Conclusions on human hybridity

From the whole of our researches on the hybridity of the human race we obtain the following results:—

1. That certain intermixtures are perfectly eugenesic.

2. That other intermixtures are in their results notably inferior to those of eugenesic hybridity.

3. That Mulattoes of the first degree, issued from the union of the Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) race with the African Negroes, appear inferior in fecundity and longevity to individuals of the pure races.

4. That it is at least doubtful, whether these Mulattoes, in their alliances between themselves, are capable of indefinitely perpetuating their race, and that they are less prolific in their direct alliances than in their recrossing with the parent stocks, as is observed in paragenesic hybridity.

5. That alliances between the Germanic race (Anglo-Saxon) with the Melanesian races (Australians and Tasmanians) are but little prolific.

6. That the Mulattoes sprung from such intercourse are too rare to have enabled us to obtain exact particulars as to their viability and fecundity.

7. That several degrees of hybridity, which have been observed in the cross-breeds of animals of different species, seem also to occur in the various crossings of men of different races.

8. That the lowest degree of human hybridity in which the homœogenesis is so feeble as to render the fecundity of the first crossing uncertain, is exhibited in the most disparate crossings between one of the most elevated and the two lowest races of humanity.

Thenumerous and controverted questions which we had to discuss, have more than once interrupted the chain of our thesis. It may, therefore, be useful to present here arésuméof the various parts of our argumentation.

Zoologists have, ineachof the natural groups which constitute the genera, recognisedseveraltypes which they denominate species.81

The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is, therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the others, composed of different species.

In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide this genus into different species.

This mode of viewing the subject can only be abandoned, if it were by observation demonstrated that all the difference between human races had been the result of modifications caused in the organisation of man by the influence of media.

The monogenists have at first made great efforts to furnish such a demonstration, but without success. Observation has, on the contrary, shown, that though the organisation of man may, in the course of time, and under the influence of external conditions, undergo some modification, yet that these modifications are relatively very slight, and have no relation to the typical differences of human races. Man, transplanted into anew climate, and subjected to a new mode of life, conserves and transmits to posterity all the essential characters of his race, and his descendants do not acquire the character of the indigenous race or races.Cœlum, non corpus mutant qui trans mare currunt.

The monogenists have objected that the period of distant colonies is too recent; that the observations tending to establish the permanence of human types date scarcely from three or four centuries, and that this lapse of time is insufficient to produce a transformation of races, and that such a transformation has been produced gradually during the long series of centuries elapsed, according to some from the creation of man, and according to others since the Deluge.

But the study of the Egyptian paintings has shown, that on the one hand the principal types of the human genus existed then, 2,500 years at least before Jesus Christ, as they exist at this day.

Again, the Jewish race, scattered for more than eighteen centuries in the most different climates, is everywhere the same now as it was in Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs.

The period ofpositiveobservations dates thus, from more than forty centuries and not from three or four.82

Having no longer any hope to prove by direct demonstrations that the distinctive characters of human races are transformations of one primitive type, the monogenists sought for indirect proofs. They believed to have found them in this fact, or rather assertion, that there is always a certain relation between the characters of human races and the media in whichthey exist. On close examination this assertion is found to be without any foundation. On studying one by one the principal ethnological characters and their distribution on the surface of the globe, it has been shown that there is no relation between these different characters and the climatic and hygienic conditions.

The monogenists then resorted to an argumentation still more indirect. They advanced that in the wholegenus homothere existed a fund of common ideas, creeds, knowledge, and language, attesting the common origin of all human beings. It might be objected that this argument is without any value whatever; considering that indirect communications between peoples of different origin might have passed to each other words, usages, and ideas. But a profound study of the question has shown that there are certain peoples who have absolutely no notion of God or soul, whose languages have no relation whatever to any, who are altogether anti-social, and who differ from the Caucasians more by the intellectual and moral capacities than by their physical characters.

There was even no necessity to insist upon the difficulty, or rather geographical impossibility of the dispersion of so many races proceeding from a common origin, nor to remark that before the remote and the almost recent migrations of Europeans, each natural group of human races occupied upon our planet a region characterised by a special fauna; that no American animal was found either in Australia nor in the ancient continent, and where men of a new type were discovered, there were only found animals belonging to species, even to genera, and sometimes to zoological orders, without analogues in other regions of the globe.

And whilst it was thus simple to suppose that there were severalfaciof the creation of man, as well as of other beings; and whilst this doctrine, so conformable to all the data furnished by natural science, removed all geographical objections, explaining thus all the analogies and differences of human types, and the repartition of each group; whilst, in one word, it exactly accounted for all the known facts, the opposite doctrine moved in a circle of contradictory suppositions superimposed by hypotheses; theories founded upon a small number of facts upset by other unexpected facts; imaginary influences refuted by observation; anti-historical legends dispelled by historical monuments; lame explanations destroyed by physiology; obscure sophisms refuted by logic; and all this to demonstrate, not exactly that all races descend from the same pair, but that, strictly speaking, such is not altogether impossible.

Whence have the monogenists derived the requisite perseverance and courage to impose upon their reason such continuous restraint, and to resist the testimonies of observation, science, and history?

On analysing their system, we find at every moment two fundamental axioms which serve them as articles of faith, and the evidence of which appears to them sufficient to surmount all other objections.

These two axioms have served as the premises of an apparently irresistible syllogism.

1. All animals, capable of producing an eugenesic progeny, are of the same species.

2. All human crossings are eugenesic.

Therefore, all men are of the same species.

The monogenists, convinced of the reality of the premises of this syllogism, thought their doctrine to stand on a solid foundation, and defended it with that confidence inspired by conviction.

Assailed by pressing objections, constantly obliged to yield, incapable of advancing a step without an immediate retreat, they felt their forces revive by resorting to their syllogism, like Antæus when he touched the earth. As long as the refuge remained they continued the struggle, though not with advantage, at least with the ardour of faith; for though faith no longer moves mountains, it still leaves the hope of moving them.

But these two fundamental propositions, admitted as axioms, do they express the truth? Can this triumphant syllogism, of which they are the premises, stand? Is it true that only animals of the same species can produce a prolific progeny? Isit true that all human crossings are eugenesic? To upset the syllogism of the monogenists, and to deprive their system of any scientific base, it might be sufficient that the first of the above questions should be answered in the negative. The system would then become what it was before it came in contact with science, namely, a belief more or less respectable, founded upon a sentiment or a dogma. But if the second question were also negatived, and it could be demonstrated that all human crossings are not eugenesic, then not merely the syllogism, but the whole doctrine of the monogenists would crumble to pieces. The doctrine would then not merely be extra-scientific, but anti-scientific; it being positive that two groups of animals, so different as to be incapable of fusion by generation, do not belong to the same species. This is an incontestable and uncontested truth.

We were thus led to examine successively the two fundamental propositions serving as a base to the unitarian doctrine, for which purpose a series of researches were requisite.

We have, in the first place, investigated the results of certain crossings between animals of incontestably different species, such as dogs and wolves, goats and sheep, camels and dromedaries, hares and rabbits, etc.; and we have demonstratedthat these crossings produce eugenesic mongrels, that is to say, perfectly and indefinitely prolific between themselves.

It is thus not true that all animals capable of producing an eugenesic progeny are of the same species; and even if all human intermixtures were eugenesic, as is generally believed, we could not infer from this the unity of the human species. The monogenists are thus deprived of their principal basis and their sole scientific argument.

It was, however, necessary to inquire, whether this popular axiom, that all human crossings are eugenesic, was a demonstrated truth or a lightly accepted hypothesis, without any verification or control? Such has been the object of our second series of investigations.

We recognised at the outset that the monogenists, considering their axiom as self-evident, have made no efforts to establish its correctness, so that, strictly speaking, we might havediscarded it. When, contrary to the opinion of several modern authors, we wished to establish that there were really eugenesic intermixtures in the human genus, we found in science assertions without proofs, and we believe that our investigations concerning the mixed populations of France have, in this respect, the merit of novelty. We may be mistaken as to the value of our demonstration; but we venture to assert, that this demonstration is the first that has been attempted.

After having rendered, if not quite certain, at least extremely probable, thatcertainhuman crossings are eugenesic, we have inquired whetherallhuman crossings are in the same condition.

From the documents collected it results, thatcertainhuman crossings yield results notably inferior to such as constitute in animals eugenesic hybridity. The whole of the known facts permit us to consider as very probable, that certain human races taken two by two are less homœogenesic; as, for instance, the species of the dog and the wolf. If we are to make any reservation, and leave some doubts upon this conclusion, it is that we cannot admit, without numerous verifications, a fact which definitively demonstrates the plurality of human species; a fact, by the presence of which, all other discussion is rendered superfluous; a fact, finally, of which the political and social consequences would be immense.

We cannot too much insist upon drawing the attention of observers upon this subject. But whatever be the result of ulterior researches on human hybridity, it remains well attested that animals of different species may produce an eugenesic progeny, and that consequently we cannot, from the fecundity of human intermixture, however disparate the races may be, draw a physiological argument in favour of the unity of species, even if the fecundity were as certain as it is doubtful.

The great problem we have investigated in this essay is one of those which have caused great agitation, and most difficult to approach with a mind unbiassed by any extra-scientific preconception. This was almost inevitable; but science must keep aloof from anything not within its province. There is no faith, however respectable, no interest, however legitimate, whichmust not accommodate itself to the progress of human knowledge and bend before truth, if that truth be demonstrated. Hence it is always hazardous to mix up theological arguments with discussions of this kind, and to stigmatise in the name of religion any scientific opinion, since, if that opinion, sooner or later gains ground, religion has been uselessly compromised. The unskilful intervention of theologians in astronomical questions (rotation of the earth), in physiology (pre-existence of germs), in medicine (possessions), etc., has formed more infidels than the writings of philosophers. Why should men be placed in the dilemma of choosing between science and faith? And when so many striking examples have placed theologians under the necessity to acknowledge that revelation is not applicable to science, why do they obstinately continue to place the Bible before the wheels of progress?83

Sincere Christians have understood that the moment is come to prepare the conciliation of the doctrine of the polygenists with the sacred writings. They are disposed to admit that the Mosaic narration does not apply to the whole human race, but merely to theAdamites, from which sprung God’s people; that there may have been other human beings with whom the sacred writer had no concern; that it is nowhere said that the sons of Adam contracted incestuous alliances with their own sisters; that Cain, banished after the murder of his brother, had a mark set upon him that no one might kill him; that, besides the sons of God, there was a race of the sons of man; that the origin of the sons of men is not specified; that nothing authorises us to consider these as the progeny of Adam; that these two races differed in their physical characters, since, by their union, a cross-breed was produced designated by the name of giants, “to indicate the physical and moral energy of mixed races.” And that, finally, all these antediluvian races might have survived the deluge in the persons of the three daughters-in-law of Noah.84

We have collated here the observations of various authors, one of whom, the Rev. John Bachmann, remarks with evident satisfaction that, if contrary to the prevailing opinion, the multiplicity of human species should eventually be demonstrated, which he considers very improbable, the authority of the Bible would still remain unshaken, and that “the highest interest of mankind would not suffer by it.” We have here a preparatory conciliation as a sort of prevision of ulterior scientific developments. Very recently a fervent Catholic, a physician, who in his various voyages has attentively studied the races of mankind, Mr. Sagot, has advanced an hypothesis which we consider as quite new, and which would enable us, better than by the preceding suppositions, to accommodate the biblical narration with anthropological science. After having demonstrated that the physical, intellectual, and moral characters establish between the races of men profound differences, which are indelible, and that all influences to which they have been attributed are absurd and imaginary, inasmuch as natural causes would never have produced such a deviation from the primitive form, Mr. Sagot supposes that the division in perfectly distinct races, and their methodical dispersion and repartition upon the surface of the earth, was a miraculous intervention of Providence. He is of opinion that this great fact was accomplished at the period of the confusion of tongues, that is, after the audacious enterprise of the Tower of Babel, and that God, in dispersing the families, endowed each with a peculiar organisation and aptitudes accommodated to the various climates assigned to them.85Whether the differences of human races and their geographical distribution was the consequence of distinct creations, or miraculous transformations equivalent to new creations, comes to the same thing as regards the doctrine of polygenists. Their object is not toenter into any theological discussions; they have been driven to it, and they will no doubt be delighted to hear that their doctrine may become developed without offending anybody.

The intervention of political and social considerations has not been less injurious to Anthropology than the religious element. When generous philanthropists claimed, with indefatigable constancy, the liberty of the blacks, the partisans of the old system, threatened in their dearest interests, were enchanted to hear that Negros were scarcely human beings, but rather domestic animals, more intelligent and productive than the rest. At that time the scientific question became a question of sentiment, and whoever wished for the abolition of slavery, thought himself bound to admit that Negroes were Caucasians blackened and frizzled by the sun. Now that France and England, the two most civilised nations, have definitively emancipated their slaves, science may claim its rights without caring for the sophisms of slaveholders.

Many honest men think that the moment to speak freely is not yet come, as the emancipation struggle is far from being at an end in the United States of America, and that we should avoid furnishing the slaveholders with arguments. But is it true that the polygenist doctrine, which is scarcely a century old,86is any degree responsible for an order of things which has existed from time immemorial, and which has developed and perpetuated itself during a long series of centuries, under the shade of the doctrine of monogenists, which remained so long uncontested? And can we believe that the slave-owners are much embarrassed to find arguments in the Bible? The Rev. John Bachmann, a fervent monogenist of South Carolina, has acquired in the Southern States much popularity by demonstrating, with great unction, that slavery is a divine institution.87It is not from the writings of polygenists, but from the Bible,that the representatives of the Slave States have drawn their arguments; and Mr. Bachmann tells us that the Abolitionists of Congress have been struck dumb by such an irrefragable authority! It must, therefore, not be believed that there is any connexion between the scientific and the political question. The difference of origin by no means implicates the subordination of races. It, on the contrary, implicates the idea that each race of men has originated in a determined region, as it were, as the crown of the fauna of that region; and if it were permitted to guess at the intention of nature, we might be led to suppose that she has assigned a distinct inheritance to each race, because, despite of all that has been said of the cosmopolitism of man, the inviolability of the domain of certain races is determined by their climate.

Let this mode of viewing the question be compared with that of the monogenists, and let it be asked which of the two modes is more apt to please the defenders of slavery. If all men are descendants of one couple,—if the inequality of races has been the result of a curse more or less merited,—or again, if the one have degraded themselves, and have allowed the torch of their primitive intelligence to become extinct, whilst the other have carefully guarded the precious gift of the Creator,—in other words, if there be cursed and blessed races,—races which have obeyed the voice of nature and races which have disobeyed it,—then the Rev. John Bachmann is right to say that slavery is a Divine right; that it is a providential punishment; and that it is just, to a certain point, thatthose races who have degraded themselves should be placed under theprotectionof others,—to borrow an ingenious euphemism from the language of the defenders of slavery.88But if the Ethiopian is king of Soudan by the same right as the Caucasian is king of Europe, what right has he to impose laws upon the former, unless by the right of might? In the first case, slavery presents itself with a certain appearance of legitimacy which might render it excusable in the eyes of certain theoricians; in the second case, it is a fact of pure violence, protested against by all who derive no benefit from it.

From another point of view, it might be said that the polygenist doctrine assigns to the inferior races of humanity a more honourable place than in the opposite doctrine. To be inferior to another man either in intelligence, vigour, or beauty, is not a humiliating condition. On the contrary, one might be ashamed to have undergone a physical or moral degradation, to have descended the scale of beings, and to have lost rank in creation.

[1]Gobineau,Inégalité des Races Humaines, 8vo, Paris, 1855; [also translated into English,On the Inequality of Human Races, and edited by Henry Hotze, 8vo.Editor.]

[2]“The sole action of the laws of Hybridity,” says Nott, “might exterminate the whole human species if all the various types of human beings actually existing on the earth were completely to amalgamate.”Types of Mankind, p. 407, eighth edit., Philadelphia, 1857. Dr. Robert Knox is not less explicit. “I do not believe that any Mulatto race can be maintained beyond the third or fourth generation byMulattos merely; they must intermarry with the pure races or perish.” Robert Knox,The Races of Men, London, 1850.

[3]Georges Pouchet,De la Pluralité des Races Humaines, p. 140, Paris, 1858. [A translation of this work will shortly be published by the Anthropological Society of London, edited by T. Bendyshe, Esq., M.A., F.A.S.L.Editor.]

[4]Prichard,Natural History of Man.

[5]Davis and Thurnam,Crania Britannica, p. 7, No. 4, London, 1856.

[6]See the voyages of Truter and Somerville (1801), Lichtenstein (1805), Campbell (1813), John Philips (1825), Thompson (1824), etc., in the Collection of Voyages by Walkenaer, t. xv-xxi, Paris, 1842. In 1801 Truter and Somerville found near the Orange or Gariep river, in the district where now Griqua town stands, a horde ofBastaardsandBosjesmen, commanded by a Bastaard of the name of Kok (t. xvii, p. 364). On their return they found a considerable village, composed of Kaffirs, Hottentots, and mongrel breeds of several varieties, under the command of a chief named Kok (p. 393). In the same year Kitchener, the missionary, assembled the horde in a village. There came pure Hottentots and Namaquas (t. xviii, p. 126). In 1802 Anderson, the missionary, in organising the growing nation, gave authority to the Bastaards (p. 127). The village of Laawater or Klaarwater, which has since become Griqua-town, consisted in 1805, when Lichtenstein visited it, of about thirty families, one-half of which belonged to the Bastaard race, the rest were Namaquas or Hottentots. The village enlarged rapidly “by the arrival of refugees, and by marriages with the women of the Bosjesmen and the Koramas, who lived in the vicinity” (t. xix, p. 355). They practised polygamy. “They constituted a horde of nomadic naked savages, living by pillage and the chase; their bodies were besmeared with red paint, the hair covered with grease, living in ignorance, without any trace of civilisation” (p. 356). After the lapse of five years the missionaries commenced civilising them by giving them the taste for agricultural pursuits. The name, however, ofBastaards, which indicated their European origin, was no longer suitable to this nation, in which the African blood was greatly predominating. They took, therefore, the name ofGriquas. Campbell asserts that they chose that name, as it was that of the principal family (t. xviii, p. 395). This explanation appears to me very doubtful. Ten Rhyne, who explored Southern Africa in 1673, twenty year after the first disembarkation of Europeans, already mentions the existence of a Hottentot people who went by the name ofGregoriquos(t. xv, p. 122). Thirty years after (1705) Kolbe designates the same peopleGauriquas(t. xv, p. 253). There existed at that time another people, calledChirigriquas. In 1775 Thunberg still speaks of Gauriquas (t. xvi, p. 201), and of Chirigriquas. All these names have evidently the same root, and the singularity of Hottentot enunciation induced probably the various travellers to adopt a different orthography. It is thus presumable that the Hottentots of Klaarwater, in calling themselves Griquas, merely adopted the old name Gauriquas. There exists to this day the peopleKoraquas, signifying “people who wear shoes” (Burchell, t. xx, p. 60). They live in the neighbourhood of Klaarwater. Be this as it may, the new people of the Griquas gave to Klaarwater, influenced by the English missionaries, the name of Griqua-town. This town, called by Malte-Brun Kriqua, grew rapidly by the adjunction of the Koranas. In 1813 there were not less than 1,341 Koranas in a population of 2,607 inhabitants (t. xviii, p. 393). In 1814 the governor of the Cape tried to force the Griquas to furnish men for the indigenous army. The proposal was very badly received, and the nation was nearly in a state of dissolution. A portion of the inhabitants of Griqua-town escaped to the surrounding mountains, and formed bands of robbers, who, under the name of Bergmaars, devastated the country, and, associating with bands of Koranas, pillaged and massacred the Betchouanas and the Bosjesmen, andcarried off their women and children. In 1825, owing to the intervention of John Philips, the Bergmaars were reduced to order, and returned to Griqua-town. They had now crossed with the Koranas, the Betchouanas, and Bosjesmen (t. xviii, p. 357). Some time previously a grave dissension had broken out among the settled Griquas. The governor of the Cape had sent an agent, John Melvil, with an important charge to a certain Waterboer, a Bosjesman by origin. The supremacy had hitherto belonged to the family Kok, who, proud of the drops of European blood in their veins, would not recognise the authority of Waterboer, and emigrated accordingly. Waterboer was, however, not dismissed; and in 1825 John Philips found the Griquas divided in three kraals, under the chiefs Kok, Berend, and Waterboer (t. xix, p. 370). If Dr. Prichard had taken the trouble to consult these documents he would have recognised that the Griquas had, by so many consecutive crossings, become almost a pure African race. Modern geographers range therefore the Griquas among the Hottentots, calling them Hottentot-Griquas. It is also noteworthy that Prichard, in citing the Griquas as an example of a mixed race, has given no description of them. In order that the example should be of any value, it is requisite that the Griquas should present an intermediate type between the Europeans and the natives. Neither Dr. Prichard nor any travellers say so. There is another consideration. The origin of the Griqua nation dates from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Dr. Prichard last speaks of them in 1843. Two generations had not yet elapsed. There is another point. In 1800 the tribe of Kok was a horde but little numerous; in 1824 it was a people of five thousand souls, including seven hundred armed warriors (Thompson,loc. cit., t. xxi, p. 22). It is clear that this people were not descended from the primitive tribe, but had increased by numerous adjunctions. Father Peteam himself, if he were still alive, would be obliged to admit this. I have been very minute as to the Griquas, but I flatter myself that this is sufficient to discard from science the assertion of Prichard, which all modern monogenists have received with so much favour.

[7]Quoy et Gaimard,Observat. sur la constitution physique des Papous, reproduit dans Lesson.Complement des Œuvres de Buffon, t. iii., Paris, 1829.

[8]Domeny de Rienzi,l’Oceanie, t. iii, p. 303. Paris, 1837.

[9]Maury,La terre et l’homme, p. 365. Paris, 1847.

[10]Latham,The Natural History of the Varieties of Man, p. 213. London, 1850. Dr. Latham designates the Malays by the somewhat fantastic name, of Protonesians. There are a great number of neologisms of this kind in his work.

[11]Some geographers say that Waigiou is a large Island; but they give no dimensions. It is, however, scarcely as large as the Island of Majorca. It is of an irregular form, long and narrow; it is about 80 leagues in circumference (Dumont d’Urville in Rienzi,l’Oceanie). It is only 25 leagues long and 10 leagues broad, says Henricy (Histoire de l’Oceanie.Paris, 1845.) The Island of Majorca is only 22 leagues in length by 16 leagues in breadth. Three races united in such a small territory, cannot long remain strangers to each other.

[12]Lesson,loc. cit.t. ii. p. 19.

[13]Davis,Crania Britannica. Introduction, p. 8, note.

[14]These geographical denominations are certainly not irreproachable; they have even the inconvenience of giving rise to the false idea, that all races of the same type originated in the same region; that all the Whites came from the Caucasus, all the Mongolians from Mongolia, the Blacks from Nigritia, even the Van-Diemen islanders. I have, however, thought proper to retain these denominations, as they are generally in use, and have no zoological signification. Such is not the case with the denominations adopted by certain authors derived from the colour of the skin. Thus the Caucasians were termed thewhite, the Mongolians theyellow, the Ethiopian theblack, the Malayo-Polynesian thebrown, and finally, the American theredrace. It has been shown that the American type alone includes red, brown, black, white and yellow races. There are brown races in the American, and even in the Caucasian type. All the black races do not belong to the Ethiopian type; and finally, the Malayo-Polynesian type comprises races of colours as various as those belonging to the American type. A classification founded on differences of colour would lead to numerous and serious errors.

[15]It is undoubted that several American races have been destroyed within 300 years; others having been reduced to a few families, will soon disappear. The Charruas were exterminated in 1831 by the Spaniards of South America: root and branch, as Dr. Latham says. In 1835, four years later, the English of Van Diemen’s Land, after a horrible massacre, transported 210 Tasmanians, men, women, and children, to a small island (Flinders), in Bass’ Straits. In 1842, after seven years of exile, the number of these unfortunates amounted to 54! This was all that remained of a race which, 40 years previously, occupied the whole of Van Diemen’s Land, as large as Ireland, and we may soon learn that none of them are in existence. The Malays have entirely destroyed the black races who preceded them in certain isles of the great Indian Archipelago. The Guanches now only exit in a mummified state. The black and prognathous race which occupied the isles of Japan before the arrival of the Mongolians, have left no other traces behind than their crania imbedded in the soil; and it is easy to foresee that within one or two centuries all the black races will have disappeared from these parts, and have been succeeded by Malayans and Europeans.

[16]Gerdy,Physiologie Médicale, t. i, p. 290. Paris, 1832.

[17]Berard,Cours de Physiologie, t. i, p. 465. Paris, 1845.

[18]Journal de Physiologie, t. i, p. 120. 1858.

[19]Macedones qui Alexandriam in Ægypto, qui Seleuciam ac Babyloniam, quique alias sparsas per orbem colonias habent in Syros, Parthos, Ægyptos degenerarunt.Tit. L., lib. xxxviii., § 217.

[20]All the Gauls were not light haired; but those who, three centuries before our era, invaded Greece and Asia Minor, were fair haired, according to all testimony; they consequently belonged to the Kimri race.

[21]Gliddon,The Monogenists and the Polygenists. Philadelphia, 1857. George Pouchet,De la Pluralité des races humaines, p. 136. Paris, 1858.

[22]Volney,Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte, t. i, p. 98. Paris, 1757.

[23]Knox,The Races of Man. 8vo, London, 1850.

[24]Serres,Rapport sur les resultats scientifiques du voyage de l’Astrolobe et de la Zélée(Comptes Rendus, t. xiii, p, 648.). [The size of the penis is not a constant character in the “Ethiopian” male. Instances, however, exist of its enormous development in the west African Negro.—Editor.]

[25]Theodor Waitz (of Marburg),Anthropologie der Naturvölker, p. 203. Leipzig, 1859. [Translated into English for the Anthropological Society of London, and edited by J. Frederick Collingwood, Esq., F.G.S., F.R.S.L.: 8vo, London, 1863.—Editor.] Mollien,Voyage dans l’intérieur de l’Afrique. Rafnel,Voyage dans l’Afrique occidentale, 1846, p. 51. Mohammed-el-Tounsy,Voyage au Darfour, p, 227, trad. Jomard. Paris, 1845.

[26]Voyage au Pôle sud et dans l’Oceanie sur l’Astrolabe et la Zélée, sous le commandement de Dumont-d’Urville, pendant les années 1837-1840:Zoologiepar M. Jacquinot, commandant de la Zélée, t. ii, pp. 91-93. Paris, 1846.

[27]J. C. Nott,Hybridity of Animals viewed in connexion with the natural history of mankind: Types of Mankind. Nott and Gliddon. Philadelphia, 1854.

[28]Within ten years from 1840 to 1850, the number of slaves in South Carolina has increased by 56,786. In 1840, there were 327,934 slaves; in 1850, 384,720. This is an increase of more than 17 per cent. The slaves of all shades are comprised in this account, but the pure Negroes form the great majority, and it is probable that to them exclusively is owing the large increase in the number of slaves. The number of cross-breeds cannot be ascertained by the statistics given. It would, besides, be impossible to distinguish in the reports given the Mestizos born from the union of Mulattoes and Mulatresses, and those from whites and blacks. Statistics thus throw no light upon the question, whether the Mulatto race maintains itself. But there is a peculiar class of men of colour which is the object of attention of certain governments, who maintain with satisfaction that this class notably diminishes. It is the class of free men of colour, enjoying certain civic rights very inconvenient for the slave states. There was a time when the enfranchisement of coloured men had no obstacles to contend with, and the number of free men of colour increased rapidly. Many white owners gave freedom to their natural children. But when restrictive laws were introduced, the number of free coloured men began diminishing. They no longer ally themselves with the Whites, who despise them, nor with the slaves, and are thus reduced to intermarry between themselves. The census of Charleston gave, in 1830, the number of free coloured men and their descendants as amounting to 2,107; in 1848 it was reduced to 1,492, a diminution of 605 in 2,107, more than 29 per cent. TheCharleston Mercurypublished these figures to show that the class of freed slaves need not excite any apprehension in South Carolina, and that the Governor carried his zeal too far in proposing to expel that class. Such an enormous decrease depends, no doubt to a great extent, on the small number of births. There is another circumstance which might have contributed to reduce the caste; which is, that any freed individual, or his descendant, once leaving the state, is not permitted to return; this, however, forms but a minor cause of the decay. (SeeCharleston Medical Journal, May 1851, vol. vi, p. 381).

[29]The first Europeans established at Jamaica were Spaniards or Portuguese; but the island was, 1655, conquered by the English, when allthe old colonistsretired, carrying away the greater portion of their wealth. Cromwell hastened to re-people the island, by transporting to it a number of political convicts. In 1659, four years after the conquest, there were already 4,500 Europeans and 1,400 Negroes on the island. In 1670, the white population amounted to 7,500, slaves 8,000. It will then, be observed, that the population of Jamaica descends exclusively fromEnglishcolonists and Negro slaves. With regard to the Caribs, they have been entirely exterminated by the Spaniards a century before the arrival of the English.

[30]Long (Edward),History of Jamaica, vol. ii, p. 235, London, 1774, cited in theCharleston Medical Journal, vol. vi. 1851.

[31]The relation of Lewis is, in certain respects, more suggestive than that of Long. The latter says that the Mulattoes of the first degree are well constituted; while Lewis pretends that they are mostlyweak and flabby, whence it results that the physical inferiority becomes manifest atthe very first crossing. We believe this to be incorrect. The author endeavours to explain the defect of vitality in the children of Mulattoes, and has recourse to a theory which, if well founded, would, instead of weakening, only strengthen the fact. On the other hand, we believe that the assertion of Long, despite of the corrective which accompanies it, is too general. If it were true that the union of Mulattoes is always unproductive in Jamaica, the fact would have been too evident not to have been long known, forabsolutesterility is easily ascertained. Relative sterility, however, may long escape notice, considering that there is always in the pure races a certain number of cases of sporadic sterility. It is probable that further investigations will establish for Jamaica conclusions analogous to those adopted by Mr. Nott for South Carolina; namely, that the Mulattoes of thisEnglishisland are less prolific between themselves than with the whites or blacks, and that their direct descendants are generally less vivacious and prolific than the men of the pure races.

Back to Index Next