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.
No comments:
Post a Comment