A friend emailed me this column by Michael Coren, a man esteemed in Canada's Conservative and Christian intellectual circles. Judging by his CV, Coren is a smart man, but if "The Barbaric Vision of Progressive Heroes" is any indication, it appears Coren only knows part of Canada's eugenics story.(The part his Socred, turned PC, turned Reform, turned Tory/WRA -- or whatever they're calling themselves this week-- buddies from Alberta aren't afraid to hear guys like Coren talking about.)
It's the part he thinks the 'progressives' were responsible for. An aside, Coren might be surprised to know just what progressive meant to early 20th century prairie populists. Ernest Manning, whom most conservative types from Toronto think was one of them,considered himself proudly progressive as well as conservative. As did and do most prairie folk.
But in Coren's discussion, progressive appears to mean left-wing, socialist, or a member of the 'godless' CCF. (By the way, the father of the CCF Tommy Douglas, Preacher and Premier of Saskatchewan, was a social conservative, fire and brimstone Baptist just like Premier of Alberta and radio pastor, Ernest Manning and his mentor, William Aberhart were.)
But why does Coren's discussion of Canadian eugenics omit the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire (Commonwealth), the one in which nearly 3000 Albertans were sterilized at the hands of the provincial eugenics board? (Another 1900 were ordered sterilized, but escaped the knife.) Vulnerable Albertans were also lied to, beaten, used a cheap domestic labour, and made guinea pigs.
He references Douglas's university paper, "The Problems of the Sub-Normal Family," in which Douglas appears to favour legalization of sterilization for 'sub-normals' as a means to remedy illegitimacy and poverty. (Douglas's paper is vague and leaves quite a few logical gaps. He's not clear whether this sterilization is to be voluntary or forced or if it is to apply to adults who already have children.)
But Coren fails to acknowledge that, when Douglas became Premier of Saskatchewan, he never set up a provincial eugenics board. Douglas's support for eugenic sterilization was scared out of him during a 1936 trip to Europe. (One look at the rising NAZI tide convinced Douglas that a great evil was loose and that NAZI eugenics would lead to mass murder. He was right and he never forgot the lesson.)
But, as Douglas had his epiphany about NAZI eugenics, Alberta's Social Credit regime, led by William Aberhart, was hell-bent on ramping up its eugenic sterilization factory by weakening and/or removing consent provisions in the 1928 Sexual Sterilization Act (brought in by the former UFA government.) Aberhart's Socreds -- and many of their constituents -- were frustrated by the low numbers of defectives who were sterilized under the UFA legislation.
After Premier Aberhart died suddenly, his protege, Ernest Manning, became premier. Contrary to a lot of right wing political revisionism, Ernest Manning remained Aberhart's disciple throughout his life. At his December 1968 retirement from the premiership, Ernest Manning, declared that William Aberhart was ahead of his time and 'one of the greatest men this country ever produced.'
Premier Manning held fast to the Socred's revamped eugenics legislation. Critics of the eugenics board were ignored --or sued. The province's travelling, and virtually unaccountable, appointed eugenics board violated even the weak protections within the law; and the Manning government clung to the Sexual Sterilization Act years after medical and mental health professionals (albeit belatedly) denounced the 'science' behind eugenic sterilization in Alberta.
When I wrote Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret, I hoped Mr. Coren and his colleagues in the Christian and right wing media would start talking about Alberta's UFA/Socred links to forced sterilization.
So far, no luck. Maybe the Manning legacy is too dear to Canadian evangelicals and the right wing, but surely, telling half the story does a disservice to Conservatism, Canada and Christianity. Doesn't it?
Showing posts with label British Empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Empire. Show all posts
Friday, 4 February 2011
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Are we missing the point?
This morning I was googling online coverage of the launch of Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret. I noticed that very few people commenting on blogs announcing my book want to own their eugenics past. They blame 'others' for it.( If you live in a Western Democracy and much of the rest of the world, there's a good chance one of your great-granddaddies believed in eugenics. And whether you consider yourself left-wing or right-wing, your political legacy includes pro-eugenics advocates.)
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Does Our View of History Matter Anyway?
I don't believe we should remain stuck in the past. Nor should we idolize our forebears. Our ancestors do have lessons for us. But these lessons are based on their humanity: their failings, dreams, struggles and faith. They are lessons we can relate to in our own lives as we seek to move into a better future.
But over the past forty years, most analysis of history and public policy discussions have taken a materialist approach. History books talk about Acts, events, and results, not dreams, grand visions and the emotions of historical figures. Their religion is either scoffed at or ignored.
Fiscal reality, not emotional attachments, governs public policy. Political leaders love to tell us that 19th Century based political and cultural arrangements that 'hamstring' politicians and economic interests don't make sense. The idea that such arrangements were made with full intention of curtailing power of elected officials and economic interests is usually forgotten in discussions about the future of Canada.
We have adopted a materialist approach that says feelings, dreams and emotions do not matter. Politicians and political theorists have relegated symbols such as the Crown, flags, and anthems to political fluff that to be changed 'at will' without any concern for the effect this has on citizens' attachment to their country or on the structures safeguarding citizens' rights. International relationships are simply utilitarian.
This view says Treaties and constitutional arrangements regarding language, religious rights and the role of provinces or the role of the Crown or its representatives don't matter to us, because we weren't born when those arrangements were made. We can change them even when they leave out an original party to the agreement -- as Quebec was left out 1982. (Change is seen as good. Waiting for agreement and timing that works for everybody is deemed not necessary.)
But the vision that built Canada was based on dreams, faith and big ideas. It was also based on on consensus of peoples and regions. 19th century 'political elites (especially in London), colonial administrators, and capitalists' rarely thought of the rights of individuals. The idea that colonists could keep political and cultural arrangements they loved -- and sometimes died to protect -- and turn themselves into nations was unthinkable to the guys who hung around gentlemen's clubs in London and New York. Why not sell out the rights of colonists in order to facilitate trade across the Atlantic?
But the colonists dared to dream impossible dreams. They believed that it did not matter what the 'money men' said. They could turn Rupert's Land and British North America into a sovereign nation without war and without severing ties to the rest of the Empire. (These visions of interdependence and peaceful transformation remain key parts of the Canadian identity.) They believed God could intervene in impossible situations.
By the mid 1880's their faith and hard work not only had made their dreams reality, it was beginning to change their Empire into sovereign nations (dominions) within the Empire. While the bureaucrats in London thought this was merely a change in status for 'their' colonies, colonists from Canada to Australia were dreaming that their nations would be equal in status to Britain and that they, and their fellow colonists from many nations, would have as much protection from the Queen's government as the Lords, Ladies, and Financiers of the realm.
This is what the Commonwealth of Nations is actually intended to be, but it goes a step further by recognizing that groups such as the Indigenous peoples of Australia and the First Nations of Canada ought to have protection equal to their 'colonist' neighbour. And that the poor should be protected as much as the rich.
This is why we continue to see Our Queen and her representatives visit hospitals and espouse the rights of the poor and minorities. It is also the reason The Crown recognizes the accomplishments of artists, writers, theologians, innovations, community leaders and even individual acts of heroism. It is why the Queen quotes Bible verses and speaks of role of many faiths in the lives of people throughout the Commonwealth -- and only a few radical materialists protest that she is the embodiement of the union of 'faith and public life.' Why? Because, in Canada, it is the Crown's role to acknowledge that there is more to life than 'materialism.'
The Fathers of Confederation recognized that politicians and businessmen should not have total control of the nation. They recognized that one class or one part of the Empire should not run over the rights of others. It was a world changing dream, based more on poetry than rationalism. (And no they didn't get it perfect, but that is a post for another day.)
My next post will talk about some of the dreamers who created our country and consider what role 'Dreams and Grand Visions' still play in this nations of 'dreamers, innovators and poets.
But over the past forty years, most analysis of history and public policy discussions have taken a materialist approach. History books talk about Acts, events, and results, not dreams, grand visions and the emotions of historical figures. Their religion is either scoffed at or ignored.
Fiscal reality, not emotional attachments, governs public policy. Political leaders love to tell us that 19th Century based political and cultural arrangements that 'hamstring' politicians and economic interests don't make sense. The idea that such arrangements were made with full intention of curtailing power of elected officials and economic interests is usually forgotten in discussions about the future of Canada.
We have adopted a materialist approach that says feelings, dreams and emotions do not matter. Politicians and political theorists have relegated symbols such as the Crown, flags, and anthems to political fluff that to be changed 'at will' without any concern for the effect this has on citizens' attachment to their country or on the structures safeguarding citizens' rights. International relationships are simply utilitarian.
This view says Treaties and constitutional arrangements regarding language, religious rights and the role of provinces or the role of the Crown or its representatives don't matter to us, because we weren't born when those arrangements were made. We can change them even when they leave out an original party to the agreement -- as Quebec was left out 1982. (Change is seen as good. Waiting for agreement and timing that works for everybody is deemed not necessary.)
But the vision that built Canada was based on dreams, faith and big ideas. It was also based on on consensus of peoples and regions. 19th century 'political elites (especially in London), colonial administrators, and capitalists' rarely thought of the rights of individuals. The idea that colonists could keep political and cultural arrangements they loved -- and sometimes died to protect -- and turn themselves into nations was unthinkable to the guys who hung around gentlemen's clubs in London and New York. Why not sell out the rights of colonists in order to facilitate trade across the Atlantic?
But the colonists dared to dream impossible dreams. They believed that it did not matter what the 'money men' said. They could turn Rupert's Land and British North America into a sovereign nation without war and without severing ties to the rest of the Empire. (These visions of interdependence and peaceful transformation remain key parts of the Canadian identity.) They believed God could intervene in impossible situations.
By the mid 1880's their faith and hard work not only had made their dreams reality, it was beginning to change their Empire into sovereign nations (dominions) within the Empire. While the bureaucrats in London thought this was merely a change in status for 'their' colonies, colonists from Canada to Australia were dreaming that their nations would be equal in status to Britain and that they, and their fellow colonists from many nations, would have as much protection from the Queen's government as the Lords, Ladies, and Financiers of the realm.
This is what the Commonwealth of Nations is actually intended to be, but it goes a step further by recognizing that groups such as the Indigenous peoples of Australia and the First Nations of Canada ought to have protection equal to their 'colonist' neighbour. And that the poor should be protected as much as the rich.
This is why we continue to see Our Queen and her representatives visit hospitals and espouse the rights of the poor and minorities. It is also the reason The Crown recognizes the accomplishments of artists, writers, theologians, innovations, community leaders and even individual acts of heroism. It is why the Queen quotes Bible verses and speaks of role of many faiths in the lives of people throughout the Commonwealth -- and only a few radical materialists protest that she is the embodiement of the union of 'faith and public life.' Why? Because, in Canada, it is the Crown's role to acknowledge that there is more to life than 'materialism.'
The Fathers of Confederation recognized that politicians and businessmen should not have total control of the nation. They recognized that one class or one part of the Empire should not run over the rights of others. It was a world changing dream, based more on poetry than rationalism. (And no they didn't get it perfect, but that is a post for another day.)
My next post will talk about some of the dreamers who created our country and consider what role 'Dreams and Grand Visions' still play in this nations of 'dreamers, innovators and poets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)