What is the Gold Standard ?

What is the Gold Standard ?

Thomas Allen

    Much confusion exists about the gold standard. Under the true gold standard, which is also called the gold-coin standard and the unadulterated gold standard, gold does not back the money. Gold is the money.

    Most promoters of a gold standard promote a monetary system that does not constitute a true gold standard.

    First, gold is used to back a currency that is irredeemable. For example, between 1933 and 1968, Congress required federal reserve notes to have some gold backing. Yet citizens of the United States could not redeem their federal reserve notes for gold. With a few exceptions, they could not even own gold.

    Second, the government issues paper money that is redeemable in gold. The government buys gold and uses it, either as coins or bullion, to back its paper money. Often it issues more notes than it has gold backing it. An example of this type of money is the U.S. note between 1879 and 1933.

    Third, the government buys gold on its own account and coins it. This type of monetary system looks like a gold-coin standard, but it is not. The government arbitrarily decides the quantity of coins to issue. An example of this system in the United States involved silver dollars between 1873 and 1900. After 1873, the U.S. government no longer allowed the free coinage of silver. Instead it bought silver bullion on its own account and coined it into silver dollars, which it declared legal tender and standard money and which was not directly redeemable into gold until 1900.

    Fourth, some supply-side economists recommend requiring the central bank to expand or contract the money supply and credit to keep the price of gold within a specific range. This is obviously not a gold standard. It is a fiat monetary system where the price of gold becomes the index by which to adjust the money supply.

    Fifth, Irving Fisher’s plan to make dollars redeemable in gold based on purchasing power as determined by an index instead of weight is not a true gold standard.

    Although these systems use gold, they are not a true gold standard. They are forms of fiat money because the government or its central bank arbitrarily controls the money supply. The quantity of money does not expand or contract to meet the needs of commerce; the law and the  government’s collections and disbursements fix the quantity.

    Two other forms of standards that use gold are sometimes promoted. They are the gold-bullion standard and gold-exchange standard. However, gold coins do not circulate under either of these standards.

    Under the gold-bullion standard, paper money is redeemable only in large bars of gold bullion. The country’s money is not redeemable in gold coins. Consequently, it is considered a rich man’s standard. Because redemption is in large high-value bars, few besides specialists in foreign trade redeem notes for gold. Gold bullion presented to the government or its central bank is not coined. Instead the government or its central bank pays the presenter in government notes or bank notes.

    Under the gold-exchange standard, gold can only be used to transfer payments in gold to approved foreign institutions. Governments created the gold-exchange standard. It is a politically created system and not a product of the markets. The gold-exchange standard allows governments and their central banks to manipulate international gold flows for political reasons. The government holds the reserves of its foreign claims in gold. Most of the world’s gold ends up in the vaults of a few central banks. The gold-exchange standard offers little resistance to the desires of governments to inflate their currencies. Gold is subordinated to governmental policies and goals. Because of domestic inflation, against which it offers little resistance, the gold-exchange standard becomes unstable and dysfunctional. Most of the world operated under a modified gold-exchange standard between 1944 and 1971. (This standard was more of a dollar standard as foreign currencies were pegged to the dollar, which was pegged to gold at $35 per ounce.)

    A common misunderstanding about the true gold standard is that the government fixes the price of gold. For example, if an ounce of gold exchanges for $20, the government has fixed the price of gold at $20 per ounce.

    Under the true gold standard, the government does not fix the price of gold. It defines the monetary unit, such as the dollar, as a specific weight of gold. That is, the dollar is a specific weight of gold. For example, the dollar is defined as 1/20 of an ounce of gold or 24 grains of gold. The dollar is 24 grains of gold. It is a unit of weight like the pound or gram. It is just limited to money. By declaring the dollar to be 24 grains of gold, the government has no more fixed price of gold than it has fixed the price of a pound by declaring it to be 7000 grains.

    Thus, a fundamental principle of the true gold standard is that the price of gold is not fixed. The monetary unit is a specific weight of gold. Furthermore, gold does not back the money. The money is gold.

    Moreover, under the true gold standard, the government does not monetize gold. Gold does not have to be in the form of a coin minted by the government to function as money. Privately minted coins can function as money as well as those minted by the government. Furthermore, gold often functions as money in the form of bars. Thus, coining by the government does not monetize gold. To the extent that gold is monetized, the markets, and not the government, monetize it.

    Under the true gold standard, regulation of the money supply is automatic and decentralized. Supply varies to suit the needs of the people and commerce. Governmental intervention is unnecessary and would cause more harm than good. The true gold standard automatically optimizes the quantity of money to suit the needs of the people and the economy.

    In summary the true gold standard has the following attributes:

    1. Gold does not back the money; gold is the money.

    2. The price of gold is not fixed. The monetary unit is a specific weight of gold.

    3. Gold coins circulate as money.

    4. The value of a coin is the value of its metal content.

    5. There is the free coinage of gold: Anyone can bring any amount of gold to the mint, which does not have to be owned by the government, and get it coined.

    6. Anyone can melt coins without restriction and use the metal for nonmonetary purposes.

    7. No restrictions are placed on exporting or importing gold.

    8. All paper money is redeemable in gold on demand.

    9. The supply of money is self-regulating and automatically adjusts to meet the demand for metallic money. The government does not manage or otherwise manipulate the money supply. No monetary policy is necessary, and none is desirable.

    10. The government does not buy gold and coin it on its own account.

    11. Gold coins are the property of the individual holding them; they are not the property of the government. No restrictions or controls are placed on the private ownership of gold.

    12. Legal tender laws are unnecessary and undesirable.

    13. The government’s monetary duties are limited to defining the monetary unit, coining all gold presented to it for coinage and guaranteeing the weight and fineness of such coins, punishing counterfeiters of such coins, punishing issuers of paper money who fail to redeem their paper money on demand, and punishing acts of fraud and enforcing contracts in monetary matters.

Copyright © 2013 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

Is the Price of Gold Fixed Under the Gold Standard

Is the Price of Gold Fixed Under the Gold Standard

Thomas Allen

    A common misunderstanding about a commodity standard is that the government fixes the price of the monetary commodity. Many people believe that under the gold standard, the government fixes the price of gold. For example, if an ounce of gold exchanges for $20, the government has fixed the price of gold at $20 per ounce. No one would sell gold bullion for less than $20 per ounce because he can take the bullion to the mint and get it minted into coins at $20 per ounce. Furthermore, no one would pay more than $20 per ounce for bullion because he can melt coins to obtain bullion.
    Under the gold standard, the government does not fix the price of gold. It defines the monetary unit, such as the dollar, as a specific weight of gold. That is, the dollar is a specific weight of gold. For example, the dollar is defined as 1/20 of an ounce of gold or 24 grains of gold. The dollar is 24 grains of gold. It is a unit of weight like the pound. It is just limited to money. By declaring the dollar to be 24 grains of gold, the government has no more fixed price of gold than it has fixed the price of a pound by declaring it to be 7000 grains. The dollar is a unit of weight like the pound or gram. It is just limited to gold. The dollar is fixed in terms of gold; gold is not fixed in the terms of the dollar.
    Another way of stating this point is in terms of the independent variable and the dependent variable. People who claim that the price of gold is fixed under the gold standard are claiming that an abstract unit of value, e.g., the dollar, is the independent variable. A concrete weight of gold is the dependent variable. Thus, an abstraction fixes the value of a concrete weight of gold.
    Conversely, people who claim that under the gold standard the price of gold is not fixed claim that the value of gold is the independent variable. The monetary unit is the dependent variable as it is a fixed weight of gold. A concrete weight of gold fixes the value of the monetary unit.
    “The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1∕299,792, 458  of a second.” Does the speed of light fix the metre, or does the length of the metre fix the speed of light?  If they are consistent, people who claim that the government fixes the price of gold instead of gold defining the value of the monetary unit, must argue that the government fixes the distance that light travels in a fraction of a second instead of defining that distance as the length of the metre. How absurd. The government defines the abstraction, the “metre,” in terms of the tangible distance that light travels in a fraction of a second. It does not define the tangible distance that light travels in a fraction of a second in terms of the abstraction. Likewise, with gold, government defines the abstract monetary unit in terms of a tangible weight of gold. If the speed of light fixes the metre, then the weight of gold fixes the value of the monetary unit.
    This discussion may seem to be an unimportant discourse about semantics. It is not. The distinction is highly important. Is gold to be fixed in dollars, i.e., gold is priced in dollars? That is, the government declares that the dollar is an abstraction, and it has arbitrarily fixed the price of gold. This notion leads quickly down the road to paper fiat money. On the other hand, is the dollar to be fixed in gold, i.e., the dollar is a unit of weight of gold? The government declares the dollar to be a tangible and defines it as a measurable amount of gold. This notion is the essence of the gold standard; the monetary unit is a weight of gold.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

Indo-Australian: Part II

Indo-Australian: Origins and Migration
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes and references in original are omitted.]
    When God created a species that depends on sexual reproduction, at a minimum He must have created a male and female of the species. For most species He probably created multiple males and females. Furthermore, for species that can and do interbreed, He had to isolate them from each other until their population had built up. If they were allowed to crossbreed indiscriminately, their unique and distinguishing characteristics could be lost.
    The Indo-Australians were created about 75,000 years ago on the Anatolian Plateau. From here they spread westward into Europe and eastward into Iran. Most of those who left their Anatolian homeland settled in Mesopotamia and Iran with some even reaching East Asia.[5] By the time that they began migrating from western Asia, they had acquired the Mousterian culture from the neighboring Neanderthals. During the Würm I glaciation, they migrated eastward and southward in search of a warmer climate. Many had reached India by the end of the Würm I glaciation (c. 57,000 B.P.) where they spread across the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Here they remained until the Melanochroi population grew large enough to encroach on their lands.
    As the Melanochroi moved into the Granges valley, they drove the Indo-Australians living there into Burma. (These were the progenitors of today's Australians.) As the Melanochroic population grew in the Ganges valley, they began to move westward across the Indo-Gangetic Plain. As they moved, they forced the remaining Indo-Australians into the Deccan and down the west coast of India or to the Chota Plateau. (These Australians became the progenitors of the Pre-Dravidians.)
    Later the Melanochroi drove most of the Pre-Dravidians farther south into the coastal lands and jungles of southern India and other places that the Melanochroi found as undesirable habitats. (The Pre-Dravidians of the Chota Nagpur seemed to have remained there throughout the millennia of Melanochroic invasions.) Some Pre-Dravidians fled to Sri Lanka (Ceylon). The Vedda of Sri Lanka are the descendants of these Pre-Dravidians.
    The Indo-Australians who fled to Burma migrated down the Malay Peninsula into Indonesia. These Australians were the Wadjak man from whom today’s Australians descended.[6] For the next several thousand years, Melanochroic and Turanian tribes were continually pushing them southward and eastward. At the peak of the Würm II glaciation (c. 45,000 B.P.), Indo-Australians spread across the East Indies (Indonesia) into New Guinea with Turanians close behind. About 40,000 years ago Australians had reached Borneo[7] and Australia.[8] A few crossed the Timor Sea and settled in Australia about 30,000 years ago.[9] About 9000 B.C.[10] most of the Australians remaining in Indonesia migrated to Australia. This wave came because of Turanians pushing into Farther India. Eventually, the Melanesians and Papuans, who were the primary people pushing the Australians, drove the Australians remaining in New Guinea to Australia (c. 7000 B.C.).[11] Except for occasional encounters with the Melanesians and some minor encounters with Aryans earlier in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they would live here free of outside interference until Aryan settlers (soldiers and convicts) arrived in 1788 A.D.[12]
    While Melanesians were pressing the Australians, Melanochroi were pressing the Pre-Dravidians. During the Würm III (Achen) glaciation about 25,000 years ago, the Dravidian Melanochroi invaded the Deccan and drove most of the Pre-Dravidians living there southward, eastward, and westward into the lower coastal lands and jungles.
    The Indo-Australians driven from India by the Dravidians into Burma spread across Farther India. As these Indo-Australians spread across Farther India, they pushed the Turanians northward and the Australians southward. About 24,000 years ago the Dravidians drove many of them from Farther India down the Malay Peninsula across the East Indies into New Guinea. These Indo-Australians became the progenitors of the Papuans. Later Dravidian invasions, beginning about 7600 B.C. and lasting several millennia, drove the remaining Indo-Australians out of Farther India except a few tribes of Negritos. The Negritos of Malaya, Indonesia, and the Philippines and the Melanesians are the descendants of these Indo-Australians.[13] By 847 B.C. the Melanesians had reached New Caledonia, and by 46 B.C. they had reached Fiji.[14]
     Some Indo-Australians journeyed to South America in their attempt to escape the Indo-Australians who had retreated to Australia fleeing from the Melanochroic and Turanian advances.[15] When the climate in Antarctica was much warmer than today, a group of Indo-Australians who had earlier migrated to Australia crossed the south Pacific to Antarctica. Traveling along the coast of Antarctica, they crossed the from the Graham Land (Palmer peninsula ) into South America.[16] They became the progenitor of the extinct Lagoa-Santa type and the extant Fuegian.
    As a result of the Turanians pushing into Farther India, a group of Indo-Australians who became known as the Ainu began migrating toward Japan. They arrived in Japan about 8000 B.C. A few centuries after the Ainus had settled in Japan, Mins crossed over from Korea to Japan. They quickly drove the Ainus out of Kyushu, Shikoku, and Honshu Islands to Hokkaido and Sakhalin Islands.
    Since the arrival of the Aryans in Australia, Australians of that continent have been in retreat. The only thing preventing the extinction of these Australians is that the Aryans had not completely opened their borders to the Turanians hordes to the north.
    Aryans and Turanians have also contributed heavy to the demise of the Fuegian. Miscegenation more than anything else is driving the Fuegians to extinction.
    In Japan the Ainu are close to extinction. However, in India the Pre-Dravidians have generally persevered. Today they account for nearly all of the extant Indo-Australians. Nevertheless, miscegenation may well cause the extinction of the Pre-Dravidians.
    Laws protect races of bloodsucking, disease carrying mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas from extinction. Unfortunately, no laws protect the races or nations of man from extinction. To the contrary, laws encourage their extinction.

Endnotes -- continued
5.  Bean, p. 104. Herbert Wendt, It Began in Babel: The Story of the Birth and Development of Races and Peoples. (Translator James Kirkup. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 127.

6. Gates, pp. 145 ff. G. Elliot Smith et al. Early Man: His Origin, Development, and Culture (Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, Inc., 1931. Reprinted 1967), pp. 15-16.

7. Vincent Megaw and Rhys Jones, The Dawn of Man In The Putnam Pictorial Source Series (New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1972), p. 73.

8. John Gowlett, Ascent to Civilization (Editors Louisa McDonnell and Emma Fisher. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984), pp. 118, 139.

9. James F. Downs and Herman K. Bleibtreu. Human Variation: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology. (Beverly Hills, California: Benziger Bruce & Glencoe, Inc., 1972.), p. 283. Megaw, and Rhys, p. 73.

10. Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), pp. 92, 406-407.

11. Calvin Kephart, Races of Mankind: Their Origin and Migration (New York, 1960), p. 170.

12. Herbert Wendt, It Began in Babel: The Story of the Birth and Development of Races and Peoples (Translator James Kirkup. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), pp. 339-341.

13. Wendt, pp. 124, 196-197. Kephart, pp. 82-86, 169.

14. Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 171.

15. Kephart, pp. 61, 103-105.

16. Comas, p. 631.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

 More articles on anthropolgy.

Indo-Australian Part I

Indo-Australian: Description
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes and references in the original are omitted.]
    The Indo-Australian consists of four branches: Asian, Oceanic, Australian, and American.
    Pre-Dravidians and Ainus (Paleoasiatics) make up the Asian branch.
    Pre-Dravidians are found predominately in India with lesser numbers in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Malaya. They include the Veddas of Sri Lanka; Bhils, Gondi,  and Khonds (Kandh) of north and central India; Bihors, Kolarians, and Oraons (Kurukh) of Chota Nagpur; Paniyan, Kadars, Uralis, Irulas, and Kurumbas of southern India; Toala of Celebes; and Che Wong of Pahang province in Malaysia. Pre-Dravidians account for only a small part of the population of the countries in which they are found. However, Pre-Dravidians account for a large part of the Indo-Austrian population.
    Ainu are predominately found on Hokkaido Island, Kuril Islands, and Sakhalin Island. They are a principal type in northern Hokkaido Island and southern Sakhalin Island.
    The Australian branch contains the Australian, Murrayian, and Carpentarian types. They are found in Australia. This branch comprises only a small part of the population of Australia. Murrayians inhabit south east Australia, and Carpentarians inhabit north and central Australia.
    The Oceanic branch consists of Negritos (Oceanic Pygmies), Melanesians, and Papuans.
    Negritos are found in small numbers on the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Philippine Islands, and New Guinea. They include the Aetas of the Philippines; Mantra, Saoch, Semang and Senoi (Sakai) of Malay Peninsula and east Sumatra; Tapiro of New Guinea; Andamanese (Mincopies) of the Andaman Islands; and Shompen of the Nicobar Isles.
    Melanesians are found predominately along the coast of New Guinea and in the Melanesian Islands (Admiralty Islands to New Caledonia and Fiji). Except in Fiji where Melanochroi from India are now in the majority, Melanesians are generally a majority of the populations of the Pelew Islands, New Ireland, Solomon, New Britain and other islands of the Bismark Archipelago, New Hebrides, New Caladenia, and Loyalty Islands.
    Papuans are the predominant population of New Guinea. They are also found in Aru, Flores, Solor, Adonara, Lomblen, Pantar, and Alor Islands of Indonesia.
    Fuegians make up the American branch. They are found in Tierra del Fuego, along the Pacific coast of Chile, in Columbia, along the Atlantic coast of Brazil and in northern California. They consist of Yaghan (Yamana) and Alakaluf of Tierra del Fuego; Botocudos (Aimoré, Aymore) of Brazil; Chono of Columbia; and Piaroa, Goajiro, and Motilon of Colombia.
    Before 1500 A.D. Indo-Australians inhabited parts of India, Sakhalin, and Hokkaido Islands, New Guinea, Melanesian Islands, Fiji, and all of Australia. Since then they have lost most of Australia to the Aryans. In Japan and Siberia, the Japanese, Russians, and Turanians of Siberia are pushing them to extinction. Although they still dominate New Guinea and many of the surrounding islands, they are losing Fiji to Melanochroi immigrants. Also, approaching extinction is the American branch.
    The general physical characteristics of the Indo-Australian follow. Most of the information below and in Tables 1, 2, and 3 come from the works of Bean, Brinton, Comas, Coon, Deniker, Haddon, Hooten, Keane, and Nesturkh with minor input from various other sources.
    Skin Color: dark brown, chocolate brown, nearly black
    Hair Color: usually black
    Head Hair: wavy, curly, or frizzy; some nearly straight
    Facial Hair: variable, often strongly developed, some sparse
    Body Hair: variable, often well developed, some sparse
    Face: narrow and low; jaw project (prognathism); prominent cheeks; concave temples
    Forehead: somewhat sloping with strongly developed supra-orbital (brow) ridge
    Eyes: deep set, round
    Eye Color: dark hazel, brown, dark brown
    Nose: usually platyrrhine; short and broad; big with a low or medium bridge; very wide nostrils; bulbous tip; depressed at base
    Lips: thick, full
    Teeth: megadont; large
    Chin: poorly developed
    Head Shape: usually dolichocephalic, some mesocephalic
    Body Characteristics: ectomorphy; similar to Aryans with longer and thinner limbs; elongated forearms and legs; skin when cut tends to form prominent, elevated sores or keloids
    Stature: short or average
        Table 1 describes the characteristics of the American branch (Fuegian) and Asian branches (Pre-Dravidian and Ainu). The characteristics of the Australian branch (Australian, Murrayian, Carpentarian) are described in Table 2. Table 3 describes the characteristics of the Oceanic branch (Melanesian, Papuan, and Negrito).

    Among the extinct races of Indo-Australians are Grimaldi man, Brno man, and others of the Aurignacian culture (14,000 B.C.) in Europe. Grimaldi man was long-headed with a broad face and projecting jaw. He was medium height.[1]
    Of the American Branch, the Paleo-Indian (the Lagoa-Santa type and Punin type) is extinct. The Lagoa-Santa type ranged from Lower California to Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil.[2] This type had a small, hypsicephalic (very high) vault, dolichocephalic head; retreating forehead; well-developed brow ridge; a short wide face; a medium to broad nose; medium orbits; deep-set eyes; shovel shaped teeth; and an alveolar prognathic face or considerable prognathism.[3]
    Of the Oceanic branch, the Tasmanian became extinct in 1877. Tasmanians inhabited the island of Tasmania. They possessed the following characteristics: variable stature but generally short, very thin legs, small keel-shaped head, dolichocephalic, pentagonal face, narrow forehead with a well-developed brow ridge, very broad short nose with depressed root, broad and prognathic face, small and retreating chin, large teeth, quite fuzzy or woolly hair, black hair color, beard peppercorn around the border, almost black skin, small and deep-set eyes, conspicuously large ears with large lobs, full lips but not thick, large mouth, large teeth, and cranial capacity ranging between 1060 and 1430 cc, mostly about 1250 cc.[4]

Endnotes
1. Dr. Robert B. Bean, The Races of Man: Differentiation and Dispersal of Man (New York, New York: The University Press, 1932), pp. 69.123.

2. Juan Comas, Manual of Physical Anthropology (English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960), p. 629.

3. A. C. Haddon, The Races of Man and Their Distribution (New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925), pp.24, 142, 143. R. Ruggles Gates, Human Ancestry from a Genetical Point of View (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1948), 311.

4. Daniel G. Brinton, Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: David McKay, Publisher, [1901]), p. 240. Comas, p. 651.  J. Deniker,The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography (London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900), p. 432. Gates, p. 155. A. H. Keane, Man Past and Present (Revised by A. Hingston Quiggin and A. C. Haddon. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1920), pp. 159-160. Taylor 88-89.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 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.

Gun Control

Gun Control

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was written in 1988.]

    Gun controllers are out to disarm the country. They use many false arguments to support their untenable position. They seek to disarm private citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals and omnipotent government, which is the ultimate criminal.
    Most gun controllers are liberals, and nearly all liberals are gun controllers. All gun controllers are statist, and most are political, social, and economic egalitarians, who abhor the physical equality that guns bring.
    Gun controllers display their hypocrisy by advocating harsh laws against law-abiding gun owners while cuddling criminals. They have a lax attitude toward real crime. They persist in putting dangerous criminals back on the streets as quickly as possible. Then they propose to disarm the law-abiding citizens, who are threatened by these thugs. (The American Civil Liberties Union shows the perverse hypocritical mind of a good liberal. It has advocated registering firearms and licensing owners, yet it is ready to go to court to prevent school officials from checking student lockers for illegal weapons.) Their objective appears to be to use criminals to frighten a disarmed populace into demanding more oppressive laws and a stronger police state.
    Gun controllers plan to disarm the population piecemeal until all handguns and long guns are removed from the general population. If they were to try to ban all guns at once, their opposition would be too great; and they would be trounced and routed.
    Gun controllers usually take the approach of advocating banning “Saturday night specials” (whatever that is) in the name of fighting crime. (Is it not amusing that these worshipers of the “poor” want to disarm the poor, who are victimized by criminals more than the well-to-do, by outlawing cheap guns?) Eliminating this class of firearm will not reduce crime. Then the gun controllers will push for abolishing all handguns in the name of reducing crime. Even this ban will not reduce crime — as will be shown below. Next, the gun controllers will go after rifles and shotguns. He can now achieve his goal of banning all privately owned guns, but crime will still not be reduced.
    If everyone, except the police and military, were completely disarmed, the government (police and military) would possess a monopoly of legal firepower. The disarmed civilians would stand naked before the government and would become, like the Chinese peasants, defenseless victims of whatever the government wishes to do with or to them. To have a defenseless populace is the gun controllers’ goal. Only when the people lack the means to resist effectively oppressive government will the liberals feel secure in remaking mankind in their own image. (A government that cannot trust an independently heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted and is in need of replacement.) Even if criminals were initially disarmed along with the law-abiding, they would soon rearm themselves by stealing weapons from the police and military. The disarmed population would be easy prey for them.
    Great Britain has very stringent gun laws. Private ownership of a gun is allowed only under the most extraordinary circumstances. Carrying a gun is illegal. Since Great Britain abolished the death penalty in the late 1960's, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes has risen dramatically: thus evidencing the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
    Great Britain also depicts the path followed by gun controllers. Handguns were banned to curb violent crime. Naturally, this ban proved a failure. So the government did what governments are prone to do; instead of admitting that it was wrong and repealing its bad laws, it extended controls to long guns. There is much greater use of guns in crimes today with stringent gun control laws than there was before 1920 when there were no gun control laws.
    To conceal their real reason for disarming private citizens, gun controllers resort to a number of sophisms.
    Gun controllers often claim that much of today’s crime problem arises from a heritage of frontier violence and lawlessness. This myth is debunked by a study done by Roger McGrath, a professor of history at UCLA.
    McGrath’s study shows that shootings generally occurred among roughnecks, badmen, hoodlums, and other similar characters. The law-abiding citizens, the young, the old, and women (except prostitutes) were seldom involved in shootings. These people have now become the principal victims of many of today’s shootings.
    His study also shows that the crimes that are most common today — robbery, theft, burglary, and rape — were of no great significance in the old west. Rape was almost nonexistent. A principal reason for the lack of these crimes was the widespread ownership of firearms. This widespread ownership of firearms and the willingness to use them contributed greatly to the relative safety of the average citizen.
    Highwaymen hesitated to rob stagecoaches with armed guards. Instead, they held up unguarded coaches. Then they usually limited their theft to the express box. They feared taking money and valuables from passengers, for they knew such action would put an angry posse of citizens ready to turn to vigilantism on their trail. Fear of swift and sure penalty deterred their greed.
    Banks were seldom robbed because employees were armed. Individuals were seldom robbed because most were armed and willing to fight. Most victims of robbery were staggering drunk. Again fear of swift and sure penalty deterred the thief's greed.
    McGrath’s study shows that instead of encouraging crime and violence, the widespread private ownership of guns discourages them. The law-abiding citizen is more secure armed than he is disarmed.
    Gun controllers claim that guns need to be controlled to prevent accidental death by shooting. They claim that accidental death by gunshot is at or near the top of the list of accidental deaths. On the contrary, accidental death by shooting is near the bottom. Less than 2 percent of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms. Almost 27 times as many people die of automobile accidents as from accidental shootings. More than six times as many die of falls; and three times as many, from drowning. If the objective is to reduce accidental death, causes other than firearms need to be emphasized.
    Gun controllers claim that registration and licensing will reduce death by shooting as well as the number of violent deaths in general. Unfortunately, this claim is false. Two deadly objects exist in the United States in approximately the same number. One object is registered, and its users are licensed while the other object is seldom registered and its users are seldom licensed. Which object is involved in the greater number of deaths? The gun controllers would claim that the unregistered object with unlicensed users would cause a greater number of deaths. They would be wrong. More people in the United States die by automobiles than by firearms. There are about as many privately owned firearms in the United States as automobiles. Most firearms are unregistered and most of their users are unlicensed. Automobiles are registered, and their users are licensed. Yet the automobile is involved in more deaths. Almost 40 percent more people die of automobile accidents than from gunshots, including murder and suicide. Registration and licensing do not deter death.
    Registration is often more of a hindrance to police than a help. Criminals steal most guns used in crime. Registration does not lead police to the criminal but to the unfortunate person whose gun has been stolen and who must now prove his innocence.
    Cuba and Germany offer examples as to why the registration of firearms needs to be opposed. In Cuba Batista, who ruled Cuba before Castro, required gun owners to be licensed and to register their guns. The police records contained a description of the weapon along with its owner’s picture and fingerprints. When Castro overthrew Batista, he confiscated all the guns in Cuba: A task that Batista’s registration system made very easy.
    In Germany, Hitler enacted a law that required a person to have a permit to buy a gun and another permit to own a gun. Of course, Jews and other undesirables, those in the greatest need of weapons to protect themselves from Hitler’s oppression, were denied permits. The permits left a paper trail that made the confiscation of guns very easy. Hitler was, however, thoughtful enough to exempt high-ranking governmental officials, the police (regular and secret), and certain other governmental agents from his gun control law. Thus, he disarmed the victims of his oppression while arming their oppressors.
    Gun controllers claim that homeowners are safer if they offer no resistance to burglars and that homeowners are more likely to be injured if they resist with a gun. Gun controllers often claim that a person who uses a gun for protection is more likely to be injured than someone who offers no resistance. They also claim that private ownership of guns does not deter crime. A study by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University refutes these claims.
    He estimates that firearms are used defensively by private citizens about one million times per year in the United States. In more than 60 percent of these incidents, handguns are used. He has found that guns are used more often defensively than criminally. Most of the time the weapon is not fired and the criminal is not injured. Less than 2 percent of the time is anyone killed or wounded. Between 1500 and 2800 criminals are killed annually by private citizens using firearms in self-defense. This is about two and a half to seven times as many as are killed by police.
    Kleck’s study shows that victims of robbery or assault who use guns for protection are less likely to be attacked or injured than are victims who respond otherwise, including not resisting at all. There is a much greater chance of being hurt during an assault (two and a half times as great) or robbery (one and a half times as great) by not resisting at all than by using a gun for protection. In a majority of cases where a person who uses a gun for protection is injured, the injury preceded the use of the gun to resist. Also, those who use guns against would-be robbers are less likely to lose their property than those who use other means of resistance or who do nothing.
    The chances of a burglar or other violent criminal encountering a private citizen who will use a gun against him is as great as being arrested. Of course, the potential victim wielding a gun is much more of a deterrent than the future threat of an arrest because the consequence is immediate and potentially more severe than any punishment offered by the legal system.
    In the United States where many households are armed, burglars tend to avoid occupied dwellings. In countries where private gun ownership is much less than in the United States, burglars are much more likely to enter occupied houses. Burglars fear facing an armed homeowner. This fear reduces confrontations between burglars and victims. The result is fewer deaths and injuries. Thus, firearms reduce death and injury.
    The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a much greater deterrent to crime than do the police and court system. The police and court system are not designed to prevent crime, but to apprehend and punish after a crime has been committed. The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a quick, sure, and severe penalty that is directly and immediately related to the crime. This action is a much greater deterrent to crime than the police and court system where arrest and conviction are lengthy and uncertain.
    Kleck’s study also shows that where gun ownership and training are highly publicized, crime tends to decline. His study clearly demonstrates that laws that reduce the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens would benefit the criminals of society. Widespread ownership of guns by the law-abiding reduces crimes and their concomitant injuries and deaths.
    Gun control laws make self-defense a crime. Perhaps the most notable case is the Bernhard Goetz case. Goetz shot four men in self-defense on a New York subway. The jury found him innocent of all charges brought against him except violating New York’s gun law. For violating that law he was sentenced to six months in prison, fined $5000, and directed to undergo psychiatric treatment (shades of the Soviet Union) plus other penalties. There are other examples of people being punished for using a gun in self-defense. A man in the District of Columbia holds three burglars with his pistol until the police arrive to take them into custody. The three thieves are set free while the man is charged with possessing an improperly registered handgun. In Massachusetts, a man shoots and kills another man who is trying to knife him. The jury acquits him of all charges, but the judge sentences him to the mandatory one-year imprisonment for failing to obtain a license for his handgun. In Oak Park, Illinois a filling station operator is arrested for possessing a handgun (private ownership of handguns is prohibited in Oak Park) when he used it to shoot at some robbers that held him at gunpoint. The result of gun control laws is to penalize an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
    Firearms are the “great equalizer.” They enable a small weak person to stand on equal footing with a larger, stronger adversary. Is it not odd that the same egalitarians who constantly aver the political equality of democracy, economic equality of socialism, and social equality of integration object so strongly to the greatest physical egalitarian invention of man, the gun? They oppose private ownership of guns because they realize that their mad dreams of equality can only be achieved by oppression. If the victims of their egalitarian nightmare are armed, then the victims are on more equal footing with the government and are more capable of successfully resisting oppression.
    In the present union, which Yankeedom controls, law-abiding Southerners must always fear having their guns confiscated and, thereby, being placed at the mercy of criminals and despotic government. The time has come to alleviate this fear. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States in which law-abiding Southerners may possess guns without fear of molestation and may use them to protect themselves from criminals and despotic government.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro

Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro

   
Sherman’s Opinion of Blacks
    General W. T. Sherman wrote the following in a letter written from Atlanta in 1864, which was printed in the St. Louis Republican in 1889:

I don’t see why we can’t have some sense about negroes, as well as about horses, mules, iron, copper, etc.; but say “nigger” in the United States, and from Sumner to Attorney Kelly the whole country goes crazy. I never thought my nigger letter would get into the papers, but since it has I lay low. I like niggers well enough as niggers, but when fools and idiots try to make niggers better than ourselves I have an opinion. ([William H. Campbell,] Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races (Richmond, 1891), p. 295]

Miscegenation in the 1880's
    In the 1880’s a wedding of note occurred between a Negro man and an Aryan woman. A Northern newspaper, the Independent, wrote the following editorial praising this marriage:

We shall be pleasantly surprised if the newspapers edited by colored men do not treat somewhat coldly Mr. Douglass’ marriage. They ought to welcome it heartily. It is one of the best things that could happen for the race in America. A man whose color is marked, a man of culture and ability, and one of the first of his race to achieve social standing in the very capital of his country, where he is known and honored, was taken to wife a worthy white woman. It is miscegenation in Washington. It is an example which will be followed, and which must be followed before the prejudice against color will die out, as it has died out in some countries. Decency of morals requires honest, sanctified wedlock to take the place of thousands of illegitimate unions. We are heartily glad that such an event has taken place, and the colored people of the country — certainly those who have also white blood in their veins — should, for their mothers’ sake and their daughters’ sake, be far-sighted enough to see the meaning and drift. ([William H. Campbell,] Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races (Richmond, 1891), p. 271.)

    As this editorial shows, liberal thought has not changed over the last century. Unfortunately, such people have only become much more successful in creating their nightmares. Then as now, Blacks seem to resist the destruction of their, the Negro, race through miscegenation more than Whites resist destructing their, the Aryan, race through miscegenation. Liberal newspapers continue to see miscegenation as the solution to America’s race problem. They claim to believe that the resulting mongrel race will be superior to the two parent races. Further, they degrade Blacks by claiming that they are nothing unless they mix with Whites. They are nothing unless they are mulattoes.
    At least then another leading Northern newspaper, the Interior, condemned this marriage and editorial. (When was the last time that a newspaper of note condemned the sin of miscegenation? When was the last time that a newspaper praised racial prejudice?) The Interior wrote in response to the above editorial,

This strikes us a morbid sentimentalism. The law of God requires sanctified wedlock, but the existence of a greater is no justification of a lesser evil. The policy of righteousness is not to substitute one evil for another, but to eradicate both. To level down a splendid race in order to destroy race prejudice is to burn a barn to destroy a rat — or that which is erroneously supposed to be a rat. Race prejudice is good: we wish there were enough of it to entirely prevent the commingling of the blood of the higher with that of the lower races of men. The meaning of miscegenation is a downward drift — a fact so obvious that it scarcely needs arguing — and race prejudice is founded, and well founded, on that fact. The negro race is a weak race everywhere, and has been such in all its known history — its sad aptitude, in all time, being for servility and slavery. The Arabs prey upon them to-day as if they were so many black sheep; and their only defense is in distant England and America. They could not maintain a traffic in slaves of any other people. Suppose it were tried upon the American Indians! We say that it is a cruel wrong to his posterity for a white person to marry a negro — and it would be a wrong no less if there were no social distinctions; and it is almost as great a wrong to his or her posterity for a negro to marry a white person. The mixed race is not equal to either of the originals — they are weaker than the weaker of the two. A thorough commingling of the blood of the two races in America would take us as a nation from a place among the highest of a splendid race, and set us low among the lowest. Shall we, as a people, have less regard for the physical symmetry and beauty and stamina, the intellectual vigor, courage, energy and keenness of our posterity — less regard for them than we have for the excellence of our horses? The negroes are an inferior race, but it does not follow that because they are weak the strong have any right to oppress or to wrong them. They are human beings, entitled to all human rights; and manly magnanimity will concede them their human rights all the more because they are weak. The white race in this country are bound in honor to do all they can for the elevation and happiness of colored race; but they are even more profoundly bound in duty and in honor to transmit pure Caucasian blood to their own posterity. No greater wrong would be possible for us to do those who are to come after us in America than to put them at a natural and an irreparable disadvantage to the white nations of Europe. We must be impartially just and kind to all races of men, do them good and do them no harm; and this not only to all now living, but to those who are to live after us. The colored race is fitted for, and can live in and thoroughly enjoy, torrid climates, that are not only inimical, but fatal to white people. Deprive them of their pure tropical blood, and they are not fitted either for the cold which we enjoy nor for the heat which they enjoy. Every reasonable consideration is against the position of the Independent on this subject. ([William H. Campbell,] Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races (Richmond, 1891), pp. 271-273.)

    If the wisdom of the Interior had been followed over the last century instead of the folly of the Independent, the race problems in America would be almost nonexistent. If Aryan leaders had expended the resources and energy that they had wasted in trying to destroy the Aryan race to advance the Aryan, America would be a much better place to live — both spiritually and materially. Not only would the Aryan race be much better off today, but so would the Negro and other races.

Dr. Daniel G. Brinton on Miscegenation
    The following comment was made by Dr. Daniel G. Brinton, Professor of Ethnology at the Academy of Natural Science and of American and Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania and President of the American Folk-Lore Society and of the Numismatic and Antiquarians Society of Philadelphia, in his lectures delivered at the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1890 as given in Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, [1901]). (This was an era when a man of science could speak frankly without fear of ostracism.)

There can be no doubt but that any white mixed race is lower in the scale of intelligence than the pure white race. A white man entails indelible degradation on his descendants who takes in marriage a woman of a darker race; and any relation other than that of marriage, no matter if it does lift the lower race, is unauthorized by any sound moral code. Still more to be deplored is the woman of the white race who unites herself with a man of a lower ethnic type. It cannot be too often repeated, too emphatically urged, that it is to the women alone of the highest race that we must look to preserve the purity of the type, and with it the claims of the race to be the highest. They have no holier duty, no more sacred mission, than that of transmitting in its integrity the heritage of ethnic endowment gained by the race through thousands of generations of struggle. That philanthropy is false, that religion is rotten, which would sanction a white woman enduring the embrace of a colored man.

Physical Criteria of Racial Superiority
    Dr. Daniel Brinton, a professor of Ethnology, identifies in Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, [1901]) several traits that can be used to identify the superiority or inferiority (here superiority and inferiority mean less apelike and more apelike) of a race. The more of these traits a race possesses the closer it approaches apes and the lower or more inferior it is. Conversely, the fewer of these traits a race possesses the farther it is removed from apes, i.e., the more it approaches the characteristics of true man, and the higher or more superior the race is. The traits that Brinton identifies are:
    Simplicity and early union of cranial sutures.
    Presence of the frontal process of the temporal bone.
    Wide nasal aperture, with synostosis of the nasal bone.
    Prominence of the jaws.
    Recession of the chin.
    Early appearance, size and permanence of the “wisdom” teeth.
    Unusual length of the humerus.
    Perforation of the humerus.
    Continuation of the “heart” line across the hand.
    Obliquity (narrowness) of the pelvis.
    Deficiency of the calf of the leg.
    Flattening of the tibia.
    Elongation of the heel (os calcis).

A Mulatto’s Thought
    The following was written about a century ago by Thomas, a mulatto, in The American Negro, who witness Reconstruction in the South:

. . . It may have been the outcropping of gratitude to Federal victors or reckless abandon to lust, but the exciting cause is immaterial so long as the shameful fact is true that, wherever our armies were quartered in the South, the negro women flocked to their camps for infamous riot with the white soldiery. All occupied cities, suburban rendezvous, and rural bivouacs bore witness to the mad havoc daily wrought in black womanhood by our citizen soldiery. . . . Nor do we doubt that the present lax morality everywhere observable among negro womenkind is largely due to the licentious freedom which the war engendered  among them. Slavery had its blighting evils, but also its wholesome restraints.

    If the records were available, many more mulattoes would find their white ancestry in the noble soldiers of Yankeedom than they would in the slave owners and their families and overseers.

Comments on the Negro Problem
    The following was written by A. H. Shannon in 1907 in Racial Integrity and Other Features of the Negro Problem:

The negro problem is not, primarily, one in the realm of economics. It is essentially a moral problem. It is reduced to this: Which is better, a mongrel race whose origin is in sin, and which represents the worst of all the races; or a race, whatever its limitations, yet true to its own racial peculiarities and striving to attain, intact, the best and highest of which it is capable?

    Today, liberals and most conservatives of note would answer a mongrel race is preferable — so great must be their hate of the Black man.

Abraham Lincoln the Racist
    In Lincoln’s Peoria speech, on Oct. 16, 1854, he said, “Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary.”
    In his response to Steven Douglas, Lincoln said, “In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.”
    In his speech at Bloomington, Ill., on May 29, 1856, Lincoln said:

Judge Douglas . . . avows that the Union was made by white men and for white men and their descendants. As a matter of fact, the first branch of the proposition is historically true; the government was made by white men, and they were and are the superior race. This I admit. . . . Nor is it any argument that we are superior and the Negro inferior — that he has but one talent while we have ten. Let the Negroes possess the little he has in independence; if he has but one talent, he should be permitted to keep the little he has.

    In his speech at Springfield, on June 26, 1857, a few months after the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln said:

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once — a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. . . . A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. . . . I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. . . . Such separation, if ever effected at all, must effected by colonization; and no political party, as such is now doing anything for colonization. . . .

    In his speech in Chicago, on July 10, 1858, Lincoln said, “I protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic, which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her for either, but as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone and do one another much good thereby. . . .”
    In the Lincoln-Douglass debate at Ottawa, Ill., on August 21, 1858, Lincoln said:

If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, — to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they all would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. . . . What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.

    In the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858, Lincoln said, “I give him [Douglas] the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State [of Illinois] which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”
    Also, in the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858, Lincoln said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the whiter race. . . .

    Again in the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, in response to Douglas’s speech, Lincoln said, “. . . I tell him [Douglas] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. . . . Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it.”
    On Oct. 1, 1858, Lincoln said, “. . . the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature.”
    In a statement to a committee of black men at the White House, on Aug. 14, 1862, Lincoln said:

Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

    In a conversation with Gen. Butler, on April 9, 1865, Lincoln said:

But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us, to the amount, I believe, of some one hundred and fifty thousand men. I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. . . . Now, we shall have no use for our very large navy; what, then, are our difficulties in sending all the blacks away?

Time to Emancipate the Negro
    Reverend Edward Fontaine was a New York professor of theology and natural science during the nineteenth century. He was a negrophile, but unlike twentieth-century negrophiles, he had a realistic and loving attitude towards Negroes instead politically correct maudlin and paternalistic attitude of the twentieth century. He had “tough love” for Negroes instead of an over-mothering attitude that treats them like an infantile race as is done today.
    In a lecture, How the World Was Peopled: Ethnological Lectures, that he gave in 1872, he said the following about the Negroes who were emancipated following the War:

The immediate effect of their emancipation in the Southern States has been to diminish their number fearfully. On one healthy plantation in Hinds County, Mississippi, from 1860 to 1865, there had occurred among fifty of the negro slaves only six deaths in five years. They were generally pious members of different churches, and had been the slaves of the same Christian family, as their ancestors had been before them for several generations. They were emancipated, and left their owners in May, 1865, and, before January, 1868, only nineteen of the original fifty were alive. The [sic] most of the children had died, and only a few others were born. They were generally excellent servants. But their condition was changed. They were in competition with the whites, and they died; how, and by what causes, I cannot say. I mention this as a representative, and not an exceptional, case of many others which have occurred under my own observation.

According to his observations, most Negroes faired better under the cruelty of slavery than under the compassion of federal welfare.
    After describing the price in wealth and lives expended to emancipate the Negro slaves, he describes all that had been done following their emancipation:

They are not only emancipated from slavery, after having been taught practically every kind of labor in agriculture, in mechanics, and in all the arts of our country, and instructed in all the forms and doctrines of Christianity, but they have been clothed with all the rights of citizens of the United States, and favored with peculiar and extraordinary privileges, such as were never conferred before upon any of the freemen of America. Special and liberal grants of money are made from the public Treasury for their education. They are now subjected to the fearful experiment of a competition in the race of life, for all its prizes, with the white people among whom they are mingled, with all the advantages in their favor. In addition to the strong support of the United States Government, they are also favored with the prayers and heart-felt good wishes of the Christians of every land for their success, and it may be safely asserted that they also have the sympathy and aid of their former masters. Surely they ought, under these favorable circumstances, to redeem the character of their race, and become a great and prosperous people. If they have been wronged by the people of the United States, all their wrongs have been thoroughly redressed. Never, since the emancipation of the Israelites and their settlement in the land of Canaan, have any people been so highly favored and abundantly blessed.

    Never have a people since ancient times been more blessed than the American Negro. This negrophile of 125 years ago felt that the time had come to cut the apron strings and let the Negro stand on his own two feet. Instead, the Negro has been pampered like a spoiled brat. Until the Negro stands on his own without special consideration, aid, or privileges, and in spite of any discrimination, real or perceived, he can never be a true man. The time is long past to do what Mr. Fontaine suggested should have been done 125 years ago. The emancipation of the Negro is way overdue.

More articles on social issues.