Re: the term "eugenics"

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 08:25:28 MDT wrote:
> said:
> > Isn't it odd that OUR ideas are classified as 'eugenics' by the state
> > and the luddites, when it is their policies that are eugenics in fact?
> I'm sorry, I must have expressed myself badly. It isn't the classification
> of our ideas that I was saying was a problem, it was the label. You can
> talk about the ideas (almost) as much as you want, without running into the
> problem I was talking about. If you use the term "eugenics" to label
> anything you espouse, you will immediately lose a significant part of your
> audience. If you feel the term is more important than the audience, then I
> won't try to keep you from using it. I only make the recommendation so
> people I respect will consider whether they are preemptively offending some
> audiences before they can start talking about their ideas.

I don't disagree with you here. What I was noting is how the term has
come to have its meaning turn around from its (the science part) use as
a fascist enforced policy to one that fascists oppose when individuals
try to claim their own right to control their destiny.

> I was trying to think of an analogous term earlier, and I finally came up
> with a symbol that will do. The swastika has a long and respectable
> history before the Nazis used it. Unfortunately, it will be a good long
> time before it is possible to use a swastika as a symbol for anything you
> want people to respect without drawing unwelcome assocations. All I'm
> saying is it would be an improvement in communication to use a different
> symbol.
> If you (Mike) are trying to tell me that it's a lost cause, because some
> people will call our ideas eugenics whether we use the term or not, I'll
> beg to differ. Not all of the people who left the room in Anders' anecdote
> would have been offended by the ideas if the term "eugenics" hadn't been
> introduced at the beginning. Those are the people you could win over with
> your ideas if you don't use terms that can be predicted to drive them away.

That's not the point. The point is to illustrate the need to call the
fascists bluff, and try to educate people as to what is and is not
eugenics. The fascist luddites are claiming a definition that is not
supported by the facts or the historical context.

> And I don't see what it has to do with having a sense of humor.

Eugene said that 'eugenics worked in my case'. Look at his name....

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT