CHAPTER XVI! ! !WAR!

!

!

!

CHAPTER XVI WAR!

!

War always changes the composition of a nation; but this change may be

either a loss or a gain. The modification of selection by war is far

!more manifold than the literature on the biological effects of war would lead the reader to suppose. All wars are partly eugenic and partly dysgenic; some are mainly the one, some are mainly the other. The racial effects of war occur in at least three periods:

Dumbell Set with Personal Training

!The period of preparation.

!The period of actual fighting.

!The period of readjustment after the war.

The first division involves the effect of a standing army, which

withdraws men during a part of the reproductive period and keeps most of them in a celibate career. The officers marry late if at all and show a

very low birth-rate. The prolonged celibacy has in many armies led to a higher incidence of venereal diseases which prolongs the celibacy and lowers the birthrate.[155] Without extended discussion, the following considerations may be named as among those which should govern a policy of military preparedness that will safeguard, as far as possible, the

!eugenic interests:

If the army is a standing one, composed of men serving long terms of enlistment, they should be of as advanced an age as is compatible with military efficiency. If a man of 35 has not married, it is probable that he will never marry, and therefore there is less loss to the race in enrolling him for military service, than is the case with a man of

!20-25.

!The army (except in so far as composed of inferior men) should not foster celibacy. Short enlistments are probably the most valuable means of avoiding this evil.

!Universal conscription is much better than voluntary service, since the latter is highly selective, the former much less so. Those in regular attendance in college should receive their military training in their course as is now done.

Officers' families should be given an additional allowance for each child. This would aid in increasing the birth-rate, which appears to be very low among army and navy officers in the United States service, and

!probably in that of all civilized countries.

Every citizen owes service to his nation, in time of need, but

fighting service should not be exacted if some one else could perform it better than he where he is expert in some other needed field. The recent action of England in sending to the front as subaltern officers, who were speedily killed, many highly trained technicians and young

scientists and medical men who would have been much more valuable at home in connection with war measures, is an example of this mistake.

Carrying the idea farther, one sees that in many nations there are certain races which are more valuable on the firing line than in industries at the rear; and it appears that they should play the part for which they are best fitted. From this point of view, the Entente allies were wholly justified in employing their Asiatic and African

!subjects in war. In the United States are millions of negroes who are of less value than white men in organised industry but almost as valuable as the whites, when properly led, at the front. It would appear to be sound statesmanship to enlist as many Negroes as possible in the active forces, in case of war, thus releasing a corresponding number of more skilled white workers for the industrial machine on whose efficiency success in modern warfare largely rests.

Leaving the period of preparedness, we consider the period of open warfare. The reader will remember that, in an earlier chapter, we divided natural selection into (1) lethal, that which operates through differential mortality; (2) sexual, that which operates through differential mating; and (3) fecundal, that which operates through differential fecundity. Again, selection operates both in an inter-group

competition and an intra-group competition. The influence of any agency on natural selection must be examined under each of these six heads. In the case of war, however, fecundal selection may be eliminated, as it is little influenced. Still another division arises from the fact that the

!action of selection is different during war upon the armed forces themselves and upon the population at home; and after the war, upon the nations with the various modifications that the war has left.

We will consider lethal selection first. To measure the effect of the inter-group selection of the armed forces, one must compare the relative quality of the two races involved. The evidence for believing in substantial differences between races is based (a) upon their relative achievement when each is isolated, (b) upon the relative rank when the two are competing in one society, and (c) upon the relative number of original contributions to civilisation each has made. Such comparisons are fatal to the sentimental equalitarianism that denies race differences. While there is, of course, a great deal of

!overlapping, there are, nevertheless, real average differences. To think otherwise is to discard evolution and revert to the older standpoint of "special creation."

Comparison of the quality of the two sides is sometimes, of course, very difficult. One may feel little hesitation in giving a decision in the classical war of the Greeks and Persians, or the more modern case of the

English and Afghans, but when considering the Franco-Prussian war, or the Russo-Japanese war, or the Boer war, or the American civil war, it

!is largely a matter of mere opinion, and perhaps an advantage can hardly be conceded to either side. Those who, misunderstanding the doctrine of evolution, adhere to the so-called "philosophy of force," would answer without hesitation that the side which won was, ipso facto, the better side. But such a judgment is based on numerous fallacies, and can not be endorsed in the sweeping way it is uttered. Take a concrete example:

!"In 1806, Prussia was defeated at the battle of Jena. According to the philosophy of force, this was because Prussia was 'inferior' and France was 'superior.' Suppose we admit for the moment that this was the case. The selection now represents the survival of the fittest, the selection which perfects the human species. But what shall we say of the battle of Leipsic? At Leipsic, in 1813, all the values were reversed; it is now France which is the 'inferior' nation.... Furthermore, a large number of the same generals and soldiers who took part in the battle of Jena also took part in the battle of Leipsic. Napoleon belonged, therefore, to a race which was superior to that of Blücher in 1806, but to an inferior race in 1813, in spite of the fact that they were the same persons and had not changed their nationality. As soon as we bring these assertions to the touchstone of concrete reality we see at once how untenable and even ridiculous are direct biological comparisons."[156]

!Without going into further detail, it is readily seen that, on the world at large, the eugenic effect of a war would be very different according as the sides differ much or little. Yet this difference in quality, however great, will have no significance, unless the superior or inferior side is in general more likely to lose fewer men. Where the difference has been considerable, as between a civilised and savage nation, it has been seldom that the superior has not triumphed with fewer losses. Victory, however, is influenced much less in these later days by the relative military efficiency of two single nations than by their success in making powerful alliances. But such alignments are by no means always associated with better quality, because (a) there is a natural tendency for the weak to unite against a strong nation, (b) to side with a group which is apparently succeeding, and (c) the alliances may be the work of one or a few individuals who happen to be in positions of power at the critical time.

Modern European wars, especially the latest one, have been marked by the high quality of the combatants on both sides relative to the rest of the world. As these same races fight with pertinacity, there is a high

!mortality rate, so that the dysgenic result of these wars is particularly deplorable.

As for the selection taking place within each of the struggling

nations, the combatants and the non-combatants of the same age and sex must first be compared. The difference here depends largely on how the army in question was raised. Where the army is a permanent, paid force, it probably does not represent a quality above the average of the

nation, except physically. When it is conscripted, it is superior

physically and probably slightly in other respects. If it is a

volunteer army, its quality depends largely on whether the cause being fought for is one that appeals merely to the spirit of adventure or one that appeals to some moral principle. In the latter case, the quality may be such that the loss of a large part of the army will be peculiarly

damaging to the progress of the race. This situation is more common than might be supposed, for by skillful diplomacy and journalism a cause which may be really questionable is presented to the public in a most idealistic light. But here, again, one can not always apply sweeping generalisations to individual cases. It might be supposed, for instance, that in the Confederate army the best eugenic quality was represented by the volunteers, the second best by those who stayed out until they were conscripted, and the poorest by the deserters. Yet David Starr Jordan

and Harvey Ernest Jordan, who investigated the case with care, found that this was hardly true and that, due to the peculiar circumstances, the deserters were probably not as a class eugenically inferior to the

volunteers.[157] Again some wars, such as that between the United States and Spain, probably develop a volunteer army made up largely of the adventurous, the nomadic, and those who have fewer ties; it would be difficult to demonstrate that they are superior to those who, having settled positions at home, or family obligations, fail to volunteer. The greatest damage appears to be done in such wars as those waged by great European nations, where the whole able-bodied male population is called out, and only those left at home who are physically or mentally unfit

!for fighting--but not, it appears to be thought, unfit to perpetuate the race.

!Even within the army of one side, lethal selection is operative. Those who are killed are by no means a haphazard sample of the whole army. Among the victims there is a disproportionate representation of those with (1) dauntless bravery, (2) recklessness, (3) stupidity. These qualities merge into each other, yet in their extremes they are widely different. However, as the nature of warfare changes with the increase of artillery, mines, bombs, and gases, and decrease of personal combat, those who fall are more and more chance victims.

In addition to the killed and mortally wounded, there are many deaths from disease or from wounds which were not necessarily fatal. Probably the most selective of any of these three agencies is the variable

resistance to disease and infection and the widely varying knowledge and appreciation of the need for hygienic living shown by the individual,

!as, for instance, by less reckless drinking of un-sterilised water. But here, too, in modern warfare, this item is becoming less selective, with the advance in discipline and in organised sanitation.

!The efficiency of selection will be affected by the percentage that each side has sent to the front, if the combatants are either above or below the average of the population. A nation that sends all its able-bodied males forward will be affected differently from its enemy that has needed to call upon only one-half of its able-bodied men in order to win its cause.

Away from the fighting lines of the contending sides, conditions that prevail are rendered more severe in many ways than in times of peace. Poverty becomes rife, and sanitation and medical treatment are commonly sacrificed under the strain. During a war, that mitigation of the action

!of natural selection which is so common now among civilised nations, is somewhat less effective than in times of peace. The scourge of typhus in Serbia is a recent and graphic illustration.

After a war has been concluded, certain new agencies of inter-group selection arise. The result depends largely on whether the vanquished have had a superior culture brought to them, as in the case of the Philippines, or whether, on the contrary, certain diseases have been introduced, as to the natives of the New World by the Spanish conquerors and explorers, or crushing tribute has been levied, or grievous

!oppression such as has befallen Belgium.

Sometimes the conquerors themselves have suffered severely as the result of excessive spoliation, which has produced vicious idleness and luxurious indulgence, with the ultimate effect of diminishing the

!birth-rate.

!Within the nation there may be various results. Sometimes, by the reduction of overcrowding, natural selection will be less severe. On the other hand, the loss of that part of the population which is more economically productive is a very serious loss, leading to excessive poverty with increased severity in the action of natural selection, of which some of the Southern States, during the Reconstruction period, offer a good illustration.

!Selection is also rendered more intense by the heavy burden of taxation, and in the very common depreciation of currency as is now felt in Russia.

!Sexual selection as well as lethal is affected by war in manifold ways. Considering the armed force, there is an inter-group selection, when the enemy's women are assaulted by the soldiers. While this has been an important factor in the past, it is somewhat less common now, with better army discipline and higher social ideals.

!Within the group, mating at the outset of a war is greatly increased by many hurried marriages. There is also alleged to be sometimes an increase of illegitimacy in the neighbourhood of training camps. In each of these instances, these matings do not represent as much maturity of judgment as there would have been in times of peace, and hence give a less desirable sexual selection.

In the belligerent nation at home, the number of marriageable males is of course far less than at ordinary times. It becomes important, then,

to compare the quality of the non-combatants and those combatants who survive and return home, since their absence during the war period of course decreases their reproduction as compared with the non-combatants. The marked excess of women over men, both during the war and after,

necessarily intensifies the selection of women and proportionately reduces that of men, since relatively fewer men will remain unmated. This excess of women is found in all classes. Among superiors there are,

!in addition, some women who never marry because the war has so reduced the number of suitors thought eligible.

The five years' war of Paraguay with Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina (1864-1869) is perhaps the most glaring case on record[158] in recent years of the destruction of the male population of a country. Whole regiments were made up of boys of 16 or less. At the beginning of the war the population of Paraguay had been given as 1,337,437. It fell to 221,709 (28,746 men, 106,254 women, 86,079 children); it is even now probably not more than half of the estimate made at the beginning of the war. "Here in a small area has occurred a drastic case of racial ravage without parallel since the time of the Thirty Years' War." Macedonia, however, furnishes a fairly close parallel--D. S. Jordan found whole villages there in 1913 in which not a single man remained: only women and children. Conditions were not so very much better in parts of the South at the close of the Civil War, particularly in Virginia and North

Carolina, where probably 40% of the young men of reproductive age died without issue. And in a few of the Northern states, such as Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts, the loss was proportionately almost as great. These were probably as good men as any country has produced, and their loss, with that of their potential offspring, undoubtedly is

!causing more far-reaching effects in the subsequent history of the United States than has ever been realised.

!In the past and still among many savage peoples, inter-group selection has been affected by the stealing of women from the vanquished. The effect of this has been very different, depending on whether these women would otherwise have been killed or spared, and also depending on the relative quality of their nation to that of their conquerors.

!To sum up, there are so many features of natural selection, each  of which must be separately weighed and the whole then balanced, that it is a matter of extensive inquiry to determine whether a certain war has a preponderance of eugenic or dysgenic results.

When the quality of the combatants is so high, compared with the rest

of the world, as during the Great War, no conceivable eugenic gains from the war can offset the losses. It is probably well within the facts to assume that the period of this war represents a decline in inherent human quality, greater than in any similar length of time in the

!previous history of the world.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that war is becoming much less common if we consider number of combatants rather than number of wars as times goes on,[159] and it steadily tends to be more destructive. War, then, offers one of the greatest problems which the eugenist must face, for a

!few months of war may undo all that eugenic reforms can gain in a generation.

The total abolition of war would, of course, be the ideal, but there is no possibility of this in the near future. The fighting instinct, it

must be remembered, is one of the most primitive and powerful that the human mechanism contains. It was evolved in great intensity, to give man supremacy over his environment--for the great "struggle for existence"

is with the environment, not with members of one's own species. Man long ago conquered the environment so successfully that he has never since had to exert himself in physical combat in this direction; but the

!fighting instinct remained and could not be baulked without causing uneasiness. Spurred on by a complex set of psychological and economic stimuli, man took to fighting his own kind, to a degree that no other species shows.

Dumbell Set with Personal Training

The only immediate course of action open seems to be to seek, if possible, to diminish the frequency of war by subduing nations which start wars and, by the organization of

!a League to Enforce Peace; to avoid war-provoking conquests; to diminish as much as possible the disastrous effects of war when it does come, and to work for the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge which will eventually make possible the greater step, effective international organisation.

!

!

CHAPTER XV! ! !IMMIGRATION!

CHAPTER XV!

!

!IMMIGRATION!

!

There are now in the United States some 14,000,000 foreign-born persons,

together with other millions of the sons and daughters of foreigners who although born on American soil have as yet been little assimilated to Americanism. This great body of aliens, representing perhaps a fifth of the population, is not a pool to be absorbed, but a continuous,

inflowing stream, which until the outbreak of the Great War was steadily increasing in volume, and of which the fountain-head is so inexhaustible as to appal the imagination. From the beginning of the century, the inflow averaged little less than a million a year, and while about

!one-fifth of this represented a temporary migration, four-fifths of it meant a permanent addition to the population of the New World.

!The character of this stream will inevitably determine to a large extent the future of the American nation. The direct biological results, in race mixture, are important enough, although not easy to define. The indirect results, which are probably of no less importance to eugenics, are so hard to follow that some students of the problem do not even realise their existence.

The ancestors of all white Americans, of course, were immigrants not so very many generations ago. But the earlier immigration was relatively homogeneous and stringently selected by the dangers of the voyage, the hardships of life in a new country, and the equality of opportunity where free competition drove the unfit to the wall. There were few people of eminence in the families that came to colonise North America, but there was a high average of sturdy virtues, and a good deal of ability, particularly in the Puritan and Huguenot invasions and in a

!part of that of Virginia.

!In the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, the number of these "patriots and founders" was greatly increased by the arrival of immigrants of similar racial stocks from Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, and to a less extent from the other countries of northern and western Europe. These arrivals added strength to the United States, particularly as a large part of them settled on farms.

This stream of immigration gradually dried up, but was succeeded by a flood from a new source,--southern and eastern Europe. Italians, Slavs, Poles, Magyars, East European Hebrews, Finns, Portuguese, Greeks, Romanians and representatives of many other small nationalities began to seek fortunes in America. The earlier immigration had been made up largely of those who sought escape from religious or political tyranny

and came to settle permanent homes. The newer immigration was made up, on the whole, of those who frankly sought wealth. The difference in the reason for coming could not fail to mean a difference in selection of

the immigrants, quite apart from the change in the races.

!

Last of all began an immigration of Levantines, of Syrians, Armenians,

and other inhabitants of Asiatic Turkey. Beyond this region lie the great nations of Asia, "over saturated" with population. So far there has been little more than the threat of their overflow, but the threat is certain to become a reality unless prevented by legal

!restriction.

The eugenic results of immigration are partly indirect and partly direct. Direct results follow if the newcomers are assimilated,--a word

!which we shall use rather narrowly to mean that free intermarriage takes place between them and all parts of the older population. We shall discuss the direct results first, the nature of which depends largely on whether the newcomers are racially homogeneous with the population already in the country.

If they are like, the old and new will blend without difficulty. The effects of the immigration then depend on whether the immigrants are better or worse in average quality than the older residents. If as good or better, they are valuable additions; if inferior they are

!biologically a detriment.

!But if the new arrivals are different, if they represent a different subspecies of Homo sapiens, the question is more serious, for it involves the problem of crossing races which are biologically more or less distinct. Genetics can throw some light on this problem.

Waiving for the moment all question as to the relative quality of two distinct races, what results are to be expected from crossing? It (1)

!gives an increase of vigour which diminishes in later generations and (2) produces recombination of characters.

!The first result may be disregarded, for the various races of man are probably already much mixed, and too closely related, to give rise to much hybrid vigour in crosses.

The second result will be favourable or unfavourable, depending on the characters which go into the cross; and it is not possible to predict

the result in human matings, because the various racial characters are so ill known. It is, therefore, not worth while here to discuss at

!length genetic theory. In general it may be said that some valuable characters are likely to disappear, as the result of such crosses, and less desirable ones to take their place. The great bulk of the population resulting from such racial crosses is likely to be more or less mongrel in nature. Finally, some individuals will appear who combine the good characters of the two races, without the bad ones.

The net result will therefore probably be some distinct gain, but a greater loss. There is danger that complex and valuable traits of a race will be broken down in the process of hybridisation, and that it will take a long time to bring them together again. The old view that racial crosses lead fatally to race degeneration is no longer tenable, but the

view recently advanced, that crosses are advantageous, seems equally hasty. W. E. Castle has cited the Pitcairn Islanders and the

!Boer-Hottentot mulattoes of South Africa as evidence that wide crosses are productive of no evil results. These cases may be admitted to show that such a hybrid race may be physically healthy, but in respect of mental traits they hardly do more than suggest the conclusion we advanced in our chapter on the Colour Line,--that such miscegenation is an advantage to the inferior race and a disadvantage to the superior one.

!On the whole, we believe wide racial crosses should be looked upon with suspicion by eugenists.

The colonisers of North America mostly belonged to the Nordic race.[143] The earlier immigrants to the United States,--roughly, those who came here before the Civil War,--belonged mostly to the same stock, and therefore mixed with the early settlers without difficulty. The

!advantages of this immigration were offset by no impairment of racial homogeneity.

But the more recent immigration belongs mostly to other races, principally the Mediterranean and Alpine. Even if these immigrants were superior on the average to the older population, it is clear that their assimilation would not be an unmixed blessing, for the evil of crossbreeding would partly offset the advantage of the addition of valuable new traits. If, on the other hand, the average of the new immigration is inferior in quality, or in so far as it is inferior in

!quality, it is evident that it must represent biologically an almost unmixed evil; it not only brings in new undesirable traits, but injures the desirable ones already here.

A. Ross has attempted to predict some of the changes that will take place in the population of the United States, as a result of the immigration of the last half-century.[144] "It is reasonable," he thinks, "to expect an early falling off in the frequency of good looks

in the American people." A diminution of stature, a depreciation of morality, an increase in gross fecundity, and a considerable lowering of the level of average natural ability are among other results that he considers probable. Not only are the races represented in the later immigration in many cases inferior in average ability to the earlier immigrant races, but America does not get the best, or even a representative selection,[145] from the races which are now contributing to her population. "Europe retains most of her brains, but sends multitudes of the common and sub-common. There is little sign of an intellectual element among the Magyars, Russians, South Slavs, Italians, Greeks or Portuguese" who are now arriving. "This does not hold, however, for currents created by race discrimination or oppression. The Armenian, Syrian, Finnish and Russo-Hebrew streams seem representative, and the first wave out of Russia in the

!eighties was superior."

While the earlier immigration brought a liberal amount of intelligence

and ability, the later immigration (roughly, that of the last half century) seems to have brought distinctly less. It is at present principally an immigration of unskilled labor, of vigorous, ignorant peasants. Some of this is "promoted" by agents of transportation

companies and others who stand to gain by stirring up the population of a country village in Russia or Hungary, excite the illiterate peasants

by stories of great wealth and freedom to be gained in the New World, provide the immigrant with a ticket to New York and start him for Ellis Island. Naturally, such immigration is predominantly male. On the whole, females make up one-third of the recent inflow, but among some

!races--Greeks, Italians and Romanians, for example--only one-fifth.

!In amount of inherent ability these immigrants are not only less highly endowed than is desirable, but they furnish, despite weeding out, altogether too large a proportion of the "three D's"--defectives, delinquents and dependents.

The amount of crime attributable to certain sections of the more recent immigration is relatively large. "It was frequently stated to the

members of the Immigration Commission in southern Italy that crime had greatly diminished in many communities because most of the criminals had gone to America." The amount of crime among immigrants in the United States is partly due to their age and sex distribution, partly due to

their concentration in cities, partly to the bad environment from which they have sometimes come; partly to inherent racial characteristics, such as make crimes of violence frequent among the Southern Italians, crimes of gain proportionately more frequent among the Jews, and violence when drunk more a characteristic of the Slavs. No restriction of immigration can wholly eliminate the criminal tendencies, but, says Dr. Warne,[148] after balancing the two sides, "It still remains true

that because of immigration we have a greater amount of pauperism and crime than would be the case if there were no immigration. It is also an indisputable fact that with a better regulation of immigration the

!United States would have less of these social horrors."

To dwell too much on the undesirable character of part of the present immigration would be to lose perspective. Most of it consists of vigorous, industrious, ignorant peasants, induced to come here in search of a better living than they can get at home. But it is important to remember that if they come here and stay, they are pretty certain to be assimilated sooner or later. In cases superior to the average of the

!older population, their arrival should be welcomed if not too racially diverse; but if, as we believe the record of their achievements shows, a large part of the immigration is on the average inferior to the older population of the United States, such are eugenically a detriment to the future progress of the race. The direct biological result to be expected from the assimilation of such newcomers is the swamping of the best characteristics of the old American stock, and a diminution of the average of intelligence of the whole country.

The interbreeding is too slow at present to be conspicuous, and hence its effects are little noticed. The foreigners tend to keep by

themselves, to form "Little Italies," "Little Russias," transplanted Ghettoes and "foreign quarters," where they retain their native languages and customs and marry compatriots. This condition of segregation can not last forever; the process of amalgamation will be more rapid with each generation, particularly because of the

!preponderance of males in the newer immigration who must marry outside their own race, if they are to marry at all.

The direct results of immigration that lead to intermarriage with the older population are fairly easy to outline. The indirect results, which we shall now consider, are more complex. We have dealt so far only with the effects of an immigration that is assimilated; but some immigration (that from the Orient, for example) is not assimilated; other

!immigration remains unassimilated for a long time. What are the eugenic consequences of an unassimilated immigration?

The presence of large numbers of immigrants who do not intermarry with the older stock will, says T. N. Carver,[149] inevitably mean one of

!three things:

!Geographical separation of races.

!Social separation of races (as the "colour line" in the South and to a large extent in the North, between Negroes and whites who yet live side by side).

!Continuous racial antagonism, frequently breaking out into race war. This third possibility has been at least threatened, by the conflict between the white and yellow races in California, and the conflict between whites and Hindus in British Columbia.

!None of these alternatives is attractive. The third is undesirable in every way and the first two are difficult to maintain. The first is perhaps impossible; the second is partly practicable, as is shown by the case of the Negro. One of its drawbacks is not sufficiently recognised.

In a soundly-organized society, it is necessary that the road should be open from top to bottom and bottom to top, in order that genuine merit may get its deserts. A valuable strain which appears at the bottom of the social scale must be able to make its way to the top, receiving financial and other rewards commensurate with its value to the state, and being able to produce a number of children proportionate to its reward and its value. This is an ideal which is seldom approximated in

government, but it is the advantage of a democratic form of government that it presents the open road to success, more than does an oligarchic government. That this freedom of access to all rewards that the state can give should be open to every one (and conversely that no one should be kept at the top and over-rewarded if he is unworthy) is essential to eugenics; but it is quite incompatible with the existence within the

state of a number of isolated groups, some of which must inevitably and properly be considered inferior. It is certain that, at the present time

in this country, no Negro can take a place in the upper ranks of

society, which are and will long remain white. The fact that this situation is inevitable makes it no less unfortunate for both Negro and white races; consolation can only be found in the thought that it is less of a danger than the opposite condition would be. But this condition of class discrimination is likely to exist, to a much less extent it is true, in every city where there are foreign-born and

!native-born populations living side by side, and where the epithets of "Sheeny," "Dago," "Wop," "Kike," "Greaser," "Guinea," etc., testify to the feeling of the older population that it is superior.

While eugenic strength in a state is promoted by variety, too great a heterogeneity offers serious social difficulties. It is essential if America is to be strong eugenically that it slow down the flood of immigrants who are not easily assimilable. At present a state of affairs is being created where class distinctions are likely to be barriers to

!the promotion of individual worth--and equally, of course, to the demotion of individual worthlessness.

The arrivals of the past

!few decades have been nearly all unskilled labourers. Professor Carver believes that continuous immigration which enters the ranks of labor in larger proportion and the business and professional classes in a smaller proportion than the native-born will produce the following results:

!Distribution. It will keep competition more intense among labourers and less intense among business and professional men: it will therefore raise the income of the employing classes and lower the wages of unskilled labor.

!Production. It will give a relatively low marginal productivity to a typical immigrant and make him a relatively unimportant factor in the production of wealth.

!Organisation of industry. Immigrants can only be employed economically at low wages and in large gangs, because of (2).

!Agriculture. If large numbers of immigrants should go into agriculture, it will mean one of two things, probably the second:

!Continuous subdivision of farms resulting in inefficient and wasteful application of labor and smaller crops per man, although probably larger crops per acre.

!Development of a class of landed proprietors on the one hand and a landless agricultural proletariat on the other.

It is true that the great mass of unskilled labor which has come to the United States in the last few decades has made possible the development of many industries that have furnished an increased number of good jobs to men of intelligence, but many who have made a close study of the immigration problem think that despite this, unskilled labor has been coming in altogether too large quantities.

!If the immigration of large quantities of unskilled labor with low standards of living tends in most cases to depress wages and lower the standard of living of the corresponding class of the old American population, the consequences would appear to be:

!The employers of labor would profit, since they would get abundant labor at low wages. If this increase in the wealth of employers led to an increase in their birth-rate, it would be an advantage. But it apparently does not. The birth-rate of the employing class is probably little restricted by financial difficulties; therefore on them immigration probably has no immediate eugenic effect.

!The American skilled labourers would profit, since there is more demand for skilled labor in industries created by unskilled immigrant labor. Would the increasing prosperity and a higher standard of living here, tend to lower the relative birth-rate of the class or not?

!The answer probably depends on the extent of the knowledge of birth control which has been discussed elsewhere.

The wages and standard of living of American unskilled labourers will fall, since they are obliged directly to compete with the newcomers. It seems most likely that a fall in wages and standards is correlated with

!a fall in birth-rate. This case must be distinguished from cases where the wages and standards never were high, and where poverty is correlated with a high birth-rate. If this distinction is correct, the present immigration will tend to lower the birth-rate of American unskilled labourers.

!The arguments here used may appear paradoxical, and have little statistical support, but they seem to us sound and not in contradiction with any known facts. If they are valid, the effect of such immigration as the United States has been receiving is to reduce the birth-rate of the unskilled labor with little or no effect on the employers and managers of labor.

Since both the character and the volume of immigration are at fault, remedial measures may be applied to either one or both of these features. It is very desirable that we have a much more stringent selection of immigrants than is made at the present time. But most of

!the measures which have been actually proposed and urged in recent years have been directed at a diminution of the volume, and at a change in character only by somewhat indirect and indiscriminate means.

The Immigration Commission made a report to Congress on Dec. 5, 1910, in which it suggested the following possible methods of restricting the

!volume of immigration:

!The exclusion of those unable to read and write in some language.

The reduction of the number of each race arriving each year to a certain percentage of the average of that race arriving during a given

!period of years.

!The exclusion of unskilled labourers unaccompanied by wives or families.

!Material increase in the amount of money required to be in the possession of the immigrant at the port of arrival.

!Material increase in the head tax.

!Limitation of the number of immigrants arriving annually at any port.

!The levying of the head tax so as to make a marked discrimination in favour of men with families.

Eugenically, it is probable that (3) and (7), which would tend to admit only families, would be a detriment to American welfare; (1) and (2) have been the suggestions which have met with the most favour. All but

one member of the commission favoured (1), the literacy test, as the most feasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration, and it

!was enacted into law by Congress, which passed it over President Wilson's veto, in February, 1917.

Records for 1914 show that "illiteracy among the total number of arrivals of each race ranged all the way from 64% for the Turkish to less than 1% for the English, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Scandinavian,

!and the Finnish. The Bohemian and Moravian, the German, and the Irish each had less than 5% illiterate. Races other than the Turkish, whose immigration in 1914 was more than one-third illiterate, include the Dalmatians, Bosnians, Herzegovinians, Russians, Ruthenians, Italians, Lithuanians, and Romanians."

It is frankly admitted by the proponents of this method of restriction that it will keep out some who ought to come in, and let in some who ought to be kept out. It is in some cases a test of opportunity rather than of character, but "in the belief of its advocates, it will meet the situation as disclosed by the investigation of the Immigration

Commission better than any other means that human ingenuity can devise.

!It is believed that it would exclude more of the undesirable and fewer of the desirable immigrants than any other method of restriction."

On the other hand, it is argued that the literacy test will fail of success because those who want to come will learn to read and write,

!which will only delay their arrival a few months without changing their real character. But the effect of such attempts will separate those who succeed from those who are too inferior to succeed, which would be an advantage of the plan rather than a defect.

The literary restriction has been a great step forward but should be backed by the addition of such mental tests as will make it fairly certain to keep out the dull-minded as well as feeble-minded. Long division would suffice as such a test until better tests relatively

!unaffected by schooling can be put into operation, since it is at this point in the grades that so many dull-minded drop out of the schools.

What are the grounds, then, for forbidding the yellow races, or the races of British India, to enter the United States? The considerations urged in the past have been (1) Political: it is said that they are unable to acquire the spirit of American institutions. This is an objection which concerns eugenics only indirectly. (2) Medical: it is said that they introduce diseases, such as the oriental liver, lung and

intestinal flukes, which are serious, against which Americans have never been selected, and for which no cure is known. (3) Economic: it is argued that the Oriental's lower standard of living makes it impossible for the white man to compete with him. The objection is well founded, and is indirectly of concern to eugenics, as was pointed out in a preceding section of this chapter. As eugenists we feel justified in objecting to the immigration of large bodies of unskilled Oriental

!labor, on the ground that they rear larger families than our stock on the same small incomes.

Eugenically, then, the immigration of any considerable number of unskilled labourers from the Orient may have undesirable direct results and is certain to have unfavourable indirect results. It should therefore be prevented, either by a continuation of the "gentlemen's agreement" now in force between the United States and Japan, and by similar agreements with other nations, or by some such non-invidious measure.

This exclusion should not of course be

!applied to the intellectual classes, whose presence here would offer advantages which would outweigh the disadvantages.

It appears that even a small infusion of Chinese blood may produce long-continued favourable results, if the case of the Ilocanos is correctly described. This tribe, in Northern Luzon, furnishes perhaps the most industrious workers of any tribe in the islands; foremen and overseers of Filipinos are quite commonly found to be Ilocanos, while the members of the tribe are credited with accomplishing more steady

!work than any other element of the population. The current explanation of this is that they are Chinese mestizos: their coast was constantly exposed the raids of Chinese pirates, a certain number of whom settled there and took Ilocano women as wives. From these unions, the whole tribe in the course of time is thought to have benefited.[154]

The history of the Chinese in the Philippines fails to corroborate the idea that he never loses his racial identity. It must be borne in mind that nearly all the Chinese in the United States are of the lowest working class, and from the vicinity of Canton; while those in the Philippines are of a higher class, and largely from the neighbourhood of Amoy. They have usually married Filipino women of good families, so their offspring had exceptional advantages, and stand high in the

estimation of the community. The requirement of the Spanish government was that a Chinese must embrace Christianity and become a citizen, before he could marry a Filipino. Usually he assumed his wife's name, so the children were brought up wholly as Filipinos, and considered

!themselves such, without cherishing any particular sentiment for the Flowery Kingdom.

!The biologist who studies impartially the Filipino peoples may easily conclude that the American government is making a mistake in excluding the Chinese; that the infiltration of intelligent Chinese and their intermixture with the native population would do more to raise the level of ability of the latter than a dozen generations of that compulsory education on which the government has built such high hopes.

And this conclusion leads to the question whether much of the surplus population of the Orient could not profitably be diverted to regions occupied by savage and barbarian people. Chinese immigrants, mostly traders, have long been going in small numbers to many such regions and have freely intermarried with native women. It is a matter of common observation to travellers that much of the small mercantile business has passed into the hands of Chinese mestizos. As far as the first few generations, at least, the cross here seems to be productive of good

results. Whether Oriental immigration should be encouraged must depend on the decision of the respective governments, and considerations other than biologic will have weight. As far as eugenics is concerned it is

!likely that such regions would profit by a reasonable amount of Chinese or Japanese immigration which resulted in interbreeding and not in the formation of isolated race-groups, because the superior Orientals tend to raise the level of the native population into which they marry.

The question of the regulation of immigration is, as we have insisted throughout this chapter, a question of weighing the consequences. A decision must be reached in each case by asking what course will do most for the future good both of the nation and of the whole species. To talk

of the sacred duty of offering an asylum to any who choose to come, is to indulge in immoral sentimentality. Even if the problem be put on the most unselfish plane possible, to ask not what will be for this

country's own immediate or future benefit, but what will most benefit the world at large, it can only be concluded that the duty of the United States is to make itself strong, efficient, productive and progressive. By so doing they will be much better able to help the rest

!of the world than by progressively weakening themselves through failure to regulate immigration.

!Looking only at the eugenic consequences, we can not doubt that a considerable and discriminatory selection of immigrants to this country is necessary. Both directly and indirectly, the immigration of recent years appears to be diminishing the eugenic strength of the nation more than it increases it.

The state would be in a stronger position eugenically (and in many other ways) if it would decrease the immigration of unskilled labor, and increase the immigration of creative and directing talent. A selective diminution of the volume of immigration would tend to have that result, because it would necessarily shut out more of the unskilled than the skilled.

Most Interesting on stuff the web

CHAPTER XIV! ! !THE COLOUR LINE!

CHAPTER XIV!

!

!THE COLOUR LINE!

!

"A young white woman, a graduate of a great university of the far North,

where Negroes are seldom seen, resented it most indignantly when she was threatened with social ostracism in a city farther South with a large

!Negro population because she insisted upon receiving upon terms of social equality a Negro man who had been her classmate.[128]"

!The incident seems trivial. But the phenomenon back of it, the "colour line," is so far-reaching that it deserves careful examination.

As the incident suggests, the colour line is not a universal phenomenon. The Germans appear to have little aversion to receiving Negroes--in Germany--on terms of equality. These same Germans, when brought face to face with the question in their colonies, or in the southern United

!States, quickly change their attitude. Similarly a Negro in Great Britain labours under much less disadvantage than he does among the British inhabitants of Australia or South Africa.

!The colour line therefore exists only as the result of race experience. This fact alone is sufficient to suggest that one should not dismiss it lightly as the outgrowth of bigotry. Is it not perhaps a social adaptation with survival value?

!The purpose of this chapter is to analyse society's "unconscious reasoning" which has led to the establishment of a colour line--to the denial of social equality--wherever the white[129] and black races have long been in contact during recent history; and to see whether this discrimination appears to be justified by eugenics.

!M. Mecklin[130] summarises society's logic as follows:

"When society permits the free social intercourse of two young persons of similar training and interests, it tacitly gives its consent to the possible legitimate results of such relations, namely, marriage. But

marriage is not a matter that concerns the contracting parties alone; it is social in its origin and from society come its sanctions. It is

society's legitimatised method for the perpetuation of the race in the larger and inclusive sense of a continuous racial type which shall be the bearer of a continuous and progressive civilisation. There are, however, within the community, two racial groups of such widely divergent physical and psychic characteristics that the blending of the two destroys the purity of the type of both and introduces

confusion--the result of the blend is a mongrel. The preservation of the unbroken, self-conscious existence of the white or dominant ethnic group is synonymous with the preservation of all that has meaning and inspiration in its past and hope for its future. It forbids by law,

!therefore, or by the equally effective social taboo, anything that would tend to contaminate the purity of its stock or jeopardise the integrity of its social heritage."

!It is needless to say that the "social mind" does not consciously go through any such process of reasoning, before it draws a colour line. The social mind rarely even attempts to justify its conclusions. It merely holds a general attitude of superiority, which in many cases appears to be nothing more than a feeling that another race is different.

!In what way different?

!The difference between the white race and the black (or any other race) might consist of two elements: (1) differences in heredity--biological differences; (2) differences in traditions, environment, customs--social differences, in short. A critical inquirer would want to know which kind of difference was greater, for he would at once see that the second kind might be removed by education and other social forces, while the first kind would be substantially permanent.

It is not difficult to find persons of prominence who will assert that all the differences between white and Negro are differences of a social nature, that the differences of a physical nature are negligible, and that if the Negro is "given a chance" the significant differences will

disappear. This attitude permeates the public school system of northern states. A recent report on the condition of Negro pupils in the New York City public schools professes to give "few, perhaps no, recommendations that would not apply to the children of other races. Where the application is more true in regard to coloured children, it seems largely to be because of this lack of equal justice in the cases of their

!parents. Race weakness appears but this could easily be balanced by the same or similar weakness in other races. Given an education carefully adapted to his needs and a fair chance for employment, the normal child of any race will succeed, unless the burden of wrong home conditions lies too heavily upon him."[131]

As the writer does not define what she means by "succeed," one is obliged to guess at what she means: Her anthropology is apparently similar to that of Franz Boas of Columbia University, who has said that, "No proof can be given of any material inferiority of the Negro

!race;--without doubt the bulk of the individuals composing the race are equal in mental aptitude to the bulk of our own people."

If such a statement is wholly true, the colour line can hardly be justified, but must be regarded, as it is now the case sometimes, as merely the expression of prejudice and ignorance. If the only differences between white and black, which can not be removed by education, are of no real significance,--a chocolate hue of skin, a certain kinkiness of hair, and so on,--then logically the white race

should remove the handicaps which lack of education and bad environment have placed on the Negro, and receive him on terms of perfect equality,

!in business, in politics, and in marriage.

!The proposition needs only to be stated in this frank form, to arouse an instinctive protest on the part of most Americans. Yet it has been urged in an almost equally frank form by many writers, from the days of the abolitionists to the present, and it seems to be the logical consequence of the position adopted by such anthropologists as Professor Boas, and by the educators and others who proclaim that there are no significant differences between the Negro and the white, except such as are due to social conditions and which, therefore, can be removed.

But what are these social differences, which it is the custom to dismiss in such a light-hearted way? Are they not based on fundamental incompatibilities of racial temperament, which in turn are based on differences in heredity? Modern sociologists for the main part have no illusions as to the ease with which these differences in racial

!tradition and custom can be removed.

!The social heritage of the Negro has been described at great length and often with little regard for fact, by hundreds of writers. Only a glance can be given the subject here, but it may profitably be asked what the Negro did when he was left to himself in Africa.

"The most striking feature of the African Negro is the low forms of social organisation, the lack of industrial and political cooperation, and consequently the almost entire absence of social and national self-consciousness. This rather than intellectual inferiority explains

!the lack of social sympathy, the presence of such barbarous institutions as cannibalism and slavery, the low position of woman, inefficiency in the industrial and mechanical arts, the low type of group morals, rudimentary art-sense, lack of race-pride and self-assertiveness, and in intellectual and religious life largely synonymous with fetishism and sorcery."[132]

An elementary knowledge of the history of Africa, or the more recent and much-quoted example of Haiti, is sufficient to prove that the Negro's own social heritage is at a level far below that of the whites among

whom he is living in the United States. No matter how much one may admire some of the Negro's individual traits, one must admit that his development of group traits is primitive, and suggests a mental development which is also primitive.

!

If the number of original contributions which it has made to the world's

!civilisation is any fair criterion of the relative value of a race, then the Negro race must be placed very near zero on the scale.[133]

!The following historical considerations suggest that in comparison with some other races the Negro race is germinally lacking in the higher developments of intelligence:

!That the Negro race in Africa has never, by its own initiative, risen much above barbarism, although it has been exposed to a considerable range of environments and has had abundant time in which to bring to expression any inherited traits it may possess.

That when transplanted to a new environment--say, Haiti--and left to its own resources, the Negro race has shown the same inability to rise; it has there, indeed, lost most of what it had acquired from the

!superior civilisation of the French.

That when placed side by side with the white race, the Negro race again fails to come up to their standard, or indeed to come anywhere near it. It is often alleged that this third test is an unfair one; that

the social heritage of slavery must be eliminated before the Negro can be expected to show his true worth. But contrast his career in and after slavery with that of the Mamelukes of Egypt, who were slaves, but slaves of good stock. They quickly rose to be the real rulers of the country.

Again, compare the record of the Greek slaves in the Roman republic and empire or that of the Jews under Islam. Without pushing these analogies too far, is not one forced to conclude that the Negro lacks in his

germ-plasm excellence of some qualities which the white races possess, and which are essential for success in competition with the

!civilisations of the white races at the present day?

!If so, it must be admitted not only that the Negro is different from the white, but that he is in the large eugenically inferior to the white.

!This conclusion is based on the relative achievements of the race; it must be tested by the more precise methods of the anthropological laboratory. Satisfactory studies of the Negro should be much more numerous, but there are a few informative ones. Physical characters are first to be considered.

!As a result of the careful measurement of many skulls, Karl Pearson[134] has come to the following conclusions:

!"There is for the best ascertainable characters a continuous relationship from the European skull, through prehistoric European, prehistoric Egyptian, Congo-Gaboon Negroes to Zulus and Kafirs.

"The indication is that of a long differentiated evolution, in which the Negro lies nearer to the common stem than the European; he is nearer to

!the childhood of man."

This does not prove any mental inferiority: there is little or no

!relation between conformation of skull and mental qualities, and it is a great mistake to make hasty inferences from physical to mental traits. Bean and Mall have made studies directly on the brain, but it is not possible to draw any sure conclusions from their work. A. Hrdlicka found physical differences between the two races, but did not study traits of any particular eugenic significance.

On the whole, the studies of physical anthropologists offer little of interest for the present purpose. Studies of mental traits are more to the point, but are unfortunately vitiated in many cases by the fact that no distinction was made between full-blood Negroes and mulattoes, although the presence of white blood must necessarily have a marked influence on the traits under consideration. If the investigations are discounted when necessary for this reason, it appears that in the more

elementary mental processes the two races are approximately equal. White and "coloured" children in the Washington, D. C., schools ranked equally well in memory; the coloured children were found to be somewhat the more sensitive to heat.[135] Summing up the available evidence, G. O. Ferguson concludes that "in the so-called lower traits there is no great

!difference between the Negro and the white. In motor capacity there is probably no appreciable racial difference. In sense capacity, in perceptive and discriminative ability, there is likewise a practical equality."

This is what one would, probably expect. But it is on the

"higher" mental functions that race progress largely depends, and the Negro must be judged eugenically mainly by his showing in these higher functions. One of the first studies in this line is that of M. J.

!Mayo,[136] who summarises it as follows:

!"The median age of white pupils at the time of entering high school in the city of New York is 14 years 6 months: of coloured pupils 15 years 1 month--a difference of 7 months. The average deviation for whites is 9 months; for coloured 15 months. Twenty-seven per cent of the whites are as old as the median age of the coloured or older.

"Coloured pupils remain in school a greater length of time than do the whites. For the case studied [150 white and 150 coloured], the average time spent in high school for white pupils was 3.8 terms; for coloured

!4.5 terms. About 28% of the whites attain the average time of attendance for coloured.

!"Considering the entire scholastic record, the median mark of the 150 white pupils is 66; of the 150 coloured pupils 62; a difference of 4%. The average deviation of white pupils is 7; of coloured 6.5. Twenty-nine per cent. of the coloured pupils reach or surpass the median mark of the whites.

"The white pupils have a higher average standing in all subjects ...

!the coloured pupils are about 3/4 as efficient as the whites in the pursuit of high school studies."

!This whole investigation is probably much too favourable to the Negro race, first because Negro high school pupils represent a more careful selection than do the white pupils; but most of all because no distinction was made between Negroes and mulattoes.

!B. A. Phillips, studying the public elementary schools of Philadelphia, found[137] that the percentage of retardation in the coloured schools ranged from 72.8 to 58.2, while the percentage of retardation in the districts which contained the schools ranged from 45.1 to 33.3. The average percentage of retardation for the city as a whole was 40.3. Each of the coloured schools had a greater percentage of retardation than any of the white schools, even those composed almost entirely of foreigners, and in those schools attended by both white and coloured pupils the percentage of retardation on the whole varied directly with the percentage of coloured pupils in attendance.

These facts might be interpreted in several ways. It might be that the curriculum was not well adapted to the coloured children, or that they came from bad home environments, or that they differed in age, etc. Dr. Phillips accordingly undertook to get further light on the cause of retardation of the coloured pupils by applying Binet tests to white and coloured children of the same chronological age and home conditions, and found "a difference in the acceleration between the two races of 31% in favour of the white boys, 25% in favour of the white girls, 28% in favour

!of the white pupils with boys and girls combined."

!A. C. Strong, using the Binet-Simon tests, found[138] coloured school children of Columbia, S. C., considerably less intelligent than white children.

!W. H. Pyle made an extensive test[139] of 408 coloured pupils in Missouri public schools and compared them with white pupils. He concludes: "In general the marks indicating mental ability of the Negro are about two-thirds those of the whites”

"Perhaps the most important question that arises in connection with the results of these mental tests is: How far is ability to pass them dependent on environmental conditions? Our tests show certain specific differences between Negroes and whites. What these differences would have been had the Negroes been subject to the same environmental influences as the whites, it is difficult to say. The results obtained

by separating the Negroes into two social groups would lead one to think that the conditions of life under which the negroes live might account for the lower mentality of the Negroes. On the other hand, it may be

!that the Negroes living under better social conditions are of better stock. They may have more white blood in them."

The most careful study yet made of the relative intelligence of Negroes and whites is that of G. O. Ferguson, Jr.,[140] on 486 white and 421

coloured pupils in the schools of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Newport News, Va. Tests were employed which required the use of the "higher" functions, and as far as possible (mainly on the basis of skin-colour)

!the amount of white blood in the coloured pupils was determined. Four classes were made: full-blood Negro, 3/4 Negro, 1/2 Negro (mulatto) and 1/4 Negro (quadroon). It was found that "the pure Negroes scored 69.2% as high as the whites; that the 3/4 pure Negroes scored 73.2% as high as the whites; that the mulattoes scored 81.2% as high as the whites; and that the quadroons obtained 91.8% of the white score." This confirms the belief of many observers that the ability of a coloured man is proportionate to the amount of white blood he has.

Summarising a large body of evidence, Dr. Ferguson concludes that "the intellectual performance of the general coloured population is approximately 75% as efficient as that of the whites," but that pure Negroes have only 60% of white intellectual efficiency, and that even this figure is probably too high. "It seems as though the white type has

attained a higher level of development, based upon the common elementary capacities, which the Negro has not reached to the same degree." "All of

!the experimental work which has been done has pointed to the same general conclusion."

!This is a conclusion of much definiteness and value, but it does not go as far as one might wish, for the deeper racial differences of impulse and inhibition, which are at present incapable of precise measurement, are likewise of great importance. And it is the common opinion that the Negro differs in such traits even more than in intellect proper. He is said to be lacking in that aggressive competitiveness which has been responsible for so much of the achievement of the Nordic race; it is alleged that his sexual impulses are strongly developed and inhibitions lacking; that he has "an instability of character, involving a lack of foresight, an improvidence, a lack of persistence, small power of serious initiative, a tendency to be content with immediate satisfactions." He appears to be more gregarious but less apt at organisation than most races.

The significance of these differences depends largely on whether they are germinal, or merely the results of social tradition. In favour of the view that they are in large part racial and hereditary, is the fact that they persist in all environments. They are found, as Professor Mecklin says, "Only at the lower level of instinct, impulse and temperament, and do not, therefore, admit of clear definition because they are overlaid

in the case of every individual with a mental superstructure gotten from the social heritage which may vary widely in the case of members of the same race. That they do persist, however, is evidenced in the case of

the Negroes subjected to the very different types of civilisation in Haiti, Santo Domingo, the United States, and Jamaica. In each of these cases a complete break has been made with the social traditions of Africa and different civilisations have been substituted, and yet in temperament and character the Negro in all these countries is essentially the same. The so-called 'reversion to type' often pointed

out in the Negro is in reality but the recrudescence of fundamental,

!unchanged race traits upon the partial breakdown of the social heritage or the Negro's failure successfully to appropriate it."

Again, as Professor Ferguson points out, the experimental tests above cited may be thought to give some support to the idea that the emotional characteristics of the Negro are really inherent. "Strong and changing

emotions, an improvident character and a tendency to immoral conduct are not unallied," he explains; "They are all rooted in uncontrolled

!impulse. And a factor which may tend to produce all three is a deficient development of the more purely intellectual capacities. Where the implications of the ideas are not apprehended, where thought is not lively and fertile, where meanings and consequences are not grasped, the need for the control of impulse will not be felt. And the demonstrable deficiency of the Negro in intellectual traits may involve the dynamic deficiencies which common opinion claims to exist."

!There are other racial and heritable differences of much importance, which are given too little recognition--namely, the differences of disease resistance. Here one can speak unhesitatingly of a real inferiority in respect to the environment of North America.

As was pointed out in the chapter on Natural Selection, the Negro has been subjected to lethal selection for centuries by the Negro diseases, the diseases of tropical Africa, of which malaria and yellow fever are

the most conspicuous examples. The Negro is strongly resistant to these and can live where the white man dies. The white man, on the other hand, has his own diseases, of which tuberculosis is an excellent example.

!Compared with the Negro, he is relatively resistant to phthisis and will survive where the Negro dies.

When the two races are living side by side, it is obvious that each is proving a menace to the other, by acting as a disseminator  of  infection. The white man kills the Negro with tuberculosis and typhoid fever. In North America the Negro can not kill the white man with malaria or yellow fever, to any great extent, because these diseases do not flourish here. But the Negro has brought some other diseases here and given them to the white race; elephantiasis is one example, but the

!most conspicuous is hookworm, the extent and seriousness of which have only recently been realised.

In the New England states the average expectation of life, at birth, is

50.6 years for native white males, 34.1 years for Negro males. For native white females it is 54.2 years and for Negro females 37.7 years, according to the Bureau of the Census (1916). These very considerable differences can not be wholly explained away by the fact that the Negro is crowded into parts of the cities where the sanitation is worst. They indicate that the Negro is out of his environment. In tropical Africa,

!to which the Negro is adapted by many centuries of natural selection, his expectation of life might be much longer than that of the white man. In the United States he is much less "fit," in the Darwinian sense.

In rural districts of the South, according to C. W. Stiles, the annual

!typhoid death rate per 100,000 population is:

_Whites_

_Negroes_

Males  37.4     75.3

!Females         27.4     56.3

These figures again show, not alone the greater intelligence of the white in matters of hygiene, but probably also the greater inherent resistance of the white to a disease which has been attacking him for many centuries. Biologically, North America is a white man's country,

!not a Negro's country, and those who are considering the Negro problem must remember that natural selection has not ceased acting on man.

!From the foregoing different kinds of evidence, we feel justified in concluding that the Negro race differs greatly from the white race, mentally as well as physically, and that in many respects it may be said to be inferior, when tested by the requirements of modern civilisation and progress, with particular reference to North America.

!We return now to the question of intermarriage. What is to be expected from the union of these diverse streams of descent?

The best answer would be to study and measure the mulattoes and their posterity, in as many ways as possible. No one has ever done this. It is

!the custom to make no distinction whatever between mulatto and Negro, in the United States, and thus the whole problem is beclouded.

There is some evidence from life insurance and medical sources, that the mulatto stands above the Negro but below the white in respect to his health. There is considerable evidence that he occupies the same relation in the intellectual world; it is a matter of general

!observation that nearly all the leaders of the Negro race in the United States are not Negroes but mulattoes.

!Without going into detail, we feel perfectly safe in drawing this conclusion: that in general the white race loses and the Negro gains from miscegenation.

This applies, of course, only to the germinal nature. Taking into consideration the present social conditions in America, it is doubtful whether either race gains. But if social conditions be eliminated for

!the moment, biologists may believe that intermarriage between the white and Negro races represents, on the whole, an advance for the Negro; and that it represents for the white race a distinct loss.

!If eugenics is to be thought of solely in terms of the white race, there can be no hesitation about rendering a verdict. We must unhesitatingly condemn miscegenation.

But there are those who declare that it is small and mean to take such a narrow view of the evolution of the race. They would have America open its doors indiscriminately to immigration, holding it a virtue to

sacrifice one's self permanently for someone else's temporary happiness; they would equally have the white race sacrifice itself for the Negro,

!by allowing a mingling of the two blood-streams. That, it is alleged, is the true way to elevate the Negro.

!The question may well be considered from that point of view, even though the validity of such a point of view is not admitted.

To ensure racial and social progress, nothing will take the place of leadership, of genius. A race of nothing but mediocrities will stand still, or very nearly so; but a race of mediocrities with a good supply

!of men of exceptional ability and energy at the top, will make progress in discovery, invention and organisation, which is generally recognised as progressive evolution.

!If the level of the white race be lowered, it will hurt that race and be of little help to the Negro. If the white race be kept at such a level that its productivity of men of talent will be at a maximum, everyone will progress; for the Negro benefits just as the white does from every forward step in science and art, in industry and politics.

Remembering that the white race in America is nine times as numerous as the black race, we conclude that it would be desirable to encourage amalgamation of the two races only in case the average of mulattoes is superior to the average of the whites. No one can seriously maintain

!that this supposition is true. Biologically, therefore, there is no reason to think that an increase in the number of mulattoes is desirable.

There is a curious argument in circulation, which points out that mulattoes are almost always the offspring of Negro mothers and white fathers, not of Negro fathers and white mothers. Therefore, it is said, production of mulattoes does not mean at all a decrease in the number of white births, but merely substitutes a number of mulatto births for an equivalent number of pure Negro births. It is therefore alleged that the production of mulattoes is in the long run a benefit, elevating the

!Negro race without impairing the white race.

But this argument assumes that most mulatto births are illegitimate,--a condition which eugenists do not sanction, because it tends to disintegrate the family. Rather than such a condition, the legitimate production of pure-blood Negroes is preferable, even though they be inferior in individual ability to the illegitimate mulattoes offered as

!a substitute. There are not at the present time enough desirable white fathers in the country. If desirable ones are set aside to produce mulattoes, it would be a great loss to the nation; while if the mulattoes are the offspring of eugenically undesirable white fathers, then the product is not likely to be anything America wants.

From whatever standpoint we take, we see nothing good to be said for miscegenation.[141] We have discussed the problem as a particular one between the blacks and whites but the argument will hold good when

!applied to any two races between which the differences are so marked that one may be considered decidedly inferior to the other.

!

The following policy seems to us to be in accordance with modern

!science, and yet meet all the legitimate arguments of the National Association. We will state our attitude as definitely as possible:

!We hold that it is to the interests of the United States, for the reasons given in this chapter, to prevent further Negro-white amalgamation.

!The taboo of public opinion is not sufficient in all cases to prevent intermarriage, and should be supplemented by law, particularly as the United States have of late years received many white immigrants from other countries (e. g., Italy) where the taboo is weak because the problem has never been pressing.

But to prevent intermarriage is only a small part of the solution, since most mulattoes come from extramarital miscegenation. The only solution of this, which is compatible with the requirements of eugenics, is not that of laissez faire, suggested by the National Association,

!but an extension of the taboo, and an extension of the laws, to prohibit all sexual intercourse between the two races.

We believe it to be highly desirable that such laws should be enacted and enforced by all states. A necessary preliminary would be to standardise the laws all over the Union, particularly with a view to agreement on what a "Negro" legally is; for

!in some states the legislation applies to one who is one-sixteenth, or even less, Negro in descent, while in other states it appears to refer only to full-blood or, at the most, half-blood individuals.

Such legislation, and what is more important, such public opinion, leading to a cessation of Negro-white amalgamation, we believe to be in the interests of national eugenics, and to further the welfare of both

!of the races involved. Miscegenation can only lead to unhappiness under present social conditions and must, we believe, under any social conditions be biologically wrong.

!We favour, therefore, the support of the taboo which society has placed on these mixed marriages, as well as any legal action which can practicably be taken to make miscegenation between white and black impossible. Justice requires that the Negro race be treated as kindly and considerately as possible, with every economic and political concession that is consistent with the continued welfare of the nation. Such social equality and intercourse as might lead to marriage are not compatible with this welfare.

Fertility Fitness – Increase your chance of Pregnancy | Manchester