This is a bold and powerful look at American life outside of political cliches like "evil corporations" and "evil Hollywood," thrown around by PBS / Naderites and conservatives respectively. Even though I am what Miller would consider a conservative, I could very much appreciate his book. It is a diagnosis like no other; it is coming straight from the heart of the beast -- a PR executive who realized the fine line between reality and fiction, advertising / entertainment and real life, and saw how it became uncoscionably blurred in post-Industrial America. I recommend Miller's inter-disciplinary (everything from economic sociology to art theory) book to anyone seeking an irreverent perspective on what at first glance seems to be a wornout subject. Prepare to be shocked!

I am grateful to John Miller for addressing so succinctly, albeit in a somewhat heavy-handed manner (possibly a legacy of his involvement in challenging the outdoor advertising industry?), the changes which have fashioned the current aesthetic climate in which we are struggling to make some sense of our lives. Realization that redefinition of culture, community, acceptance of mutual responsiblility and of pure beauty are needs as essential to our collective well-being as breathing is latent and must, like the Phoenix, arise from the ashes of our self-absorption. Then, perhaps, that gnawing feeling we live with in the pits of our stomachs can be palliated. Egotopia points a way forward. But have culture, community and beauty become luxuries we can no longer afford in an economic democracy? Given our past and current excesses would espousing a more intellectual aesthetic eventually lead to a new era of intolerable elitism? How does this all translate to the world stage?

Miller's Egotopia presents an iconoclastic, highly critical view of modern America. Miller's central thesis is that the suppression of the public individual in favor of the private individual has had drastic consequences on our culture and environment; while Miller's focus is on aesthetics, his argument can be modified to bear on discussions of the environment and ethics as well. To blame for the rise of the private individual, Miller argues, are psychotherapy and neoclassical economics. The former is problematic in that it encourages individuals to satisfy primarily, if not only, their own egos. The latter replaces aesthetic, ethic, and cultural values with strictly economic value. The result of combining these two forces: the New American is taught to increase utility and profit at the expense of beauty, right, and goodness. All forms of value are replaced with economics; and, further, economic value is personal and subjective. The private individual is heralded as the measure of all things, and as a consequence society and culture decline. As a general warning, this book should probably not be read by economists, advertising agents, or "outdoor advertisers". For the rest of us, however, it serves as both an enlightening expose of the true American culture and a call to arms.

This highly readable work does a wonderful job explaining the significance of touch in the physical and emotional life of humans. A better understanding of touch can alter the way we interact and is especially important to health care workers.

Ashley Montague is really on target about the needs of the human body in regard to touch.Infants who bond with their parents the first few years of life are so much more secure. He has written such valuable information which is more relevant today than ever. We could have less violent children and adults if proper touch and bonding occurred as infants. Read this book and practice it as a means of creating peace in the world. Spread the word to hospitals to teach new parents about the importance of touch for their infants. Read and recommend this book to all of your friends.

If you only get one book on parenting and how to raise a child get this one. This is a thick book with lots of research to support the ideas presented by Dr. Montague. However scholastic this book might be it is very readable. If you find the title misleading some chapter headings are breastfeeding, tender loving care, the physiological effects of touching, skin and sex and growth and development. The skin and sex chapter discusses how touching our children affects their sexuality. This is one amazing book full of data that instructs us to hold our children close as long as possible and why this is so critical to their development in every aspect. Read it!!!

I read this book after reading Christine Sparks' novel, "The Elephant Man", which is based on the movie based on the true-life story of Merrick. Reading Montagu's book helped me realize which parts of the story were from Merrick's actual life and which were artistic creations. Montagu includes a number of primary documentation in presenting the history of Merrick (including Treves' memoirs, Merrick's autobiography, Carr-Gomm's letters to the Times, etc.), as well as what later researchers have found out about Merrick's history and a description of the disorder he was inflicted with, neurofibromatosis.

After presenting this information, Montagu continues by explaining the moral lessons that come from the story of Merrick. This is where Montagu's book starts to reveals its dated-ness. Though the lesson of the importance of loving a child will never be outdated, Montagu insists on the special role of the mother, whereas modern anthropologists have conclude that fathers can nurture children as well as mothers (men are not as inclined to participate, but do have the ability). In the 70's when this book was written, child rearing was still looked upon as being the sole domain of the woman. Mother-love should be read parental-love.

The second complaint I have is Montagu's actual writing style. Though he has good thoughts and ideas, he has little skill in expressing them and has a tendency to rehash the same thought over and over again. His writing is not well organized (beyond being divided into chapters) and his presentation of moral truths comes off more like pleading rather than as a well-presented argument. The language is simple and easy for children to understand so it is a great book for young readers, but the adult reader will feel the book lacking.

I am glad I purchased this book, and I recommend it for people who want to know more about the life of Joseph Merrick, but the rest of the content must be read with a grain of salt - realize that the writing is poor and the analysis is somewhat outdated. I could not give it 4 or 5 stars because of these faults.

Well researched, and well written. A shining example of an attitude towards life that all can learn from. A "must read."

I really liked reading this book and would highly recommend it to anyone. It is about the life of Joseph Merrick. It shows people how that it is what is inside a person that counts. What is in their heart that counts, and not how they look. It's one of the best books I've ever read.

creationists are not all Religious and no creationist I'v met are crazy fanatics doing all they can to destroy the Theory of Evolution by just lying. Evolution is being fought because it has no evidence and that is the only reason. Do you put your trust completly in a person because they have a PHD, no. If you do then you are extreamly niev. About transitional fossils which all creationists claim not to exist. THEY DONT. If you doubt this then why has this new theory come up-Proteins have been Discovered which fix mutated proteins produced by mutant genes however Scientists say these proteins can only fix a certain number so when a certain number of genes mutate becomes to high(after millions of years)a large change takes place ie a large evolutionary step takes place. Scientists say this theory will help explain the LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. But yet you say this book claims that hundreds have been found. My experience
tells me not to trust evolutionists because when ever an arguement comes up it all they allways turn it into a personnal thing. Look at the anti-evolutionist books reviews and they are full a highly personnal negative statments telling people not to read the book without when they have not done so themselfs. The coments are allways along the same line dont read this because is just a fanatic preacher talking BS and has no scientific bases at all. How can you call yourselfs Evolutionists if you don't look at the whole story. You dont buy a computer just because it looks good on the outside do you.

"Science deals with the world of nature, the discovery and ordering of the world of facts and their relations, with concepts that have been tested by the facts. What the creationists attempt to do is to measure the facts by their conformity to Genesis, and this is absurd." --Ashley Montagu, Introduction, Science and Creationism

The late Ashley Montagu (1905-99) was a British-American anthropologist who earned his Ph.D. in 1937 from Columbia University. He was also a prolific and popular science writer of over 60 books. He is well known for discrditing the notion of race in the editions of his book, Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1942, 6th ed. 1998). His selections of essays for Science and Creationism range from the philosophical to the legal, historical and scientifically technical. The essayists in this collection include such academic luminaries as Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and others. The essays highlight the opposite methodology of scientists and creationists.

Scientists collect and investigate data and then attempt to formulate explanatory theories. Those theories are always subject to revision or even replacement in the face of new data. They often publish their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and their data, hypotheses, and theories are subject to independent verification and replication. Crationists, on the other hand, have an entirely different methodology.

They start first from their desired dogma that the Bible must be inerrant, infallible, and then work backwards to the data. They engage in campaigns of propaganda and political lobbying to pass legislation that either censors objectionable scientific theories or mandates "equal time" for "scientific" creationsim whenever objectionable theories are taught in the science curricula of public schools. Their dogma that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is not subject to revision or replacement in the face of disconfirming data, and they neither do any real science nor publish in peer-reviewed science journals. Thus, contrary to their claims, their dogma and their agenda are religious rather than scientific.

The essays also refute many creationists' errors. For example, creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics, the law that says systems run "downhill," proves that biological evolution is impossible. However, as explained in Asimov's essay, "The 'Threat' of Creationism," the second law applies to "closed systems." The earth, however, is an open system inundated by energy from the sun. As the sun runs "downhill," it provides the energy necessary to allow the relatively small subsystem of earth to evolve life in the "uphill" direction. Thus, evolution does not defy the second law because it is not a process running "uphill" in a closed system. Moreover, as far as we know, the only closed system is the universe as a whole.

Although this book contains an excellent collection of essays, it lacks a description of the credentials of its contributors and an index. Obviously, an index would augment the utility of this otherwise superb volume.

If you're looking for a book boasting big names and eqally big answers to the never-ending debate between rationality and dogma (namely evolution vs creationism), then you have found it. The late Ashley Montagu has assembled a force to be reckoned with in this volume containing 20 essays by some of the biggest names in Science to date. Just to name a few we have: Ken Miller (of _Finding Darwin's God_ fame), Stephen Jay Gould, Isaac Asimov, Laurie Godfrey and the list goes on. The purpose of such an assembly of genius? To refute the largest hoax in history: the movement of the "Scientific" Creationsts. At the time that this volume went to press there was a lot of controversy and heated debate surrounding creationism. Many creationists wanted to get their theory taught alongside evolution in public science classrooms. It is no surprise that this decision was overturned in a district court in 1982. This volume contains the landmark decision by Judge William Overton as well as numerous essays defining science, comparing it to creationism as well as debunking common myths perpetuated by the creationist movement. There are many books available that similarly debunk creationism _The Blind Watchmaker_, _Abusing Science_, _Sciene on Trial_ etc., however this book is a necessary volume in anyone's library as it contains insights from many brilliant minds on all aspects of the debate. It is therefore an excellent starting point for anyone who wants to get an introduction to this topic. For those who are still seeking more, each essay contains an extensive list of references to articles and books that will quench the curiosity of the most academically inclined reader.

Everyone knows that "survival of the fittest" is the cornerstone of Darwin's theory of evolution. Species evolve in the struggle for survival. But this widely-accepted emphasis on competitive struggle does not tell the whole story.

The thesis of this short book is that cooperation is a more important factor in the evolutionary process than competition. Written in 1950, the book presents scientific evidence learned during the first half of the 20th century to support that claim. In his introduction, Montagu writes, ``The size of the book precludes the possibility of citing more than the minimal fraction of the available facts necessary to prove the points which I attempt to establish in the present volume. I hope, however, that while the work is full of conclusions, it will not be received as a work full of purely declarative statements.'' Although I respect this sentiment, I was frustrated by the book's lack of evidence for many of its claims, such as the oft-repeated claim that the cooperative impulse has the reproductive relationship as its origin -- a hypothesis that one would have a great deal of difficulty either proving or disproving.

However, the cause of the cooperative impulse is irrelevant compared to its importance in survival, a fact that the book demonstrates beyond question. In the middle third of the book, Montagu focuses on the importance of cooperation to humans. The last chapter of the book is a manifesto on the importance of teaching the benefits of cooperation to children. Here, Montagu argues that ``the fourth R'', human relations, should take a preeminent place beside the traditional three R's emphasized in education today. Although this book is difficult to find, it provides an important balance to the emphasis placed on the competitive aspects of evolutionary survival.

I had a drug-free childbirth, thanks in part to the Bradley Method. To prepare, I took Bradley classes and read both "Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way" by Susan McCutcheon and this book. The thing that disturbed me most about this book is that Dr. Bradley insinuates repeatedly that childbirth doesn't really hurt as long as you follow his instructions. Believe me, it hurts. I think Dr. Bradley has since passed away, but if he were alive, I'd really like to ask him how many times HE gave birth. I prefer to get my information from a more reliable source -- a woman who has given birth herself. If you're only going to read one book, read "Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way." If you're an information junkie like myself, read this one too. There's certainly a lot of info and it makes for interesting reading.

This was Dr. Bradley's original work on natural childbirth. This visionary OB helped women to reclaim the natural, joyous method of birthing for which their bodies had been designed. I read it and immediately sought out a Bradley instructor to learn the method. My daughter was subsequently born after a short, relatively painless labor (hard work, but no "pain"), with dad coaching. :)

I found it less helpful in describing the mechanics of the birth (for that, see "Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way"), but it was a very good overview and one which I recommend for folks who have heard of Bradley but are unfamiliar with the method.

This book is excellent preparation for Natural Childbirth (if you also take the Bradley Method Classes). My husband and I read this book and Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way by Susan McCutcheon. Both are essential if you want to have a wonderful pregnancy and childbirth experience. We planned on a hospital birth with an OB/GYN, but eventually switched to a birthing center and a midwife. It was the best decision! We had a perfectly healthy delivery & little girl... or should I say big girl at 8 pounds 12 ounces! We had NO interventions at all! My husband was an excellent coach, and I don't think I could have done it without his help. The Bradley Method really gets the husbands involved. This book should be read before you even get pregnant or soon thereafter!

If the book were entitled "The Natural Superiority of Men" or "The Natural Superiority of Whites" or virtually any other group of people, the book would be called bigoted. No amount of research presented in the book would hold back the negative comments and criticisms. It that regard, it's unfortunate that people praise this book. It shows that bigotry is still alive and well in the world, if you target the right group: men. Mr. Montagu's book is a case of supporting a preconceived idea (the superiority of women) with selected research and biased interpretations. I know a great deal of people. I find that women are not any more or any less compassionate, loving, intelligent, unselfish or anything else, then men. It's unfortunate that a distinguished researcher like Dr. Montagu published such an unscientific book. It's even more unfortunate that people will use this book, even subtly, to drive a wedge between male and female relations. After all, people are individuals and must be treated as individuals on a daily basis. For antidote to "The Natural Superiority of Women" and how to build trust in male/female relations read Warren Farrell's "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say".

Ironically, the seminal work in the feminist movement was written by a man. "The Natural Superiority of Women", by noted anthropologist Ashley Montagu, was first published in 1952. It was serialized in the pages of the Saturday Evening Post, leading to the formation of the National Organization of Women in 1966. Earlier this year, the author completely revised and updated the book to take recent studies into account. Remarkably, the structure of his argument remains largely intact--only the details have changed.

Montagu is well aware of the cultural dangers inherent in discussing this topic, and he goes about it with tongue in cheek. He acknowledges up front that men are as important and necessary to the human equation as are women. And he concedes that men possess the "bruited advantages of larger size and muscular power", which offers certain athletic benefits. While these benefits may have been useful in earlier times, they have been rendered largely superfluous in our highly mechanized industrial society. And the same hormones that produce this size and power also give rise to aggressive and violent behavior. Men constitute the vast majority of criminals, psychopaths, drug users, and suicide attempts; they also instigate and wage most wars.

But the central question of the book is: which sex is superior, from an anthropological perspective? Well that, of course, depends on what you mean by 'superior'. Montagu offers this definition: "Superiority in any trait, whether biological or social, is measured by the extent to which that trait confers survival benefits upon the person and the group." With this benchmark in place, he then goes about showing how women excel in a wide variety of domains: intelligence, physical and emotional health, sensory perception, sociability, and longevity, to name only a few.

Montagu gives ground on only one topic: creativity. He admits that throughout history, the vast majority of artists, musicians, writers, inventors and scientists have been men. However, he never assumes for a minute that this is due to an inherent genetic superiority. Instead, he shows that it is a consequence of men's traditional subjugation of women. Men have always kept women "in their place": cooking, cleaning, taking care of the household and the children. Although this is finally beginning to change, the glass ceiling is still in place: women are even now paid only 67 cents to each dollar a man gets for the same job. Given such disincentives, he finds the supposed lack of creativity unsurprising.

I propose another possible explanation: women's creativity is expressed differently. I have long suggested that fully 50% of the funds allocated toward any new research or development project be used to investigate possible negative consequences of that project. So many discoveries have turned out to have nasty undersides; we don't find out until years later about nuclear waste, holes in the ozone due to CFCs, genetic damage due to hormone disrupters, and a great variety of other technologically-induced horrors. Could it be that women somehow intuitively sensed that these were genies better left in the bottle? Perhaps they devoted their creative skills instead to more practical matters, such as storytelling and crafts. These fields, while undervalued in today's world, have much greater utility in a socially-oriented culture. The craftspeople and the storytellers are the ones who preserve the fabric of society, producing its artifacts and passing on its legends.

This theory is, of course, highly speculative and fanciful at best. If true, and if the world were less patriarchal, it would imply a vastly different lifestyle than the one we enjoy today. We would not have all the blessings of indoor air conditioning, nuclear power, and plastic milk jugs. We would be more like indigenous people, living close to the land. Or perhaps we could combine the best of both worlds. The point is only that the kind of creativity we value determines, to a large extent, the shape of the world we inhabit.

Reading this book makes me wonder what other consequences would result from true equity between the sexes. How would it change our lives, for better or worse? Certainly it would affect our reproductive rates. Nafis Sadik, the executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), recently gave a speech in which she lamented the slow pace of progress for women. She cited the Programme of Action, produced by the UN's International Conference on Population and Development. Its primary goals are to encourage universal availability of reproductive health, including family planning; to reduce infant, child and maternal mortality; and to provide universal access to education. While there have been small successes, much remains to be done. Dr. Sadik made it clear that our present overpopulation woes are a direct result of gender inequity. The sheer enormity of humans on the planet--a number that is about to hit six billion--is directly or indirectly responsible for virtually all of our environmental problems.

"The Natural Superiority of Women" is as relevant and as true today as it was half a century ago. It should be required reading for any person who claims allegiance to a gender. As the cover of the original paperback edition says, "A must for every woman--a challenge to every man."

Modern civilization has traveled far in knowledge and advanced technologies, yet from other perspectives -- in morals, in education, in equality, in peace -- we have a long long way to go. Last year in Kosovo the world saw how false ideas can generate destructive actions, how an ideology of hatred leads to genocide. More recently we have been shocked to hear that a pro-Nazi sympathizer has secured a foothold in the government of Austria; and a professional baseball player in Atlanta has unashamedly announced, in effect, that minorities are an inferior species. Always, after news like this, the commentators pop out of their holes like groundhogs, glare at the shadows, then tell us what we already know. Bigotry, intolerance, and racism are evil and horrible and base. Much rarer are the thinkers who write about the root of these events, and explain what we must do to understand the causes and conditions which poison our culture with prejudice and hate. The most influential of these foresighted thinkers was Ashley Montagu, who died on November 26, 1999 at the age of 94. One of the key forces behind the United Nations UNESCO statement on race, Montagu was the author of more than sixty books. His works and lectures, which explore a wide variety of subjects, focus primarily on these four topics: anthropology; the fallacies of racism and sexism; the nature of human nature as loving and cooperative instead of selfish and aggressive; and the renewal of culture through education. Montaugu's last book, The Natural Superiority Of Women (originally published in 1952) has been expanded and updated to fortify his highly-controversial theme: women are superior to men. The book argues that the female of the species is biologically, sexually, emotionally, and even intellectually superior to the male. Montagu explains that this thesis is supported by scientific evidence. Like Socrates, he challenges his readers to distinguish between facts and opinions. He reminds us that facts are either true of false, and he welcomes all evidence that questions any of his facts and the conclusions deduced from these. Since 1952 when Montagu first made his claims in an article for the "Saturday Review", the book has angered many feminists and been applauded by many others. A woman, Montagu claims, should not attempt to blindly imitate the type-A, money-crazed, commercial-driven lifestyle of the typical executive male. The most fulfilling life for the mother can be realized only if she spends the first years caring for the new baby, and only later joins (or rejoins) the workforce. Montagu's great goal is not to promote a society dominated by women, but a to bring about a world of equality where the beautiful characteristics of women rule: a world of cooperation, sensitivity, and human kindness. This 1999 fifth edition contains significant new material compared to the previous 1992 release, and includes Montagu's new preface, an insightful introduction by Susan Sperling which explains Montagu's ideas in the context of current feminist theory, and the text of the important 1967 United Nations resolution titled "Declaration of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women." Admirers of Montaugu's previous books will find many of his important themes repeated here, especially his credo, as H.G. Wells explained, that "civilization is a race between education and catastrophe." For those of us who at times believe that catastrophe is winning, the noble ideas in this work will provide insight, courage and inspiration. The Natural Superiority Of Women will help every thinking man to better appreciate the true essence of women, and help every woman to gain the vision and confidence to fulfill herself, nurture her family, stand up for her rights, and make the world a better -- a more equal and a more loving -- place to live. Michael Pastore, Reviewer

Gillooly sets himself a big task: explaining where our beliefs about gods and other supernatural beings come from. It would be great to have a book that does this competently for the layman, using up-to-date scholarship. Unfortunately, Gillooly's scholarship on this subject seems limited to what a high school student could acquire in a few afternoons at a (small) public library from (old) encyclopedias and magazines. Gillooly seems to think Freud is the last word in scholarship in this area, apparently blissfully unaware of the beating Freud has taken in all areas in the last decade. It's sad to see Ashley Montagu endorsing this embarrassment of a book. I can only conclude he did not read it, or if he did, his normally keen critical faculties have failed him. We have a right to expect better from Prometheus; instead, this book will add fuel to those anxious to point out that critics of religion are often just as narrow and uninformed as the believers they criticize.

This book is full of facts to allow you to make your own decisions. Although some of the facts are harsh, it's an honest analysis of religion. He doesnt just cover christianity either, hinduism, buddism, etc are in there as well. He covers the bible, religious leaders, rituals. It's well written covering a good amount of topics. I learned a lot and enjoyed the book a lot.

Gillooly succinctly puts all the sources of derivation of Bible stories under one roof. Isn't it interesting that the ritual of Attis involved bread and wine used in a way similar to the Last Supper? that eqyptian, babylonian, and zoroastrians shared so many symbols with Christianity and Judaism?

Any of us who have looked in to the culture at the time of the Bible stories vaguely know some of these stories and their connections to the Bible. Here Gillooly keeps them tightly packed with their Jewish and Christian counter-parts.

This book will be offensive to those who are afraid to look at the facts of Bible authorship square in the face. But for those of you who are intrigued by the derivation of Bible stories and rituals, this is a gripping read.

Particularly fascinating are Gillooly's more medieval investigations involving demons, magic, and how these are intertwined with a Biblical sense of what illness is. How the Christian Church has evolved in its relationship to these doctrines in the light of science is one of the most telling aspects of what the church does.

The style and organization of the book make it difficult to put down. Gillooly finds the humor, but is likewise fair in his assessment of the meaning of the findings of archeology, and the study of ancient texts.

I feel the author has left some things out, some things that the zealous "see! I AM OK!" readers need to know. Like:White people are not the only ones that use race as a "social construct". in 1942 when written (and a long time before that), a small minority of White people used race to try to keep others down. Now in 2001, a small minority of people of color use race as a crutch, using to as an excuse not to work hard and succeed. People need to stop feeling sorry for themselves, realize there is no white conspiracy to hold others down and get on with life.

The author also leaves out preference to be with one's own kind. Do Whites force people to live in certain areas? No, those people buy houses and rent apartments in areas where they are the majority out of choice to be with their own kind.

Also, history was ignored in the book. Do we hate Italians because they were Romans who conquered and enslaved hundreds of thousands over decades? No. Do we hate the Egyptians because they did the same? No. There is just a natural tendency to hate the last group to do what has been done since the dawn of man. Do we hate Norwegians because they had Viking ancestors who conquered, robbed and dominated all over the world? No. Do you hate White people because a small minority of them oppressed Black people 20 or more years ago? Yes! You do!

This book may have been revolutionary in 1942 but today it seems to strain to argue points that most Americans readily accept. It also tends to be incredibly choppy, with thoughts coming and going like bad housegeusts. Lastly, it has all the faults one would expect to find in Montagu: he sacrificed his science for politics, and thus there are many times where he wildy exhorts his point of view or uses ad homineim's against his opponents. The reason is the book was not written to explore a phenomena, but to convince people that some things are wrong and other right morally. So his science suffers. However, there are glimmers of intelligent ideas and devastating studies that derode the basis of 'race thinking.'

i am of italian descent,make of that fact what you will.i read this book 25 years ago,prior to being required to read "double
helix." without mentioning dna the author proved to me that differences were so miniscule as to make race moot.this was an
excellent book.should be high school requirement.

Most of the books on eugenics from the radical environmental fringe, such as this one, recount the same earlier mistakes made in eugenics, and then the books trail off into some abstract Gouldian/Boas dissertation on the evils of biological determinism. This book follows the same worn out formula, but has a few interesting new twists on the story. But first, any discounting of eugenics because of errors made at the very beginning, would apply to virtually any scientific niche, including medicine. Do any of these authors try to convince people that we should give up modern medicine because at one time it was practiced only by witch doctors? I think not, but that is the general theme of all these books. But of course, no matter how recent they are published, they usually suspend scientific facts at about 1975 so they do not have to discuss the dazzling progress made in genetics over the last twenty five years.

This book, unlike others, spends a great deal of time discussing the eugenic movements success in penetrating education, by presenting its value to school children in the curriculum. Selden laments this, but of course the flip side is that now the radical egalitarians are demanding that racial equality in intelligence be taught in schools, along with other Marxist ideologies, but ignores the fact that like eugenics it is unfounded and pseudoscientific. In all fairness, during the earlier part of the last century, eugenics was largely pseudoscience. But now, the Gould/Boas school of egalitarianism now carries that mantle by denying what modern science has found. Genes matter far more than the environment on important human traits such as intelligence, athleticism, conscientiousness, and even religiosity. These are all solid facts now discussed openly at the academic level, but kept from the general public by the new doctrines of political correctness. Published in 1999, it even has the gall to ignore books and reports by the American Psychological Association showing that there is a real concern with regards to dysgenic trends and that blacks are in fact less intelligent on average than whites. (The Rising Curve / Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.) These are stated policy positions of this very liberal organization, but ignored by Selden, putting him in the Marxist camp along with Gould, Kamin, Lewontin and Rose. He even discusses Gould's rejection of the correlation between brain size and intelligence, even though there have been numerous recent studies showing a correlation using MRI of about 0.4. (Gould has never apologized for omitting this latest evidence from his republication of "The Mismeasure of Man" to the chagrin of other scientists who have pointed it out to him.)

Selden hammers home again and again how biological determinism is a theory of limits, ignoring the fact that modern eugenicists believe that improving genetic capital means building for the future. Would we cut down the "rain forests" if it gave us additional money for Head Start programs? I wouldn't think so. But that is the logic used throughout the book to condemn all studies in human nature.

One rebuttal that I haven't seen so far, apparently because the Gouldian school is getting desperate in light of all the recent data in behavior genetics, is that twin and adoption studies are not reliable because the separated subjects, placed in different families, may in fact be in families that are so similar as to be almost like they are the same family. Did you get that? For years, sociologists have been looking for subtle differences between family environments to explain differences. But now, even after they haven't been successful at finding what Jensen says is the missing Factor X explaining racial differences in intelligence (which these debates are really all about), they claim that twin studies are invalid because, well, families are really just all alike. I would think even Gould should admit that this is a "just so" story with little empirical evidence. Anyone familiar with behavior genetics can see the duplicity of such an inane argument. But to the unaware reader it may appear to be valid. So much for academic honesty.

Overall, if one is aware that this book is really about politics and not science, and Marxist politics at that, it is easy to read and does a very good job of showing the lucid reader how desperate the left has become in trying to stop studies in racial differences.

I recently picked up Selden's book in the local mall. I planned to only skim through it. However, I was left stunned with the introduction and had no choice but to purchase the book. In fact, I read the entire book in one nights time. Selden's story of Eugenics in America is amazing. He is a true scholar and story teller, a gleeman of the modern age. Highly recommend this book to students of all majors.