It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Human Zoo's: Science's Dirty (BIG) Secret Revealed.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

I don’t really see why you are so a gashed at this. Is it not the natural progression of Darwinism? If humans are only advanced apes and the further away from looking like an ape would you not be more advanced? Darwinism and eugenics come from the same cesspool of human thought.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

I don’t really see why you are so a gashed at this. Is it not the natural progression of Darwinism? If humans are only advanced apes and the further away from looking like an ape would you not be more advanced? Darwinism and eugenics come from the same cesspool of human thought.

I agree with you totally. For,all the "evidence" of evolution we agree upon that exists, tells us to support natural selection....and that this culls the least of us, and "naturally" forwards the rest of us.....

It is my humble opinion, that this is all so much fattowat. or nonsense.....

The "story" we are told scientifically, and otherwise, to support this particular view is just that: a story.

We are simply living in a predisposed and planned environment. That is my position, be it whatever it is, and whattever it leads to. The test of that is this: ( taking into account cloning and predicated life in whatever form)
am I any less worthy of making my own decisions of life in the master plan of what we are currently living through.....for that is what it is:

I am a slave or I am not, according to a master plan, where society judges that my identity is better than you or not......

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:30 PM
Eugenics is interestingly not only science's dirty little secret, but also that of religion.

The history of Eugenics today seems to be a bit of a hot potato that nobody wants to own, and some authors want to blame "liberal Christianity", but the acceptance of racism in religion seems go much further than particular congregations that used the term.

Perhaps one can broadly speak about "Eugenics proper" from the second half of the 19th century to World War II, but some policies remained for a long time after that, and perhaps people just stopped using the loaded label for racist policies.

I was brought to the point of Eugenics in religion by a letter to the Afrikaans newspaper Die Burger today.
Here the famous local historian, Hermann Giliomee, replied to the theory that the influence of Nazi scientists on white South African anthropology before World War II paved the way for apartheid.
Giliomee argues that some Transvaal anthropologists were indeed influenced by Nazi science, however they were heavily criticized and not very influential.
This all seems to follow a debate that began earlier this month when "anthropometric" material was found in a Stellenbosh museum:

Although the British already laid a groundwork for grand apartheid, the main influence was religion and especially the template of segregation in the southern United States.
Giliomee points out that when President Obama was born from a mixed marriage in 1961 at least twenty American states still had laws against mixed marriages.

Apartheid itself was often defended with the Bible, or at least seen as Biblically justified.
It was not simply the result of anthropology gone wrong.

In South Africa Christian opposition to apartheid came mainly from Anglican and Catholic clergymen (and notably Beyers Naudé, who went against his Dutch Reformed establishment), although they weren't really mass movements, and most complied with the state.
US-styled Christian fundamentalism didn't produce a single anti-apartheid activist.
In fact, both locally and in the US they supported, or were indifferent to apartheid in the 1980s.
Although, some of the Christian fundamentalist activists here now say they never supported apartheid, they were just against the Marxism of the so-called liberation movements (a debatable claim).

The relationship between Eugenics and religion is complex, and a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.
As in science there was also religious opposition to Eugenics and racism in religion.
However, it is clearly incorrect to view Eugenics only as the product of Social Darwinism and secular attempts at science.
For some clergy it also reinforced the world-view of an ordered creation that should be kept intact.

As the now disused verse of the lovely English hymn All things bright and beautiful goes: "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate, God made them high and lowly, He ordered their estate".

Neither religion or science can be blamed as such (but neither can entirely deflect blame), because it seemed the whole superstructure accepted such ideas as pretty mainstream and natural, and they also flowed through literature and film.
Even the South African Communist Party was at first racist, and their slogan before 1924 was "Workers unite for a white South Africa!"
Conversely African nationalists (like the PAC) split from the ANC in 1959 when they allowed the membership of whites and Asians.

edit on 14-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

I don’t really see why you are so a gashed at this. Is it not the natural progression of Darwinism? If humans are only advanced apes and the further away from looking like an ape would you not be more advanced? Darwinism and eugenics come from the same cesspool of human thought.

Certainly from the same gene pool, Francis Galton was, of course, Charles Darwin's cousin, but Darwin did not agree with Galton's inferences of the theories of natural selection, so I do not think that it is as simple as all that. By any stretch of the imagination.

Most progress in the field of medicine, for example, can be deemed as running contrary to natural selection. Surely the eradication of disease is counter productive, shouldn't the weak be allowed to die, no matter how poor or rich they are? Eugenics may once have worked upon the assumption that the elites were already racially pure, a superior race, intellectually and culturally, but we have, through scientific exploration and discovery, moved along from that notion, and, to the most part, Eugenics isn't really about 'genetic' predisposition, largely because we now, as the originators of Eugenics did not, realise that certain traits are not heriditary and they cannot be 'bred out', and even in the cases of those that can be, they are not, for the most part, limited to specifically, and easily identifiable demographics.

If you consider the work of Joseph-Arthur, Comte de Gobineau, who was perhaps the greatest influence on Nazi racial policy, you begin to realise just how little actual science was involved in the development of Eugenic theory. Most actual science was an attempt to backtrack justify such theories, not the other way around and very seldom was it able to do so...which is why, sticking with Nazi Germany, so many of the ethical scientists found themselves blacklisted, or worse, when they refused to support such notions. Gobineau divided the people of the world into various races, but more significantly for history, he identified what he referred to as the 'degenerate races'. These were effectively people of mixed race. Virtually the whole of Poland and Eastern Europe was identified by Gobineau as degenerate. The Nazis completely wiped out those that met Gobineau's specified criteria for racial degeneracy.

Gobineau had no scientific training or observation experience, he merely based his conclusions on the standard thought pattern of white colonialism. He was by no means alone. His work was pseudo-scientific rubbish, but because it conformed to the belief of many, it was accepted as fact. And that, really, just about sums up the whole basis of Eugenics, it is an end to justify the means. Certainly nothing Darwin supported, or even hinted at, quite the contrary.

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
Here is a little gem, that though was writtenin in 1996, is wonderful.

Genetics has always been driven by technology. As Time Magazine says, (technologically) the future is now. But the past is also still with us.

There are, to be sure, two schools of thought on the value of history. Applied to human issues, genetics becomes a humanistic and social science; and it has a poor track record. The first generation of modern human geneticists failed to appreciate the fundamental civil liberties and human rights which we take for granted now. If the post-modern world is a better place now, it is unfortunately in spite of, not because of, the genetics and geneticists of that era. And as technology improves, the opportunity for harm -- intended or not -- improves with it. That is the basic tradeoff of technology in society.

Let us make their mistakes our lessons. The responsibilities incurred by the nineteen-twentieths of the Human Genome Project’s budget which is not devoted to ethical, legal, and social implications, constitute the greatest intellectual challenge for the field. They need to be part of every present geneticist’s consciousness, and every future geneticist’s education.

When we allow those that contribute in the name of science, and never ask what, or why, when or where, we wind up with things like this.

The 1958 case of Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia initiated a challenge that would eventually overturn the law. That year, Mildred Jeter (a black woman) and Richard Loving (a white man) were married in the District of Columbia. After moving to Virginia, they were indicted for violating the Racial Integrity Act. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in jail. The trial judge suspended their sentences on the condition that they accept banishment from the state and not return together for 25 years. The judge's written opinion declared: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with this arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
They fought for thier rights, and you have to wonder, how far are we willing to go, not to repeat it?

Peace, NRE.

People will still fight for love, I hope!
But love is being quickly replaced...
As long as lust is satisfied, people don't feel they need love.
But when you see them on TV, you can see they're not happy.
Maury and Springer, you can't help but notice...their pain... It runs deep.
Love is the answer!

Love between the races is already too least we know that cannot be threatened again.

I for one am proud to be doing my duty to bring us all closer to being one race

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by Riposte

You people think you're being cute and witty with these kinds of condescending and arrogant retorts but the joke is on you. Do the math.

You have a lot of enemies in the world. I start changing the tood if I were one of you. Thank God I'm not.

Tic Toc Tic Toc Tic Toc

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:10 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

This was very interesting and a really great thread. Star and Flag! When I first read the title it made me think of the humans in jars rumor says are on the lowest level of one of the DUMBS in Arizona, supposedly part of an alien collection of humans for study, for the organs and assorted gruesome purposes. So maybe not much has changed.

Remember Ripley s Believe it or Not ? And not long ago circuses had people who played up their "uniqueness" and "strangeness" to the hilt. Even little people, for being little. We are still a curious lot and will pay to see something different but we show so little respect for life. Compared to other life on the planet, we seem out of place, as if we don't belong here. A lot like bulls in a china shop. I hope Earth recovers from human occupation and a few of the wild things are left untouched.

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

Thank you. Never heard of "Human Zoos" before. Learned something new. ...Scanned your next thread on this topic and likely will post there later. Need to think more about this.

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:34 AM
Star and flag! Don't know how I ended up here, but I am once again amazed at the level of dangerous stupidity humanity can sink to. Where is the hope for us when our opinions and behavior is so easily swayed by those we deem as our betters, intellectually or otherwise?? I would like to say that I wouldn't have been one of the creatures throwing mud and jeering at human zoo exhibits, but given that I have a human brain that is so easily programmed by the builder's of our society, who can say? I can't stand this world

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: berheal

Thanks for that. Amazingly "we" find it disgusting, but it was considered the norm back then, there are more of us that would have been front row to this and never seeing the harm. Yet, have we really learned?

Peace, NRE.

posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:30 PM
I cant remember the last time that I was here, but due to recent events and how long ago I wrote some of these threads, I was asked by someone to bump some of these... so here it is, a little bit of learning for those who may have missed it when this situation wasnt as dire.

Peace, NRE.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in