it preceded marriage (p. 21); it merged from unstable forms of cohabitation to more stable ones. Until a sedentary life was approximated, each sex being largely self-subsistent, the marriage relation was one of "intermittent promiscuity" (p. 35). Frequent group marriage, trial marriage, easy divorce and periods of sexual indulgence make it clear that the original sex relation was "promiscuity mixed with apathetic monogamous pairing” (p. 44).

Some of these conclusions will meet with disapproval by partisans of opposing views; but the author has usually presented some evidence pro and con principal propositions and striven to maintain a judicial attitude. Nevertheless he has not always succeeded in avoiding the appearance of dogmatism, as when he says (p. 46), "Premarital chastity is practically unknown, nor even conceived, among lower peoples."

The general result of this historical inquiry is the conclusion that the primitive family must have left the child without education, "or what is worse, with an education in rebellion, looseness, and egoism."

This conclusion is strengthened by data (ch. iv) on sex taboos, procreation myths, couvade, ideas of paternity, showing the feebleness of family bonds and their subordination to group ties; and by evidence on the quality of parental affection, on ignorance of child hygiene, on infant mortality, infanticide, the selling and the eating of children, and the lack of filial regard. Not only therefore was the family unstable, and the relation of parents to children lacking in certainty and stability but parents themselves were ignorant, insensible and temperamental so that the conditions of order and consistency of relations essential to education were wanting. The primitive family was therefore "rather biologic and economic than educational in its function" (p. 140).

The second part of the author's problem is to show that the group rather than the family was the principal agent in education. This is done by a study of the aims and content (ch. vi), methods and organization (ch. vii), of primitive education. It is found that in the lowest culture stages the child educates himself by a process of instinctive imitation. The controlled imitation, drill and superstition of a more advanced stage are regulated partly by domestic and partly by communal agencies; but exhortation is mainly public, whereas "the most important methods of all, ceremonies of initiation and tribal festivals, are distinctively public" (p. 216). Play at all stages of culture is a process of selfeducation.

It thus appears that the family has always been an educational agency subordinate in importance to and dominated in its character and functioning by the social group of which it has been a part: that it has changed with social evolution and under the patriarchal form attained greater significance as an educationa factor than previously; that changes in its status now under way may, or indeed may not, give it "a more transcendent and valuable rôle than it has heretofore played" (p. 230); but that historical study shows the possibility of invoking many social institutions in the process of educating youth.

There is an excellent "Selected Bibliography" (pp. 231-241) and a "Subject Index." Whether one can accept the fundamental evolutionary and naturalistic position of the author or his particular conclusions the book cannot be overlooked by any one interested in its field.

F. H. HANKINS.

Vol. 4

THE JOURNAL OF

RACE DEVELOPMENT

JANUARY, 1914

No. 3

THE MEXICAN SITUATION FROM A MEXICAN POINT OF VIEW

By Lic. Luis Cabrera, recently Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Mexican Congress

Much has been said in the United States about the Mexican situation, but actual conditions in Mexico have never been fully understood, because they have always been studied from an American point of view.

The sources from which Americans draw their information about Mexico are chiefly foreign residents and investors, were very apt to consider the Mexican situation only fi standpoint of their own interests. All that foreigners seek in Mexico is the reëstablishment of a state of things favoring the continuation and promotion of business. They generally believe that the conditions of Mexicans themselves, and of those issues which are of a purely national character, do not concern them, and consequently they do not regard them as necessary factors in the problem, such as they understand it. Hence, the proposing of solutions which, although beneficial perhaps to foreign interests, do not tend to solve the Mexican problem itself.

To fully understand the Mexican situation and to find satisfactory solutions both to Mexican and foreign interests, it is necessary to study the question from a Mexican point

of view.

Such is the purpose of this paper.

Foreigners in Mexico believe that the only political problem which interests them is peace. But misled by superficial judgment or pushed by impatience, they have believed that the establishment of peace in Mexico depends only on the energy with which the country is governed.

THE JOURNAL OF RACE DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 4, NO. 3, 1914

All foreigners in Mexico look for a strong government, an iron hand or iron fist, and the only thing they discuss is whether a certain man is sufficiently strong or energetic to govern the country. And when they find a man with such qualities, foreigners always have believed that it was their duty to help that man to come into power and to support him.

These were the reasons for the foreign sympathy in favor of General Reyes first, General Félix Diaz afterwards, and General Huerta, and these are the reasons why President Madero did not get the full support of foreigners. He was considered a weak man, and consequently unable to establish peace.

It is necessary to rectify foreign opinion about strong governments in Mexico.

A strong government is not the one able to maintain peace by the mere force of arms, but the one which can obtain the support of the majority of the country. Any peace obtained by the system of the iron fist is only a temporary peace. Permanent peace in Mexico must be based on certain economic, political and social conditions which would produce a stable equilibrium between the higher and the lower classes of the nation.

Foreigners ought to be persuaded that to have real guarantees for their interests it is necessary that such interests be based on the welfare of the people of Mexico.

It is then to the interest of foreign capitalists to help Mexicans to obtain such conditions as will produce permanent peace in Mexico.

The troubles in Mexico during the last three years are attributable to mal-administration covering a period of thirty years. The internal upheaval in Mexico could not have grown to the importance that it has reached, had it only had the object of satisfying personal ambitions. The revolution in Mexico could not be so strong as it is, were robbery the only purpose of the soldiers or was personal ambition the only motive of the leaders.

The truth is that the Mexican disturbances are a real revolution of apparently political aspect, but at the very

bottom of economic and social tendencies. The present revolution in Mexico is only the continuation of a revolution begun in 1910.

The present revolution's main purposes are to free the lower classes from the condition of slavery in which they have been for a long time and to seek for an improvement in their economic and social conditions.

In Mexico there is no real middle class. The purpose of the present revolution is the creation of such a class which may help the country to have a social equilibrium. There is no real social equilibrium and there is no peace, and there is no democratic form of government without a middle class.

The causes of the Mexican revolution and its aims, are of a social, economic and political character. Consequently the Mexican question presents three different aspects, intimately related to each other, that can be called the social, economic and political aspects of the Mexican question.

SOCIAL ASPECT

Mexico has a population of about 15,000,000 inhabitants, 15 per cent of which are Indians, 75 per cent mixed or "mestizos" and 10 per cent of European descent. Each one of these groups presents different characteristics and even the "mestizos" cannot be said to be homogeneous, since there are various racial types among them.

Mexico, however, has no real race problem. Properly speaking, there are no insoluble conflicts between the various elements of the nation, because the Indians are easily assimilated by the "mestizos," and as a matter of fact, when the Indians receive education or mix with the "mestizos," they immediately become identified with them. A full blooded Indian who has received a certain amount of education, is always sure to keep it, and he never shows any retrogressive tendencies, so that we can say that the effects of education upon the native Indians of Mexico are of a permanent character.

On the other hand, the mestizo element of the population of Mexico intermarry very easily with the Europeans,