Answer: Let me state quite simply that in my view a man should be as determined to preserve his own race as to preserve his own family. Then we will have a look at what science has to say on the subject.
The first thing to note is that races are different – I say different from one another, mark you, not superior or inferior to one another. The elementary fact that races are significantly different is now sometimes challenged by people who have not made the slightest study of the subject. Let us look at a few authorities. First Darwin, who wrote in Descent of Man: “There is however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other-as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in 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 acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct…..”
The famous T. H. Huxley, in Man’s Place in Nature,. stressed the range in variation of the brain between different races. A similar point was made by “the founder of the science of comparative ethnology”, Sir E. B. Tylor, wrote as follows in Anthropology: “Anthropology finds race differences most clearly in stature and proportions of limbs, conformation of the skull and the brain within, characters of features, skin, eyes, and hair, peculiarities of constitution. and mental and moral temperament …. In comparing races, one of the first questions that occurs is whether people who differ so much intellectually as savage tribes and civilised nations show any corresponding difference in their brain. There is, in fact, a considerable difference.”
Mendel’s theory of genes, on which all modern genetics is based, shows that the wider an outcross, and hence the greater the diversity of genes involved, the smaller will be the probability of ever recovering the original stock. The eminent modern geneticist, Professor C. D. Darlington, F.R.S., M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc, commenting on Galton and Mendel states that “Galton had uncovered the process of racial differentiation in its simplest instance much as Mendel had uncovered the process of recombination in its simplest instance.”
The same author in his book The Facts of Life writes: “All races . . . all mating groups and all social units composed of mating groups have their own genetic characteristics. They are all different … It is absurd to pretend that water and vinegar are equal. Water is better for some purposes, vinegar for others. Vinegar is harder to get but easier to do without. So it is with people. The future of mankind rests with those genetically diverse groups . . . which can practise mutual help and show mutual respect. Neither of these habits can be assisted in the long run by make-believe of any kind, certainly not by a make-believe of equality in the physical intellectual and cultural capacities of such groups.”
Finally Professor Darlington summarised certain practical aspects of the question in the following remarkable passage, in The New Scientist (14th April, 1960): “Is there not then a third system, one of wider outbreeding, of real crossing, such as black-by-white . . ? The answer is: no. Such crossing represents not a system but a change of system, a change from relative inbreeding to outbreeding . . . And the original types from which you started will never reappear: one can never recover the parental strain from the offspring of a wide cross . . . If you change from outbreeding to real crossing, you are liable to run into trouble”.
How can it possibly be argued in face of such authorities that no significant differences exist between races and that crossing of races can be undertaken without risk? The eager propagandist of this opinion merely “erects the small flag of his impertinence on the massive fortress of his ignorance.” He does more, he seeks to condemn his own kind to extinction.
Question : Surely modern science has established that race differences are only skin-deep-you have quoted only one modern scientist?
Answer: Modern science has established nothing of the kind, and it is not difficult to show this. In addition to classic biologists-if I may so describe them-it is correct that I have so far quoted only one modern scientist, although I will now quote more. The scientist already cited is Professor Darlington, an Englishman whose integrity is well known to all, and whose reputation is world-wide. In this matter we have to be very careful to distinguish between science and propaganda. In the last war, it was suggested for political reasons that all men were the same. This has become a fashion of thinking, or rather of propaganda, in the post-war world and many of its institutions. I do not mean to suggest that all scientists who take this view are insincere; certainly not. But I do suggest that much present thought in this respect is wishful and emotional.We must base practical policy on facts, not on wishful thinking- either way.
I contend that the facts show that races differ from one another, and that it is natural to want to maintain the integrity of your own race and also to preserve the genetic and cultural variety that exists throughout the world. This view is supported by what is legitimately described as the classic view, which I gave in reply to the last question. But it is fair to say that some scientists contravene this view. Physical differences between races are usually admitted; controversy concerns the explanation of their origin rather than their existence. But there is still argument about the extent to which racial inheritance affects the mind, and consequently the creation and maintenance of distinctive cultures.
Certainly there is controversy among scientists on this subject. But the point surely is this: while this controversy continues in scientific circles without so far any suggestion of a conclusion which shakes the traditional view, it is really a suicidal insanity to discard the proved nature process of millennia-proved in the sense that it has produced from very primitive beginnings such a result as European civilisation-in a fit of emotionalism, evoked by war and post-war propaganda in people who have not even given as much study to the subject as I have been able to do in the course of a very active life devoted to other affairs. In certain academic circles I was recently accused of having “mugged up” the subject. The subsequent discussion revealed that I could certainly exonerate my emotional critics from any charge of that kind.
So let us now look at the result of a few more researches by scientists, not a single one of whom could be charged with having any political sympathies with me. First, the 1946, 1947 (Mayo, Ferguson and Crane) and 1959 editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica all emphasise the differences between races. A leading British biologist, Professor C. H. Waddington, C.B.E., M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S., writes in his Introduction to Modern Genetics: “Man is a very variable animal. An Australian aborigine, a Chinaman and a West European differ as much from each other as do many related species of monkeys.” Professor Juan Comas, D.Sc. (of the Mexican School of Anthropology) states that: “Negro and white are in no respect identical either physically, intellectually or emotionally.” This appears in the UNESCO symposium, The Race Question in Modern Science (London, 1956). In the same work, Dr. G. M. Morant says: “It seems to be impossible to evade the conclusion that some racial differences in mental characters must be expected.” And even Dr. Ashley Montagu (Rapporteur to the UNESCO committee that drafted the Statement on Race) admits in Man: His First Million Years that anthropologists are “by no means agreed” that differences in mental capacity do not exist between certain human groups. Indeed, the recent studies by experts like Shuey, Porteus, McGurk etc., do strongly suggest that there are innate mental differences between races, just as there are marked anatomical contrasts which none can deny.
In the new edition of You and Heredity (revised with the help of many scientists), Amram Scheinfeld writes: “What is now apparent . . . is that the relative differences, and a few of the absolute differences, go considerably beyond the surface traits which anthropologists in former years regarded as about the only important characteristics distinguishing races.Recent researches have shown that there also are significant average differences, even among ethnic groups,” in blood types, disease inheritance and certain kinds of bodily functioning.” Let us now take a look at the opinion of scientists of a different outlook.
The editor of a periodical which deals with race and allied subjects, and is supported by distinguished scientists from many countries, recently complained of the bogus “anthropological” arguments used “to advocate or justify Black and White crosses” and “castigate European peoples for their backwardness in showing a desire for racial miscegenation’Dr. R. Gayre, also observed: “What can occur without ill effects within one stock, does not provide any grounds for reasoning as to what can occur when two distinct stocks are crossed … we do not think, in view of the natural phenomenon of associative mating, that the British or any other peoples, Black or White, are behaving unnaturally if they show some hesitancy to enter freely into hybridisation with strains vastly different from themselves”. (The Mankind Quarterly, January, 1961.)
The well known eugenist, G. C. Bertram, M.A., Ph.D.. in his study West Indian Immigration, comments: “Viewed with distant dispassion, peaceful happiness is not typical, even of race juxtaposition, let alone race mixture, in many areas of the world.” He justly summarises different opinions on the matter, but concludes that “most must surely find themselves unable to feel convinced that there are positive advantages to be gained from an increased mingling of African and European genes (that is to say ‘blood’ in popular parlance) within the population of the United Kingdom. Indeed, many are convinced already that the disadvantages of large scale mingling are heavy. Quite apart from the absence of any genetic advantages likely to accrue from this miscegenation, the growth of a host of social disadvantages and tensions would seem highly probable.”
Dr. J.C.Trevor B.Sc, M.A., Ph.D., in Chambers Encyclopaedia says that whether race-crossing is biologically or socially desirable is still “a hotly debated question”. In face of this great weight of evidence, provided by classic scientists before propaganda intervened, and modern scientists of repute and integrity, can anyone claim that “science has established race differences are only skin-deep”?Anyone who thinks this is just riding the hobby-horse of his or her wishes, and the unscientific answer is: come off it.