babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Republican candidate admits supporting eugenics

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Republican candidate admits supporting eugenics
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 04 August 2004 07:40 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
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.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 August 2004 09:29 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Utterly frightening.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 09:35 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It sure is. Actually to say he "supports eugenics" doesn't fully capture the nastiness of this guy; eugenics isn't race-based by definition, though it often is in its implementation.

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


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 04 August 2004 09:42 AM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is great. If the GOP wants a debate about "values", I say bring it on!
From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 August 2004 10:04 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hart sounds like the GOP equivalent of Larry Spencer (well okay, Hart is quite a bit scarier, but I am talking in terms of his effect on public relations). Maybe the Republicans should be taking some advice fron the CPC on how to deal with such a person

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


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 10:18 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually they're about equally scary to me.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 04 August 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a question you need to ask yourself.

Does supporting the idea of eugenics discredit everything else you stand for?


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 10:35 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not necessarily, but it's a big red flag, and anyone supporting a race-based version (like this guy) is too dangerous for me to feel comfortable trusting him with public office, regardless of his other policies. But then, the fact that he's a Republican means I probably wouldn't like his other policies anyway.

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 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 August 2004 10:39 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Actually they're about equally scary to me.

Homophobics are margnially less scary than white supremacists because at least homosexuals can retreat to the closet, whereas non-whites can't really hide their skin color.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 10:41 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True, but they shouldn't have to. I suppose you could say Spencer's bigotry was more narrowly focused (since there are fewer gay people than nonwhite people) but on the other hand Hart didn't say that it should be illegal to be black. So the differences more or less balance each other out.

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


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 August 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kerry's campaign should buy this clown some airtime.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 August 2004 10:59 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is just a question - is eugenics NECESSARILY racist and repressive? Sure, I know about the forced sterilisations - even in Canada and Scandinavian countries, not just under racist and fascist regimes - and Nazi "breeding" programmes. But can eugenics also mean that people with a serious genetic problem - diseases that cause much misery - avoid reproducing? Many, many couples do so voluntarily, or voluntarily abort foetuses with grave genetic defects. Yes, I'm aware it's a slippery slope, as they say, and parents seeking a perfect child could wind up trying to avoid those that are nearsighted, hard of hearing, or with a potential weight problem.

I suppose it is because when I was little, I knew a family in which the boys both had haemophilia - and both died very young. Their sister vowed to have genetic testing if ever she wanted to have children - just because the genetic disease had caused her family so much misery.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 11:02 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was the point I was trying to make. I'd still have serious reservations about trying to make public policy based on eugenics, though, partly because it's open to abuse, and partly because we still don't understand enough about human genetics and evolution to know what we're doing.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 August 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think it has to be racist at all... it just usually is.

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.

Anyway, once you're back out of that thought bubble, I think any mention of eugenics should, as suggested above, be treated as a red flag. Policy makers and eugenics shouldn't mix.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 August 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The main practical impact of eugenics in Canadian history, I believe, was the forced sterilization of presumed "mental defectives" in some jurisdictions in the mid-C20 -- up to the early 1960s, I think.

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.

That's the kind of slippery slope that draws me to the same conclusion Mike and Mr Magoo have drawn: we just don't know enough to base policy on "eugenics," and the scope for abuse of the vulnerable is immense.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 04 August 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mike, I did not know that Douglas was a past supporter of eugenics.

I was thinking of three of the famous five. Irene Parlby, Nellie McClung, and Emily Murphy supported eugenics as a scientific fact. To the best of my knowledge all three went to their graves without admitting that eugenics was wrong.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 August 2004 11:39 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. I didn't know that. But as mentioned above, it was part of the intellectual climate of the time, so we should be a bit more generous in judging people who favoured it then than people who favour it now.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 August 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ernest Manning was another supporter of eugenics. There's actually a family complication there, but I don't remember the story well enough to repeat it until I can check it out somewhere.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 04 August 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

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


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 August 2004 12:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did McClung's eugenics enthusiasms have to do with race? I thought that she, like Manning and many others, was more concerned with mental health -- as they conceived of it, of course.

I'm not defending her, but I think that you are underestimating how widespread these views were in the early and mid-C20.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 August 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Famous Five, and forced sterilization.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 04 August 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 04 August 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did McClung's eugenics enthusiasms have to do with race?

Part of her eugnics beliefs were race based. Her stance on immigration was also raced based.

Oh, and to set the record straight. She was an active member of the Liberal party.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
f1 dad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6141

posted 05 August 2004 09:38 AM      Profile for f1 dad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

The Democrats do have the upper hand in any values debate. Because of this, it's unnecessary for them to try to muddy the water by insinuating this guy is the true face of the Republican party. Such cheap tactics based on obvious distortions of the truth should be left to Karl Rove and his merry band of talking points parrots.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 05 August 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?]

Diversity = good. And eugenics, at least in rhetoric, is supposed to be about "betterment" of the human species.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 August 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

The big problem with this (well, one of them) is that the "pressures" of eugenics can be arbitrarily chosen; unlike nature we don't simply have to select for those characteristics that make us most fit for survival. We can select for redheadedness if we want, or long toes, or anything else we wish. That, of course, is the wide open "door of abuse". You start with the idea of improving humans, and end up selecting for blue eyes.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 05 August 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

I know I'm on my favourtie topic but resist this ridiculous pseudo science.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 05 August 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

In conditions such as Huntindon's chorea (autosomal dominant), CF (recessive) or hemophilia
(sex linked), there may be some benefit in not having children, however again as was demonstrated in my Genetics class, even if none of these people bred, it would take many generations to completely eradicate the disease.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 05 August 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

One of the things I've come to see is that my experience can benefit others. I imagine that's true for you. Perhaps your being there for the next sufferer is one way some meaning can be found for all you've endured.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Socrates
sock-puppet
Babbler # 6376

posted 05 August 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for Socrates   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tommy Douglas wrote his masters thesis in support of Eugenics....
From: Viva Sandinismo! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 05 August 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One of the fundamental flaws of eugenics and social darwinsim is the belief in some imaginary natural environment distinct from the social conditions that we manufactured.

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.

To be human is to be in relations within a social environment, it is impossible for it to be otherwise.Hobbsian individuals only roam in an imaginary landscape.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 05 August 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


Similarly, Emily Murphy was instrumental in bolstering support, via inaccurate propaganda, for the War on Drugs.


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 05 August 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I brought up Jingles question during the election about people who are progressive on some fronts and not on others, because we have such people today as well (Monia, Bev, Des...). The problem of the Famous Five is easier to solve, IMO, because the ideas on which they were regressive were at the time quite new, and most people hadn't really thought about the long-term implications. They were products of their times...
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 August 2004 12:34 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's the nut job's homepage:

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

Fortunately, this is a pretty safe Democratic district, and Tanner's been there for awhile.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 06 August 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 07 August 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
f1 dad has an excellent point. Lyndon LaRouche always runs in the Democratic presidential primaries, and a couple of his acolytes won statewide Democratic primaries in Illinois, circa 1986. This sort of thing can happen to either party when they let their local organizations decay.
From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 07 August 2004 07:05 AM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be human is to be in relations within a social environment, it is impossible for it to be otherwise.Hobbsian individuals only roam in an imaginary landscape.

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.

Usually resulted in death.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 07 August 2004 08:12 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According to his website, Hart wants to repeal NAFTA, stop the Bush tax cuts, and uphold workers' rights. If he kept his mouth shut about racial issues, maybe he'd fit right in with the NDP
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 08 August 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On T.C. Douglas and Eugenics. Walter Stewart, in his new biography of Dougals, covers this topic on page 79 to 81. Douglas did write his M.A. thesis supporting eugenics and it was granted by McMaster University. However, after he became Premier and Minister of Health, the implementation of an eugenics polciy was twice proposed to Douglas and he rejected it in favour of an occupational skills program. Stewart points out that this was after the Nazi horror and at that time eugenics went out of favour; however several U.S. states and Alberta under Ernest Manning did have eugenics programs well into the 60's.
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sark
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5705

posted 08 August 2004 09:17 PM      Profile for sark        Edit/Delete Post
Eugenics is another outgrowth of Victorian science that thought every thing could be broken down into its component parts and studied. Get rid of "inferior" breeding stock and you get a better race. But any animal breeder will tell you that generations of perfect animals can still produce a specimen that has every unwanted characteristic.

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.

My problem with this candidate is that he believes in bad science.


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 10 August 2004 06:09 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very scary.
From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 10 August 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A deeper problem with Eugenics is the values problem. What is "better"? With evolution itself we seem to have an answer, although even there it isn't one that seems to have any moral force: Whatever is left standing was "better". And incidentally, civilization isn't the only thing that slows evolution to a crawl. Sharks, for e.g., haven't done a lot of evolving in a long long time. Why? Because they work. There is no perfect pinnacle they're aspiring towards; they're very effective killing-and-breeding machines and they stay that way.

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.

What causes eugenics to keep resurfacing, incidentally, is the recurring anxiety among elites that the lower orders, whether defined racially or by class or both, seem to be out-reproducing them. They could fix that by making the lower orders more prosperous and better educated and giving them access to birth control, but that's the last thing they want. So they need an ideology which says that since the elites are superior they can make the lower orders stop doing that, by decision-making imposed from above. Presto! Eugenics. And books like "The Bell Curve".


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blueiris46
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6816

posted 06 September 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Blueiris46     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am saddened to read the accusation that Nellie McClung was a racist.

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.

Was she racist? Read for yourself and in her own words. Not in the words of a biographer looking for an angle. Or, from 2004's hindsight.


From: TOP OF THE MORNING | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blueiris46
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6816

posted 06 September 2004 07:43 PM      Profile for Blueiris46     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess the short version of my post, is to equate Nellie McClung with a Social Conservative of the sort we are fighting now, in my opinion, is grotesque.

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.

Thanks,
Blueiris


From: TOP OF THE MORNING | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blueiris46
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6816

posted 06 September 2004 07:44 PM      Profile for Blueiris46     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry double post.

[ 06 September 2004: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]


From: TOP OF THE MORNING | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blueiris46
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6816

posted 06 September 2004 08:58 PM      Profile for Blueiris46     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess the short version of my post, is to equate Nellie McClung with a Social Conservative of the sort we are fighting now, in my opinion, is grotesque.

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.

Thanks,
Blueiris


From: TOP OF THE MORNING | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 06 September 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From audra's link: (see, Provisions of the Sexual Sterilization Act, 1928 @ bottom of page)


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 ]


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blueiris46
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6816

posted 06 September 2004 09:20 PM      Profile for Blueiris46     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi 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 ]


From: TOP OF THE MORNING | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca