quote:

---

The Republican congressional candidate James L Hart has acknowledged that he is an unapologetic supporter of eugenics, the fake science that resulted in thousands of people being sterilised in an attempt to purify the white race.

He believes the country will look "like one big Detroit" - which has a large African-American population - if it doesn't eliminate welfare payments and immigration. He believes that if blacks were integrated centuries ago, the automobile would never have been invented.

Mr Hart has been said to turn up at voters' homes wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a gun, telling them that "white children deserve the same rights as everyone else".

But, despite his radical views, Mr Hart may end up winning the Republican nomination in a north-western Tennessee district because he is the only Republican candidate on the ballot in tomorrow's primary. His presence in the campaign has embarrassed Republican leaders, who were blind-sided by Mr Hart after they didn't bother fielding a candidate. John Tanner, a Democrat, has held the seat for 15 years.

---

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

Are you by any chance alluding to the fact that Tommy Douglas, in his younger days, was sympathetic to some of the ideas of eugenics? I don't think it's a fair comparison. For one thing, I believe Douglas later repudiated this. For another, I don't think he was a racist. And lastly, he was thinking that way over 70 years ago, when eugenics was part of the intellectual climate of the time.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Actually they're about equally scary to me.

---

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

It does, however, specify that certain humans are fit to contribute to the gene pool and certain others aren't, and in that respect it will always be a little repressive to those deemed 'unfit'. And of course historically the 'unfit' were often chosen for social rather than medical or genetic reasons.

In a purely academic way, it's interesting to imagine what a benevolent program of eugenics might bring us, assuming we were all "on board" enough with improving the human species at the possible expense of our own reproductive plans. An argument could be made that by, say, allowing nearsighted people like myself the opportunity to breed, we're actually taking our species in the opposite direction from evolution. We've conquered so many of the factors that might otherwise be evolutionary pressures on us, and which would (in a wild state) begin to select for strengths and select against weaknesses. In classical evolutionary theory, things like disease can strengthen an organism over time, by culling the vulnerable and leaving only the hardy and resistant. Now, of course, we pop a pill or two and we all survive.

Some of those people, incarcerated in institutions as children, turned out not to be all that defective at all, and have since won compensation from, at least, the government of Alberta.

quote:

---

Never retract, never explain, never apologize, get the thing done, and let them howl.
-Nellie McLung

---

Sounds like GW.

Sure, she pushed for suffrage and was behind the drive to make women persons under the law, but she was a racist and a intolerant moralizing teetotler. She represents quite the dilema to progressives. What does one do with a person who, on one hand, represents a value you espouse, like women's rights, yet more closely resemble the kind of social conservative who is right at home with the CPC?

quote:

---

Did McClung's eugenics enthusiasms have to do with race?

---

quote:

---

This is great. If the GOP wants a debate about "values", I say bring it on!

---

Since there is no formal mechanism for kicking people out of either U.S. political party, both sides occasionally get stuck with a fringe lunatic. As the article in the original post indicates, the Republicans are embarassed by his candidacy. As much as I despise the GOP, I recognize that it would be dishonest to argue that this yahoo represents what their party is about. Fred Phelps often runs for office as a Democrat in Kansas, but I don't think anyone would argue that his opinions reflect those of mainstream Democratic thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
A further thought- eugenics, even of the most benevolent sort, might actually be counterproductive. Evolution thrives on genetic diversity, and eugenics will tend to reduce that diversity. The more diverse we are, the more likely that we, as a species, will be able to adapt to a major change to our environment.

---

Again, it depends on what you mean by "eugenics". Appartently having kids with two particular different ethnic groups can have excellent consequences in terms of cognition ... I can't speak for the entire range of interracial (hate that word... but "interethnic" is cumbersome) humans but appartently East Asian/Caucasian "hybrids" (is that any better?? ) on average do remarkably better in school than the average student. They also (IMHO only!!) tend to be very good looking.

Maybe if those bigots worst fears were realized, and African and white America genetically "merged", we would have alot more great funky music, a whole lot less *bad* country, and people who can't dance. [How's that for positive stereotyping?]

quote:

---

Evolution thrives on genetic diversity, and eugenics will tend to reduce that diversity.

---

True, but evolution also requires the environment to apply pressure to the population that is to evolve, so that some may survive and others not. As I noted above, we try to the best of our ability to remove these pressures, by (for example) treating illnesses that would otherwise reduce an organism's fitness (my example is nearsightedness). In a true state of evolution, my nearsightedness would make me a less successful hunter and an easier target for predators or enemies, and would eventually be selected against, but in our modern world I go buy a pair of glasses and I'm free to pass my defective vision genes on to as many kids as I can father.

Eugenics, if applied, would actually take the place of these evolutionary pressures. It is, afer all, how we've managed to "evolve" new breeds of dog or cat in a phenomenally short time. Want a bigger dog? Just allow the biggest of a litter to grow up to breed, and apply "pressure" by denying the smaller dogs that opportunity. A few generations later: bigger dogs! Want cats with long tails... same idea. Generate an artificial "pressure" that prevents short-tailed cats from being able to breed and pass on their genes. Ensure that the long-tailed cats (the "fit" ones) breed, and pretty soon the deck has been stacked.

quote:

---

Had I known I was acutely bipolar at the time I would not have had children. I would have voluntarily gone for sterilization. No one deserves to go through what I have gone through.

---

Although i can relate to that sentiment I also find this very sad.

For one thing I don't think the world would be better off without you Hibachi.

I also find it sad that you have internalized the horrible legacy of eugenics that still informs modern psychiatry.

Despite the complete lack of credible research demonstrating the genetics of emotional disorder the continuos reptition of the idea has made people believe it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hibachi:
Had I known I was acutely bipolar at the time I would not have had children. I would have voluntarily gone for sterilization. No one deserves to go through what I have gone through.

---

Bipolar illness is however a multi-factorial illness so there is no certainty that your children would develope this illness. Even if we stopped all bipolars from breeding we would never eradicate this disease.

quote:

---

For one thing I don't think the world would be better off without you Hibachi.

---

Right with you on that, NRK.

Hibachi, I have bipolar disorder, in addition to being alcoholic. I have a son, and I cherish my relationship with him.

In reality the most important environment that exists is the social one and the relationships that we have with others. without these relationships we would not exist or be able to survive. The crowning achievement of evolution is our ability to relate and communicate complex ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Sounds like GW.

Sure, she pushed for suffrage and was behind the drive to make women persons under the law, but she was a racist and a intolerant moralizing teetotler. She represents quite the dilema to progressives. What does one do with a person who, on one hand, represents a value you espouse, like women's rights, yet more closely resemble the kind of social conservative who is right at home with the CPC?

Calling Mclung a "hero" is like saying Pat Buchanan is admirable because he opposed the Iraq war.

---

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Here's the nut job's homepage:

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

---

Gawd, he's not very subtle about his views, is he? I had expected someone trying to appear "mainstream", a la David Duke, but he's basically staking his entire campaign on the issue.

I guess he's given up on the creationist vote

[ 06 August 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

Excellent post!

Worthwhile to remember the individual of popular capitalist fiction doesn't exist.

Humans need society. In ancient days one of the worst punishments available was banishment from the tribe.

And eugenics does not take into account environmental factors. The most perfect humans living next to a toxic waste dump might have perfect children, they might not. Those children may not be able to reproduce themselves.

But with Eugenics, surely before you start arranging to put the good and keep the bad out of the breeding pool, presumably you have to decide what's "good" and what's "bad". Which brings us to Mr. Magoo's point about breeding for blue eyes. The thing is, even if you don't do that, what criteria are you going to use? Someone's opinion about what evolution would be producing if people weren't social animals who took care of each other? Why? What's "good" about that, even if the person's opinion was somehow "right"? What's so great about evolution that we should want more of it, anyway? Eugenics makes a plausible basis for saying that only nice, sociable people should breed, and an equally plausible basis for saying only violent people should breed. Or dozens of other ultimately arbitrary and often contradictory criteria. It's easy to warp towards breeding for arbitrary racist characteristics because any other characteristics chosen are just as arbitrary.

Anyway, the whole idea that selection pressures no longer exist is a crock. Tell an Iraqi that. Or someone in the Sudan. Even where violence isn't a major selection pressure, people get selected to be good looking, socially adept and to want babies, among other things.

She most certainly was not.

I encourage you to read her autobiographies,
"Clearing in the West" and her latter one, "The Stream Runs Fast"
In her latter biography she repeatedly denounces racism and gov't policies which contributed to systemic racism.
Naturally, she does not use that language, but rather the language her day. Of course, she had some antiquated views. And, she was from a pioneer family. If she were alive today, I think she would be fighting for First Nation's rights.I think this because it is in keeping with her thought processes and belief systems as evidenced in her books.

Interestingly, she describes in her book an event which shaped her opinion on forced steralization. Not to defend herself, but rather as a terribly sad story of a young girl, who was mentally a little six year old child, but physically a young and beautiful woman and who was being exploited in her neighbourhood and physically abused by her father in his attempts to control her lest she became pregnant. Her view, rightly or wrongly, was shaped from compassion, not superiority, egosim and hatred.

As she wrote, it is so easy to destroy and so difficult to build up.
There is enough real racism in this world and right in front of us. Let's not dilute the word. Let us not dilute the offence.

It seem difficult for some reason to avoid 'presentism' and to put ourselves into the past through empathy and awareness. Racism is a terrible and horrible set of beliefs and actions. I hope we can get past the latest race based hatred and finally start communicating and do what it takes to save our country and the world from our present fascist threat.

Nellie McClung was brave. She took on a huge machine at no small personal cost. Ahe balked intense social and peer pressure. She was far ahead of her time and of most people. She was born in 1873 for heavens sake! Was she perfect? No. She too, was shaped by her society. Her first biography is worth reading for it gives a unique insight into some of what shaped Canada and what we have to overcome today as well.

It is comforting to think in black and white terms with no nuance of grey. But, at this time in our world it's going to cost us.

Her heart burned with compassion and concern, not, hatred and evil. The bulk of her efforts and actions alleviated the suffering of others. I wish I could claim this as the result of my own efforts and actions!
This can not be said of any social conservative with the exception of themselves and their immediate circle and interests. What they do is hurt others and cause suffering.

She believed in temperance because of the extreme suffering of completely dependent women and children upon men who drank, not because of bigoted intolerance. It was for her a solution to suffering. This was before any welfare system put shoes on the feet of barefoot children! Or, meager as it is, bread on the table.

I hope you do read her autobiographies. They provide context.

[ 06 September 2004: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]

Her heart burned with compassion and concern, not, hatred and evil. The bulk of her efforts and actions alleviated the suffering of others. I wish I could claim this as the result of my own efforts and actions!
This can not be said of any social conservative with the exception of themselves and their immediate circle and interests. What they do is hurt others and cause suffering.

She believed in temperance because of the extreme suffering of completely dependent women and children upon men who drank, not because of bigoted intolerance. It was for her a solution to suffering. This was before any welfare system put shoes on the feet of barefoot children! Or, meager as it is, bread on the table.

I hope you do read her autobiographies. They provide context.

quote:

---

Members of the eugenics movement, like those of the temperance movement, the female suffrage movement, and other reform movements of the period saw themselves as nation-builders. They were idealists, looking forward to building a nation free from poverty, feeble-mindedness, alcoholism, immorality, war, disease, degeneracy, and a host of other social ills.

But in their enthusiastic idealism, their belief in perfectibility, and their trust in the infallibility of science, they were mislead—as we can now see looking back with the illumination of experience.

---

So, why isn't this Republican candidate "looking back with the illumination of experience"? His unshakable beliefs tend to make him look like a racist.

[ 06 September 2004: Message edited by: steffie ]

I think he isn't looking back because he is a racist.

Also his motivation isn't based on aleviating suffering.

I don't think their idea of an utopian society was influenced by race. And, that some were inadequate because of their race.

But, i see there is a similarity in the idea of creating a society that the individual feels is desirable. I guess that is why we have to examine our human motives and self-righteous tendencies.

[ 06 September 2004: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]