Why Jared Diamond’s ‘The World Till Yesterday’ is improper. By Survival’s former Director, Stephen Corry
A model of this text appeared as Savaging Primitives: Why Jared Diamond’s ‘The World Till Yesterday’ Is Fully Unsuitable in The Each day Beast on January 30, 2013.
Jared Diamond’s 2012 ebook is ostensibly about what industrialized individuals (whom he calls ‘fashionable’) can study from tribal peoples (he calls them ‘conventional’). He thinks that tribes present how everybody lived till just a few thousand years in the past. Corry agrees that ‘we’ can study from tribes, however counters they symbolize no extra of a throwback to our previous than anybody else does. He reveals that Diamond’s different – and harmful – message is that almost all tribes have interaction in fixed warfare. In keeping with Diamond, they want, and welcome, state intervention to cease their violent conduct. Corry argues that that is merely an opinion, backed by questionable and spurious information, chosen to ‘show’ a political view. He sees Diamond’s place as one among supporting colonial concepts about ‘pacifying savages’, and says it’s factually and morally improper.
I ought to love this ebook: in spite of everything, I’ve spent a long time saying we will study from tribal peoples and that’s, or so we’re instructed, Jared Diamond’s principal message in his new ‘well-liked science’ work. However is it actually?
Diamond has been commuting for 50 years between the USA and New Guinea to check birds, and he should know the island and a few of its peoples effectively. He has hung out in each halves, Papua New Guinea and Indonesian‐occupied West Papua. He’s in little question that New Guineans are simply as clever as anybody, and he has clearly thought lots concerning the variations between them and societies like his, which he phrases Western, educated, industrialized, wealthy, and democratic (‘WEIRD’). He calls the latter ‘fashionable’.
Had he left it at that, he would have not less than solely upset some consultants on New Guinea, who assume his characterizations miss the purpose.1 However he goes additional, overreaching significantly by including a variety of different, what he phrases, ‘conventional’ societies, after which generalizing wildly. His info right here is basically gleaned from social scientists, notably (for these in South America) from the research of American anthropologists, Napoleon Chagnon and Kim Hill, who crop up a number of instances.
It’s true that Diamond does briefly point out, in passing, that each one such societies have ‘been partly modified by contact’, however he has nonetheless determined they’re finest considered as in the event that they lived roughly as all humankind did till the ‘earliest origins of agriculture round 11,000 years in the past within the Fertile Crescent’, as he places it.2 That’s his unequivocal message, and the which means of ‘yesterday’ in his title. This can be a frequent mistake, and Diamond wastes little of his very lengthy ebook attempting to help it. The mud jacket, which he should agree with, even when he didn’t really write it, makes the astonishingly overweening declare that, ‘tribal societies provide a rare window into how our ancestors lived for tens of millions of years’ (my emphasis). That is nonsense. Many scientists debunk the concept that modern tribes reveal something considerably extra about our ancestors, of even just a few thousand years in the past, than all of us do. Clearly, self-sufficiency is and was an essential element of the methods of lifetime of each; equally clearly, neither strategy or approached the heaving and burgeoning populations seen in immediately’s cities. In these senses, any numerically small and largely self-adequate society would possibly present one thing of a mannequin of historic life, not less than in some respects. Nonetheless, tribal peoples are merely not replicas of our ancestors.
Britain’s foremost knowledgeable on prehistoric man, Chris Stringer of London’s Pure Historical past Museum, for instance, routinely cautions in opposition to seeing fashionable hunter‐ gatherers as ‘residing fossils’, and repeatedly emphasizes that, like everybody else, their ‘genes, cultures and behaviors’ have continued to evolve to the current.3 They will need to have modified after all, or they merely wouldn’t have survived.
It is very important be aware that, though Diamond’s thesis is that we have been all as soon as ‘hunter-gatherers’,4 and that that is the primary key to them being seen as our window into the previous, the truth is most New Guineans do little searching. They reside principally from their cultivations, as they in all probability have for millennia. Diamond barely slips in the truth that their fundamental foodstuff, candy potato, was in all probability imported from the Americas, maybe just a few hundred or a thousand years in the past. Nobody agrees on how this took place, however it is only one demonstration that ‘globalization’ and alter have impacted on Diamond’s ‘conventional’ peoples for simply so long as on everybody else. Disturbingly, Diamond is aware of these items, however he doesn’t enable them to spoil his conclusions.
Anyway, he has give you a listing of practices he thinks we must always study from ‘conventional’ societies, and all that is effectively and good, although little of it seems notably radical or novel. He believes we (Individuals, not less than) ought to make extra effort to place criminals on a greater observe, and attempt to rehabilitate, slightly than merely punish. He feels we must always carry our infants extra,5 and guarantee they’re dealing with forwards after we cart them round (which is barely odd as a result of most strollers and lots of child carriers face forwards anyway). He pleads with us to worth previous individuals extra… and proffers a lot comparable recommendation.6 These ‘self‐assist handbook’ sections of the ebook are fairly unobjectionable, even sometimes thought‐scary, although it’s tough to see what influence they could actually have on wealthy Westerners or governments.
Diamond is definitely in positive fettle when he lastly turns to the physiology of our current, extreme salt and sugar consumption, and the catastrophic influence it brings to well being. His description of how massive a proportion of the world is racking up weight problems, blindness, limb amputations, kidney failure, and way more, is a vitally essential message that can not be overstressed. Declaring that the common Yanomami Indian7, at dwelling in Amazonia, takes over a 12 months to devour the identical quantity of salt as may be present in a single dish of a Los Angeles restaurant is an actual shocker and ought to be a wake-up name.
The true drawback with Diamond’s ebook, and it’s a very large one, is that he thinks ‘conventional’ societies do nasty issues which cry out for the intervention of state governments to cease. His key level is that they kill lots, be it in ‘battle’, infanticide, or the abandonment, or homicide, of the very previous. This he repeats endlessly. He’s satisfied he can clarify why they do that, and demonstrates the chilly, however crucial, logic behind it. Though he admits to by no means really having seen any of this in all his travels, he helps his level each with private anecdotes from New Guinea and an excessive amount of ‘information’ a few only a few tribes – a great proportion of it originating with the anthropologists talked about above. A lot of his boldly said ‘details’ are, at finest, questionable.8
How a lot of this really is reality, and the way a lot simply private opinion? It’s after all true that lots of the tribes he cites do categorical violence in numerous methods; individuals kill individuals all over the place, as no one would deny. However how murderous are they precisely, and learn how to quantify it? Diamond claims that tribes are significantly extra liable to killing than are societies dominated by state governments. He goes a lot additional. Regardless of acknowledging, slightly sotto voce, that there are not any studies of any battle in any respect in some societies, he doesn’t let this cloud his principal emphasis: most tribal peoples reside in a state of fixed battle.9
He helps this completely unverifiable and harmful nonsense (as have others, reminiscent of Steven Pinker)10 by taking the numbers killed in wars and homicides in industrialized states and calculating the proportions of the overall populations concerned. He then compares the outcomes with figures produced by anthropologists like Chagnon for tribes just like the Yanomami. He thinks that the outcomes show {that a} a lot larger proportion of people are killed in tribal battle than in state wars; ergo tribal peoples are extra violent than ‘we’ are.
There are after all lies, damned lies, and statistics. Allow us to first give Diamond the advantage of a number of extremely debatable, to not say controversial, doubts. I’ll, for instance, go over the probability that not less than a few of these inter-tribal ‘wars’ are prone to have been exacerbated, if not prompted, by land encroachment or different hostilities from colonist societies. I will even go away apart the truth that Chagnon’s information, from his work with the Yanomami within the Nineteen Sixties, has been discredited for many years: most anthropologists working with Yanomami merely don’t acknowledge Chagnon’s violent caricature of these he calls the ‘fierce individuals’.11 I will even skate over Kim Hill’s function in denying the genocide of the Aché Indians by the hands of Paraguayan settlers and the military within the Nineteen Sixties and early Seventies.12 (Although there’s an fascinating pointer to this cited in Diamond’s ebook: as he says, over half Aché ‘violent deaths’ have been by the hands of non-tribals.)13
I will even throw solely a passing look at the truth that Diamond refers solely to these societies the place social scientists have collected information on homicides, and ignores the lots of the place this has not been examined, maybe as a result of – not less than in some circumstances – there was no such information. In spite of everything, scientists looking for to check violence and battle are unlikely to spend their valuable fieldwork dropping in on tribes with little noticeable custom of killing. In saying this, I stress as soon as once more, I’m not denying that folks kill individuals – all over the place. The query is, ‘How a lot?’ Awarding Diamond all of the above ‘advantages of doubt’, and proscribing my remarks to wanting simply at ‘our’ aspect of the story: what number of are killed in our wars, and the way cheap is it to quote these numbers as a proportion of the overall inhabitants of the international locations concerned? Is it significant, for instance, to observe Diamond in calculating deaths within the preventing for Okinawa in 1945 as a share of the overall populations of all combatant nations – he provides the end result as 0.10% – after which evaluating this with eleven tribal Dani deaths throughout a battle in 1961. Diamond reckons the latter as 0.14% of the Dani inhabitants – greater than at Okinawa. Considered like this, the Dani violence is worse that the bloodiest Pacific battle of WWII. However after all the biggest nation concerned in Okinawa was the USA, which noticed no preventing on its mainland in any respect. Would it not not be extra smart to have a look at, say, the share of individuals killed who have been really within the areas the place the battle was going down? Nobody is aware of, however estimates of the proportion of Okinawa residents killed within the battle, for instance, vary from about 10% to 33%. Taking the higher determine provides a results of practically 2 hundred and fifty instances extra deaths than the proportion for the Dani violence, and doesn’t even depend any of the navy killed within the battle.
Equally, Diamond tells us that the proportion of individuals killed in Hiroshima in August 1945 was a tiny 0.1% of the Japanese individuals. Nevertheless, what concerning the a lot smaller ‘tribe’ of what we would name ‘Hiroshimans’, whose dying toll was practically 50% from a single bomb? Which numbers are extra significant; which may very well be seen as a contrivance to help the vanity that tribespeople are the larger killers? By supposedly ‘proving’ his thesis on this method, to what diploma does Diamond’s characterization differ considerably from labelling tribal peoples as ‘primitive savages’, or at any price as extra savage than ‘we’ are?
Should you assume I’m exaggerating the issue – in spite of everything, Diamond doesn’t say ‘primitive savage’ himself – then contemplate how skilled readers of his ebook see it: his reviewers from the celebrated Sunday Instances (UK)14 and Wall Avenue Journal (USA)15 each name tribes ‘primitive’, and Germany’s well-liked Stern journal splashed ‘Wilde’ (‘savages’) in massive letters throughout its pages when describing the ebook.16
Search and also you shall discover statistics to underscore any conceivable place on this.17 Diamond is not any idiot and probably is aware of all this – the issue is in what he chooses to current and emphasize, and what he leaves out or skates over.
I should not have the writer’s 5 hundred pages to broaden, so I’ll go away apart the issue of infanticide (I’ve checked out it in different contexts),18 however I can’t omit a response to the truth that, as he repeatedly tells us, some tribes abandon, or deserted, their previous on the finish of their lives, leaving them solely with what meals or water is likely to be spared, and transferring on within the certain data that dying would rapidly observe, and even hastening it intentionally.
Once more, Diamond explains the logic of it, and once more he tells us that, due to munificent state governments’ means to arrange ‘environment friendly meals distribution’, and since it’s now unlawful to kill individuals like this, ‘fashionable’ societies have left such conduct behind.
Actually? So allow us to neglect the forty million or so lifeless within the Nice Chinese language Famine of the early Nineteen Sixties.19 However what concerning the widespread, although normally very quiet, medical follow of giving sufferers sturdy doses of opiates – actually sturdy doses – when sickness and age have reached a threshold? The medication relieve ache, however in addition they suppress the respiratory reflex, main on to dying. Or, what about intentionally withholding meals and fluids from sufferers judged close to the top?20 Specialist non‐income reckon there are about 1,000,000 aged individuals within the UK alone who’re malnourished and even ravenous, many inside hospitals.21 So, how totally different is what we industrialized people rise up to from some tribal practices? Are all of us ‘savages’ too?
Contrasting tribal with industrialized societies has all the time been extra about politics than science, and we ought to be extraordinarily cautious of those that use statistics to ‘show’ their views.22 All of it depends upon what your query is, whom you consider, and most of all, precisely the place you’re standing if you ask it.
If, for instance, you’re an Aguaruna Indian in Peru, with a historical past of occasional revenge raiding stretching again the small handful of generations which comprise residing reminiscence (no Aguaruna can actually know the extent to which such raiding was happening even just a few generations in the past, go away alone millennia), and if in case you have lately been pushed out of the forest inside into riverine villages by encroachment from oil exploration or missionaries, then your probabilities of being killed by your compatriots would possibly even exceed these caught in Mexican medication wars, Brazilian favelas, or Chicago’s South Facet. In such circumstances there would undoubtedly be way more murder in Aguaruna‐land than that confronted by well-heeled American school professors, but in addition a lot much less than that confronted by inmates in Soviet Gulags, Nazi focus camps, or those that took up arms in opposition to colonial rule in British Kenya, or apartheid South Africa. If you end up born a boy within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, within the middle of the world’s richest nation, your common lifespan will likely be shorter than in any nation on the planet aside from some African states and Afghanistan. Should you escape being murdered, it’s possible you’ll find yourself lifeless anyway, from diabetes, alcoholism, drug dependancy or comparable. Such distress, not inevitable however seemingly, wouldn’t end result from your personal decisions, however from these made by the state over the past couple of hundred years.
What does any of this actually inform us about violence all through human historical past? The fanciful assertion that nation states reduce it’s unlikely to persuade a Russian or Chinese language dissident, or Tibetan. It won’t be very persuasive both to West Papuan tribes, the place the Indonesian invasion and occupation has been liable for a guessed 100 thousand killings not less than (nobody will ever know the precise quantity), and the place state‐sponsored torture can now be considered on YouTube.23 The state is liable for killing extra tribespeople in West Papua than anyplace else on the planet.
Though his ebook is rooted in New Guinea, not solely does Diamond fail to say Indonesian atrocities, he really writes of, ‘the continued low stage of violence in Indonesian New Guinea underneath maintained rigorous authorities management there.’ This can be a breathtaking denial of brutal state-sponsored repression waged on little‐armed tribespeople for many years. The political dimensions regarding how tribal peoples are portrayed by outsiders, and the way they’re really handled by them, are intertwined and inescapable: industrialized societies deal with tribes effectively or badly relying on what they consider them, in addition to what they need from them. Are they ‘backward’, from ‘yesterday’; are they extra ‘savage’, extra violent, than we’re?
Jared Diamond has highly effective and rich backers. He’s a prestigious educational and writer, a Pulitzer prize‐winner no much less, who sits in a commanding place in two American, and immensely wealthy, corporate-‐governmental organizations (they aren’t actually NGOs in any respect), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Conservation Worldwide (CI), whose document on tribal peoples is, to say the least, questionable.24 He’s very a lot in favor of sturdy states and leaders, and he believes efforts to attenuate inequality are ‘idealistic’, and have failed anyway. He thinks that governments which assert their ‘monopoly of power’ are rendering a ‘big service’ as a result of ‘most small-scale societies [are] trapped in… warfare’ (my emphasis). ‘The largest benefit of state authorities,’ he waxes, is ‘the bringing of peace.’
Diamond comes out unequivocally in favor of the identical ‘pacification of the natives’ which was the cornerstone of European colonialism and world domination. Moreover, he echoes imperial propaganda by claiming tribes welcome it, in keeping with him, ‘willingly abandon[ing] their jungle way of life’. With this, he in impact assaults a long time of labor by tribal peoples and their supporters, who’ve opposed the theft of their land and assets, and asserted their proper to reside as they select – usually efficiently. Diamond backs up his sweeping assault with simply two ‘cases’: Kim Hill’s work with the Aché; and a ‘buddy’ who recounted that he, ‘traveled half method all over the world to satisfy a lately found band of New Guinea forest hunter- gatherers, solely to find that half of them had already chosen to maneuver to an Indonesian village and placed on T- shirts, as a result of life there was safer and extra comfy.
This is able to be comedian have been it not tragic. The Aché, for instance, had suffered generations of genocidal assaults and slavery.25 Was Diamond’s upset buddy in New Guinea unaware of the excessive chance of carrying infectious ailments? If this actually have been a lately ‘found’ band, which is very unlikely, such a go to was, to say the least, irresponsible. Or, was it slightly a contrived vacationer go to, like nearly all supposed ‘first contacts’ in New Guinea the place a playacting business has grown up round such deception? In both occasion, West Papuans are ‘safer’ in Indonesian villages provided that they’re ready to simply accept subjugation to a mainstream society which doesn’t need them round.
As I stated, I ought to love this ebook. It asserts, as I do, that we’ve got a lot to study from tribal peoples, however it really seems to suggest nothing which challenges the established order – fairly the opposite.
Diamond provides his voice to a really influential sector of American academia which is, naively or not, striving to convey again out‐of‐date caricatures of tribal peoples. These erudite and polymath teachers declare scientific proof for his or her damaging theories and political opinions (as did revered eugenicists as soon as).26 In my very own, humbler, opinion and expertise, that is each utterly improper – each factually and morally – and very harmful. The principal reason for the destruction of tribal peoples is the imposition of nation states. This doesn’t save them; it kills them.
Had been these of Diamond’s (and Pinker’s) persuasion to be broadly believed, they threat pushing the development of human rights for tribal peoples again a long time. Yesterday’s world repeated tomorrow? I hope not. Stephen Corry is the previous director of Survival Worldwide and writer of ‘Tribal peoples for tomorrow’s world’.
Footnotes
1 E.g. see criticisms from Frederick Errington, Deborah Gewertz, Alex Golub, Stuart Kirsch, and Nancy Sullivan and many others.
2 That is an previous and simplistic chestnut, which I take a look at elsewhere. See e.g. S Corry, Tribal peoples for tomorrow’s world, Freeman Press, Alcester, 2011, pp. 46-‐47.
3 See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/science/cave-findings-revive-debate-on-human-behavior.html.
4 One other simplistic assertion, which I am going into elsewhere. See (2) above.
5 This level was maybe finest made by Jean Liedloff’s ‘The Continuum Idea’, first revealed in 1975.
6 For instance, Diamond develops a idea at nice size which he calls, ‘constructive paranoia’; I can’t see that it quantities to greater than merely ‘being cautious’. The New Guineans are sensibly cautious about sleeping underneath lifeless bushes, the writer tells us we ought to be cautious about climbing stepladders. Who’s to argue, however do we actually want ‘ancestral knowledge’ to persuade us?
7 He calls them ‘Yanomamo’.
8 To take one instance, he claims that treacherously fooling your enemies into coming to a meal after which killing them is ‘with out parallel in fashionable state warfare’. However the identical tactic has lengthy been practised by colonists murdering North and South American Indians. If he won’t admit such examples as a result of they weren’t ‘warfare’, then what concerning the German military’s invites, with false ensures of secure passage, to lure Herero tribespeople in Africa to water-‐holes earlier than massacring them? The military’s treachery behind the 1864 Sand Creek bloodbath in the USA is one other of many pertinent examples. As one other illustration, Diamond contains the Andaman Island tribes amongst these whose ‘battle objective’ was ‘to exterminate the enemy of each sexes and all ages’ (p 147). Nevertheless, he had already (p 140) cited these tribes as having one of many smallest ‘war-related deaths’ of any individuals, anyplace. If their ‘objective’ actually was to exterminate everybody, then they confirmed themselves to be singularly ineffective at attaining it!
9 J Diamond, The world till yesterday, Allan Lane, London, 2012, pp. 75, 167, 290 and many others.
10 S Pinker, The higher angels of our nature, Allen Lane, London, 2011.
11 See e.g. Yanomami, Survival Worldwide, London, 1990, p. 10. https://goo.gl/zN2sU.
When Diamond does admit that really only a few anthropologists have seen any of the fixed violence he’s satisfied is the norm in most tribal societies, he will get round it with what seem to be poor excuses: governments don’t need anthropologists to be attacked by tribespeople and, revealingly, he thinks, ‘governments additionally don’t need anthropologists to be armed… to attempt to finish preventing by power themselves… There have been authorities restrictions on journey till an space is taken into account formally pacified…’ (my emphases). Diamond, p 132. The notion that governments would possibly prohibit journey for the wellbeing of anthropologists is, frankly, risible. The place they achieve this, it’s usually to attempt to conceal their very own violence.
12 Survival Worldwide, The Denial of genocide, Survival Worldwide, London, 1993. The ‘US Peace Corps employee’ cited in paragraph 2, p. 4, is similar Kim Hill. See https://belongings.survivalinternational.org/paperwork/141/denial-of-genocide.pdf.
13 Hill himself has an fascinating method of presenting the statistics. In keeping with him, 1.5% of the grownup Aché inhabitants died yearly (from all causes), about one-‐third of them ‘on account of exterior warfare’. Hill presents this as solely 0.5% of adults being killed by Paraguayans annually, a tiny share. But we will see that 33% of adults (not simply those that died violently) have been really killed by Paraguayans. Thirty three p.c is lots, 0.5% per cent is simply just a little, however the figures discuss with the identical factor. Numbers may be crunched in all types of perverse methods. For instance, about half of Europe’s twelve million Jews died within the Holocaust. Common the quantity out through the years the Nazis held energy, deduct these estimated to have died from deprivation slightly than homicide, and fewer than about 3.6% of European Jews have been killed yearly by the Nazis. Whether or not you select 50% or 3.6% relies upon after all on what level you’re aiming for.
14 B Appleyard, ‘What life ought to be about’. Sunday Instances, Tradition, 6 January 2013. Having learn the ebook, the reviewer thinks that, in New Guinea, ‘some people nonetheless reside as they’ve lived for 100,000 years’. That is, after all, nonsense.
15 S Budiansky, ‘Let your children play with matches’. Wall Avenue Journal, 4 January 2013.
16 S Draf & F Gless, ‘Die Weisheit der Wilden’. Stern, 25 October 2012.
17 A determine not in Diamond, for instance, considerations the 75,000 civilian residents of the Traktorozavodskiy district of Stalingrad (allow us to conceive of them as ‘the Traktorozavodskiy tribe’). Just some 150 survived the 1942-‐3 battle for that metropolis. In different phrases, 99% of ‘the Traktorozavodskiy-‐ites’ succumbed in a single battle and many others.
18 Corry, op.cit., pp. 162-‐3. See additionally, https://belongings.survivalinternational.org/static/information/background/hakani-qanda.pdf.
19 It is usually estimated that about 50 million females in India have been killed within the womb or shortly after beginning, simply within the final technology or so, as a result of they have been ladies slightly than boys. That is about the identical variety of whole deaths as in WWII.
20 This isn’t solely broadly practised, however sanctioned within the UK with a slightly Orwellian euphemism. It’s referred to as the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’ (‘Wigan Pier’, anybody?), and is cited as ‘finest follow’. Hospitals are paid to implement it, so releasing up beds. I’m not judging its ethics right here, it has many caring proponents, however sometimes kinfolk intervene, and the ‘about to die’ affected person recovers to reside for weeks.
21 It is usually price citing the UK’s ‘House Youngsters’ migration scheme. Over 130,000, supposedly ‘in danger’, kids in Britain have been faraway from their households and deported to distant Commonwealth international locations, reminiscent of Australia, usually with out their dad and mom’ data or consent. Most victims have been positioned in establishments; lots of them have been pressured to work as laborers. The proof of extreme abuse is well-‐documented. The coverage was not deserted till the Seventies.
22 See e.g. Pinker, op. cit..
23 See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kwFo7-‐3Wk0, https://www.survivalinternational.org/information/6598. NGOs that publicised these movies have been subjected to extremely refined, and costly, cyberattacks (DDoS) which shut down all their web sites (notably in Oct-‐Nov 2010).
24 Fellow board member at Conservation Worldwide, for instance, is Ian Khama, President of Botswana, and the person liable for the continuing persecution of the Bushmen – supposedly for conservation. Evicting the Gana and Gwi Bushmen from what’s designated as a ‘sport reserve’, the truth is their ancestral dwelling, has been effectively publicised; much less so is the truth that such violations are one among conservation’s frequent themes because the motion was based within the US over a century in the past. Kicking individuals out of such zones, and so destroying them, has lengthy been thought-about acceptable and crucial. The overlap between early conservationists and ‘white hunters’ has been swept underneath the carpet, much more so has their promulgation of racist idea which knowledgeable the German Nazi occasion inter alia (see (26) beneath).
25 See M Münzel, Genocide in Paraguay, Worldwide Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen, 1973.
26 See, e.g. M Grant The passing of the good race, Scribner, New York, 1916.
