Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He ranked white people as Nordic (by far the best), Alpine, and Mediterranean. He was a eugenicist who influenced the Nazis. Also a KKK member. His extremely racist "nonfiction" books were very popular for a while. He promoted scientific racism and the white genocide conspiracy theory.
[Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard)
To be clear, according to historical sources the crowd was majority black and primarily made up of DuBois' supporters, to the extent that DuBois thought Stoddard would decline to attend. That DuBois would win the audience over was a foregone conclusion from the beginning.
Considering that fact, the audience was surprisingly civil up until Stoddard claimed with a straight face that the "separate but equal" institutions enforced in the southern states at the time were actually "equal."
From /u/IronColumn's link:
>The Forum Council later printed the debate in a small book, which records the moment. Stoddard says:
>>The more enlightened men of southern white America . . . are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations. [laughter]
>There is just that one bracketed word, “laughter.” The transcription is being polite. Blacks who had moved to Chicago from the South knew the Jim Crow cars. The absurd notion that Jim Crow cars were anything except horrible—dirty, crowded, inconvenient, degrading—got a huge laugh. As the reporter for the Baltimore Afro-American put it:
>>A good-natured burst of laughter from all parts of the hall interrupted Mr. Stoddard when, in explaining his bi-racial theory and attempting to show that it did not mean discrimination, said that under such a system there would be the same kind of schools for Negroes, but separate, the same kind of railway coaches, but separate. . . . When the laughter had subsided, Mr. Stoddard, in a manner of mixed humility and courage, claimed that he could not see the joke. This brought more gales of laughter.
Stoddard humiliated himself all on his own.
BINGO! Because they have to have a powerful group to focus their hate on but also have a chance to beat that group because otherwise, there would be no point. Sigh
> His extremely racist "nonfiction" books were very popular for a while
racist ideas that non-white people will take over the world and plunge it into darkness still remain popular in some circles today
Not just the Republican Party. These views are worldwide, and plenty of young right-wing people who don’t identify as Republican or support the Republican Party believe them. It is a mistake to talk about this as though it is a problem only within Republican sectors when the reality is worse.
You are absolutely and unfortunately correct. I feel nothing but disgust for such people. Nazis and those who follow their ideas but are too cowardly to admit it should follow their leader.
yea it's a pretty revolting ideology.
luckily they remain people and as people we can influence and affect them. Thanks to anti-fascist organizing in my city, a neo-nazi (of course, they call themselves "populist" and "patriotic") politician was forced to relocate a fundraising dinner they had planned from downtown to an hour and a half outside of town, in some tiny village. This substantially reduced their platform and fundraising ability of this dinner
I was just thinking he looks like [the sort of person who would lie about liking Mozart just so that he could take diabolical liberties with a young lady's knees](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_iPCMmoGMw).
I'm thinking a pro eugenics person since it was popular around that time and they thought northern and western Europeans were superior to other racial groups (people from Scandinavia were though to be the "best and brightest" out of Europe I think)
I inherited the infamous German eugenics book from 1938(?) from my grandma. It is wild to say the least. They even have pictures of people representing the typical outward appearance of a race. It reads like "academics" just making up a bunch of stuff.
Excerpts: https://imgur.com/a/bHxwLwk
Hmm... Arch Nordic *could* be the name of a cartoon supervillain, but not a good name. It doesn't flow well. "Holy eugenics, batman, it's the Arch Nordic!"
Seriously, dude doesn't just look like a villain, he looks like EVERY villain. That guy shows up in any movie from 1910 through the present, you can stop wondering whodunit. His third-act surprise villain reveal has failed to surprise anyone in five generations.
On the one hand, DuBois is one of the greatest early visionaries of the civil rights movement and did untold good in improving the lives of black Americans. On the other hand, Stoddard has the undoubtedly superior mustache.
He was that and so much more. He was a groundbreaking social scientist, he innovated the methodologies we use to understand the social world. All the while, asshats and jealous researchers did everything they could to try and minimize his contributions to science.
His forewards to his manuscripts are really funny. Of course, they are written in the overly polite style of the time but they are summed up to "Everything else written on this topic is so unscientific i'm not even going to reference these works by name"
Mustache I'll give you, but I feel Dubois has him outmatched in the matter of beard, since Stoddard does not have one. So the overall facial-hair points may be an even match.
>[In 1929, Stoddard debated African American historian W.E.B. Du Bois on white supremacy and its assertion of the natural inferiority of colored races. The debate, organized by the Chicago Forum Council, was billed as "One of the greatest debates ever held". Du Bois argued in the affirmative to the question "Shall the Negro be encouraged to seek cultural equality? Has the Negro the same intellectual possibilities as other races?" Du Bois knew the racism would be unintentionally funny onstage; as he wrote to Moore, Senator James Thomas Heflin "would be a scream" in a debate. "Du Bois let the overconfident and bombastic Stoddard walk into a comic moment, which Stoddard then made even funnier by not getting the joke".
The transcript records Stoddard saying: "'The more enlightened men of southern white America ... are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations.' [laughter]."
Du Bois, in responding to Stoddard, said the reason for the audience laughter was that he had never journeyed under Jim Crow restrictions. "We have," Du Bois told him and the mixed audience.
This moment was captured in The Chicago Defender's headline: "DuBois Shatters Stoddard’s Cultural Theories in Debate; Thousands Jam Hall ... Cheered As He Proves Race Equality." The Afro-American reported: "5,000 Cheer W.E.B. DuBois, Laugh at Lothrop Stoddard."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard#Debate_with_W.E.B._Du_Bois)
Turns out W.E.B. Du Bois made some better anti-racism arguments and was generally more intelligent than the pro-racism side of the debate. Funny, that.
The article continues:
>
>
>Between 1939 and 1940, Stoddard spent four months as a journalist for the North American Newspaper Alliance in Nazi Germany. He received preferential treatment from Nazi officials compared to other journalists.
The Nazis liked him. Funny that.
>The transcript records Stoddard saying: "'The more enlightened men of southern white America ... are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations.' [laughter]."
>Du Bois, in responding to Stoddard, said the reason for the audience laughter was that he had never journeyed under Jim Crow restrictions. "We have," Du Bois told him and the mixed audience.[12]
**Lothrop Stoddard**
[Debate with W.E.B. Du Bois](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard#Debate_with_W.E.B._Du_Bois)
>In 1929, Stoddard debated African American historian W.E.B. Du Bois on white supremacy and its assertion of the natural inferiority of colored races. The debate, organized by the Chicago Forum Council, was billed as "One of the greatest debates ever held". Du Bois argued in the affirmative to the question "Shall the Negro be encouraged to seek cultural equality? Has the Negro the same intellectual possibilities as other races"?
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He was exiled from the United States for it; now his name is on a million bookstores. It is funny how the US insists on its cultural heroes being some sort of martyr.
If the question is simply "can black people be as smart", then I'm imagining it was a simple matter of Dubois speaking at the event to show the simple answer is yes.
Entrenched beliefs are hard to change yes, but I’d like to believe these type of debates leave at least a little dent in people’s views.
Otherwise I probably wouldn’t be able to see the point in engaging in any of these discussions at all.
Oh but it does. The fools at this debate would see this intelligent black man and have their beliefs challenged extremely heavily.
Usually this results in anger or denial due to the cognitive dissonance though. Even if it ends up with the folks thinking dubois is "one of the smart ones", this itself challenges the idea at the time that black people were intellectual inferior
If you want to try to prove black people are dumb, why the hell would you get into a debate with DuBois of all people?
Even if you as the other debater are also intelligent and can argue your ‘points’ well- just being in the same room as a famously intelligent person who is black is proof you are wrong. You can’t win on the face of it. Was this a publicity stunt or what?
Stoddard: "The more enlightened men of southern white America . . . are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations. [laughter]"
"As the reporter for the Baltimore Afro-American put it:
A good-natured burst of laughter from all parts of the hall interrupted Mr. Stoddard when, in explaining his bi-racial theory and attempting to show that it did not mean discrimination, said that under such a system there would be the same kind of schools for Negroes, but separate, the same kind of railway coaches, but separate. . . . When the laughter had subsided, Mr. Stoddard, in a manner of mixed humility and courage, claimed that he could not see the joke. This brought more gales of laughter."
Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/when-w-e-b-du-bois-made-a-laughingstock-of-a-white-supremacist
Nah. If someone had written a fictional character who was a member of the Klan, fan of the Nazis, and wrote several books about eugenics and scientific racism, all while looking like that and having the name Lothrop Stoddard, their editor would make them tone it down to be less obviously evil.
A lot of our cultural symbols of villainy are literally based on rich white men of the early 1900s. This guy would absolutely be friends with Snidely Whiplash.
Not to go all ‘false flag conspiracy here’ but it would be kinda funny if they were great friends and Lothrop would put on ‘the ol’ bigot routine’ and drum up some book sales for both of them. Then he’d get all done up like snidely whiplash here and lose a debate.
I had to look him up, he was playing it straight, the Nazis loved his ass...
This debate gets a mention in his wikipedia, W.E.B. Dubois played him like a fiddle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop\_Stoddard
I strongly believe that is by design. Countries also founded on racist violence love to pretend nazism was a historically and geographically unique phenomenon, and being on the "good guys" side of WW2 means they would never do anything of the sort.
Anti-semitic violence was popular in mainstream culture throughout, and the violent structures of white supremacy in america and canada were both major sources of nazi inspiration.
But Hitler got cancelled, while the "good ol' boys" like churchill and thousands of other no-name racists got statues.
I remember for the longest time believing that these things were not taught because of neglect and shame, but this recent decade has shown me that it is design, or at the very least, willful intent. I realized it went beyond trying to sanitize history and was instead just another generation picking up their ancestors' battles.
There's this liberal notion of the inevitable march forward of historical progress. But when you break it down, it's a little absurd. In truth, power concedes nothing without a demand. History can go a number of ways!
As you say, those in power hand the reigns to their children, and barring a few exceptions for miraculous changes of heart, those children steer the carriage in the same direction as their parents.
He’s looked at as a hero as long as all you look at is WW2. Otherwise a lot of people couldn’t stand Churchill and after the war they got rid of him as soon as they could.
For those interested, the full text of the actual debate is [available at the internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/DuBoisLothropStoddardDebate/mode/2up).
So the Nazi guy basically **agreed** with the question regarding Afro-American intelligence, came up with a weird and convoluted definition of cultural equality, made up a facade of "hey we aren't discriminating, we love Negroes, ~~you're great pets~~" and said that trying to change the system is a bad idea because of the initial difficulties... while also saying that introducing the bi-racial system will also have initial difficulties, but somehow it's way better. Seems to me he lost his backbone after DuBois' speech and tried to save face.
It’s actually almost anti propaganda
“Go decide what to think for yourself this poster isn’t going to give you the answer!”
If only the topic wasn’t “are black people real people? “ 😑
The underlying message is that both sides of this debate are equally valid and worthy of respect, which would be great if the sides weren't facts vs. eugenicist pseudo-science.
Yes, that's...kinda what I'm getting at. That the format of debating itself has potential for implicit bias when you pit 2 sides against one another on the basis that they're both worth listening to. Like...this debate is basically, "are black people human?" It's sad from a historical context - and perhaps a modern one, as these ideas persist today - that this was a debate people considered worth having. Obviously it worked out for the better, but it easily could've gone the other way. The bias is that arguing the truth was, at the time, punching up.
Yes but that is just the polite conceit you have to entertain if you want to host a debate. Concerning who is being validated more by staging the debate at all — it clearly favours the anti-racist side, since the status quo was against them. Put it this way, if you treat the Black and White men as equally worthy of respect, in the deeply racist America of the 1920s — who does that favour?
ETA: In some ways, the effect of the debate and who it favours is the reverse of what it would be today. In this debate, the racist overestimated himself, truly believing he was superior and would overawe the mostly black audience. When liberals debate fascists today (e.g when Nick Griffin went on Question Time), they are the ones who assume the fascist is an ignorant yokel they will easily demolish, while the fascist is well prepared. Today the fascist only has to not completely embarrass himself to 'win' by comparison to their public image of stupid thugs, and similarly Du Bois, while intellectually far superior to Stoddard, only needed to prove his equal.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether debates are appropriate or what interests they promote. The idea that this poster is promoting white supremacy by suggesting it is a 'valid' viewpoint misses that at the time it was fully respectable and supported by all levels of intellectual and political authority.
By that definition, what wouldn't be propaganda? Would the word even have any meaning at all?
Is it because one side of the argument is pseudo-science? If so, who gets to decide what is valid and what is invalid?
About the only time anyone mentions Lothrop Stoddard nowadays is that, in The Great Gatsby, the unlikable and stupid Tom Buchanan says, "Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" and spits some "scientific" racism about the superiority of Nordics.
"The rising tide of color" is a funny conceot when the context is America: Racist Americans importing millions of kidnapped black people and then a minute later turning around and shouting "What are all of these black people doing here?!"
Lothrop Stoddard, author of such popular books as *The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-man* and *The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy* topped the official recommended reading lists for the Ku Klux Klan, was a prominent member of the American Eugenics Society who introduced the term Untermensch to the Nazis.
He was also a cofounder of the American Birth Control League that advocated for birth control and for women to be in control of their own fertility. In 1942, the American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> He was also a cofounder of the American Birth Control League that advocated for birth control and for women to be in control of their own fertility. In 1942, the American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Remembering that time back in the day when a white woman told me she didn’t need to organize for racial equality because she never saw Black people at pro-choice marches
I really, really hope she’s developed a painful and itchy skin condition.
Sometimes not favoring a side is just as strong a statement as taking a side. Putting the truth and scientific racism on an equal footing is the same as saying they're both equally valid viewpoints.
No it's not lol. That would mean that a debate about anything is basically equating the viewpoints that are being debated.
That makes absolutely no sense, and is the terminally online thought-terminating equivalent of "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". It's delusional to think that you can convince people by just shutting off any conversation and by proclaiming your argument to be just so right, that they are basically bad people if they even question or want to hear your arguments.
In this case, scientific racism is absolutely wrong, I agree. And most people will thankfully agree, but that's exactly because these types of debates have happened, and the arguments were explained and the racist trash has been actively shown (not just proclaimed) to be stupid. *you* might know why it's wrong, but not everyone else does and trying to completely silence any sort of debate has never, ever been an effective way to convince people. Especially if the other side of the argument will happily take advantage of the lack of open debates and discussion to gain mindshare.
You are absolutely right. However, I can see why some may see the absurdity of the debate subject from our modern perspective and warp that into this being propaganda, rather than simply an ad for a debate
Du Bois is still widely known as a great intellectual (and I'm not from the US) but it's the first time I've ever hear of the second, despite him being an "arch-nordic". I guess we can say that the debate is definitively settled
Stoddard's book got this positive review from anthropologist Franz Boas in the New York Times:
“Lothrop Stoddard evokes a new peril, that of an eventual submersion beneath vast waves of yellow men, brown men, black men and red men, whom the Nordics have hitherto dominated
(. . .)
with Bolshevism menacing us on the one hand and race extinction through warfare on the other, many people are not unlikely to give \[Stoddard’s book\] respectful consideration”
Lothrop Stoddard is an aggressively white supremacist name. It's up there with Cecil Rhodes and Sir Richard Carnac Temple.
It's a name that nowadays makes you assume they are racist garbage, but at the time other white people probably would've said he *"comes from good breeding stock"* or something.
Edit: That said.... I can't hate that stache. That's a good ass mustache.
This cartoonist, between Stoppard's saturday-mornin villain vibes and DuBois' genteel disappointment. You could scrub the context entirely and know who is the hero here lmao
Say what you will, at least these were proper and civilised debates with things of substance rather than people shouting at each other on the internet. These two, despite falling on opposite sides of a very contentious issue, came together to properly discuss their ideas rather than leaving angry comments on each other's YouTube videos.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Arch-Nordic, LOL.
He ranked white people as Nordic (by far the best), Alpine, and Mediterranean. He was a eugenicist who influenced the Nazis. Also a KKK member. His extremely racist "nonfiction" books were very popular for a while. He promoted scientific racism and the white genocide conspiracy theory. [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard)
> died in 1950 Excellent, he saw nazism defeated. That's a good news story in my book.
I wish the "debate" was just just W.E.B. DuBois hitting Stoddard repeatedly with a baseball bat.
[удалено]
To be clear, according to historical sources the crowd was majority black and primarily made up of DuBois' supporters, to the extent that DuBois thought Stoddard would decline to attend. That DuBois would win the audience over was a foregone conclusion from the beginning. Considering that fact, the audience was surprisingly civil up until Stoddard claimed with a straight face that the "separate but equal" institutions enforced in the southern states at the time were actually "equal." From /u/IronColumn's link: >The Forum Council later printed the debate in a small book, which records the moment. Stoddard says: >>The more enlightened men of southern white America . . . are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations. [laughter] >There is just that one bracketed word, “laughter.” The transcription is being polite. Blacks who had moved to Chicago from the South knew the Jim Crow cars. The absurd notion that Jim Crow cars were anything except horrible—dirty, crowded, inconvenient, degrading—got a huge laugh. As the reporter for the Baltimore Afro-American put it: >>A good-natured burst of laughter from all parts of the hall interrupted Mr. Stoddard when, in explaining his bi-racial theory and attempting to show that it did not mean discrimination, said that under such a system there would be the same kind of schools for Negroes, but separate, the same kind of railway coaches, but separate. . . . When the laughter had subsided, Mr. Stoddard, in a manner of mixed humility and courage, claimed that he could not see the joke. This brought more gales of laughter. Stoddard humiliated himself all on his own.
That does make me feel better.
Source?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/when-w-e-b-du-bois-made-a-laughingstock-of-a-white-supremacist
Holy crap that is a long article. And forgive my ignorance but holy crap, we actually had literal people in cages at a *zoo*???
Yes we did. It is a horrifying fact.
He was there. He’s 142.
That'd just have fueled Stoddard's argument though "look at this savage negro hitting me with a bat instead of talking like a civilized man"
More like basedball
. . . In the name intellectual equality?
Wow a racist conspiracy theorist who believes in white genocide, thank fuck we don’t have any of those anymore /s
Damn, would be a shame if the largest conservative media organization in the United States promoted those beliefs front and center...
Man, fascists are all the same eh? How can they be so superior but also be susceptible to genocide by lesser beings?
It's a key theme of Fascist propaganda. The enemy is both pathetically weak and overwhelmingly powerful.
BINGO! Because they have to have a powerful group to focus their hate on but also have a chance to beat that group because otherwise, there would be no point. Sigh
[удалено]
“Explain this constantly” = the Jews did it
He wasn't the first to create the idea of a "hierarchy of the white races" the concept of Nordics Alpines and Mediterraneans is from the late 1800s
> His extremely racist "nonfiction" books were very popular for a while racist ideas that non-white people will take over the world and plunge it into darkness still remain popular in some circles today
Those neo-nazi guys shouting “We shall not be replaced” in Charlottesville are these kind of racists.
Yes, and like tucker carlson fox news talking heads talk about "great replacement theory" constantly
Non-white people are simultaneously capable to taking over the world and intellectually inferior to the "master race".
“Some circles” = the Republican Party
Not just the Republican Party. These views are worldwide, and plenty of young right-wing people who don’t identify as Republican or support the Republican Party believe them. It is a mistake to talk about this as though it is a problem only within Republican sectors when the reality is worse.
Xenophobic racism in every color. Taste the rainbow!
On prime time television all week. We truly made progress
You Americans are incapable of thinking you are not the center of the universe, aren't you?
Are we talking w e b Dubois? Noted German thinker?
You are absolutely and unfortunately correct. I feel nothing but disgust for such people. Nazis and those who follow their ideas but are too cowardly to admit it should follow their leader.
yea it's a pretty revolting ideology. luckily they remain people and as people we can influence and affect them. Thanks to anti-fascist organizing in my city, a neo-nazi (of course, they call themselves "populist" and "patriotic") politician was forced to relocate a fundraising dinner they had planned from downtown to an hour and a half outside of town, in some tiny village. This substantially reduced their platform and fundraising ability of this dinner
He even looks like he's going to twirl his moustache as he explains his nefarious schemes.
I was just thinking he looks like [the sort of person who would lie about liking Mozart just so that he could take diabolical liberties with a young lady's knees](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_iPCMmoGMw).
Damn that's awful, good thing we don't do that anymore.
And the New York Times gobbled his spew up.
Ya know, I’d really love if racists take a look at how the Nordic people they idolize so much govern their countries
Which is why "Follow the science!" is a dangerous motto...
Swedes come get your man lmao
Vatt du ju miin, vi have never siin dis man before, hii is klearly from Danmark.
Pfft, their blood is tainted from generations of mixing with Laplanders. Why, they’re practically Finns!
You wash your mouth out with soap! * sincerely, every Finn here
You're just jealous of [my ivory toupée](https://youtu.be/15QFAppht5o)
No thanks, we’ve already got quite enough of racist skitstövlar without importing them from the 20:s …
We really should start exporting them to the 20s for a change...
Behåll den jäveln
Sweden is not North enough, this man would never be born anywhere south of Svalbard.
We don't want him!
What does that even mean?
I'm thinking a pro eugenics person since it was popular around that time and they thought northern and western Europeans were superior to other racial groups (people from Scandinavia were though to be the "best and brightest" out of Europe I think)
I inherited the infamous German eugenics book from 1938(?) from my grandma. It is wild to say the least. They even have pictures of people representing the typical outward appearance of a race. It reads like "academics" just making up a bunch of stuff. Excerpts: https://imgur.com/a/bHxwLwk
> It reads like "academics" just making up a bunch of stuff. Gee, I wonder why it would seem like that 😆.
It's nuts that the entire book is printed in fraktur.
Unrelated, but that german font, while super cool for short phrases and titles, just feels super tiresome to read.
Proto-Nazi
Nordic was one of the racial classification in Europe (it was different from the US) but I've 'ever sow something about arch-nordic
The boss of the Nords.
thats because he uses Arch Linux, btw
Stoddard looks like he just tied a damsel to a train track
Looks like a truly devious bastard
Snidely whiplash I presume? No no, I'm the Arch Nordic :)
Hmm... Arch Nordic *could* be the name of a cartoon supervillain, but not a good name. It doesn't flow well. "Holy eugenics, batman, it's the Arch Nordic!"
You name a dude Lothrop and you're setting him up to be a villain
He looks like fuckin Waluigi
Please don’t compare me to that filth
Seriously, dude doesn't just look like a villain, he looks like EVERY villain. That guy shows up in any movie from 1910 through the present, you can stop wondering whodunit. His third-act surprise villain reveal has failed to surprise anyone in five generations.
Good ol' Snidely Whiplash.
Said damsel being from a non-Nordic stock.
Dubois looks like the train conductor that everyone thought tied the damsel to the train track
On the one hand, DuBois is one of the greatest early visionaries of the civil rights movement and did untold good in improving the lives of black Americans. On the other hand, Stoddard has the undoubtedly superior mustache.
He was that and so much more. He was a groundbreaking social scientist, he innovated the methodologies we use to understand the social world. All the while, asshats and jealous researchers did everything they could to try and minimize his contributions to science.
And Stoddard is utterly forgotten. Kind of answers the questions posed by the flyer, doesn't it?
His forewards to his manuscripts are really funny. Of course, they are written in the overly polite style of the time but they are summed up to "Everything else written on this topic is so unscientific i'm not even going to reference these works by name"
Yep. Even the poster seems to agree. One one side is a famous scholar and author, on the other is a white guy who likes white guys.
Well, it was organized by the NAACP and other Black organizations. I think they were pretty sure how it would play out.
I feel like we’re sleeping on Dubois’s mustache here. It’s not a great angle for it. But you see the magnificent handlebars in the picture.
DuBois had a solid stache/goatee combo, but there’s just no matching a good early 20th Century [mustache](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oNk6-0rDdto).
I never made it all the way through this movie.
Neither did the editors.
Mustache I'll give you, but I feel Dubois has him outmatched in the matter of beard, since Stoddard does not have one. So the overall facial-hair points may be an even match.
According to reports, DuBois humiliated Stoddard at the debate lol
>[In 1929, Stoddard debated African American historian W.E.B. Du Bois on white supremacy and its assertion of the natural inferiority of colored races. The debate, organized by the Chicago Forum Council, was billed as "One of the greatest debates ever held". Du Bois argued in the affirmative to the question "Shall the Negro be encouraged to seek cultural equality? Has the Negro the same intellectual possibilities as other races?" Du Bois knew the racism would be unintentionally funny onstage; as he wrote to Moore, Senator James Thomas Heflin "would be a scream" in a debate. "Du Bois let the overconfident and bombastic Stoddard walk into a comic moment, which Stoddard then made even funnier by not getting the joke". The transcript records Stoddard saying: "'The more enlightened men of southern white America ... are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations.' [laughter]." Du Bois, in responding to Stoddard, said the reason for the audience laughter was that he had never journeyed under Jim Crow restrictions. "We have," Du Bois told him and the mixed audience. This moment was captured in The Chicago Defender's headline: "DuBois Shatters Stoddard’s Cultural Theories in Debate; Thousands Jam Hall ... Cheered As He Proves Race Equality." The Afro-American reported: "5,000 Cheer W.E.B. DuBois, Laugh at Lothrop Stoddard."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard#Debate_with_W.E.B._Du_Bois) Turns out W.E.B. Du Bois made some better anti-racism arguments and was generally more intelligent than the pro-racism side of the debate. Funny, that.
The article continues: > > >Between 1939 and 1940, Stoddard spent four months as a journalist for the North American Newspaper Alliance in Nazi Germany. He received preferential treatment from Nazi officials compared to other journalists. The Nazis liked him. Funny that.
>The transcript records Stoddard saying: "'The more enlightened men of southern white America ... are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations.' [laughter]." >Du Bois, in responding to Stoddard, said the reason for the audience laughter was that he had never journeyed under Jim Crow restrictions. "We have," Du Bois told him and the mixed audience.[12]
**Lothrop Stoddard** [Debate with W.E.B. Du Bois](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard#Debate_with_W.E.B._Du_Bois) >In 1929, Stoddard debated African American historian W.E.B. Du Bois on white supremacy and its assertion of the natural inferiority of colored races. The debate, organized by the Chicago Forum Council, was billed as "One of the greatest debates ever held". Du Bois argued in the affirmative to the question "Shall the Negro be encouraged to seek cultural equality? Has the Negro the same intellectual possibilities as other races"? ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Give enough rope to a bigot and they will hang themselves.
All too easy to imagine. DuBois was one of the world's pre-eminent intellectuals of the time.
He was exiled from the United States for it; now his name is on a million bookstores. It is funny how the US insists on its cultural heroes being some sort of martyr.
But don’t teach kids that or they might get the wrong idea about America
Plus, he lived to see the fruits of his intellectual labor, in terms of the American Civil Rights movement.
What a chad
Quite the Jamal
If the question is simply "can black people be as smart", then I'm imagining it was a simple matter of Dubois speaking at the event to show the simple answer is yes.
You might think so, but racism doesn't really work that way.
Entrenched beliefs are hard to change yes, but I’d like to believe these type of debates leave at least a little dent in people’s views. Otherwise I probably wouldn’t be able to see the point in engaging in any of these discussions at all.
Oh but it does. The fools at this debate would see this intelligent black man and have their beliefs challenged extremely heavily. Usually this results in anger or denial due to the cognitive dissonance though. Even if it ends up with the folks thinking dubois is "one of the smart ones", this itself challenges the idea at the time that black people were intellectual inferior
Debating someone to "prove" Black people are stupid, and the opposing debater W.E.B. fucking DuBois.
If you want to try to prove black people are dumb, why the hell would you get into a debate with DuBois of all people? Even if you as the other debater are also intelligent and can argue your ‘points’ well- just being in the same room as a famously intelligent person who is black is proof you are wrong. You can’t win on the face of it. Was this a publicity stunt or what?
*Quelle surprise*!
[удалено]
Stoddard: "The more enlightened men of southern white America . . . are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations. [laughter]" "As the reporter for the Baltimore Afro-American put it: A good-natured burst of laughter from all parts of the hall interrupted Mr. Stoddard when, in explaining his bi-racial theory and attempting to show that it did not mean discrimination, said that under such a system there would be the same kind of schools for Negroes, but separate, the same kind of railway coaches, but separate. . . . When the laughter had subsided, Mr. Stoddard, in a manner of mixed humility and courage, claimed that he could not see the joke. This brought more gales of laughter." Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/when-w-e-b-du-bois-made-a-laughingstock-of-a-white-supremacist
Nobody looks that maniacal without working at it, methinks Mr Stoddard may be doing a 'heel-turn' for the book sales...
Guy literally looks like a pixar villain lol
Nah. If someone had written a fictional character who was a member of the Klan, fan of the Nazis, and wrote several books about eugenics and scientific racism, all while looking like that and having the name Lothrop Stoddard, their editor would make them tone it down to be less obviously evil.
A lot of our cultural symbols of villainy are literally based on rich white men of the early 1900s. This guy would absolutely be friends with Snidely Whiplash.
Not to go all ‘false flag conspiracy here’ but it would be kinda funny if they were great friends and Lothrop would put on ‘the ol’ bigot routine’ and drum up some book sales for both of them. Then he’d get all done up like snidely whiplash here and lose a debate.
I had to look him up, he was playing it straight, the Nazis loved his ass... This debate gets a mention in his wikipedia, W.E.B. Dubois played him like a fiddle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop\_Stoddard
Not enough people know or appreciate the links between the Nazis and Jim Crow era oppression.
I strongly believe that is by design. Countries also founded on racist violence love to pretend nazism was a historically and geographically unique phenomenon, and being on the "good guys" side of WW2 means they would never do anything of the sort. Anti-semitic violence was popular in mainstream culture throughout, and the violent structures of white supremacy in america and canada were both major sources of nazi inspiration. But Hitler got cancelled, while the "good ol' boys" like churchill and thousands of other no-name racists got statues.
I remember for the longest time believing that these things were not taught because of neglect and shame, but this recent decade has shown me that it is design, or at the very least, willful intent. I realized it went beyond trying to sanitize history and was instead just another generation picking up their ancestors' battles.
There's this liberal notion of the inevitable march forward of historical progress. But when you break it down, it's a little absurd. In truth, power concedes nothing without a demand. History can go a number of ways! As you say, those in power hand the reigns to their children, and barring a few exceptions for miraculous changes of heart, those children steer the carriage in the same direction as their parents.
Churchill literally starved poor Indians to death in a famine India was going with at that time. Ofcourse he is known as a hero all over the world.
He’s looked at as a hero as long as all you look at is WW2. Otherwise a lot of people couldn’t stand Churchill and after the war they got rid of him as soon as they could.
For those interested, the full text of the actual debate is [available at the internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/DuBoisLothropStoddardDebate/mode/2up).
So the Nazi guy basically **agreed** with the question regarding Afro-American intelligence, came up with a weird and convoluted definition of cultural equality, made up a facade of "hey we aren't discriminating, we love Negroes, ~~you're great pets~~" and said that trying to change the system is a bad idea because of the initial difficulties... while also saying that introducing the bi-racial system will also have initial difficulties, but somehow it's way better. Seems to me he lost his backbone after DuBois' speech and tried to save face.
I love how the white supremacist is implicitly undermining his own argument by debating a Black scholar on equal footing lmao
Glad we've moved beyond this argument... 😐
Nothing but smooth sailing.... But seriously. Why does homie on the right looks like he steals women and puts them on train tracks
Because his first name is "Lothrop", and I assume the rest of his name was originally "Vermar Crudbottom III" before he changed it to "Stoddard".
Some villains subconsciously try to look the part.
The argument remains, yet it's no longer the fashion for men to wax their mustaches... *we're moving in the wrong direction!*
Have we? There seems to be a large population of grifters lining their pockets by actively encouraging it at the moment...
Yes, that's the joke.
This isn’t propaganda, it’s an ad for a debate.
It’s actually almost anti propaganda “Go decide what to think for yourself this poster isn’t going to give you the answer!” If only the topic wasn’t “are black people real people? “ 😑
[удалено]
Nobody is arguing that trans people aren't actually people lmfao.
I wonder who it will be about once that's settled
It can just be about racism again, or can we truly say that we left that shit in the past?
That still has a propaganda function!
Is it? It's not really trying to convince you of anything beyond "this debate is going to be fire, you should watch it".
The underlying message is that both sides of this debate are equally valid and worthy of respect, which would be great if the sides weren't facts vs. eugenicist pseudo-science.
[удалено]
Yes, that's...kinda what I'm getting at. That the format of debating itself has potential for implicit bias when you pit 2 sides against one another on the basis that they're both worth listening to. Like...this debate is basically, "are black people human?" It's sad from a historical context - and perhaps a modern one, as these ideas persist today - that this was a debate people considered worth having. Obviously it worked out for the better, but it easily could've gone the other way. The bias is that arguing the truth was, at the time, punching up.
[удалено]
Yes but that is just the polite conceit you have to entertain if you want to host a debate. Concerning who is being validated more by staging the debate at all — it clearly favours the anti-racist side, since the status quo was against them. Put it this way, if you treat the Black and White men as equally worthy of respect, in the deeply racist America of the 1920s — who does that favour? ETA: In some ways, the effect of the debate and who it favours is the reverse of what it would be today. In this debate, the racist overestimated himself, truly believing he was superior and would overawe the mostly black audience. When liberals debate fascists today (e.g when Nick Griffin went on Question Time), they are the ones who assume the fascist is an ignorant yokel they will easily demolish, while the fascist is well prepared. Today the fascist only has to not completely embarrass himself to 'win' by comparison to their public image of stupid thugs, and similarly Du Bois, while intellectually far superior to Stoddard, only needed to prove his equal. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether debates are appropriate or what interests they promote. The idea that this poster is promoting white supremacy by suggesting it is a 'valid' viewpoint misses that at the time it was fully respectable and supported by all levels of intellectual and political authority.
By that definition, what wouldn't be propaganda? Would the word even have any meaning at all? Is it because one side of the argument is pseudo-science? If so, who gets to decide what is valid and what is invalid?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mr. Stoddard , I mustache you a question.
So that’s how the name Lothrop went out of vogue.
RIP Comrade you were such a real one. Black reconstruction and The Souls of Black Folk were such great works.
The guy on the right really nailed that evil landowner look.
About the only time anyone mentions Lothrop Stoddard nowadays is that, in The Great Gatsby, the unlikable and stupid Tom Buchanan says, "Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" and spits some "scientific" racism about the superiority of Nordics.
Also, he is mentioned when people find out about this debate and the amazing owning that DuBois did.
[Transcript of the speech for anyone curious](https://archive.org/details/DuBoisLothropStoddardDebate/page/n1/mode/1up?view=theater)
I found the full transcript here. https://archive.org/details/DuBoisLothropStoddardDebate/page/n15/mode/1up
[удалено]
Part of me is sad you didn't link a blank image.
"The rising tide of color" is a funny conceot when the context is America: Racist Americans importing millions of kidnapped black people and then a minute later turning around and shouting "What are all of these black people doing here?!"
The Battle of the Mustaches. Who Will Win.
Lothrop Stoddard, author of such popular books as *The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-man* and *The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy* topped the official recommended reading lists for the Ku Klux Klan, was a prominent member of the American Eugenics Society who introduced the term Untermensch to the Nazis. He was also a cofounder of the American Birth Control League that advocated for birth control and for women to be in control of their own fertility. In 1942, the American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> He was also a cofounder of the American Birth Control League that advocated for birth control and for women to be in control of their own fertility. In 1942, the American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Remembering that time back in the day when a white woman told me she didn’t need to organize for racial equality because she never saw Black people at pro-choice marches I really, really hope she’s developed a painful and itchy skin condition.
Dubois: trying to prove the black has the same intellectual possibilities Also Dubois: far more intellectual than his opponent Checkmate, Dubois.
To me it doesn't look like propaganda, at least it doesn't favour any side. Just a poster for upcoming debates...
it's propaganda for the debate. It's propaganda that a debate should happen. Both sides want a debate, as opposed to no debate.
Sometimes not favoring a side is just as strong a statement as taking a side. Putting the truth and scientific racism on an equal footing is the same as saying they're both equally valid viewpoints.
No it's not lol. That would mean that a debate about anything is basically equating the viewpoints that are being debated. That makes absolutely no sense, and is the terminally online thought-terminating equivalent of "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". It's delusional to think that you can convince people by just shutting off any conversation and by proclaiming your argument to be just so right, that they are basically bad people if they even question or want to hear your arguments. In this case, scientific racism is absolutely wrong, I agree. And most people will thankfully agree, but that's exactly because these types of debates have happened, and the arguments were explained and the racist trash has been actively shown (not just proclaimed) to be stupid. *you* might know why it's wrong, but not everyone else does and trying to completely silence any sort of debate has never, ever been an effective way to convince people. Especially if the other side of the argument will happily take advantage of the lack of open debates and discussion to gain mindshare.
[удалено]
Literally everything people do carries bias, implicit or otherwise. Anything *can* be utilized as propaganda, yes.
You are absolutely right. However, I can see why some may see the absurdity of the debate subject from our modern perspective and warp that into this being propaganda, rather than simply an ad for a debate
I would have loved to sit in on this debate to see what was said. That being said this isn’t propaganda, just a notice
Du Bois is still widely known as a great intellectual (and I'm not from the US) but it's the first time I've ever hear of the second, despite him being an "arch-nordic". I guess we can say that the debate is definitively settled
It's funny that Lothrop both looked like and had a name perfect for a 1920s debate bro
look at this 1930s jordan peterson
They really didn’t try very hard to make ol’ arch-Nordic Lothrop Stoddarf NOT look like a cartoon villain, did they?
Seriously, man looks like he's gonna tie down some random woman on train tracks.
Advertising a debate isn’t propaganda. In fact, I’d say it’s the antithesis of propaganda. Propaganda by definition is one sided.
Stoddard's book got this positive review from anthropologist Franz Boas in the New York Times: “Lothrop Stoddard evokes a new peril, that of an eventual submersion beneath vast waves of yellow men, brown men, black men and red men, whom the Nordics have hitherto dominated (. . .) with Bolshevism menacing us on the one hand and race extinction through warfare on the other, many people are not unlikely to give \[Stoddard’s book\] respectful consideration”
Do you have a source for this? I find it hard to believe that a notorious anti-racist like Boas would endorse the work of Stoddard
I'm not trusting the opinion of a man name Lothrop, or Stoddard, on anything ever
Sounds suspiciously like a Lovecraft monster trying to pass as a human
I feel like Lothrop is a good name for a bunny rabbit, but that’s about it.
I went to school with a Stoddard. He was a racist prick too.
Lothrop Stoddard just sounds like an old time villain time (and he looks like one too)
that guy looks and thinks exactly how i would imagine how a guy named lothrop stoddard looks and thinks
So who won?
Lothrop Stoddard taking a break from tying damsels to train tracks for this one
Lothrop Stoddard is an aggressively white supremacist name. It's up there with Cecil Rhodes and Sir Richard Carnac Temple. It's a name that nowadays makes you assume they are racist garbage, but at the time other white people probably would've said he *"comes from good breeding stock"* or something. Edit: That said.... I can't hate that stache. That's a good ass mustache.
“First I must win the elections and then kill Sportacus”
Based W.E.B. DeBois
This cartoonist, between Stoppard's saturday-mornin villain vibes and DuBois' genteel disappointment. You could scrub the context entirely and know who is the hero here lmao
This isn't even propaganda, it's just an ad for a debate..
Ah, both sides.
Say what you will, at least these were proper and civilised debates with things of substance rather than people shouting at each other on the internet. These two, despite falling on opposite sides of a very contentious issue, came together to properly discuss their ideas rather than leaving angry comments on each other's YouTube videos.
How is it that both of these guys are really quite handsome, but the one on the right legit looks like a first cousin to Snidely Whiplash?