This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have only rather cursory knowledge of the history of eugenics but based on nothing but this I think some things need to be pointed out. Eugenics was ascendant in the specific historical context of the post-WW1 Western world as a response to the disruptive consequences of the war. Huge numbers of healthy and virile men were killed and wounded which was bound to result in long-term demographic decline. Traditional moral codes were collapsing, divorce rates skyrocketed, promiscuity was on the rise, cultural decadence was everywhere, as was alcoholism, drug addiction etc. The finances of most nations were in disarray, as was international trade.
As a result, proponents of eugenics were generally concerned that a) the birthrate of socially desirable elements will decline, both an absolute numbers and in relation to the birthrate of socially undesirable elements (the feeble-minded, people with hereditary mental illness and disabilities, alcoholics etc.) b) the foundering national economy was going to be burdened by the ever-rising social costs of feeble-minded, morally imbecile social groups growing in number.
It’s small wonder that positive and negative eugenics usually went hand in hand in every nation and federal state which adopted it. (Did it not?) Those who believed in eugenics wanted to curb two larger negative trends overall. It didn’t have that much to do with ideology. Eugenics was even popular in liberal democracies.
With respect to the Nazis I think there’s a politically motivated tendency to gloss over two aspects. One is that there was a secret state campaign to kill the mentally ill and people with hereditary diseases, as others have mentioned, generally called “Merciful death” (Gnadentod) – the expression “Aktion T4” was only invented after the war – specifically aimed at freeing up healthcare resources and diverting them to the war effort (the armed forces were going to need doctors, nurses and hospital beds), plus reducing state healthcare expenditures overall.
It thus had a practical (but of course wholly unethical) purpose and was unique in the world in the sense that it meant extermination and not only sterilization of socially undesirables (which was also a state policy enacted earlier). For this reason I’s argue that it cannot be considered an example of eugenics, which wasn’t even a word the Nazis used (“racial hygiene” was used instead). It has also become common to call this particular policy a case of “euthanasia” which is completely dishonest BS, of course. Another aspect of the Nazi policy of mandatory sterilization was that it specifically targeted people with black ancestry, which is not something that eugenics as such entailed in any other nation, as far as I know.
For the Nazis, the individual was completely subordinated to the Volk. The victims of T4 were considered genetically inferior, so they would not give birth of the Germans of tomorrow, and also unable to work for the present needs of their Volk, so for the Nazis they served no purpose, and were thus killed.
To be considered a useless mouth to feed, being disabled was not enough. After all, a woman who has lost a leg in an accident can still serve her people and fatherland by giving birth to a lot of soldiers and soldier-birthers. Only being disabled because of a genetic disease was worthy of death by CO poisoning in a van, because in that case she might contaminate the gene pool of the next generation.
The difference between eugenics and Rassenhygiene seems like a particularly fine hair to split.
Eugenics is basically: "Not all genetic variants are equally valuable and we should strive to increase the quality of our gene pool."
Rassenhygiene is: "The gene pool (not that they had the word, but certainly an equivalent concept) of our noble Volk is under assault from both without and within. Other, lesser races try to contaminate our noble bloodlines with their inferior heritage, and undesirable traits manifest themselves sometimes even within pure-blooded families. Like dog breeders, we must therefore prevent our women from coupling with inferior men and cull anyone whose blood would weaken the German Volk no matter their heritage."
If this does not convince you, consider the positive eugenics the Nazis engaged in. Lebensborn was the program led by Himmler himself. This included finding racially superior children among the Untermenschen in the occupied territories, which were then kidnapped and Germanized (or gassed, if they the SS doctors thought they had genetic problems or were not racially valuable enough to contribute to the Volk).
So I am with @self_made_human here, Nazi Germany went all-in on both positive and negative eugenics, albeit with a clear flavor of racial purity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link