Roots of Radicalism


RACE: What the scientists say

The fifth in a series about the great racial scientists, by Steve Brady

No. 5. Carleton Coon

DESPITE his rather unfortunate surname, Professor Carleton Coon has made an impressive contribution to the scientific study of racial differences in Man. In particular, he has forcefully demonstrated the extent and antiquity of such differences, marshalling an impressive array of evidence in support of the view that the five major races of Man (loosely speaking, Whites, Blacks, Yellows, Australian aborigines and Southern African bushmen) did not evolve from a common, fully human stock but separately from distinct, and definitely pre-human, ancestors.

Carleton Coon, like the other top scientists whose conclusions lend support to the National Front's position on Race, has enjoyed a most distinguished academic career. Graduating with highest honours from Harvard in 1925, Coon swiftly rose to eminence in the field of physical anthropology.


As a physical anthropologist, Coon's researches took him out of the ivory towers of academia and into the field in North Africa, Ethiopia, Arabia and the Balkans. In 1939, he discovered the important fossil remains of Aterian Man in North Africa. After the war, Coon moved from his Harvard Professorship to take up the Curatorship of Ethnology and Professorship of Anthropology at the University Museum of Philadelphia. He died in 1981.

His published works are too numerous to list, but include The Living Races of Man (1965), which was the definitive work on the subject until Dr. John Baker of Oxford University published Race in 1974. Professor Coon's standing, as one of the world's leading scientific authorities on the subject, lends massive authority to what is undoubtedly the most important of his works for us as racial nationalists, The Origin of Races, published in 1962. In this seminal work, the Professor challenges the hitherto tacitly accepted view that the human species, Homo sapiens evolved as one from the pre-human "ape man" Homo erectus (formerly known as Pithecanthropus) and then, having attained full humanity, diverged into the separate races we see today. Instead, Coon suggested that no such ancestral sapiens populations ever existed. On the contrary, the present human races evolved in different places, at different times and at different rates from separate ancestral erectus populations. The European erectus apemen evolved into Caucasoids, the Asian into Mongoloids, the African into Negroids and so on. It is open to question whether the Australian aborigines, small-brained and primitive as they are, are not simply advanced forms of Homo erectus even today, "living fossils" like so many Australian animals.

In support of this view, Professor Coon cites a wealth of scientific evidence. Perhaps most telling, since it represents the only concrete proof one way or the other of what actually happened, comes from the fossil record. As Coon rightly points out, no fossil evidence of an early sapiens population which could be ancestral to all the existing human races has ever been found; Instead, the earliest sapiens fossils, 250,000 years old, from Swanscombe in Kent and Stenheim in Germany, are recognisably primitive Caucasoids ― not just men but White men. Remains, of similar antiquity from the Far East are recognisably proto-Mongoloid. When Coon wrote, Homo Sapiens did not seem to appear in sub-Saharan Africa until 30,000 years ago, when the clearly early Negroid Broken Hill Man lived in Rhodesia. Subsequently, older sapiens remains have been found, but these are ancestors not of Negroes but of the Khoisanid bushmen, who once lived all over Africa until the Blacks killed them off.


Thus the hard fossil evidence shows that the races of man seem to have evolved separately from pre-man. Further, the ancestors of the White and Mongoloid races seem to have reached the level of true Homo Sapiens humanity some 2000 centuries ahead of the Negro. This is not surprising ― in the harsh environment of Ice Age Eurasia, in which only the toughest and cleverest could survive, the pace of evolution would be forced. The lush African tropics would provide less challenge, allowing evolution to proceed at a more leisurely pace. And, of course, the Negro's evolutionary backwardness corresponds interestingly with his similar backwardness in fields ranging from measured IQ to historical record of civilization-building.

If Carleton Coon, one of the World's leading experts on the subject, is right, and the races of Man do not share a common human origin, the political implications are explosive. For it would follow that, scientifically, there would not only not be "One Race, the Human Race". There would not even be one species. Whites, Blacks and the rest would be as distinct kinds of animals as lions and tigers (which can also interbreed without ceasing to be separate species). Our last common ancestor was half a million years or more in the past, it is therefore clearly absurd and meaningless to waffle about the "common humanity" of the races of Man. Such a conclusion would not imply the right of one hominid species to rule over or oppress any other. But it would establish their total separateness and the hopelessness as well as the immorality of seeking to destroy such separate entities in a multiracial melting pot.

With Baker's Race, Eysenck's Race, Intelligence and Education, and George's The Biology of the Race Problem, Carleton Coon's The Origin of Races is required reading for any patriotic Briton. After reading such works, no one not utterly blinded by multiracialist bigotry or anti-White prejudice can deny that racial differences are basic and fundamental to the human condition, or suggest that the intellectual authorities we in the NF cite in support of our position are unintelligent, uneducated, or unsure of their facts.