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. States bear all the responsibility for forced sterilization acts as they are a violation of basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Not only does it get rid of the right to life, which not only should it be one’s own life but the life of future generations, liberty of having children and if having children is something that will make you happy then it is a restriction of the pursuit of happiness. It’s also just plain messed up and unnatural. States need to own up to their actions of the past but I see it very hard to actually repay these people. Primarily because the physical effects of chemical castration and forced sterilization can’t be reversed and second because there is no way to make up for these terrible acts done to them. Some, but not all of the people forcibly sterilized, were mentally ill so it is even more difficult to make it up for them. The mentally ill who were sterilized should stay under care if they are still alive. Not mentally ill people might have suffered trauma from this so the state should first, prioritize therapy and mental rehabilitation for them, pay them up to 5 million dollars, and exempt them from paying taxes.
2. I believe that large philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation had a large impact on the advancement of eugenics and also bear a lot of responsibility. Eugenics and Social Darwinism were theories that boosted Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller’s egos. These theories made them believe that they were genetically superior and that is why they succeeded. Even though they were extraordinarily successful it certainly came down more to character than actual genetic traits. Eugenics increased their image, made them look better, and most importantly made them believe in their “genetic superiority”. If they were so extra human then they wouldn’t have blindly believed this and sponsored more research. Their money paid for eugenicists’ labs and studies leading to this whole eugenics mess and the forced sterilization of thousands of people.
1. I think the states do bear some responsibility for the sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th century. I believe this because the states could have protested the law or not participated in the sterilization of the indigenous peoples. Also, the states should have been able to have some sort of say in if the law should pass since all the states have their own representatives. Also, instead of sterilizing the people, the states could have just sent them to a reservation where they wouldn’t be “in the way” of the evergrowing America. The surviving victims who were affected by the sterilization laws should be compensated for by getting an annual salary just for the horrible experiment that took place. Also, they should get somewhere nice to live away from any government body and shouldn’t have to pay taxes on their house, car, and not have to pay for any insurance. This experiment also eliminated their freedom because they couldn’t argue about this unjust act that happened to them.
3. I do think the Human Genome Project could spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation because it changes the baby before it is born to whatever the person wants. It’s basically a lab-grown experiment that can be made into whatever the person wants whether the baby will grow to be ten feet or be as strong as the Hulk. This shouldn’t be allowed because the baby should just be like how it is when it is born, not changed in a way to be better. At that point, the baby is not the parent’s baby anymore because the genes have been changed so it might not have a similar genetic code as the parents have. Overall, there should be no experiments on fetuses before they are born because it completely changes the point of giving birth to a baby that is yours when you can just create a baby with the best genetics.
1- I do think that the states bear some responsibility for the sterilization laws. I think that the people of the states were so threatened by immigrants and how they would affect citizens already in the country. They were scared of how the immigrants may take their jobs, and the thoughts of how having more children, which would be an even bigger threat to citizens, would affect their jobs and wages in the future. I think that the states need to recognize what they did to the victims and take responsibility. I think that they need to honor both those who survived and those who did not survive. I think that the states need to help the survivors and provide them with the support that they may need due to what occurred in the past.
2- Considering that both Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation both helped to fund the eugenics research occurring, I do think that they are partly responsible for this mess. I think that Carnegie and Rockefeller thought so highly of themselves and others who were wealthy that they disregarded what went on in immigrants’ lives as well as the lives of those who did not have as much money. Carnegie was also in support of the thought of Social Darwinism, showing his bias against those who had less money. He believed in “survival of the fittest” which in his mind, most likely did not include immigrants coming from different countries. Although they did not directly influence the sterilization of immigrants, their influence on the economy and other citizens in America caused their beliefs to be spread. The fact that they provided money to help with research most likely have people the idea that they were in support of what occurred, which because of their large influence, caused the other citizens to follow along with their ideas.
The states do bear responsibility for the sterilization laws passed as from what I could find these laws had to be approved by the states for them to practice forced sterilization. I think that this is quite unfair to the people who had it forced upon them; however, there is no one still around to blame for it. The government carried out the sterilization but their policies have changed since then and many people in office don’t agree with forced sterilization now. So would it be fair to them to punish them for something before their time that they don’t agree with?
From what I could find on the Human Genome website and other websites pertaining to the genome editing of fetuses by this specific organization, I do not believe this will create similar feelings to those towards eugenics. Eugenics aimed at creating a master race of white Anglo-Saxon Americans who did not have bad genes such as the so-called pauperism gene or feeblemindedness gene. Furthermore, eugenics did this by restricting the reproductive freedom of people. Unlike eugenics, genome editing is strictly done to prevent birth defects that can either lead to premature death or life long disability by reworking a fetuses genome to replicate that of a healthy one. Genome editing does not put any limits on reproductive freedom as it is not only strictly used for prevention of medical issues but is also 100% optional and not forced by the government again setting it apart from eugenics. Overall, eugenics was more of a social and population control tactic while genome editing is a medical advancement used to help eliminate birth defects. There have also been laws passed in many countries to restrict the use of genome editing to only severe medical cases to prevent genome editing to be weaponized into eugenics.
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.
Yes, I believe that states such as Indiana, the first to pass a eugenics sterilization law in 1907, bear full responsibility for the atrocities committed as a result of such cruel legislation. Despite having “good intentions” and seeking to “better the nation”, they engaged in discriminatory, inhumane acts that, even at the time, were obviously on the track to ending up on the wrong side of history. Surviving victims clearly carry the trauma instilled upon them by these states, meaning they and their families are entitled to some sort of compensation, possibly financial. Nothing can make up for the horrors they were forced to endure, but a hefty check, enough to at least make their families’ lives a little easier, would be a good first step of restitution.
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).
I had never heard of the Human Genome Project prior to this, and was immediately hit by a flood of negative possibilities that could stem from the kinds of research being conducted as a part of it. I wholeheartedly believe that scientists’ newfound research could inspire both passionate eugenicists and the general public alike to experiment with the removal and addition of preferred genes into fetuses. It may start as a generally widely accepted movement towards eliminating conditions that may harm or affect the baby’s development, which would still face backlash, but could potentially become widely practiced. Once such things become deemed normal by a large enough number of people, extremists might shift the conversation towards “desirable” traits and genetically modified “designer babies”. With this technology, the elite wealthy might pay millions of dollars to craft the “ideal” baby with a mixture of traits they believe are worth the money. This could be red hair, blonde hair, brown eyes, green eyes, or any other possible trait, but may quite possibly lean towards the stereotypically “perfect” blonde haired and blue eyed baby. With further research efforts, I believe this technology could come to be on some level. The widespread eugenics seen in the past may not be so far from our present reality, and any early actions must be put to a stop to prevent such notions from taking hold once more.
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.
Yes, I think the states bear a good amount of responsibility for the sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th century. As stated near the beginning of the blog, sterilization laws were passed in 28 states by 1932. The states were not forced to pass these laws, which we can see as not all of them did. The state governments were convinced by advocates for sterilization and made the choice to pass laws that forcibly took away reproductive rights of citizens they deemed as less worthy. The laws were prompted by states previous disdain for certain individuals in society and the governments decided that that was reason enough to forcibly sterilize people. The fact that people were sterilized without their own knowledge was equally horrifying. The quote from Buck v. Bell showcases how insane the laws passed were that in order to ‘prevent the unfit from reproducing’ (strip away the rights of anyone who wasn’t a white and northern/western European) they convinced the public they were doing a favor to society by eliminating ‘burdens’.
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 think organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear great responsibility for the passing of these laws and the sterilization forced on so many.These organizations already grew to such immense wealth, they ran many aspects of society. Because of this, they already had a strong grasp on society and influence on different movements and acts that were passed. They literally used their wealth to promote eugenics and fund the Eugenics Records Office. An organization that advertised eugenics as a moral good to attack the evil in society from the start of it. The organization also compiled data and records about human genetics which very likely was twisted in a way to frame eugenics as humane. It is also said in the blog that sterilization was appealing to those in favor of eugenics because it provided a modern ‘solution’ to an old ‘problem’ of mental illness/disabilities, children being born out of wedlock, and crime. Without the funding or promotion, there’s a chance the eugenics movement wouldn’t have grown to the size it did eventually reaching Germany and inspiring part of the Holocaust.
Carnegie and Rockefeller institutions certainly have a part in this movement because they were arguably some of the most influential men at the time. After dominating the most important industries in America for many years, they gained a reputation as being the biggest businessmen. Carnegie sold the company to J.P. Morgan for $600 million in 1900 to devote himself to philanthropy, but looks like he also contributed to the eugenics movement. This surprised me because eugenics seems like a really odd thing to be giving money to, and I believe this hurts Carnegie’s reputation. When such influential people are contributing to a cause, then the cause is not only gaining financial support but also recognition from unstoppable businessmen.
I think states are definitely responsible for the compulsory sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th century because the sterilization that was happening within the state was also enforced by the state. That means the state was taking action to isolate minorities and force them to undergo unfavorable procedures. For the victims that have been sadly sterilized in the 1960’s and 1970’s that are still alive today should definitely be compensated by the government and there are a number of ways that that can happen. The first thing that comes to my mind is financially supporting them. The victims could easily be suffering from the after effects of the procedures and if healthcare is needed, then it should be provided by the government. Maybe even the unaffected family should also be compensated because of the reproductive damage to the individual(s). Lastly, I believe that the victims should be recognized and apologized to by anyone involved in administering the sterilization methods some fifty years ago.
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.
In my opinion states bear full responsibility to sterilization laws. Over 30 states who allowed eugenic laws led to 60,000 people to be sterilized. Although the country likes to fully blame Germany for the cause of Eugenics we actually were way more guilty. From a record page from Alabama from a site called uvm.edu, it states that, “He emphasized that [i]t is essentially a state function to retrain the pro-creative powers of the unfit” This essentially states that it was the states responsibility to decimate the population of the mentally ill and what they thought was unfit to have the opportunity of childbirth. Alabama is not the only state that is responsible for Eugenics; there are so many more. For the survivors, although they will no longer be able to produce a child on their own. They should be recognized by the government of the tragedy they went through as a victim to Eugenics. I also think that the government should pay victims a check annually to give back to those who suffered so they can live out the rest of their lives in no dangerous debt.
Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes, as stated in what Mr. Wickersham wrote in the passage above it said that Carnegie and Rockefeller institute, “funded eugenics research” and “backed eugenics precisely because they considered themselves to be progressive.” This movement of Eugenics became more and more popular due to the funding provided by big corporations like Carnegie and Rockefeller. This movement due to funding gave corporations trying to start up Eugenics more opportunity for research such as the Eugenic records office. This stripped so many women and families from having the ability to produce their own child. Although they may not have been the people at the forefront of the operation of this movement, they did just as much damage to women and families by providing support and funding.
1) Compulsory sterilization laws often violate individuals’ basic human rights and reproductive autonomy. States that enacted and enforced such laws can be considered responsible for infringing these rights. Many sterilization programs disproportionately targeted marginalized groups, such as those with disabilities, minorities, or those deemed “socially unfit.” States, therefore, may be considered responsible for these discriminatory practices. In some cases, the sterilizations were conducted with the involvement or approval of government agencies. This institutional support may imply a level of responsibility on the part of the state. Some argue that judging historical actions by contemporary standards may be unfair. The social and scientific context of the time influenced the adoption of such laws, and the understanding of individual rights has evolved since then. I disagree, I think the states should take full responsibility for this issue because if not, who will? If history tends to repeat itself, what is stopping this from happening all over again? When people don’t take accountability for their actions they often get left unchecked. Sterilization can be considered genocide, hence why some trace the holocaust to the early Eugenics laws. The least the states could do is acknowledge the historical injustices, issue official apologies, and recognize the harm caused by past sterilization laws. This can be a crucial step in providing validation and closure to the victims. Establishing support services for surviving victims, including mental health services and counseling, can address the long-term impacts of the trauma they experienced. I also think they should be prioritized in adoption cases and reimbursed by the state. Implementing educational programs to inform the public about the history of compulsory sterilization laws and their consequences can help prevent the repetition of such atrocities.
2) Organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation provided significant financial support to various scientific endeavors, including those related to eugenics. Their funding indirectly contributed to the development and promotion of eugenic ideologies. Philanthropic organizations funded research that influenced policies and practices related to eugenics. For instance, research on genetics and heredity funded by these organizations was sometimes used to support eugenic theories. Philanthropic organizations often had close ties with academic and policy circles. While they may not have directly advocated for eugenics laws, their influence on science could have indirectly contributed to the acceptance of eugenic principles in policymaking. Philanthropic organizations may not have had direct control over how their funding was used. Once money was allocated to researchers or institutions, the organizations might not have had the ability to dictate the specific focus or application of the research. Philanthropic organizations might have had intentions focused on scientific progress, public health, or education. The fact that some of their funded research was later misused for eugenic purposes doesn’t necessarily imply a direct endorsement or support for those applications. Although this is all true, I think that the Carnegie and Rockefeller organizations do bear some responsibility for this mess. This is because Rockefeller was a Social Darwinian which was the basic premise for these laws. These Eugenics laws target the people deemed “unfit” for society. Social Darwinism states that the fittest are meant to survive which aligns with Eugenics law because they forcibly took away the “unfits” ability to reproduce. Even though organizations like Carnige’s and Rockefeller’s should take the blame for this mess they weren’t the only ones that believed in these Eugenics laws. 32 states passed Eugenics laws at one point in time. This proves that even though Rockefeller and Carnegie had a large sphere of influence many people’s beliefs in this period were already aligned with theirs.
Question #2: Yes, philanthropic organizations play a huge part in this issue. Some of the biggest names at the time (Rockefeller, Carnegie) funded eugenics organizations and voiced their support for the cause. At the time, eugenics was considered a “progressive” way of thinking, and rich men wanted to gain more support from the public by voicing their support for it. Because these men were so influential, the public heavily inspired their decisions on their beliefs. By openly supporting eugenics, these rich men used their power and status to influence the public. In reality, Carnegie and Rockefeller (and other businessmen) probably were only in search of more money, not being viewed as progressive. By weeding out “feebleminded” workers and replacing them with more “able” and efficient workers, the rich men could boost their industries and gain more wealth.
Question #3: While the goal of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was not to manipulate genes for eugenic purposes, I believe that the idea of the project creates the idea that genes can easily be altered. The HGP was done mainly to decipher human genetic codes to find out what causes birth defects, etc. Through research, I discovered that some people already believe the extensive study of genes is borderline eugenics, and could potentially spark dangerous ideas in people. “We need to keep alive our awareness of these past abuses and to maintain our vigilance that new developments are not misused in the future…” states Harper and Clarke in Genetics and Society and Clinical Practice. Some go as far as to say that prenatal diagnosis of things such as down syndrome and other birth defects is borderline eugenics. From what I could find, most people express concerns about the potential return of eugenic practices, rather than ideas about creating “ideal” children. I think in today’s more accepting world, the idea of eugenics is horrifying and isn’t something that most people would vocally support.
1. Yes, I believe that states have full responsibility for the sterilization laws that were passed, especially Indiana, because they were the first to pass a sterilization law in 1907. The states and the people in them were most likely afraid of the immigrants and the fact that they might take their jobs, or because the immigrants were usually used as scabs for the labor force, that the immigrants would decrease wages and that even more families would go poor, so it’s possible they went along with the laws because of these reasons. However, even with these opinions in the states, the state governments themselves knew of the victims and could have taken the responsibility and given them support to help get those immigrants back on their feet. The surviving victims should be given support, but to think that these laws kept going until the 1960s is unbelievable and shows more that they were wrong and the states still have responsibility, also taking into the fact that the states together could have protested and prevented this.
2. Yes, I believe that the philanthropic organizations have responsibility connected to the sterilization laws because they funded eugenics research and defended it, thinking themselves as progressive. Considering that both Rockefeller and Carnegie had rich organizations, they probably only funded this research to try and get more money or look better for their reputation. They thought that because of their “superior genes” and because they were rich that they could ignore the immigrants and people who were poor, considering that Rockefeller and Carnegie mostly believed in the ideas like Social Darwinism, and if they were poor, or in this case immigrants, that they wouldn’t survive. Because of their support and funding of eugenics research, and their grasp on the population, they led to the whole mess of sterilization laws and their influence spread, convincing and making more people believe that sterilizing immigrants was a good thing.
1. The states that passed the compulsory sterilization laws are mainly responsible for them, as there was nothing forcing them to pass these laws. However, some of the responsibility also falls on the people and groups that came up with the idea of Social Darwinism/survival of the fittest and eugenics. Since Darwin’s evolutionary biology was never meant to be applied to humans, it’s obviously not his fault; instead, the responsibility falls on people like Herbert Spencer, who came up with the idea that only the “best” people in society should have children. Overall, no one person or group can be blamed for the devastating long lasting effects of the compulsory sterilization laws that were passed, but something does need to be done to attempt to make an apology to people who were affected. California recently had a two year program where survivors of forced sterilization could apply for compensation. If they were approved, survivors would receive two payments – one of $15,000 and another of $20,000. Unfortunately, money alone is not enough to compensate survivors after all of the physiological pain that they likely went through over the years, and even if financially compensating survivors was enough, California is one of the only states to do so, and it doesn’t appear that any other states are looking to follow suit in the near future. Despite that, steps need to be taken by all states that were involved to make an effort at an apology, even if it is not perfect.
2. While states are the ones that passed the compulsory sterilization laws, they are not the ones who came up with the concept. Therefore, in part, philanthropic organizations are responsible, as they provided financial support for the eugenics movement. However, the blame should not fall on any one organization. It’s true that philanthropic groups supported eugenics, but so did many other groups during the time period, as it was seen as a progressive, scientific movement. Additionally, it’s likely that eugenics still would have been common even without support from philanthropic organizations. All in all, the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation did play a large part in eugenics, but the majority of the responsibility for the situation should not fall on them.
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.
Yes, states absolutely bear responsibility for these laws.These laws were an obscene violation of human rights and autonomy based on false science and discriminatory idealism. No matter whether they wanted to pass them or not, whether the law makers are alive or dead, sterilization laws still have profound impact on people and states need to acknowledge that. Victims of these laws, especially in the later years like the 1960’s and 70’s, deserve acknowledgment, compensation and support. States should formally apologize and recognize the harm caused. They should also locate and provide support for existing victims, whether that be health care or mental health services or other things. Additional compensation and/or reparations may be appropriate as well. Also, the public should be informed about compulsory sterilization laws and understand their consequences. I didn’t know these policies existed until learning about them in class. I think it should be public knowledge, as to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself.
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 they absolutely bear some responsibility in this matter. Organizations such as Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research and initiatives, and in doing so legitimized these harmful policies. Because these organizations were so influential, their supposedly ‘progressive’ views influenced years and years of terrible violations of human rights and autonomy. Moving forward, these institutions should acknowledge their role in the harmful effects and take steps to reverse them. This could be in the form of funding different initiatives that promote social justice and human rights. They should also support and/or make efforts to inform the general public about the dangers of fake science and the importance of respecting diversity. By taking an active role in positive causes, and acknowledging their role in eugenics, these organizations can take steps away from the past and contribute to a more accepting and diverse society.
1, States bear responsibility for their actions around sterilization. There are 31 states that voted to have sterilization be legal. These states could have easily voted for sterilization to be illegal, yet they made the decision to vote for it to be legal which gave doctors the opportunity to forcefully sterilize women without their consent. 19 states voted against sterilization which shows an ethical option unlike the 31 states who voted yes to sterilization. If a state voted for sterilization to be legal, then it should have some responsibility because the state voted for that decision, It wasn’t just implied. The states had to have discussions and meetings about voting for sterilization to be legal. If after all that you still thought sterilization was ok then the state should bear responsibility.The victims should be able to sue the states that voted for sterilization to be legal. I think mass sterilization without consent is ethically wrong and the states that made it legal to do so should be responsible. Although it wasn’t illegal at the time, the states should be financially responsible for the pain and suffering for 60,000 women. Women and their families should be able to sue for compensation for their pain and suffering that they had to go through after the sterilization process occurred. The doctors should also have to take a class on ethics and consent. The States should apologize to the victims.
2. I believe the Carnegie institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear some responsibility for the innovation of eugenics. Both Rockefeller and Carnegie gave enough money to both of their own organizations that they could both create a lot of damage, and could basically do whatever they wanted with the money. With the research that both foundations funded they believed that they could get right into the social problems without going through its symptoms. Both foundations would track down the genetics of the people that “they” deemed unfit. Which includes anyone who did crime, and had any type of intellectual disability. 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.’” Rockfeller believed in eugenics and put much research, time and money to his cause which caused much damage to thousands of individuals. Carnegie also had a Record Office that kept a bunch of DNA of individuals born with disabilities along with people with a criminal record. The Eugenics Record Office in Carnegie was a very researched office and included many things on how to go about sterilizing people. It promoted the eugenics agenda from 1910-1939 and made a big impact on eugenics research. All of these things caused more easy access for doctors who wanted to perform a sterilization to be able to, which harmed many individuals. So therefore I think that Rockefeller and Carneigie are responsible.
States do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws passed. These laws directly affected tens of thousands of people based upon “science” that was found to be completely bogus. Even if the laws were passed for a noble cause, all they did was just end up harming tens of thousands of innocent people. I think the states that passed these laws have to compensate the remaining survivors. They got forcefully sterilized for no reason, so they deserve some sort of compensation. I think the states should pay the remaining survivors in cash for what was done. Cash won’t reverse what was done, but at least the remaining survivors of these forced sterilizations get some sort of compensation for the injustice that was done to them.
I do think that philanthropic organizations such as the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Institute do hold some blame for the mess caused by these forced sterilizations. These groups funded eugenics research because they wanted to appear as progressives. Even if they may have thought that eugenics may have brought a brighter future and would solve the root of social problems, that does not excuse what eugenics really turned out to be and the consequences of eugenics. Tens of thousands were sterilized based on the false premise of a bright future. This harm can not be undone, and ignorance does not make the outcome okay. I think even if the funding was in good faith, the harm was still caused regardless of that. I think philanthropic organizations such as the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Institute should face consequences for the funding and promotion of eugenics. It caused irreparable damage to tens of thousands of people, and just letting that go does not seem logical to me. It is something that should not be let go, and it should be clearly denounced, and also, the philanthropic organizations that promoted the vile practice of eugenics should face some legal consequences if they exist in the modern day.
2.The philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear responsibility for the mess. In society, people look up to others with the most money because the more money you have, the more power you have. The power of the rich is clear in the creation of these organizations, which only served to back eugenics. Of course, the rich helped get rid of the poor because they didn’t want to deal with them. It is as if the rich like Rockefeller thought they were different just because they were rich. What makes this more interesting is that these rich men helped create poor people through their companies. Carnegie especially, paid his workers such low wages and made them work long hours to earn their wages. If Carnegie and others spent their money paying their workers more, they wouldn’t have to build their foundations to eliminate the poor. It is ironic that the rich spend their money to try to eliminate the poor instead of helping them not be poor anymore.
3.
Yes, the Human Genome Project has the potential to spur similar sentiments about fetal manipulation to create “better” children. This scientific project has incredible power. If some government or dictator comes out and says, that blue eyes are the superior trait and everybody else should be dead, then this project will hold even more power. This project would allow anybody to give their child blue eyes in this situation, and in turn, save their kid from getting killed. Additionally, this science could be used to create kids that don’t have a mental impairment, when there would be a chance of this happening otherwise. This could be viewed as essentially eugenics because people are choosing how they want their kids to look even before they are born. This could eliminate “bad” traits if everybody participated in fetal manipulation.
1.
States do bear responsibility for sterilization acts that they passed because they harmed many people and took away their constitutional right to reproduce. Furthermore these laws were not mandated by the federal government therefore the fault goes to those who passed the law, meaning those in the state government. Those who were sterilized in the early 1900’s are most likely dead,however it is astonishing to me that people were sterilized involuntarily so recently. To determine compensation to those sterilized in the 60s and 70s, some calculation needs to be done. The average cost to fully raise a child in the 1960’s was about $25,000, $1 in 1960 is about $10 today therefore the cost to raise one child was about $250,000. There were a little over 2 children per household on average so I will round up to 3, giving one individual $750,000 in just compensation for the children that they could have had. Furthermore the North Carolina state government issued about $20,000 to each sterilized individual. Therefore, in a perfect world each victim would receive $770,000 from the federal government, but that is unfortunately unrealistic.
2.
Simply put, philanthropic organizations played a large role in the establishment of eugenics laws. Eugenics was seen as progressive so the rich people wanted to seem like good people by donating to the cause. Rockefeller and Carnegie in particular donated heavily to eugenics research which basically just put support behind eugenics causing laws and having a big impact on the growth of the eugenics movement. Furthermore, Carnegie and Rockefeller also supported social darwinism which went hand in hand with eugenics as it is the concept of survival of the fittest in economics which eugenics took to the next level as literally SURVIVAL of the fittest because eugenics disallowed the “undesirables” from reproducing. So overall, philanthropic organizations played a role in the mess of eugenics laws and practices by both financially backing eugenics and supporting ideologies which parallel eugenics.
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 are greatly responsible for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early part of the 20th century. The laws passed were part of the Eugenics movements that tried to control the population and gradually get rid of the people who were seen to be unfit or slower mentally. This movement was horrible and inhumane. The word “unfit” from Social Darwinism and eugenic theories can be subjective and taken out of context to be used as a way of discriminating against people. Although one can’t control the way one looks for the most part and can’t control if someone has a disability or not, states involuntarily forced sterilization on people who they thought were undesirable in society. These laws for such unjust actions are terrible and violate people’s reproductive rights, harming many people as well as marginalizing many communities. There should be lots of things done for the survivors of sterilization. First, states should acknowledge and apologize for the damage they have caused and not deny anything. Next, states should give financial compensation to the victims to help with challenges and expenses resulting from sterilization, like paying for medical expenses and many other expenses. There should also be free access to mental health services like therapy and maybe support groups where people who have experienced the same things can empathize with each other and discuss their experiences. Lastly, state legislation should make more laws protecting people’s reproductive rights and fighting against reproductive discrimination.
Do you think philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or the Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility for this mess? Why or why not? Explain
Yes, I think philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation have partial responsibility for the involuntary sterilization of many individuals. Although some of these organizations may not have morally agreed with the study of eugenics, they were progressive and believed that by giving money to people who would develop society, they were doing the right thing. They ignorantly boasted that they were solving society’s problems of having unfit people, rather than just trying to treat the symptoms of people who were mentally ill. The main problem with the philanthropists was that they were trying to donate to the study of natural sciences and eugenics rather than fixing current problems with people they called “unfit.” According to Philanthropy’s Original Sin from The New Atlantis, “The Rockefeller family and the Carnegie Institution, in turn, added funds to the Eugenics Record Office.” The author also says, “But philanthropy’s involvement in eugenics went far beyond the success of the ERO. The Rockefeller Foundation helped fund the research institutions in Germany behind the Nazi programs of sterilization and euthanasia.” Rockefeller and Carnegie were indirectly responsible for hundreds to thousands of people’s lives being either ruined or completely lost. They were so caught up in trying to look like the good guys and solving social problems that they didn’t take the time to look deeply into the organizations they gave money to that ended up doing so much bad.
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, Carnegie and Rockefeller are responsible. The philanthropic organizations are responsible because the organizations funded the research, surgeries, and materials for the surgeons and other people to continue to sterilize women. These organizations helped take the right to have children away from thousands of women. Women’s reproductive rights were taken from them, even if those women went in for a simple surgery and then found out that they could no longer have kids because they had “undesirable traits”. These “undesirable traits were made up by Charles Galton who was a white man who wanted to “perfect the human race”. The things Galton, Carnegie Institute, and Rockefeller Foundation are things that can’t be controlled the way they want them to. Carnegie and Rockefeller should be responsible for the pain they had caused thousands of women and the rights that were ripped away from them. Carnegie and Rockefeller should take responsibility for what their companies did and the lives that were destroyed in the process of what the companies thought they were doing right and something that God gave them the right to do what they want.
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?
Yes, it is possible the Human Genome Project could have the same feelings as fetal manipulation. I would even say the Project is the same as fetal manipulation but people have different views on them because of what the two different things mean. Fetal manipulation is having a baby but one that can save another child they have. The Human Genome Project is just a truthful way of saying that parents want a healthy baby. But others know how similar the Human Genome Project and Fetal manipulation are. They might have the same feelings for the Human Genome Project and fetal manipulation or they could have good views on fetal manipulation and bad feelings about the Human Genome Project.
In the whole mess of sterilization and laws prohibiting marriage in certain cases, I think philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation should be some of the first to blame, since they wrote and recommended sterilization policies that later became laws in 28 states in 1932. Since they were the first to encourage these policies, which caused over 60,000 Americans to have their reproductive rights taken from them, I think they should be the ones to blame. This incident is also to be taken very seriously because of the impact it could have made if it wasn’t stopped. With this, I also believe that it is comparable to Adolf Hitler’s holocaust, although not as bad. Being in America makes it worse, since it is called “the land of freedom and opportunity”, and because it was enforced by state governments. If the movement had not been stopped it could have possibly gained almost as much importance as the holocaust, since it would have caused a huge imbalance in the diversity of the country, also meaning the country would be based on racist morals today. Another more modern subject and issue is the idea of the Human Genome Project, using fetal manipulation to make the child better and healthier. I think in today’s society, this innovation would be largely voted and protested against, since discrimination is taken so heavily now. To determine what the “perfect child” is, you would have to take a stance on what genes, gender, or even race is better, which would be inappropriate in modern days. For this reason, I think if this project were to be set up in modern days, many people would fight against it, and it would create a similar movement as the one against sterilization. I also think that ideas like these have now decreased a lot because of the change in human morals over the years.
1.) I think that states do bear responsibility for the sterilization laws in the country. The states were not explicitly forced to pass these laws. We are quickly able to see this in the fact that 28 states passed the sterilization laws, leaving a few to not like Kansas. The first state I blame is Indiana, as they were the first state to enforce this brutal practice. The implementation of these disgusting laws caused thousands of women to be forcefully sterilized all because of their financial or mental status. Victims, especially those who still live today, deserve to be recognized, apologized to, and be given reparations for these disgusting acts. Failure to admit this disgusting past causes harm to the continuing generations–who are already fighting for their own reproductive rights.
2.) I strongly believe that philanthropist organizations by the countries richest–Rockefeller and Carnegie–played a role in the Eugenics movement of the United States. As we have previously learned, both Rockefeller and Carnegie had a huge impact on the United States of America. Many looked up to them because of their depiction of the self-made man–a vision of the American dream. Not only were they influential figures in American culture, but they also employed a vast amount of the country. Their tactics led to many becoming poor, though neither cared. Their workers were living on the cusp of the poverty line whilst they were living the American dream in their million dollar estates. Both Rockefeller and Carnegie had impact on the growing lower class in the country. Not only did they cause this class to grow, but they also supported and funded the institutions targeting the lower class. Their financial support impacted the so called “research” facilities, making the lives for many worse and worse. I do not think these financial efforts can be considered philanthropy, as they were essentially helping nobody.
Yes, I think the states bear responsibility but it depends on how the sterilization compulsory laws were put into place and the origin of the law. If it came down to a vote then the people and those who voted for the laws to be implemented would carry blame. Most of the responsibility should be on the shoulders of those championing ideas of Eugenics and sterilization for “societal benefit”, but I think the procedure being legal brought the States to share this responsibility. It is difficult to amend for the actions of those in the past that we now recognize as incorrect decisions, one way victims of involuntary sterilization can be helped is through support in other ways to have kids such as adoption or medical processes of reproduction.
I think organizations such as the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation do bear responsibility for what people did with Eugenics and sterilization because they showed support for the theory. Eugenics paired with Social Darwinism completely supported the lives of Anglo, rich businessmen and their ways of controlling business and so it would make sense that Carnegie and Rockefeller would in turn support the ideas. But it does not excuse their actions or their centered, singular point of view. Because of their expansive monopolies I would assume they did not look closely at everything their organizations were part of. Yet the organizations contributed funding to remove the lower 10 percent of society.
In answering both question one and two I think it is also important to note the ignorance of the people during the time period as well as of the scientists. It feels odd to say they had good intentions but it was a time of great development so with Eugenics bringing an improved, more perfect society it seemed like the best step forward. To now look back on the actions they appear as barbaric and inhumane.
1. Yes, as seen with the passing of America’s first sterilization law in 1907, it was Indiana’s decision as a state to enforce eugenics rather than the federal government forcing them to adopt such practices. Each individual state carried out its own attacks against people deemed genetically inferior, and sterilization, institutionalization, and other attempts at genetic moderation differed depending on the laws of each state. Additionally, no impactful attempts were made to defend the lives and reproductive freedoms of the people affected by eugenics laws. In fact, America as a whole was generally optimistic about the idea, as eugenics had been painted in a positive light, claiming to cure the epidemic of crime and poverty that had become common by the early 20th century. Knowing that such a barbarian thing was still occurring in our country only half a century ago makes it even more shocking. The atrocities that happened to victims of sterilization can’t be undone, but it should be the government’s responsibility to take credit for their wrongs, no matter how long ago it happened, and issue a financial reimbursement to each affected family.
2. Both foundations, just like every similar organization created to fund the research of eugenics, are fully responsible for upholding the positive image of eugenics policies and spreading their hateful agenda to millions of people worldwide. In a fit of ego, titans like Carnegie and Rockefeller took an instant liking to the movement, particularly its similarities with Social Darwinism. Just as the business moguls of the 20th century hid behind Social Darwinism and laissez-faire virtues to justify their cruel business tactics, the eugenics movement was used to defend the wealthy by portraying the poor as genetically doomed- they were destined to spend their lives impoverished. By prioritizing their own reputations above the fate of poor and immigrant groups, the backers of each organization were directly responsible for popularizing genetics studies and moral values that turned Americans against their own citizens for the sake of “solving the problem at its roots”.
1. These sterilization laws enacted in the early 20th century were laws aimed at people who were “unfit” or “undesirable”. Reasons why people were viewed as unfit include mental illnesses, disabilities, or being out of the social norms. Yes, the laws were different from state to state, but they still often resulted in the involuntary sterilization of thousands of individuals. In my opinion, states are responsible for these terrible and unethical laws. After all the states were responsible for how they enacted these laws and if they were enforced/passed. The surviving victims from the 60s and 70s I think the states should acknowledge these victims, dead or alive. If these victims are alive I think the government should compensate them with money and any mental health services needed. After all these procedures that were done were against all these people’s will and were traumatising.
2. Yes, organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear responsibility for eugenics’ effects. I believe this because after all these organizations were the ones funding and contributing to the funding of eugenics research. Yes, these organizations weren’t directly responsible for the passing of these sterilization laws, they were responsible for the research which is what made the base for these laws in the first place. Some might argue that these philanthropic organizations weren’t actively making the laws, and obviously, I agree because they were not the lawmakers nor were they a part of the government, etc. But they still had an immense impact on people and their decisions. If these organizations were supporting the research of eugenics it must’ve been for “good reason”. They influenced people in ways we could never imagine. Yes, they probably didn’t know the negative impacts of eugenics because it was a new “science” and discovery that was completely unknown and new, but that doesn’t take away the blame for what they supported and helped create.
1. States without a doubt deserve to take the blame, just as much as the federal government should. Revoking the right to reproduce is not only illegal of the highest order (depriving someone of their liberty and freedom), it is intensely immoral and horrifying, devoid of consent, to sterilize someone who never requested treatment. Those survivors are still paying the price, and with such a high toll having your own body trifled with, it’s difficult to find the right way to deal with the problem. In doing some research, many states like Oregon, Virginia, and California, among others, have come forward to formally apologize for the state’s past conduct. However, there has been no federal apology in sight, and these citizens are left to deal with the tragedy of having the most basic of rights torn from them. Surviving victims not only deserve this simple apology, but so much more. Committees dedicated to making sure this never happens again need to be formed, and as more stories come to light, all of America needs to address the horrid history it’s not only been a part of, but supported. Words don’t seem like enough for situations like these, and they certainly aren’t, but that first small step can lead to a world of change. Supporting families, getting their stories out, and providing a safe space to discuss the possible trauma of the events (with the government footing the bill) would be a step in the right direction.
2. If states bear responsibility, these organizations do as well, and possibly more responsibility as they promoted states to even consider sterilization in the first place. The Carnegie Eugenics Record Office can even be held directly accountable for pushing laws towards creating the “ideal person”. These organizations, while working under the guise of “philanthropic”, were funding a venture out of a dictatorial sci-fi novel. Both original founders supported these ideas (and in Rockefeller’s case, many of his descendants). Charles Davenport, a worker at the ERO, was known to work with German eugenicists. Many in Germany, while developing their own despicable methods, modeled them after American implementations, such as forced sterilization. And so, without funding from these organizations and their positions in government affairs, eugenics would have likely been nowhere near as researched and developed as it was.
Source: Black, Edwin. “Hitler’s Debt to America.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 Feb. 2004, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa.
Question 1) I believe that states are somewhat, and mildly responsible for the issues caused by the eugenicists and eugenic related beliefs of the early 20th century. To begin,in the early 20th century, 28 states passed cruel laws that were related to the studies/ideology of the eugenicists from the Carnegie and Rockefeller organizations. This would lead to the iq tests being used to send the “unfit” or “feebleminded” out into war for WW1 and keeping the perfect and wanted genes safe in AMerica. It would also cause the sterilization of over 60,000 people throughout the 20th century just because they had been deemed to have “unfit” or unwanted genes. I think all the issues that would happen in the mid to late 20th century were caused in some relation to the state’s passing of unjust and cruel eugenics and sterilization related laws, acts, etc.
Question 2 ) I believe that philanthropic organizations of this time, to be highly responsible for the issues that were going on at the time. I believe this statement due to the ideas and justifications used by their founders. Rockefeller believed in social darwinism, which he used to justify his cruel and unjust actions and tactics to get rid of his competitors in the oil industry. He used the belief that those people were “destined” to be poor, and that helping them would interfere with the natural law of the social classes. His organization, The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Carnegie Institution had the leading eugenicists who created and promoted the ideas of “breeding” out the lower class criminals, mentally ill, and alcoholics. Had these organizations not spread this ideology, the sterilization of 60,000 people and 28 states passing unfair eugenics laws, and all the unfair and unjust laws passed most likely would have never happened.
I think that states do bear responsibility for the sterilization laws. These sterilization acts directly violate the guaranteed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is part of the foundation of America. Life is obviously being violated because it is making people unable to have children. People should have the freedom to have children if they want, violating liberty. If having children would make someone happy, and they are forcibly sterilized, their right to happiness is being violated. States chose to implement these laws, which are directly discriminatory against so many Americans. I don’t think that much can be done to reconcile what was done to people who were sterilized. The sterilization cannot be undone and the physical and mental effects of being forcibly sterilized cannot be mended by the government. At a bare minimum, the government needs to admit their wrongdoing, and potentially monetary compensation for those still living. However, the government can’t fix what they’ve done, so there’s not much else to do.
I think that philanthropic organizations like Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institute also bear responsibility for eugenics and forced sterilization. Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller boosted the idea of Social Darwinism because it promoted them and other wealthy people. They believed in their superiority over people not as wealthy as them, which Social Darwinism and eugenics supported, so they supported eugenics. They both funded eugenics and the research behind it, so they definitely bear responsibility for forced sterilization and the effects that it caused on people. These men also had a lot of influence on the public, so by Rockefeller and Carnegie supporting eugenics, they influenced many others to also support it. Overall, philanthropic organizations’ financial and philosophical support of forced sterilization and eugenics had a major impact on so many people, making them responsible for it.
I believe that the states bear responsibility for passing the compulsory sterilization laws in the early twentieth century. The states could not have approved these laws and not let them pass in their specific state as a protest and hopefully send a message to other states. Passing the laws is a clear form of compliance with the law. I believe that for the ones who have been sterilized and are alive today, we can give them proper treatment with little to no cost for it. For epileptic medication, it is absurdly high even with insurance so we could provide that. For addiction and mentally ill people, paying for rehab or inpatient facilities would be a good idea. I’m not sure what I would do with criminals or formally imprisoned but they certainly didn’t deserve to be forcefully sterilized. In short, just providing any kind of reasonable support at a low or no cost at all I believe is an attempt of repay for what the government has done to them.
I believe that Carnegie and Rockefeller contributed significantly to the eugenics mess. Carnegie and Rockefeller’s money was used to fund the first research center for Eugenics. This is a direct contribution to the idea and it helps it actually get it started. Would eugenics be as widespread without the funding for this fundamental research? This funding then led to the Eugenics Records Office. All of this research and records make substantial “evidence” to make it into national laws that harmed millions of people in the early twentieth century. Without their money to fund the research, I believe that it wouldn’t have been possible. Men with millions of dollars weren’t as common back then, they were the first. It’s not it was common that there were men with that kinda money and that wanted to fund eugenics!
1.) I think that the states do have some responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early 1900’s. At this time, states had the freedom to pass some of their own laws that didn’t have to go through the higher government and many states decided to add this law to theirs. It’s hard to think of something that can be done to change something that happened over 80 years ago. It’s sickening to think of what these states did to innocent immigrants just because of the way they looked. The thought of someone not being able to bear a child of their own is so sad. I think that the states should first, take acknowledgment for what they have done wrong and find the people who they have harmed. The people should also stand up for what happened and make sure that this proper history is taught and not sugar coated like the bad parts of our history normally is.
3.) I do think that the Human Genome Project could create feeling and emotion towards the sterilization that happened in the past hundred years. This project changes the genetics for a human to essentially make it “better” which is similar to not having a certain group of people reproduce and have children because the children won’t be “perfect”. I think that for the humans still alive that were sterilized, this could cause a lot of feelings towards it because it is changing a person that shouldn’t have to be changed because every human is perfect just the way that they are. I think that someone who went through that tremendously awful event first hand should be mad about this project that wants to change humans DNA because it is still the idea of making a human that has these specific “better” traits as I said before.
I personally believe that the states do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th century. The states could have done anything to stop it, but they allowed protectional rights of the Constitution to be stripped away, nonetheless. For example, the right of being able to marry whoever you want and have children was stripped away as states enforced these horrible laws. For the surviving victims of these horrible sterilization laws, the states should find some way to repay them (even though that’s almost impossible). However, I feel as if nothing can be done to even come close to giving these people what they deserve. They missed out on future generations of their family and to give them money would mean close to nothing for them. However, giving these people and their families. some sort of a salary and a house would show that the states regret what happened.
I also believe that philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute and The Rockefeller Foundation bear some of the responsibility in the mess of compulsory sterilization laws. These organizations financed and funded whatever the Eugenics Record Office did. They also considered Eugenics to be progressive and the way to get to the future. John D. Rockefeller wanted to “cure evils at their source” which shows how messed up this movement was in general. With funding eugenics research and publicly supporting it, these philanthropic organizations played a big part in the mess of sterilization laws. However, we have to consider the mindset of the general public at this point in time. Eugenics was widely supported and was the new big thing that would progress society to new heights. Perhaps the philanthropists weren’t horrible people. They could’ve just been people influenced by the horrid ideas of their time period.
1)Yes, I believe that states bear complete responsibility over the compulsory sterilization laws. States would speak about how they had “good intentions” with these programs when in reality they were just ways to discriminate against groups of people and ultimately caused uproar and further split up the nation. States need to be held accountable because they fought for the continuation of these laws and revoked reproductive rights from many groups of people to only have reproduction happening among people whose genetics they saw as more valuable. As for the victims of the sterilization laws, there’s nothing that can be done that will make up for the trauma and the time they have lost from being in these programs and having to go through this. This affects not only the people who were actively targeted with these laws but also future and current generations because these discriminatory acts still follow us around. These families deserve at least some money compensation even though that won’t be nearly enough.
2)I do believe organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation do carry a significant amount of blame over the compulsory sterilization laws. Both of these organizations had a huge monopoly at the time and were two of the largest corporations with a huge influence. Carnegie believes in social darwinism and the belief of “survival of the fittest ” which makes it pretty apparent he believes only the “fittest” (wealthiest and mostly white American men) could fit into this category. These companies also funded the program which advertised eugenics as a moral good to attack the “evil” in society. These organizations had large amounts of data related to human genetics and it is likely that with this information and all their power they could play off eugenics as reasonable and make it seem desirable. Their funding greatly caused the lengths and extremes of the eugenics movement.
1) I believe that states bear most of the responsibility for compulsory sterilization laws because they were the ones who passed them and defended them in state courts. Plus, the states had the power to reject these laws by saying that they were a violation of personal rights, but they didn’t. However, those who promoted this idea, such as in newspapers, and those who carried out these awful procedures share a lot of responsibility, as they influenced and affected people’s views on them.
These laws were completely unethical and hurt about 60,000 Americans, which is why I think that the victims, who were sterilized in the 1960s and 1970s, and their families deserve some sort of compensation and a genuine apology. All of this harm was done to them without their consent, and the government should ensure that laws like these never get passed again.
2) Yes, I think philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or the Rockefeller Foundation bear significant responsibility in this mess because they were the ones who helped finance the advancements and research on eugenics. As these foundations were owned by wealthy, powerful men who heavily influenced society, people started to believe in the ideas of eugenics and sterilization that came from them. However, these foundations also wanted to address social issues like crime, poverty, alcoholism, and intellectual disabilities by tracing them back to “defective genes,” which made people think that these issues were passed down from generation to generation (this is obviously completely false). Therefore, these harmful beliefs were perpetuated, and people linked social problems to genetics, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and prejudice towards certain communities, especially minorities. I think that without these philanthropic organizations’ research, people wouldn’t have supported or developed these views, and as a result, states wouldn’t have implemented the sterilization laws that hurt thousands of people in the United States.
1. I believe that states do bear a lot of responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws because it was the state governments who passed the sterilization laws in each specific state. The laws were passed in 28 of the 48 states in 1932, and each of those states had to choose on their own whether to pass the laws or not, and those laws ended up hurting so many lives. Those victims of sterilization laws got their freedoms taken away and the states did have a part in those harmful actions. I think that for the victims who are still alive from the 1960s or 70s some sort of apology needs to be made. The state or state government should acknowledge, in a public way, the lives of the numerous innocent people who were impacted by the sterilization laws. Maybe each state should give some financial help or insurance should be given to the people or the families who were harmed by the laws. All in all, I believe that the states bear most of the responsibility for the sterilization laws because they failed to protect the people in their states, and the result of this was a heartbreaking time in United States history.
2. Yes, I believe that large philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear a large part of the responsibility for the sterilization laws. The large organizations were the ones to invest and help with the widespread sterilization policies and eventually laws. I dont believe that these organizations bear as large of a responsibility as the states do, but they definitely played a large part in the process of sterilization around the United States. Without the money from the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation, the ongoing issue of these laws would not be as prominent as it was.
1. Yes, States definitely bear responsibility for these laws because of how inhumane they are. These sterilization laws are a direct violation of not only human rights but infringes Constitutional Amendments. Also these laws did not have any sort of regulation as they were discriminatory and not backed up by a legitimate science that could be trusted. States have the resources and means to not follow these laws, but many are influenced by other states which is why it started the domino affect of many following after Indiana passed theirs. States responsibilities are to protect their people by passing sterilization laws they are doing harm to their citizens. States chose to pass this, they were not forced. This is why they have such a vital responsibility in this situation. When it comes to the surviving sterilized victims, they should have the right to sue because this procedure was done without consent and against their will. This is a very small victory they can get back because they can’t get unsterilized once they have been. Suing states means that victims can get some sort of closure for their pain and states can learn from their mistakes. States should not only take on the responsibility but also medical providers who agreed with this method and did the procedure. I say providers who agreed with this method because all medical providers can decide what procedures they personally agree with, those who believed this was the correct way are also entitled to be sued because of how inhumane this process was.
2. Yes, I do believe that philanthropic organizations bear responsibility in this situation. You see these organizations were very wealthy, so wealthy that they could do whatever they wanted illegal or not and get away with it no questions asked. Their funds made these torturous foundation able to happen and happen for a long time. This includes the Eugenics research and projects. Since Rockefeller and Carnegie were so popular and persuasive at the time, many followed their ways of thinking. Which is why these Eugenics projects and ways of thinking got so much attention and agreement. These foundations only mission was to make a perfect generation and eliminate those who seemed to slow down progress. Many of these people who were saw as weak were the mentally ill and criminals. Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s way of superiority thinking was the downfall of many who came face to face with the Eugenics movement, those who were sterilized with no say. Their influence of money, influence, and promotion of Eugenics projects was enough responsibility in this situation to cause pain and suffering to over 60,000 people.
Governments should take responsibility for the forced sterilization laws they enacted in the 1900s. These laws not only violated human rights but were also based on misguided scientific beliefs of that era leading to systematic discrimination against certain groups labeled as “undesirable” by those in positions of power. Those who survived these sterilization programs, deserve recognition, an apology and compensation for the harm done to them. This could involve restitution, access to healthcare services and support to address the emotional wounds they suffered. Furthermore, states should put in place measures to prevent atrocities from happening. This includes educating people about the wrongdoings of eugenics and advocating for rights, for everyone irrespective of their race, ethnicity or economic standing.
Philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation do bear responsibility in perpetuating the eugenics movement. While they may have believed they were supporting progressive ideals at the time, their funding and support contributed to the implementation of discriminatory policies. By financing eugenics research and programs, these organizations lent legitimacy to ideologies that promoted the superiority of certain races and justified the sterilization and marginalization of others. While it’s essential to acknowledge historical context, it’s equally important for philanthropic organizations to reflect on their past actions and actively work towards addressing the harm caused. This could involve initiatives focused on social justice, education, and supporting marginalized communities impacted by the legacy of eugenics. Additionally, they should advocate for policies that promote equality and human rights, ensuring that their efforts align with ethical principles and respect for all individuals.
States bear some responsibility for the Eugenics law that the passed in the 20th century but it’s important to keep in mind they have also radically changed since then — the government of Michigan in 2024 is very different from the Michigan government in 1924. Still, a formal apology from the states to those personally affected by eugenics should be given, if they haven’t already. The idea of financial compensation is complicated – there’s no way that the state can quantify or repay the suffering that these people experienced, and money shouldn’t come at the expense of the people of Michigan today, who largely had no part in forced sterilization in the first place. Unfortunately, I am not sure that there is an appropriate way (other than symbolic statements) that the state can rectify their actions in Eugenics. We should all make an effort to learn about this history so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past.
I think that since philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller foundation supported the basis of the Eugenics laws, they should bear responsibility for just that. They didn’t impose the laws, but they have to bear with the racist legacy that they perpetuated, and come to terms with their actions. The two corporations funded the Eugenics Record Office until 1939. Rockefeller was an outspoken supporter of Eugenics and even funded Nazi German scientists throughout WW2. Meanwhile, the Carnegie institute founded a laboratory that generated eugenic research, and funded prominent Eugenists. However, it is important to note that these organizations have very different ideas today: they both embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion. Both have put out statements condemning their past actions, and the Rockefeller foundation actually now supports the Anti-Eugenist project. It doesn’t excuse their past behavior, but these are good efforts to learn from their mistakes. The Carnegie institute still funds legitimate genetic research today, and both foundations support legitimate scientific inquiries.
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 that states do bear responsibility for compulsory sterilization laws that were passed. Even if the laws were passed in the early 1900s, some of them continued to be in place into the 1970s and there are still survivors whose lives were completely changed by these actions. The survivors should be given a formal apology and the states who passed these laws should acknowledge the harm and hurt that these laws created and pledge to help the survivors and never do anything similar again, perhaps even by adding it to the state constitution. In addition, survivors should be granted a certain amount of money, as well as help with health care to account for the physical and mental effects that stay with them from being forcibly sterilized.
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).
I think that it is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation because it would perpetuate the idea that there is one way that a child should look, and applying beauty standards to children could be extremely harmful. It could also worsen discrimination because if people chose to use the research completed by the Human Genome Project to modify the genetics of children then it encourages the idea that people who look a certain way are superior. Although I would hope that there would be enough people who are against this idea, I think that small steps towards it could create future problems and precedents that support eugenics.
1) States do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws they passed in the early 20th century, as these laws crossed the human rights of individuals. Compulsory sterilization laws, which targeted individuals deemed “unfit” or “undesirable” by the state, were often rooted in eugenics ideologies that wanted to create a society based on those with genetic superiority. The implementation of these laws resulted in significant harm, including the violation of bodily autonomy, psychological trauma, and the denial of the right to procreate. Many victims of these laws were disproportionately marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities, people of color, and those deemed socially or economically disadvantaged. Surviving victims, especially those sterilized as late as the 1960s or 1970s, may still be dealing with the consequences of these actions, both physically and emotionally. To help support them, states should formally acknowledge their role in implementing compulsory sterilization laws and issue official apologies to the victims and their families. This recognition is an essential step in validating the experiences of those who were harmed by these policies. States should provide compensation to surviving victims to acknowledge the harm inflicted upon them. This compensation could take various forms, including financial restitution, access to healthcare services, and counseling. Last of all, states should enact legislation to prevent the recurrence of similar abuses in the future. This could include strengthening protections for bodily autonomy and implementing safeguards to prevent discrimination in healthcare and reproductive rights.
3) Yes, the Human Genome Project could potentially spur sentiments or desires for fetal manipulation aimed at creating healthier or “perfect” children. The project has significantly advanced our understanding of human genetics and paved the way for precise genetic editing techniques. As we continue to uncover the genetic basis of various diseases and traits, there may be increasing pressure/wants from parents and society to utilize these technologies to prevent genetic disorders or promote desirable traits in their offspring. One worry is about the unintended consequences of genetic manipulation. Editing genes to remove disease may accidently introduce new genetic issues or other health problems. Also, the pursuit of “designer babies” raises questions about the definition of health and perfection, as well as the issues for diversity. While the Human Genome Project opens doors to potential medical interventions, it also needs careful consideration of the ethical worries around genetic manipulation.
Yes, they do, considering that it wasn’t originally needed and was just passed due to the ideology of ‘social Darwinism’. These sterilization laws that were passed, starting in the early 1900s and continuing until they were finally banned in the 1960s and 1970s, were not initially needed and were first passed by Indiana in 1907 and were created to target institutionalized, mentally disabled women and took away their right to reproduce that every person born female should be allowed to have. It wasn’t encouraged and supported by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1927, showing that it is the fault of the states who created these eugenic sterilization laws before 1927 when SCOTUS finally enforced them. So, when it comes to those who are still alive and were sterilized before it was banned in the 1970s should be given some form of compensation (monetary wise) due to the fact that the U.S. took away their rights to reproduce and they should also be given a less expensive process to adopt if they’d like to, considering they aren’t able to have children on their own.
Considering that Rockefeller Foundation, created by John Rockefeller who was an extremely influential oil distributor and creator, worked with railroads and steamboats, both extremely important modes of transportation at the time, supported eugenics, specifically in the 1930s, and Carnegie Institute studied on it a lot, starting in 1902 and finally shut all eugenics research down in 1944, and, Carnegie Institute was also extremely influential, due to Andrew Carnegie, who was a philanthropist and helped spread education a lot, and also supported it due to their findings, I’d say that it’s safe to say that Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institute both played a crucial role in the eugenics movements as well as the eugenic sterilization laws that were created around that time period.
2. Yes, they probably do. They were funded by some of the most popular people of the time, they were doing research on eugenics, and they were popular because they were seen as philanthropic. These factors made their efforts and findings more important to people, as they could recognize and get behind what they were saying easier. They knew the names and therefore trusted the product, which was progress. That makes them responsible because they encouraged and further eugenics along, which is awful. They did good too, donating to libraries and churches, as well as building several schools. It’s to know for sure how much of an influence the organizations had on the eugenics movement. It’s even harder to know if the good they did out does the bad they did, or even if that’s how it should work. If they donated to libraries does that make up for sterilization? No, no it doesn’t. It is the right direction, but you can’t undo those actions. Regardless of how much money you dish around town. In the end, yes these philanthropic foundations are responsible for some of the eugenics movement and its consequences.
3. Yes, the Human Genome Project could definitely spur the same feeling as the eugenics movement. Eugenics still exists today, however in different forms. There isn’t a wide spread movement but sterilization without consent is still legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Racism is also present in America, with unemployment and difficulty finding jobs higher among African Americans and hispanics. The negative feelings toward these groups could cause the new understanding of the genome to mean people again try to eliminate the parts of it they don’t like with eugenics. Another way could be from the new technology for genome screening. Doctors can now do DNA screenings and figure out what hereditary diseases someone might carry. This is a new development, which could cause the eugenics scene to change, as there are new grounds for limitations of birth.
1. Do states bear some of the 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.
The states do bear a great amount of responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century. This is because the individual states and people in them were scared of the incoming immigrants, such as the Chinese, taking their jobs in factories, and working for lower wages or the same wages they were just striking against. These laws targeted not only incoming immigrant workers who “took” American jobs, but anyone else who was seen as unfit, including people with disabilities, mental or physical, or even those who had an unwanted trait, such as laziness or being poor. On the opposite end, those who had the more respected qualities, blue eyes, and blond hair, were strongly encouraged to have as many children as possible. There is not much that can be done to fix the damage already caused to many people, however, the states, such as Indiana, which was the first to pass sterilization laws, need to recognize all those affected, including those still alive today as well as the people who passed away.
2. Do you think philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility for this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
I think these organizations do bear part of the responsibility for this mess, as they were incredibly influential at the time due to the vast amount of wealth these organizations were accumulating, and the number of people working for them. Because of this power, the Carnegie and Rockefeller organizations had the ability to greatly influence many political movements such as the Eugenics movement and the sterilization acts passed in states around the early 20th century. Without the strong influence of these large organizations, like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation, these movements would not have been as successful or widespread, and the rate at which they grew and expanded across the country would have been much more insignificant than what they ended up becoming.
2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
The Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation both have been historically associated with philanthropy, however, in the early 20th century, their involvement in funding eugenics shows that they both bear a lot of responsibility. To me, it makes sense that people like Carnegie and Rockefeller who used social Darwinism to justify abuse towards people who they considered lesser than them, and also were believers in the idea of “survival of the fittest” would also be in support of eugenics. While they didn’t directly control the forced sterilization of people, the amount of power, influence, and money they had definitely swayed people’s beliefs, and their donations show their support of eugenics.
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 do not believe that the Human Genome Project could spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation. Eugenics encouraged reproduction of those with “desirable” traits, and discouraged and sometimes forcibly stopped the reproduction of those with “undesirable” traits. The Human Genome Project’s main focus is to identify the genes in a human genome and understand the genetic factors related to diseases. This is unlike eugenics because the Human Genome Project aims to understand genetic conditions, and editing a fetus’s genome to a copy of a healthy fetus’s genome. From what I understand, this is very different from eugenics because the Human Genome Project does not force anyone to do genetic editing or take away any bodily autonomy. It is voluntary, and unlike eugenics, it is more of a medical advancement used to eliminate diseases or disabilities. However, I can see how editing a fetus’s genes can be risky if in the wrong hands, which is why I can understand how some might think this is similar to eugenics in a way. Also, gene editing could potentially be dangerous or lead to a mutation by accidentally modifying a different gene instead of the intended one, leading to unpredictable consequences. So, while I believe that the Human Genome Project is not eugenics, it is important to tread carefully, and make sure that this does not fall into the wrong hands.
I think that the States bear most if not all of the blame for the eugenics movement in its entirety and most definitely the laws they passed. Without government backing, the movement likely would have died out entirely because it’s obviously against the law for random people to force others to be sterilized because their traits are not desirable. The state governments that put those laws into place should take the majority of the blame for the laws that they passed. I think that the surviving victims of the eugenics movement should be given a great amount of monetary compensation as well as resources to use if they have any issues relating to the horrors committed against them whether that be physical or mental. As for the many victims of the movement who have died already, I think the government should make it a priority to completely reject the idea of eugenics and formally apologize to all who suffered from it. Furthermore, they should take all forced sterilization policies off the books completely and add a formal ban on the federal level.
I think organizations like these do have to bear some responsibility for the eugenics movement. Although laws were passed allowing forced sterilization, they could not have been acted upon or enforced if there was no monetary backing for the movement. Without any money, the laws would likely be in a state similar to today where although it is technically legal, it is not actually acted on by anyone. Even if this is the case, I think these foundations bear less responsibility because people who strongly believed in the eugenics movement would still be able to practice its ideas without the backing of these large foundations. If it had just been outlawed that would not have been possible. So although I believe that the majority of the blame should fall on the government for allowing such a horrid thing to come into law, it could have still been prevented by organizations like the Carnegie Institute.
1. States do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws passed in the early part of the 20th century, as these laws were a violation of individuals’ reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and wellbeing. These laws, often targeting marginalized groups such as people with disabilities, minorities, and those deemed “unfit” by eugenic ideologies, were implemented with the aim of controlling population growth and claiming to improve the genetic makeup of society. However, they resulted in large injustices, causing irreparable harm to countless individuals and communities. Compulsory sterilization laws were endorsed and enforced by state governments, reflecting societal attitudes and values prevalent at the time. State legislatures passed these laws, and state institutions, including hospitals and mental health facilities, carried out the sterilizations. Therefore, states bear responsibility for the implementation and perpetuation of these discriminatory and harmful policies.
3. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has raised quite a bit of ethical concerns with manipulating the human genome in the context of fetal manipulation for the purpose of creating healthier or “more perfect” children. However, whether the HGP itself directly spurs such sentiments depends on various factors. One being more knowledge. The HGP has significantly increased our understanding of genetics and the human genome. This expanded knowledge base could potentially lead to advancements in technologies like gene editing, which may be seen as promising avenues for improving human health and well-being, and could also be an economic boost, either nationally or globally. Ethics surrounding the whole topic is also very controversial surrounding genetic manipulation and has been at the front of discussions related to the HGP. While some argue for the potential benefits of genetic interventions in preventing or treating genetic diseases, others raise concerns about the ethical implications of altering the human genome, including issues related to equity, consent, and unintended consequences. In general, the Human Genome Project has undoubtedly advanced our understanding of genetics and raised awareness of the potential for genetic manipulation, whether it directly spurs sentiments towards fetal manipulation for creating “perfect” children depends on scientific, ethical, social, and regulatory factors.
1. States do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws they passed in the early 20th century. These laws violated fundamental rights and were based on flawed pseudoscientific principles. The states were responsible for implementing and enforcing these policies, which had severe and lasting consequences for individual’s lives. States enacted and sustained these laws, often supported by misguided ideologies such as eugenics. The government must protect citizens, particularly the vulnerable, from exploitation. In this case, the state not only failed to protect its citizens but actively violated their rights. To address this, states should publicly acknowledge the injustice and establish support for surviving victims, including mental health services, financial reparations, and access to accurate information about their own histories. Additionally, states should work towards educational programs to ensure that people understand the gravity of such violations and the importance of safeguarding individual liberties.
2. Philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation also bear responsibility. By financially supporting eugenics research and programs, these foundations contributed to the spread of pseudoscientific ideas that were used to justify atrocities. While these organizations may argue they acted progressively at the time, the support of eugenics research and policies further legitimized and popularized harmful ideas, leading to widespread implementation. As institutions with significant influence, they should take responsibility by publicly acknowledging their role, contributing to educational initiatives about the history of eugenics, and supporting advocacy for the rights of affected individuals. Philanthropic organizations can also redirect their efforts towards funding initiatives that promote human rights, social justice, and equality. By doing so, they can actively contribute to rectifying past mistakes.
1- I believe that the sterilization laws are somewhat the fault of the states. I believe that immigrants’ potential effects on native-born Americans worried the people of the states. They were afraid that immigrants would steal their jobs and that having more kids would make them even more of a threat to the law, which would negatively impact their future employment and pay. In my opinion, the states must own up to what they did to the victims and accept accountability. In my opinion, it is important to pay tribute to both the survivors and the deceased. Because of what happened in the past, I believe that the states should assist those who survived and provide them any support they might require.
2-I do believe that the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation share some of the blame for this ordeal because they both contributed to the funding of the eugenics research that took place. I believe that because Carnegie and Rockefeller held such high regard for themselves and other wealthy people, they ignored the struggles faced by immigrants and those with less money. Carnegie’s attitude against individuals with less money was clear in his promotion of Social Darwinism. Because he believed in the “survival of the fittest,” immigrants from other countries most likely did not fit into this theory. Their views spread despite the fact that they had no direct influence on the sterilization of immigrants due to their impact on the American economy and other people. They most likely gave the impression that they supported what happened because they funded studies, and because of their considerable power, people around them were inclined to adopt their viewpoints as well.
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 that states bear the full responsibility of the sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th Century. I think this because the states felt the need to put these laws in place because of their extreme amounts of fear that the amount of immigrants coming to the United States would result in them having children and growing in population more and more. As a result, they put these laws in place which took away many of the basic rights of people in America just because they were not originally from the United States. I think that one thing that should be done for the surviving victims is recognition from the states in which they were. I think that the states need to not only recognize those who survived but also those who did not. Both deserve to have some form of recognition from the states who passed the laws that allowed this to happen to them.
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 think that the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation thought that due to the amount of money and power that they had at that time compared to everyone else at the time they did not have to take account of the people who were of lower status than them. They thought that because they were above them, what was taking place towards the immigrants was of no concern to them. When, in reality, they would have been able to take the great amounts of power and money that they had to help the people who were falling a victim to the sterilization laws that were put in place. Or used the extremely large platform that they had and the power that they had in high places to have these laws removed. Due to this, I think that they bear a lot of responsibility for what took place due to the sterilization laws.
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.
Yes the states do bear responsibility in the sterilization laws that were passed in the early 20th century. I believe this because the ‘states’ aren’t actual beings, in reality we are talking about the politicians who made up said states legislatures. Those legislators were more than likely to have a modest or wealthy upbringing, and they likely listened to the other wealthy sterilization promoters around them to influence their own ideas. Not to mention, these types of laws would never affect them in the first place, so I doubt that they put that much thought into them anyway. I don’t know what can be done to help those who have undergone forced sterilization, especially because the procedure nor the emotional damage can be undone. The only reparations that come to mind would be those of monetary value, but that doesn’t undo what has been done. No amount of money, while a loose claim, can make up for what has been done to these people. They have been stripped of so many freedoms, and have had their bodies violated in ways that no-one should ever have to experience unwillingly.
Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes, they 100% bear some, or even most of the, responsibility for the sterilization/ eugenics campaign. The Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation were some of the first to promote eugenics research, and allowed it to expand to the hellscape that it became. At the time, they were some of the wealthiest people in American society, and in turn, effectively ran America. They had so much influence, and they used it for such disgusting things. I mean, they set goals for their forced sterilization, that’s absolutely insane. Not to mention how they set up philanthropic foundations to promote eugenics research further! They were old, white, rich, crazy men who got away with these horrible acts simply because they were old, white, and rich.
(1)Yes, I think that the states bear responsibility for the pro-eugenics legislation passed on the state level, not the federal level. I say this because it frames the states’ decision as the choice that it was, rather than an obligation to follow or enforce legislation that was applied to all states. Furthermore, it is the states’ responsibility to equally protect the citizens within its jurisdiction. Yet, it was clear that the research behind eugenics and the actions supporting it were in favor of successful white businessmen, or those of descent from selective European countries. To ensure that these desired peoples would be on the side that benefited from eugenics, the tests used to determine one’s desirability included questions about the cultures of those pre-determined as desired.
For those that survived the “sterilization” process, I think that at the least, the victims should have been compensated in pay for the time that they were removed from their everyday life and work. I do think that more than this should have been done, but I am not sure what basis would be used to determine any additional compensation. For the victims that are currently living today, I think that their healthcare should be evaluated and adjusted to account for services concerning the possible need for mental health improvement.
(1)I also think that philanthropic organizations established by the giants of the era are also largely responsible. This is because the organizations’ research was funded privately, and therefore was not determined by the government as a necessary service. Plus, the establishment of the Eugenics Records Office was a joint effort- a choice to put their efforts towards a hub of eugenics supporting research that reinforced the Laissez-Faire methods used to dominate industry during the Gilded Age. At the very least, these organizations can be held accountable for publicizing eugenics by using their founders’ widely known names to tag the movement as progressive, and as something that society as a whole could benefit from.
I believe that states do somewhat bear responsibility, though only those 28 states who passed the laws and only to a certain extent. I think this way because the views of the political leaders and representatives in states today are very different from those who ran the state in the past. It is unfair to those in positions of power today to have to clean up the mess from those in power in the past. However, those who lived through the laws, still do deserve some compensation. I believe that those affected by the sterilization laws should receive support or be compensated, whether by getting free care if they had a mental illness, support for adopting, or a small annual payment from their state. After all, while it may be unfair for those in power to have to clean up the mess, it is still unfair to those who had to live through the mess to not get compensation.
While they are not the sole cause of the development of eugenics, I believe that the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation also had a large impact on the development of the idea and advancement of eugenics. One reason is that considering the fact that both of these organizations not only wrote recommended sterilization policies, but also financed the policies to a certain extent. Not to mention, these organizations supporting the cause because they saw the idea as “progressive”, also encouraged other wealthy people to support it because they too, wanted to be “progressive”. They were able to influence others so easily because they were already so popular and had grown to such immense wealth, allowing them to have a stronger grasp on influencing movements as well as acts. Without the organization’s money or support, it would have been a lot more difficult for eugenics to develop, and perhaps give people more time to voice their opinions against eugenics.