 |
 |
I think it's very difficult to go back in time and try to understand how people thought 100+ years ago. Though interesting historically, of course, why is it relevant to a current definition? I assume there is no doubt that, even in the 1970's and beyond, decisions were made that most or all of us find disgusting but surely the people that made them were not all intrinsically evil, even if they should have known better. I suggest that what is really important, as regards a statistical usergroup is the recent past, the present and the future. Am i missing something? Probably! Julian (Besag) On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, ray thomas wrote: > It is easy to agree with Alan Zaslavsky that the use the phrase "of good > breeding" signalled social status. But the interpretation of the phrase > 'of good breeding' he gives is a verdict from a different age. Is he > suggesting that those who used the phrase in the 19th century did not really > believe it? > > It would be getting into very tricky areas to try and discuss the sincerity > and understanding of those who used the phrase 'of good breeding' in the > 19th century. We can be reasonably confident that they usually acted in > their choice of marital partner in ways which maintained their social > status and we might be justified in giving emphasis to that aspect of their > choice. But at the time people made their choicess in terms that betray > belief in eugenics. > > Even if their understanding was limited and even if their choices were not > always 'healthy' it is reasonable to describe them as eugenicists because > of their beliefs. > > > Ray Thomas > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Alan Zaslavsky > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:04 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Do we have a shared understanding of what 'eugenics' means? > > >> Use of the phrase 'of good breeding' indicates recognition of the >> practice of eugenics among members of the aristocracy and upper middle >> classes in the 19th century. In the 20th century it became difficult >> to to draw a clear > > To this incredulous observer it appears more likely to reflect a claim of > natural superiority based on superior social status and learned manners that > signaled this status. The prevalenc of congenital hemophilia among the > European royal families is a notorious example of the lack of genetic basis > for this claim. > > ****************************************************** > > ****************************************************** > Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your > message will go only to the sender of this message. > If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's > 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically > to [log in to unmask] > Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. > ******************************************************* > ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************