Hi, there /u/Raysun-! Welcome to /r/mildyinteresting. As a reminder, a place for things that are of slight interest.
***
Recommended Subs |
:---------------: |
r/JustGuysBeingDudes |
r/GetNoted |
r/AnimalMemes |
r/bestofnetflix |
r/JustGirlsBeingGals |
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mildyinteresting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
... Helen Keller was a socialist. She was in the Party. She was one of many figures who attempted to prevent the execution of beloved folk singer, Joe Hill. He was executed by firing squad for being suspected of attempting to hurt a woman (a woman shot a vagrant who'd attacked her, so they went looking through the hospitals to find people with injuries and found Pete), and everyone saw through it. Joe Hill was a Socialist.
An insane amount of historical figures were political Leftists who actively tried to improve America only to be killed, imprisoned, or censored. "This Land Is Your Land" was a protest song against Capitalism, so they cut out several lines to it and made it patriotic.
While we're at it, Google the Coal Wars, and Fred Hampton.
Fred Hampton is an important person in American history who needs to be talked about more.
For anyone interested, there is a great, albeit very dramatized, recount of his adult years in the movie Judas and The Black Messiah.
Joe Hill was actually executed for murdering two men. He visited a doctor’s office the day of the murder with a gunshot wound, which he got fighting with someone over a woman, then supposedly wouldn’t give details about how he was shot even after being accused of murder. The spirit of your version is spot on, though, and the point is the same — he was executed based on no evidence, and everyone knew the real reason…
not if Republicans have their way.
texas has voted to ban teaching about her because she is dangerous! a female who thought for herself and overcame numerous obstacles.
Vote blue.
I believe in answer to being asked ‘Which disability was worse: being blind; or being deaf?’ she apparently responded ”Being deaf, blindness isolates you from ‘things’ deafness from people.”
Actually you are considered blind if your vision is at a certain point of terrible, it doesn't need to be pitch black. I believe blindness just refers to severely disabling vision impairment, it doesn't necessarily indicate the person can only see pitch black. I mean, she would still only be able to read through braille and can't see faces.
Extreme forms of color blindness are considered blind.
Yeah my grandma is legally blind, but sometimes when we watch shows together she can read text on screen— it’s rare, and she gets really excited when it happens.
But it’s not like you could sneak up on her in front of her face.
She also likes to turn her hearing aids up too loud so she can eavesdrop on people. That’s not relevant I just think it’s funny and I love that woman.
The only thing stopping me from being legally blind, basically, is that corrective lenses still work for me. There are people at my prescription for whom they don't. I'm lucky somehow & if I don't have glasses or contacts available, I cannot walk through an unfamiliar room alone.
When "certain people" were making fun of Vice President Harris for describing herself to a room full of people at a vision impairment conference, I shamed some acquaintances for it because "I don't look disabled to you, but in certain circumstances I need someone who is three feet away from me to describe themselves to me because I cannot see them at all. They're a fuzzy, indistinct stack of colors, even that close."
Blindness is really something people don't think about as a spectrum.
Some blind people and be like you described. Helen Keller however hold not even see light. Although she was 19 months old when she became ill and blind and deaf so she did see at one point.
She was asked her opinion so she gave her opinion - she wasn’t in any way stating a concrete and verifiable fact with a right and wrong answer; she was asked which she felt was worse and answered based on her own experience. This is a normal way to have a conversation about how a person feels about things…
The deaf community is notoriously known for being closed off. Verbal communication or lack there of is way more isolating than visual communication. It’s been shown time and time again. You can talk to a blind person, but to talk to a deaf person they have to know how to read lips, or you have to know how to communicate in their language. And I’d say very few people know sign language fluently
These comments are gross. She was a real and complex and imperfect person, and these losers reduce her to jokes because they’re apparently still in high school.
It would have hurt substantially regardless. It's an explosive device designed to pop your damn ear drums.
Tell me you've never been near a firearm outside of video games without telling me.
It's surprising common for historical figures to be remembered, but to have the fact they were strong socialists left completely out of the story. For... some reason.
But even some of the big ones, like Martin Luther King & Einstein, the people remain famous, but their beliefs are sanitised.
Academics call it recuperation but it's commonly referred to as "defanging". Remove all of the strong political beliefs and just keep the happy status quo supporting stuff.
I don’t see how her belief in eugenics then discounts her at all today. People have got to quit condemning based on today’s standards. I have tons of doubts about today’s ethics, and I’m sure in 100 years they’re going to be pointing back at this time and wondering what the thinking was.
I think it's really important to bear in mind as well that a lot of treatment options simply didn't exist. If you had any type of disability, psychological dysfunction etc and there was absolutely nothing humane that could be done to alleviate the symptoms, it would make sense to jump to the conclusion that trying to eradicate that illness through eugenics would be the way to go.
I don’t think we should condemn. But eugenics was highly controversial then too, even though more mainstream. And during her lifetime had its most horrible consequences during the time of Nazi Germany expecially
Eugenics was wildly popular in the late 1800s to mid 1900s. It was considered a scientific basis for ancient beliefs about bloodlines, "good breeding", etc. People had tried to come up with all sorts of "rational" bases on which to categorise eachother into subgroups - such as phrenology - and eugenics was the first with a solid scientific backing. That the people we turned out to be, was down to the quality of our parents' genetics. Humans had believed this since time immemorial, and now science had "proven" it.
Since inheritance was not only provable, but could be manipulated, this led it to become popular in the mainstream to consider it nearly a "duty" of humanity to maximise the "purity" of the gene pool by either removing "undesirable" genes or performing a hard segregation between bloodlines.
It also led to the formation of the concept of the ethnostate - the idea that the planet should be redrawn into nations of ethnically distinct peoples; Russians, Jews, Germans, Arabs, Africans, etc. etc. Eugenics provided "proof" that mixing ethnicities was wrong and only served to make both "impure".
This was all popular and uncontroversial science at the time. A reflection of what many people believed anyway. The Nazis obviously took it to another level and made it socially unacceptable before it was properly accepted as being scientifically unsound - many countries continued practicing eugenics on a small scale (such as sterilisation of disabled people or minorities) well into the late 20th century. Indeed the decision to form the state of Israel came from the same ethnonationalism that the Nazis tried to impose on Europe.
So we can hardly criticise a person for being a "supporter" of a concept which the entire planet considered valid and was mainstream science at the time.
These ideas are still quite mainstream, many people believe that every ethnic group should live in their own country. IE tons of support for Kurdish independence or whatever ethnic group you have sympathies for. I've also met people who are kind hearted and feed the stray cats, but they believe the kittens are dying off because of their bad genes and not because they're starving to death in a harsh environment. In the wild, it's normal for many babies in a litter to not make it to adulthood (for example in litters of hyenas or lions). Anyways, what I'm saying here is that a lot of people's problems are more environmental than genetic. But then we can't blame people for them so that's unpopular.
*in 100 years*
Did you know that 100 years ago people used to drink water!?!?”
“Like….from the toilet?”
“Well, you could get it from other places, but, yeah”
“Hahaha. They drank toilet water!”
Sleeping with his deceased wife’s mix-raced slave half-sister who was 14 when Thomas Jefferson was 44 wasn’t looked on favourably even by the standards back then.
When I was on dating apps, I’d always see people use the “change my mind” prompt (or something similar like hot take or another belief one) to make the “Helen Keller wasn’t real” joke. Instant swipe left - dumb, insensitive joke and not original.
Essentially people saying someone who was disabled couldn’t possibly have done all of the things she did, so they think she can’t have been real. I’ve seen it on many profiles and I really don’t understand why people seem to think it’s funny.
I’ll defend these people a little and just say OP did a great job with the context around her disabilities but that is absolutely not context that’s included when she is taught in school. As far as any kid is concerned she could not see, period, and could not hear, period. Not completely irrational that if that’s the case her story is absurd.
It’s not that’s it’s funny, it’s that it doesn’t make any sense. Like how tf does this blind and deaf person have this specific view on politics and the world? It’s a legitimate question to ask.
This is not my viewpoint I have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever or an opinion. The only argument I’ve ever heard from someone I consider a smart guy that also likes to play devil’s advocate likes saying she was a pawn and there’s never been anyone else in history become blind and deaf before they even learn anything be so intelligent.
Really the case is they don’t even recognize they’re human according to him even with modern advancements the outcome is the same. There was only one other case and it was decades before Helen and much less credible. Her family was wealthy and just would not accept the fact that Helen was what she was so they went through lots of trouble and money to prove there was nothing wrong. It was extremely odd she went through multiple tutors that all agreed there was nothing to be done and she was unteachable because she had no grasp of anything because she never had senses to learn anything. Until they hired her last caretaker that was part of the socialist party, and Helen quickly “learned” how to communicate and convey very intelligent thoughts that also happened to be the exact same as her tutor/caretaker.
The kicker was she learned water through touching water and having it spelled on her palm and that’s how she talked to her tutor and gave speeches at a regular speed. Then he would say okay take your finger and write out everything you’re going to say at normal talking speed. It’s hard kind of impossible right? Now think about someone that couldn’t even walk or talk properly before losing their hearing and eyesight and considered by all besides her family before to be “fully mentally handicapped” doing that while it’s being delivered like a regular speech. There’s a lot more to his argument, but I’m not recalling it at the moment or even telling it half as well as he did.
You're going to get a lot of people trying to dismiss the accusations of her being a fraud without actually *addressing* them, probably because people realize they look ludicrous for believing her story in the first place, so...
People claim she's a fraud because of the absurd claim that a deaf, dumb, and blind woman *WROTE 11 BOOKS*.
"When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us."
Hellen Keller
I don't view her beliefs about eugenics as a big stain on her character, being extremely disabled back then must have been awful and I understand why she may have felt that way
I don’t remember the entire story in its accuracy, as I was 14 when I was told this story, but this made me remember as story I was told about Helen.
I had the pleasure of attending a release party and meeting Tom Sullivan shortly after his book “Adventures in Darkness” was published. During his talk, Tom told the story about how he ran away from the School of the Blind in Boston and how he and his best friend, both being completely blind, decided that they were going to have an adventure like Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
They made a rope from their sheets, climbed out their dorm window (not knowing how far off they were from the ground), and made a raft to float down the river. They had no idea where they were or how far they’d get until they were rescued from the Chesapeake Bay.
They were returned to the school and in the midst of being reamed by the headmaster, when Helen Keller came into the office for a visit of the school. After being informed of the situation, Helen says aloud, “Little boy? Little boy, they tell me you’re in big trouble. Is that the case?” Tom replied sullenly “Yes ma’am.” And Hellen responded with a smile in her voice, “Keep up the good work.”
I’ve carried that story with me for the last 10 years.
Since everything you said goes against what I’ve been taught, what are your sources for what she “actually” could hear or see? I’ve been perplexed by this my entire life but I guess not enough oigh to dig in!
There’s a terrific book called “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” It’s about why history is taught so poorly in school that college professors say it’s the one subject where the more you’ve had the worse off you are and need to unlearn crap. (Bad textbooks that don’t use original sources and have to be approved by boards in TX, desire to teach US as a historic positive/heroic journey, avoiding controversy and teaching it as just dates and events not conflicts with uncertain outcomes).
Then it goes through a number of examples. HK is one. The author notes how books love the “miracle worker” part, but then skip over who she was and what she did with her life: advocate for disabled and workers. It’s probably because she was into socialism and eugenics that they don’t want to talk about her.
If you like this kind of thing, really recommend the book.
Is good she inspired you to research. But regarding what you said with
>This quote and her many actions serve as markers of her political views. It is truly fascinating, because with this quote I have come to the odd epiphany that the same struggles and complaints found in US society have been the same for atleast 100 years
Didn’t you get taught at school already how much worse all these social issues were in 1800s and its effects (expecially evading birth of communism). Things are better now than they were then at least with most things.
No profanity, rudeness, slurs, insults or verbally attacking another Reddit user. No threatening language towards others. No degrading women or men specifically in the Mildy.
Continually doing so can get you banned from this sub. Please review the rules before posting.
Feeling slightly queasy knowing someone (lemme guess a man) is that interested in whether or not a brilliant female scientist ever had sex. Whose virginity status are you going to research next?
Possibly your virginity next….
Feeling slight queasy the overwhelming majority of my post went over you head and all you can focus on is her virginity. It was simply the question that sparked my research about her.
P.S.
maybe you’re a virgin?
You do know that Hellen Keller was not a scientist, right? It would be cool if you honored her by actually knowing who she was. And I don't think being respectfully curious about a historical figure's private life is mysogynist in the slightest, what is mysogynist acting like sex is so dirty that we should never think about any woman having it.
In fact, it's much more feminist to acknowledge that Hellen Keller had personal relations than to act like we should never imagine her as a human being with needs.
Sex doesn't degrade women.
The problems she cites have been going on since the dawn of time. There has always been a hierarchy. Always the privileged few and the working masses. Since the Neanderthals and their predecessors, it has been like this. Some do more than others; they live better. What they do with their wealth is telling and almost always the same.
I really don't like how you let your own opinion on things take over an otherwise excellent article.
I'm not saying eugenics is right or wrong -- at the end of the day you can think it's wrong. but that is YOUR opinion. truth is never black or white.
judge not and thou shall not be judged (I'm not even religious, but more people should heed that one quote)
it's not always about racism, though. like, yeah, racism is bad.
but aborting a kid who will die before they turn two also counts as eugenics. aborting conjoined twins also counts. aborting anyone with seriously debilitating conditions also counts.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong -- I'm saying don't judge anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
If their ideas involve racism and purity of bloodlines, then yes, that is one of the rare things worth judging someone over.
In the vast majority of situations, you're right, being judgmental is bad. But there are exceptions. Perhaps you've heard of the paradox of tolerance? The idea there is that we must be tolerant of all ideologies, except for intolerance. Because to accept intolerance, is to let it grow, and fester, and be generally harmful.
... there is more to eugenics than just racism, though.
like, having kids that would never thrive. you can argue "they still have a right to live", and I can argue "but is being conjoined twins a life"? or other similar conditions. like, why condemn, not only that kid, but their whole family, to such a life. when you can just have an abortion.
like, yes, racism is bad. but as I said, nothing is ever black or white. intolerance against intolerants included.
That starting point sounds innocent, but it gets grim soon enough:
- "Best parts" implies some races are implicitly worse than others at some things.
- Measuring that fairly is basically impossible, and never something Eugenicists are particularly interested in. "Rich, well-educated white people" don't have superior genes. They're just rich and well-educated, and so score well on tests. (They also wrote the tests).
- If you've got "undesirable" traits, you're not allowed to have kids? Ok, so now we're sprinting towards the legal definition of genocide.
- If you have "desirable" traits, you're going to be assigned someone to mate with? Also ick.
It all ends with stripping the rights of the underprivileged, because we believe they're genetically inferior and therefore less worthy of rights.
Well what about focusing on individuals rather than races? Find the best athlete, sample their DNA. Find the "smartest" person, sample their DNA. Find a "tall" person, sample their DNA. Find the most beautiful person, sample their DNA. Etc? Would that be considered eugenics?
Parkinson’s is evil. I am sorry.
What would have been the reason your parents would not have had him? Parkinson’s usually doesn’t occur until the person is much older.
I should have clarified better.
I know three girls who are wheelchair bound from one family. They were told all of their kids would be like this … yet they had two more.
I took care of a child whose parents were profound, yet they had a child who was ultra-profound. The parents couldn’t take care of themselves, and they needed extra care for their son. So someone had to take care of the parents, and then take care of the son.
Then there was a mom who wanted to have her daughter with Down syndrome sterilized. She didn’t care she was going to have sex, just didn’t want offspring and it even went to court and the judge said it was against the daughter’s right.
My niece has had three children. They were taken away because she is a shit mom. After the first two, the doctors wouldn’t sterilize her because she wasn’t 25, and didn’t have a child of either sex. Before she had the third, the state took away her first two. She had been in prison, so that helped her stay impregnated, but as soon as she got out, pregnant again and the state didn’t even let her take that baby home.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to just sterilize? Especially when she was asking for it?
So when people talk about eugenics, I know they instantly go to killing black babies, which it wasn’t about that, it was about not creating burdens on society. People will cry it is a shame, but who are the people taking care of them!
To me, it is cruel and heartless to birth a child you know will spend life in a wheelchair.
In Iowa, they are having such a hard time finding group home settings for people with disabilities that they are farming them out to people’s private homes. You can get $80k for having one person come live with you. This is not okay and to me, leads to abuse.
you can argue that, but would you like to have conjoined twins? BE a conjoined twin?
I'm not saying we should go ahead and kill them, I'm saying some people may rather spare the kid (and themselves) the suffering by having an early abortion.
people have abortions for much less than some of such conditions.
"everyone has the right to live", yes, but go watch Idiocracy. that's where we're headed.
No profanity, rudeness, slurs, insults or verbally attacking another Reddit user. No threatening language towards others. No degrading women or men specifically in the Mildy.
Continually doing so can get you banned from this sub. Please review the rules before posting.
No profanity, rudeness, slurs, insults or verbally attacking another Reddit user. No threatening language towards others. No degrading women or men specifically in the Mildy.
Continually doing so can get you banned from this sub. Please review the rules before posting.
Fair. During the early 1900s and/or before the term “dumb” was used to describe someone who is lacking the ability to speak. Not sure if it was used as a derogatory word or not, but in present tense it is for sure an insult.
No, it doesn't if they're literally dumb. Dumb has more than one definition, including "unable to speak". Congratulations, you learned something new today. Hopefully on top of learning a new word, you've learned not to insult people hypocritically.
But knowing uneducated Redditors such as you, you're going to double down and say I'm fun at parties instead of apologizing.
Oops, replied before I saw this. During her life, dumb was in fact used as you described, however it is now commonly used as an insult. It would prove to be constructive if you were less dismissive when teaching others.👍
Hi, there /u/Raysun-! Welcome to /r/mildyinteresting. As a reminder, a place for things that are of slight interest. *** Recommended Subs | :---------------: | r/JustGuysBeingDudes | r/GetNoted | r/AnimalMemes | r/bestofnetflix | r/JustGirlsBeingGals | *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mildyinteresting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Supposedly, Helen Keller’s name was in an FBI file because she was writing letters to somewhat prominent socialists.
... Helen Keller was a socialist. She was in the Party. She was one of many figures who attempted to prevent the execution of beloved folk singer, Joe Hill. He was executed by firing squad for being suspected of attempting to hurt a woman (a woman shot a vagrant who'd attacked her, so they went looking through the hospitals to find people with injuries and found Pete), and everyone saw through it. Joe Hill was a Socialist. An insane amount of historical figures were political Leftists who actively tried to improve America only to be killed, imprisoned, or censored. "This Land Is Your Land" was a protest song against Capitalism, so they cut out several lines to it and made it patriotic. While we're at it, Google the Coal Wars, and Fred Hampton.
Fred Hampton is an important person in American history who needs to be talked about more. For anyone interested, there is a great, albeit very dramatized, recount of his adult years in the movie Judas and The Black Messiah.
Joe Hill was actually executed for murdering two men. He visited a doctor’s office the day of the murder with a gunshot wound, which he got fighting with someone over a woman, then supposedly wouldn’t give details about how he was shot even after being accused of murder. The spirit of your version is spot on, though, and the point is the same — he was executed based on no evidence, and everyone knew the real reason…
If he was short and refused to give more information I would not say there was no evidence. Evidence isn’t same as proof however
We should revive their memories and place in history.
not if Republicans have their way. texas has voted to ban teaching about her because she is dangerous! a female who thought for herself and overcame numerous obstacles. Vote blue.
I believe in answer to being asked ‘Which disability was worse: being blind; or being deaf?’ she apparently responded ”Being deaf, blindness isolates you from ‘things’ deafness from people.”
how would she know though? she’s never experienced being not deaf or not blind
Actually you are considered blind if your vision is at a certain point of terrible, it doesn't need to be pitch black. I believe blindness just refers to severely disabling vision impairment, it doesn't necessarily indicate the person can only see pitch black. I mean, she would still only be able to read through braille and can't see faces. Extreme forms of color blindness are considered blind.
Yeah my grandma is legally blind, but sometimes when we watch shows together she can read text on screen— it’s rare, and she gets really excited when it happens. But it’s not like you could sneak up on her in front of her face. She also likes to turn her hearing aids up too loud so she can eavesdrop on people. That’s not relevant I just think it’s funny and I love that woman.
She sounds amazing! I’m exactly the type of nosy who would probably do the same thing if I had a hearing aid. She’s a trailblazer!
Haha me too, I love it when she tells me the assisted living gossip— those old folks are *wild*!
The only thing stopping me from being legally blind, basically, is that corrective lenses still work for me. There are people at my prescription for whom they don't. I'm lucky somehow & if I don't have glasses or contacts available, I cannot walk through an unfamiliar room alone. When "certain people" were making fun of Vice President Harris for describing herself to a room full of people at a vision impairment conference, I shamed some acquaintances for it because "I don't look disabled to you, but in certain circumstances I need someone who is three feet away from me to describe themselves to me because I cannot see them at all. They're a fuzzy, indistinct stack of colors, even that close." Blindness is really something people don't think about as a spectrum.
Some blind people and be like you described. Helen Keller however hold not even see light. Although she was 19 months old when she became ill and blind and deaf so she did see at one point.
I assume she based her answer on which caused her the most difficulty and/or distress
She was asked her opinion so she gave her opinion - she wasn’t in any way stating a concrete and verifiable fact with a right and wrong answer; she was asked which she felt was worse and answered based on her own experience. This is a normal way to have a conversation about how a person feels about things…
The deaf community is notoriously known for being closed off. Verbal communication or lack there of is way more isolating than visual communication. It’s been shown time and time again. You can talk to a blind person, but to talk to a deaf person they have to know how to read lips, or you have to know how to communicate in their language. And I’d say very few people know sign language fluently
The documentary **Becoming Helen Keller**. is a fascinating watch
Is there a sub for random research like this being showcased? Even just random slightly interesting wiki pages being explained like this
r/todayilearned
Thats usually like 1 fact. This is much more of a deep dive yet not too deep
These comments are gross. She was a real and complex and imperfect person, and these losers reduce her to jokes because they’re apparently still in high school.
These jokes are literally mentioned in my post and are a reason for my fascination beyond easy jokes such as those made in the comments
Family Guy took a lot of shots at her too
considering this is reddit, they likely *are* in high school, honestly
So, She was NOT immune to flash bang grenades?
It would have hurt substantially regardless. It's an explosive device designed to pop your damn ear drums. Tell me you've never been near a firearm outside of video games without telling me.
Thank you that was an interesting read :)
Truly
It's surprising common for historical figures to be remembered, but to have the fact they were strong socialists left completely out of the story. For... some reason. But even some of the big ones, like Martin Luther King & Einstein, the people remain famous, but their beliefs are sanitised.
Academics call it recuperation but it's commonly referred to as "defanging". Remove all of the strong political beliefs and just keep the happy status quo supporting stuff.
I don’t see how her belief in eugenics then discounts her at all today. People have got to quit condemning based on today’s standards. I have tons of doubts about today’s ethics, and I’m sure in 100 years they’re going to be pointing back at this time and wondering what the thinking was.
I think it's really important to bear in mind as well that a lot of treatment options simply didn't exist. If you had any type of disability, psychological dysfunction etc and there was absolutely nothing humane that could be done to alleviate the symptoms, it would make sense to jump to the conclusion that trying to eradicate that illness through eugenics would be the way to go.
I don’t think we should condemn. But eugenics was highly controversial then too, even though more mainstream. And during her lifetime had its most horrible consequences during the time of Nazi Germany expecially
Eugenics was wildly popular in the late 1800s to mid 1900s. It was considered a scientific basis for ancient beliefs about bloodlines, "good breeding", etc. People had tried to come up with all sorts of "rational" bases on which to categorise eachother into subgroups - such as phrenology - and eugenics was the first with a solid scientific backing. That the people we turned out to be, was down to the quality of our parents' genetics. Humans had believed this since time immemorial, and now science had "proven" it. Since inheritance was not only provable, but could be manipulated, this led it to become popular in the mainstream to consider it nearly a "duty" of humanity to maximise the "purity" of the gene pool by either removing "undesirable" genes or performing a hard segregation between bloodlines. It also led to the formation of the concept of the ethnostate - the idea that the planet should be redrawn into nations of ethnically distinct peoples; Russians, Jews, Germans, Arabs, Africans, etc. etc. Eugenics provided "proof" that mixing ethnicities was wrong and only served to make both "impure". This was all popular and uncontroversial science at the time. A reflection of what many people believed anyway. The Nazis obviously took it to another level and made it socially unacceptable before it was properly accepted as being scientifically unsound - many countries continued practicing eugenics on a small scale (such as sterilisation of disabled people or minorities) well into the late 20th century. Indeed the decision to form the state of Israel came from the same ethnonationalism that the Nazis tried to impose on Europe. So we can hardly criticise a person for being a "supporter" of a concept which the entire planet considered valid and was mainstream science at the time.
These ideas are still quite mainstream, many people believe that every ethnic group should live in their own country. IE tons of support for Kurdish independence or whatever ethnic group you have sympathies for. I've also met people who are kind hearted and feed the stray cats, but they believe the kittens are dying off because of their bad genes and not because they're starving to death in a harsh environment. In the wild, it's normal for many babies in a litter to not make it to adulthood (for example in litters of hyenas or lions). Anyways, what I'm saying here is that a lot of people's problems are more environmental than genetic. But then we can't blame people for them so that's unpopular.
*in 100 years* Did you know that 100 years ago people used to drink water!?!?” “Like….from the toilet?” “Well, you could get it from other places, but, yeah” “Hahaha. They drank toilet water!”
Oh, oh, have Reddit do Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers next!
Sleeping with his deceased wife’s mix-raced slave half-sister who was 14 when Thomas Jefferson was 44 wasn’t looked on favourably even by the standards back then.
TIL Helen Keller died in 1968 and was *based*
When I was on dating apps, I’d always see people use the “change my mind” prompt (or something similar like hot take or another belief one) to make the “Helen Keller wasn’t real” joke. Instant swipe left - dumb, insensitive joke and not original.
I’m not American so she’s not really a figure of major impact for me. What’s the humour in that joke of her not being real?
Essentially people saying someone who was disabled couldn’t possibly have done all of the things she did, so they think she can’t have been real. I’ve seen it on many profiles and I really don’t understand why people seem to think it’s funny.
I woder if it is the same people that says Finland isn't real...
I’ll defend these people a little and just say OP did a great job with the context around her disabilities but that is absolutely not context that’s included when she is taught in school. As far as any kid is concerned she could not see, period, and could not hear, period. Not completely irrational that if that’s the case her story is absurd.
It’s not that’s it’s funny, it’s that it doesn’t make any sense. Like how tf does this blind and deaf person have this specific view on politics and the world? It’s a legitimate question to ask.
What about being blind and deaf makes you think that they couldn’t have this world view?
This is not my viewpoint I have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever or an opinion. The only argument I’ve ever heard from someone I consider a smart guy that also likes to play devil’s advocate likes saying she was a pawn and there’s never been anyone else in history become blind and deaf before they even learn anything be so intelligent. Really the case is they don’t even recognize they’re human according to him even with modern advancements the outcome is the same. There was only one other case and it was decades before Helen and much less credible. Her family was wealthy and just would not accept the fact that Helen was what she was so they went through lots of trouble and money to prove there was nothing wrong. It was extremely odd she went through multiple tutors that all agreed there was nothing to be done and she was unteachable because she had no grasp of anything because she never had senses to learn anything. Until they hired her last caretaker that was part of the socialist party, and Helen quickly “learned” how to communicate and convey very intelligent thoughts that also happened to be the exact same as her tutor/caretaker. The kicker was she learned water through touching water and having it spelled on her palm and that’s how she talked to her tutor and gave speeches at a regular speed. Then he would say okay take your finger and write out everything you’re going to say at normal talking speed. It’s hard kind of impossible right? Now think about someone that couldn’t even walk or talk properly before losing their hearing and eyesight and considered by all besides her family before to be “fully mentally handicapped” doing that while it’s being delivered like a regular speech. There’s a lot more to his argument, but I’m not recalling it at the moment or even telling it half as well as he did.
Probably because you cannot see or hear?
You're going to get a lot of people trying to dismiss the accusations of her being a fraud without actually *addressing* them, probably because people realize they look ludicrous for believing her story in the first place, so... People claim she's a fraud because of the absurd claim that a deaf, dumb, and blind woman *WROTE 11 BOOKS*.
Huh I usually only hear about the name going around thanks for the knowledge and research.
Man, judging by that quote she’d have flipped her lid if she saw modern neo liberalism and the massive wealth abyss it created.
According to visionary douchebags, 3OH!3, she was proficient at talking with her hips.
The world has been fucked up long before we were here and will be long after.
This was very interesting! I didn't know a lot about her, thank you😊🙏
"When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us." Hellen Keller
WTF? I just now realized I was one year old when she died.
You and Helen Keller were alive at the same time.
I don't view her beliefs about eugenics as a big stain on her character, being extremely disabled back then must have been awful and I understand why she may have felt that way
I don’t remember the entire story in its accuracy, as I was 14 when I was told this story, but this made me remember as story I was told about Helen. I had the pleasure of attending a release party and meeting Tom Sullivan shortly after his book “Adventures in Darkness” was published. During his talk, Tom told the story about how he ran away from the School of the Blind in Boston and how he and his best friend, both being completely blind, decided that they were going to have an adventure like Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. They made a rope from their sheets, climbed out their dorm window (not knowing how far off they were from the ground), and made a raft to float down the river. They had no idea where they were or how far they’d get until they were rescued from the Chesapeake Bay. They were returned to the school and in the midst of being reamed by the headmaster, when Helen Keller came into the office for a visit of the school. After being informed of the situation, Helen says aloud, “Little boy? Little boy, they tell me you’re in big trouble. Is that the case?” Tom replied sullenly “Yes ma’am.” And Hellen responded with a smile in her voice, “Keep up the good work.” I’ve carried that story with me for the last 10 years.
Key Stone
Her birthday is next week, on June 27
Her real name was Edith Keeler.
Deaf leftist female socialist with an arts degree, you say? She'd fit right in nowadays
Since everything you said goes against what I’ve been taught, what are your sources for what she “actually” could hear or see? I’ve been perplexed by this my entire life but I guess not enough oigh to dig in!
Interesting read. Thank you for sharing.
Your last sentence about the secrecy really speaks to how too often, people deemed "disabled" are disallowed the romantic love of another person.
There’s a terrific book called “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” It’s about why history is taught so poorly in school that college professors say it’s the one subject where the more you’ve had the worse off you are and need to unlearn crap. (Bad textbooks that don’t use original sources and have to be approved by boards in TX, desire to teach US as a historic positive/heroic journey, avoiding controversy and teaching it as just dates and events not conflicts with uncertain outcomes). Then it goes through a number of examples. HK is one. The author notes how books love the “miracle worker” part, but then skip over who she was and what she did with her life: advocate for disabled and workers. It’s probably because she was into socialism and eugenics that they don’t want to talk about her. If you like this kind of thing, really recommend the book.
Nice work!
Are you aware of the difference between mildyinteresting and mildlyinteresting?
Is good she inspired you to research. But regarding what you said with >This quote and her many actions serve as markers of her political views. It is truly fascinating, because with this quote I have come to the odd epiphany that the same struggles and complaints found in US society have been the same for atleast 100 years Didn’t you get taught at school already how much worse all these social issues were in 1800s and its effects (expecially evading birth of communism). Things are better now than they were then at least with most things.
Dumb, Deaf blind kid who can play a mean pinball.
[удалено]
No profanity, rudeness, slurs, insults or verbally attacking another Reddit user. No threatening language towards others. No degrading women or men specifically in the Mildy. Continually doing so can get you banned from this sub. Please review the rules before posting.
What is wrong with you?
Feeling slightly queasy knowing someone (lemme guess a man) is that interested in whether or not a brilliant female scientist ever had sex. Whose virginity status are you going to research next?
Possibly your virginity next…. Feeling slight queasy the overwhelming majority of my post went over you head and all you can focus on is her virginity. It was simply the question that sparked my research about her. P.S. maybe you’re a virgin?
You do know that Hellen Keller was not a scientist, right? It would be cool if you honored her by actually knowing who she was. And I don't think being respectfully curious about a historical figure's private life is mysogynist in the slightest, what is mysogynist acting like sex is so dirty that we should never think about any woman having it. In fact, it's much more feminist to acknowledge that Hellen Keller had personal relations than to act like we should never imagine her as a human being with needs. Sex doesn't degrade women.
Nice of you to label what was a “blight” in her career. Nice way to spin your own personal beliefs from a righteous standpoint. /s
The problems she cites have been going on since the dawn of time. There has always been a hierarchy. Always the privileged few and the working masses. Since the Neanderthals and their predecessors, it has been like this. Some do more than others; they live better. What they do with their wealth is telling and almost always the same.
I really don't like how you let your own opinion on things take over an otherwise excellent article. I'm not saying eugenics is right or wrong -- at the end of the day you can think it's wrong. but that is YOUR opinion. truth is never black or white. judge not and thou shall not be judged (I'm not even religious, but more people should heed that one quote)
Nah I'm fine judging eugenics fans. They're usually racist and i feel no shame in my judging them.
so, judging someone for their ideas is fine, huh?
yes, ideas are one of the few things you can judge someone on
If they're heinous trueblood racist nonces, sure.
it's not always about racism, though. like, yeah, racism is bad. but aborting a kid who will die before they turn two also counts as eugenics. aborting conjoined twins also counts. aborting anyone with seriously debilitating conditions also counts. I'm not saying it's right or wrong -- I'm saying don't judge anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
I’ll say it isn’t wrong. Anyone who disagrees, please sign up for respite care for parents of these profound disabled.
If their ideas involve racism and purity of bloodlines, then yes, that is one of the rare things worth judging someone over. In the vast majority of situations, you're right, being judgmental is bad. But there are exceptions. Perhaps you've heard of the paradox of tolerance? The idea there is that we must be tolerant of all ideologies, except for intolerance. Because to accept intolerance, is to let it grow, and fester, and be generally harmful.
... there is more to eugenics than just racism, though. like, having kids that would never thrive. you can argue "they still have a right to live", and I can argue "but is being conjoined twins a life"? or other similar conditions. like, why condemn, not only that kid, but their whole family, to such a life. when you can just have an abortion. like, yes, racism is bad. but as I said, nothing is ever black or white. intolerance against intolerants included.
Wait a sec, I thought eugenics is mixing the best parts of other races to come up with an ultimate super race
That starting point sounds innocent, but it gets grim soon enough: - "Best parts" implies some races are implicitly worse than others at some things. - Measuring that fairly is basically impossible, and never something Eugenicists are particularly interested in. "Rich, well-educated white people" don't have superior genes. They're just rich and well-educated, and so score well on tests. (They also wrote the tests). - If you've got "undesirable" traits, you're not allowed to have kids? Ok, so now we're sprinting towards the legal definition of genocide. - If you have "desirable" traits, you're going to be assigned someone to mate with? Also ick. It all ends with stripping the rights of the underprivileged, because we believe they're genetically inferior and therefore less worthy of rights.
Well what about focusing on individuals rather than races? Find the best athlete, sample their DNA. Find the "smartest" person, sample their DNA. Find a "tall" person, sample their DNA. Find the most beautiful person, sample their DNA. Etc? Would that be considered eugenics?
You should be saying eugenics is wrong. It's morally reprehensible.
Please tell me you provide respite care for the profoundly disabled.
As a matter of fact, I spend a lot of time helping my sibling with his Parkinson's. If certain assholes had their way, I'd be an only child.
Parkinson’s is evil. I am sorry. What would have been the reason your parents would not have had him? Parkinson’s usually doesn’t occur until the person is much older.
according to who's morals? again, nothing ever is black or white.
I'm sure everyone is very impressed but seriously dude, we have social rules for a reason. Everyone has the right to live.
The operative word there is “live”. It is no life being wheel-chair bound with the mentality of a three month old when you’re 17.
So you'd just kill that teenager? I must not be understanding you correctly.
I should have clarified better. I know three girls who are wheelchair bound from one family. They were told all of their kids would be like this … yet they had two more. I took care of a child whose parents were profound, yet they had a child who was ultra-profound. The parents couldn’t take care of themselves, and they needed extra care for their son. So someone had to take care of the parents, and then take care of the son. Then there was a mom who wanted to have her daughter with Down syndrome sterilized. She didn’t care she was going to have sex, just didn’t want offspring and it even went to court and the judge said it was against the daughter’s right. My niece has had three children. They were taken away because she is a shit mom. After the first two, the doctors wouldn’t sterilize her because she wasn’t 25, and didn’t have a child of either sex. Before she had the third, the state took away her first two. She had been in prison, so that helped her stay impregnated, but as soon as she got out, pregnant again and the state didn’t even let her take that baby home. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just sterilize? Especially when she was asking for it? So when people talk about eugenics, I know they instantly go to killing black babies, which it wasn’t about that, it was about not creating burdens on society. People will cry it is a shame, but who are the people taking care of them! To me, it is cruel and heartless to birth a child you know will spend life in a wheelchair. In Iowa, they are having such a hard time finding group home settings for people with disabilities that they are farming them out to people’s private homes. You can get $80k for having one person come live with you. This is not okay and to me, leads to abuse.
you can argue that, but would you like to have conjoined twins? BE a conjoined twin? I'm not saying we should go ahead and kill them, I'm saying some people may rather spare the kid (and themselves) the suffering by having an early abortion. people have abortions for much less than some of such conditions. "everyone has the right to live", yes, but go watch Idiocracy. that's where we're headed.
That 2nd fucking paragraph is straight from the 1800's, Jesus fucking Christ
She was a deaf, blind and dumb person. She looked like the pepsi girl.
[удалено]
No profanity, rudeness, slurs, insults or verbally attacking another Reddit user. No threatening language towards others. No degrading women or men specifically in the Mildy. Continually doing so can get you banned from this sub. Please review the rules before posting.
[удалено]
No profanity, rudeness, slurs, insults or verbally attacking another Reddit user. No threatening language towards others. No degrading women or men specifically in the Mildy. Continually doing so can get you banned from this sub. Please review the rules before posting.
What are you on about? Who did I make fun of?
Fair. During the early 1900s and/or before the term “dumb” was used to describe someone who is lacking the ability to speak. Not sure if it was used as a derogatory word or not, but in present tense it is for sure an insult.
I think non-verbal would be the preferred term now
Calling somebody dumb counts as making fun of them. How about just don’t say rude shit to or about people?
No, it doesn't if they're literally dumb. Dumb has more than one definition, including "unable to speak". Congratulations, you learned something new today. Hopefully on top of learning a new word, you've learned not to insult people hypocritically. But knowing uneducated Redditors such as you, you're going to double down and say I'm fun at parties instead of apologizing.
Oops, replied before I saw this. During her life, dumb was in fact used as you described, however it is now commonly used as an insult. It would prove to be constructive if you were less dismissive when teaching others.👍
"You're right, but I'm still triggered so I'm going to keep replying."