Greatest Canadian?Over the past while I’ve been writing an analysis of the Tommy Douglas thesis written by T. C. Douglas, in 1933, and submitted to the McMaster University Sociology Department. The analysis is in four parts:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Conclusion:
The first fact that strikes one when reading the Douglas thesis, is that it relies almost exclusively on T. C. Douglas’ rationale, and not empirical data. Although the author uses twelve families as his Subnormal Family sample, the bulk of the thesis amounts to no more than expressions of opinion. As a scholarly work it is pitifully lacking and serves only as a soapbox. It is intellectually lazy, as is evidenced by the number of contradictions found within the work itself.
The fact that Douglas used the thesis to express his personal opinions is invaluable though, not for judging the merit of the work, but for judging the man himself. After all, what better way to measure a man than by his own words expressed after some consideration; these are not off the cuff remarks. The Douglas thesis as an appraisal tool of Tommy Douglas is priceless, and it is for this reason that it has been suppressed and remains obscure.
First, we must deal with the context in which the thesis was written, namely, 1933. Much has been made by apologists that the thesis seems harsh only by modern standards. That, when taken in the 1933 context, it is what could be expected. The terminology used by Douglas, such as the use of ‘subnormal family’, ‘moron’, ‘high grade moron’ could be excused as period specific, but as we will see, the concepts as they were expressed within the thesis can not be dismissed as reasonable even given the period.
Douglas proposed, as the first and foremost solution to the subnormal family, segregation, and sterilization. These two ‘remedies’ are the most callous and inhumane of his proposals, yet they are deemed primary. Furthermore, his characterization of the subnormal is more akin to one describing animals than human beings. One could argue that ignorance and lack of experience would compel one to hold such a callous view, but we must keep in mind, that Douglas worked extensively with the poor in the United States prior to the writing of the thesis. He knew the poor intimately, he knew their loves, hates, downfalls, and strengths. And, like any compassionate person who works with any disadvantaged group, Douglas should have been moved to empathy. Yet, there is no evidence of this.
After working with the ‘subnormal’ Douglas remained clinically removed from his subjects, as if they were animals. It would seem that not even a hint of what is often called “Stockholm Syndrome” so much as touched the man. We are left with the question; did Douglas see the ‘subnormal’ as humans at all? Judging by the thesis, the answer would be, “hardly.” And, when taken in context within the period, he would be in the company of a minority of that day who saw humanity in terms of genetic classes. The chief expression of this dogma was being acted out by the Nazis in Europe at the exact time of the writing of the Douglas thesis.
Taken in context with the times, Douglas’ view cannot be excused when one considers the preceding decades of literature and leadership in compassionate outlook towards the ‘subnormal’ as expressed by liberal democrats and Christians. From Catholic to Evangelical, Christians had for at least a century been focusing on the physical welfare of the dispossessed. From missionary hospitals and schools in Africa to outreach programs tenderly caring for the poor in North American cities, Christians had led the way in viewing the poor as fellow human beings in need. And, first and foremost, even above conversion to Christianity, was the emphasis on relieving suffering. As far back as the 1700’s, liberal minded North Americans and Europeans had been hounding governments to assist the needy, stop the Indian Wars, and prevent starvation. Had it not been for these forces in fact, American Indians today would be extinct. Douglas’ own church, the Baptist denomination, often led the charge helping the lowliest.
Yet, from within the ranks of the Baptist Church and others denominations, came the likes of the KKK, and a variety of racist supremacist groups. They paid lip-service to the ‘transforming power of Christ’ yet sought to carve out for themselves a select place within humanity. Undoubtedly, Douglas falls within this faction. The fact that he suggests sterilization and segregation as the primary solutions to the subnormal place him squarely in this camp.
From my personal experience, I can attest to the divide between both groups within the Baptist Church. My grandfather was Douglas’ age. My grandfather was an ardent Evangelical Baptist, a religious teacher, and a passionate follower of the Evangelical Christian faith. Yet, my grandfather would have abhorred Douglas’ stance as taken in the thesis. My grandfather would’ve rejected outright the Douglas ‘remedies’ for the subnormal, save one, and that is that faith in Christ can transform. My grandfather, and thousands like him, lived lives full of empathy for the mentally retarded, the dispossessed, the poor, the ‘subnormal’. Yes, they may have blamed much on “sin”, but they believed that “love” and compassion were the remedy, not sterilization and segregation.
Douglas displays an amazing ability to pay lip service to the Christian doctrine, without expressing an ounce of compassion. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what kind of human being can mimic, parrot, and act out perfectly the Christian tenets, yet show no empathy for those in need. Worse yet, Douglas gave no indication that the needy were equal and worthy fellow human beings. Admittedly though, T.C. Douglas, as demonstrated in his thesis was gifted with the perfect personality for taking political power; the ability to assume any creed yet remain completely emotionally disconnected. One is left with a sense that T. C. Douglas could have been anything, as long as it propelled him forward.
Lionized in film and media, Douglas is viewed by some as the Greatest Canadian. His scandalous thesis is brushed off by the Socialist Utopian class, and these same apologists continue to raise Douglas onto a pedestal. Yet, the same class rage tirelessly against any opponent who so much as offers valid critique of any Socialist Utopian pillar. So much as a murmur of criticism against the liberal judiciary, gay marriage, universal healthcare, militant feminism, or multiculturalism, is met with outcries of “racist”, “bigot”, “imperialist”, or worse yet; not representative of “Canadian Values.” Individuals who critique socialist tenets are removed from committees, raged against in the media, and called names that should be reserved for those who… who hold views like Tommy Douglas.
It is said, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and as such it is the Socialists themselves who should have long ago nudged Tommy to the sidelines. Instead, they’ve attempted to make him into the quintessential banner bearer of Canadian Values. Some values; Some banner!
|