PDA

View Full Version : The Concept of Heredity in Western thought


Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 05:01 PM
The Concept of Heredity in the History of Western Culture, Part I

by Roger Pearson, Institute for the Study of Man


The recent publication of Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, reviewed in this issue of The Mankind Quarterly, has led to a remarkable controversy within the media itself. Several of the initial reviews were favorable, as in The New York Times Book Review, but the commitment to the fanciful concept of biological egalitarianism, so strong in the politicized world that is contemporary multi-racial Western society, soon led to a violent reaction against the book and all associated with its message. Few if any of the reviewers who criticized it cared to challenge the data contained in it: most preferred to trash it by seeking to demonize it by emotional and irrational tirades. Unfortunately, co-author Richard Herrnstein died of cancer shortly before it was published, and this placed the entire weight of its defense on Charles Murray. In particular, The Mankind Quarterly was criticized by several radical commentators, such as Leon Kamin, a former New England editor of the U.S. Communist Party's weekly newspaper, and by journalist Charles Lane, also the holder of strong political views. Lane attacked The Mankind Quarterly as the source of a number of the articles containing data cited in The Bell Curve, complaining that "[N]o fewer than seventeen researchers cited in The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly." This is a charge the present writer, as publisher of The Mankind Quarterly, does not dispute: though he regards it as an accolade rather than a criticism.(1)

However, the general reading public, including possibly a high percentage of those who have been exposed to contemporary politically biased university courses in the humanities, fail to appreciate the true history of Western thought concerning the role of heredity and race for race is nothing if not a matter of heredity. The writer therefore feels that it might be useful to present a brief outline of this history, showing how committed the Western world was to a recognition of the efficacy of heredity until academic and media attitudes were affected in the first half of the present century by changes in the social, political and demographic climate.

This first article is consequently designed to illustrate the deep belief in the importance of heredity and race which prevailed from the earliest times until roughly the end of the first quarter of the present century. It will be followed by a second article, in the Fall issue of The Mankind Quarterly, which will document the rise of politically-motivated egalitarian ideology in the classrooms, which with the support of a substantial portion of the media eventually succeeded in making the idea of biological inequality politically unacceptable. Despite the fact that there is today a rapidly developing body of scientific research which, when viewed without fear or prejudice, clearly validates the age-old comprehension of the role of heredity in shaping the potential limits of individual human abilities, too many people are unaware of the mechanics behind the swing toward the powerful political notion of the biological equality of mankind. It is to be hoped that the following observations will encourage readers to enquire more deeply into this remarkable development.


Heredity in Ancient Europe


Western tradition has long recognized that heredity plays a significant role in determining not merely the characteristics of plants and animals but also the mental and physical qualities of human beings. Some elementary recognition of the role of genetics as a causal force may have originated as early as the Neolithic revolution, when cultivators learned how to improve upon the various species of wild grasses and to breed domesticated milk- and meat-giving animals which were biologically more useful to mankind than those they found in the wild. By the time of the great classical civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome it had become commonplace knowledge based on observing and remembering the generations from the same family that heredity also played an important role in determining the character and abilities of men and women.

In most early European societies, as in virtually all early societies that achieved an advanced culture, the social group was seen by its members as an intergenerational affair, with the family and the ancestors playing an important role in the self-concept of the individual. Life does not begin, nor does it end, with the individual. As Fustel de Coulanges pointed out in 1864, in his classic study of ancient Greek and Roman culture entitled The Ancient City (1955), it was the idea of common descent from the same ancestral forebears the idea of belonging to a specific community of families, and of sharing the same, hopefully eternal, thread of life that held the freemen of the Greek city-state together. As long as the lineage survived, the ancestors lived on in the minds and bodies of their descendants; death was only final when the entire nation was eliminated. The biological reality was interpreted into religious terms. The individual was seen as the product of the forces of biological causality, a living link in the chain that was the lineage, just as the lineage comprised a vital component of the nation-state, and the nation-state was a distinctly biological unit, with its own distinctive gene pool:


Reproduction in the ancient community was a religious duty... The religious society was the family, the genos. Paternal dignity and sacerdotal dignity were fused: the eldest son, upon the death of the father, becomes the head and priest of the family. The deceased father is honoured by his children as a kind of divinity. He himself is honoured by his children as a kind of divinity. He himself rendered the same worship to his ancestors: thus the greatest misfortune that his piety had to fear, is that the line shall be stopped. For then his religion would disappear from the earth, his hearth would become extinct, the whole series of his departed ones would fall into oblivion ...
The qualities that characterized individuals were acquired, it was believed, from their ancestors. Thus we find a speaker in the Odyssey (IV, 60) observing that "the blood of your parents was not lost in you, but ye are of the line of men that are sceptered kings, the fosterlings of Zeus, for no churl could beget sons like you." Similarly there are references to the disguised Athena as being "delicate of countenance such as are the sons of kings" (XIII, 216), whereas in the Iliad Thersites is described as ill-formed with a warped head. It was recognized that the even well-born individuals had to be schooled and trained to develop their inborn qualities to the maximum, but basic potential was inborn. In Homeric Greece, even truthfulness a revered value was deemed to be an inherited virtue, and to call a eupatrid, or "person of good ancestry," a liar was tantamount to calling him a bastard, a man of impure, inferior descent. Even as late as Classical Athens, Aristotle defined the physical and moral characteristics that were deemed to constitute nobility as "an inherited virtue" (Pol. IV. 8). In this, as in so many of his opinions, Aristotle was echoing ancient convictions expressed in the Iliad, as when a speaker protests that: "Therefore ye could not say that I am weak and a coward by lineage, and so dishonor my spoken word" (Il. XIV, 126).

According to L. R. Palmer, the authority on the Pylos tablets, Achaean kings held their office by virtue of the purity of their descent. Among the Achaeans, he wrote: "Where the `luck' of the tribe is concerned, there is no substitute for blue blood" (Achaeans and Indo- Europeans 1955, p. 9). Werner Jaeger went even further, describing the Hellenic ideal as an "aristocracy of race (1945, p. 205)." Because of their respect for good breeding, the Greeks honored their women as the progenitors of the race, and it was said that men chose their wives as they chose their horses, by the length of their pedigrees. The desirability of breeding from proven stock had become a cultural requirement, and only children born of legitimate wives (i.e., of quality ancestry) could inherit the social status of the father. Indeed, in ancient Athens and other Greek city-states, the eupatrids were men descended from no less than nine generations of untainted noble stock on both sides of the family tree.

Plato's interest in eugenics is well known, and he praises the Spartan interest in eugenic breeding (Laws, 630). Aristotle is equally impressed by the need to breed good stock. Theognis of Megara constantly praises the importance of heredity, complaining that well-born men and women will sometimes take inferior marriage partners in pursuit of riches, laments that "We seek well-bred rams and sheep and horses and one wishes to breed from these ... men revere money, and the good marry the evil, and the evil the good. Wealth has confounded race." (Theognis, V. 183). Racial purity was linked to physical appearance, with Spartan women being renowned for their beauty; and character was seen as inherited along with personal features: "Thou art pleasing to look upon and thy character is like to thy form" (Stobaeus, lxxxviii, 71). In Greek literature the importance of heredity is repeated again and again: "Noble children are born from noble sires, the base are like in nature their father" (Alcmeaon, Fr. 7); "I bid all mortals beget well-born children from noble sires" (Heraclitus, 7);"If one were to yoke good with bad, no good offspring would be born, but if both parents are good, they will bear noble children" (Meleager, Fr. 9).

The early Romans similarly held lineage in great respect and enforced a system of connubium, whereby freeborn Romans could only marry into certain approved stocks. However, the Romans were relatively few in number and, when their unparalleled military and administrative ability converted the Roman empire into a fully multi- ethnic community of enormous size, the circumstances became ripe for the rise of egalitarian political ideologies. Rome, the "multicultural giant," disappeared before the onslaught of the smaller, more homogeneous, Germanic nations, which still retained a sense of group identity.

The Germanic peoples (the Germans, Dutch, Flemings, Anglo- Saxons, Franks, Lombards, Scandinavians, Goths, Burgundians and Vandals) who founded so many of the modern states of Europe following the demise of the Roman Empire, carried the concept of heredity to its logical conclusion in their virtually unique system of kinship. Unlike their kinsmen, the Greeks, Italics, Celts, Slavs, and East Balts, they did not organize themselves in patrilineal clans and phratries which recognized only their father's kinfolk, but saw kinship in fully genetic terms. The Germanic "kindred" comprised all the individual's relatives on both the paternal and the maternal sides, assessing the degree of closeness according to the closeness of their actual genetic relationship; this was a quite different system from the concept of patrilineal or matrilineal clans so widespread amongst other peoples of the world. This Germanic kindred was the subject of the exhaustive study Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After (Phillpotts, 1917). To this day most North Americans of European descent have come to accept the Germanic tradition, where kinship is determined by the closeness of genetic relationship, whether the relatives be on the maternal or paternal side, as distinct from patrilineal and matrilineal clan systems. In ancient Scandinavia the belief in inherited talents was reflected in the concept of hamingja, an inherited "luck" force. However, it was recognized that siblings inherited qualities in different patterns, and kings who were "unlucky," and under whose leadership things went badly, were readily replaced by more competent individuals from the same royal lineage that had already produced generations of distinguished and successful leaders. The belief in breeding and the intergenerational transmission of genetic qualities was overriding, or as the old Germanic folk dictum expressed it, one could not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

Indeed, most Indo-European peoples, including those who resided outside the geographical borders of Europe, seem to have placed considerable trust in the powers of heredity. Max Weber documented the same emphasis on heredity among other Indo-Europeans. In The Religion of India (1958), Weber described the semi-magical xvarenah attributed to Indo-Iranian kings as a belief in inherited ability, calling it "familial charisma." The Indian caste system, he maintained, was sustained by a similar belief in the genetic inheritance of human qualities. The charisma of a caste, of a sib, and of a family, was genetically transmitted; its roots were to be found in the concept of inherited ability.

The coming of Christianity plunged classical philosophy into centuries of near-oblivion and clashed with the established and ancient European belief in the inequality of men. Spreading first among the slaves and lowest classes of the Roman empire, Christianity came to teach that all men were equal in the eyes of a universal Creator God, an idea that was totally alien to older European thought which had recognized a hierarchy of competence among men and even among the gods. Opposing the traditions of classical philosophy and scientific enquiry, Christianity introduced the concept of a single, omnipotent "God of History" who controlled all the phenomena of the universe with men and women being creations of that God. Since all men and women were the "children of God," all were equal before their Divine Maker! Faith in the church's interpretation of supposedly prophetic revelations became more important than scientific or philosophical enquiry; and to question the church's view of reality came to be perceived as sinful.

However, traditional European convictions as to the significance of heredity never completely died. Heroes, aristocrats and other national leaders had been regarded as superior beings by virtue of their descent from famed heroes or even from the gods, just as the Germanic kings claimed descent from Woden.(2) Kings and nobles were believed to inherit qualities superior to those of the average man, and to carry these qualities in their "blood." In ancient myth heroes might even challenge the gods; and the Christian church, jealous of the "divinity" awarded to kings and nobles by virtue of their lineage,(3) but finding it convenient to win their goodwill, offered them the "divine right" to rule as earthly representatives of the Christian God for so long as they obeyed the wishes of the Church as the representatives of God on Earth. The "divine right" to rule with the church's approval was a very different concept from the "divinity" that came from well-born stock.

Consequently, the idea of any disparity in genetic qualities came to be subtly discouraged by the church; and the success of the church was such that by the Middle Ages those who tilled the fields began to ask the rhetorical question: When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the Gentleman?

Stripped of their belief in the significance of human heredity and the notion of the state as a kinship unit "a family writ large" and believing instead in the essential equality of all men and women as the children of God, dissident sects espousing radically egalitarian ideals arose at intervals to protest social and economic inequality, especially at times when this became oppressive.

In time, secular political movements also began to assert the idea of biological equality, a theme which tended to be favorably received whenever the disquietude of a divided society erupted into revolution. Such was the case of the Levellers who fought alongside the Parliamentarians in seventeenth century Britain; of the Jacobins, who decimated the accomplished aristocracy of eighteenth century France; and of the Bolsheviks who wrought genocidal slaughter among the more successful members of Czarist Russian society nobles and peasants alike following the Bolshevik Revolution in the early twentieth century.(4)

In recent times, calls for political revolution have frequently invoked attacks on "genetic determinism" in favor of the alternate, wildly illogical, philosophy of human "biological egalitarianism." Despite the fact that both Marx and Engels personally believed in the significance of heredity and race Marx being particularly fond of resorting to some of the more vulgar racist terms to abuse his rivals in correspondence with his friends the ideological movement that emerged from their teachings eventually yielded to the notion of biological egalitarianism as a necessary ploy to inspire revolutionary passions among members of what they chose to call the proletariat. It was under Stalin, who sought to spread revolution in the Third World against "capitalist imperialism," that communist theoreticians found it convenient to overlook the fact that much economic inequality could be explained by biological inequality: the suggestion that one individual might be inherently more creative or productive than another tended to dampen the feelings of resentment so necessary to incite the masses to revolutionary action.


[B]The Discovery of Evolution and Genetic Science


Yet even while the myth of biological egalitarianism was gaining ground in the Western world, the momentum of scientific enquiry, freed by the Renaissance from the shackles of medieval religious dictates, was deepening Man's knowledge about himself and the world around him. In addition, a renewed enthusiasm for the application of selective breeding to plants and animals in the agricultural revolution of the eighteenth century focused enlightened thought once again on the significance of heredity.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin finally restored the concept of heredity to its rightful place with the completion of his epic work, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life ([1859] 1914). It is of some small interest that his research troubled his deeply religious but loyal wife, because she sensed that it challenged the still dominant pattern of religious thought. Facing the need to defend his overall theory of evolution as applied to all living species, Darwin is described by his biographer, Sir Arthur Keith, as having decided to refrain from extending his evolutionary theory to explain the inequalities between the surviving races of man, which he regarded as being so apparent.(5)

What Darwin found it necessary to avoid, so inundated was he with criticism of his claim that mankind as a whole had evolved from "lower" forms of life, his half-cousin Sir Francis Galton did not hesitate to tackle. Indeed, Galton established the science of statistics as he sought to apply mathematics to the study of inheritance. In his own way, Galton was quite as great a contributor to evolving science as was Darwin, for apart from the attention he directed to the need to study heredity, he not only laid the foundations for the science of meteorology, but together with his close friend, co-worker, and biographer Karl Pearson, he established the basic techniques of modern statistical methods and quite literally founded the science of eugenics. The goal of eugenics, a word created by Galton from the Greek eugnes ("well born"), was to apply scientific knowledge about heredity to the problem of human evolution in order to combat deleterious demographic trends which threatened to lead to a decline of genetic quality in modern societies. In Galton's own words, the purpose of genetic science was "to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable." Significantly he described eugenics as "that science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" (1909, 35). In short, Galton realized that nature and nurture work in tandem and are not to be seen as mutually exclusive opponents. Heredity was important, but so was a healthy and congenial environment.

Using mathematical techniques to demonstrate the role of genetics in shaping mankind, Galton argued that it was scientifically possible to increase the frequency of desirable qualities among human beings, and to prevent the spread of deleterious qualities, by eugenic measures, and the idea quickly attracted the favorable attention of most serious scholars following the publication of his epoch-making study Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences (1869). This seminal text was followed by Natural Inheritance (1889) and Essays in Eugenics (1909).

It is on record that Darwin was impressed by his cousin's work on Hereditary Genius. In a letter dated December 3, 1869 Darwin commended Galton on his "memorable work," stating that "I do not think I ever in my whole life read anything more interesting and original and how well and clearly you put every point You have made a convert." Two years later, in chapter seven of The Descent of Man, he developed Galton's observations concerning the differences between human races, noting that:


... the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotion, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck by the contrast between taciturn, even morose aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted talkative negroes."
Thus both Darwin and Galton came to the same conclusion, expressed by Galton as follows:


It is in the most unqualified manner that I object to pretensions of natural equality. The experiences of the nursery, the school, the university, and of professional careers, are a chain of proofs to the contrary ... In whatever way we may test ability, we arrive at equally enormous intellectual differences.
Galton's younger colleague, Karl Pearson, developed Galton's novel statistical techniques to new levels of effectiveness, laying the foundations of modern scientific method in his publication The Grammar of Science (1892). Like Galton, Pearson realized that the genetic legacy each generation leaves to its successors is of prime importance for the future of mankind. Every generation, in fact, is a bottle-neck which sifts and determines which genes are to survive. Pearson delineated the fundamentals of the new field of eugenic science in a number of publications, including National Life from the Standpoint of Science (1905), Nature and Nurture: The Problem of the Future (1910). He expressed his concern for the genetic future of the British nation in a warning to his fellow-Britons in his Huxley Memorial Lecture of 1903:


…the mentally better stock in the nation is not reproducing itself at the same rate as of old the less able and the less energetic are the more fertile ... The psychical characters which are the backbone of a State in the modern struggle of nations are not so much manufactured by home and school and college; they are bred in the bone, and for the last forty years the intellectual classes of the nation, enervated by wealth or by love of pleasure, or following an erroneous standard of life, have ceased to give in due proportion the men wanted to carry on the ever- growing work of the Empire. (Pearson, 1903)

Early Eugenics in Britain


Any people who recognize the significance of heredity must naturally think in terms of breeding. Once science had revalidated the concept of heredity in the Western world, the reaction in favor of extending the principles by which the quality of plants and animals had been improved to human beings was natural. The conditions of life in modern society seemed to be reversing natural selection and lowering the quality of each succeeding human generation. Support for the eugenic ideal quickly came from a wide range of varied intellectuals, including not only traditionalists who had always retained their belief in good breeding combined with good training, but also progressive thinkers. Those who cared for the unfortunates of this world saw how simply much human suffering could be eliminated in future generations by eugenic policies, and socialists such as George Bernard Shaw, whose Man and Superman (1965, p. 159) (essentially an ode to the inborn instinct to procreate the race) complained of contemporary society that "being cowards, we defeat natural selection under cover of philanthropy." H. G. Wells, another reformer who likewise cared for posterity, proclaimed that "the children people bring into the world can be no more their private concern entirely, than the disease germs they disseminate" (Kevles, 92). Others who supported the eugenic ideal were the youthful J. Maynard Keynes; left-leaning Julian Huxley, who sought not revolution but the reduction of human suffering by genetic improvement; and J. B. S. Haldane, who adopted Marxist values but always opposed its anti-hereditarian extremes. Numerous other social reformers of that time, such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, likewise embraced the eugenic ideal they were patriotic in the tradition of William Morris and Charles Dickens and eschewed revolutionary socialism, but feared emerging capitalism as a threat to the traditional bliss of agrarian England, and felt that much misery could be eliminated by rearing fit and healthy children rather than those who were burdened by genetic handicaps.

Also joining the eugenics cause was the ardent advocate of social change, Havelock Ellis, who supported the call for female liberation but emphasized the essential role that women played in ensuring the future of the race. Ellis (1912, pps. 4647, 205) declared that the aims of eugenics "could only be attained with the realization of the woman movement in its latest and completest phase as an enlightened culture of motherhood." The new St. Valentine, he observed, would be a scientific saint, not one of folklore, because marriage should be for the procreation and health of the race, not merely for personal pleasure. Scholars and politicians alike applauded the new sense of responsibility in procreation,6 with diverse figures such as the Cambridge biologist Francis Maitland Balfour, founder of the British school of evolutionary biologists, British Prime Minister Arthur James Balfour,(7) and the young politician Winston Churchill, all paying homage to the eugenic ideal. Galton, childless himself, applied his personal fortune toward the promotion of research into heredity and eugenics, funding the establishment of a biometrics laboratory at the University of London under the direction of his fellow-eugenicist Karl Pearson, for the primary purpose of studying heredity in man. He also helped finance the establishment of the Eugenics Education Society, which later changed its name to the more simple Eugenics Society. Patriotic Englishmen who feared a dysgenic trend in national ability eagerly supported the eugenic doctrine that the fittest, most intelligent and creative parents should be encouraged to have larger families. In this, they were joined by Fabian socialists, who sought to decrease what was seen to be an excessive rate of reproduction among the genetically unfortunate, so as to "level up" society instead of "leveling it down" which latter was the usual outcome of revolutionary socialism.

Possibly it was Julian Huxley who best summed up the confidence with which so many British academics who lived during the first half of this century viewed the future, when he wrote (1941, p. 22):


Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of religion of the future, or whatever complex of sentiments may in future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range.
In all honesty, although it would seem difficult to envisage his prophecy becoming a reality in any foreseeable date in the Western world, tendencies in Mainland China, and in the Chinese republic of Singapore, strongly indicate that it may be the billion-plus Chinese people who first realize Huxley's dream of the future.


The Eugenic Ideal Finds Favor in America


Scientific ideas are seldom confined to one country in the modern world, except where political suppression enters onto the scene, as in Marxist Russia, and although it was in England that the concepts of evolution and eugenics first saw light, European and American scholars soon responded. We will not here attempt to cover the continental scene, although scholars such as Ernest Haeckel, who became an ardent advocate of Darwinian evolution, seeing nations as potentially incipient races and the major racial divisions of mankind as virtually separate species, undoubtedly influenced the English-speaking world. At this time the determination of what constituted a species had not yet come to be linked to the concept of mutual inter-fertility, but was judged purely by the extent of phenotypical variation, as in the Linnaean system of classification still broadly accepted by biologists today. Consistent with such views, Haeckel and others began to urge not only eugenic breeding but also racial purity.

The concept of a new eugenic science was also welcomed in the United States, which shared the same traditional appreciation of the role of heredity held by those Europeans who had remained behind in Europe. At the turn of the century, the United States was still a land of opportunity, yet one which had already acquired a sense of nationhood, so that many of its most important families had developed a profound social conscience and a strong desire to ensure that the hopes they held for the well-being of their descendants, as Americans, would be realized. Idealists such as president Theodore Roosevelt were convinced that the existing American population possessed generally superior genetic qualities, shaped by severe selective evolution over the previous generations. Their forebears had been adventurous individuals who had first elected to undertake, and then survived, what was in earlier centuries a dangerous ocean crossing. After arrival in the New World, they had to protect themselves and their families from the depredations of the native Indian tribes who had the advantage of familiarity with the local environment. While doing this, they had to tame vast primeval forests and grassland wildernesses something Europeans had not seen since their forebears first began to convert the forests of Europe into the rich but increasingly overpopulated farmlands of civilized agrarian and mercantile culture. Thus a century and a half ago, Ralph Waldo Emerson reflected the views of his countrymen when he wrote that: "Where the race is right, the place is right".(8)

Americans at that time did not think of their country as a potential microcosm of all humanity, but as an emerging micro-race of predominantly European origin. President Theodore Roosevelt, credited with advancing the "melting pot" ideology, wanted only quality immigrants from ethnic stocks which would readily assimilate into the "Old American" population a term used to refer to persons descended from Europeans who had settled in North America prior to the War Between the States. While the British eugenicists were primarily concerned with maintaining the breeding quality of the resident population of the British Isles, Americans also debated the question of immigration, since they instinctively knew that immigrants affect what we would today call the national gene pool quite as significantly as differential selection within that pool.

Like Theodore Roosevelt, eugenicists felt that the new America must remain a vital and homogeneous nation. But, Roosevelt strongly believed that the Old Americans were not producing enough children, and that they must either change their ways or submit to an invasion of non-white peoples, most likely from Asia. Selected immigration from Europe was welcome, but those who would not fit in were not wanted. Immigrants should desirably match the genetic character of the existing population, and, to ensure this, most favored the restriction of immigration to the nations from which the predominantly North European pioneers who had built the United States had been drawn. The eugenic ideal matched perfectly the optimistic, forward-looking spirit of the people of the United States as they entered the twentieth century (although Roosevelt was fearful that those who advocated negative eugenics might discourage large families). But when eugenicists looked at increasing Asian and Hispanic immigration, some feared that the "great race" as eugenicist and conservationist Madison Grant (1924) described those whose ancestors had pioneered the establishment of European civilization in North America might be drowned by hordes of immigrants from Asia and Central America, too numerous to be assimilable, if it failed to defend its coasts and increase its own rate of reproduction. Madison Grant's own ancestors, it might be noted, had come to the American colonies from Scotland following the failure of the 1745 Highland uprising led by Bonnie Prince Charlie. His writings were therefore well received by a generation of proud, self-confident, and essentially prosperous Old Americans who wished to see their lovely country remain in the hands of their own kind, and who like the Greeks of old treasured the memory of the achievements of their forebears. American scholars, wealthy self-made industrialists, farmers, and even politicians saw the eugenic ideal as a means of ensuring the future well- being and happiness of the new nation to which they were proud to belong. Indeed, it was those who could claim to be Old Americans who gathered most enthusiastically in support of the eugenic cause.

The hopes of the eugenicists were raised in 1910 by the establishment of the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office by the Carnegie Institute of Washington. This was funded by Mrs. Mary Harriman,(9) the widow of E. H. Harriman, whose forebears left England for America in the seventeenth century. The director was Charles B. Davenport, the Harvard zoologist who was twice president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), as well as president of the American Zoological Society. The superintendent was Harry H. Laughlin, a leading light in the eugenics movement which flourished in America during the first half of the present century. The distinguished inventor, Alexander Graham Bell, figured prominently among the members of the Board of Scientific Directors established to support the work of the Eugenics Record Office. In a letter to Davenport, dated December 27, 1912, Bell revealed himself as a "mainstream" eugenicist who believed in "positive eugenics," which aimed at increasing the percentage of healthy and talented individuals in succeeding generations, rather than in "negative eugenics," the term commonly ascribed to measures designed to prevent the spread of deleterious genes. In light of the somewhat limited development of genetic and medical science at that time, and the heavily dysgenic impact of two World Wars which were shortly to follow, his observations reflect the perspicacity of a scientist whose name will live forever in history as a major contributor to technological progress and as a benefactor of the human race. Bell attended eugenics conventions, and himself authored several papers on eugenics, such as his essay entitled "How to Improve the Race," which appeared in the January 1914 issue of the Journal of Heredity, edited by Paul Popenoe.

The Galton Society formed in New York in 1918 at the American Museum of Natural History by Henry Fairfield Osborn, C. B. Davenport, and Madison Grant became actively involved in endeavors to shape U.S. policy relating to population quality. Spontaneous eugenics societies were established in many American cities, and hopes for a bright future for eugenics and future generations were raised when in 1923 (due largely to the efforts of Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank and Charles B. Davenport) the American Eugenics Society was established, with branches in numerous American cities. With the foundation of the Society, the eugenics movement began to take shape in a businesslike manner, placing heavy emphasis on the participation of scholars as scientific advisors on various advisory committees. Other eugenics organizations proliferated at this time, among which were the Eugenics Research Association, the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations, the American Social Hygiene Association, and even such bodies as the American Genetics Association, and the American Association for the Study of Human Heredity. Eugenicists were kept informed of new developments in science through a publication the Eugenical News.

Devoted to the well-being of their young nation, many of the early American eugenicists were proud to claim to be of Old American stock.(10) The term "Old American" was further popularized by the book of the same name, compiled by the anthropologist Ale Hrdlika. Hrdlika was himself a recent European immigrant, of Bohemian origin, who had accompanied his father to America at the age of fourteen and, after working in a cigar factory as a teenager, had entered the Eclectic Medical College of New York and graduated with an M.D. at the top of his class. Hrdlika practiced medicine for a while but soon found his interest turning to the problem of human quality and the significance of racial differences, which he saw in an evolutionary context. Traveling extensively to study the diverse living peoples of the world, as well as paleontological remains, he emerged as America's leading physical anthropologist, serving as editor of The American Journal of Physical Anthropology (which he founded in 1918), and as first president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Significantly he found nothing wrong in the historical pride of his new compatriots, and served for many years on the American Eugenics Society subcommittee on anthropometry and on the advisory council, being deeply concerned, as an expert on evolution, with the threat of dysgenics (of a deterioration in genetic stock) facing modern man. In his article "Race Deterioration and Destruction with Special Reference to the American People," published by the Race Betterment Foundation of Battle Creek, Michigan as part of the Proceedings of the Third Race Betterment Conference held on January 26, 1928, Hrdlika defined "race deterioration" as "the degradation of its standards of mentality and effectiveness, generally attended also by the lowering of those of physique" (p. 82). "Race destruction," another threat with which he was concerned, meant the loss of racial identity either "through complete submergence into another race" (p. 82) or simply by failure to reproduce itself. History, Hrdlika noted, recorded the rise and fall of nations. Vital, healthy nations tended to rise, but nations could also fall when, weakened by luxury and the exhaustion of ambition, they suffered a "dilution of the physical as well as mental status by admixture with poorer blood" (p. 83). He observed (pp. 84-85):


There are still some benevolent minds who would like to see all men, white and black, potentially equal. Yet they will hold that there are differences between one family and another family, and even between the children of the same family, in the same racial group. If they did not, there would obviously be no use for eugenics ... no use even for much of genetics and biology. As a matter of fact there are similarities but no absolute equality anywhere in living nature, either in races, or families or even individuals. The problem is merely how great in a given case is the dissimilarity. Races, especially the further distant ones ... are not equipotential, or equally effective, or able ...
The Race Betterment Foundation, which sponsored the conference at which Hrdlika presented these views, was first established in 1906 as the American Medical Missionary Board (but soon changed its name to the Race Betterment Foundation). Its founder was John Harvey Kellogg, a descendant of an Englishman named Joseph Kellogg who had arrived in North America as early as 1651. Kellogg, who launched the breakfast cereals industry by introducing granola to the American public as a health food, was chief surgeon at the then world-famous Battle Creek Sanitorium.

Publishing a journal called Good Health, the Race Betterment Foundation became a major center of the new eugenics movement in America. Kellogg himself was an important and respected figure who authored numerous medical and eugenics treatises, and his circle of influence extended to several successful businessmen including J. C. Penney and C. W. Barron, whose names remain familiar to this day. Another member of the Kellogg family, Vernon Lyman Kellogg, a zoologist of international repute, also espoused the eugenics movement. As a personal friend of President Herbert Hoover, he served on various national health and agricultural committees, becoming a trustee of the young Brookings Institute and of the Rockefeller Foundation while continuously taking an active role in the eugenics movement as the latter grew in size and influence.

The movement was also early supported by famed educator David Starr Jordan, first president of Stanford University.(11) Jordan's first American ancestor had arrived in the North American colonies from England circa 1700. Jordan's status in the American education scene of his day is illustrated by the fact that he was a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Educational Association, and the California and Indiana Academies of Science, as well as vice president of the Eugenics Education Society in Britain. In the opinion of the present writer, his major contribution to eugenic thought was the emphasis he placed on the dysgenic effect of modern warfare in such books as War and the Breed (1915). Charles William Eliot, president of Harvard University, trustee of the Carnegie Institution of New York, and one of the most eminent educators in America, also rallied to the eugenic crusade, as did astronomer William Wallace Campbell, president of the University of California, whose Scottish forebears had migrated to the colonies in the eighteenth century. Livingston Farrand, president of the University of Colorado and subsequently president of Cornell University, chairman of the central committee of the International Red Cross, and editor of the American Journal of Public Health, similarly espoused the eugenics movement, as did innumerable other educators and faculty members of note.

American paleontologists and anthropologists were also generally enthusiastic. Another leading anthropologist who served on the American Eugenics Society subcommittee on anthropometry was Earnest A. Hooton, the respected Harvard professor who later became director of the Peabody Museum. Hooton's father had been born in England, and Hooton himself attended Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship. Returning to America, where he became one of the main pioneers of physical anthropology, Hooton was an active member of the American Genetics Association and the Galton Society. He saw eugenics in terms of different levels of human evolution, and strongly believed that different inherited personalities contributed to susceptibility to engage in criminal behavior. Hooton collated data on some seventeen thousand criminals, and took a keen interest in the effects of race mixing. His Up from the Ape (1931), Apes, Men and Morons (1937) argued that heredity was at least as important as environment as a determinant of human behavior.

Most scholars who were in any way connected with the study of evolution came to see races as representing different levels of human evolutionary development. Ellsworth Huntington, a Yale geologist descended from one, Simon Huntington, who had emigrated from England to the colonies in 1633, was at one time or another president of the Association of American Geographers, president of the Ecological Society of America, director of the Population Association of America, member of the American Eugenics Society advisory council and chairman of its Committee on Biologic Genealogy.(12) A widely traveled scholar, Huntington expressed his fear that the more advanced human stocks would likely be overrun by the less advanced, and, as a prolific author (he wrote no less than twenty books and several hundred articles), his views reached a broad audience of educated men and women. Biologists were naturally prominent among those who recognized the role of heredity in human affairs, and many adopted the eugenics cause. Notable amongst these was H. S. Jennings of The Johns Hopkins University, himself of Old American stock, who wrote several influential books on the subject: notably Prometheus or Biology and the Advancement of Man (1925), which forecast a bright future for mankind through the application of eugenic policies, and The Biological Basis of Human Nature (1930). Jennings was president of the American Society of Zoologists and the American Society of Naturalists, as well as a member of the advisory committee of the American Eugenics Society.

Psychologists who were interested in intelligence also tended to become involved with the new ideal of population improvement. R. M. Yerkes, a descendant of Anthony Yerkes who had come to America from Holland in 1700, became an enthusiastic member of the American Eugenics Society and the Galton Society. A professor of psychology at Harvard, Yerkes is particularly known for his mammoth World War I study of the IQ ratings of one and three-quarter million U.S. military recruits, compiled while he was head of the psychology division of the office of the United States Surgeon General. Yerkes's concern with the different qualities of individuals and races led him to become active in the matter of immigration control, and he was elected chairman of the Committee on Human Migration in 1922. Leaving Washington to take a professorship at Yale, Yerkes recognized the potential for sociobiological studies in helping to explain human behavior, and in 1929 he founded the Laboratory of Primate Biology in Florida for this purpose. He also served as chairman of both the American Psychological Association (1916) and the American Society of Naturalists (1938). Carl C. Brigham, professor of psychology at Princeton University and author of A Study of American Intelligence (1923) was another member of the American Eugenics Society who became involved in immigration control, seeking to ensure that the American gene pool would not be adulterated by inferior genes, and was a keen member of the Galton Society and the Eugenics Research Association.

Possibly the most influential of the early psychologists who were active in the eugenics movement was William McDougall. Born in England, and educated at the universities of Cambridge and Göttingen, McDougall taught at Oxford University before eventually emigrating to the U.S. to take up a position at Harvard. With his experience of anthropological work in Borneo, McDougall was a fellow of the prestigious Royal Society in Britain and the author of numerous major textbooks which earned him preeminence in the field of social psychology. His respect for heredity showed itself in a series of books, beginning with An Introduction to Social Psychology (1908). Acutely conscious of the role of heredity in shaping human behavior, McDougall was an evolutionist who realized that human behavior was shaped by the evolutionary past of the human race. Because of the significant degree of racial diversity within the living peoples of the world, he prophesied that "racial psychology" would one day become a recognized field of study. As a believer in the quality of the North European stock relative to diverse other populations in the contemporary world, McDougall also took an interest in the composition of the future population of America: his book Is America Safe for Democracy? (1926) stressed the need for a selective immigration policy which would ensure that the United States remained a relatively homogeneous nation, and the need to design a truly scientific eugenic policy.

Of equal significance, however, was Lewis Madison Terman, president of the American Psychological Association and of the National Academy of Science. Terman authored a number of popular books on psychology, sex, and mental health, but is academically best known for his revision of the Binet Scale (1916), his co-authorship of the Stanford Achievement Tests, and his massive four-volume Genetic Studies of Genius (1926-30). Terman was a major voice in the eugenics movement, and was a key member of the Eugenics Society committee on psychometry.

Notable sociologists also rallied to the logic of eugenics. Franklin H. Giddings, author of several major works in early American sociology, professor of sociology at Bryn Mawr College, later chairman of the sociology department at Columbia University and president of the American Sociological Society, was a strong supporter of the eugenics movement who helped organize some of the first international conferences on eugenics and population. Giddings was descended from George Giddings who came to the colonies from England as early as 1635. Frank H. Hankins, a Columbia University educated sociologist who taught at Clark and Smith Colleges, was an active member of the board of directors of the American Eugenics Society. President of the American Sociological Society, and of the later-formed Population Association of America, Hankins authored a penetrating study entitled The Racial Basis of Civilization (1926).

Another sociologist who firmly believed in the importance of heredity was Robert M. MacIver, a Scottish immigrant who had been born in Stornaway on the isle of Harris. Well known for his many sociology texts, MacIver taught at Barnard College and Columbia University, and later was president of the New School for Social Research, which did not prevent it from later becoming identified with leftist views. A dedicated humanist, MacIver recognized the importance of good heredity and enthusiastically served on the board of the American Eugenics Society.

Another realist was the renowned sociologist and social psychologist, Emory Stephen Bogardus, who likewise served on the American Eugenics Society advisory council. A professor at the University of Southern California, Bogardus edited the Journal of Sociology and Social Research for over forty years, was founder and editor of the Journal of Applied Sociology, and a contributing editor to the Journal of Social Forces and the Journal of Educational Psychology. He authored numerous textbooks which were widely used and his Development of Social Thought (1960), written toward the end of his life, remained a classic survey of the history of sociology right into the fourth quarter of the present century. Less remembered today is his Immigration and Race Attitudes (1928), which more clearly shows his personal convictions on the importance of an understanding of heredity to the shaping of national policies.

The common cause between liberals and the traditionalists who both initially welcomed eugenics eventually became somewhat strained over the question of the feminist movement. This was not because the traditionalists despised women, but because they saw the outcome of the feminist movement differently. In general, the liberals favored "negative eugenics," a reduction of the number of births among the less favored, while the traditionalists tended to think in terms of the competition between nations and races, and favored "positive eugenics," which sought to encourage a higher rate of reproduction among the better stock.

Women made up an appropriately high proportion of those who attended eugenics lectures in both America and England, showing a proper concern for the future of the children they bore and the nation they nourished. Consequently, feminists such as Margaret Sanger, who for eugenic reasons wanted to make contraceptives equally available to the poor as to the middle and upper income groups, agreed with eugenicist Margaret Stopes when the latter proclaimed: "[m]ore children from the fit, less from the unfit that is the chief issue of birth control" (Hall 1977). Traditionalists such as the British eugenicists W. C. D. and C. D. Whetham, authors of The Family and the Nation: A Study in Natural Inheritance and Family Responsibility (1909), while agreeing with the female liberationists in that statement, nevertheless feared that feminism and the entry of the more intelligent women into the professions would reduce the birth rate among precisely those women who should be having more children: "Woe to the nation whose best women refuse their natural and most glorious burden," they wrote, warning that "freedom from marriage and reproduction ... is suicidal" (pp. 198-99).

Today, the low birth rate in the Western and more advanced nations of the world, and the massive ongoing population explosion in the Third World, have rendered the views of these traditionalist eugenicists prophetic. Even the Singaporeans, who are not a Third World nation, have noted the low birth rate among the more intelligent and educated of their womenfolk. As Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, a leading supporter of the British Eugenics Education Society and the British Eugenics Review, warned in 1927, the spread of birth control devices has been "racially devastating" to the more advanced countries. Sir Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of the renowned evolutionist and one of the early editorial board members of The Mankind Quarterly, also stressed the threat of overpopulation arising from reduced infant mortality in the Third World as a result of modern medical advances in his book The Next Million Years (1951) and in his 1960 Mankind Quarterly article "World Population: Can Man Control His Numbers?"

Nevertheless in the early decades of this century, both in America and in Britain, there was a generally happy overlap of interest on the subject of eugenics between leading liberals, who espoused negative eugenics aimed at discouraging the genetically defective from procreating, and traditionalists such as Leonard Darwin and Coldstream Guards officer C. P. Blacker, who generally supported positive eugenics and who were more concerned that the talented and healthy should be sure to pass on their genes to future generations. This political overlap was matched by a softening of the attitude of the Church, and the Bishop of Ripon urged the greater procreation of the fit in order to populate the British dominions overseas. The same moderation of attitude toward eugenics among the more progressive churchmen was also to be found in America. As Rudolph M. Binder wrote in his article "Eugenics and Religion," in the Eugenical News:


There has always been a double line in theological reasoning. One holds that God is not only omnipotent but controls absolutely everything; and all the various phenomena in the universe, including human activities are but manifestations of his power. This theory is best known by the term "predestination," and would imply that ... any attempt at contraception is an interference with the will of God. Hence, the opposition to eugenics which, while primarily concerned with the increase of good stock, is at least indirectly opposed to the propagation of poor stock.
This theological theory has gradually yielded to a more ethical conception of the deity. The omnipotence of God is less emphasized than His love. And the new theory permits a different interpretation of man. He has some liberty, he is held responsible for his acts, he is praised for his good actions as a co-worker with God and blamed for his bad ones.

With various other religious leaders such as Dean Inge of St. Paul's Cathedral supporting eugenics, the years between 1900 and the early 1930s were generally marked by a happy collaboration among those who truly desired to improve the conditions of life for future generations of human beings.


The More Advanced Countries Adopt Eugenics Laws


Today, continuing and rapid progress in genetic science holds out the promise that gene `splicing' or genetic `surgery' may make the elimination of many hereditary defects a real possibility in the foreseeable future. If individual deleterious genes can be replaced by healthy counterparts so that future generations can inherit all the desirable qualities of their forebears free from adverse mutations and other heritable disabling conditions, one of the major dreams of eugenicists will have been realized. Of course, this will not solve the entire eugenic problem, for although it is easy to repair a disabled Rolls Royce by replacing a leaking hosepipe or other defective part, it is not practicable to attempt to convert a Yugo or Lada into a Rolls Royce by replacing a major number of parts: not only is the task too large, but also many of the Rolls Royce parts would be incompatible with those of the inferior vehicle. The justification for "positive" or "mainline" eugenics the encouragement of an appropriate rate of reproduction among overall healthy and competent individuals would still remain. However, in the early decades of the twentieth century, although the consciousness of responsibility for the well-being of posterity ran high, genetic engineering was still hopelessly out of reach, and eugenicists knew that if the members of their generation were to pass on their genetic heritage to posterity in at least as good a condition as they had received it, it was necessary to avoid an undue proliferation of deleterious genes and to ensure the transmission of at least an undiminished percentage of the more desirable genes. It was obvious to the more conscientious that modern conditions of life had undermined nature's own methods of preserving the quality of the human stock in those populations that had emerged from a feral state of life and had advanced into what they so proudly called a "civilized" existence. Something had to be done to block the dysgenic trends that were weakening the quality of the population in the more technologically advanced nations. Native tribes living in the Amazon were still subject to nature's pruning knife and did not yet face these dysgenic trends, but they too, as their lifestyle became "modernized," were likely in the course of time to face the same dysgenic influences.

As a result, the more responsible members of the advanced Western nations, conscious of their duty to the well-being of future generations, came to press for eugenic laws, and the majority of the more enlightened nations of the West introduced some such kind of legislation. Some might argue today that they should have waited until genetic science had advanced to the level where genetic "surgery" had become a real possibility, but the immediacy of the dysgenic threat introduced by modern conditions did not permit the luxury of delay. The entire genetic potential of future generations was going to be restricted to whatever collation of genes those who were living in the early decades of the twentieth century passed on to their heirs. Eugenicists realized that the future genotype of a nation depends on the reproductive activity of each successive generation, and the massive dysgenic impact of modern warfare, combined with the emergence of disproportionate rates of reproduction between the fit and the unfit, indicated that there was no time to be lost.

In consequence, virtually all the more enlightened nations of the Western world decided to introduce eugenic laws intended to control the reckless spread of deleterious genes. With this objective in mind, eugenic laws were introduced in Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, Estonia, Iceland and a number of Swiss cantons. Germany introduced similar laws and has been much criticized for this, but so also did Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Britain, which had largely pioneered the eugenics movement and was suffering from the decimation of its leadership class in World War I, did not get around to following suit. Even outside Europe, there were countries such as Argentina, Chile, Peru, Brazil where laws covering hereditary mental pathologies, hereditary feeblemindedness and serious hereditary physical pathologies were enacted.

It is of some interest that these legislative measures, designed to protect future generations, were largely pioneered by the United States; U.S. legislation being copied by many of the other countries, including Germany. By 1931 twenty-seven of the forty-eight states of the U.S. had eugenics laws on their statute books, and no less than thirty states in all passed such laws at one time or another. In addition, many states had statutes prohibiting miscegenation, on the theory that the scrambling together of separate gene pools created by nature might be dysgenic. In Canada, both British Columbia and Alberta adopted similar laws, and it seemed probable that in the course of time all the leading nations of the West would eventually take steps intended to free their future populations from the dysgenic threat already so apparent. Responsible intellectuals were confident that science and moral vision would combine to save Homo sapiens from itself and enable him to take control of the evolutionary steering tiller which modern science would allow them to steal from nature to chart a rational course to a happier future than any to which primitive man could ever have dreamed to aspire. Julian Huxley's prophecy seemed about to be fulfilled.


Eugenicists as Conservationists


To truly appreciate the social conscience of those who supported eugenics, it is revealing to note that those who desired to preserve the genetic quality of the human population were also anxious to preserve all that was wonderful in the world of nature. Indeed, it was mainly those who were anxious to conserve the genetic heritage of mankind who pioneered the conservationist movement which similarly sought to conserve the rich variety of plant and animal species that nature had bequeathed to the care of man.

Possibly the most notable figure in this conservationist movement was Gifford Pinchot a grandson of one of Napoleon's generals, who was a professor of forestry at Yale and who had the honor of having Mount Pinchot named after him. A respected and popular figure, who was twice elected governor of Pennsylvania, Pinchot combined his services to the environment with active engagement in the eugenics movement. But the list of eugenicists who were active in the conservation movement is a long one. The foundation of the American Bison Society was largely due to eugenicist Madison Grant and his like- minded personal friends. The Save-the-Redwoods League owed its existence to eugenicists Madison Grant, Henry Fairfield Osborn, and paleontologist John Campbell Merriam (president of the American Paleontological Society and of the Geological Society). Merriam, who was proud of his father's "Old American" ancestry and his mother's Scottish ancestry, also served as president of the Carnegie Foundation of Washington, and as an extremely active president of the Save-the- Redwoods League. Despite a full calendar, he seldom missed a meeting of the Galton Society or of the Eugenics Advisory Council.

With the support of Theodore Roosevelt, eugenicists Madison Grant and Henry Fairfield Osborn founded the New York Zoological Society in 1893, where animals could roam freely in conditions similar to their natural habitats instead of being confined to cramped cages. Irving Fisher of Yale president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s was a member of Theodore Roosevelt's National Conservation Commission in 1919. Antioch College president Arthur Ernest Morgan, a civil engineer by profession, was another keen eugenicist who supported the conservation movement. Botanist and eugenicist James Arthur Harris, of "Old American" English stock, a student of Karl Pearson in London and winner of the Weldon Medal (named after the noted English eugenicist), was also an ardent conservationist, and served as president of the American Society of Naturalists. Perhaps even more typical of the academic naturalist and eugenicist of the day was Francis B. Sumner, a sociologist who began teaching at City College, New York, became director of the laboratory of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, before moving to the University of California, La Jolla. Sumner combined his various duties as a section chairman of the AAAS and president of the Western Society of Naturalists with active membership of the American Genetics Association and the Save-the- Redwoods League.

It is only logical that eugenicists should be ardent conservationists: the humanitarian idealism of the first decades of the twentieth century was the natural outcome of discerning and cultured men and women who were prepared to devote their lives to obstructing the tide of biological destruction which was already beginning to sweep America, damaging both the human and the non-human genetic heritage alike. These were people who deemed it their duty to leave the world a better place than they had found it or if that were not possible, at least as good a place as previous generations had left it. Eugenicists, after all is said and done, are conservationists first and last, and there are few eugenicists who do not care about the survival of a rich legacy of flora and fauna in a healthy environment as a logical extension of their concern that the earth should be in the care of persons capable of appreciating its qualities and conserving these for future generations. The historical record shows that they put superhuman effort into their struggle as conservationists, both with respect to plants and animals as well as to humans, and much of what in fact has survived to the present day is a result of their efforts.

The success of the conservationist movement in the United States at this vital period in the nation's history was facilitated by the sympathy of President Theodore Roosevelt, who was deeply concerned about the threat to the quality of both the natural and human stock of America. The contemporary generation of "Old American" pioneering origin, he held, were guilty of committing race suicide by allowing their birth rate to drop below the rate necessary to populate the lands their forebears had won.13 But he also cared deeply for the zoological and botanical heritage, and inviting George Bird Grinnell, a pioneer conservationist who had been publicizing the need for conservationist action through the medium of Forest and Stream magazine, to dinner to meet like-minded individuals, Roosevelt formed the highly respected Boone and Crockett Club, without the activities of whose members, such as Madison Grant and Gifford Pinchot, there undoubtedly would be no Yellowstone Park today. Nor would the early conservation laws which saved much wild life, trees, plants, and wildernesses from destruction have been enacted. Glacier National Park is another example of the treasures that exist largely due to the Boone and Crockett Club.

With Madison Grant serving as secretary and later as president, the Boone and Crockett Club was largely comprised of eugenicists and eugenics sympathizers. Renowned as one of the more active members of the eugenics movement, and especially for his efforts to preserve the "Old American" component of the American population, Grant worked just as ardently to preserve the natural heritage for future generations of Americans and should be remembered always with honor as one of the nation's greatest benefactors.

As to legislation, the members of the Club worked both inside the Club and outside to ensure the passage of federal and state laws that would protect certain species of animal and plant life, notably the giant redwoods, from extinction. Their fear was that the increasing population of North America and modern economic development would eliminate the heritage nature had bequeathed to their generation, and that this could also happen worldwide. As Madison Grant prophetically warned in Trail and Camp Fires (1904) that unless active steps were taken:


[i]t may be confidently asserted that [man] ... will have destroyed most, if not all the large African fauna certainly including the most beautiful antelopes in the world and game in India and North America in a wild state will almost have ceased to exist.
Henry Ford, who was concerned about preserving both the quality of the population and the quality of the environment, assigned one of his staff to act as a full-time lobbyist to aid in the passage of a major conservation bill which was signed into law by President Taft on March 4, 1913. It was also no accident that Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most active exponents of eugenics, was among those who worked most strongly for passage of the bill.

The opening decades of the Twentieth Century were in many ways a credit to the flowering of American conservationist idealism. Led by patriotic and far-seeing descendants of the early European settlers of North America, and with the whole-hearted collaboration of the nobler- minded among more recent European immigrants, there was a strong dedication to the need to hand down a rich heritage to future generations of Americans. To have personally known any of these farsighted American leaders from the early part of this century is a privilege now denied to all except a few more elderly citizens. The names mentioned are but a few of the dedicated individuals who graced early twentieth century American society and who freely gave their time, talents and money to the effort to save for posterity all that was best of the plant, animal, and human wealth still plentiful in their day. These men and women were inspired by a noble sense of public duty, and although subsequent generations have not preserved the high level of genetic and environmental conservation to which they aspired something at least of their spirit still exists, and the overall logic behind their views has since been demonstrated to have been totally sound.


Biological Egalitarianism Infiltrates Academe


But just when it seemed that the Western nations of the world were rising to a new level of social consciousness and moral responsibility, World War I wrought political and genetic havoc upon the Western world. Striking Europe the most heavily, with Britain and France suffering genetic losses from which they never recovered, it also led to significant changes in America which were further accentuated by the ensuing Great Depression. The forces of revolutionary socialism, seducing significant segments of the public by painting a fanciful image of a distant egalitarian paradise, were the only beneficiaries of the disastrous maelstrom of genetic and economic destruction wrought by the war. Although eugenicists saw the war losses as additional evidence of the urgent need to preserve the drastically weakened heritage of beneficial genes, the public's confidence in the future was shattered by the Great Depression and the resultant struggle simply to survive. Popular concern, often little directed toward the distant future, was redirected even more strongly to the problems of the present day, and the revolutionary socialist creed of egalitarianism and anti- hierarchicalism steadily won control of the high ground that the eugenicists were unable to retain.

In some countries, as in Russia, the massive losses of World War I led to violent revolutionary victory for those who preached anti- hereditarian views: although this brought with it neither freedom nor equality for the common man, only a truly cruel form of dictatorial government that showed no interest in either environmental conservation or human genetic conservation. Even in Western Europe and North America, where there was no violent Marxist seizure of power, the forces of social revolution made egalitarianism their slogan. This steady slide from idealistic concern for the future to crude appeals to the material interests of the present generation was facilitated by the penetration of the academic world by advocates of social revolution, and the political influenceof the latter gained ground rapidly during an era troubled by economic depression.


Positive and Negative Eugenics


Changes also developed at this time within the eugenics movement which first seemed to strengthen the argument in favor of eugenic action, but eventually led to a major setback. Traces of this can be identified in the double-edged manner in which president Theodore Roosevelt had viewed the eugenics movement. Roosevelt strove mightily to persuade healthy Americans to have more children, and fussed against members of the eugenics movement whose advice, he feared, could discourage childbearing among otherwise healthy Americans. Genetic science was not then sufficiently advanced to enable the precise identification of deleterious genes, and Roosevelt and many other supporters of the eugenic ideal justifiably believed that the best route to take in the prevailing circumstances was to encourage the procreation of those stocks that seemed to be generally fit and creative.

Those were days, it must be remembered, when concern about the "yellow peril" was common. This was based on the evidence, already apparent but since then magnified many times, that while the white race was threatened by a decline in numbers and quality, the speed with which the population of Asia was increasing, and the attempts Asians were already making to migrate into North America, constituted a threat to the United States which then perceived itself as a white nation. G. Stanley Hall, president of Clark University, was among those who warned that the traditional character of America as a European-based nation was threatened by the uncontrolled immigraton of Asians logically and prophetically commenting that "the future belongs to those people who bear the most and best children and bring them to maturity". In Britain the Whethams similarly warned against the immigration of genetically quite diverse peoples(14) and echoed the same theme: that the future belongs to the more prolific, and that, if the disparity in births continued, the world could one day fall to the Chinese.

Theodore Roosevelt's criticism of eugenicists who were ignoring the international numbers competition proved to be a forerunner to a division of interest which was to split the young eugenics movement within a few decades of its explosive origin. Roosevelt might be described as being what some have since called a "mainstream eugenicist." Mainstream eugenicists placed emphasis on positive eugenics, on encouraging the reproduction of healthy families chosen from among stock of proven historical capability. Being mostly of Northwest European origin themselves, the mainstream eugenicists saw eugenics as a national issue closely connected with the survival of their own national stock at a time when the birth rate of that stock was declining and the population of non- whites was beginning to increase rapidly.

But mainstream eugenics was doomed to wither. As genetic science continued its initially slow and halting advance, many geneticists became so enthralled with the hunt for biological illneses and defects that could be clearly identified as genetic in origin that they began to lose interest in mainstream eugenics a goal which lent itself less readily to laboratory research. Geneticists began to seek out specific genetic diseases, and took less interest in encouraging creative families to increase or even maintain their birth rate, an activity which fell more realistically into the political arena. This search for inherited diseases was dubbed "reform" eugenics. Its goal could hardly be faulted; but as the memory of the massively dysgenic impact of World War I began to fade in the public mind, reform eugenics increasingly diverted attention away from the ideal of those who sought to preserve an adequate reserve of genetically healthy, creative stock. Unfortunately it would be many long years before scientists could even begin to foresee a day when it might be possible to effectively eliminate individual defects.

Thus the eugenics movement found itself increasingly divided at precisely the time when the eugenic ideal the desire to free future generations of mankind from genetic handicaps and to provide posterity with an adequate heritage of genes for above average creativity came under increasing attack from those who were ideologically committed to egalitarianism. The latter refused to see the eugenic ideal in any light other than as an hierarchical concept implying superiority and inferiority the precise pattern of thought they sought to eliminate from the social consciousness, and the foundations were laid for the highly emotional struggle which today dominates both academia and the media, concerning research into behavioral genetics and the propagation of information about the significance of heredity in shaping human behavioral potential to the general public.


References

Bell, Alexander Graham 1964How to Improve the Race. Journal of Heredity 5 (1)
Binder, Rudolph M. 1915Eugenics and Religion. Eugenical News 18 (2)
Bogardus, Emory S. 1928Immigration and Race Attitudes. New York: David McKay 1960The Development of Social Thought. 4th edition. New York: David McKay
Brigham, Carl C. 1923A Study of American Intelligence. Princeton: Princeton U. Press
Darwin, Charles 1859The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Reprinted 1914. Philadelphia: Richard West
Darwin, Sir Charles Galton 1951The Next Million Years. London: Hart Davis 1960Can Man Control his Numbers? The Mankind Quarterly 1 (2)
Davenport, Charles B. 1919Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. New York: Henry Holt
Ellis, H. 1912The Task of Social Hygiene. New York: Houghton Mifflin Fairchild, H.P. 1926The Melting Pot Mistake. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Fustel de Coulanges 1864The Ancient City. Translated from the 12th edition (1888). Paris: Hachette
Galton, Francis 1869Hereditary Genius: An enquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan 1889Natural Inheritance. New York: Macmillan 1909Essays in Eugenics. London: Eugenics Education Society
Grant, Madison 1904Trail and Camp Fire. New York: Boone and Crockett Club 1923The Passing of the Great Race. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons Hall, Ruth 1977Passionate Crusader: The life of Marie Stopes. New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich
Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray 1994The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: The Free Press
Hooton, Edward A. 1931Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan 1939Apes, Men and Morons. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons Hrdlika, Ale 1928Race Deterioration and Destruction with Special Reference to the American People. The Proceedings of the Third Race Betterment Conference. Battle Creek, MI: Race Betterment Foundation
Huntington, Ellsworth 1935Tomorrow's Children. New York: John Wiley
Huxley, Julian 1937Foreword to Eugenics and Politics by Herbert Brewer. London: Eugenics Society
Jaeger, Werner 1945Paidea: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Trans. G. Highet. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jennings, H.S. 1925Prometheus or Biology and the Advancement of Man. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co. 1930The Biological Basis of Human Behavior. New York: W.W. Norton
Jordan, David Starr 1914War and the Breed. Repr. 1984. Washington D.C.: Cliveden Press
Josey, Charles C. 1922Race and National Solidarity. Reprinted 1995. Washington D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers
Kevles, Daniel J. 1985In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the use of human heredity. New York: Harper and Row
Huxley, Julian S. 1941Eugenics and Society, in Man and the Modern World (1944). London: Scientific Book Club (reprint of an article first published in 1941).
McDougall, William 1908An Introduction to Social Psychology. London: Methuen 1926Is America Safe for Democracy? Reprinted 1977. New York: Arno Press
Palmer, L. R. 1955Achaeans and Indo-Europeans. New York: Oxford University Press
Pearson, Karl 1903Huxley Memorial Lecture. British Medical Journal, Oct. 10, 1903. 1905National Life from the Standpoint of Science. London: Black 1909The Scope and Importance to the State of the Science of National Eugenics. London: The Galton Eugenics Laboratory Lecture Series
Phillpotts, Bertha S. 1913Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ross, Edward A. 1923The Outlines of Sociology. New York: The Century Co. 1927Standing Room Only. New York: The Century Co.
Shaw, George Bernard 1965Preface to Man and Superman, in The Complete Works of Bernard Shaw. London: Paul Hamlyn
Terman, Lewis M. 1926-30Genetic Studies of Genius. 4 Vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Weber, Max 1958The Religion of India. (Ed. and translated by Hans M. Gert and Don Martindale). Glencoe, IL: Free Press
Whetham, W.C.D. & C.D. Whetham 1909The Family and the Nation. A Study in Natural Inheritance and Family Responsibility. London: Longmans Green
Yerkes, R. M. 1921Psychological Examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Science. 15

Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 05:16 PM
The Concept of Heredity in Western Thought, Part II

by Roger Pearson, Institute for the Study of Man


Anthropology and sociology were not always committed to egalitarianism and many of the original pioneers tended to favor the concept of eugenics in so far as breeding from highly regarded members of the community was concerned. Both society at large and members of academe at that time still recognized the vital importance of heredity, and as we earlier noted, many of the great names of sociology, anthropology and psychology were 'outspoken in their emphasis on the role of heredity, working in conjunction with environment and culture, as a prime factor in shaping human behavior. Amongst these "hereditarian" social scientists we must include such names as Ales Hrdlicka, W. G. Sumner, Ernest A. Hooton, William McDougall, C. H. Cooley, F. H. Giddings, R. M. McIver, Pitirim Sorokin, E. S. Bogardus, and E. A. Ross. Even Lester Ward condemned socialism as creating an artificial equality, recommending instead the concept of a "sociocracy" (1899) which would benefit each according to his or her merit, but would provide equal opportunity to all. Ward supported the concept of eugenics, and recognizing the need for "race elevation" and "continuing the race",1 he stressed the importance of women as progenitors of the race. Similarly, Thorstein Veblen (1922) warned against the inherent threat of "race suicide" and held that "providence is a virtue only so far as its aim is provision for posterity."2

The indisputable fact is that most pioneer social scientists were by no means egalitarians, and were quite open-minded so far as the possibility of incorporating biological knowledge into their altruistic plans to improve the human lot was concerned. The attempt by egalitarians ensconced in academe to deny the relevance of biology to the human condition is of relatively recent origin, and has its roots in the activities of radical political ideologues who have consciously infiltrated the academic world in order that they can advance the egalitarian thesis from respected positions of influence and authority.

On the other hand, the study of human behavior was from its inception strongly linked to the natural human urge to use knowledge to improve the human condition. Indeed, sociology is customarily traced back to Comte Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) - one of those extraordinary French aristocrats who acknowledged a degree of corruption in the ancien regime and genuinely desired to create a "brave new world" - though one that differed substantially from the teachings of Voltaire and Rousseau. Saint-Simon was an idealist who enrolled in the French army at the age of seventeen, fought with the French expeditionary force sent to help fight the British in the American Revolution, and was present at the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. He believed that a scientific, positivist approach to the study of society could eradicate many of the evils that beset mankind; but not being an egalitarian, he did not support the ensuing French Revolution which had a far different character from that of the American Revolution.

Imprisoned, because of his aristocratic background, during Robespierre' s reign of terror, Saint-Simon was fortunate in surviving this bloody period and began to devote himself to the question of social and political reform. His ideal was a hierarchical society organized around an efficient system of industrial and agricultural productivity such as that which had made it possible for Britain to stand up against the power of Napoleon. His writings caught the eye of Napoleon, who attempted to impose some of them on the new United Europe he sought to create. Saint-Simon hired a young secretary, Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who admired his employer's ideas so much that he decided to expropriate them as his own. Consequently, it was Auguste Comte, writing after Saint-Simon's death, who is more commonly regarded as the founder of sociology.

Like his employer, Auguste Comte conceived of sociology as a science aimed at developing a system of efficient social control which would nevertheless be in harmony with man's biologically determined nature (1830-42). His ideal was also an hierarchical system, with captains of industry holding the controlling positions; it was in no way egalitarian and it rejected the idea of biological egalitarianism. However, egalitarianism steadily gained strength as a result of the various revolutionary passions that swept Europe in the nineteenth century, and while some socialists identified with the eugenic concept, others moved in the direction of egalitarianism, accepting Saint-Simon and Comte's advocacy of social engineering while rejecting the hierarchical concept of society implicit in more traditional philosophy. Notable amongst these was Franz Boas, who migrated to the United States from Germany to become the head of the first American Ph.D.-granting university department. Equipped with all the trappings of extreme environmentalism and egalitarianism, Boasian anthropology eventually became the bulwark of those in American academe who were committed to the myth of biological egalitarianism.


Franz Boas


Franz Boas (1858-1942) was born in Minden, Germany, and grew up in a strongly radicalized environment. Both his parents were radical socialists who were active in the 1870-71 revolutionary movement that swept Europe. Abraham Jacobi, his uncle by marriage, had actually been imprisoned after being found guilty of armed violence in Cologne during the revolution of 1848, after which he had emigrated to America, where he soon became influential in the early rise of radical socialism. Boas's family background was thus intimately interconnected with the radical socialist revolutionary movement, and also provided him with ready contacts in the United States.

Although lacking any formal training in anthropology, Boas had studied a certain amount of cultural geography in addition to his main doctoral subject, which was physics. What gave him an entree to anthropology was a report he wrote on the Eskimos of Baffin Land in 1883 for Der Berliner Tageblatt, a liberal newspaper. After serving as a docent in geography at the University of Berlin, he migrated to the United States in 1886 to take up a position at Clark University. It was here that the first U.S. doctoral degree specifically designated as being in the area of anthropology was awarded under Boas's supervision. Boas subsequently became the head of a department of anthropology established at Columbia University, where he was able to train and award doctoral degrees to numerous students. Equipped with the earliest American doctorates specifically designated as being in the field of anthropology, his students by default became the leaders and prime builders of academic anthropology in the United States, rapidly establishing themselves as the arbiters of a controlling network which heavily influenced the future of anthropological research, publishing and teaching in American universities.

Interestingly, as late as 1911, in his book The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas had admitted that:

[d]ifferences of structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of differences of structure between races, so we must anticipate that differences in mental 'characteristics will be found.

However, Boas was shortly to reverse this position when he realized that the recognition of genetic forces conflicted with the goals of his egalitarian and internationalist ideology, which sought to demolish the unity and coherence of national units. Instead he began a massive campaign to undermine national and ethnic consciousness and "combat racism" in whatever form it might find expression. In particular, his Anthropology and Modern Life (1928) was devoted to downplaying the concept of heredity and undermining the eugenic ideal. The egalitarian ideology steadily gained ground as Boas's disciples and their pupils gained increasing influence throughout American academe. The spread of Boasian doctrines was further facilitated by the position of world dominance then enjoyed by the Western nations. Spurred by an ethical desire to shoulder "the white man's burden" in a shrinking world, many academics came to believe that mankind should now abandon the Darwinian struggle and treat the formerly competing subspecies of mankind as members of a single, international, gene pool. This was a reversal of the evolutionary process which has for all time been firmly rooted in procreative competition, and was an ethical concept not shared by the non-Western nations, who adhered to more functional, self-promoting, competitive patterns of behavior.3

Thus, despite mounting evidence that genetic factors were of profound importance in determining human physical and mental behavior, the desire that biological egalitarianism should be true gained strength as human altruism was redirected away from the immediate group toward even the most disparate members of diverse breeding populations. The evolutionary trend toward greater speciation, already threatened by increasing population and migratory pressures, was now further vitiated by cultural factors rooted in an ideology which favored overall sapiens homogenization. The new radicals in U.S. social science found it convenient to downplay heritability; and Boas's earlier acknowledgment of human biological disparities was edited out of the 1938 edition of The Mind of Primitive Man.

Those to whom Boas chose to award doctoral degrees in anthropology generally shared his ideologies and became prime disciples of egalitarian universalism. As the only holders of designated doctorates in anthropology, they were natural candidates to head up newly-formed departments of anthropology in other universities where they, in turn, could train and award doctorates to a new generation of Boasian anthropologists. One readily perceives how much the egalitarian bias in anthropology owes to this one immigrant of solid egalitarian-revolutionary credentials.

In his biographical work Franz Boas (1953, p. 65), Melville Herskovits, himself a student of Boas, publicly acknowledged that Boas's "political sympathies leaned towards a variety of socialism common among Nineteenth Century liberals." A cynic might add that the nineteenth century liberals with whom members of Boas's family were connected included some of the bomb-throwing variety! The records of the United States House of Representatives (1944, p. 9) actually attribute Boas with no less than forty-six communist-front connections.

Herskovits went on to confirm that:

[t]he Four Decades of the tenure of professorship at Columbia gave a continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their turn, they trained the students who . . . have continued the tradition in which their teachers were trained. . . .

Despite such an open admission by his pupil, friend and biographer, few today fully appreciate the extent of Boas's influence on the subsequent history of anthropology in America. Yet it is readily apparent when we look at the careers of just a few of Boas's pupils, all of whom sought to revolutionize Western thinking about social relations and to minimize the role of heredity in the shaping of human abilities:

Margaret Mead, often called "the mother of American anthropology," became the author of many influential but distorted anthropological texts. Mead earned her M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia in 1929 under Boas, and obtained an influential position as associate curator of the American Museum of Natural History. Her Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) was a particularly blatant, now-transparent attempt to demolish support for Western family traditions in favor of free sex, and has since been shown to be based on a broadly false and flagrant misrepresentation of Polynesian customs.4 She co-authored with Gene Weltfish a pamphlet entitled The Races of Mankind (1940), which somehow came to be adopted by the War Department for distribution among American World War II military personnel, until it was withdrawn when it was judged to be communist propaganda. Its general thesis reflected the very core of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, extending the concept of "class exploitation" to include "race exploitation" and portraying race as nothing more than a cultural invention designed to keep the colored races in submission -or a conceptual artifact designed to promote a specialized form of class exploitation. Mead was officially cited as having numerous communist- front affiliations.

Melville Herskovits obtained his Ph.D. under Boas in 1927 and was subsequently hired by Boas as a research associate in anthropology at Columbia. Herskovits later became chairman of anthropology at Northwestern University, and a major power in the increasingly narrow, incestuous world of American cultural anthropology, in which virtually all the key positions were controlled by students of Boas. As the first granter of doctorates in an area specifically designated as anthropology, Boas had brought off a political coup which enabled his views not only to dominate subsequent generations of American anthropologists, but also to inspire leftist thinkers in sociology and other branches of the social sciences throughout the English-speaking world.

Ashley Montagu, born in England as Israel Ehrenburg, changed his name several times, adopting not merely a set of Anglophone names - which would not have been unusual - but one of uniquely aristocratic flavor, Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu. For a surname he appropriated the name Montagu from one of Britain's oldest medieval titled families, and for good measure reinforced this by hyphenating it to the name of Ashley, since hyphenated surnames conveyed an additional aura of social status in Britain.5 Resenting the hereditarian views of Britain' s leading anatomist, Grafton Elliot Smith, under whom he was studying, he dropped out of the University of London without getting his bachelor' s degree, and disappointed by the failure of the 1928 General Strike in Britain, the new "Montagu" migrated to America where he was awarded a Ph.D. by Boas in 1936 - and was appointed chairman of anthropology at Rutgers University. "Montagu's" entire career was built around a bitter crusade against the work of respected scholars such as Carleton Coon,6 who recognized race for what it is - a very real product of human evolution. A widely influential torrent of publications, such as his widely promoted book, Man's Most Dangerous Myth (1942), all sought to dismiss the zoological reality of race.

Montagu was the rapporteur primarily responsible for drafting the academically absurd, but politically sententious, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) 1950 Statement on Race, which sought to deny the significance of racial disparities. 7 This was widely protested by scientists from many countries, notably by the pre-eminent French paleontologist Henri Vallois, director of Musee de l'Homme.8 Not all the members of UNESCO's own social science department accepted the original United Nations Statement. Professor Georges A. Heuse, director of the UNESCO ethno-psychology department, condemned it, commenting that it was "conceived chiefly by Ashley Montagu - an anthropologist who conceives race a social myth - and by a group of sociologists substantially ignorant of anthropology" (1955, p. 379). Indeed, the statement prepared by Montagu was so absurd that it was rewritten and republished in 1952, only two years after it was initially adopted. The revised Statement, although still largely reflecting universalist-egalitarian views as is only to be expected in view of the political composition of the United Nations, generously conceded the role of genetic factors in human life and admitted that human groups which were distinguished by "well-developed and primarily heritable physical differences from other groups" might justifiably be called races.9

It would not be irrelevant to note that in 1942 Montagu chose to lecture at the so-called School for Democracy, which was classified as a communist organization by the New York legislature, and that he is on record as stating that "Soviet Russia is the outstanding example of perfect management of ethnic group relations" - a claim that might be challenged by many ethnic groups who had the experience of living as a minority under communist rule.

Ruth Bendedict obtained her doctorate at Columbia University and became a lecturer at Columbia under the patronage of Boas, having been retained by him to teach there, where she eventually became a full professor. In 1945 a high point in the Boasian war against the concept of race and heredity was reached with the publication of Ruth Benedict's Race: Science and Politics, which essentially argued that the study of race was "a vicious and brutal impediment to human progress, brotherhood, and understanding." Her book Patterns of Culture (1959), containing an introduction by Boas and a preface by Margaret Mead, similarly sought to emphasize the role of culture to the exclusion of biology in determining human achievement. It became required reading in so many college courses taught by acolytes of the Boas tradition that it eventually sold over a million copies.

Isador Chein obtained his Ph.D. in 1939 under Boas at Columbia and became one of the prime court witnesses to give "expert" testimony in favor of school desegregation. Chein gave the Court only his opinion about segregation, as though that opinion, coming from him, was ipso facto "scientific," without attempting to provide any scientific evidence to support his opinion.10

Kenneth B. Clark, a Panamanian Afro-American, obtained his Ph.D. under Boas at Columbia in 1940 and similarly became an "instant expert" on the American school system. Clark's testimony before the Supreme Court played an important role in determining the decision to force the racial desegregation of American schools in the landmark 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision (347 U.S. 483). Central to his testimony was his claim that because seven out of sixteen black children in a all-black school, shown white and black dolls or drawings of such dolls, chose the white doll as that "which most looked like them, " segregation had "harmed the development of their personalities." The speciousness of his testimony was revealed by Ernest van den Haag, of New York University and the New School for Social Research, who showed from Clark's own data, collected in a study involving 253 black children from both segregated and nonsegregated schools, that a higher percentage (39%) of black children from racially integrated schools chose the white doll than did black children from segregated schools (29%).11 In other words, Clark had mislead the Court with data that appeared to support his contention, while the data from his larger study clearly showed that the reality was the reverse of what he presented to the court.

Otto Klineberg was awarded a Ph.D. in psychology from Columbia, but also studied anthropology under Boas. He is credited with having helped persuade Boas to suppress his former belief that race and intelligence were linked. After receiving his Ph.D. in psychology, Klineberg was promptly hired by Boas as a Columbia research associate in anthropology, and became noted for his persistent attacks on "hereditarian" views.

Leslie Spier constantly supported the egalitarian claim that there was no evidence of any race being inferior in its ability to participate in any culture or even to create any culture, a sweeping statement which denies any validity to the concept of the inheritance of personality. The cultural achievements of different breeding populations were supposedly due. solely to environmental circumstances and never to inherited differences in personality, intelligence, or any other forms of ability.

Gene Weltfish obtained his Ph.D. from Columbia under Boas in 1929 and, after further studies under Alexander Goldenweiser at the New School for Social Research, where Margaret Mead also underwent postgraduate training, was hired by Boas to teach at Columbia. It was he who co- authored with Margaret Mead the notorious pamphlet The Races of Mankind (1948), mentioned above.

This is a remarkable and formidable list of politicized scholars, all educated under the same man and all reflecting his positions. The insidious and collective influence of these politicized academics within American academe soon became obvious, and it has been said that the Galton Society regarded the need to combat Boasian egalitarian and extreme environmentalist propaganda as one of its chief goals. But since the Boasians infiltrated academe as paid faculty members, working together to seize control of key positions and recruiting into academe only those of their students who had accepted their views, the members of the Galton Society were outgunned and outmaneuvered, and fought a losing battle. At this point those who still recognized the importance of genetics found themselves confronted by a new ideology, Marxist-Leninist Lysenkovianism.

[B]Simplistic Behaviorism Strengthens the "Anti-hereditarian" Cult


Scientifically, the ground for the spread of egalitarian environmentalist theory was fertilized by the emphasis placed on the environment by the simplistic behaviorism of J.B. Watson (1878-1958), who expanded Pavlovian research into a broad philosophy which assumed that human beings were essentially plastic organisms all equally able to develop in virtually whatever direction might be determined by their environment and schooling. Watson, who spent a good part of his adult life as an executive with large advertising firms such as J. Walter Thompson, sought to account for sociopsychological phenomena in strictly behavioristic terms. In this he was close to reality, but his weakness was his denial of significant differences in the heredity of individuals, In short, he was a purely environmentalist behaviorist who assumed that all "healthy" human beings were equally capable to responding to training in any direction. His philosophy excluded what is now called behavioral genetics. His views were extended into the field of education by John Dewey (1859-1952), a pragmatist who believed that environmental manipulation could reshape human behavior in virtually any desired direction and whose influence on the shape of American education persists to this day. These environmental behaviorists rejected the idea that biologically programmed behavior affected human behavior and chose largely to ignore the possibility that disparate heritable influences might to any extent predetermine the limits of the individual human personality.

The importance of environment had never been ignored in European thought, and indeed traditional educators had always placed great importance on a strict regime of training and schooling; the older tradition differed from the new behaviorism in that it was recognized that heredity placed limits on the individual's ability to benefit from experience and from educational opportunity. The new emphasis on environment, to the exclusion of all biological factors, proved a fertile field for those whose political agenda depended on promoting the myth of biological egalitarianism.

Stalinist-Marxism adopts the Lysenkovian Myth


The Boasians were not the sole source of anti-hereditarian views in academe. The idea of the biological equality of all mankind was a virtual necessity to political egalitarianism. In Russia, a quack geneticist named Trofim Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics and claimed that the environment could directly modify the genome. This fallacy, linked to the equally false Lamarckian doctrine that adaptations acquired during the lifetime of individual organisms could be inherited by that organism's offspring, reduced breeding and to philosophical irrelevance, thereby promoting the cause of egalitarians and those who believed they could reshape mankind at will by means of environmental manipulation without the need to resort to any form of genetic selection. This view were immediately adopted by Stalin, who declared Mendelian genetics to be a capitalist conspiracy, and the acceptance of the Lysenkovian fallacy became mandatory throughout the Soviet Union. Lysenkoism justified the doctrine of revolution by consigning Mendelian genetics to oblivion: if all races and individuals were potentially equal, given the appropriate manipulation of their environment, the argument that all economic inequality was the product of class exploitation would be logically justifiable.

With the advent of Stalinist-Lysenkovian doctrine, revolutionary Marxists, like the Jacobins before them, could forget Marx and Engels' racist convictions and join the anti-hereditarian chorus with renewed enthusiasm. Outside the Soviet Union, Marxists now joined non-Marxist egalitarian activists in attacking all and any scholars who adhered to Mendelian theory, especially when these persisted in drawing attention to the link between genetics and human ability. In Britain, the ardent eugenicist J. B. S. Haldane resigned his communist party membership, and in America the university of Texas Nobel Prize-winning eugenicist, Hermann J. Muller, who had long been a card-carrying member of the U.S. communist party, abandoned his party membership after narrowly escaping arrest during a visit to the USSR. His crime: he had publicly condemned the Lysenkovian myth as unscientific.

Lysenkovianism remained for many years the only legally permitted form of genetics in the USSR, and most Marxist activists ensconced in the social science divisions of Western universities accepted the Stalinist-Lysenkoist doctrine out of political conviction. The story is well-documented in Conway Zirkle's illuminating book, Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene (1959)12 Biological egalitarianism also became the only "politically correct" doctrine among Marxist- Stalinist thinkers elsewhere in the world, and Zirkle shows how widelywhat he calls "Marxian biology" permeated Western anthropology, sociology, and related studies through the teachings of faculty members who were ideologically attracted to egalitarianism but were balefully ignorant of even the simplest of biological knowledge. To quote his words:

Marxian biology . . . exists also in non-Communist countries - in countries where it is not protected by Marxian dictators. Moreover, it exists not merely as an intellectual lag among the unlearned, but as a carefully protected faith in disciplines whose members are equal in education - quantitatively. at least - to the biologists themselves. (1959, p. 418) ... The usual course is to treat the human species as if it were composed of an amorphous, uniform and plastic raw material, as if it were a species which could be molded (conditioned is the usual word) to suit the heart's desire." (p. 420)

All kinds of eugenics are anathema to Marxists, Zirkle affirms, even though already in 1959 our knowledge of the machinery of hereditary was sufficient to enable us to assert that the outcome of any rational eugenic program would be beneficial. Indeed, the situation was so bad that the Marxists ensconsed in Western academe

. . . actually set the fashion not only in letters but also in popular up-to-date attitudes in morals and ethics. . . It is even possible that they furnished the dominant directives to the social sciences. This statement is not as far-fetched as it might seem at first, for practically all social scientists are familiar with the works of the more progressive writers, but almost none of them is technically equipped to evaluate the new discoveries in biology . . . . Marxian biology has always had allies, and this has been one of the sources of its strength. On the other hand, scientific biology has had few friends. The moment it grew to the point where it applied to Homo sapiens, it acquired enemies."(p. 298)

Forty years later, contemporary Marxist-Leninist ideology, although humbled by events in Eastern Europe, remains alive and well in Western academe; and large numbers of faculty members in social science departments still refuse to recognize the implications of the fact that human beings are biological organisms, even though an overwhelming majority of psychologists now acknowledge the importance of heredity in shaping the limits of human personality and abilities.13

The earlier list we cited of radical social scientists was restricted to some of the more prominent of Boas's pupils.14 However, the Boasians were soon joined by other blatantly radical academics. Gerhard Lenski and Marvin Harris, for example, advanced an essentially Marxist analysis of social behavior rooted in the concept of egalitarianism and class warfare which exerted a major influence on American sociology.15 In addition, a bitter campaign of guerilla warfare against those who acknowledge the role of heredity has been carried out for years by associates of an activist radical publication known as Science for the People - which uses the term "people" in its most traditional Marxist interpretation, reminiscent of the "Hall of the People" in Beijing.

In Storm over Biology,16 the late Bernard D. Davis, a respected molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, charged Science for the People with aiming "to destroy the field of human behavioral genetics 11 (1986). The names of Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould and Leon J. Kamin, in particular, feature prominently in this connection. Lewontin' s 1984 book, Not in Our Genes, co-authored with Kamin and Britain' s arch-antihereditarian Stephen Rose, was an outright attempt to undermine any proper understanding of the importance of heredity. Lewontin himself was a prime force behind Science for the People, although he has perhaps adopted a somewhat more moderate tone in light of the solid evidence provided by ongoing genetic research. Stephen J. Gould speaks out in a pro-egalitarian fashion as a scholar who has taken the trouble to fully acquaint himself with ongoing research, but who has not abandoned his ideological commitment to what he believes the facts ought to be rather than what they are. His widely promoted book The Misrneasure of Man (1981) notably created confusion in the minds of its readers concerning the heritability of intelligence. Kamin, the author of The Science and Politics of IQ (1974), by contrast, still participates in personal attacks against those who attempt to draw the attention of the public to the role of heredity in human behavior. A former New England editor of a weekly communist party newspaper, he shows little interest in abandoning the egalitarian dream and even recently has attacked "hereditarian" scholars in published letters which contain such flagrant inaccuracies that one can only suppose that he places an unscholarly reliance on secondary sources which he has not troubled to check for accuracy.

Institutional Restrictions on Freedom of Academic Research


With their intellectual underpinnings threatened by the advance of biological and genetic science, the egalitarians perceived that their most fertile field of influence lay in the quasi-scientific fields of sociology and anthropology, where their theories could be advanced without being subject to experimental test. Consequently these areas increasingly attracted egalitarian attention, and soon new generations of scholars were being trained and graduated in that tradition. Physical anthropology was cut off as something totally separate from cultural and social anthropology, thus allowing the latter field to develop a purely environmentalist approach which left students ignorant of the possibility of human biological differences.

The Great Depression created a political atmosphere which facilitated the promotion of the myth of biological egalitarianism, and the events of World War II made it even easier. Biological egalitarianism now became the "scientific" underpinning for the environmentalist conceptions of society which spread throughout both the social sciences and the media. Political pressures swung major foundations which fund both educational research and socio-political programs into alignment with the egalitarian creed, and a vast body of pseudo-science rapidly came to dominate the fields of anthropology, sociology and philosophy, with biased academic opinions about biological egalitarianism even influencing court decisions and governmental policy relative to social issues.

During the 1960s and '70s, there was widespread intimidation by Marxists and other egalitarians of scholars who refused to ignore the genetic component behind human behavior. Violent Marxist SDS-organized17 campus riots were frequent, as documented in Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Pearson, 1991) and in more specific detail concerning the harassment of Nobel Prize-winning William Shockley in Shockley on Eugenics and Race (Pearson, 1992). Marxist student organizations and their sympathizers, encouraged by similar-minded faculty members, rioted on campuses, disrupted lectures, threatened faculty members, and attacked the right of "hereditarian" scholars to report their research findings or to express their opinions either on and off the campus. During the 1980s, a degree of order returned to academe, but by now many of those who had been student activists in the 1960s and '70s had followed the course advocated by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1977), and had abandoned violent revolutionary activities in favor of infiltrating the established institutions of societies as paid employees. Numbers of the rebellious students of the 1960s and '70s became the faculty members, the university administrators, and the government bureaucrats of the late 1980s and '90s. Whereas universities such as the University of California, Berkeley, had hitherto defended the right of faculty members to express their opinions, numerous universities and other educational institutions now became leaders of the egalitarian cause, imposing restrictions on the freedom of faculty members to engage in research and practice free speech wherever this involved the influence of genetic factors on human behavior. Guidelines were laid down as to "racially sensitive" and "politically correct" terminology at Pennsylvania State and other universities and faculty members who published papers on the genetic basis of personality were discriminated against at universities such as Western Ontario, Delaware, and City University of New York.

As the myth of biological egalitarianism gained further political and emotional support, it began to inhibit not only individual scholars but also grant-making foundations. Even foundations which had been originally established by eugenic-oriented benefactors, such as the Carnegie Institute and the Kellogg Foundation, began to eschew support for research that might favor genetic rather than exclusively environmental solutions to human problems.

Unable successfully to refute solid research into the significance of genetic forces in determining the limits of human behavioral potential, in medical and non-medical fields, the egalitarians have in fact fallen back on (1) attempts to accuse individual researchers of poor methodology or even outright fraud, such allegations relying on the principle that when mud is thrown, some at least will stick, and (2) the argument that any research into the role of genetics in human behavior will lead inevitably to "discrimination" and therefore is morally unjustifiable. Currently, there is considerable publicity aimed at research into the genetic basis of breast cancer, on the ground that this will lead to "discrimination" by insurance companies and employers. What the media should be discussing is the vital importance of medical genetic research, the benefits that mankind can obtain from knowledge about genetic causality, and the fact that as medicine advances there is an increasing possibility of developing a humane eugenic program, based on the development of genetic surgery, which could largely free future generations from the ills which plague the present generation.

Media Misrepresentation


As has been revealed by Snyderman and Rothman in The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy (1988), radical ideologues have generally found willing collaborators in the media. The intimidation of "hereditarian" scientists, as the radicals liked to call behavioral scientists, became a major plank in the politics of what has more recently come to be dubbed "political correctness."

Because of media bias in favor of the fantasy of the biological uniformity of not just individuals but of all mankind, there was little favorable publicity for those like Bernard Davis. An outstanding scholar with an unimpeachable scientific reputation, Davis documented leftist distortions of scientific knowledge about heredity, protesting that these were promoting irrational public policies which assumed that contemporary Homo saplens were somehow exempt from biological forces and thus were completely malleable and subject to environmental manipulation. Yet his Storm over Biology received little attention from the media, and on his death the New York Times obituary completely ignored his extraordinary scientific achievements and represented him to the public as a holder of fringe views. Only under open pressure from Nobelist Arthur Kornberg did the Times publish a second more objective account of Davis's achievements and scientific status. (Holden, 1994).

Politicized distortion of scientific findings is not limited to the popular media. Sadly, a number of semi-popular scientific journals have come to be controlled by individuals who seem to minimize the role of heredity in shaping human behavior. These journals are influential because many do a remarkable service in spreading sound scientific information on subjects other than human behavioral genetics. The Scientific American is one such publication, which despite its general excellence sympathetically provides a platform for such politicized writers as Leon Kamin, whose views were further promoted by John Horgan in a generally informative article entitled "Eugenics Revisited" (1993). Horgan gave considerable space to Kamin's politicized attempts to debunk the Minnesota Twin Studies research findings18 Kamin has also claimed to have disclosed fraud in the findings of Sir Cyril Burt - a prominent British psychologist who early proclaimed the largely genetic basis of intelligence. Following his death, Burt's research records concerning his twin studies were reportedly lost under suspicious circumstances when boxes of his files were reportedly destroyed on the recommendation of a colleague who was not sympathetic to his work. However, Burt's published findings on the intelligence of twins have since been replicated by other researchers and the charge that Butt manufactured his data has been examined and repudiated by Joynson, in The Burt Affair (1989), and by Fletcher in Science, Ideology and the Media: The Cyril Butt Affair (1991).19


Conclusion


Shattered by the deeply dysgenic impact of World War I, and by the economic depression that followed, many who had previously put loyalty to the national ideal ahead of selfish interests now fell prey to the egalitarian myth, which blamed the old elite for the war and portrayed any ranking of human talents as nothing more than an excuse for class exploitation. The idea of eugenic policies, based on a recognition of the reality of biological inequality, of competitive reproduction, and on the fear that modern social conditions negated natural selection, now became increasingly disturbing to those who desired only to live their own lives free from worries about the well being of future generations.

The outbreak of World War II and the ensuing military defeat of Germany made it possible for the egalitarians to smear all who sought to advocate eugenics by highly unsubtle propaganda alleging that any concentration of interest in human genetics was likely to promote totalitarianism and genocide. World War II gave the political edge to the anti-eugenicists. Germany had adopted earlier, primitive eugenic policies, and information about this became intermingled with the "Holocaust" reports coming out of post-war Germany. A shock-wave of horror swept over the Western world, and in the process all discussion of eugenics was illogically but effectively equated with inhumanity - an exact reversal of the moral drive that prompted most eugenicists to support the movement. The egalitarians, of course, never mentioned the historical fact that egalitarian enthusiasm could also lead to totalitarianism - and to the greatest genocide the world has ever seen in the mass slaughter of Russian "bourgeois" peasants, to mass deaths in the Siberian "gulags" and to the mass genocide of the cultured and landowning classes in Maoist China, all committed in the name of "equality." Their ideology prevented them from seeing or even desiring to see objective reality.

Irrational political ideologies can severely retard the progress of knowledge, but in a free country they cannot suppress the search for truth altogether. While genetic research has proceeded rapidly during the past two decades, the Stalinist-Lysenkovian tradition still strives to raise barriers to research into human behavioral genetics. However, increasing numbers of psychologists and social science scholars are acknowledging the need to examine the role of genetics in relation to human behavior and abilities even though their interest draws passionate condemnation from those who remain rooted in a Stalinist-like commitment to the myth of biological egalitarianism. Seeing their cherished notions challenged by research into the link between heredity and human behavior, these latter still strive with a vigor born of desperation to suppress public recognition of the importance of heredity and to prevent any such recognition from influencing public policy.

To understand the history of academic fashion one cannot ignore the influence of political interests, since these exert a powerful influence on academic ideologies at any one time. Thus, Karl Mannhelm, an activist Marxist immigrant who fled to Britain from Germany, was certainly right in advocating the need for a "sociology of knowledge" (1955) on the grounds that scholarly research is influenced by the personal conceptions, values and politics of the researcher. Unfortunately he saw this issue only in a Marxist light, attributing all non-Marxist theories to bourgeois class bias, and so hindered rather than advanced the development of this branch of knowledge.

Outright Marxist egalitarian propaganda was powerfully aided by a separate development that now began to pervade even respectable segments of academia, of the media and of the political world. This was the redirection of altruism away from the welfare of the immediate gene pool to engulf the most diverse members of the species.20 The new spirit of biological egalitarianism was accompanied by a transmutation of humanitarian values. Altruism had evolved because the survival chances of a population were enhanced when individual members were prepared to make personal sacrifices to protect the intergenerational well-being of their own kind. Now, however, altruism became confused in its application. Improvements in communications caused local breeding populations to lose their cohesiveness and their sense Of distinctive identity: consequently, altruistic emotions became increasingly stimulated not by threats to the survival of their own gene pool, but by the plight of all the world's expanding multitudes, which nature had traditionally trimmed back by natural selection. As a result, many of the more talented and creative members of the advanced Western nations increasingly devoted their efforts to helping the less fit, both at home and abroad, to reproduce prolifically, while allowing their own birthrate to fall below replacement level. As Garrett Hardin pointed out repeatedly, and most notably in The Limits of Altruism, this redirection of the altruistic impulse effectively stood evolution on its head. 21

The term "genetic altruism" had now to be invented to describe the actions of those who showed themselves willing to refrain from passing on their own genes to posterity while assisting less competent individuals and groups to multiply. This inversion of the evolutionary function of altruism was accompanied by a decline of interest in eugenics. A new morality was developing which demanded that advanced societies should fight against evolution. Natural selection was to be replaced by dysgenic selection; nature was to be prevented from wielding its genetic pruning knife, and no attention was to be paid to the well- being of all those future generations of mankind who would be doomed to eke out their existence in an increasingly overcrowded world blighted by man-made dysgenic population trends.

Although this new anti-evolutionary philosophy of life took hold primarily in the more advanced countries, where the birthrate began to fall dramatically, it was widely rejected among the peoples of the Third World. By adhering to more traditional evolutionary practices, these populations began to explode at geometric rates following the introduction of modern Western health measures, technology, and economic aid.

Evolutionary progress is rooted in the process of speciation and competition between populations and subspecies to reproduce and control vital resources. Altruism served an evolutionary function among advanced social animals - the enhancement of the survival chances of a specific phylogenetic continuum. When the breeding population was itself not only the community but also the total society this worked well. But modern communications and modern mass migrations have reversed the evolutionary impact of altruism, commonly redirecting it away from members of the immediate gene pool to aid the members of competing gene pools to reproduce at the expense of the altruist's own genetic heirs. Humane though it seems to us, the modern redirection of altruism away from the "home" represents a reversal of the evolutionary process, and could potentially bring about the downfall of humanity unless applied in conjunction with sound eugenic judgment. This is all the more true because the altruistic extension of modern medicine to all corners of the earth has created an ecologically frightening threat of world overpopulation which calls for sound and intelligent policies if it is not to totally destroy the human species - and with it most other advanced species of plant and animal life. The problem is that the ordinary human heart rests easier when the mind maintains the pretence that all is well, even when reason should warn that it is not.

This author summarized his views. on the vital issues now at stake, which have resulted from the reversal of natural selection as a result of illogical social ideologies and the impact of modern technology, in the concluding chapter of his Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (1991):

If truth prevails in our society, social science and social and political philosophy will eventually be obliged to take cognizance of the fact that human behavior is subject to the law of causality, just like other matter throughout the universe. It is now clear that genetic factors set the potential limits of behavior by the human animal, while environmental circumstances and events influence the individual organism within the potential limits of its behavior as determined by heredity. Not that one can say that either is more important than the other. Environment and heredity are two different categories of causal factors which intertwine and interact. Even to ask which is the more important can be a misleading question - just as it is to ask which is more important, the cart or the horse?

Yet there is a vitally significant difference between genetic forces and environment, a difference which raises eugenic considerations to a level of superior concern. One can enhance the environmental component of intelligence by creating a more favorable environment for the next generation, but this is only a temporary boost, and must be maintained at the heightened level for each successive generation. Its effect is not intergenerational as the Lysenkoists believed. By contrast, an improvement in the genetic constituency of a population is permanent, unless eliminated by new dysgenic forces. A genetic improvement is an intergenerational improvement, and genetic or dysgenic decline represents a genetic loss which is likewise transmitted intergenerationally. Unfortunately, a single generation of severe dysgenic decline can destroy tens of thousands of years of evolutionary progress laboriously achieved by means of natural selection - and thus constitutes a permanent blight on posterity.22

Emotionally-motivated and unintelligent responses to our environment can only do more harm to mankind than good. We need to heed the ancient Greek injunction to"Know Thyself." If we are to be motivated by truly altruistic emotions, We should focus our altruism to embrace all those untold generations yet to be born, or which could yet be born provided we do not wreck the biosphere in which we live and destroy the genetic heritage given to us by past evolutionary selection. We must direct our concern not just to the well-being of those who chance to be alive at this present time, but to the well-being of that far greater number who are to follow when we and our generation have passed away. We can do no greater good than to leave the multitude of future generations a healthy genetic inheritance in a healthy and unspoiled environment. Our duty is to avoid pollution of the human genetic heritage, and to pass on a healthy and valuable gene pool to future generations, just as it is to avoid ecological pollution and to strive to conserve the rich environmental heritage we inherited from the generations that preceded us.

Lord Justice Lawton of Britain once said that a new Edward Gibbon writing about the present age might well entitle the last chapter "The Age of Compassionate Fools." As a nation, he observed, Britain has allowed idealism to override common sense. The same might be said of all the contemporary nations of the Western world.

Virtually all of those who have sought to suppress human knowledge about heredity have done so with kindly intentions, but sound policies can never be constructed on bad science or unsound data. Any society that sets itself against the immutable causal laws of biology and evolution will be an unsuccessful society. An inappropriate culture that is not in harmony with the mechanics of the universe has only a poor chance of surviving. Heavily dysgenic trends have dominated this century as a result of the selective elimination of air crews and other talented personnel involved in modern warfare in Europe; the genocidal slaughter of the elite in Europe, the Soviet Union and Maoist China; and the general tendency for the more creative members of modernized societies around the world to have fewer children than the less creative. Nor should one ignore the impact on mankind of the increasing destruction of the biosphere by the wanton use of harmful technologies and by the unprecedented population explosion which is devastating the environment in even the poorest and least technologically advanced countries. Nevertheless, if the world does not collapse beneath the triple pressures of pollution, overpopulation, and severe dysgenic trends, and if governmental policies could be modified to take into consideration the findings of a scientific community which was encouraged to continue research in human behavioral genetics, uncensored by radical Luddite ideologues, it is possible that the human race might then still have a future worth calling a future.

Current research in medical and general genetics promises a potentially brighter future for mankind, and this will be outlined in a third article in this series, to be published in the next issue of The Mankind Quarterly (http://forums.skadi.net/www.mankindquarterly.org).


Source: Vol. 35, Mankind Quarterly (http://forums.skadi.net/www.mankindquarterly.org), 06-01-1995, pp 343

FOOTNOTES

1 Lester F. Ward, Outlines of Sociology, 1899, New York: Macmillan, pp. 147-149.

2 Thorstein Veblen, The Instinct of Workmanship, 1922 NY: B.W. Huebsch, p. 26.

3 For more on this theme see A New Theory of Human Evolution by Sir Arthur Keith, 1940. London: Watts & Co., and other writings by the same author.

4 Mead's prime claim to anthropological fame, the book she wrote as a graduate student about Samoan sexual practices, was eventually exploded by D. Freeman's 1983 study entitled Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). The ensuing pyrotechnics were effectively documented in Hiram Caton's 1990 publication, The Samoa Reader: Anthropologists take Stock (Lanham, MD: The University Press of America). Although the egalitarian forces were unable to defend Mead from Freeman's charges after the fraudulence of her research was exposed, it is significant that some of the most powerful forces in contemporary American anthropology still strove to rescue what they could of her academic image in view of her historic importance as one of the main disciples of anti-hereditarian egalitarianism and Boasian anthropology.

5 Pat Shipman, in The Evolution of Racism (Simon and Shuster, 1994, pages 159-160), documents the history of his series of name changes, from Israel Ehrenberg to Moses Israel Ehrenberg, then to the aristocratic Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu, and finally to today's somewhat more modest Ashley Montagu. She also documents the opposition to the UNESCO statement by leading scientists of that day, and notes the "overrepresentation" of Montagu's associates on the panel that devised the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race.

6 Prominent as America's leading physical anthropologist, Harvard scholar Carleton Coon has been persistently attacked by egalitarians despite the fact that subsequent research in blood groups, DNA and other genetic markers has shown that his system of racial classification, based largely on skeletal data and other outward phenotypical characteristics, was remarkably accurate in revealing the degrees of relationship among the diverse peoples of the world. See the bibliography attached to this article for mention of some of his leading publications.

7 Another notable contributor to this statement was the biased Mexican anthropologist Juan Comas, who in 1961 authored a chapter entitled "Racial myths' which appeared in a book entitled Race and science published, not unsurprisingly, by the Columbia University Press.

8 See Henri Vallois, 1951. 'UNESCO on Race." Man, no. 28. Vallois became one of the earliest members of the editorial advisory board of The Mankind Quarterly, publishing in the journal and continuing to serve on its board until his death. In his article in Man, Vallois stated unequivocally that 'the existence of races of Man is an uncontestable biological fact.'

9 Active consideration is currently being given to further amendments necessitated by genetic and biological realism, although it may be confidently expected that the political considerations which dominate the United Nations will prevent the adoption of a truly balanced revision.

10 See Cahn in "Jurisprudence', 31 N. Y.U.L. Review, 1956.

11 In short, black children in segregated schools were less pronounced in their preference for white dolls than were black children in nonsegregated schools. In addition, more black children in northern schools rejected the black doll than did black children in southern schools. See Ernest van den Haag, "Social Science Testimony in the Desegregation cases - a Reply to Professor Kenneth Clark," Villanova Law Review, Fall, 1960, 6:1, pp 6979. Data is based on Clark's 'Racial Identification and Preference in Negro Children," Readings in Social Psychology, pp. 174-5. Newcomb and Harley, Eds., 1947)

12 Se also Jamieson

13 See Snyderman and Rothman, The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy, 1988. Transaction Books.

14 But the heirs of the Boasian school remain ensconced in the social sciences, and some ideologues have recently infiltrated even such a respected organization as the Behavioral Genetics Association, demanding the resignation of the Association's outgoing president, professor Glayde Whitney, after he gave a talk suggesting the need to investigate the possibility of genetic factors behind the high incidence of black crime in America.

15 Lenski's Power and Privilege (1966), a widely used textbook, presented an outright Marxist view of society in that it sought to examine human cultures entirely in terms of class exploitation and stratification.

16 Bernard Davis, Storm Over Biology: Essays on Science, Sentiment and Public Policy. 1986. Buffalo: Prometheus.

17 The ludicrously named Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was an outright Marxist organization whose activities are detailed in Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today by Harvey Klehr, Transaction Books, New Brunswick. 1988.

18 Journals and newspapers that publish distorted or erroneous material too often ignore letters of refutation. Vincent Sarich wrote a letter protesting Horgan's article, which was never published. Furthermore, when they do agree to publish letters of refutation they customarily allow the original author space to respond, while generally denying further space to the complainant to refute any new distortions contained in the "response."

19 We will quote one further example of media distortion favoring the survival of the myth of biological egalitarianism among the more gullible members of the public, which could only have been made as a result of a deliberate policy decision by the editors of Scientific American. The June 1993 cover of that influential publication chose to advertise the "The Dubious Links between Genes and Behavior." Contemporary scientific research clearly establishes the authority of animal behavioral genetics, and no geneticist would ever consider alleging that human beings were not animals, and that the laws of causality do not apply to human beings.

20 To understand the wide range of disparate qualities which distinguish men from each other today, it is necessary to reflect upon the evolutionary history of our species. Earlier hominids evolved as a variety of widely differing subspecies which, in the normal course of evolution, isolated in widely dispersed regions, would eventually have evolved into quite separate species - but for the fact that the more advanced populations successively tended to expand into neighboring territories, either supplanting or admixing with the earlier occupants of those territories. As a result, today's population of Homo sapiens comprises the descendants of a more advanced subspecies whose forebears mixed in remote areas with the remnants of older local subspecies. Through such local genetic admixtures, the diverse populations and peoples of the modern world were created. By supplanting the more primitive hominid subspecies, and absorbing others, Homo sapiens remained one species, capable of fertile crossbreeding among its various subspecies and mixtures of subspecies, characterized by the wide disparity of innate biological properties which distinguish both living individuals and races from each other.

21 1977, Bloomington: The Indiana University Press. However, see also other works by this author listed in the bibliography. The works of Robert Retherford, listed in the bibliography, are also relevant here.

22 For an overview of the evolutionary interrelationship of physical and culture anthropology, see Pearson (1974) and Pearson (1985).


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benedict, Ruth 1940 Race: Science and politics. New York: Modern Age Books.

Benedict, Ruth, and Gene Weltfish 1943 The races of mankind. Public Affairs Pamphlet no. 85. New York: Public Affairs Committee.

Boas, Franz 1911 The mind of primitive man. New York: Macmillan. 1928 Anthropology and Modern Life. New York: Norton.

Bogardus, Emory S. 1928 Immigration and race attitudes. New York: D.C. Heath and Co. 1960 Development of social thought. 4th ed. New York: David McKay Company Inc. 1967 A forty- year racial distance study. New York: Cooperative League of the U.S.A.

Clark, Kenneth 1947 "Racial Identification and Preference in Negro Children," Readings in Social Psychology, pp. 174-5. Newcomb and Harley, Eds., 1947)

Caton, Hiram 1990 The Samoa Reader: Anthropologists take Stock (Lanham, MD: The University Press of America)

Comas, Juan 1961 Racial myths. In Race and science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Comte, Auguste 1896 Positive philosophy. Translated by Harriet Martineau. 3 vols. London: George Bell and Sons.

Davis, Bernard 1986 Storm over biology: Essays on science,sentiment and public policy. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Fletcher, Ronald 1991 Science, ideology & the media: The Cyril Butt affair. New Brunswick, N J: Transaction Publishers.

Freeman, Derek 1983 Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gould, Stephen J. 1981 The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gramsci, Antonio 1977 Selections from political writings, 1910- 1920. New York: International Publishing Co.

Herskovits, Melville 1953 Franz Boas. New York: Charles Scribner' s Sons.

Heuse, Georges A. 1955 Race, racismes, antiracismes. Revue de Psychologies des Peuples 10 (3).

Holden, C. 1994 "'Times' Corrects Scientist's Orbit" Science 263, 922.

Horgan, John 1993 Trends in behavioral genetics: Eugenics revisited. Scientific American June 1993, pp 122-131.

Jamieson, J. W. 1982 Conway Zirkle and the persistence of "Marxian biology" in the western social sciences. The Mankind Quarterly 22 (3).

Joynson, Robert B. 1989 The Butt affair. London: Routledge and Kegal Paul.

Kamin, L. J. 1974 The science and politics of IQ. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

Keith, Sir Arthur 1940 A new theory of human evolution, by Arthur Keith. London: Watts and Co.

Klehr, Harvey 1988 Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Lenski, Gerhard E. 1966 Power and Privilege: A theory of social stratification. New York: McGraw.

Lewontin, R. C., S. Rose, and L. J. Kamin 1984 Not in our Genes; Biological Ideology and Human Nature. Pantheon, New York

Mannheim, Karl 1936 Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Mead, Margaret 1928 Coming of age in Samoa. New York: Morrow.

Mead, Margaret, and Gene Weltfish 1940 The races of mankind. Pamphlet no. 85. New York: Public Affairs Committee, Inc.

Montagu, M. F. Ashley 1942 Man's most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race. 2d ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pearson, Roger
1974 Introduction to anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
1985 Anthropological glossary. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
1991 Race, intelligence and bias in academe. With an introduction by Hans J. Eysenck. Washington, D.C.: Scott- Townsend Publishers.


1992 Shockley on eugenics and race, with an introduction by Arthur R. Jensen. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers.

Sarich, Vincent. 1993 Unpublished letter of protest to the editors of the Scientific American

Schiff, M. and R. Lewontin 1986 Education and Class: The Irrelevance of IQ Genetic Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Snyderman, Mark, and Stanley Rothman 1988 The IQ controversy: The media and public policy. Vol. 4. New Brunswick, N J: Transaction Books.

Vallois, Henri 1951 UNESCO on race. Man, no. 28.

van den Haag, Ernest. 1963 "Social science testimony in the desegregation cases: A reply to Professor Kenneth Clark." Villanova Law Review 6 (1). 1960.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1922 The Instinct of Workmanship, New York: Macmillan.

Ward, Lester [1883] Dynamic sociology. Reprint, 1911. New York: Appleton and Co.

Zirkle, C. 1959 Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 05:21 PM
The concept of heredity in Western thought, Part III

by Roger Pearson, Institute for the Study of Man


As noted in the two preceding articles in this brief series,1 European and American thought had historically recognized the role of heredity in shaping both human physiology and human personality. The early beliefs of the Classical and Medieval worlds were reinforced by an improved understanding of plant and animal breeding, which made especially rapid progress in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Subsequently, the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel led to an even clearer recognition of the significance of the role of heredity in human affairs, and this reinforced interest in the possibility of applying to human beings the breeding techniques used so successfully with plants and animals.

Most early eugenicists were motivated by a philosophy close to the workings of nature. They perceived evolution as being competition not only between individuals carrying disparate genes but also between divergent populations and subspecies, each seeking control over the available resources, and in consequence they primarily contemplated the improvement of their own national stock. Nations were perceived as micro-races in the making. While not directly opposing the extension of eugenic goals to rival human populations, they regarded this as an objective which was not only beyond their power but beyond their responsibility and - under the laws of evolution - extraneous to the proper function of altruism. Altruism is a biological necessity where it assists genetic copies contained within the same breeding population or phylogenetic continuum to survive. In the course of hominid evolution, altruistic behavior emerged because it enhanced the survival chances of the breeding population to which the altruistic individual belonged: it enhanced the competitive effectiveness of the altruist's own phylogenetic continuum2 This was in keeping with the evolutionary conditions that shaped the survival chances of all complex life forms in the material universe, and the purpose of scientific investigation was perceived to be the development of sound principles on which to base rational patterns of intelligent behavior.

In Britain and America, however, early twentieth century eugenics was also motivated by the perception of dysgenic trends within the national population. The defeats suffered by units of the British regular army at the hands of a Boer civilian army further reinforced the growing idea that Britain had lost too many of its more adventurous, dynamic and creative stock in the course of three centuries of empire- building and overseas colonizing activities. This awareness of the need to maintain the competitive quality of the British gene pool promoted a demand for eugenic policies that might increase the birthrate among those who were deemed to be its more dynamic and creative citizens. As it happened, this goal was never attained - attempts at progress in that direction were totally frustrated in World War I by the gigantic and heavily selective loss of the cream of the nation's youth on the battlefields of Flanders, in the air above the battlefields, and along the ocean supply routes on which Britain depended.

America's losses were not as heavy as those of the European nations that participated in this fratricidal conflict, but many Americans, such as David Starr Jordan, Chancellor of Stanford University,3 recognized the severity of the genetic impact.


The Egalitarian Onslaught


World War I benefited only one European group, the Marxists - who in general had been careful to avoid involvement in this bloody and totally mad internecine carnage. Russian losses were so heavy amongst those who would normally have contained Marxist revolutionary violence that the Bolsheviks were able to seize control of the entire Russian empire. There, and during a similar reign of terror after a similar seizure of power in Hungary, they eliminated untold numbers of the elite, not only at the level of the ruling elite but also among the more successful of the peasantry. A genetically depleted Hungary was wrested from Marxist control, but the process of dysgenic selection continued in Soviet Russia until the eventual death of Stalin. Unfortunately, even those European countries which remained free of open Marxist rule also suffered from a vast expansion of Marxist-Lysenkovian ideology, as the ranks of the old elite who would have counterbalanced Marxist doctrines had been heavily thinned.4 Furthermore, the economic depression that followed the ravages of World War II turned most peoples' attention to the problem of sheer economic survival, and made interest in the genetic well being of future generations a luxury to which few felt inclined to devote their attention.

Unlike the altruistically-minded members of society who had readily given their lives to defend what they had so wrongly regarded as their nation's interests, most Marxists survived World War I by avoiding front line duties. With the massive winnowing of those who would normally have opposed them, they were therefore in a strong position to take advantage of the leadership vacuum that existed even in the Western countries which did not fall into their hands through violent revolution. This new generation of Marxists preached opposition to the natural law of biological competition, and blindness toward the facts of biology was acclaimed as though ignorance of such facts was a social virtue. Both Marxists and non-Marxist egalitarian activists began to attack all and any scholars who persisted in stressing the link between genetics and human ability. In America, the Nobel Prize-winning University of Texas geneticist Hermann J. Muller, who saw eugenic improvement as a means of reducing inequality by raising the level of the weaker members of society closer to that of the more gifted, resigned his membership of the U.S. Communist Party after being obliged to hastily terminate a visit to the USSP, in order to avoid arrest for criticizing Lysenkovian theory which became the only "politically correct" and legally permissible genetic doctrine under Stalinist rule. In Britain, J. B. S. Haldane also eventually resigned from the Communist Party in protest against the new biological egalitarianism which now became Marxist orthodoxy. Other legitimate scholars similarly cut their ties to the new Marxism, but this did not stop the belief in biological egalitarianism from becoming a basic tenet of those remaining Marxists who accepted Neo-Lysenkovianism and sought to use the university lecture rooms and academic media to advance their egalitarian ideology.

Political pressure can retard the progress of knowledge, but in a relatively free country it cannot suppress the search for truth altogether. In Britain and America, a few scholars retained the courage to continue their research into behavioral genetics and their findings drew passionate condemnation from the extreme egalitarians who were determined to advance the now-cherished and comfortable. myth of biological equality - not being content with the concept of equality before the law. Even when Lysenko's theories were demolished by further advances in scholarship, biological egalitarians strove to suppress public recognition of the importance of heredity in order to prevent such knowledge from influencing social and political policies.

As has been revealed by Snyderman and Rothman in The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy (1988), these stubborn and pedantic ideologues found willing collaborators in the media. The intimidation of "hereditarian" scientists, as the radicals liked to call behavioral scientists, became a major plank in the politics of what has more recently come to be dubbed "political correctness."

During the 1960s and '70s, this intimidation often took the form of violent Marxist-organized campus riots. The story is documented in Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Pearson 1991), and in more specific detail concerning the harassment of Nobel Prize-winning William Shockley in Shockley on Eugenics and Race (Pearson 1992). Marxist student organizations and their sympathizers, encouraged by similar- minded faculty members, rioted on campuses, disrupted lectures, threatened faculty members, and attacked the right of scholars interested in human behavioral genetics to report their research findings or to express their opinions either on and off the campus. During the 1980s, a degree of order returned to academe, but by now many of those who had been student activists in the 1960s and '70s followed the course advocated by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1977, 1978): that of abandoning attempts to seize control of society by violent revolution, in favor of tactics aimed at revolutionizing it from within — by the peaceful infilltration of existing institutions. Many of the far Left student activists of the 1960s and '70s consequently abandoned their schemes for open revolution and without abandoning their political ideologies became the faculty members, the university administrators, and the government bureaucrats of the late 1980s and '90s. Whereas universities such as the University of California, Berkeley, had hitherto defended the right of faculty members to express their opinions, many universities now began to yield to the pressure of the political activists now ensconced within the system, bending to the will of those who sought to restrict freedom of speech and research by faculty members interested in human behavioral genetics. "Political correctness" became a requirement at universities such as Delaware and City University of New York, which actively sought to silence scholars who uttered opinions that challenged the shibboleths of biological egalitarianism.

As the Stalinist-Lysenkoist myth of biological egalitarianism gained ground, it began to inhibit not only individual scholars but also grant-making foundations. Even foundations which had been originally established by eugenic-oriented benefactors, such as the Carnegie Institute and the Kellogg Foundation, began to eschew support for research that might favor genetic rather than exclusively environmental solutions to human problems. For a while, only a very few foundations, such as the March of Dimes, remained interested in funding scientific research into the relationship between heredity and environment in a detached and unbiased manner, free from deliberate attempts to deny the importance of heredity in determining the behavioral proclivities of the individual. Consequently, research into human genetics was largely limited to medical genetics, a subject to which we shall shortly return. Few grant-making foundations groups other than the small, New York based Pioneer Fund were willing to contribute to non-medical behavioral genetic research in such valuable areas as twin studies. During the dark post World War II period, the Pioneer Fund massively assisted Thomas Bouchard's ground-breaking Minnesota twin and adoption studies program, Tony Vernon's Ontario twin studies program, much of the work of Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen, as well as research into such topics as Linda Gottfredson's studies of the impact of heredity in the workplace.


The Revival of Interest in Genetics


Despite the post-Boasian malaise which continued to spread throughout the social sciences as a result of the post-World War II victory of Marxian anti-hereditarian concepts, a few outstanding scientists nevertheless continued to do key research into the critical role of heredity in shaping human personality and abilities, and even into the relationship between intelligence and the level of civilization. Typical of these was the world-renowned botanist and geneticist, C. D. Darlington, author of numerous books including The Genetics of Man (1964) and The Evolution of Man and Society (1969), who warned that selection changed the character of the world's population in every generation, and that "[t]he nation which takes most serious thought for its own genetic future is, therefore, most likely to have a future".5 In 1968 F. Osborn argued for the increasing need for eugenics to replace the reduced role of nature in eliminating harmful genes from the human gene pool in a well-worked book entitled The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modem Society. Similarly John R. Baker, emeritus reader in cytology at Oxford University, compiled a landmark study entitled Race (1974). This catalogued human subspecies and populations around the world and throughout recorded history, and linked these to the different levels of civilization attained by humankind.

C. H. Waddington also published two significant books at this time, The Evolution of an Evolutionist (1975) and The Man-Made Future (1978), but it was E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1978) that truly created shock waves amongst the ensconced egalitarians. This was shortly followed by Berkeley psychologist Arthur R. Jensen, who more than almost any other contemporary psychologist was responsible for bringing the role of heredity to the attention of social scientists by his paper entitled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" which took up virtually an entire issue of the Harvard Educational Review in 1969.6 His subsequent books, notably Genetics and Education (1972), explained the importance of genetics in determining human intelligence in even greater detail. Another notable scholar who pressed for serious research in this area, but was howled down by the media and organized Marxist groups on campuses wherever he sought to lecture, was the Nobel Prize-winning physicist and co-inventor of the transistor, William B. Shockley, many of whose writings on the subject have been reproduced in the book Shockley on Eugenics and Race (Pearson, 1992). 7

Major public attention was also drawn to the subject of human heredity by Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard University, with his now-famous Atlantic Monthly article (1971) and his book IQ in the Meritocracy (1973), on the heritability of intelligence and its increasingly critical role in today's complex civilization. He explained that, as intelligence is largely hereditary, an inborn lack of ability would bar certain individuals from career success, and that, as technology advanced, "biological stratification" would become increasingly obvious. More recently Herrnstein co-authored with Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994), which was completed shortly before his death from cancer in September 1994. This has had an even greater impact on the public and scholastic world alike — despite an organized and devastatingly adverse media reaction by committed egalitarians who saw their moral base crumbling beneath them. The two authors warned that today's massive social problems cannot be solved without recognizing the role of heredity in determining the limits of human behavior, including its impact on social issues such as crime, illegitimacy, welfare dependence, productivity, and social stratification. Differential birthrates, they pointed out, impact on national intelligence, and the failure of school integration and other experiments intended to raise group educational performance despite massive governmental expenditures can only be understood in light of the essentially hereditary basis of human abilities. Although American academe has lost a powerful voice with the passing of Herrnstein, other writers and scholars, particularly those associated with medical research, are now turning more and more to genetic research to explain behavioral problems that refuse to yield to environmental solutions.8 Some of this work has been summarized in Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by the noted Guggenheim scholar, J. Philippe Rushton.9

These and other scientists have since produced a wealth of evidence demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt the gross absurdity of biological egalitarianism, and shown how many environmentally-based social programs could have seriously dysgenic implications. The even more dramatic possibility is that with the present demographic international trends the percentage of the intellectually well-endowed members of the total world population is likely to undergo a dramatic decline relative to those who are less-well endowed in this respect.

Twin Studies Reveal the Role of Heredity in Shaping Human Personality


In the field of psychology, twin studies in particular have produced a collation of data which demolishes the fanciful theories of the proponents of biological egalitarianism, providing objective and quantitatively measurable evidence substantiating the importance of heredity in determining human behavioral potential. The Minnesota Twin Studies project has shown that the evidence supporting the existence of genetic influences upon human cognitive abilities, as well as on general aspects of personality, is overwhelming. As one of the researchers, Nancy Segal, has reported, the degree of similarity between twins reared apart in different environments is much greater than between fraternal twins raised in the same family. The results of personality tests also reveal striking similarities in cases such as that of the personality profiles of a set of identical twins, one of whom had been raised in Trinidad by a Jewish father and the other in Germany by a Catholic mother. Medical life histories also provide extremely powerful evidence of the importance of genetic influences on behavior. Brain patterns show a higher degree of similarity between identical twins reared apart than between fraternal twins reared apart, and medical and even dental case histories show a close parallel even where identical twins have been reared under quite separate circumstances.10

Thus, identical twins separated by adoption after birth and reared in disparate environments reveal strong similarities which environmentalists cannot explain away. In fact, the similarity in personality and intellectual ability of identical twins reared apart is little different from the similarity shown by identical twins reared together.11 These traits include not only shared psychological and vocational interests, but even psychological proclivities such as conservatism, sociability, self-control, flexibility and religiosity as measured by academically accepted standards of assessment. This suggests that the members of distinct breeding populations (i.e. gene pools) must be expected to inherit diverse proclivities for different kinds of cultural behavior, and that patterns of life style and even the character of developed civilizations might well be shaped by inherited personality biases in addition to the obvious limitations imposed by disparate levels of intelligence.12 As a result, committed egalitarians such as Leon Kamin strive to denigrate the findings of twin research such as that conducted at the University of Minnesota by suggesting that twins reared apart might "have particularly strong motives to downplay previous contacts and to exaggerate similarities."13 One suspects that these critics are pushing their arguments beyond the limits of their own logic, and that they know in their own minds that such twins could hardly fabricate similar brain waves, blood pressure, heart rate, cardiovascular functioning, pulmonary functioning, electrodefinal response amplitude, occurrence of dental cavities, and reaction time to various novel tasks — and that such physiological similarities as these could not be modified by occasional or even frequent meetings, had these in fact taken place.


Blood Groups and DNA


The days when pro-egalitarian propagandists, totally disregarding what was known even in their time, could persuasively argue that individual and group differences were "only skin deep" are gone forever. The days when it was claimed that the technique of blood transfusions, first widely practiced in World War I, demonstrated the egalitarian unity of all members of the human race are also gone, for it is now known that while some of the major blood groups are shared by all races, they are also shared with primates and various other mammals. During World War II great emphasis was laid by egalitarian propagandists upon the fact that the A, B, AB and O blood groups (so essential for successful blood transfusion) could be found among all human races, without realizing that these basic blood group categories were shared by virtually all human populations, but were also shared with other primate and mammalian species. Indeed, the vast majority of human nucleotide bases, out of an estimated total of some three billion, are shared with other non-human life forms: it has been estimated that of these three billion only between two to ten million differ from person to person. According to one estimation of genetic relationship, human DNA differs from Chimpanzee DNA by no more than 1.6 per cent overall. It is time that we stopped promoting the specious concept of the uniformity of humankind, and on the one hand recognized the unity of humankind with the primates and all other living organisms, while on the other hand appreciating the immense significance of what have hitherto been regarded as relatively small differences between human individuals and human breeding populations.


As John H. Beckstrom commented in 1993:

All humans alive today share, in common, the vast majority of their genes. But over and above those genes that prevail in the entire species, additional gene commonality exists between close relatives because they received their genes from close ancestors whom they have in common . . . 'familial' genes." (Beckstrom 1993, p.15)

Thus, with respect to blood groups it is now common knowledge that not only does the frequency of distribution of blood groups vary from one population to another, but that many populations, especially genetically isolated populations such as certain South American Indian and Central African tribes, Lapps and Inuit, reveal rare blood group polymorphisms which are unique to their own populations, distinguished as these populations are by different evolutionary histories. Such distinctive genotypes are to be expected among groups separated by long periods of genetic evolution.

Numerous human microraces or breeding populations possess blood groups which are unique to their members. That it was possible to classify races by blood groups was early revealed by William C. Boyd in his Blood Group and the Races of Man: An Introduction to Modem Physical Anthropology (Boston, Little Brown. 1950), by A. E. Mourant in his The Distribution of Human Blood Groups (Oxford, Blackwells, 1954), and confirmed by a host of later researchers. Mourant's work showed that contrary to popular biological propaganda, some blood groups were unique to particular populations. Since then the courts of law have come to accept genetic evidence when faced with legal disputes regarding paternity; and it is now widely recognized that marked variations in the frequency of specific blood groups distinguish genetically separate human populations from each other. Furthermore, these patterns carry within them a coded guide to the racial history of each breeding population.

DNA Profiling


In particular, the ability to analyze and classify human DNA has advanced rapidly in recent years, and DNA testing is supplementing if not supplanting blood group analysis for forensic purposes. An individual's DNA is as unique as his fingerprints, but also indicates with which other people he has close genetic kinship or racial links. A single hair, a sliver of skin, even a dandruff flake can often reveal an individual' s genetic identity. Some artists are reportedly incorporating a sample of their DNA into the signatures on their paintings to authenticate these and to facilitate the detection of forgeries. In this age of unprecedented population growth,14 and the resultant invasion of national breeding grounds by the surplus population from alien stocks, illegal immigration could be more readily controlled through the issue of identity cards impregnated with small portions of the carrier' s own unique DNA. This would establish a forgery proof method of identification, as well as provide a key to the phylogenetic of the individual.

DNA profiling has already begun to be used to assist historians in determining the racial history of populations by revealing their genetic components. Going well beyond the early studies of A. E. Mourant,15 several scholars have worked to throw further light on the demographic history of the Jewish diaspora, utilizing blood group patterns, genetic polymorphisms and DNA profiles to determine the extent to which the different Jewish communities have interbred with the diverse local populations amongst which they had resided at different times over the centuries.

Even more recently, L. L. Cavalli-Sforza (1988, 1993), with coauthors Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazzi, has embarked in The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) on a pioneer odyssey into the historical and genetic relationships that demarcate living populations of humankind throughout the world. Although based on a mere 120 alleles drawn from only 42 living populations, this study points the way to further research which in time could untangle the complex web of historic migration and genetic admixture with a degree of precision which would have been impossible with the more primitive techniques known to physical anthropologists just fifty years ago. Summarizing the worldwide data in a singular 42 by 41 matrix illustrating genetic distance, Cavalli- Sforza and his co-authors find that the English differ from the Danes, Germans and French by a mere 21-25 measures of genetic distance, whereas they differ from North American Indians by 947 points, from the African Bantu by 2288 and from Mbuti Pygmies by 2373. An erstwhile dedicated environmentalist, Cavelli-Sforza, genuflects in a few mandatory paragraphs to the crusade against "racism," but concludes that the collected data show that "North Eurasians," — a term he uses to group Europeans, Mongols, Japanese, Koreans, and Northern Chinese — are more closely related to each other than to Africans and Australoids. 16 In short, their findings as to the degree of similarity and difference between surviving populations of Homo sapiens are essentially parallel to those of the older-school physical anthropologists represented by Carleton Coon.17

Interestingly, this latest Cavelli-Sforza study supports the findings of mitochondrial DNA research, which implies that at one time the ancestors of all living hominids originated in Africa, and that the major racial differences arose as a result of an early migration of certain hominid groups out of Africa. These were subjected to subsequent rapid evolution in colder more northerly zones, while those that remained in Africa were not affected by the selective forces associated with the harsher new environment. This is illustrated by the evidence of DNA which reveals a primary divide between the contemporary sub-Saharan populations, whose ancestors remained in Africa, and those that evolved their present genetic characteristics in Eurasia, under different and presumably more challenging environments.


The Human Genome Project


The growing appreciation of the role of genetic forces in determining human qualities has consequently led in recent years to the establishment of numerous human genome research projects.18 Despite the hangover of anti-biological environmentalism still found in the social sciences, this project is focusing the attention of the more perceptive scientists on the reality of human biology. Breakthroughs in molecular biology have made possible the construction of a human genome map, consisting of a schematic representation of each chromosome, showing the bands and the approximate location of each of thousands of genes. Work is advancing continuously in several different countries on the construction of genetic linkage maps, with special attention to those responsible for human defects, tracing the loci assignable to specific human chromosomes. Already, a database comprising over 6,000 loci, including anonymous DNA segments, has been constructed by those engaged on the U.S. project, with work also progressing in Britain and other countries. This has been vastly facilitated by computers, for the development of which science owes an eternal debt to that much-maligned genius, William Shockley, who headed the small three-man team which made a breakthrough in developing the transistor and who, ironically, was castigated for urging the need to research the genetic basis of human personality in order to enable humankind to guard against dysgenic decay.

While the human genome project already points to new strategies to diagnose, treat and prevent human diseases, and may be expected to become the basis of extensive medical benefits for posterity, its utility in revealing human ancestry should not be overlooked.

The genome project has two major implications: firstly the potential for promoting eugenic remedies by pointing to the genetic predisposition to disease as distinct from the actual occurrence of disease; and secondly, the light that it promises to throw on the nature and extent of human racial diversity. As Marc A. Lappe has said,

The products of the genome project may throw into stark relief the paradox of a society based on the premise of equal standing at creation and one that is found to be composed of a genetically heterogeneous group of subpopulations with quantitatively different frequencies of heritable traits. As a society, we will have to ask if we can in fact collect information that reveals these individual differences and still continue to treat all individuals the same. . . .

What is clear is that even a partial picture of the genetic landscape that defines the molecular differences among human individuals will reveal more its nonuniformity than its hoped for universality.19

Human racial history is being clarified: as new gene sequences are revealed by the genome project it is possible to cross-relate them with detailed maps of other genetic loci in the genome. This increasingly facilitates a more complete picture of gene action and the analysis of polygenic traits, which are so important to any true picture of the character of distinctive human breeding populations. As the history of genes is traced, the genetic profile of different breeding populations is becoming much sharper.20

The human genome project helps to remind us that we are, after all, biological organisms just like other animals, and even plants. It should make us realize that we need to bring ethics into line with biological reality, into line with the reality of evolution and the universe. It is essential that human culture and human ethics should be in line with the realities of the universe, and those realities include our own human biological nature. It should also serve to remind us that racial or genetic differences are real and important, and that the culture on which we rely for survival itself depends on biology and hence on our genetic heritage. The uniqueness of each individual' s genetic makeup is thus today well-established. DNA fingerprinting is so distinctive that the likelihood that an individual member of even that widely heterogeneous group contained within what we call the Caucasoid race may have the same DNA imprint as another is something in the region of one in a hundred million, and between individuals of different races this possibility becomes virtually zero. However, to date less publicity has been given to the significance of the fact of group differences in the frequency of major genetic loci.

Contrary to previous egalitarian supposition and propagandizing, significant genetic differences distinguish historically isolated populations or gene pools. A prime question for the future is the extent to which historically separate populations, some of which have evolved further in certain directions than others, will be able to preserve their distinct genetic characteristics in an increasingly overcrowded and mobile world. Evolution was able to proceed amongst hominids, as amongst other life forms, as a result of genetic isolation, which was initially facilitated by geographic isolation. Only after geographic isolation had created a wide variety of subspecies and quasi-subspecies possessing markedly different genotypes did subspecific or "race" prejudice - - what C. G. Simpson (1971, 1980) describes as a psychological restraint on cross-breeding — come into being as an evolutionary mechanism serving to preserve subspecific identity amongst increasingly mobile species.21 The co-habitation of individuals of diverse genetic origin in the same geographical location, and the probable further decline of "race prejudice," may reverse the prehistoric evolutionary trend toward subspeciation and initiate a reversal of nature's evolutionary tactics. William Shockley, whom we mentioned earlier, was deeply concerned with the possibility that indiscriminate mating could result in dysgenic trends which would effectively usher in a period of human "devolution. "

Opposition to the Human Genome Project


Biological egalitarians are fearful that the knowledge acquired as a result of the human genome project will destroy the plausibility of their universalist ideology. They are particularly concerned about the revival of scientific interest in group differences which will unavoidably result from the construction of 'demic maps' tracing the genetics of regional populations of different evolutionary ancestry since these will reveal the true extent of group differences in genetic potential. Such maps will trace the varied genetic heritage of human demes (breeding populations or micro-races) with scientific precision; and by throwing a sharp and revealing light on what had hitherto been a debatable area of human knowledge will explode the anti-evolutionary myth of universal biological uniformity.

Such people apparently regard equality before the law as an inadequate basis for societal justice, and are prepared to condemn limitless numbers of future generations to the evils of ignorance and genetic disease in order to protect the egos of those who are alive today. Egalitarian activists such as Barbara Faye Waxman have complained that the human genome project will foster a revival of negative eugenics. They appear to be unconcerned about the fate of future generations and — either consciously or unconsciously — willing to doom untold billions to genetically-dictated misery to satisfy their own biologically unreal concept of morality.

It was therefore not surprising that, when in 1988 the European Commission proposed the establishment of a human genome project to aid predictive medicine, an anti-eugenic coalition immediately sprang into existence and succeeded in inducing the European Parliament to establish a committee to report on the proposal.

The rapporteur appointed for the committee was a certain Benedikt Harlin — a member of the Green Party, which has strongly opposed genetic research and the genome project. The Harlin report consequently recommended that tight restrictions be imposed on scientific research into human genetics, seemingly preferring to live in an age of darkness. The Green Party, for all its laudable claims to protect the non-human environment, turns a blind eye upon the ongoing destruction of the human genetic heritage, arguing that the prime responsibility of the European Parliament is to block any eugenic trends that might result from human genome research. The ultimate result was that the project was severely emasculated, narrowing the opportunities of securing information helpful to predictive medicine, prohibiting both human germ line research and eugenic intervention — with a portion of the approved money being diverted to fund "ethical issues arising from genome research." Cynics might well see this latter as a carrot offered to scientific Luddites.


Genetics and Modern Medical Practice


Progress in genetic science is also transforming medical science by facilitating new opportunities for the remedial treatment of genetic defects, and by offering the possibility of reducing human suffering by identifying fetuses suffering from severe incurable defects at the prenatal stage. Medical geneticists have identified the genetic roots of numerous illnesses, and family medical history records are now increasingly important in assisting the medical fraternity to determine appropriate courses of treatment. Such records have usually been poorly kept, however, and the knowledge that can be gained therefrom is far from definitive as an indicator of genetic defects or weaknesses in individual offspring. Eugenic decisions are far more precise when the phenotype of the infant can be examined by means of techniques such as ultrasound sonar examination. By this process an ultrasound transducer is placed on the mother's abdomen and sound waves travelling through the amniotic sac will reveal the size and shape of the fetus within the womb. In addition, laparoscopy has been developed, which involves the use of a flexible fiberscoptic rod, inserted through the abdomen, which in addition to permitting an examination of the abdominal cavity and fallopian tubes, makes it possible to obtain blood samples from the fetus which can then be analyzed for evidence of genetically determined diseases.

Another technique utilized today in promoting practical eugenic treatment is amniocentesis. This involves the extraction of a small quantity of amniotic fluid, which carries in it cells shed by the fetus, and these reveal the genetic make-up of the fetus. Already, some genetic defects can be cured, while others may be deemed sufficiently serious to indicate the desirability of terminating the pregnancy.22

However, for those concerned with the transmission of a healthy gene pool to future generations, we must not forget that there are two sides to advances in medicine: improved medical skills that help the individual to overcome genetic handicaps are commended by all, but at the same time they often heighten the chances that the genetic problems responsible for the condition will be passed on to future generations. Medical science does not benefit mankind when it has dysgenic impact -when it defeats nature's normal tendency to reduce the likelihood of harmful genes being transmitted in perpetuity to future generations or when it assists organisms which are genetic "basket cases" to evade nature's sifting mechanism and to pass on their collation of inferior or deleterious genes as a curse laid on future generations.

However, many who inherit the finest collection of genes are also cursed by a genotype that includes one or more dysfunctional genes. Clearly, modern medicine increases the likelihood that harmful genes will be transmitted to future generations; and the permeation of our society with such genes is now so advanced that it is imperative that geneticists should be encouraged - not discouraged - to search for techniques which will make it possible to substitute healthy genes for faulty genes. There is no reason why it should not soon be possible to substitute healthy genes for many dysfunctional genes.


The Enhanced Potential for Positive Eugenics


Both eugenic approaches, "negative" (the reduction of harmful genes in the gene pool) and "positive" (an increase in the percentage of "healthy" genes in the gene pool), are currently being greatly facilitated by modern science, and an increasing number of medical personnel are already making eugenic choices in the conduct of their duties. When eugenics first became popular, genetic knowledge was too limited to facilitate negative eugenics in any but the most crude manner, and much was done that was tragic, and sometimes repulsive. Without getting into the history of legally enforced sterilization, there were also many instances where individuals of superior genetic quality were persuaded not to have offspring where there was reason to believe that a solitary defective gene had revealed itself in the phenotype of a family member. Today there is an increasing ability to detect genetic defects in foetuses, and the future holds the possibility of "genetic surgery" to replace deleterious genes with healthy genes, thus making it possible to free future generations from certain specific weaknesses in a discriminating fashion. Thus competent individuals whose genotype is cursed by only simple genetic problems may in future be able to contribute their superior genes to posterity without fear of transmitting genetic defects which are identifiable and subject to manipulation by such techniques. We can now look forward to the days when the breeding of reliably more healthy and competent stock can be promoted by ethically sound medical intervention.

As another example of what can be done, in vitro fertilization has already become common practice in Western countries when married couples who wish to have children are prevented from doing so by the infertility of one of the prospective parents. Such situations offer a perfectly moral opportunity to influence the course of human evolution in a rational and eugenic manner, by ensuring that the couple should have available to them a choice of germinal donors of healthy and genetically sound stock. It was Hermann J. Muller who first widely publicized the idea of establishing repositories for germinal plasma as a means of maintaining eugenic quality; and it was Dr. Robert K. Graham (an ophthalmologist who aided mankind by developing the scratch-resistant plastic lens) who converted Muller's idea into a reality. Aided by an advisory panel of medical specialists and geneticists, Graham established the Repository of Germinal Choice in Escondido, California, in 1980. Here, would-be parents can obtain germinal plasma of high quality and be advised of the physical and mental qualities of a donor's family background (without, of course, being informed of the donor's name). Up to the time of writing, the Repository has already been responsible for the birth of several hundred bright, lively, and healthy infants. 23


Critique of the Neo-Lysenkovian Opposition to Eugenics


The morality of this technique does not prevent those whom Bernard Davis dubbed "scientific Luddites" - because they sought to restrict research into behavioral genetics - from continuing to condemn even the mildest of voluntary eugenic programs such as this, seeking to ridicule such programs at every opportunity.24 Such opponents of eugenics prefer to overlook the words of the young woman who was tested and found to be free of the gene for Huntington's disease, who stated that:

After 28 years of not knowing, it's like being released from prison. To have a hope for the future . . . to be able to see my grandchildren. (Jerry E. Bishop and Michael Waldholz, 1990, p. 274).

Unfortunately, while knowledge can help us to perceive the human condition more clearly and to evaluate the results of our behavior, human beings unfortunately do not always act rationally. As J. Murphy observes (1982, p. 100), the ends that individuals accept as ultimate goals "are given by the passions and, at this level, reason is the slave of the passions." Only a passion that takes into consideration the welfare of those yet to be born is justifiable in moral terms. It is the welfare of the entire phylogenetic continuum, not the of the individual alone, that should shape our passions and our morality.

Apart from the obvious outward physical differences which distinguish the diverse human breeding populations, behavioral tendencies which have major importance for determining the viability of civilization and for the better scientific understanding of the universe also seem to have a predominantly genetic basis. We do not here refer solely to intelligence, of enormous significance as all must surely concede that quality to be. The ability to direct one's actions toward achieving long-term goals, rather than to yield to the siren call of instant gratification, is another of the many qualities that are of supreme importance to modern man. General physical health and the propensity for properly directed altruistic behavior are other desirable qualities which also have strong genetic roots. On the other hand, specific diseases, sociopathic behavior and many forms of mental illness similarly have a genetic basis, and call for the attention of eugenicists. The genetic basis of such behavioral traits is likely to be complex or polygenic, but the study of animal models as well as of human twins has shown that all biological characteristics have a genetic basis, and that the environment can only work on the material provided by heredity, occasionally modified by mutation.

The argument against eugenics is based on the clearly erroneous assumption that genes are spread evenly throughout human populations, or in more extremes cases, on the idea that no one gene is more desirable than another. Such views would imply a degree of genetic panmixia which could not have existed in evolutionary time; otherwise evolution could not have occurred. It has been said that when a species is reduced to a single subspecies (e.g. panmixia), it is nearing extinction. Long-term evolutionary survival is by way of speciation and this necessarily involves subspeciation. Evolution cannot occur unless "favorable" genes are segregated out from amongst "unfavorable" genetic formulae. The entire history of evolution from biological simplicity to biological complexity and from biological uniformity to biological diversity involves genetic segregation just as it involves genetic selection. Furthermore, human behavior is shaped by environmental forces operating on the genetically determined potential, and we should remember that even the capacity to learn from accumulated culture is genetically influenced.25

Examples of legislation that has been successfully introduced to suppress the utilization of genetic science can be found in many states. In some states, such as Wisconsin and Iowa, genetic screening as a basis of employment is illegal ; while a Louisiana Statute (La. Rev. Stat. #9: 122) rules that "a viable in vitro fertilized human ovum is a juridical person which shall not be intentionally destroyed?

It is entirely true that the opportunity to interfere with nature - in the wilful selection by parents, for example, of the sex of their offspring - could lead to serious social problems if foolishly applied; but on the whole, knowledge must be deemed always to be desirable, and the search for knowledge about human heredity should not be suppressed or discouraged at the whim of the scientific Luddites. How humankind chooses to use this knowledge is a sociological and philosophical problem, not an argument for suppressing knowledge. We are on the verge of a new phase in the history of genetics, one which has major implications for the possible future of mankind provided political forces do not prevent the utilization of this knowledge and that contemporary dysgenic processes do not deprive future generations of an adequate proportion of those very genes which make that possibility a reality.


Concluding Remarks


The genome project is clearly exposing the fallacious assumptions on which the egalitarian cult is based. The idea that the individuals that comprise any society - particularly a multi-racial society, which by definition will be genetically more heterogeneous than one comprising individuals who share a common ancestral heritage - could be of uniform biological potential is exposed as a fabrication, a logical absurdity. Equality before the law remains a realistic social goal, but equality of ability can never be a biological reality, except between identical twins. Some individuals - especially in a more heterogeneous society -will possess genetically determined mental and physical qualities which will enable them to be more creative, more productive, or physically more healthy than others, even when the cultural or environmental playing field is level. If that were not the case, there could have been no possibility of evolution. The belief that humankind could benefit from being levelled into a single subspecies also flouts the laws of evolution, since evolution is rooted in differentiation.

The need for eugenic intervention is today increasingly urgent due to the fact that human culture and human technology have blunted nature' s biological pruning knife. At all times a degree of genetic selection is necessary if any breeding population, subspecies or even species is to survive, since mutations (mostly harmful) occur continuously. Medical intervention is unquestioningly humane when it assists those born with genetic handicaps to cope with them, or those who suffer from accidental handicaps to survive; but eugenic goals make it highly desirable that research aimed at advanced techniques of "genetic surgery" be developed to enable the substitution of healthy genes for deleterious genes. Too many individuals in contemporary society, of high genetic potential, now carry one or two undesirable genes to permit us to argue, as the early eugenicists did, that anyone with a known genetic defect should simply not reproduce. Yet research aimed at techniques for replacing faulty genes with healthy ones is the one area of study which anti-eugenicists most stringently oppose.

To foretell the future of eugenics, the question we must ask is: how will human societies react once the full truth about individual and group genetic ability becomes known? It is arguable that whatever happens will be the result of causal forces, not of "free will," since there is no reason even to hypothecate the existence of non-causal forces in human decision-making, and competing "ethical" concepts are probably as causally determined as any other aspect of the real world. Unfortunately, nowhere is it written that a society's ethical views or any other aspect of its cultural baggage should have eugenic value. Only in the long term can we say that dysfunctional ethico- cultural systems are doomed to extinction, simply because if they persist they will doom the biological communities which are guided by them. There is only one law in the universe: that which does not survive ceases to exist. Consequently, an ethic which has dysgenic implications will eventually eliminate the society which adheres to it. While altruism evolved as an evolutionary device that promoted the survival of the distinctive gene pool which gave rise to it, any population that adopts a perverted or dysgenic form of altruism - one which encourages a breeding community to breed disproportionately those of its members who are genetically handicapped rather than from those who are genetically favored, or which aids rival breeding populations to expand while restricting its own birth rate - is unlikely to survive into the indefinite future.

Once science can determine which individuals and populations have disproportionately high gene frequencies for advantageous traits, and which are handicapped by deleterious genetic qualities, societies which are prompted by a higher altruism dedicated to the wellbeing of future generations, rather to the sole gratification of the selfish needs of those who are currently living, will be able to effectively select eugenic over dysgenic reproduction. If true altruism prevails, the result will be eugenic decisions, made voluntarily and without coercion. By contrast, if the ethical level is low (a categorization in which I would include dysfunctional ethical systems, however ardently such devout but unrealistic value systems are held by the individual), or the altruistic drive is distorted into unnatural directions, then the choices made are likely to be dysgenic.

Timothy H. Goldsmith, the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Biology at Yale University, has stated that "[T]he concept of morality's producing the greatest good for the greatest number is consistent only when the interests of the individuals are very similar. This has probably frequently been the case with small homogeneous groups in competition with other groups; it is less obviously so when groups are large and heterogeneous."27 He correctly surmises that evolution normally involves inter-species competition. However, even in the unnatural, highly heterogeneous human communities that are emerging today, the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is still valid if we raise our horizons from the selfish horizons of our own generation to consider the wellbeing of that much vaster number of future generations of humanity yet to be born. It is their wellbeing that should concern us, not just the wellbeing of those with whom we share this crowded planet at the present time.

Forced, state-imposed eugenic systems are wisely feared by many well- intentioned people for good reason: human governmental bureaucracies seldom achieve the virtue anticipated by high-minded philosophers such as Plato, and tend too often to foster corruption and to permit unworthy individuals to seize positions of power and influence. Indeed, the leadership of most if not all nations, intellectual as well as political, appears to have currently fallen into the hands of individuals and pressure groups which promote dysgenic policies that match, in their impact upon humanity, the overall destruction of the ecosphere which is currently taking place around the world, and which few governments or interest groups seem capable of preventing. Possibly the best that we can hope for is that an intelligent and informed populace, freed from the distorted myth of biological egalitarianism and any belief in the near-divinity of humankind as either the "apple of God's eye" or the supreme lord of the universe who can do no wrong, may exert a realistic and humane influence on public policy as to the critical problems today facing humanity.

J. Stan Rowe, in a final chapter to Planet Under Stress: The Challenge of Global Change (Editors, Constance Mungall and Digby J. McLaren, p.332) writes that if people are regarded as being the central reality of the universe

then the sole focus of ethical concerns will be their rights and values . . . but if things other than humans are of surpassing importance, as today's events lead many of us to suspect, then a new purpose - Salvation of this Planet - is revealed . . . [science] has inadvertently opened a new chapter in the book of knowledge whose dazzling insights can change fundamental ideas about the planet/people relationship, about values, and about the way we know the world.

While the present writer shares the same concerns as Rowe, logic should make it perfectly clear to even the most anthropocentric of philosophers that the fate of mankind as a species requires that we recognize the evolutionary realities that govern the workings of the universe - a reality in which mankind plays only a very subordinate and minor role, and in which the laws governing survival reign supreme. Every generation is a genetic bottleneck, holding in its care the genetic and environmental heritage bequeathed to it by past generations. Nothing would seem more tragic to the present writer than the fact that much of the irretrievable harm that this generation is wreaking on both the biological and the non-biological character of the planet on which all life depends for its survival could be avoided if those who are altruistically motivated would only concentrate their attention on how their actions will impact on future generations. Those who are genuinely motivated by altruistic impulses need to extend their horizons to take into consideration not just the immediate welfare of our present generation but the greater good of that far greater number of individuals hopefully yet to come. Any species that adopts patterns of behavior that run counter to the forces that govern the universe is doomed to suffer a painful, harshly enforced and totally involuntary eugenic process of evolutionary reselection and readaptation - or an even more 'severe penalty, extinction.


Source: [I]Mankind Quarterly (http://www.mankindquarterly.org), Sept. 1, 1995


FOOTNOTES

1 See The Mankind Quarterly, Volume XXXV Number 3 (Spring 1995) and Volume XXXV Number 4 (Summer 1995.

2 For an explanation of the extent o which misguided altruism -altruism that is directed beyond the limits of the individual's own genetic breeding pool - can threaten the evolutionary process, and with it the very survival of humanity, see Garrett Hardin, The Limits of Altruism: An Ecologist's View of Survival 1977, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, and subsequent books by the same author.

3 See Jordan's War and the Breed, published in 1915, during the second year of European participation in World War I. This clearly reveals the vastly dysgenic effect of modern warfare.

4 Ibid. Jordan details the impact of World War I on the British intelligentsia. The British universities were emptied of their younger faculty members, who died in large numbers in the mud of Flanders. Typical of the impact was the story of the elite Rugby School, which normally had a body of some 600-700 pupils at any one time. In World War I over 600 were slain, mostly youths or young men, straight from school, unmarried and childless. In short, a number equivalent to the entire school body was eliminated in just four years of one of the most bloody wars history had ever recorded.

5 From the conclusion of his article "The Control of Evolution in Man," published in The Eugenics Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, October 1958.

6 HER Vol 39 (1): pp. 1-123.

7 Roger Pearson, Shockley on Eugenics and Race, 1993, Scott-Townsend Publishers, Box 34070, NW Washington DC 20043. Introduction by Arthur R. Jensen.

8 Lay writers also are beginning to explore these subjects and make them understandable to the general public. Daniel Seligman, senior editor of Fortune, has published a highly readable book called A Question of Intelligence (1992) covering what scientists know and do not know about intelligence and why intelligence is so important to human beings. Although Seligman is not a scientist, the book received very positive reviews by scientists Ernest van den Haag, James Q. Wilson (1993), and Richard J. Herrnstein (1992). Writer Peter Brimelow (1993, 86) of Forbes magazine said that Seligman "defies one of the most powerful contemporary taboos" by reporting the importance of intelligence and its heritability. Scholar Charles Murray (1992, 63) stated that the Seligman book reveals "labyrinthine ramifications for our culture and our polity."

9 New Brunswick: Transactions, 1995.

10 See Nancy Segal, "The Nature vs. Nurture Laboratory" in Research, July/August 1984.

11 See amongst other literature "Personality Similarity in Twins Reared Apart and Together," By A. Tellegin, D.T. Lykken, T.J. Bouchard, K. J. Wilcox, N.L Segal and S. Rich, in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No 6 (1988).

12 There is a mountain of literature dealing with twin studies, but a synopsis of the racial implications may be found in "Comment on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study" by Michael Levin, published in Intelligence, Vol 19, 13-20 (1994).

13 An objection that the similarities between twins might be due to contact between twins prior to testing was raised by the dedicated biological egalitarianist T. J. Rose, in respect of a sample of Finnish twins, but this possibility has been fully considered by T. J. Bouchard and Matthew McGue (1990). One leading scholar engaged in twin research has observed that the determined effort of Lewontin, Rose and Kamin to demonstrate that individual human differences are not significantly influenced by genetic factors leads one to believe that their writing reflects their ideology and that findings in support of significant genetic influences would be threatening to their world view.

14 World population is currently increasing at the rate of some 97 million annually, and even assuming that the rate of increase will decline, it is estimated to reach 10 billion by the year 2050. The population of China, where strict attempts are being made to limit population growth, is currently 1.25 billion, but even assuming that government efforts to restrict population growth continue, the World watch Institute projects a Chinese population of 1.66 billion by the year 2045. Women in Africa have for some decades been averaging six live births per female, whereas in areas like northern Italy and east Germany the birthrate is far below replacement level. Whereas the population of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) was around 40 million when the area was first separated from India only 48 years ago, it is today more than 125 million. Needless to say, Bangladesh supports this population increase only as a result of massive aid from the countries of the Western world, whose share of the world's population is annually declining. The population of India increases every five or six days by the total population of Europe's oldest democracy, Iceland. The changing character of the human population is also reflected in disparities in the birthrate between the more successful members of industrialized countries and the less successful, who worldwide tend to produce more offspring. The population of native Europeans is actually declining, and it is anticipated that Europeans will eventually be largely replaced by increasingly massive immigration from Africa, Asia and the Far East.

15 See his publication, The Blood Groups of Jews, 1959

16 In their determination to ignore the traditional anthropometric terms which classify living populations along racial lines, Cavelli- Sforza and his co-authors have chosen to use purely geographical or national terminology, which actually has little to do with genetic realities in many parts of the modern world. Yet even though they are working with nonracial genetic markers which were chosen because they had no known evolutionary implications, the racial patterns that are revealed coincide very closely to the conclusion of traditional anthropologists. The argument about whether or not "races" exist has become purely a matter of semantics — of what exactly the debaters understand by the term "race." Distinct gene pools and breeding populations have existed since soon after sexual reproduction first evolved; otherwise, there could have been no speciation and no evolution. If we accept the term "race" in its original sense, as referring to any group of people of essentially common ancestry, who as a result of mutation, genetic drift or evolutionary selection have come to share, to a recognizable extent, certain distinctive genetic patterns, the term presents no scientific difficulties whatsoever.

17 Where contemporary DNA and mitochondrial DNA theorists primarily differ from Coon and more traditional physical anthropologists is in assessing the antiquity of the race differences which distinguish the living populations of Homo sapiens. Coon and many paleontologists believe that surviving skeletal evidence indicates that some of the present-day racial characteristics, such as the Mongolian shovel-shaped incisor, were already present in pre-sapiens populations in that area and indicate either separate regional evolution of contemporary populations from pre-sapiens ancestors or at least significant interbreeding of expanding Homo sapiens populations with local pre-sapiens populations. Mitochondrial DNA enthusiasts in particular insist that early Homo sapiens populations maintained total racial separation, and did not crossbreed with females belonging to other subspecies of Homo when expropriating the territories of the latter. This raises the old dispute about evolutionary history of the Neanderthals (today regarded as sapiens because their distinguishing skeletal characteristics can be matched among various extant living populations) and their subsequent displacement by Cro-Magnons.

18 The application of genetic engineering to agricultural and other industrial uses is also encouraging the scientific world to appreciate the opportunity that is rapidly developing for humankind to plot its own destiny.

19 "Justice and the Limitations of Genetic Knowledge," Marc A. Lappe, in Justice and the Human Genome Project, editors T.F. Murphy and Marc A. Lappe, California University Press, Berkeley, 1994.

20 However, in the countries of the Western world the distinctness of evolutionary separate populations is becoming more blurred with every generation, as a result of out-breeding. This is not happening so rapidly in other parts of the world.

21 Simpson points out that without some mechanism to discourage interbreeding (what we call "race prejudice") no subspeciation could have occurred among more advanced species whose mobility rendered geographical barriers inadequate to sustain evolutionary speciation. Since speciation is one of the major factors in evolutionary advancement, some kind of psychological barriers had to develop to prevent new experimental species from being eliminated at the subspecific stage by re-merging their specific collation of genes with that of other subspecies. In the absence of biological or culturally inspired prejudices, "miscegenation" would eliminate new subspecies before they had time to become so genetically differentiated from each other that they had lost the biological ability to interbreed.

22 The Washington Post, September 17, 1995 (p. A3), carries a story entitled "After Years of Birth Defects, Pain and Mystery Linger in Brownsville." Author Sue Anne Pressley reports on the high rate of neurological birth defects in Brownsville, Texas, believed to be caused by air pollution from dirty factories in the neighboring Mexican town of Matamoros (where maquiladoras and other Mexican industry is promoted by trade agreements which enable Mexican industries to benefit because of the absence of pollution controls corresponding to those which govern U.S. industrial competitors). The article reports that among the many serious birth defects recorded in Brownsville between 1986 and 1991, 47 involved babies born without brains. The ability to detect this condition in fetuses now facilitates eugenic abortions, which spare the parents and the community much emotional and economic hardship. While the genetic defects responsible for anencephalic births are hardly likely to be passed on to future generations, many other defects of a less crippling but almost equally disastrous effect often do enter the gene pool of a population and increase the genetic load of hereditary defects which will be passed on to future generations.

23 An account of the Repository has been provided by Jamieson in an article published in The Mankind Quarterly under the title "Concerning Scholarly Creativity: Hermann J. Muller and Germinal Repositories" (Jamieson, 1993).

24 Davis likened the opponents of genetic research to the Luddite rioters of eighteenth century England, who sought to stop the industrial revolution by breaking newly installed machinery. Scientific Luddites oppose the search for knowledge even though it could free future generations from the dysgenic impact resulting from the faulty social policies of today. They do not realize that policies rooted in ignorance are far more dangerous for the future of mankind than policies based on factual knowledge.

25 See Beckstrom, 1993, p. 14.

26 Interestingly, the legislators did not prohibit the freezing of such embryos, which in effect renders them non-viable.

27 The Biological Roots of Human Nature: Forging Links between Evolution and Behavior. Timothy H. Goldsmith, p. 123. Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.


References

Andrews, Lori B.

1987 Medical Genetics: A Legal Frontier. Chicago: American Bar Foundation

1992 "Torts and the Double Helix: Malpractice Liability for the Failure to Warn of Genetic Risks." University of Houston Law Review. 29:149- 184

Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr., and Matthew McGue

1990 "Genetic and Rearing Environmental Influences on Adult Personality: An Analysis of Adopted Twins Reared Apart. Journal of Personality. 58.1 March.

Beckstrom, John H.

1993 Darwinism Applied: Evolutionary Paths to Social Goals. Westport, CT: Praeger

Bishop, Jerry E., and Michael Waldholz

1990 Genome: The Story of the Most Astonishing Adventure of our Time -The Attempt to Map All the Genes in the Human Body. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 274

Cattell, R. B.

1972 A New Morality from Science: Beyondism. New York: Pergamon Press

1982 The Inheritance of Personality and Ability. New York: Academic Press

Cavelli-Sforza, L. Luca, Paoio Menozzi and Alberto Piazza

1994 The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Darlington, C. D.

1958 "The Control of Evolution in Mall." The Eugenics Review 50:3, October

1964 Genetics and Man. London: George Allen and Unwin

1969 The Evolution of Man and Society. London: Lowe and Brydone

Haldane, J B. S.

1924 Daedelus, or The Science of the Future. London: Kegan Paul

Huxley, J.

1947 Evolution and Ethics. London: Pilot

Jensen, A.R.

1969 "How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholarly Achievement?" Harvard Education Review. 39; Methuen

1972 Genetics and Education. London: Methuen

Levin, Michael

1994 "Comment on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study." Intelligence. 19:13-20

Murphy, J.

1982 Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

Murphy, Timothy F., and Marc A. Lappe (Eds.)

1994 Justice and the Human Genome Project. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Osborn, F.

1968 The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modem Society. New York: Weybright and Talley

Rushton,J. Philippe

1995 Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers

Simpson, G. C.

1971 The Meaning of Evolution. New York: Bantam Books

1980 Splendid Isolation. New Haven: Yale University Press

Tellegen, Auke, David T. Lykken, Thomas Bouchard, Jr., Kimerly J. Wilcox, Nancy L. Segal, Stephen Rich

1988 "Personality Similarity in Twins Reared Apart and Together." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 54, No 6.

Waddington, C. H.

1975 The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

1978 The Man-Made Future. London: Croom Helm

Wilkie, Tom

1993 Perilous Knowledge: The Human Genome Project and Its Implications. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wilson, E. O.

1978 Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Zirkle, C.

1949 Death of a Science in Russia: The Fate of Genetics as Described in Pravda and Elsewhere. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

1959 Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Book Review Article

Evolved
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 06:00 PM
Margaret Mead, often called "the mother of American anthropology," became the author of many influential but distorted anthropological texts. Mead earned her M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia in 1929 under Boas, and obtained an influential position as associate curator of the American Museum of Natural History. Her Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) was a particularly blatant, now-transparent attempt to demolish support for Western family traditions in favor of free sex, and has since been shown to be based on a broadly false and flagrant misrepresentation of Polynesian customs.4 She co-authored with Gene Weltfish a pamphlet entitled The Races of Mankind (1940), which somehow came to be adopted by the War Department for distribution among American World War II military personnel, until it was withdrawn when it was judged to be communist propaganda. Its general thesis reflected the very core of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, extending the concept of "class exploitation" to include "race exploitation" and portraying race as nothing more than a cultural invention designed to keep the colored races in submission -or a conceptual artifact designed to promote a specialized form of class exploitation. Mead was officially cited as having numerous communist- front affiliations.

That is exactly the same concept people are being brainwashed with today - race is a social construct/does not exist, support for free love and traditional family values are irrelevant. Interesting to see that anti-racialist theories are just as outdated as the anthropological information used to classify people racially. ;)

Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 07:39 PM
I agree. Anthropology is inductive ( reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general hypotheses and theories) and empirically grounded. You take a number of established facts and then draw a conclusion. Intepretation is very important too. Many physical anthropologist are full of data, however, it can be useless when they have not carefully interpreted the data.

A big problem is that many so-called scientists did not use the scientific method when they approached a problem. I shall see if Bunak was any different. Nyessen looks promising. The scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirements of systematic experimentation.

Medicine is also a knowledge which is inductive (and deductive), and knowledge can change over time, as we get new information by modern research. What is true today can be wrong tomorrow.


That is exactly the same concept people are being brainwashed with today - race is a social construct/does not exist, support for free love and traditional family values are irrelevant. Interesting to see that anti-racialist theories are just as outdated as the anthropological information used to classify people racially. ;)

Agrippa
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 08:10 PM
The Concept of Heredity in Western thought: Part Three
The revival of interest in genetics

by Dr. Roger Pearson
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity1.html

or

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?cat=3

Interesting read especially about the infamous and mislead Franz Boas (who had one or two good ideas though ;) ) and the developments if its about that subject...

Horagalles
Saturday, September 24th, 2005, 12:24 PM
I agree. Anthropology is inductive ( reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general hypotheses and theories) and empirically grounded. You take a number of established facts and then draw a conclusion. Intepretation is very important too. Many physical anthropologist are full of data, however, it can be useless when they have not carefully interpreted the data.

A big problem is that many so-called scientists did not use the scientific method when they approached a problem. I shall see if Bunak was any different. Nyessen looks promising. The scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirements of systematic experimentation....in/deductive is about the tendency of a science.
Do you have links to the article itself?!
The article mentioned Thorstein Veblen. Here is an interesting link to his works http://de.geocities.com/veblenite/

Glenlivet
Saturday, September 24th, 2005, 02:53 PM
The view towards anthropology is what I got mainly from Nyessen, a Dutch anthropologists who studied the Friterpians and Groterpians.

Links to the article, The concept of heredity in Western thought:

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity1.html
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity2.html
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity3.html

in/deductive is about the tendency of a science.
Do you have links to the article itself?!
The article mentioned Thorstein Veblen. Here is an interesting link to his works http://de.geocities.com/veblenite/

Horagalles
Saturday, September 24th, 2005, 03:07 PM
The view towards anthropology is what I got mainly from Nyessen, a Dutch anthropologists who studied the Friterpians and Groterpians.

Links to the article, The concept of heredity in Western thought:

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity1.html
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity2.html
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Pearson/heredity3.html
Thanks - good find! We should collect such articles. And especially older articles and works on sociology, anthropogy often contain interesting thought. Eugenics are deeply rooted into our thinking. My mother used to asked:"What are the parents of this girl doing..." - Wonder what she tried to find out :D