"Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."
The whole thing was started by a group with the ACLU that included leaders of the eugenics movement. They convinced Scopes to plead guilty to a violation of the Butler act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution.
Darrow practically jumped at the chance to defend Scopes. If he had any qualms about eugenics and what it would mean to defend Scope's teaching, which was mainly about eugenics, he didn't show it at that point. The point Darrow wanted to make was apparently that there is important science that can't be taught without teaching about evolution.
The first witness Darrow wanted to call for the defense was the President of the American Eugenics Society, but the judge would not allow it and also disallowed 6 other experts on evolution.
Civic Biology, the book in question at the trial, was mainly a book about eugenics, written by none other than the head of the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Lab himself, and Darwin's theory was merely background.
Civic Biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Instead of arguing for Scopes' right to free speech, as the ACLU wanted to do, Darrow tried to uphold the validity of the science in the science class over against the imposition of religious ideas.
Shortly after the Scopes trial Darrow came out strongly in opposition to eugenics. One can only suppose that he had a change of heart, or perhaps having rubbed elbows with eugenics experts he was repelled. It's also possible that he took William Jennings Bryan's humanitarian arguments against the implications of evolution, i.e., Social Darwinism, to heart. (People tend to forget that Bryan was as big a progressive as Darrow albeit coming to it from a different direction.)
One could suppose that Darrow's real aim was only to oppose imposition of religious belief in the classroom (and for that he ignored the issue of eugenics) if not for his apparent efforts to inject eugenics into the trial and his efforts to uphold Scope's teachings as science.
From a Race of Masters to a Master Race: 1948 To 1848 - A. E. Samaan - Google Books
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
There just isn't much left to say to you, if you are going to buy into this shlock historical perspective where TR, FDR and progressives were the blood brothers of Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Heydrich....well, you go with that. There is not much anyone can do to help a view this far detached from reality.
Both are Left wing, big government systems.
Quod scripsi, scripsi
The modern American political spectrum does not define left vs right. Left vs right was a term which originated in the 19th century to describe the difference between conservative monarchists who were right wing and liberals who were left wing. That is reductionist, but really the entire idea of left vs right is reductionist in and of itself so whatever.
In that set up, the right was the side of big government, support for the status quo, and support for hierarchy. The left was the side for reducing government, opposing the status quo, and opposing ingrained hierarchical structures. This was the way it was conceived for a long time, and this continued to be the way it was conceived in much of the world until WWI, when most of the monarchies of Europe fell. It was in the aftermath of this period that fascism arose. It was a set of beliefs which supported big government, hierarchy, and many other things that were staples of conservative and right wing movements (like nativism, militarism, etc). Their ideological aims were antithetical to everything Marxists believed in. They cared little about class based struggle, equality, etc. They cared about the promotion of the nation and the national citizen. At their core that it what they were, a nationalist movement. An extreme form of nationalism. They often supported a contradictory set of polices to promote this goal. They supported capitalism, but with heavy state intervention (something capitalist/liberal countries do in times of war as well, but Nazis thought treating an economy like constant war times was a good idea). In the end they didn't have strong ideological convictions when it came to economic polices, and instead supported a piecemeal economic policy that placed practicality and expediency in the ascendance. They created a coalition government with a conservative/right wing party when they won their one and only election. The first concentration camps were set up to imprison leftists, not anyone else.
However having said all that, Nazis don't fit in neatly on a modern American left v right spectrum. That is because old left v right spectrums had liberalism on one side and other ideologies in opposition. First monarchism, which placed liberalism on the left. However after the end of monarchism as a major force in the "West' you saw the rise of a new spectrum, which put liberalism to the right of communism. Then the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred, and you no longer had ideological opposition to liberalism. Instead you had debates within the liberal spectrum. So now the left vs right spectrum is essentially between classical liberals on the right and social liberals on the left (again reductionist, but as I said, you can't do this left v right **** without being reductionist). Since Nazism was an entirely illiberal ideology, it DOES NOT fit on an American left v right scale. Nazism had qualities and goals that it shared with the modern American left AND the modern American right. It is why you can have maniacs like Glen Beck tell you the left is Nazi, and then point to similarities, and the left do the same and point to similarities. When in reality neither side are Nazis.
PS. Statism is an idiotic barometer and measure for a left v right spectrum. All major modern political movements, without exception, have seen the state as the primary social mover. Belief in the positive power of the state is something shared by liberals (both the classical and social kinds), communist, and fascists. Only Anarchists and libertarians disagree, and they have never had enough popular support to actually do anything of consequence.
Last edited by Frodly; 06-03-13 at 04:12 AM.
I'm a Tarte, what!! You want some of this??
To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine