This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I added a useful contribution listing two more books by Stoddard. Why was my entry deleted without comment? I am reverting. Lindosland 11:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Taking out a book that the man wrote (unless you claim he didn't) is censorship, a serious case of POV. I was not happy with your emphasis on 'his most important work'. That too is serious POV. I happen to consider 'Revolt against Civilisation his most important work. I've re-arreanged things to allow sections on each book. Also corrected a date. There are too many shouts of 'racist' on Wikipedia, and noting that you reverted to this before, I've modified it. Lindosland 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
So, the 'only' book you removed reference to was 'New World of Islam'. On what grounds? If he wrote it I'm entitled to list it. If it's 'not prominent', then it may be because of bias in the present age regarding what is promoted, as you are demonstrating. Even your claim of 'most famous' is not the same as 'most important' (POV) and I would argue that fame is dependent on 'visibility' and promotion, while 'importance' is purely POV. You tried to justify leaving out reference to a book on the grounds that it is 'not a major work' but that is clearly your POV. I agree that 'extremely relevant for the current age' was POV, and I took it out. I would like to go on and add more though, and might justify that statement with references to recent writers if you would give me a chance. Yes, I have read Rising Tide of Colour, Revolt against Civilisation, and New World of Islam, though some years ago, so I would like to re-read them before going much further on this page.
As it happens, I see the statement you make above re undermining and destroying civilisation, as just plain interesting and worthy of consideration. I don't make a quick value judgement like 'racist', which is currently accepted as a term of abuse, implying hatred or stupidity. I'm sure the man was many things, and it is best to let him speak for himself through his books. I might agree that he was a 'white supremicist' though I dislike such terms as they carry assumed derogatory meaning in the modern world. And who are you to 'not let .....'! Wikipedia is for all to work on, without censor, as I understand it. Please leave my changes, and discuss them one by one if you must, or let others comment. 86.135.181.147 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the distinction being made here between 'racist' and 'racialist'? I always understood they were that same thing in US and UK English, respectively. 69.228.222.44 ( talk) 06:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
FastFission asks that I think about the above. It seems to me that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia without space limit. Yes, individual articles have a maximum desirable size, but then they brach into sub-articles. Look at Genetics, or Electronics for example, and you will find enormous branching detail.
I for one, am interested to see that Stoddard wrote so much, and yes, I want the whole list here please. So does Dunc - good. Then, if possible, let there be other pages for each and every one of those books, and lets list the Chapter Headings as a way of letting Stoddard speak for himself. There are precedents for this on Wikipedia.
So can we please put up the full list of works now? And can we agree that there is no need to choose what is important or try to give equal weight, because that is a form of POV. I can only comment on certain books, so its not for me to put comment on everything, that has to happen in stages Lindosland 20:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I could quote many recent writers who think that Origin of Species has taken attention off Darwins other, arguably even more important works. Sexual selection is a hot topic now. Lindosland 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a simple diffent between us, I suggest. You seem to judge things by association and a sort of PC value system - IHR=bad, racist=bad, hitler=bad (I guess). I search for facts and opinions and then try to integrate them into my understanding. I have put up links to pages I found that I found to have interesting content. They also happen to be on the first page of Google search, so they meet you criterion of 'famous'! Stoddard is complicated, as the IHR page explains very eloquently. He visited Germany in war, as a journalist, talked to Hitlerand all his leaders, as well as the public, and then wrote Into the Darkness. Thats a bit of real history as far as I am concerned - not modern value-judged 'history written by the victors' but something straight from another time unadulterated. I'm surprised you say 'stronger POV than even I was planning'. Choice of links is not dictated by no POV. Links provide the choice of POV surely, only the article should be NPOV. -- Lindosland 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather than a simple list of links, it might be better to have a short paragraph summarizing contemporary views of Stoddard. I think it would be accurate and NPOV to summarize the three links there now as having a positive view of Stoddard's analysis, and we might go into some more detail. Likewise, there are probably some unsympathetic modern views of his work, and it'd be great if we could summarize their critiques as well. Do you all think there's enough modern scholarship on Stoddard to make that worthwhile? - Willmcw 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Fastfission: I'm happy to engage in debate over your above points, but would consider it more polite to do so before making comments like 'unnatributed POV rant'. What I said may border on POV but only by using [weasel words] in exactly the same way as you did. The point about weasel words is not whether they are true, or whether you can argue here that they are patently true, but simply that they are to be avoided as much as possible in Wikipedia. Putting them back repeatedly is not good. Unable to get you to leave them out, and not wanting a Wikiwar, I simply tried the tactic of balancing them with my own, on the principle (put forward by you I believe) of achieving balance (though I don't think I really agree with doing this). I'd rather try to procede on a completely POV and Weasel-word free basis - that seams the fair way on a controversial site like this. One way seems to be to use quotes. Not your acedemic sounding quotes, just well-argued quotes, or else quotes from Stoddard himself.
You say Stoddard comes up a lot in modern history of racial theory. I'm sure he does. Then To sum them up in a nutshell, they usually have no problem saying that he was a vociferous and rather nasty racist guy, and that his views are proto-fascististic. Again, I agree, but would point out that this means nothing; as your grammar falls down with no subject for 'them' (easily done)! Nevertheless, I essentially agree - a 'lot of people' take that view of Stoddard, but I think that may turn out to be more a comment on the present age than on Stoddard, so lets leave it out of this page unless you are prepared to tolerate other views which look as biased to you as yours do to me.
Then you say, Lindosland, "mainstream" isn't determined by the presence or lack of online reviews of historical people, nor in their Google rankings (which are about linkbacks, not cultural relevance. Yes I agree, though I make no claim to be mainstream! I thought that earlier, when you said Google results] between the two show a 2:1 ratio for this. Almost identical ratios can be found in searching JSTOR with the same terms (73:31). Even more stark results searching ProQuest Historical Databases (50:15). So I don't think this is a case of "POV towards one book". I would add that I don't consider Historical Databases more valid than others. All historians know you go to original sources in preference to commentary or scores. As another controversial figure (Henry Ford) said, 'History is bunk', and others have said that history is 'the story told by the current victors).
The Institute for Historical Review is not mainstream no matter how you dice it up, and neither are the other sources you link to. They are all decidedly fringe. Well I think that's definitely a matter of opinion, and not really important. The world changes. It's changed since Stoddards day, and it will change again. The HRH claim to have brought back a supressed work, and provided its not fake we can only say 'good for them'. You studied the history of science. Can you imagine what a Wikipedia page on Gallileo in his own day would have said. He was locked up and despised. How long before Wikipedia would have said anything good about him, before the 'enlightement' got to that point? Would you want to have written that stuff about how 'non-mainstream' he was? This page may still be here in four hundred years time; lets try to remember that and take care!! -- Lindosland 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll do a quick reply to the above, though I will give it more thought. This is at the core of what Wikipedia is. My first response, as before is, yes, I agree with just about everything you say here! But I don't agree that that the page reflects the policy you claim to support. I had of course read the policy on POV etc that you refer me to, and I feel I am acting in support of it. I'm not trying to change 'how things work around here', though I do have the same right as everyone else to try to refine them - they are not set in stone as I'm sure you'd agree.
I think we'd agree that both sides can be put fully, with care. You, with some support from the guidance you quote, probably think that 'mainstream' opinion should always get the bigger part, but that ,I suggest, is dangerous.
You try to link mainstream with 'intellectual' opinion (I note your 'Prestigeous University'!), and there I challenge you, because in the view of many, intellectual movements, perhaps especially as they exist in Universities, tend to have political influences; to be PC for their time. This is even true in areas of hard science, where the influence tends to be from business.
Take for example the field of noise weighting, in which I can fairly claim to be an acknowledged expert (I have published, and an organisation I created manufactures much of the noise measurement equipment, which I designed, which is used in the field by studios and (most) broadcasters worldwide.) I happen to think (know even) that mainstream ideas have drifted away from truth, under commercial pressures (in favour of methods that give big numbers, that sound good). Ask an Audiophile what he thinks and he will make me out to be stupid - he thinks he is mainstream. I can't talk to a salesman in a shop without being thought stupid! Yet ask any BBC engineer or any broadcast engineer worldwide, and you will get a very different view - they generally use the methods I favour and they despair of the Audiophile world and its myths. Now ask a University - are they the ones with the truth? No, because even audio departments are not funded on a scale necessary to do much of the research, nor do they have particular motivation - the BBC did much of it! So many University departments are keen to use material by me, and they listen to me. Who did the editor of 'The Audio Engineers Reference Book' ask to write the section on this topic - me.
My point is that 'mainstream' is a suspect term, and even if I concede, as I do, that your mainstream is biggest, or 'favoured by intellectuals' or even 'less morally distasteful', these things are all pretty meaningless in the end. All I ask is a fair bit of space for what I want to see (not 'my views') subject to the guidelines, and fairplay over weasel words. -- Lindosland 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The Great Gatsby cites "Goddard," not Grant or Stoddard.
The more likely candidate is Henry Goddard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Goddard especially known for his 1912 book on The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness, but whose IQ testing results at Ellis Island showed that "40 percent of recent immigrants were feeble minded" (Diane Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 1995, pages 108-109. Paul mentions the similarity of Tom's dinner conversation with Stoddard's racialist ideas (109), but doesn't make a guess who "Goddard" may be. I suggest deleting this "guess" until we have confirmation one way or the other. Gsmcghee ( talk) 02:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link to the article "Uphold The President" since that was written by the editor of the North American Review and not Lothrop Stoddard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.M.Stoddard ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased against Stoddard. For example, the word "racialist" links not to the article "racialism," but to the article "racism," which is clearly ad hominem against the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.101.57.183 ( talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
As I check the sources listed for this article, there is a huge weight of sources by the person described in the article (who died some time ago, so that the article is not the biography of a living person) but remarkably few sources about him and the context of his life and work in his era. I will try to fix that. Meanwhile, I'll suggest for any Wikipedian looking on that my Anthropology and Human Biology Citations source list may be of help for updating the biography of any anthropologist mentioned on Wikipedia. The source list will be even more helpful, to be sure, if any of you who have other sources to suggest suggest those here or on the talk page for that user bibliography. Even a biography of a living person is not meant to be a hagiography, by Wikipedia policy, but a balanced, sourced account of someone's life and work. More reading of the sources will improve this article and many other articles about writers active a century ago. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"Some predictions made in The Rising Tide of Color were accurate; others were not."
The page goes on to list some of the accurate predictions. I suggest listing some of the inaccurate predictions too, so we get a better understanding of the book.
212.159.102.166 ( talk) 16:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC) KJN
This article puts Stoddard in the Anti-Jewish category in its category listings. I have read Stoddard was Anti-Jewish, but Judaism, Jewry and Jews were not a major focus of his writings, so I'm not sure that category is appropriate. He never wrote anything specifically about Judaism as far as I am aware, in contrast to Henry Ford, who wrote The International Jew. In fact Stoddard seems to have been more Anti-African and Anti-Islamic than Anti-Jewish from what I know about him. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed Stoetzler as a source for the Anti-Judaism claim against Stoddard because Stoetzler's book did not support the claim, and depending on how you read it, possibly contradicted the claim. "Still, historian Hasia Diner has suggested that there was perhaps less antipathy to Jews among sociologists than among the patricians of the English and history departments of American universities. The market for racially inflected master narratives of decline was more often supplied by gentlemen historians such as Madison Grant. His The Passing of the Great Race (1915) was vastly influential, as was the work of Lothrop Stoddard, who was similarly involved in the eugenics movement and offered a racialized and Aryanized vision of history in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy(1920). The absence of a special concern with the Jewish question among academic sociologists contrasts with the case of Germany" [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-Constitution-Sociology-Marcel-Stoetzler/dp/0803248644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464579740&sr=8-1&keywords=Marcel+Stoetzler+.+2014.+Antisemitism+and+the+Constitution+of+Sociology] So it appears that Stoetzler was saying the exact opposite of what the editor who used him as a source was claiming, he was saying that Anti-Judaism was not a particular focus of Stoddard's. At the very least, Stoetzler should be removed as a source for the claim of Stoddard's being focused on Anti-Judaism because Stoetzler was saying the exact opposite of that. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 03:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Dinnerstein only mentions Stoddard once from the amazon preview [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-America-Leonard-Dinnerstein/dp/019510112X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464579372&sr=8-1&keywords=Leonard+Dinnerstein+Antisemitism+in+America.] "Stoddard, a disciple of [Madison] Grant's, dubbed most immigrant Jews 'Asiatics' and a threat to the 'nordics'; he later supported Nazi racial laws." That is on page 94. Most is not the same thing as all, so its not clear even from the source that he favored banning all Jewish immigration. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 04:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Kevin MacDonald wrote "he [Stoddard] stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s." [3] MacDonald is WP:Fringe, but for what its worth I don't see a reason to doubt his account in this case. Obviously we cannot use MacDonald as a source in the article itself, but we could search google scholar and google books to see if other more reliable sources agree with MacDonald's description that Stoddard stopped being actively Anti-Jewish in the 1930s. If they do then we should change the article to reflect that change in Stoddard's attitude. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 00:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Skinnytony1 ( talk) 08:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Nblund yes that's a trash website, I've found a link to the original source of the quote which was a contribution to the "First American Birth Control Conference", “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the Pariahs or Outcasts, who are gaining the fastest” acadmeic collaborative library initiative Is it possible to cite that or just cite “Lothrop Stoddard. “Population Problems in Asia.” Birth Control Review, December 1921, page 11.” ? Or chose a different quote. The article is amazingly racist and there's many to chose from, if any. Then everything else can be attributed to the journal article this source .
And re purpose Beyond My Ken. My intention is accuracy. Jane Carey (2012) The Racial Imperatives of Sex: birth control and eugenics in Britain, the United States and Australia in the interwar years, Women's History Review, 21:5, 733-752:
In the United Sates, dire eugenic warnings about ‘miscegenation’ and ‘race suicide’ reached their apogee in Madison Grant's, The Passing of the Great Race; or The Racial Basis of European History, which appeared in 1916, and Lothrop Stoddard's 1921 publication The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
It is against this background of strong racial prescriptions that eugenics must be understood. Eugenics was certainly equally concerned with ‘internal’ threats of racial degeneration posed by the unchecked breeding of the ‘unfit’. ‘Mental deficiency’ and the working classes became key areas of concern as the major sources of racial decay. But, as discussed further below, even where eugenicists apparently spoke in purely classist terms, they did so in a context in which racial hierarchy and difference were assumed. Race and class were inseparable in eugenic rhetoric, as they were in eugenic birth control campaigns.
Sanger also promoted this vision through the organisations she formed, beginning with The Birth Control Review, which she founded and edited from 1917. The overwhelming majority of this journal's contents promoted eugenic ideals, as the almost annual special issue on the topic of ‘sterilization’ reflected. Although only two issues in 1921 carried the motto ‘To Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds’ on its front cover, many proclaimed ‘Fewer but Better Babies’ or ‘Voluntary Motherhood’, which, as we have seen, had definite eugenic significance. The journal did not limit itself to artificial contraception as we understand it. It was quite literally concerned with all means of controlling births and broader population questions. It discussed issues ranging from immigration to sterilisation, mental deficiency to genius, slums and poverty to maternal and infant health. Articles in 1919 included ‘Birth Control, Morality and Eugenics’, by Havelock Ellis, in 1920 ‘Birth Control or Racial Degeneration, Which?’, by Anna Martin and ‘The World's Racial Problem’, a glowing review of Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color, again by Havelock Ellis. Stoddard himself wrote on ‘Population Problems in Asia’ in 1922, while in 1920–21 Sanger produced a series of six articles on ‘Racial Quotas in Immigration’. Less than 5% of articles in the Review in the 1920s contained any discussion of women's right to self-determination.43
In 1921 Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, with Lothrop Stoddard and other prominent eugenicists on its board. Like Stopes's Society for Constructive Birth Control, the League's aims reflected Sanger's desire to reformulate eugenics through the lens of birth control.
Bold added. I've got no barrow to push here I'm not from US. The reason I find this interesting because of the parallels with the population debate in the 60's and beyond, which I wrote about here. I think it should be expanded to show some context beyond, "Stoddard helped found the American Birth Control League." Thanks both of you for pushing me to read the source material. Skinnytony1 ( talk) 12:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
As Stoddard’s book “Into the Darkness” tells a very different story from what was alleged in this article, I have out of fairness added exact quotes so that they can’t be taken out of context, and readers can decide for themselves. They do not reflect favorably on the nazis and I hope they remain19:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I added a useful contribution listing two more books by Stoddard. Why was my entry deleted without comment? I am reverting. Lindosland 11:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Taking out a book that the man wrote (unless you claim he didn't) is censorship, a serious case of POV. I was not happy with your emphasis on 'his most important work'. That too is serious POV. I happen to consider 'Revolt against Civilisation his most important work. I've re-arreanged things to allow sections on each book. Also corrected a date. There are too many shouts of 'racist' on Wikipedia, and noting that you reverted to this before, I've modified it. Lindosland 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
So, the 'only' book you removed reference to was 'New World of Islam'. On what grounds? If he wrote it I'm entitled to list it. If it's 'not prominent', then it may be because of bias in the present age regarding what is promoted, as you are demonstrating. Even your claim of 'most famous' is not the same as 'most important' (POV) and I would argue that fame is dependent on 'visibility' and promotion, while 'importance' is purely POV. You tried to justify leaving out reference to a book on the grounds that it is 'not a major work' but that is clearly your POV. I agree that 'extremely relevant for the current age' was POV, and I took it out. I would like to go on and add more though, and might justify that statement with references to recent writers if you would give me a chance. Yes, I have read Rising Tide of Colour, Revolt against Civilisation, and New World of Islam, though some years ago, so I would like to re-read them before going much further on this page.
As it happens, I see the statement you make above re undermining and destroying civilisation, as just plain interesting and worthy of consideration. I don't make a quick value judgement like 'racist', which is currently accepted as a term of abuse, implying hatred or stupidity. I'm sure the man was many things, and it is best to let him speak for himself through his books. I might agree that he was a 'white supremicist' though I dislike such terms as they carry assumed derogatory meaning in the modern world. And who are you to 'not let .....'! Wikipedia is for all to work on, without censor, as I understand it. Please leave my changes, and discuss them one by one if you must, or let others comment. 86.135.181.147 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the distinction being made here between 'racist' and 'racialist'? I always understood they were that same thing in US and UK English, respectively. 69.228.222.44 ( talk) 06:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
FastFission asks that I think about the above. It seems to me that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia without space limit. Yes, individual articles have a maximum desirable size, but then they brach into sub-articles. Look at Genetics, or Electronics for example, and you will find enormous branching detail.
I for one, am interested to see that Stoddard wrote so much, and yes, I want the whole list here please. So does Dunc - good. Then, if possible, let there be other pages for each and every one of those books, and lets list the Chapter Headings as a way of letting Stoddard speak for himself. There are precedents for this on Wikipedia.
So can we please put up the full list of works now? And can we agree that there is no need to choose what is important or try to give equal weight, because that is a form of POV. I can only comment on certain books, so its not for me to put comment on everything, that has to happen in stages Lindosland 20:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I could quote many recent writers who think that Origin of Species has taken attention off Darwins other, arguably even more important works. Sexual selection is a hot topic now. Lindosland 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a simple diffent between us, I suggest. You seem to judge things by association and a sort of PC value system - IHR=bad, racist=bad, hitler=bad (I guess). I search for facts and opinions and then try to integrate them into my understanding. I have put up links to pages I found that I found to have interesting content. They also happen to be on the first page of Google search, so they meet you criterion of 'famous'! Stoddard is complicated, as the IHR page explains very eloquently. He visited Germany in war, as a journalist, talked to Hitlerand all his leaders, as well as the public, and then wrote Into the Darkness. Thats a bit of real history as far as I am concerned - not modern value-judged 'history written by the victors' but something straight from another time unadulterated. I'm surprised you say 'stronger POV than even I was planning'. Choice of links is not dictated by no POV. Links provide the choice of POV surely, only the article should be NPOV. -- Lindosland 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather than a simple list of links, it might be better to have a short paragraph summarizing contemporary views of Stoddard. I think it would be accurate and NPOV to summarize the three links there now as having a positive view of Stoddard's analysis, and we might go into some more detail. Likewise, there are probably some unsympathetic modern views of his work, and it'd be great if we could summarize their critiques as well. Do you all think there's enough modern scholarship on Stoddard to make that worthwhile? - Willmcw 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Fastfission: I'm happy to engage in debate over your above points, but would consider it more polite to do so before making comments like 'unnatributed POV rant'. What I said may border on POV but only by using [weasel words] in exactly the same way as you did. The point about weasel words is not whether they are true, or whether you can argue here that they are patently true, but simply that they are to be avoided as much as possible in Wikipedia. Putting them back repeatedly is not good. Unable to get you to leave them out, and not wanting a Wikiwar, I simply tried the tactic of balancing them with my own, on the principle (put forward by you I believe) of achieving balance (though I don't think I really agree with doing this). I'd rather try to procede on a completely POV and Weasel-word free basis - that seams the fair way on a controversial site like this. One way seems to be to use quotes. Not your acedemic sounding quotes, just well-argued quotes, or else quotes from Stoddard himself.
You say Stoddard comes up a lot in modern history of racial theory. I'm sure he does. Then To sum them up in a nutshell, they usually have no problem saying that he was a vociferous and rather nasty racist guy, and that his views are proto-fascististic. Again, I agree, but would point out that this means nothing; as your grammar falls down with no subject for 'them' (easily done)! Nevertheless, I essentially agree - a 'lot of people' take that view of Stoddard, but I think that may turn out to be more a comment on the present age than on Stoddard, so lets leave it out of this page unless you are prepared to tolerate other views which look as biased to you as yours do to me.
Then you say, Lindosland, "mainstream" isn't determined by the presence or lack of online reviews of historical people, nor in their Google rankings (which are about linkbacks, not cultural relevance. Yes I agree, though I make no claim to be mainstream! I thought that earlier, when you said Google results] between the two show a 2:1 ratio for this. Almost identical ratios can be found in searching JSTOR with the same terms (73:31). Even more stark results searching ProQuest Historical Databases (50:15). So I don't think this is a case of "POV towards one book". I would add that I don't consider Historical Databases more valid than others. All historians know you go to original sources in preference to commentary or scores. As another controversial figure (Henry Ford) said, 'History is bunk', and others have said that history is 'the story told by the current victors).
The Institute for Historical Review is not mainstream no matter how you dice it up, and neither are the other sources you link to. They are all decidedly fringe. Well I think that's definitely a matter of opinion, and not really important. The world changes. It's changed since Stoddards day, and it will change again. The HRH claim to have brought back a supressed work, and provided its not fake we can only say 'good for them'. You studied the history of science. Can you imagine what a Wikipedia page on Gallileo in his own day would have said. He was locked up and despised. How long before Wikipedia would have said anything good about him, before the 'enlightement' got to that point? Would you want to have written that stuff about how 'non-mainstream' he was? This page may still be here in four hundred years time; lets try to remember that and take care!! -- Lindosland 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll do a quick reply to the above, though I will give it more thought. This is at the core of what Wikipedia is. My first response, as before is, yes, I agree with just about everything you say here! But I don't agree that that the page reflects the policy you claim to support. I had of course read the policy on POV etc that you refer me to, and I feel I am acting in support of it. I'm not trying to change 'how things work around here', though I do have the same right as everyone else to try to refine them - they are not set in stone as I'm sure you'd agree.
I think we'd agree that both sides can be put fully, with care. You, with some support from the guidance you quote, probably think that 'mainstream' opinion should always get the bigger part, but that ,I suggest, is dangerous.
You try to link mainstream with 'intellectual' opinion (I note your 'Prestigeous University'!), and there I challenge you, because in the view of many, intellectual movements, perhaps especially as they exist in Universities, tend to have political influences; to be PC for their time. This is even true in areas of hard science, where the influence tends to be from business.
Take for example the field of noise weighting, in which I can fairly claim to be an acknowledged expert (I have published, and an organisation I created manufactures much of the noise measurement equipment, which I designed, which is used in the field by studios and (most) broadcasters worldwide.) I happen to think (know even) that mainstream ideas have drifted away from truth, under commercial pressures (in favour of methods that give big numbers, that sound good). Ask an Audiophile what he thinks and he will make me out to be stupid - he thinks he is mainstream. I can't talk to a salesman in a shop without being thought stupid! Yet ask any BBC engineer or any broadcast engineer worldwide, and you will get a very different view - they generally use the methods I favour and they despair of the Audiophile world and its myths. Now ask a University - are they the ones with the truth? No, because even audio departments are not funded on a scale necessary to do much of the research, nor do they have particular motivation - the BBC did much of it! So many University departments are keen to use material by me, and they listen to me. Who did the editor of 'The Audio Engineers Reference Book' ask to write the section on this topic - me.
My point is that 'mainstream' is a suspect term, and even if I concede, as I do, that your mainstream is biggest, or 'favoured by intellectuals' or even 'less morally distasteful', these things are all pretty meaningless in the end. All I ask is a fair bit of space for what I want to see (not 'my views') subject to the guidelines, and fairplay over weasel words. -- Lindosland 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The Great Gatsby cites "Goddard," not Grant or Stoddard.
The more likely candidate is Henry Goddard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Goddard especially known for his 1912 book on The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness, but whose IQ testing results at Ellis Island showed that "40 percent of recent immigrants were feeble minded" (Diane Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 1995, pages 108-109. Paul mentions the similarity of Tom's dinner conversation with Stoddard's racialist ideas (109), but doesn't make a guess who "Goddard" may be. I suggest deleting this "guess" until we have confirmation one way or the other. Gsmcghee ( talk) 02:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link to the article "Uphold The President" since that was written by the editor of the North American Review and not Lothrop Stoddard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.M.Stoddard ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased against Stoddard. For example, the word "racialist" links not to the article "racialism," but to the article "racism," which is clearly ad hominem against the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.101.57.183 ( talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
As I check the sources listed for this article, there is a huge weight of sources by the person described in the article (who died some time ago, so that the article is not the biography of a living person) but remarkably few sources about him and the context of his life and work in his era. I will try to fix that. Meanwhile, I'll suggest for any Wikipedian looking on that my Anthropology and Human Biology Citations source list may be of help for updating the biography of any anthropologist mentioned on Wikipedia. The source list will be even more helpful, to be sure, if any of you who have other sources to suggest suggest those here or on the talk page for that user bibliography. Even a biography of a living person is not meant to be a hagiography, by Wikipedia policy, but a balanced, sourced account of someone's life and work. More reading of the sources will improve this article and many other articles about writers active a century ago. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"Some predictions made in The Rising Tide of Color were accurate; others were not."
The page goes on to list some of the accurate predictions. I suggest listing some of the inaccurate predictions too, so we get a better understanding of the book.
212.159.102.166 ( talk) 16:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC) KJN
This article puts Stoddard in the Anti-Jewish category in its category listings. I have read Stoddard was Anti-Jewish, but Judaism, Jewry and Jews were not a major focus of his writings, so I'm not sure that category is appropriate. He never wrote anything specifically about Judaism as far as I am aware, in contrast to Henry Ford, who wrote The International Jew. In fact Stoddard seems to have been more Anti-African and Anti-Islamic than Anti-Jewish from what I know about him. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed Stoetzler as a source for the Anti-Judaism claim against Stoddard because Stoetzler's book did not support the claim, and depending on how you read it, possibly contradicted the claim. "Still, historian Hasia Diner has suggested that there was perhaps less antipathy to Jews among sociologists than among the patricians of the English and history departments of American universities. The market for racially inflected master narratives of decline was more often supplied by gentlemen historians such as Madison Grant. His The Passing of the Great Race (1915) was vastly influential, as was the work of Lothrop Stoddard, who was similarly involved in the eugenics movement and offered a racialized and Aryanized vision of history in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy(1920). The absence of a special concern with the Jewish question among academic sociologists contrasts with the case of Germany" [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-Constitution-Sociology-Marcel-Stoetzler/dp/0803248644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464579740&sr=8-1&keywords=Marcel+Stoetzler+.+2014.+Antisemitism+and+the+Constitution+of+Sociology] So it appears that Stoetzler was saying the exact opposite of what the editor who used him as a source was claiming, he was saying that Anti-Judaism was not a particular focus of Stoddard's. At the very least, Stoetzler should be removed as a source for the claim of Stoddard's being focused on Anti-Judaism because Stoetzler was saying the exact opposite of that. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 03:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Dinnerstein only mentions Stoddard once from the amazon preview [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-America-Leonard-Dinnerstein/dp/019510112X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464579372&sr=8-1&keywords=Leonard+Dinnerstein+Antisemitism+in+America.] "Stoddard, a disciple of [Madison] Grant's, dubbed most immigrant Jews 'Asiatics' and a threat to the 'nordics'; he later supported Nazi racial laws." That is on page 94. Most is not the same thing as all, so its not clear even from the source that he favored banning all Jewish immigration. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 04:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Kevin MacDonald wrote "he [Stoddard] stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s." [3] MacDonald is WP:Fringe, but for what its worth I don't see a reason to doubt his account in this case. Obviously we cannot use MacDonald as a source in the article itself, but we could search google scholar and google books to see if other more reliable sources agree with MacDonald's description that Stoddard stopped being actively Anti-Jewish in the 1930s. If they do then we should change the article to reflect that change in Stoddard's attitude. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 00:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Skinnytony1 ( talk) 08:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Nblund yes that's a trash website, I've found a link to the original source of the quote which was a contribution to the "First American Birth Control Conference", “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the Pariahs or Outcasts, who are gaining the fastest” acadmeic collaborative library initiative Is it possible to cite that or just cite “Lothrop Stoddard. “Population Problems in Asia.” Birth Control Review, December 1921, page 11.” ? Or chose a different quote. The article is amazingly racist and there's many to chose from, if any. Then everything else can be attributed to the journal article this source .
And re purpose Beyond My Ken. My intention is accuracy. Jane Carey (2012) The Racial Imperatives of Sex: birth control and eugenics in Britain, the United States and Australia in the interwar years, Women's History Review, 21:5, 733-752:
In the United Sates, dire eugenic warnings about ‘miscegenation’ and ‘race suicide’ reached their apogee in Madison Grant's, The Passing of the Great Race; or The Racial Basis of European History, which appeared in 1916, and Lothrop Stoddard's 1921 publication The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
It is against this background of strong racial prescriptions that eugenics must be understood. Eugenics was certainly equally concerned with ‘internal’ threats of racial degeneration posed by the unchecked breeding of the ‘unfit’. ‘Mental deficiency’ and the working classes became key areas of concern as the major sources of racial decay. But, as discussed further below, even where eugenicists apparently spoke in purely classist terms, they did so in a context in which racial hierarchy and difference were assumed. Race and class were inseparable in eugenic rhetoric, as they were in eugenic birth control campaigns.
Sanger also promoted this vision through the organisations she formed, beginning with The Birth Control Review, which she founded and edited from 1917. The overwhelming majority of this journal's contents promoted eugenic ideals, as the almost annual special issue on the topic of ‘sterilization’ reflected. Although only two issues in 1921 carried the motto ‘To Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds’ on its front cover, many proclaimed ‘Fewer but Better Babies’ or ‘Voluntary Motherhood’, which, as we have seen, had definite eugenic significance. The journal did not limit itself to artificial contraception as we understand it. It was quite literally concerned with all means of controlling births and broader population questions. It discussed issues ranging from immigration to sterilisation, mental deficiency to genius, slums and poverty to maternal and infant health. Articles in 1919 included ‘Birth Control, Morality and Eugenics’, by Havelock Ellis, in 1920 ‘Birth Control or Racial Degeneration, Which?’, by Anna Martin and ‘The World's Racial Problem’, a glowing review of Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color, again by Havelock Ellis. Stoddard himself wrote on ‘Population Problems in Asia’ in 1922, while in 1920–21 Sanger produced a series of six articles on ‘Racial Quotas in Immigration’. Less than 5% of articles in the Review in the 1920s contained any discussion of women's right to self-determination.43
In 1921 Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, with Lothrop Stoddard and other prominent eugenicists on its board. Like Stopes's Society for Constructive Birth Control, the League's aims reflected Sanger's desire to reformulate eugenics through the lens of birth control.
Bold added. I've got no barrow to push here I'm not from US. The reason I find this interesting because of the parallels with the population debate in the 60's and beyond, which I wrote about here. I think it should be expanded to show some context beyond, "Stoddard helped found the American Birth Control League." Thanks both of you for pushing me to read the source material. Skinnytony1 ( talk) 12:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
As Stoddard’s book “Into the Darkness” tells a very different story from what was alleged in this article, I have out of fairness added exact quotes so that they can’t be taken out of context, and readers can decide for themselves. They do not reflect favorably on the nazis and I hope they remain19:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)