What do you think?
Rate this book
The Concept of Race.
The decorative dustjacket adds much to this vintage hardcover. The jacket shows wear along the edges from shelving. Book is like new inside, free of markings, bright and clean. /lh
270 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1964
About the author
Ashley Montagu
212 books73 followersBooks, such as
The Natural Superiority of Women
(1953), of Ashley Montagu, originally Israel Ehrenberg, a British-American, helped to popularize anthropology.
As a young man, he changed his name to "Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu". After relocating to the United States, he used the name "Ashley Montagu."
This humanist of Jewish ancestry related topics, such as race and gender, to politics and development. He served as the rapporteur or appointed investigator in 1950 for the The Race Question , statement of educational, scientific, and cultural organization of United Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_...
As a young man, he changed his name to "Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu". After relocating to the United States, he used the name "Ashley Montagu."
This humanist of Jewish ancestry related topics, such as race and gender, to politics and development. He served as the rapporteur or appointed investigator in 1950 for the The Race Question , statement of educational, scientific, and cultural organization of United Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 8, 2026
A FINE COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC ESSAYS CRITIQUING THE POPULAR NOTION OF ‘RACE’
Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu (1905-1999) was a British-American anthropologist and humanist.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1964 book, “The contributions to this volume have been written by seven physical anthropologists and three anthropologically sophisticated biologists. The concept of race examined in this volume is the concept of race that physical anthropologists have, in common with most biologists, worked with and subscribed to. It is the biological concept of race which is the subject of critical examination in this book… The biological concept of race has it that within a particular species there exist different populations of the same species which are distinguished from one another by the possession of certain distinctive hereditary traits… this is the concept of race to which most biologists and most physical anthropologists at the present time still subscribe.” (Pg. xi)
He states, “In spite of long entrenched beliefs to the contrary, the truth is that there are some things which simply defy all attempts at classification… That, precisely, has been the trouble with the concept of race, for that term and the concept it represents is a classificatory one. It commences with a definition before the inquiry has been undertaken which could render a valid definition possible…. Facts, in such a case, tend to be forced to fit the theories which are implied in the definitions … such theoretical definitions … render one insensible to the facts.” (Pg. xiii)
He states in his opening essay, “I propose that … the concept of race is … a conception which in the light of modern experimental genetics is utterly erroneous and meaningless, and that it should therefore be dropped from the vocabulary of the anthropologist, for it has done an infinite amount of harm and no good at all.” (Pg. 3)
He observes, “The process of averaging the characters of a given group, knocking the individuals together, giving them a good stirring, and then serving the resulting omelete as a ‘race’ is essentially the anthropological process of racemaking… it is not science, since it serves to confuse rather than to clarify … The anthropological process of ‘race’ … is an omelete which corresponds to nothing in nature.” (Pg. 6)
He explains, “it is not possible to classify the various groups of mankind by means of the characters which anthropologists customarily use, because these characters do not behave as pre-Mendelian… complexes of characters which are relatively fixed and are transmitted as complexes… These genes retain both their independence and their individual character more or less indefinitely…. For these reasons any conception of race which operates as if inheritance were a matter of the transmission of gross aggregates of character is meaningless.” (Pg. 7)
He points out, “all of the five, seven, or ten races (depending on who we follow) are inter-fertile. The blood of all races is built on the same pattern of agglutinins and antigens, and the appropriate blood type from one race can be transferred from one race into any of the others without untoward effect. Thus in spite of the unquestionable physical differences … between groups of people, an imposing substrate of similarities underlies these differences.” (Pg. 11)
Jean Hiernajux suggests, “it seems that the only useful way of grouping individuals for anthropological analysis is to group together the people participating within the same circle of matings. Such a group shows a genuine tendency toward stability from generation to generation.” (Pg. 32) She observes, “the classical subdivision of mankind into three main groups: Whites, Blacks, and Yellows… We know of so many populations that do not fit into the picture!… Just as Indians could not be classed with the Black or White races of the ternary system, numerous populations are unclassifiable in a nine-fold subdivision because they are peripheral to several geographical races.” (Pg. 37-38)
Frank B. Livingstone observes, “although it is possible to divide a group of related species into discrete units, namely the species, it is impossible to divide a single species into groups larger than the panmictic [random breeding pattern] population… If one character is used, it is possible to divide a species into subspecies according to the variation of this character. If two characters are used… there will be some ‘problem populations.’ … As the number of characters increases it become more nearly impossible to determine what the ‘actual' races really are.” (Pg. 47-48)
Robert T. Anderson notes, “Since [J.F.] Blumenbach first presented his five-fold classification of the varieties of man in 1781, scores of theorists have applied themselves to the problem of arranging human physical varieties into an orderly typology. Of the many classifications devised, all have found their nemesis in certain peoples who defy placement, such as the Polynesians, and Australians, the Veddas, the Pigmies, and the Lapps.” (Pg. 61)
C. Loring Brace states, “Apparently dark skin has survival value in the tropics as people have suspected for many years. Against this it has been argues that many dark-skinned tropic dwellers do not in fact have to contend with much strong sunlight. The Congo negro or the pygmy of the Ituri forest spend large parts of their lives sheltered by jungle, and yet they are quite well endowed with melanin. The answer is that neither of these people has been there for very long… Apparently the Congo area has only recently sustained the populations which now live there…” (Pg. 111)
Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm observes, “It is obvious that that choice of a characteristic for the primary division will determine in large measure what races will be recognized. The vast majority of classifications which have been proposed thus far, both folk and scientific, have been based primarily on skin color. Had blood groups, hair types, or body build been the primary standard, the lines would certainly have been drawn differently.” (Pg. 168)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the concept of ‘race.’
Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu (1905-1999) was a British-American anthropologist and humanist.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1964 book, “The contributions to this volume have been written by seven physical anthropologists and three anthropologically sophisticated biologists. The concept of race examined in this volume is the concept of race that physical anthropologists have, in common with most biologists, worked with and subscribed to. It is the biological concept of race which is the subject of critical examination in this book… The biological concept of race has it that within a particular species there exist different populations of the same species which are distinguished from one another by the possession of certain distinctive hereditary traits… this is the concept of race to which most biologists and most physical anthropologists at the present time still subscribe.” (Pg. xi)
He states, “In spite of long entrenched beliefs to the contrary, the truth is that there are some things which simply defy all attempts at classification… That, precisely, has been the trouble with the concept of race, for that term and the concept it represents is a classificatory one. It commences with a definition before the inquiry has been undertaken which could render a valid definition possible…. Facts, in such a case, tend to be forced to fit the theories which are implied in the definitions … such theoretical definitions … render one insensible to the facts.” (Pg. xiii)
He states in his opening essay, “I propose that … the concept of race is … a conception which in the light of modern experimental genetics is utterly erroneous and meaningless, and that it should therefore be dropped from the vocabulary of the anthropologist, for it has done an infinite amount of harm and no good at all.” (Pg. 3)
He observes, “The process of averaging the characters of a given group, knocking the individuals together, giving them a good stirring, and then serving the resulting omelete as a ‘race’ is essentially the anthropological process of racemaking… it is not science, since it serves to confuse rather than to clarify … The anthropological process of ‘race’ … is an omelete which corresponds to nothing in nature.” (Pg. 6)
He explains, “it is not possible to classify the various groups of mankind by means of the characters which anthropologists customarily use, because these characters do not behave as pre-Mendelian… complexes of characters which are relatively fixed and are transmitted as complexes… These genes retain both their independence and their individual character more or less indefinitely…. For these reasons any conception of race which operates as if inheritance were a matter of the transmission of gross aggregates of character is meaningless.” (Pg. 7)
He points out, “all of the five, seven, or ten races (depending on who we follow) are inter-fertile. The blood of all races is built on the same pattern of agglutinins and antigens, and the appropriate blood type from one race can be transferred from one race into any of the others without untoward effect. Thus in spite of the unquestionable physical differences … between groups of people, an imposing substrate of similarities underlies these differences.” (Pg. 11)
Jean Hiernajux suggests, “it seems that the only useful way of grouping individuals for anthropological analysis is to group together the people participating within the same circle of matings. Such a group shows a genuine tendency toward stability from generation to generation.” (Pg. 32) She observes, “the classical subdivision of mankind into three main groups: Whites, Blacks, and Yellows… We know of so many populations that do not fit into the picture!… Just as Indians could not be classed with the Black or White races of the ternary system, numerous populations are unclassifiable in a nine-fold subdivision because they are peripheral to several geographical races.” (Pg. 37-38)
Frank B. Livingstone observes, “although it is possible to divide a group of related species into discrete units, namely the species, it is impossible to divide a single species into groups larger than the panmictic [random breeding pattern] population… If one character is used, it is possible to divide a species into subspecies according to the variation of this character. If two characters are used… there will be some ‘problem populations.’ … As the number of characters increases it become more nearly impossible to determine what the ‘actual' races really are.” (Pg. 47-48)
Robert T. Anderson notes, “Since [J.F.] Blumenbach first presented his five-fold classification of the varieties of man in 1781, scores of theorists have applied themselves to the problem of arranging human physical varieties into an orderly typology. Of the many classifications devised, all have found their nemesis in certain peoples who defy placement, such as the Polynesians, and Australians, the Veddas, the Pigmies, and the Lapps.” (Pg. 61)
C. Loring Brace states, “Apparently dark skin has survival value in the tropics as people have suspected for many years. Against this it has been argues that many dark-skinned tropic dwellers do not in fact have to contend with much strong sunlight. The Congo negro or the pygmy of the Ituri forest spend large parts of their lives sheltered by jungle, and yet they are quite well endowed with melanin. The answer is that neither of these people has been there for very long… Apparently the Congo area has only recently sustained the populations which now live there…” (Pg. 111)
Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm observes, “It is obvious that that choice of a characteristic for the primary division will determine in large measure what races will be recognized. The vast majority of classifications which have been proposed thus far, both folk and scientific, have been based primarily on skin color. Had blood groups, hair types, or body build been the primary standard, the lines would certainly have been drawn differently.” (Pg. 168)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the concept of ‘race.’
Displaying 1 of 1 review