Talk:A. James Gregor

Untitled

"Gregor's marriage to University of Nevada Professor Maria Hsia Chang, however, should disprove many myths about his alleged "racist" views that have been leveled upon him by his critics, namely the embittered faculty and staff of the the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley. A number of leftist intellectuals in Berkeley harbor great distaste for Gregor's views. Most likely, these academics are very unhappy with the validity of Gregor's attacks on their beliefs. More specifically, Gregor predicted that the Marxism that many leftists espoused during the 1960's lack any validity whatsoever in the modern world of political and economic development." -> This entire paragraph needs to be removed. Wikipedia brands itself as an Encyclopedia where one can find out factual information, not opinion and bias, about subjects. The fact that the author of this paragraph says that Gregor's marriage deflates him from charges of racism is ludicrous. Also, why are you attacking the "Ethnic Studies Department" at Berkeley? That's a reflection of YOUR views, not NECESSARILY Gregor's. Even if they are Gregor's, they don't belong here. Write an op-ed piece.

"The book argues that fascism was actually a left wing philosophy." - is this really in the book (I don't have my copy on me, I'll follow up if still unanswered)? He lectures thoroughly on how little (if any) information is imparted by the left/right distinction. This statement has to be a mischaracterization: Gregor would argue that given the typology, it easily can be shown that attributes associated with Facism (purportedly right wing), can easily be applied to revolutionary regiemes of the left (Russia, China, Cuba, etc). His point is "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless distinctions, at least in the case of Facism vs. "Revolutionary Marxism" (quotes, due to his emphasis on the lack of any meaningful relationship, beyond rhetoric, between Marxist theory and these revolutionary movements) and rather share many fundamental characteristicss. This page needs A LOT added to it, he produeced many other interesting thoughts in the last 40 years that this page does not due justice to!

"[...] offensive comments Gregor has made concerning women and minorities [...]" My God.... it's an obsession! This is simply FALSE! Henry Cassini 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Context

This article seems to go out of its way to convince the reader of the subject’s neutrality (or maybe more precisely, that he is “Neither Right nor Left”) — as in the first section where it mentions, apropos of nothing, that he published “articles in political journals on both the "Right" ...and the "Left"”, or when his active / material support for the anti-communist authoritarian governents is described as “what he understood to be U.S. interests”.

These apparent inoculations against charges of a right-wing worldview are confusing, since nothing in the present revision of the article suggests why such an inoculation would be warranted — it almost reads as if there was some hasty wholesale removal of any references to controversial statements, without making corresponding adjustments to the article as a whole.

Perhaps if some of his writings for e.g. Mankind Quarterly were sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion / discussion, these assertions of his belief in liberal democracy might make more sense.

23.115.162.60 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the article does a piss-poor job of explaining what the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics actually is. He cofounded that organization in 1959, and was published in Mankind as late as the 1980s, so his career in scientific racism spans decades. His colleagues there included Donald A. Swan, a neo-Nazi; Robert E. Kuttner, a white supremacist; and others with similar histories. The article needs more independent sources, that's for sure. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edits moved it away from self-parody, but to your point here, the larger context as to why the “puff” was added in the first place is still missing; though I don’t see how it could be worked into the article in its present state except as a “Controversy” section, which probably won’t last long on a BLP.

In principal the refs on the IAAEE page are probably a good start — this one (unfortunately archive-only) in particular has some fascinating links to primary sources — the picture emerging there of Gergor’s views (at the time?) is more akin to the modern “white nationalist” / “Western chauvinist” line than the vulgar biological white supremacy common among his contemporaries (and colleagues)...but I doubt making that distinction would satisfy his defenders. 23.115.162.60 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of his works

Can anyone here assert criticism of his ideas and works? GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by assert? Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if there are any authorative person that legitimately criticises his ideas, please include their criticism here.

GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You may find this helpful: http://ferris-pages.org/ISAR/bibliography/gregrbib.htm — the annotations are helpful if the titles of the articles and publications carrying them aren’t sufficient. The article for his International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics has some helpful links in its refs as well, see e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20070503082757/http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/tucker/ch3.html or http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_n1_v54/ai_21107572. 23.115.162.60 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream views?

In the article and a few of his works, it is made explicit that when he discusses “fascism”, he means “paradigmatic Fascism”, namely something specifically resembling Mussolini’s Italian Fascism. I don’t doubt his credentials / expertise in this area, but it seems that is not what everyone else means when discussing fascism.

Since the article presents Gregor as a foremost authority on (unqualified) fascism, it seems this peculiar definition, and its (lack of?) acceptance in the field, deserves more prominent placement. But, since I’m not anywhere near an expert in this area, I‘m not qualified to make such broad claims about academic consensus or to evaluate sources with such claims (e.g. how to weight these against the competing sources already in the article calling him a foremost scholar?).

Any better-placed editors out there? Am I mistaken, and the academic consensus really is that the term “fascist” does not properly describe any of the modern movements claiming that title? 23.115.162.60 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Improvement templates

I have restored the improvement templates, since these issues have not been resolved, as far as I can see. The article is still relies too heavily on Gregor's own works, and is still to sparsely sourced to obscure commentary without proper context or attribution. As a BLP, every claim needs to be sourced, and every "evaluation" needs to be attributed and contextualized. Grayfell (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Added descriptors

As discussed in the talk sections, this article is a bit of a hagiography of a sacred cow of conservative academia. As his association with fascist politics and his founding of an important eugenicist organization is not only commonly known but also cited in the text of the article itself, it should logically follow that the introduction describes him accurately as what he was. The Wikipedia page for the organization he founded is described in the first sentence as being eugenicist. The magazine they published is not only described on Wikipedia as eugenicist but also as “white supremacist”. The European was not only a paper published by English fascists but is also once again described by Wikipedia as fascist. Mr. Gregor’s long career in academia does not exempt him from factual descriptions of his politics and biases. Indeed, many eugenicists had academic backgrounds and yet are still described as eugenicists on Wikipedia. Considering the amount of discussion about the apologia and lack of intellectual rigor in this article, I think it is completely appropriate to call a spade a spade, as it were. If one wants to list his academic credentials first I have no problem with that, but I will defend the inclusion of factual descriptors in the opening paragraph. Considering the level of discussion about the poor state of this article, I will be returning to ensure that those descriptive words are not deleted without additional discussion. You may post your arguments against their inclusion in this talk page. Puma6374 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia you should primarily indicate the job of a person (Eugenicist is not a profession). Eugenicist is a term that should only be used towards Eugenicist theorists or craft Eugenists. Gregor was neither of them. He was primarily a political scientist, a social scientist and a historian.

You cannot improperly use a label to discredit an important scholar like Gregor. He was not racist and not even Eugenetist. In fact he publicly got away from racism and clearly explained the nature of his collaboration with IAAEE and Mankind Quarterly (See: A. James Gregor, On Learned ignorance: in Brief Inquiry into L A. Newby's Challenge to the Court, in I.A. Newby, Challenge to the Court. Social Scientists and the defense of segregration 1954-1966, Lousiana State University Press, 1969, pp. 237-283). I quote a part of his long defense, which deserves to be read in full:

I have long entertained the perverse conviction that in social criticism “radical” opinion performs a singularly salutary function. I have always felt, and somehow I vaguely impute the notion to John Stuart Mill, that the expression of radical and dissident opinion forces us to scrutinize our own commitments with fastidious care—and provides us with the occasion to test our convictions in the fire of controversy. And so I must admit that I have foolishly contributed to radical and dissident journals of both the “right” and the “left” in roughly equal measure. While I was acting as an “assistant editor” (in name more than in fact) for the notorious “racist” journal Mankind Quarterly, I was also an “editorial associate” of Studies on the Left, and on the book review staff of Science and Society. I even worked on the executive committee of that notorious “racist” organization that Mr. Newby has so shrewdly analyzed, while I was, at the same time, Regional Secretary for the Society for the Philosophical Study of Dialectical Materialism [...]. My actions evidence a quixotic conviction that social criticism flourishes only in an atmosphere which permits all views to be heard, however reprehensible we may personally find them to be. I might even venture to say something like, “I may find what they say abhorrent, but I will defend their right to say it”. (Gregor, 1969, pp. 256-257). Humanist poet (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you don't understand what the word eugenicist means. Gregor here didn't deny being a eugenicist. Most eugenicist or race realists disagree with being called racists, eugenics seeks "to improve the genetic quality of a human population" which Gregor was in favor of. You don't have to be a vulgar racist in order to be a eugenicist. "Idus A. Newby's book Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 published in 1967 contains an extensive discussion of Gregor's work on race and argues that his organization, the IAAEE and Mankind Quarterly magazine to which Gregor was a frequent contributor were among the main institutional centers of scientific racism in the 1960s." Saying that the founding director of the a eugenics institution wasn't a eugenicist is like saying the founder of the National Fascist Party wasn't a fascist. I know your personal sympathy for the man is blinding you but it is what it is. Rahammz (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

[12 December 1958. James Gregor delivers a lecture on the topic "Some Race Theories" as part of the Racist Forum's 1958-59 monthly lecture series, held at Steinway Hall, 113 West 57th Street, New York. The previous month's speaker was James Madole, head of a small neo-Nazi sect called the National Renaissance Party, who spoke on "The Role of the Jew in Modern Politics." On Madole and the NRP, see Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens (Boston: Little, Brown, 1997). Madole's speech elicited negative commentary in the New York press, to which Gregor's friend Robert E. Kuttner responded in an anti-Semitic article in The Truth Seeker. Kuttner was also a speaker in the series; he delivered a lecture on "Race and the Future of Civilization" on March 13, 1959.] This is one among dozens of his works regarding race realism and eugenics. So I advise you to stop being in a state of meaningless denial when it comes to Gregor's eugenics, which I repeat, was part of his main interests. Don't know how much else evidence and sources you need? Eventually this page will get protected and you won't be able to edit it.

 Rahammz (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I will try to be concise in this reply, since obviously your ideological preconceptions make you manifestly unable to grasp the problems connected with the definition of "eugenicist". You say: "eugenics seeks to improve the genetic quality of a human population which Gregor was in favor of". Well, in the logical and human sciences this apodictic assertion corresponds to a value judgment. The question is: Did Gregor want to improve the genetic quality of a human population? How? What are the sources? What is the evidence to support this thesis? At the moment, you have not shown in any way that Gregor wanted "to improve the genetic quality of a human population". All his writings on "race" and "racism" demonstrate a strong criticism of the concepts of "genetics" and "biology". There is no evidence that Gregor wanted to improve the "genetic quality" of the American population. Many evidence, however, shows the opposite.

You say:

"Idus A. Newby's book Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 published in 1967 contains an extensive discussion of Gregor's work on race and argues that his organization, the IAAEE and Mankind Quarterly magazine to which Gregor was a frequent contributor were among the main institutional centers of scientific racism in the 1960s. "

In that book Gregor published a long essay, accompanied by a document in the appendix, which demonstrates the inconsistencies of the accusations made by Newby (I bet you haven't even read what Gregor wrote).

You say:

"Saying that the founding director of the a eugenics institution wasn't a eugenicist is like saying the founder of the National Fascist Party wasn't a fascist".

This comparison is inconsistent and demonstrates many logical aporias. Gregor may have founded that association for other reasons and goals than what they actually became. And this is evidenced by the fact that Gregor left IAAEE when this association turned into a group of boorish racists.

Finally, you cannot consider Gregor a eugenicist because he collaborated in some conferences with eugenic people. It is simply absurd. You have to prove to me that in the conference on "Some Race Theories" Gregor actually expounded some eugenic theses.

Finally, you say:

"Eventually this page will get protected and you won't be able to edit it."

Here is revealed the face of the "liberal" and "progressist" dictatorship. Well done. Perhaps in the future we will write a biography of you on Wikipedia (but I doubt it, given your low IQ) where we will say that Rahammz is a well-known censor and telematic dictator. Humanist poet (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Eugenics, race science, anti-integration policy work

Was surprised that, now that this is no longer a BLP, there are editors who still insist on scrubbing Gregor's history. I'm not interested in "prov[ing] Gregor was a eugenicist on the talk page," or an edit war -- it just strikes me as odd that this is at all controversial. If having his own extensive bibliography on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism isn't sufficient, and their meticulously-annotated list of his own racist writings advocating for racist policies in racist publications is not sufficient, and his name on the masthead of the IAAEE is not enough, I'm wondering what would be enough?

At what point does public, open, strident advocacy for eugenics make one a eugenicist? Would it be more acceptable to call him a "strong advocate for race science"? Is the hyper-specific "eugenicist" the problem? Something more general might be better, but insofar as he was publicly worked for "the Advancement of Eugenics" I thought that might at least be indisputable.

Any guidance, User:Humanist poet?

Thanks, 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:208B:4469:53:56CC (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply and for your time.

Responding to those accused of racism, Gregor wrote:

Since the terms “racist” and “racism” are charged with such negative emotional force, and the implications of identifying someone as a member of the class are so serious, ascriptions should be made with due regard not only for right reason, appropriate academic proprieties, but moral responsibility as well".

We therefore welcome his invitation to treat this issue with due seriousness and moral responsibility. There are some points that need to be fixed well:

1. Gregor has produced a large and extensive bibliography on race, racism and racial prejudice. This bibliography was reported by the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, as you pointed out. The problem is that if you read what Gregor wrote in this bibliography you will find many criticisms of the theoretical foundations of racism and eugenics. A racist or eugenicist considers "human nature" is fixed by heredity and immune to the environment. In no text has Gregor ever argued that human nature fixed by heredity and "immune" to the environment. Indeed, Gregor argued exactly the opposite. Again: racists and eugenics argue that manifest traits (morality, criminality, ethics, and intelligence) are genetically determined and directly related to race. Gregor argued exactly the opposite. There is a long and complex self-defense of Gregor on this issue. Have you read it? A convinced eugenicist would not waste his time clearing himself of the accusations of being a eugenicist.

2. The partnership between Gregor and IAAEE lasted only a few years. Even if we admit that your thesis was correct (and has yet to be proven), there is no evidence to show Gregor's support, partnership or commitment to eugenics after the 1960s. So, I ask myself and I ask you: are such a few years enough to definitively dismiss Gregor as a eugenicist? Is there any evidence that Gregor was eternally a eugenicist until his death? In fact, much evidence points to the contrary. So it would have been more correct to write "Gregor was for a short period of time a supporter of some eugenic theses, but he has distanced himself from it since the second half of the sixties". This would have been more morally acceptable. But we still have to prove whether Gregor was a eugenist, in what sense he was a eugenist and what theses he shared and rejected about eugenics. This is the work I expect from a serious and honest researcher.

It is not enough to cite Gregor's bibliography, if one does not enter into what he wrote. Humanist poet (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the earnest response User talk:Humanist poet. I think the answers to both these points come down to Wikipedia policies -- in particular, WP:UNDUE (and, while he was alive, WP:BLP). I'd argue that his early work under a famous fascist academic, and his formational years writing in / editing fascist periodicals is essential for understanding his later interest in writing about fascism: namely, his personal experience working with "Mussolini's Intellectuals" (and their successors) certainly colors how one should view his writings about them, don't they?

Still, I would hesitate to call Gregor himself a "fascist" for the reasons you've given above, as well as the fact that -- as far as I can tell -- he never self-identified as one. But he indisputably spent decades publicly arguing for the advancement of eugenics; Greyfell's replies above give some better context to both the duration and depth of Gregor's involvement with some truly horrific people and ideas, prior to his shift to writing about fascism in the past-tense.

Have I misunderstood, or do you believe that including this (IMO crucial) context in the lede is giving it undue weight because of how inflammatory that context is to modern readers? There is probably a better way to do this than just including the (clunky) eugenics tag, but it would be a shame to put together a well-sourced paragraph on the subject to just have it summarily blanked on some other pretext -- so IMO the clunky tag is helpful for now, it at least clues the interested reader in. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:15BB:B595:29A:AD56 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's policies well, but the problem I raised with my questions continues to persist and has not been resolved. Here the question of fascism has nothing to do with it, because Gregor was a founding member of the IAAEE Association before becoming an esteemed and internationally recognized academic. And I confirm that the partnership with IAAEE lasted a few years and Gregor did not share the main theses of the eugenists. So defining Gregor with the tag "eugenic" is misleading and excessive. Gregor was never a theorist of eugenics and certainly the studies on race and ethnicity were not the main and salient feature of his biographical and intellectual life.

For example, Raymond Cattell has dealt exclusively with race and eugenics throughout his life (see paragraph 7 of his Wikipedia biography, titled "Views on race and eugenics"), but nowhere has he been called a "eugenist." "and his defensive and dissociative theses have also been reported. Why should it be otherwise for Gregor?

There is an entire paragraph entitled "Eugenics and philosophy" where Gregor's collaboration with certain environments is told. It seems to me that it is enough. It is useless to insist on this again. Humanist poet (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I have been unconsciously conflating "fascist" and "vocal proponent of eugenics", which would have certainly enraged the subject himself. I apologize if it sounded like I was explaining Wikipedia policies for you, I was just trying put your objection in terms of policies: namely, that characterizing him as a eugenicist in the lede gives that fact undue weight because he wasn't with IAAEE for long, and anyway he didn't agree with them on everything. Fair enough!

From pure curiosity, would you be able to share your confirmation for the duration of Gregor's tenure at IAAEE, and his disposition to their "theses"? 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:DCFE:53B6:2098:6743 (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This information can be found in: A. James Gregor, On Learned ignorance: in Brief Inquiry into L A. Newby's Challenge to the Court, in I.A. Newby, Challenge to the Court. Social Scientists and the defense of segregration 1954-1966, Lousiana State University Press, 1967.

According to Gregor in this book, who refers to the role of "assistant editor" in Mankind Quarterly as "in name more than in fact", this is a past experience. So it is reasonable to assume that in 1967 (or even earlier) Gregor had ceased to hold official roles within the journal "Mankind Quarterly". Also in the same book, Gregor lists the points of difference between your theories and those of the racists / eugenists. I advise you to read it carefully. Humanist poet (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Was able to find a copy on archive.org. I guess distancing himself from them in 1967 (even in a collection in 'defense of segregation') makes sense; time was right for a pivot after the pro-segregation side got so rapidly defeated in the courts and public opinion (if not in actual practice). Really fascinating guy, like a Zelig for the sketchier corners of the post-war American Right, but with (AFAICT) so few secondary sources about him, aside from the Bell Curve-era books that focus just on those early IAAEE years. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:CDEB:571A:AF53:EBB8 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. for what it's worth, except for Ernest van den Haag, all of the authors in that collection were in fact contributors to Mankind Quarterly (via MQ's pre-1985 archive, hosted on a strongly-deprecated site); doesn't negate his distancing himself from them, but seems noteworthy. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:CDEB:571A:AF53:EBB8 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources need to be cited and summarized in the article itself, not merely mentioned on talk pages. Original research is not usable here. Wikipedia articles should not rely on primary source. With such sources, some editors will take the harshest possible interpretation, and some will chose the most charitable, and neither will be factually incorrect, leading to an impasse.

The lead is a summary of the body of the article, and the body of the article clearly discusses Gregor's work in support of eugenics. Nuance is welcome, but it must be directly supported by reliable sources, and specifically, these should be mostly independent sources. Combining obscure primary sources to imply something or other about Gregor's views is inappropriate, as it is a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If anything, that source does function as a pretty fantastic secondary source on Gregor's work in eugenics and against civil rights, and could help fill out that section of the article; Gregor's reply that @Humanist poet cited above was included in the second edition (alongside the other race scientists'). I haven't finished it yet, but the reply itself is wild; but after printing Gregor's screed in full, Newby attaches without comment a contemporary article from Gregor that begins with this 2015-era-Breitbart opener: "Now that the demand by Negro parents that their children be accorded an education suitable to their aptitudes and special circumstances has descended to the level of riot ". Really fascinating reading! ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you think you are an expert, can you explain to me why in the biography of Raymond Cattell it was not indicated that he was a "eugenicist" and for Gregor it was? Humanist poet (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Because reliable, independent sources recognize that Cattell and Gregor were, in fact, two different people. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Really? I thought they were the same person. Fortunately, you intervened to clarify this. My next step will be to report to the Wikipedia community your shameful, censorious and arrogant interventions. A despot like you has no right to play the role of moderator. Humanist poet (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that Humanist poet has been blocked for disruptive editing.

Regarding sources, any commentary about a source itself beyond basic and uncontroversial facts should come from independent sources. This applies to the Messina one from 2021, the Idus A. Newby book from 1967, and pretty much any other source worth discussing.

As for using direct language to describe Gregor as a eugenicist, we similarly have to follow reliable, independent sources. Attempting to interpret his own works is a form of original research. This is made worse when these works are sampled from editor-selected time periods. As I mention above, Gregor was contributing to Mankind well into the 80s, so an essay or similar he wrote in the mid 60s is of limited use for summarizing his entire career.

Wikipedia doesn't publish original research like this. Instead, reliable sources analyze this issue and we attempt to summarize that analysis. Wikipedia articles should not use euphemisms, and they should also should not use weasel wording. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

References