but below the white in respect to his health. There is considerable evidence that he occupies the same relation in the intellectual world; it is a matter of general observation that nearly all the leaders of the Negro race in the United States are not Negroes but mulattoes.
Without going into detail, we feel perfectly safe in drawing this conclusion: that in general the white race loses and the Negro gains from miscegenation.
This applies, of course, only to the germinal nature. Taking into consideration the present social conditions in America, it is doubtful whether either race gains. But if social conditions be eliminated for the moment, biologists may believe that intermarriage between the white and Negro races represents, on the whole, an advance for the Negro; and that it represents for the white race a distinct loss.
If eugenics is to be thought of solely in terms of the white race, there can be no hesitation about rendering a verdict. We must unhesitatingly condemn miscegenation.
But there are those who declare that it is small and mean to take such a narrow view of the evolution of the race. They would have America open its doors indiscriminately to immigration, holding it a virtue to sacrifice one's self permanently for someone else's temporary happiness; they would equally have the white race sacrifice itself for the Negro, by allowing a mingling of the two blood-streams. That, it is alleged, is the true way to elevate the Negro.
The question may well be considered from that point of view, even though the validity of such a point of view is not admitted.
To ensure racial and social progress, nothing will take the place of leadership, of genius. A race of nothing but mediocrities will stand still, or very nearly so; but a race of