Revisiting Early 20th Century Anthropology - Part 1

Table of Contents

Part 1
Part 2
  • IX. The Taxonomic Era of Physical Anthropology Reaches Its Peak
  • X. Paradigm Shift
  • XI. Data from Physical Anthropology Remains Valid Today, Even if Typologies Have Fallen out of Fashion
  • XII. Anthropometric Data Can Remain Useful Today, Even if the Old Typologies Have Outlived Their Usefulness
  • XIII. Some Misconceptions of NS and German Anthropology of the 1930s-40s
  • XIV. Were NS Anthropologists Obsessed with Twins?
  • XV. Were NS Anthropologists Nordicists?
  • XVI. What Did NS Anthropologists Mean by "Racial Purity"?
  • XVII. Conclusion

Having established that the PC tendency to reject pre-1950s physical anthropology as "scientific racism" is not only disastrous from a political standpoint, but completely irrational from a scientific point of view, it may be beneficial to provide here a brief history of the early days of anthropology. This will help curious readers better contextualize the different currents of thought which existed amongst the academic community and general public during this time period (which includes the rudimentary data the historic National Socialist movement had to work with), further elucidate what data has become inaccessible to anti-racists due to their rejection of this era of anthropology, and further elaborate on how logically inconsistent HBD views are. (The HBD movement asserts that pre-postmodern views on race are superior, yet even authors in the 1890s were able to develop a more nuanced and less crude view of human biological variation which is at odds with 21st century HBDers...).

It should go without saying that all subfields of anthropology have advanced greatly over the past century--from physical anthropology and archaeology, to the study of heredity (commenced by Mendel in the 1860s, it was not until the 1950s that DNA was confirmed to be the hereditary molecule, and not until well into the second half of the 20th-century that large scale genetic sequencing became practical). It is not my intention to suggest that early 20th-century anthropologists were somehow more correct or more "enlightened" than later anthropologists. However, it is only by understanding their work and their milieu that we finally can de-politicize and de-mystify this era and this body of work. And it is only after this is done that Leftists will be able to move forward in the discussion on "race" and offer any serious competition to the HBD worldview.

"Whatever you cannot understand, you cannot possess." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


It is recommended for the reader to have first read the "scientific racism" page to better understand the present-day milieu before reading this article.

***

I. Biological Beginnings

It is not easy to give a precise date as to when anthropology became a 'true' scientific field. In its misty beginnings, its various components--archaeology, anatomy, ethnology, etc.--were disjointed and developed at different rates. T. K. Penniman, in his work A Hundred Years of Anthropology (1935), considers the mid-1830s (when Darwin began formulating his theories on evolution) to be when anthropology took the first steps towards becoming a coherent scientific field, rather than a disparate collection of accounts gathered by various historians, travelers, philosophers, and physicians. Still, this date is somewhat arbitrary. Although anthropology may have taken its first steps earlier, it was not truly until 1859, with Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species, that anthropology and biology walked into the light. Even then, it was an uphill battle for acceptance of Darwin's ideas in the face of millennia-old superstitions and traditions rooted in Old Testament literalism.

Tracing the origins of anthropology and biology back to the beginnings of time is outside of the scope of this article, but it may be useful to mention a few pre-Darwin milestones.

Physical anthropology is a branch of bio-anthropology, which itself falls under the umbrella of general biology. The empirical sciences, in the manner that we think of them today, have not been around for very long. Biology is no exception.

Botanist Carl Linnaeus formulated the binomial nomenclature system of naming genus and species in the 1730s. Although his primary focus was botany, he classified many animals, including humans, with his taxonomy. The genus Homo was divided into four familiar groups based upon skin color and geographic region: Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger.[1][2] By the 10th edition of his work, he had attempted to connect color, temperament, and character traits with each of the four "races".[3] This four-fold classification based on skin color, geographic region, and alleged temperament/character continued relatively unchanged to the final edition of Linnaeus's work.[4]

Following on Linnaeus's lead, Comte de Buffon and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach delved deeper into the study of humans as a biological organism situated within the same tree of life as all other lifeforms. Being especially intrigued by Linnaeus's classification of humans, Blumenbach amassed a large collection of skulls, conducted visual and metric analyses on them, and divided humans into 5 "races". Although Blumenbach's study of skulls was quite crude compared to later anthropometric studies, craniometry has ever since been a critical component of physical anthropology.

Blumenbach is most notable for coining the term "Caucasian race" in 1795.[5][6] He believed that the inhabitants of the Caucasus region were the most beautiful living group and that this region was where mankind had first evolved. By the late 1800s and early 1900s, the term "Caucasian" was considered obsolete by physical anthropologists and even White Supremacist pseudo-scientists, on account of the crudeness of lumping together everyone in Europe into such a monolithic bloc. Yet, for some reason, society has gone back to embracing this biologically inaccurate and crude term...


Quotes from Carleton Coon (1939).[7] Unfortunately, laymen continued to use Blumenbach's crude classification and now the educated and even professional classes do too! Today's even more crude notion of a single "white" "race" allows even greater ease for "speculative psychologists" to peddle bigoted ideas.

II. The Peril of Polygenism

While Linnaeus had gotten the ball rolling on rejecting some of the superstitions and traditions which had surrounded the 'natural sciences', unchanged since the days of Aristotle, traditions rooted in Old Testament literalism took a bit longer to jettison. Incredibly, the question of whether all humans literally descended from Adam and Eve (monogenism) or if different ethnic groups and "races" were created separately by Yahweh (polygenism) was considered a valid matter of scientific debate into the mid-1800s.

Augustine of Hippo had argued for the monogenist view of human descent in the 5th century AD, and this remained the prevailing view in the Western world until the early 1500s.[8] Writers such as Paracelsus (1520) and Giordano Bruno (1591) began popularizing the polygenist view.[9] Soon, writers such as Isaac de la Peyrere (1655)[9] argued that some "races" were descended from inferior humans or sub-humans who had been created before Adam, thereby giving Westerners a fine justification to enslave, murder, and plunder the "inferior" and "ungodly" pre-Adamite descendants in Africa and the New World without fearing much reprisal from Yahweh.

Blumenbach took a more nuanced position in the mongenist vs polygenist debate. He argued that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, but "non-Caucasians" were degenerated and unhealthy versions of "Caucasians"--apparently having suffered as the result of living for many generations in unfavorable climates and eating poor diets. Blumenbach, however, did not believe this made "non-Caucasians" inherently inferior, and argued against early White Supremacists such as polygenist Christoph Meiners.[10]

Continuing into the early 1800s, polygenism gained immense popularity amongst Westerners who sought a "scientific" excuse to "prove" "non-whites" were inferior. Polygenism found welcome fans especially amongst White Supremacists and slaveowners in the US.[11] The tradition of polygenism began to wane in serious intellectual circles after geologist Charles Lyell (1830s-1860s) shattered the Biblical literalist narrative by demonstrating the world was much older than 6,000 years (a date which had originally been popularized by Augustine of Hippo), on the basis of the stratigraphy of rock formations.[12]

Even so, creationist polygenism did not die completely. Darwin addressed polygenism in a chapter of The Descent of Man (1871).[13] Pause for a moment to consider the significance of this--it has not even been 150 years since Western anthropologists were able to reach a firm consensus that humans had not been placed on Earth perfectly formed by Yahweh, but instead evolved to our present state over an immense time period...


With the creationist polygenists' assertion that "white" racial superiority was biologically-supported finding itself on increasingly thin ice, Arthur de Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races, 1853) established a theory of racial supremacy based on more-difficult-to-disprove cultural and psychological foundations, rather than the traditional anatomical ones. De Gobineau asserted that most "races" (in contrast to the "superior" "whites") were simply incapable of creating and sustaining civilization, and that mixture with the inferior "races" would lead to a cataclysmic downfall of the "white" race.[14] (Consider that the USA and South Africa officially mandated ethnic segregation based on analogous concerns until the 1960s and 1990s, respectively.) De Gobineau is most infamous for erroneously linking the concept of Aryans with the "White race" and blond/blue pigmentation.[15]

Due to being pseudo-scientific hypotheses based on Old Testament literalism, it is needless to say that physical anthropologists of the post-Darwin era did not place any value in the ideas of creationist polygenists. Yet, due to the fact that physical anthropologists constructed typologies of "race" just as the creationist polygenists did, and due to the fact that some skeletal and craniometric measuring techniques used by physical anthropologists were commonly employed by polygenists, PC supporters will often try to pin physical anthropologists as being "pseudo-scientific racists" in the same tradition as the polygenists. Anyone capable of intellectual honesty will be able to see why such disingenuousness is dishonorable.

***


III. Pre-Darwinian Milestones, continued

In the 1770s, biologist and artist Petrus Camper developed the idea of the facial angle while studying portraits and statues in profile view.[16] Camper measured various angles of the face, such as the slope of the bottom of the jaw and angle of the forehead, but the most important was the degree of protrusion of the jaw. Although this conceptually advanced the study of craniometry, Camper's study of the human face leaned much towards the realm of aesthetics and can arguably seen as an outgrowth of physiognomy, rather than strictly belonging to scientific anthropometry.

One of the most important morphological features for Blumenbach was the shape of the skull when viewed from above.[17] This foreshadowed the invention of the cephalic index (a ratio of the breadth to the length of the cranium) by Anders Retzius in 1840.[18] Due to its simplicity and the somewhat high levels of variation between different ethnic groups, cephalic index became one of the most common cranial measurements employed by physical anthropologists.

Narrow skull (left) vs. wide skull (right).

In addition to inventing the cephalic index, Retzius introduced the terms dolichocephalic and brachycephalic (to describe skulls with low cephalic index and high cephalic index, respectively), further dividing each group into orthognate and prognate (i.e. taking into account facial angle).[18] In 1836, Friedrich Tiedmann devised a way to measure the cranial capacity (an estimate of brain size), by filling the skull will seeds and then measuring the seeds' volume.[18]

An early advocate of evolution, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1809) suggested that species were not fixed and unchanging entities, but could 'transform' through time. Lamarck proposed organisms evolved by passing on characteristics acquired during their lifetime.[19][20] While we now know that by-and-large this is not how traits are inherited, research into epigenetics suggests that some modifications acquired during an organism's lifetime can indeed be passed on (although the actual genes/DNA themselves are not modified in the sense Lamarckism would imply).

In the 1820s to 1840s, various fossilized human remains and tools, found alongside bones of extinct animals, were being discovered throughout Europe.[21] The conclusion of humanity's great antiquity was fiercely protested by those holding onto the Biblical fundamentalist view that humans had only been 'created' a few millennia ago. Slowly but surely, esteemed professionals examined the remains and the soil/geological context in which they had been found, and concluded that they were indeed of extreme antiquity. (Again, pause for a moment to consider that 21st-century polls have shown that over 1/3 of people in the US still believe humans were created by Yahweh less than 10,000 years ago).[22]

In 1857, a skeleton was discovered in Neanderthal, Germany. Hermann Schaaffhausen, and later T. H. Huxley (1863), argued this belonged to a very ancient species predating modern man,[23] while Rudolf Virchow, clinging to anti-evolutionist prejudices, believed it was merely a pathologically-deformed skeleton of a human.[24]


IV. Beginnings of Anthropology as an Organized Branch Science

In the decades leading up to Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species, an increasing number of biologists and anthropologists were starting to think in non-Lamarckian evolutionary terms. For example, James Cowles Prichard's second edition of Researches into the Physical History of Man (1st ed. 1813, 2nd ed. 1826) anticipates natural selection by pondering how new traits arise and by what mechanism they propagate along similar lines as Darwin.[25] (Edward Bagnall Poulton suggested Darwin had never read this 2nd edition, as he mentions other early evolutionary theorists such as William Charles Wells and William Lawrence, but doesn't give Prichard's 2nd edition much attention).[25]

Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with evolution by natural selection at the same time as Darwin,[26] prompting Darwin to publish The Origin of Species, even though he considered it in a rough and unfinished state. Out of all these biologists, it was Darwin who had put the most thought into evolution, working for over 20 years on The Origin of Species before its first publication.


V. Darwinism vs "Social Darwinism"

Just as polygenist bigots commandeered data gathered by physical anthropologists in the days before Darwin, and just as bigoted HBDers today attempt to commandeer anthropometric and genetic data to excuse and promote their ignoble views, so too did the public at large and opportunistic propagandists misinterpret and twist Darwin's work to bolster their personal opinions on societal matters. This is the much talked about "social Darwinism", which formed much of the basis for the eugenics movement (which sought to augment the concept of "survival of the fittest" by ensuring those who were deemed "unfit" to carry and propagate the establishment culture did not reproduce). Judging by PC's attitudes towards early physical anthropology, it seems PC erroneously believes all of academic physical anthropology was built upon these "social Darwinist" views with respect to "race".

Admittedly, there were some academics--such as Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Otto Ammon, and Hans F. K. Guenther--who continued to write in this half-scientific half-utterly speculative and biased manner; yet they formed a small part of the overall academic community. In addition, there were plenty of propagandists with little or no academic qualifications in anthropology or biology (e.g. Arthur de Gobineau, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard). Even today, one may find plenty of individuals with academic certifications who nevertheless promote utterly biased ideas resting upon unreasonable foundations (e.g. the few climate scientists who write to ideologically downplay the importance of climate change, and individuals with PhDs in biology and psychology who write about IQ's link to "race" in a not-so-subtle attempt to "prove" certain groups are "inferior"). Again, pretending as if these few biased individuals from the 19th and 20th century are representative of the entire field is just as dishonest as suggesting the views of Kevin MacDonald or J. Philippe Rushton are representative of all 21st-century biologists!!

Penniman gives an interesting passage on the milieu of "social Darwinism", and its contrast from Darwin's spirit of impartial inquisitiveness:

"With the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, the Constructive Period of Anthropology as a single, though many-sided science, begins. Darwin belonged to his period, as Lamarck belonged to his. The political revolution has its biological interpretation in Lamarck; the industrial has its interpretation in Darwin. To the abandonment of old orders of society, and the movement towards the freedom of the people, corresponded Lamarck's doctrines of the effects of use and disuse, and the inward urge of the organism to develop its capacities. To society in Darwin's time, the problem of existence and development was differently presented, and required a different interpretation. The mechanical and industrial revolution had brought very much to the foreground the struggle for existence, both among individuals and among societies. The spread of popular education and the improvement of communications had made it possible for a large number of people to consider with some degree of intelligence the composition and object of society; and when there is general interest, even though much of it is poorly expressed, there is almost bound to be a genius to interpret the tendencies of his time. If the public is prepared, his interpretation has a profound effect. If it is not, his genius will not reach its full fruition for lack of suitable stimulus, nor will his interpretation have a great effect on the life of his time.

The struggle for existence between individuals and ideas at home, and the manifest success of some and the failure of others, the spread of the power of European societies over the rest of the earth with their superior mechanical equipment--these facts seemed to find their justification in the natural law of the struggle for life, and the survival of the fittest. And while the work of Darwin had a far richer content, and far deeper meanings, it was this superficial interpretation in terms of a mechanized civilization that caught the popular imagination, and proved to be the rock on which many eminent social philosophers stumbled for years to come. Men like Huxley and Spencer started with the idea of society as an organism, and were reduced to the idea of its elements warring with each other, and the strongest surviving. Imperial developments appeared to show that the "lesser breeds without the law" were bound to go to the wall, and that such events were but the working law of nature. Success in life, rather than success in living, and mechanical efficiency and progress, became the gods of the people, and Darwin's hypothesis appeared to justify such success and efficiency. So narrow a view of evolution and natural selection was bound to bring people not forward, but back to the old doctrines of utilitarianism and laissez-faire. Leave things to take their course, and nature will select the survivor.

After a severe struggle with the old theology, this superficial interpretation found popular favour in the religious and moral life. The idea of perpetual struggle with obstacles, and of turning them into opportunities, suited the temper of an inventive age, which could not but believe that so rapid a change meant that progress on the same lines would go on forever. The successful were justified in their faith; the failures must realize that inexorable natural law had placed them where they belonged.

The last chapter has shown that these views were all in existence before Darwin wrote. Count de Gobineau and Nott and Gliddon had written of the inequality of races, and the doctrines of Marx had put class against class, while hose of Bentham and Mill had resulted in the idea that one person's interest was as good as another's, and that by leaving matters alone, what was best would survive, or, rather, that what survived had better be called the best. The catchwords of "struggle for existence", "natural selection", or "survival of the fittest", gave the sanctity of natural law to the processes that were going on, and by giving a name to them, seemed to explain them.

We must not, then, say that sociologists wrote in the light of Darwin when they use or appear to use some of his terms while still clinging to old ideas which are the result of the mechanical revolution, and are based on urban and mechanical notions. The idea that one nation subdues another or annexes territory because it is superior, or that a man who gains more ease and money for less work than another, is therefore the fitter to survive and progress, are ideas begotten, not of Darwin, but of the competition for mechanical efficiency. The machine was killing the true craftsman; his strength and skill were becoming things of the past; people reduced to fighting for a living wage, or those who contemplated the struggle must give the palm not to those who could take pride in what they made, or did, but to those who most successfully exploited their fellows.

Darwin's views were very different, and the complete reverse of the urban and mechanical. He was a true farmer at heart, a man of the field and sea, always curious, and quick with the spirit of adventure. You may find his type in the farmers of the remote peninsula of Gower today, where men and women are obliged to exercise all their strength and skill to gain a living from land and sea, and are thrown on their own resources for meeting all emergencies. They are thus independent as kings on their own land, fearless and adventurous, and have a lively curiosity about all that happens round them. ... Farmers who do their own work and are curious about the world they are in, bring within their view the whole complex of life, and its interdependence.

This is the first thing to notice about Darwin. He was no specialist, but like the farmer, interested in everything, and ready to turn his hand or mind to anything. He was a man of the open air, adventurous, and seeing all the complexity and interdependence of the world about him, accepting no theory at secondhand, or without considering the functional relation of his data to the whole complex in which he found it, and testing everything by practical experience. He was the true farmer-naturalist. With so broad a field to investigate, and with so rich an accumulation of facts, he could not possibly accept any facile theory which pretended to explain merely by giving another name to a problem. He was the whole of life, and his theory must take that whole into account. Geological succession, geographical distribution, embryological and structural relations, all these and other facts were taken into account when he put forward the idea that species were not independently created, but had descended like varieties from other species."[27]

While Penniman seems to see this "social Darwinism" arising from philosophical foundations which just so happened to be popular in Darwin's time, we suggest the rise of "social Darwinism" was the result of tribalism opportunistically upgrading itself via biological arguments. Note the parallel to today's HBDers who claim in-group/out-group thinking is morally acceptable merely because it is natural, or that displaying prejudice against people from other ethnic backgrounds is acceptable because ethno-nepotism and ethno-tribalism are observed evolutionary strategies. The selfish utilitarian and materialistic "mechanized" philosophical views popular during Darwin's era may have primed the public for accepting new ideas, but it was ethno-tribalists who were responsible for applying "survival of the fittest" to ethnic and "racial" groups.

Class-based tribalism has waned with the passing of communism from the world stage, but it is worth pointing out that some "social Darwinists" advocated for eugenics almost purely out of class concerns (education-level conflated with intelligence being a common criterion), rather than ethnic concerns. Marx's publications of the Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (vol. 1, 1867; vol. 2, 1885; vol. 3, 1894) are representative of the increasing class-based thinking of the time. (Notably, figures such as Francis Galton and Earnest Hooton[28] advocated non-ethno-tribalist eugenics along this class-based line. Others such as Otto Ammon advocated eugenics based on a mixture of class-tribalism and ethno-tribalism).


Just as we asked the reader to separate the ideological aims and societal implications of polygenism from the study of anthropology in pre-Darwin times, we ask the reader to consciously keep the ideological aims and societal implications of "social Darwinism" separate from genuine study of anthropology in Darwinian times.

Although many early anthropologists were indeed tainted in some manner by fascination with eugenics, their work was in general honest and more-or-less impartially sought to discover the facts of man's nature as a biological and social entity. This is in contrast to propagandists who started with the very loaded thesis that "whites" and Western civilization were superior, and who occasionally grabbed "scientific data" to append to their rants. In other words, genuine anthropologists started with the pure aim of studying mankind impartially, but occasionally become tainted by biases. Racist propagandists (e.g. de Gobineau, Grant, HBDers) started with the non-scientific aim of convincing others that "whites" were superior, and any "scientific data" they used was employed with the disingenuous aim to support their crooked theses.

***


VI. Beginnings of Anthropology as an Organized Branch Science, continued

Countless works have been written entirely on the significance of Darwin, so it may suffice for this article to simply say his work gave a solid foundation for biology, which scientists have continued to build off of for a century and a half. His hypothesis that natural selection is the main driver of evolution has continued to be one of the most significant ideas in the biological sciences.

In 1865 Gregor Mendel presented a paper on his famous plant crossing experiment. His "laws of inheritance" described how genetic material was transferred to the next generation. Mendel observed that traits were inherited independently of one another, and that some characteristics of the offspring were not merely watered-down mixtures of the parents' characteristics, but consistently fell into two or three discrete phenotypes. The development of the field of genetics would have to wait decades after Darwin, however; Mendel's work went unnoticed until 1900.[29]

Mendel found that flower colors were always one phenotype or the other, not merely an average of the parents' colors. (This being said, not all traits are inherited in a Mendelian manner, and not all traits are controlled by a single gene).
Polygenic inheritance (i.e. caused by many-genes; no relation with the "polygenism" of earlier sections).

T. H. Huxley, a friend and correspondent of Darwin, became one of the first biologists to whole-heartedly adopt Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection and apply it to the study of humans.[30] He further investigated human skull morphology, observing that the archaic Neanderthal skull was an extreme point in the array of human skull variation, but part of this wide array nonetheless, thereby suggesting a common lineage between our two species.

Huxley constructed a racial typology, relying upon hair texture, in 1865.[31] (Pruner-Bey published a similar classification relying on hair texture in 1863, although Huxley did not seem to be aware of this).[31] By 1870, Huxley decided cranial morphology was less important in respect to classifying "race" than hair type and skin color.[31] These later classifications by Huxley were a temporary step backwards amongst the academic community of physical anthropologists, although by 1900 (with works by authors such as Joseph Deniker and William Ripley) cranial morphology was once again firmly recognized as being orders of magnitude more important than skin color or hair texture. Unfortunately, critics of physical anthropology (and the public at large) like to fixate on Huxley's crude pigmentation-based classification, and ignore later, more rigorous, typologies in which skin color had no relevance. Notably, Huxley divided Europe between the Melanochroid (dark-pigmented) type and the Xanthochroid (light-pigmented) type.[32]

"This theory of unity of origin of the two long-headed races of Europe is not entirely novel. Europaeus (1876) proposed it twenty years ago. Only within the last decade has it attained widespread acceptance among the very best authorities: from the status of a remote possibility attaining the dignity of a well-nigh proved fact. ...It will be seen at once that this theorem rests upon the assumption that the head form is a decidedly more permanent racial characteristic than pigmentation. In doing so it relegates to a secondary position the colour of the hair and eyes, which so eminent an anthropologist as Huxley has made the basis of his whole scheme of classification of European peoples. Brinton and even Virchow (1896) have likewise relied upon these latter traits in preference to the phenomena of craniology in their racial classifications. Nevertheless, with all due respect to these distinguished authorities, we do not hesitate to affirm that the research of the last ten years has turned the scales in favour of the cranium, if properly studied as the most reliable test of race. Tomaschek is surely right in applying Linnaeus' caution concerning the lower animals to man, Nimium ne crede colori. We know that brunetness varies with age in the same individual--that is one proof of its impermanence." – William Ripley, (1899).[33]

National Socialists also rejected classification of "races" based on skin color:

"Under close scrutiny, the division into races according to the colour of skin turns out to be quite the crudest and most obvious method, since there are noticeably inheritable characteristic racial differences among people of identically coloured skins." – Alfred Rosenberg[34]

In Germany, Rudolf Virchow and his student Ernst Haeckel began modernizing the German schools of biology and anthropology. In the field of cell biology, Virchow famously outlined the principle that all cells came from pre-existing cells. A major stain on his career, however, was his fervent rejection of evolution and opposition to Darwin to his dying day.[35] Notably, Virchow unhesitatingly opposed Nordicism, believing the ethno-favoritism of the 'Nordic minority' was incompatible with his pro-democratic views.[35] (He seems not to have noticed the inherent unfairness of the ethno-favoritism of the "white" majority in the democratic US, which was busy voting away the liberties of the "black" minority).

In contrast, it was Haeckel who popularized Darwin's work in Germany. Demonstrating his interest in evolution, Haeckel produced much work relating to phylogenies ("family trees" of species). Notably, Haeckel advocated for a non-racist and evolutionarily-sound polygenist theory of human origins, basing his theory on linguistic data.[36]

Mistakenly viewing evolution as a 'march of progress' from lower forms to higher forms, he promoted recapitulation theory.[37] Based on studies of embryos, distantly-related animals such as fish and mammals were observed to pass through similar morphological stages early in development. Haeckel believed this meant mammals literally passed through a "fish stage" of development, rather than merely sharing a similar "developmental toolkit". Perhaps due to his conception of evolution as a necessarily progressive endeavor, Haeckel believed "whites" were at the top of the human developmental pyramid, while "blacks" were the least civilized.[38]


From the 1830s to the early 1870s, Adolphe Quetelet became the first to analyze anthropological data on a massive scale.[39] A pioneer of many common statistical methods, Quetelet was primarily interested in social aspects of anthropology. His work was one of the first demonstrating a correlation between social factors and crime,[40] in contrast to other criminologists such as Cesare Lombroso who argued that criminality had a more firmly inherited basis.[41] Notably, Quetelet invented the body mass index.[40]

There were others who approached biology from a statistical perspective, most notably Francis Galton (who was turned on to biology by Darwin, his cousin) and Galton's student Karl Pearson. Inquiring how these statistical observations might be of some impact towards societal questions, Galton began developing eugenics (a term which he coined in 1883)[42] in a more empirical manner than the likes of Nordicists--who insisted Nordic traits be preserved simply because the authors had, on a whimsy, decided "Nordics" were superior. Foreshadowing the views of some 21st century IQ obsessed HBDers, Galton had no problem with "Asians" or other groups with demonstrably high intelligence,[43] and welcomed foreigners so long as they had the capacity to take up the mantle of Western civilization and push society further down the track it was on.

Beyond his advocacy of eugenics, Galton rediscovered the concept of statistical correlation and invented linear regression. In anthropology, he devised a classification of fingerprints (allowing them for the first time to be useful in forensic science) and created composite portraiture in an attempt to discover aesthetic archetypes.[44]

Linear regression.

Following Quetlet's lead, John Beddoe became amongst the first anthropologists to rigorously gather a large amount of statistical data relating to physical characteristics such as hair and eye color, skin color, height, and so forth.[45][46]

In 1875, Pierre Paul Broca helped standardize the methods of anthropometry, specifying which measurements should be routinely taken, the points on the bones from which to take such measurements, and the tools which should be used.[47] For many decades after, his methods were used by most anthropometrists, with the exception of those in Germany, who developed their own standardization.[48] While standardized measurements allowing for comparison of large quantities of data is essential for any empirical science, Giuseppe Sergi cautioned that indexes and averages alone do not capture all of the morphological variation found in skulls.[49] Sergi believed that mindlessly "crunching the numbers" was not very enlightening, and that to actually understand the measurements one must also visually inspect the skull to ascertain its overall morphology.

Near the end of his career, Broca moved away from studying the skull to studying the brain itself.[50] His most notable contribution in this field was discovering an area in the frontal lobe connected to speech. Broca arrived upon this discovery by performing autopsies on patients with speech issues, discovering a dozen individuals with damage in this same region.[51]

Broca's area.

***

With Broca's work revealing that specific areas of the brain were correlated with certain intellectual functions, high-profile cases which captured the public imagination (such as railway worker Phineas Gage (1848) whose brain was impaled by a piece of metal, subsequently causing personality changes), and the growing complexity of craniometry, another pseudo-science lingered throughout the 19th century. Phrenologists claimed that an individual's character could be "read" by feeling for bumps on the skull--the idea being that a brain which was "overdeveloped" or "underdeveloped" in certain mental faculties would result in a corresponding bump or depression on the skull.

Developed by Franz Joseph Gall in the 1790s and popularized by Johann Spurzheim and George Combe in the first decades of the 1800s, phrenology became widely popular amongst the public at large,[52] filling the same niche astrology star sign horoscopes and palm reading do today. Although arguably the precursor to psychology and neurology, serious academic study of brain function had entirely split with phrenology by the 1840s, when it became undeniably clear that phrenology was a disorganized pseudo-science, rather than a valid hypothesis for psychology and neurology.[53] Biologists observed that brains could be damaged without any change or loss in function, and studies demonstrated regions of the brain rarely had the functions which were arbitrarily attributed to them by the phrenologists (indeed, phrenologists never came to a consensus on the number or precise location of mental faculties).

While physical anthropologists and serious psychologists spared no time ripping phrenology apart for its pseudo-scientific nature, adherents of PC sometimes claim physical anthropology is nothing but phrenology! I have even seen a website claim WWII was started due to phrenology... (Hysterical laughter ensued as I imagined soldiers charging into battle, shouting "za phrenologika" instead of "za Stalina" and bayoneting each other to death on the belief that their enemies were inferior due to having bumpy skulls!) If any sane person can see the difference between astrology and astronomy (despite both claiming to be based upon the study of the cosmos), the difference between phrenology and physical anthropology should be apparent.

***

After Broca's sudden death, his student Paul Topinard soon took over his mantle as the pre-eminent physical anthropologist in France. Unfortunately, Topinard seems to have fallen into the same trap as Haeckel, believing that Europeans were quantifiably superior to other groups based on the cranial capacity of their skulls and other physical features.[54]

Louis-Adolphe Bertillon was a professor at the same school as Broca and Topinard.[55] His son, Alphonse Bertillon, invented the mugshot and found applications for anthropometry in criminology.[55] One last French anthropologist of note, Armand de Quatrefages was an early acceptor of Darwin's ideas and critic of polygenism in the 1860s.[55] Contrary to Topinard, de Quatrefages was a major critic of the tendency for Eurocentric anthropologists to establish hierarchies based on physical attributes:

"If we were familiar with primitive man, we should regard as characterising races, everything which separates them from this type. From want of this natural term of comparison, we have taken the European White as normal, and compared the remaining humans with him. This leads to a tendency, which must be pointed out at once.

Influenced by certain habits of thought, and by a self-love of race which is easily explained, many anthropologists have thought that they could interpret the physical differences which distinguish men from one another, and consider simple characteristic features as marks of inferiority or superiority. Because the European has a short heel, and some Negroes have a long one, they have wished to consider the latter as a mark of degradation. The remarks which were made upon this subject, with so much justice, by Desmoulins with reference to the Bosjesmans were forgotten. Because the greater number of civilizations have risen among dolichocephalic nations, a head elongated from before backwards has been regarded as a superior form. It was forgotten that the Negroes and the Esquimaux are generally dolichocephali of the most pronounced type, and that European brachycephali are in every case the equals of their dohchocephalic brethren.

All analogous interpretations are absolutely arbitrary. In fact, superiority between human groups depends essentially upon intellectual and social development; it passes from one to another. The Chinese and Egyptians were already civilized, when all Europeans were true savages. If the latter had judged our ancestors as we too frequently judge foreign races, they would have found many signs of inferiority in them, commencing with the white skin of which we are so proud, and which they would have been able to regard as betraying an irremediable degeneration.

Is the fundamental superiority of one race really betrayed outwardly by some material sign? We are still in ignorance upon this point. But when we examine it more closely, we are led to think that it is not so. In expressing myself thus, I know that I am separating myself from the opinions which are generally admitted, and am at variance with men whose works I value most highly." - Armand de Quatrefages, The Human Species, (1879).[56]


The accomplishments and ideas of some of these anthropologists might seem laughably crude from our perspective in the 21st century, but we must remember that these individuals were quite literally the first to have ever put into writing certain simple, yet foundational, hypotheses about mankind and the first to go out into the fields and labs and rigorously measure and observe different traits and characters. As Newton famously said, "if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Whether we know it or not, biology, sociology, psychology, and medicine could not exist in their present states without these clumsy first steps.

"There have been anthropologists ever since Man began to reason, but for the most part the earlier ones were like M. Jourdain, who talked prose before he was conscious of the fact. It is only yesterday that Anthropology became conscious of itself as a science, and many of its pioneers are still with us. This is not surprising. For one thing, many of the sciences which throw light on Man's origin and nature are creatures of the last hundred years, and a science which attempts to deal with Man as a whole can hardly advance its forces on so wide a front until they are properly equipped.

Again, it is only now that we have become dimly conscious that there must be bridges between many of the sciences, or that we can explore the territory where chemistry ends and life begins, or the no-man's-land between physiology and psychology, to mention only two examples. To search for Man in no-man's-land requires courage, money, brains, and leisure, a rare, but fortunately not impossible combination.

The reason for the slow growth and late development of Anthropology will become evident in the study of its history, which displays in a remarkable way its nature in being and becoming." - T. K. Penniman, (1935).[57]

***


VII. Nordicism

The preceding section gave an overview of most of the significant anthropologists between 1859 and 1900. There are a few more who must be mentioned in a separate section.

In the period of increasing class and national tensions leading up to WWI (e.g. Franco-Prussian War and German Unification in 1871 stirring both the French and Germans), we see an upswing of anthropology once again being commandeered in pursuit of partisan aims. De Quatrefages and Virchow had unfortunately been sidetracked into using biology as a tool to defend their national pride,[58] but this was a minor transgression--they did not let their life's work be built upon such a biased and unscientific premise.

However, there were individuals who belonged to the professional academic community who did devote their work to pursuing partisan aims. Primarily Nordicists, they upgraded de Gobineau's earlier speculations with anthropological data gained over the decades.

Historians of anthropology found it quite clear who these individuals were:

"C. Lloyd Morgan, writing on Habit and Instinct in 1896, developed Weismann's idea of the plasticity of the germ plasm further... Thus nurture may play some part, though only a secondary, in human progress, nature being the prime mover, and heredity, rather than environment, the main fact.

This idea harmonies so well with the older idea of the inequality of races as set out by the Count de Gobineau in 1853, that it is not surprising to find that it found favour with many writers on the Continent, especially in France and Germany. Indeed, the rise of Prussia and the claims of the aristocracy agreed wonderfully well with the idea of the purity of germ plasm and its continuity.

In Germany, Otto Ammon and H. S. Chamerblain developed these theories, and in France, G. V. de Lapouge. Ammon began his work by measuring recruits in the Grand Duchy of Baden, and found the percentage of dolichocephalic recruits from the cities was greater than that from the country. He asked himself whether this was directly due to the city environment or had he a special selection of the city population. A survey of gymnasia and of city recruits with a separation of individuals according to their parents' social position and city or country origin showed the proportion of long heads to be greater in cities, and higher among those who had migrated from the country than among the sedentary population. The upper classes had longer heads than the lower. Ammon could not explain these facts as the direct influence of city life, and supposed that the long-headed people were more migratory than brachycephals, that the round heads die out faster in cities, and that the long-headed people climb to a higher position better.

When he came to apply his ideas generally to society, he came to the conclusion that human beings were unequal from physical, mental, and moral viewpoints. Genius and ability were due to heredity, and it was in the interest of society to facilitate the production of the best and to get rid of the worst. An ideal society would be one in which all members were appointed to positions suitable to their abilities, and social stratification and avoiding interclass marriages were biologically justified. ..."[59]

(Ammon correctly recognized humans were unequal on an innate hereditary basis, but his grand error was the opinion that just because dolichocephalic individuals were already overrepresented in the upper classes, that therefore dolichocephaly was a valuable trait which ought to be preserved and enhanced. He completely went off the rails when he advocated individuals from different social classes cease from reproducing with one another.

Can we really predict whether noble traits will arise in an individual of a certain social class, but not others? Do dolichocephalic skulls in and of themselves cause noble moral behavior? The answer is no. If you wish to demographically enhance heritable traits for nobility, you must select for those noble traits in question! Reinforcing class divisions, as "social Darwinist" eugenicists desired to do, would only have the effect of more deeply ingraining the ignobility of the established Western culture.)

"... The machinery for sorting people into classes was social, rather than natural, and had evolved to enable society to survive in its struggle for existence. The upper strata were dolichocephalic Aryans, the lower were brachycephals. As these latter tended to die out in cities, they were replaced by migrations from the country, mainly of the superior dolichocephals. Thus the good dolicocephalic sap rises in the tree, and we must do all we can to preserve it.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an Englishman educated in Germany, declared roundly for superior and inferior races, and insisted on the necessity for good material at the start. The Teutonic stock was the real creator of present-day civilization, and our best hope for the future. ...

Lapouge separated out the three racial stocks of Europe by similar means. The best was the Nordic dolicocephalic Protestant, who is brave, blond and dashing, and likes to do for himself. The next best was the Alpine brachycephalic Catholic, who is brown and quiet, and likes to sit on his own land and obey the government, and hates progress. Then there is the Mediterranean, short, dark, and mesocephalic, who is not as good as the Alpine. Lapouge discusses the struggle for existence in its political, religious, moral, legal, economic, occupational, and urban and rural aspects, and concludes that every form of the struggle tells against the best or Nordic element, which is disappearing. The only thing to do is to create an aristocracy and inbreed."[60]

I think these individuals, especially, are the ones who have been giving physical anthropology a bad name. At long last, the reader has the knowledge to cleave apart the bigoted, and half-scientific at best, hypotheses of these charlatans from the sincere authors of the field!

Again, if no intellectually honest person would consider HBDers (and their studies on IQ and race, for example) to be representative of biology in the 21st century, no honest person can consider these Nordicists representative of all of 19th or early 20th century anthropology either. As Penniman points out in the next paragraph:

"Meanwhile in both countries the ethnologists were writing without much reference to political issues. It is probable that every German who was not writing an Allgemeine Culturgeschichte in ten volumes was writing Die Voelkerkunde in twenty. Of such kind, the really outstanding classics are O. Peschel's Voelkerkunde, 1874, and Friedrich Mueller's Allgemeine Ethnographie. The greatest of the whole is F. Ratel's Volkerkunde of 1885-88..."[61]

***

With a new generation of anthropologists post-1900, Nordicism would rear its ugly head once again. The most influential of these were writers without qualification in biology (e.g. Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard), and professional academic Hans F. K. Guenther.

Although Nordicism was no longer a semi-respectable academic hypothesis after the days of Guenther, political Nordicism made a resurgence by the 1960s. With the creation of Neo-Nazism as a fashionable brand of White Supremacism, racists in the Jim Crow USA found a meager philosophical justification as to why "blacks" apparently posed a threat to the "white race" and "Western civilization".

"It has been said of the Bourbons of France that neither in times of prosperity nor adversity did they forget or learn anything. The same might well be said of the "Nordicists" of our time, who, if they have not forgotten anything, have certainly succeeded in not learning anything.

Nordicism involves the belief that men of the "Nordic Race" -- tall, slender, fair-skinned, blond, blue-eyed, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed, long-headed individuals -- are qualitatively superior to the remainder of mankind. They are the creators of civilization, and their passing marks the passing of civilization.

Now the heyday of Nordicism is, of course, long since past. The impression which Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard made upon American thought has all but vanished.

Europe enjoyed a similar period of Nordicist literary ascendancy an, of all the authors who devoted time and diligence to the "Nordic Hypothesis," it was one Hans F. K. Guenther who led the most aggressive "scientific" wing of the movement. During the interwar years Germany, and subsequently Europe, were veritably inundated by books and tracts from his pen.

In 1927, to meet the quickened demand for Nordicist literature in the Anglo-Saxon countries, Methuen published an English rendering of the second German edition of Guenther's Rassenkunde Europas and called it The Racial Elements of European History.

...

Since that time a quarter of a century has passed; the world and science have not stood still. But, apparently by dint of admirable self-discipline, the Nordicists have succeded in accomplishing what the world could not. The Nordicists have stood still. They have neither forgotten nor learned anything."[62]

This strain of Nordicism has continued into the present day. Guided by ideas such as Richard McCulloch's "Nordish race" (scouring the typologies of early 20th century anthropologists, McCulloch combined any group which was blond or found in northern Europe under the label of "Nordish", regardless of skeletal morphology), it has found many fans on HBD forums and blogs.

"What these facts do suggest is that the notion that the "Nordic Race," per se, is the sole possessor of culture-creating capacities is more than suspect. The notion lacks the theoretical fruitfulness and the empiric verification an hypothesis must possess if it is to pass muster as a legitimate conjecture in theory building, The gratuitous introduction of vague causes of error, speculative and subjective judgements, a reliance upon incomplete data, summary neglect of disconfirming evidence and alternate explanations, methodological poverty and an inordinate disposition to simplification, earmark the "Nordic Hypothesis" as a religious commitment rather than a sound theoretical premise.

...

Nordicist literature is, thus, heavy with a stark and oppressive pessimism. As such it accords well with the spirit of our time. It offers a certain succor to the dispossessed, the defeated, the casteless and disorganized quasi-intellectual class which mass education is manufacturing.

But its peculiar characteristics charm only a limited faction -- dissidents who oppose any established opinion -- creatures anti-social, who wish to see the world composed of enemies -- those too weak to accept the responsibility of their own failure.

...

In this rather pitiable state Nordicism will linger on until its few adherents find a sheltered niche in Theosophy, food-faddism, Christian Science or Psychoanalysis."[62]

It seems Nordicists have finally found their niche in HBD, but this time they have learned to upgrade some of their arguments (but not all--they still cite Guenther verbatim) to better suit the genomic era we live in.

"Similarly, we have seen how certain of the Continental sociologists began with the ideas of the Count de Gobineau, to which Weismann's discoveries gave some credit, and while marching under Weismann's banner, they were really de Gobineau's army." - T. K. Penniman, (1935).[63]

HBDers remain de Gobineau's army, even if they attempt to justify themselves by "borrowing" scientific data.

***


VIII. A Brief Tangent into Other Fields of Biology

Contemporaneously with the development of physical anthropology, the field of genetics was beginning to emerge. In 1892, August Weismann outlined his germ plasm theory, which stated heritable material is transmitted only by the germ cells of the gonads, rather than somatic cells of the body.[64] Therefore, changes to the genetic information contained within the somatic cells did not influence the genetic information contained in the germ cells. Weismann authored this theory after cutting off the tails of mice and observing that their offspring continued to have tails,[65] spelling the end for the Lamarckian theory of evolution.

In the 1890s, Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns independently conducted plant breeding experiments, rediscovering "Mendel's laws of heredity" in the process.[66][67][68] By 1900, Correns had become acquainted with Mendel's original work, and published a paper reintroducing Mendel to the world. A few years later, Walter Sutton[69] and Theodor Boveri[70] independently came up with the idea that chromosomes were the carriers of genetic material, thereby providing a mechanism for Mendelian inheritance.

Scientists observed that some genes did not assort completely independently as proposed by Mendelian genetics. Thomas Hunt Morgan, knowing that some genes were linked together by being inherited on the same chromosome, suspected that one could ascertain their distance from one another by observing the rate of crossing over.[71] (In short, genes located further away on the same chromosome are more likely to be mixed up by crossing over, and therefore segregate independently more frequently than genes which are close together).

Morgan's student, Alfred Sturtevant, became the first to construct a genetic map to study this phenomenon in 1913.[72] Reginald Punnett invented the Punnett Square, a device for visualizing the outcomes of a breeding experiment, around 1905.[73] Earlier in 1905, Punnett published the book Mendelism, which is regarded as both the first textbook on genetics and the first book reintroducing Mendel to the public at large.[74] This puts into perspective just how rudimentary genetics was at the time--today Punnett Squares are standard in grade-school-level biology classes due to their simplicity.

With the basic groundwork of genetics set, scientists began studying population genetics. G. H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg had independently developed a mathematical model for the expected frequencies of homozygous and heterozygous genotypes before 1910,[75] but it was not until the late 1910s and into the early 1930s that individuals such as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright began to really develop this field.

Graph of genotypes in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium for all allele frequencies.

From around the 1880s to 1920s, many biologists had begun to believe Darwinian natural selection was not the main driver behind evolution. Indeed, Darwin's theory was not able to explain the totality of how evolution worked and it contained some incorrect ideas (for example, Darwin's proposed method of heredity, pangenesis (every tissue in the body contributed particles to the reproductive cells), was replaced by germ plasm theory).

During this time period, many alternative hypotheses to natural selection were developed. This had led some to call this time period "the eclipse of Darwinism".[76] Although natural selection eventually came back into prominence after its importance was reaffirmed by genetic studies, biologist and historian of biology Ernst Mayr noted that most textbooks in the 1930s continued to place the most emphasis on non-Darwinian mechanisms.[77] It was not until 1942, when Julian Huxley published Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, that a name was given to the integration of Darwin's ideas on natural selection with emerging discoveries on genetics and heredity.[78]

This may seem odd to us today, since it is accepted that natural selection is indeed the main mechanism of evolution, and Darwin is so strongly embedded in the way we think of and teach biology and evolution. Yet, during these pivotal decades in evolutionary and political theory, the ideas surrounding bio-anthropology were very much in flux.

Some other developments of note: in 1901, Karl Landsteiner discovered three of the four blood groups, and Jan Jansky, in 1907, developed the familiar O, A, B, and AB system of naming.[79] In 1910 the heredity of these blood groups was established.[80] Other blood antigens such as the Rh factor began being researched in the late 1930s and 1940s.[81] Endocrinology began developing in the 1920s and 1930s, after the importance of the thyroid and adrenaline had first been observed in the 1890s.[82]

In 1904, the French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to develop a standardized method for testing intelligence, in order to detect students with learning disabilities so they could be given specialized instruction.[83] American Lewis Terman revised this test in 1916, after which it has been known as the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales.[84] German Jew William Stern coined the term IQ in 1912.[85] According to the racist and IQ-obsessed psychologist Hans Eysenck (who is Jewish and fled Germany in the 1930s), National Socialists banned IQ testing in Germany (perhaps only unofficially), believing it was reflective of materialistic and Jewish tendencies.[86]

"To many people, having succumbed to the siren songs of Rousseau and other egalitarians, the very mention of differences in intelligence is anathema, and the offence is made infinitely more heinous by adding that in part these differences are genetically determined (Eysenck, 1973b). Dictators, too, have been annoyed by the fact that the paradigm did not concur with their weird theories; thus Stalin banned IQ testing in the USSR for being bourgeois, and Hitler in Germany for being Jewish!" - Hans Eysenck[86]

"Stalin, as already noted, rejected and banned intelligence testing as being "bourgeois", and Hitler did the same because it was "Jewish"." - Hans Eysenck[86]


Further discussion of the history and claimed societal implications of intelligence testing are outside of the scope of this article.

"Two collateral phases of physical anthropology have, for adequate reasons, been completely avoided: the study of blood groups and the question of racial intelligence or racial psychology. The science of blood groups has, by 1938, developed a prodigious bibliography of its own, and will soon be treated in a special survey by Professor Wm. Boyd of Boston University. So far as specialists in this field have yet determined, there is no genetic linkage between blood group types and anthropometric phenomena. The subject of racial intelligence has, on the other hand, not progressed far enough to merit inclusion in a general work of racial history; it has furthermore provided too ready a field for political exploitation to be treated or interpreted as a side issue with scientific detachment. Races, in the present volume, are studied without implication of inferiority or superiority." - Carleton Coon, (1939).[87]

***

Forward to Part 2:
https://aryan-anthropology.blogspot.com/p/revisiting-early-20th-century_93.html


For comments and discussion, refer to this blog post:
https://aryan-anthropology.blogspot.com/2017/04/reclaming-race-from-racists.html

References

[1] Carl Linnaeus. (1735, 1st edition). Systema Naturae.
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002972252/page/n11/mode/2up

[2] Carl Linnaeus. (1744, 4th edition). Systema Naturae. Page 63.
https://archive.org/details/CaroliLinnaeiSy00LinnA/page/62/mode/2up

[3] Carl Linnaeus. (1758, 10th edition). Systema Naturae. Page 21.
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753000798865/page/20/mode/2up

[4] Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Gmelin. (1788, 13th edition). Systema Naturae. Volume 1, Part 1. Page 22-23.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/10285#page/33/mode/1up

[5] Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1775, 3rd edition 1795). De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa (On the Natural Variety of Mankind). Page 303.
https://archive.org/details/b2851886x/page/302/mode/2up

[6] Stephen Jay Gould (November 1, 1994). "The Geometer of Race". Discover Magazine.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-geometer-of-race

[7] Carleton Coon. (1939). The Races of Europe. New York: The MacMillan Company. Page 284.
https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope031695mbp

[8] T. K. Penniman. (1935, 2nd edition 1952). A Hundred Years of Anthropology. Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd. Page 37.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.103292/page/n5/mode/2up

[9] Ibid., page 41-42.

[10] Wikipedia. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Page last edited October 14, 2021. (See references 19 and 20).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach#Racial_anthropology

[11] T. K. Penniman, op. cit.. (1952). Page 85.

[12] Ibid., page 100.

[13] Charles Darwin. (1871). The Descent of Man. Volume 1 of 2. Chapter VII. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
https://archive.org/details/descentman00darwgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

[14] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 84.

[15] Wikipedia. Arthur de Gobineau. Page last edited November 13, 2021. (See footnote 60 and subsection " Focus on Aryans as a superior race".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau#Focus_on_Aryans_as_a_superior_race

[16] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 56-57.

[17] Ibid., page 55.

[18] Ibid., page 76.

[19] Wikipedia. Philosophie zoologique. (The 1809 work by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck outlining his theory of evolution.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophie_zoologique

[20] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 58.

[21] Ibid., page 66 and following; page 222 and following.

[22] Art Swift. (May 22, 2017). In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

[23] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 67-68; page 107-108.

[24] Ibid., page 69.

[25] Ibid., page 79.

[26] Ibid., page 91.

[27] Ibid., page 93-96.

[28] Wikipedia. Earnest Hooton. Page last edited November 11, 2021. (See reference 9 and surrounding paragraph.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnest_Hooton#Race

[29] Wikipedia. Gergor Mendel. Page last edited November 14, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

[30] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 107.

[31] Ibid., page 108.

[32] Ibid., page 109.

[33] William Z. Ripley. (1899). The Races of Europe, A Sociological Study. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., Ltd. Page 467-468.
https://archive.org/details/racesofeuropeso00ripl/page/n5/mode/2up

[34] Alfred Rosenberg. Memoirs. (Date and translator not specified).
https://archive.org/details/MemoirsOfAlfredRosenberg/page/n45/mode/2up

[35] Wikipedia. Rudolf Virchow. Page last edited October 16, 2021. (See subsections "Anti-Darwinism" and "Anti-racism".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Virchow

[36] Wikipedia. Ernst Haeckel. Page last edited November 16, 2021. (See subsection "Polygenism and racial theory".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

[37] Wikipedia. Recapitulation theory. Page last edited May 7, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

[38] Wikipedia. Ernst Haeckel. Page last edited November 16, 2021. (See references 36 and 37).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

[39] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 137.

[40] Wikipedia. Adolphe Quetelet. Page last edited June 26, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Quetelet

[41] Wikipedia. Cesare Lombroso. Page last edited November 8, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Lombroso

[42] Wikipedia. History of Eugenics. Page last edited November 9, 2021. (See subsection "Galton's theory".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics#Galton's_theory

[43] Francis Galton. (June 5, 1873). Africa for the Chinese. The Times
https://www.galton.org/letters/africa-for-chinese/AfricaForTheChinese.htm

[44] Wikipedia. Francis Galton. Page last edited November 15, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton

[45] William Z. Ripley, op. cit. (1899). Page 63.

[46] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 110.

[47] Ibid., page 112.

[48] Ibid., page 113.

[49] Ibid., page 114-115.

[50] Ibid., page 115.

[51] Wikipedia. Paul Broca. Page last edited November 16, 2021. (See subsection "Broca's area".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broca#Broca's_area

[52] Wikipedia. Phrenology. Page last edited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

[53] Ibid., see reference 40.

[54] Wikipedia. Paul Topinard. Page last edited May 24, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Topinard

[55] T. K. Penniman, op. cit.. (1952). Page 116.

[56] Armand de Quatrefages. (1879). The Human Species. London: C. Kegan Paul and Co. Page 349-350.
https://archive.org/details/b21781345/page/350/mode/2up

[57] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 18.

[58] William Z. Ripley, op. cit. (1899). Page 219-220.

[59] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 124-125.

[60] Ibid., page 125-126.

[61] Ibid., page 126-127.

[62] A. James Gregor. (1961). Nordicism Revisited. Phylon, Vol. 22, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 1961). Page 351-360.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090205044106/http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/nordicism_revisited.pdf

[63] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 137.

[64] Wikipedia. Germ plasm. Page last edited March 8, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_plasm

[65] Wikipedia. August Weismann. Page last edited April 14, 2021. (See subsection "Experiments on the inheritance of mutilation".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Weismann

[66] Wikipedia. Hugo de Vries. Page last edited September 27, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Vries

[67] Wikipedia. Carl Correns. Page last edited September 20, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Correns

[68] T. K. Penniman, op. cit. (1952). Page 244.

[69] Ibid., page 248.

[70] Wikipedia. Theodor Boveri. Page last edited July 5, 2021. (See reference 11.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Boveri

[71] Wikipedia. Thomas Hunt Morgan. Page last edited October 29, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hunt_Morgan

[72] Alfred Sturtevant. (1913). The linear arrangement of six sex-linked factors in Drosophila, as shown by their mode of association. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 14: 43-59. With an introduction by Robert J. Robbins for the Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project, (1998).
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/s/ahs-13.pdf

[73] A. W. F. Edwards. (2012). Reginald Crundall Punnett: first Arthur Balfour Professor of Genetics, Cambridge, 1912. Genetics, 192(1): 3-13.
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/192/1/3/5935025

[74] Wikipedia. Reginald Punnett. Page last edited May 18, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Punnett

[75] Wikipedia. Wilhelm Weinberg. Page last edited September 2, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Weinberg

[76] Wikipedia. The eclipse of Darwinism. Page last edited November 18, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

[77] Ibid., see reference 6.

[78] Wikipedia. Modern synthesis (20th century). Page last edited October 8, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century)

[79] T. K. Penniman, op. cit.. (1952). Page 253.

[80] Ibid., page 254.

[81] Ibid., page 399.

[82] Ibid., page 255-256.

[83] Wikipedia. Alfred Binet. Page last edited October 29, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

[84] Wikipedia. Lewis Terman. Page last edited October 9, 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman

[85] Wikipedia. Intelligence quotient. Page last edited November 16, 2021. (See reference 2.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

[86] Hans Eysenck. (1979). The Structure and Measurement of Intelligence. Springer-Verlag. Page 5 and page 16.
https://archive.org/details/structuremeasure0000eyse/page/n5/mode/2up
Hans Eysenck. (1979, 2017 edition). The Structure and Measurement of Intelligence. Routledge. Page 5 and page 16.
https://books.google.com/books?id=dlUPEAAAQBAJ&q=hitler#v=snippet&q=hitler&f=false

[87] Carleton Coon, op. cit. (1939). Page vii-viii.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)