Nativists had to dress racial discrimination in the language of equality.

Evidence

Johnson knew that his bill would face this charge, and it worried him. His concern at this point was significant. Despite the committee’s actual determination to discriminate against southeastern Europe, it could not admit to any but equitable intentions. Despite the prevalence of racial nativism, Johnson could not openly justify his bill on grounds of Nordic superiority. The use of the 1890 census would have to be rationalized as a way of treating all Europeans by a principle of true equality. That much tribute, at least, America’s democratic creed demanded. Only a minority went the whole way of racism with Madison Grant, explicitly repudiating democratic ideals and Christian values in the interest of a Nordic philosophy. … In popular thought, if not in the minds of an avant-garde of intellectuals, American nativism still had to live side by side with the spirit of democracy and the instinct of fair play and come to some terms with them. — John Higham, Strangers in the Land, 1920

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s question about whether professed conviction (here, democratic commitment) diverges from actual measured bias — even Congress acting on racial grounds had to profess equalitarian intent. — connects to: Nativists redefined discriminatory quotas as restoring racial fairness. — John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of…, 1923; Racial nativists reframed discrimination as equal justice to justify the 1890 census base — John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of…, 1926; Racist ideas were produced to rationalize and normalize existing discrimination — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The…, 203 (+2 more)

Broader Connections