The Project Gutenberg eBook of Race and reason
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Race and reason
A Yankee view
Author: Carleton Putnam
Release date: September 25, 2026 [eBook #79654]
Language: English
Original publication: Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1961
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79654
Credits: Tim Lindell, Shawn Carraher and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RACE AND REASON ***
Because I believe this book to be of exceptional importance, I urge it
upon your immediate attention. It is sent to you with the compliments
of the North-South Council, James E. Simpson, Chairman, P. O. Box 5554,
Friendship Station, Washington 16, D. C., out of funds contributed by
people in both the North and the South.
Harry F. Byrd,
United States Senator
Race and Reason
A YANKEE VIEW
By Carleton Putnam
+Public Affairs Press, Washington, D. C.+
Copyright, 1961, by Public Affairs Press
419 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington 3, D. C.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 61-8447
FOREWORD
This book is a signal contribution to an understanding of the race
controversy. No other writer, in my opinion, has yet combined so
forceful an analysis of the viewpoints of both North and South with so
clear a grasp of the reasons behind each.
Carleton Putnam strikes at the root of the matter. He thoroughly
explores the ideology which led to the Supreme Court’s decision in
the desegregation cases and traces it to its source. In the process
he puts race against the background of fundamental American ideals
with arresting results. He presents documented facts, and discloses a
situation, which I believe should be brought to the immediate attention
of the American people. _Race and Reason_ may well become a text for
the unorganized majority in their battle against the social concepts of
our minority groups.
If there be an argument in favor of integration which is not plainly
set out in this volume, and as plainly examined, I have not heard it.
The writing is incisive and can be read by the layman at one sitting
with pleasure as well as profit. The author has thought through many
issues, and has combined his thinking with careful research. He gives
his results in telling sentences, crisp and spare. In these pages, any
legislator, judge, lawyer, minister or college debater can have at his
finger tips, conveniently indexed, a succinct reply to every sophistry
advanced by the propagandist. To those who recognize that the salvation
of the South lies in the education of public opinion rather than in
rear-guard court actions, and that our national leaders must be told
the scientific as well as the political facts of race, this book will
be indispensable.
My personal enthusiasm has been increased by knowing Putnam himself.
He is a dyed-in-the-wool Northerner, a New Englander collaterally
descended from both Israel Putnam, George Washington’s first
major-general, and Rufus Putnam, founder of the Ohio Colony. Putnam is
a Yankee in the true sense of the word. He speaks with detachment and
from what I may term the native American outlook. Few men are better
qualified by inheritance and training to recall us to the principles on
which our republic rests.
In his own career Putnam has been singularly successful both as a
practical man of affairs and as a scholar. Graduating with a science
degree and with honors in history and politics from Princeton, and
with a law degree from Columbia, he was for fifteen years president
of Chicago and Southern Air Lines and later chairman of the board of
Delta Air Lines. He finally retired, in his early fifties, to write
biography, and has already distinguished himself in this field. My
fellow journalist, Virginius Dabney, aptly described the situation
when he said editorially that the first volume of Putnam’s _Theodore
Roosevelt_ “had the critics turning handsprings”.
Putnam writes from a knowledge of history, science and law. He writes
from nation-wide experience in business, and from long residence in
North and South. He knows America, its past and its present. I consider
his message imperative reading for its own sake, and doubly valuable
because of the man who speaks.
I would like finally to comment upon the panel of scientists who have
signed the Introduction which follows this Foreword. Their tribute is,
I believe, unique. I know of no other case where a social study of
this kind has had such combined support from the fields of genetics,
psychology, anthropology, zoology and anatomy.
The panel is headed by R. Ruggles Gates, generally acknowledged to be
one of the world’s leading human geneticists. Born a Canadian, Dr.
Gates received his M.A. from Mt. Allison, his B.Sc. from McGill, his
Ph.D. from Chicago and his D.Sc. from the University of London. He has
been a Fellow of the Royal Society since 1931.
His active career began as a Lecturer in Biology at St. Thomas’s
Hospital in London, continued as Associate Professor of Zoology at
the University of California, then as Professor of Botany at King’s
College, University of London, and as Honorary Research Fellow in
Biology at Harvard. For the last eight years he has been engaged
in world travel for the study of Races and Race Crossings. His
publications include _The Mutation Factor in Human Evolution_ (1915),
_Human Genetics_, 2 Vols. (1946), _Human Ancestry_ (1948), and
_Pedigrees of Negro Families_ (1949).
From the field of psychology we find Henry E. Garrett, Professor
Emeritus, Columbia University. For fifteen years Dr. Garrett headed
the Department of Psychology at Columbia. He has been President of
the Eastern Psychological Association and the American Psychological
Association. In addition he has served as Vice Chairman of the
Division of Psychology and Anthropology of the National Research
Council. He is general editor of the American Psychological Series,
and is the author of _Statistics in Psychology and Education_; _Great
Experiments in Psychology_; _Psychological Tests, Methods and Results_;
_Psychology_; _General Psychology_; and _Testing_.
Robert Gayre is a Scot. Presently Editor of the _Mankind Quarterly_,
he was formerly Professor of Anthropology and head of the postgraduate
Department of Anthropo-Geography, University of Saugor, India. He is
the author of _Teuton and Slav_ (1944) and of _Ethnology_, 3 Vols.
(soon to be published). He was Director of Education in the Allied
Control Commission for Italy after World War II.
Wesley C. George began his career as Instructor in Zoology at the
University of North Carolina, served variously as Professor of Biology
at Guilford College, Adjunct Professor of Zoology at the University
of Georgia, and Associate Professor of Histology and Embryology at
the University of Tennessee Medical School. He has been Professor of
Anatomy at the University of North Carolina since 1924 and was for
ten years head of the department there. He is the author of numerous
articles on the development of man and other vertebrates, comparative
hematology and the philosophy of science.
There can be no doubt that the endorsement of these men, taken together
with the evidence of other scientists called as witnesses by the author
in his text, guarantee the scientific integrity of _Race and Reason_
and confirm the soundness of its premises.
+T. R. Waring+
Editor, Charleston _News and Courier_
INTRODUCTION
Biological scientists seldom find themselves writing an introduction to
what is essentially a study of a social problem. However, the problem
in this instance is of such great importance from both the scientific
and social standpoints, and the two are so closely interrelated, that
we cannot dissociate ourselves from the task.
Our professional interest lies in the scientific foundations on which
Mr. Putnam rests his thesis. We are in complete accord with what he
has to say concerning these foundations. We agree with his balanced
presentation of genetic and environmental factors in the area of
both racial and individual biology. We believe they deserve this
sharp reappraisal in the light of current problems in the world at
large. We can also confirm Putnam’s estimate of the extent to which
non-scientific, ideological pressures have harassed scientists in the
last thirty years, often resulting in the suppression or distortion of
truth.
The intrusion of political thought into the social and anthropological
sciences which has occurred on a massive scale during this period, has
been a very great disservice to scientific investigation and to the
guidance which scientific work and its conclusions ought to be able to
render to human society. Man must be guided by science, but scientific
thought must not be moulded to preconceived political ideas.
We, as signatories to this introduction, although we may differ over
some aspects of genetic, biological, anthropological and sociological
theory, believe that statesmen and judges today frequently take
positions based upon an inadequate knowledge of the facts so far as
they relate to the nature of man. Therefore, we have no hesitation in
placing on record our disapproval of what has been all too commonly a
trend since 1930. We do not believe that there is anything to be drawn
from the sciences in which we work which supports the view that all
races of men, all types of men, or all ethnic groups are equal and
alike, or likely to become equal or alike, in anything approaching the
foreseeable future. We believe on the contrary that there are vast
areas of difference within mankind not only in physical appearance, but
in such matters as adaptability to varying environments, and in deep
psychological and emotional qualities, as well as in mental ability and
capacity for development. We are of the opinion that in ignoring these
depths of difference modern man and his political representatives are
likely to find themselves in serious difficulties sooner or later.
Whatever may be said for or against minor or detailed points made by
the author of this book, we feel that it deserves the serious attention
of both scientists and public men wherever racial problems exist. The
facts in it cannot much longer be ignored. It probes to the core of an
abscess, yet does so with a healing touch. There is logic and common
sense in these pages; there is also inescapable scientific validity.
+R. Ruggles Gates+,
M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S.
+Henry E. Garrett+,
Ph.D., D.Sc.
+R. Gayre of Gayre+,
M.A., D.Phil., D.Pol.Sc., D.Sc.
+Wesley C. George+,
M.A., Ph.D.
CONTENTS
I
+A Frame of Mind+ 1
II
+The Hidden Issue+ 15
III
+Point by Point+ 34
Anthropology and Intermarriage 35
American Democracy 60
Christian Ethics 67
Sociology and Communism 71
The Constitutional Issue 97
Summation and Outlook 101
IV
+Conclusion+ 114
+Index+ 119
+Chapter I+
A FRAME OF MIND
When the Supreme Court reached its desegregation decision in 1954, not
all of us stopped to think about its implications. There were many, of
course, who were joyful. The Negro population and those white minority
organizations which had played so large a part in pressing the case
were elated. So were those good people who dream in general terms of
pleasing everybody without counting the cost. But the majority of
Americans, at least in the North, were preoccupied with other matters.
They were surprised, perhaps a little startled, but quite willing to
leave such a subject to the courts.
I confess that I was in the latter category. In those days, I was
board chairman of a major airline, and such spare time as I had was
occupied in beginning a four volume biography of Theodore Roosevelt.
On the one hand, I was involved in a life of action; on the other, I
was committed to the life of the mind, steeped in the moods of the
nineteenth century, far removed from either action or the social trends
of the mid-twentieth century. I cannot blame myself for not realizing
immediately the meaning of the desegregation cases. Had I been resident
in the South, it might have struck me sooner. But I was living in the
national capital.
I speak of these things because the reaction, when it came, could not
be unrelated to the personal equation. I believe that in 1954 I could
lay claim to the viewpoint of an average American, a viewpoint in
my case essentially Northern but modified by long experience in the
South. In my early airline days I had spent seven years in Memphis,
Tennessee, and had travelled extensively throughout all the Southern
states, dealing with local governments, business groups and individuals
in the most practical of activities. Twenty years before I had begun my
airline career along the California coast by starting a service between
Los Angeles and San Francisco. At a still earlier period I had gone to
school for two years in Arizona, and I had spent many summer vacations
in the northern Rockies.
In fact, to the American West I owed a large part of my life’s
motivation. From pack-trips across the Painted Desert in my college
days, to camps in the Bad Lands of North Dakota where I began research
on my biography of Roosevelt, I had known and loved the stage on which
the pioneer played out the drama of the American Dream. It was not just
a question of the sun setting beyond the Pass, nor the sound at night
of wind rising in the forests of the Big Horn Mountains. These were
important as symbols to the senses, but there were other scenes in the
montage of memory--episodes involving people, from old prospectors and
cowpunchers to women who had come to Arizona in covered wagons over
the Santa Fe Trail--these were symbols of a different sort, figures of
pride and self-reliance, and primordially American.
In a spiritual sense, of course, the Santa Fe Trail and the Oregon
Trail had begun at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, and had left me what I
regarded as a personal heritage. My first American ancestors, on both
my father’s and my mother’s side, had arrived in Massachusetts from
England in the fourth decade of the seventeenth century. From Salem, to
northern Vermont, to Saratoga and the Mohawk Valley, my father’s people
migrated to the West of their day and bequeathed me a proprietary
interest in a sunset and a frame of mind. Call it individualism, say
it was rugged, nonetheless it was American in its time. There were
certain traditions that were taken for granted, yet which passed by
osmosis from father to son. A man expected the community to do for him
only what there was no way of his doing for himself. When he asked
the community to do what he ought to have done for himself, this was
begging; it was begging because it meant another’s effort was making up
his lack--and beggars were not popular on the frontier.
Nor was there a notion of equality in any sense except the equal
chance. The frontier had its aristocracy of character to which one
earned the right to belong. And the man with the bad reputation was
not easily or quickly forgiven. I realize that today the frontier is
history and that social conditions have changed. I do not see that the
principles have changed.
Of my two grandfathers, one was a justice of the New York Supreme
Court, another was a New York publisher who had the doubtful
distinction of rejecting Mark Twain’s first book. My father, who died
young, was more adventurous. Having been cited for gallantry in action
during the Philippine Insurrection, he remained in Manila to start the
first American newspaper published in the Islands. There was something
vitally American, in a turn-of-the-century sense, about my father--a
certain gallantry, a gay initiative, a confidence in the strength of
being right, and a willingness to take risks in its service. Once or
twice he spoke with a twinkle of the close call I had had in getting
into the world. Two years before I was born, he had come back to camp
one evening from a skirmish at Tabuan and had found his undershirt cut
across by a bullet.
Father was less fortunate in 1918. He died in the Argonne, and I went
on to Princeton in 1920. I took a science degree, but majored in
history and politics, because I wanted an education that would give
me a perspective on the river of time, and I hoped a combination of
science and history would provide it. So I began with astronomy, the
story of the universe; went on to geology, the story of the earth;
and finally to history, the story of man, elaborating the details
through physics, chemistry and biology and flavoring the whole with
some philosophy and considerable English literature. Perhaps it was a
jack-of-all-trades education, but I cannot say I have regretted it. If
I was vague about some of the trees, I believe I saw the outline of the
woods.
Then came three arduous years which ended in a law degree at Columbia.
From the law I acquired a wholesome regard for precedent. It is a
lesson that can be learned from history, or from science, or, over a
long life, from personal observation. But the law, I think, teaches it
best. For a thousand years our Anglo-American common law has been based
upon the evolution of man’s experience in particular cases. Experience
has produced the theory, rather than theory coloring the experience.
In leafing through a book I wrote some twelve years later, I find the
following record of my reaction to Columbia: “The American ardor for
the new is one of the great hopes of the human race, but a respect
for the experience of the past can, I think, contribute more to its
fulfillment than the average American appreciates. For me, three years
of saturation in the law did something to offset a very inadequate
education in the classics, for it made real to me the substance of the
soil out of which the present and the future grow.”
Another fifteen years have passed since I wrote the preceding
sentences, but I would now only re-emphasize, in an age obsessed with
novelty and change, the importance of our Anglo-American heritage,
particularly in the field of moral values and basic principle. There
are very few social experiments that have not been tried before, and
there are absolutely no principles that have not been thoroughly
tested. “Winds of change” do not alter these.
If I were asked to be specific, I would say that as time has gone on,
I have been impressed with two fallacies that have crept into the
thinking of Americans: the fallacy that men by weight of numbers can
defy the moral law and lean increasingly upon other men under the guise
of the State, and the fallacy that this dependence is justified by the
supposed right of all men to share equally in everything. I shall have
more to say on this subject later. My purpose here is to suggest the
roots from which my views have grown.
It may seem strange, in the light of such views, that in June of 1954,
when the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision burst upon the country,
I did not react at once. Surely, here was a sharp departure from the
past--a confusion of equality of opportunity and equality before the
law, with social and cultural equality--as well as a clear challenge to
other American principles. My only answer, as I have said, must be that
I was absorbed in other matters, an answer I believe I shared with many
“average” Northerners. It took four years, in my case, before a chance
incident brought the whole situation home.
I was thumbing through _Life_ magazine for September 22, 1958, when
I came upon an article by Virginius Dabney, editor of the Richmond
_Times-Dispatch_. The article appeared to be a part of a debate which
_Life_ had arranged between Northern and Southern writers on the
school integration controversy. It stated the Southern viewpoint most
ably, I thought, but what really aroused me was something else in the
same magazine. It was an editorial purporting to answer Dabney--an
editorial wholly lacking in perception and full of inept analogies and
abandoned principles. I was not by habit addicted to writing letters to
the press, but in this case I could think of no better way to relieve
my feelings. So I composed a letter of protest to _Life_ and sent a
copy to the newspaper editor I knew best. In my airline years I had
shared some press flights with Frank Ahlgren, manager of the Memphis
_Commercial Appeal_, and he might be sympathetic. A few days later,
_Life_ answered with a polite acknowledgment, Ahlgren with an envelope
enclosing a page of his latest edition. On it my letter appeared in
full. It was a contrast that would grow sharper.
Then other things began to happen. Notes started to come in from old
Memphis friends and from strangers. It was a comfort, they said, that
at least one Northerner understood. Next, Dabney himself telephoned
from Richmond. He had seen my letter in the _Commercial Appeal_ and he
asked if he might reprint it in his _Times-Dispatch_.
I hesitated for a moment because by that time I had had a chance to
think further about the subject. There were several additional points
I wanted to make. Moreover, there was one man who could do more to
correct the situation than any other, if he would, and that man was
the President of the United States. Perhaps, in the maelstrom of other
problems and activities, he had overlooked the real significance of
the desegregation cases. Perhaps, if others as well as I wrote him, he
might be led to see the reasonableness behind the Southern position.
Then from the pulpit of the Presidency he might enlighten the nation.
I began to wonder whether the best contribution I could make might not
be to try to reach him with a new letter, more complete than the one to
_Life_. Meanwhile, as far as Dabney was concerned, it might be wiser
for him to wait and see whether he preferred to publish the letter to
the President.
Dabney agreed and I set to work, helped by an opinion of Justice
Frankfurter in a case growing out of the Little Rock episode.
Frankfurter’s views, printed in the Washington _Post_, had spoiled my
breakfast a morning or two before, but now they gave me a starting
point. On October 13, 1958--I remember the occasion well because it was
the climax of weeks of deliberation--I wrote as follows to President
Eisenhower:
A few days ago I was reading over Justice Frankfurter’s opinion in
the recent Little Rock case. Three sentences in it tempt me to write
you this letter. I am a Northerner, but I have spent a large part of
my life as a business executive in the South. I have a law degree,
but I am now engaged in historical writing. From this observation
post I risk the presumption of a comment.
The sentences I wish to examine are these: “Local customs, however
hardened by time, are not decreed in heaven. Habits and feelings they
engender may be counteracted and moderated. Experience attests that
such local habits and feelings will yield, gradually though this be,
to law and education.”
It is my personal conviction that the local customs in this case
were “hardened by time” for a very good reason, and that while they
may not, as Frankfurter says, have been decreed in heaven, they
come closer to it than the current view of the Supreme Court. I was
particularly puzzled by Frankfurter’s remark that “the Constitution
is not the formulation of the merely personal views of the members of
this court.” Five minutes before the court’s desegregation decision,
the Constitution meant one thing; five minutes later, it meant
something else. Only one thing intervened, namely, an expression of
the personal views of the members of the court.
It is not my purpose to dispute the point with which the greater part
of Frankfurter’s opinion is concerned. The law must be obeyed. But I
think the original desegregation decision was wrong, that it ought to
be reversed, and that meanwhile every legal means should be found,
not to disobey it, but to avoid it. Failing this, the situation
should be corrected by constitutional amendment.
I cannot agree that this is a matter involving “a few states” as
Frankfurter suggests. The picture in reality is of a court, by
one sudden edict, forcing upon the entire South a view, and a way
of life, with which the great majority of the population are in
complete disagreement. Although not from the legal, in fact from the
practical, standpoint the North, which does not have the problem, is
presuming to tell the South, which does have the problem, what to do.
To me there is a frightening arrogance in this performance. Neither
the North, nor the court, has any holy mandate inherent in the
trend of the times or the progress of liberalism to reform society
in the South. In the matter of schools, rights to equal education
are inseparably bound up with rights to freedom of association
and, in the South at least, may require that both be considered
simultaneously. (In using the word “association” here, I mean the
right to associate with whom you please, and the right not to
associate with whom you please.) Moreover, am I not correct in my
recollection that it was the social stigma of segregation and its
effect upon the Negro’s “mind and heart” to which the court objected
as much as to any other, and thus that the court, in forcing the
black man’s right to equal education was actually determined to
violate the white man’s right to freedom of association?
In any case the crux of this issue would seem obvious: social
status has to be earned. Or, to put it another way, equality of
association has to be mutually agreed to and mutually desired. It
cannot be achieved by legal fiat. Personally, I feel only affection
for the Negro. But there are facts that have to be faced. Any man
with two eyes in his head can observe a Negro settlement in the
Congo, can study the pure-blooded African in his native habitat
as he exists when left on his own resources, can compare this
settlement with London or Paris, and can draw his own conclusions
regarding relative levels of character and intelligence--or that
combination of character and intelligence which is civilization.
Finally, he can inquire as to the number of pure-blooded blacks
who have made contributions to great literature or engineering or
medicine or philosophy or abstract science. (I do not include singing
or athletics as these are not primarily matters of character and
intelligence.) Nor is there any validity to the argument that the
Negro “hasn’t been given a chance.” We were all in caves or trees
originally. The progress which the pure-blooded black has made
when left to himself, with a minimum of white help or hindrance,
genetically or otherwise, can be measured today in the Congo.
Lord Bryce, a distinguished and impartial foreign observer, presented
the situation accurately in his _American Commonwealth_ when he wrote
in 1880:
“History is a record of the progress towards civilization of races
originally barbarous. But that progress has in all cases been slow
and gradual.... Utterly dissimilar is the case of the African Negro,
caught up in and whirled along with the swift movement of the
American democracy. In it we have a singular juxtaposition of the
most primitive and the most recent, the most rudimentary and the most
highly developed types of culture.... A body of savages is violently
carried across the ocean and set to work as slaves on the plantations
of masters who are three or four thousand years in advance of them in
mental capacity and moral force.... Suddenly, even more suddenly than
they were torn from Africa, they find themselves, not only freed, but
made full citizens and active members of the most popular government
the world has seen, treated as fit to bear an equal part in ruling,
not only themselves, but also their recent masters.”
One does not telescope three or four thousand years into the 70 years
since Bryce wrote. One may change the terms of the problem by mixed
breeding, but if ever there was a matter that ought to be left to
local option it would seem to be the decision as to when the mixture
has produced an acceptable amalgam in the schools. And I see no
reason for penalizing a locality that does not choose to mix.
I would emphatically support improvement of education in Negro
schools, if and where it is inferior. Equality of opportunity and
equality before the law, when not strained to cover other situations,
are acceptable ideals because they provide the chance to earn and to
progress--and consequently should be enforced by legal fiat as far as
is humanly possible. But equality of association, which desegregation
in Southern schools involves, pre-supposes a status which in the
South the average Negro has not earned. To force it upon the Southern
white will, I think, meet with as much opposition as the prohibition
amendment encountered in the wet states.
Throughout this controversy there has been frequent mention of the
equality of man as a broad social objective. No proposition in recent
years has been clouded by more loose thinking. Not many of us would
care to enter a poetry contest with Keats, nor play chess with the
national champion, nor set our character beside Albert Schweitzer’s.
When we see the doctrine of equality contradicted everywhere around
us in fact, it remains a mystery why so many of us continue to give
it lip service in theory, and why we tolerate the vicious notion that
status in any field need not be earned.
Pin down the man who uses the word “equality,” and at once the
evasions and qualifications begin. As I recall, you, yourself, in a
recent statement used some phrase to the effect that men were “equal
in the sight of God.” I would be interested to know where in the
Bible you get your authority for this conception. There is doubtless
authority in Scripture for the concept of _potential_ equality in the
sight of God--after earning that status, and with various further
qualifications--but where is the authority for the sort of _ipso
facto_ equality suggested by your context? The whole idea contradicts
the basic tenet of the Christian and Jewish religions that status is
earned through righteousness and is not an automatic matter. What is
true of religion and righteousness is just as true of achievement in
other fields. And what is true among individuals is just as true of
averages among races.
The confusion here is not unlike the confusion created by some
left-wing writers between the doctrine of equality and the doctrine
of Christian love. The command to love your neighbor is not a command
either to consider your neighbor your equal, or yourself his equal;
perhaps the purest example of great love without equality is the
love between parent and child. In fact the equality doctrine as a
whole, except when surrounded by a plethora of qualifications, is
so untenable that it falls to pieces at the slightest thoughtful
examination.
Frankfurter closes his opinion with a quotation from Abraham Lincoln,
to whom the Negro owes more than to any other man. I, too, would like
to quote from Lincoln. At Charleston, Illinois, in September 1858 in
a debate with Douglas, Lincoln said:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any
way the social and political equality of the white and black races;
I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors
of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office.... I will say in
addition to this that there is a physical difference between the
white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races
living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as
much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any
other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the
white race.”
The extent to which Lincoln would have modified these views today,
or may have modified them before his death, is a moot question, but
it is clear on its face that he would not have been in sympathy
with the Supreme Court’s position on desegregation. Many historians
have felt that when Lincoln died the South lost the best friend it
had. This also may be moot, but again it seems clear that for 94
years--from the horrors of Reconstruction through the Supreme Court’s
desegregation decision--the North has been trying to force the black
man down the white Southerner’s throat, and it is a miracle that
relations between the races in the South have progressed as well as
they have.
Perhaps the most discouraging spectacle is the spectacle of Northern
newspapers dwelling with pleasure upon the predicament of the
Southern parent who is forced to choose between desegregation and
no school at all for his child. It does not seem to occur to these
papers that this is the cruelest sort of blackmail; that the North is
virtually putting a pistol at the head of the Southern parent in a
gesture which every Northerner must contemplate with shame.
Indeed, there now seems little doubt that the court’s recent decision
has set back the cause of the Negro in the South by a generation. He
may force his way into white schools, but he will not force his way
into white hearts nor earn the respect he seeks. What evolution was
slowly and wisely achieving, revolution has now arrested, and the
trail of bitterness will lead far.
After dispatching this letter to the White House, I sent a copy to
Dabney. Dabney allowed three days to pass out of courtesy to the
President. Then he printed it on the editorial page of the Richmond
_Times-Dispatch_ and devoted his leading editorial to it. On the same
page he included a cartoon showing the North being awakened from sleep
by an alarm clock tagged “The Putnam Letter”. Like the cartoon, the
editorial was unduly complimentary. It referred to my effort as “one of
the most incisive and convincing discussions we have seen”. It dwelt
on my training in history and law as well as my years of residence
in the South and my New England origins. Finally it concluded: “The
fact that Mr. Putnam has written this letter ... is eloquent testimony
to the fact that the South’s case is getting across, at last, to
intelligent Northerners. We still have a long way to go but we are
making progress.”
I took the personal references in this editorial with a grain of salt.
I knew well enough that it was not Putnam but the predicament of the
South that produced what appeal my letter may have had, together with
the fact that I was a Northerner. But the response from Memphis, and
now Dabney’s remarks, made me wonder about something else. Here,
in effect, was a call to the North for help, over the heads of the
court, over the head of the President. Here was a great section of
the country, more indigenously American than many of the areas most
loudly denouncing the South, asking for understanding and aid. What
sort of responsibility did this place upon me, and upon all impartial
Northerners?
Day by day my concern increased. The effect of Dabney’s publication
was a new flood of letters, even of telegrams. If Memphis had produced
a rain, Richmond produced a torrent. Dabney, too, was inundated. On
November 4 he wrote me: “The response from individuals has been truly
colossal. Nothing of the sort we have published in years has caused
such a sensation.” Neighboring newspapers started to copy, and mail
began arriving from Norfolk and other Virginia towns. “The open letter
to the President,” said the Norfolk _Ledger-Star_ on October 18, “has
occasioned so much comment and brought so many requests for copies that
the regular supply of back issues for that day has been exhausted.
However, a supply of reprints of the page containing the letter is now
available and copies may be had by writing or calling in person.”
Referring to this announcement, a letter from Virginia Beach remarked,
“During the ten years that I have been a resident of Tidewater Virginia
this is the first time such an offering has ever appeared in either
Norfolk newspaper. I thought nothing of a forty mile trip to and from
Norfolk in order to purchase twelve copies.... Like yourself, I am a
Northerner, a Chicagoan, educated at Williams College....”
Actually, many of the letters were from native Northerners moved
South, and I hope I will not be accused of egotism if I say that most
seemed to come from sane and earnest men and women. Few were from the
group the Attorney General had said he thought was the source of all
Southern opposition--“Crackpots running printing presses in cellars.”
Several of my correspondents overwhelmed me with their courtesy and the
courtly expression of their gratitude, although I knew that the praise
was for a viewpoint, not for a man. As the letter began to be published
more widely throughout the South, the cross-section of comments from
all parts of the area had a common intensity. _Charlottesville_:
“Permit me to say that, as a member of the School Board of this city,
and therefore one more deeply and grievously concerned than even my
fellow Southerners, your letter is the most thought-provoking and
complete statement of the case that I have ever seen.” _Birmingham_:
“May I offer a toast to a scholar and an honorable gentleman and
shatter the glass!” _Jacksonville_: “Your words so expressed my own
views and opinion that I seemed to be reading my thoughts.” _Columbia_:
“I must tell you that that letter is the finest piece of logic and
truth I’ve ever read; many I have talked with are thrilled with it.”
_Savannah_: “You have expressed so very well the feeling of Georgians,
who love our country and also love our children.” _Shreveport_: “The
entire South is deeply grateful.... It is highly possible your efforts
will be as fruitful for the North. You may be receiving the thanks of
their thinking citizenship in the near future.” _Meridian_: “Thank God
for people like you. It does my heart good to know that someone other
than a native Southerner understands.”
These letters did not arrive by tens or hundreds; they arrived by
thousands. College students wrote me they had framed the letter
and hung it on the walls of their rooms. Schools assigned it for
class discussion. Editors of law journals asked to print it. Judges
wrote me from chambers. Senators and Congressmen simultaneously
requested permission to insert it in the Congressional Record, and I
was embarrassed as to the proper protocol in reply. The Birmingham
_Post-Herald_ alone supplied 22,000 demands for reprints. Whether
or not I had the point of view of an average American on things in
general, it looked as if many Southerners felt I had presented their
viewpoint on integration.
Again I realized that my own efforts had had little to do with the
matter. It was clear this time that the pent-up frustrations of the
South had snatched at this straw because of its almost universal
publication by the Southern press with favorable editorial comment.
There were a few, but only a few, islands of silence where papers were
in the control of so-called “moderates”. For the most part, comment ran
in the vein of Dabney’s editorial.
Among columnists, the most active was John Temple Graves of Birmingham.
Day after day he urged my letter upon his readers, upon the President,
upon the North. In one of his syndicated articles he remarked: “What
Carleton Putnam has written the President is newer than the New Deal,
fairer than the Fair Deal, and as old as the Constitution of the United
States. Let Southern young people be told. Let some of our Southern
religious leaders be told, too.”
Finally one morning my telephone rang and I found Graves on the
wire from Birmingham. He wanted to know what reception my letter
had received in Northern newspapers. I was compelled to answer that
although Dabney had sent reprints to every editor in the United States
only one Northern paper--a small one in Plattsburg--had printed it and
with unfavorable comment. The sectional cleavage had been extraordinary.
Graves appeared shocked by this, and then an antidote occurred to him.
He would call in his column for the starting of a fund to print the
letter in the North by advertisement. He asked me if I would sanction
such a move, and I replied that I had no objection, but that I could
not personally be associated with it. He said he was in the same
position, but that he would try to form a committee in Birmingham to
receive the money and plan the campaign.
The upshot was the creation of what later became known as the Putnam
Letter Committee, consisting of James E. Simpson, son of a former
president _pro tem_ of the Alabama Senate, Chairman; former Governor
Frank Dixon; Lieutenant Governor Albert Boutwell and former Lieutenant
Governor W. G. Hardwick. These distinguished public figures offered
their services without compensation, not only to solicit and receive
funds, but to perform the arduous task of handling what proved to be a
voluminous and instructive correspondence--this time from the North. My
own mail surpassed the flood from the South. The Committee’s mail was
many times mine.
The Southern press again lent their aid. An editorial in the Roanoke
_World-News_ was typical:
“We believe this plan to be a worthy one. Mr. Putnam’s statement of the
South’s case deserves a nationwide audience. While it is true that he
offers Virginia no quick way out of its present dilemma, it would be
erroneous to say the letter is not constructive.
“In fact, we would say that the only hope of Virginia and the rest of
the South lies not in ‘massive resistance’ but in persuasion, in logic
and in salesmanship. The fact that Mr. Putnam wrote the letter is
evidence that among some intelligent Northerners there is understanding
and sympathy for the prevailing opinion in the South.
“More Americans need to know and understand this opinion for only by a
change in national feeling can there be a real solution to the problem
which faces us.”
With the last paragraph in this editorial I heartily agreed. My
observation of the manner in which “the paper curtain”, as Southerners
have come to call it, had fallen on my letter in the North and West
was only a minor part of the pattern I was beginning to recognize. It
was a small episode which provided a personal introduction to a wider
panorama. I had said to the President: “From the practical standpoint
the North, which does not have the problem, is presuming to tell the
South, which does have the problem, what to do.” I would soon discover
that controlling forces in the North were not only telling the South
what to do, they were refusing to let the Northern public even listen
to the South’s case. I would begin to harbor a suspicion, entirely
apart from my letter, that in no other area of human affairs, at home
or abroad, were so many people with no personal knowledge of a subject,
and no practical concern in it, spending so much time dictating to
other people, who had great experience with the subject and vital
concern in it.
I would begin also, in due course, to understand the reason for this.
Meanwhile, the Birmingham Committee set to work. Within six weeks they
had raised enough money, mostly from hundreds of small contributions,
to place their first advertisement. It appeared in the New York _Times_
on January 5, 1959, in a format six columns wide and a full page deep.
To it was attached a coupon asking that readers who sympathized with
the message and wished to see further advertising contribute to the
fund. This procedure proved informative in itself. Each advertisement,
as it appeared, brought in enough money _from the North_ to pay for
the next. Within five months the fund had passed $37,000 and the
letter had been published in eighteen Northern and Western papers
with a circulation of nearly seven million. Adding the initial free
publication in the South, the total circulation had amounted to over
ten million. I had no figures on foreign printings, but I was informed
by the United States Information Agency that a paper in Salisbury,
Rhodesia, carried the letter in full, and I had received comments from
India and other remote areas.
Eight newspapers had refused to print the letter, even as an
advertisement. These were: the Washington _Post_, the Los Angeles
_Examiner_, the Los Angeles _Times_, the Pittsburgh _Press_, the
Indianapolis _Star-News_, the Newark _News_, the Newark _Star-Ledger_,
and the Buffalo _News_. None of the publishers of these papers felt
able to give their reasons, but again, as my knowledge of the situation
developed, they became clear.
The interesting thing to me was less the quality and extent of the
paper curtain than the money the man and woman in the street were
willing to pay to keep the advertisement going, and the nature of the
correspondence it produced. Northern replies were ninety-five percent
in sympathy. Public relations experts tell me that out of ten people
who will write favorably on a subject only one will write when he finds
himself in opposition, but even with this allowance, the man and woman
in the street in the North seemed to be on the side of the South.
As to the unfriendly letters, they were the most significant of all.
After a short time, I gave instructions to the Birmingham Committee
to forward me no more favorable replies. All I wanted to see were
the hostile five percent. Out of these I sought to distill some
understanding of what was going on in the minds of the opposition
behind the paper curtain. And the more I learned the more startled I
became.
+Chapter II+
THE HIDDEN ISSUE
There were, of course, some violent letters from both Negroes and
whites. There were a few from obvious crackpots. But by and large the
disagreement seemed to be both sincere and emotional. It was impossible
not to smile at letters from teachers and ministers who protested with
incoherent emotion at the thought of my emotion, and who urged me to
face the facts--which they had never faced themselves.
A scattering of superficial argument on a variety of subjects arrived
daily: Did I not realize how unchristian my position was? Did not
American democracy clearly require desegregation? Must we not set an
example to other nations in the fight against Communism? Was not my
position simply a revival of Hitlerism? These, and similar subjects,
could be handled one by one without too long a letter in reply.
What I found of larger significance, because it seemed to be the
common denominator in a universal misunderstanding, lay in what my
correspondents called “modern” anthropology. Through almost all the
letters that attempted really to reason, one consistent theme could be
found: How could I be so dated in my thinking! Why was I still living
in the nineteenth century! What was the point in quoting Lincoln and
Bryce when everyone now-a-days knew they were obsolete! I could not
help but remember a remark John Temple Graves had made to me concerning
a debate on segregation he had had a few years before on the Town Hall
of the Air. In it the opposition had continually harassed him with the
comment, “Oh, Mr. Graves, if only you knew modern anthropology!” Mr.
Graves, not being a professional scientist, had not attempted to meet
this challenge in a Town Hall debate. But I was quite prepared to meet
it in my correspondence. My only surprise was that it should need to be
taken seriously.
And here I discovered an actual advantage in having separated myself
for twenty years from the academic world and then returned to feel the
fresh impact of what had happened in the interval. The process had
its handicap only in a momentary disorientation. It had its value in a
detachment of judgment and above all in a freedom from exposure to the
creeping distortion of view, the slow but pervasive hypnosis, that two
decades of ideological pressure can force even upon the sciences.
I had realized that there had been a broad movement to change man’s
concept of the nature of man. I had known that there had been
pressure to widen the American doctrine of equality of opportunity
into a doctrine of social, cultural, economic and genetic equality.
By 1954 I had witnessed its invasion of the minds of Supreme Court
justices. But I had not even then quite grasped how cleverly it had
proceeded--infiltrating first the sciences that surround anthropology,
moving next into the more strictly social sciences, enthroning itself
at last in the Supreme Court’s desegregation order.
Perhaps the whole progression should have been obvious to all of us,
both within and without the academic world. What could have been more
natural than that a movement calling itself, here, Communism, there,
Marxism, somewhere else Socialism (but always having a base which I
found easiest to describe by the word equalitarianism) should in its
strategy include the subversion of sciences as well as governments?
The same appeal to pity, to Christian love, could be used to make
the fallacy more palatable. The underdog, who had been presented as
invariably the victim of oppression, never of his own conduct, could
now be made to appear the equal of all in innate capacity. It was the
final, inevitable move in a deceptively false ideology--a move which
in my opinion would prove the undoing of the whole crusade. A moderate
amount of deception for charity’s sake could be tolerated by all men
of good will. No man of good will, once he was awakened to the truth,
could tolerate Little Rock.
How this situation had slowly developed across the years was a long
story. The immediate problem lay in the fact that my readers seemed
unable to realize there was no such thing as equality even between
two leaves on the same bush--that this was not just a matter of
_difference_, but of _inferiority_ and _superiority_ in terms of
the value judgments of persons, communities, nations, and cultures,
and that the heart of the matter as regards race lay in the area
of heredity. It had been essential to the equalitarian to denounce
heredity in the biological phase of his subversion, and to make it
appear that environment alone made the man. He had had to insist that
nothing was innate, no capacity limited, all abilities unlimited,
here and now, in this generation. If he could show that environment
was responsible for all human differences, then a substantial part,
although not all, of a brief for desegregation could be written. It was
a strange program based on total error. Yet of all the chapters in the
book of man’s self-delusion none seemed to compare in its effectiveness
with the current trance.
My task, therefore, consisted in trying to explain to my growing list
of correspondents how seriously they had been misled, and the challenge
was more complex than the queries regarding Christianity or Hitler. A
long letter would be required in each instance, and there were hundreds
to write. It was at this stage that I conceived the idea of addressing
another government official, this time the Attorney General, and of
distributing copies of the second letter to those who questioned the
first--unless the Attorney General satisfied me that I had overlooked
some important point.
The reasons for choosing the Attorney General were obvious. There was
no individual in the government more charged with the responsibility of
exploring the issues than he, appearing as he did as a friend of the
court on behalf of the people of the United States. Perhaps he could
explain to me what had happened, perhaps he had done everything in his
power and had been over-ruled, or perhaps he could in some other way
account for the extraordinary school decision. While the President
was the man who could best break the public spell on this issue, the
President could only do so if he realized the truth himself, and I was
beginning to doubt that he did. The Attorney General, on the other
hand, was paid to seek reality in just such a case as this.
So at the outset I went to the Library of Congress and studied the
decision and the briefs for the parties. I observed the names of
the individuals and organizations who wrote these briefs. I went to
other rooms of the library and read the citations in the footnotes to
the court’s decision and observed the names of the individuals and
organizations who wrote these. That the great majority had a special
self-interest was clear--that the Attorney General had made any effort
to present anything other than their environmentalist propaganda was
not. A letter to the Attorney General, asking why, seemed thoroughly
justified.
However, another important step remained to be taken before the
justification was complete. My studies in science had taught me
that observation and experience are valuable tools in discerning
truth, but often fallible. Memory is also fallible. I knew what my
observation and experience had been in racial matters and I remembered
my earlier readings in this field and several more recent studies.
But the argument that “modern” anthropology had exploded observation,
experience and all past research required serious review.
Accordingly I began reading again in the Boas school of anthropology.
Boas, I knew, was considered the founder of the modern vogue, and I
deliberately began studying his books before learning, from people who
had known him over many years, the facts about Franz Boas himself--his
minority group background, his arrival from Germany in 1886, his
association with Columbia in 1896, his earlier non-equalitarian views
on race, his change of heart in the late 1920s (the date will have
significance later), the names of his students--Herskovits, Klineberg,
Ashley Montagu--the nature of his department at Columbia, the influence
in it of an instructor named Weltfish who later publicly announced that
she had evidence to prove that the United States had used germ warfare
in Korea,[1] and the reorganization of the department by Ralph Linton
who was brought in from Wisconsin after Boas died. Linton dismissed
all of Boas’ appointees who had no tenure and Columbia finally dropped
Weltfish on a charge of “too-long” tenure.
I read Boas before learning these things because I wanted to approach
his ideas with an impartial mind, on their merits and not on the merits
or demerits of the author. Yet page by page my amazement grew. Here
was clever and insidious propaganda posing in the name of science,
fruitless efforts at proof of unprovable theories, which I would be
only too glad to point out to the Attorney General. I went on to
Herskovits and others until the pattern began to repeat itself, the
slippery techniques in evading the main issues, the prolix diversions,
the sound without the substance. Was it possible that a whole
generation of Americans had been taken in by such writing as this? My
wife and I began to read seriously and earnestly--after a few evenings
we found ourselves laughing out loud.
Still I was not satisfied. Surely there must be some explanation. It
was hardly possible that schools were being closed in Virginia, men
threatened with jail in Ohio, on the basis of a hoax as transparent as
this. Were there no professional scientists in America who saw what I
saw?
And so I took the third step in the preliminaries to my letter to
the Attorney General. By mail, by telephone, and finally by personal
visits, North and South, I found professional scientists aplenty who
saw what I saw. And I discovered something else. One prize-winning
Northern scientist whom I visited at his home in a Northern city asked
me, after I had been seated a few minutes in his living room, whether
I was sure I had not been followed. Another disclosed in the privacy
of his study that he had evidence he was being checked by mulattoes
at his lectures. All, when first approached, were hesitant, withdrawn
and fearful, and the reason was not far to seek. Their employers
on whom their livelihood depended--the universities, the museums,
the foundations--were either controlled by equalitarians or were
intimidated by the race taboo. The scientists whom these institutions
employed, if they were ever to hint at the truth, must do so deviously,
under wraps over wraps, half seeming to say the opposite.
But as they grew to know me they gave me the facts without varnish. In
long conversations and letters they provided the confirmation I needed.
Many were internationally known. Some had received the highest prizes.
Any public official who will guarantee their livelihood can get their
names from me, on one condition--that the scientists themselves agree.
I do not hold a brief for or against the attitude of these men. Most of
them expressed their reluctance in terms of a temporary condition. One
was about to publish a book and he felt it more important in the long
run to keep the track clear for the book than to declare his position
now. Another had a confidential assignment for his state that he must
first perform. Another said, “I cannot commit academic suicide. I still
have work to do. But when I retire--!” Another was simply “biding his
time.” How much of this was rationalization, arising from a timidity
that ought to be overcome, I would not venture to say. It was easy
enough for me, a man entirely independent of control, to speak--indeed
it made my obligation unavoidable. It was less easy for them.
A second element in the situation soon dawned on me. The difficulty
was compounding itself. The South instinctively saw the real issue,
yet it had been told so often that what it saw did not exist that it
had almost come to believe it. In this respect the South was in an
identical trance with the North but, as happens in such cases, it
could not actually be brought to destroy itself. It fought the trance
with a counter-illusion. It clung to the hope that the Constitution
could save it--that states’ rights was its best defense. I was soon
to learn how profound this counter-illusion was. From governors to
lawyers in the street I received the same despairing protest--“What
else is left?” There seemed to be an agreement among public officials
that race should no longer even be mentioned. Among the few Northern
defenders of the South the same defeatism existed. Feverish talk about
the validity of the 14th Amendment went on, up North, down South, while
no one challenged the assumption at the root of the whole trouble--the
validity of Boas.
I knew by now that this root, this hidden issue, would be more
difficult to present than the issues in my letter to the President. The
problem was complicated by several factors. One lay in the emotional
echo in the intra-racial sphere of any discussion of innate limitations
in the inter-racial sphere. Another was the existence of the
mixed-blood who moved in the twilight zone between white and black and
whom the equalitarian could present, in appearance and in scientific
tests, as the object of discussion.
That there was some mixture everywhere in the United States was
probable; that there was more in the North than in the South was
certain, for the whiter the mixture the more frequent the northward
migration. The thinking of Northerners was thus constantly exposed to
a subtle deception--judgments were being made, so to speak, on half
the evidence. Ordinarily, if one wished to analyze a substance, one
did not mix it with other substances--one sought as pure a specimen as
possible. To approach this condition with the Negro one had to leave
the North and travel South, or better to Haiti, or better still to
central Africa. There the essence could be observed, and judgment could
be made as to how much--or how little--of this essence one wanted
in one’s descendants, whether the absorption was from the fountain
head, or from sources already in stages of dilution. But the average
Northerner had no opportunity for such evaluations.
Then there was the problem of human nature. White Southerners
understood the Negro and in large measure loved him. They realized
that the agitation rending the South originated with organized white
minorities in conjunction with mixed-bloods well over on the white side
of the spectrum. They deplored the deterioration this agitation was
producing in existing race relations in the blacker South. Yet they
could scarcely bring themselves to hurt their own. The South, after
generations of experience, had developed customs and a way of life
with the Negro that took his limitations into consideration with a
minimum of friction and a maximum of kindness. It was entirely against
these customs, these adaptations, openly to analyze and publicize the
reasons for them. The issue was complicated enough without bearing the
additional weight of this responsibility.
Or so it must have seemed. Again I held no brief against the
leadership of the South. With their anthropologists silenced, and
their consciences misled, they were indeed in a dilemma. I could not
but believe that so far as it lay within my powers my purpose should
be to embolden their anthropologists and relieve their consciences.
The next step now was to put the situation as I saw it before the
Attorney General--to test both fact and theory, science and law,
against the minds of the Department of Justice. I had received only a
perfunctory acknowledgment of my letter to the President. Perhaps the
Attorney General would be in a better position to discuss the subject.
Accordingly on March 16, 1959, five months after my letter to President
Eisenhower, I addressed Mr. Rogers in these words:
Following my correspondence with your Department in December, I have
had a chance to review your briefs in the school desegregation cases
and also to scan, as carefully as time permitted, the nine relevant
volumes of the _Supreme Court’s Records and Briefs_. I hesitate
to impose further upon your kindness, but my survey has left one
question in my mind upon which the record does not appear to touch,
and which you may be able to answer.
I turn to you for the reason that, as a non-adversary party to these
proceedings, I understand you to have represented the people of
the United States. Since a majority of the population of the South
are obviously against integration, and since the Gallup Poll for
September 24, 1958, indicates that 58% of the white population of
the North would not put their children in schools where more than
half the enrollment is Negro, it becomes a close question whether the
decision of the Supreme Court in these cases was not in fact contrary
to the wishes of a national majority. While I recognize that this
would in no way affect the validity of the decision, it would seem to
have placed a peculiar responsibility upon you.
The matter which I find curious is the omission in your briefs of
any challenge to the authorities cited by the Court in Footnote 11
to their opinion of May 17, 1954. I assume there must have been some
indication, in argument or elsewhere, that these authorities were to
be used. They appear, in large measure, to form the foundation of
the decision. They reflect a point of view rooted in what I may call
modern equalitarian anthropology--a school which holds that all races
are currently equal in their capacity for culture, and that existing
inequalities of status are due solely to inequalities of opportunity.
While the briefs for the State of Virginia touch upon the
qualifications of some of the individual psychologists who testified
in the lower courts, they contain no examination of the underlying
anthropological theory. It seems to me that such an examination
should have been made. I have a science degree, I have read with
some diligence in the field of anthropology and I have discussed
the subject with competent anthropologists. It is my considered
opinion that two generations of Americans have been victimized by
a pseudo-scientific hoax in this field, that this hoax is part of
an equalitarian propaganda typical of the left-wing overdrift of
our times, and that it will not stand an informed judicial test. I
do not believe that ever before has science been more warped by a
self-serving few to the deception and injury of so many. On this
subject there may be disagreement. But it is clear to me the Court
should have been invited to examine the question.
Allow me to give my reasons for this opinion. The Court says in
Footnote 11 “See generally Myrdal, _An American Dilemma_,” and I
start with this book. I need hardly dwell upon the highly socialistic
bias of its foreign author, and the startling remarks with which
his text is peppered, such as his comment that the American
Constitution “is in many respects impractical and ill-suited for
modern conditions,” that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 “was
nearly a plot against the common people” and that in the conflict
between liberty and equality in the United States “equality is slowly
winning.” A foreign socialist could not, perhaps, have realized that
Jefferson’s statement “all men are created equal” was a corruption
from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, where the original wording
read “all men are created equally free,” nor that if equality (in
any sense other than equality of opportunity and equality before
the law) is defeating liberty in the United States, then everything
America has stood for is in jeopardy, but certainly it was essential
that these matters be called to the Court’s attention in evaluating
Myrdal’s book.
I hasten, however, to the basic hypothesis underlying Myrdal’s 1400
pages. On pages 90-91 he introduces the doctrines of Franz Boas, a
foreign-born Columbia University professor who arrived in the United
States in 1886, who was himself a member of a racial minority group,
and who may be called the father of equalitarian anthropology in
America. From these pages forward, Myrdal’s _Dilemma_ is founded upon
the philosophy of Boas and his disciples. Thereafter, one constantly
finds in Myrdal such sentences as these:
“The last two or three decades have seen a veritable revolution in
scientific thought on the racial characteristics of the Negro....
By inventing and applying ingenious specialized research methods,
the popular race dogma [that races are not by nature equal in their
capacity for culture] is being victoriously pursued into every corner
and effectively exposed as fallacious or at least unsubstantiated....
It is now becoming difficult for even popular writers to express
other views than the ones of racial equalitarianism and still retain
intellectual respect.”
If you have not already read him, I invite you to a thorough and
impartial study of Boas. I am confident you will find his views
wholly unconvincing, his doctrines more “unsubstantiated” than those
he attacks, and his approach so saturated with wishful thinking as to
be pathetic. In even the most superficial analysis of the subject,
Boas should have been challenged and his more obvious errors exposed.
Boas, for example, may have been convinced that the average African’s
improvident indifference to “tomorrow” is just a healthy “optimism”,
but I dare say the proverbial reasonable man on a jury would think of
it less charitably.
If the deceptions of the Boas school were unconscious, they were
nevertheless serious. People, for instance, were induced to believe
that because early anthropologists put emphasis on brain pan size
in their studies of race, and brain pan size later proved to be
an invalid criterion, this automatically made all races equal. No
one took the time to point out that not only is brain pan size not
a final test of intelligence, but that, even if it were, equal
brain size would not prove equal capacity for civilization. The
character-intelligence index--the combination of intelligence with
all of the qualities that go under the name of character, including
especially the willingness to resist rather than to appease
evil--forms the only possible index of the capacity for civilization
as Western Europeans know it, and there is no test for this index
save in observing the native culture in which it results. Such
observation does not sustain the doctrine of equality.
Indeed, the entire foundation of the Boas theory rests on sand. It
is based on the assumption that present day cultural differences
between the Negro and other races are due, not to any natural
limitations, but to isolation and historical accident. This theme
has been taken up again and again by later anthropologists such as
Kluckhohn of Harvard, and repeated as established scientific fact. I
may illustrate the argument by comparing the condition of the white
tribes of Northern Europe just before the fall of Rome with the Negro
tribes in the Congo. Both were primitive and barbaric, both were
isolated from civilization. With the conquest of Rome by the white
barbarians, the northern tribes were brought in contact with the
ancient Greco-Roman civilization and gradually absorbed its culture.
The Negro, on the other hand, lacked such a contact and therefore
remained in _statu quo_.
This was Boas’ historical accident, and his explanation of the
Negro’s present level of civilization in Africa. Boas had various
additional points and refinements of his thesis, such as the
advantage the white barbarians enjoyed in contiguity of habitat and
the more moderate differences in modes of manufacture in earlier
times, which made it easier for backward peoples in those days to
compete commercially with more advanced cultures than was the case
in later centuries when our white civilization invaded Africa, but
these arguments hang on the first point. In other words, had the
Negroes shown the enterprise and initiative of the white barbarians,
the Negroes themselves would have established a contiguity of habitat
and had the advantage of more moderate differences in modes of
manufacture.
As far as isolation is concerned, it hardly seems necessary to
point out that the Alps did not keep the white barbarians out of
Italy, and that the Nile Valley was open to the Negroes into Egypt.
One observer, recently returned from an intensive tour of Africa
and himself apparently a racial equalitarian, nevertheless feels
compelled to include these sentences in his report:
“Why, when in China, India, Mesopotamia and on the Mediterranean
coasts and islands, men isolated almost completely from one another,
during some 5,000 years independently developed writing and metal
tools, invented compasses, built temples and bridges, formulated
philosophies, wrote books and poems--why, then, did similar progress
not occur in Africa?
“I posed the question to many Africans. Their answer: the desert, the
heat, disease, isolation--and always these words: ‘For centuries our
most vigorous young men were taken off as slaves.’
“The answer falls short. China has a desert; India’s climate is
as hot and as unhealthy; Mesopotamia indeed is hotter--and was
surrounded by deserts. As for the slave trade, why were the Africans
not making slaves of the Portuguese and the Arabs?”
This report, prepared by the assistant to the publisher of “Time”
magazine, goes on to seek justification for the equalitarian
viewpoint in the modern intelligence test and the modern performance
of the exceptional Negro, answers which fall as far short as the
others. The field of the intelligence test, like the field of Boas’
anthropology, is filled with wishful thinking, with comparisons of
the better Negroes and the poorer whites, with studies of mulattoes
whose successes are largely proportionate to the admixture of white
genes, and with similar avoidance of the essential point, namely,
that in matters of race either the average of one must be compared
with the average of the other, or the best of one must be compared
with the best of the other.
If we are to compare averages, there is probably no better laboratory
than the rural area around Chatham, Ontario, Canada. Chatham is a
town at the northern end of the pre-Civil War “underground railroad”
where a community of the descendants of escaped slaves has existed
for 100 years. The social and economic situation of Negroes and
whites in the rural area around Chatham is approximately equal. The
schools have always been integrated, yet the tests of Negroes in
these rural schools show them, after 100 years, to be as far below
the whites in the same schools as the Negroes in the schools of the
South are below the whites in the schools of the South. Dr. H. A.
Tanser, now Superintendent of Schools at Chatham, published a study
of this matter in 1939. The study is never mentioned by the modern
school of equalitarian anthropology, but you will find it in the
Library of Congress. Did your Department give it consideration?
In this connection, you are perhaps aware that Dr. Audrey M. Shuey,
Chairman of the Department of Psychology at Randolph-Macon Woman’s
College, published a report in 1958 surveying and summarizing the
results of 40 years of intelligence tests involving whites and
Negroes. Dr. Shuey took her B.A. at the University of Illinois, her
M.A. at Wellesley, and her Ph.D. at Columbia. Her book contains a
foreword by Dr. Henry E. Garrett, former president of the American
Psychological Association, the Eastern Psychological Association, the
New York State Association of Applied Psychology and the Psychometric
Society. In his foreword, Dr. Garrett says:
“Dr. Shuey finds that at several age levels and under a variety of
conditions, Negroes regularly score below whites. There is, to be
sure, an overlapping of scores, a number of Negroes scoring above
the white medians. This overlap means that many individual Negroes
achieve high scores on the tests. But the mean differences persist.
Dr. Shuey concludes that the regularity and consistency of the
results strongly imply a racial basis for these differences. I
believe that the weight of evidence supports her conclusion.”
Dr. Shuey states that “the remarkable consistency of test results ...
all point to the presence of some native differences between Negroes
and whites determined by intelligence tests”, and she adds the
significant comment: “The tendency for the IQ’s of colored children
to become progressively lower with increase in age has been reported
by a number of investigators who tested Negro children.... One is
confronted with the probability of a continuance during adolescence
of what seems to be a widening gap between the races.” I recognize
that Dr. Shuey’s report was not extant at the time of the Brown
decision, but a large part of her material was available, and in my
opinion should have been submitted to the Court. I repeat that I do
not consider the intelligence test decisive, as I believe character
to be more important than intelligence, but in answer to those who
use the intelligence test to support theories of racial equality,
surely Tanser’s and Shuey’s material belonged in the record.
If, on the other hand, we compare the best with the best, the
discrepancies are even clearer. I had occasion to ask Kluckhohn a
question with respect to a statement in his _Mirror for Man_ at page
126. This statement reads: “It is true that the total richness of
Negro civilizations is _at least quantitatively_ less impressive
than that of Western or Chinese civilization.” (Emphasis mine). I
asked Kluckhohn if he would mind defining in what respects he found
it _qualitatively_ as impressive. I told him I was curious as to
one poem equal to Milton’s _Paradise Lost_, one history equal to
Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall_, one novel equal to Dickens’ _David
Copperfield_, one playwright equal to Shakespeare, one philosopher
equal to Aristotle, one medical discovery equal to Salk’s polio
vaccine, one military leader equal to Napoleon, one inventor equal
to Edison, one physicist equal to Einstein, one pioneer equal to
Columbus, one statesman equal to Abraham Lincoln, one composer equal
to Beethoven, one painter equal to Rembrandt. I have received no
reply, but Kluckhohn’s “at least quantitatively” seems to me typical
of the deceptive words used by our modern equalitarian anthropology.
The Court should not have been left in the dark on this tendency.
Although they do not specifically cite Kluckhohn, he is one of the
leaders of the modern school on which Myrdal rests his case.
I have found that a favorite method used by Boas and Kluckhohn for
throwing dust in the eyes of the public is to create an impression
that there is really no such thing as race. Although Kluckhohn begins
the third paragraph of the fifth chapter of his _Mirror for Man_ with
the sentence “There are undoubtedly human races,” he nevertheless
entitles this chapter “Race: A Modern Myth.” His thesis is that
culture, not race, is what makes human beings what they are. Yet
nowhere is the obvious fact examined that culture is absorbed,
refined and advanced in proportion to racial capacity. There are, of
course, certain modifying variables, among the chief of which are
climate and economic conditions. The white culture of New England
differs from the white culture of the Deep South, but not as much as
the white culture of southern Florida differs from the black culture
of Haiti, where the climate is approximately the same. That is to
say, the effect of the variables is clearly less decisive than the
fundamental difference in race.
Undoubtedly an individual or group, taken out of the cultural
environment of their own race and brought up in that of another, will
sometimes absorb some features of the culture of the new environment,
but in such instances they become parasites upon the culture of the
second race. They are carried up, or carried down, as the case may
be, by the overwhelming impact of the environment of the second race.
Their own capacity to contribute to, and to sustain, a culture can
only be judged by the performance of their own race in its native
habitat. And if that capacity is low, then too many of them, too
freely integrated, must inevitably in the long run lower the culture
of the second race.
There have, not unnaturally, been situations in which a race has
captured the spark of culture in one habitat but not in another.
In the case of the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbarians were,
broadly speaking, members of the same race as the conquered. Here
we find two branches of the white race, one of which had produced
a culture while the other had not, and here the Boas theory of
historical accident is tenable. Similarity of tinder permitted
passage of the spark. It was still the white race that absorbed, and
eventually carried forward, the Roman culture.
The essential question in this whole controversy is whether the
Negro, given every conceivable help regardless of cost to the whites,
is capable of full adaptation to our white civilization within a
matter of a few generations, or whether the record indicates such
adaptation cannot be expected save in terms of many hundreds, if not
thousands, of years, and that complete integration of these races,
especially in the heavy black belts of the South, can result only in
a parasitic deterioration of white culture, with or without genocide.
I am certain neither you nor the Court, nor any significant number
of Northerners would knowingly shackle their racial brothers in the
South against their will with a system which would produce either of
the latter results. The sin of Cain would pale by comparison.
Yet to my mind it seems obvious that all the facts, and a
preponderance of theory, are against Myrdal and his authorities. I
would go so far as to say that in the last fifty years anthropology
has been drafted to serve the demi-Goddess of Equalitarianism instead
of the Goddess of Truth, and that the modern school in this field has
a stern judgment to face, both at the bar of American public opinion
and at the hands of two generations of youth whose thinking has been
corrupted by it. One does not build a healthy society on error. One
faces the truth, and deals with it as best one can.
I pass now from Myrdal, and the sources upon which his more general
assumptions rest, to the remaining authorities cited in Footnote 11.
All of these deal primarily with the adverse psychological effect
of segregation upon Negroes and only secondarily with its alleged
adverse effect upon white children. Nowhere is any study cited of
a third question, namely, of the quite possible adverse effect of
_integration_ upon whites in schools with large percentages of
Negroes. Was any such study made and presented to the Court?
The third question was well put by William Polk in his book _Southern
Accent_: “If the Negro is entitled to lift himself up by enforced
association with the white man, why should not the white man be
entitled to prevent himself from being pulled down by enforced
association with the Negro?” This question seems particularly
important in view of the patent partiality of the authorities cited
in favor of integration. The majority of these appear either to
belong to Negro or other minority groups, or to have prepared their
studies under the auspices of such groups. To expect these groups to
present impartial reports on the subject of racial discrimination
is like expecting a saloon keeper to prepare an impartial study on
prohibition, or a meat packer to pass an unbiased judgment on the
Humane Slaughter Bill. Their point of view is important and deserves
consideration. Many of them are brilliant and consecrated men. But to
permit them to provide the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence
is manifestly not justice. If this is compounded by an absence of
any consideration of the damaging effects of integration upon white
children, it becomes doubly serious. While the brief for the State of
Virginia touches upon the subject, it seems to me that the people of
the United States, whom you represented, had a particular interest
in seeing it more fully developed. I would appreciate your directing
me to such a study, if one was made, and also your providing me with
some explanation as to why the evidence on damage to the Negro was
from such partisan sources.
Any American worthy of the name feels an obligation of kindness and
justice toward his fellow man. He is willing to give every individual
his chance, whatever his race, but in those circumstances where a
race must be dealt with as a race, he realizes that the level of the
average must be controlling, and that the relatively minor handicap
upon the superior individual of the segregated race, if it be a
handicap at all, must be accepted until the average has reached the
point where desire for association is mutual.
This leads me to my final query. I will be frank to say that I was
startled at the uncritical manner in which the Supreme Court was
allowed to accept one phrase in the language of the lower court, to
wit: “A sense of inferiority [produced by segregation] affects the
motivation of a child to learn.” Did neither you nor counsel for
any of the appellees take occasion to point out that if a child is
by nature inferior, enforced association with his superiors will
increase his realization of his inferiority, while if he is by nature
not inferior, any implication of inferiority in segregation, if such
there be, will only serve as a spur to greater effort? Throughout
history, challenges of this sort, acting upon individuals, groups and
races of natural capacity, have proved a whip to achievement, times
without number. The point was one of the legal hinges on which the
case turned. In fact without it the decision falls apart, for there
is no other even remotely arguable excuse why separate facilities
cannot be made equal within any possible stretch of the meaning of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, I would have thought it
imperative that you raise it.
Copies of this letter were sent to the President and to each member of
the Supreme Court. I had no answer or acknowledgment from the Attorney
General. Two members of the Supreme Court acknowledged receipt, which
was all they properly could do. No other acknowledgments were received.
Silence, of course, was an answer of a sort. It settled any doubts
in my mind concerning the attitude of the Attorney General. As to
the secondary purpose of the letter, its usefulness as a tool in
simplifying my correspondence, this hope was soon dispelled. “The
Second Putnam Letter”, as it came to be called, involved me in
controversy as lengthy as the first.
I chose the Charleston, South Carolina, _News and Courier_, the South’s
oldest daily, to launch the text, and its distinguished editor, Thomas
R. Waring, printed it in full on March 22. He was also kind enough to
say editorially:
“Mr. Putnam has ample grounds for labelling the psychological and
anthropological theories on which the Supreme Court wrote its racial
decisions as a scientific hoax. The label is long delayed, but we
believe it will stick. Though psychologists whose studies have tended
to show up racial differences in intelligence have met with varying
degrees of suppression, the facts are beginning to be recognized.
“Even more important than relative intelligence is character and
responsibility. Mr. Putnam brings out this racial difference with
kindness but vigor. Competent leaders of the Negro race should not
reject these facts on account of emotionalism but should adapt them
to their own racial problems. Surely the numerous Negroes who have
surmounted handicaps must realize that more is involved in the march
from jungle to industrial civilization than calories and classrooms.
“Centuries in the history of mankind cannot be changed in a generation
or two. The colored people who languished thousands of years in Africa
have blossomed faster than any people on earth in the freedom of the
United States. Most of them have made this progress in the South. They
can destroy it by heedless insistence on too much too fast.
“Carleton Putnam is doing a favor to colored as well as white Americans
by focusing light on the truth.”
As Dabney had done with my letter to the President, Waring made up tear
sheets containing both the letter and the editorial and sent them to
1700 newspaper editors in the United States. In spite of its greater
length and complexity it was again widely reprinted with favorable
comment throughout the South, and totally ignored in the North.
However, enough copies reached the North by private mailings from
Southerners to produce a selective reaction. Northerners who had had
time to think about the hidden issue sent me enthusiastic letters and
telegrams. Equalitarian college professors were scornful in a way that
seemed to mask a great uneasiness. Nor was it long before the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People was heard from--not
directly, but through Southern editors who forwarded to me the letters
they received from the Association.
I preferred to be direct. I wrote the Association inviting detailed
criticism of my stand and relished the exchange which followed. Having
had no answer from Rogers, I was eager to test every point I had
made against the knowledge of others who were involved in the school
decision, whether these minds were members of the NAACP or high on the
faculties of universities.
Indeed, an official of the NAACP, a grandson of a slave, wrote the
best critique, in style and tone, of any I received. I say it with
sadness, for every argument he advanced I was obliged to refute. I
told this official I wanted to make clear that I was addressing him
not as an individual but as a symbol of an organization, some of whose
objectives I believed to be wrong and against whose aggressions my race
was being forced to defend itself. Then I took his points and dealt
with them individually. Each of them appears in the next chapter of
this book.
I followed the same procedure in the case of the college professors.
But in this instance I was puzzled at the deliberate casuistry and the
effort to draw attention from the main point by verbose irrelevancies.
At the start of an exchange these gentlemen were sometimes swaggering.
The head of the anthropology department at an Ivy League university
replied to a courteous request for criticism as follows: “They
[Southerners] seem bent on demonstrating their intellectual inferiority
to the Negro by such performances as yours. Why don’t you prove your
boast of superior intelligence by showing some of it?” This scholarly
comment concluded a letter which failed to meet a single issue on its
merits. I was regretfully obliged to reply in kind: “My conviction
grows daily that none of your group can support with solid fact a
single one of your equalitarian contentions, and that consciously or
unconsciously you have victimized two entire generations of students.
The sooner you are brought to the bar of public opinion to account for
this hoax the better.... You have undoubtedly intimidated for the time
being a number of your colleagues, but your day of accounting may be
closer than you think.”
Another swashbuckler, at another Ivy League university, began with a
tone of patronizing ridicule. He questioned certain of my statements,
demanded proof, and when the proof was supplied, changed the subject.
When he was exposed there, he tried something else. The evasions were
transparent and futile, and in the end the swashbuckler’s tone had
been converted to a plaintive respect. Concluding this exchange I was
compelled to remark: “Your letter of December 28 is so lacking in
intellectual integrity, so full of either deliberate or incredibly
careless falsifications, that I am thoroughly alarmed.”
Indeed, I trust my indignation in this case does not conceal the
sincerity of my feeling. I was frankly astonished at the level of
intellectual character in academic circles betrayed by this phase of
my correspondence.
I was equally concerned by what seemed to be a complete emotional block
in the minds of certain readers when it came to facing the hidden
issue at all. The problem was particularly noticeable in dealing with
people I knew personally. They begged me not to raise the subject, or
felt it wiser to agree to disagree, or wished to keep our friendship
undisturbed by argument. There was a uniform unwillingness in this
group to examine the matter logically, yet, as I have said, they were
often the quickest to turn the equalitarian charge of emotionalism
against me. To make these people think seemed impossible.
Unfortunately they constituted a very large percentage of the younger
generation in the North, educated since the social revolution of
1932. I wondered whether perhaps they were reluctant to examine this
latest consequence of the equalitarian ideology for fear of what
the examination might mean in terms of other concepts. They were
companioned in their blindness by the sociologists, calling themselves
social “scientists”, who were often older and had been among the
professional liberals who sponsored the original overdrift. These men
were in no way qualified themselves to be dogmatic upon questions of
physical anthropology, zoology or genetics, yet they closed their minds
to any discussion in these fields which might invalidate the structure
they had built upon the equalitarian foundation. These men were paying
the immemorial penalty of deceit, they had hypnotized others so long
they were now the victims of their own trance. Their favorite opening
gambit was “No educated man believes any longer...,” to which they were
accustomed to receive no challenge whatever. When they heard instead,
“Let’s see about that,” I observed a scurrying for the intellectual
exits.
But, all in all, I profited from the debate, whether verbal or written,
took the measure of the equalitarian position, observed their arguments
and their rebuttals, and learned something of the manner in which they
seduced the unwary mind. Either from their silences or their comments,
I had or sensed the thinking of Kluckhohn and Handlin of Harvard,
Murdock of Yale, Herskovits of Northwestern, and Fosdick of Union
Theological Seminary. There were dozens of others, from Richard Nixon
to Eleanor Roosevelt, from Nelson Rockefeller to Billy Graham, from
Allan Nevins to Ralph McGill. To all the arguments I received, I gave
the most earnest thought. If I were wrong, I wanted to know it, and to
know why.
In the end, the silences proved nothing, and the arguments nothing. And
the reader has the right to know why.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Concerning some of Gene Weltfish’s other activities, the March 15,
1951, edition of the Communist _Daily Worker_ lists her as a sponsor
of the American Peace Crusade. This organization has been cited by
the Attorney General of the United States as subversive. The April 4,
1951, edition of the _Daily Worker_ records her as one of the sponsors
of the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born. This
Committee has also been cited by the Attorney General as subversive.
+Chapter III+
POINT BY POINT
It was finally obvious that there could be no answer to this challenge
save in getting down to cases. My second letter had in itself raised
new questions in many minds and had stung the integrationists to new
propaganda. Moreover, there were the old issues that kept recurring
in my mail, either on the fringes of the hidden issue or in totally
different spheres. Their aspects were so manifold that no connected
narrative could encompass them. The most succinct and realistic method
of treatment seemed to be the format in which they themselves reached
me--as a question, often rhetorical it is true, often ending in an
exclamation point rather than a question mark, but in a staccato pitch
inviting a staccato reply.
Since there were many questions, on many points, which were repetitive,
I began going through the accumulated letters, winnowing out the
duplications, until I had a residue of material that appeared
representative of the mass as a whole. The points in these I
classified, using the major categories the debate had produced, and
then proceeded to answer them as concisely as possible.
My plan at first was to use the result solely for private circulation,
printed as a pamphlet and mailed to each correspondent. But in the
course of preparation I found myself sending both the questions and
answers to experts in their respective fields--to anthropologists,
judges, ministers, editors and politicians--asking their comments,
and in the process a demand arose for publication in book form. Both
Northerners and Southerners appealed to the Birmingham Committee and
to me for copies in quantity, with the suggestion that the two letters
be included between the same covers. The latter proposal had a special
advantage as it made unnecessary a re-statement of the earlier material
and presented the background from which the questions sprang.
This book is sufficient witness that I yielded to the suggestion.
Let me assure the reader that I have kept an open mind, and an
open manuscript, to the last minute to receive any data that might
significantly change any point in my replies or bring new questions to
bear upon the issues. There has been nothing static about the following
section, and after it has gone to press I am sure additional questions
will arrive which I will wish had reached me sooner.
+Anthropology and Intermarriage+
_I am a Negro. Your letter to the President was a pretty hard slap in
the face for me. Can’t you realize how it feels to be colored, and to
read something like that in a newspaper?_
No one wants to slap anybody in the face less than I do. I am totally
out of sympathy with those who show discourtesy to you or any other
racial group, any time, anywhere. I will never hurt another man’s
feelings if I can help it, and I believe that the greatest of all human
qualities is the ability to put one’s self in the other person’s place.
Therefore, I regret beyond words the necessity for writing as I did.
But in this case your leaders have left me, and other members of my
race who have studied the question, no choice. Your leaders were the
aggressors. I have had word from many colored people agreeing with my
position and with what I say to you now.
Your leaders were not content with the progress being made by mutual
agreement and understanding throughout the South. They had to take more
by force. Under such circumstances you cannot expect me, or any white
man who perceives the real issue, to keep silent.
The truth is that responsible Southerners have deliberately weakened
their own defense because of their unwillingness to raise the
underlying problem. They talk of states’ rights when they should be
talking anthropology, and they do so out of instinctive human kindness.
I fear the time has come when they can afford this kindness no longer.
There is a point at which kindness imposed upon ceases to be a virtue.
* * * * *
_You and I do not see things from the same point of view. We disagree
on fundamentals. Therefore, isn’t it best to avoid arguments?_
No, because it is the fundamentals that I want to examine.
* * * * *
_The North had to force the South to give up slavery. Why should not
the North force the South to integrate?_
Morally the two situations are diametrically opposite. While some
Northerners made fortunes out of the slave trade, relatively few owned
slaves at the time of the Civil War and consequently they could, with
some justification, demand that the South be equally virtuous. But very
few Northerners are in a position where they need put their children
in schools with large percentages of Negroes. In forcing integration
upon the South, the North is demanding that the South do what the North
itself in similar circumstances would not do. It is an established
fact that white people favor integration throughout the United States
exactly in proportion as they do not need to practice it.
* * * * *
_Are there any good reasons why Southern white children shouldn’t be
made to go to school with Negroes?_
There are several, among them the fact that their parents don’t want
them to, but I will suggest the fundamental reason.
There is no basis in sound science for the assumption, promoted
by various minority groups in recent decades, that all races are
biologically equal in their capacity to advance, or even to sustain,
what is commonly called Western civilization. They most emphatically
are not.
The Negro race has various and valuable qualities. In those great
attributes of the heart--sympathy and kindness--and in a sense of
humor--the average[2] Negro, taken as an individual, is fully on a par
with the average white. In certain skills the Negro ranks above the
white. If I were lost in an African jungle my life might depend on the
talents of a Negro. In other qualities of mind and character, qualities
specially involved in our Western civilization, the full-blooded Negro
is congenitally only partially adaptable. Hereafter, when I use such
words as “inferior”, “backward”, and “unequal”, I use them in this
limited sense only.
Such being our understanding, let me state the situation in its
simplest terms, quoting a letter to me from a Professor of Physiology
in one of our leading medical schools: “School integration is social
integration, and social integration means an ever increasing rate
of interbreeding. [This is true regardless of whether the sexes are
separated in schools. Little brother would still bring his new Negro
friend home after school.] As a biologist I see the process as a mixing
of Negro genes in our white germ plasm, a process from which there can
be no unmixing.”
Some disagreement may exist as to the extent to which the admixture of
Negro genes has affected white civilizations in the past. I have never
anywhere seen the claim that it did the white race any good. Consider
the history of the West Indies and other Latin American countries. But
in any case, we are left with the query, what great civilization of
the kind we are seeking to develop in the West ever arose _after_ an
admixture of Negro genes?
Since the question answers itself, I must ask the Northern
integrationist by what authority he claims the right to gamble with the
white civilization of the South, against the will of its people, while
he personally sits secure with his children in all white schools, or in
schools with negligible percentages of Negroes.
To me this appears as one of the worst examples of hypocrisy and
brutality in all history. However, it differs only in degree from a
related trend of our times. It is always easy and sometimes justifiable
to spend the money that someone else has earned--a principle which
the equalitarians understand thoroughly. It is equally easy and never
justifiable to spend someone else’s children.
* * * * *
_Are there enough Negroes in the United States to make any real
difference if we absorb them?_
The ratio of non-whites to whites in the United States as a whole in
the 1950 census was around 10%. If completely absorbed, this would be
a substantial admixture, with noticeable effects. More serious is the
fact that a large part of the Negro population is concentrated in the
South. In 1950, Mississippi had 46%, South Carolina 39%, Louisiana 33%,
Alabama 32%, and Georgia 31% non-whites. Absorption in any of these
states would be disastrous. It would be almost as bad in any other
southern state. There are 131 counties in nine southern states in
which the Negro population exceeds the white.
* * * * *
_Is there any evidence that the Negro really cares about intermarriage
with the white race?_
Scan the Negro press. Here, as an example, is a quotation from the
Pittsburgh _Courier_, a leading Negro weekly, for August 15, 1959:
“The Negro phobes and crackerologists are ever shouting warnings
that this or that lowering of racial barriers will lead inevitably
to inter-marriage and intermixture. Well, I say that’s just fine and
exactly what this nation needs to maintain its world supremacy.... We
live in an unwholesome clandestine atmosphere in which we whisper of
healthy love and desires across the color line but fear to speak out
boldly....
“Every community worth its salt should have a frankly inter-racial
club or association where the boys and gals, colored and white, could
associate, drink and dance.... Of course we favor racial mixing,
including marriage, and are working openly to kill all racially
restrictive legislation and social segregation and discrimination.”
I have before me a copy of the Negro magazine _Ebony_ for February,
1960. On page 66 there is a picture of a Negro next to a picture of a
white girl. Under the picture of the Negro is the following caption:
“Hebrew Holy charm around Sammy’s neck is gift from Eddie Cantor.
Planning to marry Canadian blonde, Sammy says: ‘The Bible says “Take
unto yourself a wife.” And it don’t say nothing about her color.’”
May I also quote an interview with Congressman Adam Clayton Powell
appearing in _United States News and World Report_ on September 5, 1952:
“Q. What is the attitude of the Negro in the United States on the
subject of intermarriage? Is it discussed frequently in the press?
“A. Yes, but on an objective basis. In fact, an increasingly large
number of Negro leaders are marrying whites of extremely stable and
respected families.
“Q. Is there much more fraternizing in the Northern cities between
Negroes and whites, especially in the large Negro centers like Harlem,
than there used to be?
“A. Yes, much more.
“Q. Is there any tendency among the Negroes to reject that, or are they
welcoming it?
“A. They are very definitely welcoming it. An increasing number of fine
leaders on both sides are marrying.
“Q. What is the argument that is used by Negro leaders in answer to the
point that is sometimes made that, if intermarriages continue in the
next 25 to 30 years, then the races will be adulterated somewhat as
they are in Cuba and Brazil?
“A. I have heard that argument, but it doesn’t amount to any argument
at all from my standpoint, because if we are fighting for integration,
well then there it is. I mean, you can’t fight against segregation and
want separation. We must be consistent.
“Q. I’m not sure that that is clear.
“A. The Negro leaders are fighting against segregation. Therefore, they
can’t have a position on the one hand against segregation and on the
other hand against inter-racial marriage.”
* * * * *
_My Harvard professor claims that miscegenation increases when one
race is kept inferior to another and that anything that increases
the equality of the two races minimizes the opportunities for
miscegenation. Is not this true?_
It depends in what sense one uses the word “miscegenation”. Your
professor is using it in the sense of illicit intercourse. It is
manifestly not true that keeping a race inferior increases the rate
of legalized marriage with the intent to bear and rear children which
is the basic question at issue in the integration fight. In illicit
connections every effort is made to avoid breeding. When social
integration occurs, this sort of “equality” invites legalized unions in
which breeding is a major object.
Even if illegal unions resulted in offspring as numerous as do
marriages, the social consequences would still be quite different.
When white men marry Negro women in any numbers the trend is toward
a gradual change in social attitudes of acceptance, and a slow
infiltration of the dominant white society by the offspring, with the
consequent changing of the standards of that society, as evidenced in
various Latin American countries.
On the other hand when white men have illicit intercourse with Negro
women, not only are offspring avoided if possible but, if offspring do
result, the latter are isolated from the dominant white society and
consequently do not have any comparable chance to change its standards,
as heretofore evidenced in the United States.
* * * * *
_While there is no positive scientific proof that the Negro is the
equal of the white man, neither is there any positive scientific
proof that he is not. Under these circumstances, how can the Negro’s
inferiority be assumed?_
It is true that anthropology is not an exact science in the sense that
mathematics is, and that its propositions cannot be proved or disproved
like mathematical formulae. Nevertheless, the evidence is as clear as
the nature of the science permits, and it is all that reasonable men
can ask.
In the management of human affairs, all law and all practical judgments
are based on a balance of probabilities. In our civil courts, decisions
are reached on probabilities alone. In the criminal law, the balance
of probabilities must reach the extent of being “beyond a reasonable
doubt”, but can seldom amount to a certainty.
In applying the findings of a science like anthropology to our daily
lives, the same principles must govern, and I will go so far as to
say that not only does the evidence on the incomplete adaptability
of the Negro meet the requirements of the civil law, it meets those
of the criminal law. Observation and experience confirm it “beyond a
reasonable doubt”.
A northern psychologist, commenting upon the above answer, remarks
that in his opinion a thorough study of Negro-white intelligence tests
_does_ reveal conclusive mathematical proof of the Negro’s limitations.
To my mind, the point is academic. But to those interested, I not only
recommend a reading of Dr. Shuey’s[3] and Dr. Tanser’s books cited in
my letter to the Attorney General, but also “A Scientist’s Report on
Race Differences”, by Dr. Frank C. J. McGurk appearing in the September
21, 1956 edition of _U. S. News and World Report_, as well as “‘Negro
vs White Intelligence’--An Answer”, by the same author, in the winter,
1959, issue of the _Harvard Educational Review_.
While, as I have suggested elsewhere, skull criteria as applied to
racial differences are in a state of flux owing to research presently
in progress by such men as Wilder Pennfield of McGill University, there
is no question that the frontal lobes of the typical Negro are smaller
and the cerebral cortex less wrinkled than the typical white’s. For
an excellent study in this regard, see Cornelius J. Connolly, _The
External Morphology of the Primate Brain_, 1950. Connolly has pointed
out very significant differences between Caucasoid and American Negro
brains, particularly in the sulci of the cortical frontal lobes, an
area decisive to higher intelligence. Ward C. Halstead’s _Brain and
Intelligence_, 1947, considers the relation of these lobes to control
over the emotions and to judgment. I deal further with questions of
documentation in footnote 7, and specifically with the frontal lobes on
pages 53-54.
* * * * *
_You have spoken of white civilizations being pulled down by the
admixture of Negro genes. How can you prove this?_
I will answer the question by asking another. Can anyone name one
stable republic in all history that was predominantly, or even
substantially, Negro? The capacity for a free civilization involves
many attributes, self-control (which, among other things, includes
resistance to emotionalism), self-reliance, self-responsibility,
willingness to bear the burdens of others without casting upon others
the burdens one should bear one’s self, willingness both to accept
the verdict of majorities and to concede the rights of minorities,
willingness to obey the law even when it hurts, willingness to support
rather than to raid a treasury, emphasis upon the importance of the
individual. Our American Republic, with all its faults, is, together
with England, the fine flower of centuries of self-discipline and
experience in free government by the English speaking branch of the
white race. I will not say no other branch, but I will say few other
races, have ever approached this achievement, least of all the Negro.
My answer covers the sphere of government alone. I have dealt elsewhere
with the Negro in relation to other aspects of our culture.
* * * * *
_Are not many individual Negroes superior to many individual whites?_
Here again we have the point that I made in my letter to the Attorney
General: In dealing with matters of race, we must either compare
average with average or best with best; we cannot logically compare
best with worst.
When the chart of the Caucasoid race as a whole is laid beside the
chart of the Negro race as a whole, in those attributes involved in
our type of civilization, the Caucasoid will be found superior at each
level except perhaps the lowest where the question arises, can one be
better at being bad?
I am reminded here of one man who wrote me ridiculing the reference in
my letter to the President to a Negro settlement in Africa and asking,
“why not point to the whites in Hog Wallow, Arkansas?” The answer, of
course, must be that the settlement in Africa is typical of the best
that the Negro, _left on his own resources_, can produce while Hog
Wallow, Arkansas, is not typical of the best, or even of the average,
for the white race.
* * * * *
_If some Negroes contribute more to our civilization than some whites,
why then should we not sort people by worth rather than by race?_
In all the ordinary judgments of life, in dealings between individuals,
we should. But in those matters which involve social association, and
hence the possibility of intermarrying, the element of race inevitably
enters because each individual carries in his genes the heritage of
his race and this will be passed on in the breeding process. As one
Southerner put the point: “However weak the individual white man,
his ancestors produced the greatness of Europe; however strong the
individual black, his ancestors never lifted themselves from the
darkness of Africa.”
* * * * *
_Were there not magnificent Negro civilizations in Africa when white
men were drinking blood out of skulls? What about Timbuktu?_
To begin with, I know of no period when white men drank blood out of
skulls. Secondly, if one searched through all history for the time when
the best pure Negro culture, uninfluenced by white help, was at its
peak, and then sought the time when the worst pure white culture was
at its bottom, I suppose one might decide that, as a white man, one
would have preferred to have lived among the Negroes, although I doubt
it. I have not heard of any tribal poetry among Negroes comparable
to Beowulf or the Nibelungenlied. In any case the same point about
comparing best with worst applies here as applied in my answer to the
question on page 42.
Of greater importance, it would be well to examine more closely these
so-called “magnificent Negro civilizations” in Africa. At one time, and
a very brief one, there were west Sudan kingdoms with more brilliance
than the contemporary ones in, say, Scandinavia, but they could not be
compared with the contemporary Byzantine Empire or even the troubadour
civilization of Provence.
As for the city of Timbuktu, can you mention the Arab-inspired Mosque
school of that city in the same breath with the University of Paris,
also founded in the twelfth century? Which of their medieval professors
has the modern influence of St. Thomas Aquinas? Remember also that
Timbuktu was ruled by an Arab nobility and a slightly colored Tuareg
upper class. Full-blooded Negroes were at the bottom of the social
scale.
* * * * *
_Was there not once a great Negro Pharaoh on the throne of Egypt?_
There was no black dynasty on the throne of Egypt as long as Egypt was
Egypt in any real sense. The Nubian dynasty between 742-633 B.C. was a
period of retrogression.
Although Nubia has always bounded Egypt on the south, and began
absorbing some Caucasoid racial elements before the dawn of history, it
has never contributed significantly to the culture of Egypt.
* * * * *
_Does not Basil Davidson’s “Lost Cities of Africa” prove the existence
of ancient Negro civilizations?_
Mr. Davidson is a romantic propagandist for the equalitarian ideology.
His book breathes his passion to prove Negro equality into every line,
the passion being more apparent than the proof.
Moreover, it is impossible to give credence to an author who can
write a sentence such as the following: “That the chiefs and some of
the tribes of the coasts were easily corrupted into wholesale slave
trading is obvious enough: the step from domestic slavery, which they
had always practiced, to the sale of slaves was all too easily made.”
This passage suggesting white corruption of African chiefs should be
laid beside the known facts regarding the Yam Festival of the Ashanti
Negroes. In this rite at the end of the first rainy season of each
year, native slaves were herded into a compound and trussed up to
stakes. The compound was surrounded by thorny plants. At a signal the
black debutantes of the season were turned loose with knives to hack
and bleed their way into the compound where they proceeded to cut the
slaves to pieces. Indeed, students are of the opinion that, with the
possible exception of the Aztec, the earth has never known a bloodier
race than the African Negro.[4]
I may add that in 1960, as reported by international police circles,
girl children are being captured in northwestern Nigeria, in the
“democratic” modern state of Ghana, and sold into domestic slavery
to westernized Negroes in Dahomey. It is reported by the same police
organization that some of these children become the victims of human
sacrifice cults, including cannibalism, and that the current, 1960,
price is $825.
Mr. Davidson overlooks these matters when he speaks of black chiefs
and tribes corrupted by whites. White hands were far from clean, but
they were several shades cleaner than the black.[5] The pattern repeats
itself. Invariably the equalitarian, or Marxist, will try to blame the
better for the conduct of the worse.
* * * * *
_Recorded history is only a small fragment on the total scale of time.
Civilizations rise and fall. The British were primitives once, then
rose. Why may not the Negroes do the same?_
It is now generally believed that civilization, as distinguished from
native culture, had its beginnings in one zone, in what is sometimes
called the Fertile Crescent, and spread from there, as a fire spreads,
to other areas of the earth, the only uncertain exception to this
theory being the civilizations of Central America and Peru. Different
races caught up the spark, so to speak, according to the quality of the
tinder they themselves constituted, the Chinese developing in one way,
Europe in another, with variations among the sub-groups.
But the Negro race has done comparatively little with it, although
they have had repeated exposure to the flame, in Africa, in Europe and
in the Western Hemisphere. The moment the support of other races is
withdrawn, they retrogress, as in Haiti.
If it be argued that some day, a thousand years from now, some change
may occur in the Negro which will change the quality of the tinder, I
would not discount the possibility but it is plainly irrelevant to the
present controversy. We cannot force integration upon the South today
on the strength of something that may occur a thousand years hence.
* * * * *
_Did not the British retrogress after the Roman legions were withdrawn?_
The British Gallo-Romans maintained an excellent northern brand of
Celtic-Latin civilization until they were overwhelmed by Teutons
still in the Hallstattian Iron Age. The records of the ecclesiastical
councils before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasion show as much cultivation
as the contemporary ones in Italy.
One may also compare the legends of King Arthur in England with those
of the Emperor Christophe in Haiti.
* * * * *
_Is it not true that climate accounts for the Negro’s deficiencies in
Africa and that a better climate will correct these eventually?_
There are two schools of thought on the relation of climate and the
Negro, neither of which gives any support to the equalitarian. One
school points out that Africa has the highest average altitude of
any of the five continents. While some of it is tropical jungle and
burning desert, much of it is temperate plateau. The Negro tribes of
the plateau are no more advanced that those of the jungle. In fact,
the hinterland of the Gulf of Guinea, from which most of our American
Negroes came, has a healthier climate than many areas where white
civilizations have thrived--and far healthier than the steaming rain
jungles of Yucatan and Guatemala where the great Mayan civilization
developed. Conversely, while the Mayans developed their astronomy and
mathematics in Central America, the Algonquins achieved nothing in New
England.
The second school maintains that climate operating on the Negro
over thousands of years has produced many hereditary physical
characteristics, such as sickle-cell anemia which gives the Negro his
relative immunity to malaria, and that these characteristics have
their parallel in the Negro psyche. In other words the tropics have
conditioned the Negro in both mind and body to tropical life.
It will be clear at once that if nature has taken perhaps 30,000 years
to adapt the Negro to the tropics, the qualities involved have become
innate and cannot now be changed by taking this, or any foreseeable,
generation of Negroes out of the tropics. As one writer has put it,
“the fundamental barrier is less the action of climate on the living
generation than its cumulative action, over an immense time-span, in
forming the race.”
* * * * *
_If it be fallacious, why has the doctrine of racial equality become so
popular, even among many whites?_
A brief glance at history answers this question. The United States was
founded primarily by racial stocks which may be loosely defined by the
adjective “English-speaking”. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1881:
“On the New England Coast the English blood was as pure as in any
part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of
the Dutch settlers--and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old
English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly
Anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into
the English race [more accurately, English amalgam] on this side of
the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources--German, Irish, and
Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the
composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they
were originally combined--mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a
Scandinavian admixture. The descendant of the German becomes as much an
Anglo-American as the descendant of the Strathclyde Celt has already
become an Anglo-Briton.... It must always be kept in mind that the
Americans and the British are two substantially similar branches of the
great English race, which both before and after their separation have
assimilated, and made Englishmen of many other peoples....”
This, as I say, was written in 1881. In the later 1880’s, conditions
began to change. Immigration to the United States shifted from northern
to southern and eastern Europe and other branches of the white race,
with different temperaments and traditions, arrived in great numbers.
The previous record of these stocks for maintaining stable, free
societies in their own homelands had not been notably good, although
many of them had in other respects backgrounds of the highest culture.
The new arrivals were not readily assimilated. Smarting under what
they considered unjustified discrimination, they set purposefully
to the task of showing they were just as good as the native stocks
(as, indeed, in many ways they were), and they tried to do this by
proving that _all_ races were equal in their adaptability to our white
civilization. Important chairs in several of our leading universities
were taken over by these men, and two generations of American youth
came under their influence, aided by others whose hearts were softer
than their heads were clear. The result was the exploitation of the
Boas theories in anthropology, and related doctrines in the field of
sociology.
It was only a step to apply these theories to integration. In my
opinion, however, they are being applied more to entrench the theories
than to help the Negro. Consider the following perhaps unconscious
confession on the part of Professor Melville J. Herskovits, an
anthropologist who is a member of Boas’ own minority group: “Let
us suppose it could be shown that the Negro is a man with a past
and a reputable past; that in time the concept could be spread that
the civilizations of Africa, like those of Europe, have contributed
to American culture as we know it today; and that this idea might
eventually be taken over into the canons of general thought. Would
this not, as a practical measure, tend to undermine the assumptions
that bolster racial prejudice?” Professor Herskovits is a man with a
self-serving mission. His objectivity as a scientist may be judged
accordingly.
There would be something amusing about the works of these men if the
gullibility of so many of their readers were not so complete. In
addition to their almost incredible prolixity, we find over and over
a transparent technique of attempting to destroy truth by ridicule.
This technique consists of quoting the older authorities in a context
of sneers, with many assertions of their falseness and scientific
obsoleteness, and with repeated promises of supporting proof, followed
by a change of subject and a failure ever to return to the proof. We
might reduce the method to its simplest terms as follows:
“It was the fashion before 1930 to suppose that two plus two equals
four. One may be amazed, in the light of modern research, that this
belief could have been seriously entertained, but such was the case.
Mr. Blank, for example, actually states that two plus two equals four
in several of his books, but the dates of these books suffice to
discredit him. About 1930, and with increasing frequency ever since,
science began to discover that two plus two equals six. Now-a-days, of
course, no reputable scientist would suggest anything else. For further
discussion of this question, see Chapters 23, 47, and 250.”
Upon turning to these chapters we find many wordy paragraphs, but the
promised proof recedes before us like a mirage on a desert. The facts
are as I have presented them in my letter to the Attorney General and
in my answer on pages 44-45. The equalitarians have no defense other
than Boas’ historical accident and isolation arguments, and these
cannot be sustained.
What seems unfortunate is that these white minority groups, to advance
what they conceive to be the interests of their special stocks, should
promote theories and policies which are bound to weaken the white race
as a whole. Like Samson they would pull down the pillars of the temple
upon our very heads.
On the other hand, no injustice could be greater than to suppose that
all members of the new immigration shared the views, or promoted the
policies, of these groups. Many came to America because they understood
the native American spirit and desired, not to change it, but to
participate in its life. Some of our greatest gains as a nation have
come through such individuals.
I will add that membership in a _race_ by no means determines
membership in a _group_. Among those I hold in bonds of close personal
affection I number members of races wholly out of sympathy with the
activities in this field of their “minority groups”.
* * * * *
_The NAACP asserts that there is virtual unanimity among scientists on
the biological equality of the Negro. Is this true?_
It is not. There is a strong northern clique of equalitarian social
anthropologists under the hypnosis of the Boas school which, as I have
said in my answer to the preceding question, has captured important
chairs in many leading northern and western universities. This clique,
aided by equalitarians in government, the press, entertainment, and
other fields, has dominated public opinion in these areas and has made
it almost impossible for those who disagree with it to hold jobs.
The economic weapon brandished over the head of one’s opponent is a
common technique of the equalitarian. The non-equalitarian scientists
have been forced largely into the universities of the South where
they are biding their time. My files provide ample proof of this. One
letter from a prominent Northern psychiatrist goes even further, “Where
in the U.S. could a psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist find
employment if he openly and unreservedly espoused the theory of the
racial inequality of man?”[6]
It is folly to talk of freedom, either of the press or of any other
kind, when such a situation exists. Probably never in the history of
the United States have we seen such a strangle-hold by the national
press and other mass media of communication in suppressing the
viewpoint of a great section of the country. The extent to which
certain of the more authoritative and influential newspapers and
magazines, such as the New York _Times_ and the _Time-Life_ group,
are using their columns for sheer propaganda has become laughable.
In a moral sense we are confronted with what might almost be called
a trilogy of conspiracy, fraud and intimidation: conspiracy to gain
control of important citadels of learning and news dissemination,
fraud in the teaching of false racial doctrines, and intimidation in
suppressing those who would preach the truth. To speak of academic
freedom in the United States today is to make a mockery of the term.
This is particularly dangerous in the medical field where suppression
of data on sickle-cell anemia and other aspects of Negro biology
is common. For those interested in problems of blood transfusion I
recommend a reading of “Sensitising Antigens as Factors in Blood
Transfusions” by John Scudder, _et al_, in _The Mankind Quarterly_
for October 1960. This article has been viciously attacked by
equalitarians. I suggest the reader compare the qualifications of the
protagonists.
Besides intimidation there has, of course, been a false indoctrination
of our younger scientists, although some hope on this score may be
found in the following statement in a letter to me from a distinguished
scientist younger than I am, a scientist not a Southerner, who is a
recognized international authority on the subject we are considering:
“About 25 years ago it seemed to be proved beyond a doubt that man is a
cultural animal, solely a creature of the environment, and that there
is no inheritance of instinct, intelligence or any other capacity.
Everything had to be learned and the man or race that had the best
opportunity for learning made the best record. The tide is turning.
Heredity is coming back, not primarily through anthropologists but
through the zoologists. It is the zoologists, the animal behavior men,
who are doing it, and the anthropologists are beginning to learn from
them. It will take time, but the pendulum will swing.”
We may well be amazed, scientists and laymen alike, as we awake from
our sleep, at the depth of the hypnosis to which we have been subject.
It is true that science has proved that things are not always what they
appear, but seldom has a mock science been so successful in making it
appear that things are not what they obviously are. I said in my letter
to the President that any man with two eyes in his head could make
certain observations. How loud does the obvious have to shout before a
sensible man will listen?
What I call upon every fair-minded Northerner to do is this: Let him
read Boas for himself. Let him read Herskovits and Kluckhohn[7] for
himself. These men stand refuted out of their own mouths. I challenge
any intelligent person to study their books and come to any other
conclusion. I make only one stipulation. Each time the reader finds the
phrase: “It has been proved that--” let him ask the question “Where?”
Next, I suggest he talk to some of our non-equalitarian anthropologists
who will tell him the truth if he wins their confidence. They will,
however, simply be supporting conclusions which he will already have
drawn for himself.[8]
Finally, I should point out that anthropologists--apart from their
position as equalitarian or non-equalitarian--may be divided into two
classes, social and physical. It is the social anthropologists who have
led the equalitarian movement although they are the least qualified
to pass upon racial biology. The physical anthropologists, along with
the physiologists and anatomists, are the ones who are expert in this
field, but partly because of expense and partly for other reasons,
most of our American universities do not have chairs in physical
anthropology. Instead, social anthropology has been combined with
sociology into one department where each can aid and abet the other in
the equalitarian drive.
One’s choice of physical anthropologists will therefore be relatively
limited in the United States but such men are available upon the terms
I mention.
* * * * *
_Is Arnold Toynbee a victim of hypnosis?_
It depends on how you interpret Toynbee. “It will be seen,” he writes,
“that when we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary
races, given by this classification, which has not made a creative
contribution to any one of our twenty-one civilizations is the Black
Race.” Then he comments that this “single exception” of the Negro
should not prevent the conclusion that “the capacity for civilization
... is the universal birthright of mankind”, and goes on to justify
his position by observing that only 6,000 years have elapsed since the
first civilizations appeared on earth, and it is perhaps too early to
judge whether the Negro is “in a day dream ... paralyzed ... or out
of the running.” Concerning this Toynbee theory, another writer has
remarked that “if 60 centuries is too short a period for man to draw
general inferences about his past, then Toynbee’s life work has been a
waste of time.”
Toynbee, however, relates his argument to a time-scale which gives
it validity in its place. He points out that the Negro still has 83
million times 6,000 years ahead of him, by astronomical calculations,
before we can conclude that he lacks the capacity for civilization.
On such a time-scale I would agree with Toynbee. In the next
500,000,000,000 years I would be quite prepared to concede the
possibility the Negro may, through normal processes of mutation and
natural selection within his own race, eventually overtake and even
surpass the white race.
The school controversy, on the other hand, is concerned with the
present, and with foreseeable future generations. When the Negro has
bred out his limitations over hundreds, or thousands, of years, it will
be time enough to consider absorbing him in any such massive doses as
would be involved in the South today.
* * * * *
_Has it not been shown that the skulls of the grandchildren of certain
immigrants to the United States are larger than those of their
forebears and does this not prove that environment can alter racial
capacities?_
The skull changes you mention are not sufficient, in either nature or
degree, to affect such capacities.
* * * * *
_Has not J. C. Carothers suggested that the similarity between the
mentality of a European who has had his frontal lobes immobilized by
an operation, and the mentality of a normal African may be due to the
fact that the African’s culture does not place as great a demand on his
frontal lobes?_
Dr. Carothers suggests this. He also suggests the opposite
possibility--that the frontal lobe condition of the African is innate.
The truth is that a race must create its culture before the culture
can influence the race. It is not a case of the hen and the egg. The
race must come first. Or, if one prefers, one may say that a race and
its culture in the long run interact upon each other. Whichever way
one states it, the fact remains that, if a race has a culture which
does not require frontal lobe activity beyond a given threshold, the
explanation must lie in the quality of that race’s frontal lobes.
* * * * *
_Was not Alfred Kroeber a leading anthropologist and does not his
“Anthropology” contradict your views?_
Alfred Kroeber was indeed a leading anthropologist. As to his
contradicting my views, I would say rather that he affords an excellent
example of the fact that the older scientists in this field were only
partially hypnotized even twelve years ago. At pages 203-204 of the
book you mention (ed. 1948), in discussing the question of whether
one can rate the hereditary worth of various races according to the
number of their men of genius, Kroeber remarks: “A great work naturally
requires a great man, but it pre-supposes also a great culture. It
may be that, historically speaking, a great genius cannot arise in
a primitive degree of civilization.... Biologically the individual
of genius may be there; civilizationally he is not called forth....
Consequently it is unsound to argue from the historical record to
biological worth.”
Kroeber here ignores the overwhelming probability that, over the long
run, a race capable of producing biological geniuses with sufficient
frequency to justify a high rating if they were recognized, would, _in
the same long run_, have produced, or caught by contagion,[9] a culture
which would have called them forth.
But the example of ambivalence I wish to stress comes in a subsequent
paragraph on Kroeber’s page 204:
“The drift of this discussion may seem to be an unavowed argument
in favor of race equality. It is not that. As a matter of fact,
the anatomical differences between races would appear to render it
likely that at least some corresponding congenital differences of
psychological quality exist. These differences might not be profound,
compared with the sum total of common human faculties, much as the
physical variations of mankind fall within the limits of a single
species. Yet they would preclude identity. As for the vexed question
of superiority, lack of identity would involve at least some degree of
greater power in certain respects in some races. These pre-eminences
might be rather evenly distributed, so that no one race would notably
excel the others in the sum total or average of its capacities; or they
might show some minor tendency to cluster on one rather than on another
race. In either event, however, race difference, moderate or minimal,
qualitative if not quantitative, would remain as something that could
perhaps be ultimately determined.
“But it is one thing to admit this theoretical probability and then
stop through ignorance of what the differences are, and another to
construe the admission as justification of mental attitudes that may
be well grounded in historical conditioning but are in considerable
measure unfounded objectively.”
I offer the above paragraphs as an illustration of the scientific mind
in semi-trance, talking out of both sides of its mouth. Or perhaps to
the white Southern mother whose child is about to be forced into a
predominantly Negro school, it seems more like academic fiddling while
Rome burns.
* * * * *
_You are preaching a doctrine of white supremacy and allying yourself
with lynchers and bombers. Worse, don’t you realize that this is the
doctrine that led to Hitler’s barbaric policies?_
I am advocating a doctrine of white leadership based on proved
achievement, not supremacy in any sense of domination, exploitation, or
violence. As far as the Negro race is concerned, if it is interested
in such cultural elements as our white civilization has to offer, it
should realize that to destroy or to debilitate the white race would be
to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is a temptation as old
as the human species, and always ends with a dead goose and no eggs.
Regarding Hitler, can we condemn Christianity because of the atrocities
of the Spanish Inquisition? Truth has often been warped by evil men
to vicious ends. One does not solve the problem by going to the other
extreme and embracing error.
* * * * *
_In your letter to the President you say the Southern Negro must earn
equal status with the white man, yet in your letter to the Attorney
General you mention natural limitations which indicate you do not
believe the Negro capable of earning it. How do you explain this
contradiction?_
It isn’t really a contradiction. I believe the Negro, if he desires
it, should be given every reasonable chance of achieving social and
cultural adaptation through equal education in his own schools and by
every community effort that does not involve pulling down the white
race, but it does not follow that I believe the average Negro capable
of achieving it, within any time limits that could have a practical
bearing on the present controversy.
Over a matter of hundreds of years, the constant surrounding stimulus
of white civilization upon the Negro may be expected slowly to have
an adaptive effect. Changes in a race occur by mutation and natural
selection which involve the gradual elimination of those genes which
are unsuited to the surrounding environment. This takes place by
mating choices within the race itself and by the dying-off without
children of those with a preponderance of unsuitable genes. The process
must obviously be a slow one, involving many generations, before the
adapting race can hope to achieve equality. Meanwhile the increasing
number of individuals above the average, who are in fact raising the
average, should be given every opportunity for the development of their
natures within the limits already mentioned.
It is possible, however, to look at the question from a different point
of view. Does the Negro really _want_ to become like the white man, or
will he not in the end prefer to maintain his own racial integrity,
eliminating only those factors which conflict with a peaceable life in
a predominantly white civilization? In other words, may not the best
solution to the problem be permanent voluntary segregation through
pride in, and loyalty to, one’s own race, Negro as well as white? This
would mean adaptation only in those qualities which tend to make the
Negro a burden on our white culture and economy, not in others.
This second point of view has been well summarized by the Rev. G. W.
Walker, the Negro publisher of the _National Christian Magazine_. The
Rev. Mr. Walker says in part:
“We have been given the assignment, the responsibility, the duty, and
the obligation:
“1. To teach the Negro the plain and simple view that he has customs,
background, consciousness and fundamental characteristics of his own
and that he must develop these or else cease to exist as an ethnical
identity in America....
“3. To convince the Negro not to desert his own schools, clubs,
institutions and churches, but, instead, he must develop them until
they are where they should be--on a par with the whites’....
“5. To inform him of the truth, that he has a date with destiny and he
cannot keep his date if he integrates and amalgamates with the white
race, because this is the sure road or way to a lost race.
“6. To prove to the Negro that integration and race mixing are lethal
methods of robbing him of his last chance and only chance to stand on
his own two feet and develop a social order of his own, one which he
and his true friends can be proud of....
“8. To teach him to stop wanting to be the uninvited guest (rather
stranger) in the homes of others and in the places and areas prescribed
for others.
“9. To show the Negro that what he really needs for his further
advancement and betterment in America is the right kind of education
and training, rather than a closer association with white people.
“10. To teach him that aping the white man and trying to be white will
dupe him out of his self-respect and the respect of others....
“13. To teach the Negro that there is a vast difference between the
white man and himself and that this actual fact must be recognized and
dealt with from a realistic and objective point of view.
“14. To teach him that he has many fine qualities, such as kindness,
courtesy, loyalty, cheerfulness, gaiety, etc., which are admired and
respected by the other races in America and that these fine qualities
should be capitalized upon....
“16. To show him his many golden opportunities for greatness in the
South, which he is not now utilizing and that he, like the white race,
can make great achievements in the South.
“17. To prove to the Negro that it is not morally wrong for his true
white friends in the South to wish him to develop his own ways of life,
with their friendly help and cooperation; and to teach his own children
in his own schools and homes to follow in his own footsteps....
“20. To convince the Negro that it is no disgrace or stigma on his race
to be black instead of white and that it is more natural for him to be
happier in his own traditions and in his own places than it is for him
to be in the traditions and places of the white man....
“28. To convince the Negro that it is not necessary for him to attend
integrated schools in the North or in the South, because his true
advancement will only come from within his own group....
“38. To teach the Negro to be proud of his own racial heritage and
background and to build his future upon the good it has to offer, along
with what he has acquired, here in America.”
The choice in the long future will be as much the Negro’s as the white
man’s. The Negro may, by cleaving to his own kind, and by adapting to
the good rather than to the bad in our white culture, build across the
centuries such a race that the white man in the end will be knocking on
the Negro’s door, rather than vice versa.
* * * * *
_Why speak of a character-intelligence index? Does not character follow
from intelligence?_
Some of the worst criminals in history have been highly intelligent.
Conversely, we can all think of friends who are not very keen
intellectually, but to whose honor and responsibility we would trust
our lives.
Intelligence is almost entirely a matter of heredity. Heredity is also
substantially involved in character--ask any man who knows and loves
animals--but it is more subject to modification by environment than
intelligence.
* * * * *
_How can you say singing and athletics do not involve character and
intelligence?_
I did not say they did not _involve_ character and intelligence. I said
they were not _primarily_ matters of character and intelligence.
Primarily they are physical gifts. While there is no question that
every great champion has to have a lion’s heart, and other stalwart
virtues, these virtues were equally present in cave men. They are
desirable in any civilization, but they are not distinctive attributes
of an advanced civilization. I might even point out that a canary sings
beautifully, and each year a horse wins the Kentucky Derby.
* * * * *
_The NAACP maintains that your comparison of the achievements of
great white men with those of Negroes is pointless. They say the same
comparison could be made between white men and white women, yet no one
claims that women are biologically inferior. They also say that the
early Irish immigrants to this country were more shabby and lived in
poorer shanties than the Negroes. What is your answer?_
As to the achievements of women, not even in _Alice in Wonderland_ do
we find an attempt to equate biological inequivalents. Most women,
through history, have been in the home, bearing and rearing children,
and to see a Negro man hiding behind a white woman’s skirts is just a
little sickening.
Concerning the Irish, when the NAACP can point to a Negro city the
equal of Dublin or Cork or Belfast, it will be time to discuss it.
* * * * *
_Won’t human beings gain by the variety and richness of racial mixing?
In other words, don’t crossings help in breeding?_
It depends on what is crossed. Crossing two superior breeds may or
may not produce an improvement. Such crossing must be carefully
controlled--much more carefully than is possible with human
beings--before we can speak with assurance. But one thing is sure:
crossing a superior with an inferior breed can only pull the superior
down.
+American Democracy+
_Was not American democracy founded on the idea of the equality of all
men?_
As I have pointed out, Jefferson’s phrase, “all men are created equal”,
which he used in the Declaration of Independence, is a corruption of
the original wording as it appeared in the Virginia Declaration of
Rights and as it was afterwards copied in many state constitutions. The
original wording read: “All men are born equally free,” and this was
the true foundation of the American ideal. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg
Address, simply copied Jefferson’s corruption.
It should be noted that Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of
Independence, followed the phrase “all men are created equal” with the
phrase “they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights ... among [which] are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.” Liberty, in other words, was given the same standing in
the Declaration as equality--and a moment’s thought will show that the
only sense in which equality can co-exist with liberty is in the sense
of equality of opportunity. In any other sense, if men are free they
won’t be equal, and where men are equal they are not free. Hamilton put
this point clearly when he said in the Constitutional Convention of
1787: “Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably
results from that very liberty itself.”[10]
I would not deny Jefferson’s antipathy to slavery, nor the fact that in
an early draft of the Declaration he had a reprobation of slavery which
he omitted in the final draft because of the opposition of certain
signers, nor Lincoln’s view that the Declaration was conceived by many
as setting up a “standard maxim ... constantly labored for, and even
though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and thereby
constantly ... augmenting the happiness and value of life to all
peoples of all colors everywhere.” But as to the majority of signers
there can be no doubt of the accuracy of the statement contained in a
speech by Stephen A. Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858:
“Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the signers
of the Declaration had no reference to the Negro whatever, when they
declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that
phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had
no reference either to the Negro, the savage Indians, the Fiji or the
Malay.... One great evidence that such was their understanding, is
to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen
colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration
represented a slaveholding constituency, and we know that no one
of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to
them, when they signed the Declaration; and yet, if they intended to
declare that the Negro was the equal of the white man, and entitled
by divine right to any equality with him, they were bound, as honest
men, that day and hour to have put their Negroes on an equality with
themselves....
“My friends, I am in favor of preserving this government as our fathers
made it. It does not follow by any means that because the Negro is not
your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. On the
contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the Negro every
right, every privilege, every immunity which he is capable of enjoying,
consistent with the good of our society.”
I call your attention particularly to the last paragraph quoted above,
and most especially to the last seven words. On it and them Lincoln and
Douglas would certainly have agreed.
It might be noted in passing that the Declaration of Independence is
not the charter of our government. The Constitution is the charter, and
its preamble states its purpose to be, among other things, to “secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. No mention
is made of equality. Of the constitutions and bills of rights of the
48 states as of 1917 (the last available printing) only two use the
equality clause of the Declaration of Independence and one of these,
North Carolina, had it forced upon her by federal bayonets during
Reconstruction. In fact, if one examines the constitutions of all the
countries of the world, one finds only four which contain the concept
of cultural, economic or social equality. Those four are Guatemala, the
Mongol Peoples Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Modern equalitarians have not been above practicing certain deceptions
in regard to Jefferson’s attitude toward the Negro. On a marble
panel in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington is a fragment of one
of Jefferson’s sentences. As inscribed on the panel the words are:
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people [the Negroes] are to be free.” As written by Jefferson, there
was no period after these words. There was a semi-colon, and the
sentence continued: “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally
free, cannot live under the same government.”
Myrdal uses somewhat the same technique in his _Dilemma_ when he quotes
the first part of Jefferson’s sentence at page 85, and postpones any
reference to the thought in the second half until five pages later,
when he quotes another and weaker sentence from a different volume of
Jefferson’s writings.
Almost all the great statesmen of our nation’s past have foreseen the
danger of the Negro among us and have sought to remove it, even to the
point of transplanting the race to Africa. The idea of making the Negro
the social equal of the white man never entered their heads. Among
those beside Jefferson and Lincoln who favored removal to Africa may
be mentioned Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Andrew Jackson, Daniel
Webster, and Henry Clay. The modern segregationist is in good company.
Nor should one be beguiled by the equalitarian’s claim that this cloud
of witnesses is obsolete. The truths involved here are not the sort
that become obsolete short of many hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
* * * * *
_Does not equality of opportunity for the Negro require desegregation?_
If equal facilities, teachers, and curricula are provided, (and where
this is not being done, it should be done, and the Supreme Court should
have made _this_ the issue) there can be no inequality of opportunity.
I have already answered, in my letter to the Attorney General, the
charge that segregation produces a sense of inferiority, and that a
sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. What
the Negro is really demanding is social equality with a group that
does not desire his company. He is in effect saying that unless he has
social equality he cannot study as well. A white girl might just as
well say that she cannot study unless she is presented at Court.
* * * * *
_How can the Negro earn status if he is not given the opportunity to
earn it?_
This repeats the previous question in a somewhat different form.
Segregation, properly administered, as I have said, does not interfere
with any Negro getting an equal education if he has the ability
and desire. Concerning social status, when, as, and if the average
Negro, whether in his segregated school or elsewhere, has on his own
initiative evolved into the sort of person with whom the average white
man wants to associate, this will soon become apparent to both parties,
and segregation will then cease. Social equality cannot be made a
condition to the earning of social equality.
It should be kept in mind that every man, black or white, must carry
with him to some degree the burden of his background, both as to race
and as to family. Let us consider this first from the standpoint
of family. To achieve absolute equality at the beginning of every
life would require the sacrifice of something even more important,
namely, the family, and the responsibility of parents toward their
children. One inducement to the good life on the part of a parent is
the tradition he passes on. His thrift and self-denial secure his
children’s education, his character sets an example--to deny a man this
influence, for better or for worse, would not only sap the marrow of
our civilization, but deny what a majority of Western Europeans would
consider a fundamental human right.
The corollary, however, is unavoidable. Not all children have an equal
home life in the formative years. The sins and virtues of the father
are visited upon his offspring. Both heredity and early environment are
unequal. Every white man faces this. Few of us are so fortunate as not
to be surpassed in both heredity and environment by someone else, which
gives meaning to the old saying: “Life’s not in holding a good hand,
but in playing a poor one well.”
In similar fashion, in the case of race, the sins and virtues of our
racial forbears are visited upon their descendants. It might be thought
easier, in this instance, to assure each generation a fresh start, but
consideration will show that the heritage of race is in part implicit
in the family environment and in part in heredity. Both the black
and the white child receive a legacy which is a mixture of family and
racial heredity and environment. Society can no more make them equal as
to the racial component than it can make them equal as to the family
component. The problem, according to our Western concept of life, is
private because any other theory entails sacrifices greater than the
gains.
* * * * *
_Isn’t it wrong to injure the self-esteem of any man by reflections on
his racial background?_
No man’s self-esteem need be injured by the truth concerning his racial
background, any more than an acceptance of innate limitations by people
in any sphere need affect their pride. Most of us do not hang our heads
in shame if we cannot invent like Edison or write like Shakespeare. As
I said in the answer to the preceding question, it is what we do with
what we have that counts. We must rouse ourselves to recognize that the
equalitarian has no compunction about using the instinct of pity in us
to destroy us. It is a classic instance of virtue being kidnapped to
serve vice.
* * * * *
_Isn’t it unfair to discriminate legally against the exceptional Negro
on the basis of a racial average?_
We discriminate legally against exceptional minors by not allowing them
to vote, although certain of them may be more intelligent than many
adults. Discriminations of this sort are necessary to the practical
administration of human affairs.
* * * * *
_Is not the indulgence of personal preference in regard to the company
one keeps a right only in private situations? Can one white child avoid
another white child whom he considers inferior by insisting he be put
in another school?_
The question confuses the case of an individual, acting for himself,
with the case of the people of a state as a whole, acting by majority
rule, or by whatever rule the fundamental law of the state provides.
The people thus acting can do anything they please, within certain
constitutional limitations. If the majority in a state decide that
smokers should be segregated from non-smokers in public conveyances
because non-smokers prefer not to associate with smokers in such
places, I do not suppose this would be held unconstitutional, although
failing such a law, an individual, acting alone, would not have the
right to protest. An analogous situation is found in the segregation in
separate hospitals of the victims of contagious diseases.
The test is one of reasonableness. The smoker is not harmed, nor the
victim of the contagious disease, by segregation with those in a like
situation, and if the remainder are benefited, the public welfare is
promoted by the procedure. None of this could be accomplished by a
private individual attempting to exercise a personal right to freedom
of association.
* * * * *
_How can school be considered a “social” situation?_
Particularly in rural areas, schools are a social center, but it is
true enough elsewhere. There is usually a cafeteria where students
lunch together; athletic contests are often held at night and students,
following the team, travel in school busses and fraternize before,
during and after the game. There are dances. The comments of an 18 year
old white girl in an integrated Northern high school published in _U.
S. News and World Report_, may properly be quoted here:
“I remember reading somewhere that a famous sociologist said that about
the last person that the average white kid would be interested in is a
Negro. I have news for him. Integration is a gradual process. At first
it is difficult to see anything but that they are Negroes. Later you
think of them as just people and then as friends. As one girl I know
put it, from there it is just a hop, skip and a jump before you think
of them as more than friends. Almost every white girl I knew had a
secret crush on one of the colored boys. The crushes varied from warm
friendship to wild infatuation.... One of the girls felt guilty about
it but she kept on dating the colored boy.... She once told me that if
people were going to object they shouldn’t expose us to the temptation.
As she put it, we’re not all saints.”
Some integrationists have suggested segregation of the sexes as a
solution to this problem but not only would this force the South to
give up co-education for white children, it would be at least a poor
palliative of the underlying difficulty. As I have said elsewhere,
little brother would still bring his new Negro friend home after
school. One cannot break down the social barriers among either sex
without eventually breaking them down heterosexually.
The technique of gradualism is a notorious one in the progress of
equalitarianism, socialism and communism. Seize a little today and
it will be easier to seize a little more tomorrow. In fact, all evil,
fascist or communist, advances in this manner. One can mention Munich,
as well as Moscow. The reason, I think, is that once a principle falls,
the inner demoralization has set in, and soon everything else goes. As
one respected Southern editor has expressed it in speaking of token
integration: “If integration is wrong, as we believe it is, we do not
concede that a little bit of it is right.” Or, as another well known
Southern author has written: “To suppose that we can promote all other
degrees of race mixing but stop short of inter-racial mating is like
going over Niagara Falls in a barrel in the expectation of stopping
three-fourths of the way down.”
One other point overlooked by those who dismiss as unimportant the
risks of intermarriage in the South is the erosive effect upon
personal standards of the equalitarian ideology. This may be expected
slowly to overcome many barriers that have hitherto existed. A youth
brought up to believe all races potentially equal is first conditioned
to disregard the evidence of his senses and the dictates of sound
judgment, and then to feel the added pressure of pity. Here, he thinks,
is a member of a race which has suffered “cultural deprivation”--not
only will time adjust all differences, but marriage may be a recompense
for injustice. This dual impact, when added to the factors already
mentioned, is well understood by the equalitarian and is counted upon
by him to achieve his purpose.
* * * * *
_Are not the children themselves perfectly willing to integrate?_
A child left to itself is perfectly willing to experiment with
anything, including explosives. That is the reason courts appoint
guardians for children who have lost their parents.
It must always be remembered that the first thing a group or party
that wishes to remake a civilization to suit itself is going to do is
to corrupt the relatively defenseless minds of children. The extent
to which this process has already succeeded in the North with the
generation that has now become adult is alarming enough. Integration is
the next step.
* * * * *
_If the races, left to themselves, tend to intermarry, doesn’t this
mean that it is the natural thing to do?_
Consider a garden that has been carefully cultivated for many years.
What happens if it is left to nature?
+Christian Ethics+
_Does not the Christian religion promise salvation to all men, and are
not all men consequently equal in the sight of God?_
Yes, as to the first part of this question; no, as to the second.
Many people have written me confusing salvation with status. I agree
that the Christian religion offers salvation to all true believers,
but this has nothing to do with status. Status has to be earned, in
religion as elsewhere, by merit. I need only point to Christ’s parable
of the talents, and of the foolish Virgins, or to the Letter of James,
Chapter 2: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith
alone, for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart
from works is dead.” I may also remind you of the words of Peter,
“Make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue
with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control and self-control with
steadfastness and steadfastness with Godliness.”
To assume that a person who wastes his life, albeit confident in
his redemption through faith, stands on an equal footing before God
with a man who strives to progress in character and service, is to
make a mockery of the Christian religion. Similarly, to suppose that
a good, but weak and stupid man--albeit weak and stupid through
environment and heredity rather than through any initial fault of his
own--stands other than potentially on the same rank with the good,
and strong and intelligent, man within the hierarchy of heaven would
be to suppose that God puts no premium on the development of strength
and intelligence as either an earthly or heavenly goal. Nothing does
greater injustice to the character of Christ Himself. Christ was
a Man of infinite compassion, but He was not a Man of maudlin or
undiscriminating sentimentality. Christ’s life, among other things,
might well be called a study in firm discrimination.
* * * * *
_But would Christ have discriminated according to race? Was it not
always with him a matter of individual worth?_
Of course. I have never maintained anything to the contrary. In all
matters involving dealings between individuals, where the question of
intermarrying is not involved, I think individual worth alone should
be the criterion. But there is nothing un-Christian in facing the
fact that, as individuals differ in merit, so averages differ among
races in those attributes involving specific cultures. Judgments as
to the average have to be made accordingly. I must repeat that there
are few perfect systems in this world, we have to deal with practical
realities, and when we are confronted with a situation where a race
must be considered as a race, there is no alternative to building
the system around the average. The minor handicap to the exceptional
individual, if such there be, is negligible compared to the damage that
would otherwise result to society as a whole.
The Christian religion is based upon the concept of growth. We grow
as individuals and as races, and not always in the same direction.
Individuals or races wishing to move into a society alien to their
native culture must have the patience to grow in adaptability and in
capacity to contribute to the new culture, and the growth in the case
of races takes many generations.
Esme Wynne-Tyson, looking at the subject from the standpoint of
England, recently put the matter well in _The Contemporary Review_, one
of Britain’s leading monthly magazines:
“Almost every man is in a different stage of development, and,
even more obviously, are nations and races in different phases of
evolution.... It is not a problem that can be solved by any sentimental
humanism, or religious insistence that all men are the children of
God....
“The natives of the West Indies have a legal right to enter England as
British subjects, but it is not their biological or spiritual home,
and may well prevent their natural evolution which can only take place
gradually in the environment and culture native to them. On the other
hand, the instinctive feeling of many inarticulate but intuitive
British people that a mingling of races, which is, more basically, a
mingling of two incompatible evolutionary streams, is not ‘right,’ is
a sure one. Specifically they complain of the coloured races being
dirty, noisy, or immoral; but these objections are only the outward
and visible signs of a different stage of spiritual development, a
lower culture, and it is this which is sensed and resented by numbers
of British people who have no personal ill-will towards their coloured
neighbours as such....
“What amounts to an enforced intermingling of white with coloured races
in this country at the present time is being resented at a deeper level
than most people imagine. The rising generation of British youth is
already badly handicapped in its evolutionary struggle by the moral
degradation which was involved in, and has resulted from, the last war
combined with the wholly unspiritual atmosphere of thought engendered
by scientific materialism. And their parents, observing this, cannot
submit passively to witnessing their further deterioration through
mixing with people of a still lower ethic and culture. The young people
of Britain are not themselves sufficiently ethical to instruct their
companions how to rise. Evolution is an arduous task. It is far easier
to sink than to rise.
“We have an object lesson of this in modern America which has badly
suffered from close propinquity with its less evolved immigrants. The
‘hot’ music, primitive dances, and other sensual practices of the
coloured races, have permeated with their devolutionary influences,
every corner of a once-Puritan civilization, debasing and obstructing
the process of an originally highly ethical people. Hence the
instinctive fear lying at the back of much of the present colour
prejudice in this country [England].”
It may be too late to return the American Negro to his biological
and spiritual home, but it may not be too late to redeem in America
the heritage of the white race. Unless this is done, it will not be
long before many a white man in the United States will have cause to
paraphrase De la Mare’s lines:
“This is not the place for me;
Never doubt it, I have come
By some dark catastrophe
Far, far from home.”
* * * * *
_What’s the use in trying to convince my mind when my heart tells me
segregation is wrong?_
In the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew’s gospel, you will
find these lines: “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him
a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the great
commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the first and great commandment.”
There seems little doubt that most of our difficulties are due to a
failure to use our minds as well as our hearts, and that more of the
evil in the world is created by fools than by knaves. Well intentioned,
but ignorant or stupid, people are at the bottom of most of the
world’s troubles. The heart, unguided by wisdom, soon leads us into
emotionalism and thence into chaos. I have often recalled Dickens’
reference to the “first mistaken wanderings of an undisciplined
heart” in watching some of the tragedies of youth, and I have seen
much the same process in adults. Unless the heart and the mind work
together, there is no hope for success in the pursuit of happiness by
the individual or society. In a prayer I once heard, the pastor used
a phrase which I recommend to you, “Lord, help our hearts to think
straight.”
* * * * *
_Why do many leaders of the modern church support the integration
movement?_
Because they have accepted uncritically the anthropological doctrines
of the Boas clique. They have forgotten the commandment to worship God
with all their minds as well as with all their hearts.
* * * * *
_Don’t you believe in the brotherhood of man?_
Yes, when this concept is correctly understood. I believe that
just as charity begins at home (although it should not end there),
so brotherhood begins with the family. The communist technique of
undermining the family as a social unit is very much of a part with
their pressures for racial integration. The communists wish to kill
any loyalties other than to “the State”. But the Christian social
structure, like many others, is built upon the unit of the family.
It recognizes the natural impulse of men to group themselves around
their own kind. Birds of a feather flock together. This does not
prohibit cooperation and sympathy beyond the family--in the community,
the state, and throughout the world. However, the process, to be
sound, must source in the primary natural unit of the home, and the
“brotherhood of man” must be understood in this light.
The important thing is to recognize that the grouping instinct is
basic, and that race is one of the wider groups. To preach against its
manifestations is not only a perversion of ideals, but a very effective
way of destroying a civilization.
* * * * *
_Why worry so much about the future? Why not adopt the policy that will
help the Negro most today, if it doesn’t hurt the present generation of
whites?_
Wynne-Tyson has pointed out (page 69) that our contemporary American
civilization is suffering already from the deteriorating effects of too
indiscriminate an acceptance of various features of other cultures.
Deterioration of this sort spreads rapidly. “It is far easier to sink
than to rise.” To expose young white children, in their most formative
years, to the Negro influence would have an immediate adverse effect.
+Sociology And Communism+
_Is not the segregationist’s position dated from the standpoint of
modern sociology?_
Modern sociology is too often found to be the child of modern
equalitarian anthropology. But let me make clear my position on the
broader sociological question, as distinguished from my position on
integration, the latter being only a facet of the former.
I believe the real contest in America today is between equalitarianism
on the one hand, and individual freedom and responsibility on the
other. One of the notions inherent in the first system is the idea
that benefits should flow from the State; in the second, that benefits
should flow from individual effort. Although I doubt if they realize
it themselves, modern writers on social questions are betrayed by
the fact that their works almost never contain the words “earn” or
“deserve.” It never seems to occur to them that one man might be
rich because he deserved to be, while another might be poor for the
same reason--indeed, that in America this is far more often the case
than otherwise, and that one does not cure improvidence and bad
self-management by rewarding it at the expense of thrift and foresight.
The trend is particularly damaging in the training of the young. Let us
not forget that civilized living, thoughtfulness of others, honesty,
thrift, sexual loyalty, have to be taught, even though the capacity to
absorb the teaching varies. And let us not forget that you cannot teach
the value of something unless you devalue its opposite, that you cannot
create superior ideals and superior people by pretending that inferior
ideals and inferior people--black or white--are just as good.
While I think that our society has been correct in putting a floor
under failure, in relieving undeserved misery, and in curbing business
buccaneering, I believe it has been wrong in allowing the whole
emphasis to be shifted from self-dependence to State dependence. The
application of my point to the integration controversy can be expressed
in the words of one of my correspondents:
“In the last ten years, or ever since the decision was made by the
leftwingers to enlist the Negro in their crusade for universal erosion,
the leadership of the Negro race has almost abandoned efforts at
self-improvement by the Negro. In my lifetime the patient pioneering
of Southern leaders, both white and Negro, had, I believe, led to some
improvement, both in race relations and in the status of the Negro in
the American communities.
“Now virtually all the emphasis is being placed upon the theory that
the big obstacle to a millennium for the Negro race is the oppressive
social system under which he lives. Even a far more sophisticated
and superior race of people would be corrupted by such a narcotic as
this. In the case of the Negro, with his uncritical mind and lack of
experience, the result has been nothing less than a catastrophe.”
* * * * *
_Are not adverse circumstances the cause of most failures, and is
not most of the evil in the world the fault of defective human
institutions?_
Here is another equalitarian tenet that has spread through our society
like a cancer. Myrdal begins one of his chapters with this sentence:
“The liberal is inclined to believe that it is the occasion that makes
the thief, while the conservative is likely to hold that the thief
is likely to create the occasion.” It would be hard to find a more
obvious effort to win sympathy for the equalitarian viewpoint through a
fallacious generality.
The accurate way of stating the case is: “The equalitarian believes
that the occasion makes the thief; the genuine American liberal holds
that occasions may indeed be bad enough to make a thief of any man,
and that society should strive to alleviate such conditions and succor
their victims, but that on the average, in the long run, a man is
himself responsible for his circumstances.” The only qualifications
I would place on this re-statement are contained in my answer to the
question beginning on page 63.
Just as no victory can compare with the victory of a man over himself,
so no defeat can be greater than that which comes to the individual and
to society when men are taught to blame their failings on anything and
anybody but themselves. Evil as other conditions may be, this is the
greatest of all evils, because it destroys the core of human character.
* * * * *
_Is it true that integration is part of the communist conspiracy in
America?_
The communists have made the integration movement a part of their
conspiracy, although of course communism is not the only force
back of integration. Communism is one phase of a disease, of which
equalitarianism and socialism are milder phases, all of which stem from
the general leftist overdrift.
However, I believe the equalitarian ideology, which presumes to justify
integration, is playing into communist hands, not only by setting
section against section in America, but by spreading the equalitarian
virus, and thus weakening the body politic to a point where more
dangerous phases of the disease are contracted. Khrushchev tells every
American he meets that the latter’s grandchildren will be living under
socialism. Khrushchev cares little by what name his rose is called, but
we are beginning to feel its thorns.
Obviously, “the State” is a purely theoretical concept which exists
only in the mind. The sole flesh-and-blood, material reality is the
individual. “The State” is no more than a name which individuals give
to a method they use for working together to achieve certain objects
these individuals desire. Therefore, when any individual or group of
individuals talks of dependence on the State, they are talking of some
individuals depending on other individuals, a procedure which in the
end either makes the individuals who are depended on rebel, or makes
them use the dependence to exploit the parasites by way of compensation.
Communism, of course, carries this exploitation to the limit. In the
process, and to confuse the minds of the exploited, it seeks to warp
the flesh-and-blood reality of the individual into its exact opposite.
In a tract used in a communist school for subversives in Milwaukee I
find the following paragraph:
“Man is already a colonial aggregation of cells, and to consider him an
individual would be an error. Colonies of cells have gathered together
as one organ or another of the body, and then these organs have,
themselves, gathered together to form the whole. Thus we see that man,
himself, is already a political organism, even if we do not consider a
mass of men.”
It seems strange that anyone could be blind enough not to realize at
once that the only _entity of consciousness_ in the situation is the
person--that neither the cell nor the State can ever qualify in this
respect--but these are the sort of stupidities one must expect as the
disease of equalitarianism progresses.
The sad thing is that the Santa Claus aspect of equalitarianism--the
idea that “the State” is a mystic something that can be leaned on--is
very beguiling to ignorant and backward peoples. The easy handout,
the Santa Claus image, does indeed become a narcotic. It not only
drugs groups of individuals within the nation, but it operates between
nations. Probably there has never been as soft a touch internationally
as Uncle Sam today in the minds of backward peoples. I do not say
that the image is correct, but I say that it is there, and that if we
encourage it, it can become real and thus destroy us. For we are not
ruthless enough to exploit, and it may be too late to rebel.
* * * * *
_Does not the support of integration by our wealthy foundations suggest
that they have been taken over by communism?_
Certainly not consciously. But I think there is a tendency upon the
part of men managing large sums of private capital to defend themselves
against attacks as capitalists by over-proving themselves in the
opposite direction. The same has been true, and still is true, of
wealthy men in politics. This again plays into communist hands.
One episode which I must say startles me is the Carnegie Foundation
subsidy of Myrdal’s _American Dilemma_. There is much interesting
material in this book, but the approach is wholly equalitarian. I could
not help thinking of the Carnegie Foundation when I read the following
passage from a speech of welcome which Beria made to American student
subversives at a class on Psychopolitics at Lenin University:
“To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our
first most important step.... You must work until every teacher of
psychology unknowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise
of ‘psychology’. You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is
either a psycho-politician or an un-witting assistant to our aims....
Use the courts, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical
societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor
in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover
that you can now effect your own legislation at will and you can, by
careful organization of healing societies, by constant campaign about
the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness, make
your Capitalist himself finance a large portion of the quiet Communist
conquest of the nation.”
* * * * *
_Does not our democracy need to practice equalitarianism at home in
order to fight communism abroad?_
You do not fight a disease by contracting it. Or, to put the matter
another way, if a gangster offers your child opium to get him to
join his side, you do not also offer him opium to keep him on yours.
Moreover, competent observers, both in our foreign service and in
business, who have returned from backward countries, have repeatedly
told me that one reason Americans are so often held in secret, if not
open, contempt in those countries is that Americans are willing to give
with no conditions, are timid about exacting anything in return, and
make no demand that the help granted be as far as possible earned and
deserved. Raise a child in that way and you have a delinquent. There
is no more fundamental truth in life than that status to be worth
anything has to be earned, whether by races or by individuals. There
is something in the most primitive man that recognizes this truth, and
respects and tries to emulate the person or race that asserts it.
Consider in this connection the following remarks by Albert Schweitzer,
probably the world’s greatest practicing humanitarian and a specialist
on the African Negro. No equalitarian can be compared with Schweitzer
when it comes to giving his life to help the black man. The quotation
is from Schweitzer’s book _On the Edge of the Primeval Forest_:
“The Negro is a child, and with children nothing can be done without
the use of authority. We must, therefore, so arrange the circumstances
of daily life that my natural authority can find expression. With
regard to the Negroes, then, I have coined the formula: ‘I am your
brother, it is true, but your elder brother’.
“The combination of friendliness with authority is the great secret
of successful intercourse. One of our missionaries, Mr. Robert, left
the staff some years ago to live among the Negroes as their brother
absolutely. He built himself a small house near a village between
Lambaréné and N’Gomo, and wished to be recognized as a member of the
village. From that day his life became a misery. With his abandonment
of the social interval between white and black he lost all his
influence.”
The white man who preaches to backward races a doctrine of equality not
only demeans himself and his own race, but forfeits his opportunity to
be of real service. What is called the “liberal ferment” among backward
peoples who are shouting democracy from Latin America to Africa is
too often not at all a struggle for freedom under law on the part of
peoples capable of self-government, as was the case in the American
Revolution, but rather a demand for license under lawlessness on the
part of peoples totally incapable of self-government. As the aforesaid
foreign observers have so often reported, and as any traveler can
confirm for himself, these peoples do not really desire or understand
freedom and its responsibilities; they wish equality and the capture
for themselves of the fruits of the intelligence and enterprise
of others. They wish white men to continue pumping in capital and
management while they take over the product. For evil or stupid whites
to encourage ferment of this sort is folly and retrogression for
all concerned. Before we press too hard for the handing over of all
colonial empires to the natives, we had better ask ourselves whether
we are ready to give the United States back to the Indians and whether
humanity as a whole would be better off if we did.
There is a noticeable similarity between many of the hat-in-hand
arguments of the racial and backward-country pressure groups and the
typical panhandler on the street. There is always the hard-luck story,
and on investigation there is usually found to be the same reason
back of the hard luck. If you keep on giving the dimes or the dollars
without insisting on the panhandler at the same time doing something
for and about himself, there is no progress, and eventually you, also,
are penniless.
Let us consider another aspect of the matter. In many instances, when
the white colonial powers moved into the more backward areas, they put
a stop to all sorts of horror and cruelty. Liberals and churchmen cried
out to have this done, just as they now cry out to turn the natives
back to the freedom that originally produced the horror. Writing in
1893 of conditions in Kenya, where Tom Mboya now vies for power with
Jomo Kenyatta, the “bloody spear” of the Mau Mau, Lord Lugard said:
“... Such is African life, for the African knows no peace.
“One day you may see peace and plenty, well-tilled fields and children
playing in the sun; on the next you may find the corpses of the men,
the bodies of the children half-burnt in the flames which consumed the
village, while the women are the captives of the victorious raiders.
Not against the slave trade alone are our efforts needed. The Pax
Britannica which shall stop this lawless raiding and this constant
intertribal warfare will be the greatest blessing Africa has known
through the ages since the Flood.”
We have no assurance whatever that granting “freedom” in these areas
will not simply restore the old miseries and barbarity whose very
existence Christian nations found unbearable. Are such nations going
to stand aside while practices such as those mentioned on page 44 are
resumed?
It does not solve the problem to talk about “winds of change” sweeping
continents, or to take the attitude that we are forced by inevitable
trends to adopt equalitarian policies. This is the very notion by which
the equalitarian hypnotizes us. Let us realize the truth: It is the
false ideology which has produced the change, not the change which
requires the false ideology.
* * * * *
_American economic aid saved Europe. Might not a similar plan help the
backward peoples of the world?_
Here we face another danger of our uncritical acceptance of the
doctrine of equal racial capacities.
The peoples of Europe long ago proved their capacity for industrial
civilization and, in many cases, for freedom. To put them back on their
feet was one thing. To put races on their feet who have never been
there, either industrially or as free societies, is a different matter.
It may be possible to do this over a long period of time and with firm
discipline, but we had better be sure we do not destroy ourselves in
the process. Just as everybody is against sin, so everyone is against
poverty and human misery. The question which the man who earns the
money, as distinguished from the spender, has to ask is, how much more
can I stand? Every practical philanthropist knows that it does the
community no good to save your neighbor if you then take his place in
destitution.
It is also well known that once you whet the appetite of certain
groups for spending the money of other groups--and this applies to the
international as well as the national community--it becomes almost
insatiable. It demands more and more, and will not tolerate weaning. As
a noted Democrat expressed it in the days before the New Deal: “Once
the doors of a government treasury are thrown open, they are seldom
closed except with gunpowder.”
Another side of the subject which has been completely misrepresented
by the equalitarians is the idea that free societies, which they love
to call “democracies” because the word has a certain connotation of
equality which “freedom” and “republic” do not have, can be established
and maintained by a snap of the fingers. This offers, from their point
of view, the additional advantage of devaluing the achievement of those
peoples who through long centuries of travail finally produced the
great free societies of the Western world.
As I have already indicated, a stable, free civilization is first a
matter of individual character in a population. Individual frugality
leads to balanced public budgets, individual self-control leads to
public law and order and to that absence of emotionalism so necessary
to the rule of reason in parliamentary assemblies and in jury trials,
individual self-reliance lightens the weight of taxation, and
individual forethought leaves no man with the feeling that from the
harvest of his effort he is paying for the shiftlessness of someone
else. These are the qualities on which a free society rests. How many
of them exist among backward peoples, especially among those with
heavy admixtures of Negro genes?
In a recent speech at the University of Virginia, Adlai Stevenson
remarked that the American Revolution “belonged to the world.” I
would like to ask Mr. Stevenson by what process of reasoning he
compares the capacity for self-government of the American colonists
of 1776--inheritors as Englishmen of half a millennium of experience
since Magna Carta both in earning and in managing an increasingly free
society--with the capacity of the backward peoples of the world today.
Stevenson’s remark strikes me as a new low in international
demagoguery, but at the same time it is typical of the glib,
high-sounding nonsense of many of our equalitarian “leaders.” It is
quite as feasible to give the American tennis championship to Eleanor
Roosevelt as to give the American Revolution to the backward peoples of
the world.
I do not wish to suggest that Americans should turn a deaf ear to
the aspirations of any people who may be helped to help themselves.
That kind of leadership is both our privilege and our duty as a
Christian nation. My criticism is of the absurd time schedule, and
other methods of procedure proposed by the equalitarians. Consider the
Philippines. Here the United States was dealing with a race far higher
in adaptability to Western civilization than the Negro, yet it took
forty years of careful preparation before the Philippines were thought
ready for independence. They still have numerous growing pains. By what
possible process of rationalization can we assume the African Negro,
among the lowest on the scale of races, can be granted freedom on the
spur of a moment? The problem is one not of years or decades but of
centuries before any self-sustaining democracies worthy of the name can
be developed.
Finally I would point out the folly of granting “independence” to areas
where the native populations are totally incapable of maintaining even
a modicum of law and order, or of protecting investments or human
life. Such a policy creates a power vacuum into which the Russians
move at once. The end result can only be an exchange of masters, a
jumping from the frying pan into the fire, plus a loss to the free
world of the chance to develop the areas in question either politically
or economically. The best hope now would seem to lie in the United
Nations, if such a body proves equal to the arduous police and other
responsibilities required. We cannot talk in one breath, as even
Eisenhower is wont to do, of giving a “nation” of savages complete
internal “freedom” and then talk, in the next breath, of supplying
that “nation” with investments and civilized aid. Investments, and the
civilized people administering them, need protection. They cannot be
poured into a bottomless pit of chaos.
However, the point to note is the blindness of not realizing in the
first place that this protection would be necessary, a blindness
characteristic of the victims of equalitarian propaganda. Note also
the tragedy and danger in arousing among the natives expectations that
cannot be fulfilled.
* * * * *
_Are not the new African nations justified in hating colonialism?_
The colonial powers have differed in their attitudes towards the
natives, some having been more progressive than others, but none has
failed to improve the condition of these natives by comparison with
their condition in the savage state.
It is certainly unreasonable to expect the attitude of a colonial power
to be based solely on philanthropy. Fairness requires some compensation
for effort and capital invested. Only missionaries can be expected to
be entirely free of self-interest, and missionaries were as ruthlessly
raped and murdered in the Congo as other whites.
As elsewhere, so here, the equalitarian tries to teach us to give
something for nothing, and to do so at an ever-accelerating rate. The
Black, moreover, is canny, and will play white men against each other
on the international stage just as he is playing them against each
other in our domestic politics. Let us not suppose for a moment that
the average African Negro is about to understand our ideals, or to
fight or sacrifice or die for the principle of liberty. All he wants,
as I have said, is a greater and greater share of what white men have
created, regardless of his ability either to protect, manage or pay for
it. And if allowed to do so, he will side with whoever seems likely to
give him the most, not of freedom, whose responsibilities he cannot
assume, but of material gifts.[11]
I am led to stress again here the debasing business practiced by our
political leaders when they talk of bribing Africans at the expense of
white children in the South. “We must integrate,” they say, “to win the
favor of these Africans and prove to them we believe in the democratic
ideals we profess.” I have already considered the absurdity of this
position as far as it concerns American democracy. The more disgusting
aspect of the matter is the currying of favor, the fawning, and finally
the human sacrifice offered them on the altar of this absurdity. Let
me repeat what I said on page 75: You do not lift the inferior up by
pulling the superior down. You do not elevate savages by lowering your
own standards--they gain nothing but glut, and you lose the last shred
both of their respect and of your own self-respect. The performance of
our “leaders” on this score is perhaps the most revolting in the entire
integration controversy.
* * * * *
_Since the world is two-thirds colored, and the white race is thus
badly outnumbered, are not whites foolish to antagonize the rest of
humanity by claiming superiority?_
The world is not two-thirds Negro. We are not concerned here in any way
whatever with the yellow race, for example, which has proved itself
capable of the most advanced forms of self-sustained culture.
But even if the world were nine-tenths Negro, I would still point out
to you that leadership is always confined to a numerical minority. If
this leadership renounces its confidence in itself, and its authority,
because it is outnumbered, whence shall progress come?
* * * * *
_Is not white arrogance the cause of most of the resentment among
backward peoples?_
It depends on what is meant by “arrogance”. If by it is implied a
domineering, hostile attitude, I would say this might well cause
resentment anywhere. But if you mean a maintaining of Schweitzer’s
“social interval”--the “I am your brother, it is true, but your elder
brother” attitude--then I would say the resentment is unjustified.
Perhaps I should add that I have noticed a tendency for indignation
long frustrated to become arrogance of the former sort in all but the
most charitable natures.
* * * * *
_Isn’t your philosophy authoritarian?_
As I understand it, the word authoritarian applies to one who favors
the substitution of authority for individual liberty as a political
ideal among peoples capable of self-government. Nothing I have said
suggests such an inclination on my part. But I cannot protest too
strongly against the tendency of the equalitarian virus to undermine
all authority in our society from the home through the school on into
our attitude toward international affairs. I suppose it follows from
an ideology which assumes the equality of all men that no man is worth
listening to more than another, no idea is more valuable than another,
no child wiser than its parents, no code higher or more authoritative
than another.
But it happens that in the course of human history much has occurred
and much has been learned which constitutes a fund of experience we
disregard at our peril. All of us are _not_ as wise as our ancestors.
We can become wiser only by listening to their experience before going
on to add our own, just as a child must first listen to his parents
before he can safely lead a life of his own.
What is more serious, the destruction by the equalitarian virus of
this proper and necessary kind of authority also destroys proper and
necessary discipline. Lack of it in the home is, in my opinion, far
more often the cause of juvenile delinquency among both rich and poor
than the so-called exclusion from family or community groups which
today obsesses psychiatrists and sociologists. Perhaps an ideology
which offers ice cream to soothe mutinous convicts, and which condones
murder and robbery among backward peoples under the guise of “freedom”,
should not be expected to create respect for duly constituted
authority in the home. Yet all children, and especially delinquents,
need to be taught respect for and obedience to parental authority if we
are ever to have law and order in the adult world.
Interestingly enough, the delinquent who is capable of being saved
wants the voice of authority to rebuke and guide him more than he wants
pity and tears. Parents are usually to blame both in failing to set an
example that can be respected and in failing to speak with the tone of
command. Men or nations that have been told often enough that in spite
of all their training, experience and wisdom they are no better than
the untrained, inexperienced and ignorant child or race will come in
time to believe it, and consequently to lose the force and assurance
which generates obedience.
Finally, by a series of insidious steps the equalitarian virus produces
that most disastrous of all diseases, the complete appeasement of evil.
At some point, all ability to discriminate is lost, all resistance to
wrong ceases, all indignation dies, all evil is met with sobbing pleas
which evil most naturally greets with contemptuous laughter, and the
red death of a Godless communism settles on the earth.
Let those of us who are Christians remember that while Jesus could
weep, he also could take a lash to the desecrators of the temple.
* * * * *
_Aren’t you an extreme rightist?_
Not in the sense that you are probably using the word. We are too apt
to catalogue people into right or left instead of into right or wrong.
As I have already said, I am fully aware of the dangers of unregulated
freedom to harm others. When freedom becomes license it has to be
curbed. Freedom to murder cannot be tolerated at the individual level,
and there are analogous freedoms which have to be curbed on the social
level.
Usually the term “rightist” is used by leftists to suggest a man
who favors unlimited license to plunder others on the social level,
through business monopolies, sweat shops, colonial exploitation, union
busting and the like. But the true conservative realizes that every
healthy society has to regulate its freedom. The point is that such
regulation does not justify leaping into equalitarianism. All health
is a matter of balance, just as the smooth running of an automobile is
a matter of the proper mixture. My position is that both domestically
and internationally our social carburetor has been put dangerously
out of adjustment to the left. The engine is beginning to miss. Unless
the mixture is corrected, the engine will stop as surely as if the
adjustment were too far to the right.
* * * * *
_You must be a very old man living in the past. Have you no liberal
views?_
Your question reminds me of the story of the envoy from the French
Government to the court of Queen Victoria who found that the Queen was
annoyed because in his youth he had fought on the barricades in the
revolution of 1830. When she taxed him with this, he replied: “Your
Majesty, not to be a socialist at twenty denotes a want of heart; to be
a socialist at forty denotes a want of head.”
I will admit that I am over forty, but perhaps I should add that I am
still on the sunny side of sixty. I have many liberal views. Let me
refer you to what I said in my answers on pages 72 and 83.
* * * * *
_Why do the leaders of both our major political parties close their
eyes to the Southern viewpoint?_
Partly through ignorance of its scientific validity. But this ignorance
they are inclined to cherish, and to avoid correcting, because of
the balance of power held by Negro voters in certain key states.
The situation has been well presented by James Reston of the New
York _Times_ who points out that in 1948 President Truman carried
Illinois by 33,612 votes with the Negro vote for him in Chicago alone
being about 90,000. In the same election, the Democratic majority in
California was 17,865 and in Ohio 7,107. In both of these states, as
in Illinois, the Negroes gave the Democratic party far more than the
number of votes needed to win.
The tragedy is that the great majority of Americans are dividing their
votes on _other issues_ in such a way as to give _this issue_ into the
hands of the minority. The Republican party pays lip service to Lincoln
yet continues to advocate policies to which Lincoln was, and would be
today, violently opposed. The Democratic party glorifies Jefferson yet
would force on the South conditions which would make Jefferson turn in
his grave. Could the race question be isolated so that it could first
be thoroughly debated and then voted on by itself alone, the minority
would be swamped.
* * * * *
_Is not the South backward in every respect and is not its attitude
toward the Negro typical?_
The agricultural economy of the South was ruthlessly destroyed by the
Civil War and Reconstruction. There was no Marshall Plan to help the
South, and many years have been required to rise from the poverty that
ensued and to begin the industrialization that is now well under way.
The North did its best to break the South materially and spiritually
a hundred years ago, and it ill behooves Northerners to criticize the
results now.
Least of all can the North afford to condemn the South for backwardness
in matters involving its cultural heritage, since in this respect the
South has done far better than the North. I draw your attention to the
fact that what I have called the “new immigration” has concentrated
very largely in the urban northeast and north-central sections of the
United States, has bred prolifically there, not only in children but
in ideas, has come to wield a heavy influence in the educational and
entertainment fields and in other areas of mass communications, and
finally that this “new immigration” was not initially schooled in the
Protestant Ethic[12] upon which our nation was founded. Nor has it
shown any great inclination to become so.[13]
In the South, on the other hand, we have a purer concentration of those
stocks which were schooled in the Protestant Ethic than anywhere in
the urban North. I recognize that the West has produced its native
left-wing movements out of stocks largely Protestant in culture, and
that England itself has gone further in its socialistic experiments
than we have, but in those phases of cultural deterioration which
involve an attack upon the Protestant Ethic in its moral aspects our
urban North easily leads.
* * * * *
_Does not each new generation always disagree with the older generation
and is this not a part of progress?_
Sometimes the disagreement means progress, sometimes not. A friend of
mine in New England recently remarked that she found practically no one
under fifty willing even to listen to any point of view other than the
equalitarian, whether in matters of race or in other fields. She spoke
of it as a closed-mindedness she found hard to understand, and she was
aghast at being called intolerant when the intolerance was so obviously
on the other side.
I told her I thought the trouble originated in something more profound,
that it ended in closed-mindedness but that it started with the
hypnosis I mention in my answer beginning on page 50. Her choice of the
age of fifty is interesting. If the average person who goes to college
finishes at twenty-two, the people who are fifty today were graduating
in 1932 at the depth of the depression. Everyone younger received
his education under the New Deal when the equalitarian hypnosis was
deepening steadily. These figures approximately coincide with the
anthropological trance of 25 years ago mentioned by the scientist I
quote on page 50.
The young minds formed in the North[14] in the mid-thirties and later
are indeed closed, and the trance closing them is one of the most
serious problems in the free world. The unreality, the fraudulent
assumptions, dinned into them in those days now simply re-echo to
us from what seem to be adult minds. This situation has produced a
condition quite different from the normal disagreement between younger
and older generations.
Normal progress would have involved a continuation of the social
justice programs begun under the first Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
For example, the _earn-deserve_ concept so vital to a healthy society
would have been retained along with the objective of helping others
to help themselves. This concept and this objective would have been
carried forward into areas where social injustice still existed.
It has never been my contention that we should go back to a
_laissez-faire_ society. I hold no brief for twelve-hour days or child
labor. I am perfectly aware that the end of free land, the increase in
our population and the advance in industry and science made obsolete
many doctrines of the McKinley era. Where I call a halt is the point at
which the Marxist jumps on the liberal bandwagon, grabs the reins and
drives it down the blind alley of equalitarianism.
Helping people to help themselves, spending money in the public domain
for the benefit of all the people, and taxing ourselves for that
purpose is one thing. Preaching a thinly veiled Robin Hood philosophy
of government, buying the votes of the more numerous with promises to
rob the less numerous, taxing the provident to sustain the improvident,
and above all forcing cultural deterioration upon fifty million people
in the South on false doctrines of racial equality is something else.
It seems to me that the distinction I draw here is the decisive one
between the true liberal and the equalitarian. The liberal desires
to improve the condition of mankind by creating an inspirational
climate. He knows that life’s challenges make its inequalities, and
vice versa. He knows that you cannot have excellence unless someone
excels. He knows that human souls, like human muscles, grow through
effort--spiritual, moral and intellectual effort. The equalitarian
knows these things, too, but he wants neither challenges nor
excellence. He envies the excellence he either cannot achieve, or will
not pay the price of achieving. And so he does what he can to destroy
inducements to excellence. He fans the envy of others. He persuades
them that excellence is injustice to themselves. He works to create a
spiritual, moral and intellectual climate favorable to mediocrity. He
levels down, and he uses the instinct of pity in good-natured people as
part of his technique.
It is, perhaps, in the area of race that the equalitarian most openly
betrays himself. Even those in the deepest trance are dimly aware of
the falseness of their position, its obvious evils at home and abroad,
yet the total hypnosis is so strong that they can only blunder on,
rationalizing and evading the endless contradictions in which they find
themselves. Over and over they call themselves “liberals” and their
cause the cause of “human rights” forgetting that instead of granting
human rights to Negroes they are stealing them from whites and are
accessories before the fact in the rape of a civilization.
* * * * *
_Is not the NAACP doing a great work for the Negro?_
An Association for the Advancement of Colored People _could_ do a great
work for the Negro. But I believe that the emphasis of the present
Association is wrong for the reasons given in the quotation on page
72. Undoubtedly, education in many Negro schools can be improved.
Undoubtedly, economic opportunities for Negroes can be increased and
cultural opportunities for them expanded. Most of all, solutions
to their crime rate, irresponsibility, moral delinquency and other
limitations can be sought. These are the areas in which the Negro can
be helped. In the long run, it does him only harm to encourage him
to blame others for his own shortcomings. It is particularly harmful
to encourage ingratitude, insolence and aggressive imposition on the
whites of the South.
Under equalitarian influence, with a strong assist from communism, it
has become the fashion in the North to regard the Southern Negro as the
victim of oppression, while the truth is that the Negro in the South is
on the whole the product of a friendliness and helpfulness unequalled
in any comparable instance in all history. As one writer has put it
“Nowhere else in the world, at any time of which there is record, has a
helpless, backward people of another color been so swiftly uplifted and
so greatly benefited by a dominant race.”
The North has no conception of the accomplishment, for it is only where
the race is present in large numbers (in the South it makes up over a
third of the population) that the problem and the burden really exist.
The worst conditions of slavery in the South never approached the
horrors from which the American Negro was delivered when he was removed
from the slavery of his own race in Africa to slavery under the white
man. Wholesale crucifixions to appease the Negro’s gods was one of them.
What happens to the Negro even after he has had the advantage of
long contact with white men and is then thrown on his own resources
is well illustrated by Liberia. Until the League of Nations stopped
it, the upper classes there, who had come from America to implant
American ideals, enslaved the lower classes. A glance at Haiti is also
instructive. Although bolstered constantly by help from the United
States, Haitian civilization is little above that of Africa. Illiteracy
and poverty among the masses are almost universal. The remains of
the earlier French civilization have fallen into ruin. Except where
restored by American business enterprise, the bridges and roads are
nearly impassable. The religion is Voodoo. Such is the best example
available on earth of what a black civilization, led by mulattoes, can
accomplish when left to itself.
In the southern United States by way of contrast the Negro lives in
greater luxury than many whites in foreign countries. He often drives
expensive, white-built motor cars and occupies well-constructed,
white-financed houses. In fact, in South Carolina alone more Negroes
own automobiles than all the people of Russia, outside of Soviet
officials. The Southern Negro has the advantages of white medicine and
white-equipped hospitals. If I may cite a further example, we have the
case presented by Davis Lee, publisher of a group of Negro newspapers,
who writes in the Anderson, South Carolina, Herald:
“Ted Lewis is one of Atlanta’s leading Negro businessmen. Some time
ago he was having financial difficulty. He went to some of the city’s
leading Negro businessmen, including the bankers, and tried to borrow
$2,500.
“They turned him down flat. He went to the small loan department of
the C. & S. Bank. One of the officials went over his plans with him,
and then recommended that he borrow $5,000 instead of $2,500. The bank
let him have the money without questions. As a result he is a success
today, a credit to Georgia and his race.”
It is always easy to treat the Negro as an interesting curiosity when
there are only a few of him, as is the case in many parts of our North
and in many northern European countries. The white man can carry the
Negro on his back culturally with little difficulty up to a point. Then
he begins to stagger under the load. The South has carried a heavier
load better, and farther, than it has ever been carried before. And
it has done it through segregation. In fact I know of no case anywhere
in the world in which whites have lived with large numbers of blacks
without segregation and avoided genocide.
The objectives of the present Negro leadership are, of course, in
direct opposition to those of the greatest Negro leader of all time,
Booker T. Washington. Although Washington was himself half white, he
saw the Negro problem clearly. His position can be stated in his own
words: “In all things purely social we can be separate as the fingers,
yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.”
* * * * *
_A Negro member of the NAACP has written me that the Negro owes nothing
to the white man except his troubles. Do you dispute this?_
If the Negro likes what our white civilization has to offer, then
he should remember that he owes _that_ to the white man. Let your
correspondent compare his own life in the United States with the life
of his African cousins on the Guinea Coast, or in Liberia or Haiti.
I should think that if he really feels the way he says he does, he
would have enough self-respect to move back to the Guinea Coast, or to
Liberia or Haiti, where he can enjoy the native culture of his own race
instead of remaining in America and biting the hand that feeds him.
* * * * *
_Is not the best way to elevate the Negro to give him a chance to
associate socially with white people?_
Although such a procedure is basic to the equalitarian philosophy,
the best way to lift the inferior up does not lie in pulling the
superior down. The white race has had a hard enough time achieving
and maintaining its own culture without carrying the sort of burden
involved here.[15]
But there is another, more important point. In forcing integration
upon the schools of the South, the equalitarians have chosen the most
defenseless elements of the community--the children and their underpaid
teachers--to carry a burden even the strongest should not attempt to
bear.
Under the circumstances it is not hard to understand the anger of
Southerners, and why it sometimes becomes passion. One of the most
unbelievable statements I have read in the American press can be found
in the Washington _Post_ for June 12, 1959. In commenting upon the
withholding of a report on illegitimacy in the District of Columbia,
sponsored by the Commissioners Youth Council, the author of the report,
one Stanley Bigman, says: “Illegitimacy among Negroes is often a
hangover from the life and customs of the slave plantation. Segregation
has kept these customs alive ... there is not much hope of reducing
illegitimacy until segregation ends.” I would invite Mr. Bigman to
examine the Negro’s standards of morality in Africa before he was
brought to America as a slave, and in Africa or Haiti today where he
is on his own, and I would ask Mr. Bigman by what process of reasoning
he chooses young white children to be the preceptors of a race but
yesterday removed from savagery.
One cannot help wondering how much longer such perversions of all
reason and common sense, all principle and morality, as those of Mr.
Bigman, are going to be tolerated by the American people.
* * * * *
_Are not most Southerners prejudiced?_
They are far less prejudiced than Northerners, if we use the word in
its true meaning. Prejudice is simply the product of prejudging--that
is, of judging before getting the evidence. The South has far more
evidence, far more experience, concerning the Negro than the North. And
hence it is the North that is pre-judging when it tells the South what
it ought to do about the Negro problem.
* * * * *
_It makes my blood boil every time I see a Southerner bully, humiliate
or exploit a Negro. How can anyone take sides with such people?_
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that it is wrong to bully,
humiliate or exploit a Negro, does not make it right to integrate him.
If the North and the court were to spend their time fighting bullies
and exploiters, they would accomplish more than by forcing integration.
I will repeat here what I said in my answer to the first question. My
own blood boils at seeing discourtesy to any racial minority. I despise
the man who wilfully and without provocation hurts the feelings of
others. However, I have witnessed more of this sort of thing toward
the Negro in the North than in the South. The South has no monopoly on
bullies or unkindness.
* * * * *
_I am a Northerner and I sit on hospital and other community boards
with Negro doctors and other estimable Negroes. Such people do not seem
inferior to me._
Let me point out that not only are these Negroes in no sense typical
of their race, whose genes they nevertheless carry and will pass on
to their children, but that most of them owe their ability to some
percentage of white genes in their system.
It is another characteristic equalitarian deception to introduce the
mixed-blood as the true Negro. Plays, moving pictures and TV shows
preaching racial equality are built around actors like Harry Belafonte
who had two white grandparents and is consequently half white himself.
The equalitarian press is constantly putting forward Ralph Bunche
whose deal in genes has been such that he looks like a white man with
a light tan. William Faulkner speaks in magazine articles of the
achievements of Booker T. Washington whose father was white. George
Washington Carver is held up as the ideal Negro scientist but his white
genes showed in his blue eyes. Seldom is the true Negro type picked to
represent the race in equalitarian propaganda. The North is being spoon
fed on a concept of the Negro which is sheer fantasy. Color of skin,
of course, is no sure criterion of the degree of white blood. A man
may be as black as the ace of spades and still be a mixed-blood with
pronounced Caucasoid facial features, relatively high intelligence, and
other white attributes.[16]
It must indeed be conceded that the problem of the mixed-blood well
over on the white side of the spectrum is one of the most serious in
the country today. These creatures who, through no fault of their
own, often carry in their veins the sinful blood of white men, as one
Southerner has put it, are the chief agitators for Negro equality, and
who can blame them? May God in his mercy help them to find private
solutions to their problems, but let us not mold public policy upon a
line which would increase their numbers.
* * * * *
_I have dealt recently with representatives of the new African states
and found them very sharp. How can these men be considered inferior?_
A pure-blooded Negro may surpass a white man in a given situation for
one of two reasons. He may belong in what the intelligence testers
call the “overlap”--that is, he may be one of the few Negroes who
exceed the performance of the average white, although there will be
many more whites who exceed this average than there are Negroes. Or he
may surpass the white man because the specific intelligence required
does not involve the higher centers of self-control, judgment and
abstraction. Even a complete savage can be canny in dealings of the
latter sort.
But in any case, we must remember that we cannot make a self-sustaining
democracy out of a few sharp leaders--it is the average of the
electorate that matters. At the risk of monotonous repetition, I must
emphasize that the self-control and judgment (the capacity to sacrifice
an immediate desire for a greater good tomorrow) of the rank and file,
including their willingness to contribute to, rather than to drain,
the common treasury, are the qualities which produce a stable, free
civilization. These were the qualities which built the great Western
democracies. There are few signs of them in Africa.
* * * * *
_Ralph McGill, the Atlanta editor, says that the Supreme Court has
ordered desegregation but not integration; in other words, it has
forbidden the whites to hold the blacks in black schools, but has not
ordered the blacks to go to white schools. Isn’t this an important
distinction?_
Not as a practical, long-range matter. It is perhaps true that a large
number of Southern Negroes, if left to themselves, would tend for a
time to continue in their own schools from inertia and force of habit.
But the objectives of the present Negro leadership can be judged by
its actions in all the large cities of the United States where it is
pressing for more and more Negro attendance in white schools, and
challenging token integration wherever it has occurred.
The real meaning of the desegregation movement should be transparent,
even to Mr. McGill. It is a main sector of the equalitarian
front--piecemeal surrender suits these people perfectly for they
understand the truth of what I have said earlier, once a principle is
gone, the rest is just a mopping-up operation.
* * * * *
_How can we justify second class citizens in the United States?_
There have always been first, second, third and various other classes
of citizens in the United States, white as well as black, and there
always will be, here and in every country, including Russia. But this
has nothing to do with segregation. Segregation does not make a second
class citizen. If the Negro government of a Negro country decides to
segregate all whites in white schools, does this make the whites second
class citizens? It is what he is that makes the average Negro a second
class citizen, not segregation. And as I have said on page 58, when the
day comes that the average Negro is no longer a second class citizen,
he may prefer segregation.
* * * * *
_Do you not believe in the dignity of man?_
I believe in the potential dignity of man, and in its actual existence
as the individual acquires it through merit. It is in no way related
to segregation. Would white men who had dignity lose it through
segregation in a Negro country?
* * * * *
_Is not our Society founded on the idea of equal human rights?_
All rights have to be limited by the rights of others. My right to do
as I please must be limited by your right not to be assaulted by me.
The greatest of all human rights is the right of a race to protect
itself against genocide, and its culture against deterioration.
* * * * *
_How can we condemn a man because of the color of his skin?_
Skin color has no bearing on the matter. The Negro’s limitations are
in the realms of character and intelligence, and the fact they are
associated with a black skin is irrelevant. Many Indians of India are
blacker by far than many Negroes, yet their culture differs from that
of the Negro, and they shun social contact with the Negro.
* * * * *
_Are not pride and self-respect essential to the development of
personality, and does not segregation deprive the Negro of both?_
Did it deprive Booker T. Washington or George Washington Carver of
either? Where certain handicaps exist, pride and self-respect grow
in overcoming them. They also grow in service and achievement to and
within one’s own race.
They most emphatically do not grow in forcing one’s self where one
is not wanted. The latter course is the surest road to loss of
self-respect.
* * * * *
_Is not discrimination an evil in itself?_
No word has been more tarnished by the equalitarian than the word
discriminate. Its dictionary definition is “to perceive a difference,
to mark a difference”. Is that man unjustified who marks a difference
between right and wrong, between better and worse? It has become the
vogue to condemn discrimination without asking what the reasons for the
discrimination may be. Discrimination does not develop in a vacuum.
There are always reasons back of it. If the reasons be unsound, then
the discrimination ought indeed to be condemned. But if the reasons be
sound, then discrimination is a most precious right.
The issue here resembles that raised on page 91. Before a man complains
about discrimination or prejudice it would be wise if he asked himself
why he is the victim of either.
* * * * *
_Should not Americans be tolerant?_
Tolerance is a virtue or a vice depending on the situation in which
it is exercised. Most certainly we should be tolerant of customs, or
ways of life, or opinions that differ from our own provided we believe
them to be sincerely followed by men of wisdom and good will. But to be
tolerant of evil is either laziness or cowardice.
* * * * *
_Are not Southerners racial bigots?_
First let us define what we mean by bigot. One of my dictionaries
defines it as “One obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly,
devoted to his own church, party, belief or opinion.” Another says:
“One who is unreasonably and blindly attached to a particular creed,
church, or party; one who is intolerant of opinions which differ from
his own; a fanatic; one illiberal or hypocritically stubborn in creed.”
We have discussed tolerance in the last question. This leaves us with
irrationality, blindness and hypocrisy to examine, since obstinacy
and fanaticism in a good cause can hardly be considered vices. I have
already indicated why I believe the Southern position on race more
reasonable by far than that of the North. The North is proving itself
both irrational and blind. Lastly, it goes without saying there is no
hypocrisy more blatant and vicious than that which forces the children
of others into schools with large numbers of Negroes while making sure
its own children are well ensconced in schools predominantly of its own
race.
* * * * *
_Is not the segregationist preaching hate instead of love?_
I would say the shoe is on the other foot. It is those who are forcing
the Negro into an unnatural relationship with the white race that are
guilty of hostile aggression.
Any man or woman who approaches this subject in the spirit of love
will find ample ways to help the Negro help himself--which is the
only possible road to real betterment--in his own schools and in his
own individual and community life. For the North to force him on the
white South is as blunt an act of hostility--of hate, if you prefer
the word--as can be imagined. It has already damaged the Negro, indeed
it is damaging the whole country. The spirit of those back of the
integration movement is not love.
* * * * *
_Why are Southerners being so emotional?_
Here again I would say the shoe is on the other foot. Outside the
inner Marxist core, there are very few hard-headed realists among the
equalitarians. But there are many sentimentalists, and this has led
to the perhaps unfairly sarcastic designation “bleeding heart.” The
amateur integrationist has been taught to throw the accusation of
emotionalism in the face of his opponents to conceal the fact that it
is he, himself, whose case lacks reason.
* * * * *
_Don’t you believe in human progress?_
Because I do believe in human progress I protest the gullibility of
the Northerner and the Southern “moderate” who are beguiled by the
word rather than by the substance of progress, who miss the underlying
issue in the integration controversy, and let themselves be ensnared by
the old equalitarian technique of gradualism.
The equalitarians have softened us to the point already where many of
us think that because something is new it is better. We forget that
there are two ways to go forward. One is to go forward up. The other
is to go forward down. Humanity will not have progressed by turning
the United States a hundred years from now into a nation of octoroons
or by making the South mulatto. Nor is any moral victory achieved by
submitting the white children of the South to slow cultural poisoning.
These are results the Russians devoutly desire, because it will mean
that we will no longer need to be reckoned with.
* * * * *
_Why try to turn the clock back?_
In the first place we aren’t dealing with a clock. We are dealing with
a pendulum which has swung dangerously far to the left.
In the second place, if it were a clock, I would think it essential to
turn it back, if it marked a progression toward disaster. Many a man
who has had a bad automobile accident wishes he could turn the clock
back to the moment before he made his mistake.
+The Constitutional Issue+
_Does not the spirit of the 14th Amendment require integration?_
It is hard to say what the “spirit” of the 14th Amendment is. It can
be argued that morally the 14th Amendment is not in the Constitution.
All but one of the Southern States rejected it when it was presented
to them immediately after the Civil War, and it was only ratified by
them when, under a law passed by a Congress from which the South had
been excluded, they were given no choice save to accept it or submit
to military rule. The President vetoed this law, saying that its
whole character, scope and object were without precedent and without
authority and in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the
Constitution. The rump Congress overrode the veto.
The chief proponent of the Amendment, and of the law, was Thaddeus
Stevens, a choleric and vindictive man, egged on by a mulatto mistress
who was not unnaturally embittered by her own divided nature. I think
historians would agree that if Lincoln had lived, there would have been
no 14th Amendment.
Assuming, what many are not willing to assume, that the Amendment has
become valid through a sort of unwritten Statute of Limitations, the
method of its adoption should clearly have some bearing on the “spirit”
in which it ought to be interpreted. Lord Bryce, the great English
scholar, in another part of the passage which I quote in my letter to
the President, refers to the whole program of the North under this
Amendment in Reconstruction days as “monstrous”, and modern research
has done nothing to change the verdict. Lynching is an abominable
crime, but it would be well for the North to remember the conditions
which spawned the custom. There were no lynchings until the North drove
the white South to the wall by such an orgy of Negro barbarism as had
best be forgotten.
More specifically, there was never the slightest suggestion on the part
of Congress or anybody else that the Amendment was intended to apply to
schools. Congress, having direct control of this matter in the District
of Columbia, maintained segregated schools there from the beginning,
which is sufficient indication of the intent of the body which proposed
the Amendment.
* * * * *
_Do not Southerners oppose equality for the Negro largely because they
fear their own ascendancy will be challenged?_
Yes, and justly so. If your grandparents, as eyewitnesses, had told
you of conditions in the South during Reconstruction--of what happens
to large aggregations of Negroes under such conditions--or if you had
lived awhile in native Negro cultures in Haiti or Africa, you would be
afraid, too.
It goes without saying that some progress has been made in the
development of the Negro race since the Civil War, but to suppose that
it has reached the point where an infusion of color in government
amounting to policy control, or to a balance of power, is an acceptable
or healthy thing for a previously white society, will be absurd on its
face to anyone who has read the answers to the preceding questions.
The inclination of Negroes in the mass to be primarily interested in
spending rather than conserving their own or other people’s money, is
but one of many aspects to this problem.
Lord Bryce not only called Northern policy under the Reconstruction
Acts monstrous, he noted that no country in the world has ever
made such sacrifices of common sense to abstract principle. The
South, nevertheless, has managed a workable adjustment within our
constitutional frame-work, an adjustment heretofore acceptable to
courts wise enough to see the true problem.
I assume you will agree that Lincoln was one of the great exponents
of our national democratic principles. Please read the quotation from
Lincoln in my letter to the President.
* * * * *
_The Dean of the Harvard Law School has said that the trend of previous
decisions made the integration decision inevitable. Do you dispute
this?_
A trend which made the integration decision inevitable was a trend in
the wrong direction. But I question whether any trend makes any wrong
decision inevitable. If the trend be wrong, it should be stopped. If it
be right up to a point, it should be stopped at that point.
I may add in passing that it would be an understatement to remark that
the Harvard faculty is not distinguished by the number of conservatives
among its members. In fact, the FBI only recently arrested one of
them, a man named Zborowski, on a charge of perjury growing out of the
Bureau’s investigation of a Soviet spy ring. Significantly enough, he
had been a research associate in social anthropology.
I may also add that Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick has fallen a victim to
the same illusion as the Dean. He has recently said that “by 1954
the court had dealt with many kinds of separate facilities and found
each of them denied equality.... The court had no choice, in view of
the then numerous precedents, but to find that ‘separate educational
facilities are inherently unequal’.”
Both the Dean and Dr. Fosdick have failed to probe down to the
underlying issue. _Desegregation in a non-social situation is one
thing. Integration in a social situation is quite another._ A trend in
one might be justified while in the other it should never be allowed to
start. The line, of course, is sometimes hard to draw and is a matter
which, under our federal form of government, should be left to local
decision. Busses, theaters and restaurants in some communities may
readily be distinguished from recreation facilities and schools as
regards their social implications; in other communities the distinction
may not be as clear.
* * * * *
_Is not the decision of the Supreme Court the law, and is it not the
duty of every citizen to obey the law?_
Unlike the Constitution which is the law of the land, a decision of
the Supreme Court is “the law of the case,” reversible at will by the
members who handed it down, or by other members of the same court at
any future date.
My position is that the law in this case ought to be changed, which is
a position every citizen is entitled to take.
Some people have asked me how I dare challenge the views of our highest
court, and how I can fail to see that loyalty to American ideals
requires me to support integration. In all humility I must point to the
status of the present court in the opinion of the rest of the judiciary
and of the bar. Most certainly the members of this court are honorable
men, doing their best, but they cannot be compared with many courts of
the past, either in judicial experience or detachment from political
considerations.
I question whether any Supreme Court in our history has been the object
of a similar indictment at the hands of three-quarters of the State
Chief Justices or has stood where this one does in the opinion of the
most distinguished members of the bar. If American ideals did not
require integration under courts with a superior membership, I fail to
see why they require it under the present court.
* * * * *
_Isn’t opposition really hopeless and isn’t it wiser simply to accept
integration and make the best of it?_
Quite the contrary. The NAACP and the equalitarian press are trying
hard to convince the public that the fight is over, but it has just
begun. A few figures on where the integration movement stands at the
moment may be of interest. The latest statistics I have show that:
In the state of North Carolina, which is being cited throughout the
country for taking a creditably moderate course, 39 Negro pupils are
enrolled in white schools in seven communities. These 39 are swallowed
up among 12,234 white pupils.
Of the 10 other Southern states besides North Carolina, five have
some degree of integration and five have none. Among the partially
integrated states, Texas has the greatest number of Negro children
in white schools--a total of 3,600 colored among 300,000 white in
“integrated situations,” or about one in a hundred.
Of 1,600 school districts in Texas, only 125--fewer than one in a
hundred--have desegregated. It is my understanding that desegregation
is mainly in the western part of Texas, which is not typically Southern.
In the other four partially integrated states, here is the score:
Virginia--5 communities, 86 Negroes, 20,327 whites.
Arkansas--8 communities, 94 Negroes, 8,133 whites.
Tennessee--4 communities, 50 Negroes, white total unknown.
Florida--1 community (2 schools), 435 Negroes, 746 whites.
In one of the two Florida schools, token integration has worked in
reverse. Five white children are attending Orchard Villa school with
414 Negroes.
For the purpose of comparison then, by omitting Texas and Orchard Villa
School in Florida, which are not typical Southern situations, we find
that in ten Southern states fewer than 300 Negro children have been
admitted to white schools at the present time.
Five states--South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana--have yet to mix the first school.
+Summation And Outlook+
_You seem to be very sure of your position. Do you see no good among
the integrationists, nor any evil on your side?_
There is a lunatic fringe to every large controversy. I also believe
that many Southerners have allowed their exasperation to drive them to
a wildness of expression and action which does harm to their cause.
Others trim too much for political and economic reasons. Still others
fail to realize that the best answer to the humanitarian integrationist
is the even more humanitarian segregationist--more of the Albert
Schweitzer spirit toward the Negro.
What I say concerning some Southerners applies equally to many
Northern conservatives, and old-fashioned liberals, in the broader
fight against equalitarianism. Too many are embittered men, not without
cause, yet unwisely. The younger generations cannot be led back to the
great principles by embittered teachers.
There has been a failure of leadership. In his _Revolt of the
Masses_, Jose Ortega y Gasset speaks of the current “sovereignty
of the unqualified” and I would ask, how far has this been due to
the abdication of the qualified, how much of our soft surrender to
equalitarianism has derived from a lack of confidence in the old ideals
on the part of those who ought to assert and exemplify them?
Near the close of his contemplative autobiography, Lord Tweedsmuir, who
knew both the English and the American scenes well, puts this paragraph:
“Something has happened. A civilization bemused by an opulent
materialism has been met by a rude challenge. The free peoples have
been challenged by the serfs. The gutters have exuded a poison which
bids fair to infect the world. The beggar on horseback rides more
roughshod over the helpless than the cavalier. A combination of
multitudes who have lost their nerve and a junta of arrogant demagogues
has shattered the comity of nations. The European tradition has been
confronted with an Asiatic revolt, with its historic accompaniment
of janissaries and assassins. There is in it all, too, an ugly
pathological savour, as if a mature society were being assailed by
diseased and vicious children.”
These lines, written at the onset of the last World War, would seem
to hold fully as true today. The free peoples are still challenged,
but the challenge for the moment is more from within than without, the
diseased and vicious children have insinuated themselves into our midst
and have taken on the trappings of respectability. Some even sit on our
university faculties.
As a part of the process, the attack on Christianity, which Gladstone
perceived ninety years ago, has continued. “I am convinced,” wrote
Gladstone, “that the welfare of mankind does not now depend on the
State and the world of politics; the real battle is being fought in the
world of thought, where a deadly attack is made with great tenacity of
purpose and over a wide field upon the greatest treasure of mankind,
the belief in God and the Gospel of Christ.”
This attack has had a two-fold Asiatic aspect. On the one hand,
there has been the open aggression of Japan, Russia, China, and
the Middle East, and on the other the indirect impact behind our
lines of devious Oriental thinking and the pervasive mood of
appeasement, of resignation under evil, and of expediency, so
characteristic of the Eastern mind. The it’s-too-late attitude--the
if-we-must-choose-between-surrender-and-extinction-we’ll-choose-surrender
spirit--were not the attitude or spirit of our American forefathers,
they were not the creed of Patrick Henry.
Part of all this, as I have said, is undoubtedly the fault of an abuse
by its votaries of the earlier American gospel. The abuse opened the
way, first for a discrediting of freedom and individualism, and then
for the substitution of equalitarianism as a new gospel. We cannot
afford to make that mistake again. Christianity is the religion of
freedom and individualism--it is also the gospel of compassion.
Part, also, of the deterioration, although how much I cannot say, has
been due to the appalling loss of the best manhood of the West in two
blood-baths in one generation. It is hard to find leadership, hard to
find superiority, where the best have been slaughtered by the millions
in so short a span. Nevertheless, the deficiency must somehow be made
up. The new generations must be brought back to the great principles,
the leaders must be found.
The principles, at least, are still before us. I believe most
Americans, however short they may fall of the ideal, still hold to
the old-fashioned notion that, for every individual, life should be
a pilgrimage of self-improvement in mind and character, that today
should find a man superior to yesterday and inferior to tomorrow,
hence that superiority and inferiority are of the very essence of life
and of truth. Every man should scorn equality in the pilgrim stages
of himself, and he should scorn it as a social objective. I fail to
find any other notion that holds out hope for the progress of either
the individual or of society. Equalitarianism spells stagnation and
mediocrity for both. I repeat, it is of the very essence of this
ideology to build the inferior up by pulling the superior down, and the
result is invariably the same. The inferior, in gaining what has not
been earned, has lost the spur, and the superior, in losing what was
well deserved, has lost the crown.
* * * * *
_Isn’t the United States supposed to be the great racial melting pot,
calling the oppressed of all countries to its shores, and isn’t the
Statue of Liberty their assurance of welcome?_
It is one thing to offer guests a welcome; quite another to have them
take over one’s house, lock, stock and barrel. This is especially true
when the guests have entirely different ideas about housekeeping. The
thought back of the original invitation was that the new races would
become “Americanized”--not that America would be made over in the image
of the new races.
To begin with, the United States was a Christian country. Its language,
its literature, its laws and its moral concepts were English. I do not
favor its becoming a non-Christian country with a different language,
a different jurisprudence and different moral concepts. I oppose
this because to change the foundation on which a house is built is a
doubtful way to preserve it.
I oppose it also because our English heritage is unique and too
precious to be frittered away. Indeed, I am certain that the native
English-speaking stocks in the United States, North as well as South,
long suffering and gullible as these have been, are at last becoming
restive. They are growing tired of watching their public leaders
pander to minority groups, playing the majority against itself, and
molding policy to suit the minorities. They are sick of seeing words
like “freedom” and “democracy” kidnapped and perverted to please every
irresponsible element in the community. They are weary of having the
ideals of their forefathers derided by the college professors who
teach their children. They are surfeited with churchmen who front for
communism.[17] They are increasingly suspicious of one-sided newspapers
and one-sided publishing houses either controlled by, or pandering to,
minority groups. They have had enough of equalitarian propaganda in
theater, television and moving pictures.
The greatest danger may well be that when these stocks fully realize
the extent to which they have been put upon and betrayed, their
resentment may turn to anger harder to control than the depredations of
the Marxists.
* * * * *
_Could you give me a few points to stress in my effort to make
Northerners realize the situation we face in the South?_
I have found it useful to ask nine simple questions. Here they are:
1. Can you name one case in all history in which whites and Negroes in
large numbers have lived together without segregation and have failed
to intermarry?
2. Can you name one case in all history in which a white civilization
failed to deteriorate after intermarrying with Negroes?
3. Can you name one case in all history of a stable, free civilization
that was predominantly, or even substantially, Negro?
4. Can you name a better example, anywhere on earth, of a Negro society
left on its own resources--after previous local contact with one white
civilization and while still under the protection and influence of
another such civilization--than the Republic of Haiti, and do you find
anything in the Voodoo religion, or the government of Haiti, or its
laws, or its public education, or its finances, or its literature, that
suggests equality with our white culture?
5. You say the Negro “hasn’t had a chance”. Going back to the beginning
of history, what chances has the white man had that he didn’t make for
himself, and what chances has the Negro lacked that he couldn’t have
made for himself, had he had the capacity?
6. You speak of human rights. What human right is greater than the
right of a civilization to defend itself against destruction?
7. Did Abraham Lincoln, or Thomas Jefferson, or John Marshall, or
Andrew Jackson, or Daniel Webster, or any other great statesman of our
past, or any Supreme Court in our history prior to Earl Warren’s, favor
forcing social integration on the South or consider that its customs
in this respect were a denial of equal opportunity or contrary to any
other American ideals?
8. Leaving the integration decision aside and considering only general
judicial qualifications and capacity, has any Supreme Court in our
history ever stood lower in the opinion of the rest of the bench or of
the bar than our present Supreme Court?
9. With reference to international appeasement, which is more in the
interests of world progress: that an advanced civilization should
remodel itself to suit the wishes of backward peoples, or that the
advanced civilization should maintain those policies which have
distinguished it from backward peoples?
The whole matter can really be put in a nutshell: a gullible, trusting
nation has been misled by various minority groups[18] with their own
self-interest at stake into believing that Negroes have an inborn
capacity for Western civilization equal to the white race. This has
caused the North and the Supreme Court to feel morally justified in
forcing the South to risk what amounts to social integration with the
Negro. The facts are that the Negro does not have the aforesaid inborn
capacity and that social integration with him invariably produces
deterioration in any white civilization that tries it. Thus it is
not the South which is committing a moral crime against the Negro in
maintaining segregation, but the North which is committing a moral
crime against the South in forcing integration.
Let me also put the broader problem in a nutshell if I can: The
minority groups in question have sown their seed in soil made fertile
by the left-wing overdrift of our times. This overdrift has other
manifestations. We see it in declining moral standards, in disrespect
for distinction and authority, in juvenile delinquency, in the sordid
content of literature and the drama, in the appeal of public leaders
for votes instead of principles, in the ascendancy everywhere of
quantity over quality, in a rising crime rate, in excessive government
partiality to labor unions, in the careless workmanship and lack of
discipline of the labor force, in the disappearance of the servant
class and the resultant waste of higher energies upon domestic duties,
in punitive taxation, in the appeasement of evil and lawlessness among
men and nations, and in many other aspects of life.
It is an overdrift which sources in one colossal error of fact. There
is no such thing as equality in nature.
As is plainly evident, there is no such thing as equality among men.
(I acknowledge many men as superior to me, and I mean _superior_, not
simply _different_.) To contradict this obvious fact is to set in
motion a hornet’s nest of evils and to corrupt humanity as a whole. In
the United States both the effect of the overdrift and the influence
of minorities have been accentuated by the cultural mixing which has
taken place since the 1880’s, particularly in the urban Northeast and
North, which are centers of cultural dissemination for the rest of the
country, and in which the mass media have their roots.
Against these things, because of the relative purity of its stocks
and traditions, the South is a bulwark.[19] To save the South from
integration is to begin the saving of the United States from all the
manifestations of equalitarianism and cultural deterioration I have
mentioned.
* * * * *
_What is the solution to the Negro problem as it shows itself in
spheres other than integration?_
It should be left to the sovereign states to solve in accordance with
the way the issue is presented in each separate area. The whole point
in having state governments is to keep questions which have aspects
varying with locality in the hands of the people most concerned. States
with only a few Negroes have a completely different problem from those
with many.
Of course the equalitarian wishes to concentrate matters in Washington,
for he can then use the ignorance of large Northern populations to
overwhelm the knowledge and experience of the South. But this is not
the procedure our Founding Fathers contemplated.
I would point out to you how, throughout the world, men remote from the
problem are telling men living with the problem what to do. Doesn’t
this strike you as rather an inverted state of affairs? Doesn’t it
strike you as meaningful that the people who are living with the
problem always disagree with the people who are not?
Granted it is usually possible, where large populations are involved,
for the remote equalitarian to find someone on the local scene to
carry his torch for him under the title of “moderate” and wearing the
halo of a humanitarian, while the men who are fighting to preserve the
integrity of their civilization are variously described as racists,
supremacists, rabble or mobs, and pictured as waging a losing battle
against the tide of progress. Rest assured, however, that all the
evidence of history points to retrogression where white and black
integrate, and that the “progress” offered in this field by the remote
Marxist or the local Quisling is a sham. Be not deceived by the efforts
of these people to wrap integration up and sell it in the same package
with progress in general. Wherever else social revolution may be
identified with progress, it cannot be so identified here.
* * * * *
_What is the solution to the integration controversy in particular?_
There are several possible solutions. In my opinion the Supreme Court
has been badly advised, both by the Attorney General and by counsel for
the South. The Boas equalitarian anthropology has never been properly
examined, the rotten core of this rosy apple, which is the apple upon
which integration feeds, has never been laid bare to the judicial eye.
I cannot tell, but I would hope that a new case in which this subject
was explored might result in a reversal of _Brown vs. The Board of
Education_.
It must be admitted that the court handled this aspect of the case in
a somewhat unusual fashion. It is customary for judges to base their
decision upon the record of the proceedings. They may take judicial
notice of what is common knowledge, such as the fact that the sun rises
in the east, but everything else bearing upon the decision must be
part of the record so that all parties may have had a chance to argue
concerning it.
In the _Brown_ case, however, the use of Myrdal’s _Dilemma_, and the
Boas anthropology on which it is based, was apparently entirely apart
from the record and without notice to the parties. In my letter to the
Attorney General I said “I assume there must have been some indication,
in argument or elsewhere, that these authorities were to be used.” I
have since been informed that there was no such indication. It may
be, therefore, that instead of saying that the court has been badly
advised, I should say that the court has not yet given the parties an
opportunity to advise it on this important point.
There is also the possibility of a constitutional amendment, but
since this requires a vote of three-fourths of the states, the road
is long, difficult and doubtful. It is the road the court should have
required the integrationist to travel, because, under the Constitution,
it is the _change_ from established and well-proved ways that was
intended to be made hard. It seems certain that an amendment forcing
integration upon the South would not have succeeded. Since the
court betrayed us all by choosing the wide, easy gate that leads to
destruction, it can best lead us back and let the integrationist try
the narrow gate.
Basic to either a reversal of the court’s decision or to an amendment
is the enlightenment of the American people on the real issue. Strong
political leadership could accomplish this. A Presidential challenge
to the court would be far from unprecedented, and in my judgment could
succeed were it supported by a forceful presentation of the facts, and
an informed public opinion. The politician who betrays his country as
a whole by pandering to a minority group because it appears to hold
the balance of power is of all creatures the most pitiful. Leaders
in public life seem to have forgotten that if there is one thing the
American people love, even sometimes beyond the merits of an issue, it
is courage in a public man, and articulate fighting leadership. In this
case, fighting leadership would have the merits on its side.
As a practical matter, I think that education of our public men
themselves in the essentials discussed here is long overdue. A leader
cannot lead when he does not know what the fight is about. Not only
must the people of the North be informed, and the brainwashing of
thirty years corrected, but our public men must be reached with the
facts and persuaded to study them. Once this is accomplished, I am
confident the rest will follow rather rapidly. We are actually dealing
in this situation with a sort of mass hypnosis in which the bellwethers
are fully as hypnotized as the flock.
Far too many Southerners fail to realize that the grounds on which
they are basing their resistance, such as states’ rights and the
Negro’s momentary deficiencies, do not go to the heart of the question,
however valid in other respects these grounds may be. For example, a
Northerner, or a court, can always confuse the point about the Negro’s
momentary deficiencies with the argument that these can be corrected in
the current or next generation and that we must take prompt measures to
ensure that they are. When the Southerner pushes the argument beyond
this, and questions the momentary nature of the deficiencies, he is
met with Boas, and there the debate ends with the North and the court
understandably feeling themselves to be the intellectual victors. One
cannot win a battle in what Gladstone called “the world of thought” in
such a fashion.
Again in the matter of states’ rights, while in total agreement with
the South on the constitutional question, I believe it a mistake to
give it emphasis above, and often to the exclusion of, the issue of
limited racial adaptability. If the North and the court feel that a
burning wrong is being committed in the name of the Constitution, they
will stretch a long way in their interpretation of that document to
correct the wrong. Arguments about states’ rights fall on unwilling
ears, as do references to history and precedent, since the equalitarian
replies that the latest scientific discoveries invalidate history and
precedent.
Let me suggest an analogy. You are looking out of your door and you
see a man on the street corner who appears to be committing murder.
You protest, but he replies that he is within his constitutional
rights. How much of an impression does he make on you? But now suppose,
instead, he answers that he is not committing murder at all, that he is
only defending himself against a homicidal attack, is not this the more
convincing reply?
The South must win the battle for the mind of the North on moral, not
on legal, grounds. It must convince the North that integration is
morally wrong because it is destructive of the white civilization of
the South. If it fails to do this, then the moral issue immediately
moves to the Northern side, and injustice to the Negro becomes the
dominant question.
Some fighters in the cause of the South, like David Lawrence, have
taken the position that the 14th Amendment is itself illegal. I would
not dispute this. But I would point out that the average citizen,
reading the simple words of Sec. 1 of this Amendment, would scarcely
now find sufficient fault with them, after so much reliance has been
placed upon them in so many other situations for so long, to feel that
the Amendment should be declared void. In my opinion, the trouble is
not with the Amendment but with the new interpretation the court has
placed upon it. I would even go so far as to say that if there had
been no 14th Amendment the court would have found some other way of
accomplishing its purpose.
I am greatly concerned at this unwillingness of the South, and
Northern friends of the South, to meet the racial issue. I think
ignorance of the scientific validity of their case partly explains the
unwillingness, although innate kindness is also involved, as I have
said in my answer to the first question.
I would, therefore, like to see the start of a campaign for the
enlightenment of leaders, both North and South, and I would enlarge
the word “leader” to include not only public men in the sense of
politicians, judges, and other office holders, but all molders of
public opinion in the fields of education, religion, journalism and
entertainment. It is a strange thing that with the development of
modern means of communication those who influence public opinion most
are no longer responsible to the electorate. The day when the statesman
dominated the public eye and ear has passed. True, the statesman has
access to radio and television, as well as to the columns of the
press, but this access is small and transient in comparison with the
influence exercised by the owners of chains of newspapers and radio and
television stations, or national magazines, moving picture companies,
and book publishing houses. Such men are responsible to no electorate
and can keep on slanting news and warping the public mind long after
the statesman in a similar position would have been retired.
While many of these leaders are members of the very minority groups
who are seeking to alter the foundations of our society, and from
whom consequently nothing can be expected, many are not. The latter,
being without instruction, have simply fallen victim to the constant
propaganda of the former. The technique of the big lie, endlessly
repeated, is a familiar and dangerous one. But it can be counteracted.
These men must be reached and informed. Most of them are sufficiently
intelligent so that even one attentive reading of Boas, Herskovits,
Myrdal or Kluckhohn should be enough.
In addition to a campaign for the enlightenment of leaders, I would
recommend the creation of a Foundation for the informing of public
opinion as a whole. If millions can be poured into the Carnegie
Foundation, and if this Foundation can publish Myrdal’s _Dilemma_
with its open threat to the pillars of the American way of life, then
perhaps some money can be raised to shore those pillars up, something
can be spared in defense of the country our forefathers bequeathed us.
The functions of such a Foundation are too obvious to be detailed
here. Its general object should be to re-educate the American people in
the principles upon which our republic was based and through which it
grew to greatness. Neither equality nor integration were among them.
In sum, my personal view is that nothing can be accomplished without
changing the climate of public opinion in the North, Mid-West, and
West, but that this climate can be quickly changed once the core of the
issue is made clear, because even without instruction the opinion polls
in these areas show a close balance of instinctive judgment on the side
of the truth. Thereafter, reversal or amendment is only a question
of time. It took experience to produce the repeal of the Prohibition
Amendment. In the case of the integration decision we are getting the
experience and need only an understanding of the facts.
I have sometimes been told, by those seeking an easier solution, that
some sort of compromise must be found, that amendment or reversal
“won’t do,” to which I can only reply: If a patient with a seriously
infected appendix goes to a doctor and is advised by the doctor that
an operation is imperative, that there is no easier solution, does the
patient answer that an operation “won’t do”?
Failing a reversal or an amendment, failing an awakened fighting
national leadership, there remains only a battle by the South at the
local level, a desperate rear guard action which the South will fight
perhaps even in some cases to the permanent abandonment of its public
schools. But I call upon the North for its own sake to think again
before it drives the South any further toward despair or robs its
children of their education. In the words of one Southern Senator:
“The Southern whites are in the minority when it comes to determining
the policy of the Federal Government; the Negro problem increases
yearly; and there are centuries ahead of us. The South needs help, and
for the sake of generations yet unborn the South pleads for that help
before it is too late. Alone and unaided, Southerners may maintain a
white South for many decades yet, and we shall do so in spite of all
outside attacks, even those coming from members of our own race whose
battles we are also fighting. But the South can hope for no permanent
victory over the Negro problem without the aid of the North, East and
West.... This is a problem which the Nation created and which only the
Nation as a whole can adequately and permanently solve.”
If, being a Northerner, I may dare to speak one last word to the South,
in the utmost sympathy and understanding, I would say, curb your anger
as best you can. I am convinced the majority of Northerners are sincere
humanitarians who are being unconsciously victimized by a hoax. Work
to enlighten them, but do not play into the hands of your enemies,
and theirs, by violence. Lynchings and bombings do not destroy these
enemies; they destroy you.
Above all, in the face of great provocation, protect the Negro from
himself. Continue and improve your stewardship. Give no grounds for the
title supremacist. Deserve, as indeed in the past you so often have,
the title leader and minister. In the Christian family the Negro is
still your younger brother, the figure of the Galilean still stands in
judgment over you both.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] While scientists dislike the concept suggested by the word
“average”, preferring the concept of “frequency”, I have used “average”
throughout this book as more understandable to the layman and equally
acceptable in the context in which I employ it. For example, where a
scientist would say the _frequency_ with which emotionalism occurs in
Negroes is greater than the _frequency_ with which it occurs in whites,
I would say the _average_ Negro is more emotional than the _average_
white.
[3] A review in the English publication _The Eugenics Review_
for October 1960 calls Dr. Shuey’s book, _The Testing of Negro
Intelligence_ (1958), “as impartial a study as any that have been made
in the racial field.”
[4] I spare the reader further details on this point. For those with
strong stomachs who seek documentation I may mention _The Seething
African Pot_ (1936) by Daniel Thwaite; _The Mind of the Savage_ (1929)
by Raoul Allier; and _Mau Mau Man-Hunt_ (1957) by William W. Baldwin.
An informative short article by Joseph E. Evans may be found in the
_Wall Street Journal_ for August 23, 1960.
[5] I do not consider here the good done by whites in Africa. See pages
77 and 80.
[6] A Southern professor of anthropology writes me: “It can be
documented _ad infinitum_ that the social and biological sciences in
Anglo-American countries, for the past half century or so, especially
since the twenties, have strenuously and studiously avoided any
research that could have thrown light on genetic differences between
races and ethnic groups. That this avoidance and suppression, this
discouragement of graduate students who might have been curious and
interested in such research, was done in the name of the egalitarian
ideology, in full knowledge that it was unscholarly conduct, has been
admitted, in print, among themselves, by some of our most prominent
social scientists.”
[7] In fairness to the memory of the late Clyde Kluckhohn, I should
note here that in a review in _The American Anthropologist_ in December
1959 (Vol. 61, No. 6) of a book by Walter Goldschmidt, Kluckhohn
reversed himself and stated that racial equality in intellect could
no longer be assumed. Professor Kluckhohn’s words were: “In the light
of accumulating information as to significantly varying incidence
of mapped genes among different peoples, it seems unwise to assume
flatly that ‘man’s innate capacity does not vary from one population
to another’.... On the premise that specific capacities are influenced
by the properties of each gene pool, it seems very likely indeed
that populations differ quantitatively in their potentialities for
particular kinds of achievement.”
[8] The layman will find a useful introduction to the anthropological
aspects of the integration controversy in Nathaniel Weyl’s _The
Negro in American Civilization_, (1960), Chapters 11 through 15,
together with the footnotes and references contained therein. While
I am in sharp disagreement with some of the political and social
conclusions which Mr. Weyl projects from his scientific material, the
anthropological data are well presented.
To those wishing to go still further into the subject, I recommend,
in addition to the works cited by Mr. Weyl, Garrett Hardin’s “The
Competitive Exclusion Principle,” (_Science_, Vol. 131, No. 3409, April
1960); G. Lefrou’s _Le Noir D’Afrique_ (Payot, 106 Boul. St. Germain,
Paris, 1943); Georges A. Heuse’s _Biologie du Noir_ (Les Editions
Problemes d’Afrique Centrale, 34 Rue de Stassart, Brussels, 1957); and
J. Millot’s _Biologie des Races Humaines_, (Librairie Armand Colin,
103 Boul. Saint-Michel, Paris, 1952). The latter books are by European
experts of impeccable standing and are considered authoritative by
our leading American physical anthropologists. They thoroughly unmask
the equalitarian environmentalist doctrine of race. Professor Millot,
one of France’s two leading anthropologists, warns against racism in
the Nazi sense, as well he may, and he makes the same point about the
superiority of occasional individuals that I make in answering the
question on page 42. He is also at pains to emphasize those faculties
of sensory perception, imagination and rhythm in which the Negro
surpasses the white man. He makes clear that ... “The deficiency of
the Black appears principally in logical reasoning, in judgment or
the capacity to define and analyze with precision, in adaptation to
new situations and in the capacity for abstraction. This inferiority
seems to result in large part from a precocious arresting of cerebral
development.”
Dr. Lefrou’s book carries an introduction by Professor H. V. Vallois,
France’s leading anthropologist and head of the Museum of Man. In this
introduction Vallois remarks that Lefrou’s work “rests on a solid
documentation supported by a sure critique,” which gives special
interest to Lefrou’s quotation from Cureau: “There are two quite
distinct stages in the intellectual life of the Negro. As a child he
is amiable, gentle, gracious, spontaneous and docile. He appears very
precocious, more precocious by all odds than the great majority of
European children. He understands and easily assimilates many things.
At the date of puberty a radical metamorphosis takes place. A sharp
arresting of development occurs and even a slight regression. The
intellectual progress of the Negro is rapid during the first ten or
twelve years, next it slows down, becomes stationary, then proceeds
slowly, diminishing during some fifteen years. Finally a rapid
enfeeblement occurs.”
A caution in regard to Nathaniel Weyl’s book is advisable here. It
will be noted that on page 246 he belittles the evils of race-mixing,
but the cases which he cites are not mixtures of whites and Negroes.
On page 244, having suggested that the mulatto is not inferior to the
Negro, he uses this as a defense of miscegenation, disregarding its
effect upon the white side of the equation. On page 245 he examines
and minimizes the effect of the lowering of the I.Q. of the nation as
a whole should all Negroes be absorbed, disregarding the fact that the
large majority of Negroes are concentrated in the South. It would seem
self-evident that Mr. Weyl is reluctant, for certain of the reasons I
have already mentioned, to draw the inevitable political conclusions
from his own research. His courage in stating the scientific
conclusions is commendable.
[9] Adherents of the “isolation” defense for the Negro may be
interested in Kroeber’s comment in a later section of his book: “All in
all, Negro Africa lies open enough to the main Eurasian centers to have
presumably experienced a slow cultural ‘bombardment’ that constantly
mingled new traits with old, foreign with acclimated, and acclimated
elements with those indigenously evolved. Through the centuries and
millennia, everything got worked over until it took on the native local
color.”
[10] For an analysis of the derivation of the “equality” phrase in the
Declaration of Independence, see R. Carter Pittman, “Equality Versus
Liberty,” _American Bar Association Journal_, Vol. 46, No. 8, August
1960.
[11] Stuart Cloete, the noted writer on African affairs, has this
to say about conditions in the Congo: “I have yet to meet more than
a handful of Africans who wanted to work. There are a few, but so
few that they can be considered non-existent.... There is no desire
to succeed here--only an unearned claim for equality with nations
that have spent millennia climbing out of barbarism. The African is
still in an infantile stage of violence. He cannot think, argue or
rationalize. His answer to any problem is the spear, the club or the
witch doctor.... Like a delinquent, the Congo out of control will have
to be institutionalized.... It is we who are going to foot the bill
for rehabilitation. The flood of dollars has already begun. It will be
interesting to see into whose pockets it flows since most of the money
spent by the United Nations will come from us. It is we who will pay
the piper and yet not call the tune.”
In regard to other Negro states, Mr. Cloete writes: “Without white
direction and control he [the Negro] can do nothing. There are no
African achievements. Ghana is believed to be running on an even keel,
but if the white man left Ghana it, too, would collapse. Liberia is
supported by Firestone and the Bona Hills iron mines. Haiti is always
in distress; Abyssinia, dependent on white enterprise.”
[12] This term is subject to many interpretations. I use it in the
broadest sense of that morality and those principles which are based
upon the Christian religion as it has been interpreted by the vast
majority of the English-speaking peoples. Individualism, thrift,
earning and deserving--these are a few of the concepts I would include
under the term, but these are not to be extended to cover their
caricatures in greed, parsimony and selfishness.
[13] For a provocative study of the effect of cultural mixing
throughout history, and the initial deterioration that can be expected
from it, see J. M. Radzinski “The American Melting Pot: Its Meaning to
Us,” _American Journal of Psychiatry_, Vol. 115, No. 10, April 1959.
Dr. Radzinski says in part: “The immigration of many millions of people
into the U.S.A., _particularly during the past 80 years_, [Emphasis
mine: this was the period of immigration of non-English speaking
peoples in the sense this term is used in my answer on page 47] has
brought together here the greatest assortment of ethnic stocks in the
world and probably in history. If the lessons of European experience
have any meaning, such a conglomeration of racial and ethnic elements
renders a serious cultural decline inevitable. Symptoms of the decline
are already apparent in the deteriorating state of some aspects of our
culture, in the irresoluteness and confusion of our national leaders
and in the virulence of frank antisocial behavior among our people
far in excess of that encountered in west European countries, Canada
and Australia.... Today, in excessive homicide, treason, juvenile
delinquency and other crimes with their tremendous cost in suffering
and treasure, we are paying the price for our reckless generosity to
peoples of other lands.”
[14] Somewhat the same situation occurred in the South, although to a
lesser degree because in the South discerning youth had always before
it the reality of the Negro.
[15] Consider also the experience of Mr. Robert as cited by Albert
Schweitzer in my answer on page 76: “With his abandonment of the social
interval between white and black he lost all his influence.”
[16] Blood group studies made during World War II reveal that the
composite American Negro, if such a person could be put together from
an average taken of gene make-up in the country as a whole, would be
28% white. This does not mean, as some people suppose, that 28% of the
Negro population are mixed-bloods. It means that if all American Negro
blood could be put into a common pool it would contain 28% white, 72%
Negro, genes. Tests by specific areas have not been made. Observation,
however, indicates a substantially higher white ratio in the North, and
a correspondingly lower ratio in the South.
[17] I by no means intend to suggest that all college professors or all
churchmen are consciously either equalitarians or communists. I believe
many, not all, are equalitarian without realizing the implications of
their teaching; very few are conscious communists.
[18] I wish again to emphasize here what I said in the last two
paragraphs of the answer ending on page 48.
[19] It seems to be a favorite technique of equalitarian cartoonists to
depict the hillbilly Southerner as the last run of shad in stupidity
and depravity. I suggest to these cartoonists that they take one ride
in a New York subway.
+Chapter IV+
CONCLUSION
With these answers, as of the end of 1960, I was prepared to rest my
case. Reviewing the letters and the replies, there seemed little left
to say. In fact, current events, in both the domestic and foreign
field, were daily confirming the principles involved.
Unquestionably a major common denominator of fallacy in the many-sided
equalitarian ideology was the suppression of the truth concerning the
genetic foundation of life. We saw this truth around us every day, in
the color of our children’s eyes, in the structure of their bones, in
the cast of their countenances, in the qualities of mind and heart that
paralleled these elements, yet trance-like we clung to the belief that
it did not exist. We had every reason to understand that equalitarian
scientists would attempt to suppress it, that the equalitarian virus
must strike here, if nowhere else, to bring its victims down. Yet in
the vogue of the times, the left-wing drift at home, the growth of
socialism in Europe, the success of communism in the East, we dropped
our guard, lost our discernment, and succumbed.
The fallacy was serious enough in the private world of the individual.
It was doubly serious in the world of race. Here blindness moved to
the final follies in Little Rock and Leopoldville. Genetic racial
limitations should have been as clear as crystal. All history taught
it. All free science confirmed it. Few but a patently self-serving
minority of trained investigators contested it. Yet the leading nation
of the free world embraced the fallacy, used its influence in foreign
affairs in support of it, and corrupted its own people in its name.
Tragic as this was, there was a related tragedy that disturbed me fully
as much. I had observed the slow erosion by the equalitarian ideology
of the minds of otherwise sensible men and women until, while still
conceding the fallacy to be a fallacy, they sought escape for their
consciences in compromise and appeasement. The cry of “it’s-too-late”
re-echoed from these defeatists like a knell. I asked myself how far
this might be due to a deterioration of the native spirit which founded
the nation, and I could only conclude that the explanation lay rather
on the borders of the hypnosis. These people were not fully “under”;
they were in a half-stupor on the edge. They were sound at heart but
slipping into the sleep. I could only say to such victims, “Remember
the words of Jesus: ‘You will know the truth and the truth will make
you free.’ Neither you, nor the Negro, nor the nation, nor the world
will find freedom or peace or security in fallacies.”
Or upon hearing the alternate cry, “But what can we do?” I could
only remind the wringers of hands that the answer to that question
comes solely to men who have set their faces toward the truth. There
are certain journeys on which one is not given, at the start, to see
the end. One asks “Which is the path?” and as one walks, the way is
revealed. I could give to these a more recent text than the Bible. I
could quote the first President of the United States: “Let us erect a
standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the
hands of God.”
However, a rightful emphasis upon genetic foundations could never
preclude an equally rightful emphasis upon environment, and I wondered
as I completed my answers whether I had made my position on this
point plain. No tendency in human nature is more unfortunate than
the tendency to swing from one extreme to another. With the decline
of feudal society and the onset of the industrial revolution, men of
good will had found themselves first hopeful, then doubtful, then
despairing. One form of bondage seemed only to yield to another. Man’s
exploitation of man continued in new forms. In Europe the new protest
took shape in the extremes of Marxism and communism; in America,
ameliorated temporarily by the frontier, in the lesser evils of a
society increasingly government oriented. Controls that were initiated
to curb license were extended to curb liberty. Equality of opportunity,
a most precious and characteristically American ideal, was extended
to embrace social, cultural and genetic equality. Error had used the
door of pity to enter both our minds and hearts. Environment had been
counted upon to accomplish everything, and in the process the general
environment had, perforce, declined.
Must I then urge, or seem to urge, a swing toward an exclusively
genetic emphasis? Must I be held to condone inferior schools, slums,
unnecessary segregation in non-social situations, and humiliating
attitudes toward the Negro? Prayerfully not. For every ounce of
emphasis on heredity, I favored precisely an ounce of emphasis on
environment, provided it were an environment, for white and black
alike, which contained inducements to self-reliance rather than to
government dependence, and to the earning of status rather than to a
presumption of title. Only the raw material was genetic. It determined
the limits. What was built within those limits depended on the
environment. Good raw material, with nothing built, yielded nothing.
Limited raw material with careful building might yield much. There was
no denying that the vital force in the soul of a man needed challenge.
The distinction that had to be drawn was between the challenge and the
millstone.
The environment had indeed declined in its inspirational values,
conformity had replaced initiative, security had eclipsed enterprise.
It was impossible forever to glorify the underdog without in the end
glorifying too much of what the underdog stood for, just as one could
not incessantly disparage distinction without in the end destroying
excellence. But a vast task remained in creating an inspirational
environment for those willing and able to benefit from it. Social
justice in such an environment was harder to achieve than social
security.
In the case of the Negro it was imperative to remember, in the words of
the great French anthropologist Millot, that the limitation was “one
of degree and not of nature”. The essential humanity in the Negro must
never be forgotten. Cooperation, the bonds of loyalty and affection,
in their appropriate spheres, were wholly natural and desirable. It
was worth recalling the words of Booker T. Washington, “In all things
purely social we can be separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in
all things essential to mutual progress”. The ideal of racial integrity
did not preclude the ideal of a common humanity. Men of good will, both
North and South, both black and white, had always known this. Save
for the intrusion of alien influences, they would have continued the
progress that had already exceeded any made before.
The Negro in his heart was fully aware of his debt. Since he did not
wish to return to Africa, he had the duty to remember, as did all
those who were enjoying the blessing of American life, that it had
flowered from the blood, the intelligence and the character of men long
schooled and experienced in the responsibilities of freedom. If the
Negro wished to share in its benefits, let him not undertake to destroy
their source, nor to be made a tool by white men of alien background
and design.
The man with the heaviest burden to carry, the man who could do the
most harm and also the most good--the man who must choose between
avenging or redeeming a past beyond his control--was the mixed-blood.
To him, every white man of good will owed a particular obligation.
No class of our citizens were entitled to higher respect than those
mulattoes who chose to redeem the past, just as none were to be more
shunned than those who chose to avenge it. In the North there were
untold numbers who had the alternative. There were many in the South.
Wherever they were and in whatever degree their ability and character
deserved, let white men open the door of opportunity to them with a
special sympathy. Even for them, the white man could not, if he were
wise, deny the genetic truth. But he could lighten the burden.
The mulatto who was bent on making the nation mulatto was the real
danger. His alliance with the white equalitarian often combined men
who had nothing in common save a belief that they had a grudge against
society. They regarded every Southerner who sensed the genetic truth
as a bigot and used every tactic of deceit and every balance-of-power
position to teach and vote a genetic fallacy. Here were the men who
needed to be reminded of the debt the Negro owed to white civilization.
If Africans were to be brought to America to observe and learn, let
such mulattoes be taken to the Congo to observe and learn.
Even here, however, I could not urge a spirit of hostility.
Steadfastness against false teachings, but understanding of how such
teachings were motivated, was imperative. A little imagination sufficed
to recognize the difficulties and temptations, even of the avengers.
Firmness was not incompatible with compassion.
As I shuffled the last of these pages on my desk, an October afternoon
was ending and, at the country place where I live, the fall air
was scented with the smoke of burning leaves. There is always in
our American autumn, it seems to me, a quality of appraisal and
rededication, and on this afternoon I felt how much we needed an
inventory of the values that had made us great. Minority groups, coming
to us for asylum out of centuries of failure in the struggle for
freedom, clamored to dilute those values, but their voices only made
the more necessary our own recommitment. I could only repeat: To alter
the foundations on which a house is built is a doubtful way to preserve
it. Let us continue building, let us extend the foundations, but let us
not change rock to sand.
INDEX
A
Abyssinia, 81n
Africa, climate of, 24-5, 45;
Negro in, 7, 24-5, 30, 36, 42-5, 47, 51n, 53-4, 75-7, 79-81, 90-1,
98, 117
Ahlgren, Frank, 5
Algonquins, 46
_Alice in Wonderland_, 59
Allier, Raoul, 44
Alps, 24
Amendment. _See_ Fourteenth Amendment; Prohibition.
_American Anthropologist_, 51n
_American Bar Association Journal_, 60n
American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, 18n
_American Commonwealth_, 7, 98
_American Dilemma_, 22-3, 62, 72, 74, 108, 111
_American Journal of Psychiatry_, 85n
“American Melting Pot, The”, 85n
American Peace Crusade, 18n
American revolution, 76, 79
Anderson, S.C., _Herald_, 89
Anthropologists, 21-4, 34, 49-52, 54
Anthropology, 15-16, 18, 22, 25, 35, 40, 47, 49-52, 71, 108
Appeasement of evil, 23, 83, 103, 106
Aquinas, St. Thomas, 43
Arabs, 25, 43
Arrogance, 6, 82
Arthur, King, 45
Athletics and intelligence, 7, 59
Attorney General Rogers, 11, 17-19, 21, 29, 30;
letter to, 21
Authority, 76, 82, 106
Average, term distinguished from “frequency”, 36n
Aztecs, 14
B
Baldwin, William W., 44n
Barbarians, white, 24, 43-4
Belafonte, Harry, 92
Beowulf, 43
Beria, 75
Bible, 8, 115
Bigman, Stanley, 91
Bigots, 95-6
_Biologie du Noir_, 51n
_Biologie des Races Humaines_, 51n
Birds of a feather, 70
Birmingham _Post Herald_, 11
Blackmail, 9
Blood group studies, 92n
Blood transfusions, 50
Boas, Franz, 18, 20, 23-7, 47-50, 70, 108, 109
Bombings, 113
Boutwell, Albert, 12
Brain, human, 23, 41, 53-4
_Brain and Intelligence_, 41
British civilization, 41, 44-6
Brotherhood, 70
_Brown vs. Board of Education_, 26, 108
Bryce, James, 7, 15, 98-9
Buffalo _News_, 14
Bunche, Ralph, 92
C
Cain, 27
Canary, 59
Cannibalism, 44
Cantor, Eddie, 38
Carburetor, social, 84
Carnegie Foundation, 74, 111
Carothers, J. C., 53
Carver, G. W., 92, 95
Caucasoid, _See_ Whites.
Change, 4, 77, 96-7, 108, 109
Character and Intelligence, 7, 23, 30, 58-9
Charity, 16.
_See also_ Kindness.
Charleston _News and Courier_, 29
Chatham, Ontario, Canada, 25
Children, most defenseless element in community, 90-1;
willing to integrate, 66
Chinese, 26, 45, 81, 103
Christ, 67-8, 70, 83, 102, 113
Christian country, U.S. founded as, 104
Christian religion, 8, 15, 17, 67-70, 85n, 102-3
Christophe, Emperor, 45
Citizens, second class, 94
Civilization, Algonquin, 46;
British, 41, 44-6;
development of, 24, 27, 41, 44-5;
Mayan, 46;
Roman, 24, 27, 45;
of South, 27, 37, 85, 107;
white capacity for, 7, 27, 41, 44-5, 78-9, 93, 105;
white, at worst, 42-3, 56.
_See also_ Negro.
Civil War, 36, 85, 97, 98
Clay, Henry, 62
Climate, 24-5, 27, 45, 46
Clock, turning back, 97
Cloete, Stuart, 80n
Colonialism, 76, 80
Columbia University, 18, 23
Communism, 15-16, 70, 73-5, 83, 88
Compassion, 67, 103, 117.
_See also_ Kindness.
“_Competitive Exclusion Principle, The_,” 51n
Congo, 7, 24, 80
Connolly, Cornelius, J., 41
Constitution, U.S., attacked by Myrdal, 22;
change of, intended to be difficult, 109;
our national charter, 61, 100
Constitutions, world wide, and equality clause, 61
Contagious diseases, segregated, 65
_Contemporary Review_, 68
Convention, Constitutional, of 1787, 22, 60
Court, white girl not presented at, 63
Crossings, in breeding, 59
Crucifixions, Negro, 88
Cultural mixing, 85, 97, 106-7
Culture, related to race, 27
Customs, local, 6, 21
D
Dabney, Virginius, 4-5, 9-10, 12, 30
Dahomey, 44
_Daily Worker_, 18n
Davidson, Basil, 43-4
Declaration of Independence, 60-1
De la Mare, Walter, 69
Delinquency, juvenile, 82-3, 85n, 106
Democracy, abroad, 75, 78;
American, 15, 60, 81, 104.
_See also_ Freedom; Liberty.
Desegregation, distinguished from integration, 93-4;
and equality of opportunity, 62;
in social and non-social situations, 99;
Supreme Court decision on, 1, 4, 16, 21-22, 29, 62, 99-100, 106,
108-110, 112.
_See also_ Integration; Segregation.
Deserve. _See_ Earn-deserve concept.
Deterioration, and cultural mixing, 85n, 107;
spreads rapidly, 71
Dickens, Charles, 26, 70
Dignity, human, 94
Discrimination, 95;
capacity for, lost, 83;
Christ’s life a study in firm, 67
District of Columbia, not integrated by Congress, 98
Dixon, Frank, 12
Douglas, Steven A., 8, 60, 61
E
Earn-deserve concept, 2, 6, 8, 71-3, 75, 87
_Ebony_, 38
Education, in Negro schools, 7, 62
Egypt, 24, 43
Eisenhower, Pres. Dwight D., 5, 17, 80;
letter to, 5
Emotion, 15, 32, 96
England, Negro problem in, 68-9.
_See also_ British civilization.
English heritage in U.S., 104
English-speaking stocks, 41, 46, 104;
defined, 46
Enlightenment of leaders, 111
Entity of consciousness, 74
Environment, 16, 56, 63-4, 67, 115-6
Envy, 87
Equal facilities, 62
Equalitarian anthropology, 15-16, 18, 22, 26, 28, 47-9, 51-2, 108;
front, integration a part of, 94;
ideology, 16, 32, 47, 71-4, 76, 79, 80, 87;
propaganda, 16, 22, 80;
virus, 82, 114
Equalitarians quote Jefferson, 61, 62;
spend others children, 37
Equality, before the law, 4, 7, 23;
biological (genetic), of Negro, 7, 16, 23-8, 36-7, 40-6, 49-56, 59,
68-9, 79;
on the frontier, 2;
of opportunity, 2, 4, 7, 16, 23, 28, 62, 115, 117;
opposite of liberty, 60;
of racial capacities, danger of doctrine, 77-8;
in the sight of God, 8, 67-8;
social, 4, 6-7, 37, 62-3, 99-100
Ethic, Protestant, 85-6
_Eugenics Review_, 40n
Evans, Joseph E., 44
_External Morphology of the Primate Brain_, 41
F
Family influence, 63, 82-3
Faulkner, William, 92
FBI, 99
Fertile Crescent, 44
Fosdick, Harry Emerson, 32, 99
Foundations, and communism, 74-5;
of house, 104, 118;
need for, against equalitarianism, 111
Founding fathers, 61, 103, 107
Fourteenth Amendment, 20, 29, 97-8, 110
Frankfurter, Felix, 5-6, 8
Freedom, academic, 50;
of association, 6, 64-5;
and backward peoples, 77-80, 93;
limitations on, 83-4, 115;
and responsibility, 41, 71, 76, 78, 93.
_See also_ Liberty.
G
Gallup Poll, 22
Garrett, Henry E., 25
Genocide, 27
Genes. _See_ Equality, biological, of Negro.
Gettysburg Address, 60
Ghana, 44, 81n
Gladstone, William, 102, 110
Golden egg, 55
Gradualism, 65, 97
Graham, Billy, 32
Graves, John Temple, 12, 15
Guinea coast, 45, 90
Gunpowder, 78
H
Haiti, 20, 27, 45, 81n, 89-91, 98, 105
Halstead, Ward C., 41
Hamilton, Alexander, 60
Handlin, Oscar, 32
Hardin, Garrett, 51n
Hardwick, W. G., 12
_Harvard Educational Review_, 41
Harvard faculty, 99
Hate, 96
Heart, dictates of, 69, 70.
_See also_ Kindness; Love.
Hebrew Holy Charm, 38
Henry, Patrick, 103
Heredity, 16, 50, 58, 63-4, 67
Herskovits, Melville J., 18, 32, 47, 111
Heuse, Georges A., 51n
Hillbilly Southerner, 107n
Hitlerism, 15, 17, 56
Hoax, pseudo-scientific, 22, 29, 113
Hog Wallow, Ark., 42
Human dignity, 94
Human rights, 88, 94, 105
Human sacrifice, 44
Hypocrisy, 37, 96
Hypnosis, 16-17, 20, 32, 49, 50, 52, 54-5, 86, 88, 114
I
Illegitimacy, in District of Columbia, 91
Immigration, new, 47, 85, 104.
_See also_ Minority groups.
Indianapolis _Star News_, 14
Indians, American, 76;
of India, 94
Individualism, 2, 71, 73, 85n, 103
Inferiority, concept of, 16;
of Negro, in limited terms of adaptability to white civilization,
23-8, 36-7, 40-6, 49-56, 59, 68-9;
not to be cured at expense of superiority, 56, 61, 81, 90-1, 103;
sense of, and motivation to learn, 29, 62-3;
and superiority, the essence of life, 103;
use of term limited, 36
Integration, and children’s desires, 66;
controversy, solution to, 108-113;
effect upon whites, 28, 68-9, 71, 90-1, 97-8, 105;
favored in proportion to need not to practice, 13, 36;
social, 37, 42, 65-6, 99, 106;
statistics on, 100-1;
token, 66, 94.
_See also_ Desegregation; Segregation.
Intelligence, 7, 23, 25-6, 40-1, 50, 52n, 58-9
Intelligence tests, 25-6, 40
Intermarriage and Christian religion, 68;
effects of, 39, 42, 59, 105;
and illicit relations, distinguished as to effects, 39;
Negro desire for 38-9;
temptation to, with integration, 65-6
International situation, 75-82, 105-6
Irish, 59
Isolation of Negro, 24-5, 45, 54n
Ivy League, 31
J
Jackson, Andrew, 62, 105
James, St., 67
Jefferson Memorial, 62
Jefferson, Thomas, 22, 60, 62, 84, 105
Jesus, 67-8, 70, 83, 102, 113
Jewish religion, 8
Juvenile delinquency, 82-3, 85n, 106
K
Keats, John, 8
Kentucky Derby, 59
Kenya, 77
Kenyatta, Jomo, 77
Key, Francis Scott, 62
Khrushchev, 73
Kindness, 16, 21, 28, 35, 67, 92, 103, 111, 117
Klineberg, Otto, 18
Kluckhohn, Clyde, 24, 26, 32, 50-1, 111
Korea, 18
Kroeber, A. L., 54-5
L
Latin America, 37, 76
Lawrence, David, 110
Leadership, 55, 81, 84, 109, 111, 113;
Negro, 35, 72, 88, 90, 93
League of Nations, 89
Lee, Davis, 89
Lefrou, G., 51n
Left-wing overdrift, 22, 32, 72-3, 106
Lenin University, 75
Leopoldville, 114
Letter to Attorney General, 21
Letter to President, 5
Liberia, 81n, 90
Liberty, 22, 60, 80, 115;
the opposite of equality, 60.
_See also_ Freedom.
_Life_ magazine, 4-5, 49
Lincoln, Abraham, 8-9, 15, 26, 60-2, 98-9, 105
Linton, Ralph, 18
Little Rock, 5, 16, 114
Lobes, frontal, 41, 53-4
Los Angeles _Examiner_, 14
Los Angeles _Times_, 14
_Lost Cities of Africa_, 43
Love, Christian, 8, 16, 67, 96;
across the color line, 38, 65.
_See also_ Kindness.
Lugard, Lord, 77
Lynching, 98
M
Man, the communist view, 74
_Mankind Quarterly_, 50
Marriage. _See_ Intermarriage.
Marshall, John, 105
Marxism, 16, 44, 87, 96, 104, 108
Mass media, 49, 85, 104, 107, 111
Matthew, St., 69
Mau Mau, 44n, 77
Mayan civilization, 46
Mboya, Tom, 77
McGill, Ralph, 32, 93-4
McGill University, 41
McGurk, Frank C. J., 40
Melting pot, 104
_Melting Pot, The American_, 85
Memphis _Commercial Appeal_, 5
_Mind of the Savage_, 44n
Millot, J., 51
Minority groups, 1, 18, 22-3, 28, 36, 47-8, 106, 109, 111, 118;
distinguished from racial, 48, 106n
_Mirror for Man_, 26
Miscegenation. _See_ Intermarriage.
Mixed-blood, presented as true Negro, 20, 92.
_See also_ Mulattoes.
Mixed breeding, 7, 20, 59.
_See also_ Intermarriage.
Moderate, Southern, 97, 107, 108
Montagu, Ashley, 18
Mulattoes, 19-20, 25, 89, 92-3, 97, 117
Munich, 66
Murder, analogy of appearing to commit, 110
Murdock, George P., 32
Myrdal, Gunnar, 22-3, 26, 28, 62, 72, 74, 108, 111
N
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
30, 49, 59, 88, 90, 100
_National Christian Magazine_, 57
Natural selection, 56
Negro, adaptability to white civilisation, 7, 23-7, 36-7, 40-6, 50-6,
68-9, 88-9;
admixture of genes of, 37, 41, 79;
advantages of white civilization to, 55, 77, 80-1, 88-90, 117;
in Africa, 7, 24-5, 30, 36, 42-5, 47, 51n, 53-4, 75-7, 79-81,
90-1, 98, 117;
Ashanti, 44;
characteristics, 7, 23, 36, 42, 44, 52n, 53, 77, 80, 88-90;
and climate, 45-6;
desire for intermarriage with whites, 38;
girl children sold, 44;
individual capacity of, 42, 64, 68, 92-3, 117;
isolation in Africa, 24-5, 45, 54n;
kindness to, 21, 28, 35, 92, 111, 117;
leaders, 35, 72, 88, 90, 93;
misrepresented by mixed-bloods, 20, 92;
and need for authority, 76;
opportunity not limited, 7, 24-5, 45, 105;
Pharaoh, 43;
population in South, 37;
and social equality, 4, 6, 7, 37, 62-3, 99, 100;
may some day prefer segregation, 56-8;
and white ascendancy in South, 98-9
_Negro in American Civilisation_, 51n
Nevins, Allan, 32
Newark _News_, 14
Newark _Star-Ledger_, 14
New England, 27
New Deal, 12, 78, 86
New York _Times_, 13, 49
Niagara Falls, 66
Nibelungenlied, 43
Nigeria, 44
Nile Valley, 24
Nixon, Richard, 32
_Noir d’Afrique_, 51n
Norfolk _Ledger-Star_, 10
North, Northern. _See specific items._
Nubian dynasty, 43
O
_On the Edge of the Primeval Forest_, 76
Opium, 75
Opposition to integration, extent of, 6, 8, 21-2, 100-1
Ortega y Gasset, Jose, 102
Overdrift, left-wing, 22, 32, 72-3, 106
Overlap of Negro in intelligence tests, 25, 93
P
Parasites, 27, 73
Parents, 36, 69, 82-3
Pendulum, 97
Pennfield, Wilder, 41
Peter, St., 67
Pharaoh, Negro, 43
Philippines, 79
Pittman, R. Carter, 60n
Pittsburgh _Courier_, 38
Pittsburgh _Press_, 14
Points for South to stress, 105
Polk, William, 28
Powell, Adam Clayton, 38
Prejudice, 91
President Eisenhower, 5, 17, 80;
letter to, 5
Pride, 64, 95
Progress. _See_ Change.
Prohibition Amendment, 8, 112
Proof of Negro limitations, 40, 49-53.
_See also_ Negro, adaptability to white civilization.
Protestant Ethic, 85-6
Putnam (Birmingham) Letter Committee, 12-14, 34
Q
Quisling, 108
R
Race. _See specific items._
Radzinski, J. M., 85n
Randolph, John, 62
Reconstruction Acts, 99;
days in South, 8, 98
Religion. _See_ Christian Religion; Jewish religion; Voodoo religion.
Responsibility. _See_ Freedom.
_Revolt of the Masses_, 102
Revolution, American, 76, 79
Richmond _Times-Dispatch_, 4-5, 9
Righteousness, 8, 67
Rightist, 83
Rights, human, 88, 94, 105;
of states, 35, 107, 109, 110
Roanoke _World News_, 12
Robert, Mr., 76, 90n
Robin Hood philosophy, 87
Rockefeller, Nelson, 32
Rogers, Atty. Gen. William P., 11, 17-19, 21, 29-30;
letter to, 21
Rome, 24, 27, 45, 55
Roosevelt, Eleanor, 32, 79
Roosevelt, Theodore, 1, 46, 87
S
St. James, 67
St. Matthew, 69
St. Peter, 67
St. Thomas Aquinas, 43
Salisbury, Rhod., 14
Salvation, 67
Samson, 48
Santa Claus, 74
Scientists, 19, 49, 50.
_See also_ Anthropologists; Anthropology.
Schools, 6, 25, 37, 63-5, 82, 93, 98, 101, 112;
a social situation, 37, 65
Schweitzer, Albert, 8, 75-6, 90n, 101
Scudder, John, 50
_Seething African Pot, The_, 44n
Segregation, 6, 28-9, 62-3, 71;
of contagious diseases, 65;
and pride, 95;
and a sense of inferiority, 29, 62-3;
of the sexes, 37, 65;
of smokers, 64;
voluntary, 56, 94.
_See also_ Integration; Desegregation.
Self-esteem, 64, 95
Self-interest, of colonial powers, 80
Sexes, separation of, in schools, 37, 65
Shuey, Audrey M., 25-6, 40
Sickle-cell anemia, 46, 50
Simpson, James E., 12
Singing and intelligence, 59
Skin, color of, not basis of segregation, 94-5;
not decisive as to amount of Negro genes, 92
Slavery, 36, 43-4, 60-1, 88, 91
Smokers, segregated, 64-5
Social equality. _See_ Negro and social equality.
Socialism, 16, 73.
_See also_ Equalitarian.
Socialist, to be, at forty, 84
Sociology, Sociologists, 47, 49, 52, 65, 71, 82
Solution to integration controversy, 108;
to Negro problem as a whole, 107
South, Southern. _See specific items._
_Southern Accent_, 28
Spanish Inquisition, 55
State Chief Justices, indictment of U.S. Supreme Court by, 100
State, the, fallacy of dependence on, 71-4;
a method only, 73
States’ rights, 20, 35, 107, 109, 110
Statue of Liberty, 104
Status, in religion, 8, 67;
social, 6, 56, 62-3
Stevens, Thaddeus, 98
Stevenson, Adlai, 79
Subversives, schools for, 74-5
Sudan, 43
Superior people, creating, 72
Superiority, the essence of life, 103.
_See also_ Inferiority.
Supremacist, 55, 107, 113
Supreme Court, U.S., and desegregation decision, 1, 4, 16, 21-22, 29,
62, 99-100, 106, 108-110, 112;
and improving Negro facilities, 62;
indicted by state chief justices, 100;
qualification of members, 100
T
Taboo, race, 19
Tanser, H. A., 25-6, 40
Taxation, punitive, 106
Tennis championship, 79
_Testing of Negro Intelligence_, 25, 40n
Thwaite, Daniel, 44n
Timbuktu, 43
_Time_, assistant to the publisher of, 25
_Time-Life_ group, 49
Tolerance, 95
Town Hall of the Air, 15
Toynbee, Arnold, 52-3
Trance. _See_ Hypnosis.
Transfusions, blood, 50
Treasury, government, 78
Tweedsmuir, Lord, 102
U
Unions, labor, 83, 106
United Nations, 79
U.S.I.A., 14
_U.S. News and World Report_, 38, 40, 65
V
Vallois, H. V., 52n
Victoria, Queen, 84
Virginia, State of, testimony before Supreme Court, 22, 28
Voodoo religion, 89, 105
Vote, intelligent minors denied, 64;
Negro, 84
W
Walker, G. W., 57
_Wall Street Journal_, 44
Waring, T. R., 29-30
Washington, Booker T., 90, 92, 95, 116
Washington _Post_, 5, 14, 91
Webster, Daniel, 62, 105
Weltfish, Gene, 18
West Indies, 37, 68
Weyl, Nathaniel, 51n-52n
Whites, ascendancy of, in South, 98;
capacity for civilization, 7, 27, 41, 44-5, 78-9, 93, 105;
integration favored by, 13, 36, 107, 108;
leadership of, 55, 81
“Winds of change”, 4, 77
Women, white, compared with Negro men, 59
Wynne-Tyson, Esme, 68, 71
Y
Yam Festival, 44
Yucatan, 45
Z
Zborowski, 99
“As a result of recent findings in the fields of physiological
genetics and population genetics, particularly as concerns blood
groups, the applicability of both the inequality axiom and the
exclusion principle is rapidly becoming accepted.... The emotional
restrictions of rational discussion in this field are immense....
It is not sadism or masochism that makes us urge that the denial be
brought to an end. Rather, it is a love of the reality principle, and
recognition that only those truths that are admitted to the conscious
mind are available for use in making sense of the world.”
Garrett Hardin in _Science_, April 29, 1960
Transcriber’s Notes
For printer’s errors and other inconsistencies in punctuation,
spelling, etc., only the changes listed below were made.
Footnotes were reindexed and moved to the end of each chapter.
Page references in the index were not verified and were kept as is.
_Italics_ and +Small Caps+ were formatted as so.
On page ix in the Contents the missing line “American Democracy ... 60”
was added to represent the labeled section in the chapter on that page.
On page 4 “everthing” was corrected to “everything” in “to share
equally in everything”.
On page 43 “that” was corrected to “than” in “passion being more
apparent than the proof”.
On page 49 “hynopsis” was corrected to “hypnosis” in “under the
hypnosis of the Boas school”.
On page 52 in footnote 8 “metamorphasis” was corrected to
“metamorphosis”.
On page 65 “analagous” was corrected to “analogous”.
On page 65 “benefitted” was standardized to “benefited” in “and if the
remainder are benefited”.
On page 66 “Niagra” was corrected to “Niagara” in “going over Niagara
Falls in a barrel”.
On page 72 “millenium” was corrected to “millennium” in “that the big
obstacle to a millennium”.
On page 83 “analagous” was corrected to “analogous”.
On page 83 “monoplies” was corrected to “monopolies” in “through
business monopolies”.
On page 88 “Undoutbedly” was corrected to “Undoubtedly” in
“Undoubtedly, education in many Negro schools can be improved.”.
On page 89 “acomplish” was corrected to “accomplish” in “can accomplish
when left to itself”.
On page 89 “businesmen” was corrected to “businessmen” in “leading
Negro businessmen”.
On page 92 “Bellafonte” was corrected to “Belafonte”.
On page 96 “discused” was corrected to “discussed” in “We have
discussed tolerance”.
On page 96 “blantant” was corrected to “blatant” in “there is no
hypocrisy more blatant”.
On page 101 “desegrated” was corrected to “desegregated” in “only
125--fewer than one in a hundred--have desegregated”.
On page 101 “Arkansas----” was changed to “Arkansas--”.
On page 108 “Is” was corrected to “It” in “It is customary for judges
to base their decision”.
On page 112 “abandoment” was corrected to “abandonment” in “even in
some cases to the permanent abandonment”.
On page 119 “See” was italicized in the entry for Amendment for
standardization.
On page 119 “Bellafonte” was corrected to “Belafonte”.
On page 119 “J” was corrected to “J.” in “Carothers, J. C., 53”.
On page 120 “73-5 83” was corrected to “73-5, 83” in the entry for
Communism.
On page 120 “Supreme Court decision on 1” was corrected to “Supreme
Court decision on, 1” in the entry for Desegregation.
On page 120 “112” was corrected to “112.” in the entry for
Desegregation.
On page 121 “99-100.” was corrected to “99-100” in the entry for
Equality for standardization.
On page 121 the missing header “F” was added.
On page 121 “Kindness, Love” was corrected to “Kindness; Love” in the
entry for Heart for standardization.
On page 122 “4-5; 49” was corrected to “4-5, 49” in the entry for
_Life_ magazine.
On page 124 “Atty,” was corrected to “Atty.” in the entry for Rogers.
On page 124 “Anthropologists, Anthropology” was corrected to
“Anthropologists; Anthropology” in the entry for Scientists for
standardization.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RACE AND REASON ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
