Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review (Text only)

Jewish engagement with evolutionary theory is an important dimension of modern Jewish history and thought. While Jewish leaders and intellectuals have used the science of evolution to bolster notions of Jewish identity, they have also confronted and (often fiercely resisted) the use of evolutionary theory to conceptualize conflict between Jews and non-Jews. Published in 2006, Geoffrey Cantor’s Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, by Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, explores the ways Jews – singly and communally – have engaged evolutionary thought in a variety of historical contexts, and the role it has played in modern Jewish history. A central focus of the book is exploring how evolutionary ideas have been deployed, by Jews and others, in the domains of race, anti-Semitism, and Zionism, and the recurrent use over the last century and a half of evolutionary ideas to characterize Jews.

Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) postulated natural selection as the driving force for biological evolution: that individuals in any species show a diversity of inherited characteristics and compete for the scarce resources needed to survive and reproduce. If certain characteristics benefit them in that competition, these are more likely to be passed on to the next generation and, consequently, the species will evolve over time. By the time Darwin’s book was published the transformation of species was a familiar theme, but Darwin was the first to publicly explicate the precise mechanism. While socialists and communists soon deployed Darwinian evolution in their antireligious polemics, it also attracted conservative and nationalistic thinkers. Darwin’s theory could, for example, be seen to justify unfettered capitalism. Indeed, the centrality of competition in the process of natural selection raised a host of moral issues for a Christian West. The advent of Darwinism also spawned a new way of conceptualizing race and racial competition.

Pre-Darwinian Racial Thinking

European racial thinking long predated Darwin’s famous book. The European colonial expansion from the seventeenth century saw naturalists and philosophers engaged with classifying and characterizing the different peoples they encountered. While French intellectual Jean-Jacques Rousseau enthused about the nobility of the savage, the more typical response was to “emphasize the vast differences between primitive peoples and the Enlightened Europeans with their developed intellects, civilized societies, and refined manners.”[1] Pre-Darwinian thinking about race in Europe culminated in books like The Races of Man (1850) by Scottish surgeon, anatomist and anthropologist Robert Knox who stated “as simply a fact” that “race in human affairs is everything: literature, science, art, in a word, civilization, depend on it.”[2]The most advanced races were, he asserted, the Germans, the Saxons, and the Celts; the least were the dark races of the Earth. He considered Jews, who he designated a separate race, “sterile parasites” with peculiar physical features often including a “large, massive club-shaped, hooked nose, three or four times larger than suits the face.”[3]

Though Knox’s book is now almost completely forgotten, it was widely admired at the time, by Charles Darwin among others, and exerted significant popular influence. Knox was pessimistic about British imperial ambitions of civilizing the world: the dark races were, he contended, congenitally incapable of being civilized, and a racially mixed population would only lead to the degeneration of the more intelligent racial party to the admixture as a product of miscegenation. While Darwin avoided explicitly addressing human evolution in The Origin of Species, his implicit views were apparent to many readers, and were later made explicit in The Descent of Man (1871). While embracing a monogenist conception of human evolution (that all races could be traced to a common ancestor), Darwin believed that the races were unequal and locked in a struggle for existence.

Darwin deployed traditional hierarchical notions in placing the “savages” closest to the primates and the civilized Europeans at the top. Moreover, he conceived an overall historical progress – mental, moral, and to some extent biological – from the savage to the civilized state. While acknowledging the superiority of the European races, he also on occasions conceived the various races as locked in a struggle with each other.[4]

Darwinian Theory was particularly embraced by scientists and intellectuals in Germany, where its main popularizer in the 1860s was the philosopher Ernst Haeckel. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the life sciences in Germany (and throughout the West) became firmly established on materialist assumptions, and the evolutionary perspective significantly shaped social and political thought. Prominence was given by social Darwinians and eugenicists to the inborn, hereditary element of Volk and race in contrast to elements that were culturally acquired.

Darwinian biologists in Germany increasingly stressed racial competition as a form of the human struggle for existence. The anthropologist Ludwig Woltmann, for instance, posited race as the driving force behind all historical development, noting “the same process of natural selection in the struggle for existence dominates the origin, evolution, and destruction of the human races.”[5] Prominent Jewish sociologist at the University of Graz, Ludwig Gumplowicz, proposed in his 1883 book Der Rassenkampf (Racial Struggle) that history was dominated by the Darwinian struggle for existence between the races. History, he asserted, is “the eternal lust for exploitation and dominance of the stronger and superior. The racial struggle for dominion in all its forms, in the open and violent, as well as latent and peaceful, is the essential driving principle, the moving force of history.”[6]

Darwinism and the Jewish Question

Michael Ruse notes that “in the years after the Origin, the Jewish Question became something of immediate urgency to the Victorians,” and from the 1860s, German intellectuals in particular applied Darwinian principles to the issue, identifying Jews as a distinct race locked in a struggle for existence with other races.[7] After Napoleon lifted most legal restrictions on Jews in the German territories in 1806, the native population was confronted for the first time with the social and economic effects of unfettered Semitism. Before 1806, Germans and Jews had limited contact in society. This changed throughout the nineteenth century as the urban Jewish population surged: between 1811 and 1875, Berlin’s Jewish population increased by a factor of fourteen. Constant discussion of the Judenfrage was triggered not just by their growing numbers and rapid economic advancement, but the social strife that accompanied the Jewish penetration and eventual domination of mainstream German society . Post-emancipation, “Jews were regarded less as adherents of an alien, barbaric faith and more as members of a secular socioeconomic group that disproportionately profited from modern life.”[8] By the late nineteenth century, Jews “controlled virtually all the major banks in Vienna and a considerable portion of local industry” a development which produced in the native population “a sense of danger and of being overwhelmed.” Generalized anxiety condensed into the charge that “nothing was sacred” to the Jews.[9]

The native population sensed Jews were not just a religious community but an endogamous ethnic group that had adopted a highly successful group survival strategy. Weikart notes that, in the eyes of many Germans, “Jews posed the greatest and most immediate threat in this competition to the death.”[10] Wilhelm Marr invoked Social Darwinian principles in his 1879 pamphlet Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum (The Triumph of the Jews over the Germans), conceptualizing the Jewish Question along Darwinian lines as not a religious, but a racial or biological problem. In the past religion had merely served as an excuse, but the real conflict, Marr contended, was the “the fight of peoples (Volker) and their instincts against the actual Judaizing (Verjudung) of society, as a struggle for existence.”[11]
 For Marr, neither Jews nor Germans were morally responsible for the struggle between them, since it was the result of ineluctable biological processes. As such, he advised his fellow Germans not to hate the Jews, just as they do not hate individual enemy soldiers in wars: “The struggle between peoples (Völkerkampf) must be fought without hatred against the individuals, who are compelled to attack, as well as to defend themselves.”[12]
 Marr’s monograph struck a chord with readers, passing through twelve editions in its first year.

German philosopher Eugen Dühring observed that the mental and moral traits of the Jews were themselves the fruits of this evolutionary struggle for existence, and that cultural patterns are simply a reflection of biological character. French anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge concurred, describing Jews as an ethnic group “founded upon religion and with a psychic identity forged over centuries of selection. They were everywhere the same: intelligent, ruthless, gifted money-makers, arrogant in success and servile in defeat, and congenitally odious, as evinced by their history of persecution, which antedated the birth of Christ by several centuries.”[13] For Dühring, evolution was so gradual no significant change to the Jewish psychological makeup could occur in the foreseeable future – thus the Jewish Question would remain an intractable social problem.

Moses Hess, the Jewish philosopher and pioneering Zionist, also conceived the Jewish Question as a racial problem, rather than one about equal rights for a religious sect. The true historical essence of Jewishness was its biological racial roots. Like Theodor Herzl, Hess concluded that a national homeland in Palestine – rather than assimilation – was the proper resolution of the Jewish Question.[14] In 1862 he published Rom und Jerusalem: die letze Nationalitätsfrage (1862, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism), in which he claimed that “Jews are primarily a race that, in spite of all the influences of climate, adapted to all situations and maintained its integrity.”

The Jewish race [claimed Hess] is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of the continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries. The Jewish race, which was so pressed and almost destroyed by the many nations of antiquity, would have disappeared long ago in the sea of Indo-Germanic nations, had it not been endowed with the gift of retaining its peculiar type under all circumstances and reproducing it.[15]

Perhaps the best-known instance of a volkisch manifesto in the history of Zionism was Martin Buber’s 1911 essay “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics”: a celebration of blood as the paramount essence of Jewish identity. Buber argued the Western Jew was rootless, that the languages and customs of his European hosts were alien to his essential being – having not stemmed from his “community of blood” (Gemeinschaft seines Blutes). Nevertheless, Jews retained an “autonomous reality” beyond mere geopolitical continuity with the past which “does not leave us at any hour in our life. … [B]lood [is] the deepest, most potent stratum of our being.” When he envisions the line of ancestors that led to him, the Jew, Buber declared, perceives “what confluence of blood has produced him …. He senses in this immortality of the generations a community of blood.”[16]

The radical Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880–1940) likewise insisted the source of Jewish national feeling should be sought “in the blood…. The feeling of national identity is ingrained in the man’s ‘blood,’ in the physical-racial type, and in it only.”[17]
 In 1931, Jewish anthropologist Arthur Ruppin joined the Zionist movement and lobbied for the “right of the Jews to come to Palestine not on some ‘political’ agreement and concession, but on their historical and racial connection to Palestine.”[18]
 This remains an argument used by Zionist activists today: Australian Jewish leader Peter Wertheim, for example, slams as a “disgraceful falsehood” any claim Jews displaced Palestinians from their land on the basis that Jews “are indigenous to the Holy Land.” With such claims in mind, Falk notes that “Zionism and race are as intertwined today as they were a century ago.”[19]

Accepting that Jews were a distinct race and (implicitly) that Judaism was a group evolutionary strategy, Jewish anthropologists, statisticians, and physicians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries conducted research and published papers on race and the Jewish Question to bolster their views on the place of Jews in modern society. Weindling points out how “Jewish race science texts” from this time created “a new, ‘scientific’ paradigm and agenda of Jewish self-definition and self-perception.”[20]By the turn of the century, the idea of finding a common index for the Jewish race “proved attractive not only to anti-Semites but also to promoters of secular Jewish identity.” Jewish scientists and intellectuals “drew from a range of available ideas, such as Darwinian natural selection, the ‘struggle for existence’ among individuals and social groups, Mendelian genetics, and the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.”[21] The prominent Zionist author Max Nordau considered Darwinism an integral component of his scientific worldview.

Zionist Eugenics

Notions of race and racial competition pervaded Zionist thinking in the early to mid-twentieth century, a time when “volkisch conceptions were firmly established among Zionist intellectuals.”[B1] Raphael Falk notes how “Zionist writers appealed to biological conceptions of race and nation and displayed an awareness of their responsibility not only to serve this biologically circumscribed ethnic group but also to propagate and improve it.”[B2]
 Many Zionists viewed evolutionary theory “as a conceptual framework for understanding the detrimental effects of Diaspora life and argued for the positive benefits that would accrue to Jews in Palestine.” Weikart observes that many “Jewish physicians, feminists and sexual reformers embraced eugenics,” and that leading Jewish anthropologists “embraced scientific racism” in the early twentieth century.”[B3]

Several leading Jewish physicians and educators became flag bearers of a campaign to promote the eugenic aspects of Zionism. In 1922, the Zionist physician Mordechai Bruchov emphasized that: “In the struggle of nations, in the clandestine ‘cultural’ struggle of one nation with another, the one wins who provides for the improvement of the race, to the benefit of the biological value of the progeny.”[B4] Parental guidance articles and books published in Palestine from the 1920s emphasized “the purity of the race and the quality of children required to improve the nation,” which “subsequently shifted to the need to increase the birthrate in order to catch up with the high birthrate of the neighboring nations.”[B5]
 Jewish biologist Fritz S. Bodenheimer (1897–1959), the son of one of Theodor Herzl’s closest allies, likewise stressed “the external threat posed by the faster reproductive rate of the Arab population.”[B6]
 Child care in Israel has long been conceived “as part of a national project” where “every mother who raised her child in Israel, in the past and at present, is conscious that this is not only her personal task, but rather a national task the climax of which – at the age of eighteen – is the recruitment of the Zionist baby to the nation’s army.”[B7]

Jewish Attitudes to Darwinism after the Advent of National Socialism in Germany

The ascent of the National Socialists to power in Germany in 1933 “had a profound impact” on Jewish thought and speech regarding evolution and race. Concluding that hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory was antithetical to their ethnic interests, many diasporic Jews publicly abandoned previously espoused racialist beliefs grounded in evolutionary theory, and worked to discredit that the concept of race among biologists and social scientists. Cantor and Swetlitz note how “social and cultural explanations became prominent in the social sciences, where Jews continued to work in large numbers.”[B8] The overthrow of hierarchic Darwinian racial theory was, as Kevin MacDonald explains in Culture of Critique, a campaign by Jewish activists that had nothing to do with real science, with the “shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences” resulting from “an ideological shift rather than the emergence of any new empirical data.”[B9] For strongly committed Jews, truth takes a back seat to ethnic interests.

A chapter is devoted to Jewish anthropologist Ignaz Zollschan (1877–1948), who exemplifies this shift. A leading early Jewish advocate for Darwinian race science, he changed his public views “in response the threat posed by Nazi race theory,” and emerged “as a political activist who helped to orchestrate international opposition to Nazi ideology.”[B10] Zollschan worried that by embracing racialist beliefs informed by Darwinian evolution, “Zionists were playing into the hands of anti-Semites, who had long demanded special laws for Jews. In effect this was throwing the Jew back into the ghetto.”[B11] In the 1920 and 1930s:

Zollschan was alert to the dangers of eugenics and increased his opposition to eugenics and to anti-Semitic racism. In 1925 he visited the Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas in New York to collaborate on X-ray investigations into the various races, having supported the use of X-rays to eradicate favus (a chronic skin infection) among East European Jewish children. Boas, who stressed culture over biology, convened a committee at Columbia University that addressed human anatomical and psychological characteristics with the aim of refuting racist prejudice. Zollschan subsequently used a memorandum drawn up by Boas in 1926 as a basis for intensified lobbying of leading intellectuals in Europe to refute anti-Semitic racism.[B12]

Zollschan advocated a twofold Jewish strategy: firstly, to “take a stand against anti-Semitic racial defamation” where he aggressively “refuted many stereotypes of Jews and the accusation that Jews damaged their host countries.”[B13]
 He flatly denied, for instance, any link between Jews and financial corruption. His second goal was to “strengthen Jewish culture in order to ensure that Jewish identity would be sustained.”[B14]
 From the 1920s onwards, he publically “adopted an anti-racialist stance, and played a major role in founding an international network of anthropologists to combat the threat of Nazi racism.”[B15]
 His campaign led him to espouse the view that Jews were a culture rather than a race. He did not, however, renounce his earlier views about the Jewish race; instead updating his views in response to Boas’ radical environmentalist theories.

During the 1930s Zollschan attempted to establish an international coalition of scientific experts to refute the scientific basis of Nazi race ideology, and formulated an antiracist manifesto he hoped would be signed by Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Aldous and Julian Huxley, the novelist J.B. Priestly, among others.[B16]
 Huxley suggested including T.S. Eliot — “blithely overlooking Eliot’s expressions of disgust at Jewish peculiarities — for a public discussion on race.”[B17]
 Jewish historian Charles Singer pointed out to Zollschan that “scientific views are not established by international committees,” and cautioned him that efforts to undermine the concept of race in general would undermine Zionism. Singer also warned that nothing could be worse for the prospects of such a “scientific” statement than “for it to appear to have behind it either a foreign or a Jewish motive power.”[B18]

Zollschan heeded Singer’s advice, accepting the need to embed the pursuit of particular Jewish interests in a more universalistic message. Thus, in Racialism against Civilization (1942) he argued that racism was “not a problem that affected just the target group — the Jews — but was the common enemy to all religious, moral, and liberal political values.” Zollschan proposed that the National Socialist drive to force Jews back into the ghetto “did not just represent a threat to the existence of Jews, but who attacked the humanitarian basis of Western civilization.”[B19]
 This represented a complete reversal of his earlier, long-held, belief “that the ghetto sustained Jewish racial identity.”[B20]

A Top-Down Revolution

Zollschan’s efforts against National Socialist racial beliefs formed the basis for the UNESCO declarations on race and UN Conventions on the elimination of racial discrimination after 1945.[B21]
 In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convened a panel of “scientists,” chaired by Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), to “produce a definitive verdict on race.” The panel, which include several Jews, including the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, consisted of “a team of ten scientists all of whom were recruited from the marginal group of anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers affiliated with the scientifically marginalized groups of cultural anthropologists that were mostly students of Franz Boas at Colombia University in New York, and who perceived the race concept primarily as a social construct.”[B22] The panel’s first met at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, and Montagu claimed “only if our deliberations had taken place at Auschwitz or Dachau could there have been a more fitting environment to impress upon the committee members the immense significance of their work.”[B23] Montagu had a strong Jewish identity, stating that: “if you are brought up a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic. . . . I think it is a good working hypothesis.”[B24] At that time UNESCO House was the former headquarters of the German military during its occupation of France during World War Two. Underpinning the words of the UNESCO declaration “was widespread revulsion at the Jewish Holocaust.”[B25] Leftist academic Anthony Hazard notes that “a clear rejection of anti-Semitism seemed to underline the entire effort.”[B26]

The UNESCO panel’s statement insisted it would be best “to drop the term ‘race’ altogether,” since “for all practical purposes, ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth.” Montagu and his colleagues ended their “definitive statement on race” with an endorsement of the idea of a common humanity: “Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives towards co-operation. … In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper.”[B27]
 Once again the pursuit of specific Jewish interests was embedded in a pretended universal benevolence. UNESCO’s Montagu-drafted “definitive verdict on race,” was published with a press release with the headline: “No biological justification for race discrimination, say world scientists: Most authoritative statement on the subject.”[B28] The New York Times reported on the statement under a headline proclaiming: “No Scientific Basis for Race Bias Found by World Panel of Experts.”[B29]

The UNESCO Statement on Race basically amounted to the imposition of a Jewish ethno-political agenda onto the global polity — with devastating consequences for the interests of Europeans and European-derived peoples. With this new agenda now in place at the highest level, and with the demonization and marginalization of dissenters, it was almost inevitable in the decades following Germany’s defeat that remaining policies constructed on the basis of racialist thought and identity would be progressively dismantled. The 1950 statement on race (which contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, and several UN conventions on eliminating racial discrimination) was described by one sympathetic commentator as “the triumph of Boasian anthropology on a world-historical scale.”[B30] British historian David Cannadine notes that, during the decades that followed, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand “abandoned their policies of racial discrimination, ended their restrictions on immigration … and embraced multiculturalism.”

Attitudes to evolutionary concepts in the post-war era were strongly colored by the Jewish backgrounds and commitments of Jewish biologists and anthropologists. Cantor and Swetlitz note, for example, that “some leading critics of the modern synthesis in evolutionary biology and sociobiology, including Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, were Jewish, and it has been claimed their opposition stemmed in part from concern these fields are likely to encourage anti-Semitism because they emphasize genetic determinism and evolutionary progress, which often embed notions of racial hierarchy.”[B31] Kevin MacDonald observes that Gould exemplified the “conflation of personal and ethno-political interests in the construction of science.” Gould falsely claimed that hereditarian views on intelligence had been prominently used as justification for restricting Jewish immigration in the 1924 American immigration laws — laws he directly linked with “the Holocaust.” Gould’s career is perhaps the preeminent illustration of “how skill as a propagandist and ethnic activist can be combined with a highly visible and prestigious academic position to have a major influence on public attitudes in an area of research with great implications for public policy.”[B32]

Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin spearheaded opposition to the ideas of E.O. Wilson whose book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis inaugurated the field of sociobiology. Lewontin’s approach has been to selectively reject the findings of the traditional reductionist scientific method, insisting on a “hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology…. By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings.”[B33] While Lewontin portrays his efforts as motivated by a concern for scientific rigor, his tactical nihilism enables him to pursue an ethno-political agenda unencumbered by science.

The Boasian revolution in anthropology, taken up by Gould, Lewontin and numerous other Jewish academics, represents such a dramatic departure from preceding Jewish thinking about race, that an examination of earlier Jewish racial writing forces us “to reorient the way we think about the normative narrative of the Jewish past” according to which historians have “told the story of the relationship between Jews and race largely within the framework of victimhood,” whereby “racial science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was one of the chief weapons used against Jews.”[B34] The abandonment of Darwinian race theory by Jewish anthropologists from the 1920s and 1930s necessitated obscuring the inherently racial nature of Judaism, in order to forestall charges of hypocrisy. Yet race remains “one of the building blocks of contemporary Jewish identity construction” and that “biological and genetic arguments possess a power for many Jews as they seek to explain to themselves and others just what it is that constitutes Jewishness.”[B35]
 Even though such thinking may have been submerged or made invisible for many decades, Jews still “think with blood” about Jewish belonging. University of Washington Professor Susan Glenn makes the point that: “Throughout all the de-racializing stages of twentieth century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.”[B36]

Notes

[1] Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 89.

[2] Robert Knox, 1850, The Races of Man (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1850), xi.

[3] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 90.

[4] Ibid., 91.

[5] Richard Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 106.

[6] Ibid., 101.

[7] Michael Ruse, Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution(Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016) 140.

[8] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 3.

[9] Quoted in: Stuart K. Hayashi, Hunting Down Social Darwinism (KY: Lexington Books, 2015), 163.

[10] Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 94.

[11] Ibid., 102.

[12] Ibid., 103.

[13] Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 197.

[14] Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 142.

[17] Ibid., 143.

[18] Ibid., 146.

[19] Ibid., 162.

[20] Paul Weindling, “The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 119.

[21] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 14.

[B1] Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 143.

[B2] Ibid., 138-9.

[B3] Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 107.

[B4] Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151.

[B5] Ibid., 152.

[B6] Ibid., 154.

[B7] Ibid., 152-53.

[B8] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 15.

[B9] Kevin MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1^st Books, 2001), 20.

[B10] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 91.

[B11] Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.

[B12] Ibid., 124-5.

[B13] Ibid., 121.

[B14] Ibid., 119.

[B15] Ibid., 117.

[B16] Ibid., 128; 129.

[B17] Ibid., 130.

[B18] Ibid., 130-31.

[B19] Ibid., 133.

[B20] Ibid., 135.

[B21] Ibid., 136.

[B22] Poul Duedahl, “From racial strangers to ethnic minorities, On the socio-political impact of UNESCO, 1945-60.” Paper presented at 7th Annual International Conference on Politics and International Affairs in Athens, Greece, in 2009.

[B23] Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38.

[B24] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 26.

[B25] David Cannadine, The Undivided Past: Humanity Beyond Our Differences (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 212.

[B26] Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.

[B27] Ibid.

[B28] Duedahl, “From racial strangers.”

[B29] Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 341.

[B30] Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207.

[B31] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 21.

[B32] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 33.

[B33] MacDonald 1998/2001, p. 47

[B34] Mitchell Hart, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14.

[B35] Ibid., 31-2.

[B36] Ibid., 31.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

http://www.unz.com/article/jewish-tradition-and-the-challenge-of-darwinism/