|social and cultural differences between different groups of Homo sapiens, and that the social and cultural changes in different groups have, in the main, been independent of changes in inborn constitution. Vast social changes have occurred which were not in any way connected with changes in racial type.|
|4.||There is no evidence that race mixture as such produces bad results from the biological point of view. The social results of race mixture whether for good or ill are to be traced to social factors.|
|5.||All normal human beings are capable of learning to share in a common life, to understand the nature of mutual service and reciprocity, and to respect social obligations and contracts. Such biological differences as exist between members of different ethnic groups have no relevance to problems of social and political organization, moral life and communication between human beings.|
Lastly, biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives toward cooperation, and unless these drives are satisfied, men and nations alike fall ill. Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between men and man brings with it disintegration. In this sense, every man is his brother's keeper. For every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, because he is involved in mankind.
Charles Horton Cooley
[ One of the oldest and most persistent efforts to explain race prejudice has been in terms of the characteristics of the minority group itself. Particularly the assumption of race inferiority has served to rationalize a system of discrimination and prejudice. Some of the nineteenth century biologists made a number of mistakes that gave support and credence to this popular theory. Essentially what Sir Francis Galton and other early biologists were trying to do was to explain social phenomena in biological terms. Before the century was out, however, they