ical traits different from those acquired by the Negro in Africa. The Indian is stolid and obstinate; the Negro plastic and rollicking.

Two children of the same family often show, so far as anybody can discover, the same degree of intelligence and yet stand as opposite as the poles in natural gifts, such as initiative, originality, imagination, temper, and capacity for conversation, mathematics, music or mechanical manipulation. We do not know how to define such differences in terms of unit characters, and know nothing of their mode of inheritance. Race equality means that a black skin is equal to a white one, and, while I admit that there is no way of proving that either kind of skin is superior, because skin-color has a different value for each race, the fact is that the white skin is superior from the point of view of the white race. There is, therefore, no truth in the statement that the races of man are equal in the sense that their heritable traits are equally desirable.

To sum up: The theory of race equality, in a certain limited sense, may be rationally defended, that is, we have reason to believe that all races of men have the same mental faculties, and that in general ability to learn they differ in no important degree. But, due to many centuries of natural selection, the races of men have not now equal capacity to adapt themselves to the same environmental conditions, nor to attain to the same accomplishments.

Race equality means that, whereas differences in hereditary value exist among all varieties of plants and animals, the races of men form an exception to the rule and through all the vicissitudes of climate and social revolution have remained undifferentiated. It means that the biological principle of natural selection does not apply to human beings, that no matter what climatic differences men may have been subjected to, the average value of each group remains the same. It means that sexual selection is inoperative among men, and that no matter what principle may govern the choice of human beings in mating, each generation in every group remains endowed with equally desirable inheritance. It means that there is no such thing as social selection, that in the long history of warfare among men, it has made no difference what type of men have been killed, the average quality of each racial group remains the same. It means that all history is nonsense which speaks of the decadence of peoples, that race values always remain the same for each race throughout its history. It means that the science of eugenics is "bunk," that, no matter how races or individuals may intermix, the resulting progeny always yields to each group the

same proportion of physically and intellectually efficient individuals. This is, indeed, a complacent philosophy, which no man of the first order of ability has ever believed in.

For the most part our modern apostles of race equality and amalgamation represent a reaction against a class of racial philosophers who have gone to the opposite extreme of attributing all progress to the enrichment of racial inheritance. The equalitarians and amalgamationists sneer at such writers as Madison Grant, who holds a brief for the Nordic race, and who overlooks the influence of all environmental factors in social progress. They speak of him and his followers as neo-Gobineaus, and they find in the evident fallacy of the one-sided view of Grant and Gobineau a proof that all progress has been due entirely to environment. The fact is that the neo-Gobineaus and the neo-amalgamationists are equally irrational and blind to essential facts. Both antagonists are influenced more by their emotions than by their reason and mistake an obsession for an intellectual judgment. They remind one of the renowned Wouter Van Twiller, who was so hampered by his cranial capacity that when an idea entered his mind he could look at it only on one side. The neo-amalgamationists say that there is no evidence satisfactory to their minds that races are unequal. And their conclusion is perfectly sound from their point of view, for they rule out, as unsatisfactory or as no evidence, all the facts of history and biological data which do not lend color to their obsession.

The controversy between the neo-Gobineaus and the neo-amalgamationists is merely a revival of the old question of nature or nurture, of the relative importance of heredity and environment. Men of small caliber, whose emotions run away with their reason and who are naturally inclined to see only one side of a question, are apt to go to one extreme or the other in evaluating heredity and environment. And this question especially lends itself to a one-sided view, for the reason that the line of demarcation between heredity and environment can never be exactly determined.

I imagine, however, that the great body of sane scientific men and laymen will look on the controversy between the neo-Gobineaus and neo-amalgamationists with a large amount of indifference, and, in the meantime, go on their way discovering and applying new knowledge of both heredity and environment in the interest of human progress.

While I do not believe in the equality of the human races, any more than in the equality of dogs or of tobacco, I would not wish to be understood as having the slightest sympathy with the idea that the Nordic

race is the paramount race of the world. The Nordic race is the greatest race only in the sense that it is better adapted than any other race to the Nordic region. Other races are equally well adapted to their environments and have made contributions to culture equal to those of the Nordics.

The Nordic race seems to have special aptitudes for exploration, colonization, science, and invention. The Mediterranean race seems to have special aptitudes for æsthetic achievement, excelling in painting. sculpture, and architecture and in the graces of speech, manners, and general ornamentation. Both races have made very different but essential contributions to civilization, and there is certainly no ground for the hypothesis that one is intellectually superior to the other. Each has gone through a long process of natural selection and has acquired physical and mental traits suited to its environment.

As between what we call the Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic races, I think that any claim of the superiority of one over the other is invidious in view of the great contribution of each to the world's culture. But the fact that any two races have made great contributions to culture is not a proof that their amalgamation is, under all circumstances, desirable, or advantageous to civilization.

Finally, whether the races are equal or unequal has very little to do with the race problem, for as I shall attempt to show in subsequent chapters, the problem would be essentially the same if all races were in fact equal. Our reaction to the problem will be very slightly affected by anything we may believe in reference to racial superiority or inferiority. As far as my discussion of the race problem is concerned, I am willing to assume that all races are equally capable of the highest culture.

The essential fact in the race problem is that races differ, whether that difference be inborn or acquired. Discarding all considerations of superiority and inferiority, I take the ground that racial groups differ. They differ in physical characteristics, in psychological traits, in tradition, and in general culture, and these differences give rise to the race problem, no matter what may be the facts as to the superiority of one race over another.

In the following chapter I shall venture to point out some of the obvious differences between the Negro and the Caucasian.

CHAPTER 51

NEGRO-CAUCASIAN PHYSICAL CONTRASTS

Anatomy and Physiology of the Negro-Resistance to Disease-Muscular Strength -Acuteness of the Senses-Wide Differences among the Negroes Themselves

Physically the Negro differs from the Caucasian as follows:

STATURE AND PROPORTIONS

His average stature is shorter.1

His arms are on the average two inches longer.

His fingers are long and more slender."

He has longer legs, with a thin calf.3

He has a flat foot, low instep, backward projecting heel, and somewhat prehensile great toe. The ankle of the European rises from 2% to 21⁄2 inches above ground; that of the Negro from 1 to 12.* The great toe of the Negro is shorter than his second toe and also shorter than the great toe of the Caucasian.5

He has a shorter neck, which gives strength in carrying burdens. He has a narrower and more pointed pelvis, giving an ungraceful straightness to the waistline.

HEAD

He has a longer and more narrow head, being dolichocephalic, although some types of Negroes have somewhat broad heads.

He has a thick cranium, resistant to blows which would break the ordinary European skull.

'Burmeister, Comparative Anatomy and Psychology of the African Negro,

He has a smaller brain, averaging about thirty-five ounces as compared to forty-five ounces for the European.R

The sutures of the skull close earlier than in case of the European. He has a projecting jaw; large zygomatic arches; and high, prom

inent cheek bones.

FEATURES

He has a thick epidermis, cool, soft, and velvety to the touch, mostly hairless and emitting a peculiar odor.

His complexion is a deep brown, due to thickness of the coloring matter in the Malphigian mucus membrane.

He has black eyes with a yellowish sclerotic coat.

10

His hair, in cross-section view, is elliptical and flattened, causing it to grow spirally and giving it a frizzy or woolly appearance.' He has a short, flat, snub nose, depressed at the base, with dilated nostrils and concave ridge.

He has thick, protruding lips.

The diseases of smallpox and measles are more fatal to the Negro than to the Caucasian; while the Negro is largely immune from yellow fever, which is extremely fatal to the Caucasian.

The constitution of the Negro is more resistant to the injurious effects of alcohol because of his greater power of elimination through the pores of the skin.

White physicians, who have had long experience in treating the Negro, find that in many cases he requires a different dosage from that required by the white man."1

In muscular strength the Negro is probably inferior to the white man, i. e., he is less capable of sustained physical effort. The physical strength of the white man has, however, on the average, declined as a result of the substitutes he has invented for muscular power. Emerson remarked that the civilized man had built himself a coach and lost the use of his legs. But there may be a connection, as Spencer remarked, between muscular strength and brain power. Pugnacity and determination may give the muscles more strength.12

The Negro differs somewhat from the Caucasian in acuteness of Deniker, The Races of Man, p. 56; Burmeister, op. cit., p. 10. 'Burmeister, op. cit., p. 12.

10 Ibid., p. 12.

11

Odum, Social and Mental Traits of the Negro, p. 167. "Principles of Sociology, Vol. 1, Ch. V.