I have been down the rabbit hole. I got sucked down into a prolonged web search on the matter of pre-WWII eugenics, which is more than a little squicky, but was fascinated to discover a thriving community of correspondents which reminded me precisely of the various flavors of blog commenters today that is, opinionated, sometimes pretentious, and often liberally sprinkled with asses. I started picking out names and searching for their contributions. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In particular, I focused on someone named R.B. Kerr, who had at least a 25 year history of writing letters and articles for eugenics journals, and was also much concerned with the sexual habits of women. The earliest articles describe him as Canadian, but later he seems to have moved to Croydon; nowhere can I find any mention of his credentials or background, although I did find one picture of him circa 1907. He seems to have gradually evolved from a radical advocate of Free Love into a kind of Colonel Blimp character. <\/p>\n
Heres R.B. Kerr in a letter to the Eugenics Review in 1933. Hes not a racist or anti-Semite, oh, no hes just defending Hitler. <\/p>\n
SIR,I entirely agree with you in condemning Hitlers persecution of the Jews, but the reason you give seems to me fallacious. In your July issue you say: <\/p>\n
Herr Hitler has still not realized, apparently, that in declaring that the small number of Jews in Germany have achieved an altogether disproportionate measure of successin the arts, sciences, and learned professionshe has publicly acknowledged their superiority to the bulk of the nation that wishes to get rid of them! <\/p>\n
If you will read Hitlers book, Mein Kampf, you will find that he fully understands your argument, but does not agree with it. One of his principal charges against the Jews is that in literature and the arts they succeed by superficial and meretricious qualities, and not by first-rate work. <\/p>\n
The distinction is familiar to every competent critic. Everybody knows the difference between a best-seller and a literary masterpiece. Edgar Wallace sold far better than John Galsworthy. Hall Caine left many times as much money as Thomas Hardy. Martin Tupper was beyond comparison a more successful poet than Robert Browning. <\/p>\n
The same thing is true of all the arts. The greatest musical composers were pure Germans, but the works of the Jew Mendelssohn have sold far better than those of Bach and Beethoven. The greatest painters are hardly ever the most popular. I cannot speak with authority about science, but I have heard such contempt for scientific knights and newspaper scientists, that I strongly suspect that the same principle applies. <\/p>\n
I do not know whether Hitler is correct in his remarks about the Jews. He does, however, make a distinction between value and success which would have the unanimous support of intelligent critics. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original here:<\/p>\n
Not a racist or a sexist, no sir, certainly not! [Pharyngula]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I have been down the rabbit hole. Continue reading