Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Inherit the Wind


Recommended Posts

Fred, as someone who has studied biology, anthropology, and of course, evolution, the only part of the text you posted that is not true, racist, and offensive, it the last paragraph, Races of Man. The rest of it remains true, but today, texts would include citations of the various ancestral hominids, from australopithicines to **** habilis, that lead to **** sapiens. And, clearly, a human more closely physically resembles a chimpanzee, bonobo, or gorilla, than they resemble a monkey. That seems obvious. We have gone far beyond the text you posted, so of course we wouldn't use it today. But, apart from the last paragraph, it remains true. Much as I'd like to think they would have banned the racist part, back in those days, I doubt it.

 

Edited by: ValentineXavier on Feb 26, 2011 4:13 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> Fred, as someone who has studied biology, anthropology, and of course, evolution, the only part of the text you posted that is not true, racist, and offensive, it the last paragraph, Races of Man. The rest of it remains true,

 

So you agree with this paragraph from page 195?

 

?Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man.?

 

People familiar with Darwin?s writings knew that his definition of ?savage? was generally the most primitive South American Indians (especially the Tierra del Fuegians), the Australian aborigines, and the Sub-Sahara tribal Africans. In fact, Mark Twain made fun of the Tierra del Fuegians in one of his essays, since he was familiar with Darwinism.

 

I think that paragraph I just quoted would probably be banned in public schools today, along with the word ?savage?. It?s not considered polite now for teachers to refer to certain people in biology classes as ?savages?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> You're right, we certainly wouldn't say "the lowest savage" today, but if you replace that with the word 'human,' it is quite true.

 

I don?t think we would want to say ?the lowest human? today either, not in a biology class in a public school. I think we should at least make an attempt to make every kid in school think that he or she is pretty much normal, rather than being high or low on the evolutionary scale.

 

Let me show you how a different textbook phrased stuff like this. This is the 1925 textbook that replaced ?A Civic Biology? in the Tennessee schools, while the Scopes trial was still going on. Here?s what the book said about high and low humans, and about eugenics, from ?Biology and Human Welfare?:

 

?A great movement of the present day is .that known as

Eugenics, which is thus defined by the late Sir Francis Galton, who

was so instrumental in its founding: Eugenics is the science which

deals with all the influences that improve the inborn qualities of

the human race; also with those that develop them to the utmost."

We are slowly learning that any permanent improvement of the

human race can only come as a result of better heritage.

 

Why education is of such great importance: Certainly

enough has been said to show the tremendous consequences that

come from good and from bad heritage. Most of us, however,

belong to a great middle class, a class in which heritage is neither

exceptionally good nor strikingly bad. For this reason, in order

to win success, each one of us must do all in his power to make the

two factors of environment and response count for all they are

worth. Hence the great importance of getting a good education.

 

"Education is something more than going to school for a few

weeks each year, is more than knowing how to read and write.

It has to do with character, with industry, and with patriotism.

Education tends to do away with vulgarity, pauperism, and crime,

tends to prevent disease and disgrace, and helps to manliness,

success, and loyalty. ... A boy who leaves school and shifts for

himself by blacking boots, selling papers, and 'swiping' fruit often

appears much smarter than a boy of the same age who is going

to school all the time and does not see so much of the world. A

boy of twelve who has lived by his wits is often keener than a boy

of the same age who has been well brought up at home and at

school, but such a boy knows about as much and is about as much

of a man at twelve as he will ever be; while the boy that gets an

education becomes more and more of a man as long as he lives.? 1

 

Why self-activity is an essential condition for success:

True success in life is not a gift that can be bestowed on another

by anyone, no matter how rich or talented the would-be giver

may be. It is something that must be won; and in order to win

it, each individual must meet certain demands. For instance,

that the body may be developed as perfectly as possible, suitable

food and an abundance of fresh air must be supplied, and physical

activities of different kinds must be engaged in.

 

1 The New England Journal of Education?

 

So, you see where this book avoids the subject of ?lowest? and ?highest? humans, and the problems of racism, and the problems of comparing humans to monkeys and apes, and it gives all students a pep talk about how a good education can help us ?middle-class? people to get ahead in life, and it assumes that every student who reads that book is a ?middle-class? person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> > You're right, we certainly wouldn't say "the lowest savage" today, but if you replace that with the word 'human,' it is quite true.

>

> I dont think we would want to say the lowest human today either...

 

I meant replace the phrase "the lowest savage" with the word "human," not replace only the word savage. Sorry I was unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> > > {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> > > You're right, we certainly wouldn't say "the lowest savage" today, but if you replace that with the word 'human,' it is quite true.

> >

> > I dont think we would want to say the lowest human today either...

>

> I meant replace the phrase "the lowest savage" with the word "human," not replace only the word savage. Sorry I was unclear.

 

Ok, then yes, I agree. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> Fred, as someone who has studied biology, anthropology, and of course, evolution, the only part of the text you posted that is not true, racist, and offensive, it the last paragraph, Races of Man. The rest of it remains true.

 

I'm not sure I would agree. For instance, pages 261-263 of that text contain passages I would certainly not want someone teaching to our kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> I was only referring to the two pages of the text that Fred posted. I haven't read the rest of it. Certainly we would find any teaching of eugenics, outside of a historical context, repugnant today.

 

From ?A Civic Biology?, 1914 edition. Bryan wanted this book removed, while Darrow wanted it to remain in the Tennessee public school system:

 

Page 261

 

23icp5y.jpg

 

Page 262

 

9sb3p4.jpg

 

Page 263

 

zvolxj.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what do you have against personal hygiene?

 

Seriously, much of that does seem like Nazi-lite. Obviously not acceptable today.

 

But, it reminds me of a nice little rhyme-

 

Poor baby shoe,

Whose prospects could be bleaker?

It's father was a loafer,

And its mother a sneaker.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler didn?t invent ?eugenics?. He learned about it in public schools.

 

?Mein Kampf?, 1925, by Adolph Hitler

 

?STERILIZATION OF INCURABLES Page 255

In all these things the goal and the road must

be determined by concern for the preservation

of the health of our people in body and soul. The right of per-

sonal freedom recedes before the duty to preserve the race.

 

Only after these measures are carried out can the medical strug-

gle against the plague itself be carried through with any prospect

of success. But here, too, there must be no half-measures; the

gravest and most ruthless decisions will have to be made. It is a

half-measure to let incurably sick people steadily contaminate

the remaining healthy ones. This is in keeping with the humani-

tarianism which, to avoid hurting one individual, lets a hundred

others perish.

 

The demand that defective people be prevented

from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the

clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the

most humane act of mankind. It will spare millions of unfortu-

nates undeserved sufferings, and consequently will lead to arising

improvement of health as a whole. The determination to proceed

in this direction will oppose a dam to the further spread of vene-

real diseases. For, if necessary, the incurably sick will be pitilessly

segregated, a barbaric measure for the unfortunate who is

struck by it, but a blessing for his fellow men and posterity. The

passing pain of a century can and will redeem millenniums from

sufferings.?

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Page 404 MEIN KAMPF

 

?...considered reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the

nation. Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future

in the face of which the wishes and the selfishness of the individual

must appear as nothing and submit.

 

It must put the most modern medical means in

the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit

for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have in-

herited a disease and can therefore pass it on, and put this into actual

practice. Conversely, it must take care that the fertility of the healthy

woman is not limited by the financial irresponsibility of a state regime

which turns the blessing of children into a curse for the parents. It

must put an end to that lazy, nay criminal, indifference with which

the social premises for a fecund family are treated today, and must

instead feel itself to be the highest guardian of this most precious

blessing of a people. Its concern belongs more to the child than to the

adult.

 

Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unworthy

must not perpetuate their suffering in the body of their children. In

this the folkish state must perform the most gigantic educational task.

And some day this will seem to be a greater deed than the most victori-

ous wars of our present bourgeois era. By education it must teach the

individual that it is no disgrace, but only a misfortune deserving of

pity, to be sick and weakly, but that it is a crime and hence at the same

time a disgrace to dishonor one's misfortune by one's own egotism in

burdening innocent creatures with it, that by comparison it bespeaks

a nobility of highest idealism and the most admirable humanity if

the innocently sick, renouncing a child of his own, bestows his love

and tenderness upon a poor, unknown young scion of his own na-

tionality, who with his health promises to become some day a powerful

member of a powerful community. And in this educational work the

state must perform the purely intellectual complement of its practical

activity. It must act in this sense without regard to understanding or

lack of understanding, approval or disapproval.

 

A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on

the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over a

period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity

from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery

which today scarcely conceivable.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Hitler didn't invent eugenics, and that they were popular in the US. I believe that in the US we were doing sterilizations of some people even into the 70s. But, as your quotes from Mein Kampf demonstrate, the US textbook stuff was "Nazi-lite."

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others.

 

*Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (1983)*

 

God Bless The Great Man President Ronald Reagan

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}

> *I believe that in the US we were doing sterilizations of some people even into the 70s*

>

> The Tuskegee sterilization experiment lasted until 1972.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

 

Indeed. I believe that there were still a few sterilizations of mentally handicapped girls as well, more to prevent unwanted pregnancy than eugenics, and probably others for other reasons too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was fairly obvious what the trial was about. The Butler Act, which

prohibited the teaching of evolution in Tennessee, became law in early 1925.

The ACLU wanted to challenge that law, and Scopes agreed to become the

defendant in a test case. Pretty easy to understand. The law remained on the

books until 1967 when a teacher was fired for violating it. He sued and the

Tennessee legislature repealed the law in the same year. Apparently the law

only applied to schools (including universities) that received public funds.

 

As interesting as the textbook and the trial transcript may be, they only apply

to what took place in Tennessee in 1925. They are only indirectly relevant

to whatever happened later in other states. You can repeat that it was illegal in all

50 states as many times as you desire, but without the evidence for that statement,

it's a useless one.

 

Unless Hitler himself said he learned about eugenics in public school, it's just as likely

that he picked up some version of it during his down and out days prior to WW I.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, you don't even have to mess around with the Nazis in Germany. You can

get your fill of eugenics right here in the good old USA: "Three generations of

imbeciles are enough." O.W. Holmes

 

 

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their

lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State

for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

 

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

1927 Supreme Court case

upholding Virginia's sterilization law

by an 8-1 vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

 

>

> As interesting as the textbook and the trial transcript may be, they only apply

> to what took place in Tennessee in 1925. They are only indirectly relevant

> to whatever happened later in other states.

 

The subject of this thread is the movie ?Inherit the Wind?. The movie failed to tell the story about the specific textbook that was ruled illegal in 1925.

 

It?s illegal now to teach in all other states what ?A Civic Biology? taught about the inferiority of certain human races (see pages 195 and 196), and it?s illegal to teach the eugenic eradication of ?inferior? people (261, 262, 263). It?s illegal to teach that there is any such thing as inferior people or races closer to the apes than Caucasians. It's illegal to teach that Caucasians are superior to all other races. You know that. So it is illegal now to teach in all other states the evolution material that was published in ?A Civic Biology?, the specific book that Scopes taught from. The film failed to mention this fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred, while those repugnant things would probably never be taught in public schools, I doubt that there are laws that would prevent such teachings in private schools. I have NO doubt that some of these repugnant things are taught by a few home-schoolers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the movie failed to tell the story about that specific textbook. That wasn't the

purpose of the movie. I'm sure a film about the details of the textbook would have been

box office dynamite! I don't believe the textbook itself was declared illegal, since it was

mandated by the state of Tennessee. After the Butler Act went into effect, it became illegal

to teach from the evolution section of the textbook. The film doesn't mention that it is

supposedly illegal to teach parts of the textbook in other places because the movie takes

place in 1925 before this supposedly happened. It's a movie, not a prophetic statement.

 

I know nothing of the sort, that teaching these doctrines is illegal in all 50 states. If you have

the evidence for this, or for your earlier assertion that the ACLU was trying to control the

textbook selection and curricula of every state in the mid 1920s, instead of repeating it ad

nauseam without support, just PROVE IT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> Fred, while those repugnant things would probably never be taught in public schools, I doubt that there are laws that would prevent such teachings in private schools.

 

I wasn't talking about private schools. The movie is not about private schools. You can probably find that stuff on the internet too, but the movie isn't about the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> The film doesn't mention that it is

> supposedly illegal to teach parts of the textbook in other places because the movie takes

> place in 1925 before this supposedly happened.

 

I didn?t say that. I said they are illegal to teach now in public schools in all 50 states, and when you read the text that I posted from the book that Scopes used, you?ll see that I?m right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Fred, find us one, just one, law from a state saying it is illegal to teach these things in public schools. I highly doubt that there is such a specific law. Discrimination, in various forms, is illegal, usually under Federal laws. These teachings are seen as socially and scientifically wrong, so it is unlikely that they are actually taught in any public schools. But, actually outlawed? I'm very skeptical. I'll point out that only last year one southern highschool was found to be having segregated proms, and another class officers were segregated by race. So, I don't really find it impossible that some bits of these things are being taught somewhere, even in a public school.

 

In 1981, I bought a house that is not in a fancy neighborhood, it was built in 1942 to house workers at the Willow Run bomber factory. When I read the title, which I had to sign, I found a deed covenant that said I was not allowed to have anyone but Caucasians in my house after sundown. As would anyone, I found that repugnant. I asked the City to have it removed from the deed. They said, 'don't worry about it. It's not enforceable.' Of course, I knew that. I asked them if there had ever been a specific law passed outlawing such deed covenants, and they said 'no.' I'd bet it's the same with such teachings. They don't bother to specifically outlaw these things, they just change their practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> Okay, Fred, find us one, just one, law from a state saying it is illegal to teach these things in public schools.

 

I?ve printed out pages from the textbook Scopes used. Now you print me out some pages from modern public school textbooks that say the same things about human ?savages?, comparing them to apes, and about ?Caucasians? being the highest ?type? of human of all. And textbooks telling modern students how to get rid of ?defective? people through eugenics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is saying that they teach such things today, in fact I specifically said that they don't, in my previous post. But YOU are saying that teaching such things has been specifically outlawed, at least for public schools. I highly doubt that, and won't believe it until I see a specific law saying so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...