Surprise! Some of the Worlds Most Admired People were Pro Eugenics

The social issue - some of the most admired people and their stand on Eugenics. Does their stand on eugenics knock them off the pedestal that we have them on? Or do we still consider them to be admirable even though they are flawed? Or do you agree with their eugenics stand and this just makes them even more admirable?

Forced sterilization and forced labor camps for those deemed 'defective'. Wanting laws against black and white people procreating. Calls for medical juries to decide if a baby should live or die. "Justify your existence and pull your weight or die." Some highly admired people had some unsettling things to say about humanity and about eugenics. (I consider them to be unsettling). Take a look.

National Catholic Register - Seven Beloved Famous People Who Were Pro Eugenics

Some of their quotes -

Teddy Roosevelt said - "I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.... Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type."

Helen Keller - She called for “physicians’ juries for defective babies

H.G. Wells said - ""The mating of two quite healthy persons may result in disease," he wrote. "I am told it does so in the case of interbreeding of healthy white men and healthy black women about the Tanganyka region; the half-breed children are ugly, sickly, and rarely live."

George Bernard Shaw - He once said, "You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

Winston Churchill. - Churchill advocated the sterilization of the "feeble minded and insane." and called for forced labor camps for tramps and mental defectives"

Francis Crick said - "the main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way. The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again."

Alexander Graham Bell - on the Committee on Eugenics. From 1912 until 1918 he was also the chairman of the board of scientific advisers to the Eugenics Record Office. In 1921, he was the honorary president of the Second International Congress of Eugenics which advocated sterilization laws across the country for those Bell called a "defective variety of the human race."

The Untold Story of Helen Keller

Alexander Graham Bell - Eugenics and Oppression Against Deaf People

George Bernard Shaw - Noted Figure in Eugenics Movement

Eugenics Supporters

Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Robert Andrews Millikan, Linus Pauling, and Sidney Webb.

I should include Margaret Sanger here. She's a hero to some, but to others she's evil. Here is her stand on eugenics.

Margaret Sanger - of Planned Parenthood Fame

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[84] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[85] Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[86][87] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[88] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals ...

... She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.

Before Nazis and WW2 it was ok to say those things, then the world change, took 100m people and some horror concentration camps to realize this, i would said they all where men and women of their time, would be nice to see when they said what they say.

But really after Darwin and before ww2 this was not as taboo as it is now.

a reply to: FlyersFan

This made me laugh so hard...

Bell, the inventor of the telephone, called for the "eradication of the deaf race"

The irony...he probably was looking out for his own business.

If you know the real story about Winston and Teddy you won`t be surprised to see them on the list.

We breed for specific characteristics in animals. I don't see why this is such a big surprise. Some people want a better breed of human. I don't think it's possible because underneath we're the same rotten, double-crossing snake we've always been.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Helen Keller - She called for “physicians’ juries for defective babies

Could she even communicate?

Winston Churchill. - Churchill advocated the sterilization of the "feeble minded and insane." and called for forced labor camps for tramps and mental defectives"

Oh this warmonger was as close to a mental defective as politicians have come.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Lol.


I find that hard to believe...

If she couldn't see how could she understand what the signs represented.


She was a poster child for someone else to have a voice imo.



Power & publicity has come in much less surprising manners.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Oh you didn't know? They are all NWO plants. That's what I've heard around here anyways.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: FlyersFan

Lol.


I find that hard to believe...

If she couldn't see how could she understand what the signs represented.


She was a poster child for someone else to have a voice imo.



Power & publicity has come in much less surprising manners.

You underestimate the will of people Charlie, would it be fair for me to say that people who hear voices can't be productive members of society?

a reply to: thesaneone

Depends on the veracity of the voices and how people deal with them imo.




I just don't believe that someone who couldn't see or hear to comprehend the symbols magically understood what the hell was going on.

a reply to: Indigent

yeah...
cause trying to breed a 'better' human is the same as genocide

Helen Keller is a surprise. By her own standard, her life should have been terminated early on, after all, she was a defective unit. Super hypocritical. Double standard????? Everyone else but me? Also by Bell's standard, she also should have been terminated. I have to wonder if any of those on the list had kin that fell into their unfavorable categories. Didn't one them procreate with a black female? Bernard Shaw was in favor of mixed race marriages so even those on the list had conflicting opinions of what was acceptable or not.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Almost ALL early societies had some kind of stop gap that required imperfect babies to be killed.

The Israelite tribes were forbidden to give their daughters over the Benjaminites and were ordered to destroy entire regional populations.

The Church and the Crown set out to exterminate native populations world wide.

The human race has a rich background in eugenics. It may have been harsh for many to justify, but it's part of "Survival of the Fittest". Today, we are confident enough in our ability to survive that we can allow for social altruism. Society can handle the burden required that paves the way for the less than perfect to thrive too. But today, we also honor the personal right of individuals to pick and choose who they want to procreate with and when.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: thesaneone

Depends on the veracity of the voices and how people deal with them imo.




I just don't believe that someone who couldn't see or hear to comprehend the symbols magically understood what the hell was going on.

Interesting but you will believe in some magical being.

Is it too much to ask to have some middleground on eugenics?

I'm not saying forced sterilizations quite yet (though I do believe some people just shouldn't have the right to breed), but trying to breed out genetic diseases would only help humanity in the long run.

And why not genetic engineering? Does your family have a long line of heart disease? Engineer your baby to not have that defect. I'm not talking about "designer babies" with custom eye or hair color, just medically necessary engineering to help prevent genetic problems as they grow.

That's the part of eugenics I can agree with. None of this forced sterilization, no labour camps for the "defective", nothing like that, just smart genetic engineering with the benefit of humanity in mind.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: FlyersFan

Lol.


I find that hard to believe...

If she couldn't see how could she understand what the signs represented.


She was a poster child for someone else to have a voice imo.



Power & publicity has come in much less surprising manners.

Now now, Charlie, one could make a similar case for the schizophrenics of the world and say they're useless & void of self-control & self-expression, too. As I recall, don't you have some mental issues yourself? Those in glass houses should not throw stones, Helen Keller did a whole lot more with her life despite her disabilities than most of us today do fully functional.


I'm echoing the poster who said it was in an era where this kind of thinking was acceptable debating. It's kind of odd that it's no longer something we can debate today, even if we're simply talking about gene therapies (because it inevitably boils over to selective breeding at some point) I'm not a supporter of eugenics, but we shouldn't have to fear repercussions for simple debate on it.

a reply to: Grovit


Let me know what would happen to the ones that would not fit in the definition of "better" during the time period i defined.

I don't put anyone on a pedestal and none of what these people said surprises me in the least. Also, just like Indigent stated, there way of thinking probably a product of the times they were living in.

a reply to: thesaneone

You want to divert the thread?


Or you want it bait me into a reaction?