Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Building the New Man

 | 
Francesco Cassata

Chapter VII. Against UNESCO

Italian Eugenics and American scientific racism

Texte intégral

  • 1 For an in-depth reconstruction of the whole matter, see Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 145–21 (...)

1The fight against racism has been a constituent aspect of UNESCO’s actions since its inception. In 1946, while defining the philosophical guidelines of the young UN affiliated organization, UNESCO’s first director general, British naturalist Julian Huxley, set the conciliation of the ethical and political principles of equality with the biological fact of diversity as an objective. In the following years, staff at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters found themselves involved in an attempt to defeat racial prejudice by demonstrating the lack of scientific base for the very concept of race. This proved an arduous task that would ultimately bring forth a struggle within the international scientific community and that would culminate in the publication of two “Statements on Race” within a short period of time, in 1950 and in 1951.1

  • 2 Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 191.
  • 3 Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 191.

2Scholars have highlighted a substantial lack of academic consideration within Italy of UNESCO’s two “Statements on Race,” which went practically unnoticed by a scientific body still permeated by the legacy of fascism2. Deeper research, however, suggests this to be deliberate silence from the Italian scientific community as a result of outright adversity toward UNESCO’s policy. If, for instance, the “Statements” never raised the attention of either the Archivio per l’Antropologia e l’Etnologia [Journal of anthropology and ethnology] or the Rivista di Antropologia [Review of Anthropology]—organs of the Florentine and Roman schools, respectively3—it must be considered notable that relevant Italian circles of medical genetics and social sciences nevertheless objectively converged on the positions of Anglo-American scientific racism.

  • 4 On the IAAEE, see Barry Mehler, “Foundations for Fascism: The New Eugenics Movement in the United (...)

3By selecting scientific arguments as the core of its anti-racist campaign, UNESCO had, for all intents and purposes, suggested to American and European racist movements the possibility of a new camouflage strategy: racism and the pursuit of “white supremacy,” just like anti-racist ideologies, had to be based on scientific evidence, threatened as they were by civil rights campaigns in the USA and steady decolonization in Africa and Asia. The main expression of such scientific racism was represented by the establishment of the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE)4 and its publication The Mankind Quarterly.

1. The IAAEE and The Mankind Quarterly (1959–1965)

4The IAAEE was founded on 24 April 1959 in Baltimore. Its chairman was Robert E. Kuttner, the secretary was Anthony James Gregor, and the treasurer was Donald A. Swan. The executive committee comprised Robert Gayre, Reginald Ruggles Gates, Henry E. Garrett, Charles C. Tansill, Heinrich Quiring and the Italian demographer and statistician Corrado Gini. The first issue of The Mankind Quarterly, organ of the IAAEE based in Edinburgh, was published in June 1960, with Robert Gayre as editor, and Garrett and Gates as associate editors.

  • 5 William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism. Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Urbana (...)
  • 6 For a biographical sketch of Gates, see Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism, 168–76.
  • 7 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 79–86.
  • 8 Oswald Mosley (1896–1980) was a British politician, known principally as the founder, in 1932, of (...)
  • 9 B. Mehler’s biographies of Gayre and Gregor, included in Institute for the Study of Academic Racis (...)
  • 10 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 87–88.
  • 11 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism.

5The segregationist scientists in the IAAEE shared some common traits. First, in many cases they held important academic positions. For example, Henry E. Garrett had been chairman of the American Psychological Association in 1946, was a member of the US National Research Council and from 1941 to 1955 was head of the Psychology Faculty at Columbia University.5 Similarly, Reginald Ruggles Gates, botanist, geneticist and anthropologist, professor at King’s College London and Harvard University, had been an outspoken advocate of morphological, biological and psychological differences between human races since the 1930s.6 Second, they all had relationships with the neo-Nazi and neo-fascist extreme rightwing in the US and Europe. Kuttner and Garrett, for example, contributed to publications of the Liberty Lobby, a far-right organization founded by Willis Carto in 1955.7 Robert Gayre of Gayre and Nigg was a Scottish anthropologist, an expert in heraldry and a supporter of Madison Grant’s Nordicism, close to the racist and anti-Semitic organizations of Arthur K. Chesterton. Anthony James Gregor, an Italian-American by origin (his original name was Anthony Gimigliano), gained a PhD at Columbia University with a thesis on the scientific and philosophical ideas of Giovanni Gentile. Between 1952 and 1956 he wrote for Oswald Mosley’s “The European,”8 then intensified his relationship with Italian neo-fascism during the 1960s and popularized the works of historians such as Ernst Nolte and Renzo De Felice in the USA.9 Donald Swan was contributing by the late 1950s to the Truth Seeker and was the most outspoken admirer of Hans F. K. Günther. Finally, Charles Tansill, an historian at Georgetown University, was a member of the Nazi “Viereck Circle,” which during World War II had suggested an alliance between the USA and Hitler’s Germany.10 Moreover, dating from the famous 1954 Supreme Court sentence Brown vs. Board of Education, the IAAEE fought constantly against the integrationist process in the USA. In fact all these scientists benefited from the donations of textile tycoon Wickliffe Draper’s Pioneer Fund, an organization that from 1937 made ample contributions to economically sustain the main adversaries of the American integrationist system, and continues even today to support anti-egalitarian race scientists.11

6From the first issue of The Mankind Quarterly, four Italians were members of the advisory board: Luigi Gedda, Corrado Gini, Gaetano Martino and Sergio Sergi. Of these, Gedda and Gini were most closely involved in Italian eugenics and in the liaisons dangereuses with the IAAEE.

2. Meticciato di Guerra: Luigi Gedda and Reginald Ruggles Gates

7The link between Luigi Gedda, physician and director of Rome’s “Gregorio Mendel” Institute, and The Mankind Quarterly occurred through the mediation of Reginald Ruggles Gates and essentially developed around a work titled Il meticciato di guerra e altri casi [The hybrids of war and other cases] and published in 1960 by the “Gregorio Mendel” Institute, in which an explicit stance in favor of the scientific legitimacy of “racial genetics” was presented.

  • 12 On this issue see also Gates’ obituary, written by Gedda himself: see ch. 6.
  • 13 Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio and Adriana Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi (Rome: Edizion (...)
  • 14 Reginald Ruggles Gates, “Il Meticciato di Guerra,” The Mankind Quarterly, 2 (October 1960): 218.

8It was Ruggles Gates himself, a personal friend of Luigi Gedda,12 who wrote the preface to Meticciato di Guerra, which he welcomed as an important contribution to the development of a “genetics of races”: “The studies on interracial breeding are presently assuming a new meaning. From the occasional or systematic studies conducted in many parts of the world, a science of Racial Genetics is slowly but steadily stemming, the fundamental principles of which are already visible.”13 In the second issue of The Mankind Quarterly, again Ruggles Gates signed the volume’s review, the contents of which he enthusiastically indicated as “a model”: “This work will serve as a model for future studies on the hybrids of war. It is of crucial interest for anyone involved with the study of races.”14

9Gedda was not entirely new to the study of interracial breeding. In 1938, for instance, he welcomed the fascist laws against race crossing in the pages of the catholic journal Vita e Pensiero, declaring the crosses between “very different races” as unfavorable:

  • 15 Luigi Gedda, “A Proposito di Razza,” Vita e Pensiero 29, no. 9 (September 1938): 416.

As a general rule, and in this case, nature loves orderly, gradual processes, “Natura non facit saltus,” and for this reason crossbreeding among highly different races is usually unfortunate. On the other hand, the mix of kindred races, thus similar, far from hurting, can produce new, valuable matches and, in the end, improve the stock […] It is the mix of very different, distant—or, as we also say—divergent races which will end up being very damaging for the human stock; an example can be seen in the hybrids which result from the crossing between white and negro races; a type of mix that, using appropriate measures, must be strongly recommended against.15

10Perhaps remembering these sentences, in his preface to Meticciato di Guerra, Gedda quickly drew a distinction between racism—which he condemned without hesitation—and the scientific study of human races, made more urgent and relevant by the increase in racial mixing that resulted from the rapid development of transportation and means of communication. Gedda’s claim of the scientific value of “race genetics” revealed an implicit polemic purpose, which combined under the same negative title every political intervention on race issues, regardless of whether it came from Hitler’s Germany or from UNESCO’s Statements:

  • 16 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 6.

The study of races is a consequence of our times and as such, is destined to develop, even if an arrest of the regular process of scientific development has been caused by the ill-advised use of racial phenomena in political and social activities as a criteria for discrimination, barring or war. Racism is not good science, and equally, is not good politics. Such an arbitrary transfer of scientific hypothesis and analysis into the incubator of politics has not furthered our knowledge of the argument of race, and instead has damaged it by making it appear as an arbitrary hype, alien to science and detrimental to ethical, individual and social values, and also as a source of controversies and rigidities, in contrast with the custom of scientific research, which avoids any passions and requires a spirit of cooperation to ensure the necessary control.16

11In this specific case, fitting into the plentiful eugenic literature of “racial hybridism” analysis—largely quoted in his pages—Gedda’s work (assisted by two of the Institute’s physicians, Adriana Mercuri and Angelo Serio) concerned 44 “hybrids of war,” aged between eight and twelve: 34 males, in-patients at Anzio’s Instituto SS. Cuori; and 10 females, in-patients at Rome’s Instituto S. Cuore in Borgata del Trullo; children of “European Italian mothers” whose fathers were “colored” soldiers from occupying forces in Italy in the years 1943–1948.

  • 17 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 275–76.

12Gedda’s reference to genetics here was nothing but an attempt to linguistically modernize a research methodology of racial anthropology, based on anthropometric measurements, IQ tests, genealogical researches and clinical examinations. His definitions of three hybrid groups, for example, were reconstructed from the unknown “paternal race,” starting with the “exotic genotype”; in other words, from identifying “non-European racial traits present in the hybrid.”17

  • 18 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 278.
  • 19 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 279.
  • 20 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 85.
  • 21 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 214.

13From the research on “hybrids of war,” Gedda drew three conclusions. First, through anthropometric surveys, a positive evaluation of racial crossbreeding emerged, which in some cases presented forms of “heterosis” or “hybrid vigor,” demonstrating the creative energy of racial mixing.18 Secondly, the use of mental tests seemed to indicate psychological inferiority of hybrids, due to hereditary factors as well as to environmental influences.19 Third, drawing on an argument used—within the IAAEE—by Anthony J. Gregor and psychologist Clairette Armstrong,20 Gedda justified the segregation of hybrids as a form of “protection” in a hostile social context. Only isolation in the boarding schools of the Childhood Protection Agency (Ente per la Protezione del Fanciullo) could defend the hybrid from surrounding racial prejudice and guarantee normal psychological development: “There’s no doubt that this not only postpones contact between the hybrid and the leucodermic world; it is also true that contact will occur at an age less delicate and thus more apt to overcome and sublimate inferiority complexes.”21

  • 22 Corrado Gini, “Eterosi nei Meticci di Guerra?,” review of Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, by (...)
  • 23 See Charles B. Davenport and Morris Steggerda, Race Crossing in Jamaica (Washington: Carnegie Inst (...)
  • 24 Gini, “Eterosi nei Meticci di Guerra?,” 168.
  • 25 Corrado Gini to Robert Gayre, 30 January 1961, ACS, Gini Papers (from now on, AG), b. b.6.

14The research conducted by Gedda, Serio and Mercuri soon sparked heated debate that directly involved The Mankind Quarterly and the IAAEE group. Not at all coincidentally, in Italy it was Corrado Gini who extensively reviewed Meticciato di Guerra on the pages of Genus, concentrating his criticisms on the problem of “heterosis,” an issue very dear to the statistician since the 1930s. In Gini’s opinion, there were essentially two unresolved problems undermining Gedda’s claims. First of all, colored soldiers in Italy did not represent the populations they belonged to, because they had been through numerous selection processes, making “the characteristics of the offspring not comparable to those of their peers from the parent races.”22 Moreover, the literature on “racial hybrids”—and Gini quoted, apart from his own works, also the data of Davenport and Steggerda on Jamaican racecrossings23—demonstrated the impossibility of conceiving “heterosis” as a common or generalizable phenomena: on the contrary, “as far as the crossbreeding between whites and negroes is concerned, various and reliable testimonies bear witness against it.”24 These same arguments are found in a letter sent in January 1961 from Gini to Gayre, the editor of The Mankind Quarterly, to propose an essay specifically dedicated to the problem of interracial mixing. Both the Italian statistician and the Scottish editor shared a negative opinion on hybridization between whites and blacks, and Gini did not hesitate to take a clear stance against the process of integration that was taking place in the USA, thus revealing the political core of the issue: “Apart from the scientific matters,” he wrote, “I believe that this isn’t the most appropriate moment to promote hybridization between negroes and whites.”25 On scientific grounds, the reference to Gedda’s research and to the problem of heterosis was explicit:

  • 26 Gini to Gayre, 30 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the recent book of our colleague Prof. Gedda on war hybrids in Italy. He comes to the conclusion that there is an [sic] heterosis in the mulattos, what is contrary to all the previous results. This conclusion can well be attributed to the selection of the fathers and probably also of the mothers, which makes their children not comparable to those of the general populations.26

15As for the biological negativity of race crossings between “whites” and “negroes,” there was substantial agreement from Gayre:

  • 27 Gayre to Gini, 3 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I think that Professor Ruggles Gates will be of your opinion as he tends on the whole, I think I am right in saying, to deprecate the tendency to look for heterosis in human beings. In my own case, I have thought that some of the energy generated by the Americans is due to heterosis, not of course heterosis due to crossings of specific types, but within the various races of the one stock.
Concerning Professor Gedda’s theory, I think that you are probably quite right, and that there may well be a selection taking place when this kind of hybridisation occurs. The American negro soldiers that were sent to Italy, if I remember rightly, were specially selected. I was there at the time. On the whole also, they were definitely themselves to be classified more as mulattos than Negroes in a vast number of cases. In fact, the pure negro among the American negro troops, seems to be a rarity. Therefore, I am entirely in agreement with you that the results that Professor Gedda is getting are not necessarily due to heterosis at all.27

  • 28 On Dunn’s anti-racist commitment, see Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism, 266–68. See also M (...)

16However, despite this theoretical convergence, the inappropriateness of opening a critical debate within the IAAEE, which would have opposed Gini and Gedda on the issue of racial breeding, drew a curtain over the idea of publishing the essay. This seemed even wiser as Meticciato di Guerra at that time was also at the center of heated polemics within the Anglo-American scientific community. Indeed, in 1962 the geneticist Leslie C. Dunn—editor of the first UNESCO “Statement” and among the authors of the second28—strongly attacked Gates and Gedda in the Eugenics Review, openly accusing them of racism:

  • 29 Leslie C. Dunn, “Cross Currents in the History of Human Genetics,” The Eugenics Review 2 (July 196 (...)

There are still reminders of the uncritical use of what look like genetic methods applied to racial anthropology. What shall one say, for example, when three authors, after anthropometric examination of forty-four Italian war orphans of whom the fathers were unknown but assumed to be “colored,” draw sweeping conclusions concerning heterosis (“established with certainty”), inheritance of erythrocyte diameter (“very convincing”) and other statements not supported by evidence? Yet these are statements made in 1960 by Luigi Gedda and his co-workers Serio and Mercuri in their recent book Meticciato di Guerra. R.R. Gates, who writes an introduction in English to this elaborate book, refers to it as an important contribution to what he calls “racial genetics.” Others will have greater difficulty in detecting any contribution to genetics, but may see in it, as I do, a reflection in 1960 of the uncritical naïveté of that early period of human genetics which delayed its progress. (…) Truly the past is not yet buried, and human genetics, in spite of its recent evidences of new life, is still exposed to old dangers.29

17Gedda did not respond to the criticism directly, instead it was Gayre himself, the editor of The Mankind Quarterly who intervened in his defense, thus reasserting once more the deep ties between the catholic geneticist and the IAAEE’s eugenicists. According to Gayre, Dunn’s opinion was factious, outrageous, lacked scientific objectivity and was purely ideological:

  • 30 Robert Gayre of Gayre, “L. C. Dunn on Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio, Adriana Mercuri, R. Ruggles Gates (...)

The hallmark of the witch-hunter is the use of such terms as racist and racialism—used here in connection with Professor Gedda and Doctors Serio and Mercuri, as well as Professor Ruggles Gates; The Mankind Quarterly and its editors and contributors are, therefore, in good company. But the people who use these terms abusively are motivated by an almost hysterical hatred of anyone who recognizes, or anything which establishes, the existence of different and great racial groups, with all their differences in heredity (whether biological or sociological).30

18Unlike Dunn’s statement, Gayre argued, there was no contradiction whatsoever between genetics and racial anthropology. On the contrary, the former had come to justify the latter:

  • 31 Gayre, “L. C. Dunn on Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio, Adriana Mercuri, R. Ruggles Gates and ‘The Mankin (...)

But frequency genetics has not in any way altered basic biological facts. Frequency studies can add very little when we consider those fundamental characters which anthroposcopically distinguish the major human stocks. […] We might well go over a lengthy list of human characteristics which in the past have been used for racial classification, and find that they are equally valid.31

19Here Gayre supported an evolutionist interpretation of the history of genetics, which blended the acquisitions of modern science with all previous ideas on inheritance, from Aristotle onwards, against the revolutionary hypothesis of Dunn, who believed true genetics only started with Mendel. Therefore, according to Gayre, neither Gedda nor The Mankind Quarterly had a past they should be ashamed of:

  • 32 Gayre, “L. C. Dunn on Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio, Adriana Mercuri, R. Ruggles Gates and ‘The Mankin (...)

Because of Gedda, Serio, Mercuri, Gates and The Mankind Quarterly, we are told that the past is not yet buried and human genetics is still exposed to old dangers! We might ask what past is not yet buried? What are the old dangers? And to what or to whom? To the old school of cytological geneticists? Or to civilization?32

20The debate between Gayre and Dunn, an emblematic moment of the clash between UNESCO’s anti-racism and the racist eugenics of the IAAEE, marked the point of Gedda’s highest visibility in The Mankind Quarterly. From then on, no other essay was published regarding the Italian physician, although his name always remained highly visible on the magazine’s front page among the members of the honorary advisory board.

3. Corrado Gini and the “Guerrilla War” against UNESCO

21Corrado Gini’s contributions to The Mankind Quarterly span from the magazine’s first issue until 1965, and were characterized mainly by two aspects: first, the development of a scientific and organizational exchange with the members of the IAAEE; second, the embracing of a personal strategy in conducting the battle against the anti-racism of UNESCO.

  • 33 Anthony J. Gregor to Corrado Gini, 3 July 1960, ACS, AG, b. b.5; Gini to Gregor, 11 July 1960, ACS (...)
  • 34 Anthony J. Gregor, “Corrado Gini and the Theory of Race Formation,” Sociology and Social Research (...)
  • 35 Gregor to Gini, 3 May 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.5.
  • 36 Anthony J. Gregor, “Sociology and the Anthropobiological Sciences,” Mémoire du XIXe Congrès Intern (...)
  • 37 Anthony J. Gregor and Angus D. McPherson, “Sociology and Mental Testing of Non-Industrial Peoples, (...)
  • 38 Gini to Gregor, 3 October 1960, ACS, AG, b. b.5, followed by an affirmative answer on 6 October 19 (...)
  • 39 Gregor to Gini, 21 September 1963, ACS, AG, b. b.5.
  • 40 Gini to Gregor, 25 October 1964, ACS, AG, b. b.5; Gregor to Gini, 5 November 1964, ACS, AG, b. b.5
  • 41 Gayre also joined the “International Committee for the Study of Hairy Humanoids” (Comitato interna (...)
  • 42 Gayre to Gini, 8 December 1960; Gini to Gayre, 26 December 1960; Gayre to Gini, 2 January 1961; Gi (...)

22First of all, Gini co-opted the IAAEE’s most prominent members for the International Institute of Sociology (IIS), which he chaired from 1950, and made the pages of its journal, Genus, available to them. In particular, his relationship with A. J. Gregor grew most intensely. It was Gregor who opened the IAAEE’s doors to Gini33, and again Gregor who translated his essays into English. In the United States, Gregor was a fervent advocate of Gini’s organicism, to which he devoted a number of essays (in collaboration with the sociologist Michele Marotta)34 and a seminar at the Johns Hopkins University.35 The scientific collaboration with Gini allowed Gregor to become a member of the International Institute of Sociology and to attend its 19th (Mexico City, 1960)36 and 20th (Córdoba, 1963)37 Congresses. For his part, Gini asked Gregor if the leaders of The Mankind Quarterly would be willing to become members of the IIS: “Do you think—he wrote in a letter—that any of Mankind’s managers would like to be elected members of the Institute?”38 In 1963 Gregor became chairman of the Research Committee on Intergroup Relations created within the IIS.39 The following year, due to Gregor’s mediation, the IAAEE became a sponsor of Gini’s new edition of the Revue Internationale de Sociologie, for which printing costs would be shared between the University of Rome and the American organization.40 Like Gregor, Gayre was nominated as a member of the International Institute of Sociology: Gini was particularly interested in Gayre’s studies on “Nordic racial origins” and therefore proposed that he become a member of the IIS Committee, instituted in order to verify the validity of De Tourville’s theories on the influence of the Nordic family on modern society.41 The idea of the Celtic-Irish origin of pre-Colombian America represented a point of particular agreement between Gini and Gayre.42

  • 43 Anthony J. Gregor, “The Logic of Race Classification,” Genus 14, no. 1–4 (1958): 150–61; Anthony J (...)
  • 44 Corrado Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” The Mankind Quarterly 1, no. 2 (October–Decembe (...)
  • 45 Corrado Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” The Mankind Qua (...)
  • 46 Corrado Gini, “Sulle differenze innate tra i caratteri mentali delle varie popolazioni,” review of (...)
  • 47 Corrado Gini, “Possono e devono i caratteri psichici e culturali essere tenuti presenti nella clas (...)

23Finally, Gregor, as well as other contributors of The Mankind Quarterly such as Kuttner and Swan, published their essays, which shared strong racist arguments, in the pages of Genus.43 Therefore, if the main contributors to The Mankind Quarterly often appeared in Genus, and were frequently members of the International Institute of Sociology, equally Corrado Gini—a member of the honorary advisory board since 1960 and an assistant editor since 1962—published two essays in the The Mankind Quarterly. One was in 1960 (The Testing of Negro Intelligence)44 and one in 1961 (Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races):45 both were English translations of essays that first appeared in Genus, in 196046 and in 1955, respectively.47

  • 48 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 74.

24The first essay was a review of Audrey M. Shuey’s book, also titled The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Shuey was a teacher of psychology at the Randolph-Macon Women’s College (in Lynchburg, Virginia) and a member of the honorary advisory board of The Mankind Quarterly. The book had been financed by the Pioneer Fund, prefaced by Garrett, and it aimed to demonstrate—through the use of IQ tests—the mental inferiority of “Negroes.”48 According to Gini, Shuey’s work was the ultimate demonstration of the existence of those innate racial differences in mental attitudes so strongly denied in UNESCO’s “Statements on Race”:

  • 49 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 122.

In my opinion it is probable that the volume will arouse objections and discussions because the techniques and the employment of mental tests involve, for the time being, very subjective elements—but in any event it is possible to say that, because of the abundance of the material collected and objectively reported, the volume constitutes a milestone in this area. After its publication, the burden of proof rests upon those who maintain the non-existence of the stated differences.49

25In the wake of Shuey’s book, Gini suggested a theory that summed up racist differentialism:

  • 50 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 122.

If, in a stable environment, two groups of individuals differentiate themselves by virtue of a character which is at least partly hereditary, and which, at least in one of the two groups, is subject to natural selection, the differences observed between the two groups are, at least in part, innate.50

  • 51 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 164.
  • 52 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 164.

26In other words, if two human groups live in different environments and, in at least one of them, the characteristic taken into consideration allows for natural selection, this will differentially eliminate certain modalities of that characteristic while favoring others in the two groups; and if such modalities are partly hereditary, the two groups will display innate differences. As a consequence—Gini concluded—it is possible to reckon that “under the influence of natural selection, innate mental attitudes differ among various population groups.”51 Behind the differentialist paradigm of Gini’s racist discourse it is easy to recognize traditional hierarchical and inferiority logic. In particular the argument that when “negro races [are] compared to the white ones” natural selection favors physical characteristics over mental ones: hence the physical superiority of “Negroes,” but also their innate intellectual inferiority.52

  • 53 Geoffrey Ainsworth Harrison, “Reviews—The Mankind Quarterly,” Man 61 (September 1961): 164.

27On the other side of the Atlantic, Gini’s review attracted the barbs of Man, the authoritative journal of the British Royal Anthropological Institute. If the “theorem” presented by Gini meant anything—wrote G. Ainsworth Harrison—it signified that “there is a necessary relation between the way one difference is determined in one population and the way it is determined among two populations.” But, he went on to say, this “is not a theorem”: while a relationship often existed in reference to characteristics that presented a certain environmental weakness, such a relation “is certainly not necessary, as clearly indicated by experimental evidences.”53 In private, Gini’s essay also provoked the disapproval of the illustrious geneticist Walter Landauer (University of Connecticut, Department of Animal Genetics), who reprimanded Gini for the “innatism” (and implicitly, the racism) of his “theorem” on the mental differences among populations:

  • 54 Walter Landauer to Corrado Gini, 31 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

It seems to me further that your “theorem” constitutes a rather astonishing tautology. I should think that in this statement the words “hereditary” and “innate” are to all intents synonymous.
I have the impression that the Mankind Quarterly is an attempt to forget Mendelian genetics and to return to the nineteenth century and Galton. I hope, of course, to be wrong and may judge hastily after seeing only one issue.54

28Gini’s reply substantially confirmed his anti-UNESCO racist differentialism:

  • 55 Gini to Landauer, 19 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

My point is that, if a characteristic is not only hereditary but also subject to natural selection (as it is usually the case) then two groups, living in different conditions, become innately differentiated relatively to such a characteristic. Then we may conclude that the differences between human groups may be, and practically are, in part innate and not only cultural as the Unesco Statement declared. Let me think that it is a conclusion of some bearing especially in the present epoch.55

  • 56 It must be remembered that Gini alone in Italy, had written a review of UNESCO’s First Statement o (...)

29The second essay—published in Genus in 1955 and in the The Mankind Quarterly in 1961—epitomizes Gini’s main objections to UNESCO’s “Statements on Race.”56 Setting off from a neo-Lamarckian theoretical base, Gini supported, in a dispute with UNESCO’s anti-racism, the existence of a parallel between environmental and racial differences. Each environment, in substance, would have its matching race:

  • 57 Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” 236–37.

It is to be observed, however, with respect to this proposition, that, even assuming that the diverse populations were originally identical with respect to innate mental characteristics, differences of environment (at first natural, then also social) in which their life developed would have inevitably impelled selection (natural, nuptial, reproductive) in a different direction for each race, in each favoring individuals possessed of traits better adapted to environmental conditions. And, since the individual differences with respect to the characteristics in question might be at times acquired but at other times innate, selection led, consequently, to the differentiation, in the adaptation to the environment, of the hereditary patrimony of the individual races.57

30Beyond permanent physical differences, also psychic and cultural differences had to be considered. Contrary to UNESCO’s “Statements,” every race—purported Gini—is characterized by an innate disposition to work and saving, which marks the demarcation line between “primitive” and “civilized”:

  • 58 Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” 239.

Therefore, while there do not seem to be reasons as a consequence of which psychic and cultural characteristics should be excluded from the classification of races, a strong reason can be adduced which would counsel the adoption of the first even in preference to the second; it is the decisive importance that psychic traits exercise in determining the differences of human societies. This is to be said particularly with respect to the propensity […] to labor and accumulation. For in this trait is found the fundamental difference between primitive populations, which, refusing to work beyond that strictly necessary to satisfy the most basic needs of existence, live on the margin of subsistence, and civilized populations in which individuals are disposed, even if in different measures, to make an effort which carries them beyond the subsistence level, and to conserve part of their produce with a view to future needs.58

31The translation of this second essay as it appeared in The Mankind Quarterly presents an interesting hidden background, which outlines the heterodox nature of Gini’s contribution with great clarity.

32Archival evidence, in fact, reveals that editor Gayre, as was his habit, intervened brutally and without prior notice on Gini’s text, erasing the following paragraph:

  • 59 Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” 237.

To decide, in any case, whether cultural traits of a population have, at least in part, a hereditary base or whether they constitute simply acquired characteristics is in practice very difficult. But this difficulty does not arise only with respect to such characteristics. In point of fact, after the research of Boas on the European immigrants to America, those of Dorning on the Jewish immigrants to Berlin and above all after our own research with respect to the Albanian colonies in Calabria and the Ligurian colonies in Sardinia, it is very difficult to maintain that physical characteristics such as cephalic index, stature and also pigmentation, which constitute the basis for the classification of human races, are in fact hereditary and not, rather, acquired under the influence of the environment. Their permanent character, over a number of generations, would be, in the generality of populations, the effect of the constant conditions of the environment in which the population lives.59

33Facing Gini’s rather annoyed reaction, Gayre answered, specifying the reasons for the cut:

  • 60 Gayre to Gini, 25 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

The paragraph which I suggested should come out is one which is largely irrelevant to the whole of your main argument, and I thought would have the effect of marring your very excellent article by causing a certain amount of controversy to develop around your statement concerning Boas. As you perhaps know, Boas was very severely treated by Karl Pearson, Keith and others when he enunciated his doctrine. It is certainly one which most of us do not share, and I have written at some length, in a work I am now publishing, against it. Therefore I felt that it was better to avoid at this stage bringing in a controversial side-issue. If you wish to expound some new version of Boas in a complete article, that would be quite another matter, and it could be dealt with objectively as the principle matter under discussion.60

  • 61 On Boas, see Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 290–96.

34It appears evident that the controversy revolved around the interpretation of the research conducted by Franz Boas, Columbia University’s pioneer of American cultural anthropology,61 thus revealing how, apart from the editorial dispute, Gini and Gayre were engaged in a more general confrontation between the American hereditarian eugenics and the Italian environmentalist approach.

  • 62 See Franz Boas, Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants (Washington: Senate Docume (...)

35In 1911, following a suggestion of the U.S. Immigration Commission, Boas, with the help of thirteen assistants, had measured the height and the cephalic index of more or less eighteen thousand immigrants or children of immigrants in New York, coming to the conclusion that the various European types were not at all stable, as maintained by hereditarian racism, but—rather the opposite—had a tendency to uniformity, due to environmental influences, toward an average “American” type.62 Boas’ studies soon became a reference point in Italy for eugenicists, who used his results as a means to counter the fears of their American colleagues about the biological threat of miscegenation with Italian immigrants arriving on Ellis Island. Gini himself had followed Boas’ line, directing, as of 1938, the research of the CISP on the Albanian community in Calabria and on the Ligurian-Piedmontese community in Sardinia. In summarizing the results in the early 1950s, Gini believed he had demonstrated the eventual “physical assimilation” of immigrants to the local environment:

  • 63 Corrado Gini, “L’assimilazione fisica degli immigrati,” Genus 9, no. 1–4 (1950–52): 19 (lecture re (...)

From all the above-mentioned research, one concludes that emigrated populations, even without crossbreeding, gradually lose their physical characteristics and acquire those of the autochthonous population. The peoples appear as the children of their land and it is indeed to be noted that, contrary to what is currently believed, assimilation, at least in some cases, happens more rapidly in relation to physical traits than to cultural ones […]. Hence if we accept Boas’ theory that there is, in the differential characters of a race, a hereditary nucleus and a fringe which varies with the environment, we must admit that the latter is such that, at least in Caucasian races, the hereditary nucleus will come down to not much at all.63

  • 64 On the multi-faceted and long-lived activities of Montagu, see Andrew P. Lyons, “The Neotenic Care (...)

36Boas represented—for Gini and, more generally, for Italian eugenics—confirmation of the environment’s role in varying racial characteristics. Conversely, for the IAAEE’s segregationist scientists, who strongly advocated hereditarian eugenics, the “school of Boas”—including, among others, the father of the first “Statement on Race,” M. F. Ashley Montagu64—instead embodied the ghost of that “Jewish–Communist” conspiracy which had led the United States to abandon Jim Crow’s laws. As a consequence, two opposite and confronting theoretical stances surrounded the Boas case, despite sharing a common enemy in UNESCO’s “Statements on Race”: on one side, there was Gayre’s “Mendelian” racism, biological and hereditarian; on the other, Gini’s “neo-Lamarckian” racism, psychological and environmentalist.

37To demonstrate how these two positions, as different as they were on epistemological grounds, were in fact objectively converging, it is worth quoting the words with which Gini, while rejecting Gayre’s objections, gave his ultimatum regarding the editorial line of The Mankind Quarterly:

  • 65 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

You insist upon the elimination of one paragraph of my article because it is controversial, with the view of getting the unanimous support of everyone of your way of thinking.
Now I think that the facts mentioned in the paragraph in question cannot be denied, while their interpretation is controversial. But this is, for me, not a reason for eliminating it but on the contrary a reason for insisting—as I insist—on its publication.65

38In the name of his long and “non-conformist” scientific career, Gini insisted on the need to separate the responsibilities of the editor from those of the author, and to guarantee a minimal pluralism of points of view. Finally, he threatened to withdraw:

  • 66 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I am very jealous of the integrity of my thought, and, as a strict principle, I cannot accept any modification of my writings except for material mistakes.
I understand very well that the others—and you especially—may have different views, but my writings are signed by me and imply only my scientific responsibility.
I suppose indeed that you—as it is usual for the editors of the scientific journals—do not feel yourself scientifically responsible for all what is published in the Mankind Quarterly. Otherwise I should to my regret renounce to collaborate to it, because with all the respect that I have for your scientific views—that, on the other hand, I know only in a small part—I cannot bound myself to follow them.66

39Gini went on to suggest that if The Mankind Quarterly were to adopt the pluralist line exemplified by Metron or Genus, it would in reality be possible to collect “a more numerous and varied and higher standing group of collaborators.” In conclusion, Gini further clarified the specific character of his adhesion to the IAAEE in the name of a common strategy against UNESCO:

  • 67 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I quite agree with you that—according to what you wrote to me in your letter of January 14—the time has come when people who are more soundly grounded in science than some of the people who signed the Unesco document should make their views known (for my part I have already done that), but this does not imply that their views must be uniform. In scientific field the fights—in my opinion—must be combated with the system of guerrillas, which does not exclude coordination but allows personal initiative. Scientific thought is difficult to concile [sic] with regimentation.67

  • 68 Gayre to Gini, 2 March 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

40Not “regimentation,” then, but scientific “guerrillas” against UNESCO: this was Gini’s justification for his own role within the IAAEE and for his contribution to The Mankind Quarterly. In the end, Gayre was forced to give in, although he did not miss his chance for one last, ironic jab: “Of course, I am quite willing to publish the article as it stands, although I still am of the opinion that a slight modification of unnecessary material is always an advantage.”68

41Carried out between January and March 1961, the diatribe between Gayre and Gini finally appeared to reach a clarification and a relative differentiation of stances. Indeed, from this moment on, other situations allowed Gini to affirm his heterodox line within the common and agreed scientific “guerrilla” approach against UNESCO.

  • 69 Carleton Putnam, Race and Reason: A Yankee View (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1961). On Carle (...)
  • 70 On this matter, see the slating by Barton J. Bernstein, “Race and Reason: Review,” The Journal of (...)

42A crucial test occurred on the occasion of Garrett and Gayre’s suggestion to write a collective preface to Carleton Putnam’s book, Race and Reason: a Yankee View.69 Sustained by a massive advertising campaign, and financed by the Pioneer Fund, Putnam’s volume was none other than a racist pamphlet which revolved around two arguments repeated obsessively: the mental inferiority of the “Negroes,” as demonstrated by the scientific results of IQ tests, and an interpretation of the anti-racist battle as the umpteenth expression of the “Jewish–Communist” conspiracy.70 The anti-UNESCO intent of the preface promoted by the IAAEE had already been openly declared by Gayre to Gini himself:

  • 71 Gayre to Gini, 14 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6; italics added.

I have read it through, and while it is of course on a political-social problem, it is basically relevant to anthropology. I am sending you herewith a copy of the foreword which Professor Henry E. Garrett has proposed, and where I have marked “A,” I propose that the piece I have written should go in. If you agree with these two drafts, would you please be good enough to indicate that you are, and then we will add your name to the signatories. Professor Garrett is most anxious that as many scientists as possible, in the short time available, should sign this foreword. It is felt that the time has come when people who are more soundly grounded in science than some of the people who signed the UNESCO document should make their views known.71

43However, in the same letter in which Gini harshly rejected Gayre’s interventions on his essay, he also rejected the suggestion of joining the initiative. A similar, collective declaration against UNESCO, he objected, would eventually mirror the vagueness and the approximation of the “Statements”:

  • 72 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I am also reluctant to sign joint declarations. In order to reach a text which satisfies all the signatories, every one must renounce a part of his own thought, and the Minimum Common Denominator that is attained cannot be but vague and colorless. (By the way I think that if the signatories of the Unesco “Statement”—among whom there were also very distinguished scholars—had been invited to give their individual advice, we would have had a much more valuable document).72

  • 73 On the figure of Wesley C. George, see Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 69–78 and 105–09.

44As a consequence, the first edition was published with a preface signed by Gates, Garrett, Gayre, and, in Gini’s place, Wesley Critz George, a professor of anatomy at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine and an advocate of racial segregation even before the Brown decision.73 Shortly thereafter, in light of the 200,000 copies sold and of the twelve reprints in eighteen months, it was Putnam himself who once again asked Gini for a contribution for the pocket edition:

  • 74 Carleton Putnam to Corrado Gini, 12 December 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

As you may know, a panel of four scientists headed by the late R. Ruggles Gates signed the introduction to the first edition. I would be greatly honored if I might add your name to this panel in preparing the pocketbook edition. The tide seems to be turning in the United States, and I believe we may soon have the integrationists and “scientific” propagandists on the defensive. I solicit your aid in rallying here the forces with which I believe you are in sympathy.74

45Although declaring that he shared Putnam’s line of thought, Gini again refused to endorse any collective declaration. In the scientific field, he argued, it is not possible to reach an effective interpretative “common denominator” on the issue of race. On the contrary, scientific manifestos always end up obscuring the value of those who signed them. Authorities such as Haldane, Dahlberg or Dunn—all of whom Gini personally knew and appreciated—had sacrificed the complexity of their research on the altar of UNESCO’s “Statement on Race,” and Gini—from an opposite standpoint—did not want to make the same mistake:

  • 75 Gini to Putnam, 24 December 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

Naturally there are not two scholars who have exactly the same opinion on a scientific field of a certain extent while a common declaration must constitute a minimum common denominator of the thought of all the signers neglecting the particular aspects which characterize the scientific personality of the various signers. I think that Haldane, Dahlberg, Dunn and the other signers of the manifesto of Unesco that you and I deplore (all people, in my opinion, of a remarkable scientific value whom I know personally) would have written much more reasonable things should they have written their declarations freely and independently from the others.75

46Gini’s objective to articulate and broaden the spectrum of anti-UNESCO “guerilla” action promoted by The Mankind Quarterly can also be clearly seen in his attempt to involve the geneticist Cyril D. Darlington in the IAAEE. Upon the death of Ruggles Gates in August 1962, Gini accepted the role of substitute for Gates as honorary associate editor of The Mankind Quarterly, but asked Darlington to join him. His reasons for the choice were laid out in a letter dated 18 October 1962:

The reasons for which I think desirable that you be an honorary associate editor of The Mankind Quarterly are several:

  1. because, so far as I know, this offer had already been made to you in the time and I think that it should be maintained;
  2. because you are a scholar of very high reputation and your name as associate editor will certainly be useful to the journal;
  3. because you have a wide field of scientific interests and I, although approving the main lines of Mankind Quarterly, think that it will be advisable to enlarge the field of the subjects treated in its papers.76

47Darlington responded with a brief but dense note, in which, after having expressed his doubt on the scientific value of Gayre and reminded Gini of his inability to put up with Gates (“I always thought him an irresponsible investigator and writer”), he clearly asserted his perplexity on the scientific neutrality of the IAAEE and The Mankind Quarterly. He asked Gini directly to clarify the nature of the financing and political links of the association:

  • 77 Darlington to Gini, 24 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I am, right or wrongly, apprehensive of the methods of organizations connected with racial or political propaganda and controlling large funds of unknown origin. How much genuine scientific and academic support or driving force have they? Or is their support and driving force largely political? You can perhaps tell me.77

48In his reply, Gini first all defended the editor, Gayre:

  • 78 Gini to Darlington, 27 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I know a little more from the personal point of view Dr. Gayre. He was an officer with important functions in the occupation army of Italy, a fact which excludes, I think, that his racial views are of the Nazi tendency. In that capacity he made several friends here also between important persons and he comes pretty often in Italy. I had him twice at my home and from a personal point of view he is quite agreeable and gives a good impression.78

49Therefore, Gini explicitly justified his attempt to involve Darlington as a measure to give greater authority and depth to the scientific position of Mankind Quarterly: “I would be very glad that we will be associate editors, because I think that you and I, we may exercise an useful influence in order that the scope of the review may become larger and more scholarly.” Finally, Gini confronted the burning question of political and financial backing of the journal, obviously claiming its absolute independence and scientific correctness:

  • 79 Gini to Darlington, 27 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

I do not think that Gayre and his circle has a political basis. They represent, in my opinion, the reaction of the Unesco policy (which has certainly a political character) to put at the same level all the races. In my opinion, a reaction is quite justified also from a scientific point of view, but it is necessary that every participant in the movement preserve his full independency of thought because it is difficult that two persons have exactly the same opinion in all the details of the question.
For the origins of funds, I have the impression that Gayre is a pretty rich man. Other funds are collected by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, in which Garrett, Gregor and Swan have prominent influence, but I think that its publications are independent from Mankind Quarterly and its sources are in any case in my opinion not political in character.79

50After having denied any political interference in the editorial position of Mankind Quarterly, Gini hoped that Darlington would join them as an associate editor, helping to prevent any “political degeneration” of the journal and its related initiatives.

  • 80 Bozo Skerlj, “Correspondence. ‘The Mankind Quarterly,’” Man 60 (November 1960): 172. Skerlj was Gi (...)

51Darlington however was not convinced by Gini’s “candid letter,” as he ironically called it. A fresh occurrence contributed to the darkening of the atmosphere that surrounded The Mankind Quarterly. In November 1960, Bozo Skerlj, a Slovenian anthropologist, had resigned from Mankind Quarterly’s honorary advisory board, explaining, on the pages of Man, that the abuse of anthropology in the interest of racial prejudice was offensive to him not just as a scientist but also as a former prisoner at Dachau. A year later, Gayre and Garrett decided to denounce Man, voice of the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI), for having published Skerlj’s protest, who had meanwhile disappeared in November 1961.80 Gayre communicated the news to Darlington, who decided at this point to refuse Gini’s offer, and not to align himself with the IAAEE or with RAI. In the name of scientific neutrality, Darlington chose, therefore, to not choose:

  • 81 Darlington to Gini, 9 November 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

In these circumstances I should much prefer not to associate myself with either Gayre or the RAI. I think that they are both ill-considered in their views. Both have pre-conceived ideas with a strong emotional element. I think what we all need now is a disentanglement, a withdrawal, from these strong emotional positions. We need time for reflection and opportunities for cool discussion.81

  • 82 Gini to Gayre, 23 November 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

52It was the “Skerlj episode,” together with his personal conflict with Gayre in 1961 and the refusal of Darlington, that in November 1962 led Gini to play a new card in his attempt to differentiate the framework of collaborators of The Mankind Quarterly. In November 1962—following a suggestion from Sergio Sergi, himself a member of the honorary advisory board of the journal—Gini proposed the front page inclusion of a declaration that would sanction the different viewpoints represented within the common conviction of physical and psychical difference between human races.82 The suggested text, which was accepted by Gayre and published on the first issue of 1963, read as follows:

  • 83 Gini to Gayre, 23 November 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6. (enclosed).

The Mankind Quarterly exists to discuss the subjects which are included in its title and sub-titles. It is the view of the Editors (as would seem to them to be manifestly true and generally accepted to be true by the vast majority of observers past and present) that human races are physically and/or psychically different. The question of whether any particular race or racial group is superior to another in the totality of all its characteristics is not accepted by the Editor, and, as far as is known by the other associate and assistant editors.
The views expressed in articles which appear in The Mankind Quarterly and the associated series of Mankind Monographs are those of the authors, and the editors and the Honorary Advisory Board of The Mankind Quarterly do not necessarily accept responsibility for the views so expressed.
We believe, however, that it would be a disservice to science to refuse to publish an article or monograph just because the views expressed by the author were not accepted by the Editor, or one of the other editors, or of some members of the Honorary Advisory Board, and we are certain that none of these persons would wish to take the responsibility of stifling the expression of such views.83

53In the following issues, again upon Gini’s insistent request, a more synthetic sentence was included: “The articles bind the authors and not the editors.”

  • 84 Corrado Gini, “The Physical Assimilation of the Descendants of Immigrants,” in Tage Kemp, Mogens H (...)

54The papers which, from then on, Gini sent to Gayre, should probably be interpreted in the same line of differentiation within the IAAEE’s offensive against UNESCO. For instance, Gayre favorably accepted the idea of translating and publishing Gini’s contribution to the First International Congress on Human Genetics in 1956:84 a paper based on the theory of “sub-Lamarckism”—very far, as we have seen, from the views of the editor—that culminated, nonetheless, in a racist differentialism that was perfectly compatible with the general orientation of The Mankind Quarterly.

  • 85 Corrado Gini, “Alla soglia dell’umanità,” Rivista di Politica Economica 64, no. 11 (November 1964) (...)

55Actually, neither this last essay, nor two of Gini’s other proposals presented between 1962 and 1965—the publication of the essay Alla soglia dell’umanità [At the threshold of humanity]85 and the translation, to be published in the Mankind Monographs, of his 1940 book Le rilevazioni statistiche fra le popolazioni primitive [Statistical surveys in primitive populations]—were realized, due to Gini’s sudden death in 1965. Their findings, made possible by the retrieval of the original correspondence, contribute, however, to highlighting the complexity and the importance of the ideological and scientific relationship between Gini and the IAAEE. It was certainly a relationship marred by tensions and clashes between different stances, but reaffirmed until the end, in the name of the struggle against the common enemy: the egalitarianism and the anti-racism upheld by UNESCO and by its “Statements on Race.”

4. Epilogue: Race and Modern Science

  • 86 Luigi Gedda, “A Study of Racial and Subracial Crossing,” in Robert E. Kuttner, ed., Race and Moder (...)
  • 87 Gini, “Race and Sociology,” in Race and Modern Science, 261–76.

56In 1967, Reginald Ruggles Gates’ project to organize a “manifesto” against UNESCO took shape in a collection of essays titled Race and Modern Science. The polemic intent of the volume was comprised in its title, which echoed UNESCO’s previous publication, The Race Question in Modern Science. The editorial enterprise was managed by Robert Kuttner and dedicated to the memory of Ruggles Gates, “who suggested, and helped put together, this book.” Anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists who belonged to the ideological reservoir of The Mankind Quarterly crowded its pages in the attempt to demonstrate the scientific value of the concept of race and the legitimacy of racism: Bertil Lundman, Jan Czekanowski, J.D.J. Hofmeyr, Ilse Schwidetzky, David C. Rife, Clarence P. Oliver, Robert Kuttner, Cyril D. Darlington, Anthony James Gregor, George A. Lundberg, Friedrich Keiter, Frank McGurk, R. Travis Osborne, and Stanley D. Porteus. Two Italian contributions, whose authors may be easily guessed, must also be added to this catalogue. The first is a translation of a part of Luigi Gedda’s Meticciato di Guerra;86 the second, by Corrado Gini, is a collection of passages from his sociology lessons at the University of Rome, published in 1957.87

  • 88 Idus A. Newby, Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954–1966 (...)
  • 89 The controversy on scientific racism in the United States has erupted again after the publication (...)

57In the same year, Race and Modern Science, Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954–1966,88 an essay by historian Idus A. Newby, was published in the US. For the first time, historiography pointed its finger against the IAAEE and The Mankind Quarterly: it would not be the last.89

Notes

1 For an in-depth reconstruction of the whole matter, see Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 145–210.

2 Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 191.

3 Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 191.

4 On the IAAEE, see Barry Mehler, “Foundations for Fascism: The New Eugenics Movement in the United States,” Patterns of Prejudice 23 (1989): 17–25; William H. Tucker, The Science and Politics of Racial Research (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994); Michael Billig, Psychology, Racism and Fascism (Birmingham: Searchlight, 1979); John P. Jackson, Jr., Science for Segregation. Race, Law and the case against Brown v. Board of Education (New York: New York University Press, 2005).

5 William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism. Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Urbana–Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 79.

6 For a biographical sketch of Gates, see Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism, 168–76.

7 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 79–86.

8 Oswald Mosley (1896–1980) was a British politician, known principally as the founder, in 1932, of the British Union of Fascists. The monthly journal The European (1953–59) was edited by Mosley’s wife.

9 B. Mehler’s biographies of Gayre and Gregor, included in Institute for the Study of Academic Racism-Bibliographies, can be consulted for free online at www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/homepage.html.

10 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 87–88.

11 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism.

12 On this issue see also Gates’ obituary, written by Gedda himself: see ch. 6.

13 Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio and Adriana Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi (Rome: Edizioni dell’Istituto Gregorio Mendel, 1960), VI.

14 Reginald Ruggles Gates, “Il Meticciato di Guerra,” The Mankind Quarterly, 2 (October 1960): 218.

15 Luigi Gedda, “A Proposito di Razza,” Vita e Pensiero 29, no. 9 (September 1938): 416.

16 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 6.

17 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 275–76.

18 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 278.

19 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 279.

20 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 85.

21 Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, 214.

22 Corrado Gini, “Eterosi nei Meticci di Guerra?,” review of Il Meticciato di Guerra e Altri Casi, by Gedda, Serio and Mercuri, Genus 16, no. 1–4 (1960): 168.

23 See Charles B. Davenport and Morris Steggerda, Race Crossing in Jamaica (Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1929). For a critical analysis of this research, crucial in the history of American eugenics, see Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism, 162–68.

24 Gini, “Eterosi nei Meticci di Guerra?,” 168.

25 Corrado Gini to Robert Gayre, 30 January 1961, ACS, Gini Papers (from now on, AG), b. b.6.

26 Gini to Gayre, 30 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

27 Gayre to Gini, 3 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

28 On Dunn’s anti-racist commitment, see Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism, 266–68. See also Melinda Gormley, “Scientific Discrimination and the Activist Scientist: L.C. Dunn and the Professionalization of Genetics and Human Genetics in the United States,” Journal of the History of Biology 42 (2009): 33–72.

29 Leslie C. Dunn, “Cross Currents in the History of Human Genetics,” The Eugenics Review 2 (July 1962): 74.

30 Robert Gayre of Gayre, “L. C. Dunn on Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio, Adriana Mercuri, R. Ruggles Gates and ‘The Mankind Quarterly,’” The Mankind Quarterly 1 (July–September 1962): 49–50.

31 Gayre, “L. C. Dunn on Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio, Adriana Mercuri, R. Ruggles Gates and ‘The Mankind Quarterly,’” 49.

32 Gayre, “L. C. Dunn on Luigi Gedda, Angelo Serio, Adriana Mercuri, R. Ruggles Gates and ‘The Mankind Quarterly,’” 50.

33 Anthony J. Gregor to Corrado Gini, 3 July 1960, ACS, AG, b. b.5; Gini to Gregor, 11 July 1960, ACS, AG, b. b.5.

34 Anthony J. Gregor, “Corrado Gini and the Theory of Race Formation,” Sociology and Social Research 45 (January 1961): 175–81; Anthony J. Gregor and Michele Marotta, “Sociology in Italy,” Sociological Quarterly 2 (July 1961): 215–21; Anthony J. Gregor, review of Corrado Gini, “Corso di Sociologia,” Mankind Quarterly 2, no. 1 (April–June 1961): 298–300; Anthony J. Gregor, review of Vittorio Castellano, “Studi in Onore di Corrado Gini,” Sociology and Social Research 46 (July 1962): 501; Anthony J. Gregor, “Corrado Gini, the Organismic Analogy and Sociological Explanation,” Sociological Quarterly 8 (spring 1967): 165–72.

35 Gregor to Gini, 3 May 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.5.

36 Anthony J. Gregor, “Sociology and the Anthropobiological Sciences,” Mémoire du XIXe Congrès International de Sociologie Communications, (Mexico: Comité Organisateur, 1960), 2, 83–107.

37 Anthony J. Gregor and Angus D. McPherson, “Sociology and Mental Testing of Non-Industrial Peoples,” in La Sociologia y las Sociedades en Desarrollo Industrial: Communications before the XXth International Congress of Sociology (Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba, 1963), 2, 337–50; Anthony J. Gregor and Angus D. McPherson, “Sociology and the Assimilation of Non-Industrial Peoples,” in La Sociologia y las Sociedades en Desarrollo Industrial, 2.

38 Gini to Gregor, 3 October 1960, ACS, AG, b. b.5, followed by an affirmative answer on 6 October 1960. Gregor directly suggested the names of Charles Galton Darwin (Gregor to Gini, 18 February 1961) and George A. Lundberg (Gregor to Gini, 19 November 1962).

39 Gregor to Gini, 21 September 1963, ACS, AG, b. b.5.

40 Gini to Gregor, 25 October 1964, ACS, AG, b. b.5; Gregor to Gini, 5 November 1964, ACS, AG, b. b.5.

41 Gayre also joined the “International Committee for the Study of Hairy Humanoids” (Comitato internazionale per lo studio degli umanoidi pelosi), promoted by Gini within the International Institute of Sociology. On this, see “Comitato Internazionale per lo Studio degli Umanoidi Pelosi,” Genus 18, no. 1–4 (1962): 1–4. On Gini’s interests on the Abominable Snowman, see John P. Jackson Jr., “‘In Ways Unacademical’: The Reception of Carleton Coon’s The Origin of Races,” Journal of the History of Biology 34 (2001): 247–85. On this topic, see also: Brian Regal, “Amateur versus Professional: the Search for Bigfoot,” Endeavour 32, no. 2 (June 2008): 53–57.

42 Gayre to Gini, 8 December 1960; Gini to Gayre, 26 December 1960; Gayre to Gini, 2 January 1961; Gini to Gayre, 9 January 1961, all in ACS, AG, b. b.6.

43 Anthony J. Gregor, “The Logic of Race Classification,” Genus 14, no. 1–4 (1958): 150–61; Anthony J. Gregor, “The Biosocial Nature of Prejudice,” Genus 18, no. 1–4 (1962): 116–28; Robert E. Kuttner, “Cultural Selection of Human Psychological Types,” Genus 16, no. 1–4 (1960): 1–4; Robert E. Kuttner, “Eugenic Aspects of Preventive Therapy for Mental Retardation,” Genus 19, no. 1–4 (1963): 1–9; Donald Swan, “Genetics and Psychology,” Genus 20, no. 1–4 (1964): 23–35.

44 Corrado Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” The Mankind Quarterly 1, no. 2 (October–December 1960): 120–25.

45 Corrado Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” The Mankind Quarterly 1, no. 4, (April–June 1961): 236–41.

46 Corrado Gini, “Sulle differenze innate tra i caratteri mentali delle varie popolazioni,” review of The Testing of Negro Intelligence, by Audrey M. Shuey, Genus 16, no. 1–4 (1960):161–66.

47 Corrado Gini, “Possono e devono i caratteri psichici e culturali essere tenuti presenti nella classificazione delle razze umane?,” Genus 11, no. 1–4 (1955): 71–77.

48 Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 74.

49 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 122.

50 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 122.

51 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 164.

52 Gini, “The Testing of Negro Intelligence,” 164.

53 Geoffrey Ainsworth Harrison, “Reviews—The Mankind Quarterly,” Man 61 (September 1961): 164.

54 Walter Landauer to Corrado Gini, 31 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

55 Gini to Landauer, 19 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

56 It must be remembered that Gini alone in Italy, had written a review of UNESCO’s First Statement on Race: see Corrado Gini, review of Statement on Race, by Ashley Montagu, Genus 10, no. 1–4 (1953–1954): 192–94.

57 Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” 236–37.

58 Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” 239.

59 Gini, “Psychic and Cultural Traits and the Classification of Human Races,” 237.

60 Gayre to Gini, 25 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

61 On Boas, see Pogliano, L’ossessione della razza, 290–96.

62 See Franz Boas, Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants (Washington: Senate Document 208, 1911).

63 Corrado Gini, “L’assimilazione fisica degli immigrati,” Genus 9, no. 1–4 (1950–52): 19 (lecture read on the Italian radio on 31 December 1951). The research of CISP on the physical assimilation of immigrants was the subject of Gini’s contributions at various international conferences on eugenics and genetics between the end of the 1930s and the mid-1950s: specifically, at the 2nd International Congress of the Latin Eugenics Societies (Bucharest, 1939, never held because of the outbreak of World War II), at the 7th, the 8th and the 9th International Congresses of Genetics (held in Edinburgh, 1939, Stockholm, 1948 and Bellagio, 1953, respectively), and at the 1st International Congress of Human Genetics (Copenhagen, 1956).

64 On the multi-faceted and long-lived activities of Montagu, see Andrew P. Lyons, “The Neotenic Career of M. F. Ashley Montagu,” in Larry T. Reynolds and Leonard Lieberman, eds., Race and Other Misadventures. Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in His Ninetieth Year (Dix Hills NY: General Hall, 1996).

65 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

66 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

67 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

68 Gayre to Gini, 2 March 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

69 Carleton Putnam, Race and Reason: A Yankee View (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1961). On Carleton Putnam and the publication of Race and Reason, see Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 101–11.

70 On this matter, see the slating by Barton J. Bernstein, “Race and Reason: Review,” The Journal of Negro History 1 (January 1963): 58–60.

71 Gayre to Gini, 14 January 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6; italics added.

72 Gini to Gayre, 7 February 1961, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

73 On the figure of Wesley C. George, see Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism, 69–78 and 105–09.

74 Carleton Putnam to Corrado Gini, 12 December 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

75 Gini to Putnam, 24 December 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

76 Corrado Gini to Cyril Darlington, 18 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

77 Darlington to Gini, 24 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

78 Gini to Darlington, 27 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

79 Gini to Darlington, 27 October 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

80 Bozo Skerlj, “Correspondence. ‘The Mankind Quarterly,’” Man 60 (November 1960): 172. Skerlj was Gini’s assistant at the University of Rome from August to December 1941. See also Gini to Darlington, 21 November 1962, in ACS, AG, b. b6.

81 Darlington to Gini, 9 November 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

82 Gini to Gayre, 23 November 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6.

83 Gini to Gayre, 23 November 1962, ACS, AG, b. b.6. (enclosed).

84 Corrado Gini, “The Physical Assimilation of the Descendants of Immigrants,” in Tage Kemp, Mogens Hauge and Bent Harvald, eds., Proceedings of the First International Congress of Human Genetics, vol. 2 (Nasel, NY: S. Karger, 1958), 400–403.

85 Corrado Gini, “Alla soglia dell’umanità,” Rivista di Politica Economica 64, no. 11 (November 1964): 1475–505.

86 Luigi Gedda, “A Study of Racial and Subracial Crossing,” in Robert E. Kuttner, ed., Race and Modern Science (New York: Social Sciences Press, 1967), 123–40.

87 Gini, “Race and Sociology,” in Race and Modern Science, 261–76.

88 Idus A. Newby, Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954–1966 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967).

89 The controversy on scientific racism in the United States has erupted again after the publication of the bestseller by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein, The Bell Curve. Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994). The “evidence” shown by the authors to prove racial differences in intelligence on genetic bases is taken, not surprisingly, from The Mankind Quarterly. For authoritative critiques of the scientific case for racial differences in IQ, see the articles collected in Ned J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, eds., The IQ Controversy (New York: Pantheon, 1976) and in Jefferson M. Fish, ed., Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002).

© Central European University Press, 2011

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr