In “Race Amalgamation” by Frederick L. Hoffman, he puts forward the idea that the intermingling of the white and black races is to the detriment of the civilization of the United States of America. He begins his argument from a place of mild ambiguity that while it remains unanswered whether racial crossing is to the betterment or the deterioration of the races, it is important to prove scientifically whether it leads to improved intellectual, moral, or physical capacities. In the process of combing through the scientific literature on the matter, Hoffman concludes that offspring which are produced through intermingling are intellectually, morally, and physically inferior to their parents as a general rule. He makes this conclusion through studies he has chosen that measure the weight, circumference of the chest, lung capacity, rate of respiration, head circumference, facial angle, and weight of the brain of whites, pure blacks, and mixed-race individuals. Of the evidence which supports the opposing view Hoffman addresses the most popular case of Mr. Lille Geoffroy. To dismantle this opposing argument, he equates this case to the saying, “he shone like a one-eyed man among the totally blind” (Hoffman, 186). Furthermore, Hoffman invokes the law of similarity, the natural equilibrium that if disturbed by the intermingling of races will result in the deterioration and eventual annihilation of civilization. Amongst all the rhetoric of his essay, Hoffman does make a strong appeal to a certain audience. He capitalizes on the rising following of objective science and uses it to persuade in a quite unethical manner. Nevertheless, to one with an untrained eye and a favorable mind towards logic and reason, that reader would be easily swayed.

            I stated a strong appeal to a certain audience. While undoubtedly part of Hoffman’s targeted audience was the scientific community, another part was undeniably economists and financial advisors for major corporations, such as Prudential, his own employer. A third part also seems to be a more general audience of white Americans. The inquiring nature of Hoffman’s essay, as if on some sort of philosophical journey, would appeal very well to individuals who think and peruse meaningful topics with a curious, logical mind. Such an audience would be drawn in by the myriad data and studies the essay is peppered with and heavily dissuaded by the opposing arguments as they hold very little weight in the way that Hoffman represents them. Being a statistician, Hoffman took the effort upon himself to compile these studies referenced within his book and analyze them as they pertain to the “race question” and economics. As he states in his preface, “The close relation of social and moral phenomena to economics, is, I believe, fully demonstrated by the results of this work” (Hoffman, Preface). While it can almost assuredly be assumed that the entirety of his audience undertook this reading with a bias before opening the cover, he was nevertheless attempting to persuade some to continue research on this matter as it had great implications on human progress or retrogression.

            One cannot build a case with reason and logic whilst they have not demonstrated a strong character or had a worthy reputation preceding them. While Hoffman’s name may not have been known to a layman of the early 20^th century, economists and other members of social sciences are likely to have known his reputation. He was given the gold medal for the Prudential exhibit Insurance Methods and Results at the 1904 St. Louis International Exhibition. He published multiple essays in his career and lectured at various universities. Even with this reputation preceding him, Hoffman adds extra character traits in the preface of his book to depict himself as uniquely capable of a sort of meta-analyses of the literature at the time. As an example, he claims his being of foreign birth frees him “from a personal bias which might have made an impartial treatment of the subject difficult” (Hoffman, Preface). This falls directly subsequent to a problem he found when he began his research 10 years prior, that the data collected on the black populations were not without prejudice or sentimentality. Having now created this character appeal to his audience, Hoffman showers them with research and his evaluation of them.

            Once again, Hoffman was a statistician and a well respected one at that. One could never argue that he lacks references to other studies, scientists, academia or statistics within his publication. Though, in retrospect, one could argue the validity of those studies and statistics, or the overwhelming bias within the field of social sciences at the time, even the clear omittance of contradictory studies and research if there were such in the period. Hoffman mainly builds his arguments on the back of these studies such as the data collected by Drs. Gould and Sanford B. Hunt. To further bolster his deductions about the intermingling of the races he pairs his analysis of these anthropological examinations with the immediate telling of the account of Mr. Lille Geoffroy. Using a weak counterargument to begin with, or at the very least portraying it in a feeble manner, he places anecdotal evidence in direct competition with scientific research and reasoning. Even with phenomenal, convincing storytelling, to pit it against science to an audience of mainly intellectuals and “numbers people” is a nigh impossible sell.

            While sufficiently raining down data onto his audience, Hoffman also has underlying tones of emotion that can both consciously and subconsciously bring his readers to the same conclusions and possibly the same cause, that of pursuing further research on the matter. The topic being one that is highly politicized and emotional for most people in its own right, one would be thought foolish not to take advantage of this even with a targeted audience who is very analytical and rational thinking. So, Hoffman does so from the start, sounding nearly exasperated or contemptuous towards the subject of amalgamation, stating, “The race is so hopelessly mixed” (Hoffman, 177). Using this word “hopelessly” here I think would resonate quite dramatically with a biased audience or in an echo chamber of sorts. Even though this comment is directed at an inability for Hoffman to use the word negro in reference to blacks, as he assumes there are very few “pure negros” left as a result of intermixing, the tone creates this sense of frustration. This feeling extrapolates beyond word choices to the whole topic of race amalgamation as the attitude continues, somewhat in the shadows, throughout the rest of the chapter. In addition to the underlying tone throughout, Hoffman, while discussing data on interracial marriages, and through the law of similarity argument, asserts that even under equal class and education standards, good white men and women would have no desire for marriage with a black. These sentiments emphasize an idea of racial purity which not only biased readers would be likely to possess the same notion, but also the communities surrounding and influencing Hoffman’s own ideologies and works.

            The community of the social sciences was one such broader population of people that clearly had prejudiced sentiments as shown in the scientific racism of the day. They also held influence over Hoffman’s works at the least since it was data from this community that he was compiling and analyzing for over a decade for this publication. A book that he was throwing back into this echo chamber who would gladly accept it and praise it. In my opinion this creates a compound bias. Although, Hoffman claimed he was free from prejudice, he showed in the course of his writing that this ideology of racial purity exists within himself as well through his statement, “That the children of mixed parentage of Indo-Germanic stock, irrespective of nationality, are superior to the parents, is a fact which we observe in every day life” (Hoffman, 179). Another community with heavy influence over Hoffman is his professional sphere, working for a company with a vested interest in the conclusions of his work. For with these conclusions, they could make a case to charge higher premiums to certain groups of people for life insurance as they were not as physically or psychically fit. This is a corporation already lining their pockets with profits for shady business practices at the turn of the 20^th century.

            With the combinations of a biased audience and burgeoning field of social sciences Hoffman really had to do little to persuade his readers. As I said at the outset, to one with an untrained eye and a favorable mind towards rational thinking, they were certainly easily convinced by this meta-analysis of Hoffman. Beside a constant barrage of data and rational arguments throughout this section of his book, sprinkled with the correct amount of undertone and emotional appeal to tug on heart strings or enflame passions, and a well-built reputation and character, he sailed on the success of this work to even greater heights.