Letters to the Editor

[In view of the length of many of the letters which we receive, we would remind correspondents that we often cannot give space for long letters and that short ones are generally read with more attention. The length which we consider most suitable is about that of one of our paragraphs on " .News of the Week."—Ed. SpEcrAron.] THE VOICE OF PREJUDICE [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIB,—Although I suffer critics gladly at all times you must

forgive me if I utter a mild protest against what seems to me a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of my old and valued colleague Professor G. Elliot Smith, F.R.S. - He has instructed your readers on the standards which Science exacts of its followers, and has shown how lamentably I fall short of them. I have always supposed that the first duty of a man who claims to be scientific is to verify his references. I fear Professor Elliot Smith's " references " as far as concerns my Rectorial Address, go no further than the scare lines of the lurid press, otherwise he could not have represented me as saying some- thing which is diametrically opposite to what I did say in my Rectorial Address. Let me first quote Professor Elliot Smith's version of what I said :

" Hence it is difficult to imagine why Sir Arthur Keith, ignoring the generally known evidence of history and anthropology, assumes that cross-breeding between Europeans, negroes and Mongols, even if such monstrous miscegenation were universal, would afford ` the sole way of establishing peace and good will.' Few people are likely to accept as ` one of the most glorious ideals which has ever seized the imagination of man ' the fantastic proposition that ` there can never be health in our modern world until all mankind sleep under the same tribal blanket.' The idea is as nasty as it is crazy."

If readers of the Spectator will turn to my printed Address* which I had before me as I spoke to the students of Aberdeen— they will find (p. 48) what I actually did say was this :

" If this scheme of universal deraeialization ever comes before you as a matter of practical politics—as the sole way of establishing peace and good will in all parts of our world, I feel certain both head and heart will rise against it. There will well up within you an overmastering antipathy to securing peace at such a price."

I cite this one instance from Professor Elliot Smith's article— I could cite many more—to convince your readers that they should verify Professor . Elliot Smith's statements before accepting them. Professor Elliot Smith evidently agrees with me that prejudice should be given a place in politics, pat it has been left for him to. give it a place in science.—I am, Sir,

&c., ARTHUR KEITH.

Royal College of Surgeons of England, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, W.C. 2.

[Professor Elliot Smith writes : " In his letter Sir Arthur Keith makes no attempt to answer my criticisms, that he has made preposterous claims for the former existence of prehistoric warring tribes, which are in flagrant • conflict with the available information, and that he has not cited any evidence in support of his speculations. To distract attention from this significant omission he resorts to the old and familiar dialectical device of accusing his critic of deliberate misrepresentation and of introducing prejudice into a scientific argument. He pretends, further, that I have neglected to verify my references, although I took particular care freely to quote his own words in inverted commas so as not to run the risk of misrepresenting or of doing less than justice to his speculations. In my comments also I carefully • chose my words to secure absolute accuracy.

Perhaps you will allow me to quote the relevant passages from the Rectorial Address without tearing one sentence from its context, as Sir Arthur does in his letter. This will enable your readers to decide whether or not the article I wrote for the Spectator of June 20th is just and fair comment.

On page 45 he writes.:

` Mankind is more in need of a racial physician than in any of its many previous maladies. The world to-day is - a bed of sickness, and there is no lack of physicians standing round the patient. The peoples of Scotland, England and Ireland are on that bed ; all the nationalities of Europe are there ; nay, all mankind is on it. Let us listen first to our good physicians ; they assure us there can never be health in our modern world until all mankind sleeps under the same tribal blanket. Mankind throughout the world must be massed until it forms a single united harmonious tribe.

* Published by Williams and Norgate on June 8th.

This proposal to weld the diverse peoples of the world into a single tribe is one of the most glorious ideals which has ever seized the imagination of man.'

Again on page 47 :

To obtain universal and perennial peace you must also reckon the price you will have to pay for it. The price is the racial birth- right that Nature has bestowed on you. To attain such an ideal world, peoples of all countries and continents must pool not only their national interests, but they must also pool their bloods. Black, brown, yellow and white must give and take in marriage and distribute in a common progeny the inheritance which each has coma by in their uphill struggle through the leagues of prehistoric tan* towards the present. If this scheme of universal deracializatiods ever comes before you as a matter of practical politics—as the sole way of establishing peace and good will in all parts of our world, I feel certain both head and heart will rise against it.'

Although Sir Arthur Keith attributes this statement to

' our good physicians' he himself is clearly the author of the prescription. If I understand the words he uses there can be no doubt he does put forward the view that universal misce- genation is 'the sole way of-establishing peace and good will' I think the word crazy is a not inapt description of such arrant nonsense. Although Sir Arthur protests that both head and heart will rise against it' this does not imply that he denies

the strange fiction of his imagination. His words are quite explicit on that issue. As the avowed champion of prejudice and of the vital necessity of warfare to promote human pro-

gress it obviously becomes incumbent on him to object to what he regards as the only way to attain peace and goodwill. He shows his discretion in refusing to get under the tribal blanket !

• Anyone who takes the trouble to read the whole Rectorial Address can convince himself that I have not misquoted or misrepresented Sir Arthur Keith. Nor in my citation of the relevant evidence is there any sign of prejudice, which is entirely alien to the discipline of science. The essential purpose of my discussion of his Address was, in fact, to protest against

the doctrine that prejudice was a thing to be commended and cultivated. Hence I was careful to avoid saying anything

which could possibly bear the interpretation of being unfair. I dealt honestly with the evidence actually submitted in support of Sir Arthur's mischievous argument."—En. Spectator.]