Hi Y'all,
I hope you are all having a good weekend!
"John W. Nichols, M.A." wrote:
> He was arguing FOR extermination? You are the expert, but the earlier
> quote sounded like Russell was arguing against extermination. (It was
> the bit about inferiority of Blacks that I suspect was "current
> thinking" 70 years ago.)
Well, the eugenics topic is not a bright spot in Russell's writing. The original
quote comes from the Eugenic's chapter of Marriage and Morals (1929). The 1957
version is watered down a little - there were a number of historic events that changed
the world's perception of eugenics.
Anyway, in the chapter, he discusses different forms of eugenic policy. For example,
he argues for the sterilization of the "mentally deficient" (remember, the U.S. really
lead the world in terms of sterilization of "inferiors" legislation). He also
discusses positive eugenics; the encouragement of the genetic "best" to increase their
production of children. He mentions how this would be difficult to implement in the
U.S. due to the "all men are created equal" belief. The latter part of the 1929
chapter outlines a move towards separating "sex for love" and "sex for procreation"
and the use of science to determine the latter.
He also discusses what he calls "race eugenics". In this section, he argues that some
races are superior to others. This is where the infamous quote can be found. What is
problematic is that he does not argue against genocide or "extermination" because it
is wrong but rather argues against it (in this case) because of the possible
utilitarian function that can be served by "Negroes" in the tropics. And he uses the
terminology of perpetrators and essentially calls "Negroes" vermin through the use of
the word "extermination". And one wonders what he would have argued if the people did
not have a utilitarian function. So at best, it could be argued that he presents a
neutral position in regards to genocide. Although, that is a very generous statement
considering the wording of the text.
He goes on to argue that there really aren't many racial differences between the folks
in Europe and thus, all the stirrings about this topic in Europe are principally
political and chauvinistic.
In a different text from 1929 (sorry, I can not remember the title but I do remember
that it can be found in the Collected Works - just look up eugenics in the index), he
makes some prophetic statements. He mentions that eugenics policies are most likely
to be implemented in Germany and Japan in the attempt to create a super race. What he
doesn't predict are the atrocities that ended up occurring. Rather, he predicts that
the world will have to institute similar policies to remain competitive with these two
countries.
I think I would much rather stay with the beliefs underlying democracy or my religious
beliefs.
> (As he walks out the door for Texas.)
Watch out . . . . . I hear that they raise the bugs big down there!
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
