Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Eugenics in Scandinavia prior to WWII

  1. #11
    Senior Member Luh_Windan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 8th, 2006 @ 10:27 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    82
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Argonaut
    National Socialism is so 'shocking' only because it lost the war and because it is a eugenic system.Germany did not start the war, or if it did, it was legitmate to be willing to unite all German speaking people, who are one antion, in one nation. There is no reason why Germandom should be divided, except that it is convenient for British hegemony and jingoism. Fear of Germany has been for too long a time the only motivation of European countries; and fear is no good adviser.
    This thread is about eugenic systems in countries besides Germany. Most Western nations had these well before the Germans did, notably the Americans. Eugenics in general is not what shocked people about the conduct of the National Socialists.

    Your blather about British hegemony suggests your thoughts are clouded. And there is a gulf between simply uniting Germans and the policy of the third reich.

    I am ware of this distinction, but you should think more carefullyt of the consequences of legal equality, and you will see that they lead naturally to the philosophy of an ontological equality among all men, a tendency that makes leftist ideas dominant in all spheres of public life.
    I don't agree with that, but if you think you can prove that western democracies would have taken a turn from eugenic policy under normal circumstances from the 1930s onward, go ahead and make your case.

    Eugenics was acceptable in the US, becuase for bieng a Republic it nonetheless set up slavery for some time, which is contrrary to leagl equality among men. So the question is asked whether the founding fathers actually intended the American Republic to be a democracy in the contempoirary sens of that term.
    Did you bother reading this thread at all? Norway and Sweden are constitutional monarchies and haven't enslaved any peoples recently.

  2. #12
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 9th, 2005 @ 10:51 PM
    Location
    Neuschwabenland
    Posts
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    Are you paying attention? This thread is about eugenic systems in countries besides Germany. Most Western nations had these well before the Germans did, notably the Americans. Eugenics in general is not what shocked people about the conduct of the National Socialists.
    This thread, as you said earlier - if you can pay attention to your own words - is also trying to make the case that National Socialism is responsible for eugenics' being given up in these countries. As this belongs to the general scapegoating of National Socialism, it had to be objected.


    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    I don't agree with that, but if you think you can prove that western democracies would have taken a turn from eugenic policy under normal circumstances from the 1930s onward, go ahead and make your case.
    The excerpts posted say, if you pay attention, that Norway amended its law in 1977; this is more than 30 years after the end of WWII. So if one wants to make the case that NS is responsible for the end of eugenics, then one has to explain why it lasted so long after NS died as a regime.

    The same is true with Sweden, which continued to implement eugenics througout the 70's and 80's.

    I have no case to make, since the truth is that Scandinvian countries did not react to NS eugenics as you claim, with Caligula, namely that they stopped all eugenics because of the 'horrible' Nazi policies. It is too stupid an idea, in fact.

    As to the US, if I remember well, they recanted their eugenics laws before the war. So here again, the idea does not hold. It is a vain attack.


    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    Did you bother reading this thread at all? Norway and Sweden are constitutional monarchies and haven't enslaved any peoples recently.
    Norway and Sweden are statistically Aryan countries that used to behave as normal fit Aryans. As their constitutional monarchies - aligning themselves on the world order that could easily impose itself everywhere after the military defeat of Germany - will continue to advocate race-mixing, multi-culturalism, and the mongrelized beauty of the underman, eugenics will become more and more a repellent symbol.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Luh_Windan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 8th, 2006 @ 10:27 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    82
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Argonaut
    This thread, as you said earlier - if you can pay attention to your own words - is also trying to make the case that National Socialism is responsible for eugenics' being given up in these countries. As this belongs to the general scapegoating of National Socialism, it had to be objected.
    No, rather the conduct of the national socialists during the war. 'The horrors of National Socialism' (the words of the OP, not mine) refer to actions in the historiographical sense, not necessarily all of the principles or the potential of the individuals involved abstractly. You are clouding the issue.

    The excerpts posted say, if you pay attention, that Norway amended its law in 1977; this is more than 30 years after the end of WWII. So if one wants to make the case that NS is responsible for the end of eugenics, then one has to explain why it lasted so long after NS died as a regime.

    The same is true with Sweden, which continued to implement eugenics througout the 70's and 80's.

    I have no case to make, since the truth is that Scandinvian countries did not react to NS eugenics as you claim, with Caligula, namely that they stopped all eugenics because of the 'horrible' Nazi policies. It is too stupid an idea, in fact.
    The claim is not that national socialism forced nations to rescind their eugenics policies immediately, but, as I stated, that the memory born from the war caused people to soberly reevaluate what is safe and peaceful public policy. That is a process. It doesn't follow that because people were shocked by national socialist conduct that they immediately revise their institutions against that standard, and noone has suggested so. Nor is the claim that national socialism was the sole reason for the diminishment, though key factor it was. I don't think it's at all a stretch that eugenics programs continued following the war, and as I have already said, eugenics is not central to what was immediately shocking about the third reich.

    As far as democracy, I asked you to make a case that eugenics and racialism would have followed a similar decline following the war by virtue of its supposed conduciveness to ontological equality, without the war experience.

    As to the US, if I remember well, they recanted their eugenics laws before the war. So here again, the idea does not hold. It is a vain attack.
    I'm not sure what you're referring to re: USA, most states abandoned their programs in the years following the war with a few notables carrying out small-scale programs into the 60's, notably North Carolina. The SCOTUS struck down a few laws requiring sterilisation of criminals and related, but these were primarily matters of logic and not indictments of the principles of eugenics. I'm sure there were some negative reactions in light of the corruption of the Teutonist school of anthropology and the mystifying of genetics by the Germans prior and during the war, but by and large it seems the decline did not start until the years following, when the reality was absorbed that these theories had actually legitimised war.

    Norway and Sweden are statistically Aryan countries that used to behave as normal fit Aryans. As their constitutional monarchies - aligning themselves on the world order that could easily impose itself everywhere after the military defeat of Germany - will continue to advocate race-mixing, multi-culturalism, and the mongrelized beauty of the underman, eugenics will become more and more a repellent symbol.
    ok

  4. #14
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 9th, 2005 @ 10:51 PM
    Location
    Neuschwabenland
    Posts
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    No, rather the conduct of the national socialists during the war. 'The horrors of National Socialism' (the words of the OP, not mine) refer to actions in the historiographical sense, not necessarily all of the principles or the potential of the individuals involved abstractly. You are clouding the issue.
    I don't think I am. I just feel it is my duty to reestablish some sort of objectivity in debates in which National Socialism is dealt with. When we are dealing with NS, even the most serious scholars (an association of words I have come to find highly dubious, by the way) believe they are entitled to utter the less grounded emphatic idiocies, with no respect for facts whatsoever. They know that nobody in the official world, which is the only one they care for, will put the blame on them for that.

    So there you come with the usual scapegoating, with vague accusations on the Germans' behaviour during the war. But let me put it clearly: I don't know what you are talking about. I believe Germans displayed a far better disciplined and moral conduct during the war. How such a moral and dignified behavior could cause horror among the Western nations?


    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    The claim is not that national socialism forced nations to rescind their eugenics policies immediately, but, as I stated, that the memory born from the war caused people to soberly reevaluate what is safe and peaceful public policy. That is a process. It doesn't follow that because people were shocked by national socialist conduct that they immediately revise their institutions against that standard, and noone has suggested so. Nor is the claim that national socialism was the sole reason for the diminishment, though key factor it was. I don't think it's at all a stretch that eugenics programs continued following the war, and as I have already said, eugenics is not central to what was immediately shocking about the third reich.
    Is this memory based on facts or rather on mere figments of the imagination? And if it is based on the latter, do you agree that you cannot legitimately condemn NS as a 'key factor' for the diminishment of eugenics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    As far as democracy, I asked you to make a case that eugenics and racialism would have followed a similar decline following the war by virtue of its supposed conduciveness to ontological equality, without the war experience.
    Just look at how it is easy for a leftist to say that his right-wing opponent is a 'fascist,' i.e. an enemy of democracy. And how the right-wing gentleman feels embarrassed about this, and wastes all his time trying to justify himself. Do you see what I mean? This pattern occurs in all Western democracies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Luh_Windan
    I'm not sure what you're referring to re: USA, most states abandoned their programs in the years following the war with a few notables carrying out small-scale programs into the 60's, notably North Carolina. The SCOTUS struck down a few laws requiring sterilisation of criminals and related, but these were primarily matters of logic and not indictments of the principles of eugenics. I'm sure there were some negative reactions in light of the corruption of the Teutonist school of anthropology and the mystifying of genetics by the Germans prior and during the war, but by and large it seems the decline did not start until the years following, when the reality was absorbed that these theories had actually legitimised war.
    Thank you for the precision. My memory was not correct on this point, if you are true.

    Again, when you are talking of 'corruption of the Teutonic school of anthropology,' of 'mystifying of genetics by the Germans'... you are building your ideas on the sand, or on the mud, because all this rethoric is partisan warfare, and not objective talk. The facts are just not fitting this view.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Friday, April 25th, 2008, 02:36 AM
  2. German Stereotypes in British Magazines prior to WWI
    By Loftor in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 08:49 AM
  3. Eugenics Websites
    By Scientist in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, July 15th, 2007, 07:28 PM
  4. Eugenics in Russia
    By goldgrube in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Friday, January 6th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •