HUMAN RACES. —
I. DEFINITION
The term "human race" (r. u.) refers to that group of human beings who, having in common a particular hereditary patrimony, exhibit among themselves, with individual differences, the greatest homogeneity of biological characteristics transmissible to descendants.II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The extreme complexity of the subject, which has been much debated, requires clear
MONTHLY REVIEW
EDITED BY FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE REVIEW
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTASLA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
LA REVISTAS
LA REVISTA
distinguishable, e.g., in linguistic families that represent linguistic entities, in peoples that represent historical-cultural entities, in nations that represent ethnic-territorial entities, and in states that represent territorial and political entities.
b) From the taxonomic or systematic point of view, i.e., according to the hierarchy of categories that, in naturalistic classifications, aim to define the degrees of biological affinity among various living organisms, plant and animal, the expression "r. u." (at least as regards living r.) is usually applied to groupings of a narrower scope than that of the species.
With regard to man, the term "r. u." is assigned a different meaning from that with which the same term is used in zoology, where it is employed either as a synonym of variety to designate the result of certain artificially obtained crosses, or as a subdivision of the species or sub-species and distinct from the term "variety," which is reserved only for non-hereditary modifications conditioned by the environment. In human systematics, according to Biasutti, r. do not represent the category immediately below the species; rather, the species is subdivided into branches or sections (in the expression of Cucinot): the branches are subdivided into groups of r., and these into r., which in turn are subdivided into only regional or local sections or types consisting of individual persons.
c) From a geographical point of view, the expression “r. u.” has a spatial meaning corresponding to the geographical area occupied by a given race during the period under consideration. The mutual interference between geographical factors—consisting of the oro-hydrographic, climatic, and nutritional conditions characteristic of various territories—and biological factors, represented by the notable adaptability, mobility, and intermingling possibilities of humans, has, albeit slowly, continuously modified individual biogeographical situations, whose variations can be used as elements for chronological interpretations. Thus, for example, races that today occupy territories with limited accessibility (islands, high mountains, etc.) or with poor internal communication (forests, deserts, etc.), or those occupying marginal or terminal zones (some coastal strips of continents, etc.), as well as those dispersed over a large territorial expanse or those progressively restricted to ever-smaller spaces, are, within certain limits, considered older and less vital races compared to others found in opposite biogeographical conditions (Biasutti). It follows that not always has the same race occupied the same territory, and conversely, the same territory has not always been occupied by a single race. To better define, in individual cases, the correspondence between geographical location and biological conditions, the expression “geographical race” has been proposed, which—according to Rensch—indicates “the totality of morphologically similar and interbreeding individuals occupying a specific area.” Therefore, those races that have had greater spatial stability, with little or no penetration by heterogeneous elements, have been able to preserve their original biological characteristics more consistently over time. Conversely, where, due to continuity and invasions (whether carried out or suffered), large-scale interbreeding of different races has occurred, modifications of original biological traits as well as linguistic and cultural phenomena have taken place, resulting in the geographical distributions of races, languages, and cultures not being superimposable.
d) From a chronological point of view, the expression “r. u.” is usually understood not as an immutable entity over time but as stages “of a process in continuous evolution” (Dobzhanski). According to Rondoni, “race is not something static, but a process that unfolds through the concentration or dilution of certain genes (v. GENETICS) in different parts of a population.” In this regard, it should also be considered, as S. Sergi writes, that “the common destiny by which different races live together in the closest relationships causes continuous interbreeding, giving rise to mixed types in which it is not easy, nor always possible, to recognize the characteristics of their ancestors. The products of these interbreedings then appear with new aspects that could be considered expressions of a new race in formation, a human grouping for which the term ‘ethny’ has been proposed, without confusing it with race and which is better identified with a people.” Based on such concepts, synonyms for “ethny” could be considered the “resultant race” (Martial) and the “synthetic race” (Pende). However, beyond interbreeding between different races, the origin of new races can also be determined by “mutations” (i.e., sudden variations in hereditary factors [De Vries], presumed to arise either from intrinsic conditions of the genetic patrimony or caused by external factors). In both cases of interbreeding and mutations, for a new race to form, the respective “hybrids” or “mutants” must reproduce among themselves. The chronological point of view, considered in its broadest scope, coincides with the history of human races and connects to broader issues concerning “how and to what extent—using S. Sergi’s words—the factors of time (geological), space (geographical), environment (ecological), and intrinsic mechanism (genetic) have contributed to determining the plurality and discontinuity of human morphological types.”
On these issues, it suffices to recall that living human races are not the only human forms that have appeared on Earth, as they have been preceded by others, now extinct. This is documented by the skeletal remains of “fossil Hominids” and by the objects of their activity, as evidenced by the findings currently available (v. HUMAN GENUS). Following the nomenclature proposed by S. Sergi, human forms that have appeared on Earth—“and only insofar as can be ascertained from the most securely confirmed discoveries to date”—can be morphologically and chronologically distinguished as follows: Protoanthropes or first men, who lived at the beginning of the glacial epoch (“Pleistocene”), later disappeared, and whose remains have been found near Peking (Asia), near Heidelberg (Europe), and near Lake Njarasa (East Africa); “they disappeared at a certain point and were followed, in a more advanced geological time, by new human types, also now extinct: Paleanthropes or ancient men, who lived from the second to the last glacial period (Middle Pleistocene) and ‘spread throughout the Old World—Europe, Asia, Africa—while the rest of the Earth does not yet appear to have been inhabited by humans. After the glacial periods, Paleanthropes are no longer found; and all continents, including America and Australia, which previously do not seem to have been occupied by humans, are now inhabited solely by Faranthropes or humans of current forms, with which, undoubtedly, the fossil Faranthropes living at the end of the glacial epoch are genetically linked.” “The extraordinary and general polymorphism of the Faranthropes thus appears in all its extent at the close of the Pleistocene, already with ethnic differences in multiple lines corresponding to the special racial divisions of the present epoch. The so-called current human races have been evolving since then.”
It can be succinctly concluded that human races are biological entities, subdivisions of the species, spatially related to the geographical areas they occupy and chronologically in continuous evolution.
III. RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS
To distinguish the various ethnic types (q.v.) it is necessary to establish the so-called racial characteristics, which are represented by hereditary attributes detected through appropriate technical methods. In the past, many racial classifications were based on the so-called “key characteristics” — that is, on the characteristics considered most distinctive and traditionally used (such as, for example, skin color, hair form, nasal index, etc.) — which do not always, as has been seen in modern times, guarantee genetic affinity. Moreover, the same characteristic may prove discriminative in certain cases and of little importance in others, and may have been used at one time to distinguish major groups and at another to differentiate their subdivisions.Here is a list of the most commonly used characteristics: 1) morphological characteristics: external somatoscopic: skin color, form and color of hair, iris color, shape of the palpebral fissure, degree of hairiness, shape of the head, of the face (according to contour and vertical and horizontal profiles), of the nose, lips, auricles, genitals, female breasts; steatopygia (characteristic accumulation of fat in the gluteal regions of the Hottentots, Bushmen, and certain other groups); external somatometric: dimensions of the body and its segments, from which indices are calculated according to percentage ratios (e.g., the skelic index = sitting height × 100 ÷ stature), etc.; internal: of the skeleton: morphological and metric; of the soft parts: morphological and metric of muscles, brain, endocrine glands, etc. 2) Physiological characteristics: thermoregulation, basal metabolism, special metabolisms, blood group-specific properties, growth processes, etc. With regard to blood group-specific properties — that is, those relating to blood groups (of which, in addition to the system of the four classical groups, the M, N, P system and the Rh system with its subgroups are now known, not to mention other less widely distributed systems) — it should be noted that they have served as the basis for some authors to distinguish certain so-called “serological races,” constituted according to specific percentage distributions of these group-specific properties. They represent a modern and interesting field of investigation for racial studies, on which STEFFAN, OTTENBERG, BOYD, LUNDMANN, GENNA, and others have recently worked. 3) Psychological characteristics: these too have been taken into consideration for the distinction of human groups. But because of the difficulty of collecting numerous and objective psychological data, the use of such characteristics has been rather rare, when it has not been misapplied. 4) Physio-psycho-pathological characteristics: particular dispositions or resistances to certain diseases have been considered by some authors as racial characteristics. However, a clear distinction between genetic and geographical factors is rarely attainable. For this reason, although the theoretical possibility that there exist immunities or disease forms linked to race (such as, for example, sickle-cell anemia in Negroes) is admitted, in practice it is advisable to maintain the widest reservations in this regard.
IV. THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF HUMAN RACES — The numerous classifications of human races are usually grouped according to the distinctive characteristics that have been employed and the criteria that have been followed. Thus, for example, those classifications based primarily on morphological characteristics are called morphological; genealogical or phyletic, those based on the interpretation of degrees of kinship or affinity and the descent of the various races; genealogical, those based on the interpretation of the degree of evolution derived from racial vitality (population growth, morbidity, territorial expansion, geographical conditions of inhabited space, etc.); geographical, those based primarily on geographical distribution and the interpretation of various biogeographical situations.
The distinction of individual classifications into groups cannot be observed in an absolute sense, because one and the same classification may be at the same time morphological and geographical, morphological and phyletic, etc.; the various classifications include a different number of (and) related subdivisions, and some even a different number of species and even genera; a certain agreement may be considered to exist, in part, for the major groupings, while for the lower groups the discussions are still open, so that some races are assigned now to one group, now to another. Therefore, whatever criteria have been followed, they have always been informed by interpretative hypotheses which, together with the difficulty and uncertainty of fitting the enormous polymorphism of man into rigid schemes, render the various classifications more or less conventional and destined to be modified by further knowledge.
In the impossibility of examining the various classifications proposed, we shall recall briefly, among the most recent, those that have had the greatest diffusion. The ancients already distinguished the various human types, as can be seen, for example, in Egyptian paintings, in the Bible, in Herodotus, in Hippocrates; but classifications in the modern sense begin with that of C. Linnaeus (1735), who distinguished the varieties of *Homo sapiens* on the basis not only of morphological but also of psychological and ethnological traits:
a) *Americanus* (reddish; choleric; upright posture; black, straight, thick hair; broad nostrils; freckled face; almost beardless chin; tenacious, content, free; paints himself with red labyrinthine lines; governed by custom);
b) *Europaeus* (white, sanguine, muscular; blondish, long hair; blue eyes; lively, clever, inventive; dresses in tight clothes; governed by laws);
c) *Asiaticus* (yellowish, melancholic, rigid; black, sparse hair; dark eyes; severe, ostentatious, stingy; dresses in loose clothes; governed by opinions);
d) *Afer* (black, phlegmatic, relaxed; very black, woolly hair; skin smooth as silk; flat nose; thick lips; women have an apron of modesty with elongated lactating breasts; cunning, lazy, indolent; anoints himself with grease; governed by caprice).
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1765), on the basis of morphological characteristics (skeletal) and of the soft parts of the head, distinguished 5 varieties: 1) Caucasian; 2) Mongolian; 3) Ethiopian; 4) American; 5) Malay. Because of the indication of the spatial areas of the individual varieties, Blumenbach’s classification, which is morphological, is erroneously considered geographical. Among the morphological classifications, understood extensively in the sense of somatic, may be included those so-called “chromatic” because they are based exclusively or predominantly on skin color. Some of these have also been called “tripartite” because they distinguish humanity into three main groups: Whites, Negroes, Yellows (Cuvier, 1815–17), subsequently called Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids, and later still Leucoderms, Melanoderms, and Xanthoderms (Stratz, 1922).
Among the modern morphological classifications, mention should be made of that of Deniker (1900), who, on the basis of hair morphology and color (including other characteristics for subdivisions), distinguished 6 racial groups, and that of Haddon (1909), which may also be considered tripartite because it distinguishes three great human groups: the Lissotrichi (with straight hair), the Cimotrichi (with wavy hair), and the Ulotrichi (with woolly hair). To the group of morphological classifications might also be added those based simultaneously on anthropological and linguistic criteria, which Biasutti calls “artificial.” Examples of these are those of Huxley (1870), Müller (1870), Haeckel (1900), etc.
Among the genealogical or phyletic classifications (which also take into account somatic characteristics), mention should be made of that of Giuseppe Sergi (1911), who admitted 5 genera, two fossil and three living, applying for the first time to man a Latin terminology according to the rules of zoological nomenclature; of Gregory (1924); of Montandon (1928), who, applying Rosa’s hologenesis to man, distinguished 5 great races originating successively from a common trunk that progressively divided into two branches, one of which is destined to become extinct and the other to evolve. A variation of the hologenetic dichotomy was applied by Frassetto (1948) to the classification of fossil human races. Weinert (1939) admits three evolutionary lines: a black one, on which the Negroids would be arranged; a central white one, at the base of which would be the Australians and at the apex the Europeans; and a yellow one, on which the Mongoloids would be found; the three lines would branch off from the same trunk from which the lines of anthropoid apes also originate. A very recent phyletic classification that takes into account genetic knowledge is that of Fischer (1936), according to which four main branches would have derived from a single original trunk by “mutation,” namely those of Negroes, Australians, Europids, and Mongoloids. Within each of these great branches, further mutations, appearing simultaneously in more branches, would have given rise to racial subdivisions. Thus, for example, the character “woolly hair,” original to Negroes, may also be found in some race of the Australids because it appeared there as a result of mutation. In this regard, S. Sergi comments that “the mutations proposed by the author are simple suppositions which, however, have had great suggestive power.”
Of the so-called hierarchical classifications (which are in part also genealogical), the oldest is that of Fritsch (1881), who distinguished human races into the following three categories: the protomorphic or “primitive” races (older) which, numerically, geographically, and vitally, are in a disadvantaged condition; the archimorphic or “dominant” races (more recent) deriving from the former and presenting, in comparison with them, advantageous conditions; and the metamorphic or “derived” races from crosses between archimorphic races or between these and the primitive ones. Similar, but more complex than that of Fritsch, is the classification of Stratz (1904), followed by that of E. von Eickstedt (1934), which is considered among the most recent. The author distinguishes three main branches: Europiform (leucoderms), Negiform (melanoderms), and Mongoliform (xanthoderms), which in turn are subdivided as follows:
| Main Branches | Europiform | Negiform | Mongoliform |
|---------------|------------|----------|-------------|
| Secondary Races | Europids | Negrids | Mongoloids |
| Particular Races | Polynesids | Melanesids | Indianids |
| Intermediate Forms | Vedids | Pigmies | Eskimoids |
| | Ainuidi | Australids | Khoisanids |
An example of morphological-geographical classifications is that of Vallois (1948), who, instead of considering the continents properly speaking, examines the following six great regions which he calls “anthropological areas,” each of which presents a particular racial composition: Europe and the Mediterranean basin; sub-Saharan Africa; India; trans-Himalayan Asia; the Oceanic world; America.
An example of a genealogical-geographical classification is that of Biasutti (1941), which is given in full below:
1. Cycle of primary equatorial forms
a) Branch of the Australoids: group of Austro-Oceanic races; Paleo-Australids (Australide and Tasmanide races); group of Papuan-Melanesian races; Papuan-Melanesids (Melaneside and Papuase races); group of Austro-Asiatic races: Veddo-Malids (Veddoide, Malide and Senoide races); b) branch of the Negroids: Austro-African group: Steatopygids (Steatopygide race); group of the pygmy races: Pygmids (Bambuide, Andamanide, Semangide and Aetide races); group of the African negro races: Negrids (Sudanide, Nilotide, Congolide and Caffride races).2. Cycle of primary boreal forms: c) branch of the Mongoloids: group of paleomorphic Mongoloid races: Premongolids (Siberide and Tibetide races); group of neomorphic Mongoloid races: Mongoloids; neoarctic subgroup (Eschimide race); Asian subgroup (Tungide, Sinide and Sudmongolide races); d) branch of the Europoids: group of paleomorphic Europoid races: Pre-Europids (Ainude, Uralide and Lappide races); group of neomorphic Europoid races: Europids; European subgroup (Nordide, Mediterraneide, Adriatide, Balteide and Alpide races); Afro-Asiatic subgroup (Berberide, Orientalide, Armenide, Asiride, Turanide and Indide races).
3. Cycle of sub-equatorial derived races: African forms (Etiopide, Saharide and Malgasside races); South-Asian forms (Indo-Melanide and Indonesia races).