Talk:The Passing of the Great Race

Biblical references?

Is this another theory claiming that white people are "man" from the holy bible, as in "it was way back in the day when the sons of god married the daughters of men"? Just another dressed up attempt at saying white women are loose and easy? I had always heard that the Norse tribes originated ,this time around, from the eastern mediterenian, portions that would now be under water. I always thought the "similairaty" of northern hindi causasians and "white" erope came from russia ,this time around.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Norse as in baltic Norse tribes was implyed via the related article.

yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.51 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

References?

Why are there no citations in this article, and the only reference listed at the end is never explicitly referenced in the article itself??? --Kangabell (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly/probably before Wikipedia had the policies and guidelines it has now. A lot was copied from two other articles, the one about Madison Grant and Nordic race (which looks well referenced). - dougweller (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Theodore Roosevelt seems specious

"Grant became a part of popular culture in 1920s America, especially in New York. Grant's conservationism and fascination with zoological natural history made him very influential among the New York elite who agreed with his cause, most notably Theodore Roosevelt."

This doesn't make a lot of sense: Theodore Roosevelt died in 1919, so how could he be part of Grant's popularity in pop culture in the 1920s? I don't know enough about the subject to attempt a rewrite; is another Roosevelt meant here, or is the sequence of events simply presented illogically? Anyone know? --NellieBly (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New edits to this article by I.P. editor 77.228.22.215

I see a series of article text edits by an I.P. editor posting from 77.228.22.215 have been reverted by another editor to a previous version of this article (last edited by me). I have no opinion on whether the I.P. edits are better left in or better left reverted. I do wish that the statements in article text had been cited to sources, and that the changes in wikilinking and other editorial changes had been discussed here on the article talk page. I have just received from local libraries some new sources about the topic of this article, and I would certainly like the help of other editors here who have sources at hand. Perhaps the I.P. editor at 77.228.22.215 can be persuaded to register a Wikipedia account and to join in with further edits here, citing sources. The best way to improve almost any of the 6,926,045 articles on Wikipedia is to find reliable secondary sources, and to cite changes in article text to those sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Refutation

The article would be very well-served by discussion of specific and successful refutations of the man's work. At the moment, the article makes it appear he was merely the victim of a petty squabble among academics or possibly even some Communist plot. Surely there's more to it than that & if he were as influential as is claimed someone took the time to thoroughly refute his points. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I put in references to specific contemporary criticisms, but they were removed. Someone also put back in the simply bizarre claim that his critics were Marxists, communists, and/or of the ethnicity he criticizes. Those claims should either be removed or cited. (Since they can't be cited, they should be removed.)

Currently, the article implicitly defends Grant's claims. 20:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterburnette (talk • contribs)

Someone keeps putting back in white supremacist nonsense, such as that the main critics of racialist science were communists. The page about this book on the Madison Grant page is fine; this page is ludicrous, and the sort of thing that gives wikipedia a bad name. 01:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterburnette (talk • contribs)

The troublesome material was originally added by User:68.230.2.152, who was quite clearly trying to present the racialist material in the editorial voice, as well as grind other political axes. (This is apparent when looking at some of the editor's contributions to other articles as well.) The uncited material was contentious, and thus I removed it; I rewrote other parts to get rid of the rather fawning descriptions of Grant's work and methods (which were actually compiled from others, not original research of Grant's own), various bits of redundancy, etc. Still, much of this article is badly written on the structural level, with much repeated information, material best served in the main article on Grant or in the article on the Nordic race, etc. I have no idea why one particular editor keeps reinstating the material while removing the sourced additions that other editors have made; perhaps they shall discuss it here in Talk. Ergative rlt (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias in current version?

At least to me, the current version of the article seems to have a definite positive bias towards the work. Perhaps it should be rewritten in a more objective style.

Racist trolling that's made of lulz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: the Marxists are the major racists; they plan to destroy individuality in order to level the smart people in with the stupid. Thanks to them, "education" has been mass-packaged and standards lowered so every idiot can get a university diploma and pretend he's "educated". Real education ended decades ago. As for the idiotic idea that all human races are EQUAL or THE SAME and have THE SAME qualities and abilities, this is obvious bullshit. What color (race) are the world's bankers, architects, engineers, astronauts, pilots, and all those who invented electric lights, telephony, internet and space-flight? The blacks have existed as long as the whites, but the whites created western civilization. Unfortunately, they also created the projects & welfare for blacks, who as of 2008 outnumbered white founding Americans, hitting the 51 percent mark. There are so few intelligent blacks, they will sink with their fellow brethren into the primitive mire they will make of civilization once the Great Race has passed, because they are too stupid to maintain it. As for the planned elimination of the Great Race, it's underway now at the hands of sycophants of the Jewish Hitlers who are currently building Mein-Kampf Zion in Israel behind a nuclear perimeter and a policy of keeping the other races out, especially the stupid blacks, whom the Jews instead are pushing by droves into the white countries to exterminate the rest of us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LjvSIBKVc You only need to look at UK demographics to understand that the demise of the great British races has been brought to fruition by outbreeding with blacks and west indians. Here is the primary sycophant who helped to get the white extermination ball rolling under the direct influence of Zionists, including his harpie wife: http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php "The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today's races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [22]" Conclusion: it's the f*u&c&/k-ing Jews behind Marxism; behind 100 million mostly whites slaughtered under communism; behind Zionism; behind Kalergi and the plan to convert the white Europeans into "mongrels" so the s*t/i-n*k/i-n**g Jews will have no more competition from the Great Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.49.237 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Move the literary significance to the first paragraph

IMHO, users coming across this article on a forgotten book and social theory should be helpfully alerted that it will help them understand a central character in The Great Gatsby. It's quite characteristic of Tom Buchanan, and indeed of his social set-- the contempt for the "lower classes." That forecasts a lot that happens in the plot. Profhum (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Gatsby maybe more relevant to the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy by Lothrop Stoddard which repeats most of Grants ideas. It seems to be Stoddard's book that is hinted at when Tom talks about "this man Goddard". If you have any sources analyzing Grant's possible literary influence, please do add them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of scare quotes

I find that the use of scare quotes in this article isn't always justified. Let's face it, it is very easy to deconstruct this book on its own merit, there is really no need to set up additional strawmen. So I suppose it's fair enough to put in scare quotes phrases or terminology from the book that could not be used today without breaking taboos, but we need to take care not to mix that with other phrases in scare quotes that are not in fact found in the text. e.g. "worthless race types" is found in the book, but while balancing that with "worthwhile race types" stands to reason, it is not an expression found in the book (in fact the adjective "worthwhile" does not occur at all, so its use in quotes should be avoided.

I unquoted "Nordic superiority", because, the gist of the book clearly amounts to presenting "Nordics" as "superior", and both terms do occur ("Nordics" passim), there is no actual phrase or paragraphs that talks of "Nordic superiority" directly. In fact, one use of "superior" does concern a trait where the Nordic race is actually portrayed as inferior,

"The mental characteristics of the Mediterranean race are well known and this race, while inferior in bodily stamina to both the Nordic and the Alpine, is probably the superior of both, certainly of the Alpines, in intellectual attainments. In the field of art its superiority to both the other European races is unquestioned, although in literature and in scientific research and discovery the Nordics far excel it."

Grant somewhat grudgingly does, well, grant, that the Mediterraneans may be superior in "intellectual attainments" to the Nordics, and that it is unquestionably superior to the nordics in "in the field of art". His other use of "superior" is classist, when he talks about the lower classes "destroying superior types" within a society. In fact, he seems to talk about intra-societal eugenics much more than the outraged "omg Nordicism" summary seems to allow for. His only other reference to a "superior race" concerns prehistory (disappearance of Cro-Magnon). I do certainly not contest that his entire book amounts to a claim of Nordic superiority, but when the only combination of "Nordic" and "superior" in the book is in a paragraph conceding that Nordics are supposedly inferior to Mediterraneans "in the field of art", it doesn't seem fair to give "Nordic superiority" in quotes as if it was a phrase used in the text. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anybody read this book?

I really don't want to, nor would reading it be sufficient to edit the entirety of this article. But it does seem that a lot of biased editing (either racist or anti-Madison) has taken place, the above discussions hardly approach squabbles over the finer points of scholarship. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC).