King on Being a Good Neighbor

King on Being a Good Neighbor

Thomas Allen

In “On Being a Good Neighbor,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 21–30, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses a good neighbor, altruism, pity, and sympathy. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

According to King, a good neighbor is not passive; he is actively involved in life-giving deeds. (In other words, he meddles in other people’s affairs. Thus, the United States have been a good neighbor since the end of the Cleveland administration as they seek to meddle in the affairs of most other countries.) Further, being a good neighbor is not “a moral pilgrimage that reached its destination point but in the love ethic by which he journeyed life’s highway.” (P. 21) (That is, a good neighbor meddling knows no end.)

Next, King uses the story of the good Samaritan as an example of a good neighbor. (However, King and his followers seldom acted like good neighbors toward Southerners and never toward segregationists.) A good neighbor is altruistic. (Yet, King was never altruistic toward Southerners and especially segregationists.)

King preaches universal altruism (for Whites, but not for Negroes except for Negroes who opposed his movement). Neighborliness is an altruism that transcends tribe, race, class, and nation. (Nevertheless, King is void of such altruism. Whites are to sacrifice themselves for Negroes, but Negroes are not to give Whites anything. The rich and middle class are to sacrifice themselves for the poor while the poor are just to take. Segregationists are to sacrifice themselves to integrationists, but integrationists are never to give segregationists anything.)

While condemning a narrow group-centered attitude, King promotes a narrow group-centered attitude (— everything for the Negro.) The concerns of countries with their own interests lead to war. Manufacturers concerned with their own personal interests replace their workers with machines. (If workers were never replaced with machines, we would still be living in the stone age.) Expressing his desire for socialism and wealth redistribution, King condemns manufacturers who oppose the redistribution of wealth. (King-idolizing conservatives should promote the redistribution of wealth.)

Then, King condemns Whites who do not sacrifice themselves and all that they have for Negroes. Failure to do so robs the Negro of his personhood, strips him of his dignity, and leaves him dying along the wayside. (Whites have sacrificed much of what they have for the benefit of the Negro. Whites pay Negroes to loaf and have large families, give them jobs for which they are not qualified, allow them to break the law with impunity, and give them a host of other benefits and privileges denied Whites. Yet, most Negroes are still not satisfied. Now, Whites are denied their personhood, stripped of their dignity, and are dying along the wayside. Further, Whites grovel before Negroes begging forgiveness for things that they have not done.)

Continuing, King condemns people for failing to think of people of other races, nationalities, religions, etc. “as fellow human beings made from the same basic stuff as we, molded in the same divine image.”  (P. 24.) (However, King fails to free himself of his narrow-mindedness. He always promotes the interest of the Negro even at the expense of others. Moreover, especially regarding Southerners and segregationists, he fails “to remove the cataracts of provincialism from [his] spiritual eyes and see men as men.” [P. 24.])

Furthermore, King condemns Whites who do not see Negroes as human beings first. (Yet, King seldom sees Southerners as human beings first and never sees segregationists as human beings. He usually sees them as subhumans or lower vermin.)

Then, King remarks that many people do not aid Negroes because of fear. If they support integration and oppose segregation, they fear losing their jobs, prestige, and status. Further, they fear attacks on their person or property. They may also fear going to jail. (Now, Whites fear these things if they support segregation and oppose integration. Also, they fear these things if they oppose the benefits and privileges that Blacks have but are denied to Whites. As a result, many Whites grovel before Negroes.)

Continuing, King writes, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others.” (P. 26-27.) (Today, most people prefer temporary comfort and convenience to defending the White race and the country as founded. Consequently, most people are not true neighbors. Most likely, King would endorse today’s lack of neighborliness.)

Then, King writes, “True altruism is more than the capacity to pity; it is the capacity to sympathize.” (P. 27.) (King and most of his followers are void of altruism. Not only do they not pity Southerners or segregationists, but they also have no sympathy for them. Actually, many have a negative pity for them. King and his followers may pity them for being too stupid or ignorant to agree with King.)

King defines true sympathy as “the personal concern that demands the giving of one’s soul. . . . [S]ympathy grows out of a concern for a particular needy human being. . . . Sympathy is fellow feeling for the person in need — his pain, agony, and burdens.” (P. 27.) (That King would have had sympathy for Southerners and especially segregationists is hard to believe.)

According to King, pity is doing something for people, and sympathy is doing something with people. Pity without sympathy leads to paternalism. (Pity void of sympathy has mostly guided the civil rights movement. Progressives, liberals, and many conservatives have made the government parents of Negroes. It supports a large number of unwed mothers with children. It has given Negroes all sorts of unearned benefits and privileges. In short, the government is a parent who has made its Negro children spoiled brats.)

King pushes integrated church congregations and implies that Whites are responsible for segregated church congregations. (However, at least in the South, Negroes are the ones that initiated the segregation of church congregations. They wanted to be independent of Whites.)

Continuing, King writes, “The law cannot make an employer love an employee, but it can prevent him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin.” (P. 29.) (Because of forced or implied quotas to prove non-discrimination, employers hire based on race. Unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites to prove that the employer is not racially discriminating although he discriminates against Whites. King would have supported this discrimination because he promoted it.)

Next, King declares, “Court orders and federal enforcement agencies are of inestimable value in achieving desegregation, but desegregation is only a partial, though necessary, step toward the final goal that we seek to realize, genuine intergroup and interpersonal living.” (P. 29.) (In other words, King is promoting miscegenation. Consequently, he shows that he despises the American Negro. Miscegenation leads to breeding the American Negro out of existence, which is genocide. While King recognized that desegregation and integration were the road to miscegenation, White promoters of desegregation in the 1950s declared that miscegenation was not a goal of integration and would increase only slightly.)

Moreover, King believes that forced association leads to harmony and love. It could never lead to contempt and hostility. (Yet, the latter has occurred much more often than the former — probably because forced association violates God’s law of racial separation. What would have surprised King is that more contempt and hostility has arisen from Negroes than from Whites —thus, the desire of Negroes to segregate themselves from Whites, and Whites objecting to such segregation.)

Then, King claims, “True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.” (So far, integration has failed to live up to King’s promotion. More often than not, integration has led to disharmony and hostility — especially by Negroes as the Black Lives Matter riots showed — than to harmony and love.)

King falls far short of living up or even attempting to live up to his description of the good Samaritan. He is void of altruism and sympathy — especially for Southerners and segregationists. Thus, by his description of neighborliness, he is not a good neighbor. Moreover, integration has failed to achieve the harmony that he declares it would achieve.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

People of the Indian Subcontinent

People of the Indian Subcontinent

Thomas Allen

   The Indian subcontinent is a crossroad where four races, or perhaps more correctly, species, of humans meet. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Ceylon) comprise the Indian subcontinent. The four species of humans living on the Indian subcontinent are the Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), Indo-Australian (Homo australis), and Turanian (Homo luridus).

   The Melanochroi is the predominant species and consists of two racial types: the Dravidian and Indo-Iranian. Dravidians are predominately found in southern India and Sri Lanka. They are a principal type in much of southern India. Included among the Dravidians are the Brahuis of Baluchistan, Kanarese, Coorgs (Kodagu), Gonds, Kanaras, Khonds, Malayalis, Marathi, Nilgiris, Tamils, Telugus, Todas, and Tulus. Indo-Iranians (also called Aryo-Dravidians) are predominately found in southern Pakistan, northern India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka and are the principal type in these regions. Include among the Indo-Iranians are the Baluchi, Bengali, Dehwars, Gujarati, and Sinhalese.
    The Indo-Afghan (also called Indo-Aryan) is the primary racial type of Aryans found on the India subcontinent. They are predominately found in northwest India and northern Pakistan. They are a principal type in the Punjab and western Kashmir. Included among the Indo-Afghans are the Jats, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Pathans, and Sikhs.
    The Pre-Dravidian is the racial type of the Indo-Australian found on the India subcontinent. Pre-Dravidians are found predominately in India with lesser numbers in Sri Lanka. Included among the Pre-Dravidians are the Veddas of Sri Lanka; Bhils, Gondi, and Khonds (Kandhas) of north and central India; Bihors, Kolarians (Ho, Munda, Santals), and Oraons (Kurukhs) of Chota Nagpur; Badagas, Paniyas (Paniyans), Kadars (Kadirs), Uralis, Irulas, and Kurumbas of southern India.
    The primary racial type of the Turanian found on the Indian subcontinent is the Paraoean. Paraoeans are predominately found in Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Manipur, the New Frontier Agency. Included among the Paraoeans are the Burushaski, Lahulis, Manchatis, and Kanawris, all living west of Nepal; the Dotials, Magars, Gurungs, Tamangs (Murmi), Tharus, Rais, and Limbus of Nepal; the Lepchas of Sikkim; the Totos of West Bengal; the Newars of the Katmandu Valley; the Bodo of West Bengal and Assam; and the Nagas.
    The following two tables describe the two racial types of Melanochroi and the racial types of Aryans, Indo-Australians, and Turanians found on the Indian subcontinent. The numeric skin color is from von Luschan's Hautfarbentafel scale used to measure skin color.

Table 1

Table 2

    As shown above, four species of humans live on the Indian subcontinent. They are the Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), Indo-Australian (Homo australis), and Turanian (Homo luridus). These four species subdivide into five racial types: Dravidian and Indo-Iranian of the Melanochroi, Indo-Afghan of the Aryans, Pre-Dravidian of the Indo-Australians, and the Paraoean of the Turanians.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Dixon, Roland B. The Racial History of Man. New York: New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1923.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Risley, Herbert. The People of India. 2nd edition. Editor W. Crooke. Subhash Marg, Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp., 1969.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More articles on anthropology.

   

People of Africa

People of Africa

Thomas Allen

    Many people mistakenly believe that all Africans are Negroes except the late arriving Aryans of southern Africa. A result of this misconception has resulted in the claim that Negroes created the ancient civilization of Egypt. The people who created the ancient Egyptian civilization were the Mizraim, an Aryan nation, who arrived in Egypt around 3200 B.C.
    Five of the six races, species, of humans inhabit Africa. They are the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii), Negro (Homo niger), Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), and Turanian (Homo luridus). The Khoisans are the original inhabitants of Africa; they originated in Africa probably around 75,000 years ago. Next came the Negroes, who appear in Africa between 55,000 and 40,000 years ago. Following them were the Melanochroi, who arrived around 35,000 years ago. Next came the Aryans, who probably began arriving around 7500 B.C. with more substantial numbers arriving shortly after 1500 B.C. These later Aryans are the ancestor of most Aryans of North Africa. Finally came the Turanians, who landed in Madagascar starting in the first century A.D. with substantial settlements by 1100 A.D. Most Madagascan Turanians are from these settlers.
    The following map, which is based on Carleton Coon’s map,[1] shows the approximate areas inhabited by Khoisans, Negroes, Melanochroi, Aryans, and Turanians around 1500 A.D. During the last 500 years, the major changes that have occurred has been the area inhabited by the Khoisans has greatly contracted as Negroes encroached from the north and Aryans from the south. Also, large numbers of Melanochroi from British India were imported into the British colonies of East and South Africa. Along with a significant number of these later Aryans, a significant number of these Melanochroi still inhabit South Africa.

    The Negro is the primary human species inhabiting Africa. The racial types of Negroes found in Africa are Sudanese (True Negroes, Nigritians), Palaenegroes (Forest Negroes), Pygmies (Negrillos, Twides), Nilotes (Nilotic Negroes), Nilo-Hamites (Negro-Hamites), Bantus (Kaffirs), and Negro Malagasy.
    Sudanese are found predominately along the Guinea coast of West Africa from Senegal to Cameroons. They are a principal type in the countries along the Guinea coast from Gambia to Cameroons, and in southern Mali and Burkina Faso (Upper Volta). Included among the Sudanese are the Ashanti, Felup, Hausa, Ibo, Krus, Mandingo (Malinke, Bambara, Dyula, Kassonke, Soninke, (Jallonke), Mossi, Sara, Serer, Songhai, Toucouleur (Tacuror), and Wolof.
    Palaenegroes live in the interior forests of west and central Africa. Included among the Palaenegroes are the Balunda and Batoka.
    Pygmies are found predominately in the equatorial forests of Africa. They live in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi, and Zambia, but are only a minor part of the populations of these countries. Included among the Pygmies are the Bambutis, Batwa, and Babinga.
    Bantus are found predominately in central and southern Africa. They are a principal type in Zaire, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other countries of southern Africa. They are also found in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, and Gabon. Included among the Bantus are the Eastern Bantu (Buganda, Bunyoro, Chaga, Karagwe, Kikuju, Luyia, and Rwanda Rundi), the Western Bantu (Bassa, Bemba, Duala, Fang [Pangwe], Kuba, Luba, Lunda, Mbala, Soko, Songo-Meno, Teke, and Tetela), and the Southern Bantu (Herero, Ndebele [Tebele], Shona, Shoto, Tsonga, Tswana, and Zulu).
    Nilotes are found predominately in the upper Nile valley and adjacent lands from Khartoum to Lake Kioga and the northeast shores of Lake Victoria. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan and much of Uganda. Included among the Nilotes are the Abaka, Abukaya, Anuak, Beir, Belanda, Dinka, Jaluo, Kamasia (El Tuken), Latuka, Lendu, Luba, Madi, Mittu, Moru, Nuer, Shilluk, and Wira.
    Nilo-Hamites are found predominately in east and east central Africa. They are a principal part of the population of Kenya, Uganda, and northen Tanzania. Included among the Nilo-Hamites are the Lotuko, Lumbwa, Kipsigis, Masai, Nandi, Suk, Teso, Toposa, and Turkana.
    Negro Malagasy are found predominately in Madagascar and account for a majority of the island’s population. They include the Antankarana, Antandroy, Bara, Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Sihanaka, and Mahafaly).
    Tables 1 and 2 describe six racial types of Negroes: Sudanese, Negro Malagasy, Bantu,Nilote, Nilo-Hamite, and Palaenegro. Excluded is a description of the pygmy[2].

    

    Next to the Negro in importance is the Melanochroi.  Three racial types of Melanochroi are found in Africa; they are the Saharan-Hamites (Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (Ethiopians), and Egyptians.
    The Saharan-Hamites are predominately found in and around the Sahara Desert. They are a principal type in central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya. Included among the Saharan-Hamites are the Bale, Fulas, Mangbattus of Chad, Niam-Niam (Zandeh) of Chad, Shluh of Morocco, Tibbus (Tedas) in the Fezzan, Tibesti, and Tuaregs of the Sahara.
    Eastern-Hamites are predominantly found in the countries between Egypt and Kenya and east of the Nile River. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Included among the Eastern-Hamites are the Agau, Amhara, Barabra (Nubians), Bejas, Beni-Amer, Berberine, Bilins, Bisharin, Bogos, Danakil (Afar), Ethiopians, Falasha (black Jews), Gallas, Hadendoas, Kafacitos, Saho, Sidamo, Somali, and Wata.
    Egyptians are found predominately in Egypt where they are a principal type. They include the Fellahins.
    Table 3 describes three racial types of Melanochroi found in Africa. They are the Saharan-Hamite, Eastern-Hamite, and Egyptian.

    In the Maghreb is the Aryan racial type Southern Mediterranean. Southern Mediterraneans are predominately found in Morocco and Algeria from the southern slopes of the Atlas Mountains northward to the Mediterranean. They include the Berbers of Tunisia and Cyrenaica, sedentary tribes of Jebel Nefuse of Libya, the Kabyle, Mzab, and Shawia of Algeria, and the Riffian of Morocco. Except for recent arrivals in South Africa, they are the only type of Aryan  commonly found in Africa. Recent arrivals from to South Africa are primarily from the Netherlands and Great Britain.
    In Madagascar is the Turanian racial type Malayan Malagasy. Malayan Malagasy are found mainly in Madagascar on the central Imerina Plateau. They make up less than a third of the island's population.
    The Khoisan is the least populous human species inhabiting Africa. They include the San (Bushmen), Khoi (Hottentots), Sandawe, and Hatsa (Kindiga). The Sans and Khoi are found primarily in Namibia,  Botswana, and southern Angola. The Sandawe and Hatsa live in Tanzania. Khoisans are also found in South Africa in the form of the hybrid coloureds. Except for the coloureds of South Africa, Khoisans are a minor to insignificant part of the populations in the countries where they are found.
    Table 4 describes the Southern Mediterranean, Malagasy, and Khoisan.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Coon, Carleton S., Stanley M. Garn, and Joseph B. Birdsell. Races . . . A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1950.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Seligman, C.G. Races of Africa. 3rd edition. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1957.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Endnotes
1.  Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 26.

2.  A description of the Pygmy is found in Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Allen, pp. 101-103.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reality -- Part 1

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reality -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

       
    The following is a review of Race and Reality: A Search for Solution (Carlton Putnam, 1967; Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1980), by Carleton Putnam. My comments are enclosed in brackets. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Putnam opposes school desegregation and integration. Therefore, his book contains less deceit and fewer errors than books supporting integration. Thus, it requires fewer corrections. Most of my remarks are supporting commentary.
    I have quoted a good deal from his book because many of his remarks are priceless gems that are poignant and cogent. Unfortunately, most conservatives now believe the lies preached by liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, and other egalitarians about racial equality. Most libertarians believe these lies because their ideology does not allow them to believe otherwise. Thus, Martin Luther King has been deified.
    In Chapter 1, Putnam contemplates what he should have included in his first book (v. "Review of Putnam’s Race and Reason" by Thomas Allen). He is surprised by “the extent to which otherwise rational people were willing to be deceived  . . ., but not as much as the lengths to which public leaders, scholars, churchmen, and the mass media would go to alter the fabric of our society in the deception’s name”  (p. 2).
    He reviews some events that had taken place since he wrote his first book. “The passage of Civil Rights Acts, the pro-Negro pressures of government departments and the Negro-oriented stance of the opinion-forming agencies of our society had only resulted in increasing racial tensions throughout the country.” Race riots had occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Rochester, Cleveland, Los Angeles, and other cities. Civil wars, rebellions, coups d’etat, and other acts of political violence had become common in Africa (pp. 1-2). [Some of the worst race riots were still to come. Most of them were outside the South.]
    Putnam comments on the American Anthropological Association condemning people, especially scientists, who maintained that Blacks were not mentally equal to Whites. When presented with evidence of racial differences, these racial egalitarians either ignored the evidence or answered with assertions instead of evidence. Putnam writes, “The Anglo-American scientific hierarchy, speaking through their various associations and magazines, invariably retorted with assertions, not with evidence” (p. 5). Sadly, most people choose to believe the assertions and to ignore the evidence to the contrary (pp. 3-6). [This attitude probably results from laziness and fear. Much more intellectual effort is needed to analyze and accept evidence than to merely believe an assertion. Also, many fear taking a position that those with political power reject.]
    He notes that a poll taken in 1942 showed that 20 percent of Southerners and 50 percent of Northerners thought that Blacks and Whites were intellectually equal. When the poll was taken in 1956, 80 percent of Northerners and 60 percent of Southerners believed the races to be intellectually equal (p. 6). [This is proof of the effectiveness of propaganda in convincing people to believe a lie. Undoubtedly, these numbers are much higher today. However, one must wonder about the accuracy of today’s response. Are people telling the posters what the posters want to hear, or are they lying out of fear of being labeled a “racist”?]
    Putnam notes that “the dissolution of the colonial system among backward peoples . . . stemmed from the assumption that these people had the innate capacity to maintain stable, free societies. . . . The promiscuous granting of foreign aid . . . rested on the same assumption” (p. 6). [This assumption seems to have been replaced by the uncontrollable desire to destroy the White race.]
    Putnam favors Western European countries overseeing backward countries — governing them similarly to the old colonial system but without exploitation. He favors some kind of United Nations mandate system (p. 7, passim). [Abandoning the colonial system offered the imperial powers a great opportunity if they had completely forsaken imperialism. Instead, they replaced their overt imperialism with covert imperialism, such as foreign aid, meddling in the domestic affairs of backward countries, and nation-building. Moreover, Africa would be a more peaceful continent if the European powers had drowned the political borders of counties to match tribal boundaries.]
    Putnam believes that the domestic and foreign policies of the United States should be based on the concept that the races have different cognitive abilities instead of basing them on the concept of the races being equal in abilities (p. 7). [First, Putnam gives political leaders too much credit and the benefit of the doubt. Most probably knew that Blacks lacked the cognitive abilities of Whites. They had another agenda in mind — the destruction of the United States, Western civilization, and the White race. Second, the science of Putnam’s day proved that the races were not equal. Today, science proves their inequality beyond a doubt to anyone with a functioning brain cell.]
    Putnam wonders why conservatives and especially Southerners failed to use the strongest argument against the integrationist agenda. That argument is that the races are innately, genetically, unequal in their capacities. [Most conservatives and many Southerners seem to accept the integrationist dogma of racial equality or at least act as though they do.] By failing to argue racial inequality, which the scientific literature supported, conservatives lost to the liberals and integrationists. As Putnam remarks, “It became quite appropriate to refer to the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the liberals’ kept opposition” (p. 8). [Even 50 years later, conservatives and the Republican party, or Stupid party as Sam Francis liked to call it, remain the liberals’ kept opposition.] Putnam believes that this failure resulted from changes that had occurred before World War I. “Confidence in both the moral and physical force of rectitude had gradually disappeared. Respect for distinction had gone, too — and with it respect for authority in the home, in the community and in the state. All of these things tended to sap a man’s courage to assert a vested pride in his personal heritage — might it not be just as true as to the heritage of his race” (pp. 8-9)? However, he noted that minority groups only held a balance of power when the White majority was divided (pp. 7-9).
    He condemns conservative leaders who focused on communism or conspiracy while avoiding mentioning racial inequality (p. 9). These conservatives believed, or at least acted as though they believed, the assertion of racial equality. If they had defeated the dogma of racial equality, they would have defeated communism and socialism as they depend on the egalitarian dogma (pp. 9-10).
    Putnam comments on social injustice and writes:

With occasional but not statistically significant exceptions, in America at least, a man might be poor and “underprivileged” for one of three reasons: (1) because of innate limitations; (2) because of laziness and improvidence; or (3) because of social injustice. No one questioned the imperative to correct category 3. But what the equalitarian did was to seek to blur the distinction between all the categories and particularly to transpose 1 into 3. This must increase rather than abate class and race conflict for while most reasonable men would be willing to see their savings and perhaps other fruits of their industry, intelligence and self-denial taxed or destroyed to correct 3, few would submit indefinitely to such a procedure on behalf of 1 and 2 (p. 10).

America has come to accept reason 1 as equivalent to reason 3. Thus, it has a society built on a false premise. He wonders how long such a society can last (pp. 10-11). [Fifty years later, America is suffering greatly from living the lie of racial equality. It may be on the verge of collapsing. At least its first Black president is doing everything possible to bring America down.]
    Putnam asks, “[Is it] in the interest of those minorities who had either sought refuge here, or who had found a refuge by continuing here, that those values should be changed — and changed in a direction which must eventually produce the very conditions from which refuge had been sought?” (pp. 11-12). “Those values” are the values on which the founding stock built America, that is, “its law, its language, its government, its religion, its pioneering enterprise and its stability of character” (p. 11). [The answer appears to be that most immigrants want to replace these values with the values from which they flee and, by that, produce the very conditions from which refuge is sought.]
    In conclusion, Putnam could not find any real “justification for the evasive, self-defeating attitude of conservatives, or the outright self-betrayal of Anglo-American liberals” (p. 12). The best answer that he could find was “ignorance.” However, it is “a strange, self-perpetuating kind of ignorance bordering on hypnosis, an ignorance nourished by the pervasive power of the news and entertainment media after it had first been instilled by the academic hierarchy — an ignorance buttressed by feelings of guilt which the ignorance itself created” (p. 12). [If it is ignorance, then that ignorance has been well-fertilized over the last 50 years. Most likely, the cause is not ignorance.  Ignorant men seldom become leaders. Most likely, the reason is a satanic lust to destroy the White race. This lust has infected far too many brilliant Whites.]
    In Chapter 2, Putnam discusses the fantasy of racial inequality and the motivation and techniques used to conceal the facts of racial inequality.
    He notes that modern anthropology as taught in American universities is the result of a political ideology. At the base of modern anthropology is the socialist dogma. Socialism rests on the notion that all humanity is innately equal. Therefore, socialists needed “to discover that the sole reason why inequalities existed was because of variable environments” (p. 14). “Thus the responsibility for poverty and failure could be placed chiefly on society, not on the individual, and the rebuilding of the social order on socialist lines could be justified” (p. 14).
    Putnam remarks that before Marx and Fabian socialism, “the infant science of anthropology had found no evidence of innate equality” (p. 15). He provides several examples of early anthropologists supporting racial inequality (pp. 15-16).
    The idea of racial equality began with Marx and Engels and accelerated with Franz Boas. Putnam provides some background information on Boas, who was a Jew and a socialist and was connected with 46 communist fronts (p. 20). [Thus, the force behind integration is the racial equality dogma. Behind the racial equality dogma is the socialist and communist egalitarian dogma.] Boas became the leading exponent of environmental, i.e., cultural or social, anthropology in the United States and made it the most popular and publicized school of anthropology (p. 20).
    Next Putnam discusses the disciples of Boas and the influence that they have had (pp. 21-26).
    Putnam identifies four major techniques used to promote the dogma of racial equality. First is “the undocumented assertion by the scientific hierarchy channeled through the news media” (p. 26). The second and third techniques are “debate by avoidance and diversion . . . to political grounds . . . and of argument by outright chicanery” (p.26). Fourth is “the suppression and persecution of scientists who offered to tell the truth” (p. 26). He offers examples of these techniques (26ff). [Not only have the four techniques been used in the discussion of racial issue, they have been used in the discussion of climate change and many other supposedly scientific debates.]
    Putnam comments on the UNESCO Statement on Race, which was a propaganda statement. He quotes the criticism of several leading anthropologists, geneticists, zoologists, and biologists (pp. 26-29).
    The news media promoted the Statement on Race but seldom reported replies critical of it. Also, the news media printed articles supporting and promoting racial equality, i.e., “no inborn differences of temperament, personality, character, or intelligence among the races” exist. Yet replies to such articles, if allowed, are restricted to letters to the editor (pp. 29-30). Putnam offers examples of the tricks that the media uses to subvert the truth (pp. 30-34). [After 50 years, nothing has changed. Well, not exactly, the chicaneries of the media are more refined and devious. Much egalitarianism and anti-White propaganda is stealthily inserted and inculcated through television shows. Moreover, what passes for news is often propaganda. The media is even bolder now than then about suppressing and corrupting the truth.]
    Next Putnam discusses “the technique of argument by avoidance through political diversion or substitution. It consisted in retreating from one untenable scientific position to another, hoping to benefit from the ignorance of the opponent, failing which the shift was quickly made to non-scientific grounds such as civil rights and the Constitution” (p. 34). He gives examples (34ff).
    Instead of providing scientific data to prove the equality of the races, they use specious arguments that have nothing to do with science, such as the U.S. Constitution guarantees racial equality. About the constitutional assuring racial equality, Putnam [correctly] states: "It is totally incorrect to say that a ‘principle of equality’ is embodied in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment refers to ‘equal protection of the laws,’ but nowhere in this amendment, nor anywhere else in our national charter, is there any support for a concept of social or biological equality” (pp. 34-35). [As Putnam states, the Constitution does not assure racial equality. The Supreme Court and promoters of socialism and racial equality merely claim that it does. The authors of the Constitution wrote it for themselves and their posterity (“We . . . [to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . . .”) Those who adopted the Constitution adopted it for themselves and their posterity. The authors and adopters were White; their posterity was White. They did not entertain the thought that Negroes and Indians were citizens, and, therefore, they did not have the same rights, privileges, or duties as Whites. When the U.S. government adopted affirmative action laws and imposed quotas, it nullified the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” provision. Affirmative action and quotas give legal advantage to the protected group that is not available to others. Moreover, the reason that opponents of racial inequality do not argue using science is because the science supporting racial equality is weak or nonexistent. The science that supports racial inequality is strong and prominent. One sees the same type of argument by religious leaders who promote integration. They seldom refer to specific Biblical passages to support their argument for integration. The Biblical support for segregation is strong and occurs from Genesis to Revelations. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation”: “A Review of The South and Christian Ethics,” and “Review of Segregation and Desegregation,” False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages, and Integration Is Genocide;  all by Thomas Allen)]
    Putnam comments on the collaboration between the media and the hierarchy of scientific organizations to support the political doctrine of egalitarianism (pp. 36-37). He strongly objects “to the political views as a substitute for science and to the prostitution of the authority of scientific organizations by its use in supporting propaganda” (p. 37). He finds it reprehensible that the scientific hierarchy neither debates the science of racial equality or inequality nor bases its political position on the facts (p. 37).
    Putnam does not think much of appeasement. He writes, “[T]he more one appeased the more the encroachment was invited” (p. 38). People who appease “would never win any help worth having by lying to, and fawning upon, backward people” (p. 38). [One sees this effect in the civil rights movement. The more Whites surrendered to Blacks, the more Blacks demanded. Appeasement has resulted in open borders and flooding the United States with nonwhites. Appeasement will be the death of America. It has destroyed the White man’s will to survive and promote his interest. It has made him a self-hating coward.] He adds:

If scientists wish to express their personal political views as private citizens, that is of course their privilege. But I do not think they have a right to get together as a group speaking as scientists (with all their public authority as scientists) and then falsify science in undocumented public pronouncements on political issues, simply because their private political opinions make them believe this is justified. They have no more right to do this than a group of doctors would have the right to join in a medical association and announce that a diet of spinach would prevent cancer, simply because as individuals they believe the sale of spinach would help the farmer (p. 38).

    Next Putnam discusses the technique of suppression. He provides examples (39ff) and gives examples of scientists who lost their jobs or were not employed because of scientific data that they published. Other scientists felt threatened with the loss of their jobs if they sided with the truth of genetic racial inequality.
He writes:

. . . all the other techniques contributed to the weapon of persecution. They elevated the equalitarian dogma into a fetish by their ceaseless repetition through the media. The result was an academic climate highly unfavorable to free discussion, for it led to social ostracism, bitterness between colleagues, and personal disapproval of the individual worker and his family. Beyond this the persecution technique raised higher barriers. With ruthless brutality it struck the pocketbook nerve (p. 39)

[After reading Putnam’s examples of suppression, one realizes that science is not open to free discussion and inquiry. It is like a religion with its own dogmas and doctrines. Any member of that religion, scientists, who opposes these dogmas and doctrines not only risks ostracism but is often ostracized to the point of unemployment and is prevented from employment in any related fields. The argument is not won by the person who presents the most convincing evidence. It is won by the person who wields the most political and economic power. When the political agenda conflicts with scientific truth, the truth must be suppressed.]
    Finally, Putnam discusses the technique of argument by chicanery (41ff). Again he gives examples. Perhaps the most common trick is to compare the best of one group with the worst of the other group; such a procedure has no validity. Thus, the racial egalitarians compare the above-average Negro with the below-average White and declare that Blacks are equal to Whites (p. 42).  Comparisons should be made by comparing average against average, best against best, or lowest against lowest. [When likes are compared, Blacks are shown to have lower I.Q. than Whites.] Another technique is to confuse intraracial differences, which are enormous, with interracial differences (p. 44).

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reason -- Part 1

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reason -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

       
    The following is a review of Race and Reason: A Yankee View (Public Affairs Press, 1960; Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, second printing 1980), by Carleton Putnam. My comments are enclosed in brackets. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Putnam opposes the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision in 1954 and the concomitant forced integration. Therefore, his book contains less deceit and fewer errors than books supporting the Court’s decision and integration. Thus, it requires fewer corrections. Most of my remarks are supporting commentary.
    Putnam was a Northerner. In Chapter 1, he sets out his credentials as a purebred Northerner. However, having resided and traveled extensively throughout the South, he has some appreciation of the Southern reaction to the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision in 1954.
    Also, Chapter 1 contains an open letter to President Eisenhower and a discussion about that letter. Naively, Putnam thought that the President would intervene and do all in his power to prevent executing the Court’s desegregation order. [Putnam failed to realize that the people who owned Eisenhower, i.e., the ruling elite, wanted racial integration. They want to bring the United States down and to destroy the White race while concentrating evermore wealth and power in their hands. Because of Eisenhower’s inaction, the United States are no longer a constitutional federal republic. They have become a consolidated empire with the accompanying police state, warfare state, and welfare state.]
    Putnam remarks that the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision “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” (p. 4). [Here he seems to believe mistakenly that “Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land” (p. 6). However, later he declares that they are not (p. 100). They are not, and as a lawyer who majored in politics (p. 3), he should have known better. Only Congress can legislate. The Supreme Court merely interprets and applies the law to a particular case before it. If it legislates, which is what it did with the 1954 desegregation decision, it has usurped the constitutional authority of Congress.]
    On the Supreme Court’s ruling, Putnam comments, “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.” [Not long after Putnam wrote these words, desegregation became a problem for the North as federal judges forced integration on the North.]
    Putnam notes, “[S]ocial 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” (pp. 6-7).
    [Often Blacks and negrophiles assert that] the Negro “hasn’t been given a chance” (p. 7). To this assertion, Putnam replies, “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” (p. 7).
    Putnam writes:

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. . . . 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.

[Nowhere does equality truly exist. The closest man can come is equality before the law.] Furthermore, he claims that all humans are not equal before God (p. 8). [I have shown in “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” that God is no egalitarian.]
    Putnam claims that the Negro owes more to Abraham Lincoln than to any other man (p. 8). [By today’s standard Lincoln was extremely racist. If he had had his way, all Blacks would have been shipped out of the country. If his position had prevailed and had been maintained, the United States would not have a race problem today.]
    Putnam comments on Northern newspapers gloating over Southern parents being forced to choose between integration and no school at all for their children (p. 9). [A few years later these gloating Northerners faced the same predicament as federal judges forced Northern parents to choose between integration and no education. As a result, Blacks gained control of many major Northern cities as Whites fled them to avoid integration. With White flight came economic decay. All of this could have been avoided if the common Northerner had stood with the South against the Supreme Court.]
    In Chapter 2, Putnam discusses some of his critics. He also includes an open letter to the Attorney General identifying fatal flaws and errors used by the Supreme Court in arriving at its school desegregation decision. Naively, he thought that if the Attorney General knew the truth, he would intervene at his earliest opportunity to get the Court to overturn its decision. [He failed to realize that the people who owned the Attorney General wanted integration.]
    Many of his critics, who were teachers and ministers, “protested with incoherent emotion at the thought of my emotion, and who urged me to face the facts — which they had never faced themselves” (p. 15). A major criticism that he received was that he did not understand “modern” anthropology (p. 16). [Most “modern” anthropology is heavily contaminated with egalitarianism, Marxism, and political correctness. When reading the works of most mid-twentieth century and later anthropologists, one has to filter out this contamination. The works of a few anthropologists, such as John Baker, Carleton Coon, and Vladimir Andeyev, are not contaminated.)
    He notes that the “widening of the American doctrine of equality of opportunity into a doctrine of social, cultural, economic, and genetic equality” was behind the Supreme Court’s ruling (p. 16). [This widening has contaminated all aspects of American life and has so infested Europe that Europe is quickly dying.]
    Putnam comments that there is “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” (p. 16). Marxists and other egalitarians have “to denounce heredity in the biological . . . and make it appear that environment alone made the man.” They insist that nothing be innate (pp. 16-17). [Studies have shown that heredity is often more important than the environment in making man. Heredity extends beyond a person’s physical characteristics. It also influences his intelligence, character, personality, disposition, and talents. (V. Species of Men by Thomas Allen.)]
    Putnam reviews the works of Boas and other “scientists” on whom the Supreme Court relied in making its desegregation ruling. He discovered that their works were cleaver and ingenious propaganda “posing in the name of science, fruitless efforts at proof of unprovable theories. . . . [They used] slippery techniques in evading the main issues, the prolific diversions, the sound without the substance” (p. 18). [The anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists on whose works that the Supreme Court based its school desegregation decision were Marxists. They sympathized with the racial integration program organized and led by Communists. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”)]
    Like Putnam, many scientists were aware of the Boas hoax, but they were afraid to expose it for fear of losing their jobs (p. 19). [In this respect, things have only gotten worse since Putnam wrote. Now it goes far beyond race.]
    Putnam believes that Southerners were more suited to make judgment calls about the Negro than Northerners. Southerners were around many more Negroes. Moreover, a higher percent of the Negroes in the North were racially mixed, mulatto. If one wanted to study and learn about the true Negro, he needs to go to Haiti or better to central Africa (pp. 20-21).
    About the Southerner’s attitude toward the Negro, Putnam writes:

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 (p. 21).

    Putnam notes that a majority of the people in the United States opposed school desegregation and integration. Also, he could not find anything in the records of the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision of 1954 showing that the Attorney General, who is supposed to represent the people of the United States, challenging the anthropological egalitarian theories or opposing school desegregation cited by the Court in its ruling (pp. 21-22). [Thus, the Attorney General like the President sided against the American people.]
    Putnam discusses Myrdal and his book An American Dilemma, which the Supreme Court used to support its decision. Myrdal, a foreign socialist, condemned the U.S. Constitution. He declared “that in the conflict between liberty and equality in the United States ‘equality is slowly winning’” (p. 22). [At least he understands that liberty and equality cannot coexist.] Myrdal’s work builds on the work and philosophy of Boas, “the father of equalitarian anthropology in American,” and his disciples. Myrdal declared the dogma “that races are not by nature equal in their capacity for culture” is fallacious and unsubstantiated (pp. 22-23). [An honest observation of human history proves that this dogma is true. Aryans (Whites) and Turanians, have developed high cultures and advanced civilizations. Negroes, Indo-Australians, and Khoisans have not. Melanochroi may have also built high cultures and civilizations; however, for them, it seems that they did it under Aryan overlords in India and with Aryan captives in the Arabic Islamic region.)
    Next Putnam discusses the flaws and deceptions of Boas’ philosophy. According to Boas, the “present day cultural differences between the Negro and other races are due, not to any natural limitation, but to isolation and historical accident.” To refute Boas, Putnam cites the observation of a traveler, who appears to be a racial egalitarian. This traveler notes that China, India, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean coasts and islands developed a high level of culture although they were almost completely isolated from one another. Yet Negroes in Africa never showed any similar development (p. 24).
    Putnam refutes the environmental and slavery excuses used to explain the backwardness of the Negro. The climates of India and Mesopotamia are just as harsh as Africa’s. As the Sahara separates black Africa from the North, so do deserts block China, India, and Mesopotamia. Moreover, the African slave trade is only about a millennium old. He asks, “Why were the Africans not making slaves of the Portugese and Arabs” (pp. 24-25)?
    Next Putnam discusses IQ. He notes that racial egalitarians compare poor Whites with upper-class Blacks and mulattos to show that little difference in IQ exists between the races. However, when averages are compared, i.e., comparing like to like, the Negro’s IQ is significantly below that of Whites. True, some Blacks score above the mean White IQ, but on average the Black man’s IQ is significantly below the White man’s (pp. 25-26). (See Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Allen for a more detailed discussion of racial IQ.)
    Putnam writes:

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 [the Attorney General] 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 (p. 27).

[Here, Putnam errors — perhaps because he wanted to give the Attorney General and the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt. The primary purpose of integration has been to use Blacks and other colored races to destroy the South, the United States, and most of all the White race. (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement,” “The Dirty War: America’s Race War,” “Black Nationalism,” and Integration Is Genocide.)]
    Putnam discusses another citation by the Supreme Court in arriving at its school desegregation decision. That is, the assumption that segregation adversely affects Negroes and secondarily White children. He notes that nowhere are the possible adverse effects of integration on White children discussed. On the effects of integration on Whites, William Polk writes, “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” (p. 28)? [Denying the White man the choice of preventing himself from being pulled down shows that integration has been more about bringing the White man down than about lifting the Black man up.]
    The lower court claimed that “a sense of inferiority [produced by segregation] affects the motivation of a child to learn.” The Supreme Court accepted this assertion without question. In response to this assertion, Putnam writes, “[I]f 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” (p. 29). [After more than 50 years of school integration, the average Black still has a great deal more difficulty in learning than the average White. What is the excuse now if not biology?]

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

Skeleton Differences of Human Races

Skeleton Differences of Human Races

Thomas Allen

    This article discusses some of the racial differences in the skeleton. Not discussed is the skull as it deserves an article to itself. A brief description of the races of humans is given in "Species of Men" by Thomas Allen (2015). A more detailed description is given in Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999),
    Bones differ with race.[1] Their density, size, proportions, and forms vary with race. Negroes have denser bones than Aryans. The volume of the sacral canal differs with race.[2]
    Compared to Aryan children, bones grow faster in Negro children. They grow slower in Turanian children.[3]
    The racial characteristic of the pelvic bones is usually distinct enough to make racial identification possible using only the pelvis.[4] The pelvic bones in Negro women are narrower than those in Aryan and Turanian women;[5] the pelvis of Aryans is absolutely and relatively wider than in non-Aryans.[6]
    Legs and torso of Aryans are medium to long in length. For Turanians, legs are relatively short to medium, and the torso is relatively long to medium. Flattening of the lower leg bones and of upper arm bone (the humerus) is frequent and pronounced. The legs of  the Negro is relatively long, and his torso is relatively short. The Negro’s forearm and lower leg bones are relatively long.[7] Negroes have proportionally longer arms and legs than Aryans. Turanians have long trunks and short arms and legs.[8] Like the Negro, Indo-Australian have relatively long arms.[9]
    The femur, thigh bone, varies with race. Two indexes, the Pilastric index and crural index,  illustrate the difference.
    The Pilastric index represents the linea aspera of the femur. (The linea aspera is a rough longitudinal line on the back of the femur.[10]) The following equation calculates the Pilastric index:

Pilastric index = antero-posterior diameter at middle of shaft x 100/ lateral diameter at middle of shaft

    Turanians have a Pilastric index of 103.5 to 113.1 for males and 99.8 to 108.8 for females. Aryans have a Pilastric index of 107.6 for males and 106.7 for females. Negroes have a Pilastric index of 108.6 for males and 106.5 for females.
    The crural index represent relative length of the thigh to the leg. “The higher the crural index, the longer the leg with respect to the thigh; an index of 100 would represent equal length of both segments.”[11] The following equation calculates the crural index:

crural index = bicondylar length of the tibia x 100/ bicondylar length of femur

    Anthropoids have a crural index of 92.3 for orangutan, 83.5 for chimpanzees, and 80.8 for gorillas.
Negroes have a crural index of 86.5; Turanians, 83.6 to 85.9; Indo-Australians, 88.8; Aryans, 83.5.
    The relative length of the forearms of the races differ. The brachial index represents the relative length of the forearm. The higher the brachial index, the greater the relative length of the forearm to the arm. The following equation calculates this index:

brachial index = length of radius x 100/ length of humerus

(Radius is the bone of the thumb side of the forearm.[12])
    Anthropoids have an brachial index of 79.9 for gorillas and 100.7 for orangutan. Aryans have a brachial index of 73.2 to 74.5; Negroes, 77.0 to 78.5; Turanians, 76.9 to 78.2; Indo-Australians, 78.3.[13]
    The torsion angle vary with race. “The torsion angle is formed by the crossing of two reference lines . . . a) the reference line used for the humeral head passed through the greater tuberosity between the insertion of the supraspinatus and the infraspinatus muscles, b) the reference line for, the distal end of the humerus was the articular axis which passes through the center of both capitulum and of the trochlea.”[14] The torsion angle for Aryans is 164̊. Indo-Australians have a torsion angle of 134.5̊ to 143.9̊. For Turanians (Amerindians), it is 138.5̊ to 150.2̊.[15]
    The frequency of olecranon fossa perforation varies with race and sex. (Olecranon fossa is a depression at the curved process from the ulna [the inner and large bone of the forearm] at the elbow.[16]) Anthropoids have a frequency of 26.3 percent for chimpanzees and 84.0 percent for orangutans. For Aryans, the frequency is 5 percent for males and 17.6 percent for females. For Negroes, the frequency is 11.8 for males and 34.5 for females.  Turanians have a frequency of 17 to 58 percent, and Indo-Australians, 48.5 to 58 percent.[17]
     The arch in the feet of Aryans and Turanians are well-developed. However, the arches in Negroes’ feet are low and often result in flat feet.[18]
    The ability to squat is determined by the angle at the neck of the ankle bone. The greater the angle, the easier it is for a person to squat. For Aryans the angle is 18̊; for Turanians, 20̊; for Negroes, 24̊; for apes, 29̊.[19]
    Exostosis (outgrowth of bones) is common in Aryans, less so in Turanians, and rare in Negroes.[20]
    Although Negroes usually have seven pairs of true ribs, they have eight pairs much more often than Aryans.[21] Also, the shoulder blade, scapula, varies with race.[22]
    The body of Negroes appear well-proportioned while Aryans appear thickset and Turanians even more thickset.[23]
    The vertebral column of races differs. Several indexes are used to describe these differences. These indexes include the Cunningham’s index, the sacrum length-breath index, and the sacrum curvature index.
    Cunningham’s index represents the development of the lumbar curve. The following equation calculates the index:[24]

Cunningham index = sum of posterior height of lumbar vertebrae x 100/ sum of anterior height of lumbar vertebrae

    Cunningham index classification is:
    kurthorachic          up to 97.9
    orthorachic            98 to 101.9
    koilorchic              102 and above

    “Indices above 100 indicate absence of a strongly developed lumbar curve. . . .”[25] Aryans are kurthorachic. Indo-Australians and Khoisans are koilorchic.[26]
    The sacrum is formed by the five vertebrae that follow the lumbar vertebrae. The following equation calculates this index:

length-breath index = maximum sacred breath x 100/ midventral straight height

    Sacrum length-breath index classifications is:
    dolichohieric (narrow sacrum)     up to 99.9
    subplatyhierric                                100 to 105.5
    platyhieric (wide sacrum)             106 and above

    Turanians (Chinese), Negroes, and Khoisans are dolichohieric. Aryans and pygmies are subplatyhierric.  Turanians (Polynesians), Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi are platyhieric.[27]
    The sacrum curvature index represents sacral curvature. The following equation calculates this index:

curvature index = midventral straight height x 100/ midventral curved height

    Anthropoids have an index of 98.7. Indo-Austrailians have an average index of 93.1; Negroes, 92.4; Khoisans,  88.5; Turanians, 85.4; Aryans 84.9 – 86.5.[28]
    As shown above, the skeletons of the races of humans differ significantly. Even absent the skull, a trained person can often identify the race of a person by his skeleton alone.

Endnotes
1. Juan Comas, Manual of Physical Anthropology (Springfield, 1957), pp. 412ff.  Stanley M. Garn, Human Races (Springfield, 1961), p. 27.

2. Garn, p. 27.

3. J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (New Brunswick, 1995), p. 29.

4. Garn, p. 27.

5. James F. Downs and Herman K. Bleibtreu, Human Variation: An Introduction to Race and Racism (Beverly Hills, California:Benziger Bruce & Glencoe, Inc. 1972), p. 261.

6. Vladimir Andeyer, Raciology: The Science of the Hereditary Traits of Peoples, 2nd ed., trans. Patrick Clourier (Moscow, Russia, 2007), p. 182.

7. Robert Bean, The Races of Man: Differentiation and Dispersal of Man (New York, 1932),pp. 89-90.

8. Andeyer, p. 182.

9. Andeyer, p. 181.

10. W.A. Newman Dorland, American Pocket Medical Dictionary (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1945), p. 535.

11. Comas, p. 428.

12. Dorland, p. 803.

13. Comas, p. 428.

14. Comas, pp. 422-433.

15. Comas, pp. 423.

16. Dorland, pp. 388, 676.

17. Comas, pp. 421-422.

18. Robert Bean, The Races of Man: Differentiation and Dispersal of Man (New York, 1932), pp. 89-90.

19. Andeyer, p. 185.

20. Bean, pp. 89-90.

21. Andeyer, p. 181.

22. Comas, pp. 419-420.

23. Andeyer, p. 182.

24. Comas, p. 415.

25. Comas, p. 415.

26. Comas, p. 415.

27. Comas, p. 415.

28. Comas, pp. 415-416.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropolgy.

Of One Blood

Of One Blood

Thomas Allen

    Proponents of the unity-of-man doctrine who use the Bible to support their doctrine like to quote the first part of Acts 17:26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. . . .” Therefore, they conclude that all humans have a common origin. They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.
    Most modern scholars doubt that the Greek text used by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, for this verse was a copy of the original. The best Greek texts do not contain the word “blood.” The word “blood” appears mainly in later Western manuscripts as an interpolation. Most likely, “one” in Acts 17:26 refers to God, who is the maker of all nations of humans.
    Even if the word “blood” is in the original, this verse does not show that all humans descended from Adam. It merely shows that God made each race of humans.
    Whatever blood means in this verse, it does not mean blood flowing through the veins. As shown below, the frequency of genes, alleles, antibodies, and proteins in the blood of the races of humans varies significantly.
    The blood of the races varies at least statistically. The percentage of the population of the several races having certain blood groups varies enough so that the race of a population, if not of a particular individual, can often be identified based on blood analysis. Further, a person’s blood can often eliminate him as a member of a particular race.

[1]

    The Diego (Di-a) blood antigen is absent in Aryans and Negroes, but high in Turanians.[2] The Kell (K) antigen is common in Aryans, but is rare in Negroes and Turanians.[3] The Sutter (Js-a) antigen occurs only in Negroes.[4] Indo-Australians have an extremely low frequency of the B gene, approaching zero, a low frequency of the M gene, no A-2 gene,[5] and a high frequency of the N gene.[6] Asian Turanians have a high frequency of the B and Rh-z genes and almost no A-2 gene. American Turanians have a low frequency of the N gene, little or no B gene, and no A-2 gene. Negroes have a high frequency of the A-2 and Rh-o genes and possess some frequency of the Rh− gene. Aryans have a moderately high frequency of the Rh− gene, and a moderate frequency of the B and A-2 genes.[7] Rh− (cde) blood is almost none existent in Turanians, Indo-Australians, and Khoisans.[8] Blood group A-1,2 is found in Negroes, but is seldom found in Aryans or Turanians.[9] Compared with other races, Aryans have a high frequency of A-2 and Rh−.[10] Negroes are high in Rh-o, P, and Haptoglobin Hp-1 and very low Fy-a (Duffy positive). They have “private genes attached to the MNSU system, including Hunter, Henshaw, and V; a special Rh gene, e-s, in the combination Dce-s; and a gamma globulin variant Gmab.”[11] Indo-Australians are high in CDe (Rh-z), N, NS, Duffy positive (Fy-a), and Haptoglobin Hp-1.[12] Contrary to popular myths, the races do not share a common blood.
    Moreover, the blood of humans strongly resembles that of chimpanzees.[13] Even a chimpanzee with type-A blood can receive a transfusion of human type-A blood.[14] If the criterion of having the same blood makes all the races of humans descended from Adam, then chimpanzees are also his descendants.
    Furthermore, “blood” in Acts 17:26 cannot be referring to the genetic makeup. The different races of humans have significantly different genetic makeup.[15]
    As shown above, the various species of humans differ in their blood. Humans do not have a common blood.

Endnotes

1. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza, The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution, trans. Sarah Thorne (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995), p. 125. Carleton S. Coon, and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 286. Richard A. Goldsby, Race and Races (New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1971), p. 59. R. Ruggles Gates, Human Ancestry from a Genetical Point of View (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 158, 338, 356. Stanley M. Garn, Human Races (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas • Publisher, 1961), p. 47.

2. Stephen Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 76. Coon and Hunt, p. 283. Lionel Casson, et al. Mysteries of the Past, ed. Joseph J. Thorndike, Jr. (New York, New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, Inc., 1977), p. 219.

3. N. E. Morton, “Interracial Crosses and Group Differences,” Racial Variation in Man, ed. F. J. Ebling (New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 152.

4. Morton, p. 152.

5. William C. Boyd and Isaac Asimov, Races and People (New York, New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955), p. 158.

6. Gates, p. 157.

7. Boyd and Asimov, p. 158.

8. Casson, p. 219.

9. Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 173.

10. Coon and Hunt, p. 286.

11. Coon and Hunt, p. 286.

12. Coon and Hunt, p. 287.

13. Coon, pp. 172-176.

14. Herbert Wendt, It Begin in Babel: The Story of the Birth and Development of Races and Peoples, trans. James Kirkup (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 374.

15. See the works of Luigi Lucia Cavalli-Sforza — especially The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution (1995) and The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994). Officially, he takes the politically correct position of racial equality and the unity of man. Also, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (1999) by Thomas C. Allen for a polygenetic position.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.

Species of Men

Species of Men

Thomas Allen

Either we must admit different species in the genus Homo, or we must entirely reform zoological classification. – George Pouchet

    The following tables show the major branches, racial types, and representative nationalities or people of the several extant species of men.

For a detailed description of these species and racial types, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen and "The American Indian" and "Indo-Australian."

 More articles on anthropolgy.

Skin Color

Skin Color

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is “Appendix 3: Skin Color” with minor modification from Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 1999. Footnotes have been converted to end notes.]

    Three substances cause skin color:[1] hemoglobin, carotene (or keratin), and melanin. In Aryans hemoglobin dominates. In Turanians and Khoisans, carotene usually dominates. For the other species of men, melanin dominates.
    All skin contains melanin. However, in Aryans it is slight enough so that hemoglobin of blood shows through the skin giving it a pinkish or reddish tinge or appearance. (One distinguishing characteristic between Aryans and Melanochroi is that the blue color of blood vessels can be seen through the untanned, and often tanned, skin of Aryans — hence, the term “blue blood.” However, for Melanochroi the blue color is seldom apparent.)
    Melanin occurs as granules in the granular layer of the epidermis. (The epidermis is the bloodless outer layer of the skin.) Melanin determines the degree of the skin's darkness and its hue (color on the chromatic scale). There are two types of melanin. They are eumelanin (black melanin) and phaeomelanin (dun, or orange to red, melanin).[2]
    Eumelanin granules appear in the untanned skin of Negroes and Australians as blackish discs between 1.3 and 1.0 microns long and between 0.6 and 0.5 microns wide.[3] They lie singly in individual capsules. Eumelanin granules also appear in the skins of Aryans (except Nordics, East Baltics, and many Alpines), Melanochroi, and Turanians (including American Indians). In their skins eumelanin granules are smaller and round or elliptical in shape and are between 0.7 and 0.6 microns long and about 0.5 microns wide. They occur in clusters. The volume of eumelanin granules in the skins of Aryans, Melanochroi, and Turanians is about one-fifth of the volume found in Negroes and Australians. The tint of the skins of Aryans and Melanochroi result from eumelanin.[4]
    Phaeomelanin granules are similar to the smaller eumelanin granules in size and shape. They are found in the skins of Aryans, Melanochroi, and some Turanians. They may also occur in the Negro Melanesians.[5, 6]
    Carotene, a yellowish pigment, is found in the outer horny layer of the skin and in subcutaneous fat. It gives the skin of Turanians and Khoisans a yellowish hue.[7]
    For fair skinned people, blood in the dermis, the inner layer of skin, contributes to color. The hemoglobin in blood gives Aryans their pinkish or ruddy color.
    Three parts of the solar spectrum (ultraviolet, visible light, and infrared) impact the three basic skin colors (white, yellow, and black) differently. Ultraviolet and infrared penetrate white skin while it reflects visible light. Yellow skin reflects visible light, absorbs infrared, and allows ultraviolet to pass through. Black skin absorbs all three bands of radiation. Intermediate colored skins, usually some shade of brown, fall between the extremes of the three basic colors.[8] Thus, the darker the skin the less the ultraviolet and infrared radiation penetrate the skin. The fairer the skin the greater the penetration of ultraviolet and infrared radiation.
    Fair skin reflects more visible light than does darker skin. At 6500 to 6850 angstroms (Å) the percent reflectivity for Aryans averages about 50 to 64 percent. For Turanians average reflectivity ranges between about 35 and 48 percent. For Melanochroi the range is 23 to 41 percent. Australians have a reflectivity of about 12 percent. The reflectivity for Khoisans is about 43 percent, and for Negroes (Sudanese) it is about 24 percent.[9]
   

     A standard chart or scale used to measure skin color is the von Luschan's Hautfarbentafel. This scale contains 36 shades of color ranging from pale pinkish white to black, with three yellowish tones.[10] The colors contained on this scale are whitish, reddish white, whitish yellow, olive yellow, light brown, brown, reddish brown, dark reddish brown, blackish brown, grayish brown, and pure black.[11] On this scale skin color for Aryans range between 1 and 17, excluding 4 through 6. That of Melanochroi ranges between 18 and 29. For Turanians the range is between 4 and 6 and between 12 and 23. Negroes have skin colors of 27 to 36. That of Australians ranges between 24 and 29. For Khoisans the range is between 18 and 23.
    Deniker divides skin color into ten shades: pale white, florid or rosy, light-brunette, yellowish-white (similar to the color of wheat), olive-yellow (similar to the color of new portmanteau leather), dark yellow-brown or dark olive (similar to the color of dead leaves), red or copper, reddish-brown or chocolate, sooty black, and coal black. Under his scheme Aryans are pale white, florid, and light-brunette white. For Turanians the basic shades are yellowish-white, olive-yellow, and dark yellow-brown or dark olive. The basic shades in Negroes are reddish-brown or chocolate, sooty black, and coal black. For Melanochroi the basic colors are red or copper and reddish brown or chocolate. Australians are generally reddish-brown or chocolate.[12]
    Similar to Deniker’s scheme is a simplified version of Broca's scale. This scale consists of three basic colors (white, yellow, and black) divided into ten shades. The shades are pale white, reddish white (Northern Europeans), tawny white (Mediterraneans), pale yellow (Chinese), warm yellow (American Indians), brownish yellow, reddish brown (Eastern-Hamites), chocolate brown (Australians), brownish black (Dravidians and Melanesians), and black (Bantus). Thus, skin colors for Aryans are pale white, reddish white, and tawny white. Skin colors for Turanians are pale yellow, warm yellow, and brownish yellow. Black and brownish black are the colors for Negroes. For Melanochroi the skin colors are reddish brown and brownish black. Australians have chocolate brown skin.[13]
    Keane identifies six primary colors. Under his scheme, Aryans fall into two colors: florid white (Northern Europeans and Finns, i.e., Nordic, many Alpines, and East Baltics) and pale white (Southern Europeans, i.e., Mediterraneans, Iranians, Northern Semites, and Southern Mediterraneans). Turanians fall under yellow (Chinese, Tunguses, Paraoeans, and some Indians of South American), brown (Polynesians, Plateau Indians), and copper red (Prairie Indians). The color of Negroes is brown (Negritos) and black (African and Oceanic Negroes). Melanochroi are black (Eastern-Hamites) and brown (Indo-Iranians and Fulas). Khoisans are yellow, and Australians are black.[14]
    Brinton provides the following scale for skin colors:[15]
    a.    White: (1) white, brown undertone (grayish); (2) white, yellow undertone; (3) white, rosy undertone.
    b.    Medium: (1) reddish; (2) yellowish (olive).
    c.    Dark: (1) black; (2) dark brown, reddish undertone; (3) dark brown, yellowish undertone.
    Hrdlička used a scale of five colors consisting of twelve shades. His scale contained white (florid, light, medium, light brown), yellow-brown (light, medium, dark, chocolate brown), pale-yellowish, dusky-yellowish, black (brown-black, bluish-black, grayish-black, ebony-black).[16]
    Color is difficult to measure accurately because of the different ways that people perceive the color of skin. This difficulty leads some to claim that skin color is not a reliable indicator of race. Not only do different people see the same color differently, the same person may see the same color differently under different lighting. People may disagree that a shade of red is carmine or scarlet. However, unless they are color blind, they can distinguish either shade from green. People may argue about whether a person from Northern Europe is a Nordic, East Baltic, or Alpine based on slight differences in skin color.[17] Any argument over skin color vanishes when the color of this person's skin is compared to that of an African Negro.[18] Likewise, one can easily distinguish blue eyes from brown eyes although disagreement over shades of blue or brown may occur.
    Skin color is also criticized as a valid racial identification tool because it can vary with age, diet, and health. The skin of a sickly person may differ noticeably from that of a healthy person. The obvious answer to this problem is that identification should be based, whenever possible, on healthy adults eating a normal diet. When classifying animals, taxonomists choose normal healthy adults to establish the standards and to identify to which species a population or individual belongs.
    That skin tans eliminates it as a valid racial identifier so claim some people — especially those who claim that no races of men exist. The solution to this problem is simple. Observe the untanned skin.
    Skin color is a valid descriptor of the several species of men. Although some overlap of color occurs, especially that of Negroes, Melanochroi, and Australians, skin colors in general differ with race. This is specially true for Aryans and Turanians.

Endnotes
1. More details on skin color are given by Babun, pp. 22-27; Baker, pp. 148-160; Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza, pp. 580-582; Brace and Montagu, pp. 271-293; Brinton, pp. 29-31; Comas, pp. 264-265; Coon, Racial Adaptation, pp. 48-62; Coon and Hunt, pp. 229-235; Deniker, pp. 46-48; Downs and Bleibreu, pp. 244-251; Goldsby, pp. 90-94; Jurmain and Nelson, pp. 141-144; Keane, Ethnology, pp. 171-174; King, pp. 142-146; and Molnar, pp. 119-127.

2. Carleton S. Coon, Racial Adaptation ( Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1982), p. 48.

3. One micron equals one-thousandth of a millimeter or about 0.000039 inches.

4. Coon, Racial Adaptation, p. 49.

5. [Editor’s note: Since the author wrote this book, he has reconsidered the classification of the Melanesian.  He now classifies the Melanesian as part of the Australian species, which he now calls the Indo-Australian species.]

6. Coon, Racial Adaptation, p. 49.

7. Coon, Racial Adaptation, p. 50.

8. Coon, Racial Adaptation, pp. 54-55.

9. Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr.,The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 230. Stephen Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), pp. 122-123.

10. Coon and Hunt, p. 229.

11. Juan Comas, Manual of Physical Anthropology (English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960), pp. 264-265.

12.  J. Deniker, The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography (London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900), p. 47.

13. Comas, p. 264.

14. A. H. Keane, Ethnology (Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896), pp. 173-174.

15. Daniel G. Brinton, Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: David McKay, Publisher, [1901]), p. 31.

16. Comas, p. 264.

17. In this particular example head-shape would immediately distinguish a Nordic from an Alpine or East Baltic.

18. This does not mean that the difficulty of using skin color as a distinguishing racial identifier does not or cannot occur. The differences between the skin color of Aryans and Melanochroi can be slight and may occasionally be difficult to determine or distinguish along the transitional zone between these two species in North Africa and West Asia.

 More articles on anthropolgy.