Races

RACES. Race and species. The term race, borrowed from everyday French language and introduced into science by J. Buffon (1740) to denote small breeds of animals as well as human tribes. This term received wide application with respect to humans only in the 19th century. Before this time, the basic unit of taxonomy established by Linnaeus—species—served to denote lower taxonomic categories. In the modern understanding, species and race denote groups of organisms united primarily by unity of origin (history) and the basic complex of genes. Species and races are divided into smaller groups, namely: species are divided into "subspecies," subspecies into "tribes" (term of Semenov-Tyan-Shansky) and "subtribes." Races are divided into subraces (races of 2nd and 3rd order) and local (racial) races; the term "major race" or race of first order is used to denote a group of races. There is a correspondence between the two systems of designation in the sense that race is recognized as equivalent to subspecies, i.e., it is a lower, subordinate taxonomic category with respect to species. While species are always confined to specific areas, the term race is also applied to some extra-areal forms, for example, those connected with features of the habitat (mountain, plain), as well as with features of functional adaptations. Extra-areal variations are sometimes denoted by the term "morph," sometimes "ecotype" or "ecological race." Some of them have a clearly exogenous character, others are hereditary. Some of them correspond to what is called constitutional types in humans. Extra-areal forms having the character of individual deviations are called aberrations. The previously widespread term "variety" due to the indeterminacy of its meaning is currently used only in a general sense. - The development of modern genetics has led to attempts to justify taxonomy on the data of experimental study of hereditary variability. In this sense, de Vries contrasts the systematic species, which includes a complex of both hereditary and non-hereditary properties, with the elementary species, which includes genetically identical individuals. Races or subraces are equivalent to this concept of "pure race," "elementary race," "jordanon" (after the name of the botanist Jordan), in contrast to the Linnaean species ("lineon"), or "population." But not only species, but also subspecies and even local races represent populations, all of them are genetically polymorphic, which does not prevent the establishment of their relationships as a whole, i.e., the solution of the main task of taxonomy. Another addition is introduced by the doctrine of hybridization (interbreeding crosses). The infertility of interspecific crosses practically retains the significance of an important distinguishing criterion, but theoretically is by no means absolute. As a result of this, transitional forms sometimes appear not only between subspecies but also between species. Groups of species connected by transitional forms have received the name "aggregate species" (conspecies). Races in humans. It has long been known that peoples inhabiting different countries differ from each other not only in socio-economic characteristics, language, way of life, but also in physical features, sizes of individual body parts, hair cover, coloration and other properties that have a clearly hereditary character and a specific area of distribution. These facts provide the basis for considering the physical differences of humanity as differences corresponding to breed differences in animals, and the very groups of people united by physical similarity as races. While there is undoubtedly similarity here, there is nevertheless a new essential quality: natural conditions, which act directly on animals, act on humans only through the medium of the social environment; the production relations underlying it develop according to their own special laws, on the basis of natural resources, but without direct dependence on them. Social organization, uniting and separating tribes and other collectives according to social characteristics, has a strong influence on the direction of variability in humans. Although man reveals in his physical type a number of features preserved in his germ plasma and arising in the preceding period of development, however, human races, remaining natural-historical categories, like animal races, differ from the latter by a number of special features arising from the specificity of conditions of the social environment. "The first fact requiring statement is the bodily organization of these individuals and the connection thereby given them with the rest of nature. Here we cannot, of course, concern ourselves with either the physical properties of the people themselves or the natural environment surrounding them: geological, orohydrographical, climatic and other relations. These relations determine not only the original natural organization of people, especially racial differences, but also all their further development or development up to our time. Every historical description must proceed from these natural foundations and their modification in the course of history through the activity of people" (Marx, "The German Ideology").-Engels, in response to Starkenberg's query ("What role does the moment of race and historical individuality play"), answers: "We consider that economic conditions ultimately determine historical development. But race itself is an economic factor. Consequently, there is no automatic action of the economic situation, as is sometimes very conveniently imagined, but people make their own history, only in a certain environment that conditions them, on the basis of the actual relations left over from the past, among which economic ones are ultimately decisive, however strongly they may be influenced by other political and ideological conditions" (Engels, Letters, M., 1931, p. 40). Initial different types are connected by a large number of intermediate and newly formed variants. Instead of the predominant discontinuity of forms in animals, in humans somatic variability acquires a continuous character, variations of one type partially extend into the area of variations of another. Sometimes intragroup variability reaches even the dimensions of intergroup variability, i.e., within one group there occur individuals differing to the same degree as different types. Such sharp deviations greatly complicate the diagnosis of individuals but do not exclude the possibility of distinguishing groups, since in this case the group specificity of the totality of features is nevertheless preserved. Thus the concept of race in modern man has a dynamic character. Connected with this is another feature of human races—the abundance of new formations arising on the soil of the hereditary independence of individual properties and their ability to enter into new combinations. If there are two groups differing only in two independent traits, for example, light-eyed and narrow-faced, dark-eyed and broad-faced groups, then from their crossing there will arise 4 combinations, of which 2 will be new—light-eyed broad-faced, dark-eyed narrow-faced. With differences in three traits there will arise 8 combinations (2³), of which 6 are new. These new formations, since they (due to the removal of natural selection in humans) equally participate in the production of the next generation, at a certain moment will reach the number of the original groups. Only by means of statistical analysis can we establish the original types, as the units constituting the group, that had predominance in the past. While "major races" (1st order) are easily identified on the basis of the totality of more or less sharply expressed traits, more fractional races require for their isolation the application of complex statistical and geographical methodology. These races can therefore be considered as historical realities. This historical moment sometimes refers to the near, sometimes to the distant past, but in any case not infinitely distant, since metization itself presupposes some original differences. Sometimes as a result of this analysis, the nearest original forms turn out to be types that in turn represent combinatorial new formations. The biological continuity of types is revealed, which is expressed in the taxonomic subdivision—race, subrace or races of 1st, 2nd, etc. orders. Method. The mentioned peculiarity causes the need for application of specific methods for the isolation of races and subraces; with respect to major races no particular difficulties are encountered, they are delimited in the same way as all zoological forms. The mentioned methods are given by variation statistics (biometrics)—analysis of distribution curves, typical values (means, medians, modes) (see Variation statistics), variability and correlation. A distribution close to normal and small correlation of variants of individual independent traits can be considered an indication of the homogeneity of groups, original or achieved as a result of prolonged mixing.

When there is statistically significant multi-peakedness of curves, the correspondence of peaks of many (two are insufficient) independent traits, established by regression lines, allows one to conclude about the mixed nature of the group and, under favorable conditions, to isolate the elements that formed it. The taxonomic significance of a whole group type or mixed types is determined, however, not only statistically but by comparing them with other somatic and geographical variants, and therefore only reliable results are possible when studying large territories. In this case, it may turn out that obviously mixed groups, due to the abundance of transitions, show no correlation and a distribution close to normal. In these cases, the analysis of geographical distribution becomes particularly important: mapping the variants of individual traits, identifying regions where the traits are most different. There is reason to assume that in these regions the original types have been better preserved. The superimposition of maps of several traits thus restores the original combinations. It is clear that the geographical association of independent variants, unlike their association in individuals, cannot be random. In general, the areality of a complex of traits, along with its hereditary determination, is the main criterion of R. Outside of areality, there is no R.: a group of individuals that have complete similarity in many traits, if it does not possess a historical connection with a single territory, does not constitute an R., because we can never be sure of the unity of its origin, the absence of convergent similarity, and the presence of imperceptible differences in many elements of the gene complex, which is precisely what is excluded by grouping according to the geographical principle. In recent years, the method of gene geography has been developed. It establishes centers of distribution not of the traits themselves, but of concentrations of individual genes, for example, blood groups, identifiable by special forms. The advantage of the method is that it eliminates paratypic variability, its disadvantage is the inevitable diversity of combinations when operating with individual genes. The diagnosis of individual belonging to one or another systematic group is much more complex and is based on the principle developed by Heinke (when studying the R. of herring): individuals belong to the type to which the sum of deviations from which constitutes the smallest value. Racial traits. For distinguishing R., external, easily accessible traits are used. The main ones are: shape of head hair, development of hair on the face and body, skin color, hair and iris color, secondary sexual characteristics, details of the soft parts of the face, upper eyelid, lips, nasal cartilages, structure of the facial and skull bones, body length, proportions of its parts, especially distal segments. The taxonomic significance of these traits decreases as a whole in the indicated order: the first of the listed traits serve mainly for distinguishing distant R., the last for distinguishing minor ones, although there are exceptions to this rule. A characteristic feature of racial traits is their strong variability with age and depending on sex, and moreover, the basis of this variability is the same in different groups. Even in very narrow-nosed R., an infant at birth has a wider facial skeleton, with age it becomes narrower, but this process of change occurs differently and in broad-nosed types does not go as far as in narrow-nosed ones. The tendency of development is determined very early - in infancy or even fetal age, as shown by comparative studies of newborns and fetuses (Lippech, Schultz and others). The differences thus come down to the differentiation itself and the course of developmental cycles. The suitability of the listed traits for distinguishing R. is conditioned by their small dependence on external conditions, evident from their functional indifference, their connection with deep life properties (reaction norm), and clear heredity, established by a huge number of direct observations and family studies. In view of the intimate connection of the selected traits with the life activity of the organism as a whole, they serve as convenient signal recognition points and, of course, do not exhaust all the differences in the gene complex, which turns out to be much broader. Indeed, groups distinguished on the basis of the listed traits also show differences in many other properties. Racial variations in the shape and detailed structure of individual bones, the skin covering have been studied in particular detail. Variants in the structure of muscles and internal organs, the vascular system also give more or less characteristic differences. The formed elements of blood and also immunobodies (of which agglutinogens have been studied most) also vary. Here there is already a transition to functional differences, the study of which is currently being conducted by American and Japanese researchers (basal metabolism, blood alkalinity, etc.). These studies, however, present great difficulties, especially with regard to psycho-temperamental properties, because it is impossible to find tests whose readings would not be in the strongest dependence on environmental conditions if these conditions are sharply different. R. and nation. Distant nations differ greatly in racial traits, but with respect to close ethnic groups, there is no coincidence between national and racial types. History testifies to numerous and constant phenomena of denationalization and acculturation, i.e., phenomena of loss of natural national peculiarities and adoption of others; the somatic type, however, may remain unchanged. All major ethnic groups turn out to be mixed in somatic terms. The task of racial analysis consists in decomposing ethnic groups into the somatic units that constitute them, united by the unity of origin, clarifying the remote prehistory of the nation. In racial study, one inevitably has to start from ethnic divisions, and therefore previous researchers often designated R. by the names of nations in which a given R. is most represented. Upon closer study, this was found to be incorrect, because each nation includes different racial elements, differing only in their ratio and some additions. At present, terms like 'Germanic,' 'Slavic' R. have disappeared from the specialized literature, and in their place geographical terms have come into use - Baltic, Alpine, etc. The problem of race formation, starting with Darwin, who connected it with sexual selection, and up to the present state, when in particular the mono- and polygenetic origin of human R. is being debated, is a particular question of the more general problem of human origin (see). False racial theories. The data presented on physical racial differences have served as the basis for constructing theories about the inequality of R., about higher and lower R., used as a basis for imperialist colonial exploitation and chauvinistic national policy, which found its most extreme expression in German fascism, in which the cultural value of a particular human group is assessed depending on the purity of 'Aryan blood.' As early as 1854, Gobineau proclaimed the inequality of human races and recognized the tall, long-legged blond (representative of the 'northern race') as the highest type of modern man. Similar theories of 'lower' and 'higher' races and racial antagonism were put forward by Chamberlain, Gumplowicz, Ammon, Lapouge, Madison-Grand and others. Along with these theories of 'nordicism,' theories of 'mediterraneanism' were put forward, which saw the highest type of man in the Mediterranean race, others in the Alpine race. All these 'scholars' were united by the basic position - the inequality of races. Starting from the definition of the concept of 'race,' the relationships in it between the biological and social, the relationships between race and culture, the concepts of an allegedly innate 'racial instinct,' etc., in all this was manifested the deepest reactionariness of the above-mentioned 'theorists.' Meanwhile, although the objective study of R. cannot deny their anthropological differences, it does not provide a basis for ranking them by a total qualitative assessment. First of all, these theories do not withstand any criticism already for the reason that in fact there are no 'pure' races. All the claims of Nazi theorists to the purity and superiority of the 'northern' race (nordicism) are unfounded, because in the process of historical development there have been repeated mixtures of different races, territorial displacements, etc., and at present we will find the 'blood' of different races in any modern European people. Attempts to establish a dependence of mental abilities on anthropological features should be recognized especially crude and naive. If the measure of biological fitness is taken to be the degree of adaptation (adaptation to surrounding conditions), then according to the unanimous opinion of all researchers, the so-called 'lower' R. are excellently adapted. The advantage in this respect is hardly on the side of Europeans, since pathological reactions to unfavorable living conditions are apparently more frequent in them than among peoples of the non-European circle.

If we turn to less adaptive traits related to cultural development, for example, artistic and musical abilities, then, for example, the cave paintings of the Bushmen, the carvings and ornamentation of many other less cultured peoples demonstrate a level of talent that undoubtedly surpasses the average level of Europeans. A well-known Australian game, consisting of untying and tying knots, requires such a memory and constructive ingenuity that for a European to learn this game requires very great efforts. There are many such examples. With respect to European Races, it must be recognized as incorrect attempts to attribute the construction of European culture as a whole to one of them. Over the centuries, various Races have participated in this to a broad extent. The history of culture shows that the most ancient culture, on which all further culture developed over a number of millennia (a time span significantly exceeding the "so-called period of European culture"), was created by those peoples who are now classified as belonging to lower races (Chinese, Hindus, Egyptians, Jews, etc.). In those distant times, the present "higher races" were still at the stage of savagery and barbarism. Individual analysis of the external type (the "Germanic appearance" of Renaissance figures in Italy, the blond type of Greek gods, etc.) under conditions of contact and mixing of Races certainly does not provide a basis for considering that elements of one talent or another are entirely due to the racial characteristics prevailing in the physical type. In general, the problem of the relationship between racial and cultural types is a problem of a sociological order and is determined by social laws. This question took on particular acuteness in the last year (1933) in connection with the coming to power of the National Socialists in Germany, in whose party program the slogan of "Aryanism," "higher" and "lower" races occupies a central place. The growing clamor with racial theories has as its main task to divert the class struggle of the proletariat onto the rails of racial hatred and thereby distract the attention of the German working class from the growing crisis and disintegration of the capitalist system. All these hostile, unscientific "theories" must be given the most decisive repulse. It is precisely in the question of races that a special methodological clarity and militant party spirit, based on the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, are needed. Systems of classification of human races. The very conventionality of the term "race" and the distribution of races is clearly visible at least from the extreme variegation and numerousness of classifications, where each author proposes his own system of classification of races and identifies a very different number of races, allegedly existing on the globe. Linnaeus distinguished four main varieties of man by large continents - European, Asian, American, African. Blumenbach added to them a fifth - the Malay. Cuvie found it possible to consider Asian and American tribes as subvarieties, reducing the main types to three - European, Asian, and African, which received from him the names of white, yellow, and black Races. Such a division, suitable for characterizing the most differentiated modern types, however does not include less specialized and more primitive types, for example the tribes of Indonesia and Oceania, which cannot be attributed to any of the main branches. Huxley filled this gap by introducing, along with the three main branches, a fourth, less differentiated - the Australoid type. He genetically linked this with one branch of Europoids (melanochroi), i.e., swarthy Mediterraneans. Since the middle of the last century, a number of systems based on the morphological principle have been developed. F. Müller and Haeckel were the first to note the great taxonomic importance of the form of head hair, by which four main groups of tribes were distinguished with their subdivision into 12 Races. Deniker, whose classification, except for certain details, is an excellent working scheme even today, distinguished 6 trunks: the woolly-haired type - Negroid-Melanesian, the frizzly-haired - Australo-Ethiopian, the wavy-haired dark-skinned - Mediterranean and the wavy-haired light-skinned - European, the straight-haired - Polynesian and the smooth-haired - American-Asian. These 6 trunks Deniker subdivided into 29 Races. A new and very valuable principle was introduced by Stratz. Representing the evolution of human Races as a series of concentric circles, he identifies the dominant racial types of continents as the final stages of differentiation going in several different directions - these are archimorphic types; the preserved remnants of weakly differentiated and more primitive types Stratz calls protomorphic. Between these and others is placed a group of metamorphic types occupying an intermediate position with respect to several archimorphic types. Fritsch, Lushan and others expressed the opinion that the differentiation of basic types occurred on each continent separately; between the archimorphic and protomorphic variants of each continent there is a genetic connection, which however does not exclude the independence of these variants. It should be borne in mind, however, that not all types are represented in both proto- and archimorphic variants, some protomorphic variants possibly did not give archimorphic variants. Therefore, even if we combine the continental variants of one direction, we get not 4, but 7 more or less equivalent large Races, which with some additions appear in subsequent classifications - Giuffrida-Ruggeri, Montandon. Giuffrida deserves credit for introducing precise taxonomic designations of the main groups. He considers humanity as a collective species, and the main 7-8 large Races as subspecies. The morphological differences between them are no less than those that exist between "good" species of taxonomists, for example in mammals - the brown hare and the mountain hare, the red and gray marmot, the stoat and the weasel, the maral and the noble deer, etc. But due to the established fertility of hybrids, extreme variants are connected by intermediate and combinatorial new formations; therefore, all modern humanity must be considered as one collective species or one collective large Race - Homo sapiens, which at present is the only species (collective) of the genus Homo. In a fossil state, other species of this genus are also known, in the glacial period - the species Homo neanderthalensis, and perhaps some others. At the boundary of the Quaternary period, other genera of the Hominidae family (one of 5 families of the primate order) also existed - the genus Pithecanthropus and possibly others. The accepted taxonomic definition of humanity - a collective species - puts an end to the long disputes of monogenists and polygenists. The latter derived separate human Races from various ape-like ancestors and considered group differences generic (according to Sergi - 3 genera). For such an interpretation, for the evaluation of human Races as a "collective genus," there are no sufficient grounds. At present, the view prevails about the origin of all human Races from one root, their differentiation belongs to the human period, in favor of which the data presented above, as well as a number of anatomical indications recently collected by Valois, testify. Meanwhile, polygenism was attempted to be used to prove the equivalence of races and the existence of lower races. Characteristics of the large Races. The frizzly-haired Oceanian-Asian Race. Strongly curly hair, moderately dark brown skin, weak growth of beard and hair on the body, very wide nasal wings with a depressed nasal bridge, moderate prognathism, very low stature, in places pygmy. Occurs among Melanesians, Papuans in the east, on the Malay Peninsula (Semang) and the Andaman Islands in the west, the Philippine Islands in the north, and in an extinct state in Tasmania in the south. - The Indonesian Australoid Race. Highly variable. Characteristic - wavy, often curly hair, medium or strong growth of hair on the face and body, medium or dark skin, wide face, elongated often high skull, very wide nose, strongly developed supraorbital ridges, medium stature, weakly expressed secondary sexual characteristics. A widely distributed group giving many variants. The most characteristic of them are the Australian, the properly Indonesian (primitive tribes of the interior parts of the Malay Archipelago), some tribes of western Indochina (Mon-Khmers), the Veddahs of Ceylon, the natives of the South Chinese islands. To this group are also attributed the Ainu of the Kuril and northern Japanese islands. - The Malay Race. Smooth hair, weak growth of hair on the body, skin with an olive tint, a face of triangular outline, a low moderately wide skull, low stature, well expressed secondary sexual characteristics; a type widespread among coastal tribes of the Malay Archipelago, the islands of the South China Sea and partly Japan, in places in Indochina, in a greatly modified form as a special variant, tall and lighter-skinned in Polynesia. - The southern proto-Asian Race, not yet sufficiently studied, provisionally distinguished.

Straight hair, medium shades of brownish skin, wide (but not extremely) nose, small skin fold of the upper eyelid, wide almost straight face, below average height. Common among the peoples of Indo-China, the Shant tribes, in some places in Tibet, in southern China. - North Proto-Asian Race (according to Deniker-Ugric). Straight hair, swarthy skin, weak beard growth, moderate skin fold on the upper eyelid, flattened broad but not wide face, medium or light brown eyes. Two characteristic variants are found - one in the west in its purest form among the Voguls, another in traces among the Tungus and some southern Siberian tribes. - #51 Asian Race. Straight stiff hair, weak body hair growth, medium intensity orange-yellowish skin color, wide nose, highly developed skin fold on the upper eyelid, very flat face of various shapes. There are 5-6 different variants. Distributed throughout the Asian continent north of the mountain nodes of Pamir and S. China. - Proto-African Race. Strongly curly-haired, with weak beard growth, moderately dark brownish skin, very flat nose, wide face, protruding jaws, very short stature, distinctive shape of the sexual organs and a number of other features. Of the two characteristic variants, the southern African, common among the Bushmen, is distinguished by greater fat deposition on the buttocks (steatopygia), the other, central African, lacks this distinction but is distinguished by very short stature (adult males around 140 cm). - African Race. Curly hair, very dark brown skin, wide nose, protruding widely open eyes, thick lips, strong prognathism, very wide nose, tall stature. Common in many variants among Negro tribes. - North Proto-American, or Nearctic Race. Straight hair, medium intensity brown skin, moderate eyelid fold, high broad face, short stature, straight nose. In characteristic form found among Eskimos. - South Proto-American Race. Moderately straight hair, brownish skin, wide often with a concave back nose, medium width straight face, short stature, narrow high skull. Common among the tribes of the Amazon (the Ge tribes) and the southern hemisphere dwellers. - American Race. Smooth hair, very weak beard growth, medium intensity brown skin, moderate eyelid fold, straight angular face, wide or medium nose, other signs highly variable. Characteristic are the north-Atlantic hook-nosed, tall variant, central short with a concave nose, etc. - Indo-African Race. Wavy-haired with dark brown skin, wide nose, high face, narrow long skull, tall stature. Common in India among Dravidians, in eastern Africa among Ethiopians. - Mediterranean Race, closely related to the previous one. Slightly wavy dark chestnut hair, abundant hair growth, swarthy skin, brown iris color, medium or narrow straight face, straight thin nose, medium height, skull of elongated or oval shape. In numerous variants common among various peoples of the Mediterranean from the Indus to Gibraltar. - Pamiro-Alpine Race. Differs from the previous one by a wider face, nose and wedge-shaped round skull. Many characteristic variants. Among them is known the Armenoid. Widely distributed in Western Asia and C. Europe. European Race. Straight or slightly wavy hair, strong beard growth, light pinkish skin, straight usually narrow nose, gray or blue eyes. There are many variants. Among them are characteristic the northern, Baltic, central European, etc. The racial composition of the population of the European part of the USSR is very complex. In it one can distinguish as the 'main elements' in the northwest - the Baltic Race, in the south - one of the variants of the Pamiro-Alpine type, in the center - one of the strongly modified variants of the Mediterranean group (the so-called kurgan race), in addition in the east elements of the North Proto-Asian Race and some other, v. Bunak. Racial pathology-a branch of pathology whose purpose is to study the peculiarities of the organism in relation to diseases depending on Race. It is difficult to name another area of medicine that has been so assiduously exploited by bourgeois scientists in the interests of capitalism and imperialism. On the doctrine of racial pathology, attempts have been and are being made to 'scientifically' justify imperialist oppression and capitalist exploitation of 'lower' Races (i.e., colonial and semi-colonial peoples) by 'higher' races (imperialist colonizers). The doctrine of 'racial pathology' is used to justify colonial plunder and imperialist seizures. The doctrine of racial pathology received particular spread in Germany in 1933 after the fascists came to power in February of that year. Fascist medical 'science' in Germany was comparatively quickly reoriented in the direction of proving that fascist claims for the return of colonies, for the expansion of borders, fascist preparation of foreign policy adventures are 'scientifically' justified by the fact that the German Race is 'higher', 'most complete', that other races as lower are worthy of subjugation under the power of Germans, and the Jewish Race as the most 'lower' is subject to destruction. Needless to say, there is absolutely no scientific basis under this 'doctrine', that it once again testifies to the partisanship of science, that 'in a society torn by class contradictions, there can never be an extraclass or supraclass ideology' (Lenin), that 'to expect impartial science in a society of hired slavery is such a naive foolishness as to expect impartiality from manufacturers in the question of whether to increase workers' wages by reducing capital profit' (Lenin). - Bourgeois medical science, fulfilling in its doctrine of racial pathology the 'social order' of the bourgeoisie, failed to clothe this doctrine even with the appearance of scientific argumentation. The more thoughtful bourgeois scientists themselves admit that 'to this day in anthropology there is no such division of the human race into races that would be generally accepted' (Brickner). Observations on 'racial pathology' are usually based on poorly verified facts (testimonies of travelers, of course 'civilized', dubious historical data, etc.). And most importantly: there is not a single serious attempt to separate the influence of racial factors and socio-domestic living conditions. And on the other hand, there are no attempts to separate in the analysis of this or that case of morbidity the individual (resp. constitutional) factor from the proper racial (resp. general). Such confusion allows for certain class purposes to perversely understand and present a number of facts and their connection. For example, in our tsarist time much was said about the susceptibility of Kalmyks to tbc, about the extinction and degeneration of this 'lower' race and thus justified the great-power Russian chauvinism. Investigations of the living conditions of the Kalmyks, carried out in Soviet times (in particular expeditions of the Institute of Social Hygiene in 1925), irrefutably proved that the extinction of the Kalmyks is explained not by their racial peculiarities, but by the unbearable conditions in which the Kalmyk population lived under tsarism, double oppression - capitalist and national - incredible suppression and backwardness of the population, and it was the poorest population that was dying out, while the well-to-do population was not subject to this process. And this extinction ceased under Soviet power with the cessation of the action of these factors. The greater susceptibility of Kalmyks to tbc was also explained by the fact that the Kalmyks as a nomadic tribe rarely came into contact with the surrounding population and did not suffer from tbc; but as capitalist relations, trade and exchange developed, as relations between the Kalmyks and the surrounding population intensified, the tub. infection that reached the Kalmyks found virgin soil for its spread, the Kalmyk organisms were unable to resist it, immunity was not developed, and besides there was no medical help, not even the most elementary. It was precisely the conditions of predatory capitalism that brought the Kalmyks enormous mortality from tuberculosis. Likewise, the fact that mortality among the white population of the USA in 1900 was 16.5 per 1,000, while among Negroes it was 25.0 per 1000 (Whipple) should not be explained by data of 'racial pathology'. The explanation here lies in the conditions of the most ruthless exploitation by whites to which the working Negroes are subjected. Since the time of Ch. Nicolas it has been noted that in some areas of Africa Negroes are less susceptible to malaria than Europeans. But here too the decisive importance belongs to socio-domestic, not racial factors. These Negroes live in swampy areas. For centuries they suffered and died from fever. As a result, immunity to this disease or greater resistance of the organism to the malarial poison had to develop and did develop. In favor of the latter hypothesis speaks also the observation (if it is correct) that Negro children suffer from malaria. Thus, here too there is no scientific basis for the doctrine of some specific 'racial pathology'.

Bourgeois scientists particularly love to discourse on the 'racial pathology' of Jews and on this basis support anti-Semitism; they speak of the 'enormous percentage' of neurotics, hysterics, neurasthenics, arthritics, etc., among Jews, of the particular tendency of Jews to exhibit states of manic excitement. But anyone at all familiar with the life of the Jewish poor understands perfectly well that all these diseases are caused by the unbearable living conditions in which the Jewish poor find themselves even in the most democratic bourgeois countries. If any race is placed in the conditions of pogroms, as under tsarism, in conditions of persecution, murders, and robberies, as with the German fascists, it will produce no fewer neurasthenics, hysterics, neurotics, etc.; if the 'superior' German race is put on the rations of the Jewish poor, it will produce no fewer arthritics than Jews. Conversely, bourgeois science of 'racial hygiene' avoids such observations (which of course also need verification) that individual peoples of the same race, but living in different climatic, social, etc., conditions, present different pictures of diseases. Thus, for example, there are observations that peoples of the same Indo-European race are differently affected by gout and gallbladder disease: Indo-European peoples living along northern seacoasts are more frequently afflicted with these diseases than peoples of the same race living in the southern zone of Europe. If these observations are correct, then the influences of living conditions (climatic, dietary, socio-economic, etc.) are evident here. This living environment can exert not only a direct influence on the development of diseases among the population, but also historically, as we saw in the example of the lower incidence of fever among blacks. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that this environment can historically create certain constitutional differences. The endocrine formula undoubtedly has a decisive role in determining the character of metabolism, and, according to G. Müller, representatives of the Malay race differ in the relatively underdeveloped thyroid gland and, conversely, in the larger size of the pituitary gland compared to other races. If this is so, then proceeding from the premise that larger organ size, in the absence of indications of pseudohypertrophy, should correspond to increased function of the organ, one must conclude that the character of metabolism and the tendency toward certain deviations in metabolism among Malays may present certain peculiarities. Similarly, in explaining cases of 'racial' immunity to infections of varying degrees, it is necessary to take into account all those peculiarities of the organization of individuals that are usually also invoked in explaining natural, innate immunity in general, such as those determined by anatomical structure that provides mechanical protection against external harmful agents, including microbes (varying thickness of skin coverings and degree of permeability of mucous membranes), as well as those that reduce to physico-chemical properties of cellular and humoral systems of the organism (energy of phagocytic reaction; degree of alkalinity of the blood, etc.). In particular, regarding the phagocytic reaction, it is worth noting that it reflects among other things such peculiarities of metabolism as the degree of calcium content in the blood, the latter being connected with the tone of the autonomic nervous system. The above with sufficient evidence points to the possibility of the formation of certain and stable differences lying in the plane of particular and individual variations. The 'abundance' of the developmental law of a given race can include this particular, but in no way can this 'particular' determine it. The use of these individual differences and variations to prove the existence of 'racial' pathology represents precisely a distortion for specific class purposes of the factual material, attributing to it a distorted and false meaning. Along with this, bourgeois researchers in the doctrine of 'racial pathology' resort to their favorite method—transferring to man observations from the animal world: analogies are drawn, to confirm the doctrine of racial pathology, with the lesser susceptibility to rubella in Yorkshire pigs compared to other 'races' of pigs; with the greater incidence of anthrax in white rats compared to gray rats; with the resistance of Algerian sheep to anthrax, etc. These excursions into the field of veterinary medicine are guilty of the usual sin of bourgeois scientists: their ignoring of the enormous and well-known fact that 'man is a social animal,' that the social factor plays a decisive role in human society, that the position of different classes in capitalist society causes differences in the morbidity of these classes. The conscious suppression of the significance of the social factor and the unnatural exaggeration of the significance of the biological factor permeates the doctrine of racial pathology. That is why Soviet medicine must wage a decisive struggle against the bourgeois doctrine of racial pathology—it must expose that system of views which, by talking about racial struggle, obscures the class struggle being waged by the bourgeoisie, it must show that the liberation of colonial and semi-colonial peoples from colonial slavery and imperialist exploitation also brings with it the decisive improvement of the health of the working masses, crushed in the vise of direst poverty and bondage. Lit.: Birkenfeld F., Races and Peoples of Man, SPB, 1914; Butsak V., The Term 'Race' in Zoology and Anthropology, Russ. Eugenics Journ., Vol. VII, No. 4, 1929; Weidenreich F., Race and Body Structure, Zh-L., 1929; Deniker J., Races and Peoples of the Earth, SPB, 1900; Shlik A., Racial Problems and Marxism, M., 1930; Baur E., Fischer E. u. Lenz F., Grundriss der menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene, Munich, 1923 (a fascist book); Bunak V., Neues Material zur Aussonderung anthropologischer Typen unter der Bevölkerung Osteuropas, Ztschr. f. Anthrop. u. Morphol., Vol. XXXIII, Heft 3, 1932; Hoddon A., The races of man and their distribution, Cambridge, 1924; Montandon G., L'ologenese humaine, P., 1928. Periodical.—Archiv f. Rassen- u. Gesellschafts-Biologie, Munich, since 1904.