The Color Line: A Brief in Behalf of the Unborn

by William Benjamin Smith

The general reply that is made (p. 313) to the argument from arrested development is that the female sex is in all proportions more like the child than the male, "but who would explain this earlier arrest of development of women as mark of a lower type?" We let this go for what it is worth, merely remarking that it is thoroughly invalidated by the remark on page 315 (quoted at p. 144).

With page 313 we pass to the question of the length of time during which certain organs grow, especially the brain. "If we could prove that the brain of certain races ceases to develop at an earlier period than that of others, the inference of the inferiority of race would seem highly probable." Now, this is precisely what many naturalists of the first rank affirm is the case with the Negro. But it is here declared, "At the present time no satisfactory basis for such comparisons exists." Possibly;—we recognize the difficulties of the case: still, the returns thus far received, so far as they indicate anything at all, do indicate a much shorter period of development for the Negro (see p. 147).

The next question (p. 314) is the crucial one of brain-weights—"the one anatomical feature which bears directly upon the question at issue. It would seem that the greater the central nervous system, the higher the faculty of the race and the greater its aptitude to mental achievements.... There are sufficient data available to establish beyond a doubt the fact that the brain-weight of the whites is larger than of most other races, particularly larger than that of the negroes. That of the white male is about 1370 grammes. The investigations of cranial capacities are quite in accord with these results. According to Topinard, the capacity of the skull of males of the neolithic period of Europe is about 1560 cc.; that of modern Europeans is the same; of the Mongoloid race 1510 cc.; of African negroes 1405 cc., and of negroes of the Pacific ocean 1460 cc. Here we have, therefore, a decided difference in favor of the white race. These differences cannot be explained as the effect of difference in stature, the negroes being at least as tall as the Europeans."

"In interpreting these facts, we must ask, Does the increase in the size of the brain prove an increase in faculty? This would seem highly probable and facts may be adduced which speak in favor of this assumption." A number of these, familiar enough, are mentioned, and there follows: "While the force of these arguments must be admitted, a number of restricting facts must be enumerated. The most important among these is the difference in the brain-weight between men and women. When men and women of the same stature are compared it is found that the brain of the woman is much lighter than that of the man. Nevertheless, the faculty of woman is undoubtedly just as high as that of man. This is therefore a case in which smaller brain-weight is accompanied throughout by equal faculty. We conclude from this fact that it is not impossible that the smaller brains of males of other races should not (sic) do the same work that is done by the larger brain of the white race. But this comparison is not quite on equal terms, as we may assume that there is a certain structural difference between male and female which causes the difference in size between the sexes, so that comparison between male and female is not the same as a comparison between male and male. We will also remember that, although the brains of eminent men are, on the average, larger than those of the average individual, there are some small brains included in their number." We observe that, the sentence "But this comparison ..." (p. 315) so restricts the foregoing "most important restriction" as to deprive it of all the force it might otherwise have with some. As to eminent men having small brains, to be sure; but eminent men may have small minds also; very extraordinary special endowment does not by any means imply general endowment; not every genius is a good "all-around" man; even as physically some are strong in arm but weak in legs, strong in the chest but weak in the back, and so on. Besides, no one has ever held that mind-power is merely a matter of brain-weight. We hold only that, other things being equal, brain-weight is a fair index of mind-power. Perhaps in no two cases are the other things equal; but in the average of a large number of cases these inequalities are smoothed out; hence it is that we may rely upon the average with no little confidence.

"Notwithstanding these restrictions, the increase of the size of the brain in the higher animals, and the lack of development in microcephalic individuals are fundamental facts which make it more than probable that increased size of the brain causes increased faculty, although the relation is not quite as immediate as is often assumed."

We ask no greater concession.

It is next contended (p. 316) "that the average sizes of the brain of the White are numerously represented among other races". Middle-sized capacities (1450 to 1650 cc.) are found in 55 per cent. of Europeans, and in 58 per cent. of Africans and Melanesians; also 50 per cent. of Whites rise above 1550 (the mid-line), 27 per cent. of Africans, 32 per cent. of Melanesians. "We might, therefore, anticipate a lack of men of high genius, but should not anticipate any great lack of faculty among the great mass of negroes living among whites and enjoying the advantages of the leadership of the best men of that race."

These words seem to surrender everything. They admit a sensible inferiority of the Negro. This defect may be slight as expressed in ounces, and yet, as measured by achievement, it may be inexpressibly great. Nay, more! The admission goes much further still. The "anticipation" of no "great lack of faculty" is wholly unwarranted. We have no right to assume that medium skull-capacities among Africans imply the same medium faculties as would the same capacities among Europeans. By no means! Not unless the average brain-texture of the former be as fine-grained and highly organized as of the latter. But this is very improbable. With the difference in quantity will most likely be linked a far more significant difference in quality. So much is, in fact, admitted in the next paragraph, which merits special attention. This, however, is hardly the correct standpoint, as mental ability certainly does not depend upon the size of the brain alone. The proper point of view of the question is brought out most clearly by Dr. H. H. Donaldson whose opinion I will quote. He says, "I consider the significance of the encephalon to depend upon the number and size of the cells composing it. In the negroes and lower races generally, the number of cells is probably less than in the white. This is mainly an inference from the total weight of the encephalon. Equally important are the final stages in the enlargement of the structural elements, stages which apparently have the result of bringing a larger number of elements into physiological connections by means of a very slight quantitative extension of their branches. Changes, which moreover can be followed, say in the cortex of the brain of the white in individuals thirty or more years of age (sic). When we compare the capacity for education between the lower and higher races, we find that the great point of divergence is at adolescence and the inference is fairly good that we shall not find in the brains of the lower races the post-pubertal growth in the cortex to which I have just alluded. As to the sculpturing of the brain surface by gyri and sulci we still lack any good racial characters."

We have no occasion to take the slightest exception to this statement of Professor Donaldson's. But we are at a loss to perceive any support it gives to the general contention of this address, which, indeed, it seems to overturn completely. Observe especially that Donaldson recognizes unequivocally "the great point of divergence at adolescence" "in the capacity for education, between the lower and higher races." We may be allowed to add some later remarks of the Chicago authority, culled from his "The Growth of the Brain" (1895), which also fully sustain, incidentally, the theses of our earlier chapters.

"Statistically the results are satisfactory" (p. 114), being said of a table showing the inferior brain-weights of inferior races, indicates that Professor Donaldson recognizes that inferiority unreservedly.