Poshpost wrote:From Virginia Woolf's diary January 1915: "On the towpath we met & had to pass a long line of imbeciles. the first was a very tall young man, just queer enough to look twice at, but no more; the second shuffled and looked aside; & then one realised that every one in that long line was a miserable ineffective shuffling creature, with no forehead, or no chin, & an imbecile grin, or a wild suspicious stare. It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed."
Such views were commonplace and widely accepted at the time, and reflected in public attitudes, as Virginia Woolf exemplifies in this diary entry.
In pre-1914 years, when Winston Churchill was a Cabinet Minister, he said that 'the unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.' The solution he proposed was that 'the source from which all the streams of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed.' This 'simple surgical operation' would allow these individuals 'to live in the world without causing much inconvenience to others.'
The National Socialist eugenic policies pursued by Germany in the 1930's should have brought such views into total disrepute, but sterilisation policies were pursued in many countries until recent years. Sweden, that bastion of social democracy, sterilised some 60,000 citizens between 1935 and 1976, mostly compulsorily, in pursuit of eugenic policies. Other Scandinavian countries were involved and many American states had similar legislation.
Woolf's, Churchills etc views should be seen in this perspective. Similarly, anti-semitism was widespread and accepted at the time, sometimes coupled with racial eugenic theories. In 1907 Sidney Webb, a founding father of British socialism, could write a Fabian pamphlet deploring the falling birth-rate 'when children are being freely born to the Irish Roman Catholics and to the Polish, Russian and German Jews, on the one hand, and to the thriftless and irresponsible on the other. This can hardly result in anything but national deterioration, or, as an alternative, in this country gradually falling to the Irish and the Jews.' It is important in this as in other areas to consider the views of the above in the context of their times.
I realise that times were different, and that it's important to take these people's attitudes in context. But the fact of the matter is, that as you have already pointed out. These types of attitudes are still around today.
There is the British Eugenics Society, for example
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/briteugen/index.html And there's even Eugenics Watch
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/
So it isn't just a case of me objecting to the views of the time. Honouring people, who publically advocated Eugenics, could (in my opinion) add credibility to the Eugenics movement. I find the opening paragraph of the British Eugenics Society, to be particularly enlightening:
This is the record of the members and activities of one of the most influential of the eugenics societies, the Eugenics Society (England), now known as the Galton Institute. When the British Empire fell, this secret army fought on in a hundred disguises for white supremacy.
Quite frankly, I didn't even know that it still existed. I thought that they had all gone on to pushing for Genetic Engineering, but it still exists! The Galton Institute is a Charity?!?!?
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/
Do we really want to have Royal Mail associated with this type of ideology?
I know I don't!
Well said!
It's worth remembering: Few, if any of the Contestants would have been born, if Eugenics had become the norm.
