be really sprung from such sable prognathous ancestors, then their
divergence from the ancestral type most certainly began untold
millenniums ago, and the present organic departure from that type is
measured, as it were, by the measureless chasm of years that divides
them from their African forebears. Now, if nature and the tide of time
have spent such centuries of centuries in chiseling out this chasm, how
infinitely preposterous to suppose that man can close it up in a
generation with the filmy webs of common culture and social equality
and civil rights and partisan legislation and caricatured religion and
the political spoils of the country post-office! As well expect to rise
from the floor to the roof without ever traversing the intervening
space.
CHAPTER FOUR
PLEA AND COUNTERPLEA
_Who aught adjudges ere both sides are heard,
Just though his judgement, is himself unjust._
SENECA
By far the ablest plea yet made for the "backward races" is to be found
in the address of Dr. Franz Boas on Human Faculty as Determined by
Race, published (at least, printed) in the Proceedings of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1894. This distinguished
anthropologist, now of Columbia University, New York City, speaks from
the pinnacles of science, and his words must not go unregarded. We
shall notice every salient point in his twenty-six pages, and shall
quote him verbatim as far as possible. Such a formal defence seems to
call for an equally formal rejoinder.
He objects to the argument from the superiority of the White
civilization to the superiority of the White race as involving two
errors: (_a_) "the achievement and the aptitude for an achievement have
been confounded", (_b_) "every deviation from the white type is
considered a characteristic feature of a lower type" (p. 302). It is
declared that "these two errors underlie our judgments of races;" but
why and whether they are really errors, or in what measure, here at
least no attempt is made to show. This will not do. Such plausible
assumptions are neither disproved nor discredited by merely labeling
them "errors." However, there follows: "It might be objected that
although achievement is not necessarily a measure of aptitude, it seems
admissible to judge the one by the other" (pp. 302-3). But why
"objected"? Has any reason been opposed against which one could
"object"? None whatever. We do object very seriously to the implication
that already there has been advanced some argument. The word "objected"
should be changed to "argued."
Hear now the answer to this "objection." "It seems desirable to enter
into these questions somewhat fully. Let our mind go back a few
thousand years until it reaches 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 clinging to certain districts, in which it
is taken up now by one people, now by the other. 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 often interrupted. At the same period the ancestors of the
races, who 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 culture attained by the ancient civilized people of such
character as to allow us to claim for them a genius superior to that of
any other race?"
Such is not the question; it is not about "any other race," but about
the present backward races--African especially and Australian. It
should have been said, "Was Greek civilization such as to indicate that
the Athenian was superior to the Senegambian or the Hottentot?" Will
any one hesitate for an answer?
"First of all, we must bear in mind that none of these civilizations
was the product of the genius of a single people."
Here the cards are conveniently shuffled and the terms changed from
"race" to "people." The question, however, is not about "peoples"
proper, but about "races." While notable differences hold among
"peoples" of the same "race," yet the one race it is, the Caucasian,
that is held to be superior. This one race has produced all the
civilizations in question; the Mongol comes next, at a far remove. And
of Caucasians, the Aryan shines like the moon amid the stars.
"Ideas and inventions were carried from one to the other; and, although
intercommunication was slow, each people which participated in the
ancient civilization added to the culture of the others. Proofs without
number have been forth-coming which show that ideas have been
disseminated as long as people have come into contact with each other
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 race they may
represent: Hamitic, Semitic, Aryan or Mongol."
But to all in equal measure? Or to some in far higher measure? That is
the question. We must not think of the Senate, where all states vote
alike; but of the House of Representatives, where "Little Rhody"
vanishes by the side of New York or Texas. Even if all races did
contribute to the sum total, which is far from true, there is an
immense difference between contributions that may vary from a penny to
a pound. The English language "bows to the genius" of all, from the
Teuton to the Mongol; but the former element is vital, the latter is
inappreciable.
We have quoted these paragraphs in full and for several reasons: We
would represent our opponent as correctly as possible; they are a fair
sample of his argumentation; and, especially, as argument they are to
us incomprehensible--hence we would not attempt to condense them.
Possibly our readers may understand them better. So far as we can make
out, the savant has deceived himself by conjuring with the words
"people" and "race." The question was, whether the Caucasian, "the
white race," the great civilization-building race, in any or in all of
its "peoples," is superior to the "races" African, Australian, and the
like, that have produced no civilizations? If not, "why, then, did the
white race alone develop a civilization which is sweeping the whole
world, etc.?" To this, his own question, these paragraphs contain no
element of answer, much less answer itself. They seem to forget all
about "races," and turn aside to slightly varying "peoples" of the same
"white race." They ask (in effect): Does the civilization of the Greek
indicate that he was superior to the West African? And they reply (in
effect) that the Hellenic culture was very composite--part Doric, part
AEolic, part Ionian, with a sprinkling from the Nile and the Euphrates.
Surely this is not argument; it is hardly the simulacrum of argument.
Such a mingling of bloods of varying virtues and tendencies is now
actually going on in our midst; but they are all of the same "white
race," neither physiologically nor psychologically very far apart; and
such a mingling may very well make for higher evolution. When it is
affirmed that our "ancestors" "were in no way superior to Hottentots
and Guinea Negroes" (the long phrase is a mere euphemism) "at the same
period," "during the dawn of history," we protest earnestly. The
affirmation assumes everything in dispute. The evidence is all against
it. Their language, their mythology, the fact that they were of the
White race which "did alone develop a civilization," the fact that they
took fire immediately when touched by the torch of culture, their
bodies and particularly their skulls--all cry aloud against this
complacent assumption. More than a "few thousand years" ago the
Sumerians had observed the precession of the equinoxes; at "the dawn of
history" in Germany, Augustus cried vainly to Varus, "Give me back my
legions." Arminius in no way superior to a Sudanese! The Babylonian
legislators and astronomers "in no way superior" to the cannibals of
the Niger!
"Did no other races develop a culture of equal value?" (p. 304). He
shrinks from a positive yea or nay, but holds "that the civilizations
of ancient Peru and of Central America may well be compared with the
ancient civilization of the Old World," "that the general status of
their culture was nearly equally high." Herewith this great savant
seems to place himself beyond the pale of argument. Does any one
believe that Greek or Roman civilization would have gone down without a
blow at the mere breath of Pizarro or Cortes? And where are the
Peruvian or Aztec Homer and Thales, Apelles and Euclid, Cicero, Vergil,
and Trajan? On this there is no need to dwell longer.
"What then is the difference between the civilization of the Old World
and that of the New World? It is only a difference in time. The one
reached a certain stage three thousand or four thousand years sooner
than the other" (p. 304).
This is mere assertion. There is not the shadow of evidence that the
Peruvian or Mexican would ever have approached the Greco-Roman
civilization, either in four thousand or in forty thousand years. What
has been done in the last four hundred years, under the stimulus of
Spanish contact? We cannot have the slightest interest, logical,
sentimental, or other, in depreciating or in anywise underrating the
New World civilizations. For how could it possibly affect the question
of Caucasian and Negro, even if it were found that the bud of Cuzco and
Anahuac was fairer than the flower of Rome or Athens? And why might it
not have been? We are very far from regarding either Aristides or
Marcus Aurelius as perfect. It is only as a mere matter of fact that we
call the American superiority or equality so seriously in question.
Admire as you will, appraise as high as you will, the art and the
astronomy of Tezcuco, the social organization, the agriculture, and the
engineering of the _amautas_, it seems impossible even for the
enthusiasm of a Carli, combined with the race pride of an Ixtlilxochitl
and a Garcilaso, to discover in the culture of the Yncas or of the
Aztecs or even of the Toltecs any principle or augury of progress. To
us it is difficult in the extreme to detect any hope of higher
development where despotism was absolute, where free agency was
outlawed, and where the object of war was to procure human sacrifices.
We hold that by every token these civilizations had culminated, that
they were already as elaborated and petrified as the Chinese, and that
the centuries to come would have witnessed no marked advance, but
rather a retrogression. It should be added that the physical
inferiority of these peoples was notable. The Peruvian and Aztec
stature ranged from five feet to five and one-half feet. Now this is
very close to the border line of the Dwarfs--who, according to Sir
William Flower, include such races as do not exceed five feet three
inches. The Ynca skull is better than others of South America, yet it
has but a low facial angle.
Dr. Boas thinks four thousand years but a trifle in the history of a
race--but a watch in the night. Perhaps it is. He thinks the mere fact
that a race is forty centuries behind does not argue that it is less
gifted. May be not. We have often wondered whether the bee might not
yet overtake the man. Theoretically all forms of life are still in the
race, which cannot end while the planet is habitable. Practically,
however, four thousand years is eternity. A race that is more than a
hundred generations behind is not worth considering. The reflections in
the paragraph under consideration all strike wide of the mark.
It is next urged (p. 304) "that civilization originated among few of
its [the White race's] members," and "that the cognate tribes" might
not have developed so swiftly but for help from the others. True, the
Germans (_e.g._) profited greatly from contact with Greco-Romans,
but for whom they might now be savages. But they profited because they
were of the same stock; they were of nature to profit. The Greek
applied the torch, but the German material was inflammable; else it
would never have burned. When the same torch has been applied to other
materials, they have not caught fire.
The next paragraph (p. 305) itself raises these questions: "But why did
these tribes so easily assimilate the culture that was offered 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?" We have just rendered answer simple, natural, satisfactory.
But none such can be accepted! "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, these people were alike in
appearance to civilized man of their times."
What perverse ingenuity! Likeness in _appearance_ was a reason, but
likeness in _reality_--in blood, in brain, in nature, in origin--this
was no reason! Penny wise, pound foolish. Now the fact is that the
likeness in reality was far stronger than in appearance.
"Therefore the fundamental difficulty for the rise of primitive people,
namely, that an individual which has risen to the level of the higher
civilization is still looked upon as belonging to an inferior race, did
not prevail."
Here again there is quietly assumed everything in dispute. We deny
outright that such is "the fundamental difficulty." In a measure it has
no existence at all, annulled by the prevalent doctrine of the equality
of all men. In wide circles these superior "primitives" (_i.e._,
Negroes) are petted and flattered and extraordinarily favoured. No
proof of the assertion in question is so much as hinted.
"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 each other 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."
True, but most inadequate; for why did not the contact with the new
peoples affect the invaders as well as the invaded with new diseases?
Especially, why did these invaders not yield to the new local or
climatic distempers to which the invaded had long since become
measurably immune? The near-lying fact that the invaders were stronger,
more viable, more resistant to disease, in every way more vigorous--the
very fact that made them invaders--this all-important fact has been
entirely overlooked.
"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 come in contact. Particularly, the methods of manufacture
have developed so enormously that the industries of the primitive
peoples 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 with a hand product of a lower type."
To what uses may not the doctrine of Protection be turned! For a
generation we were taught that it was necessary to protect by a high
tariff the machine products of the United States against the
competition of the hand products of the Old World; now we are told that
not only has the competition of the machine products "exterminated" the
hand industries, but it has even prevented the "primitive" from
learning the new "methods of manufacture" and so becoming civilized and
saving himself from extermination! The reader may be safely left to
perceive the irrelevance and the emptiness of such "may-be-saids." Let
him further reflect that the great bulk of this extermination, begun in
America nearly four hundred years ago, was accomplished in three
hundred years, before the modern era of machine products. To attribute
the disappearance of the Indian to the overthrow of his industries by
the competition of cheap calicoes and wooden nutmegs sounds more like
jest than earnest. Why, the curiosity of the "invaders" actually
supplied and still supplies a new market for the aboriginal wares.
The next remark, "that in several regions, particularly in America and
in parts of Siberia, the primitive tribes are swamped by the numbers of
the immigrating race," seems hardly worth quoting in full. But from all
of this it is concluded (p. 306) "that the conditions for assimilation
in ancient Europe were much more favorable" than where modern
civilization has overtaken the "primitives," and that therefore there
is no "need to assume that the ancient Europeans were more gifted than
other races" that disappear before modern civilization. The reader must
see that, even if there were granted everything claimed for these
reasons, the question as to the _fact_ of European superiority would
not be touched.
For corroboration, appeal is made (p. 306) to the Arabs and the
Sudanese. In the second half of the eighth century, the Sudan was
invaded by "Hamitic tribes" and "Mohammedanism." "Large empires" came
and went "in struggles with neighboring states," and "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." We
submit that such "corroboration" is little stronger than weakness
itself. "Relatively high culture" is too vague a term to argue with,
and a thousand years of such history "of north Africa" is not worth a
brief generation of European history. If the infusion of "Hamitic"
blood and civilization has appreciably helped the Sudanese, we are not
surprised; but who will infer from that fact that these infusers are
_not_ superior?
"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?" Mark you, the word "nearly"--a
bridge broad enough to span the straits of Gibraltar, the chasm between
Bagdad or Granada and Dahomey, between Averroes and the Mad Mullah.
Some would, perhaps, hold that in the United States the Negro has
attained "nearly" to the Caucasian level. But since it was at best only
"nearly" and not quite, it follows that the mixture of Hamite and Negro
did, after all, work a debasement of the former. And how was this
possible, if the latter was not inferior?
"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
higher types of the 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."
Such is the programme for "influencing" the Negro! Such is the way to
introduce "culture," whereby, in a thousand years, the "mixed race" may
"nearly" attain the present Caucasian standard! That is, the only
successful "method of introduction of culture" is to introduce blood,
to introduce a new stock, a new germinal principle. Then comes a race
of mongrels, of average mental powers higher than the lower breed, with
exceptions little lower than the higher. Since the _forms_ of
civilization are easily imposed on inferior breeds, the resulting
mongrels do what one may be pleased to call "nearly attaining" to the
standard of the higher. Bear witness the West Indies, and Mexico, and
Central and South America. What interest has any one in contesting such
statements? To our mind they give away the case entirely; out of their
own mouths such speakers are unappealably condemned. Bornu[23] and
Haiti may have attractions for some; but for us, none whatever.
[23] The semi-civilization of this "empire," which never gave any
promise of history, culminated centuries ago; in more recent
years its descent has been rapid. Concerning Haiti, see _supra_,
p. 57. In a recent number of _The Ethical Record_, Dr. B. returns
with ardour to this subject, repeating his earlier statements,
without, however, any significant additions.
"When, finally, we consider the inferior position held by the negro
race of the United States, who are 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" (p. 307).
Such is the pathetic plea for the ABSOLUTE EQUALITY in our American
life of Black and White. We do not deny that there is a certain force
in such words. To us the Negro seems handicapped with an undeniable
inferiority, which, particularly in the commercial world, accumulates
rapidly against him, as it were, at compound interest. And this is the
seventh seal of his doom. But in science, in literature, in art, he
receives all encouragement; his work is at an absurd premium. Take one
illustration, _instar omnium_. In the advertisement of "Volumes by Paul
Lawrence Dunbar," in "The Uncalled," his own publishers speak thus: "A
poet who starts out by being handicapped by excessive praise suffers
from it for a long time.... Just because he [Dunbar] happened to be a
Negro, a vast amount of adulation was heaped upon him." Precisely the
opposite of the picture drawn above! Compare, also, the history of the
Negroes of Chatham, Ontario, and of other such early colonies. That
they no longer meet with such extraordinary favour in the North is
largely due to the fact that they have uniformly, when in numbers,
sadly disappointed the hopes of their benefactors and well-wishers. It
seems plain, moreover, that a really strong and highly endowed blood
would triumph with equal ease over excessive favour and over unjust
disfavour. Would any such discrimination keep down the Anglo-Saxon?
Would he not "make by force his merit known"? And have twenty centuries
of race prejudice and outrageous persecution availed to repress or
depress the all-victorious sons of Israel? The generous explanation
just offered must be rejected as utterly inadequate.
Hence it is concluded (p. 307) 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 to assume that one race is more highly gifted than the
other."