Jim Dougan wrote (1 Aug): > First, let me apologize for being a bit defensive. I originally posted > asking for advice on readings and topics for my class (and many thanks to > those making suggestions). Both Allen and Chris seemed to be critiquing > the entire concept of the class, which is *not* what I asked for. When I > saw Chris's suggestion that American ecumenicists were worse than Galton > (which I already knew) I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that he and Allen > were motivated by nationalism. Please accept my apology, and chalk it up > to my being too busy to carefully read and digest the posts...
Many thanks for the handsome apology, Jim. I think many of us say things off the top of our head which goes further than we meant, but they rarely find their way onto TIPS! Jim wrote: > I am not trying to claim that Galton or others invented racism or > anti-semitism. To do so would be silly. I *am* suggesting that Galton and > others lent scientific credibility to anti-semetic and racist regimes, even > if it was just their followers who did the dirty work. My original response was to Jim�s writing that �Galton's eugenic racism had Hitler's regime as its *direct* descendant.� [my emphasis] It is difficult to see how Galton �lent scientific credibility� to the central core of Nazi racist theory, anti-semitism, since both his the early eugenicists� theory was based on the notion that differential birthrates meant that the supposed inferior genes of the poor would increase relatively in the population. But Jews in many parts of central and western Europe, and especially in Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, had disproportionately high intellectual and professional achievements, and so would rank low among those parts of the population that were considered to have inferior genes in terms of Galton�s (and the early eugenicists�) ideas. > �my earlier point that eugenics was little questioned because it fit > neatly into the existing power structure. It�s difficult to see how this position can be maintained in the light of the fact (as my previous posting on 1 August documented) that many of the advocates of eugenics social policies were socialists like Shaw and H. G. Wells. Social Democratic parties (in an era when they were unambiguously against the existing power structure) were often sympathetic to eugenics theory, and some of them (e.g. in Sweden) endorsed eugenic social policies that would be anathema today. On Jim�s writing re �dangerous ideas� > Both Allen and Chris seemed to be critiquing > the entire concept of the class, which is *not* what I asked for: Point taken. Allen Esterson -------------------------------- Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:34 -0500 Author: "Jim Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Eugenics (was Dangerous Ideas!) Body: Jim Dougan wrote (1 Aug): > First, let me apologize for being a bit defensive. I originally posted > asking for advice on readings and topics for my class (and many thanks to > those making suggestions). Both Allen and Chris seemed to be critiquing > the entire concept of the class, which is *not* what I asked for. When I > saw Chris's suggestion that American ecumenicists were worse than Galton > (which I already knew) I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that he and Allen > were motivated by nationalism. Please accept my apology, and chalk it up > to my being too busy to carefully read and digest the posts... Many thanks for the handsome apology, Jim. I think many of us say things off the top of our head which goes further than we meant, but they rarely find their way onto TIPS! Jim wrote: > I am not trying to claim that Galton or others invented racism or > anti-semitism. To do so would be silly. I *am* suggesting that Galton and > others lent scientific credibility to anti-semetic and racist regimes, even > if it was just their followers who did the dirty work. My original response was to Jim�s writing that �Galton's eugenic racism had Hitler's regime as its *direct* descendant.� [my emphasis] It is difficult to see how Galton �lent scientific credibility� to the central core of Nazi racist theory, anti-semitism, since both his the early eugenicists� theory was based on the notion that differential birthrates meant that the supposed inferior genes of the poor would increase relatively in the population. But Jews in many parts of Europe, and especially in German in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, had disproportionately high intellectual and professional achievements, and so would rank low among those parts of the population that were considered to have inferior genes in Galton�s (and the early eugenicists�) sense. > �my earlier point that eugenics was little questioned because it fit > neatly into the existing power structure. It�s difficult to see how this position can be maintained in the light of the fact (as my previous posting on 1 August documented) that many of the stalwarts of eugenics social policies were socialists like Shaw and H. G. Wells. Social Democratic parties (in an era when they were unambiguously against the existing power structure) were often sympathetic to eugenics theory, and some of them (e.g. in Sweden) endorsed eugenic social policies that would be anathema today. On Jim�s writing re �dangerous ideas� > Both Allen and Chris seemed to be critiquing > the entire concept of the class, which is *not* what I asked for: Point taken. Allen Esterson -------------------------------- Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:34 -0500 Author: "Jim Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Eugenics (was Dangerous Ideas!) > I really don't have the time to get immersed in this....but I just can't > resist..... > > First, let me apologize for being a bit defensive. I originally posted > asking for advice on readings and topics for my class (and many thanks to > those making suggestions). Both Allen and Chris seemed to be critiquing > the entire concept of the class, which is *not* what I asked for. When I > saw Chris's suggestion that American ecumenicists were worse than Galton > (which I already knew) I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that he and Allen > were motivated by nationalism. Please accept my apology, and chalk it up > to my being too busy to carefully read and digest the posts... > > Apologies aside, I can't just walk away from this, so let me try to be a > bit more explicit: > > 1) I am not trying to claim that Galton or others invented racism or > anti-semitism. To do so would be silly. I *am* suggesting that Galton and > others lent scientific credibility to anti-semetic and racist regimes, even > if it was just their followers who did the dirty work. > > 2) Galton's methods were exceptionally flawed, and his conclusions flawed > as a result. First-year students with no training in statistics or biology > can see the flaws. It *seems* like Galton should have been able to see the > flaws in his methodology. Why didn't he? After all, he was supposedly a > genius... > > There are a couple of interpretations. First, he might have seen the flaws > in his methods and chosen to ignore them because he had an agenda. There > are certainly plenty of people who have suggested this. Alternatively, his > results might have fit so nicely into his existing world view that he never > thought to question them. This is perhaps a more charitable view - but > goes to my earlier point that eugenics was little questioned because it fit > neatly into the existing power structure. > > (awk...gotta run...don't really have time for this....) > > -- Jim > I really don't have the time to get immersed in this....but I just can't > resist..... > > First, let me apologize for being a bit defensive. I originally posted > asking for advice on readings and topics for my class (and many thanks to > those making suggestions). Both Allen and Chris seemed to be critiquing > the entire concept of the class, which is *not* what I asked for. When I > saw Chris's suggestion that American ecumenicists were worse than Galton > (which I already knew) I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that he and Allen > were motivated by nationalism. Please accept my apology, and chalk it up > to my being too busy to carefully read and digest the posts... > > Apologies aside, I can't just walk away from this, so let me try to be a > bit more explicit: > > 1) I am not trying to claim that Galton or others invented racism or > anti-semitism. To do so would be silly. I *am* suggesting that Galton and > others lent scientific credibility to anti-semetic and racist regimes, even > if it was just their followers who did the dirty work. > > 2) Galton's methods were exceptionally flawed, and his conclusions flawed > as a result. First-year students with no training in statistics or biology > can see the flaws. It *seems* like Galton should have been able to see the > flaws in his methodology. Why didn't he? After all, he was supposedly a > genius... > > There are a couple of interpretations. First, he might have seen the flaws > in his methods and chosen to ignore them because he had an agenda. There > are certainly plenty of people who have suggested this. Alternatively, his > results might have fit so nicely into his existing world view that he never > thought to question them. This is perhaps a more charitable view - but > goes to my earlier point that eugenics was little questioned because it fit > neatly into the existing power structure. > > (awk...gotta run...don't really have time for this....) > > -- Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
