Timeline for How come mathematicians published in Annals of Eugenics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2022 at 18:32 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | One American eugenecist who was a professor of medicine who died in 1938 (before WWII by five years after Hitler came to power) was Charles Dight, a professor of medicine who wrote a fan letter to Adolf Hitler, to which Hitler replied. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 15:08 | comment | added | JLRishe | @DavidRicherby I agree completely, but that's the term that's used on the Wikipedia page. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 14:43 | comment | added | David Richerby | @JLRishe Also also worth noting that the word "bimonthly" should never be used because nobody knows whether it means twice a month or every other month. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 7:43 | comment | added | YCor | @KamerynWilliams "present the history of eugenics as disconnected..." There was no attempt to present the history of eugenics. This is a focussed question on a precise link at a precise time. An attempt to present this history and notably the nazi aspect would (a) be of little help to the question (b) shade the question, as it's much more important (c) probably generate a lengthy discussion, just because it can't be summarized in a few lines, completely off-topic. So I approve the OP's choice to remain focussed. Let's refer to Wikip. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) for background. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 4:33 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | The reason eugenics became a dirty word is not a simple story, but the fact that the Nazis showed us that it can lead to catastrophe played a big part. But even that took years to properly sink in -- note how the journal kept its name for 9 years after the end of WWII. Changes in public perceptions of a movement over decades don't always have explanations that are both simple and true. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 23:54 | comment | added | Kimball | @KamerynWilliams The reasons eugenics is seen as a dirty word—a rather euphemistic way to put it—is directly tied to its historic popularity in the US and elsewhere. - I don't understand this comment. The "historic popularity" is why many people still know the word eugenics, but I would say the reason it became a dirty word is because of our knowledge of the practices of eugenicists (both in the US and in Europe). | |
| May 8, 2019 at 20:12 | comment | added | Wildcard | Michael Chrichton wrote a fascinating article about this: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 18:02 | comment | added | Peter Turner | @ycor G.K. Chesteron's "Eugenics and other Evils" was published in 1922 the same year he was received into the Catholic Church. It doesn't contain Catholic doctrine as such, but a synthesis of social teaching (and common sense) against the Eugenicist wave engulfing England pre-WWII. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 17:52 | comment | added | Julia Williams | The reasons eugenics is seen as a dirty word—a rather euphemistic way to put it—is directly tied to its historic popularity in the US and elsewhere. In particular, American eugenicists were an inspiration to the nazis. It does a disservice to history to elide these connections and present the history of eugenics as disconnected from the atrocities that led it to fall out of favor. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 14:03 | comment | added | YCor | Sure but this does not contradict what I said. Catholicism is not a unified way of thinking. (And "Catholic Church" rather means from Vatican than from catholics individually.) Nevertheless what I found so far about this opposition was quite vague and I'm curious to learn more about it. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 13:25 | comment | added | Liviu Nicolaescu | Fisher was Catholic. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 12:39 | comment | added | YCor | I'm not sure about "few... would have had morel qualms...". I guess there was a significant opposition to eugenics based on religious grounds (e.g. from the Catholic Church). | |
| May 8, 2019 at 12:19 | comment | added | JLRishe | Also worth noting that the journal in question continues to be published bimonthly to this day, though its name was changed in 1954. | |
| May 8, 2019 at 11:56 | history | answered | Brendan McKay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |