On The Rawness blog there's an interesting post on Sweden that touches on the country's eugenics programme,which ran from the 1930s to the 1970s.
A commenter named jaakeli points out that although left-wing intellectuals played a leading role in early eugenics programmes, their role in eugenics is largely forgotten:
"How did they make the leap from eugenics to multiculturalism?"
"It’s not that much of a leap. The eugenicists and racial theorists were the liberal intelligentsia of the time, playing the same heal-the-world role with different ideas. Today you can’t propose helping the poor of the world with breeding schemes but supporting crazy schemes to help the poor of the world without ever actually asking the opinion of the poor of the world is still the mark of a true progressive. The only thing that keeps changing is which schemes are considered good and progressive.
The heart of eugenics programs was a coalition of nationalists (the pagan right) and the left. It would not have worked without some support across the political spectrum because it’s so easy to demonize. The reason it seems strange now is that the leftists have been very successful in covering up their part in it and blaming it all on the nationalists.
Christian conservatives have not forgotten the left’s role in it, but everyone else ignores them since their anti-eugenics is buried under anti-evolutionism."
While the extreme eugenics programmes of the Nazi's, are probably the primary reason why eugenics is now mainly associated with the right, it's still surprising how the left has been able to make such a clean break with its eugenics associations, particularly since leading leftist proponents included Fabian socialists H.G Wells and George Bernard Shaw and the hugely influential economist John Maynard Keynes.
Then again, considering the left's ability to avoid being tainted by the likes of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, I suppose it's probably not that surprising.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yes, eugenics had broad support across the political spectrum before WWII. It has only been since the war that it has been stigmatized as a radical rightwing idea.
But given this broad support, in countries like Sweden, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, why should we see eugenics as a threat to liberal democracy? None of these countries set up death camps. None of them went down the road to Auschwitz.
The blogger you quote states that eugenicists want to help the world's poor without asking for their opinion. No, the world's poor want our help without asking for our opinion, regardless of the demographic consequences.
Twenty-five years ago, we were asked to help feed Ethiopia's starving population, which has since grown from 33.5 million to 78 million. They're still starving and, increasingly, they're coming to the West. Doesn't this issue concern us as much as it does the Ethiopians? Doesn't our opinion count?
"But given this broad support, in countries like Sweden, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, why should we see eugenics as a threat to liberal democracy? None of these countries set up death camps. None of them went down the road to Auschwitz."
I agree, it's totally unfair to compare the eugenics programmes of western democracies with those conducted in Nazi Germany.
"...the world's poor want our help without asking for our opinion, regardless of the demographic consequences."
Another good point, in a world of over 6 billion people, countries have a responsibility to keep their populations within manageable limits.
If they can't do so, then they can't really complain about other countries intervening in their affairs.
Interesting site:
http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/
Post a Comment