On eugenics

[Zonorhc]

This is a thought that occurred to me during a one-hour lecture I had earlier today about the development of the eugenics movement in Europe.

 

 

 

This is not a thread about Nazism or racial superiority in any way. If your intent is to turn it into one, then kindly leave.

 

 

 

[hide=Firstly, a brief, sketchy background]Prior to the rise of social Darwinism in Western Europe in the 19th century, there was little stigma against the intelligentsia, or, in fact, against nonathletic people in society. People were not ridiculed for being slightly rotund as they are today.

 

 

 

In the early days of Darwinism, it looked like Europe (and, by extension, humanity) was on the up and up. Europeans had their empires, life expectancies were rising, the middle classes were prospering. But hang on, moving within the city, to work and such, essentially forced professionals to see the squalor of working-class neighbourhoods. Why, if Europe was so prosperous and clearly the dominant race according to Darwinism, were there slums full of poorly educated folk?

 

 

 

Then we made up something called statistics, in order to better observe trends in what was seen as a degenerating society at home. This was helped along by the rise of state-subsidised welfare programs, like health care and education. Bureaucracy helped track people. Nobody liked the statistics they were seeing.

 

 

 

Darwinism caused a drive to remove the undesirables from society. This was well before Hitler's time, and well before even the first world war. It started in Britain. There were asylums built outside the cities to house the feeble-minded, who were defined as such because they were unable to progress through this new-fangled standardised testing thing in schools. It was seen, through statistical observation, that there were many more of these feeble-minded people who came from working class backgrounds than middle-class backgrounds.

 

 

 

Of course, that's a function of the working class being much larger than the middle, but we have to ignore that for now, as hindsight has a tendency to be 20/20.

 

 

 

There was a problem, according to statistics. Wealthier folk were not reproducing as quickly as poor people. This was a Bad Thing. Ridiculous observations from practices like phrenology were coming up with results that the population was much less "healthy" than it was previously thought to be. The mentally ill, the academically challenged, the sickly, the poor, alcoholics - all seen as a blight on society and degenerates spoiling the race. There was a popular view that these people (by definition, largely working-class) had to be prevented from out-breeding the wealthier, more intellectual middle class, whether through mass sterilisation or outright euthanasia. This was a widely accepted view - it was proliferated by novels such as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and even applied to the "degenerate" upper class, as observed in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

 

 

 

The population was sickly, and young men were often too "unfit" to serve in the Boer War at the time. There was, over the course of years, a slow drive to improving the health of the population and producing a superior human being by popularising physical activity. There was a desire to produce young men who could perform as the Prussian soldiers did in their war with France. German gymnastics, sport, et al, were to be used to produce this superior breed of human - athletic and strong. This was a view propagated by the intelligentsia - among them, doctors and writers. It was not a view restricted to history's Bad Guys. Max Nordau, a Jew, was a Darwinist and a strong supporter of eugenics, later becoming a Zionist who wished to create a strong body of young Jewish men to rule Israel or some such.

 

 

 

This eugenics movement would later see developments such as the Olympic Games, and early 20th century Germany's cult of the body.[/hide]

 

The thought is this:

 

 

 

How can we, purportedly civilised members of a 21st century society, decry the evils of the eugenics movement, while still praising physical prowess and wealth and stigmatising those who choose to focus solely on academic or intellectual pursuits? This praise of the body and athleticism as the mark of a "more desirable" human being is, in fact, an outgrowth of the eugenics movement which first made it such a big deal. Is it possible that the eugenics movement has embedded itself so deeply into Western mindsets that we still see such mass admiration of physical prowess, particularly in sporting competitions, while similar, but non-phyiscal competition is looked down upon by the majority?

[Hab3k]

Actually, you are mixing up facts with are not fit to be mixed up together.

 

This is about what the majority prefers to other things while eugenics are about trying to distinguish people which are not like the majority wants them to be. For example, people only mix the breeds of horses, which they think are the best and have the best gens. Non-physical things however are still allowed , though they are not very popular. Non-physical activites are neither forbidden nor you get excluded for doing them.

 

You might be alot more popular when doing physical activities but it's not about eugenics.

[Zonorhc]

Actually, you are mixing up facts with are not fit to be mixed up together.

 

This is about what the majority prefers to other things while eugenics are about trying to distinguish people which are not like the majority wants them to be. For example, people only mix the breeds of horses, which they think are the best and have the best gens. Non-physical things however are still allowed , though they are not very popular. Non-physical activites are neither forbidden nor you get excluded for doing them.

 

You might be alot more popular when doing physical activities but it's not about eugenics.

 

Did you even read the background I wrote up?

 

 

 

Eugenics in the 19th century was trying to stamp out physical, economic and mental "defects", which were seen as interrelated. The improvement of the individual's body was an outgrowth of that.

[warri0r45]

You've really got me thinking here, Zonorhc.

 

 

 

You could make the case that social values take hold where ideology once did and what we see today is a mild version of eugenics. Yet, as my little understanding goes, there were a few more extremes in achieving thier ideologies than there are in achieving todays social values. In past times, (feel free to correct me here), there were anything from forced sterilization techniques, birth control, ideological pushes for favouring and glorifying 'good genes' where as today, it seems to be a mere social preference for strength and prowess where instead of denying human rights to the 'bad genes' they are merely neglected.

[Hab3k]

Actually, you are mixing up facts with are not fit to be mixed up together.

 

This is about what the majority prefers to other things while eugenics are about trying to distinguish people which are not like the majority wants them to be. For example, people only mix the breeds of horses, which they think are the best and have the best gens. Non-physical things however are still allowed , though they are not very popular. Non-physical activites are neither forbidden nor you get excluded for doing them.

 

You might be alot more popular when doing physical activities but it's not about eugenics.

 

Did you even read the background I wrote up?

 

 

 

Eugenics in the 19th century was trying to stamp out physical, economic and mental "defects", which were seen as interrelated. The improvement of the individual's body was an outgrowth of that.

 

You were talking about people whining about eugenics but still practicing them, which is actually not true. And yes , I read your background and it does not reaklly fit with what you are saying.Eugenics in the 19th century and people being intolerant today do NOT interelate anyway.

[Zonorhc]

You were talking about people whining about eugenics but still practicing them, which is actually not true.

 

Which isn't a point of contention, because nowhere did I say that people are practicing it today in the way it was envisioned back then.

 

 

 

And yes , I read your background and it does not reaklly fit with what you are saying.Eugenics in the 19th century and people being intolerant today do NOT interelate anyway.

 

The point was one of observation. Mine being that people seem to be intolerant as an outgrowth of the eugenics movement which made people intolerant of physical imperfection.