MIA > Archive > Kautsky > Are the Jews a Race?
WE cannot take leave of Zionism before discussing another one of its arguments, its last argument, which will lead us back to the question of race.
It may appear to be a paradox, but it is a fact, that not a few Jews look with some misgiving on the emancipation of the Jews in Eastern Europe. They understand, and rightly so, that this emancipation will extend into the east of Europe the assimilation of the Jews that has been going on in the west for some time. For when the artificial exclusiveness of the Jews is terminated, when the ghetto ceases to exist, their assimilation will become everywhere inevitable.
Only in those regions of Eastern Europe in which the Jews were settled together in great numbers and artificially cut off from their environment, have they been able to preserve their national peculiarities. With the emancipation of the Jews in Eastern Europe, the last reservoir still feeding the Jewish community of the whole world will disappear, the last obstacle to its gradual assimilation. Judaism will then cease to exist as a separate body.
To be sure, this process will take place under circumstances which lift all the Jews still oppressed out of the slough in which they may still be living, into the full status of human beings. But Jewish nationalism regards the conservation of traditional Judaism as more important than the elevation of the Jewish individual.
Jews who regard the matter thus are in many cases quite progressive in their other views. As is so often the case in modern society, where it is found necessary to render conservative and radical thought compatible, the race theory plays a prominent part here also.
It is declared to be urgently necessary to erect Palestine into a world ghetto, in which a great number of Jews are to be confined and cut off from the surrounding world, because in this way only can the Jewish race be protected against admixture and preserved as a race.
For the Jews are a pure race, and it is only the pure races that are called upon to achieve the highest performances. Race mixture degrades human types and lowers their cultural capacity. In other words, we should be impelled to believe that the cultural capacity of mankind decreases with its increase in culture, for an increase in culture is synonymous with an increase in international communications and contacts, and therefore in race mixtures also.
One of the most prominent advocates of the Palestinian world ghetto as a means of preserving the race purity of the Jews is Zollschan. Sharp and correct though his criticisms even of Chamberlain may be, he nevertheless exploits without question the most untenable of Chamberlain’s theories, namely, the theory that exalted human qualities may be found only in the pure races. Zollschan says:
“Chamberlain’s book, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, has been attacked with a vehemence that has been directed to but few other works; and in most cases these attacks were well founded. But the turning point, the nucleus of Chamberlain’s system, namely, his emphasis of the ennobling effects of race purity and of the destructive results of race chaos, is unquestionably sound ..... Chamberlain properly observes that the normal course of development is not from race to racelessness, but from a politically conditioned racelessness to a sharper and sharper definition of race, the quintessence of the race being expressed in the genius, the hero ...
“Chamberlain says he cares very little for anthropological subdivisions; ‘by race I mean that emphasis of specific essential characteristics and of the universal power of performance; that exaltation of the entire being, which is attained under very specific conditions of selection, mingling, in-breeding – but only under these very specific conditions, in which case it results, however, invariably; in other words, with the certainty of a natural law ...’
“In the case of the bastard, the individual abilities may increase, while the general, ‘instinctive’ abilities (characteristics) disappear; precisely the latter constitute the potential factor giving rise to all real greatness.
“In the case of crossing between members of widely separate races, the constitutional type is lost in their posterity, although the latter may quite frequently be well equipped as far as individual aptitudes are concerned ...
“Doubtless the force of heredity is far more significant in the case of the pure races. It is certain that in favourably bastardised races the kinetic cultural energy will constantly prevail, while in the pure inbred races the potential cultural energy will always prevail; but that only the latter is the fruitful soil from which the ingenious power of creation as well as the artistic and moral genius may grow forth.
“This distinction between inbred and mongrel races makes clear to us the value of race purity.” [1]
It is only with ill-concealed astonishment that we can receive this anti-Semitic-Zionist-bastardisation of Chamberlain’s pure race vagaries at the hands of Zollschan – otherwise an intelligent man. The race, defining itself with increasing sharpness, and whose quintessence is the genius, the hero, the race which represents nothing short of an exaltation of the entire being, in which the potential cultural energy will always be predominant – this is in truth a “race chaos” which is based on nothing but the energetic use of the words “doubtless”, “without doubt”, “with certainty”, which are applied the more emphatically, the less definite the conceptions associated with them.
The most amusing point about the whole matter is the fact that Zollschan, at the beginning of his book, himself rejects the “nobility of race of the modern Teutons as advanced by Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain”, [2] and with reason, for:
“Chamberlain ascertained that the Jews owe their origin to the crossing of three races entirely different from each other: the Semites, the Hittites, the Amorites ... The crossing between the Semites, Hittites and Amorites, is designated by Chamberlain as outright ‘incest’; in the destinies of the Jewish nation resulting from this mingling, as well as in its mental unfruitfulness, Chamberlain beholds an inevitable fate which necessarily intervened with the certainty of a natural law, and from which the race will never be able to escape.” [3]
Yet this same Chamberlain is accepted as a cast-iron basis by the Zionist race theoreticians!
This seems absurd; yet it is quite simple; Zollschan has only to prove that the Jews give evidence of great mental achievement, of much genius, such as only a pure race can develop, according to Chamberlain. It will follow as a self-evident consequence that they must be a pure race, and it would be equivalent to committing a sin against the holy spirit of history, if one should sully their purity with a mingling with other races, by bastardising them! Therefore the Zionist world-ghetto becomes the necessary goal for all Jews!
Unfortunately, this subtle reasoning is not a sufficient refutation of the fact that the Jews are a mixed race and not the Jews alone, for every cultural race is a mixed race. If only “pure races” are the native soil from which the “ingenious power of creation and artistic and moral genius may grow forth”, if the bastard races show no such qualities, we shall probably have to retrace our steps almost to the purity of the ape-man before we encounter the last remnants of these “generic” capacities. In the case of the cultural races, they must have long since expired, for the “bastardisation” of these races is true “beyond a doubt”.
The view is no doubt very widespread that “mixed races for the most part emphasise only the defects and vices of their progenitors, not their favourable points”, and Zollschan presents this view as “established today”. [4] But, as a matter of fact, this principle is as little accepted as the other “undoubted” truths on which Zollschan bases his argument in this case.
We have already seen that the concept of the “pure” race is borrowed from the realm of domestic animals. It loses its point altogether when applied to the varieties, to the geographical races of wild animals, and even to the races of humans, in so far as they are geographical in character. All the learning of our race theoreticians and the “sharpened glance of our day for that which is in the blood” are based in the last analysis merely on a constant confusion of the most varied conceptions of race. To Chamberlain’s honour be it said that he makes this idiocy quite clear to us. Again and again he places the experiences of history on a par with the experiences gathered in artificial selection:
“The history of our own race teaches us with an eloquent tongue what we are also taught by every race horse, every pure-bred fox terrier, every Cochin-China hen!” [5]
Chamberlain alleges that the Hellenic people are an example of this process.
In an earlier passage [6] Chamberlain observes that perhaps no “other question encounters such black ignorance even among highly educated, even learned, men, as the question concerning the essence and significance of the conception of ‘race’”. Chamberlain then turns against Virchow, who had demanded equality before the law for the various races and had advocated a cult of personality as opposed to the cult of race.
“As if the whole course of history did not prove to us the close connection between personality and race, the conditioning of the nature of personality by the nature of its race, and the connection of the power of personality with certain conditions of its blood! And as if the scientific breeding of plants and animals did not afford us an immensely varied and reliable material, with the aid of which we may learn both the conditions as well as the significance of ‘race’. Do the (rightly) so-called ‘noble’ races of animals, the Limousin draught-horses, the American trotters, the Irish race-horses, the absolutely dependable hunting dogs – do these arise by accident and promiscuity? Are they the result of granting the animals equality before the law, of feeding them all on the same fodder and subjecting them all to the same rod? No, they arise by sexual (sic!) selection and by strict preservation of the purity of the race ... A continuous condition of promiscuity between two prominent animal races will invariably lead to a destruction of the most outstanding characteristics of both. Why should mankind be an exception?”
This question can embarrass only such persons whose “black ignorance” is so great as to prevent them from distinguishing between the races of domestic animals and other races, and who may believe that the laws of the stud-farm are the universal laws of nature and of human history, persons who imagine that the “race” of the Hellenes and the race of Cochin-China hens were produced in exactly the same way.
In the case of the latter, there is no doubt that “a permanent condition of promiscuity” with another race will “degrade” both races. The organism of the domestic animal is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its efficiency and excellence are not estimated by its power of performance to the advantage of its own preservation and procreation, but by its utility for the specific human purpose for which the animal has been bred. Its efficiency in this connection will increase with its specialization, with the increasing one-sidedness of specific organs. This one-sidedness is decreased by crossing a highly bred race with another race, presenting peculiarities of an entirely different type. In this way the special value inherent in each of the two races from the standpoint of the purposes of man, may easily be decreased, and the pure race to this extent – “degraded”.
But in the case of animals who are not domestic animals, efficiency must be measured by a different standard. The standard now becomes, not their efficiency in subserving the purposes of others, but their efficiency in answering the requirements of the preservation of their own organism and its own posterity. In the case of pure races, in other words, such races whose efficiency for a certain end proposed by man has been enhanced by a one-sided development, the efficiency for the purposes of their own organism may indeed increase by crossing the race with another and thus reducing its one-sided qualities.
As a matter of fact, breeders rather frequently resort to a crossing of pure races, either in order to attain new race characteristics, or in order to infuse increased energy and power of resistance into an over-refined, enervated race, by means of crossing.
Even Chamberlain admits the possibility of improving the race in this manner, by crossing. But “only very specific and limited blood-minglings are favourable to an ennobling of a race or to the establishment of a new race. Here again the clearest and most unambiguous evidence is furnished by the breeding of animals. The blood-mingling must be for a limited time only, it must furthermore be adapted to the purpose; not all minglings, but only certain minglings may serve as a basis for race improvement. In limiting the time, I mean that the supply of new blood must be introduced very swiftly, after which it must cease at once.” [7]
Continuous blood-mingling is tantamount to a “baleful, destructive condition, a sin against nature”, nature meaning – in Chamberlain’s eyes – fox-terriers and Cochin-China hens. But in the natural state there is no breeder to choose the breeding couples and to regulate the supply of new blood in such manner as to limit it to a swift introduction, after which the supply is cut off. Nor is man today – as yet – bred artificially. Humans never mated under Chamberlain’s conditions.
To be sure, man resembles the domestic animals in his tendency to a one-sided development owing to the division of labor and to specialisation. This one-sidedness is easily overcome in cases where callings vary from generation to generation. But such one-sidedness may be developed to a high point where occupations are hereditary. This condition will be naturally attained in cases where the one-sidedness of the vocation is not an adaptation to social peculiarities, but to peculiarities of nature, to a specific natural environment, resulting in a specific mode of production. Particularly the mental characteristics (the nervous system), which are of course more variable and more capable of accommodation than the somatic elements (skeleton, muscles, etc.), may here attain the most extreme forms; a race of horsemen may develop into a state of bloodthirsty savagery; a race of farmers into a condition of cowardly enervation; isolated in the mists of a lonely mountain range, a race may develop a gloomy and fretful mysticism, while an active condition of social contact may produce – under a cloudless sky – the most frivolous and arrogant joy of life. A mingling of such elements may, under such circumstances, produce very desirable consequences.
But such minglings may particularly be of great advantage in cases where a continuous process of in-breeding has imparted a pathological character to certain one-sided peculiarities. There is hardly any doubt that in-breeding will not be injurious under all circumstances. But it has been recognised that in-breeding leads to swift degeneration where pathological predispositions are involved. Even Zollschan admits this, although he is quite enthusiastically in favour of in-breeding:
“In-breeding – unless certain vicious conditions such as tuberculosis, lues, alcoholism, psychoses, have gained a foothold in a family – is by no means so pernicious as is generally assumed, even in the case of very close alliances within the same family. If constitutional pathogenic germs are present, these will, to be sure, attain enormous proportions; but healthy constitutions are by no means ruined in this process.” [8]
The more civilisation develops, the more artificial and unnatural becomes the environment in which the majority live. The number of persons obliged to live in cities, to work indoors, increases; the nervous system is forced to develop along narrower and narrower channels. These conditions make the organism far more receptive to germs of disease. At the same time, an extending of the artificial environment tends to limit the effects of the struggle for existence with surrounding nature, to prolong the life of diseased organisms, to render propagation possible to such organisms. Under these circumstances, in-breeding must be particularly injurious, and a mingling of varied elements must be of exceptional advantage. The increasing mingling of races by reason of the increase in world traffic may probably be considered as one of the most powerful factors opposing the tendency to a debasing of “race” by civilisation. The more we turn our backs on nature, the more necessary becomes a mingling of races.
Our anthropologists, accordingly, are by no means inclined to regard race mixture as a misfortune – at least not those anthropologists who study the question of interest to the human race by studying man himself and not the processes of the chicken-coop or the florist’s hothouse.
In the lecture delivered by Luschan at the Racial Congress, which we have already quoted several times, this scholar also has the following to say on the question of mixed races:
“We all know that a certain admixture of blood has always been of great advantage to a nation. England, France and Germany are equally distinguished for the variety of their racial elements. In the case of Italy we know that in ancient times and at the Renaissance, Northern “Barbarians” were the leaven in the great advance of art and civilisation; and even Slavonic immigration has not been without effect on this movement. The marvellous ancient civilisation of Crete, again, seems to have been not quite autochthonous. We know also that the ancient Babylonian civilisation sprang from a mixture of two quite different national and racial elements, and we find a nearly homogeneous population in most parts of Russia and in the interior of China associated with a somewhat low stage of evolution.”
Luschan does indeed seem inclined to regard mixtures between whites and blacks with disfavour. But he states his case cautiously in the paragraph immediately following the above quotation:
“On the other hand, we are all more or less disposed to dislike and despise a mixture of Europeans with the greater part of foreign races. ‘God created the white man and God created the black man, but the --- created the mulatto’, is a very well-known proverb. As a matter of fact, we are absolutely ignorant as to the moral and intellectual qualities of half-castes. It would be absurd to expect from the union of a good-for-nothing European with an equally good-for-nothing black woman, children that march on the heights of humanity, and we know of many half-castes that are absolutely sans reproche; but we have no good statistics of the qualities of half-castes in comparison with those of their parents.” [9]
It is apparent that Luschan is very far removed from any acceptance of the popular conception – so carelessly proclaimed by Zollschan as a demonstrated truth – namely, that mongrels reproduce only the defects and vices of their progenitors and not also their virtues.
In the case of mongrels between white races, he maintains the precise opposite. As for the products of unions between whites and coloured people he considers the matter as not sufficiently proved. No writer assigns any reason for a worsening of character by reason of such mixture. Zollschan, like Chamberlain himself, admits that the halfcastes may often excel their parents in physical strength, in beauty, and in natural intelligence. But both declare that the character suffers by reason of the mixture. Why this degrading of race should be expressed precisely in the character and not in any other trait appears to be a decision of fate, and one requiring no explanation.
It is interesting to note that the defects due to a mingling of races express themselves only in the domain in which they are least likely to be checked up. Nothing is more subjective by nature than our judgment of the character of another individual. His external traits, his strength, his talent, are subject to objective measurement, but the impression made upon me by his character depends in large measure on whether my intercourse with him is of friendly or hostile nature. Any man whose reputation has been subjected to distortion by party hatred and party favour will present an uncertain image in the records of history. [10] The same individual will present quite different traits in the eyes of his friends from those seen by his enemies. One may be the tenderest and kindliest father to one’s children and yet be a most ruthless usurer or slave-driver. On the other hand, any specific expression of another’s character will produce quite a different impression on the onlooker, depending on whether the latter is fighting by his side or constitutes a menace to his life. Character may express itself only in one’s relation with others; manifestations of character depend entirely on one’s relations with others; likewise, the evaluation of these manifestations by third persons will depend on such relations also. In a word, far more than in bodily stature, or in the strength or ability of the individual, the social factor, the influence of the environment, will assume the foreground in the impression made by his character. The factor of heredity appears here to be most variable and most difficult to be isolated and recognised as such.
But if we make an effort to ascertain the social factors producing the result that half-castes between whites and blacks appear for the most part to be of bad character, we shall not have far to seek. We need only to refer to the “bastards” produced in Europe by parents of the same race, who are distinguished from the other children in the same country merely by the fact that they have been so unfortunate as to lack all the economic and social support which society and the law grant to legitimate children.
Nor do we find that the half-castes in the colonies have been subjected to worse judgements than the illegitimate children of European parents of “pure” race.
“In every respect, physically, mentally and morally, they constitute on the whole a debilitated, more or less degraded group. The mere fact that they were produced in extra-conjugal, illegitimate relations, becomes in their case a powerful cause of disease and death, both before and after birth, and throughout their entire lives. In the total statistics of disease, as well as in the mortality statistics of any country, they furnish, year in and year out, a very considerable and – we might add – constantly increasing contingent, both in physical as well as in mental disease, mental debility, suicide, not to mention crimes of all kinds. Far more frequently than other groups, as compared with their number, they fill our public institutions, beginning with the lying-in hospital and the orphan asylum, and ending with the hospitals, the prisons, and the morgue.” [11]
Why should we not expect to find that the facts obtaining of these unhappy pariahs in our society are also applicable to the half-castes in the colonies, almost all of whom are illegitimate children – frequently as a result of the laws, for Christian governments, which know no closer concern than the protection of marriage and the family, do indeed permit white men to take coloured women as concubines, but not to marry them, and to permit their children to enjoy a father’s care?
It should not surprise us to find that the coloured bastards lead just as sorry a life as the white bastards, and this fact would by no means prove that their general backwardness was due to their being of mixed extraction and not to their social position. But we find as a rule that bastards of barbarous tribes have far more chances of success than the illegitimate children of civilisation, which again does not of course prove that half-castes between Europeans and coloured races are of better endowment than children produced by two European parents. But their inferiority has not at all been proved. Under favourable circumstances, such half-castes may even give evidence of considerable ability.
Thus, Ratzel, in his Völkerkunde, speaks with great respect of the bastaards, the offspring of a mixture of white and Hottentot blood, who – it is claimed – have raised the Hottentots to a higher level. Ratzel has the following to say on this subject:
“It is claimed, concerning the European half-castes, in South Africa as well as in India and in South America, that they possess the defects of both their parents, but none of their virtues. In all these regions so much of this statement is true, that the half-castes to be sure rarely unite all the favourable traits of the European father with all the virtues of the coloured mother. But this is due less to the mixture of blood than to the peculiar and hardly favourable breeding which these persons receive and must receive by reason of their situation between two widely separated races. It is self-evident that the care of their education falls to the mother, and that therefore the first impressions received by the young half-caste are obtained in the environment of the lower race. As he grows up, he may become conscious of the superiority inherent in him as a rule as far as his mentality is concerned, and often even physically – as a result of his share of the lighter blood; but the race to which his father belongs will not accept him; it will regard him as a coloured man, in spite of the better qualities he may have inherited as a half-caste. He will therefore grow up, usually, to receive less education and culture than his capacities would require, and it is quite natural that he should not be able – under these circumstances – to make the best use of his gifts in every case. Superior to the coloured community in mental endowment, in energy, and often even in physical strength, or at least in the spirit and love of putting his strength to the test, he lacks the gift of contentedness with his lowly and oppressed situation and with the phlegmatic insensibility to privations of every kind which are characteristic of his coloured brothers.” [12]
In other words, the “worsening” of the character of the half-castes consists in their furnishing less convenient objects of exploitation, and in their being more inclined to rebel against their subjection than the “pure” coloured race. Quite worthy of note is the judgement formed by Sidney Olivier, who, for a number of years, was governor of Jamaica, where there exists a considerable population of half-castes. In 1891, this island had only 15,000 whites, 122,000 half-castes, and about 500,000 Negroes. Olivier has a very high opinion of the latter and expects much from their future development. But of course the whites are at present far superior to them. In this connection, the half-castes may be considered socially an element of great value:
“The offspring of such breeding, whether legitimate or illegitimate, is, from the point of view of efficiency, an acquisition to the community, and, under favourable conditions, an advance on the pure bred African. For, notwithstanding all that it may be possible to adduce in favour of that prejudice against the mixed race, of which I have spoken, and which I have myself fully shared, I am convinced that this class as it at present exists, is a valuable and indispensable part of any West Indian community, and that a colony of black, coloured, and whites has far more organic efficiency and far more promise in it than a colony of black and white alone. A community of white and black alone is in far greater danger of remaining, so far as the unofficial classes are concerned, a community of employers and serfs, concessionaires and tributaries, with, at best, a bureaucracy to keep the peace between them. The graded mixed class in Jamaica helps to make an organic whole of the community and saves it from this distinct cleavage.
“A very significant light is thrown on the psychology of colour prejudice in mixed communities by the fact that, in the whites, it is stronger against the coloured than against the blacks. I believe this is chiefly because the coloured intermediate class do form such a bridge as I have described, and undermine, or threaten to undermine, the economic and social ascendancy of the white, hitherto the dominant aristocracy of these communities. This jealousy or indignation is much more pungent than the alleged natural instinct of race-aversion.” [13]
In spite of the favourable results of many a mixture of Negroes and whites, it is nevertheless easy to understand why investigators who are favourably disposed to the coloured race may condemn a mingling between white and coloured. But this may hardly be considered as due to the laws of heredity, but rather to considerations of ethical and aesthetic nature.
The aversion to such mixtures is an aversion to the relations between the sexes found in regions where an unmarried white master class has unlimited control, in the colonies, over disfranchised natives. Such unions in these countries will not partake of the character of a free love-selection, but rather of that of prostitution or even violation of the women involved. Such violent forms of race mixture should surely be condemned, but they have nothing to do with the question of heredity.
And surely they cannot be invoked in a consideration of the question as to whether the Jews should be preserved as a pure race by artificial segregation and by an avoidance of all mixed marriages.
We have seen that the Jews are in no sense a pure race; we have seen that even mixtures between widely separated races may be of advantage; and finally we have seen that mixtures between related races are as a rule of great value. Why should it be precisely the Jewish half-castes that have so disastrous an effect? On the contrary, it might be maintained that no mixture between European populations is likely to produce better results than that between Jews and non-Jews. No stratum of the population has become more one-sidedly urban in character than the Jews, and in no other stratum has in-breeding under unfavourable hygienic conditions produced more unhappy results than among the Jews.
It is Zollschan’s opinion that “in-breeding within a human community of ten or eleven million” has “no longer the slightest similarity with in-breeding within the limits of a small group of relatives.” But it is not true that the entire Jewish community lives in a single segregated region and that marriages take place only within this region. Jews in Vilna hardly regard Jewesses in Morocco or Yemen as possible mates. It is quite possible that the result of such matings might be a desirable one. But in many regions the Jews constitute a very small community, and the result very frequently is marriages between relatives, where the situation is such as to render impossible marriages outside of this community.
It might be possible to speak, however, of another form of in-breeding besides that within the family. Blood-relationship alone appears to be not a dangerous factor in marriage. It becomes dangerous only by reason of the probability that the same pathological predispositions have been inherited by both husband and wife and may therefore be transmitted to their children in an exaggerated form. But acquired defects may have just as much influence on posterity as those that are inherited, if present in both parents. This identity of acquired defects will most likely be present in those cases in which both husband and wife, as well as their ancestors for several generations, have been living and working under the same conditions. In this connection, it would be necessary to call attention not only to in-breeding within the family, but also to a vocational or social in-breeding. The more pernicious and one-sided the common conditions of labour and life of the two groups of ancestors, the more dangerous will be in-breeding within the vocation, as far as posterity is concerned; the more necessary a mingling with members of other vocations or classes; the greater the necessity, therefore – of course – of technical and social reforms for eliminating noxious and one-sided tendencies.
Darwin also believed that alterations in the conditions of life, as well as the crossing of individuals who have been subject to different conditions of life, are of advantage, unless the alteration to which the individuals are subjected be too great.
“Hence it seems that, on the one hand, slight changes in the conditions of life benefit all organic beings, and on the other hand, that slight crosses, that is, crosses between the males and females of the same species, which have been subjected to slightly different conditions, or which have slightly varied, give vigour and fertility to the offspring.” [14]
The Jews have suffered most from a uniformity of their conditions of life, since they have in their ranks but a modicum of variety in vocation, and since they lack particularly the invigorating influence of new accessions of peasant blood. And precisely in those regions in which they live together in great numbers, and where – therefore – the danger of in-breeding between blood-relations is smaller, their conditions of life are the most monotonous and unfavourable, and the dangers of vocational and social in-breeding become greatest for them. No stratum of the population has more to gain by an admixture of non-Jewish – more or less peasant – blood, than the Jews.
The Jews have therefore not the slightest reason to avoid, because of fear of their assimilation, the only path to salvation that is available to them: an energetic participation in the class struggle of the proletariat.
1. Das Rassenproblem, pp. 264–270.
2. Zollschan, op. cit., p. 82.
3. Zollschan, ibid., pp. 152, 143.
4. Zollschan, ibid., p. 264.
5. Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, vol. i, p. 272. German edition: Die Grundlagen des XIX. Jahrhunderts.
6. Chamberlain, op. cit., p. 264 et seq.
7. Chamberlain, op. cit., p. 284.
8. Das Rassenproblem, p. 266.
9. Anthropological View of Race (see footnote, pp. 22, 23).
10. “Von der Parteien Gunst und Hass verzerrt, Schwankt sein Charakterbild in der Geschichte.”
11. Friedrich Schiller, Prologue to Wallensteins Lager. Österlen, Medizinische Statistik, pp. 200, 231
12. Ratzel, Völkerkunde, pp. 115, 116.
13. Sidney Olivier, White Capital and Coloured Labour, London 1906, pp./nbsp;87–39
14. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, The Harvard Classics, New York 1909, chap. ix, p. 318.
Last updated on 10 June 2020