The Passing of the Great Race (Review)

Madison Grant’s “The Passing of the Great Race” is considered by some to be the foundational work of racialist ideology in American history.

It purely disgusted me.

Not only is Grant a rabid anti-Christian (the book is filled with antagonistic remarks) he advocates a draconian plan of sterilization and promotes mass-abortions. On top of all that, he takes a strong stand against Irish independence, calling their desire for freedom a “longing after ancient and ill-perceived greatness.”

Grant wrote his book in 1916 (with subsequent revisions) and as a result, was able to help enact immigration and anti-miscegenation laws.   According to George McDaniel of American Renaissance, Grant:

“…joined, chaired, and often founded [racialist] organizations. He counted among his closest associates U.S. Presidents, top industrialists, best-selling writers, and some of the greatest scientists of the time. And he wrote two of the seminal works of American racialism: The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and The Conquest of a Continent (1933).”

As disturbing as this book is (or should be) to racially self-conscious Christians, there are a few beneficial elements I think must be taken from it and if not accepted whole-sale, at least carefully considered.

Grant sees the human race as divided into three main types:  The Caucasians, the Negroids, and the Mongoloids.  Different anthropologists divide up the types differently.  I believe Kant argues for twelve (in his book “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View”) while Carleton S. Coon, in “The Races of Europe”, says five.

It seems plausible to me that Coons’ five, and Kant’s twelve, are sub-races of Grant’s three.  As a young-Earth Creationist, I lean towards Grant’s position with the caveat that the three main family groups (types) correspond to Noah’s three sons.

Grant calls the Europeans a “subdivision of one of the primary groups or species of the genus Homo, which, taken together, we may call the Caucasian for lack of a better name.” pg. 32  Though, later, in chapter five, he argues that there is no real “Caucasian” race and to be precise, the term should be dropped.

What Grant means by a sub-division of one of the primary species of the genus Homo, is what, in my opinion, comes closest to describing the term “race” that is most often used on the colloquial level in today’s culture.   (For a practical application of this:  when we Christians say that races should not mix, we mean that Caucasians should not marry Negroids or Mongoloids.  But we do not mean that the sub-Caucasian races cannot intermarry, ie:  a Nordic can marry an Alpine.)

The Caucasian type is divided into three sub-races according to Grant:  the Nordics, the Alpines and the Mediterraneans.  His book is an attempt to describe the history of Europe in terms of the movement and interaction of these three racial groups.

His thesis is based on the idea of the immutability of somatological characteristics, which basically means, these three races, no matter the environment or socio-political context they are placed in, retain similar physical traits.   This is based on the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance which say groups of characteristics (like skin tone, the bridge of the nose, shape of the feet, length of the body, and hair and eye color) called “unit characters” are transmitted from generation to generation in accordance with fixed laws.

However, he allows for “disharmonic combinations” after long periods of inter-mixing between similar races.  Intermixing does not create hybrid races, however, it spawns a motley society of mixed character traits, for instance:  a brunette with Nordic stature.

Mixing between highly contrasted races, however, when prolonged, will produce a hybrid race, (such as the “Mexicans” which are a combination of the European settlers and native Indian population).  Grant, using Mexicans has his example, argues that the dominate traits are always lost in mixed relationships.  If a white and an African marry, the child is African.  If an Asian and African marry, the child is African.  If a white and jew marry, the child is a jew and so on, prompting statements of this sort:

“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 do not transform a Negro into a white man.” – pg. 16

And again:

“When it becomes thoroughly understood that the children of mixed marriages between contrasted races belong to the lower type, the importance of transmitting in unimpaired purity the blood inheritance of ages will be appreciated at its full value and to bring half breeds into the world will be regarded as a social and racial crime of the first magnitude.  The laws against miscegenation must be greatly extended if the higher races are to be maintained.” pg. 60

While these sorts of statements seem intuitive (at least to a racially-self conscious Christian) we must cringe at the reasoning and worldview that gave birth to them in Grant’s mind.

The whole of chapter 4 is an argument for Eugenics:  the forced sterilization of the “worthless classes” in society.  (The lower 10 percent of whom, offer nothing but a financial strain on the rest and among whom abortion would wreak a controlling influence according to Grant).

By way of critique, it may be helpful to think in terms of the three sub-species of the genus “homo” as being Negroids, Caucasians, and Mongoloids, with various sub-races in each.   Furthermore, Grant’s discussion of physical traits and their immutability through generations is helpful and interesting.

However, his ideals about how to deal with racial issues are most unhelpful.

While I do hope for a collective respect of God-ordained distinctions among men, we cannot deny the Imago Dei in other races.  ALL men were created to serve the Glory of God, and His glory is reflected through the diversity inherent in us.

It is to maintain this diversity (instituted by God through the family and extended family-group) that we must advocate for separation of the races.  Contrary to Grant, the Christian cannot advocate separation because he wants to see a particular race dominate the Earth nor should he advocate it in order to to “breed out” traits he finds unappealing.

That sort of attitude works for the destruction of God-ordained diversity every bit as much as that attitude of the neo-Marxist egalitarians; only, the non-Christian racialists (like Grant) want a white unanimity where the neo-Marxist egalitarians want a multi-racial or blended unanimity.

Both ideals are to be shunned in favor of a Christian view of human destiny where people from every race stand around the throne (respecting their distinctions) and praising God.  The ultimate choir.

This entry was posted in Reviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Passing of the Great Race (Review)

  1. thewhitechrist says:

    “While I do hope for a respect of God-ordained distinctions among men, I cannot deny the Imago Dei (the image of God in man) of other races. ALL men were created to serve the Glory of God, and His glory is reflected through the diversity inherent in men.”

    While I can feel for your desire to uphold the Glory of God in respect to Grant’s early 20th-century rationalistic ‘dismissal of God’ ( which he/they learned from the German ‘higher criticism’ theologues of a prior generation), and his direct creation of Adamic Man, I once was where you were, thirty years ago. Then I woke up.

    Based on Scripture and the praxis of the Church, I do not believe that God imbued the ‘Imago Dei’ consciously into the non-White races. In that the first thousand years of Christendom’s existence was limited to the ‘Ecumene’ – which, to the Apostle’s worldview, ended at the boundaries of Europe both East and West- it only seems logical to say, ‘OK, Which RACE were the people to whom the Gospel came?’

    It was NOT to the Sub-saharan Africans, the Asian, or the Amerindian! It was to the “White Man.” Rome’s schism from the other 4/5ths of historic Christendom, coincided EXACTLY with the ‘reaching out’ to the non-White races- St. Francis abortive attemt to ‘convert’ the Hagarenes is a case in point. This theological ‘innovation’ that we consider normative, was as a result of an entire Wing of Christendom embracing the heresy of the filioque! 800 years later, they [Muslims] are no more converted than during Francis’ day- they are still calling us the “Great Satan.’ How can a race that HATES God have the IMAGO DEI? That is a non-sequiter.

    I suggest you start by reading my posts:’s-seed-gal-329/’s-groaning-and-tears-–-a-symbol-for-lent/


    to see that the Bible has ALWAYS been directed, not at the ‘entire world’ but ONLY to the ‘Sons of Israel and Judah, that make up the ‘Israel of God’ [Gal. 6:16] and no other. Christianity has been SAID to be ‘universalistic,’ but a cursory reading of the predestination in St. Paul’s Epistles, should disabuse ANYONE of that fallacy!

    One cannot presume that what we have been told all our lives is the ‘God’s honest truth,’ when, for over seventy years, the Church has had the ‘advice and counsel’ of those whom Christ said, were sons of their Father, the Devil.’ [John 8:44]


    – Fr. John

  2. shotgunwildatheart says:

    Fr. John,

    I thought that you might have something to say about the way I worded my blog.

    I’ve taken, what seems to be, the normative “Kinist” position, which I’ve heard you speak out against before.

    I have to admit that your position “feels” right, but due to the complex nature of the issues involved, it’s going to take me a long time to work through it. I am open to it however, and for that reason, I’m very grateful for your writings.

    For now, I have to write from where I’m at, and take baby-steps towards fully working out my Christian worldview.

    In that vein, I think we could agree that all creation is meant to glorify God in some way, including all the non-Caucasian races (even if they are intended to glorify His wrath and judgment.)

    Thanks for the time you put into your blog, and thanks for taking the time to post here. It’s much appreciated, and as usual, you’ve given me work to do.

  3. thewhitechrist says:

    ‘In that vein, I think we could agree that all creation is meant to glorify God in some way, including all the non-Caucasian races (even if they are intended to glorify His wrath and judgment.)’

    I concur. And thanks for at least being willing to ‘hear’ – unlike some.

    God Bless.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s