I've been reading some of Lakatos's work, and in it he mentions that the American intellectual community took a firm stand against eugenicists (in his words "people investigating whether intelligence has a genetic component). He used it as an example of irrationalism affecting science, and his tone was alarmingly sympathetic towards what we now see as essentially racist apologia. It also reminded me of the tone of Asimov's famous quote on American anti-intellectualism. Which attitude came first, and did one rise out of the other? Was Lakatos's attitude widespread amongst European scholars?
Could you provide quotes for context?
American anti-intellectualism is much older than eugenics. Hofstadter (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life) traces threads of it back to colonial times and the myth of the virtuous farmer. Hofstadter's book was written in 1963, and was a reaction mostly to the perceived anti-intellectualism of conservative pundits in the 1950s and early 1960s (think Eisenhower and McCarthyism), and attempted to situate that in a longer historical trajectory. Which is to just to say, I think it is much older than anything Lakatos is potentially referencing.
This question may be suited better /r/askphilosophy but i'll give it a shot. Because intellectual history inherently involves normative claims and bit of opinion. I will try and keep it to a minimum. If its too much a fully respect the mods decision to remove it.
Which attitude came first, and did one rise out of the other?
Many observers (Toqueville, Hofstadter, Veblen, Mencken) throughout America's relatively short history have claimed that the American public is especially prone to anti-intellectualism. Explanations as to why range from Cultural to Economic to Geographic.
Secondly, reading that passage as racist or racialist apologetics is fundamental misinterpretation of what Lakatos is trying to say. you are essentially committing the very sin the entire chapter is about: Intolerance to ideas percieved as morally repugnant or blasphemous. Lakatos believes all ideas should be judged exclusively on merit (gross oversimplification, but the entire book is essentially about this) even if we if we find them unpalatable.
To put it context, Lakatos published this particular article in 1972-1973. The post war period up to this point could not have been anymore different for the two nations. The U.S had experienced unprecedented economic growth and ability to manage social and economic affairs. The Uk, on the other hand was an empire in decline, while living standards increased, her recovery still lagged far behind the rest of Europe.
This is why Lakatos mentions shockley and VELIKOVSKY. While many of the American Intelligentsia and political elite were claiming that the United States was the freest and most liberal society to ever exist they had silenced two critics from even speaking. The latter of which was a public relations nightmare for the academy. The irony was not lost on their European counterparts across the pond.
TLDR:
I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. In any constitutional state in Europe every sort of religious and political theory may be freely preached and disseminated; for there is no country in Europe so subdued by any single authority as not to protect the man who raises his voice in the cause of truth from the consequences of his hardihood
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution.