Hans Asperger

I think this is a non-story, really.

Pop quiz:

Q1) Where did eugenics originate?

Q2) In what year did the USA cease forcible sterilisation of "mentally defective" individuals?

Q1) Modern Eugenics was American

Q2) The late 70's?

They are still sterilizing female convicts in the USA.

A1) Ideas about Eugenics go back to ancient Greece, but I was thinking of:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton

I'll let you have the USA though, on account of:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport

There's a saying that when you're pointing a finger at others ("the *** did it"), there are three more fingers pointing back at you (!)

Clearly, although everyone obsesses about the *** - owing to the Hitlerfication of history - the ideas of eugenics were prevalent throughout the western world. The whole "wait, no, that's not what we meant..." in 1945 in response to the full implementation of these ideas under the third reich are therefore hypocritical in the extreme, especially since so many scientists were spirited away to the USSR, Britain and the USA after the war to continue their work, and the americans in particular persisted with their eugenics programmes until well into the 1970s, and in some cases beyond. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

A2) Yes, i was thinking of the 1970s. Well beyond the full, unfettered implementation that was supposedly so evil - so evil that they carried on with it in america after the war! 

A1) Ideas about Eugenics go back to ancient Greece, but I was thinking of:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton

I'll let you have the USA though, on account of:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport

There's a saying that when you're pointing a finger at others ("the *** did it"), there are three more fingers pointing back at you (!)

Clearly, although everyone obsesses about the *** - owing to the Hitlerfication of history - the ideas of eugenics were prevalent throughout the western world. The whole "wait, no, that's not what we meant..." in 1945 in response to the full implementation of these ideas under the third reich are therefore hypocritical in the extreme, especially since so many scientists were spirited away to the USSR, Britain and the USA after the war to continue their work, and the americans in particular persisted with their eugenics programmes until well into the 1970s, and in some cases beyond. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

A2) Yes, i was thinking of the 1970s. Well beyond the full, unfettered implementation that was supposedly so evil - so evil that they carried on with it in america after the war! 

I'm saying that his research probably saved people down the line. Having an actual line of research and a label for the condition was probably the start of a lot of people not just being labelled an "imbecile" and thrown in an asylum. Especially the lower functioning. I can't condone his actions at the time. That's the paradox though.

Are you saying that perhaps his actions did save some people down the line, or that he could have done so, but didn't?

I actually think that however evil some of the things that went on in Asperger's institute, he could have actually saved some people a few decades down the line from horrors such as electric shock treatment and lobotomies. Unintentionally of course. Those were still popular way after the war. Having a condition to apply a process to could have saved a lot of people on the spectrum a lot of pain.

I'm not too easy with the idea of an obscure historian attacking Frith. He could have written the piece without attacking Frith. People could have formed their own opinion on Frith's book themselves. She is an important researcher.

DongFeng5 said:

In the same way I have felt compelled to get involved when complete strangers are getting assaulted in public. It's wrong, and I won't stand for it.

I do not do the 'irked' thing myself, as I just stay neutral or calm, whether it involves verbal or physical abuse, or whether it requires verbal or physical measures. The calmer or more neutral I am in general, the less intense my seizures are, and the shorter their hangover durations are.

I used to get irked about things, but I just deal with them now and put the available energy to more efficient use.

DongFeng5 said:

If I do nothing, what does that make me, and what kind of society will we be living in as a result?

That is an impossible question to answer specifically, as you are referring to your personal field of experience, and as such asking me to make a judgement of your character in relation to society, as based upon that which you have not done, or would not do.

There is also the further difficulty that your question involves judging the structural character of your writing ~ rather than as such you; then applying that incomplete judgement to you ~ and not thereby respecting you as a complete individual.

Deepthought said:

did you decide to be irked about that and do likewise

Yes. 

In the same way I have felt compelled to get involved when complete strangers are getting assaulted in public. It's wrong, and I won't stand for it.

If I do nothing, what does that make me, and what kind of society will we be living in as a result?

DongFeng5 said:

It just irks me when people start getting hysterical and demanding that someone/something be completely disowned by society because they've decided to be offended. 

One of the things that I have always found curiously intriguing, is the tendency that we have along with others to contradict ourselves. My most poignant experience, as a child, was me at full volume yelling at my parents that I was not shouting, so loudly actually that I realised I was shouting!

I felt puzzled and strangely enlightened by this experientially.

One thing that I have learned since from that experience, is that when we get triggered, or set off, by events or things people say, do or write ~ the behavioural reaction or reproduction to which is subconsciously automatic, and not so much or even at all a conscious decision.

So in the same sense as people getting hysterical and demanding, in order to exclude something from some aspect of societal acceptance, did you decide to be irked about that and do likewise by degree?

Keep secure in mind here I am in no way judging your character, as I am just drawing attention to the intricacies of how we communicate, as a species, in many languages and dialects.

Senor said:

That isn't exactly a huge revelation

I don't think I claimed that it was?

It just irks me when people start getting hysterical and demanding that someone/something be completely disowned by society because they've decided to be offended. 

"I am offended, therefore you must all think and do what I say, otherwise you're clearly evil..."

Sorry, but no. No one is entitled to anything. Least of all telling other people how they must think. 

Senor said:

We will probably never know exactly what happened, but I believe we would also be extremely naive to just carry on remembering the heroic stuff.

Social hero to social martyr at the drop of paper session ~ 'fickle-factor-ten' is so not unusual in society; what with all that 'raise 'em up and bring 'em down' stuff. 

Science that is deplorably researched, proven or used, in part or whole, needs to be more morally and ethically applied as a matter of respect to those who were not treated accordingly, and for those who can and are being so more now.

There is still a long way to go yet as far as societal moral and ethical standards go, and although we are currently experiencing a regression in this respect, we are still making progress and achieving a great deal, none the less.

That isn't exactly a huge revelation. I would argue that not much has changed since the 70s, and fundamentalist notions of what is and isn't useful are actually resurgent in recent years. We will probably never know exactly what happened, but I believe it would be of very dubious benefit to just carry on remembering the heroic stuff alone. The use of Asperger's as a diagnostic term will probably continue, but it will perhaps now carry with it some additional history that is still worthy of consideration.

So, given the above, it logically follows that we should continue to use the term Asperger. All the "oh but he was a Nazi" fuss ignores the hard fact that western society generally was demonstrably fascist and in the case of the USA continued to be so well into the 1970s at least.