Customer Reviews

Race

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Baker is an extraordinarily learned biologist, who approached the topic of race among humans with the same thoroughness that he brought to studying race among non-humans animals.

Much of his data comes from before political correctness completely enshrouded anthropology in the late 1960's, so the vocabulary often seems dated. Nonetheless, many of his views on the ancestry of different populations, based on morphology, linguistics, archaeology and the like, have been confirmed by recent genetic testing (see Cavalli-Sforza's "History and Geography of Human Genes" -- and, please, do read C-S' book, don't just satisfy yourself with C-S's deceitful cover stories about how poltically correct his finding are.)

Baker's focus in the concluding chapters is on different races' capabilities to found a civilization. He gives a 23 point test of whether a culture can be reasonably considered a civilization, and examines various races' accomplishments in this regard. This book is worth reading in tandem with Jared Diamond's Pulitzer prize-winning "Guns, Germs, and Steel," in which Diamond argues that every racial group in the world did as well as any other group could have with the resources of that region. Baker anticipated a number of Diamond's arguments and refutes them (e.g., could sub-Saharan Africans have put elephants to work like Asians and Carthaginains did?), but the truth probably lies somewhere between the two authors' views.

Baker's exploration of the capability of different groups to start true civiliations is certainly interesting, yet, I wonder how relevant this question is to the modern world. The Japanese, for example, have shown relatively little talent at originating a civilization, but vast skill at borrowing others' novel ideas and adapting and, often, improving them. Similarly, the question of whether Africans could have invented a civilization on their own is interesting, but it's not as germane as Baker seems to assume to the more pressing question of how African-Americans can best fit into the existing American civilization. Further, some groups that did little to build their own civilizations, and still seem to have a certain amount of trouble fitting into others' civilizations -- e.g., sub-Saharan Africans and the Irish -- have contributed an extraordinary amount to the culture of modern life.

Steve Sailer

News and entertainment entities have almost always promoted the idea that to believe in any racial differences other than skin color means that you are uneducated and ignorant. A torrent of scholarly books on the explosive subject of race have disproved that dogma. In Part 1, Baker examines the historical thought on race, from the earliest attempts to define who we are, to the recent Hitler era. In Part 3, Baker approaches the issue from a biologic or taxonomic point of view. In order to diffuse the explosiveness of the issue, Dr. Baker examines the different races of various vertebrae animals and then moves on to more complex organisms -- humans. The differences in racial characteristics increases in proportion to how closely the subject is examined, and Dr. Baker examines racial features right down to the most detailed physical attributes. In Part 4, Dr. Baker examines the most critical attribute -- that of intelligence and race. It is here that Dr. Baker treads onto late twentieth century taboos. Dr. Baker's conclusion surprised me when I first read the book, though he tempers his understanding of racial inequality with the statement that "no one can claim superiority simply because he or she belongs to a particular ethnic taxon."

Baker's Race is not exactly meant for the amateur student of the "ethnic problem" , as he puts it. It has a lot of intimidating zoological terms in the book, which are often not explained. He also has a tendency to use French, German, Greek, and Latin words and quotes without explaining what he means. It is assumed you would know already. The book seems to be written for graduate students in biology and zoology and other academics. That being said there are some interesting sections in the book that aren't too pedantic and I only gave up and skimmed through about thirty pages when Baker's scientific zeal to analyze his subject down to the minutest details got the better of me. I preferred Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior over this one because of its conciseness and readability. Both are committed to objectivity.

One of the best sections covers pre-colonial Africa in which Baker chooses seven authors who were early explorers of Africa based on their ability to describe the societies accurately and objectively. He comes to the conclusion that S.W. Baker was the best writer of the seven because of his writing's humor and pathos and his avoidance of tedious subjects such as tribal taxes. John Baker covers the cannibalism and the arbitrary and numerous executions that occurred in many of the tribes during the nineteenth century. There wasn't much law or value placed on life; one motion from the king could end the life of one of his subjects. There is a recounting of executions occurring after the death of one king's mother. Slavery was commonplace in pre-colonial Africa in which other captured tribes would become slaves of the other one dominating over them. Slaves were traded among tribes also.

Before getting into the meat of his arguments, Baker likes to define important terms. Quoting a statement from the UN saying that we are all equal because we are all of the same species, Baker goes on to try to define what is meant by the word "species". Looking at other animals in nature, such as birds, he finds that birds with very small differences usually don't mate with each other and therefore can't be of the same species ,even though they are very similar. However, he states that animals in confinement and are domesticated become less choosy about their mates and many hybrids begin to occur. He then says that humans in civilization are the most domesticated of animals and therefore have the greatest tendency to become hybridized, much more than you would see among wild animals in nature. He comes to ambivalent conclusions as to whether we are all of the same species, mainly because it cannot be proven that hybridized types can remain fertile over many generations.

The europids are examined fairly well. To the taxonomist, skin color is not an important factor in classifying race, so some taxon like the Aethiopids who look Negrid to the untrained eye are classified as predominately Europid by looking at the skull and other features of the body. It is in these other features that ethnic differences are determined by the taxonomist. Speaking of the Europids in Europe, they are actually hybrids of three subraces predominating in different areas: the Nordid in Northern Europe, the Alpinid in central Europe, and the Mediterranid in Southern Europe. Examples of hybrids would be the dark-haired Welsh in Britain who are Nordids with some of the Mediterranid blood of the people who settled there in early times before the invasion of the Nordid tribes like the Jutes, Angles, and Saxes who eventually mixed with them. Some of the features of the different subraces are mentioned such as the round head and stocky body of an Alpinid, as opposed to the narrow face and slender body of a Nordid.

Bakers also examines the Jews, saying the Ashkenazi Jew that most people are referring to when they speak of Jews is closely related to the Armenians, a middle eastern Europid. There also seems to be some Orientalid blood in their lineage related to what are loosely called Arabs. There is also some unusual cases of a small percentage of people who are Jews by religion, but not related genetically to the Ashkenazim. There was a Khazar empire at one time that converted to Judaism, but their kingdom was destroyed by the Russians in the 10 century AD. They were not related to the Ashkenazi Jews of today. Baker also covers the physical features of the Ashkenazim.

As far as the intelligence of the races go, Baker examines the IQ tests and the achievements of civilization of the races. He looks at whether race has created an achievement by itself or whether it has merely borrowed an idea from another race. He comes to conclusion that some Europid and Mongolid subraces have created their own civilization with the rest just borrowing or not getting to the point of civilization. He has a list of what would be an achievement that moves people from primitiveness to civilization such as whether they have invented the wheel, higher mathematics, language written in script referring to abstractions, a legal system, personal hygiene, or domestication of animals. Some Indianid races got halfway there such as the Mayans and Aztecs who had higher mathematics, but had the nasty habit of human sacrifice and cannibalism and no use of a wheel, deficiencies that kept them from being a high civilization.

After studying the IQ test results, Baker says that Europid and Mongolids have about the same IQ, with Indianids further behind, and Negrids further still. He also does an interesting examination of hybrids of whites and blacks in the US showing that more Europid the hybrid the better they did on IQ tests. He looks at some of the black leaders such as Dubois and shows that these were actually Europids with a small amount of Negrid blood.

It was a very wise choice to provide a thorough,yet comprehensive book that promotes such lucid exposure of racial differencies,in such manner that not only it won't left anybody to doubt the existence of that reality,but also to provide certain historical digression that includes historical development of concept that explains why study of race remains something like the last taboo among sociologist and biologist,given that exclusion of racial factor in such diverse studies-anthropological,ethnological,historical and one of clinical medicine-in the name of aprioristic egalitarian idealism and "political corectness" can lead to generation of false conclusions,as author exemplifies trough essays on ethnicity and pseudoethnicity in the case of Celts and question of origin of modern Jews.Also,a very well documentated discourse is given on such issues as intelectual diferences among various ethnic,racial and socioeconomic groups with regard to cognitive and powers of deduction.Wide range of immplication deriving from constitutional differences among selected races are given,for example in sport achievments.These and many other fundaments of racial anthropology are exposed in an extremely free of any prejudice manner,and although conclusions may left an impression of right-wing milleau,this is certainly not a specimen of pejorative racist literature.Although this book has been published first time in 1974,it will remain worth reading for a long time.It's fundamental in the process of understanding the meaning of race.

Baker on 'Race' (1974) is a 600+ page book. It's difficult to review because much of the material isn't clearly to do with race, and the arrangement is a bit arbitrary.

It's in four main parts: 1 The historical background; 2 The biological background; 3 Studies of selected human groups; 4 Criteria of superiority and inferiority. It also has appendices, a long bibliography of 1200 or so items, an Index, and a very short 'table of races and subraces' listing about thirty. The index and bibliography are unusually well laid out, with selected keywords in bold text.

1 The Historical Background - is the history of writings on races, including Monboddo (an early speculator on man descended from non-man), Kant (who was more aware of geography and peoples than I'd realised), Voltaire and Rousseau, Gobineau and (later) Spengler, and Americans such as Lothrop Stoddard. Much of the material resulted from explorations of Africa and the new discoveries of gorillas, chimps, monkeys, and so on. Mostly this was a long time before photography, and before audio recording. Baker records that the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in 1928, was the last person to describe alternative views on race. 'Those who believed in the equality of races were free to write what they liked.' This outlook is often ascribed to, or blamed on, Franz Boas, but he is barely mentioned by Baker, except for his belief that the US environment changed immigrants' features. Some material - for example, Latin and Greek writers on Europe - is not included here, but put into the descriptions of race types. Moreover the whole book seems to emphasise Europe and Africa - there's not much on China or the Indian subcontinent; I'm at a loss to understand why this should be.

2 The Biological Background discusses 'race', in quite an extensive sense, including races of animals and plants and insects. He includes for example dogs, and several races or varieties of Anopheles mosquitoes, and certain butterflies. Naturally he has to mention things like the 'ethnic taxon', and generally wrestle with the vocabulary: he invented or popularised the word 'stirps'. He discusses of course the interbreeding aspect. There are discussion on e.g. gorillas and assorted new and old world apes and monkeys. There's a long section on skull shapes, with some quite spectacular illustrations of differences: skulls give a lot of information, and of course can be preserved, as Cromagnon and other types illustrate. Size, shape, teeth, eye orbits, and other comparative parts, have been measured and listed and compared. (This sort of thing goes back to Albrecht Durer; somewhat different from d'Arcy Thompson's regular grid, which is then deformed). Baker gives material on genetic differences - blood groups (including monkeys of course) are one rather unavoidable issue, despite the fact these seem purely empirical: I couldn't find anything in Baker giving sound reasons for blood group differences. It's just that they were discovered by 1974. Similarly with sickle cell anaemias. And with the substance phenylthiourea, which was found, purely by chance, to be perceived as tasteless by part of the population, bitter by the rest. However, races involve multiple genes, and Baker discusses the problems involved here. Many people believe, or at least quote, various factoids

HOWEVER there is little on internal organs and biochemistry - hormones etc - nor is there a model for aggressions, emotions, in and out groups ... in fact all the really important stuff is omitted: we're interested in behaviour, both the autonomic sort, and the sort where the brain is involved and beliefs come into play. How are emotions inherited? If people with 'excessive' adrenalin can't sit down and concentrate, is it impossible for them to learn? Are hair-trigger tempers a product of uncertainty? Are some people naturally fanatic? What does it take for other groups to be treated as friends or foes? Baker doesn't have a working model of all the main emotions. Galton has quite a number of mentions (including on dog intelligence).

3 Studies of Selected Human Groups is the longest section, about a third of the book. As I mentioned, for some reason China/ Mongolia ('Mongolids') etc and India and what's now Pakistan and Bangla Desh ('Indianids') are under-represented. Hence I suppose 'Selected'. All the names are geographical, with 'white' names - I'm reminded of geology and mineralogy and the Linnaean scheme, where the oddest names get assigned to strata or rocks or plants.

Thus we have Europids (with subdivisions - Alpids, Mediterranids, Nordids, Lapps). Jews. Celts. Australids. Sanids. Negrids - four separate sections on these. 'Sanids' are bushmen, who Baker mentions partly for their bodily constructions (there are some female genital pictures which appear odd) and partly for their rock face art, which he praises highly as work of genius though it seems the eroded sandstone with overhangs which they used is not very permanent.

In each case Baker examines the name, the primary characters, and the secondary characters. His Europid material has a digression on how the name 'Caucasian' came about, and discusses hybrids of whites/blacks (Baker has noticed the journalistic use of 'black' in the US). He discusses Britain as a 'mongrel race' - 'note that all these peoples were not only of one race (Europid) but of one subrace (Nordid).'

He discusses Jews and 'Armenids' with some characteristics. It's striking how variable his source material is - classical authors or other ancient writings, explorers' notes, archaeologists, modern anthropologists. In this case Baker uses Biblical material (he seems unaware of the Talmud etc). Baker mentions the Khazar/ Cozar group, attributing the rediscovery to Joseph Jacobs, who regarded their kingdom as destroyed by Russians int he 10th century. (Jacobs also wrote on renowned Jews, though judging by Baker he had thin material to work on).

The chapter on Celts relies mostly on archaeological evidence - Hallstatt, Danubian evidence, and for Britain Julius Caesar, Iron Age evidence including Maiden Castle, and discussions on migrations.

Baker's four 'Negrid' chapters rely largely on explorers' accounts - in fact he lists his main sources as Fynn, David Livingstone, Galton, Du Chaillu, Speke, S W Baker, and Schweinfurth. It's all interesting stuff - ghastly 'witch doctors', innocent tribes corrupted later by whites, unbounded faith in 'fetishes', cruel customs - but one wonders how much is relevant to race. Of course Africa is a huge continent; 'Sudanids' and 'Aethiopids' appear, and Berbers and Moors and Nilotids and Nilo-Hamites. Baker doesn't seem to consider the general question of subdivisions - race, subrace, then maybe tribes? Perhaps because there seem to be endless complications. He barely mentions Nigeria, for example. He does his best to be even-handed and fair; he includes for example a list of plants domesticated by blacks - but these include maize and tobacco, which of course were introduced from the new world by whites. He does his best to check on and allow for hostile things such as bilharzia, though I don't think he considers geography in sufficient detail - vast plains are for example much harder to defend than regions split up by mountains and water barriers and snow.

Section 4 Criteria of superiority and inferiority has several chapters on Race and Achievement. These include twin inheritance, IQ tests and so on, and sporting achievements (no surprise that some races are better at sprinting, high jumping, etc - though Baker doesn't seem to consider examining less socially approved behaviors). He goes on to try to assess civilisations, including the cruelty of the 'Andids'. None of this material is very satisfactory; what about wars, for example? Baker's conclusion is a bit flat - groups vary, but also overlap, so nobody can say entire groups are superior or inferior. And 'colour' is not much use as a category.

Anyway... interesting, detailed, multifarious, wide-ranging, but inconclusive because it has no way to analyse behaviour differences. I should add that Baker assumes Darwin originated evoulitonary theory - he doesn't know about Wallace. And he accepts all the post-World War II mythology (and pre-war) about Nazis, the 'Holocaust', and so on.

Every since Herrenstein & Murray's magisterial work " The Bell Curve" came out in 1994, an industry has arisen in the field of sociology to absolutely ban any discussion of heritable differences between humans. Not only ban, but render as intrinsically evil, and thus shun. A concomitant network of enforcers have found a home as controlling editors at Wikipedia. Look up "Race (classification of humans)," especially the discussion section, to see master propagandists at work, defending with every fiber of their benighted intellects the concept of "race as a social construct." This is the modern version of censorship; censorship not by government edict, but by a self-selected claque of far-left liberals.

Since then it has become nearly impossible to find any works that describe the differences between human groups which have been interbreeding for millennia. Thus, some academics claim with a straight face that there is more genetic differences within groups such as Blacks (Negroes), as there is between Blacks and Eurasians!! After they have thoroughly ventilated about the mis-use of supposed racial differences, the reader may be left wondering, well, if there is no such thing as race, what is the differenced between Blacks, Whites, Asians and African pigmies. The ant-race establishment either falls mute on this question, or launches into an incredible convoluted rant on "clines" and other genetic markers, none of which say anything about race.

Enter John R. Baker, Professor of cytology at Oxford University, the author of nine other books on biological subjects. His encompassing work "Race" covers the historical background, the biological background, and studies of selected human groups. He does not discuss the sociology and politics of human races. He finishes of the book with a section on racial differences of cognitive abilities, thus presaging "The Bell Curve."

If you are at all interested in the subject of racial differences among humans, act quickly; this book will become ever more difficult to get a hold of, and then they'll be little left to counter the outrageous denials of the central tenant of the liberal establishment--that under the skin, we are all exactly alike.