Jim Dougan wrote (31 August): > Wow - I certainly seem to have touched a sensitive nerve with the Brits and > Canadians....
On 31 August I wrote: >Jim Dougan wrote: >> Of course, Galton's eugenic racism had Hitler's regime >> as its *direct* descendant. [emphasis added] >If that means anything, it is that if Galton had not been born Hitler and >the Nazis would not have developed their racist ideas. As if anti-Semitism >(and racism in general) needed Galton�s ideas before a blatantly racist > movement could really get going in central Europe in the 1920s and �30s. I�m not clear why Jim thinks that the views expressed in either Chris�s message or mine had anything to do with our nationalities. Speaking for myself, my point was entirely independent of the fact that Galton happened to be British, I would have made the same point if he had been American or German � even if he were French (joke!). >Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about Galton being British. Nor was I! > I disagree a bit with Allen, though..... I realize that it is difficult to > evaluate the past using today's moral sensibilities (one of the key points > in favor of moral relativism, as a matter of fact). However, it almost > always seems to be the case that these past practices served the interests > of someone in power, and the practices were little questioned because they > served the existing power structure. Eugenics was rarely questioned in > Britain partly because it served the imperialistic mindset. It was ok to > be imperialistic because after all these were lesser races we were dealing > with... My reading on this subject indicates that early British eugenicists (late nineteenth and early twentieth century) were concerned mostly with what they saw as the degeneration of the stock of the then British population, not with race. As I understand it, the roots of the movement stemmed from concern (as the eugenicists of the day saw it) that the poor tended to have more children than the rich, so that the supposedly inferior genes of the poor would increase relatively in the population. This had nothing to do with race. See: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_7207_319/ai_55670117 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_7207_319/ai_55670117/pg_2 > Eugenics was rarely questioned in Britain partly because > it served the imperialistic mindset. Does Jim have any evidence that eugenics was any more questioned in European countries that did not have colonies? Quote from above-cited BMJ article: In Scandinavia, sterilisation was broadly endorsed by Social Democrats as part of the scientifically oriented planning of the new welfare state. Alva Myrdal spoke for her husband, Gunnar, and for numerous liberals like themselves when in 1941 she wrote, "In our day of highly accelerated social reforms the need for sterilization on social grounds gains new momentum. Generous social reforms may facilitate home-making and childbearing more than before among the groups of less desirable as well as more desirable parents. [Such a trend] demands some corresponding corrective." > I disagree a bit with Allen, though..... I realize that it is difficult to > evaluate the past using today's moral sensibilities (one of the key points > in favor of moral relativism, as a matter of fact). I wasn�t so much writing about *evaluating* the past as of making ethical judgements of individuals� views in past eras from the lofty viewpoint of the views prevailing generally today. This does not necessarily have anything to do with moral relativism. According the above-cited BMJ article: Much of eugenics belonged to the wave of progressive social reform that swept through western Europe and North America during the early decades of the century. For progressives, eugenics was a branch of the drive for social improvement or perfection that many reformers of the day thought might be achieved through the deployment of science to good social ends. Eugenics, of course, also drew appreciable support from social conservatives, concerned to prevent the proliferation of lower income groups and save on the cost of caring for them. The progressives and the conservatives found common ground in attributing phenomena such as crime, slums, prostitution, and alcoholism primarily to biology and in believing that biology might be used to eliminate these discordances of modern, urban, industrial society. > Note that another controversial idea - communism - had its origins at > about the same time as eugenic. Communism was widely attacked from > the outset precisely because it questioned the existing power structures. I�m a bit lost on the connection here (other than the implicit notion that if we want to understand the �precise� reasons for opposition to any socio-political ideas we must look for the power interests at work). But whatever other reasons for opposition to communist theories, there were also good socio-political reasons for rejecting them, though it took the attempt to construct systems based on communist organisational methods during the twentieth century to vindicate the earlier critiques. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 ------------------------------------- Tue, 31 Aug 2004 Author: "Jim Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Dangerous Ideas! Body: > > >More generally, I think there is too much of a tendency nowadays to make >ethical judgements from a position of what I believe is called >�presentism� � the blanket tendency to make *moral* judgements of the >ideas and beliefs of individuals in past (and often very different) eras >in terms of notions that prevail in our own day. > >Allen Esterson *At 09:41 PM 8/30/2004 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: *If you look into it, however, I think you'll find that the eugenics proposals and practices of America (not to *mention the "reservation" system developed in America for "Indians") were much more proximate *ancestors of Hitler's "national eugenic experiment" than Galton's eugenic proposals. Just to keep things on *the level, I realize that Canada used the "reservation" system as well and that some parts of the country had *eugenics laws too. The point here is not that the US was "bad," but rather to note that it is awfully easy to *blame "originators" for sins that are more correctly attributed to "enthusiastic" (in approximately the *religious sense) followers. Wow - I certainly seem to have touched a sensitive nerve with the Brits and Canadians.... Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about Galton being British, and I wasn't trying to claim that American eugenicists are somehow less culpable. I choose to have them read "Hereditary Genius" because it is so clear in its presentation and so misguided in its methodology. It is something that a first-year student can reasonable critique. I disagree a bit with Allen, though..... I realize that it is difficult to evaluate the past using today's moral sensibilities (one of the key points in favor of moral relativism, as a matter of fact). However, it almost always seems to be the case that these past practices served the interests of someone in power, and the practices were little questioned because they served the existing power structure. Eugenics was rarely questioned in Britain partly because it served the imperialistic mindset. It was ok to be imperialistic because after all these were lesser races we were dealing with... Note that another controversial idea - communism - had its origins at about the same time as eugenic. Communism was widely attacked from the outset precisely because it questioned the existing power structures. -- Jim > > > >More generally, I think there is too much of a tendency nowadays to make > >ethical judgements from a position of what I believe is called > >"presentism" - the blanket tendency to make *moral* judgements of the > >ideas and beliefs of individuals in past (and often very different) eras > >in terms of notions that prevail in our own day. > > > >Allen Esterson > > > *At 09:41 PM 8/30/2004 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: > *If you look into it, however, I think you'll find that the eugenics > proposals and practices of America (not to *mention the "reservation" > system developed in America for "Indians") were much more proximate > *ancestors of Hitler's "national eugenic experiment" than Galton's eugenic > proposals. Just to keep things on *the level, I realize that Canada used > the "reservation" system as well and that some parts of the country had > *eugenics laws too. The point here is not that the US was "bad," but rather > to note that it is awfully easy to *blame "originators" for sins that are > more correctly attributed to "enthusiastic" (in approximately the > *religious sense) followers. > > Wow - I certainly seem to have touched a sensitive nerve with the Brits and > Canadians.... > > Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about Galton being British, and I wasn't > trying to claim that American eugenicists are somehow less culpable. I > choose to have them read "Hereditary Genius" because it is so clear in its > presentation and so misguided in its methodology. It is something that a > first-year student can reasonable critique. > > I disagree a bit with Allen, though..... I realize that it is difficult to > evaluate the past using today's moral sensibilities (one of the key points > in favor of moral relativism, as a matter of fact). However, it almost > always seems to be the case that these past practices served the interests > of someone in power, and the practices were little questioned because they > served the existing power structure. Eugenics was rarely questioned in > Britain partly because it served the imperialistic mindset. It was ok to > be imperialistic because after all these were lesser races we were dealing > with... > > Note that another controversial idea - communism - had its origins at about > the same time as eugenic. Communism was widely attacked from the outset > precisely because it questioned the existing power structures. > > -- Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
