About the Tanganyka region
An item on an inexplicably esteemed ‘litblog’ complains about a recent essay in the WSJ by John Miller that criticized H.G. Wells:
"Finally, Miller leaves us with a few bizarre insinuations about Wells' beliefs in science, evolution, and materialism. It is a peculiar claim of today's "conservatives" that by embracing evolutionary theory, the left has also embraced social Darwinism, thus destroying individual dignity and ushering in a merciless, survival-of-the-fittest world. Of course, it was the uber-capitalists of the Gilded Age who turned the theory of natural selection into a pseudo-scientific social creed. And the victory of laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog capitalism -- and the abolition of civilizing regulatory and social policies that guard against its worst excesses -- have been the central causes of the Republican Party for the last thirty years."H.G. Wells, in his own words:
"It seemed to me that to discourage the multiplication of people below a certain standard, and to encourage the multiplication of exceptionally superior people, was the only real and permanent way of mending the ills of the world. I think that still."While some promoters of eugenics were 'laissez-faire capitalists', the most prominent and active promoters in the English speaking world were ones on the Left (and still are - is it necessary to point out which side of the political spectrum favors abortion?): the Fabian Socialists, G.B. Shaw, Margeret Sanger in America – and Wells. The opponents of eugenics were religious conservatives, most famously G.K. Chesterton and Hillare Belloc. How can the author of this complaint be a fan of H.G. Wells yet unaware of any of this? I wonder what Wells would have thought of him...
"I believe that now and always the conscious selection of the best for reproduction will be impossible; that to propose it is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what individuality implies. The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
"The mating of two quite healthy persons may result in disease. I am told it does so in the case of interbreeding of healthy white men and healthy black women about the Tanganyka region; the half-breed children are ugly, sickly, and rarely live."
“[natural selection] has been more and more thoroughly assimilated and understood by the general mind, it has destroyed, quietly but entirely, the belief in human equality which is implicit in all the “Liberalising” movements of the world … it has become apparent that whole masses of human population are, as a whole, inferior in their claim upon the future to other masses, that they cannot be given other opportunities or trusted with power as the superior peoples are trusted, that their characteristic weaknesses are contagious and detrimental in the civilising fabric, and that their range of incapacities tempts and demoralizes the strong. To give them equality is to sink to their level, to protect and cherish them is to be swamped in their fecundity"
“[Wells was in favor of] the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity—beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds...and to check the procreation of base and servile types...of all that is mean and ugly and bestial in the souls, bodies, or habits of men.”
"the conclusion is that if we could prevent or discourage the inferior sort of people from having children, and if we could stimulate and encourage the superior sort to increase and multiply, we should raise the general standard of the race."