RACE. See Games.
RACE. There are two primary considerations to be made when discussing the races of man. The first of these is the biological and the second is the sociological. The biological consideration deals with the processes of differentiation of populations of humans, and the classification of the results of these processes. The sociological consideration deals rather with the mechanisms within society that influence the processes of differentiation as well as the reaction of a given social group to the end results of the various processes of differentiation.
I. The biological problem of race
No two human beings are alike. Two may look very much alike, but upon closer examination details of the physical features will reveal distinctions. Even when the outward physical features appear almost identical, there will still remain distinction of blood type.
At the same time, it is commonly agreed in scientific circles today that all living human beings belong to a single species. A species is composed of all those organisms which interbreed to produce viable fertile offspring.
Anthropologists generally agree that man forms a single, continuously varying species that is polymorphic—showing marked variability in many structural characteristics; polytypic—within any given population a number of types of individuals will occur; and polygenic—at a great number of “gene loci” two or more alleles are found in relatively stable proportions, which vary from one population to another depending upon selective pressures, and that most pheno-typical characteristics are the product of multiple gene effects. This species is composed of a large number of breeding populations, differing from one another because of local adaptive pressures, geographic impediments and, in some cases, social impediments to free gene flow between populations. This means that in all their major biological characteristics, they have more features in common than they have distinguishing differences.
Somewhere between consideration of two humans as against considering all humans within one species, it becomes apparent that certain distinctive traits tend to cluster in populations that have lived predominantly in one part of the world or other. The clustering of such traits becomes the basis for classification of populations.
There is no question but that such traits tend to cluster in specific populations; populations native in central Africa have much higher frequencies of genes that produce dark skin than do European populations. The frequency of the gene for blue eye color progressively diminishes southward from Scandinavia through central Europe to the Mediterranean and Africa. The problem arises in attempting to classify the subdivisions of populations on the basis of such traits. Prior to modern-day attempts to classify races on genetically based biological studies, taxonomy, literally, the arrangement of names, formed the basis of classification. It is generally conceded that Linnaeus’ system is the most complete. Before Darwin’s time, such name schemes became an end in themselves. In recent times there has been a shift from the utilization of a classification to present a picture of the ordained and eternal, to its utilization to represent distances and relationships.
Many schemes to group or classify populations have been presented. Some of these schemes have been based on physical traits alone such as the color of the skin, color and form of the hair, the eye color and other characteristic physical features. One such scheme divides all the people of the world into three major stocks: the Caucasoid (Caucasian), or white; the Negroid, or black; and the Mongoloid, or yellow. Each in turn is divided further into sub-groups. This was the dominant scheme of classification when the children’s chorus was composed: “Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world, Red and yellow, black and white, All are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.” The expression of the love of Jesus is quite Biblical. The “racial classification” is neither Biblical nor is it adequate.
Another scheme is based on geography alone. This classification coincides basically with the ethnic divisions within a geographically defined land mass, e.g. Asiatic. Other schemes are based on blood types such as A, B, or O. Still other schemes are based on the differences of language and/or custom.
Since the term “race” has been applied to all of these classifications, confusion has resulted and some noted anthropologists such as Ashley Montague have urged the elimination of the term. The idea has strong support in theory. In the selection of a trait to utilize in classification, if one character is used, it is possible to divide a species into subspecies according to the variation in this character. If two characters are used, it is still possible, but there will be some problems arising from the mixture. As the number of characters increases it becomes more nearly impossible to determine actual races. Further, the selection of the racially determining traits becomes a wholly arbitrary choice. It is felt by some, because of the complexity of the problem, the concept of race becomes meaningless.
There is the further problem that all populations have a history. What can be done in classifying the United States population in light of extensive immigration? Again, with the observed fact that most of today’s differentiations are the result of culture, some feel that the new conditions are so different that it is better not to use the term at all. In the words of Washburn, “races are products of the past, relics of times and conditions which have long ceased to exist.”
It becomes quite obvious, that if the term or the concept be used at all, it must be done with the greatest caution. If the concept of race is used meaningfully to classify populations, the classification must grow out of the purpose of the classification. As Buettner-Janusch has suggested, “Classifications are not immutable, and the ones that we use must be appropriate for the occasion.”
A. Definition of race. A scientific biological classification based on established genetic criteria permits the breaking the species of man into smaller biologically determined units. “A race is a human population that is sufficiently inbred to reveal a distinctive genetic composition manifest in a distinctive combination of physical traits.” This definition is a biological one based on the genotype or genetic makeup of man rather than on a phenotype distinction of persons who have a fairly definite combination of distinguishing physical traits. It does not ignore the physical characteristics, rather it recognizes them to be part of the picture as contributing to classification but not the sole criterion of classification.
B. Means of classifying races. According to E. Adamson Hoebel, four basic ideas are emphasized in the above definition: population, inbreeding, genetic composition and distinctive physical traits.
A population may be defined as “a group of possible observations or of individuals united by some common principle.” Generally speaking a geographical distinction is made as those who have inhabited a given continent or a section of continent in the past and who still do inhabit it to a great extent, e.g. Caucasians. They are more likely to share common ancestry. Within each geographical area or the race that results, might be found local races, again based on a geographic consideration. These are localized over broad areas within a continent or island chain, e.g. Nordics. Garn and Coon, who originally formulated this approach to racial analysis, suggest that the number of such races might be thirty. Finally, within each of these categories of local races might be found what have been called microgeographic races. These are extremely isolated, tightly inbreeding, small populations set off from other such populations, e.g. the Kentucky mountaineers of the southern Appalachians.
Inbreeding is the result of isolation and limited mobility and itself results in a random distribution of genes among a population of humans. Such distribution assures that a given population has specific genes not shared by other populations. They would have these to a greater or lesser extent. The more outside contact a population might have, the greater the distribution of the genes. The more restricted the contact, the more limited the distribution of the genes and the more highly specialized the genetic make-up of the population. Both geographic and social factors enter into the isolation of a group or population. Oceans may keep two populations from interbreeding on the international scene, whereas exogamy-endogamy may restrict marriage opportunities and thus reduce interbreeding on the local scene.
Genetic composition suggests that the hereditary materials in the sex cells are arrays of more or less discrete units. These were called “genes” in 1909 by W. Johannsen. The laws of inheritance produced by Mendel suggest four areas in which genetic theory clarifies the problem of heredity. The parental heredities do not mix in the progeny: when the descendants mature and proceed to form their own sex cells, the components of the parental heredities segregate, mutually uninfluenced and uncontaminated by their generation long sojourn in the same body. Further, heredity is particulate and not continuous: the hereditary materials in the sex cells are arrays of more or less discrete units. Also, although a child gets half his genes from his mother and the other half from his father, he receives only half the total genes (never all) each parent possesses. Finally, even though the gene theory seems notoriously capricious to a casual observer, there is system in this apparent caprice.
Following Mendel’s discoveries, specialists began to unfold the wonder of the gene and its influence in the life processes. It was discovered in 1902 that genes were contained in chromosomes. The chromosomes were later found to contain DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and protein. In 1961, Marshall Nirenberg of the National Institute of Health, found that all of life is not only built from the same basic DNA units, but is also assembled by one kind of code. All life was shown to be controlled by its own specific genetic code, much as a given computer card has its own holes punched and no other.
A whole concatenation of physical traits marks a given race. Yet it is clear that one individual never possesses all the traits that characterize his race. Such traits may be physical traits, or they can also involve blood types. Physical traits are the obvious characteristics of height, skin color, and kind of hair, for example. Blood is classified according to its agglutinative reactions, i.e. according to whether the hemoglobin (red blood corpuscles) clump together when mixed with alien blood. Such blood types as O, A, B, and AB form the basis for blood type classifications.
C. A classification of races. Perhaps the most complete and extensive classification of race based on the preceding definition of race is the one suggested by E. Adamson Hoebel as follows:
A classification of living races in nine major categories: (1) European—population of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East and their worldwide descendants; (2) Indian—population of the Indian subcontinent; (3) Asian—population of Siberia, Mongolia, China, Japan, SE Asia, and Indonesia; (4) Micronesian—population of the western Pacific Islands from Guam to the Marshalls; (5) Melanesian—population of the western Pacific Islands S of Micronesia, extending from New Guinea to Fiji; (6) Polynesian—population of the eastern Pacific Islands from Hawaii to New Zealand and Easter Island; (7) American—population of “Indians”; (8) African—population of Africa S of the Sahara; (9) Australian—population of aboriginal Australians.
A classification of living local races:
1. European
a. Northwest European: population of Scandinavia, northern France and Germany, the Low Countries, the United Kingdom, and Ireland
b. Northeast European: population of Eastern Baltic, Russia, and modern Siberia
c. Alpine: population of central France, southern Germany, Switzerland, and northern Italy, to the Black Sea
d. Mediterranean: population surrounding the Mediterranean, eastward through Asia Minor
2. Indian
a. Indic: population of India, Pakistan, and Ceylon
b. Dravidian: aboriginal population of southern India
3. Asian
a. Classic Mongoloid: population of Siberia, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan
b. North Chinese: population of northern China and Manchuria
c. Turkic: population of western China and Turkestan
d. Tibetan: population of Tibet
e. Southeast Asian: population of S China through Thailand, Burma, Malaya, the Philippines, and Indonesia
f. Ainu: aboriginal population of Japan
g. Eskimo: population of northern maritime fringe of North America and icefree fringes of Greenland
h. Lapp: population of arctic Scandinavia and Finland
4. Micronesian (no local races distinguished)
5. Melanesian
a. Papuan: population of mountain highlands of New Guinea
b. Melanesian: population of coastal area of New Guinea and most of the other islands in the Melanesian archipelago
6. Polynesian
a. Polynesian: aboriginal population
b. Neo-Hawaiian: 19th to 20th cent. blend of Polynesian, European, and Asiatic
7. American
a. North American (Indian): aboriginal population of Canada and the Continental United States
b. Central American (Indian): population of the Southwestern United States, Mexico, and Central America to Brazil
c. South American (Indian): population of all South America, except Tierra del Fuego
d. Fuegian: population around the Straits of Magellan
e. Ladino: new Latin-American population resulting from blending of Mediterranean, Central and South American (Indians), Forest Negroes and Bantu
f. North American Colored: 18th to 20th-cent. population blended of Northwest Europeans and Africans
8. African
a. East African: population of the E African Horn, Ethiopia, and Nilotic Sudan
b. Sudanese: population of the Sudan, except for Nilotics
c. Forest Negro: population of W. Africa and most of the Congo
d. Bantu: population of S Africa and adjacent parts of E Africa
e. Bushman-Hottentot: surviving post Pleistocene population in S Africa
f. Pygmy: small-statured population living in the equatorial rain forest
g. South African Colored: population of S Africa produced by a blend of NW European and Bantu, plus some Bushman-Hottentot
9. Australian
a. Murrayian: aboriginal population of southeastern Australia
b. Carpentarian: aboriginal population of central and northern Australia
The Negrito populations are sporadically scattered throughout SE Asia, Indonesia, and New Guinea. They thus straddle several normal geographic areas, and cannot be placed in any one of the major categories.
European (formerly Caucasoid). The European race is not actually white. It belongs to the group possessing varying pigmentation. Eye color varies from light blue to dark brown. Hair is blond to black and of fine to medium texture; it may be straight, wavy, or curly, but is rarely kinky and never woolly. The males tend to grow hair on their chests, arms, legs, and faces as well as on the tops of their heads. The nose is narrow and high, rarely broad or flat. Although the forehead is usually sloping, the face is not prognathous. Chins tend to jut, and lips are thin. Stature is medium to tall.
Indian. The fact that India is a subcontinent isolated from the rest of Asia by vast mountain ramparts qualifies its population for consideration as a geographical race. The population is, in fact, made up of hundreds of local races and microgeographic races. Tribal and caste endogamy has split the population into numerous intrabreeding groups separated by great social distances that are more inhibiting than geographical distances.
In the N of India, skin color is variably light. In the S, it may be very dark. Stature is short, except in the extreme NW, where there has been much European (mostly Middle Eastern) intermixture.
Most Indians are brunettes, and the hair is usually wavy. Body hair on males is moderately frequent. The head is almost always dolichocephalic. Eyes are dark brown and large. Body build is gracile.
Asian (formerly Mongoloid). The most outstanding Asian physical trait is the slant eye, more elegantly known to anthropologists as the internal epicanthic fold. The infants also have a unique feature, the “Mongolian patch,” which is a purplish, triangular area of skin at the base of the spine. Skin color is brown or yellowish-tan. Eyes are brown or dark-brown, and the hair is black. It is very coarse and straight, growing long on the head and scarcely at all on the face or body. Most Asian populations are brachycephalic. The cheekbones are broad and high, while the nose is squat and low-bridged, thus giving a flat faced appearance. While their body trunks are fairly long, heavy, and broad, they are usually short and squat in stature, because their legs are short.
Micronesian. This population resulted from a blending of SE Asians and Melanesians. It is medium-statured, brown-eyed, and dark-skinned. Hair is black and frequently frizzy. The head is brachycephalic to mesocephalic.
Melanesian (formerly Oceanic Negro). The peoples of the Black Islands are black in skin color (some are brown) and hair color. The hair is long and frizzy; hence the nickname “Fuzzy-Wuzzies” given them by American soldiers in World War II. The head is usually dolichocephalic, and the nose is high and broad (sometimes called Sem.). Eyes are dark and set in a very prognathous face, which has notably thick lips. Body hair is scanty. Stature is medium and the body well-formed.
Polynesian. Predominantly they are of Indic mixed with Melanesian and S Asian stocks. The race is very similar to the Malayo-Indonesians except that the stronger Mediterranean heredity gives a wavy form to the hair, elongates the face and body, lightens the skin, and produces a high nose. African traits show up in a tendency to fullness of lips. The dominant roundheadedness of the Asian characterizes most Polynesians. Hair grows luxuriantly on the head, but, as is to be expected in an Indic-Asian-Melanesian mixture, it is scanty on the face and body. As well-fed islanders, they have developed large and powerful bodies.
American (formerly Amerind). The Indians of the Americas are highly variable in stature, head form, and details of facial features. In general, however, they reveal their Asian ancestry in a predominance of brachycephaly; brown eyes; black, usually straight hair; thin lips; broad, high cheekbones; occasional internal epicanthic fold; and yellow or reddish-brown skin covering a broad and heavy body. Blood-type frequencies, as already noted, differ markedly from those of the Asian, however.
African (formerly Negro). Africans are the possessors of the darkest pigmentation of all mankind; nevertheless, few Africans are actually black. Most are dark-brown or brownish-black in skin color. Hair is prevailingly black, coarse, wiry, and tightly curled, kinky, or woolly. With few exceptions, heads are long and narrow. The occipital region juts out, as does the lower portion of the face, which in appearance is accentuated by the thick, everted mucous membrane that forms the lips. The African nose is broad, with flaring wings and a broad, deeply depressed bridge. The hair on the head, though thick, is short in length, while the male beard is sparse; body hair is rare. Stature is medium tall. The forearm is long, and the legs are thin (i.e., the calves do not ordinarily develop thick musculature).
Australian. The Australian aborigine is physically a “lowbrow.” His forehead slopes back from the heaviest supraorbital ridges to be found in any surviving race. His skull is narrow and houses a brain that is notably smaller in volume than that of any other living race. His face juts forward, and his dental arches even more so. His dark-brown eyes are set beside a deeply depressed nasal root, below which the broad thick tip of the nose flares up in a great bulb. The whole face is compressed from symphysis to nasion. The Australian is neither very short nor very tall. He grows a slender, short body on a pair of pipestem legs. (From E. Adamson Hoebel, Anthropology, The Study of Man.)
D. How races differentiate. “The differences between human races are, after all, rather small, since the geographic separation between them is nowhere very marked. The races gradually diverge. There is, of course, nothing fatal about this divergence, and under some circumstances the divergence may stop or even be turned into convergence. This is particularly true of the human species. The human races were somewhat more sharply separated in the past than they are today. Although the species inhabits almost every variety of environment on earth, the development of communications and the increase of mobility, esp. in modern times, has led to much intermarriage and to some genetic convergence of the human races” (Dobzhansky).
Races differentiate within the human species as a result of four factors. Selection is the operation of environment at various levels to prevent or encourage the reproduction of genes of the individuals carrying them. If forces of any kind favor individuals of one genetic complexion over others, in the sense that they live and reproduce more successfully, the favored individuals will necessarily increase their bequest of genes to the next generation relative to the rest of the population. Genetic drift refers to the loss of genes through sampling accidents in the process of segregation and recombination of genes. In a large population the relative amount of any given individual’s contribution to the next generation is much less than would be the case where the population size is small; though a given mutation stands a better chance of being transmitted in the larger population than in the smaller. Whereas selection is directional, genetic drift is non-directional, due primarily to its being the result of chance. Mutation is the molecular reorganization of the genetic code. The gene fails to copy itself exactly in the process of replication. It has been estimated that this happens in only one in fifty to one hundred thousand replications. The vast majority of mutations result in physiological inactivation according to Sewall Wright, as for example, the depigmented and eyeless fishes that inhabit underground rivers and pools in caves. Mutation, however, has been proven only to produce variation within a species. There has never been proof of the development of a new species by this mechanism. The resultant change is thus likely to be regression, rather than progression. Genetic flow is the transmission of genes from one population to another.
Three very significant factors enter into the problem of the differentiation of the races to encourage or impede the processes of differentiation indicated above. These involve geography, environment and sociology.
Geography becomes a factor in differentiating races in terms of space and physiographic features. Each serves to result in geographical proximity or isolation. It is not likely that the Iroquois interbreed with the Australian because thousands of m. of ocean separate them. A mountain range may effectively separate two populations simply because of the time and effort necessary to cross the mountain to effect interaction. On the other hand, in many primitive groups it is likely that every person is genetically related to the other.
Ectogenetic theories of human development suggest that the environment plays a major role in human change, determining in certain instances just what kind of change takes place. These theories suggest that alterations induced in the inhabitants of warm climates will differ from those in cold climates and that different races, species, etc. will eventually appear. Such theories have generally been discredited, since the environment itself is not recognized to impose changes on the organism, but there is recognition that environment does have some effect on the differentiation of races.
The human organism is known to adapt to a specific environment in two ways: either an organism can possess a morphology suitably generalized so that it can get along adequately in a variety of environments, or it can preserve the genetic potential for producing variants capable of getting along under specifically differing conditions.
Social isolation may produce differentiation. This may be due to social, religious, political or economic factors. If one society is Catholic and another Buddhist, there is limited expectation of interbreeding.
E. Modern races vs. prehistoric races. It is relatively simple to conceive of races in the present day. We accept them as part of our everyday involvement in living. However, scientists have not always been able clearly to differentiate racial groups in the past. In studying the human fossil record, and reconstructing the line of development of fossil man, a unilinear approach is likely to be presented. Homo sapiens is thus pictured as being in a direct line of descent from Australopithecus through such developments as Homo erectus, Solo man, Rhodesian man, Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man. We will never know for sure, but any of the fossil men could have easily been separate races, rather than part of a unilinear development of distinct types of man.
Carleton Coon elaborated a theory of race originally proposed by Franz Weidenreich. Based on a concept of parallel lines of development, Coon suggested that whereas the contemporary Asian population traces its lineage back to Homo erectus pekinensis, the contemporary European population traces its lineage to Homo sapiens steinheimensis. In all, he posits five racial lines in this way, “each as old as man himself,” back to Homo erectus.
II. The sociological problems of race
A. Deriving from the religious community
1. The Bible and race. The Bible does not refer to the term “race”; nor is there a concept of race developed in the Bible. Yet, the Bible has been made the center of very deep-rooted feelings regarding race. Such feelings as well as the theories that have sustained them, have derived from sociological sources rather than Biblical sources. Within specific societies, racial distinctions have arisen that have developed into racist attitudes. They derive mainly from ethno-centric orientations to the universe that make one kind of peoples the center of the universe, so to speak, and all other peoples inferior to them. Once such racial distinctions are made, a variety of authorities are naturally called upon to substantiate the point of view selected. It is at this time, and for this purpose, that the Bible is utilized, since it has been an authoritative source for a large portion of the civilized world since its writing.
The early chs. of Genesis are susceptible to the interpretation that the races were separate species created by God as they are today. The range of interpretation is quite broad. There are those who have taken the Adam and Eve account to apply only to Caucasians. It has even been argued that the Negroes appearing in Egyp. monuments, as well as the skulls of the Indian mound builders of Ohio, differed in no way from their living descendants. This would imply that there was no important change in living creatures in the only slightly longer time since the creation itself, established time-wise by Archbishop Ussher at 4004 b.c. Some others have argued that Cain was black and thus founded the Negro race, an idea very attractive to racists since they can then associate Cain’s behavior with the Negro type.
Another interesting, though wholly unfounded, theory is that the white man is connected with the “man” in God’s creation, the Negro is connected with the concept “beast” in the creation story. The details of what a beast looked like were not included in the Biblical account. This means that the reader was expected to associate the linguistic symbol with what he knew in the real world. There is no indication that the Heb. speakers of the language ever associated the beast with some living being with a dark skin. The association is always made with that which we know to be animal, with no intelligence. The Negro, by all measures that are scientific, covers the full range of intelligence of any living human with lighter pigmentation of skin.
Other points of view centered on the family of Noah. Some firmly believed that the Negro differentiated slowly from the racial type of the family of Noah. Others considered him a direct descendant of Ham who, tradition supposedly tells us, was born black. This tradition may well have originated with the linguistic base of the name Ham meaning “black.”
One variation on the “Hamite” theme is that Shem and his descendants moved eastward into Asia; Japheth moved westward into Europe; and Ham moved southward into Africa. Since people who lived in Asia are reddish brown, apparently Shem was of that color; since those who come from Europe are of lighter skin color, therefore Japheth must have been of that color; and since Africans are dark-skinned people, therefore Ham was a dark-skinned person. None of these arguments takes into consideration the possibility that all three of the brothers were of a darker skin pigmentation, one that characterizes the peoples of the Near E. The differentiation of color likely came many hundreds of years after the time of the sons of Noah.
Another variation on the Hamite theme is that Ham was turned into a dark-skinned individual through the curse placed upon him. The curse of Noah was really on Canaan, one of four children of Ham, not on Ham himself. Apparently the curse had no lasting import, since history tells us that Canaan’s descendants dominated the whole land of Pal. until long after the death of Moses. There is further no indication that the curse had any “spiritual” import; that it had any sanction of God that would make it an enduring curse; that it had any relation to skin pigmentation; and that Canaan was in any way connected with the Negro population. W. F. Albright even went so far as to indicate that all known races in the region of the OT world belonged to the socalled “white” or “Caucasian” race, with the exception of the Cushites (Ethiopians) who were strongly Negroid in type.
The tower of Babel account has become the focus for other theories of the origin of race. Some have considered that God miraculously produced the races in the same instant that He confounded the languages. A man by the name of Ariel even suggested that the tower of Babel was built by Negroes only who had no connection with the family of Noah.
Such theories or fancies have been utilized to establish racial distinctions as they relate to racists’ arguments. At any one point in the history of civilization it has been difficult to distinguish the truth from the false interpretations of Scripture. Present-day scientific schemes, on the other hand, do not serve to negate the Scriptures nor the truth of Scripture; rather they negate the myth, the untruth that has grown up around the truth of Scripture, as men have “seen in part” and dogmatically asserted that they have seen the whole.
With such a background, it is possible to suggest what the Bible does say about the question of the races of man.
It does talk about ethnic groups by name, going so far as to describe specific customs characteristic of the ethnic groups such as in the Book of Ruth. It refers to geographical locations referring to the language problems that arise, creating the situation given in the Book of Acts, where, in ch. 2, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples of Christ after His death, and each spoke in tongues so that the people from the different geographical areas could understand “each in his own language.” Paul recognized legitimate distinctions of language in 1 Corinthians 14:10: “There are...so many kinds of voices in the world...” (KJV).
In three instances, black skin color is referred to: the first of these by Job when his skin took on a darker hue due to his illness (Job 30:30); in Lamentations when the author referred to a time of oppression when the skin of the people was “black like an oven because of the terrible famine” (Lam 5:10 ASV), and finally in the Song of Solomon when Solomon appears to quote his love, saying: “I am black but comely” (Song of Solomon 1:5 KJV). The color reference in these instances was therefore only in terms of illness or beauty; but in no case was there a derogatory reference, nor was there any indication of inferior status assigned to those of black skin.
Prior to the building of the tower of Babel, “the whole earth had one language” (Gen 11:1). It appears that the people preferred to live in a non-divided geographical zone and had opportunity to interrelate rather continuously. Following the construction of the tower of Babel, the larger group was divided into a number of groups, as could be assumed from the concept “scattered.” They apparently proceeded to migrate in a broader, divided geographical zone. They thus became a number of separate or geographically isolated inbreeding populations rather than one inbreeding population. Whether the confounding of the language was instantaneous or not does not appear to be the point of the story. It appears rather that there was a causal effect, that in order to confound their language, they were scattered. Such scattering was certain to produce two effects, effects that are known today from the genetic and linguistic sciences: the separation of inbreeding populations produces distinct phenotypic characteristics within each separate population; and through the process of language change, isolated populations develop distinct languages. Just when this scattering took place is not clear from the Biblical account. The narration may be in the proper temporal sequence. It appears rather that this may have been interjected here by the author to clarify a point in the genealogical listing, which point is lost to us due to the writing-tr. process. Either way, we have a very clear insight into the scientific process of genetic and linguistic differentiation. The best scientific minds today tend to agree that Homo sapiens appeared and began to differentiate into races at the same time. The Bible does not need to be contradictory at this point.
Finally, two concepts become clear in the Biblical record. The first is that when dealing with people of distinct ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, one must deal with them in keeping with their backgrounds, as for example in Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in tongues. A second concept is that of Christian love manifested by Jesus in all His dealings with the people of diverse backgrounds, such as the woman of Samaria. There appeared to be no place for racism or racial distinctions based on superiority-inferiority in His experience.
2. Racial supremacy. Racial prejudice may arise from a variety of causes including economic and political as well as social; from a concept of superiority-inferiority; from biological differences or from combinations of these. It thus implies that “the differentiation of races is not a matter of science; it is by immediate perception that we recognize emotionally the differences we call racial.” Racial prejudice lies at the base of white-negro relations, which appears to have reached its climax in the United States; and Jew-non Jew relationships which reached its climax during Hitler’s regime in Germany and still lies behind much of the trouble in the Middle E.
The questions that arise from the problem of prejudice are: Do some races have a superior capacity for cultural attainment? Are they inherently more intelligent? Do they have an inherently greater capacity for leadership and domination that justifies their control and exploitation of allegedly less fortunately endowed races?
When one compares the comparative anatomy of races there is no clear indication of superiority of any given race. When races are compared with subhuman primates, Africans come out most “ape-like” in five characteristics and Europeans in three; but Africans are least “apelike” in six of the selected traits, while the Europeans are least so in only three. Such a comparison becomes somewhat absurd.
In comparisons of the brain size as correlated with intelligence, O. H. Klienberg concludes: “In general there appears to be an exceedingly small, though positive correlation between head size and intelligence.” But this can be due as much to good nutrition as to inheritance.
Intelligence tests do tend to indicate something about intelligence level when they are composed and applied to members of the same society. They produce somewhat absurd results when they are applied cross-culturally since many of the basic factors upon which the specific intelligence test is prepared are changed. How can an intelligence test designed to test Americans who learn individually and make decisions individually be used with any success among Australian aborigines or even Maya-related Indians of Central America who learn and make decisions in the group, not individually? S. D. Porteus attempted such an application among the Australians and they were disturbed when he did not help them solve the tests, esp. since he had even been made a tribal member.
Such testing produces very little evidence for racial superiority. So-called “intelligence tests” measure innate skill plus cultural experience. Any results must be critically evaluated in light of the knowledge of the culture. Aptitude tests do reveal racial differentials in visual, motor and vocal skills but these too are influenced by culture and to date there is no test that controls this variable. Finally, many skills of intelligence and aptitude definitely change when the cultural environment changes.
B. Deriving from the whole of society
1. Sociological controls in a breeding population. Society interacts with the environment to control the breeding population. The reaction of one society with the environment may very well determine with what other society it will make contact, e.g. in economic exchange, thus enlarging or restricting the interbreeding potential of each society.
The social structure of a given society also controls the breeding population. The paired principle of exogamy-endogamy, for example, which establishes marriage relationships between societies as well as within societies, regulates, most effectively, interbreeding between groups. Rules of exogamy-endogamy indicate the group outside of which one must go to find a suitable marriage partner; and also indicate the larger group within which one must find a suitable marriage partner. Any group not a part of the intermarriage potential of a given group will be sociologically isolated from that group and thus differentiation will likely result. Such arrangements between societies as economic trade commitments, political liaisons or religious affiliations will limit or increase contact between these societies.
2. Sociological reactions to distinct populations. We do know certain things about all races. All men, as Dobzhansky has pointed out, are adapted to learn language—any language; to perform skillful tasks—a fabulous array of tasks; to cooperate; to enjoy art; to practice religion, philosophy and science. The study of cultures should give a profound respect for the biology of man’s capacity to learn.
Unfortunately, however unfounded the basis for racial prejudice may be, the importance of the attitudes and behavior proceeding from it in many countries is indisputable. It is here that the most profound damage to society and the individual is sensed. Denial of equality of opportunity stultifies the genetic diversity with which mankind became equipped during his development. Inequality conceals and stifles some peoples’ abilities and disguises the lack of ability in others. In 1900 the life expectancy of white males in the United States was forty-eight years and in that same year the life expectancy of the Negro male was thirty-two years. As the life expectancy of the whites increased from forty-eight to sixty-two to sixty-seven years, that of the Negro increased from thirty-two to fifty-two to sixty-one years. It was evident he could progress and did, but his progress lagged many years behind the whites who obviously had better economic and social opportunities.
In summary the closing paragraphs of the Statement on Race of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Paris, 1950) read as follows:
We have thought it worth while to set out in a formal manner what is at present scientifically established concerning individual and group differences.
(a) In matters of race, the only characteristics which anthropologists have so far been able to use effectively as a basis for classification are physical (anatomical and physiological).
(b) Available scientific knowledge provides no basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development.
(c) Some biological differences between human beings within a single race may be as great or greater than the same biological differences between races.
(d) Vast social changes have occurred that have not been connected in any way with changes in racial type. Historical and sociological studies thus support the view that genetic differences are of little significance in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of men.
(e) There is no evidence that race mixture produces disadvantageous results from a biological point of view. The social results of race mixture, whether for good or ill, can generally be traced to social factors.
Bibliography E. Tilson, Segregation and the Bible (1958); T. Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving, the Evolution of the Human Species (1962); S. M. Garn, Human Races (1965); J. Buettner, Origins of Man; Physical Anthropology (1966); E. A. Hoebel, Anthropology, the Study of Man (1966).