Blog #167 – Social Darwinism and the Eugenics Movement
Social Darwinism – the term actually – is hard to pin down as to its origins. Some sources say that it’s a knock against Darwin when his critics try to apply Darwin’s evolutionary biology to a contemporary 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. Regardless of its orgins, SD was used to deny aiding the massive number of poor folks by saying that the aid would be in violation of natural law, and that they should essentially be allowed to die. Being poor or unemployed was all your fault back then, and not the fault of an exploitative system or random chance or some other valid reason why you might be poor. On the flip side, people like John Rockefeller used SD in a business context to justify his ruthless tactics employed against his competition, that he was doing God’s will by eliminating weaker, wasteful oil refineries and taking over the dominant share of the oil business.
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr. from the 1927 SCOTUS case, Buck v. Bell, which approved involuntary sterilization laws around the country.
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,” petty criminals, epileptics, people with a family history of mental illness, “pauperism,” 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 discovered that these inmates’ family tree was “full of social deviants” 2. Primarily, Eugenicists felt that the desired human traits were those of successful white businessmen and women of Northern and Western European ethnicities. This categorization of positive and negative traits by the eugenicists was given additional confirmation in 1917-18 when almost 2 million men who were drafted into the U.S. Army were given an IQ and personality test. The justification at the time for such a broad sweeping round of tests was to find those who the most “insane, feebleminded, psychopathic and nueropathic individuals” and keep them out of front line service in World War 1 because of a new phenomenon named “shell shock” that incapacitated 15% of all soldiers in the war. 3 However, because the test results asked questions about elite and urban pop culture, the overwhelming majority of men from Western and Northern European backgrounds passed the test.4
:focal(2964x1642:2965x1643)/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/76/80/7680a72b-8521-4c6c-b16f-4aaa932c36be/165-ww-479a-019.jpg)
Coupled with the influx of millions of new immigrants from different places like Eastern and Southern Europe and Asia, old stock Americans (WASPs) looked for reasons to restrict this flood of “an army of the unfit”. Americans were further influenced by the best selling book, The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant who sounded the alarm bells about the “superior” white race being overrun by an exploding population of the “inferior” races. 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 national Origins 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.
Also, some of the country’s most famous philanthropic foundations, founded by Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s money, funded eugenics research: “America’s first general-purpose philanthropic foundations — Russell Sage (founded 1907), Carnegie (1911), and Rockefeller (1913) — backed eugenics precisely because they considered themselves to be progressive. After all, eugenics had begun to point the way to a bold, hopeful human future through the application of the rapidly advancing natural sciences and the newly forming social sciences to human problems. By investing in the progress and application of these fields, foundations boasted that they could delve down to the very roots of social problems, rather than merely treating their symptoms. Just as tracking physiological diseases back to parasites and microbes had begun to eliminate the sources of many medical ailments, so tracking social pathology — crime, pauperism, dipsomania, and “feeblemindedness,” a catch-all term for intellectual disabilities — back to defective genes would allow us to attack it at its source. As John D. Rockefeller put it, “the best philanthropy is constantly in search of the finalities — a search for cause, an attempt to cure evils at their source.'” 5 These foundations were able to finance the work of the Eugenics Records Office which compiled data about human genetics and promoted the eugenics agenda across the nation between 1910 – 1939.
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 less powerful from exploitation from those in power, 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? If not, explain why those states don’t bear any responsibility.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
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? (see this link for more info on the Project).
(300 words total after writing BOTH of your answers). Due Sunday, March 10, by midnight.
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>
4. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=law-review
5. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/philanthropys-original-sin
NPR’s story on North Carolina’s recommendation to provide assistance for the 2,000 survivors of NC’s eugenic’s program.
1. These sterilization laws forced people who were marked as mentally ill, criminals, poor, and people of color to have their rights stripped away from them by being forcibly sterilized. Each state had its own choice in whether it wanted to enforce the belief that sterilization would bring a solution to stopping the population of those who were deemed “unfit” in society’s eyes. The states are to blame because they brought the opinion of the public into their government and caused the trauma and dehumanization of multiple people, something no one should ever have to go through. As for what can be done for both the victims, dead or alive, I believe there is very little that can help to take away even a fraction of the pain they felt. The best way to go about this might be to go and speak to the families and ask what they think would be best since it’s different for everyone. Some might think a certain amount of money would be suitable or maybe having the states who established these laws publicly acknowledge and apologize for the damage and wrongdoings they have done.
2. The organizations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and more may not have been the ones to pass these laws, but they had a factor in spreading the research and belief in the science of eugenics. This overall caused the widespread popularity of sterilization for those deemed unfit to be in society. These companies may not have been there to sign off on the legalization of these beliefs, but they still are at fault for the role they played in the physical and psychological damage they caused to the survivors and victims of the families, especially to those who went through it just over fifty to a little over sixty years ago, which isn’t as long as some may think.
Question 1) I think that states bear direct responsibility for the sterilization laws. States should not have approved these laws in the first place. They violate the guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t think there is anything that we could do today that could undo the harm and violation that sterilization had for so long. We could do things like provide support and resources for things like mental health, but ultimately nothing we could do would repay what was taken from these people. At bare minimum, the government needs to admit what they did wrong and at least offer some compensation for the people who are still alive that were medically sterilized. In all, America can’t undo the past but they could try to mend what they broke.
Question 2) I believe that the organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute hold an immense amount of responsibility for eugenics and forced sterilization. Both of these organizations funded what the Eugenics Record Office did. They both believed in things like survival of the fittest, in this scenario “fittest” meant wealthiest. Both companies had vast amounts of data which played back to human genetics and with that information and their power, they could make eugenics seem reasonable, or even desirable. John D. Rockefeller wanted to “cure evils at their source” which goes to show that forced sterilization wasn’t out of line with this organization’s morals in the first place. Along with this, both Carnegie and Rockefeller’s money was used to fund the first eugenics center. This directly contributed to the ideas and helped it get started and gain popularity. In all, I believe that these huge organizations led by philanthropists like Rockefeller led to recognition and a great amount of forced sterilization that happened even after their time.
The states bear a substantial responsibility for their passing of sterilization laws in the early 20th century. These laws, influenced by misguided ideologies like eugenics and Social Darwinism, signify a systemic failure in safeguarding individual rights and ethical standards. The states played a pivotal role in passing and enforcing legislation that grossly violated the fundamental reproductive freedoms and human dignity of thousands. Surviving victims, particularly those subjected to sterilization in the 1960s or 1970s, deserve acknowledgment of the profound injustice they endured. Remedial actions must encompass recognizing historical wrongs, issuing public apologies, and providing financial and any necessary mental and physical health support to those affected. Additionally, states should prioritize legislative reforms to ensure the protection of individual rights, and promote educational initiatives regarding the historical context of these laws. Although these steps cannot entirely erase the past, they signify a commitment to fixing historical injustices and creating a society that prioritizes human rights and dignity over misguided ideologies.
Philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation bear much responsibility for the horrors of Eugenics, but not as much as the states. These foundations actively funded and supported eugenics research, providing financial backing to institutions that promoted discriminatory practices. By investing in eugenics, they endorsed a pseudoscientific approach that justified sterilization policies as a means of improving the gene pool. The funding provided by these organizations facilitated the compilation of data, much of it misleading or outright untrue, about human genetics and the widespread promotion of eugenic agendas across the nation. The financial support from philanthropic giants contributed to the popularization of the practice, which influenced legislation and perpetuated a culture of discrimination. While comparatively to the states which directly passed laws legalizing and even promoting the practice, philanthropists do not carry as great a responsibility, their role in supporting eugenics must be recognized. These philanthropic entities should take responsibility by actively contributing to efforts aimed at rectifying historical injustices, supporting survivors, and advocating for ethical and inclusive scientific practices.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes, I believe philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller bear partial responsibility for the pushing and eventual implementation of compulsory sterilization laws. Philanthropic organizations founded by Carnegie and Rockefeller assisted in funding eugenics research as well as helping fund the work of the Eugenics Records Office. They bear partial responsibility as they may not have directly come up with the ideas for sterilization and implemented them, but they supported it as it was viewed as “progressive” and would heighten the public’s view of them. By funding Eugenics, they assisted in providing resources to eugenic organizations, causing some of the blame for what these eugenic organizations did to fall on them for supporting their responsibility. Ultimately, philanthropic organizations run by people like Carnegie and Rockefeller bear part of the responsibility of this mess as a result of their financial support for these organizations.
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? (see this link for more info on the Project).
The Human Genome Project is the result of the collaboration of a multitude of scientists in generating the first sequence of the human genome. I think the Human Genome Project will spur similar sentiments to eugenics regarding fetal manipulation to create a more perfect child. There’s already been a creation of a gene editing tool known as CRISPR, and almost all people want what’s best for their children, if they believe that they can prevent a problem that they have, like a certain disease or condition, they’ll most likely want their child to not have the condition they have. Most of the time, people will choose what’s best for their child, and if they can manipulate their child’s genes to fit what they view as best, they’ll most likely do it or at the very least consider it. These sentiments of creating a perfect and genetically superior child remind me of a movie we watched in 8th grade called Gattaca, about a genetically unmodified individual in a world full of genetically modified people, and illustrate that these sentiments have already been considered. Ultimately, the Human Genome Project has already caused similar sentiments of fetal manipulation to create a superior child, as demonstrated in Gattaca.
1. States do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws they passed in the early 20th century. These laws were made to forcibly sterilize people they thought were unfit or undesirable, often targeting groups such as people with disabilities, minorities, and those deemed “socially inadequate. States definitely bear responsibility because these laws violated basic human rights. Forced sterilization deprived people of their reproductive rights, most of the time without their consent, and based on discriminatory beliefs and ideas. I believe states still have the opportunity to assist those who were affected if they took responsibility now. Surviving victims experienced trauma and stress as a result, and acknowledgment, apology, and compensation for them and their descendants would make a difference. Although these actions took place around 60-70 years ago, what happened then had and still has effects on what happens today, and while things might not be fixable, some difference could be made if the states took responsibility.
2. I also think that the philanthropic organizations who supplied funding to assist the eugenics movement bear some responsibility, however, it is slightly more complicated. Organizations like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation did not assist or create the eugenics movement as directly as the states did, but they moved it forward in other ways. Not only did they fund research, but they influenced the public and their attitude and opinions towards sterilization, popularizing the idea and promoting the acts. Without directly establishing things themselves, the organizations were a large contributing factor to the movement, and without them, it might not even have been possible for the eugenics movement to gain as much popularity as it did. So, while it didn’t originate nor was it executed by the philanthropic organizations, they bear almost as much responsibility as those who did by being of as much assistance as they were.
Question 1: The states most definitely bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early part of the 20th Century. Compulsory sterilization laws were enacted and enforced at the state level. The state had the option to get through with them or not, and some states did. There may have been some encouragement from supporters of Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movement but no one forced the states to enact the laws. The surviving victims definitely deserve an apology from the states who enacted the laws. As for the surviving ones who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s they deserve a personal apology directly from the state governments. Survivors of the sterilization have most likely received mental, emotional, and physical health problems. So those should be attended to free of charge. States should also spread awareness and educate the current generation about compulsory sterilization so the survivors know exactly what has happened to them through medical records, and so the public learns of another mistake that America has made.
Question 2: The philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear a lot of responsibility for compulsory sterilization. These Organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation never directly enacted the compulsory sterilization laws, but they were responsible for promoting, funding research for, and encouraging the ideologies like Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movement that were behind these laws. They funded research done by the Eugenics movement about selective breeding and genetic “quality”. They promoted ideas by the Social Darwinists about the survival of the fittest. Because these organizations were huge and widely successful, they provided the Eugenics movement and Social Darwinism with credibility as it is being backed by huge companies. Eventually, these ideas would be the fuel and reason for the compulsory sterilization laws to be passed.
The era of enforced sterilization laws was a devastating time for many in American history, with many states enforcing laws in the early era of the 20th century that permitted the mandatory sterilization of people considered “unwanted” or “unfit”. These laws were repealed later and considered unconstitutional but it still has an impact that is still felt by many to this day. I feel as though states do bear significant responsibility for the harm caused by these unfair laws. The Eugenics movement, which was the leading force behind enforced sterilization, was supported and promoted by many states during that time. Eugenics was the “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,” petty criminals, epileptics, people with a family history of mental illness, “pauperism,” and alcoholics”.
These laws were based on faulty and discriminatory beliefs about race, social status, disability, and more, and they resulted in the violation of people’s basic human rights. Many people who were forcibly sterilized under these laws experienced lasting mental and physical trauma. Their ability to have kids was taken away from them, which is a basic human right over their own bodies. Survivors of these sterilization programs still continue to suffer the results of these actions, including feelings of anger, loss, sadness, and even shame. For those surviving victims, especially those who were sterilized in the periods of 1960s or 1970s, it is crucial that they receive support, recognition, and repayment from the states that enacted these horrible and haunting laws. States should provide resources for financial aid, mental health services, and more that are asked by those who experienced this trauma through these unfair and just plain evil practices. In addition, states have a moral responsibility to educate the public about the history of forced sterilization laws and their impact on people and communities. By raising awareness and educating more people about this horrible era in American history, we can work towards ensuring that such injustices are never repeated. Overall, I do believe that it is part of the states’ fault because of their actions when making the laws encouraging the issue.
Philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation can be seen as indirectly contributing to the forced sterilization laws because of their support of eugenics research and advocacy. Organizations such as these provided funding and resources to eugenics programs and researchers who promoted the idea of improving society through the sterilization of “unfit” populations. While these organizations may not have directly urged for or implemented forced sterilization laws, their support of eugenics research and advocacy helped to permit and push those who did.
Question 1: The states most definitely bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early part of the 20th Century. Compulsory sterilization laws were enacted and enforced at the state level. The state had the option to get through with them or not, and some states did. There may have been some encouragement from supporters of Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movement but no one forced the states to enact the laws. The surviving victims definitely deserve an apology from the states who enacted the laws. As for the surviving ones who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s they deserve a personal apology directly from the state governments. Survivors of the sterilization have most likely received mental, emotional, and physical health problems. So those should be attended to free of charge. States should also spread awareness and educate the current generation about compulsory sterilization so the survivors know exactly what has happened to them through medical records, and so the public learns of another mistake that America has made.
Question 2: The philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear a lot of responsibility for compulsory sterilization. These Organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation never directly enacted the compulsory sterilization laws, but they were responsible for promoting, funding research for, and encouraging the ideologies like Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movement that were behind these laws. They funded research done by the Eugenics movement about selective breeding and genetic “quality”. They promoted ideas by the Social Darwinists about the survival of the fittest in a society. Because these organizations were huge and widely successful, they provided the Eugenics movement and Social Darwinism with credibility as it is being backed by huge companies. Eventually, these ideas would be the fuel and reason for the compulsory sterilization laws to be passed.
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? If not, explain why those states don’t bear any responsibility.
I think the states bear any and all responsibility for the compulsory sterilizations laws that they passed because of all the people that they stripped of their reproductive rights, they can’t just act like it never happened because it was their own government that came up, looked at, and then even passed them. Many rights were violated and many people were castrated and sterilized, and no reason regardless would be fit for that. I think the surviving victims of the sterilization laws should be given compensation even though money is not enough for what was taken from them. It completely violated their reproduction rights and did something no government and no person should ever do to other people. I truly believe that what the state governments passed is disgusting and an example of what to never do ever again, we have to learn this stuff in schools so that we don’t repeat stuff like this.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes I do think philanthropic organizations bear responsibility for the eugenics mess because they wrote and recommended eugenics to 28 states, they funded many of the organizations that did it in hopes of being seen as ‘progressive’ even though it was the complete opposite of that. I think many philanthropic organizations try to act like they’re doing good to the public and fund the new biggest thing but in this case the new biggest thing is horrible and completely unethical and I think that’s exactly what the Carnegie institute and rockefeller foundation thought that they were doing. I do think the philanthropic organizations are at fault and I do think that they should pay the victims and the families of the victims compensation but like I said before no amount of money can make up for what they did and what they took from these people.
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? If not, explain why those states don’t bear any responsibility.
States should bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century because these laws destroyed people and their families and I don’t believe they follow the natural rights given by the Declaration of Independence. It was the state’s decision to pass the laws and it was still their decision when they kept the laws around after World War two after seeing what Eugenics could do to a targeted group of people. In terms of compensation for victims, it’s hard to find something that would be fair to anyone who had to go through this. I believe at the very least, there should be monetary compensation but that would never fix what had happened.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes. I think both the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute should bear responsibility. After doing a little more research on each company’s role in Eugenics, I believe that the Rockefeller Foundation should bear more responsibility. Although both companies did bad things, the Carnegie institute regarding eugenics shut down in 1939 whereas the Rockefeller Foundation stayed afloat through the 1940’s and even funded German work in Eugenics which directly led to the killing of 11 millions Jewish people. Although one company was more involved than the other, I believe they are both responsible and they should have to do something to fix what they did as best as they can.
1. In the early 1900s, there were laws that made people get sterilized (unable to have babies), and it’s making people wonder if the government should be responsible for it. Some say yes because it violated people’s rights, discriminated against certain groups, and the government made and enforced these laws. Others say no, pointing to the different times back then and saying individuals who made the rules should take the blame. For people who went through this, they should get an apology, recognition, money for what happened, access to their records, and the access to learn more about it. Even though people argue about who’s responsible, it’s important to support and recognize those who were affected first.
3. Certainly, the Human Genome Project’s advancements in understanding our genetic code raise concerns about the potential for sentiments similar to those observed during the eugenics era. As we gain more knowledge about the human genome and gene editing technologies, there’s a risk of similar discussions emerging behind the manipulation of fetal genes for the purpose of creating “healthier” or “perfect” children.
The ethical considerations come from the potential misuse of genetic information, as seen historically. The ability to modify specific traits may lead to questions about the morality of intervening in the natural genetic makeup of fetuses. Additionally, issues related to social inequality may emerge if only certain groups can afford or access these genetic enhancements, creating unfairness in health and capabilities, and their opinions behind the makeups most likely will not be heard.
Unintended consequences, loss of genetic diversity, and psychological impacts are potential concerns, showing the historical worries associated with eugenics practices. On the positive side, people argue that the Human Genome Project offers opportunities for medical advancements. The key lies in establishing strict regulations, oversight, and fostering public awareness to guide responsible and ethical use of genetic technologies.
While the Human Genome Project holds great promise for scientific progress and medical breakthroughs, it’s crucial to navigate these advancements with a keen awareness of the ethical considerations to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes, I believe philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller bear partial responsibility for the pushing and eventual implementation of compulsory sterilization laws. Philanthropic organizations founded by Carnegie and Rockefeller assisted in funding eugenics research as well as helping fund the work of the Eugenics Records Office. They bear partial responsibility as they may not have directly come up with the ideas for sterilization and implemented them, but they supported it as it was viewed as “progressive” and would heighten the public’s view of them. By funding Eugenics, they assisted in providing resources to eugenic organizations, causing some of the blame for what these eugenic organizations did to fall on them for supporting their responsibility. Ultimately, philanthropic organizations run by people like Carnegie and Rockefeller bear part of the responsibility of this mess as a result of their financial support for these organizations.
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? (see this link for more info on the Project).
The Human Genome Project is the result of the collaboration of a multitude of scientists in generating the first sequence of the human genome. I think the Human Genome Project will spur similar sentiments to eugenics regarding fetal manipulation to create a more perfect child. There’s already been a creation of a gene editing tool known as CRISPR, and almost all people want what’s best for their children, if they believe that they can prevent a problem that they have, like a certain disease or condition, they’ll most likely want their child to not have the condition they have. Most of the time, people will choose what’s best for their child, and if they can manipulate their child’s genes to fit what they view as best, they’ll most likely do it or at the very least consider it. These sentiments of creating a perfect and genetically superior child remind me of a movie we watched in 8th grade called Gattaca, about a genetically unmodified individual in a world full of genetically modified people, and illustrate that these sentiments have already been considered. Ultimately, the Human Genome Project has already caused similar sentiments of fetal manipulation to create a superior child, as demonstrated in Gattaca.
As you’ve grown up, you’ve probably come to realize that America is a land of immigrants; you may be the first generation of your family born here in the United States. In this blog response, describe at least two examples of where you’ve seen or experienced at least two of these three immigration theories in action. 2eTalk to your family and ask older relatives about what kinds of stories have been told about the history of your family. If applicable, please include your own family’s stories in your response.
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? If not, explain why those states don’t bear any responsibility.
I believe that states should bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that had passed in the early part of the 20th Century. I believe it is completely unfair for them to create a system where they have to eliminate a person with an undesirable trait because this goes against everything that America has worked so hard for. With the Declaration of Independence declaring independence from Great Britain, it proclaims three unalienable rights which are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This is important because it put forth the idea that gave people the right to life. For the surviving victims who are still alive and were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s should be given the support needed. Clearly, this is very traumatic to the people that had to go through this and it would be hard to recover from such events but with proper care, things will hopefully start to look up.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
I do think that the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear responsibility in this mess because they partook in it. Eugenicists believed in a perfect society and that the unfit were to be eliminated by forms of involuntary sterilization. In the blog it says that Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller helped ratify sterilization laws in 28 states by 1932. This cruel and unfair law negatively impacted so many women from not being able to have their own child. Since both Carnegie and Rockefeller believed in Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, it makes a stronger correlation between their superiority complex with immigrants. Even in the blog, it states that between 1910-1939, the foundations were able to finance the Eugenics Records Office which encouraged eugenics across the nation. Ultimately, I believe that the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation do bear responsibility in this mess.
1) The people in charge of the state governments in the 1960’s and 70’s are significantly responsible for the sterilization laws. The act of forced sterilization strips away someone’s ability to make a decision on whether they would like children and is so deeply inhumane. Also, just because a person does not fit the standard of beauty or intellectual perfection does not mean that they do not have a right to live life as they desire nor should the government cut off an entire family, if they were an only child, nothing would be able to be passed on. While the government that was in place during the passing of these laws is no longer around, the impact of those decisions is still around today so although I do not know what the people who have been sterilized want or need from the government, they should get whatever they ask for in relation to their procedure.
2) I think that the National Human Genome Research is walking a very fine line. I can see how this technology could help children be healthier and potentially save a significant amount of lives but if it goes towards making children more appealing then that is, in my opinion, way too far. The website says to benefit all humankind but who is to decide which traits are optimal? I think that the idea behind this is very interesting with the ability to change DNA could be an incredible tool, but I think that the money and time being put into this could be spent on more pressing biomedical problems to be solved. I also think that we should be careful with genetics because what we can see now as an absolutely horrible sterilization movement in the 1960s-70s at the time was seen as ideal and an amazing idea. This also led to the basis of Hitler’s plan so we truly have no idea where this could go and I personally believe that the safe side is better. One unrelated thing that I wonder about is that if a child were to have their genome changed, at what point are they no longer genetically related to their biological parents?
The states do bear responsibility for passing laws that are a complete violation of the rights of the people. Each citizen had the right to reproduce and to marry whoever they wished which should be protected by the state. The states had the choice to not pass these laws and were the ones who passed the law, making them responsible for the eugenics laws. They should bear the responsibility of forcibly taking away reproductive rights through their laws and violating the rights of citizens. Some may argue that it was the states’ job to be for the people and that it was their job to comply with the people’s wishes, but what this argument fails to recognize is that the states did not consider those who did not want to forcibly be sterilized and did not consider any opinions of those who were not within the group of people who were for sterilization, hence ignoring the people’s wishes. Even if the white middle and upper class were the “majority”, they were in fact not and were the minority compared to citizens who were immigrants, faced with poverty, or any other reason they would consider a citizen in need of sterilization. Sadly, there is not much compensation that can be done for those who were sterilized. It’s not like you give the uterus back to a woman who has had a hysterectomy. But at least abolishment of these laws or a formal apology and compensation through bringing more awareness of these issues along with even monetary compensation could be a start to reconciling these people.
The Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation were responsible for the support for eugenics. They were the ones who made the goals of eugenicists a reality through monetary support and overall support of their ideas. They even supported the idea of eugenics as progressive and a positive change for society, pushing it to seem like a betterment for all Americans. These people, who were the higher-ups of American society supporting the goals of eugenics would have only spread the support for eugenics and without this type of funding, eugenics may not have been as adamant as it was in the 20th century. Money gave an easy path to accomplishing anything in America, and The Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation provided it.
1. I think that states bear complete responsibility for the sterilization laws they passed. These states passed these laws individually and had complete power to not allow eugenics in their state. These states knowingly took away a fundamental right of many people, the right to life. It didn’t allow these innocent people to create a life of their own. While fair reparations are impossible, as life should be deemed priceless, I think a monthly stipend for these victims is more than fair. Something to try to make life today easier, as the ability to have children would have made life better for so many people. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done to make up these forced sterilizations, but a stipend definitely wouldn’t hurt. Another measure that could be taken in order to attempt to make up for these sterilizations would be to remove anyone still in office who ok’d those policies (if there are any). However, I think that we shouldn’t punish the families of these officials, as you can’t punish someone’s descendants for something they didn’t commit.
3. I think it is definitely possible that offshoots of the Human Genome Project could lead to similar sentiments seen in eugenics. I think that if given the chance, parents would want to give their kids the most advantages possible. I think that if controlled heavily, this technology could benefit humanity greatly. The ability to remove genetic conditions that inhibit victim’s abilities to enjoy life, without sterilizing/killing innocent people, would be revolutionary. I think that as genetic technologies advance, that will be a very real future. However, there is a negative side to genetic engineering. I fear that if given the chance to design their kids however they want, we will lose our natural diversity and individuality, and many people will become copies of one another. I think that if unregulated, a future in which there’s trends for kid’s genes is possible, which would be bad for humanity.