Friday, July 23, 2010

An early diary entry worth sharing..

Now that this pen is flowing and I'm done cleaning ink stains, I can begin writing about the 'cause' of this radical change in routine.

I had been thinking for some time now that I would start taking notes. You see, I suffer from an extremely blessed state; a kind of forgetfulness- a state akin to a sort of "preference amnesia" (usually induced chemically)- wherein thoughts intriguing are procreated. However, it is the nature of this condition that demands that I take notes, if not to know myself a bit better, then rather to have a chuckle or two.

Amidst the daily 'surfing' activities, a thoughtful delight came to me. An observation that had escaped me previously; an observation pertaining to eugenics. It seems that eugenics or the act of selective breeding and the exaltation of certain "superior" beings, which is looked down upon in colloquial understandings in this progressive age, is still quite the norm. Whether politics instigates it or not, eugenics is practiced quite explicitly in multi-cultural societies. I say multi-cultural because these societies are projected to be more tolerant than the others.

When a child is rared at school, a special value is always attributed to the alpha-student. The ones that excel at sports or academia for instance. Authorities are willing to excuse the talented gene pool. Whether we like it or not, a rational system leads to class divisions. But is it irrational to distribute favors without such eugenicist discrimination?

Perhaps this thought is a mere seed; that needs the suns rays of enlightenment to sprout.


  1. well planted my friend! we shall expand on this.

  2. Eugenics is a silly word. Brings to mind other taboo labels like 'social darwinism' and such. Actively controlling the gene pool is a touchy subject. What you suggest is more of a social selection, much more subtle. I suppose it may be argued that it is more of a human instinctual compulsion to attempt to propagate the best of the species. If not propagate then at least to protect and nurture.

    Of course this does lead us to the dilemma of the 'inequality' it creates. But then again in the midst of all the other 'upper-hands'(economic, environmental, historical) some have over others, this seems only to be a small part of the puzzle.

    By the way, liking the new direction. So much more personal than the sermons of before.

  3. Thank you for the comment. I agree that eugenics is a silly word, but not for this purpose.

    You see, "racism" might have implied at some point the lynching of Blacks or minorities by supremacists, but today it is more "subtle" than that. Similarly, eugenics was at a point (at the inception of the "modern era") an umbrella term for various kinds of genocidal acts inspired by xenophobia; but today, in the post-modern era, this term encompasses more complicated issues as well. Like the said issue in multicultural societies. Genetics play a role in academic intelligence and they most certainly are pivotal to athleticism- I personally consider this "social selection" and admiration to be a eugenicist manifestation.

    Secondly, social darwinism is often mistaken for eugenics and this is incorrect. Social Darwinism is the idea that "only the fittest social ideas should survive". But Wikipedia would disagree with this. However, you should read this to learn more about this:

  4. You are correct on both accounts. But it is important to keep in mind the connotations the words we use hold. I myself have had to learn, through much difficulty, that while terms such as social darwinism (or idealism or materialism) may have different 'actual' meanings, the meanings they hold in the public sphere are so much more important. This leads me to my original point that one must be conscious of the implications (and collective memories) of the vocabulary we use; what we mean by them and what is understood by the listener/reader. I mentioned social darwinism to illustrate precisely what you said.

    As for racism, I invite you to the American south to see that it is still not necessarily as subtle as you might think. haha...

  5. I don't think sardonic's comments are valid since the writer clearly states that this is a private note from their diary. This means that the language that best communicates with the writer is most approriate AND the writer seems to be more familiar with the versatility of this term than most.

    Good post.