IT WAS PREDICTABLE that someone would revive the dodge "the word eugenics didn't exist when Darwin was alive," as if that meant he could not have been guilty of supporting or inspiring eugenics. That is something I addressed in one of the first posts I did on this topic and disproved as definitively as it is possible for a statement outside of mathematics to be, disproven through the very words of Charles Darwin presented as reliable science and those of the man who invented eugenics, Francis Galton.
What they said is definite proof that the entire post-WWII distancing of Darwin from eugenics, from its most deceptively harmless form to the kind that Darwin himself, Ernst Haeckel, Karl Pearson, etc. advocated as salubrious to the human race, the deaths of not only individuals taken by them to be inferior but even up to and including entire races of people. That is something I repeatedly proved was said by Darwin, as science, certainly from a book his supporters should have read, The Descent of Man and in other documents, letters, etc. which are available from those who are dedicated to the deification of the man.
I don't consider the many posts I did on this topic to have been major feats of research or reasoning. After a while of finding exactly the kind of thing I assumed was said by this or that Darwinist scientist was said by them, in their own words turned kind of every-day because of course they would say that. I expected to find the links from Darwin and his major claim to fame, natural selection, to just about every claim made for and about eugenics INCLUDING THE EUGENICS OF THE NAZIS because they were persuading each other and the public to let them do appalling things to other people, they would have had to use what was considered the highest of scientific authority to persuade the public to let them do it, to encourage themselves to do it with the zeal they all seem to have felt in their mission to cut the "unfit" out of the human future. The ease with which I found the primary documentation makes the scandal of it being successfully buried AMONG THOSE WITH COLLEGE-CREDENTIALS and others all the more a symptom of the dishonesty of modern, materialist-scientistic-atheist secular culture.
I knew from the start that I was violating some of the major taboos of the college-credentialed common received culture when I started this, I retained some of its dishonest practices until very recently, such as disclaiming the identification of eugenics as a scientific endeavor - something which would have seemed bizarre to anyone much before the end of WWII. I have tried to remove things like scare quotes around the word "science" from this because it is a fact that science includes whatever scientists say it does during the period in which they control science, including ideas that are dropped later. But scientists should not be able to claim that ideas so dropped were not accepted as science nor that such ideas lose their potency once they are dropped within science. The repute with which science is accepted makes its mistakes have a lingering potency in real life. As I have also proven in the many posts I did on this topic, scientists have not, in fact, given up eugenics or even much mitigated their most depraved of racist and class based claims out of it. Scientists in the post war period, SCIENTISTS PUBLISHING AS SCIENTISTS IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS WHILE HOLDING FACULTY POSITIONS AND OTHERS WITHIN OFFICIAL SCIENCE have claimed as science everything from the most primitive of racial inequality, antisemitic claims, the necessity of aborting fetuses believed to be disabled, the killing of infants who are born with defects, etc.
And that's just eugenics within today's science, its position, named or not, in popular culture, in politics, in the law, in the superstition of judges and "justices", among lawyers and members of juries is probably even more insidious and dangerous, Science still is one of the major props of racism, emerging at times in racism being advocated on the basis of scientific claims, those invented by the racists and, not infrequently, motivated by what some scientist has claimed on the basis of natural selection and its logical consequence, the science of eugenics. That alone makes me willing to continue to prove my case, though I don't see any reason to reinvent this particular wheel. That case was closed the first time I posted this.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Charles Darwin and Francis Galton The Father of Eugenics
As his defenders will point out, Charles Darwin died before his cousin Francis Galton gave eugenics its name. That is true, Darwin died on April 19, 1882, Galton named his science "eugenics" the next year. That is the first life preserver that is thrown to the mythical, eugenics-free Charles Darwin. However, Galton first used the word "eugenics" in his book "Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development". In his introduction to that book, he says:
Since the publication of my work on Hereditary Genius in 1869, I have written numerous memoirs, of which a list is given in an earlier page, and which are scattered in various publications. They may have appeared desultory when read in the order in which they appeared, but as they had an underlying connection it seems worth while to bring their substance together in logical sequence into a single volume. I have revised, condensed, largely re-written, transposed old matter, and interpolated much that is new; but traces of the fragmentary origin of the work still remain, and I do not regret them.
Clearly, Galton dated the beginning of his science to his book "Hereditary Genius", though he worked the idea in the years before he published "Inquiries into Human Faculty". That is a vital point in determining what part Charles Darwin played as inspiring eugenics. In chapter twenty of his Memories of My Life, Francis Galton explicitly credits Charles Darwin as the inspiration of his research that produced "Hereditary Genius".
THE publication in 1859 of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.
.. I was encouraged by the new views to pursue many inquiries which had long interested me, and which clustered round the central topics of Heredity and the possible improvement of the Human Race.
Galton goes on to say:
After many months of hard work, I wrote, in I865, two preliminary papers in Macmillan's Magazine, entitled "Hereditary Talent and Character" . These contain the germs of many of my subsequent memoirs, the contents of which went to the making of the following books: Hereditary Genius, 1869; English Men of Science, 1874; Human Faculty, 1883; Natural Inheritance, 1889; and to my quite recent writings on Eugenics. On re-reading these articles, I must say that, considering the novel conditions under which they were composed, and notwithstanding some crudeness here and there, I am surprised at their justness and comprehensiveness.
This names "The Origin of Species" as the inspiration of articles and the book, "Hereditary Genius" in the line that includes "Human Faculty.... "and to my quite recent writings on Eugenics". There is no possible better authority than Francis Galton on the question of what inspired him to invent eugenics. And since the book that inspired Galton was written by Charles Darwin, he is named by Galton as inspiring eugenics. Unless, sometime in the three years remaining to Francis Galton, he retracted that attribution, there could not be more solid evidence tying Charles Darwin to eugenics, nothing else could loosen the knots doing that.
However, there are things that could tighten them. Francis Galton was only too glad to provide that in the same chapter:
Hereditary Genius made its mark at the time, though subjected to much criticism, no small part of which was captious or shallow, and therefore unimportant. The verdict which I most eagerly waited for was that of Charles Darwin, whom I ranked far above all other authorities on such a matter. His letter, given below, made me most happy.
DOWN, BECKENHAM, KENT, S.E.
3rd December
"MY DEAR GALTON,--I have only read about 50 pages of your book (to Judges), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original--and how Well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself in just the same terms, tells me that the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these latter chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think this is an eminently important difference. I congratulate you on producing what I am convinced will prove a memorable work. I look forward with intense interest to each reading, but it sets me thinking so much that I find it very hard work; but that is wholly the fault of my brain and not of your beautifully clear style.--Yours most sincerely,
(Signed) "CH. DARWIN"
So, Charles Darwin effusively endorsed "Hereditary Genius" as he was reading it, or rather having it read to him. Did he change his mind after finishing it and reject its quite developed eugenics? No. We know that from the authority of Charles Darwin, himself. In his second major book setting out his account of evolution, The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin repeatedly and enthusiastically cited and endorsed both Hereditary Genius and other articles by Francis Galton, as well as other eugenicists. Just a sample of Darwin's citations of Galton's eugenics.
- With man we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr. Galton (10. 'Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences,' 1869.), that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families. -
- This, as Mr. Galton (49. See his remarkable work on 'Hereditary Genius,' 1869, p. 349.
- see 'Anthropological Review,' as before cited. Mr. Galton in 'Macmillan's Magazine,' Aug. 1865*, p. 318; also his great work, 'Hereditary Genius,' 1870.) Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors
- See, also, Mr. Galton, 'Hereditary Genius,' pp. 352-357, for observations to the above effect.
The connections between Charles Darwin and eugenics begin at the start of it, with the attribution of the man who invented the science and who coined the word. In the very terms that Galton gives as the beginning of eugenics, Charles Darwin confirms that attribution by his letter to Galton and his laudatory citations in what was supposed to be a major science publication. Short of subsequent retractions from both of them, the charge that Charles Darwin inspired eugenics has to stand as proven. Not only suggested, not only inferred but proven.
Charles Darwin's son, Leonard Darwin**, succeeded Francis Galton as the head of the British Eugenics Society in 1911. Three of Darwin's other sons, George (the one he mentions in his letter to Galton), Francis, and Horace Darwin were also active in eugenics, as were numerous other members of Charles Darwin's family.
No one who never met Charles Darwin, no one in the post WWII period when the eugenics-free Charles Darwin seems to have been constructed, knew Charles Darwin better than his own children and those who did what none of us has done, talked with the man, unrecorded.
If any of them believed their eugenics activity was a violation of their father's ideas, I've never found evidence of that. Other than Charles Darwin, there is no higher authority in this question of what Charles Darwin thought about this science than his own children. Just as there is no higher authority in what inspired Galton to invent eugenics than Francis Galton, himself.
In the seven years I've been looking into this question, I have never found anyone who knew Charles Darwin who distanced him from eugenics, I've never found anyone who knew him deny his role in inspiring the eugenics of Francis Galton or in their own eugenics. I have never found anyone trying to do that until after the Nazis showed the world what eugenics could turn into, discrediting the science for a generation***. The events of that time put anyone wanting to keep Charles Darwin as the face of evolutionary science in a difficult position. Natural selection, in the form of "On the Origin of Species", was cited as the inspiring idea of eugenics by the man who invented eugenics. Natural selection and the allegation that human civilization impeded it and that with natural selection impeded, the human species would fall into ruin was the foundation of eugenics****, it was the only reason that it developed as a legal and political application of purported science. It is the scientific basis of all eugenics laws, in the English speaking countries, in other countries, including those adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s.
The large majority of the evidence confirming that evolution is real has been discovered since Charles Darwin died. Other explanations of change in organisms have been discovered, sometimes introduced to the opposition and eventually grudging acceptance of those who demand that natural selection is the supreme law of biology. In the most extreme cases the advocates of natural selection attempt to extend it to areas outside of the origin of species in biology, even quite irrationally and with absolutely no evidence. An extreme example of this is the ultra-Darwinist Daniel Dennett.
I don't think evolutionary science needs Charles Darwin in 2012[when I first wrote this], certainly not the phony, eugenics-free Charles Darwin that is the common received POV required to be a respectable member of the "educated class". Quite frankly, I think the major use of that Charles Darwin is an entirely non-scientific one, it is an icon of ideology, class status, social acceptability and mutual admiration, permission to disdain anyone who dares to violate the myth. He is an icon of atheism and materialism, as he clearly was in his own time and, by his readings of Galton, Huxley, Haeckel and others, with his full knowledge.
The biggest irony of the cult of Charles Darwin among those who believe themselves to be paragons of intellectual life is that, in the arguments I've had on this issue, I've generally discovered that those who insist on their phony St. Charles Darwin have never read much if anything he wrote. They couldn't possibly have read him and still maintain that he was not an ardent supporter of Galton's developing eugenics, or of Ernst Haeckel's even more extreme exposition of it within his materialist monist system.
Creationists, both in their primitive form and in those who pursue the idea of intelligent design as a scientific proposition, have done that, they've poured over the record left by Charles Darwin, his family and associates and his followers, and have discovered the same quotes, the same absolutely solid case that Charles Darwin is absolutely tied to eugenics and its legacy only means that that record has been there and always will be. They are nothing if not dedicated to discovering any ammunition that is provided to them by Darwin and his friends. There is nothing illegitimate or unfair in their honest use of that record, though some have distorted it, a sin they share with many of his supporters. Charles Darwin's own words are there for anyone to read, to understand and to comment on. Having read him, fully, on this charge, that Darwin was a eugenicist, there is no doubt as to his guilt. There isn't even a reasonable doubt that he might not have been.
To the extent that evolutionary science keeps Charles Darwin as its figure head, it will find he's a political liability. The denial of his record in regard to eugenics is a lie, it is unworthy of people pretending to uphold science and the truth, the result of denying that record is a failed PR campaign, a trade mark that doesn't work with most people. The best the Darwin Fan Club can hope for is a slight mitigation to what that record shows. If they continue to deny that record, they certainly don't do anything for evolutionary science, I'd guess the Darwin cult is more likely to impede progress than to help it. To the extent they insist on keeping their artificial Darwin, it is a good indication of how much more they value ideology instead of science.
Note: I have not discussed Charles Darwin saying that Emma Darwin, his wife, read him Hereditary Genius, probably during one of Darwin's many bouts of illness, and that she seems, according to her husband, to be interested in Galton's earliest eugenics as well [Why wouldn't she, much of the substance of the book glories in the "hereditary genius" of the Darwin-Wedgewood family which both of the Darwins and Galton came from.] I haven't looked at her diaries to see if she said anything about that, herself. I have never read anyone taking note of her in relation to eugenics in the last six years of looking into this question.
* Perhaps the same article that Galton cites as early eugenics material in his Memoir.
** I will be citing Leonard Darwin in the next part of this series. Leonard Darwin's repeated statement that in his eugenics promotion he is carrying on his father's work is probably the strongest witness up to and into the period of WWII linking his father to Nazi eugenics. In nothing I have read by anyone else is that claim denied, especially not in any of the things I read from others, certainly not many by that date, who knew Charles Darwin in the flesh and as closely as his own son would have. His authority to make that connection is unsurpassed and can never be overcome by the claims of those who never knew the man or talked with him.
*** I will contend that eugenics is gaining traction in a future post. That is what makes this important.
**** This will also figure importantly later in this series. It is important to note that Alfred Russell Wallace, the man who is considered the co-discoverer, I would say co-inventor, of the theory of natural selection, vehemently denounced eugenics as pseudo-scientific and the meddling of "an arrogant scientific priestcraft". So, the idea that natural selection necessarily leads to eugenics is clearly false, though it seems to more often than not. I am unaware of anyone of the authority of Wallace on this topic who was not a full-blown eugenics supporter who did not consider it scientifically factual. He is, decidedly, an outlier on this topic. I might get around to giving my theory of why Wallace's thought on that question developed so differently than did the Darwin side, almost unanimous in the pre-WWII period of eugenics and biology. I will repeat, I have never found anyone from before the end of WWII and the exposure of the eugenic crimes of the Nazis who claimed that eugenics had nothing to do with natural selection, Darwinism or Charles Darwin.
