Malisa Myers Attacks Again

I want to thank Malisa Myers for writing to us, again.  She wrote to Goodschools.com from  the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, some time ago to take me to task for quoting Karl Schleunes' work.  She has now returned to try for a knock-out.  This time she writes:

Myers writes:

Dear Mike,

It was not my intention to pick a fight with you, merely to explain why Dr. Schleunes should not be quoted on your page in association with your point of view.  I never, in your words, pretended that your quote was not true to the letter--THE TWISTED ROAD TO AUSCHWITZ is, after all, one of the premier works of Holocaust
scholarship and has been quoted in many other books.  However, in such cases the authors were obliged to obtain written permission from the publisher or the author of the text in question to use said quote.  This is in accordance with the copyright law of the United States....

My response:

Ms. Myers, with regard to my quoting Karl Schleunes, I would suggest that you do not understand how scholarship gets done, nor are you familiar with  the "Fair Use Provision of the Copyright Act -- The Statutory Decree."   What I did was not only perfectly legal, it represented perfectly sound practices. Your basket must be a few flowers short of a bouquet if you think what I did was in any way unscrupulous or unlawful.   

Secondly, Ms. Myers, who made you the censorship cop?   To suggest that my "point of view" in any way dictates my right (or lack thereof) to use source material is beyond silly.   The mere fact that you are willing to censor me, even after admitting (1) I did not wrongly quote Karl Schleunes,  (2) did not fail properly to cite him as the source, and (3) did not quote him out of context, speaks volumes about your notion of intellectual freedom.  

Simply stated, you would deny source material to me on the basis of my position.   What you are advocating is pure, unadulterated censorship.  If you ruled, no opposing view could ever be expressed.   Everyone would still hold the flat-earth theory.   On what precept of intellectual freedom do you make source material available only to those whom you have predetermined "think right?"   Your position here is the result of mind-numbed robotic thinking.  

This, by the way, is the quote in question:   

"Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by
the racist ... such a struggle, legitimized by the latest scientific views,
justified the racists' conception of superior and inferior peoples ... and
validated the conflict between them."  (Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road To Auchwitz (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970)p. 30 , 32.

Myers further writes:

As to the quote itself, there was a social movement (unconnected to any true scientific movement) in the late ninteenth[sic]/early twentieth centuries known as Social Darwinism, and it is from them that you get the oft-used phrases (which were never written by Darwin) "survival of the fittest" and "law of the jungle."  

My response:

I find your words here interesting:  ..."and it is from them that you get the oft -used phrases ... 'survival of the fittest' and 'law of the jungle.'"   I have to assume that  "you"  here refers to me; unless you used it in place of "one."  I have to think that you would not have made this mistake, so I assume you are here referring to me.

That having been established, Ms. Myers, I wish to inform you that I never used those words in my paper.  You have again accused me falsely.  I did a total word search of my entire original document, and the following words did not come up:  "Survival," "Fittest," "Law" nor "Jungle."  None of them were used by me in my article.   Perhaps you should read my piece again, and tell me exactly where those words occur in it.  

Myers further writes:

Based upon my reading on this subject, it is my opinion that you are attacking the wrong group (unless, of course, your aim is purely to get Creation taught in the schools, which is flawed for an entirely different set of reasons).  Thus you have not "effectively defended [your] claim."  It was the Social Darwinist movement--which had its OWN scientists who used flawed methods to obtain the racist results they sought--which influenced not only the nascent Nazi Party but the Eugenics Movement of the United States.

My response:

Ms. Myers, I apologize for being redundant, but you just don't seem to get the point.  So. here is the quote one more time:

"Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by
the racist ... such a struggle, legitimized by the latest scientific views,
justified the racists' conception of superior and inferior peoples ... and
validated the conflict between them."  (Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road To Auchwitz (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970)p. 30 , 32.

• Now, Ms. Myers, this is what is being stated here.  Karl Schleunes is saying that Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by the racist..."  I am assuming that Karl Schleunes is referring to the same Darwin who authored the book titled:  "The Origin of Species" --  The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."  Now, Ms. Myers, if Karl Schleunes is here referencing 'Sam Darwin,' the owner of the local jewelry store, or 'Rocky Darwin,' the bartender, then I stand corrected.  ...Then my face is really red.  However, if Karl Schleunes is referencing the same Charles Darwin that we have all studied about, then you are more than a few flowers short of a full bouquet.
• Ms. Myers, where did you find the word "creation" in my works?  I did a search of that as well, and I find no reference to it in what I have written.  You came up with that on your own.  Could it be because I simply have an aversion to bad science and racism, that you think I must be a creationist?   In your mind, does Origins, less bad science and racism, equal "Creationism?"  That's interesting.    I think if you start there (my aversion to bad science and racism), when you analyze my motives, you will stand a better chance of understanding what I am writing about.  You have too many preconceptions.  They get in your way.
• You write these words:  "...Thus you have not 'effectively defended [your] claim.'"  I do not understand your use of the quotation marks here.  What are you suggesting?  You have enclosed "effectively defended claim" in quotation marks,.  Are you indicating that they are understood to be my words?  I tried to find "effectively defended claim" in my writings to see what they referenced, but could not.  Perhaps you could tell me where I wrote them.  That would help.
• I fully understand about the Social Darwinists.  That's not an issue for me.  I do not deny, nor have I ever denied, their existence or influence.   Their influence, in fact, supports my argument.  

Myers further writes:

...I am well aware that I could explain the methods and logic of modern Biology until I am blue in the face, but I prefer not to waste my time and effort.  There are many excellent books on Genetics in the printed media today--I recommend you read one thoroughly, paying particular attention to the section explaining the effects of mutation and mistranslation. Perhaps I have been lucky--I seem to have attended only the finest-quality schools throughout my lifetime.  Our professors aim was not, as you imply, to grind into us principles we did not understand, but to demonstrate through example why the principles are correct, then show us how to use logic to tackle practical problems.

My response:

Well, Ms. Myers, I certainly would not want you to "waste [your] time" with facts.   Concerning your "excellent books on Genetics," Dr. Stuart Kauffman writes that many who author systematic books of this type are suffering from "Physics Envy."   Do you suppose this is true?  I would recommend his book to you ("The Origins of Order," by Stuart A. Kauffman (Oxford University Press, 1993).  In the Preface of this book, Dr. Kauffman writes:  This book is an attempt to focus attention on new themes in developmental and evolutionary biology. It is, in fact, an attempt to include Darwinism in a broader contest..."  It is not light reading, but quite enlightening.).  

Addendum to Ms. Myers:

Your use of the term "blue in the face" tells me you are probably white.  Your fanciful understanding of evolution, combined with your anxious willingness to defend Darwin at all cost, strongly suggest you are racist.   I hope you do not pass this notion on to our nation's children.   

Again, I want to thank your for having the courage to write.  I am sure you knew that I would not allow you to get away with your barrage of punches without some counter-punching.  The tone of your letters has been one of condescension.  That is why I responded in kind.  When correspondents disagree with me in more civil tones, I dialog accordingly (see my response to Rob Dyson).  I am truly glad that you challenged me.  It helps to know what people are thinking.  ...And, I am sure you represent a sizeable segment of the educated population.  Feel free to come back for more.  Next time you might win.  

(Original letter)

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

--Mike Carrier (MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)