Monday, November 13, 2017

Answering Questions Before Continuing On

I was asked two things, one "why do you hate Hamilton" the other, "why are you going over that stuff".  The answer to the first is that the hagiographic mythology of "Hamilton" is indoctinating a new generation into a fictitious cult of the benevolent "Founders," though, for a change, a Northerner who is widely believed to have not owned slaves - he did, through his wife and her family, some of those in New York who held the most people in slavery - and who is presented as an opponent of slavery when he was as involved in its continuation as anyone else.  Beware a writer of musicals who has read ONE biography of someone like Hamilton.  Especially one hagiographic biography.* The second is as plain as the voter-suppression, the imposition of Trump through the slavery-empowering Electoral College and so many other things that are happening right now.

The reason that it's important to go over the actual record of what James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, etc. said were their motives in constructing the United States Constitution the way it was, to investigate how many of the features it was given by them and their colleagues, both those which allegedly disappeared with the Civil War and the abolition and emancipation amendment of the 1860s and others, later and those who no one denies were retained were put there to prevent egalitarian democracy, justice, equality of access to the necessities of life, and to allow the theft of peoples labor, the product of their labor, their basic civil rights and the ability of the oligarchs to do that and to wield control and power over The People is and has been ever present in the United States Constitution and, except in the rarest of cases, courts and, especially, the Supreme Court has acted in ways that damage instead of protect egalitarian democracy, civil rights of minorities, economic justice, etc.

Saturday's short passage from that pseudo-hero of abolitionism - as seen on Broadway - Alexander Hamilton quoted him as explaining why New Yorkers who were opposed to slavery should accept the slave-power enhancing corruptions inserted by such people as James Madison and other slave masters into the Constitution so as to prevent the larger number of voters in states where the opposition to slavery was already building from abolishing the crime in the country.  He put it in terms of the slave power never agreeing to form a union with the other states AND HE PUT IT IN THE CRUDEST TERMS OF THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE WEALTHY IN NORTHERN STATES, IN TERMS OF INDIGO, TOBACCO AND OTHER VALUABLE COMMODITIES PRODUCED IN SLAVE ECONOMIES BY THE STOLEN LABOR OF SLAVES.  The specific corruption so supported by Hamilton and embedded into the Constitution was the notorious 3/5ths rule which, for purposes of apportioning Congressional representation, electoral votes, the distribution of money and other benefits, counted slaves who were not only not allowed to vote but against whom that excess of power given to the slave owners would be used.

You might think that's something that disappeared with the Civil War amendments to the Constitution but the reimposition of de facto slavery and the Jim Crow system which prevented Black People and others from voting was an effective extension of the 3/5ths provision that has found a newer form in the tide of Republican voter suppression which the Supreme Court is allowing to do exactly the same thing, now.  It is the kind of thing that on a state level was used by the Republican-fascist government of Michigan to annul the rights of mostly Black voters in a number of places and which resulted directly in such things as selling off publicly held assets for the profit of Republican's supporters and the poisoning of the population of Flint. 

If you're waiting for the Roberts Court to admit that's what's going on, the disenfranchisement by Republicans - controlled by neo-Confederates and with an actual traitor to a foreign despot in the White House - putting like minded fascists such as Neil Gorsuch on the court - you are living a fools dream, one which is promoted by the media who have normalized this under other provisions put into the Constitution as interpreted by the cream of Ivy League privilege on past and the current Courts.

The observations of Wendell Phillips, of William Lloyd Garrison, of Congressman John Quincy Adams (Not to be confused with the John Quincy Adams before his own disastrous time as president, the result of a corrupt deal which he spent the rest of his public life repenting of.) are as relevant today as they were when they railed against the corrupt Constitution because all that changed were a few words and legalistic postures.  The same malignancy that afflicted the country in the 1840s is still there, the same sources of that pathology are there, embedded in the Constitution just where they were installed in the 1780s and retained as Congresses, administrations, state legislatures and more than any, Courts, under the force of corruption, themselves, have done nothing to hurt and much to enhance those corruptions.

*  I don't recall who it was who pointed out that in the multi-volume and, at its time considered authoritative, biography of Columbus by Samuel Eliot Morrison pretty much brushed off the genocide of Native Americans that he started, he being an especially brutal, cruel and murderous murderer of them.  One thing is certain, no one who valued the lives and rights of the people Columbus oppressed and murdered would have done that, so many of those trained in academic history and biography and, most of all, the law, don't care about such people and they're the ones who write the articles and books and publish them and review them.  You often have to go back and fact check their critics to get a full picture of an historical figure.  Anyone who believes they're going to get the real Hamilton and an appreciation of how his Constitution still works from watching a stupid Broadway musical is both stupid and dangerous.

40 comments:

  1. "Anyone who believes they're going to get the real Hamilton and an appreciation of how his Constitution still works from watching a stupid Broadway musical is both stupid and dangerous."

    You're so right, Sparkles. Obviously, Hamilton the Musical is historically inaccurate. For example, we know for a fact that the real Hamilton never rapped or did hip-hop dancing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, my, here I am up here in the wilds of Maine and I know more about the "Hamilton" phenomenon in which idiots believe it's, as the saying goes, "based on history" and it's been sold as such.

      You really have no understanding of the political role that pop shit culture plays, do you. None. None whatsoever. The revolutionaries did, including Hamilton and Washington.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if Mary Donnelly shares your belief that pop culture is meaningless and of no consequence because as I recall that was exactly what her academic shtick consisted of. Me, I always thought she sold herself short, she could have handled the real thing.

      Delete
  2. You're so right -- who could tell the difference between the actual Constitutional Convention and the musical 1776?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you're stupid enough to have declared that Shakespeare in Love, whose author said he made everything in it up out of whole cloth is a species of biography. So, someone like you.

      Delete
    2. More lies, Sparkles. As you well know, I said it was a species of bio-pic, not a species of biography.


      You just can't help yourself, can you?

      Delete
    3. Definition of biopic

      :a biographical movie

      merriam-webster.com

      I'm surprised that they didn't require you to become familiar with how a dictionary works at Stereo Review, though they might not have worried too much about the actual denotation of words in the rock-pop dept.

      Delete
    4. I love being lectured about the meaning of words by somebody who can’t string a coherent sentence together.

      Delete
    5. That's your idea of a lecture? Someone citing the dictionary definition of a word when you prove you don't know what the word you used means?

      Geesh, how long were the lecture classes at your school? The length of a commercial break?

      Delete
  3. Shows what you know Sparkles. I don't believe pop culture is meaningless and of no consequence. What I believe is that your idea of what it means and its consequences is complete crackpot crap. You're a left-wing Allan Bloom, and thus worthy of just as many horselaughs as he was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm prepared to believe you might "know" something about Alan Bloom because you heard someone on a talk show or someone who scribbled a mid-brow piece in some crappy venue like the Village Voice said about him but anyone who's familiar with him would know I don't have anything in common with him. You, on the other hand, have a lot in common with that other elitist vulgarian of the period, Hilton Kramer and that boob Harold Schonberg.

      Dopey, I'm pretty sure I know more about Showboat than you do just from this discussion. I did play through a good part of the score to it on the mistaken notion that I might be able to tolerate a gig at a summer theater, it's got some good songs in it make that SOME. But Bill is a really stupid song and the context of it in the story pretty much makes my case that the kind of shit I wrote about last night is advice to women to ruin their lives on unworthy men. I can see how you'd resent someone pointing that out, you being the kind of man who benefits from women buying that line of horse shit, but it doesn't make it any better than it is.

      Delete
  4. "Bill" is not a song giving advice to women about ruining their lives, you hick nitwit. It's a song written from the perspective of somebody who has problems, and if you had a shred of human empathy for how real fallible people actually live their lives you'd find it touching and tragic.

    But as I observed yesterday, you're a miserable, unhappy emotionally stunted prig, so you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You, on the other hand, have a lot in common with that other elitist vulgarian of the period, Hilton Kramer."

    So right, Sparky. That Hilton Kramer was a huge rock-and-roll fan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Hilty got it right on one thing. Rock is crap, when written about by such as you, pretentious crap.

      Delete
  6. I'm sure it's touching for you to see an miserable alcoholic woman who's wasted her life on a wife beating creep (Hey, wasn't his name "Steve" too) left alone and on the way to the streets out of the door of z-rated dives presented as longing for the guy who she wasted her life on. I'd have told her to go to AA (if it had been founded yet) and to follow Mae West's advice to forget him and find a better one, or the even better advice that most men aren't worth the trouble.

    You just keep telling yourself I'm miserable and emotionally stunted and a prig (I'll bet you couldn't give an accurate definition of one without a dictionary). It might add a layer or two to the coating you put on your own inadequacy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Prig: Some self-righteous unfeeling sociopath giving piano lessons in Maine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew you didn't know what the word means. I think you don't know what "sociopath" means, either. Though the kind of guys that Hal David told women they were supposed to waste their lives on are good examples of them.

      And if I want to talk about my competition up here, I'll come up with the description.

      Delete
  8. "I don't recall who it was who pointed out that in the multi-volume and, at its time considered authoritative, biography of Columbus by Samuel Eliot Morrison pretty much brushed off the genocide of Native Americans that he started"

    I believe that was Zinn in 'A People's History.'

    I also think it is an unfair criticism. The purpose of that biography was not to focus on the appalling residue of Columbus' explorations but rather on his accomplishments as a seaman and explorer. Morrison doesn't ignore that it happened, he simply doesn't go on a hundred page digression on the issue.

    But here we come around again to education - that people think history is a two-hour tale told by a musical is hardly the fault of the author. Most people don't understand that history is a discipline, and think all are chroniclers.

    "One thing is certain, no one who valued the lives and rights of the people Columbus oppressed and murdered would have done that"

    No, they simply had different priorities as an historian. Columbus's actions, for better or worse or both, changed the course of human history. Morrison wanted to write about the how. You cannot get past the what, but it doesn't obligate others to be as focused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm a lot less interested in what people ought to think about the relationship of pseudo-historical show biz than in how they do think about it and the terrible consequences that mistaken thinking can have.

      I would hate to have to point out to you that there has been defense made of David Irving's writing on the basis of "emphasis". To write a biography of Columbus from any point of view and to leave out that he had people enslaved and murdered in some horrific ways, that he set off the total genocide of the native inhabitants of islands and, so, kicked off one of the most horrific and long standing genocides in human history - it continues, today, is more than just a difference of emphasis, it's cover up. It would be like writing a biography of Capone and leaving out the killings and violence.

      Delete
  9. BTW, Sparkles, I think it's telling that your rant about "One Less Bell" completely omits any mention of the gorgeous melody line. But you're not really a music guy, are you? You're just an ideologue/puritan who gives piano lessons.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Selling women a message of their worthlessness as compared to a heel of a man through a pretty melody isn't a praiseworthy thing, dopey.

      I admitted that Burt Bachrach could write a melody, though that one's a bit on the syrupy side. I will add that Laura Nyro was far superior to him. Far superior.

      Delete
  10. The David Irving comparison is even more unfair. Morrison never denies the genocide that took place. Zinn's problem with his tome is his lack of attention to it, though Morrison has never claimed so far as I know to approve of the carnage that followed nor dismiss it as trivial.

    Volumes could be written on that topic alone, and that was not the book Morrison wanted to write. To focus on Columbus's accomplishments and placing his achievements as a sailor in the context of his era I would insist is not a cover-up, especially in light of how Irving proclaims the Nazi's murderous rampage did not happen.

    Of course, the irony today is that had Morrison spent any length of time on that topic he'd be crucified by the left for writing about a topic he wasn't sufficiently colored to write about.

    Think I'm exaggerating? As a librarian, I've recently been exposed to the 'American Heart' controversy where a Kirkus review was withdrawn after complaints about the book (an homage to 'Huck Finn') being "white savior" narrative were expressed on the Internet. The irony is this ignores that the same people would be upset about "appropriating" a minority's voice were the tale told from that point of view.

    You just can't win with modern liberals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The part that Columbus played in being the initiator of what was likely the largest and longest campaign of genocide in the history of the human species cannot be honestly presented as non-essential in any presentation of the man. To write an academic biography of someone and leave that out does rightly indict the scholar in exactly the same way that David Irving should be. I don't retract it.

      I do think there are legitimate criticisms that can and have been made of Huck Finn and arguments about different points of view about the book. I have pointed out that, as compared to Marilynne Robinson's Lila, it has a large number of defects, starting with Twain choosing to tell the story out of the limited understanding of a pubescent boy (one oddly uninterested in sex, but, hey, it was the late 19th century when it was being written and his audience wouldn't have tolerated authentic dialogue of someone of Huck's class) and I did wonder what the story told from Jim's POV instead of Huck's would be like. I have a feeling that it wouldn't have been as popular because you'll get a larger audience presenting things in simpler or simplistic terms. I do think the end of Huck Finn is a real disaster, certainly from the time Tom Sawyer appears in it. Lila is, in every way, a superior novel.

      Delete
  11. "The part that Columbus played in being the initiator of what was likely the largest and longest campaign of genocide in the history of the human species cannot be honestly presented as non-essential in any presentation of the man."

    There are ample books dealing with the other subject, and Morison was a maritime historian, so, surprise surprise, his work on Columbus focuses on his naval expertise and accomplishments and not the colonization of the Americas. For crying out loud man, if a music theorist wrote about Schubert's symphonies would you critique him for not talking about syphilis?

    "To write an academic biography of someone and leave that out does rightly indict the scholar in exactly the same way that David Irving should be. I don't retract it."

    But Morison doesn't leave it out. This is what you seem to be forgetting. He writes that Columbus's actions led to "genocide." That he doesn't express sufficient white man's guilt over it is the criticism most seem to have.

    "I do think there are legitimate criticisms that can and have been made of Huck Finn and arguments about different points of view about the book..."

    But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point about 'American Heart.' The novel was given a starred review (which is important, especially to smaller libraries who often use those reviews as a way of selecting materials) but then it was retracted when complaints arose about "white savior narratives." The author pointed out that books written from another culture's point of view are dismissed as "cultural appropriation" (arguably the dumbest phrase to come from academia - and that is saying something) so she choose to write from the view of the insider's view of the outsider. Considering the book is a sci-fi novel about a future dystopia...yeah, the idea that there is a way to correctly portray a future that has not happened is just rifuckingdiculous.

    And that has nothing to do with 'Lila.'

    Now, if Morison wrote "The Arawak people benefited greatly from Columbus's arrival." Boom, you have a point. But that he doesn't write about it enough for you? No. That's empty virtue signaling, and to compare him to Holocaust denier? Ay caramba.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A. Morison was not exclusively a maritime historian, he wrote considerably about things that happened on land. I doubt there is any "maritime historian" who hasn't had to deal with far more than what happened at sea. Columbus did considerably more than just conduct voyages.

      As for Schubert, it isn't certain that he had syphilus and if he did and it had a major impact on his music then, yes, a biographer should be critisized for not discussing it. I would include a lot more about Schubert that a biographer couldn't ethically leave out of a biography of him. If he'd committed murder, enslaved people, committed genocide I don't care what the book was supposed to be focused on. I would certainly criticize a book about Rimbaud that kept his crimes in Africa out of the discussion.

      I didn't discuss "American Heart" I addressed the criticism of Huck Finn.

      I'd recommend Lila, it is a great book. I've read Huck Finn at least a half dozen times and the deficiencies of the book seem to grow with every reading, I never thought the ending was anything but awful. I much prefer Life on the Mississippi, though that has it's problems too. I have to say that every time I go back to Twain he shrinks in my respect. The problem of him presenting things in too many of his book from the POV of children is a serious deficiency in his career. Some of them are pretty bad, Tom Sawyer, Prince and the Pauper (yeesh!).

      Delete
    2. "A. Morison was not exclusively a maritime historian, he wrote considerably about things that happened on land. I doubt there is any "maritime historian" who hasn't had to deal with far more than what happened at sea. Columbus did considerably more than just conduct voyages."

      But that is what he chose to focus on in his biography. Hence the title, "Admiral of the Ocean Sea." He does not ignore the genocide that came later, he just doesn't cover it in a manner that Zinn finds satisfactory. By no means is it "out of the discussion." This is the key. Irving denies genocide took place. Apples and orange juice.

      "As for Schubert, it isn't certain that he had syphilis and if he did and it had a major impact on his music then, yes, a biographer should be criticized for not discussing it."

      But you'll note I wrote, "a music theorist wrote about Schubert's symphonies." Not a life of Schubert. The former study that doesn't devote attention to the symptoms of the disease and how he possibly contracted it wouldn't be hiding the fact, just not discussing it because it has nothing to with the structure of his compositions.

      "I didn't discuss "American Heart" I addressed the criticism of Huck Finn."

      But that wasn't the point of 'American Heart' and its revoked review. It was inspired by 'Huck Finn,' hence the narrative told from an adolescent perspective. The issue is people are trying desperately to be sufficiently woke that they can't judge art on its own merits without making sure that the work satisfies the PC gods and makes a pleasing sacrifice to them. As Harlan Ellison, a nasty little man once accurately reminded a critic, "If you don't like what I wrote, write your own damn story!"

      Twain is another issue entirely. But the 'Heart' retraction seems heavily influenced by the same criticisms I've heard of Styron's 'Nat Turner' or any other presentations deemed problematic because the PC police are consumed by a person's appearance.

      I don't like it. Not at all. And yes, Columbus was responsible for genocide. Morison says so in his book. He does lay prostrate and demand forgiveness, but he does not deny it took place.

      Delete
    3. I don't think I'm going to bother answering any more on this thread, not because the interaction is getting boring but because it will elicit more of the vulgar, ignorant and self-serving use of the Nazi genocides by my most persistent troll. I wish I had a better quality troll, but I'm not in control of that.

      Delete
  12. "if a music theorist wrote about Schubert's symphonies would you critique him for not talking about syphilis?"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are illiterate, admit it. Maybe it's an undiagnosed STD.

      Delete
  13. "That's empty virtue signaling, and to compare him to Holocaust denier? Ay caramba."

    Well, let's not get started on McCarthy and Holocaust denial.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Simps figures those other people who were killed in the millions, by the Nazis and others, "meh".

      Delete
    2. McCarthy thinks Jews and centuries of European Christian anti-Semitism were less central to and responsible for six million of my co-religionists being slaughtered than Charles fucking Darwin.

      You know -- the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. Brought to you by Darwinists. :-)


      Delete
    3. Why can't it be both? Tiergartenstrasse 4 was the site of state sanctioned euthanasia by the Third Reich, and that focused on the mentally unfit, those deemed by Hitler & Co. as being unworthy of life.

      The Sinti-Romani people and the handicapped were also gassed along with the Jews of Europe. My best friend's grandfather was Polish, and if you think Catholic Poles like him were welcomed into the Reich you might also think 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' a documentary.

      It isn't, by the way.

      Most science fetishists (the kind who post Facebook memes about how the "Fucking Love Science" but have no idea how the process actually works) tend to forget about the dead end pathways the field has taken or the hideous mistakes that occurred before the problem was corrected. Eugenics was once going to offer us a brave new world. So were lobotomies. And the weather was something that would some day be controlled...

      Delete
    4. Well, that is the point, the Nazi mass murders were all of those they designated as biologically unfit or as biological competitors of the "Aryans" or the "Germans". Jewish converts to Christianity were not seen as Christians, they were seen as Jews by the Nazis but not by the Christians except to the extent that they had been propagandized as such by biological classification of people. The Nazis were explicit about the biological, scientific nature of their claims from the start to the finish of those. As I've pointed out, as many others have, Rudlph Hess, at the time he was seen as Hitler's second in command said that National Socialism was applied biology, from the beginnings of Nazism it associated its theories the led to the mass murders as scientific, in Germany in the 1920s-40s that was based entirely in their conception of Natural Selection.

      The relationship of the Nazis to the majority population who were Christians who had to be convinced to violate everything from the prohibition on murder of the innocent, the murders to the identification of Jesus as a Jew was not terribly complex but it was dishonest. In the first year of the Nazi's holding power, before governments and institutions understood that they couldn't trust anything they said and before they realized that they would violate any such agreement they came to, the Catholic Church made the concordat with them, which the Nazis began violating within two weeks. By 1937 the Vatican was one of the most critical world powers calling out the disaster that was already underway and which would unfold even farther, including condemnation of the Nazis policies on Jews and other racial groups.

      Simels has a chauvinistic, atheist North American 1960s- era POV on this, except to call it a "view" implies viewing of the actual evidential record which the holders of such a POV generally not only never have made but will never make. I, as a leftist, indoctrinated by the lefty media, mostly coming out of the same NYC milieu he was formed in, bought into that until I looked at both the primary documentary record (I can read German with a good dictionary, and you need several of those to get through some of that) and the contemporary evidence. I also, especially after the Soviet Union broke up and the brief period in which the Soviet records could be studied, read that much of that propaganda was commissioned by or created by the Soviet government, which had enormous influence on that same lefty media, just as The Nation under ownership by Vanden Heuvel and her husband, is a Putonian asset.

      The Nazis would never have done what they did if natural selection had not been invented and, it being so congenial to powerful elites, been universally adopted in science. You can't say the same thing about the Stalin-Mao-etc. mass murders which had a different materialist-atheist motivation in a related but distinctly non-Darwinian ideological framework. The Japanese atrocities in Asia were, as well, biologically based but I've never been able to look far into the primary documentary record of what relationship to Darwinism it might have had so I've never written about it.

      I wouldn't be surprised if Simels might think something like Raiders is a documentary, see comment about Shakespeare in Love.

      Delete
  14. "As for Schubert, it isn't certain that he had syphilus [sic] and if he did and it had a major impact on his music then, yes, a biographer should be critisized for not discussing it."

    Please explain to me how you could possibly know what impact a theoretical venereal disease could have on Schubert's compositional choices. Seriously -- where is something in the 9th symphony that you could criticize on the basis of illness????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you learn how to read? What part of "As for Schubert, it isn't certain that he had syphilis and if he did and it had a major impact on his music then, yes, a biographer should be criticized for not discussing it," is too hard for you to parse? Is it the conditional mood that flummoxes you?

      You are mentally deficient. I didn't write that for someone of your incapacity to read, I wrote it to answer someone who is literate.

      Delete
    2. I repeat: How would you or anybody else possibly know that if Schubert had a venereal disease what effect it would have had on the 9th symphony?

      It's official -- you're insane, Sparkles.

      Delete
    3. Did you have some kind of stroke that killed off the part of your brain that processes the conditional? Or that otherwise prevents you FROM NOTICING THAT I SAID THAT IT WASN'T KNOWN THAT SCHUBERT SUFFERED FROM SYPHILIS! Geesh, Simps, you just get stupider and stupider as the day grows longer.

      Delete
  15. When addressing anything Simps says about the Nazi genocides, you have to take into account that he doesn't actually ever read anything about the issue, the background, the facts. He has skimmed exactly one book about the Nazi era, Shirer's Berlin Diary, and our past brawls on the issue prove that he doesn't even really know what's in that book. He is your typical college credentialed TV educated 60s-today ignoramus. He doesn't know much more about things than Trump does, but he knows what he's supposed to say about things, sort of.

    His own chosen universal and ultimate expert on the Nazi period, William Shirer, had this to say in his longer book on the topic, The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich.

    “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hiltz, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”

    I have looked at a lot of the evidence and the claims of the Nazis, themselves, including many of the architects of the mass murders, which began with the disabled, murdered through classic Darwinist eugenics assertions (Darwin had endorsed the idea of either killing the disabled through infanticide or mere purposeful neglect, as well as endorsing the more direct calls for genocide by his friend and disciple, Haeckel) and the program of mass murders which most effectively murdered 6 million Jews but also millions of others, including plans for the total destruction of the Poles and other slavic people - most of whom were Christians - was presented as a classical Darwinist program of the fitter murdering the less fit and replacing them, something which Darwin had, several times, advocated in letters to such people as G. A Gaskell as well as in his scientific publications such a in The Descent of Man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not my typo, I didn't catch it from the thing I copied.

      Delete