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!

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.

David said:

By your argument it would have been difficult to try the *** at Nuremburg who used the defence obeying orders as those on the allied side were not put in this position and many people in the air force obeyed orders to bomb civilians.

This you state above is your argument.

You asked me if I would have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did ~ on the basis of what other people might think all big and shame.

And I essentially stated I live in the hear and now version of reality, and not the elsewhere and otherwise version of mentality ~ such as also for example:

David said:

if you are a thief up before Court it would not be a defence to tell the Judge and Jury you were never in my position of being short of money.

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.

Cassandro said:

Well it sounds like the end of the conversation.

The end of one post starts or enables the beginning of another.

Cassandro said:

To me 'semantics' means 'meaning'.  It's a part of grammar that is not to do with syntax but the logical structure of a what a sentence conveys.

Being that as according to Google Dictionary:

Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning.

Syntax is the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language, usually including word order.

Grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language.

Semantics in the concrete or objective sense involves using Syntax and Grammar equally to establish meaning.

Cassandro said:

However, some people (I think particularly in the US) use it to mean 'splitting hairs'.

In the abstract or subjective sense, Semantics is used subjectively to replace and displace the concrete or objective term:

Sophistry ~ the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

Sophistry can also be used as reference by which to apply the concrete use of semantics, syntax and grammar ~ in order not to manipulate, but instead to inform.

Sophistry then involves what is not to done in terms of deception, and semantics therefore what is ~ in terms of information.

Cassandro said:

I suspect Cloudy Mountains and Deepthought were using it in almost opposite senses.

Yes, I from the inclusive perspective of integration, or holistic outcomes, in terms of being pro-positive ~ i.e. the continuation of Frith's career.

And CM from the exclusive perspective of disintegration, or catastrophic outcomes, in terms of being pro-negative ~ i.e. the obstruction of Frith's career.

Cassandro said:

For the substantive point, I don't think this is about the modern-day researchers much.  There's no reason a mental health worker or a journalist should know everything about history.  I don't think it's about use of 'scientific' information obtained with coercion even.  It's really a question about whether we want to continue to almost 'honour' someone about whom new material has come to light. 

I do not myself honour people in terms of using diagnostic criteria or practical apparatus that has been developed. If something works well, I make good use of it, and thereby honour the dead by instead honouring the living, and all that.

Cassandro said:

By the way, I don't think DSM-V dropping 'Asperger Syndrome' is related to history, since that was decided some time before the latest publications

Although the concrete historical data of Czechs paper was really good, it was not relevant to excluding Asperger's Syndrome as a diagnostic term, as that began in the USA with Autism Spectrum Disorder (or ASD) by way of the DSM-5 in 2013.

Czech's paper has though become rather relevant for some to drop the term now though.

Cassandro said:

It's more that 'Asperger Syndrome' was always intended as a stepping stone to enlarge the diagnostic categories.

Lorna Wing described her intention for using the diagnostic classification of 'Asperger's Syndrome' as follows:

The many patterns of abnormal behaviour that cause diagnostic confusion include one originally described by the Austrian psychiatrist, Hans Asperger (1944, 1968, 1979). The name he chose for this pattern was 'autistic psychopathy' using the latter word in the technical sense of an abnormality of personality. This has led to misunderstanding because of the popular tendency to equate psychopathy with sociopathic behaviour. For this reason, the neutral term Asperger Syndrome is to be preferred and will be used here.

http://www.mugsy.org/wing2.htm

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.

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.

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?