Textbook Discussion of Eugenics
by MikeGeneI came across an old textbook entitled, The Principles of Heredity. It was written by geneticist Laurence H. Snyder and published in 1935 (Boston, New York [etc.] D.C. Heath and company). The book was intended as a text for "the beginning student of heredity." The textbook has a chapter on Eugenics that provides us a glimpse of one portion of our American and scientific history. Given that this material was being taught to students, I've transcribed this chapter and offer it merely as a service for those interested in the history of eugenics.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
My own university (Cornell) not only had eugenics courses during the 1920s and 30s, they were required for students in the College of Agriculture. And the textbooks they used were horrifically racist and elitist, not to mention logically incoherent. One of the students in Will Provine and my evolution course wrote a detailed history of Cornell's involvement with eugenics, an essay for which he was awarded the first annual Tallman Prize (an award given in honor of William Provine to the best research paper submitted in our evolution course at Cornell).
Now we don't teach eugenics, and the subject is only mentioned in an historical context, as an example of how good science can be perverted in the service of bad policy. What happened between 1930 and today to bring about this dramatic change? I leave that as an exercise for the reader (hint: it has nothing to do with the progress of the science of evolutionary biology).
P.S. If anyone is interested in reading the prize-winning essay on the history of eugenics at Cornell, you can email me at adm6 atsign cornell dot edu and I will send you a pdf of the paper.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 12:27 am
I am apparently is a trouble making mood tonight…
Are laws forbidding marriage between siblings a form of eugenics?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 24, 2008 @ 12:27 am
April 24th, 2008 at 2:04 am
The US was big on eugenics at one point. But then again the US is big on Christianity too, so obviously we're willing to believe nearly anything. It just goes to show that the popularity of a viewpoint does not indicate the merit of that viewpoint.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 24, 2008 @ 2:04 am
April 24th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Since Expelled came out it's become really popular for pro-ID bloggers to make arguments for the link between Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution by natural selection, eugenics, and Hitler. Here's why these arguments are completely fallacious.
In order for evolution by natural selection to be natural it has to proceed sans deliberately designed human intervention. With deliberately designed human intervention the process becomes, in the words of Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, intelligent design. Therefore, any eugenics program, including Hitler's Final Solution, is a program of intelligent design and a misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection. Obviously Darwin and his theory cannot be blamed for the actions of people who misinterpreted him.
There is another point to be made which is Hitler had to have gotten his ideas of Jewish inferiority from somewhere and it couldn't have been Darwin. From where did his anti-Antisemitism come? A book? Yes. "On The Origin Of Species" Nope. There was another book present at the Nazi rallies which doesn't need a special misinterpretation to link it with th programs of the Holocaust. What's the title? "On the Jews and Their Lies" The author? Martin Luther.
Comment by AaronSTL — April 24, 2008 @ 8:49 am
April 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
That doesn't explain why hundreds of polish priests were killed, or why the first of Hitler's victims were were children with physical and developmental disabilities.
Comment by Ben Z — April 24, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
My bet is on religion.
Comment by Ben Z — April 24, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Hi Ben,
Are these the Polish priests you were talking about?
link
If you have a link referencing the children, I would be interested in seeing it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 24, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Here is something I ran across where breeding of humans and animals were equated…
This was written by a historian named Plutarch in his description of the foundations of the Spartan culture in his Lycurgus, The Father of Sparta
Plutarch wrote this 17 centuries before Darwin was born.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 25, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Here is another interesting link.
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
And another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
And another one (on the subject of Raevmo's last link, whom we learned about in his first):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojal...
Since Hitler's program wasn't only about Jews, and didn't even start with them, and on the subject of this thread (not on the fallacy of Hitler's Christianity):
Comment by Pez — April 25, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hi Pez,
As I indicated earlier, finding authorative sources on the foundations of Nazism arguing multiple ways isn't hard as both you and Raevmo have demonstrated.
I happen to think one gets a clearer picture by dealing with original material.
For example, here is what the dictator in question had to say about a model he intended to emulate…
"If man wants to limit the number of births on his own, without producing the terrible consequences which arise from birth control, he must give the number of births free rein but cut down on the number of those remaining alive. At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Folkish State. The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses." link page 11
In order to be respectful of being topical, couldn't Haeckel's Eugenics program be thought of a simply a modernization of a very old, well known concept? A kind of a renaissance, if you will.
People have no problem crediting the Greeks with a lot of things like democracy, why is it so difficult to credit and/or blame them for eugenics?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 25, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Hi TP,
That's why you have to think independently and logically about such things. Draw the conclusions demanded by the evidence and follow the logic.
I don't really think of NoBeliefs (or Wiki, for that matter) as authoritative, however.
Especially when it tries to trounce the 'Hitler was not a Christian "myth"' with such things as his public speeches. He did not belief in a personal God, a Divine Christ, miracles, the teachings of the New Testament, etc. When his SS guard and valet prepared a dossier on his life they wrote of his last days preparing for his suicide, his civil marriage to Eva Braun, his testing poison on his dog, the party he had in the bunker, etc. No mention of a priest, of last rites, of prayer for his soul, of Bible reading, etc. Doesn't sound like a Christian to me. Just because there is a no-true-Scotsman fallacy doesn't mean that some people aren't Scots.
Like the original materials of the people who recorded his daily conversations and who wrote their first-hand observations?
Or just the original materials found in the propaganda of a demagogue?
Blame, blame, blame, blame, blame. What's with you guys?
The point on Darwin and Hitler is that Darwin influenced Hitler. You said so yourself, this is the historical question. This is a historical fact and its denial is silly.
The point of this thread in particular is the teaching and popularizing of eugenics as scientific knowledge in the US. Why do you guys keep reducing it to attempted character assassination, demonization and blame?
Sure, animal husbandry and human breeding is an old idea - one that received scientific legitimacy in the 19th century.
Indeed, if that's your defence then we can also acknowledge that Darwin did not discover, natural selection, evolution, or common descent. Evolution and common descent, and especially the metaphysical addendum that it was all "natural" and "spontaneous", are philosophical conclusions which long predated Darwin and never were the result of empirical investigation. What Darwin did was frame the argument in such a way as to give it scientific credibilities and make it palatable. In fact, given the reception of popular books on the subject, he was well aware that making it a scientifically acceptable idea was chief among his duties. Or, for Dawkins, to make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Wallace had all the same evidence and came to the same scientific conclusions without the metaphysical finding.
Once again, Haeckel became a biologist because of Darwin. His role was as a popularizer of Darwinian science in Germany. He was recognized by Darwin and Huxley for doing just this. They thought him very bold but did not argue that he was misrepresenting the logical train of Darwinian thought.
As seen above on the Gobineau link - Haeckel used Darwin to give the idea scientific support. Hitler drew on this scientific support and claimed repeatedly that his movement was founded on modern scientific truths.
Darwin>Hitler or Darwin>Haeckel>Hitler, or Greeks>Malthus>Darwin>Haeckel>Hitler, it doesn't matter. The historic case you said you were addressing is established.
Here's a question for an independent thinker.
Why do scientists and science defenders find it necessary to show that Hitler was a Christian and to defend Darwin against the case of history?
Why do they resort to such poor reasoning and shoddy sources to do so?
Answer - they aren't here because of science and its defence.
Comment by Pez — April 25, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Speaking of which:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2...
Comment by Pez — April 25, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
I don't know about you, but I don't blame the Spartans, Darwin or Martin Luther for Hilter's actions in any way. None of them bare any responsibility whatsoever even though Hitler did make favorable mentions of them (except for Darwin, of course, Hitler never acknowledged even knowing his name).
Ok, how does this work?
In 1924, Hitler was sitting in prison dictating Mein Kampf to Rudolf Hess. They were the leaders of a political party that just got its butt kicked and was banned in Germany.
As Hitler tells of his struggles, he writes…
"Such was my general attitude at the time when I first entered those sacred and contentious halls. For me they were sacred only because of the radiant beauty of that majestic edifice. A Greek wonder on German soil."
"What is known as Gymnasium (Grammar School) to-day is a positive insult to the Greek institution. Our system of education entirely loses sight of the fact that in the long run a healthy mind can exist only in a healthy body. This statement, with few exceptions, applies particularly to the broad masses of the nation."
"When, in the course of centuries, such a man appears who is blessed with success then, towards the end of his days, he may have a faint prevision of his future fame. But such great men are only the Marathon runners of history. The laurels of contemporary fame are only for the brow of the dying hero."
"We must not forget, particularly in our day, that for one such Ephialtes there are a thousand whose hearts bleed in sympathy with their people during these years of misfortune and who, together with the best of our nation, yearn for the hour when fortune will smile on us again."
Note: Ephialtes was the Spartan traitor at the Battle of Thermopylae
Then after Hitler and Hess get out of prison, the Nazi party struggled for existence during what was eventually called the "Wilderness Years". Hitler continued to write…
"It is the Aryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a few decades the whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated a culture and called such a culture its own, whereas the basis of that culture was the Greek mind and Teutonic skill as we know it."
"It is therefore outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as barbarians who had no civilization. They never have been such. But the severity of the climate that prevailed in the northern regions which they inhabited imposed conditions of life which hampered a free development of their creative faculties. If they had come to the fairer climate of the South, with no previous culture whatsoever, and if they acquired the necessary human material - that is to say, men of an inferior race to serve them - as working implements, the cultural faculty dormant in them would have splendidly blossomed forth, as happened in the case of the Greeks, for example."
"In the bitter struggle which decides the destiny of man it is very rare that an individual has succumbed because he lacked learning. Those who fail are they who try to ignore these consequences and are too faint-hearted about putting them into effect. There must be a certain balance between mind and body. An ill-kept body is not made a more beautiful sight by the indwelling of a radiant spirit. We should not be acting justly if we were to bestow the highest intellectual training on those who are physically deformed and crippled, who lack decision and are weak-willed and cowardly. What has made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit."
"Roman history, along general lines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our own time but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic culture should be preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty. The differences between the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as the German forms part of it."
Later,the Nazi party was no longer banned, but it could only muster 2.6% of the vote. Hitler was recognized as a great orator, but that could only carry the Nazi party so far.
It was at this time Hitler wrote the sequel to Mein Kampf, Zweites Buch, he kept it hidden from the public. Presumably it held the secrets to what he really believed and was planning…
"At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Folkish State."
How is this supposed to work? Was Hitler such an evil genius that even though, at the time, eugenics wasn't something he needed to hide he carefully avoided mentioning it, or any of the people involved? Was he cleverly confounding future historians with his claims of being a good student of history and idolizing the first Folkish State?
I suggest Hitler was more interested in history than science.
I suggest Hitler was more influenced by history than by science.
In case you want to suggest that the evil genius Hitler was only pretending to be telling his actual secret beliefs and plans, here is the ending…
"With the victory of Fascism in Italy, the Italian Folk has triumphed. Even if the Jew is compelled to try to adjust himself to Fascism in Italy today, his attitude toward Fascism outside Italy nevertheless reveals his inner view of it. Only her own national interest is decisive and determining for Italy's fate, since the memorable day when the Fascist legions marched on Rome.
For this reason also no State is better suited than Italy as an ally for Germany. It is consonant only with the bottomless stupidity and dissembling baseness of our so called Folkish representatives that they reject the only State that today is ruled along national lines, and as authentic German Folkish elements they prefer to enter a world coalition with Jews. It is fortunate that the time of these fools is played out in Germany. Thus the German Folkish concept is released from the embrace of these creatures, as petty as they are pitiful. It will infinitely gain thereby."
Apologies to Mike for going off topic. However, this is somewhat consistent with my suggestion that eugenics was a modernization of an old concept. Especially as conceived by Hitler.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 25, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Hi TP,
No need to apologize, as there is no off topic in this thread. I just went to the trouble of typing up that chapter a couple of years ago and thought that with all the current debate about this issue, the chapter might be of interest to some.
Comment by MikeGene — April 25, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Hi TP,
This Hitler-as-historian theses is the weakest yet. In your own quotes Hitler emphasizes the term "Aryan". This didn't come from Sparta, but from popular German thinkers, significant among them, Haeckel. In his many, many popular books he aimed to unify the German people, demonstrate their superiority. He wrote of the Nordic race of Aryans with their blue eyes and blond hair. The Hitlerian themes do not come from Sparta, but from Haeckel and other evolution popularizers. Neither is there anything in his mention of Sparta that justifies Hitler's rooted belief in racial inequality and especially the inferiority of Jews - but there was in Haeckel and the science of the day.
Haeckel's books were best-sellers, sold many millions of copies and were well-known throughout Germany. In them he, like his contemporaries, wrote of Sparta and its mythological eugenics.
To postulate that Hitler independently stumbled upon this history of Sparta and from it drew his idea of eugenics rather than from the intellectual climate of his own countrymen is ludicrous. We've already seen his words mirror Haeckel's on this subject as well as on many others. The same goes for his use of the terms "struggle for existence" and other popular Darwinist phrases which he did not find in Plato's history.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/th...
History v. Science?
http://www.rickmcgrath.com/jgb...
You forget everything we've already discussed to cling to this thin thread, including the fact that Hitler was writing fan letters to the American eugenicists (Dariwnian biologists, in large part, working from Galton's theories) that he read while dictating Mein Kampf.
Not following you. Are you still clinging to the idea that Hitler wasn't a proponent of eugenics? What's the point of saying he didn't mention it here? He's using Sparta as further justification for his ideas. But he got those ideas and that justification not by poring over history books but by reading men such as Haeckel and his followers. He drew inspiration from the American scientific eugenics movement. Your monologues on the history of Hitler's writings are interesting, but aside from trying to convey the idea that you know the subject they are doing nothing to support your story.
And yes, he was but half-educated and was definitely given to trying to present himself as being more intellectual and better read than he was.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 1:56 am
April 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am
But wait, were you contending that Hitler did not write of eugenics, race, and science?
In Zweites Buch, at your reference, Hitler says this:
[link edited out to bypass moderation]
Here we have everything you are arguing against. Hitler's eugenics, his not hiding, his use of science, the inspiration of the American eugenics. You should read your own sources, as you admonish others when challenging their allegiance to 'group-think'.
Thanks for repeatedly forwarding this reference. It's quite helpful.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 1:56 am
April 26th, 2008 at 2:00 am
A reading of your reference to Hitler's second book awaits moderation.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 2:00 am
April 26th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Pez wrote:
My question is, why is there the deification of Darwin by some people? I understand Darwin coffee mugs and tee shirts, but deification? Sainthood? I don't understand the cult of personality. No one that I know that's been writing on any of the threads (that have been dealing with eugenics) blames Darwin for Nazism or the holocaust. My point is that people took his ideas (legitimate scientific ideas) twisted and perverted them. That is not Darwin's fault; it's their fault!
It's true that one of the first mention of eugenics was made by Plato is his Republic. But, how was this idea revived in modern in modern times? I think Pez has done a good job tracing out some of those links. (By the way great job, Pez! But bare with me it's going to take some time to digest it all.) I think it can be clearly shown that Darwin was one of the thinkers that helped revive this idea.
One of my favorite founding fathers is Thomas Jefferson. In recent years it has been discovered that Jefferson had some character flaws; for example, he had slaves and may have fathered some children by one of them. That doesn't diminish Jefferson's stature in my eyes. He's still my hero. But, I have to accept that he was a flawed and fallible human being. Why should it be any different for Darwin? But ironically no one has even talked about his character flaws (did he have any?) but only about how his idea's were misused and abused.
This is why, in my mind, there is distinction between Darwin and Darwinism. Darwin is a person; Darwinism a flawed philosophical inference based on Darwin's theory and writings. I find it ironic that people who preach NOMA so passionately can't make this distinction.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 26, 2008 @ 10:04 am
April 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Who deifies Darwin?
Darwin was one of the greatest scientists in history. Even without the Theory of Evolution, he would be considered one of the most important biologists of his age. Plus his extraordinary scientific circumnavigation of the globe lends an air of adventure to his life story. He clearly loved his family, and had a strong humanitarian impulse.
Darwin was quite liberal for his day, but a racist by modern standards. Darwin was trying to explain a very diverse body of science, so he relied on the findings of specialists in many other scientific fields for much of his data, causing him to overstate the differences between various human races. He introduced a flawed Lamarckian theory of genetics, Pangenesis, based on far too little data. He was weak in mathematics. He often overworked. During his years studying Cirripedia, he left barnacles scattered in odd places throughout the house"”much to Mrs. Darwin's consternation.
And Darwin struck a dog out of simple cruelty when he was young (though it affected him so much that he wrote about it with great regret years later).
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2008 @ 10:51 am
April 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
mod help please. Thanks!
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2008 @ 10:55 am
April 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Hi Pez,
Thank you again for your efforts. I am taking them as being honestly felt.
However, you surprised me with your…
I have been suggesting Hitler was more influenced by history, specifically Greek history, than science (Darwinism) for about a week now.
Note, I suggest Hitler CLAIMED to be a good student of history. That is different than the suggestion he was a good historian. In any case, I think most people would agree Hitler wasn't a scientist.
From Mein Kampf….
"History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants - who mainly belonged to the Latin races - mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood. In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator.
Man's effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.
Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even Nature."
There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewish babble and end up by imagining that somehow they themselves are the conquerors of Nature. And yet their only weapon is just a mere idea, and a very preposterous idea into the bargain; because if one accepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine the existence of the world."
This quote provides insight into Hitler's views concerning history, science and religion.
Aryan adj.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English LanguageWord History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *rya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian rn (ahr), "(Land) of the Iranians," from the genitive plural of r, "Iranian"). The variant *rya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, "honor," and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like "the honorable people." (This theory has since been called into question.)
Hitler's definition of Aryan appears to be based on the history of the strong military might of the Greek and Romans with a presumption of divine intervention.
"Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number, subjugated foreign peoples and, stimulated by the conditions of life which their new country offered them (fertility, the nature of the climate, etc.), and profiting also by the abundance of manual labour furnished them by the inferior race, they developed intellectual and organizing faculties which had hitherto been dormant in these conquering tribes.
…
But finally the conquering race offended against the principles which they first had observed, namely, the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and they began to intermingle with the subjugated people.
Thus they put an end to their own separate existence; for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by the expulsion of the guilty parties.
After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of those former masters may then be found in a lighter tint of the skin which the Aryan blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and in a fossilized culture of which those Aryans had been the original creators."
I suggest it is apparent that Hitler considered Sparta, "first Folkish State", the ideal Aryan state…
"What has made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit."
I may well be wrong, but it is my understanding that Haeckel believed the "Aryan Race" was of Nordic origins that, through environmental adversity, was on the fast track of evolving INTO a super race. Whereas, Hitler felt it "…is therefore outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as barbarians who had no civilization. They never have been such. But the severity of the climate that prevailed in the northern regions which they inhabited imposed conditions of life which hampered a free development of their creative faculties." Hitler was seeking to return to the racial purity if old, Haeckel wanted to manipulate the evolution of a future race.
Also, wouldn't you agree that Haeckel's monism was in direct opposition to Hitler's dualist description of the "Greek ideal" and his multiple references to god, including…
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is not fought to a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years hence. Little of God's image will be left in human nature, except to mock the Creator.
"[The Mixture of races] brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."
"On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth.
To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth. Out of a dead mechanism which claims to be an end in itself a living organism shall arise which has to serve one purpose exclusively: and that, indeed, a purpose which belongs to a higher order of ideas."
"And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image."
"The bourgeois mind does not realize that it is a sin against the will of the eternal Creator to allow hundreds of thousands of highly gifted people to remain floundering in the swamp of proletarian misery while Hottentots and Zulus are drilled to fill positions in the intellectual professions."
These diametrically opposing positions of Hitler and Haeckel may make sense of why Haeckel's writings were banned by the Nazis.
Note, the above numerous quotes were from the search of "Creator". A similar number of hits exist for the "Lord" and even more appear for "God" and "Christ".
About now, I would expect an appeal to Hitler's evil genius suggesting this "propaganda" was intentionally misleading. Remember, this writings occurred while the Nazi party couldn't muster enough votes to even challenge the very minority holdings of German's communist party.
So how is this supposed to work? Hitler didn't go to college. He was an average to below average student in secondary school. Are you suggesting that his hearing the word "Aryan" that in 1924 he was more influenced by the word's scientific connotations than of his feelings of patriotic disgrace for losing World War I?
Hitler blamed the inferior races. He idolized how the Spartans subjugated the Helots. This is all clear by reading his books and listening to his speeches.
Your other comment showed up from moderation late. It looks interesting, I will reply to it in a separate comment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hi Pez,
At the risk of too much repetition I want to sincerely thank you once again for providing counter arguments. People tend to get confused if I try to present both sides of a controversy. I find it a lot easier and more enjoyable to argue with a worthy debate opponent.
You wrote…
I tried to be careful in only contending that Hitler did not mention Darwin, Haeckel or Davenport by name. I have also suggest the language Hitler used was applicable to the eugenics practiced by Spartans.
You wrote…
I repeatedly provide links for the exact purpose you engaged in, encourage opposing arguments.
As I had indicated earlier, I hadn't found much use of looking into the gory details of Hitler's motivations. I generally have considered it a sign of desperation when debaters attempt to stain their opposition with a Nazi brush. I still do.
Therefore I hadn't needed to get into the details of Zweites Buch until now. (Note: I think this link is more user friendly than the other one).
Allow me to start with your last quote first and in context…
"That this danger threatens all Europe has, after all, already been perceived by some today….
This will be the end of the life of a Folk whose history has been two thousand years of world history.
This fate will no longer be changed with stupid national bourgeois phrases whose practical senselessness and worthlessness must already have been proved by the success of development up to now. Only a new reformation movement, which sets a conscious knowledge against racial thoughtlessness and draws all the conclusions from this knowledge, can still snatch our Folk back from this abyss.
It will be the task of the National Socialist Movement to carry over into a policy applied in practice the knowledge and scientific insights of race theory, either already existing or in the course of development, as well as the world history clarified through it.
Since today Germany's economic fate vis-Ã -vis America is in fact also the fate of other nations in Europe, there is again a movement of credulous followers, especially among our Folk, who want to oppose a European union to the American Union in order thereby to prevent a threatening world hegemony of the North American continent."[emphases mine]
Even in Mein Kampf, Hilter praised the technology and science of "Folk" that have existed for a long time ("two thousand years"). I agree that Hitler felt his views of God's design in nature was scientifically supportable.
Your quote showing that if Hitler was a creationist, he wasn't a YEC occured in the first Chapter titled War and Peace which started with…
"Politics is history in the making. History itself is the presentation of the course of a Folk's struggle for existence. I deliberately use the phrase struggle for existence here because, in truth, that struggle for daily bread, equally in peace and war, is an eternal battle against thousands upon thousands of resistances, just as life itself is an eternal struggle against death.
…
Countless are the species of all the Earth's organisms, unlimited at any moment in individuals is their instinct for self preservation as well as the longing for continuance, yet the space in which the whole life process takes place is limited. The struggle for existence and continuance in life waged by billions upon billions of organisms takes place on the surface of an exactly measured sphere.
The compulsion to engage in the struggle for existence lies in the limitation of the living space; but in the life struggle for this living space lies also the basis for evolution
In the times before man, world history was primarily a presentation of geological events: the struggle of natural forces with one another, the creation of an inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of water from land, the formation of mountains, of plains, and of the seas.
This is the world history of this time. Later, with the emergence of organic life, man's interest concentrated on the process of becoming and the passing away of its thousandfold forms. And only very late did man finally become visible to himself, and thus by the concept of world history he began to understand first and foremost only the history of his own becoming, that is, the presentation of his own evolution. This evolution is characterised by an eternal struggle of men against beasts and against men themselves. From the invisible confusion of the organisms there finally emerged formations: Clans, Tribes, Folks, States. The description of their origins and their passing away is but the representation of an eternal struggle for existence."
This is consistent with the concept that Hitler's philosophy was formed from an idolization of Roman and Greek history as demonstrated in 1924 that was later modified to include some aspects of Theistic Evolution in Hitler's.
I understand that Natural Selection wasn't overly unique to Darwin. I understand a creationist, Edward Blyth, had posited some base evolutionary theory. For Origin of Species…
"Having kept nearly all the English breeds of the fowl alive, having bred and crossed them, and examined their skeletons, it appears to me almost certain that all are the descendants of the wild Indian fowl, Gallus bankiva; and this is the conclusion of Mr. Blyth, and of others who have studied this bird in India. In regard to ducks and rabbits, some breeds of which differ much from each other, the evidence is clear that they are all descended from the common duck and wild rabbit." link
Basic evolution is an observable fact. It was an observable fact in 800 BC, it was an observable fact throughout history by religous monks and scientists alike. It was even observable by dictators too.
What I think was Darwin's unique contribution to science was the idea that ALL species evolved from a few or single organism. The closing of Origin of Species…
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
I still suggest Hitler was more interested in history than science.
I still suggest Hitler was more influenced by history than science.
I am still of the opinion that even if Darwin hadn't existed Hitler would have still risen to power on a platform of returning the glory of previous Folkish states to a people humiliated after losing World War I and broken by the Great Depression.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Zachriel,
Well, perhaps saying that people deify and revere Darwin is hyperbole, but only a little bit, IMO. My concern is not that people celebrate Darwin but how they celebrate him. For example, at the 1959 Darwin Centennial (100 years earlier the, Origin of Species, had been published) Julian Huxley the grandson of Thomas Huxley (who was nicknamed Darwin's Bulldog) gave the key-note address what has become known as his "secular sermon."
He told the audience: "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed."
So do we celebrate Darwin for science or is it atheism? Has the theory of evolution proven that an eternally existing transcendent creator does not exist? Was Darwin himself an atheist? To believe in evolution do you need to be an atheist?
As I said on another thread there is no doubt that Darwin was an agnostic and became increasingly so with age. Indeed, later in life he was very public about his theological views. For example in his autobiography he wrote:
Notice how Darwin derives his theological views from his science. Taking his argument to its logical conclusion leads to the belief that there is no God of any kind. So, what are modern day Darwinists pushing? Darwin's science, or his beliefs? Or, are they interconnected?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
I think what we see in the quote you've provided is 'The problem of evil' redux. A question which existed long before Darwin, and which evolutionary theory merely extended to origins.
Notice that Darwin is not saying that God could not create through evolutionary processes. He's attacking the notion that any God (as conceived by Christians, at least) would. But if you have an argument for why God would do exactly that, his argument falls apart. Indeed, it takes damage for other reasons (Darwin's example of a wasp feeding off its insect prey while said prey is still alive is legendary. Less legendary is the question of insects' capacities to feel pain.)
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
These are the usual definitions:
Darwin was not an atheist. He was a believer when he wrote Origin of Species, and an agnostic later in life. You quoted,
Darwin is writing this as an individual expressing his personal views, not as a theologian or scientist. But this does not represent his complete thought. Read a bit further.
So, we can see that his religious beliefs are separate from his scientific ones, and that his Theory of Evolution is seen consistent with belief or nonbelief or disbelief.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Yes, as Darwin points out.
But you failed to provide such an argument.
Isaiah 55:8-9: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
The argument works just as well with a cat playing with and slowly killing a mouse or children dying of disease. The Theory of Evolution provides quite adequate scientific explanations for these natural events.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for the compliments and the continued exchange. I'm glad you appreciate my use of references and citations but I must warn you I'll probably be easing off them now as just about everything relevant has been referenced already.
I know you've been mentioning Sparta for some time. What I am saying is that the thesis that Hitler got his references to Sparta (or Aryanism) from a study of history is your weakest line of reasoning yet.
His claim isn't the point. His actual influence is. And it was not the actual history of Sparta but the biological theory of Darwin as presented to him directly and through its popularizers. These popularizers also provided him "Sparta" and "Aryan".
You next cite Mein Kampf as an example of Hitler's historical case and show throughout his claims to scientific knowledge of the Natural Laws (as you say at the end.)
But, as I showed above, his ideas of history were dependent upon his ideas of biology.
Not really. As you show in your first Hitler quote, his definition of Aryan is based upon the supposed racial superiority. He also thought the Aryans were always of lighter skin and bequeathed it upon the people within whom they interbred. More evidence of Hitler's actual source of the word and his historical ignorance.
I agree that Haeckel and the Nazis, including, perhaps, Hitler had religious differences. I'm not about to chase yet another trail down to try to figure out exactly why he was banned as a "primitive Darwinist". The fact that Hitler lied about his religious beliefs repeatedly, and was a monist of at least a somewhat Haeckelian stripe leaves me without a firm opinion on this matter at the moment.
You quote Hitler on "the Lord" however, and he believed in no Lord. He believed in the dominion of the natural laws, not a personal being.
Funny you should say that. Here's what I wrote and shelved on that issue with regards to The Secret Book last night:
Why did he also hide his love for God and Jesus Christ, this Catholic Hitler, in this primary source? He never mentioned Jesus once and only used the word "God" in connection with and in criticism of the stultifying bourgeois battle-cry and movement centred around the slogan "God Punish England".
Note that a search of "Lord" and "Creator" will come up empty there. What was the point you made of his evil genius and his careful avoidance in this book?
That's hardly relevant. Hitler certainly had such aspirations. The search I did came from his unpublished PRIMARY SOURCE which he did not release when he was seeking to gain popularity.
Non sequitur and false dichotomy. He didn't "hear" it. It entered the popular vocabulary via scientists, especially Haeckel, using Darwinian science to give its connotation legitimacy.
Keep that date, 1924, in mind when you read my ending comments on H.S. Chamberlain.
His hatred for the inferior races was justified by the science of the day, not the historical case of the Spartans. And, I contend and evince that he received his information on the Spartans from that same community of science popularizers.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Actually, you said this:
But Hitler didn't avoid mentioning eugenics, whether carefully or not. He mentioned it quite a bit and pointed to the US as a good role model.
But you specifically said that Hitler carefully avoided mentioning eugenics in this book. He obviously did not. It is disingenuous now to say you tried to avoid motive-mongering when you made an explicit appeal to this book on this point.
On Sparta:
You are going to some lengths to demonstrate that Hitler got his idea of eugenics from his historic interest in Sparta but, as I said, this is a very weak thesis. Good historian or bad, he had no reason to study history or Sparta to find eugenics, and he had no reason to study history to find Sparta.
You couldn't swing a cat in 19th century Germany without finding popular level scientific references to Greece and Sparta. Many pseudo-scientists were fond of such references. Not to mention, again, that Hitler's reference is all but a direct quote of Haeckel, whom he obviously referenced on many subjects. Or that Darwin, whom Hitler studied in school was writing the same things before either of them. To say that HItler got his references to Sparta from his historical investigations rather than Haeckel and Darwin when we know they influenced him on other points as well is unnecessary and the case is unlikely.
Actually it's not only consistent with, but direct evidence of the fact that Hitler was using Darwinian language and appealing to science for his justification of his positions.
That's right. And you understand that it is not called Blythism or Social Blythism for a reason. Blyth did not draw the metaphysical (naturalistic) conclusions that the intelectual popularizers wanted (notice how Wallace disappeared from the scene as well). Darwin did. And his is the name that they popularized and argued for. His writings are the ones that became school curricula, that Hitler learned in school, and that influenced Haeckel and Galton, and then, Hitler himself.
I do hope you're not now going to start to contend that Hitler, avid historian that he was, got his term "struggle for existence" from Blyth?
Thanks for this statement of faith. Hitler didn't get his ideas from Lucretius but from Darwin.
Coulda shoulda. You said you were addressing history. History shows that Darwin found the creation story suffered in comparison to Darwin's, that he had ample access to (and, in the case of Chamberlain, personal acquaintance) the scientific popularizers of Darwin's theory, that his writing reflected their influence, that his race theories drew their justifications from those, etc.
As for "Aryan" (and, incidentally, eugenicss) you are going all over the map. The word's etymology and history is not significant. I reiterate that the term does not come from Sparta or the history of Sparta but from German thinkers and science popularizers in the 19th century. It entered the popular imagination in Germany, as discussed, through, Gobineud. Gobineud was out of circulation by Hitler's time but was revitalized by Haeckel on the back of Darwin.
http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.e...
Linked with the theory of racial inferiority. Once again, you make improbable leaps to try to establish that Hitler would have gotten this word, like 'eugenics' and 'Sparta', from his own historical sources. Is it likely that Aryanism appealed to him because of its relationship to brown-skinned peoples thousands of years ago? Or because of its relationship to racial superiority as entered into teh opular vernacular by men like Haeckel?
Do you notice that all of these threads lead back to Haeckel and Darwin (whose words Hitler paraphrased and who he read) on one hand, or all off into different and sometimes ancient and disparate sources according to your theories?
Your theories are obviously not the more likely and the denial that Hitler got his ideas via the influence of Darwin and Haeckel
violate parsimony badly.
We also know Hitler read Grant, having written him a fan letter.
Here's Wiki on Grant:
Chamberlain?
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~mstaum...
The political philosopher, B.Sc., and natural science popularizer is also cited in Mein Kampf as laying down the principles of civil wisdom. He was widely read in Germany and became a member of the Nazi party. Another Social Darwinist http://www.citized.info/pdf/co... source of eugenics thinking, popular science, as well as, obviously, the word Aryan, etc. read by Hitler.
In fact, they even met in 1923 and 1926.
Again, his work provided scientific justification for the Nazi programme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Thanks again for your cordial attitude on this thread and your hard work.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Like I said;
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index...
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
You are welcome and same to you.
I agree, I think we have parsed Hitler's books to death and, frankly, I am tired of reading them. I agree with past reviewers that Hitler rambled and I also suspect there might be some validity in the ghost-writer accusation.
At any rate, I agree with you that the content and tone of the Secret Book points a lot more to Darwinian influence than Mein Kampf. I also agree that the Secret Book wasn't religious, especially when compared to Mein Kampf.
However, I don't equate the Darwinism and Atheism as you appear to do. I reject the presumption that Darwinian influence automatically results in a rejection of God. Darwin was the first Theistic Evolutionist (even if you argue he changed his mind later). Theistic Evolution has been too prevalent to presume that Hitler necessarily became an atheist.
As for his interest in history and/or science, I have looked at his report cards. I would provide a link, but I don't trust any particular one. However, the group of them suggest that Hitler had passing grades in history at a secondary grade level. He didn't do as well in math and science. Hitler never took a "biology" course as far as I can tell. He didn't go to college.
Ok, one more Mein Kampf quote…
"As a matter of fact, that transitory yearning after such a vocation soon gave way to hopes that were better suited to my temperament. Browsing through my father's books, I chanced to come across some publications that dealt with military subjects. One of these publications was a popular history of the Franco-German War of 1870-71. It consisted of two volumes of an illustrated periodical dating from those years. These became my favourite reading. In a little while that great and heroic conflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that time onwards I became more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in any way connected with war or military affairs." [emphasis mine]
I don't see why this wouldn't be true. A young boy interested in military things looking through his father's books. It was my experience that the Spartan battle at Thermopylæ is an inevitable find for anyone interested in military history. I think I was 17 when I understood the significance of "Go, tell the Spartans, thou who passeth by, That here, obedient to their laws, we lie."
Sorry, the simple explanation is that Hitler would have actually read about the Spartans early in his military interest.
Hitler's two Iron Crosses weren't faked. What we have here is a glory seeking military zealot. And every military zealot I have known idolizes the Spartan and 1967 Israeli armies ("Six day war").
If someone wanted to convince Hitler to embrace a complicated scientific proposal, all they would have had to do is say this was what the Spartans did to get their army of super soldiers. Beyond that, I think everyone agrees that Hitler would have embraced any justification to kill the Jews.
Therefore, my slightly modified position…
Hitler was interested in miltary history, especially the Spartan and Roman armies.
Sometime between 1924 and 1928, Hitler was convinced to embrace the modern version of the eugenics practiced by the Spartans he idolized.
Eugenics increased the depth and scope of the Holocaust. It also made it more horrific because of the dehumanizing aspect.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 27, 2008 @ 12:07 am
April 27th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Hi TP,
Thanks for admitting Darwin's influence on Hitler - historic case closed.
But this doesn't mean the influence is not apparent in Mein Kampf as well.
And your point on The Secret Book blurs the fact that it was not religious at all - not only in comparison to the disingenuous propaganda of Mein Kampf.
So do I. But the historical fact is that Darwin was promoting a naturalistic theory which he hoped to impact all of metaphysics and that all of his greatest promoters were atheists and that the unfounded philosophical assumptions were promoted just as heavily as the scientific inferences.
Just to show how contentious I can be - I don't believe that Darwin was a theistic evolution at all and I don't believe he changed his mind later but rather sooner - if it was necessary at all.
I don't think I called Hitler an atheist. And I don't presume his position but conclude it from his words and actions and can demonstrate it further if you like.
Agreed. This avid fan of history who had once been and had the potential to top his class could only manage an adequate grade in history. Not much of a fan.
Hitler would have heard about the Spartans from every corner. That doesn't make their mythological eugenics an influence on him. When he cites Sparta he does so in the language of the Darwinians who influenced his other ideas. Nietszche, Marx, Freud, Hegel, the lot of them, not to mention Haeckel and Darwin (whom he got in grade school), all took on the ancient Greeks. Anybody who thought they were rational and scientific adopted the Greeks as intellectual forebears. This doesn't make them, or anyone else, a student of history. Hitler never had to crack a single history book to say what he did of Sparta and it is more likely he rolled their history into his justification of eugenics than that he developed his fondness for eugenics from Sparta. Likewise, he never got his ideas about Jews (from the beginning his Jewish hatred was biological and racial - in opposition with many of the other party members) and Aryans from Sparta, but all of these influences were to be found in the writings of men like Haeckel. One source makes more sense.
Hitler was not a zealot. This is more propaganda. Hitler dodged conscription for years before volunteering for service in the German army (not his own Austrian army). While there is no evidence he was less brave than anybody else there is none that he was more. As for zeal and glory, he never applied for any position other than his role as a corporal and a messenger. Legends abound about how he earned his cross(es), but his regiment has no record of the feat. The propaganda sources will say that Hitler thought Germany was winning right up to the end but the truth is that one of the reasons that he was unpopular among his comrades was that he would fly into fits anxiety rushing about declaring that Germany couldn't possibly win the war.
Surprisingly, given his claims to military interest, Mein Kampf has no discussion of the strategies or operations of the war.
What they actually said was that the Jews were racially inferior and that eugenics was scientifically justified.
He didn't read Haeckel and Darwin for their views on history - but he got Sparta in the package.
Hitler doesn't wax on and on about Sparta and then realize that they practiced eugenics and so, perhaps this was a good idea as well. What he does talk at length about is racial purity and the laws of nature and the struggle for existence. And, at the urging of those teaching him these things, he finds that Spartans would have agreed.
Again, Gobineua's ideas had floundered until Haeckel gave them the respectability of Darwin's science.
And true, Hitler's racism was nothing original or unique in the flop-houses of Vienna where he honed it.
Not primarily. This interest was neither the source nor the justification for his polices. They were unoriginal and grew directly out of the Vienna atmosphere.
Sure Hitler was influenced by Greece, but only insofar as the intellectual elite, those who thought themselves scientific and rational, thought they were the intellectual offspring of the Greeks and filtered the message to him - justified with modern science.