Would you like to merge this question into it?
George Bernard Shaw, through his plays, was one of my early heroes. I knew only the good of him then. More recently I have come to learn things, about his political views, that I could have known then but did not, and knowing, would have seen him differently. Learning them prompts me to want to know more about his contradictory character, to decide anew what we should think of him.
That kindly old gentleman pulling the strings attached to Henry Higgins and Eliza Doolittle on the cover of the vinyl album of My Fair Lady died in at the Methuselan age of ninety-four.
An early leader of the originally tiny Fabian Society, he was a lifelong socialist, but that narrow catechism could not contain his ebullient eclecticism.
Shaw was not a Marxist but a Nietzschean, not an atheist but a believer in Bergsonian vitalism. The reasoning is usually along the lines of those marvelous syllogisms so beloved by the Glenn Becks of the world: It is where it is where the idea of eugenics, breed the perfect race, breed a better voter.
These are all stated. It runs from guilt by association to guilt without any association. Glenn Beck may not be the best example, as he is in somewhat bad odor even among conservatives as himself a lunatic.
Weintraub is a distinguished Shaw scholar, and editor of Bernard Shaw: He claimed that he was a National Socialist before Hitler was.
The only exception I am able to think of is Bernard Shaw, who, for some years at any rate, declared Communism and Fascism to be much the same thing, and was in favour of both of them.
What is dishonest about all this stuff is not the quotes from leftists but the claim that eugenics was widely supported by leftists and the omission of all those on the right who were eager, and very well-funded, champions of eugenics — for some, poison gas and all.
The problem with the right-wing use of Shaw to pillory moderate socialists and nonsocialist liberal progressives is not only that very few of the latter held such views, but that this kind of cherry picking is ahistorical. The very idea that there is such a thing as social change dates mainly from the Industrial Revolution, when it became obvious in daily life.
Much of philosophy, social theorizing, and political organizing since has aimed to figure out to what degree we can have effective input into our own future, to guide the unfolding changes rather than simply submit to them.
Many paths forward have been embraced only to prove disastrous later. Communism and fascism are the textbook examples. Darwin showed that there was biological change as well as political and economic change. Eugenics was an attempt to take charge of human evolution, which was ultimately found to be far more difficult and to involve a far greater potential for evil than its first advocates imagined.
It expanded in the United States to bar marriage or reproduction by those deemed mentally unfit, a category that began with the retarded and the mentally ill, and which expanded to swallow up many poor black women.
These atrocious policies were widely enacted into American law through the lobbying of major foundations, which were generally more conservative than liberal.
Eugenics was supported by some leftists and liberals, such as H. The main difference is that the Irish and Britons mainly talked about eugenics while the American corporate foundations poured large amounts of money into its implementation.
This was promoted by wealthy organizations such as the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie foundations. A similar treatment could be advantageously applied to the insane, guilty of criminal acts. The most prominent organizer of the eugenics movement in the United States was the apolitical zoologist and geneticist Charles B.
Exterminationist ideas of the sort Shaw voiced in the s were then, as they still are today, more common than we like to recognize, and not particularly linked to eugenics. In the early twentieth century colonialism and empire were more often the springboard.
On the left it was H. On the right, novelist D. Lawrence said such things. Every superior race in history has done the same, and was obliged to do it. Morris Lecture in International and Comparative Law.
Yet, Shaw gives the premise a cruel activist twist that goes beyond his sources. Of course, today loose exterminationist talk has, from overuse, lost much of its shock value. Shaw is useful to the right as one of the extremely few well-known socialists who also said some positive things about fascism.One of the first books for this ad to appear in was The The date seems to have been confused with when Shackleton announced his Nimrod expedition in a letter to the editor: Sir,–It has been an open secret for some time past that I have been desirous of leading another expedition to the South Polar regions.
Sir Ernest Shackleton. Early Exploration of Tibet, Nepal, Tartary, the Himalaya, Karakoram, Introduction. Rather than provide a comprehensive history of the area or its discovery and exploration by the west, the main purpose of this section is to provide an overview that ties together my books and reading on these topics.
Shop Sir Edmund Hillary Signed Letter and more music, movie, and TV memorabilia at Amazon's Entertainment Collectibles Store.
Descendants of The Jordans. Generation No. 1. timberdesignmag.com 1 JORDANS..
Notes for THE JORDANS: OTE: In Salisbury, England, one of the Deans on the list at OldSarum Catheral is 'Jordan ', t h e year of Sir Ken Robinson is a leading authority on education and creativity. A former professor of education, he now advises governments and businesses around the world and is .
James Michener as a child. (Virginia Trumbull) As an infant, James A. Michener was adopted by a widow in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. He was born in New York City in , but over the course of a long life, he was never able to learn who his birth parents were.