the interior of China associated with a somewhat low stage of evolution. On the other hand, we are all more or less disposed to dislike and despise a mixture of Europeans with the greater part of foreign races. "God created the white man and God created the black man, but the created the mulatto," is a very well-known proverb. As a matter of fact, we are absolutely ignorant as to the moral and intellectual qualities of half-castes. It would be absurd to expect from the union of a good-for-nothing European with an equally good-for-nothing black woman, children that march on the heights of humanity, and we know of many half-castes that are absolutely sans reproche; but we have no good statistics of the qualities of half-castes in comparison with those of their parents. Meanwhile it may be permitted to anthropology to wish a separate evolution of the "so-called white and the so-called coloured peoples." As yet we know very little about the interesting and complicated psychology of most of the coloured races, and I am seriously convinced that better knowledge will be followed by more and more mutual sympathy; but racial barriers will never cease to exist, and if ever they should show a tendency to disappear, it will certainly be better to preserve than to obliterate them. The brotherhood of man is a good thing, but the struggle for life is a far better one. Athens would never have become what it was, without Sparta, and national jealousies and differences, and even the most cruel wars, have ever been the real causes of progress and mental freedom. As long as man is not born with wings, like the angels, he will remain subject to the eternal laws of Nature, and therefore he will always have to struggle for life and existence. No Hague Conferences, no International Tribunals, no international papers and peace societies, and no Esperanto or other international language, will ever be able to abolish war. The respect due by the white races to other races and by the white races to each other can never be too great, but natural law will never allow racial barriers to fall, and even national boundaries will never cease to exist. Nations will come and go, but racial and national antagonism will remain; and this is well, for mankind would become like a herd of sheep, if we were to lose our national ambition and cease to look with pride and delight, not only on our industries and science, but also on our splendid soldiers and our glorious ironclads. Let small-minded people whine about the horrid cost of Dreadnoughts; as long as every nation in Europe spends, year after year, much more money on wine, beer, and brandy than on her army and navy, there is no reason to dread our impoverishment by militarism, Si vis pacem, para bellum; and in reality there is no doubt that we shall be the better able to avoid war, the better we care for our armour. A nation is free only in so far as her own internal affairs are concerned. She has to respect the right of other nations as well as to defend her own, and her vital interests she will, if necessary, defend with blood and iron.1 [Paper submitted in English.] RACE FROM THE SOCIOLOGICAL By ALFRED FOUILLÉE, Paris, Member of the Institut de France. I. IN discussions of the race problem there is one factor of supreme importance which has been so far disregarded-to wit, the opinion or idea which a race has of itself and the influence exerted by this idea. It is a view I have long been contending for, namely, that every idea is the conscious form in which feelings and impulses are cast. Thus every idea contains within it not merely an intellectual act, but also a certain orientation of sensibility and of will. Consequently every idea is a force which tends to realise its own object more and more fully. This is true of the idea of race, just as it is true of the idea of nation. Hence we have (1) a certain self-consciousness in a race, imparting to each of its members a kind of racial personality; (2) a tendency to affirm this personality more and more strongly, to oppose it to other racial types and secure its predominance. In other words, the race-idea includes within it a race-consciousness. It is certain, for instance, that a white man shares the idea and the will of his race-a result the more inevitable inasmuch as he has but to open his eyes in order to distinguish white from yellow or black. Frenchmen or Russians may not be able to recognise one another at sight, but there can be no confusing blacks and whites. Colour is a visible and immediate bond between men of white, black, or yellow race. Even among white men certain types lend themselves to easy recognition and the setting up of a tie between men who share certain typical features. Take, for instance, the dark dolichocephalic Arab type, or the dark brachycephalic Turkish, and compare either with the fair dolichocephalic English type. If an ethnic consciousness gives a race greater solidarity and * To prevent the last few paragraphs from being misinterpreted, Professor v. Luschan authorises us to state that he regards the desire for a war between Germany and England as "insane or dastardly."-EDITOR. inward unity, it has, on the other hand, the disadvantage of culminating nearly always in an assumption of superiority and, for that very reason, in a feeling of natural hostility. The yellow man thinks himself no less superior to the white than the white man believes himself superior to the yellow. At all events, he believes himself to be very different, and from the conviction of difference to that of enmity there is only a step. Differences of language and custom—and, above all, of religion— serve to intensify the hostility. All religion is sociological in character, and expresses symbolically the conditions native to the life or progress of a given society. The religion of a race converts it into a huge society animated by the same beliefs and the same aspirations. Moreover, all religion is intolerant, and hostile to other religions. It believes itself to be the truth, and thus seeks to universalise that which is only the particular spirit of one race or one nationeg, the Jewish spirit, the Christian spirit, the Mahommedan spirit. When, then, the ethnic consciousness becomes at the same time a religious consciousness, the assertion of the individuality of a race implies a counter-assertion to the individuality of other races. It is hidden warfare, passing over at the very first opportunity into open warfare. II. How, then, are we to war against the force of hatred and division which is inherent in the idea of race when wedded to the idea of religion? We must fight it by the force of other ideas which contain a different set of feelings and tendencies. These "idéesforces," or motor ideas, are of two kinds: scientific ideas and moral ideas. Just as ethnic and religious ideas are dividing factors, so scientific ideas are conciliatory in tendency. Science recognises no colour line it is neither white, yellow, nor black, neither Christian nor Mahommedan. When a man of science demonstrates the equality of two triangles, he makes the sides of these triangles coincide; and no less surely do his geometrical conclusions coincide with that of all other geometricians, be they white, yellow, or black. Over and above the consciousness of race, nationality, or religion, scientific ideas develop a human and social, not to say human and cosmic consciousness. Science, then, is the great reconciler, the fruitful germ of universal peace, realising in the world of intelligence the maxim "All in one." By the force that belongs to ideas union tends to pass from the intellect into the heart. Men of science, be their colour white or yellow, hail one another as brothers. Industrial technique, being the application of science, shares the universal character of science. A railroad, whether Chinese or English, is always a railroad. A telegraph line, Russian or Japanese, is always a telegraph-line. A telephone, whether Turkish or trian, is always a telephone. Every industrial invention is a manifes-, tation of science, truth leaping into obviousness in all its luminous impersonality, and, like the sun, shining equally upon black and white. Hand in hand with science and industry goes commerce, another bond between races. Commerce requires a constant increase in the number and speed of the methods of communication, and these bring nations together; and commerce requires, moreover, codes of morality and law which tend to the establishment of moral and legal similarities between one race and another-similarities the importance of which is becoming daily more manifest. Another great link between races and nations, and one which is destined in the future to play a still more important part, is to be found in philosophical ideas. Even in the Middle Ages such ideas were the bond that united Christians, Jews, and Mussulmen. St. Thomas, Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides paid common homage to Plato and Aristotle. To-day there are many points on which a disciple of Confucius or of Mencius will have small difficulty in coming to an understanding with a disciple of Kant or of Schopenhauer. Philosophical ideas, even when they seem to divide men by the apparent multiplicity of their systems, yet really unite them in one and the same love of truth, one and the same disinterested inquiry into the heart of things, into the meaning of the ultimate laws of nature and of life. Among all true philosophers the critical spirit and the speculative interest are the same. While all religions are guilty of the two great capital crimes-pride and hatred-the philosopher knows that he knows little or nothing. He delights in contradiction, inasmuch as it reveals to him another aspect of truth which differs from his own. His opponents seem to him at bottom his best friends. He has no inclination whatsoever to kill or burn them. His universal tolerance is not born of a condescending indulgence for those who differ from him, but of respect for freedom of conscience, and of gratitude for efforts which are complementary to his own and for the fresh light which comes to the aid of his own imperfect vision. Nor must it be thought that philosophical ideas, with the new perspective which they open out upon life and the world, are doomed to remain the exclusive possession of a small and select company. Little by little they mingle with the intellectual atmosphere which is the property of us all. The thoughts of men such as Descartes, Voltaire, Rousseau, or Kant float, so to speak, in the very air we breathe. Many humble people who have never even heard these names are unconsciously affected by those philosophical influences which have helped to mould our modern civilisation. Thanks to the world's thinkers, there is something new under the sun; something new, too, in our tuman consciousness. Nothing is lost; all is fruitful and mutiples, deas which to all appearance are most abstract end by taking fem and dwelling among men. we have the true mystery of incarnation. Here III. Are we, then, to trust solely to the spontaneous propagation. of science, industry, and commerce, and even of art, which is becoming more and more cosmopolitan, and of social morality and law, which are constantly bringing greater uniformity into systems of contract and exchange and international relations generally? Or are we to add unto these things religious propaganda? I think not. The question is so important for ethnic sociology that it deserves closer attention. I have already said, and it cannot be repeated too often, that nothing divides men more than religious dogmas, each of which excludes absolutely the contrary dogma: sint ut sunt, aut non sint. Our missionaries are psychologists and sociologists who feed themselves on generous illusions. They think that they are going to convert Mahommedans or Buddhists to the beauties of Christianity. They only succeed in making a few isolated converts who are ashamed of their former co-religionists. Too often the missionaries make Christianity hated rather than loved. Moreover, what message have they for those whom they wish to enlighten? Will not Jehovah seem to a disciple of Confucius just as vindictive as Baal or Moloch? Will even Jesus Himself seem to a Buddhist altogether an embodiment of gentleness when He threatens those who do not share His beliefs with being conserved in fire to all eternity? Take the story of Adam eating the apple, and thus compelling God to make His Son perish on the cross in order to appease His own wrath. Is it likely that this, from a moral and social point of view, will seem superior to the story of Buddha offering himself to be torn by lions and tigers? How should the sacrament of the eucharist, which culminates in representing God as consumed in flesh and blood, convert a poor savage for whom a god who allows himself to be eaten will never be a god? The symbolic and philosophic meaning that may be given to such dogmas (though, for the matter of that, most believers take them literally) escapes and will always continue to escape those whom it is desired to convert. They take hold of the dogma only by its absurd, inhuman, anti-social side, and they do not see why they should betray their race by renouncing its gods for those of a race that is foreign and often hostile. It is idle, then, to count on religion for bridging over the gulf of race. On the contrary, the different religious beliefs of each race must be respected. If a race wishes to believe in Brahma, Vishnu, and Çiva instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it must be allowed to believe in Brahma, Vishnu, and Çiva. Religion through |