commenting upon a conservative letter from
Clinton, Iowa, the Editor remarks: "The laws forbidding honorable
intermarriage between the two races are the guarantee of the
perpetuation of this savage atrocity [lynching]; their abolition,
the first step on the part of the whites towards its
disappearance." Language could hardly be more explicit. Of
course, such "abolition" would be tantamount to official
invitation to such "honorable intermarriage"; otherwise it would
be nugatory: he who throws wide open his gates, thereby bids come
in.
Herewith, then, for the present, we sheathe the sword for lack of
argument; for it seems scarcely worth while to point out that when we
demonstrate the racial inferiority of the Negroids, and insist upon the
necessity of an impassable social chasm, we by no means excuse or
extenuate any form of cruelty or injustice or oppression or
inconsideration, political or other. Replies to our arguments are not
pertinent when they fail to note this distinction, even though they may
quote passages from the "Apostle of Heredity," written nearly a
generation before his call to that apostolate. The humane man resents
the maltreatment of inferiors no less quickly because he recognizes
their inferiority; it is they that especially move his compassion. The
ancient Hindu knew and felt this when he wrote: "He who needlessly
tramples upon a worm in his path, that soul is darkly alienate from
God."
This remark conducts us very near to certain semi-political phases of
the matter; which, however, we leave to the politician, the pulpit, and
the press. These are careful and troubled about many things; but there
is one thing needful--that the rights of the generations unborn be
guarded, that the Caucasian race integrity be preserved.
CHAPTER THREE
NURTURE? OR NATURE?
_The que still hangs behind him._
CHAMISSO
In the foregoing chapter we have propounded and answered the question
as to the native inferiority of the Black race; and now the query
arises, What more? Have we not already said that such is the end of the
matter? But the subject is of transcendent importance, and we must not
disguise from the reader that the considerations thus far adduced may
not yet be admitted as perfectly conclusive by a certain highly
intelligent class of thinkers. There is, namely, a very respectable
school of anthropologists who will take nothing for granted and are
disposed to call in question the most plausible assumptions and leave
us no ground to stand on but what has been won by the severest logic.
We can the less afford to pass by the contentions of these savants,
since we think their principles are in the main correct, and we are in
active sympathy with their general methods. In the present case, to be
sure, we hold that they have not proved faithful to the pure reason,
and that their skepticism will be found destitute of any sufficient
warrant.
What, then, are the scruples of these critics? What niceties of
demonstration, may they still insist, have passed unobserved? We shall
use their own words as nearly as may be--the words of a "specially
competent anthropologist."
(1) It is denied that any inference lies, in any particular case, from
the brain to the mind. "No principle applicable to individuals can be
laid down. Inspection of a brain, no matter how minute, will not permit
a legitimate inference as to the intellectual status of the owner."
This must be granted without reserve.
(2) Even in dealing with large groups, as of a thousand men, with
brains averaging fifty-three and forty-six ounces, respectively, with
corresponding physical proportions, "it is possible, but by no means
certain, that the average mental capacity of the former would surpass
that of the latter. But even such an inference would be based upon very
scanty evidence." It seems plain that the word "possible" is here put
incautiously for "probable." Otherwise the sentence is empty of
meaning. As so corrected, it must stand. The only difference of opinion
that could arise would concern the degree of probability. If we have
read the evidence nearly aright, that degree would be very high, but it
could not rise to certainty. To this extremely important matter we
shall return at the proper place.
(3) With respect to "complexity of structure," which is supposed to
condition or to indicate mental development, there is declared to be a
"lack of any definite and certain knowledge as to the fundamental
facts." This, also, seems true.
Quantitative information is wanting, but qualitative is at hand. We
have no definite and certain knowledge as to the significance of the
gyri and sulci in the brain; but this does not invalidate the general
proposition that relates them _in some way_ with mental power. The
brain of a Helmholtz would almost certainly be deeply carved; the brain
of an imbecile would almost certainly be uncommonly smooth. Between
these extremes there lie relations infinite in variety and impossible
to grade, so crossed and intercrossed are they with other elements.
Nevertheless, the two opposite poles remain fixed, and the general
indications of convolutions and of smoothness, other things being
equal, cannot be mistaken.
(4) As to skull capacity, there are many difficulties in the way, and
"the value of this evidence has come to be regarded as less than it was
once considered to be, but still to a certain extent significant. In a
general way it may be said to bear out the observations on the actual
brains." We do not see how it could well be expected to do much more.
Here, then, are three indicia--weight of brain, complexity of its
structure, capacity of skull--each related directly, though
indeterminately, to power of mind. If we call them _x_, _y_, _z_, then
we may say, with some approach to truth, that mental strength depends
upon their product, each taken with an unknown exponent, thus: _x^p
y^q z^r_. This expression, to be sure, is not adequate; there are
yet other factors, it may be many, as the post-pubertal extension of
structural elements, and therewith of physiological connections, which
we have no means of measuring or observing. But the real significance
of these three is not, indeed cannot be, doubted. Thus, Manouvrier
determined the skull capacity of thirty-two distinguished men to
average 1663 cc., or 103 cc. above the general mean of 1560 cc.--an
excess of nearly 7 per cent. Again, the mean weight of brain of
thirty-four such men reached 1533 grammes--an excess of 163 over the
average (1370), or almost exactly 12 per cent. No amount of reasonable
allowance can rob these results of their import. It is no answer to say
that the cranial capacity of forty-one murderers averaged 1593 cc., or
33 cc. (about two per cent.) above the mean. We see no reason why a
murderer might not have more than ordinary intelligence, though many be
degenerates; it is not at all unlikely that his central nervous system
or some part of it should be highly developed. Unless we err widely,
not a few of the greatest characters of history have been great
criminals.
(5) What conclusions are recommended by "all these facts and factors"?
"Truly, the results are meager. We are probably justified in saying
that, anatomically, the brains of negroid races are somewhat less
developed than those of Europeans." But it is held that "a little
reflection shows the comparative insignificance of the distinction....
The most that can be said is that the European series will show more
very large brains than the negroid, and the negroid series more very
small brains than the Europeans." Precisely! And it is just this excess
of "very large brains," or at least of its general correlate, very
large minds, that has the profoundest "significance" for civilization,
for all that is great and glorious in history and in humanity. Not only
must we, in accordance with the law of Deviation from the Average,
interpret this excess of "very large brains" as implying a higher
general level, but the meaning and value of these exceptions are
incalculable.[18] Who can estimate the import of the one brain in a
million, when it is the brain of Moses or Mohammed, of Aristotle or
Archimedes, of Vergil or Galilei, of Leibnitz or Voltaire, of Darwin or
Washington? Such brains are the foci of the orbits of history; such men
blaze out the pathways for the feet of their kind. Without them we
wander round and round, lost in the erroneous wood. The race that can
produce such "very large brains" is the race of advancement and
culture; they shine like stars in the firmament of history, and the
multitudes steer their courses thereby. It is these exceptions that
mark out the line between progress and stagnation, between civilization
and barbarism; a race that is deficient in such exceptions is a race
already condemned.
[18] See _infra_, p. 100.
It is altogether vain to interpose that this acknowledged anatomical
defect is, after all, only slight. The difference between the brains of
a fish-monger and of a Socrates may be only slight--an ounce or so in
the scale, a line or so in depth of convolution; yet it corresponds to
the interval between mediety and the vertex of genius. Such differences
are vanishingly small, or inexpressibly great, according to the origin
of reckoning. And herewith we uncover the fallacy that lies so snugly
hidden away in the phrase "comparative insignificance." Undoubtedly! If
we reckon from the amoeba, the witling seems scarcely distinguishable
from the wit; but if we reckon from the average of humanity, they start
asunder like the poles. The summits of the Himalayas are only some four
or five miles above the valley of the Ganges; estimated from the centre
of the earth, this difference is little more than one-thousandth of the
whole--a difference hardly appreciable to the eye, even when armed with
a microscope; and yet it means the difference between the impenetrable
jungle and the inaccessible minarets of the roof of the world. The
difference between some "Rafael" and some imitation may be very slight
and escape the uncritical eye, and yet make out the distinction between
a masterpiece and a daub. Illustrations abound. It is a multitude of
trifles that constitutes perfection; but perfection is not a trifle.
That the recognized and constated superiority of the European brain is
slight, by no means implies that the "mental expression" of this
superiority may not be illimitably grand.
Since the question of brain-weights is extremely important, it does not
seem fair to the reader to furnish him only vague, general statements.
Accordingly, we here submit something more definite, even though it
appear like a long parenthesis inserted in the body of our discourse.
From the autopsies of 405 Whites, Blacks, and intermediates, made by
Surgeon Ira Russell, the following conclusions have been drawn by Dr.
Sanford B. Hunt, surgeon of United States Volunteers in the Civil War:
"(1) The standard weight of the negro brain is over five ounces less
than that of the white. (2) Slight intermixture of white blood
diminishes the negro brain from its normal standard, but when the
infusion of white blood amounts to one-half (mulatto), it determines a
positive increase in the negro brain, which, in the quadroon, is only
three ounces below the white standard. (3) The percentage of
exceptionally small brains is largest among negroes having but a small
proportion of white blood." Of these 405, there were 141 Blacks, and
only twenty-four Whites; the others were mixed. We may omit these
latter, and may substitute the results of 278 other autopsies of
Whites, and form this table:
55- 50- 45- 40- 35-
Average Max. Min. 60 oz. 60 55 50 45 40 35
141 B. 46.96 56 35-3/4 0 5 42 51 38 3 --
24 W. 52.06 64 44-1/2 1 4 11 7 -- -- --
278 W. 49.05 65 34 7 28 99 97 39 7 1
Here we observe: Dr. Hunt's (1) does not seem warranted; the number
(24) of White brains weighed seems too small. But the weights of the
278 Whites show that the smaller weight of the Negro brain is a fact.
More extensive observation shows that the Black average is about four
ounces below the White. The absence of very large brains among the
Blacks comes out most distinctly. There were no Black brains weighing
over fifty-six ounces, only five weighing so much as fifty-five;
whereas, eight White brains weighed over sixty ounces, and forty
weighed over fifty-five. Likewise of the twenty-four Whites, only one
fell under forty-five ounces, but forty-one of the 141 Blacks; also,
only forty-seven of the 278 Whites; it is plain, then, that large
brains predominate among the Whites and small ones among the Blacks.
This, however, is not nearly all the evidence on this question. In the
course of an elaborate article in the _Philosophical Transactions_
for 1868, pp. 505 sqq., Dr. J. Barnard Davis makes this remark: "As a
general conclusion, without analyzing the results of Tiedemann's
gaugings of negro skulls, it may be unhesitatingly asserted that the
brain-weight of negroes is positively below that of Europeans" (p.
522). "The general mean of our African races, as deduced from 113
skulls, 53 of men and 60 of women, a tolerably equal proportion, is
43.89 ounces, or 1244 grams. This is 3.23 ounces, or ninety-one grams,
less than our European general mean" (p. 523). He also finds the mean
internal capacity of 393 European skulls to be 92.3 cubic inches, and
113 African skulls to be 86.9 cubic inches--a defect of nearly 7 per
cent. Morton found the average capacity of 62 native African skulls to
be 83 cubic inches, and of 12 Afro-American skulls to be 82 cubic
inches.
More recently (1880), Dr. Bischoff has published at Bonn a very
thorough work on "Das Hirngewicht des Menschen," in which the present
subject is handled minutely and very temperately. We translate some of
his remarkably sane and judicial conclusions: "From all of this it
follows that we are by no means justified in affirming outright the
proposition that brain-weight and spiritual capacity and achievement
keep equal pace and that a large and heavy brain of itself betokens a
man highly endowed in both respects, a small and light brain a man
niggardly equipped. But just as little justified would be the
conclusions that size and weight of brain stand in no connection with
spiritual gifts and accomplishments. Rather must we be convinced that
both factors, brain-weight and spiritual capacity and achievement, are
magnitudes too complex for their parallelism to appear to be proved so
simply, although the same (parallelism) is none the less present" (p.
142).
The following seems to have been written with some foreboding of the
more recent anthropology that "minimizes this difference" between
European and Negroid, and regards "the mental gap as more apparent than
real, and due rather to experience and training than to innate
factors."
"The capacity for spiritual achievement is, I believe, as regards both
magnitude and variety, always innate, a gift of Nature, and expressed
in the magnitude and weight of the brain and the development of the
convolutions, either in the whole or in the single parts. In it, aside
from morbid alterations, the individual can bring about no change,
neither by addition nor by subtraction. But the degree and the kind of
the development of this endowment (_Ausbildung dieser Anlage_) depends
on a thousand other conditions, partly quite beyond the insight and
will of the individual--partly, however, subject thereto. All that we
call education, culture, social position, example, and, on the part of
the individual, good-will, industry, zeal, etc., work for the
development of the endowment, and the achievement depends thereon.
Endowment, as already said, is unalterable; but the degree of the
development and achievement may vary a thousandfold" (p. 165).
On p. 169, Bischoff starts the interesting query, whether any
enhancement of the endowment (_Steigerung der Anlage_) in general or in
particular directions, through increase of the brain, in general or in
particular parts, be actual or possible in the course of time, along
the path of culture (_auf dem Wege der Zuchtung_). Broca thought that
he had observed a change in the skull capacity of Parisians, in the
lapse of centuries; but his results (thinks Bischoff) are very far from
being sure. Thus far there is no proof of any such possibility. But
even if this latter were conceded, Bischoff adds, the actuality of such
a change would by no means follow. So great is the present endowment
that all progress that can thus far be proved, may be explained through
the development of this endowment, and such will, doubtless, for a
long time yet, be the case as regards both the individual and the
generations (p. 170). We may add that Bischoff has no doubt whatever
either of the lesser brain-weight or of the lower mental capacity of
the African Negro.
When, now, we ask what is the real significance of these weights, we
are fortunately able to refer to the tables of Dr. H. Matiegka, given
in Part I. of his researches "_Ueber das Hirngewicht, die Schaedelkapacitaet
und die Kopfform, sowie deren Beziehungen zur psychischen Thaetigkeit
des Menschen_" (_Sitzb. d. koen. boehm. Ges. d. Wiss. 1902_). He has
arranged 235 brain-weights in six groups, according to occupation,
proceeding from the lowest labourers at odd jobs, who could not learn a
trade or find steady employment, up to men of notable intellectual
power. Here is the table, showing the number in each group and the
average weight of brain:
14 Day-labourers 1410.0 grams
34 Labourers 1433.5 "
14 Porters, watchmen, etc. 1435.7 "
123 Mechanics, workers at trades, etc. 1449.6 "
28 Business men, teachers, clerks, professional
musicians, photographers, etc. 1468.5 "
22 College-bred scholars, physicians, etc. 1500.0 "
------
235 Average of all 1451.5 grams
or 51.20 oz.
Here we observe that the excess of this average over that of the 141
Blacks is 4.24 ounces. Also we remark that the average of the lowest of
Matiegka's groups, the shiftless and incompetent, is nearly 48.61
ounces, which is much above the average (46.96) yielded by Dr.
Russell's 141 measurements of pure Blacks. Look at it another way. The
defect of the day-labourer's brain, as compared with the scholar's, in
Matiegka's groups, is precisely six per cent. Even if the average white
brain weighed only fifty ounces, a defect of six per cent. would reduce
it only to forty-seven ounces, which is still above the average of the
Blacks. This latter, then, falls appreciably below the lowest white
standard.
Once more, we now come to see clearly the immense significance of the
admittedly "somewhat less developed Negroid brain." The famous lines of
Browning seem to have been written especially for this occasion:
_Oh, the little more, and how much it is!
And the little less, and what worlds away!_
The difference between the averages of the highest and the lowest of
the Matiegka groups is only six per cent.; and yet how infinite its
moment for humanity and civilization! The difference meanwhile between
the general averages of the White and the Black is little if any less
than eight per cent. (52-48 = 4, that is, 1-13 or 7.7 per cent.). Who,
then, can compute its import for the history of the race?
To be sure, it is easy to pooh-pooh the Bohemian's measurements and to
scout his averages as reckoned from too scanty material. Nor would we
attach to them any undue importance. We have never denied that there
are many disturbing factors. Nevertheless, the general indication seems
altogether unmistakable. Nothing can disguise or deeply obscure the
broad patent fact that all the meridians of evidence converge towards
one and the same pole, namely: _The average Negroid brain is sensibly
inferior to the average Caucasian; and even a slight defect or excess
in average is correlated with the profoundest meaning for culture and
for civilization._
What must be said, then, of such as proclaim: "This fable [of Negroid
inferiority] has been repeated and gladly believed.... But there is
absolutely no physiological basis for it so far as the best studies of
brain structure go.... The arrogance of Anglo-Saxon and Caucasian
supremacy must find its justification, if anywhere, in the bare will
and brute power to have it so, rather than in any conclusions of
science"? 'The Apostle' has already shaped the answer: "I bear them
witness that they have a zeal for _man_, but not according to
knowledge."
(6) As "minimizing this difference still further," it is observed that
"the Eskimo even shows a brain weight and development well above the
average of whites. Here again, however, the material is too scanty to
permit of generalization." Altogether "too scanty," it would seem.
Hardly half a dozen such brains (we speak under correction) have been
weighed or examined. Besides, no one would maintain that weight alone
is sufficient. That large brains generally go with great minds by no
means implies the converse, that great minds generally go with large
brains. If the Eskimo brain be really heavier than the European, which
is by no means proved, and yet the Eskimo mind inferior, the meaning is
that in some other unknown respect of organization the Eskimo brain
falls so far behind the European as more than to overbalance its excess
of weight. Such a state of case is no way improbable.
(7) "If we admit a real difference between the brains of Europeans and
negroes," it is still impossible to grade the intermediate races
satisfactorily. But this means nothing more than that numerous factors,
known and unknown, enter into the final product in some complex fashion
not yet understood. It is very far from meaning that the obvious
factors, constated and admitted, have not the general significance
commonly claimed.