I've split the class in two to make a more manageable discussion group:
- Read the article “Controlling the Unfit” from Facing History (received in class).
- Click here to explore the archive on the American Eugenics Movement hosted by Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory. Read about a minimum of four different areas, including “Sterilization Laws” and “Eugenics Popularization.
- Post a comment on your investigation to the blog, signing with your initials or first name only for privacy. Comment on the question below AND share an observation on something you saw in the archive. Strong responses will also refer directly to a previous post in the discussion. The question I would like you to consider is:
Laws requiring sterilization violated the basic rights of the victims. How did eugenicists and their supporters seem to justify those civil rights violations? What arguments might you offer in support of the victims?
Source: Facing History.
Posts are due before class begins on Friday.
The eugenicists did try extremely hard to make their work seem valid, conducting field studies and creating maps of people’s inherited traits. However, the assumptions they made and the initial information they based their conclusions on are faulty. In addition, eugenicists who were biased, like Laughlin, could easily skew data to fit their conclusions. Laughlin classifies orphans as people who are socially inadequate, which is against his statement that ‘the term socially inadequate shall not be applied to any person whose individual or social ineffectiveness is due to the normally expected exigencies of youth…in case such ineffectiveness is adequately taken care of.’ An orphan who has lost both parents can have other family to take care of them and if they are old enough they could easily get a job and ‘contribute’ to society. Also, Laughlin and other eugenicists were rather hasty in shoving traits into the modes of inheritance discovered by Mendel. In Laughlin’s Model Sterilization Law it states that a potential parent has at least a one fourth possibility of passing on traits to their offspring, but several of the traits that he had chosen that made a person ‘socially inadequate’ were not inheritable. Also, most traits are not passed on in the simple recessive-dominant manner chosen by eugenicists to support their ideas.
ReplyDelete-Stephanie
I was really struck by how much the eugenics movement was fueled by the discontent of the American people and a growing desire for drastic social change. For a long time Americans believed in Social Darwinism that supported a "survival of the fittest" approach to society. But as the growth of the wealthy elite was overtaken by the growth of the working class Americans wanted a new science to explain the root of the evils in society. America turned then to support the growing eugenics movement. In support of the victims I would offer that American society was very troubled in the early 20th century and the eugenics movement seemed to be a miracle science that would fix all of the issues in society. Worse, the eugenics movement preached the idea that sterilization of a few would be beneficial for the good of many. So a small subset of people were sterilized; their rights were violated with the flimsy justification that preventing the spread of their bad genes would greatly improve society. As Stephanie pointed out, eugenics was a movement based on very poor scientific technique and limited understanding of inheritance of genes. It is highly unfortunate that so many people's rights were violated on the basis of an imperfect science and American society's flawed ideas of racial purity.
ReplyDelete-Alex
Although it is quite obvious that Eugenicists violated basic human rights, they persuaded many others into following them. In Carrie Buck’s case, the judge simply relied on the word of Arthur Estabrook, and agreed that Carrie should not be able to have any other defective children. From this example, it is easy to see that people were very easily persuaded by the movement. Eugenicists stated that sterilizing those who are defective only helps the society in which we live. Like Alex said, they believed that the sterilization of a few will be beneficial for the whole society. So, even though they were violating basic human rights, they believed it was for a greater cause. While exploring the sterilization laws section of the archive, I was struck by how many groups of people the movement targeted, including orphans. This only furthers the point that Eugenicists relied on poor scientific material, because orphans cannot relate to genetics. It was surprising to see how many groups the movement covered over the years.
ReplyDelete-Leah
This article and the Eugenics webstie took me by complete shock. I had no idea that these sorts of sterilizations and beliefs of superior genetics existed in the United States. These laws that were passed, like Leah said, obviously violated basic human righs, and these eugenicists found such far fetched ways of justifying what they were doing. In the article "Controling the 'Unfit'", I found the laws against marriage extremely surprising. There were laws passed in some states which stated that people who are inadequate, feeble-minded, epileptic, criminalistic... etc, could not get married. This falls under Eugenics but being married does not necesarily mean that they are going to have offspring. Also, I found the pedigrees in the archives very interesting. The fact that the Eugenisists followed people's genetics, and personality traits that closely to try to prove a person is inferior, I find, is just disgusting.
ReplyDeleteJulia
Like Julia, I was shocked by the extent to which eugenics had infiltrated the United States, and I am surprised that we did not learn about this in history classes. Eugenicists attempted to justify the violations of their victims’ rights by showing the supposed “degenerates” as a threat to the well being of society who drained public resources. As Alex and Leah have said, the eugenicists sought to remove the “unfit” from the gene pool in order to protect the greater good. Eugenicists sought to back their ideas up with science by using Mendel’s studies, but causes of human behavior and condition are more complicated than the factors determining a beanstalk’s height.
ReplyDeleteIt’s appalling that in a country that is supposed to be rooted in the idea of equality such a movement could gain power. Leah pointed out that the state of being an orphan is not passed on genetically, and that highlights the flawed thought of the movement. Furthermore, as Stephanie pointed out, an orphan could actually contribute to society, despite what one of the propaganda ads on the website (claiming that small children grow to become “junk”) suggests. I am surprised that involuntary sterilization could gain so much support in a country where abortion is still a controversial topic.
~Carolyn
Reading this article and the website, i couldn't believe that America had once believe that "feeble-minded, insane, epileptic, venereal disease, blind, deaf, inebriate, deformed and the dependent" were to believe hereditary and soon later call these people the "unfit". However these Eugenicist seem to have a logical way to justify their actions. Through Lauglin's Model Sterilization Law, it states how their act is to prevent the the procreation the people who are socially inadequate and stop their defective inheritance. Also it states that these Eugenicist of the State are trained student of human heredity and they are skilled in the practice of analyzing human pedigrees and they devote their whole time and attention so they can justify their actions correctly. However the victims of these involuntary sterilization are indeed being violated of their amendments. Such as the these sterilization are violations of the eighth amendment which bans "cruel and unusual punishment" and also their fourteenth amendment which grants every citizen the due process and equal protection under the law. Also it is proven in the website, there is an case where a women name Carrie, who is not married, carried a child by the name of Vivian who is supected of being a unfit being by the mother's mother who is an asylum which fits this born baby as an "unfit". However, this child was not "feeble minded," her 1st grade teacher has reported that Vivian was a solid B student and then a honor roll kid. This proves how these procreation doesn't inherit these socially adequate classes.
ReplyDeleteDesal
As Leah points out, the eugenics movement was fueled by how easy it was to persuade people to support the cause. Eugenicists insisted that they were only trying to benefit society as a whole, and that in order to do this, certain civil rights had to be sacrificed. After all, throughout the course of American history, liberties such as habeas corpus (Lincoln) and freedom of speech (Alien and Sedition Acts) have been revoked in order to solve a greater issue at hand. However, it is abundantly clear that the ideas behind eugenics were flawed, and that the sterilization of “disabled” people was both inhumane and ineffective in solving problems. It might seem ridiculous that people actually believed that traits such as criminal behavior, promiscuity and mental retardation were controlled by one gene, but as Alex brought up previously, it is important to look at the context in which the eugenics movement flourished. Following the Civil War, there were both economic and social problems that existed under a laissez-faire structure, where the government had a decreased role in society. In order to try to rectify these problems, people went back to the old system, and demanded more regulation by the government in certain areas of social policy such as sterilization. They wanted desperately to fix the problems in America, and implemented ill-conceived, short-term solutions such as eugenics that caused more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the articles I was flabbergasted at the whole idea of separating defective people from others. I was even more surprised when I found out that US was involved in it too. Reading those articles reminded me of how Hitler used to call Germans the superior race and he saw other races as once which should have been overtaken. He thought that the most defective people were Jews, Catholics, homosexuals etc. Same way Eugenic movement separated defected people from once who were normal. I think that was wrong and in my opinion if they thought the separation was something they had to do then they could have done it in a more humane way. For example they could have made camps somewhere, which was far away from the “normal people” and there those “defective people” could have lived their lives. They could have children and they could work. Just by destroying them was not good solution in my opinion.
ReplyDelete- Avetis
Avetis brings up a good point; there are many parallels between the eugenicists and the Nazis. It is interesting that both groups truly believed they were doing what was right, although what they were doing was pretty horrible.
ReplyDeleteThese eugenicists had no authority to be deciding who was and wasn't fit to procreate. As seen on the website, their pedigrees were often formed through second-hand information and hearsay, since hospitals did not keep thorough records at the time. Also, they treated qualities like intelligence and "feeblemindedness" as if they were as simple and easy to map as eye color. And what is "feeblemindedness" anyway? That is such a vague term; it could be applied to anyone. Such a trait cannot be genetically mapped. The eugenicists’ unquestioning faith in the accuracy of tests like an IQ test shows that they were looking for any way possible to label people and make decisions for them. I cannot imagine how these people were able to make laws in America within the last one hundred years. Their claims are ridiculous and have no moral or scientific base.
Similar to how many felt about these laws requiring sterilization, I find it very uncomforting to believe such things existed. Eugenics seemed to justify their civil rights violations through not only showing evidence that these “ socially inadequate” people were contributing negativity to the society, but also by appearing in person before those making the law to share their scientific expertise. It is unbelievable that these people invaded the rights of those with such “disabilities” listed in Laughlin’s Model Sterilization Law; however, they did support the fact that if criminals reproduce, “on average…most [offspring] probably function as socially inadequate persons (192). By stating this, the lawmakers probably found it more logical to pass this sterilization process because it could only bring about more trouble and chaos. Eugenics stated that by increasing the number of these people, the sterilization laws would only prevent the population of dangerous criminals in the world and take away the inconvenience of those who are considered normal from assisting the ill. I believe that although these victims were found to only bring a burden among our society, they are still human beings and not lab rats to be experimented with.
ReplyDeleteChristina
I agree with what Pat had to say. These eugenicists acted as if they could tell you exactly who these "feebleminded" people were. "feeblemindedness" is not something you can just claim to be true of a person. Everyone has their own flaws, and some have more than others, but this should not allow eugenicists to be able sterilize people that are different from the norm.
ReplyDeleteI also did not see any proof that these "feebleminded" people would pass this so called trait to their offspring. How would they know what traits are genetic and what traits are caused from life experiences. They sided with scientists that believed in nature, more than of nurture in order to support their desires to sterilize the "feebleminded" population.
Dwarfs have an undesirable trait of being small, however, genetically, they are able to produce relatively normal children without this condition. The chances of this are less than of non-dwarfs but the possibility of producing a non-dwarf child is still there. Also stating that someone is flawed is an opinion. Who should get to choose who is flawed? I don't think any human should have the authority to claim that of another.
~Max