The Sociology of Madison Grant
by Deebs
Introduction
Madison Grant was a prominent American lawyer, known for his views as a scientific racialist, anthropologist, and zoologist, as well as his advocacy for ethnic conservation and eugenics. His 1916 publication, The Passing of The Great Race, played a pivotal role in the early development of eugenics, gaining widespread attention among U.S. presidents, scientists, and the general public, and eventually becoming a bestseller. This book contributed significantly to the enactment of the 1924 Immigration Act by President Calvin Coolidge, which favored immigrants from north-western Europe, aligning with Grant's views. This policy was ultimately overturned by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Grant aimed to emphasize the significance of race in civilization and counter the Melting Pot Theory, which celebrates America as a blend of diverse cultures and ethnicities.
The follow-up to The Passing of The Great Race, titled The Conquest of a Continent or The Expansion of Races In America, further explored the Nordic racial characteristics of the early European settlers in America, tracing their origins and the racial history of Europe to affirm the Nordic roots of America's founding populations. Grant's work primarily advocated for Nordicism, a belief in the superiority and potential endangerment of the Nordic race, regarded as crucial for the development and governance of civilizations. He was influenced by and associated with other Nordicist thinkers globally, establishing himself as a leading theorist of Nordicism in America. This essay aims to delve deeply into the life, contributions, and enduring influence of Madison Grant as a central figure in Nordicism.
His Life and Achievements
Madison Grant, born into affluence in New York in 1865, was a founding figure in several conservation and eugenics movements. An early advocate for wildlife conservation, he joined forces with prominent figures like Theodore Roosevelt as part of the Boone and Crockett Club, focusing on protective legislation for nature. Their efforts were instrumental in establishing protections for the endangered bison in Oklahoma's Wichita Mountains, laying the groundwork for one of the first national wildlife refuges in the United States. Additionally, Grant played a key role in expanding the national park system, advocating for the creation of Glacier National Park in Montana and securing legal protection for the Everglades, Olympic, and Denali National Parks. He was pivotal in the Save the Redwoods League, safeguarding California's sequoia trees and instituting New York's first deer hunting regulations.
Beyond conservation, Grant co-founded the Bronx Zoo, contributed to the creation of the Bronx River Parkway, and helped organize the American Bison Society. His governance roles included serving on the board of trustees at the American Museum of Natural History, directing the American Eugenics Society, acting as vice president of the Immigration Restriction League, co-founding the Galton Society, and holding a position on the International Committee of Eugenics. His contributions were recognized in 1929 when he received the gold medal from the Society of Arts and Sciences. Grant's impactful life concluded in 1937, leaving behind a legacy of significant achievements in conservation and eugenics.
On Race, Democracy and Slavery
“Man is an animal differing from his fellow inhabitants of the globe not in kind but only in degree of development and an intelligent study of human species must be preceded by and extended knowledge of other mammals, especially the primates.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant argued that religious and social beliefs had greatly diminished race awareness among advanced societies, noting that historically, distinctions in class, caste, and color were clear indicators of racial divisions. He observed that in many countries, social classes were remnants of previously separate races. Specifically, in New York City, there existed an elite class of native Americans who, despite denying any patrician status and lacking in societal consciousness and dignity, had historically led in areas such as thought leadership, capital control, education, religious values, and community altruism, built on the lower social strata of immigrants.
Grant critiqued the democratic trend of favoring the average individual for public roles over those distinguished by birth, education, or integrity, questioning the long-term effectiveness of this approach from a racial standpoint. He predicted this would favor less capable individuals, thereby reducing overall community efficiency and devaluing exceptional talent. He cited the French Revolution as an example of the majority, self-identified as "the people," attempting to eliminate a superior group. Similarly, he claimed the American Revolution erred by expelling Loyalists and seizing their properties, which diluted superior racial elements with inferior immigrant stocks. Grant lamented the near-eradication of birth privilege in America, which he equated with the inherent intellectual and moral superiority inherited from noble lineage.
“We are now engaged in destroying the privilege of wealth; that is, the reward of successful intelligence and industry and in some quarters there is developing a tendency to attack the privilege of intellect and to deprive man of the advantage gained from an early and thorough classical education. Simplified spelling is a step in this direction. Ignorance of English grammar or classic learning must not, forsooth, be held up as a reproach to the political or social aspirant.
Mankind emerged from savagery and barbarism under the leadership of selected individuals whose personal prowess, capacity or wisdom gave them the right to lead and the power to compel obedience. Such leaders have always been a minute fraction of the whole, but as long as the tradition of their predominance persisted they were able to use the brute strength of the unthinking herd as part of their own force and were able to direct at will the blind dynamic impulse of the slaves, peasants or lower classes. Such a despot had an enormous power at his disposal which, if he were benevolent or even intelligent, could be used and most frequently was used for the general uplift of the race. Even those rulers who most abused this power put down with merciless rigor the antisocial elements, such as pirates, brigands or anarchists, which impair the progress of a community, as disease or wounds cripple an individual.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant eloquently articulates his belief in a “true aristocracy,” which he defines as governance by the wisest and best, a notably small minority within any society. He uses the metaphor of a serpent to illustrate his point: just as the head directs the body of the serpent, a proper aristocracy should guide society. He contrasts this with his view of a true republic, which aims to consider the whole community's welfare, as opposed to a democracy that he perceives as rule by the majority for its own interests. In such a republic, governance is ideally entrusted to those selected for their ancestral background, moral character, and education—essentially, the experts.
Grant further differentiates aristocracy from plutocracy and democracy by likening the intellectual elite to the spearhead that leads the rest of the shaft, representing society. He critiques democracy for its dispersion of force throughout the spear, weakening the state's effectiveness. This dispersion, according to Grant, shifts focus from the quality of governance to the mere right of participation in government. Grant's theories find reflection in the governance models of Stalin's Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy, where centralized authority, reminiscent of Grant's vision of aristocracy, operated effectively without the need to consult the broader populace. These examples, although controversial, are used to illustrate the practical application of Grant's ideas, with a note on his preference for a Nordic ruling class.
On the topic of slavery, Grant controversially suggests that it benefits the subjugated race by introducing them to higher civilization and compelling work. He draws parallels to his time, suggesting that certain conditions of slavery might be preferable to freedom, as evidenced by the treatment of Indigenous peoples under the Hudson Bay Company, who, in his view, were better off as "virtual bond slaves" provided with necessities and protection. Grant's criticism extends to the abolition of slavery, which he believes led to a decline in societal structure and productivity, particularly highlighting the plight of the Indigenous peoples after losing the structured support of slavery. He controversially suggests that modern ghettos serve as evidence of certain races failing to thrive in a free society, a viewpoint that reflects his broader racial theories and is starkly at odds with contemporary values of equality and human rights. Lastly, Grant defends serfdom in medieval Europe as an effective agricultural system, arguing that binding serfs to the land ensured stable and productive management of resources. The discontinuation of serfdom, in his view, led to a loss of agricultural efficiency and stability.
On The Physical Basis of Race
Grant robustly supported the scientific rejection of the biblical narrative that humanity originated from two individuals in the Garden of Eden. He argued that the genetic ancestry of European races is far more complex, tracing back to migrations from the East through Asia Minor or along the African coast, with Europe having been inhabited by direct ancestors of its current populations for thousands of years. Throughout history, various races have migrated into and out of Europe, leaving their genetic legacy in modern Europeans.
He emphasized the significance of identifying not only the pure types within European races but also understanding the distribution of genetic traits specific to each human subspecies found in Europe. Grant observed that the mixing of European populations had progressed to such a degree that a detailed analysis of physical characteristics would be necessary to decipher the ethnic components of their genetic makeup. He argued that the inherent genetic traits of these races have a more profound impact on their identity than the environment. Grant critiqued the belief in the predominance of nurture over nature as naive and dismissed the notion that heredity could be significantly altered. He attributed these misguided beliefs to thinkers of the French Revolution and criticized Americans for adopting such views. He warned that such beliefs have caused considerable harm in the past and could lead to even more severe consequences if left unchallenged.
“Thus the view that the Negro slave was an unfortunate cousin of the white man, deeply tanned by the tropic sun, and denied the blessings of Christianity and civilization, played no small part with the sentimentalists of the Civil War period, and it has taken us fifty years to learn that speaking English, wearing good clothes, and going to school and to church, does not transform a Negro into a white man.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant argued that external adaptations, such as a Syrian or Egyptian freedman donning a toga or engaging in Roman cultural practices like cheering for gladiators, would not fundamentally transform him into a Roman. He further illustrated his point by referencing the Polish Jew, emphasizing stereotypical physical and mental traits, and a focus on self-interest, as characteristics that could not be easily integrated into the national identity. He also discussed efforts to demonstrate that the physical characteristics of inferior races among immigrants, such as skull shape, could change rapidly, even within a single generation. However, Grant remained skeptical of such claims.
Grant pointed to the "Melting Pot" experiment in Mexico as an example, where the intermingling of Spanish conquerors with native populations resulted in what is today known as the Mexican race. He viewed this racial mixture as evidence of an inability for self-governance, using contemporary issues such as the significant influence of cartels on the Mexican government and the economy's reliance on illicit activities as modern proof of his assertion. He generalized that the mixing of races often leads to a regression to a more ancient, basic, and lower type, implying that such mixtures fail to produce advanced or superior societies. Grant believed that this pattern demonstrated the inherent limitations and negative outcomes of racial mixing, viewing it as leading to a dilution of superior qualities in favor of more primitive traits.
“The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant observed that when blonde and brunette populations interbreed, the resultant traits often favor the darker, more ancient characteristics. He viewed this as a natural law, unaffected by societal constructs such as democracy or religious doctrines. Grant argued that intrinsic traits, or "unit characters," remain constant over centuries. Environmental improvements and better nutrition could provide opportunities for a race that had previously lived in poorer conditions, yet these opportunities would ultimately be constrained by their genetic heritage. In discussing the physical distinctions of race within Europe, Grant identified three main subspecies: Nordic/Baltic, Mediterranean/Iberian, and Alpine. However, Hans F. K. Günther, expands this classification to five subspecies, including Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, East Baltic, and Dinaric. This discrepancy highlights that there is no unanimous agreement in the Nordicism movement regarding racial categorization. Grant characterized the Nordic race as having a tall stature, fair skin, and light-colored eyes, predominantly inhabiting the regions around the North and Baltic Seas.
This group included Scandinavian and Teutonic peoples, alongside other groups associated with early Aryan language and culture in southern Europe and Asia. He described Mediterraneans or Iberians as having darker eyes and hair, with comparatively smaller skulls, and a shorter stature and weaker physical frame than Nordics. This group is primarily found along the Mediterranean shores and the Atlantic coast. The Alpine subspecies, according to Grant, is situated throughout central and eastern Europe, reaching into Asia Minor. He exemplified Armenians as a representative group, noting their round skulls, sturdy build, and medium height. Grant mentioned that Alpines were initially from Asia, becoming Europeanized later. However, this assertion has been corrected in modern interpretations of his work, with genetic evidence refuting the idea that Alpines and Mediterraneans originated in Asia. Grant also noted that while the original hair and eye coloration among Alpines tended to be very dark, a significant presence of lighter eye colors can now be observed in the Alpine populations of western Europe.
“These three main groups have bodily characters which constitute them distinct subspecies of Homo sapiens. Each has several varieties, but for the sake of clearness the word race and not the word species or subspecies will hereafter be used nearly, but not quite, exclusively. In zoology the term species implies the existence of a certain definitive amount of divergence from the most closely related type, but race does not require a similar amount of difference. In man, where all groups are more or less fertile when crossed, so many intermediate or mixed types occur that the word species has too limited a meaning for wide use. Related species when grouped together constitute sub-genre and genre.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant employed the cephalic index, a method for measuring human skulls, in his studies. He concluded that this metric was less useful in Asia, even though the distribution of elongated and rounded skulls appeared to mirror that of Europe. Additionally, he mentioned that the cephalic index was largely irrelevant when applied to American Indians. In the case of Africa, he found the cephalic index to be of limited value as well, attributing this to the uniform presence of elongated skulls across the continent's populations.
On Eugenics and Replacement
“Where two races occupy a country side by side, it is not correct to speak of one type as changing into the other.”
“Even if present in equal numbers one of the two contrasted types will have some small advantage or capacity which the other lacks toward a perfect adjustment to surroundings. Those possessing these favorable variations will flourish at the expense of their rivals, and their offspring will not only be more numerous, but will also tend to inherit such variations. In this way one type gradually breeds the other out. In this sense, and in this sense only, do races change.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant suggests that the social environment plays a crucial role in natural selection among humans. For instance, during the Colonial period in North America, large families were seen as beneficial due to social and economic incentives encouraging early marriage and numerous offspring. However, after two centuries of political growth and economic prosperity, the dynamics shifted. Children, rather than being helpful for farm work and livestock management, became a financial burden, necessitating support and education from their parents. This shift transformed large families from an asset into a disadvantage. He notes that this shift in perspective toward family size did not initially affect immigrant populations, where large families remained common, similar to earlier times in Colonial America and contemporary rural areas in French Canada.
This situation led to a rapid expansion of certain population segments over others, which Grant describes not as a transformation of the race but merely a replacement. He expresses concern over the declining birth rates among what he considers more 'valuable' human types, while those he deems of lower status remain unaffected, viewing this trend as harmful if left unchecked. Grant argues against promoting indiscriminate reproduction as a solution to what he calls 'race suicide', stating it could worsen the situation by increasing the proportion of 'undesirable elements'. Grant advocates for a focus on enhancing the population quality of what he sees as 'desirable' classes - those with superior physical, intellectual, and moral qualities - rather than merely boosting overall population numbers.
Furthermore, Grant controversially argues that efforts to save lives among the lower classes could harm what he refers to as the 'master race'. He asserts that nature's laws demand the elimination of the unfit, implying that human life holds value only when it benefits the community or race. This viewpoint reflects a deeply flawed understanding of human value and diversity, advocating for policies and attitudes that have been widely discredited and condemned in contemporary society.
“It is highly unjust that a minute minority should be called upon to supply brains for the unthinking mass of the community, but it is even worse to burden the responsible and larger, but still overworked, elements in the community with an ever increasing number of moral perverts, mental defectives, and hereditary cripples.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant criticizes the church for its role in preserving what he considers genetically inferior individuals. He believes that the continuation of such individuals significantly harms society, as they are seen as weak and humble, appealing to the more 'valuable' humans for support. In his opinion, helping and maintaining these individuals has caused more damage to Nordic populations than historical plagues like the Black Death or smallpox. He argues that charitable efforts to assist the criminal and diseased inflict harm on current generations, and he views any societal obligation to support those he labels as imbeciles as a disastrous path. Despite his grim outlook, Grant proposes a solution. He suggests implementing a stringent system aimed at eliminating societal 'failures' within a hundred years, which would also remove those he deems misfits from jails, hospitals, and asylums. Part of this system involves the community supporting misfits through nourishment, education, and protection, while ensuring they are sterilized to prevent them from reproducing.
Grant presents this as a practical and humane approach to dealing with hereditary disabilities and what he calls 'worthless race types'. He posits that humanity has two options for improving the race: breeding from the best or eliminating the worst through segregation or sterilization, noting that the Spartans practiced the former method. He also observes that the Nordic race has been selecting itself through alcoholism, which he identifies as a particularly Nordic issue, and tuberculosis, arguing that these have disproportionately affected the most desirable members of the race. Grant suggests that individuals with potential who succumb to drug addiction are harming their own race by indulging in the very destruction that their enemies might wish upon them. This, he asserts, is an example of how races compete against each other. Grant points to the encounter between Columbus and the American Indians as an illustration of such racial competition, emphasizing the dynamics of conflict and survival between different groups.
“It was not the swords in the hands of Columbus and his followers that decimated the American Indians, it was the germs that his men and their successors brought over, implanting the white man’s maladies in the red man’s worlds.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
On Useless Racial Classifications
Madison Grant argued that the term "Caucasian race" had lost its specific significance except in the United States, where it was used to differentiate white populations from Black or Indigenous peoples. He found it somewhat useful for grouping together the three European subgroups he identified, but otherwise, he considered the term outdated and cumbersome. Grant highlighted that the origin of the term "Caucasian" was based on a misconception dating back two centuries (from his perspective, a century ago) that the origin of light-skinned Europeans was in the Caucasus region. However, he pointed out that no significant evidence of such a race exists there today, except for a small and declining number of individuals with blond characteristics among the Ossetes. The Ossetes are a group with Aryan linguistic connections to the Armenians, and while mostly having broad skulls, they still possess some blond and long-skulled traits that are quickly diminishing. Furthermore, Grant dismissed the term "Indo-European race" as misleading, arguing that it incorrectly suggested a shared ancestry between Indians and Europeans based solely on their common use of Aryan languages. He also advocated for abandoning the term "Aryan race," considering it to be of no racial importance. According to Grant, by his time and continuing into the present, the concept of the Aryan race is understood primarily in linguistic terms, despite its historical usage implying racial connotations.
“… there was at once time, of course, an identity between the original Aryan mother tongue and the race that first spoke and developed it. In short there is not now, and there never was either a Caucasian or an Indo-European race, but there was once, thousands of years ago, an Aryan race now long since vanished into the dim memories of the past. If used in a racial sense other than as above it should be limited to the Nordic invaders of Hindustan now long extinct. The great lapse of time since the disappearance of the ancient Aryan race as such, is measured by the extreme disintegration of the various groups of Aryan languages. These linguistic divergences are chiefly due to the imposition by conquest of Aryan speech upon several unrelated subspecies of man throughout western Asia and Europe.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Grant argued that referring to a "Latin race" was incorrect because the term encompasses a variety of nations, each with its own distinct racial groups. He noted that within the Teutonic group, a significant majority of individuals who speak Teutonic languages—including the English, Flemings, Dutch, North Germans, and Scandinavians—are of Nordic descent. He believed that the ruling class across Europe predominantly hailed from this Nordic lineage.
Similarly, Grant contested the validity of the term "Celtic race," labeling it as misleading. He observed that populations along the Atlantic who speak Celtic dialects can be categorized into three distinct groups, each exemplifying one of the European sub-races he identified. Grant found it illogical to amalgamate the Breton people with their Alpine skull shapes, the brunet Welsh of the Mediterranean race, and the Nordic Scottish Highlanders into a single "Celtic" racial category. He argued that these groups lacked shared physical, mental, or cultural traits, and certainly did not possess a common ancestry. Grant acknowledged the existence of an ancient people who originally spoke the Celtic language. He identified them as the westernmost representatives of the Nordic race, which he claimed spread throughout central and western Europe before the arrival of Teutonic tribes.
“We must once and for all time discard the name “Celt” for any existing race whatever, and speak only of “Celtic” language and culture.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
In Grant's view, the tall and blond Nordic individuals in Ireland, particularly of Danish origin, were often regarded as "Celts," and he considered the Irish population to be predominantly Nordic, similar to the English. This Nordic presence in Ireland was attributed to Danish, Norse, and Anglo-Norman ancestry, along with earlier pre-Teutonic influences. He highlighted the presence of both blond and brunette types among the Irish, which he saw as indicative of the same racial components found in the English population: the tall Nordic blonds and the smaller Mediterranean brunettes. Consequently, Grant argued that the Irish did not warrant a separate national identity based on racial differences. Regarding the term "Slavic race," Grant found it to be a more coherent classification. He generally categorized the Slavic people as belonging to the Alpine race, with a notable exception in Russia. There, he observed a significant presence of the Nordic type, including what he referred to as the "so-called Finnish element," which he considered to be Proto-Nordic.
“The objection which is made to the identification of the Slavic race with the Alpine type rests chiefly on the fact that a very large portion of the Alpine race is German-speaking in Germany, Italian-speaking in Italy, and French-speaking in France. Moreover, large portions of Romania are of exactly the same racial complexion.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Conclusion
Madison Grant was a complex figure whose fervent dedication to conservation extended beyond wildlife to include what he considered the superior strains of the human race. His ideas significantly impacted American immigration policy, inspired nationalist thinkers in Germany, including Adolf Hitler, and influenced both U.S. presidents and the general populace. Grant's theories contributed to shaping the immigration policies of Hitler's Third Reich, which mandated Nordic traits for those wishing to settle in Germany. The notion of preventing intermixing between what he termed "higher" and "lower" racial types was a belief Grant and Hitler shared. In The Myth of The Blood: The Genesis of Racialism, Julius Evola explores various racist ideologies and includes a quote from Hitler in a chapter dedicated to his particular form of racism, highlighting the extent of Grant's influence.
“At all critical moments in which a person of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is to say, decisions that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixed blood will become confused and take half-measures.
Hence we see that a person of mixed blood is not only relatively inferior to a person of pure blood, but is also doomed to become extinct more rapidly.
In innumerable cases where the pure race holds its ground, the mongrel breaks down. Therein we see the corrective measures adopted by Nature; she restricts the possibilities of procreation, thus impeding the fertility of cross-breeds and dooming them to extinction.
For instance, if an individual member of a race should mingle his blood with the member of a superior race, the first result would be a lowering of the racial level, and further, the issue of this mixed marriage would be weaker than those of the people around them who had maintained their blood unadulterated.
Where no new blood from the superior race enters the racial stream of the mongrels, and where these mongrels continue to cross-breed among themselves, the latter will either die out because they have insufficient powers of resistance.”
— Adolf Hitler quoted in The Myth of The Blood: The Genesis of Racialism by Julius Evola
It's clear that Madison Grant's specific preferences and rejections of certain racial terminologies reflect his fundamental disagreement with the ideology of white nationalism. White Nationalists view Europeans as a homogenous "White Race" with the collective potential to establish a nation based on racial identity. Grant, however, would likely have found the lumping together of Alpines, Nordics, and Mediterraneans under a single racial category troubling. To him, using "White" as a synonym for "European" would be as meaningless as the term "Latin" when applied to race. His writings differentiate Europeans by their specific racial groups rather than uniting them under the broad category of "White." This viewpoint is shared among other Nordicists, such as Arthur de Gobineau and Hans F. K. Günther, highlighting a stark contrast between white nationalism and Nordicism. From Grant's perspective, white nationalism represents another attempt at a "Melting Pot" experiment, which he viewed negatively.
Regarding racism, Grant would likely have aligned with two key principles outlined by Julius Evola: firstly, that human nature is inherently diverse, with such diversities traceable to blood and race; and secondly, that each racial distinction aligns with a particular spirit, shaping both the inner nature and the cultural expressions of that race. For Grant, the Nordic race epitomized the ideal racial group whose purity was crucial for the foundation and continuation of its civilization. He warned that America's engagement in the "Melting Pot" experiment threatened the purity of the Nordic race, which he saw as paramount.
In his discourse on Nordics, Grant expressed:
“This is a purely European type, and has developed its physical characters and its civilization within the confines of that continent. It is, therefore, the Homo europaeus, the white man par excellence.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race
Regarding America, he expressed the following sentiments:
“The United States of America must be regarded racially as a European colony, and owing to current ignorance of the physical bases of race, one often hears the statement made that native Americans of Colonial ancestry are of mixed ethnic origin. This is not true. At the time of the Revolutionary War the settlers in the thirteen Colonies were not only purely Nordic, but also purely Teutonic, a very large majority being Anglo-Saxon in the most limited meaning of that term. The New England settlers in particular came from those counties of England where the blood was almost purely Saxon, Anglian, and Dane.”
— Madison Grant, The Passing of The Great Race