Blog #29 – Social Darwinism or Eugenics – you give evolution a bad name!
Social Darwinism – the term actually – is hard to pin down as to its origins. Some sources say that its a knock against Darwin when his critics try to apply Darwin’s evolutionary biology to a social context, an application that Darwin never intended. Other sources say that SD should really be called “survival of the fittest” because the man who first proposed these SD ideas, Herbert Spencer, also coined the “survival” phrase.
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr.
Eugenics was an ambitious, worldwide program that set about to eliminate the lowest tenth of the human population by restricting marriages and involuntarily sterilizing those who were considered to be “feebleminded,” or were petty criminals, epileptics, and alcoholics. The lowest tenth also included, in America, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, and immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. In many ways, this technique is akin to treating human beings like live stock and culling the weak to improve the gene pool. So, beginning in the 20th Century, with the help of such philanthropic giants as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation, prominent eugenicists wrote and recommended sterilization policies that would become laws in 28 states by 1932. 60,000 Americans would eventually have their reproductive rights taken from them, though Eugenics enthusiasts sought to eliminate almost 14 million Americans 1.
Eugenics actually originated with Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton who drew conclusions from his examinations of prominent British families and inherited traits. An Italian physician named Cesare Lombroso added to this field of knowledge by stating “there exists…a group of criminals, born for evil, against whom all social cures break against a rock – a fact which compels us to eliminate the[se criminals] completely, even by death.” in 1874, an English doctor named Jugdale examined on inmates in a New York jail, especially six who were related. Jugdale sdiscovered that these inmates’ family tree was “full of social deviants” 2.
Coupled with the influx of millions of new immigrants from different places like Eastern and Southern Europe, old stock Americans looked for reasons to restrict this flood of “an army of the unfit”. So, America began passing laws that limited immigration from those parts of Europe – 1921’s Emergency Immigration (or Quota) Act placed a quota of just 3% of any group’s population based on the 1910 Census. In 1924, the Immigration Act went further by changing the quota to 2% and changing the Census date to 1890, adversely affecting the most recent additions to America. The 1924 law also restricted Asian citizenship as well.
But, the worst part about the eugenics movement is that the American movement became the envy of the German National Socialist Party as they rose to power in the late 1920s. “The National Socialist Physicians League head Gerhard Wagner praised America’s eugenic policies and pointed to them as a model for Germany” 2. In fact, during the 1930s, both American and German eugenic scientists and programs exchanged information and praised each other as model programs for other like-minded countries to follow. Euthanasia of the insane was proposed in Alabama in 1936 if compulsory sterilization wasn’t enough to stop the increase in number coming into sanitariums. Even the inventor of the iron lung suggested that the insane be disposed of efficiently “in small euthanasia facilities supplied with proper gases” 2.
Though American eugenics programs did not have the depth or breadth that the Nazi eugenics program had (the Holocaust), compulsory sterilization laws were still in effect until the late 1960s and early 1970s. In fact, 60,000 doesn’t compare with 6 million or even 11 million if you count all of the victims of the Nazi genocidal machine.
But that doesn’t minimize the fact that America is supposed to be a democracy that allows many freedoms and protects peoples’ rights, and during this sad history, the country and its states chose to interfere with peoples’ right to marry whomever they wanted and also to have children. When the laws of the land and the courts of the land uphold those immoral laws based upon bogus science, what recourse do the weak have? Isn’t that what the government’s job is – protect the weak, in cases like these?
Questions: (PICK TWO OF THE THREE QUESTIONS)
1. Do states bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century? Why or why not? If so, what should be done for those surviving victims, especially the ones who are still alive who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s?
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not?
3. Is it possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child? Why or why not?
(300 words total after writing BOTH of your answers). Due Friday, January 13 before class begins.
Sources:
1. Black, Edwin. War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003. Print.
2. Quinn, Peter. “Race Cleansing In America.” American Heritage Mar. 2003: 35-43. Web. 2012. <http://faculty.nwacc.edu/abrown/WesternCiv/Articles%5CEugenics.pdf>
NPR’s story on North Carolina’s recommendation to provide assistance for the 2,000 survivors of NC’s eugenic’s program.
Mitchell August
1/13/12
Eugenics Blog
I believe that philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute do have to do with the Eugenics that swept through America in the early 1900’s. Many of these ideas that eugenics was based off of, are ideas that Carnegie believed in. Although Carnegie did not have the power to make people do this, his power and the respect he had earned was enough for the people of America to believe this is how America should run. Through survival of the fittest Carnegie believed that America and the rest of the world could be a better place. Within this belief is where America may have started it Eugenics movement. People with power have always controlled the thoughts and minds of Americans and I strongly believe that this is no exception.
I strongly believe that the human genome project could spur many similar debates. Although its intended purpose is to locate disease and correct strands of DNA, it is clear that many people will not believe in this method of research. Survival of the fittest is wrong; everyone deserves a fair chance to live if they can afford the technologies and or medicines we use in modern America today. The human genome project could be the answer to many of the problems we face all across the world like cancer, down syndrome, and cerebral paulsie, are all examples of diseases that we could fix with the human genome project. However there will always be a debate based on religion and other various beliefs, of whether or not we will or should be able to save people that are born with these diseases. Over time people will realize although it will increase the population it will save so many people and lead to a new industry of medicine and research.
1. Do states bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century? Why or why not? If so, what should be done for those surviving victims, especially the ones who are still alive who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s?
I think the states bear almost full responsibility, but they don’t have as much power as the federal government, so I would pin the blame of the United States Federal Government. The fact that we stripped anyone who was depicted as “unfit to breed” by taking away their rights to have a child or marry who they loved, is disgusting. The United States is supposed to be the home of the free, though; many that lived during the Eugenics period were not free. They were lacking basic rights and they will live with the unfair punishments that the state and government enforced on them. I think that they should be compensated. Say one woman who was “unfit” to be a mother has always wanted children, and then through the Eugenics project her right to have children is taken away. She still wants a child years later and wants to adopt, though she can’t afford the very expensive on the spot cost of adopting a child (can cost 100 grand sometimes), I think that those surviving victims should be compensated, maybe there is still time to either gain closure for them or to help them adopt a child if they are fit to do so.
2. Is it possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child? Why or why not?
I don’t think that creating a perfect child is the goal of the Human Genome project. The Human Genome project is looking at the complete DNA of a person, finding where defects or in DNA which can cause a disease or health complication. Knowing where these defects or mutations in the DNA code are can help scientists and doctors create medicines and procedures to help prevent or fix these problems before they are fatal. I do not believe that these intentions can be placed in the same category as trying to create the perfect child because they only want to help create the healthiest child, which I do not think is wrong. As long as the intentions of the Human Genome Project do not change to trying to change a child to have specific traits, I do not think that they are guilty at all of trying to “perfect” the human race.
1. Yes states do bear rights to what they did decades ago even if noone from that goverment is still in office. Because it makes the whole state look bad its the same how if a murder gets charged with there crime 30 years later. Except that the goverment as a whole is responsbile not any number of indviduals.
What should be done to compensate the victims is that they should be publicly apolgized to by the agency goverment then given some form of agreeable sum of money that all the victims can agree on. That they feel is enough to compensate there losses.
3. Yes it is very possible that human genome project will try to start up similar projects and ideas. To ‘preserve’ or ‘purify’ a race of people or to create an ultimate or superior group of people. The idea to artificaly create the perfect human strong, intelligent athletic. Could be desirable too many people so there baby could have the most advantages in the world. Currently I don’t care for it much but, the idea to artficialy get ahead I have to frown apon. But, to kill and rid the so called scum from the botton. To me is disgusting.
Any state government that allowed the Eugenic programs to flourish needs to be held responsible. This whole law completely violates the rights promised to Americans, and it’s a mystery to me why it was even passed in the first place. Some state governments may have not been directly involved in passing the law, but they never did anything to stop it from entering their state. The state governments of today should also be liable for any unwanted sterilization done in the 19th century. The government should make compensation to any surviving victims; because they did something that was promised would never be done, by the Constitution. It is today’s government official’s duty to fix what was done wrong, even if it was done over fifty years ago. That’s how our government works. It’s still our government’s obligation to pay debts for past wars, loans, and failed government programs. How is this any different?
Philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or the Rockefeller Foundation bear an extreme amount of the responsibility for the Eugenics program and all the negative results. They financed it. It would not exist had they not paid for it. Carnegie said so himself that those with money need to be responsible with it. Now, those who funded this catastrophe are completely accountable for the results. They not only promoted the idea of sterilization of the “worthless” by supporting the law, but also using ideas of Social Darwinism in the way they ran their businesses made other wealthy people see it as the right thing to do and the right thing to approve. There is no reason these people should not be held liable for the wrongdoings that there money supplied, and if the government compensates victims of unwanted sterilization, Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation need to pay up.
1. I think that the states partially bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws they passed in the early part of the 20th century. Despite the fact that states did not come up with this law, each state passed it, giving the government their permission to involuntarily sterilize the citizens that they saw as “unfit”. Also deserving part of the responsibility, philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation funded the Eugenics program in their attempt to eliminate the lowest ten percent of the population. The United States Government is also at blame for the compulsory sterilization laws for allowing the Eugenics to persuade our country to become involved in the world wide program. The government should definitely do something to give back to the victims of involuntarily sterilization, but nothing can compensate for the taking constitutional rights away from the citizens who were affected by this law. Giving these victims that are still alive money would be a courteous act, but cannot make up for the stupid decisions that the country made in the 20th century.
2. I think that philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation are partially at fault for the mess that country got itself into in the early 20th. First of all, they were the ones who funded the Eugenics program. Even if they didn’t necessarily agree with the plan of the program, they gave them their money which is basically saying “I support you”. Also, the ideas and beliefs of Social Darwinism were supported by rich philanthropic organizations because they thought that the fittest should be the only ones allowed to live in happiness in the country. These organizations believed that they should rid themselves of the lower ten percent of the country, and the human population for that matter, in order to better themselves.
1. Do states bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century? Why or why not? If so, what should be done for those surviving victims, especially the ones who are still alive who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s?
I think states do bear responsibility for the laws they passed. I think so for a number of reasons. Here are two. I think they bear responsibility because they were given the choice to pass the laws or not; it’s not like the federal government forced the states to create and enfore these laws. The states created and enforced these laws themselves. I also think they bear responsibility for the laws because even though they were like established during the early part of the 1900’s, they lasted until like the 1970’s. That means that they affected people that are still alive today. So its not like they arent even relavent anymore.
The people that were affected by the american government’s stupid decision should get something that will benefit them. I think 50,000 dollars is a fair amount of compensation, despite the State governments’ sad attempts (especially NC) to locate the same people they found (and I am sure with ease) to strip them of their rights to creation.
3. Is it possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child? Why or why not?
I actually believe that the Human Genome Project would spur thoughts of fetal manipulation in an attempt to create the ideal, perfect child. I think so for a few reasons. One of them is because the more we study DNA, the more we know about it. This naturally leads to questions about fetal manipulation (to eliminate such things as Down Syndrome, major birth defects). Another reason is because even though DNA is like really complex, we are getting closer to unraveling its mystery. People know that DNA is able to be manipulated, so I think they would naturally jump to the conclusion of people introducing fetal manipulation into possible uses of it (and with things like America’s Eugenics project recently brought out of the dark, who can blame them?). However, I think that as soon as that became an option that many statewide propositions would be created to prevent this from happening (if not a national law). So, I think it’s safe to say that this will not be happening for a while.
*also, sorry for any misspelled words as i had to complete this blog on my cell phone because my computer is really messed up*
1. Yes states bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early part of the 20th Century because they passed them and applied them. Little can be done to the surviving victims, simply because it is impossible to give back what was taken from them. A life was taken away, not only their child’s but simply their life if they had been able to bear children. However, financial compensation, as we discussed in class, is something to at least show the remorse and just to ease the burden of knowing something so basic in human nature was stolen from you. An apology can also go a long way. However, what would mean the most would be for them to open organizations and remind people how wrong this idea of eugenics really is. By preventing from something like this ever happening again, in a sense, those people ‘s sterilization has not served for nothing and has brought along a change in the world.
2. Philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear much responsibility in this mess since they promoted these practices. They made this idea of a supreme race something that people didn’t reject and believed was in some way acceptable or plausible. They even suggested “concentration camps” of sorts for those that they would deem not worthy of being alive. Obviously this was a while ago, and those running the organizations now probably had nothing to do with this and would undoubtedly be appalled by the idea, but it is still important for them to try and do something to make up for the cruel things that happened. Maybe they should make a formal apology and explain why their ideas were wrong and very simply and obviously inhuman. This theory of eugenics makes sense in a purely logical view, but it mustn’t be forgotten that humans are not machines.
MArie Portes
5th hour
I believe states bear much of the responsibility for eugenic laws passed in the 1900’s. This is because they enacted laws that made eugenic research and implication possible. They also fostered a culture that allowed eugenics to be actually discussed and pondered in a manner that made it possible for eugenics to be allowed in the United States. Without the states implementing these laws, I have no doubt that all research about eugenics would have been outlawed in the United States much before it could have taken place. For all the surviving victims of eugenic programs in the United States, I recommend that the states do three things for the victims: give a minimum of $100,000 to compensate the actual victim or closest surviving relative, issue a formal apology to all eugenic victims, and to pass a law forbidding all eugenic research in the United States and prohibit any U.S based companies in funding eugenic research. This is just a small step in righting the extreme wrong that is eugenics.
Sadly I do believe that the Human Genome Project will spur similar sentiments about fetal manipulation in order to create a more perfect child. Any parent would obviously do anything to stop their child from having a degenerative condition or an increased risk for heart ailments. While to some people this might seem incredible unethical and immoral, I do not blame the parent for this situation and I sympathize with their situation. If I was a parent and I had this option, I am sure that I would take advantage of this. While this does have an obvious benefit in preventing diseases, I also believe that it crosses the proverbial line if it used to alter the appearance of the child. No one can decide what beauty is, and the parent needs to accept that.
1. I believe the states are to be held fully responsible for the sterilization laws passed in the earlier 20th century. Without the influence of states and the passing of these laws i believe that the eugenics movement would have faded away before it could ever have been put into practice large scale. The relatives of these victims and especially any living survivors from the sterilization itself should receive due compensation in the form of a cash settlement and a sincere apology from the government. I also believe that there should be an outlawing of eugenics and a removal of any company researching or investing in the research of eugenics.
3. Though at this point in time the Human Genome Project has set out only in attempt to cure disease and create a healthier child, the curiosity of man and his desire for perfection will eventually lead to a shift in the goals of the project. I believe without a doubt that the HGP will begin to research eugenics or it will stem new foundations that attempt this kind of research. Unfortunetly, even with an outlawing of eugenics, man will eventually reach a point where eugenic fetal manipulation is a common practice. 🙁
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not?
Whatever the most eloquent and intelligent way of saying “duh,” is right now, that is the answer. It is mostly due to the influence that organizations like these, with these being the most notable examples, that the primary eugenics laws were passed. If these organizations (and individuals) had not supported eugenics and the laws it would entail, the laws most likely would not have been created, definitely not at the extreme scope and scale that it ended up reaching during by nineteen thirty two. If they had simply not given their influence, whether or not they supported the idea, thousands of people would have been saved, and probably several hundreds of thousands of people could have been born.
3. Is it possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child? Why or why not?
It is not just possible, but probable that the Human Genome Project could spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation to that of eugenics. Humans have constantly and consistently strived for perfection, and no one (except maybe Jesus, depending on who one asks) has actually attained true perfection. With fetal manipulation, however, it may eventually become reality. Currently, hundreds of scientists around the world are using simple genetic and fetal manipulation to change the eye and hair color of some animals such as rhesus monkeys and mice. This seems like it would be just so that people can decide what the eye and hair color of their child is, but it is the precursor to something much more. With the current advancements in the human genome project and similar projects going at the rate they are, it is not unreasonable to think that in fifty to sixty years from now, parents will be able to choose the entirety of their child’s physical features. Even if it is for positive medical reasons, genetic manipulation is a very interesting idea. There has to be some sort of limit to whether or not humans can play God, and there is no worldwide law or restriction limiting these processes. So we will not be able to see when it will happen, but it definitely will happen.
Weston B.