What do you think?
Rate this book
Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Mans Racism, Sexism and Aggression
Argues that racism, the threat of nuclear war, environmental pollution, and other social problems are the result of the behavior, values, and psychology of the white race
229 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1981
2 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 15, 2024
DO CAUCASOIDS HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PENCHANT TOWARDS AGGRESSION?
“Michael Bradley” (1944-2017) is the nom de plume of the Canadian writer, Michael Anderson de Sackville. (He was white, by the way.) In the 1980s, he lectured at various institutions including: the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, Vanderbilt University, York University, Yale School of Divinity, and Kennedy-King College.
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1978 book, “First, I would like to acknowledge immediately my own limitations of scholarship in preparing the argument put forward in this book. Although I am very confident about the general defensibility of the thesis, I am also acutely aware that the defense provided could have been much better … Secondly… [this book] has always been intended as a ‘popular’ book. Therefore, notes and the bibliography represent the bare minimum… It remains obvious that the argument presented in this book relies heavily upon Professor [Carleton] Coon’s comparative analysis… Professor Coon has been the object of unremitting, and generally unfair, criticism from ‘liberal anthropologists’ who have’ excommunicating’ him from the contemporary anthropological belief structure…” (Pg. viii-ix)
He begins the first chapter by stating, “This book is racist. For, among other things, I will attempt to show that racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind—the white race. I believe that I can show that our converging contemporary crises, like racism itself, have their origins in the prehistory of the white race alone… primary threats to our survival … are the result of peculiarly Caucasoid behavior… There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is white men.” (Pg. 3) He adds, “I will argue that the denial of racial behavioral differences … serves to cloak our true nature. The denial of race and racial proclivities is a mechanism to disguise the white race’s proclivity for racism.” (Pg. 4)
He suggests, “It is in the sphere of ‘abnormal’ violence that we Caucasoids excel among races, The Caucasoid domain has witnesses far more than its fair share of philosophical a religious conflict… It is this kind of violence that makes our history appear senseless to other men, and senseless and baffling even to ourselves.” (Pg. 14)
He explains, “we [Caucasoids] do tend to differ from other kids of men in at least one behavioral parameter: aggression. However, I also realize… that our Caucasoid aggression isn’t innate and immutable… It results from evolutionary and cultural experiences… environment and culture have tended to select aggression and preserve individuals exhibiting it.” (Pg. 33-34) Later, he says, “The Neanderthals of 100,000 years ago were apparently less brutal and more modern than the Neanderthals of 40,000-50,000 years ago.” (Pg. 69)
He recounts, “In 1962, Carleton Coon, of the University of Pennsylvania, published a work entitled ‘The Origin of Races’… Coon’s views brought thundering replies from [Ashley] Montagu, S.I. Washburn, and almost every other modern anthropologist. It seemed that Coon’s construct too nearly paralleled racist doctrines… Not only have Coon’s facts been disputed, but his motivations have been suspected. I must confess that I, too, suspect Coon’s motivations.” (Pg. 46) Later, he argues, “It is my feeling that Carleton Coon was led astray by his view of race. It is my suggestion that Coon got the relationship between ‘Caucasoids’ and Neanderthals backwards… It is clear that insofar as the word has any meaning, the Caucasoids are the most ‘primitive’ of human races and not the most evolved…” (Pg. 104-105)
He states, “It would seem reasonable to speculate Neanderthal-Caucasoid sexual dimorphism has resulted in somewhat more sensitivity to physical differences existing between major groups of human beings, and is therefore the root of our penchant for sexism and our penchant for racism.” (Pg. 124)
He argues, “the civilization of Ancient Egypt was not a Western, ‘Caucasoid,’ achievement. The evidence from the anatomy of mummies, the testimony of fossil skeletal material and the witness of Egyptian art all agree that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a multi-racial achievement. Ancient Egyptian population was composed of a mixture of Caucasoid, Capoid, and Negroid elements. We cannot claim the civilization of the Nile as ‘ours.’ It was not wholly Caucasoid… perhaps not even mostly Caucasoid.” (Pg. 141)
He proposes, “It is my feeling that the sexual-sensual behavior of the average person in Egypt, China, or pre-Caucasoid India displaced aggressions which are more apparent in less adapted and sexually-sensually less evolved average Caucasoids. It was a lower AVERAGE level of aggression, made possible by a different sexual-sensual outlook and different sexual-sensual behavior by AVERAGE people, that allowed these non-Caucasoid civilizations to reflect AS A WHOLE pacific and benevolent values which have been common to philosophers of all races.” (Pg. 177)
He concludes, “My position is that, except in one characteristic affecting mainly one population, it is irrelevant and useless to maintain that ‘race dictates culture’… But it is the position of this essay that there is an exception… in the context of the world’s population… And that exception is that among the Neanderthal-Caucasoids biological determinates resulted in a higher level of aggression as a psychological trait, and that that trait has been reflected in Western culture and behavior… to the world’s sorrow.” (Pg. 217-218)
Famed Black historian John Henrik Clarke wrote an Introduction for this book, which states, “In [this] book… Michael Bradley has made the most glaring admission about the European attempt to dominate the world through racism… writers tend to …hedge on the subject by inferring that in spite of the atrocities and the racism brought to this world by the Caucasian race, they have given the world some order, some technology and arts and letter of lasting benefit. What the authors of these books do not take into consideration is that in spite of the contributions that benefit the world Europeans in their attempt at world domination created a disastrous climate for the world’s people. Caucasians, in general, have an inferiority complex about their world position. If they were secure within their alleged superiority they would not have to shout it to the world so often and so loudly… if the same people believed in the inferiority of the rest of the world its people and its culture they would not spend so much time trying to prove their point. Inferior things normally fall into an inferior position and usually stay there without any help from anybody.” (Pg. xii)
Bradley’s book is hard to assess; he was strictly an amateur historian and anthropologist, and most of the current interest in his book seems to be from those sympathetic to John Henrik Clarke’s perspective. He has some interesting views, but he doesn’t provide much factual data to back them up. Caveat Emptor…
“Michael Bradley” (1944-2017) is the nom de plume of the Canadian writer, Michael Anderson de Sackville. (He was white, by the way.) In the 1980s, he lectured at various institutions including: the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, Vanderbilt University, York University, Yale School of Divinity, and Kennedy-King College.
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1978 book, “First, I would like to acknowledge immediately my own limitations of scholarship in preparing the argument put forward in this book. Although I am very confident about the general defensibility of the thesis, I am also acutely aware that the defense provided could have been much better … Secondly… [this book] has always been intended as a ‘popular’ book. Therefore, notes and the bibliography represent the bare minimum… It remains obvious that the argument presented in this book relies heavily upon Professor [Carleton] Coon’s comparative analysis… Professor Coon has been the object of unremitting, and generally unfair, criticism from ‘liberal anthropologists’ who have’ excommunicating’ him from the contemporary anthropological belief structure…” (Pg. viii-ix)
He begins the first chapter by stating, “This book is racist. For, among other things, I will attempt to show that racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind—the white race. I believe that I can show that our converging contemporary crises, like racism itself, have their origins in the prehistory of the white race alone… primary threats to our survival … are the result of peculiarly Caucasoid behavior… There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is white men.” (Pg. 3) He adds, “I will argue that the denial of racial behavioral differences … serves to cloak our true nature. The denial of race and racial proclivities is a mechanism to disguise the white race’s proclivity for racism.” (Pg. 4)
He suggests, “It is in the sphere of ‘abnormal’ violence that we Caucasoids excel among races, The Caucasoid domain has witnesses far more than its fair share of philosophical a religious conflict… It is this kind of violence that makes our history appear senseless to other men, and senseless and baffling even to ourselves.” (Pg. 14)
He explains, “we [Caucasoids] do tend to differ from other kids of men in at least one behavioral parameter: aggression. However, I also realize… that our Caucasoid aggression isn’t innate and immutable… It results from evolutionary and cultural experiences… environment and culture have tended to select aggression and preserve individuals exhibiting it.” (Pg. 33-34) Later, he says, “The Neanderthals of 100,000 years ago were apparently less brutal and more modern than the Neanderthals of 40,000-50,000 years ago.” (Pg. 69)
He recounts, “In 1962, Carleton Coon, of the University of Pennsylvania, published a work entitled ‘The Origin of Races’… Coon’s views brought thundering replies from [Ashley] Montagu, S.I. Washburn, and almost every other modern anthropologist. It seemed that Coon’s construct too nearly paralleled racist doctrines… Not only have Coon’s facts been disputed, but his motivations have been suspected. I must confess that I, too, suspect Coon’s motivations.” (Pg. 46) Later, he argues, “It is my feeling that Carleton Coon was led astray by his view of race. It is my suggestion that Coon got the relationship between ‘Caucasoids’ and Neanderthals backwards… It is clear that insofar as the word has any meaning, the Caucasoids are the most ‘primitive’ of human races and not the most evolved…” (Pg. 104-105)
He states, “It would seem reasonable to speculate Neanderthal-Caucasoid sexual dimorphism has resulted in somewhat more sensitivity to physical differences existing between major groups of human beings, and is therefore the root of our penchant for sexism and our penchant for racism.” (Pg. 124)
He argues, “the civilization of Ancient Egypt was not a Western, ‘Caucasoid,’ achievement. The evidence from the anatomy of mummies, the testimony of fossil skeletal material and the witness of Egyptian art all agree that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a multi-racial achievement. Ancient Egyptian population was composed of a mixture of Caucasoid, Capoid, and Negroid elements. We cannot claim the civilization of the Nile as ‘ours.’ It was not wholly Caucasoid… perhaps not even mostly Caucasoid.” (Pg. 141)
He proposes, “It is my feeling that the sexual-sensual behavior of the average person in Egypt, China, or pre-Caucasoid India displaced aggressions which are more apparent in less adapted and sexually-sensually less evolved average Caucasoids. It was a lower AVERAGE level of aggression, made possible by a different sexual-sensual outlook and different sexual-sensual behavior by AVERAGE people, that allowed these non-Caucasoid civilizations to reflect AS A WHOLE pacific and benevolent values which have been common to philosophers of all races.” (Pg. 177)
He concludes, “My position is that, except in one characteristic affecting mainly one population, it is irrelevant and useless to maintain that ‘race dictates culture’… But it is the position of this essay that there is an exception… in the context of the world’s population… And that exception is that among the Neanderthal-Caucasoids biological determinates resulted in a higher level of aggression as a psychological trait, and that that trait has been reflected in Western culture and behavior… to the world’s sorrow.” (Pg. 217-218)
Famed Black historian John Henrik Clarke wrote an Introduction for this book, which states, “In [this] book… Michael Bradley has made the most glaring admission about the European attempt to dominate the world through racism… writers tend to …hedge on the subject by inferring that in spite of the atrocities and the racism brought to this world by the Caucasian race, they have given the world some order, some technology and arts and letter of lasting benefit. What the authors of these books do not take into consideration is that in spite of the contributions that benefit the world Europeans in their attempt at world domination created a disastrous climate for the world’s people. Caucasians, in general, have an inferiority complex about their world position. If they were secure within their alleged superiority they would not have to shout it to the world so often and so loudly… if the same people believed in the inferiority of the rest of the world its people and its culture they would not spend so much time trying to prove their point. Inferior things normally fall into an inferior position and usually stay there without any help from anybody.” (Pg. xii)
Bradley’s book is hard to assess; he was strictly an amateur historian and anthropologist, and most of the current interest in his book seems to be from those sympathetic to John Henrik Clarke’s perspective. He has some interesting views, but he doesn’t provide much factual data to back them up. Caveat Emptor…
December 29, 2016
I read this book YEARS ago (early 80s). I found it riveting, mind-expanding, and provocative.
July 18, 2024
Great book that breaks down why a certain demographic acts the way they do.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews