“In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue…” or so the story goes. Christopher Columbus discovered a new continent, invited the locals to the first Thanksgiving, and oversaw the creation of a new world – one with star-spangled freedom at its heart. God bless America, right? As we know today, this tale is only plausible if we ignore the unimaginable horrors of colonialism. Though “ethnic cleansing” may be the technically accurate description, the term fails to demonstrate the sheer depravity of genocide. Columbus’s expedition brought about the senseless murder of an entire Indigenous people, a genocide of unfathomable proportions. Still, parts of the United States insist on celebrating Columbus Day each October. While this may just be another manifestation of our ongoing culture war, it also represents a broader issue: the obsessive need to protect “Western values”. In recent decades, white-supremacists have floated ideas like the “great replacement,” a long-debunked conspiracy alleging the systematic replacement of white people in all facets of life. However, given the number of skeletons in Columbus’s closet, such ideas bring only one question to mind: should we even care?
Liberté, Égalité, Fragilité
While “blaming” the French is a bit facetious, perhaps it is not entirely unwarranted; Frenchman Renaud Camus was the first to coin “Le Grand Remplacement” in his 2011 book of the same name. His primary target? France’s increasing number of Black and Brown immigrants, whom he believed were part of an effort to replace white people physically, culturally, and politically. And the primary culprit for such change was none other than the country’s “liberal elites.” Camus claimed his inspiration came during a trip to one of Southern France’s historic villages, where he saw a group of veiled women milling about a fountain. To him, this represented a dramatic departure from France’s established demographics. He saw these women as representative of a broader trend – the impending replacement of the Indigenous French people and their cultural values.
The xenophobia implicit in this perspective should be immediately apparent. Camus’s theory conflates France’s values and ethnically-French people as one and the same, and the author himself supports sending all immigrants back to their countries of origin. Yet he maintains that this comes from a love for his country, rather than a belief in a superior race or culture. The cognitive dissonance would almost be laughable if the consequences were not so dire.
Across Western nations, far-right activists have given the “great replacement” theory new life. This is especially true of the U.S.: recent mass shooters have lamented the horror of white people’s supposed extinction, justifying their actions in the name of “fighting back.” While the majority of these tragedies have come at the hands of avowed neo-Nazis, conservatives at large have taken hold of the word as well, if in a more sanitized form. The portrayal of Latin American immigrants as invaders is undoubtedly a means to sow fear among hardworking, “ordinary” Americans of their replacement. In many ways, these aspects of the Republican platform are a direct extension of Camus’s ideology: systematic exclusion in the name of cultural “preservation.” However, the GOP has shaped the “elites” driving this change to better fit its own political platform. The past critique of “liberal elites” has broadened into a wider criticism of all Democrats, who, Republicans argue, support immigration due to their supposed propensity to vote blue. Putting aside the inability of many immigrants to vote, the fear of being “replaced” at the ballot box has clearly struck a chord. Close to a third of Americans believe some version of the “great replacement” theory, a number frighteningly high given the ideological polarization of the contemporary U.S.
The usual response of Democrats to this conspiratorial belief is to prove its impossibility. To be clear, the “great replacement” theory is emphatically false. The number of people born in the U.S. each year is far, far greater than the number who immigrate from elsewhere. It is not even close; there are almost six times as many babies born as citizens than are naturalized each year. The theory also ignores the sheer difficulty of immigrating to the U.S. Obtaining even a green card can take years, and naturalization is an equally arduous process. Beyond that, those who gain citizenship often have below-average voter turnout, and there is little evidence that undocumented immigrants are committing voter fraud en-masse.
These realities, however, have not stopped the theory from seeping into the minds of Americans everywhere. Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election is, in part, a byproduct of this belief system and the perceived need to protect “American culture.” No matter how much Democrats highlight the racism implicit in these conspiracies, their pleas have largely fallen on deaf ears. The existential threat of replacement has struck deep in the hearts and minds of Americans, and will require more than data to dislodge.
The White Supremacy Behind It All
The biggest problem with the discourse surrounding the “great replacement” theory is that it supposes the term to be an entirely new creation. That is to say, Renaud Camus invented the theory, and all others followed in his footsteps. This claim wholly neglects the history of white supremacy in the Western world. Nineteenth-century journalist Édouard Drumont warned of the “destruction” of French culture at the hands of Jewish people, and author Jean Raspail wrote a book in 1973 that detailed the obliteration of white, Western society by foreign immigrants. Anxiety surrounding an alleged white extinction is not new by any means. The “great replacement” theory, then, is a modern manifestation of a centuries-old fear of the “other.”
This also means, however, that the “great replacement” theory exists in a multitude of forms. Despite the neo-Nazi support for his theory in the U.S., Camus adamantly maintains that he is working to save Jewish people from the threat posed by Muslim immigrants. The groups assailed by the theory vary dramatically by time, place, and context. One can imagine it like a Hydra: starting from the same racist “body,” but branching out into different and distinct “heads.” Much like the tale of the Hydra, cutting off one head can cause two more to grow in its place.
Attacking the specifics of the “great replacement” theory is little more than a stopgap solution. Even if you prove that a specific line of attack is illogical, the theory can adapt. There is no shortage of suspect classes to pick on, especially in a country as multicultural as the U.S. The theory has even transcended ethnicity, targeting LGBTQ+ communities and their allies alike. The irony implicit in this is how incompatible the theory’s variations are. Camus’s career began not with his controversial work on race, but rather as a pioneering author of gay literature. Although he sees his life as a gay man and former left-wing activist as congruent with his newer works, the “great replacement” theory’s most ardent supporters would likely be appalled by his past.
Given the theory’s roots in broader forces of white supremacy, it is unrealistic to assume there is a silver bullet of any kind. So long as the American model of systemic racism continues to shape our institutions, manifestations of this “replacement anxiety” will continue to reappear. Yet there is still room to better cope with our present moment, even if we cannot solve its greatest ills.
The “great replacement” theory is a complex, multifaceted conspiracy that cannot be truly summed up in a word like “fear.” However, especially in its US manifestations, this sense of alarm is crucial in drawing broader support to its ideas.
How, then, could we alleviate this broader sense of angst? Better yet, how could the U.S. try and prevent this angst from spiraling into the racist ideologies driving the “great replacement” theory? For all of the Democrats’ best intentions, they have largely attacked the theory at the surface, that is, proving its fundamental impossibility. Any medical professional would tell you, however, that this approach is inadequate in treating deep-seated, irrational fears. Organizations like the American Psychological Association maintain that patients are better off ignoring a given train of thought rather than attempting to reason with it. The patient must accept that the fear may be true, and if so, be OK with it. Perhaps the “great replacement” theory needs to be handled the same way.
Reframing The Debate
In the simplest terms, handling the fear behind the “great replacement” theory necessitates coming to terms with its possibility. If white people were replaced by some targeted class, that would have to be OK. For some, this is a terrifying prospect. There is a certain familiarity in the privileged treatment of whiteness that its beneficiaries are loath to let go of. Buying into its mythos provides a sense of greater importance: a “legacy” for those otherwise lacking one. The “great replacement” theory, and all its predecessors, can thus be seen as attempts to fight our ever-present mortality – a means to live posthumously through history books and shared identities. The cure to this desperation, then, is an American identity less concerned with individual legacy altogether.
By only debating the empirical validity of the “great replacement” theory, its opponents thus fail to dispel the underlying societal concern with legacy which fuels it. So long as American culture values the resilience of our worldly pursuits, opportunistic groups will be able to exploit this value, capturing the hearts and minds of those who find themselves falling short of expectations. Given the American obsession with this ideological patrimony, it is difficult to imagine the necessary cultural change coming anytime soon. But for Democrats looking to chip away at the “great replacement” theory’s growing influence, fighting for this vision is at least a start.
Featured Image Source: HIAS