Actually it refers to the beginning of the Tea Party movement when a Thomas Paine imposter stood in front of a document that the real Thomas Paine called "a copy, though not quite so base as the original, of the form of the British Government" and ranted about assorted nonsense including nativism (even though Thomas Paine was an immigrant from England who narrowly escaped the guillotine because Robespierre designated him an illegal alien) and ended the absurd video by telling viewers to mail a teabag to their congressional representatives. A related movement called "Teabag Congress" was started around the same time--the double entendre being obviously understood by those who developed it.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
"Proper Breeding"
I have read recently about a vast Eugenist conspiracy that wealthy philanthropists are imposing upon the earth. It is unclear to me why someone would wish to make such an accusation, but I must assume that it comes from a general skepticism that anything good may come from the creations of mankind, and in order to assert that goodness may only occur in some miraculous form beyond the realm of human responsibility. In any case, I hope to lend some perspective upon what is, and--more importantly--what IS NOT insidious among the systems of morality and propriety.
Now, it is beyond abundantly clear that the social selection of desirable traits was by no means the original invention of the Eugenics movement, or those movements contemporary to it with which it was loosely (and, in the minds of some revisionist historians, indivisibly) associated. We need not look much farther back in history from then, to see the perverse notions of a demigod-like linage attributed to royalty and nobles, and the brute-like nature attributed to linage of the "common people." Compared to the perpetual state of atrocity that characterized that institution (with it's recurring endemic state of war, cruel and unusual punishments, and religious inquisitions) even the cruelty committed in the name of Eugenics seems trivial. And yet, was it even a year ago that sycophants for that perversion were denouncing the "horrid common girl" that was to pollute the precious backwater of the royal gene-pool.
Still, the notion of lineal superiority long predates the European order of kings and nobles. For even among the recorded legends of the barbarian tribes of the Levant we find reference to inherited exaltation and degradation according to the blessings and curses of man and God, even extending unto tribes and nations. Such superstitions were even used as an excuse for mass genocide. Despite this given explanation for such atrocities, it is worth noting that in the tales of the feud between Jacob and Leban the author reveals an understanding of the process of genetic adaptation to different environmental conditions (albeit explained away by primitive superstition)
Such it seems that the only clear difference between this set of beliefs and that of Eugenic theory is the greater understanding of science on the part of the latter.
Later, among the European philosophers of republicanism, the notion appears as a plain comparison to the breeding of animals. Plato's Republic advises that a hierarchy should shroud a selective process of breeding in the cynical guise of religious observance:
“that the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. And the way in which all this is brought to pass must be unknown to any but the rulers, if, again, the herd of guardians is to be as free as possible from dissension... We shall, then, have to ordain certain festivals and sacrifices, in which we shall bring together the brides and the bridegrooms, and our poets must compose hymns..."
and
“...if anyone older or younger than the prescribed age meddles with procreation for the state, we shall say that his error is an impiety and an injustice, since he is begetting for the city a child whose birth, if it escapes discovery, will not be attended by the sacrifices and the prayers which the priests and priestesses"
Given the authoritative veneration given to Plato during the long reign of episcopal hierarchy in Europe--that omnipresent coercive force of the fusion of church and state upon the mind (and--if that fail--upon the body) of every parishioner-citizen, it could hardly be a surprise if it were found that a great deal of western customs and morals were aimed at the selective breeding of the "flock."
But perhaps it is simplest of all, to note the near-universal force that family-esteem plays in courtship around the world. One may know the goodness of the individual from associating with them. Why then would one be judged by the status of family? In elite society (even here in the west) the status of "old money" is elevated above that of the "nouveau riche." Even the term "well-bred" may be used, no less with human beings than with quarter-horses. The middle class often emulates this as well, making reference to someone being from a good family or being "good people." All this is aimed at a familiar goal; the animal urge to perpetuate one's DNA. In spite of the harm that it has done to some individuals, the most absurd aspect of Eugenics is its redundancy; for it seeks to order according to a specific plan, what mankind is driven to do biologically.
That some stray from this course of elevating their own DNA above all else, and actually take the time to invest their fortunes in helping the downtrodden--to put it figuratively; to give some of the contents of the dish as alms rather than merely polishing the outside for some aesthetic gratification--ought to receive admiration, but if it does not some philosophers say this will garner a greater reward still
Now, it is beyond abundantly clear that the social selection of desirable traits was by no means the original invention of the Eugenics movement, or those movements contemporary to it with which it was loosely (and, in the minds of some revisionist historians, indivisibly) associated. We need not look much farther back in history from then, to see the perverse notions of a demigod-like linage attributed to royalty and nobles, and the brute-like nature attributed to linage of the "common people." Compared to the perpetual state of atrocity that characterized that institution (with it's recurring endemic state of war, cruel and unusual punishments, and religious inquisitions) even the cruelty committed in the name of Eugenics seems trivial. And yet, was it even a year ago that sycophants for that perversion were denouncing the "horrid common girl" that was to pollute the precious backwater of the royal gene-pool.
Still, the notion of lineal superiority long predates the European order of kings and nobles. For even among the recorded legends of the barbarian tribes of the Levant we find reference to inherited exaltation and degradation according to the blessings and curses of man and God, even extending unto tribes and nations. Such superstitions were even used as an excuse for mass genocide. Despite this given explanation for such atrocities, it is worth noting that in the tales of the feud between Jacob and Leban the author reveals an understanding of the process of genetic adaptation to different environmental conditions (albeit explained away by primitive superstition)
"And he set the rods which he had piled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted"
-- Genesis 30:38-39
Such it seems that the only clear difference between this set of beliefs and that of Eugenic theory is the greater understanding of science on the part of the latter.
Later, among the European philosophers of republicanism, the notion appears as a plain comparison to the breeding of animals. Plato's Republic advises that a hierarchy should shroud a selective process of breeding in the cynical guise of religious observance:
“that the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. And the way in which all this is brought to pass must be unknown to any but the rulers, if, again, the herd of guardians is to be as free as possible from dissension... We shall, then, have to ordain certain festivals and sacrifices, in which we shall bring together the brides and the bridegrooms, and our poets must compose hymns..."
and
“...if anyone older or younger than the prescribed age meddles with procreation for the state, we shall say that his error is an impiety and an injustice, since he is begetting for the city a child whose birth, if it escapes discovery, will not be attended by the sacrifices and the prayers which the priests and priestesses"
Given the authoritative veneration given to Plato during the long reign of episcopal hierarchy in Europe--that omnipresent coercive force of the fusion of church and state upon the mind (and--if that fail--upon the body) of every parishioner-citizen, it could hardly be a surprise if it were found that a great deal of western customs and morals were aimed at the selective breeding of the "flock."
But perhaps it is simplest of all, to note the near-universal force that family-esteem plays in courtship around the world. One may know the goodness of the individual from associating with them. Why then would one be judged by the status of family? In elite society (even here in the west) the status of "old money" is elevated above that of the "nouveau riche." Even the term "well-bred" may be used, no less with human beings than with quarter-horses. The middle class often emulates this as well, making reference to someone being from a good family or being "good people." All this is aimed at a familiar goal; the animal urge to perpetuate one's DNA. In spite of the harm that it has done to some individuals, the most absurd aspect of Eugenics is its redundancy; for it seeks to order according to a specific plan, what mankind is driven to do biologically.
That some stray from this course of elevating their own DNA above all else, and actually take the time to invest their fortunes in helping the downtrodden--to put it figuratively; to give some of the contents of the dish as alms rather than merely polishing the outside for some aesthetic gratification--ought to receive admiration, but if it does not some philosophers say this will garner a greater reward still
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)