Is it ever acceptable to call some segment of the population "less than fully human"?

Question

Two books of the 20th century complained of certain members of society being parasites:

One says -
"..under whose parasitism the whole of honest humanity is suffering, today more than ever, (because of)______"
" (These people) are a parasite on the body of others" and "are forced to deny their true nature."

Book 2 says:
(These people) are "less than fully human." (They) "live in a state inferior to their own capabilities". They are "Not people", they "aquire their status vicariously" as "parasites".

So, best answer goes to the person who identifies both books, and tells me whether he/she thinks that both authors, just one, or neither author should be condemned.

I will happily give the book titles after giving everyone a chance to guess at it. Both are pretty well known, and both are held up as brilliant by some people, and condemned by others.

So, Franzia, you are saying that it is acceptable to call some people "less than fully human" in some situations, is that correct?

Answer 1

And they are outraged when people call any of them "feminazis"!

EDIT

I won't give away the answer, but the first refers to Jews, the second to housewives.

EDIT

And for whoever gave me thumbs down, I agree it is ridiculous to call feminists in general by that epithet. But in SOME cases, the shoe does fit.

Answer 2

Simple answer no!

Test of Arbitrary Unreasonableness
by Jody Nagel

The Holocaust (Evelyn ALeman, US)
http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=6829

Housewives' Self-Esteem and Their Husbands' Success: The Myth of Vicarious Involvement
Anne Statham Macke, George W. Bohrnstedt, Ilene N. Bernstein
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Feb., 1979), pp. 51-57
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445(197902)41%3A1<51%3AHSATHS>2.0.CO%3B2-O

I am still looking. I have found other works as well, but need to verify them.

Shingoshi Dao
2007.Nov.10 Sat, 16:15 --800 (PST)

Answer 3

What she was trying to say was that these women displayed some parasitic qualities because:

a) They lived vicariously through their husbands and children.
b) They tended to deny independent thought and their own interests.
c) They were not treated as full humans.

She believed that these women were supposed to be fully human, and could be such if they dropped the feminine mystique, which only a minority of them truly wanted.

Answer 4

I have no idea, but I'm interested to know exactly which group of people is being called parasites in both cases.
________

Yes, I was thinking the second might be Betty Friedan. Still, the idea that women were forced to live vicariously through men is not a new one. The theme occurs in almost all the European novels of adultery, most plainly _Madame Bovary_. Women historically _were_ forced to live like parasites, whether they wanted to or not (and of course most of the time they did NOT want to). The condition of the housewife today is *nothing* like that of two hundred years ago.

Also, this quote does not indicate she necessarily meant to use the word disparagingly, but rather to use it for its actual definition minus negative connotations: something that must live off of something else.
___________

Er, again, she isn't saying, "Housewives are such annoying stupid parasites." just to make some kind of shocking hateful insult. She's using the word to describe the *mechanism* of how housewivery felt for many women. And housewivery indeed was parasitic in many ways, though this doesn't mean women wanted to be or enjoyed being parasitic; they were *forced* to be. I'm not sure how a person could deny this. It's interesting that Hitler and Friedan use the same rhetoric in their arguments, but the question still entirely ignores the context. Friedan was not leading armies which went about forcing housewives out of their homes, gassing housewives en masse, throwing housewives in mass graves, or performing inhumane medical experiments on housewives.

Answer 5

I cannot name any books offhand but I do know that in the first part of the 20th century there were many books, especially American, written promoting 'eugenics' (people culling) and calling for the mentally infirm, the disabled, the black races, and other groups to be sterilised.

Answer 6

I must admit I have no idea to what books you are referring to here...but in my opinion, NO ONE is "less than fully human." Sometimes people act in ways that are condemnable, that go against the good of mankind, but that does not mean they are less than human. To view anyone this way means that we are saying, in essence, that these people cannot "help themselves" because they have not the capability to do so...we are saying that only "we" can "help" them- by taking control of those people's lives. By taking this stance, we perpetuate the acts of those we condemn. We give the acts justification. We give ourselves "higher moral authority," instead of helping we are controlling. Instead of encouraging and empowering them we are demoralizing, judging, and oppressing them. By robbing people of their dignity and self-respect, we are keeping them from finding motivation for change. (If indeed "change" is actually called for in the first place. Hard to tell from the quotes you gave.) We end up adding to and making bigger the problems we seek to eliminate.

I would like to know in what context the quotes came from that you refer to here.

Answer 7

I'm thinking that the first quote is Hitler, in one of his anti-semitic moments.

This is a total guess, but is the second one Darwin? Talking about some of the "savages" he encountered on his voyage?

Obviously, this is a lesson in context. If the first one is Hitler, he is making statements trying to inspire genocide. If the second one is Darwin, he is trying to describe a type of people he had never encountered and his statments probably reflect the culture of his time rather than anything hateful. In that case, condemn Hitler and give Darwin a pass (although others would disagree about Darwin for other reasons).

Edit - oh, 20th century. I guess that leaves out Darwin.

Edit - Oh, I think I got it. The second one is Betty Friedan. Commenting on housewives. Shame on you Betty. I guess I can't really give her the same pass I would have given Charles.

Answer 8

Never. All people have the ability to bring something positive into the world. In the same light they all have the power to bring something negative. It all depends on the person's choice as to what they wish to do. This is dependent on the person, not which segment of the population they fall into.

Answer 9

Humanity has been responsible for some of the most horrible crimes. It might be considered a compliment not to call someone human.

Answer 10

I think the reference to the Holocaust should be condemned because killing men, women, and children who are no harm to anyone is a moral outrage.

The second should not be, as a blob of cells is not a person, does not feel, and certainly possesses no rights.

The attempted comparison of the two is somewhat offensive to those of us who feel that PEOPLE are more precious than a blob of cells.