without enslaved people there is no iliad, no odyssey, no greek tragedy. if you took enslaved characters out of the stories, they would fall apart at the seams. that means they are are worth considering, as individuals and as enslaved, and likewise, the higher class characters as enslavers.
something I’ve noticed over the years is that calling something eugenicist rhetoric is almost always met with “eugenics is a strong word” or “that’s not eugenics it’s just common sense”. what I need everyone to understand about eugenics is that:
it is still one of the primary underlying status quo ideologies
the fact that it is status quo means that, instinctively, you are going to label it as “common sense” or as “objective truth”
“eugenics” simply means “belief that there is a way of optimising human genetics for the benefit of the general good”
when I say that something is “eugenicist rhetoric” I am not saying “everyone who has ever said this thing is inherently evil”. I am saying “you need to question where some of these ideas come from”
this is also how people have come to quiz me on the ethics of various choices an individual might make rather than focusing on the systemic, institutional, and cultural elements of eugenics. for example. I am not here to rule for or against one person aborting their disabled foetus. I am pro-abortion and I would never advocate against the right for someone to make whatever choice they’re going to make. I am here to ask people to question the fact that such an abortion is seen as the most rational choice for any person to make in such a situation
