Colour Of A Man’S Skin As

Index To Social Value

Letter to the Editor FROM the very nature of MM’s letter (February PIM) one can come to no other conclusion than that he re gards himself as being “so different men tally and temperamentally” from his black countrymen “as almost to belong to another species.”

All human beings belong to the same species, in the sense that species is the basic category of biological classification, intended to designate a single kind of beings. Any variations existing among the individuals is regarded as not affect ing the essential sameness which distin guishes them from all other organisms.

In the nature of things, it is impossible for MM “to belong to another species.”

It is interesting that MM should choose the abstract notions of mentality and temperament as the criteria for his arguments. But on these we cannot ex pect any exact correspondence. We can only assume the existence of approxi mations with varying degrees of closeness, within each ethnic group. If “there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in intelligence, temperament or other in nate characteristics,” it is inconsistent to say that one is superior to the other.

Furthermore, by denying the consistency of the UNESCO statement, MM not only denies the authority of his white friends, but also that which has taken anthropo logists, psychologists and other like capable men hundreds of years to estab lish.

If a man can, within a moment of time and in so few words, say “Poppycock” to an established principle, then that is a clear indication of what his saying is worth.

“White men,” working through UNESCO, do not “talk nonsense” on the black man’s behalf. Neither do they do it for political reasons. If they find that “there is no proof that the groups of man kind differ in intelligence, temperament or other innate characteristics.” they are honest and sincere enough not to state otherwise.

The black man does not lack ability or creative ability. MM himself admits the parts played by the Arabs “in inventing our methods of calculation.” The Chinese, the Egyptians and the peoples of India “contributed vastly to the sum total of enlightenment.”

It is a great pity that individuals ob sessed with the idea that the possession of a white skin carries with it a superiority should “see what they can do” about a statement that is literally true, merely because “no stir of controversy has fol lowed” such statement. To ‘ these in dividuals I will say that the condition of recognising genuine superiority is a con tempt for unfounded pretensions to it.

I am, etc.,

M. 'Uli’uli.

Auckland University College, 28/3/51.

Editorial Note: This letter was not signed, and the typed name may not be he genuine signature of a Pacific Islands student. Therefore, the letter should have been rejected. It is published because it does provide a reply to MM’s article. But we do not guarantee that it was written by a Pacific Islander.