When I was researching my biography of H.G. Wells in the early 1990s, I was shocked by the man’s lifelong support for social engineering and eugenics. Put simply, his socialism embraced the idea that for the bulk of humanity to be free, prosperous and happy, a sizable minority had to simply disappear. For Wells, this included the disabled, the “perverse” and even, perhaps, many who were non-white. What became apparent very quickly was that such an approach wasn’t confined to the author of The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man, but was extraordinarily common on the intellectual left. Many, even our own Tommy Douglas for a time, shared some of these ideas, as did mainstream socialist thinkers all over the world. This was before the genocidal policies of the Nazis were implemented and, while many of these grandees of the left had died before the camps were liberated and the horrors known, others certainly lived on. Some were contrite, others not. Either way, it hardly forgives them their ideology and influence – naiveté and ignorance simply aren’t a viable defence in such circumstances. One of the most articulate eugenicists of the era was a man who survived until 1950, and remains one of the world’s most famous and respected dramatists. George Bernard Shaw − literary giant, author of more than 60 plays and winner of the Nobel Prize. A strong Canadian connection, of course, because the great theatre festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake is named after him. The Irishman’s opinions are, however, coming back to mangle his reputation. A group of students at Britain’s Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) have called for Shaw’s name to be removed from the drama school’s theatre. This matters, because Shaw provided for the school in his will and last year, the royalties from his work contributed more than $140,000 to RADA. Yet, the accusation that the renowned theatre college “celebrates historical figures who embraced racist ideologies” does have a certain merit. Problem is, as has been debated countless times: do, can, and should we separate an artist’s work from their period, character and ideas? Shaw did indeed write that, “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of man” and, chillingly, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” He lectured for the Eugenic Education Society, praised Stalin (naturally), the early Mussolini and even Hitler as late as 1935. He abandoned most of all this in his old age, but never made any formal apology. A challenge for those who would remove the social engineers is that many of their harshest opponents were not others on the left but, in Edwardian Britain and in the 20s and 30s, conservative Roman Catholic writers led by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. In 1922, Chesterton wrote a book entitledEugenics and Other Evils stating that, “Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from goodmotives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” He and Belloc were both responsible for some jarringly reactionary and anti-Semitic comments but, nevertheless, saw the policies of Shaw, Wells and the rest for what they were. These prolific authors and journalists were also surprisingly early opponents of the Nazis, principally because of the party’s racist eugenics. In 1983, when I was a young reporter working for theNew Statesman, I interviewed the famous children’s author Roald Dahl. Discussing a controversial review he’d written of a book about Palestine, he suddenly said, “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.” The story went, as they would say many years later, viral. Dahl may have been old, mad and ill, or maybe he was just a genuine anti-Semite. Either way, this half-Jewish father read Dahl’s stories to his four children when they were young. Because they’re very good books. Oddly enough, all four kids have turned out to be rather liberal, tolerant and well-adjusted. There’s a Shavian dilemma for you to consider. Opinion with Michael Coren 16 | www.snowbirds.org
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzMzNzMx