THE INTERRELATION OF RACES
We have seen that from a purely biological point of view the concept
of race unity breaks down. The multitude of genealogical lines, the
diversity of individual and family types contained in each race is
so great that no race can be considered as a unit. Furthermore,
similarities between neighboring races and, in regard to function, even
between distant races are so great that individuals cannot be assigned
with certainty to one group or another.
Nevertheless, race consciousness exists and we have to investigate its
source. It is customary to speak of an instinctive race consciousness.
Even Romain Rolland says of it, “Ce vieux levain d’antipathie
instinctive, qui couve au fond des cœurs de tous les hommes du Nord
pour les hommes du Midi.”
The feeling between Whites and Negroes in our country is decidedly
of this character. There is an immediate feeling of contrast that
is expressed {63} in the popular conviction of the superiority of
the White race. Very generally the feeling extends even to cases in
which the Negro admixture is very slight and in which there is no
certainty of the racial position of the individual. Proof of this are
the numerous divorce suits based on alleged Negro descent. In this
case the popular belief in the possible reversion of the offspring to
a pure Negro type may be a determinant. This consideration does not
enter in law suits instituted to set aside adoption of children on
account of their racial descent; or in the difficulties experienced by
child-placing agencies which endeavor to find homes for children of
suspected Negro descent,--no matter how little this may be expressed in
their outer appearance.
It is necessary to make clear to ourselves what we mean when we speak
of instinctive race consciousness.
We have to inquire whether race consciousness and race antipathies are
truly instinctive or whether they are established by habits developed
in childhood.
The fundamental characteristic of race consciousness and race
antipathy is the feeling that we belong to a definite racial group.
The results which we have reached in regard to the lack of clarity of
the concept of race induces us to inquire whether these feelings are
universal and whether {64} other types of groups develop analogous
feelings of contrast.
Race consciousness differs considerably in intensity. In the United
States, taken as a whole, the feeling of aloofness between White and
Negro is strongest. On the Pacific coast it is locally almost equalled
by the feeling of the Whites against Asiatics. I have been told by
those familiar with conditions in Humboldt County, California, that the
White settlers will readily eat with Negroes, but not with Indians. In
general, feeling of aversion to the Indian is rather slight. There is
even a marked tendency of individuals with admixture of Indian blood to
be proud of their ancestry.
Race feeling between Whites, Negroes, and Indians in Brazil seems to
be quite different from what it is among ourselves. On the coast there
is a large Negro population. The admixture of Indian is also quite
marked. The discrimination between these three races is very much less
than it is among ourselves, and the social obstacles for race mixture
or for social advancement are not marked. Similar conditions prevail on
the island of Santo Domingo between Spaniards and Negroes. Perhaps it
would be too much to claim that in these cases race consciousness is
nonexistent; it is certainly much less pronounced than among ourselves.
{65}
If it is true that race antipathy among different groups of mankind
takes distinctive forms and expresses itself with varying intensity, we
may doubt whether we are dealing with an instinctive phenomenon.
It will be found advantageous to investigate similar phenomena in the
animal world. We know the peculiar antipathies between certain animals,
such as dog and cat, horse and camel. These are organically determined,
although they may be individually overcome. They might be considered
analogous to the feeling between races if we had the same instinctive
hostility or fear between individuals of different human races;
but this has never been observed. On the contrary, under favorable
conditions the reaction seems to be one of friendly curiosity.
Conditions analogous to those found in racial groups occur in animal
societies. Gregarious animals live either in open or in closed
societies. Open societies are those in which any outside individual may
join a herd. They are found among mammals and birds, but particularly
among fishes, insects, and other lower animals. A swarm of mosquitoes,
a shoal of fish keep together but do not exclude newcomers of the same
species, sometimes even of other species. Herds of ruminants are often
organized under leaders but may not exclude newcomers. The behavior
of animals {66} that occupy a definite area as their feeding ground
is quite different. They treat every newcomer as an enemy and while
he may succeed in gaining admission after a number of combats, the
first endeavor of the herd is to drive away or to kill the intruder.
Many herds of monkeys are said to behave in this way. Penguins on
their breeding places will drive away stray visitors, while admitting
their neighbors. The best known example is that of the Pariah dogs of
Oriental towns. The dogs of one street will not admit one from another
street and the stranger is killed by them if he does not beat a hasty
retreat. The most perfect forms of closed societies are found in the
insect states. Ants of the same hill recognize one another by the scent
of the hill and attack every strange ant. Even insects of another
species, if only they participate in the scent of the particular hill,
are welcomed. Sameness of species does not decide the attitude towards
the individual. Participation in the most characteristic trait of the
individual hill is the feature by which membership in the group is
determined.
The groups do not need to be related by descent. They may be thrown
together by accident. Nevertheless, according to the habits of the
species, they will form a closed society.
In primitive human society every tribe forms a {67} closed society. It
behaves like the Oriental Pariah dogs.
In the early days of mankind our earth was thinly settled. Small groups
of human beings were scattered here and there; the members of each
horde were one in speech, one in customs, one in superstitious beliefs.
In their habitat they roamed from place to place, following the game
that furnished their subsistence, or digging roots and picking the
fruits of trees and bushes to allay the pangs of hunger. They were
held together by the strong bands of habit. The gain of one member of
the horde was the gain of the whole group, the loss and harm done to
one was loss and harm to the whole community. No one had fundamental
interests at stake that were not also the interests of his fellows.
Beyond the limits of the hunting grounds lived other groups, different
in speech, different in customs, perhaps even different in appearance,
whose very existence was a source of danger. They preyed upon the
game, they threatened inroads upon the harvest of roots and fruits.
They acted in a different manner; their reasoning and feeling were
unintelligible; they had no part in the interests of the horde. Thus
they stood opposed to it as beings of another kind, with whom there
could be no community of interest. To harm them, if {68} possible to
annihilate them, was a self-evident act of self-preservation.
Thus the most primitive form of society presents to us the picture of
continuous strife. The hand of each member of one horde was raised
against each member of all other hordes. Always on the alert to protect
himself and his kindred, man considered it an act of high merit to kill
the stranger.
The tendency to form closed societies is not by any means confined to
primitive tribes. It exists to a marked extent in our own civilization.
Until quite recent times, and in many cases even now, the old nobility
formed a closed society. The Patricians and Plebeians, Greeks and
Barbarians, the gangs of our streets, Mohametans and Infidels,--and our
own modern nations are in this sense closed societies that cannot exist
without antagonisms.
The principles that hold societies together vary enormously, but common
to all of them is the feeling of antagonism against other parallel
groups.
The racial grouping differs in one respect from the societies here
enumerated. While the position of an individual as a member of one of
the socially determined groups is not evident, it is apparent when the
grouping is made according to bodily appearance. If the belief should
prevail, as it {69} once did, that all red-haired individuals have an
undesirable character, they would at once be socially segregated and
no red-haired person could escape from his class. The Negro who may at
once be recognized by his bodily build is automatically placed in his
class and not one of them can escape from the effect of being excluded
from a closed group.
When individuals are to be herded together in a closed group the
dominant group may proscribe for them a distinguishing symbol,--like
the garb of the Medieval Jews or the stripes of the convict,--so
that each individual who may otherwise have no distinguishing
characteristic, may at once be assigned to his group and treated
accordingly.
The assignment to a closed group may also be effected by a classifying
name, like the term Dago for Italians which is intended to evoke
the thought of all the supposed characteristics that are without
reflection ascribed to all the members of the nation. Perhaps one of
the most striking illustrations of this tendency in the present life
of the United States is the assignment of anyone with a Jewish name
to an undesirable group whose members are, according to the fancy of
the owner, not allowed to dwell in certain buildings, not admitted
in hotels or clubs and are in other ways discriminated against
by the unthinking, who can see {70} in the individual solely the
representative of a class.
We have seen that from a biological point of view there is no reason
for drawing a clean-cut line between races, because the lines of
descent in each are physiologically and psychologically diverse, and
because functionally similar lines occur in all races.
The formation of the racial groups in our midst must be understood on
a social basis. In a community comprising two distinct types which
are socially clearly separated, the social grouping is reënforced
by the outer appearance of the individuals and each is at once and
automatically assigned to his own group. In other communities,--as
among Mohametans or in Brazil,--where the social and racial groupings
do not coincide, the result is different. The socially coherent groups
are racially not uniform. Hence the assignment of an individual to a
racial group does not develop as easily, the less so the more equal the
groups in their social composition.
If an instinctive race antipathy existed it would find expression in
sexual aversion. The free intermingling of slave owners with their
female slaves and the resulting striking decrease in the number
of full-blood Negroes is ample proof of the absence of any sexual
antipathy. The rarity of the reverse intermixture, that of male Negroes
and {71} female Whites, can be fully understood on the basis of social
conditions. In view of the behavior of the male White and of the
forms of mixture in other societies it does not seem likely that it
is reducible to sexual antipathy. The white master sought his colored
mates who had little power to resist him. The colored slave was in an
entirely different position towards his mistress and to other white
women.
The intermingling of Indian and White throws an interesting light upon
this subject. Owing to other reasons the early intermingling between
the two races was also between White males and Indian females. It
was caused not by the relation of master and slave woman but by the
absence of white women. The general development has been such that
Mestizo women--that is, those of Indian-White descent--are liable
to marry Whites. Their descendants gradually pass out of the Indian
population unless economic privileges, such as the right to hold
valuable lands belonging to the Indians, serve as an attraction to the
Indian community. The men, on the other hand, are more liable to marry
Indian or Mestizo women and remain in the tribe. The male descendants
of Mestizo women who no longer belong to a segregated group marry
freely among the Whites, while the male descendants of Mestizo men are
ordinarily not in the same position. {72}
There is no doubt that the strangeness of a foreign racial type plays
an important rôle in these relations. The ideal of beauty of a person
who is growing up in an exclusively White society is different from
that of a Negro who lives in a Negro society and the sharper the
social division between the groups, the later in life intimate social
contacts occur, the greater also may be the separation created by the
differences of ideals of form.
Here again the question arises whether these influences would act in
the same way if the groups were socially not separated. We can find
an answer to this question solely by a consideration of conditions in
countries in which there is no pronounced race feeling. It would seem
that there the attractiveness of forms has a much wider range, and is
not determined by pigmentation and other racial traits alone. Aversion
is not expressed on racial lines but on the ground of the repulsiveness
of other features. Preferences and aversions differ individually.
Unfortunately these conditions cannot be proven by actual numerical
observations that would be convincing. All we can give are the results
of general observations. These are, however, so striking that their
validity seems well established.
Since the abolition of slavery the intermingling of Negroes and
Whites has taken a curious course. {73} Legitimate and illegitimate
mating between Whites and Negroes has undoubtedly decreased and we
find essentially marriages among Negroes and Mulattoes. Dr. Melville
J. Herskovits has collected statistics on this subject. He found that,
on the average, dark individuals will marry those of dark, though
slightly lighter complexion, light ones those of light, though slightly
darker complexion. This indicates that there is a decided preference in
the mating of those of similar color,--an expression of the transfer
of our own race feeling to the colored people who live among us and
participate in our culture. But, furthermore, the darker man marries
on the average a lighter woman. Since there is no difference in the
pigmentation of the two sexes this indicates a preference on the part
of the men,--another manifestation of the adoption of our valuations by
the Negroes.
The effect of this selective process, if it continues for many
generations, will be the passing of many of the lightest men out of the
Negro community. Either they die as bachelors or they are merged in
the general population. For the remainder it must inevitably lead to a
darkening of the whole colored population, for the daughters of each
generation, whose fathers are dark and whose mothers are light, will be
darker than their {74} mothers. When they again become mothers, their
children will be still darker, provided the same conditions continue.
Thus there will come to be a constantly increasing intensity of Negro
characteristics and a sharper contrast between the two principal races
of the country.
During the time of slavery the condition was the reverse. On account
of the numerous unions between White fathers and Negro mothers the new
generation was lighter than their mothers. A constant lightening of the
Negro population resulted and hence a lessening of the racial contrast
without any modification of the descendants of white females.
An evenly mixed population can result only if the number of matings
between males of one race and females of the other is equal to that of
matings in the opposite direction. Otherwise the racial type of the
group descended in the female line will be unstable.
When social divisions follow racial lines, as they do among ourselves,
the degree of difference between racial forms is an important element
in establishing racial groupings and in accentuating racial conflicts.
From this point of view the present tendency is most undesirable.
Under prevailing circumstances complete freedom of matrimonial union
between the two races {75} cannot be expected. The causes that operate
against the unions of colored men and white women are almost as potent
as in the days of slavery. Looking forward towards a lessening of
the intensity of race feeling an increase of unions of white men and
colored women would be desirable. The present policy of many of the
Southern States tends to accentuate the lack of homogeneity of our
nation.
I have tried to show in the preceding pages that the biological
arguments that have been brought forward against race crossing are not
convincing. Equally good reasons can be given in favor of crossings
of the best elements of various races, and for closely related groups
these arguments seem incontrovertible.
If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic and
emotionally stable third of mankind, all races would be represented.
The mere fact that a person is a healthy European, or a blond European
would not be proof that he would belong to this élite. Nobody has ever
given proof that the mixed descendants of such a select group would be
inferior.
If a selection of immigrants is to be made it should never be made
by a rough racial classification, but by a careful examination of the
individual and of his family history. {76}
No matter how weak the case for racial purity may be, we cannot hope
easily to overcome its appeal. The individual is always ready to
subordinate himself under the group to which he belongs. He expresses
his feeling of solidarity by an idealization of his group and by an
emotional desire for its perpetuation. As long as the social groups are
racial groups we shall also encounter the desire for racial purity.
When considerable racial differences are encountered in the same social
group, they are disregarded unless there are introduced artificial
ideals of bodily form that tend to establish new social divisions. This
is occurring in some social groups in Europe and America who idealize
the blond, blue-eyed type.
It follows that the “instinctive” race antipathy can be broken down, if
we succeed in creating among young children social groups that are not
divided according to the principle of race and which have principles
of cohesion that weld the group into a whole. It will not be easy to
establish such groups under the pressure of present popular feeling.
Nevertheless, cultural coöperation cannot be reached without it.
Those who fear miscegenation, which I, personally, do not consider
as in any way dangerous,--not for the White race or for the Negro, or
for {77} mankind--may console themselves with their belief in a race
consciousness, which would manifest itself in selective mating. Then
matters would remain as they are.