Hans Asperger

I agree with Carol Povey's comment. Completely.

The whole affair is troublesome to say the least. As someone with Jewish heritage I'd have had 2 reasons to worry. Looking at the whole picture though what would have happened if Asperger didn't do the research. I feel for the children that were euthanised. One problem I do have with this piece is that because of Czech's paper Asperger's work might be buried due to the moral dilemmas this may raise in academia.

I'm really not surprised by it though. The Nazi's performed hysterectomys and *** reductions routinely for cruelty and research. They use the techniques today that were born out of those horrors. They basically went wild with research because of the excuses the ideology gave them. I don't see any stigma being implied to people who have these procedures or any mention of the Nazi's that did them. Why should Asperger's be any different? The answer for me is controversy.

The Japanese were terrible too. Unit 731 was a Japanese unit that did medical experimentaton and biological weapons experimentation on large numbers of people in WW2. Their "inventions" killed half a million. The medical techniques they discovered are used today and the biological weapons were of great interest to the allies. The Americans granted many Unit 731 members immunity. Many went on to practice medicine and some carried on the research in allied nations. This bothers me greatly. Asperger gets highlighted (and rightfully so) but people who did experiments on live subjects (I won't detail them here because they are very, very, extreme) and created devastating biological weapons (which were continued to be developed) are never mentioned. The Soviets went after them as criminals but the Americans rolled out the red carpet for them. They also did this for Nazi's they deemed useful.

There have been eugenics issues for Autistic people far more recently. In nations that never get criticized or mentioned. Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark had programs up until the late 70's. The mentally ill, people with PDD's such as Autism, and lots of other "burden's to society". It's never mentioned. These countries should be dragged over the coals. We knew the Nazi's were pieces of *** but why should they get away with it.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/225135

Sweden started in 1906 and didn't stop until 1975.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden?wprov=sfla1

Even more recently Belgium have been allowing people with Autism to "euthanise" themselves. Also people with depression, schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses. They should be helping people deal with their problems. Maybe they are considered "a burden to society". That's a phrase from facist ideology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/europes-morality-crisis-euthanizing-the-mentally-ill/2016/10/19/c75faaca-961c-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b31509b04502

There are injustices going on right now that are just as bad as Nazi Germany. You won't find them being reported on. We need to stay vigilant.

Some people have already indicated that they no longer wish to use 'Asperger's' and aspie. It makes me wonder if DSM-5 was aware this issue might eventually arise and so sought to replace it with a position on the ASD spectrum. I'm still not feeling particularly condemnatory about this, but I support Cloudy Mountains. With big names signing an editorial in support of Czech, I don't think it will disappear any time soon. I have heard that some people who worked with Asperger in his later life formed the impression he was somewhat aspergic himself. One imagines that might not have been an entirely insignificant factor in such troubled times. One thing that caught my attention was that he seems to have deliberately played up labels indicating high-functioners with the idea that they would be more useful alive to the Third Reich. But he also must have known that those people he deemed less 'useful' were going to be sent to institutions where euthanasia was practiced. And sometimes he was stricter in his classifications than the Nazi administrators of those institutions - although being permitted to survive in such a harsh environment was of extremely dubious worth.

I'm not in disagreement with the term Asperger's being dropped for a place on the spectrum either. I agree with her comment that people that have been given the diagnosis as "Asperger's" or identify as such shouldn't worry.

One thing that did stand out for me was the part in the article where Czech was quoted as saying........

“Asperger refused to acknowledge the reality of anti-Jewish persecution by the Nazi regime; this indifference is visible both during and after the war,” said Czech.

The historian admitted that his findings might well be painful for autistic people and their families to digest, but said he was obliged to reveal them. (as a person with Jewish heritige and ASD I find it offensive that he is using both Jews and Autism as currency for his career, what does Asperger's opinion have to do with a diagnosis made on a person with nothing to do with Asperger's opinion and their families? It's not like they are Nazi!)

“It would have been wrong for me to have withheld this information, however difficult it might be to hear,” he said. “At the same time, there is no evidence to show his contributions to autism research were tainted by his problematic role during National Socialism. So purging the term Asperger from the medical lexicon would not be helpful. Rather, this should be an opportunity to look at the past and learn lessons from it.”

Earlier in the article it says........

In his 43-page paper, Czech is deeply critical of authors in the English-speaking world, who he accused, over decades, of perpetuating a “predominantly apologetic narrative” of Asperger, “based on the limited range of sources available to them”. He also criticised Uta Frith, considered one of the UK’s leading autism experts, saying she had barely mentioned Nazism in her 1991 book Asperger and His Syndrome, which he believed had been instrumental in establishing the common view that Asperger had “defended his patients against the Nazi regime at great personal risk”, when the opposite had been the case, Czech said. Frith declined to comment for this article.

So it seems Czech finds it OK to defend Asperger's research by his own standard but Frith cannot. He even admits it she was using a "limited range of sources". I'd rather have Frith using her time on research in Autism anyway.

Frith is an expert in Autism, Czech is a not particularly prominent historian from what I can make out. Czech seems like an attention seeker. He could have written the paper on Asperger and not used it as a hit piece on Frith.

Frith has done far more for Autistic people than Czech ever will. Frith has the potential to do more if she isn't dragged through the mud. My fears are already being confirmed! I just hope that this whole thing doesn't affect anything inside of current research!

David said:

No but people might ask you would you have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did?

Well, as in reality you are asking me, my answer is that:

I did not grow up in the first half of the century.

I was not exposed to the socially shared and enforced sexism, ageism and tribalism (or altogether just elitism) that was going on in Austria in those days.

I did not have a wife and five children to support.

and, 

More simply ~ I was not, nor ever shall be in the same position as Hans Asperger, as I am not Hans Asperger, and this is the current era.

As the saying goes ~ "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes." as means  be compassionate, rather than judgement involving generalised incrimination or defamation.

Personally, I think it reasonable for people to refer to their diagnostic classification as it is.

The first exception to this being if the diagnosis of the condition is not in symptomatic terms befitting.

The second exception, as applies in your case ~ on the basis of moral and ethical grounds in cultural or ethnic terms, is that HFA, ASC, ASD (or something along those lines) is more befitting for 'you' as an individual.

Does this make sense to you?

No but people might ask you would you have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did?

To this day I think it funny when I refused to bend over for getting a sum wrong nearly fifty years ago  the teacher told my Mother that in the Army you have to obey orders as well as at School. My Mother said that the Germans obeyed orders too much.

I do not know what you mean.  What I am saying is very simple as a Jew I find the term Asperger offensive as he might have been a Nazi.  Re Mild Autism the GP in 2009 said that in 1976 that was the equivalent of Asperger Syndrome.  Please make your replies clearer as I have not got the faintest idea of what your last reply meant.

I'm comfortable continuing to use the term Asperger's and certainly don't think it would indicate to anyone that I harbour Nazi sympathies. 

The debate about Asperger himself, and his work, is interesting but I don't feel it reflects directly upon me or what I choose to call my AS. As someone else mentioned on here, there are many terms we use that have less-than-spotless associations and I don't feel that this is the worst of them.  

Endymion said:

Ugh!

I assume you are displaying your disgust again according to some extent what you interpret as being "badgering" ~ i.e. 'repeatedly and annoyingly ask (someone) to do something' (Google Dictionary). Rather than though asking or annoying me, you are using a visceral definition as a strong inference, or hint, and thereby avoiding any clarification regarding your intentions and motivations ~ perhaps?

A simpler question should be put Do you want the  label Asperger to be replaced in the light of what we now know about Hans Asperger.?  The debate is getting very complicated.  What issue do you respect differences of opinion as we seem to be talking about different things.

Thanks for all your replies.  There are two separate issues here.   Firstly I think it is a good idea to change the term as we do not want to apply that because you have a diagnoses you would have obeyed Hitler.   On the second issue my GP explained to me in 2009 that I have the label Asperger Syndrome as a Psychiatrist who came to visit us in 1976 about something different said I was mildly Autistic.  In 1990 my Father asked the family therapist whether I would have turned out better if I had been brought up more strictly.  The answer he got was that I am as I am because I have  Asperger Syndrome.  Well I have many difficulties nothing to do with Autism but I often do know what other people are thinking.  I have perception problems I cannot recognise people and get lost easily.  I consider myself a person with difficulties and I have Autistic traits. 

Going back to the first point  I think they were right after the war not to recognise Asperger Syndrome as he was a Austrian who worked for Hitler so very simple please  call it something else.  I have visited beautiful  Austria three times and been to Berlin briefly last  year so I am not saying we should boycott modern Austria and Germany.

Ugh!

Endymion said:

Not at all! The differences of opinion have been interesting in gaining perspective on both sides of a subject I'm no expert in but am interested in! It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

Do you then mean by ~

Endymion said:

Ugh!

~ that you are 'disgusted' or 'horrified' by your interpretation of my statements previously as being involved in,

Endymion said:

It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

and so forth?

Not at all! The differences of opinion have been interesting in gaining perspective on both sides of a subject I'm no expert in but am interested in! It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

Endymion said:

Ugh!

You do not like or recognise differences of opinion from the equalitarian perspective? Or something other?

Ugh!

Cloudy Mountains said:

You are saying the same things again and again but using semantics to repeat your opinion

I have been as you have here but only in the sense of 'writing' my opinion, being that words and sentences are linguistic architectures as being semantic structures, which are dialectic variations, or accents in the spoken regional sense, by way of conveying meaning according to individuality.

Cloudy Mountains said:

There is no need.

Of course not ~ when it comes to semantics being used in writing or speech in every way, and this is so regardless of if anybody needs or wants it or not.

If though you think there is no need for repeating opinions in different ways about the same thing, you are entirely mistaken in having done so. This was a need for you, and you needed to fulfil it. This is the nature of many discussions between individuals, as based upon everyone having different perspectives from different locations on the Earths surface, in each and every case.

Cloudy Mountains said:

You obviously don't have the same concerns over the implications of Czech's article and the damage it could do to a valuable member of the Autism research community. I do.

I respect and support the concrete facts of science and nature, and everyone experiencing and reporting them as such here and elsewhere therefore ~ whether it be Czech, Frith or whomever else ~ scientist or not. I do not take sides.

This for the benefit of all, and the detriment of no one :-)

Deepthought said:

Czech's paper balances a long standing argument, and science only provides evidence on the basis of it being the next clue, or set of clues ~ final and absolute answers are socio-political derivations.

Most academics are fully aware of what publish and be damned means, but as long as the application of the information is of a high standard, and involves the incrimination of no one, respect is often more as such earned than it is lost.

As for being an apologist for Asperger, Frith seems not to be so in relation to Czech's findings, so respect due there.

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

The socio-political deriviations of Czech's paper are what I'm talking about Czech deliberately points out Frith. If you read my earlier post about the piece this is made plain.

Deepthought said:

I doubt it will make any real difference as autism is not a big thing on the socio-political front ~ regarding whom associated with whom seventy to eighty years ago, given that people are way more concerned with the therapeutic and support issues of the current day regarding autism itself. 

Your opinion is different to mine. Autism is a big socio-political issue. Research, care, treatment, and funding for all of these things are constantly an issue as many posters here will have experienced. Czech probably knew he would have gotten attention due to Autism being so prevelant in the media and public conciousness.

Deepthought said:

In not having directly followed or read any of Frith's work, I just did a little internet trawl concerning her Academic achievements ~ and I would suggest the closest she will ever get to no longer being or getting funded is if she decides to retire, for her own reasons. 

I have read Frith's work and followed her achievements. I'm just not comfortable with someone directly mentioning her and smearing her name. In the climate of today's academic circles Frith's reputation could be smeared.

You are saying the same things again and again but using semantics to repeat your opinion. There is no need. You obviously don't have the same concerns over the implications of Czech's article and the damage it could do to a valuable member of the Autism research community. I do.

Cloudy Mountains said:

If Czech is trying to make out that Frith is an apologist for Asperger it could cause her image to be damaged within academia.

Czech's paper balances a long standing argument, and science only provides evidence on the basis of it being the next clue, or set of clues ~ final and absolute answers are socio-political derivations.

Most academics are fully aware of what publish and be damned means, but as long as the application of the information is of a high standard, and involves the incrimination of no one, respect is often more as such earned than it is lost.

As for being an apologist for Asperger, Frith seems not to be so in relation to Czech's findings, so respect due there.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Academia is funded by people that have to cater to public opinion or have an socio-political agenda.

I doubt it will make any real difference as autism is not a big thing on the socio-political front ~ regarding whom associated with whom seventy to eighty years ago, given that people are way more concerned with the therapeutic and support issues of the current day regarding autism itself. 

Cloudy Mountains said:

If Frith is de-funded or her position is put at risk it would logically affect current scientific research.

In not having directly followed or read any of Frith's work, I just did a little internet trawl concerning her Academic achievements ~ and I would suggest the closest she will ever get to no longer being or getting funded is if she decides to retire, for her own reasons. 

If Czech is trying to make out that Frith is an apologist for Asperger it could cause her image to be damaged within academia. Academia is funded by people that have to cater to public opinion or have an socio-political agenda. If Frith is de-funded or her position is put at risk it would logically affect current scientific research.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Yes, she says she used scant sources, just as was said in my post above. She also says what has been said about the whole affair in the original article.

Well as you stated, you were concerned about Czech's article affecting current research, which it will not scientifically, as the only real concern is a socio-political one ~ i.e, how people feel about the fascist associations of being diagnosed or identifying with having Asperger's Syndrome.

Churchill was not a humanitarian in any sense. I remember we had to write an essay on him at school and I mentioned that he was romanticised highly after the war. He sent the troops to basically occupy Tonypandy after a civil industrial dispute, his views on the disabled and his absolute incompetency in WW2 in the Africa conflict. He could have let Wavell attack Rommel when the allies had the upper hand. Instead he let the conflict continue for years. Churchill was ***, he did lead Britain to beat the Nazi's but his attitude to the general populace of his own country was terrible.

Lol, yeah Bowie was a man of many contradictions. He seemed to explore some very strange ideas and dark places but he seemed to come out a very rounded guy. I didn't know about his brother but that lyric does make sense. I was listening to Loving the Alien the other day and it was eerily prophetic. Spooky in fact!

BTW good to come across a Bowie fan!

Yes, she says she used scant sources, just as was said in my post above. She also says what has been said about the whole affair in the original article.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/22/what-we-must-learn-from-asperger-expose

Sahil Singh Gujral
New York, USA

QUOTE: Throughout this period, American and British psychiatrists endorsed eugenicist ideologies and sometimes heinous acts. To list but a few examples: autism’s co-discoverer in America, Leo Kanner, supported sterilisation for the mentally disabled, while Foster Kennedy, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association, advocated a US euthanasia programme to be modelled upon the ***’. In England, Winston Churchill endorsed the Mental Deficiency Act 1913, mandating that all “imbeciles” be separated from society and involuntarily committed to labour camps, typically for the rest of their lives. Amid often awful squalor, many deteriorated and died. UNQUOTE

People seem to have forgotten just how troubled Europe was at the beginning of the 20th Century. I think we can still credit 'good' work from people, while also being aware that they are mere mortals like ourselves.

I've always wondered what Bowie might have been referring to in the song 'Quicksand', with the lyrics,"Living proof of Churchill's lies". Whilst having long realised that Churchill was a man of many contradictions, I would guess this lyric was partially inspired by Bowie's brother being in a psychiatric ward for many years. It's a theme that crops up a lot in his work. But Bowie was as much of a mass of contradictions as the rest of us.

I'm glad that Uta Frith has commented on this, and has also mentioned Lorna Wing at the same time.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/22/what-we-must-learn-from-asperger-expose

Sahil Singh Gujral
New York, USA

QUOTE: Throughout this period, American and British psychiatrists endorsed eugenicist ideologies and sometimes heinous acts. To list but a few examples: autism’s co-discoverer in America, Leo Kanner, supported sterilisation for the mentally disabled, while Foster Kennedy, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association, advocated a US euthanasia programme to be modelled upon the ***’. In England, Winston Churchill endorsed the Mental Deficiency Act 1913, mandating that all “imbeciles” be separated from society and involuntarily committed to labour camps, typically for the rest of their lives. Amid often awful squalor, many deteriorated and died. UNQUOTE

People seem to have forgotten just how troubled Europe was at the beginning of the 20th Century. I think we can still credit 'good' work from people, while also being aware that they are mere mortals like ourselves.

I've always wondered what Bowie might have been referring to in the song 'Quicksand', with the lyrics,"Living proof of Churchill's lies". Whilst having long realised that Churchill was a man of many contradictions, I would guess this lyric was partially inspired by Bowie's brother being in a psychiatric ward for many years. It's a theme that crops up a lot in his work. But Bowie was as much of a mass of contradictions as the rest of us.

I'm glad that Uta Frith has commented on this, and has also mentioned Lorna Wing at the same time.

Shalom aleichem David, I too have Jewish heritage. Some of my family were in Giado. If you know Giado you will know that it was a pretty bad place. The Italians ran Giado. I have read some of your posts concerning this. My Grandfather, his brothers, my grandmothers brothers and cousins all fought in WW2. My grandfather helped liberate Bergen-Belsen so I can understand the issues regarding quite a few things in relation to that dark period.

This really isn't about our Jewish roots or close relationships with people who served or suffered in WW2. It doesn't give us any more of a right to an opinion than anyone else here. I really don't care about the name that is used. The thing that concerns me more is the way that this has caused a lot of pressure on certain big names in Autism research. I'm less concerned about a paper that an obscure Austrian historian has published and bathed in the attention he has got and been an agent provocateur since he got the attention.

Czech really couldn't care less about AS people in my opinion or the name that is used, for all he cares they could call it Baked-Bean-Soda syndrome. He could have just written the paper on Asperger and took the credit for his findings, without naming other researchers.

Tishmor al atzmecha achi

I was born in March 1957  shortly after the war finished less than twelve years afterwards. Most of my teachers fought in World War 2.  My Dad could not  take part in air raids largely because he was short sighted.    He did what he could he plotted air raids on a Map.   Most of you were born a long time after the war so you do not understand the issues re Hans Asperger and that dark period in Austria and Germany.

We have a problem they agreed to use his name as Lorna Wing thought he was not a Nazi after one meeting with him.  It is now up to the powers that be to decide what to do about it.  May be they will replace it with Wing Syndrome.

Churchill wasn't too good a wartime politician either. He made some very questionable decisions in the Africa campaign, costing logistics and military resources that could have been re-routed to help finish the war earlier. His decision to halt Wavell's advance into Libya was disastrous. Some of the decisions he made before the 30's were totally inept too.

Churchill was a man of war not a man of peacetime. You could argue that the Labour landslide in the 1945 general election was an epitome of ingratitude towards the Conservative dominated government that won the war, but the public knew that Churchill was a mediocre peacetime politician at his best and they did not want a return to the 1930s.

David said:

so we do not want to give the Germans and Austrians recognition during the Nazi era.

Who is "we" in this context, please?

Cassandro said:

two friends: one tells you he's about to have a vasectomy, the other he's about to kill himself

Happiness?

(by the way, that's a false analogy because in your example both actions are instigated by the subject's own free will). 

Perhaps a better analogy would be:

A nasty so-and-so grabs you and it seems clear they want to kill you - what do you do next?

A nasty so-and-so grabs you and cheerfully declares they're about to interfere with your "bits". After you've woken up (if they bothered with anaesthetic) you realise they meant what they said. What do you do next?

I didn't say it was OK, but yes I think sterilisation is not as evil as killing (two friends: one tells you he's about to have a vasectomy, the other he's about to kill himself - how do you react?). I wasn't sure if you were serious. There was a big scandal about eugenic sterilisation was practised in Sweden into the 1970s, I believe.

Just because X is bad, and Y is bad, does not mean you can't say both are bad, but X is worse.

Let's have an argument... or not.

So you're saying that forced sterilisation in keeping with pervasive 20th century eugenic ideals was kind of okay, but definitely not as evil as killing people?

Sorry, I entirely disagree (but respect your freedom to hold an alternate view). 

Forced sterilisation is entirely equivalent to the "works" of Josef Mengele, as far as I can see. 

Many people with Asperger probably have mild Autism but not be able to cope with life as they have other Co-Existing conditions.  Do not forget that during that period we also had Dr Mengele experimenting on Jews and others so we do not want to give the Germans and Austrians recognition during the Nazi era.

Sterilisation, but not killing.

Senor said:

Leo Kanner, supported sterilisation for the mentally disabled

...which, logically speaking, makes him Nazi too, surely?

The irony. You really couldn't make this up.

Churchill was not a humanitarian in any sense. I remember we had to write an essay on him at school and I mentioned that he was romanticised highly after the war. He sent the troops to basically occupy Tonypandy after a civil industrial dispute, his views on the disabled and his absolute incompetency in WW2 in the Africa conflict. He could have let Wavell attack Rommel when the allies had the upper hand. Instead he let the conflict continue for years. Churchill was ***, he did lead Britain to beat the Nazi's but his attitude to the general populace of his own country was terrible.

Lol, yeah Bowie was a man of many contradictions. He seemed to explore some very strange ideas and dark places but he seemed to come out a very rounded guy. I didn't know about his brother but that lyric does make sense. I was listening to Loving the Alien the other day and it was eerily prophetic. Spooky in fact!

BTW good to come across a Bowie fan!