Copyright
Lothrop Stoddard.

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy online

. (page 12 of 22)
Online LibraryLothrop StoddardThe Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy → online text (page 12 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


"melting-pot." As a matter of fact, the melting-pot may mix but does not
melt. Each race-type, formed ages ago, and "set" by millenniums of
isolation and inbreeding, is a stubbornly persistent entity. Each type
possesses a special set of characters: not merely the physical characters
visible to the naked eye, but moral, intellectual, and spiritual
characters as well. All these characters are transmitted substantially
unchanged from generation to generation. To be sure, where members of the
same race-stock intermarry (as English and Swedish Nordics, or French and
British Mediterraneans), there seems to be genuine amalgamation. In most
other cases, however, the result is not a blend but a mechanical mixture.
Where the parent stocks are very diverse, as in matings between whites,
negroes, and Amerindians, the offspring is a mongrel - a walking chaos, so
consumed by his jarring heredities that he is quite worthless. We have
already viewed the mongrel and his works in Latin America.

Such are the two extremes. Where intermarriage takes place between stocks
relatively near together, as in crossings between the main divisions of
the white species, the result may not be bad, and is sometimes distinctly
good. Nevertheless, there is no true amalgamation. The different
race-characters remain distinct in the mixed offspring. If the race-types
have generally intermarried, the country is really occupied by two or more
races, the races always tending to sort themselves out again as pure types
by Mendelian inheritance. Now one of these race-types will be favored by
the environment, and it will accordingly tend to gain at the other's
expense, while conversely the other types will tend to be bred out and to
disappear. Sometimes a modification of the environment through social
changes will suddenly reverse this process and will penalize a hitherto
favored type. We then witness a "resurgence," or increase, of the
previously submerged element.

A striking instance of this is going on in England. England is inhabited
by two race-stocks - Nordics and Mediterraneans. Down to the eighteenth
century, England, being an agricultural country with a cool climate,
favored the Nordics, and but for the Nordic handicaps of war and
migration the Mediterraneans might have been entirely eliminated. Two
hundred years ago the Mediterranean element in England was probably very
small. The industrial revolution, however, reversed the selective process,
and to-day the small, dark types in England increase noticeably with every
generation. The swart "cockney" is a resurgence of the primitive
Mediterranean stock, and is probably a faithful replica of his ancestors
of Neolithic times.

Such was the ominous "seamy side" of nineteenth-century civilization. The
regressive trend was, in fact, a vicious circle. An ill-balanced, faulty
environment penalized the superior strains and favored the inferior types;
while, conversely, the impoverishing race-stocks, drained of their
geniuses and overloading with dullards and degenerates, were increasingly
unable to evolve environmental remedies.

Thus, by action and reaction, the situation grew steadily worse,
disclosing its parlous state by numberless symptoms of social ill-health.
All the unlovely _fin de siècle_ phenomena, such as the decay of ideals,
rampant materialism, political disruption, social unrest, and the
"decadence" of art and literature, were merely manifestations of the same
basic ills.

Of course a thoughtful minority, undazzled by the prevalent optimism,
pointed out evils and suggested remedies. Unfortunately these "remedies"
were superficial, because the reformers confused manifestations with
causes and combated symptoms instead of fighting the disease. For
example: the white world's troubles were widely ascribed to the loss of
its traditional ideals, especially the decay of religious faith. But, as
the Belgian sociologist Réné Gérard acutely remarks, "to reason in this
manner is, we think, to mistake the effect for the cause. To believe that
philosophic and religious doctrines create morals and civilizations is a
seductive error, but a fatal one. To transplant the beliefs and the
institutions of a people to new regions in the hope of transplanting
thither their virtues and their civilization as well is the vainest of
follies.... The greater or less degree of vigor in a people depends on the
power of its vital instinct, of its greater or less faculty for adapting
itself to and dominating the conditions of the moment. When the vital
instinct of a people is healthy, it readily suggests to the people the
religious and moral doctrines which assure its survival. It is not,
therefore, because a people possesses a definite belief that it is healthy
and vigorous, but rather because the people is healthy and vigorous that
it adopts or invents the belief which is useful to itself. In this way, it
is not because it ceases to believe that it falls into decay, it is
because it is in decay that it abandons the fertile dream of its ancestors
without replacing this by a new dream, equally fortifying and creative of
energy."[98]

Thus we return once more to the basic principle of race. For what is
"vital instinct" but the imperious urge of superior heredity? As Madison
Grant well says: "The lesson is always the same, namely, that race is
everything. Without race there can be nothing except the slave wearing his
master's clothes, stealing his master's proud name, adopting his master's
tongue, and living in the crumbling ruins of his master's palace."[99]

The disastrous consequences of failure to realize this basic truth is
nowhere more strikingly exemplified than in the field of white
world-politics during the half-century preceding the Great War. That
period was dominated by two antithetical schools of political thinking:
national-imperialism and internationalism. Swayed by the ill-balanced
spirit of the times, both schools developed extremist tendencies; the
former producing such monstrous aberrations as Pan-Germanism and
Pan-Slavism, the latter evolving almost equally vicious concepts like
cosmopolitanism and proletarianism. The adherents of these rival schools
combated one another and wrangled among themselves. They both disregarded
the basic significance of race, together with its immediate corollary, the
essential solidarity of the white world.

As a matter of fact, white solidarity has been one of the great constants
of history. For ages the white peoples have possessed a true "symbiosis"
or common life, ceaselessly mingling their bloods and exchanging their
ideas. Accordingly, the various white nations which are the race's
political expression may be regarded as so many planets gravitating about
the sun of a common civilization. No such sustained and intimate
race-solidarity has ever before been recorded in human annals. Not even
the solidarity of the yellow peoples is comparable in scope.

Of course the white world's internal frictions have been legion, and at
certain times these frictions have become so acute that white men have
been led to disregard or even to deny their fundamental unity. This is
perhaps also because white solidarity is so pervasive that we _live in
it_, and thus ordinarily do not perceive it any more than we do the air we
breathe. Should white men ever really lose their instinct of
race-solidarity, they would asphyxiate racially as swiftly and surely as
they would asphyxiate physically if the atmospheric oxygen should suddenly
be withdrawn. However, down to 1914 at least, the white world never came
within measurable distance of this fatal possibility. On the contrary, the
white peoples were continually expressing their fundamental solidarity by
various unifying concepts like the "Pax Romana" of antiquity, the "Civitas
Dei" or Christian commonwealth of the Middle Ages, and the "European
Concert" of nineteenth-century diplomacy.

It was typical of the _malaise_ which was overtaking the white world that
the close of the nineteenth century should have witnessed an ominous
ignoring of white solidarity; that national-imperialists should have
breathed mutual slaughter while internationalists caressed visions of
"human solidarity" culminating in universal race-amalgamation; lastly,
that Asia's incipient revolt against white supremacy, typified by the
Russo-Japanese War, should have found zealous white sponsors and abetters.

Nothing, indeed, better illustrates the white world's unsoundness at the
beginning of the present century than its reaction to the Russo-Japanese
conflict. The tremendous significance of that event was no more lost upon
the whites than it was upon the colored peoples. Most far-seeing white men
recognized it as an omen of evil import for their race-future. And yet,
even in the first access of apprehension, these same persons generally
admitted that they saw no prospect of healing, constructive action to
remedy the ills which were driving the white world along the downward
path. Analyzing the possibility of Europe's presenting a common front to
the perils disclosed by the Japanese victories, the French publicist Réné
Pinon sadly concluded in the negative, believing that political passions,
social hates, and national rivalries would speak louder than the general
interest. "Contemporary Europe," he wrote, in 1905, "is probably not ready
to receive and understand the lesson of the war. What are the examples of
history to those gigantic commercial houses, uneasy for their New Year's
balances, which are our modern nations? It is in the nature of States
founded on mercantilism to content themselves with a hand-to-mouth policy,
without general views or idealism, satisfied with immediate gains and
unable to prepare against a distant future.

"Whence, in the Europe of to-day, could come the principle of an
_entente_, and on what could it be based? Too many divergent interests,
too many rival ambitions, too many festering hates, too many 'dead who
speak,' are present to stifle the voice of Europe's conscience.

"However menacing the external danger, we fear that political rancors
would not down; that the enemy from without would find accomplices, or at
least unconscious auxiliaries, within. Far more than in its regiments and
battleships, the power of Japan lies in our discords, in the absence of an
ideal capable of lifting the European peoples above the daily pursuit of
immediate interests, capable of stirring their hearts with the thrill of a
common emotion. The true 'Yellow Peril' lies within us."[100]

Réné Pinon was a true prophet. Not only was the "writing on the wall" not
taken to heart, the decade following the Russo-Japanese conflict witnessed
a prodigious aggravation of all the ills which had afflicted white
civilization during the nineteenth century. As if scourged by a tragic
fate, the white world hurtled along the downward path, until it entered
the fell shadow of - the modern Peloponnesian War.




CHAPTER VIII

THE MODERN PELOPONNESIAN WAR


The Peloponnesian War was the suicide of Greek civilization. It is the
saddest page of history. In the brief Periclean epoch preceding the
catastrophe Hellas had shone forth with unparalleled splendor, and even
those wonderful achievements seemed but the prelude to still loftier
heights of glory. On the eve of its self-immolation the Greek race, far
from being exhausted, was bubbling over with exuberant vitality and
creative genius.

But the half-blown rose was nipped by the canker of discord. Jealous
rivalries and mad ambitions smouldered till they burst into a consuming
flame. For a generation Hellas tore itself to pieces in a delirium of
fratricidal strife. And even this was not the worst. The "peace" which
closed the Peloponnesian War was no peace. It was a mere truce, dictated
by the victors of the moment to sullen and vengeful enemies. Imposed by
the sword and infused with no healing or constructive virtue, the
Peloponnesian War was but the first of a war cycle which completed
Hellas's ruin.

The irreparable disaster had, indeed, occurred: the gulfs of sundering
hatred had become fixed, and the sentiment of Greek race-unity was
destroyed. Having lost its soul, the Greek race soon lost its body as
well. Drained of its best strains, the diminished remnant bowed to
foreign masters and bastardized its blood with the hordes of inferior
aliens who swarmed into the land. By the time of the Roman conquest the
Greeks were degenerate, and the Roman epithet "Græculus" was a term of
deserved contempt.

Thus perished the Greeks - the fairest slip that ever budded on the tree of
life. They perished by their own hands, in the flower of their youth,
carrying with them to the grave, unborn, potencies which might have
blessed and brightened the world for ages. Nature is inexorable. No living
being stands above her law; and protozoön or demigod, if they transgress,
alike must die.

The Greek tragedy should be a warning to our own day. Despite many
unlikenesses, the nineteenth century was strangely reminiscent of the
Periclean age. In creative energy and fecund achievement, surely, its like
had not been seen since "the glory that was Greece," and the way seemed
opening to yet higher destinies.

But the brilliant sunrise was presently dimmed by gathering clouds. The
birth of the twentieth century was attended with disquieting omens. The
ills which had afflicted the preceding epoch grew more acute,
synchronizing into an all-pervading, militant unrest. The spirit of change
was in the air. Ancient ideals and shibboleths withered before the fiery
breath of a destructive criticism, while the solid crust of tradition
cracked and heaved under the premonitory tremors of volcanic forces
working far below. Everywhere were seen bursting forth increasingly acute
eruptions of human energy: a triumph of the dynamic over the static
elements of life; a growing preference for violent and revolutionary, as
contrasted with peaceful and evolutionary, solutions, running the whole
politico-social gamut from "Imperialism" to "Syndicalism." Everywhere
could be discerned the spirit of unrest setting the stage for the great
catastrophe.

Grave disorders were simply inevitable. They might perhaps have been
localized. They might even have taken other forms. But the ills of our
civilization were too deep-seated to have avoided grave disturbances. The
Prussian plotters of "Weltmacht" did, indeed, precipitate the impending
crisis in its most virulent and concentrated form, yet after all they were
but sublimations of the abnormal trend of the times.

The best proof of this is the white world's acutely pathological condition
during the entire decade previous to the Great War. That fierce quest
after alliances and mad piling-up of armaments; those paroxysmal "crises"
which racked diplomacy's feverish frame; those ferocious struggles which
desolated the Balkans: what were all these but symptoms denoting a
consuming disease? To-day, by contrast, we think of the Great War as
having smitten a world basking in profound peace. What a delusion! Cast
back the mind's eye, and recall how hectic was the eve of the Great War,
not merely in politics but in most other fields as well. Those opening
months of 1914! Why, Europe seethed from end to end! When the Great War
began, England was on the verge of civil strife, Russia was in the throes
of an acute social revolt, Italy had just passed through a "red week"
threatening anarchy, and every European country was suffering from grave
internal disorders. It was a strange, nightmarish time, that early summer
of 1914, to-day quite overshadowed by subsequent events, but which later
generations will assign a proper place in the chain of world-history.

Well, Armageddon began and ran its horrid course. With the grim chronology
of those dreary years this book is not concerned. It is with the aftermath
that we here deal. And that is a sufficiently gloomy theme. The material
losses are prodigious, the vital losses appalling, while the spiritual
losses have well-nigh bankrupted the human soul.

Turning first to the material losses, they are of course in the broadest
sense incalculable, but approximate estimates have been made. Perhaps the
best of them is the analysis made by Professor Ernest L. Bogert, who
places the direct costs of the war at $186,000,000,000 and the indirect
costs at $151,000,000,000, thus arriving at the stupendous total of
$337,000,000,000. These well-nigh inconceivable estimates still do not
adequately represent the total losses, figured even in monetary terms,
for, as Professor Bogert remarks: "The figures presented in this summary
are both incomprehensible and appalling, yet even these do not take into
account the effect of the war on life, human vitality, economic
well-being, ethics, morality, or other phases of human relationships and
activities which have been disorganized and injured. It is evident from
the present disturbances in Europe that the real costs of the war cannot
be measured by the direct money outlays of the belligerents during the
five years of its duration, but that the very breakdown of modern economic
society might be the price exacted."[101]

Yet prodigious as has been the destruction of wealth, the destruction of
life is even more serious. Wealth can sooner or later be replaced, while
vital losses are, by their very nature, irreparable. Never before were
such masses of men arrayed for mutual slaughter. During the late war
nearly 60,000,000 soldiers were mobilized, and the combatants suffered
33,000,000 casualties, of whom nearly 8,000,000 were killed or died of
disease, nearly 19,000,000 were wounded, and 7,000,000 taken prisoners.
The greatest sufferer was Russia, which had over 9,000,000 casualties,
while next in order came Germany with 6,000,000 and France with 4,500,000
casualties. The British Empire had 3,000,000 casualties. America's losses
were relatively slight, our total casualties being a trifle under 300,000.

And this is only the beginning of the story. The figures just quoted refer
only to fighting men. They take no account of the civilian population. But
the civilian losses were simply incalculable, especially in eastern Europe
and the Ottoman Empire. It is estimated that for every soldier killed,
five civilians perished by hunger, exposure, disease, massacre, or
heightened infant mortality. The civilian deaths in Poland and Russia are
placed at many millions, while other millions died in Turkey and Serbia
through massacre and starvation. One item alone will give some idea of the
wastage of human life during the war. The deaths beyond the normal
mortality due to influenza and pneumonia induced by the war are estimated
at 4,000,000. The total loss of life directly attributable to the war is
probably fully 40,000,000, while if decreased birth-rates be added the
total would rise to nearly 50,000,000. Furthermore, so far as civilian
deaths are concerned, the terrible conditions prevailing over a great part
of Europe since the close of 1918 have caused additional losses relatively
as severe as those during the war years.

The way in which Europe's population has been literally decimated by the
late war is shown by the example of France. In 1914 the population of
France was 39,700,000. From this relatively moderate population nearly
8,000,000 men were mobilized during the war. Of these, nearly 1,400,000
were killed, 3,000,000 were wounded, and more than 400,000 were made
prisoners. Of the wounded, between 800,000 and 900,000 were left permanent
physical wrecks. Thus fully 2,000,000 men - mostly drawn from the flower of
French manhood - were dead or hopelessly incapacitated.

Meanwhile, the civilian population was also shrinking. Omitting the
civilian deaths in the northern departments under German occupation, the
excess of deaths over births was more than 50,000 for 1914, and averaged
nearly 300,000 for the four succeeding war years. And the most alarming
feature was that these losses were mainly due, not to deaths of adults,
but to a slump in the birth-rate. French births, which had been 600,000 in
1913, dropped to 315,000 in 1916 and 343,000 in 1917. All told, it seems
probable that between 1913 and 1919 the population of France diminished by
almost 3,000,000 - nearly one-tenth of the entire population.

France's vital losses are only typical of what has to a greater or less
extent occurred all over Europe. The disgenic effect of the Great War is
simply appalling. The war was nothing short of a headlong plunge into
white race-suicide. It was essentially a civil war between closely related
white stocks; a war wherein every physical and mental effective was
gathered up and hurled into a hell of lethal machinery which killed out
unerringly the youngest, the bravest, and the best.

Even in the first frenzied hours of August, 1914, wise men realized the
horror that stood upon the threshold. The crowd might cheer, but the
reflective already mourned in prospect the losses which were in store. As
the English writer Harold Begbie then said: "Remember this. Among the
young conscript soldiers of Europe who will die in thousands, and perhaps
millions, are the very flower of civilization; we shall destroy brains
which might have discovered for us in ten or twenty years easements for
the worst of human pains and solutions for the worst of social dangers. We
shall blot those souls out of our common existence. We shall destroy
utterly those splendid burning spirits reaching out to enlighten our
darkness. Our fathers destroyed those strange and valuable creatures whom
they called 'witches.' We are destroying the brightest of our
angels."[102]

But it is doubtful if any of these seers realized the full price which the
race was destined to pay during more than four long, agonizing years.
Never before had war shown itself such an unerring gleaner of the best
racial values. As early as the summer of 1915 Mr. Will Irwin, an American
war correspondent, remarked the growing convictions among all classes,
soldiers as well as civilians, that the war was fatally impoverishing the
race. "I have talked," he wrote, "with British officers and British
Tommies, with English ladies of fashion and English housewives, with
French deputies and French cabmen, and in all minds alike I find the same
idea fixed - what is to become of the French race and the British race,
yes, and the German race, if this thing keeps up?"

Mr. Irwin then goes on to describe the cumulative process by which the
fittest were selected - for death.

"I take it for granted," he says, "that, in a general way, the bravest are
the best, physically and spiritually. Now, in this war of machinery, this
meat-mill, it is the bravest who lead the charges and attempt the daring
feats, and, correspondingly, the loss is greatest among those bravest.

"So much when the army gets into line. But in the conscript countries,
like France and Germany, there is a process of selection in picking the
army by which the best - speaking in general terms - go out to die, while
the weakest remain. The undersized, the undermuscled, the underbrained,
the men twisted by hereditary deformity or devitalized by hereditary
disease - they remain at home to propagate the breed. The rest - all the
rest - go out to take chances.

"Furthermore, as modern conscript armies are organized, it is the youngest
men who sustain the heaviest losses - the men who are not yet fathers. And
from the point of view of the race, that is, perhaps, the most melancholy
fact of all.

"All the able-bodied men between the ages of nineteen and forty-five are
in the ranks. But the older men do not take many chances with death....
These European conscript armies are arranged in classes according to age,
and the younger classes are the men who do most of the actual fighting.
The men in their late thirties or their forties, the 'territorials,' guard
the lines, garrison the towns, generally attend to the business of running
up the supplies. When we come to gather the statistics of this war we
shall find that an overwhelming majority of the dead were less than thirty
years old, and probably that the majority were under twenty-five. Now, the
territorial of forty or forty-five has usually given to the state as many
children as he is going to give, while the man of twenty-five or under
has usually given the state no children at all."[103]

Mr. Irwin was gauging the racial cost by the criterion of youth. A leading
English scholar, Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, obtained equally alarming results by
applying the test of genius. He analyzed the casualty lists "filled with


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Online LibraryLothrop StoddardThe Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy → online text (page 12 of 22)