I wrote this about “white genocide” rhetoric before the terrorist attack in New Zealand, and I think it holds up. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/adam-serwer-madison-grant-white-nationalism/583258/ …pic.twitter.com/04xHWFXByW
-
To elaborate a little on the difference: Grant's argument is that Nordics (Aryans) are the best and are only being outbred by "inferiors" because of social factors. Stoddard's is "every race is out for its own," and that once industrialization gets exported globally,
then the "white races" will be out-competed by the "rising tide of color." It's basically a racist version of a nativist globalization argument, and as such is much more subtle than the "divide up whites into anthropological sub-races" approach.
-
-
Separately, Grant's form of interwar racism ("divide up the whites") became less compelling to Americans than Stoddard's biracial ("white vs. colored") approach, after the Great Migration and all that. Grant's is the racial theory of the KKK, Stoddard's is the view of Fox News.
-
To put it visually (I once wrote a whole paper on this in grad school, can you tell?), Grant's map of races (left, 1916) looks bizarre today. Stoddard's map (right, 1920) is totally comprehensible. I agree Grant's mindset is getting a grim revival, but Stoddard's never left us.pic.twitter.com/pmIkr75XKv
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.