Category Archives: Eugenics

Home (link to Eugenic Sterilizations in the United States)

Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont and students in HCOL195 Contact: lutz.kaelber@uvm.edu Last updated: 10/30/2014

Eugenics/Sexual Sterilizations in

(eugenics; sexual sterilization)

Number of Victims

Over 8,000 sterilizations were approved by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. The total number of victims actually sterilized is estimated to have been over 7,600 (Winston-Salem, Lifting the Curtain on a Shameful Era). Of this number, females represented approx. 85% of those sterilized (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). By the late 1960s, the sterilization of men was virtually halted, as women made up 99% of those sterilized (Sinderbrand, p. 1). African Americans represent 39% of those sterilized overall; by the later 1960s, they made up 60% of those sterilized, even though they made up only a quarter of the population (Sinderbrand, p. 1). Of those sterilized up to 1963, 25% were considered mentally ill and 70% were considered mentally deficient. In each of these categories, females account for over 75% of the sterilizations. North Carolina ranked third in the United States for the total number of people sterilized.

Period During Which Sterilization Occurred

Sterilizations started in 1929 with the passage of the sterilization law and continued through 1973, when the last recorded sterilization is known to have been reported.

Temporal Pattern of Sterilization

After the passage of the sterilization law in 1929, sterilization law began at slow rate. It was not until about 1938 that sterilizations began to increase at a steady rate. After WWII, sterilizations accelerated and peaked in the two years between 1950 and 1952, with 704 sterilizations (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). This makes North Carolina fairly unique, as its peak sterilizations occurred after WWII, at a time when most other states had ceased performing operations (for other exceptions, see also eugenic sterilizations in Iowa and Georgia). After 1960, the rate of sterilization began to slow and continued to decrease from a rate of about 250 a year in 1963 to 6 per year in 1973. From 1950-1963 there were an average of about 300 sterilizations per year.In the peak years (the 1950s) there were about 7 sterilizations for every 100,000 residents of the state per year.

Passage of Laws

The very first sterilization law was passed in 1919 but it was probably never put to use. Many feared that the law was unconstitutional and therefore the state feared putting it into practice (Paul, p. 420). In 1929, The North Carolina General Assembly passed a new sterilization law. It stated that the governing body or responsible head of any penal or charitable institution supported wholly or in part by the State of North Carolina, or any sub-division thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to have the necessary operation for asexualization or sterilization performed upon any mentally defective or feeble-minded inmate of patient thereof (State Library, History, p. 1). After this law was declared unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court in 1933 due to a deficient appeals process, North Carolina in the same year enacted a new sterilization law that provided for notice, hearing, and the right to appeal (Paul, p. 421). The passage of this law also created the North Carolina Eugenics Board (see below). The passage of the 1929 sterilization law made North Carolina the 17th state out of 33 to pass one. North Carolina's 1933 law remained effective until 1973, when the last recorded sterilizations were performed (State Library, History, p. 1). Finally, on April 4, 2003, the North Carolina Senate voted unanimously to overturn it (Bill to Overturn Eugenics Law Passes State Senate, p. 1).

Groups Identified by the Law

As stated in the original sterilization law of 1929, the groups targeted for sterilization were identified as mentally ill, mentally retarded, and epileptic (Paul, p. 421). However, the law also stated that the purpose of sterilization is to protect impaired people from parenthood who would become seriously handicapped if they were to assume parental responsibilities (Paul, p. 421).

With the passage of the 1933 law, the state of North Carolina instituted a Eugenics Board made up of high-ranking public health officials. Their main purpose was to decide whether sterilization petitions should be carried out. These Board members were addresses cases of individuals diagnosed as feeble minded or mentally ill (Gardella, p. 108). Another major goal of sterilization was to keep the handicapped from perpetuating themselves. Sterilization was seen as a way to prevent the spending of tax dollars on the feeble-minded (Gardella, p. 108). It should be noted that the law had an "extramural" component; i.e., it allowed for the sterilization of individuals who were presently not placed in state institutions.

Process of the Law

Under the sterilization law, the North Carolina General Assembly gave the governing body or executive head of any penal or charitable public institution the authority to order the sterilization of any patient or inmate whose operation they considered would be in the best interest of the individual and of the public good. It also gave the county boards of commissioners authority to order sterilization at the publics expense of any mentally defective or feeble-minded resident upon receiving a petition from the individuals next of kin or legal guardian outside state institutions (State Library, History, p. 1) - thus applying potentially to every resident in North Carolina. All orders for sterilization had to be reviewed and approved by the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, and the chief medical officers of any two state institutions for the feeble-minded or insane. In the reviewing process, they looked at a medical and family history of the individual being ordered for sterilizations to help decide whether the operation would be performed or not. They also considered whether it was likely that the individual might produce children with mental or physical problems (State Library, History, p. 1).

In 1933, under the new law, the General Assembly created the Eugenics Board of North Carolina to review all orders for sterilization of mentally diseased, feeble-minded, or epileptic patients, inmates, or non-institutionalized individuals (State Library, History, p. 1). This centralized board included five members: the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the State Hospital at Raleigh, and the attorney general. In the hearings of patients or inmates in a public institution, the head of that institution was the prosecutor in presenting the case to the Eugenics Board. In hearings of individuals who were non-institutionalized, the county superintendent of welfare or another authorized county official acted as the prosecutor. However, in both hearings, the prosecutor provided the board with a medical history signed by a physician familiar with the individuals case. The petition for the hearing was sent to the individual being ordered or to their next of kin or legal guardian. In the situation where this person could not represent or defend themselves at the hearing, the next of kin, guardian, or county solicitor stepped in to represent them. If the board decided to order the sterilization, the order had to be signed by at least 3 members and then returned to the prosecutor. This decision could be appealed by the individual to the county superior court and then further appealed to the state supreme court. If the appeal was successful, any petitions for sterilization were prohibited for one year, unless the individual, or his or her guardian or next of know requested sterilization (State Library, History, p. 1).

Eugenics in the 1950s was to some extent a southern phenomenon, as many states in other regions saw their number of sterilizations drop. Few sterilizations occurred in the 1930s in North Carolina (and in the other southern states) because the Great Depression resulted in funding crises that didnt allow for sterilization to occur in full force in the South. Sterilization picked up pace after WWII, especially during the mid-1950s (Castles, p. 1).

One factor leading to the acceleration after WWII was race. Race has always been a loaded issue in the south, as slavery was prominent there. When slavery was legal, white slave owners encouraged the reproduction of their slaves in order to create bodies to work and sell. The legacy of considering poor Blacks as a source of cheap servant labor continued. By the 1950s, some in the white majority were becoming anxious about supporting blacks through welfare. The heads of the agencies of welfare departments agreed on the value of sterilization for reducing general welfare relief and ADC (Aid for Dependent Children) payments (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). Some erroneously believed that blacks accounted for the majority of illegitimate births that were subsidized by ADC. The state threatened to remove welfare benefits if the person did not submit to the operation. The fears about the rising cost of the ADC program was a major factor in leading to the shift in racial composition of those targeted for sterilization. As the attention shifted away from the structural causes of poverty and crime to placing the blame for urban poverty and social unrest on blacks, sterilization of blacks was facilitated (Schoen, Choice and Coercion; see also Schoen, "Reassessing," p. 149). It was believed the control the reproduction of ADC recipients was necessary; as a result, the percentage of Blacks sterilized rose from 23% in the 1930s and 1940s to 59% between 1958-60 and finally to 64% between 1964 and 1966 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 108; "Reassessing," p. 149).

Sterilization also accelerated because it expanded to include the general population when the state gave social workers the authority to submit petitions for sterilization. Therefore, the amount of eligible people increased drastically. The North Carolina Board-which initially targeted those who were deemed mentally ill, expanded its program to include the general population. In fact, the majority of those sterilized had never been institutionalized, and 2,000 were younger than 19 (Wiggins, p. 1). In addition, the fight against poverty in North Carolina led to sterilizations in the general population. As this fight intensified, a new policy was created that led to an increase in the number of non-institutionalized people who were sterilized. Sterilizations of the non-institutionalized rose from 23% between 1937 and 1951 to 76% between 1952 and 1966 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 109, "Reassessing," p. 151).

The Human Betterment League made it their mission to spread information to the public regarding the benefits of eugenic sterilization (Gardella, p. 110). At the University of North Carolina State Public officials from the department of sociology searched for any possible people eligible for eugenic sterilization. Eventually through their efforts and the upholding of the states sterilization law North Carolina eve managed to sterilize the non-institutionalized (Gardella, p. 110)

Other Restrictions Placed on Those Identified in the Law or with Disabilities in General

There are no other known restrictions placed on those identified in the law.

Groups Targeted and Victimized Women, Especially African Americans and Those with Developmental Disabilities 77% of all those sterilized in North Carolina were women. North Carolina carried out 50 percent of these between 1929 and 1947 on females under the age of twenty (Cahn, p.162). There was a strong historical mentality in the South that supported the idea of trying to control the reproduction of women, and African Americans which helped the idea of eugenics to spread from the North to the South with little opposition from the elitist White male population. Because of the strong belief in moral purity of the South, however it was easy to explain why White women were just as endangered as African American women. Physicians in North Carolina didnt leave any margin for error either. Many women were brought in under the pretext that they might have been exhibiting behaviors that were sexual in nature and thus increasing the possibility of sexual promiscuity and warranting eugenic sterilization (Cahn, p. 165). Women that were deemed subnormal intellectually were also likely to be forcibly sterilized. About sixty percent of the inmates at a North Carolina Farm Colony in the 1930s were considered feebleminded and candidates for sterilization (Cahn, p.165). The greatest fear with women was that they are deceiving to others as they are still attractive to men and yet are below the standards for reproduction. North Carolinian journalists reported on these issues stated that these morons would breed rapidly like mink and contaminate the whole healthy human stock, (Cahn, p.166). And most of the women that they felt needed to be sterilized most were those women that exhibited no outward sign of incompetence but simply didnt do well on IQ tests because these womens charm of personality and conversation l abilityposed a greater social threat than more obviously disabled persons since their very attractiveness would lead to more opportunities for illicit sex or marriage and , thus a, the likelihood of starting a family of future liabilities to the State (Cahn, p. 168). Women were not safe even if they somehow managed to flee the State of North Carolina either. Such sexually deviant women could be chased all the way to Florida, as was the case for Emma Suggs. She was a candidate for sterilization because of her mental state due to her past and her out of wedlock pregnancy (Cahn, p. 169). Soon North Carolina set its sights on women of color who were seen as likely to be on welfare and to have illegitimate children. Chapel Hill Weekly stated that there was a higher proportion of Negroes than whites: and noted that the feebleminded Negro woman, often with illegitimate children, is a familiar and recurrent problem to health and welfare agencies (Cahn, p. 177). Women, including wives, daughters, sisters and unwed mothers, were overrepresented. They were labeled as either promiscuous, lazy, or unfit (Wiggins, p. 1), or more commonly as sexually uncontrollable (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 110). Overall, women made up 84.8% of sterilizations (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). However, more interesting is that the sterilization of men virtually halted in the 1960s, with only 2 sterilizations in 1964, and 254 sterilizations of women (State Library, Sterilizations, p. 1). Therefore, after 1960, women accounted for 99% of sterilizations (Sinderbrand, p. 1). While many white women were sterilized, the state began to focus on sterilizing black women as they became the majority of the welfare population. Black women were seen as highly uneducated, poor, and as having higher fertility rates than their white female counterparts. Schoen noted that as the amount of black women on welfare increased the public association between ADC and black female recipients was particularly close (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p.109; see also "Reassessing," p. 153). Black women were presumed to have uncontrollable sexual behavior, and as these racial stereotypes were reinforced, black women became an even larger target for controlled reproduction through sterilization.

Social class also played a role in who was targeted after WWII, as women on welfare, usually living in socially isolated places, were overrepresented. The reason for this was to prevent poor and unfit women from reproducing children with mental or social ills (Wiggins, p. 1). They were generally ordered for sterilization by social workers and lived outside of institutions. The poor were not only targeted for their social ills but also because they were easier to sterilize. They would often not be released until they or a family member agreed to have them sterilized (Wiggins, p. 1).

Women that were social workers were strong supporters for the eugenics movement. Johanna Schoen (2011) has argued that some social workers provided sterilization out of empathy. However, Krome-Lukens maintains that women were often coerced and that many social workers provided sterilizations as an opportunity to save money from future drains on society (Krome-Lukens, p. 49). Interestingly enoughaccording to Krome-Lukenseugenics was a key element of progressive reform and was indicative of the new mentality surrounding sexuality and the standard gender roles of the time (Krome-Lukens, p. 9).

Finally, race also played a role in those targeted for sterilization. During the Civil Rights Movement, petitions were sent to the states eugenics board for black women (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). Overall, by the later 1960s, 60% of those sterilized were young, black women (Wiggins, p. 1). Overall, blacks represent 38.9% of sterilizations. This is because sterilizations of blacks were concentrated in a shorter period of time and because minorities only made up quarter of North Carolinas population (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). From the years 1960 to 1962, of the 467 sterilization ordered by the board, 284 (61%) were black (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). In addition, blacks were targeted because the amount of welfare recipients who were black grew from 31% in 1950 to 48% in 1961 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 109; see "Reassessing," p. 151). It was seen as necessary to sterilize those recipients of welfare to decrease the growing financial burden on the state.

There are two stories that were made public by two black women who were sterilized against their will at a young age in North Carolina. The first is Elaine Riddick, who had been sterilized at the age of 14 by a state order in North Carolina in 1968 after giving birth to a baby after being raped. When she was operated on she was not informed that she was being sterilized. She only discovered this years later when she was trying to get pregnant with her husband. She was considered part of a lower class and the consent form had been signed by her illiterate grandmother, who was threatened to lose her public benefits, and her parents, who were both alcohol dependent at the time. She blames the sterilization for ending her marriage and is still affected by the surgery, saying, I felt like I was nothing. Its like, the people that did this; they took my spirit away from me (Sinderbrand, p. 1).

The second story is of Nial Cox Ramirez, who was sterilized at the age of 17 after several instances of pressure from social workers to get sterilized after becoming pregnant. She eventually complied because they threatened to take her family off of welfare, but she was never informed of the consequences of the surgery. She was assured she would be able to become pregnant again, but learned otherwise when she attempted to conceive years later. Like Riddick, her marriage fell apart. When she sued the state of North Carolina in 1967, the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality (Wiggins, p. 1). These women were only two among those who fell under the categories of the groups targeted, and suffered as a result.

Some were quick to believe that Black Americans practiced reckless breeding (Larson, p. 156). However, North Carolina took an ever more grand approach to solving its reproductive woes, instituting a birth control program geared towards giving poor women a more acceptable and less costly way to prevent unwanted pregnancies claiming that it would be taught when the economic status precludes adequate care (Larson, p.157).

Young children were also targeted by these eugenic practices. A teenage girl from North Carolina was the object of her fathers affections. She was given a physical and the doctors realized that shed had sexual intercourse. As a result he parents gave consent to have their daughter sterilized instead of reprimanding the father for sexually assaulting his daughter (Ariyo, p. 59).

Blacks and Mentally and Physically Disabled: The Story of Junius Wilson

(Source: http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/26/when-systems-of-oppression-intersect-mental-health-and-the-immigration-system/)

Junius Wilson was born in 1908 to Sidney and Mary Wilson (Burch, p. 1). He was born deaf in and so his literacy level was extremely low. At the age of eight he was sent away to a residential North Carolina School for the deaf and blind in Raleigh. This was Americas first school created to care for the special needs black children (Burch, p. 20). He was never taught proper sign language and so his family members often would misunderstand him or misinterpret gestures that he made, and he also did not understand the things that his family members were telling him, as his mother could not teach him how to read and write (Burch, p. 18). Because of the confusing communication, some of his family members suspected that he had assaulted one of his own family members sexually. In this community he was somewhat safer from his family however he was sent here not for deafness per se but for his perceived mental deficiencies and sexual deviations. Here in this institution Wilson became a member of a community that was equally misunderstood and equally ostracized by the greater community. They were all people of color and they were all unable to communicate by normal conventions. They were never officially taught ASL (American Sign Language) as they were all people of color and at the time no one saw fit to use their teaching resources on Blacks. They instead developed their own gestures and signs to communicate with one another and to the staff members in the institution. This form of sign language was entirely unique to these people. As a result, the deaf Blacks from Raleigh could not communicate with other signing deaf people, and far less could they be understood by their hearing peers (Burch, p. 22).

Southern states had a strong history of segregation. This mentality of separation and White superiority bled the special education programs of even the most progressive places south of the Mason Dixon, like North Carolina. Gustavus Ernest Lineberry became the superintendent for the North Carolina School for the Colored Blind and Deaf in 1918, after this the quality of education changed dramatically. Lineberry was a firm believer in the teaching of the blind and deaf, even Blacks, but he was not so kind as to consider the needs of his White and Black students to be the same (Burch, p. 22). He completely redistributed the resources of the school so that the best teachers and alumni were teaching at the White schools. He then made sure to provide a far less academic curriculum for the Blacks, as he felt there was a dire need to keep Blacks in their place (Burch, p. 22). The Black students with physical disabilities were given an education that would prepare them for rudimentary, vocational labor so that they could prove their worth to society boys were taught shoe repairing, carpentry and cabinetmaking along with dairy work (Burch, p. 22). It was also clear that this vocational form of training, towards fields that required little interaction, lowered the cost that their programs would incur and made the need for sufficient literacy nearly unimportant.

This, however, created a great deal of socialized problems for the students participating in the programs. Everyone sent to the school for the Colored Deaf and Blind was sent there to become better functioning and well prepared to rejoin society. But the students were not exposed to role models that were not fluent in sign and who did not know how to supply the needs of the deaf and blind. And because of the segregation that was taking place students could not even be taught by their White peers secretly, because they were transferred to Morganton (Burch, p.23).

Goldsboro Asylum during the Great Depression

Junius Wilson was becoming too much of a burden for his family as he became older, and his communication with them had not really improved either which was greatly to his detriment. His family decided that the best thing they could do in their situation was to have Wilson committed to a mental asylum. He was given up to the police by his family under the charge of attempted rape. However, it is clear that not everyone was on board with this idea. Although, his mother allowed them to take him away it was said that she didnt approve of the decision and would not speak with Andr, his father, because he was the one that supported removing his son permanently (Burch, p. 129).

Wilson was moved to Goldsboro Asylum in a farming colony. North Carolina was experiencing the debilitation of the Great Depression just like everyone else at the time and so holding whole mental institutions was more of a juggling act than those that ran the institutions could bear alone. Goldsboro opened up farming colonies in order to defer some of the costs involved in feeding inmates by having the inmates work for the food that they ate. The institution even went so far as to send inmates to other farms so that they could make money for the asylum. One could look at this as a sad combination of economic desperation seasoned with racism in the South and a disregard for the mentally and physically disabled (Burch, p. 76).

Freedom for Wilson

After a great deal of mistreatment however, Junius Wilsons case was taken up by John Wasson, who noted that Wilson was being held in the Asylum for phase of life adjustment disorder something he felt didnt warrant a seventy year stay in a mental institution (Burch, p. 128). In a major State court case Junius Wilson v. the State of North Carolina Wilson was finally granted his freedom and a cottage to call his own on the outskirts of the Hospital property at Goldsboro.

The Years after Junius Wilson

Wilsons story continued to have a significant impact after his death. His case which he brought through the North Carolina judiciary as a result of his poor treatment and wrongful sterilization was a model that others used in order to seek compensation for the trauma caused (Burch, p. 214). The state of North Carolina has made great efforts to own up to its involvement in the eugenics movement. In 2003 North Carolina was one of the first states to repeal the eugenic sterilization laws. Unfortunately it has taken until very recently for any party afflicted by the eugenics laws to be officially recognized and monetarily compensated. Until the 2009-2010 session of the State Legislature of North Carolina, there had been one promise after another with only symbolic acknowledgement being offered (Burch, p. 215). (See also below on compensation for victims.)

Dr. William Allan was North Carolinas initial promoter of negative eugenics. He wrote his first study on eugenics in 1916 and by the end of his life he had written 93 papers. He had his own private practice until 1941, when he started the medical genetics department at Bowman Gray. He thought that hereditary diseases could be halted by prevention and based much of his work on field studies and surveys. He pushed for a statewide bank of genetic information that would catalog peoples genetic backgrounds to see if they were prospective parents. He continued to push for this until his death in 1943 (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront).

Dr. C. Nash Herndon followed in the footsteps of Allan when he took over the department at Bowman Gray after his death. He conducted surveys of those with disabilities in an effort to find links of hereditary diseases. He was president of the American Eugenics Society from 1953-1955 and president of the Human Betterment League of North Carolina. He was the greatest contributor in pushing the eugenics movement forward in North Carolina after WWII (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront).

(Source: http://www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us/Home/DiscoverWinston-Salem/History/Articles/Winston-SalemMayorsBiographies)

Ira M. hardy was the Superintendent at the North Carolina School for the Feeble-Minded. She appealed to the Southern Medical Association that took place in Florida expressing her deep desire to make the mentally ill completely separate from the rest of the population (Larson, p. 46).

Kate Burr Johnson was female social worker during the era of eugenic sterilization. She was a major proponent of the movement of compulsory sterilization. Johnson claimed that she wanted women to be liberated and be provided with reproductive freedom; however, she was actually strongly supporting the eugenic sterilization of people that would become social liabilities and produce unfit or economically unstable offspring (Krome-Lukens, p. 3).

Feeder Institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

The Bowman Gray School of Medicine housed a program for eugenic sterilizations starting in 1948. It was aimed at the eugenic improvement of the population of Forsyth County. It consisted of a systematic approach that would eliminate certain genetically unfit strains from the local population (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront). It expanded the program throughout North Carolina. The school received much philanthropic support for research of genetic ideas. Today, school officials condemn eugenic research, as the dean of the school, Dr. William B. Applegate, states I think that the concepts and the practice of eugenics is wrong and unethical and would in no way be approved or condoned in modern medical times (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront). The school is now part of the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center-one of the most respected academic medical centers in the country. Although officials of the school condemn eugenics there is no mention of the program for eugenic sterilizations on the medical centers website.

(Photo origin: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, available at http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/mhfacilities/images/Caswell-Center.jpg)

(Source: http://www.ncgenweb.us/cabarrus/Photos/HistMarkers/StonewallJacksonTrainingSchool.jpg)

The Stonewall Jackson Training School was founded in 1907 and was North Carolinas first juvenile detention facility. This was mostly a school for boys, but a few girls were sterilized there over its history, all of whom were labeled as mentally retarded. The boys who were sent there had only minor scrapes with authorities, not for mental illness. In 1948, seven boys out of 300 were targeted for sterilization because they were ready for discharge. These boys were deemed feebleminded as a justification for the operation. These were the only boys sterilized at this school (Winston-Salem,DETOUR: In 48 State Singled out Delinquent Boys). The building still exists but does not remain in operation today. There is no commemoration at the site or mention of the past.

The Goldsboro Training School, now known as the OBerry Center, opened in 1957 as the first institution for black intellectually disabled citizens. It had 150 clients were transferred to it from Cherry Hospital, at which point the treatment of the patients was limited to academics and vocational training. It is still operating today with approximately 430 clients, but it is no longer limited to African Americans (Castles, pp. 12-14). The centers website refers to the institution's history of dealing with Black citizens with intellectual disabilities.

(Source:http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=607397&imageID=1253742&total=17&num=0&word=21273&s=1&notword=&d=&c=&f=13&k=0&lWord=&lField=&sScope=Name&sLevel=&sLabel=North%20Carolina%20State%20Board%20of%20Charities%20and%20Public%20Welfare&imgs=20&pos=14&e=w)

Opposition Blacks were opposed to sterilizations one two levels: those who knew about its racial bias and those who didnt. The sterilization program was only whispered about in the black communities, and any evidence that race played a part in those who were sterilized wasnt made public or scrutinized. Therefore, the eugenics board was allowed to proceed with few hurdles (Winston-Salem). Those blacks knew about the racial bias involved with sterilization tried to push for their rights. In 1959, State Senator Jolly introduced a bill that would authorize the sterilization of an unmarried woman who gave birth for the third time. This bill was contested bygroup of blacks. However, the senator's response was "Youshould be concerned about this bill. One out of four of your race is illegitimate." Blacks that demanded to be heard were ruledout of order by the white-controlled legislature (Winston-Salem,"Wicked Silence").

Some college students were in opposition to the sterilizations.In 1960, students fromNorth Carolina A&TState Universitybegan sit-in movement against states progressive attitude or race relations. However, this gained little speed or recognition by the state to make any changes. Also, at Shaw University in Raleigh from 1968 to 1972, student activists tried to educate blacks about the issues and threats of sterilization. However, they lacked detailed information, and therefore this gained little momentum as well (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence).

Today, North Carolina is trying to amend for its past, making it one of the only states to do so thus far. In April 2003, the sterilization law was unanimously voted to be overturned by the North Carolina Senate. A few weeks later, a law was then signed by Governor Easley to officially put an end to forced sterilizations in North Carolina. Soon after, on April 17, 2003, Easley issued a public apology, stating, To the victims and families of this regrettable episode in North Carolina's past, I extend my sincere apologies and want to assure them that we will not forget what they have endured" ("Easley Signs Law Ending States Eugenics Era," p. 1). Then, in December 2005, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators passed resolution calling for federal and state programs to identify victims nationwide and get them health care and counseling (Sinderbrand, p. 1). However, these current efforts to find sterilized victims are difficult due to budget constraints and high costs of a publicity campaign. Therefore, efforts to find victims through "free media" were employed, such as posting info on bulletins, offices, health departments, libraries, schools, billboards, and city buses etc. (Sinderbrand, p. 1).

Source: http://news.ncdcr.gov/2009/06/18/historical-highway-marker-remembers-eugenics/

In 2009, a marker was dedicated in Raleigh, where the state eugenics board had met

A task force created by the governor has considered providing compensation for victims (NC Justice for Victims Foundation). (

Anderson Cooper on CNN ran a story on compensation for victims of sterilizations on 12/27/2011 (see

While a task force recommended to set compensation for surviving and verified victims at the amount of $50,000, the state senate rejected such a proposal in the summer of 2012, and the foundation was faced with the prospect of shutting down due to a lack of money. As of October 2012, only about 170 victims who are still alive have been verified, out of an estimated total of approx. 1,500-2,000. The low number of victims who have revealed themselves in this way reflects the continuing stigma of being sterilized and parallels the situation in Germany, where for many decades victims were reluctant to come forward in part due to the stigma attached to sterilizations and the still-existing belief that a sterilization constitutes a black mark on a family lineage.

The situation might be reflective of the difficulty of citizens in North Carolina to allow for "negative memory," i.e., a willingness to concede that the state representing the will of its citizens was capable of committing atrocious (though legal) deeds. In contrast to sterilization victims in British Columbia and Alberta, not a single victim of a state eugenic sterilization law is known to have been compensated by a state in the United States so far.

After extensive efforts by organizations such as the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims, the states NAACP, and legal clinics by the University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights to spread the word about compensation to victims of eugenic sterilization, the number of claimants reached a number close to 800 until the cutoff date of June 30, 2014. In the larger context of compensation for social injustice stemming from illiberal and injurious state programs a firm deadline seems highly problematic, as the date seems arbitrary and informed not by considerations of justice but by political expediency, and it remains unclear why such a deadline would be necessary in the first place.

The number of verified cases remains very low at less than 220 (see here). It appears that a victim is only verified for compensation if a record of an order by the state's Eugenics board exists. If this is the case, it leaves out those whose records might no longer be extant, or whose sterilization was due not to a sterilization order under the state's eugenics law but what is known as "Mississippi appendectomies" (this is noted and explained here). As is the case with the deadline, this very narrow definition of victimhood is not calibrated to the historical record or experience of victimhood.

Bibliography

Ariyo, Oluwunmi. 2006. Making the Unfit Individual: Analysis of the Rhetoric of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. Masters Thesis, Department of Communication, Wake Forest University.

Schoen, Johanna. 2011. Reassessing Eugenic Sterilization: The Case of North Carolina. Pp. 141-60 in A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era, ed. Paul Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ------. 2005. Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Severson, Kim. "Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution." NYTimes.com Dec. 9, 2011. Available at .

Sinderbrand, Rebecca. 2005. "A Shameful Little Secret." Newsweek 33 (March 28). State Library of North Carolina. "Eugenics in North Carolina." Available at Wiggins, Lori. 2005. North Carolina Regrets Sterilization Program. Crisis 112, 3: 10. Winston-Salem Journal. Against Their Will. Available at .

See the rest here:
Eugenics in North Carolina - University of Vermont

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was a State Board of the state of North Carolina formed in July 1933 by the North Carolina State Legislature by the passage of House Bill 1013, entitled 'An Act to Amend Chapter 34 of the Public Laws of 1929 of North Carolina Relating to the Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective'.[1] This Bill formally repealed a 1929 law,[2] which had been ruled as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court earlier in the year.

Over time, the scope of the Board's work broadened from a focus on pure eugenics to considering sterilization as a tool to combat poverty and welfare costs. Its original purpose was to oversee the practice of sterilization as it pertained to inmates or patients of public-funded institutions that were judged to be 'mentally defective or feeble-minded' by authorities. In contrast to other eugenics programs across the United States, the North Carolina Board enabled county departments of public welfare to petition for the sterilization of their clients.[3] The Board remained in operation until 1977. During its existence thousands of individuals were sterilized. In 1977 the N.C. General Assembly repealed the laws authorizing its existence,[4] though it would not be until 2003 that the involuntary sterilization laws that underpinned the Board's operations were repealed.[5]

Today the Board's work is repudiated by people across the political, scientific and private spectrum.[citation needed] In 2013, North Carolina passed legislation to compensate those sterilized under the Board's jurisdiction.[6][7]

The board was made up of five members:[1]

The State of North Carolina first enacted sterilization legislation in 1919.[8] The 1919 law was the first foray for North Carolina into eugenics; this law, entitled "An Act to Benefit the Moral, Mental, or Physical Conditions of Inmates of Penal and Charitable Institutions" was quite brief, encompassing only 4 sections. Provision was made for creation of a Board of Consultation, made up of a member of the medical staff of any of the penal or charitable State institutions, and a representative of the State Board of Health, to oversee sterilization that was to be undertaken when "in the judgement of the board hereby created, said operation would be for the improvement of the mental, moral or physical conditions of any inmate of any of the said institutions". The Board of Consultation would have reported to both the Governor and the Secretary of the State Board of Health. No sterilizations were performed under the provisions of this law, though its structure was to guide following legislation.[8]

In 1929, two years after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling of Buck v. Bell[9] in which sterilization was ruled permissible under the U.S. Constitution, North Carolina passed an updated law[2] that formally laid down rules for the sterilization of citizens. This law, entitled "An Act to Provide For the Sterilization of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded Inmates of Charitable and Penal Institutions of the State of North Carolina", was similar to the law which preceded it, although this new Act contained several new provisions.[2]

In contrast to the 1919 law, which had mandated sterilization for the "improvement of the mental, moral or physical condition of any inmate", the new law added a new and far-reaching condition: "Or for the public good." This condition, expanding beyond the individual to greater considerations of society, would be built on in the ensuing years.[2]

The 1929 law also expanded the review process to four reviewers, namely: The Commissioner of Charities and Public Welfare of North Carolina, The Secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina, and the Chief Medical Officers of any two institutions for the "feeble-minded or insane" for the State of North Carolina.[2]

Lastly, the new law also explicitly stated that sterilization, where performed under the Act's guidelines, would be lawful and that any persons who requested, authorized or directed proceedings would not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions taken. Under the 1929 law, 49 recorded cases took place in which sterilization was performed.[10]

In 1933, the North Carolina State Supreme Court heard Brewer v. Valk,[11] an appeal from Forsyth County Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the 1929 law violated both the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the 1868 North Carolina State Constitution.[12] The Supreme Court noted that property rights required due process, specifically a mechanism by which notice of action could be given, and hearing rights established so that somebody subject to the sterilization law had the opportunity to appeal their case. Under both the U.S. Constitution and the N.C. State Constitution in place at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1929 law was unconstitutional as no such provisions existed in the law as written.[11]

The North Carolina General Assembly went on in the wake of Brewer v. Valk to enact House Bill 1013,[1] removing the constitutional objections to the law, thereby forming the Eugenics Board and creating the framework which would remain in force for over thirty years. The Board was granted authority over all sterilization proceedings undertaken in the State, which had previously been devolved to various governing bodies or heads of penal and charitable institutions supported in whole or in part by the State.[2]

In the 1970s the Eugenics Board was moved around from department to department, as sterilization operations declined in the state. In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the then newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board.[13]

Under a 1973 law, the Eugenics Board was transformed into the Eugenics Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by the governor, and included the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the state attorney general.

In 1974 the legislature transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any proceedings.

1976 brought a new challenge to the law with the case of In re Sterilization of Joseph Lee Moore[14] in which an appeal was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The petitioner's case was that the court had not appointed counsel at State expense to advise him of his rights prior to sterilization being performed. While the court noted that there was discretion within the law to approve a fee for the service of an expert, it was not constitutionally required. The court went on to declare that the involuntary sterilization of citizens for the public good was a legitimate use of the police power of the state, further noting that "The people of North Carolina have a right to prevent the procreation of children who will become a burden on the state." The ruling upholding the constitutionality was notable in both its relatively late date (many other States had ceased performing sterilization operations shortly after WWII) and its language justifying state intervention on the grounds of children being a potential burden to the public.[14]

The Eugenics Commission was formally abolished by the legislature in 1977.[4][15]

In 2003, the N.C. General Assembly formally repealed the last involuntary sterilization law, replacing it with one that authorizes sterilization of individuals unable to give informed consent only in the case of medical necessity. The law explicitly ruled out sterilizations "solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience."[5][16]

At the time of the Board's formation there was a body of thought that viewed the practice of eugenics as both necessary for the public good and for the private citizen. Following Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court was often cited both domestically and internationally as a foundation for eugenics policies.

In Buck v. Bell Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, in support of eugenics policy, that

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.[9]

Despite the Supreme Court rulings in support of eugenics as constitutionally permitted, even as late as 1950 some physicians in North Carolina were still concerned about the legality of sterilization. Efforts were made to reassure the medical community that the laws were both constitutionally sound and specifically exempting physicians from liability.[17]

Framing eugenics as supporting the public good was fundamental to how the law was written. It was argued that both for the benefit of the private citizen, and for the costs to society of future possible childbirths, eugenics were a sound and moral way to proceed. This was stated in the Board's manual of policies and procedures, in which the practice was justified:[18]

No Place For Sentimentality

There can be no place for sentimentality in solving the problems of the mental health of our citizens. We would be less than human were we to feel no compassion for our unfortunates. But it is a peculiar paradox of human nature that while the best stock of our people is being lost on the battle fronts of the world, we make plans for the betterment and the coddling of our defectives.

In the press, opinion articles were published arguing for a greater use of eugenics, in which many of the reasons above were cited as justification. Even the Winston-Salem Journal, which would be a significant force in illuminating North Carolina's past eugenics abuses in the modern era, was not immune. In 1948 the newspaper published an editorial entitled "The Case for Sterilization - Quantity vs. Quality" that went into great detail extolling the virtues of 'breeding' for the general public good.[20]

North Carolina's Selective Sterilization Law

Protects...

It Saves...

Proponents of eugenics did not restrict its use to the 'feeble-minded'. In many cases, more ardent authors included the blind, deaf-mutes, and people suffering from diseases like heart disease or cancer in the general category of those who should be sterilized.[22] The argument was twofold; that parents likely to give birth to 'defective' children should not allow it, and that healthy children borne to 'defective' parents would be doomed to an 'undesirable environment'.[23]

Wallace Kuralt, Mecklenburg County's welfare director from 1945 to 1972, was a leader in transitioning the work of state eugenics from looking only at medical conditions to considering poverty as a justification for state sterilization. Under Kuralt's tenure, Mecklenburg county became far and away the largest source of sterilizations in the state. He supported this throughout his life in his writings and interviews, where he made plain his conviction that sterilization was a force for good in fighting poverty. In a 1964 interview with the Charlotte Observer, Kuralt said:

"When we stop to reflect upon the thousands of physical, mental and social misfits in our midst, the thousands of families which are too large for the family to support, the one-tenth of our children born to an unmarried mother, the hoard of children rejected by parents, is there any doubt that health, welfare and education agencies need to redouble their efforts to prevent these conditions which are so costly to society?"[19][24]

Among public and private groups that published articles advocating for eugenics, the Human Betterment League was a significant advocate for the procedure within North Carolina. This organization, founded by Procter & Gamble heir Clarence Gamble provided experts, written material and monetary support to the eugenics movement. Many pamphlets and publications were created by the league advocating the groups position which were then distributed throughout the state. One pamphlet entitled 'You Wouldn't Expect...' laid out a series of rhetorical questions to argue the point that those considered 'defective' were unable to be good parents.[21]

While it is not known exactly how many people were sterilized during the lifetime of the law, the Task Force established by Governor Beverly Perdue estimated the total at around 7,500. They provided a summary of the estimated number of operations broken down by time period. This does not include sterilizations that may have occurred at a local level by doctors and hospitals.[10][25]

The report went on to provide a breakdown by county. There were no counties in North Carolina that performed no operations, though the spread was marked, going from as few as 4 in Tyrrell county, to 485 in Mecklenburg county.[10]

Some research into the historical data in North Carolina has drawn links between race and sterilization rates. One study performed in 2010 by Gregory Price and William Darity Jr described the practice as "racially biased and genocidal". In the study, the researchers showed that as the black population of a county increased, the number of sterilizations increased disproportionately; that black citizens were more likely, all things being equal, to being recommended for sterilization than whites.[26]

Poverty and sterilization were also closely bound. Since social workers concerned themselves with those accepting welfare and other public assistance, there was a strong impetus to recommending sterilization to families as a means of controlling their economic situation. This was sometimes done under duress, when benefits were threatened as a condition of undergoing the surgery.[27]

What made the picture more complicated was the fact that in some cases, individuals sought out sterilization. Since those in poverty had fewer choices for birth control, having a state-funded procedure to guarantee no further children was attractive to some mothers. Given the structure of the process however, women found themselves needing to be described as unfit mothers or welfare burdens in order to qualify for the program, rather than simply asserting reproductive control.[3]

Many stories from those directly affected by the Board's work have come to light over the past several years. During the hearings from the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation many family members and individuals personally testified to the impact that the procedures had had on them.

NCEB Case Summary: Elaine Riddick

This thirteen year old girl expects her first child in March 1968....She has never done any work and gets along so poorly with others that her school experience was poor. Because of Elaine's inability to control herself, and her promiscuity - there are community reports of her "running around" and out late at night unchaperoned, the physician has advised sterilization....This will at least prevent additional children from being born to this child who cannot care for herself, and can never function in any way as a parent.

Elaine Riddick is a fifty-one-year-old African American woman who was born in Perquimans County, North Carolina. Born into a poor family, one of seven children, the family was split up by the County Welfare department after her parents were deemed to be unfit. Elaine and one sister were sent to live with her grandmother, while the remaining five were sent to an orphanage. It was shortly after this family upheaval, when Elaine was 13, that she was raped by a 20-year-old man with a history of assault and incarceration. Elaine subsequently became pregnant.

When the social worker, Marion Payne, assigned to the Riddick family found out that Elaine was pregnant,[29] she pressured Elaine's grandmother into signing a consent form for sterilization (Riddick's grandmother, being illiterate, signed the form with a simple 'X' symbol). On March 5, 1968, when Elaine was 14 years old, she was sterilized under the authority of the board. The procedure took place hours after Elaine had given birth to a son.[30] Riddick learned only years later the extent of the procedure, testifying to its effect over her life in a lawsuit brought against the state of North Carolina with the assistance of the ACLU in 1974. She cited failed relationships, physical pain and suffering, and psychological trauma. Unfortunately for Riddick, her lawsuit did not end in success; a jury found against her, and the NC Supreme court refused to hear her case. It would not be until the hearings of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation that her story was to be widely heard once more.[31][32]

Junius Wilson was born in 1908 in North Carolina and grew up near Wilmington. In 1916 he was sent to the North Carolina School for the Colored Deaf and the Blind, a segregated state school in Raleigh that was the first southern school for black deaf children. Since this was a segregated school, students there were not given the resources of other schools. They were not taught American Sign Language and developed their own system of communication. This worked within the institution, but because it was their own, it did not travel, and so students and deaf from other schools were unable to understand them.[33]

Wilson stayed there for six years, learning rudimentary sign language, until a minor infraction lead to his expulsion. While at home in Castle Hayne, Wilson came to the attention of the legal system when he was accused of the attempted rape of a relative. It is unclear whether the charge had merit - biographers speculated that his misunderstood behavior stemming from communication difficulties may have led to the situation - but what is not in doubt is that in 1925 Wilson was declared legally insane by a court and committed to the state Hospital for the Colored Insane in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which became Cherry Hospital in 1959.[34] In 1932 he was surgically castrated under the provisions of the eugenics laws in place.[35]

Wilson would remain committed to the state facility for decades. In 1990, he was given a new social worker, John Wasson. Wasson came to find out that not only was Wilson not mentally disabled, but that the hospital staff had known for years that he was not. To compound the situation, the legal charges against Wilson dating back to 1925 had been dismissed in 1970; put bluntly, for twenty years he had been committed to the hospital without legal justification. In interviews with hospital staff, Wasson found that it had been considered the most 'benevolent' course of action, since Wilson was thoroughly institutionalized at that point, with many of the same difficulties in learning and communication that had been his burden since birth.

Wasson instigated the legal challenge to Wilson's incarceration. In 1992 Wilson was formally declared a free man. Since he had no close relatives or family members able to care for him in his advanced age, a cottage was found for him on the grounds of Cherry Hospital. Wilson would live there until his death in 2001.[36][37]

Not all who testified before the Committee were sterilized by the Eugenics Board directly. In many cases people who were sterilized were operated on by local clinics and doctors. It was argued that in many of these cases patients were not fully educated as to the nature of the procedure and were urged into it by doctors or social workers who were making judgements based upon their patients' economic situation. Young women of limited means who had multiple children were specifically targeted for sterilization by many case workers.[38]

Mary English was one such case. In her personal testimony she explained that in 1972, she had been newly divorced with three children. She went to see a doctor at a Fayetteville OB/GYN clinic for some medical complaints. The doctor offered her entry into a program that would negate any need for future birth control. English signed the required paperwork, and was sterilized after the birth of her third child. It was years later, when she went back to the doctor to have the procedure reversed, that she found out it was permanent.[39]

English went on to detail her struggles with depression and retold experiences of friends and neighbors who had gone through similar situations at the hands of their own doctors. As for the clinic at which English was sterilized, she claimed that it was still operating, though declined to name it, or the doctor responsible for her sterilization.[40]

The Winston-Salem Journal's "Against Their Will" documentary, released in 2002, based in part on Joanna Schoen's research of the North Carolina Eugenics program, is credited with spurring public interest and demands for action to repeal laws and explore the possibility of compensation for affected people. This five part series gave extensive background to the work of the Eugenics Board, with detailed statistics, victim's stories, and historical information on the broader Eugenics movement in the United States in the Post-WWII era.[29]

Then-Governor Mike Easley offered an apology to victims of the policy in 2002. At the time, North Carolina was the third State in the nation to officially apologize for eugenics practices, following behind Virginia and Oregon though North Carolina was the first State to go beyond a formal apology to actively considering compensation in some form.[41] Easley set up a committee to study the history of the Eugenics Board with instructions to provide recommendations on how to handle what it termed 'program survivors'. The committee recommended five specific steps:[42]

The recommendations lay dormant in the North Carolina Legislature until 2008, when a study committee was appointed. The House Committee gave its own recommendations which in large part mirrored Easley's committee's findings though it went further, in establishing a suggested dollar figure of $20,000 compensation per surviving victim. The House committee also recommended training, the creation of memorials, and documenting survivor experiences, and the creation of a database to store sterilization records for future research. While the House committee recommended setting funds aside for these purposes, the Legislature did not grant funding in 2008.[43] The house committee was co-chaired by State Representative Larry Womble, who has been a public advocate in the state house for victim's compensation. Womble announced he would be stepping down and not seek re-election after a horrific car crash in late 2011.[44][45]

In 2008, Beverley Perdue was elected Governor of North Carolina. As part of her platform she pledged to take up the sterilization situation.[46] In 2010 Perdue issued an executive order that formed the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation (NCJSVF).[47]

The Task Force was made up of the following:[6]

The Foundation recommended that compensation be raised to $50,000 per victim, in a 3-2 vote. They also voted for funds for mental health services and historical displays and exhibits documenting the history of sterilization in the state.[10] It is not yet clear how many victims will be satisfied by the amount; many have granted detailed interviews that documented their severe emotional trauma in the wake of the procedures, and have been outspoken in demanding higher sums.[48]

On April 25, 2012, North Carolina's Gov. Perdue announced that she will put $10.3 million in her budget proposal to allocate towards issues surrounding eugenics. The funds are intended to aid with $50,000 payments to verified North Carolina eugenics victims. The remainder of the monies will be used to support the continued efforts of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation as they provide outreach and clearinghouse services to help Eugenics victims. Governor Perdue stated,[49]

We cannot change the terrible things that happened to so many of our most vulnerable citizens, but we can take responsibility for our states mistakes and show that we do not tolerate violations of basic human rights. We must provide meaningful assistance to victims, so I am including this funding in my budget.

Gov. Perdue's budget proposal is in accordance with the recommendations of the January 2012 final report issued from the Eugenics Compensation Task Force. The board suggested that living victims and those who were not deceased when verified by the foundation receive a tax-free, lump sum payment of $50,000. The N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation reports that there is still an increase in the number of confirmed/verified eugenics victims. As of April 25, 2012, 132 people in 51 counties had been matched to the North Carolina's Eugenics program records.[49]

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.[7][50]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics Board of North Carolina - Wikipedia, the free ...

Alabama

Number of victims

There were 224 people who were sterilized, of whom approximately 58% were male. All of the sterilized were deemed mentally deficient. In terms of the total number of people sterilized, Alabama ranks 27th in the United States. Of the 32 states that had sterilization laws, Alabama is the state with the 5th lowest number of sterilizations.

Period during which sterilizations occurred

The period was 1919 to 1935 (Paul p. 246)

Temporal pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization

After the passage of the sterilization law in 1919, the number of sterilization appears to have been low. Gosney/Popenoe (p. 194; see data sources) report no sterilizations yet at the end of 1927, but the number for the end of 1929 was 44. After that year, the number of sterilizations increased. The last sterilizations occurred in June 1935 (Paul, p. 246). Between 1930 and 1935, the annual number of sterilization was about 30. The rate of sterilization per 100,000 residents per year was about 1.

Passage of law(s)

According to Edward Larson, Alabama began its long flirtation with eugenicsbefore any other state in the Deep South (Larson, p. 50). At the 1901 meeting of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama (MASA), Dr. William Glassell Sommerville, Trustee of the Alabama Insane Hospitals, declared it a proven fact that the moral disposition for good and evil, including criminal tendenciesare transmitted fromone generation to anotherand is as firmly believed by all scientific men as the fact that parents transmit physical qualities to their children (Dorr, Defective or Disabled?,pp. 383-4). At that same meeting, John E. Purdon stated that it was a proven fact that criminality, insanity, epilepsy, and other alleged manifestations of degraded nerve tissue were hereditary (Larson, 50). He emphasized that [i]t is essentially a state function to retrain the pro-creative powers of the unfit (Larson and Nelson, p. 407). He suggested that the use of sterilization would benefit the race by saying, [e]masculation is the simplest and most perfect plan that can be adapted to secure the perfection of the race (Larson, p. 50). Finally, Purdon explained his belief that the goodness, the greatness, and the happiness of all upon the earth, will be immeasurably advanced, in one or two generations, by the proposed methods (Larson and Nelson, p. 407), and, based on his belief thatweakness begets weaknessfeared that humanitarianism would assist the imperfect individual to escape the consequences of his physical and moral malformation (Dorr, "Honing Heredity," p. 29).

Over the next decade, MASA was encouraged by many authorities such as physicians and Birminghams medical society to draft a bill to legalize the sterilization of the unfit. In 1911 at the annual MASA meeting, Walter H. Bell of Birmingham declared that any person who would produce children with an inherited tendency to crime, insanity, feeblemindedness, idiocy, or imbecility should be sterilized (Larson, p. 51). He believed that sterilization was an easy, safe and practical method of prevention with no restrictions or punishment attached (Larson and Nelson, p.410).

The MASA, however, continued to delay taking action until 1914 when it created a committee of physicians who would research needful data in regard to defective children, with a purpose to urge upon the state legislature the proper provision for the care of such defectives (Larson, , p. 60). During the 1915 MASA meeting, C.M. Rudolph suggested the formation of a home for mentally ill children. He stressed the importance of segregating the unfit youth because he believed it shrewd to [s]egregate the defectives of one generation to prevent the multiplication of their kind in the next (Larson, p. 60). In this same meeting it was decided that an Alabama Society for Mental Hygiene (ASMH) would be formed and led by William Partlow as a liaison with the National Committee for Mental Hygiene (NCMH) and to survey Alabamas defectives (Larson, p. 60). That year, MASA collectively agreed to support eugenic sterilization (Dorr, Defective or Disabled?, pp. 386-87).

In 1919, the MASA and the ASMH reached their goal. In the next regular session of the State legislator, a bill was passed to create the Alabama Home (Larson and Nelson, p. 413). Buried within the law was a clause granting permission to the superintendent of the Home for the Feeble-Minded in Tuscaloosa, to sterilize its patients. This was the first law passed in Alabama that supported sterilizations (Paul p. 239).

In 1934, Partlow wanted permission to sterilize all discharged patients from the Home (a procedure he was already practicing as superintendent) (Dorr, "Eugenics in Alabama"). Partlow proposed a bill that gave the superintendent of any state hospital for the insane complete power to sterilize any or all patients upon their release. The bill also proposed the creation of a board with three doctors who would have the right to sterilize a larger group of people. Finally, the anticipated bill granted permission for county public health committees to sterilize anyone in a state or local custodial institution (Larson and Nelson, p. 418). Although Partlows bill was passed in both the House and the Senate, the bill was vetoed by Alabamas Governor, Bill Graves after consulting with the Alabama Supreme Court on the bills constitutionality (Larson and Nelson, p. 422). In 1935 the Alabama State Supreme Court viewed the bill and deemed it unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutionsa sterilization victim would not have the right to appeal to a court against his or her sterilization (Larson and Nelson, p. 422). A second version of the bill was drafted and, similarly, passed in both houses but was vetoed by the Governor (Larson and Nelson, pp. 422-23). Soon after this second veto, Partlow discontinued the practice of sterilization (Larson and Nelson, p. 424).

Partlowsbill, however, was unsuccessfully reintroduced in 1939 and again in 1943. In 1945, legislation was created that asked for the right to sterilize every inmate or person eligible for entrance in the states insane asylums. This bill was passed by the senate but was rejected by the house (Larson and Nelson, p. 426).

Groups identified in the law

In the 1919 law, William Partlow included in his draft the permission for the superintendent of the Home for the Feeble-Minded to sterilize any inmate (Larson, p. 84). Inmates were any person confined in a poor house, jail, an orphanage, or a boarding school in the State (Larson, pp. 48-49). In the 1935 bill, it was proposed that any sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexualist, Masochist, Sodomist, or any other grave form of sexual perversion, or any prisoner who has twice been convicted of rape or imprisoned three times for any offense be sterilized. It was also suggested granting permission to county public health committees to sterilize anyone in a state or local custodial institution (Larson and Nelson, p. 418).An expansion of the law, proposed by Alabama State Health Officer Dr. James Norment Baker, called for the sterilization of anyone committed to state homes for the insane and feebleminded, reformatories, industrial schools, or training schools, , as well as any sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexual, Masochist, Sodomist (Dorr, "Protection," p. 173) as well as anyone convicted of rape twice. The bill was considered unconstitutional and vetoed by Governor Bill Graves.

Process of the law

In the 1919 law, the superintendent of the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded was given the authority to sterilize any inmate (Larson, pp. 48-49). This law held only one limitation on sterilization in the Alabama Home. The superintendent of the Alabama Insane Hospitals had to agree upon the sterilization of the inmates from the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded (Larson, pp. 105-06). This absence of safeguards for inmates in the law made it possible for William Partlow to sterilize every inmate of the Home. This law was drafted by Partlow and was the only sterilization law passed in Alabama. Although this law passed, Partlow continued to try to strengthen the power to sterilize in Alabama through other bills. All of his attempts, however, failed.

Precipitating factors and processes

The entire Southern region in general was more hesitant to adopt eugenic ideals for many reasons. One of the most important Southern values was its traditional emphasis on family and parental rights, which eugenics challenged (Larson, p. 8). The Southern sense of family also encouraged relatives to take responsibility for individuals who might otherwise be subject to eugenic remedies in state institutions (Larson, p. 9). Most immigrants in the South came from the British Isles, the same area most Southerners originated from. Subsequently, a community existed in the South including many immigrants, unlike the North and West where Americans focused their eugenic ideas on ethnically diverse immigrants (Larson, p. 9). The strength of Southern religion also played a role in the overall rejection of eugenics in Alabama. Religion lent itself to conceptions of congregations as extended families and many people in the South accordingly apposed segregating the unfit (Larson, pp. 13-14). In comparison with the rest of the United States, Progressivism in the South was relatively weak due to the comparatively small size of its typical carriers, secular groups, urban professional middle classes, and the more educated (Larson, p. 17). Moreover, the Deep South was lagging other regions in biological research programs, as well as scientists and education, which shifted the advocacy of eugenics to state mental health officials and local physicians (Larson, pp. 40-44). The MASA and leaders such as William Partlow were extremely important to the eugenics movement in Alabama. Without the organizations and leaders that were produced from the MASA, Alabama may have never started eugenic practices.

Overall, Alabama was not in favor of sterilization, which is reflected in the comparatively low number of sterilization victims. In general, the people of Alabama were more in favor of segregation of the unfit than sterilization (Larson, pp. 60-63). However, inadequate funding of such facilities for segregating the feeble-minded as well as over-crowding seems to have facilitated a push toward sterilization (Larson, pp. 90-91). Even though mental health surveys placed Alabamas feeble-minded population at more than 7,000 persons, the new facility could accommodate only 160 residents, and was filled within two months of it opening (Larson, p. 90).

Groups targeted and victimized

Among those targeted were males, including some of the delinquent boys who[m] we fear might escape (Larson, p. 106),the poor, mental deficien[ts] and the feebleminded (Larson, p. 151). People who could be committed to the state mental health hospital included people in prison, a poor house, and orphanage, or a state boarding school (Larson, pp. 48-49).

While Alabama never established a facility for feebleminded blacks (see Dorr, Defective or Disabled?,p. 387), Gregory Dorr has argued that the absence of such a facilty should not lead observers to conclude that eugenics in Alabama lackedracist elements, for the limitation ofeugenicsto the sterilization of whites (in contrast to Virginia) reflected the belief that the "betterment" of theblack "race" could not be achieved by such measures. In fact, by the timethe wall of segregation had started to come to down in the 1970s and no longer assured second-class citizenship of Blacks, African Americans had become the targets of extra-institutional and extra-legal sterilizations, reflective of a more general southern racist view that it was necessary"to further protect the white race itself from black folks" (Dorr, "Defective or Disabled?," p. 383; see also Dorr, Segregation's Science).

The Relf case

The cause of forced sterilization in Alabama was not helped by the Relf case. By 1973, the focus had moved away from sterilization of the mentally deficient and those imprisoned, to the use of sterilization as birth control. The Relf family was on welfare, and living in a public housing project in Montgomery, Alabama. Two Relf sisters, Minnie Lee, age 14, and Mary Alice, age 12, had been receiving shot of Depo-Provera as a form of long term birth control (Rossoff, p. 6). When the use of the drug was no longer allowed, the mother was mislead into signing a consent form allowing the sterilization of her daughters. Mrs. Relf was unable to read or write, so she signed the form with an X, without any physicians explaining the conditions to her (Roberts, p. 93, Carpia, p.78, Caron, p. 211, Southern Poverty Law Center). She thought she was signing a form consenting to additional shots, when she was actually consenting to sterilizations (Tessler, p. 58). A third daughter, Katie Relf, also received the birth control shots, but refused to open the door to her room when the official came to get the three girls to be sterilized. Because she was 17, she could not be sterilized without her own consent. (Larson and Nelson, p. 440) Later, when Mrs. Relf realized that her daughters had been sterilized, she sued the surgeons and other associated groups for $1,000,000 (Rosoff, p. 6). As a result, a moratorium was placed on federally funded, coerced sterilizations until a decision was reached by the Department of Justice.

Other restrictions placed on those identified in the law or with disabilities in general

In 1919, Alabama passed legislation that made it the first state in the Deep South that made it illegal for people with venereal diseases to marry (Larson, p. 88).

Feeder institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

(Photo origin: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=TL&Date=20110305&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=110309845&Ref=AR&MaxW=600&border=0)

The Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded opened in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in 1919 as a result of the law in favor of a home for the feeble-minded.Two months after the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded opening, the institution was completely full of people from poor houses, jails, orphanages, and boarding schools (Larson, pp. 48-49, 90). In 1927, this school was renamed the Partlo State School for Mental Deficients (Larson, p. 106). The school is now known as the Partlow State School and Hospital. Its closure has been announced in 2011 ("W.D. Partlow Developmental Center to close").

Opposition

Although the original bill went largely unnoticed by the population (Paul, pp. 239-40), the movement did meet considerable opposition in Alabama. Chief among these objectors were the Catholics, who were entirely against eugenics and any form of birth control in general. Alabama Catholicswrote legislators and spoke out at public hearings in response to their bishops plea to use every means at our disposal to help defeat this bill (Larson, p. 151). Protestants were similarly concerned. A Baptist claimed that he found in the Bible all the warrant he required to vote against the bill (Larson and Nelson, p. 420). Trade unions were also against expanding the sterilization law. As one laborer anxiously said, theres nothing in the bill to prevent a labor man from being railroaded into an institution where he could be sterilized on suspicion of insanity or feeble-mindedness (Larson, p. 141). Similarly, Alabamas Governor, Bill Graves was extremely important to the opposition of eugenics because of his decision to veto the 1935 bill and its revision. He claimed [t]he hoped for good results are not sure enough or great enough to compensate for the hazard to personal rights that would be involved in the execution of the provisions of the Bill (Larson and Nelson, p. 422).

Overall, however, the population in Alabama was perhaps not as supportive of eugenic sterilization laws as in other American states.

Bibliography

Carpia, Myla F. Thyrza. 1995. "Lost Generations: The Involuntary Sterilization of American Indian Women." Master's Thesis, Department of American Indian Studies, Arizona State University.

Dorr, Gregory M. 2006. Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5, 4: 359-92.

-------. 2008. Segregation's Science: Eugenics and Society in Virginia. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Dorr, Gregory M. 2011. "Protection or Control: Women's Health, Sterilization Abuse, and Relf v. Weinberger." Pp. 161-90 in A Century of Eugenics in America, edited by Paul Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Larson, Edward. 1995. Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Larson, Edward J., and Leonard J. Nelson.1992. Involuntary Sexual Sterilization of Incompetents in Alabama: Past, Present, and Future. Alabama Law Review 43: 399-444. Noll, Steven. 1995. Feeble-Minded in Our Midst: Institutions for the Mentally Retarded in the South, 1900-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

-------.2005. The Public Face of Southern Institutions for the Feeble-Minded. The Public Historian 27, 2: 25-42. Paul, Julius. 1965. 'Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough': State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Relf Original Complaint. Available at <http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Relf_Original_Complaint.pdf>

Roberts, Dorothy E. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Pantheon Books.

Rosoff, Jeannie I. 1973. The Montgomery Case. The Hastings Center Report 3, 4:6.

Southern Poverty Law Center. Relf v. Weinberger. Available at <http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/case-docket/relf-v-weinberger>

Tarwater, James S. 1964. The Alabama State Hospitals and the Partlow State School and Hospitals. New York: Newcomer Society in North America.

Tessler, Suzanne. 1976. Compulsory Sterilization Practices. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 1, 2: 52-66.

"W.D. Partlow Developmental Center to close." Tuscaloosa News 4 March 2001. Available at <http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110305/NEWS/110309845>

Link:
Alabama Eugenics

On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage: "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery: A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex: "The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion: "Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA: "...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church's view of contraception: "...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood: "I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world.

Her goal in life: Sanger admitted her entire life's purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194

Helped to establish the research bureau that financed "the pill," she contributed toward the work of the German doctor who developed the IUD. "Ernst Graefenberg and His Ring," Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine, July-Aug. 1975, p. 345, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, by Elasah Drogin

Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists -- similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" -- but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80

On mandatory sterilization of the poor: One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis, by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88

On eradicating 'bad stocks': The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

Sanger featured in Life magazine, 1937, "Margaret Sanger celebrates Birth Control Victory."

This page is under construction.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD TODAY

"We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity." Faye Wattleton, President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1986 _______

"If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control, and you are under 18, you can get it on your own. Call Planned Parenthood." Planned Parenthood advertisement, Dallas Observer, Jan. 30, 1986 _______

"There are only 2 basic kinds of sex: sex with victims and sex without. Sex with victims is always wrong. Sex without is ALWAYS right." You've Changed The Combination,Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. _______

"The question of whether or not to sell ourselves to men is a false one: The real question is how to sell ourselves in the way that is least destructive to ourselves and our sisters. Prostitutes don't need our condescension. What they need is our alliance. And we need theirs." The New Our Bodies, Ourselves,Boston Women's Health Collective, p 113 _______

"Sex is too important to glop up with sentiment. If you feel sexy, for heaven's sake admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed." The Perils of Puberty,Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. ______

"At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won't tell your parents you've been there. We swear we won't tell your parents." Planned Parenthood employee lecturing students of Ramona High School, Riverside, Calif., April 21-22, 1986

_________

FACTS on Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood on Adoption: Of 6,000 clinic visit records examined from a Texas PP clinic, only 3 referred for adoption. (Aborting Planned Parenthood, by Robert H. Ruff, New Vision Press, 1988)

Planned Parenthood's on Homosexuality & Marital Rights: PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970) ______________

Planned Parenthood's Goal: Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood's purpose and planned course of action: "... to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these ... feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy." (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) ." ("Psycho-Sexual Development," quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10) ________

Planned Parenthood on Pregnancy: PP has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)

Read the original post:
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own ...

Eugenics was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "selective breeding". What this meant, in actual practice, was forced sterilization of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California).[1]

The theory of evolution suggests that humans are merely evolving animals. The claimed biological struggle for survival that brought humans here is continuing. Man's long-term survival is, according to evolution, a biological survival of the fittest. Evolution theory teaches that there must be a biological struggle for survival among various human races and groups.

Charles Darwin declared in The Descent of Man:[2]

Darwin was not the first to claim racial superiority. But he was the first to teach that some races of man "will almost certainly exterminate, and replace" other races of man. His followers developed a new intellectual field called "eugenics" for this mythical biological struggle.

In fact, the term "eugenics" was coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.[3]

Defenders of Darwin, and Darwinism, often try to argue that Darwin, and Darwinism, have no logical connection to eugenics at all. However, in a 1914 speech, Charles Darwin's son, Francis Darwin, wrote: "In the first edition of The Descent of Man, 1874, [my father] distinctly gives his adherence to the eugenic idea by his assertion that many might by selection do something for the moral and physical qualities of the race."[4] He based his ideas on his cousin's work.

Francis Darwin's clear statement that his father endorsed Galton's conception of eugenics is important, because many people try to distance Darwin from the taint of eugenics by pointing out that Darwin himself never advocated for it by name. But Galton coined the word after Darwin's death, so naturally he wouldn't have used the word 'eugenics.' Darwin's son can be expected to have understood his father's theory well enough to know whether or not his father's book, "The Descent of Man", 'gave adherence to the eugenic idea.'

The word "eugenics" is based on Greek roots meaning "well born." The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides 1883 as the date of origin for the term. Later, Darwin's son, Leonard, served as the president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 in London.

The encyclopedia describes eugenics as now being "in disrepute,"[5] although Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University has sought to remove the stigma from it. Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins has stated in one letter his wish that it no longer be banned from polite discussion.[6]

The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too "weak" or "sickly" would be left to die.

In the early 1900s, many influential officials advocated Darwinism and eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes became a strong proponent. So did many others in prominent government and academic positions. Members of the British Eugenics Society, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are listed.[7]

Between 1907 and 1937, 32 American states passed eugenics laws requiring sterilization of citizens deemed to be misfits, such as the mentally infirm. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all but one conservative Democratic Justice upheld such laws in a Supreme Court decision that included Holmes' offensive statement that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).[8] In fact, the third generation "imbecile" was very bright, but was declared by a eugenics "expert" as "supposed to be a mental defective," apparently without an examination.

Eugenics was taught as part of the evolution curriculum of many science classes in America in the early 1900s. For example, it was featured in the textbook used in the famous Scopes trial in 1925.

"By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics."[9]

Important remnants of the evolution-eugenics approach exist today, in part because many of Justice Holmes' opinions are still controlling law. The very first quote in the infamous Roe v. Wade abortion decision is an unprincipled statement of Justice Holmes in a 1905 opinion. Indeed, Holmes once wrote favorably in a letter to a future Supreme Court Justice about "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination.[10]

Existing laws requiring students to receive controversial vaccines are based on a eugenics-era decision granting the State the power to forcibly vaccinate residents. [11] That decision, in fact, was the cited precedent for Justice Holmes' offensive "imbeciles" holding quoted above.

For the same reason that evolution teaching led to eugenics, evolution teaching today encourages acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. Under evolution theory, after all, we are merely animals fighting for biological survival.

German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel promoted evolution by drawing fraudulent pictures of humans embryos, to pretend that their developmental stages imitate an historical evolution of humans from other species.[12]

In 1904, Haeckel reiterated the view of Darwin quoted above: "These lower races are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." [13]

It wasn't long before intellectuals viewed war as an essential evolutionary process. Vom Heutigen Kriege, a popular book by Geberal Bernhardi, "expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians."[14] In America, Justice Holmes similarly wrote that "I always say that society is founded on the death of men - if you don't kill the weakest one way you kill them another."[15]

World War I entailed a brutality unknown in the history of mankind. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, observed that "prior to the Scopes trial [in 1925, William Jennings] Bryan had been on a revival tour of Germany and had been horrified by the signs of incipient Nazism. Before this point, Bryan had been a moderate in the evolution debate; for instance, he had lobbied the Florida legislature not to ban the teaching of Darwin, only to specify that evolution must be taught as a theory rather than a fact. But after hearing the National Socialists talk about the elimination of genetic inferiority, [historian Gary] Wills wrote, Bryan came to feel that evolutionary ideas had become dangerous; he began both to oppose and to lampoon them."

The march of evolution/eugenics continued unabated in Germany. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolution concepts of heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Next was the Nazi sterilization law entitled "Eugenics in the service of public welfare." It required compulsory sterilization for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects in cases including congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and hereditary epilepsy.

The German schools indoctrinated their students. In 1935, a German high-school math textbook included the following problem:[9] " how much does it cost the state if:

One German student was Josef Mengele, who studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort. He became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics.

The liberal American Medical Society provided this summary:[16]

Many genocides have been commited in the name of Eugenics, most notably the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler was a strong believer in eugenics and evolution and believed that Jewish people were closest to apes, followed by Africans, Asians, non-Aryan Europeans, and finally Aryans, who he believed were most evolved.

Pat Milmoe McCarrick and Mary Carrington Coutts, reference librarians for the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University, were more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." [17]

From The Nazi Connection[18]:

In The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl uncovers the ties between the American eugenics movement and the Nazi program of racial hygiene, showing that many American scientists actively supported Hitler's policies. After introducing us to the recently resurgent problem of scientific racism, Kuhl carefully recounts the history of the eugenics movement, both in the United States and internationally, demonstrating how widely the idea of sterilization as a genetic control had become accepted by the early twentieth century. From the first, the American eugenicists led the way with radical ideas. Their influence led to sterilization laws in dozens of stateslaws which were studied, and praised, by the German racial hygienists. With the rise of Hitler, the Germans enacted compulsory sterilization laws partly based on the U.S. experience, and American eugenists took pride in their influence on Nazi policies. Kuhl recreates astonishing scenes of American eugenicists travelling to Germany to study the new laws, publishing scholarly articles lionizing the Nazi eugenics program, and proudly comparing personal notes from Hitler thanking them for their books. Even after the outbreak of war, he writes, the American eugenicists frowned upon Hitler's totalitarian government, but not his sterilization laws. So deep was the failure to recognize the connection between eugenics and Hitler's genocidal policies, that a prominent liberal Jewish eugenicist who had been forced to flee Germany found it fit to grumble that the Nazis "took over our entire plan of eugenic measures."

By 1945, when the murderous nature of the Nazi government was made perfectly clear, the American eugenicists sought to downplay the close connections between themselves and the German program. Some of them, in fact, had sought to distance themselves from Hitler even before the war. But Stefan Kuhl's deeply documented book provides a devastating indictment of the influenceand aidprovided by American scientists for the most comprehensive attempt to enforce racial purity in world history.

Some argue that parents who abort infants with genetic mutation or other disabilities are practicing a form of eugenics.[19] Some doctors and scientists have defended this practice and named it "liberal eugenics" in order to differentiate it from traditional forms of eugenics such as Nazi eugenics.[20] Eugenicists in the United States and elsewhere have been known to employ or advocate abortion as a method of eugenics.

In the 2006 satirical comedy Idiocracy, the entire movie is premised on the idea that the out-breeding of the stupid over the intelligent will lead to a uniformly stupid world run by advertisers, marketers, and anti-intellectualism.

See more here:

Eugenics - Conservapedia

he philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the "gene age," which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.

We now invite you to experience the unfiltered story of American eugenics primarily through materials from the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, which was the center of American eugenics research from 1910-1940. In the Archive you will see numerous reports, articles, charts, and pedigrees that were considered scientific "facts" in their day. It is important to remind yourself that the vast majority of eugenics work has been completely discredited. In the final analysis, the eugenic description of human life reflected political and social prejudices, rather than scientific facts.

You may find some of the language and images in this Archive offensive. Even supposedly "scientific" terms used by eugenicists were often pervaded with prejudice against racial, ethnic, and disabled groups. Some terms have no scientific meaning today. For example, "feeblemindedness" was used as a catch-all for a number of real and supposed mental disabilities, and was a common "diagnosis" used to make members of ethnic and racial minority groups appear inferior. However, we have made no attempt to censor this documentary record to do so would distort the past and diminish the significance of the lessons to be learned from this material.

During a two-year review process, involving a 14-member Advisory Panel, this site has developed an editorial policy to protect personal privacy and confidentiality. For this reason, names and places have been deleted from pedigrees, medical documents, and personal photographs.

See the original post:

EugenicsArchive.Org: Image Archive on American Eugenics Movement

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.

The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark-haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior--the so-called "unfit." The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.

In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 of which were on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

Hitler's struggle for a superior race would be a mad crusade for a Master Race. Now, the American term "Nordic" was freely exchanged with "Germanic" or "Aryan." Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler's Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler's war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.

During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, "You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

That same year, ten years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst Rdin. Rdin's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society declared of Nazism, "While we were pussy-footing aroundthe Germans were calling a spade a spade."

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmfhrer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsfhrer [Himmler]."

Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer's institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin's eugenic institutes.

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenic studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the institutions they helped found, and the science it helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.

However, Mengele's boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade "human genetics." Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, "It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?" Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.

Verschuer wrote back, "Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation."

Soon, Verschuer once again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949, he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.

In the fall of 1950, the University of Mnster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.

Human genetics' genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation that refused to link itself to the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations that never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. Now governors of five states, including California have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilization and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.

Human genetics became an enlightened endeavor in the late twentieth century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now, some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.

There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests. On October 14, America's first genetic anti-discrimination legislation passed the Senate by unanimous vote. Yet because genetics research is global, no single nation's law can stop the threats.

This article was first published in the San Francisco Chronicle and is reprinted with permission of the author.

Originally posted here:

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we're to have a real pedigree herd, mate the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible, and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up only the offspring of the best.

Eugenics is the purported study of applying the principles of natural selection and selective breeding through altering human reproduction with the goal of changing the relative frequency of traits in a human population. It was the most dangerous form of biological determinism in modern history.

Eugenics was first developed in the 19th century, a misguided outgrowth of an intellectual milieu influenced by the popularity of early evolutionary theory and which included a spate of works on genetic disorders (many of which are incurable horrors), "scientific racism" and the Social Darwinism of the likes of Herbert Spencer. The term "eugenics" was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, in his 1883 book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. Galton was responsible for many of the early works of eugenics, including attempts to connect genetics with a most prized trait known as intelligence.[1]

In the United States, it was the biologist Charles Davenport who laid the groundwork for the establishment of eugenics programs.[2] Eugenics gained traction as it was championed in the nascent Progressive Era of the late 19th century into the early 20th century, finding prominent political proponents in presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Winston Churchill were also fans of eugenics.[3][4][5]

Some eugenics-based ideas were implemented both in the United States and in Europe. In the U.S., this strongly influenced immigration policy, as in the Johnson Immigration Act of 1924,[wp] which showed a preference for Northern Europeans, as they were believed to be somehow superior to Asians and South and Eastern Europeans.

The first U.S. state to implement eugenics was Indiana, in 1907, in which those housed in penal and mental institutions could be forcibly sterilized.[6] The first European country to implement forced sterilization was Denmark, in 1929.[7]California was the third U.S. state to implement eugenics, in 1909. California would go on to become responsible for a third of all of the forced sterilizations conducted in the United States (~20,000 out of ~60,000).

North Carolina had a eugenics policy from 1929 through 1977. In 2012 a gubernatorial committee proposed a settlement of USD$50,000 to each of the remaining living survivors victims of this policy.[8]

The Supreme Court gave legal backing to forced sterilization using eugenic ideas in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, a eugenics proponent, wrote in the decision, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."[9] The Buck v. Bell decision encouraged more states to enact eugenics legislation. 23 states had such legislation prior to Buck v. Bell and 32 after. 18 states never had eugenics legislation.[10]

Israel, of all fucking places, is not immune from this either. Ethiopian Jews were injected with birth control initiatives intended to (at least temporarily) stop them from breeding. How widespread this was is still under investigation.[11]

One way eugenics was popularized was through "Better Baby" contests. These contests were sponsored by hospitals to determine the most "fit" baby, who all happened to be WASPs, naturally. This was spun off into "Fitter Family" contests, which would be held at state fairs, carnivals, and churches to allow entire families to compete.[12][13]

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he approved of the eugenics policy going on in America at the time, to the point where one could say he was inspired by the idea. When he came to power, Nazi Germany saw the most sweeping application of a eugenics program, which is unsurprising, given the Nazis' maniacal obsession with racial purity, or "racial hygiene" as they called it. The "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" was implemented within half a year of his rise to power, and resulted in the forced sterilization of up to 400,000 people that were diagnosed with hereditary mental or physical disabilities.[14]

After the outbreak of the war, this policy was carried to another extreme: people bearing hereditary defects were designated as "unfit to live," and the eugenics program moved from sterilization to extermination. Within the scope of "Action T4," an estimated 200,000 children and adults were systematically killed in order to avoid having to bear the costs of institutional care.[15] The groups targeted by action T4 were the incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.[16] Achieving racial purity through eugenics on a grand scale can also be seen as an important motivation behind the Holocaust, which saw the murder of millions of "undesirables," such as Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, and the disabled.

Some Christian churches, particularly the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced the eugenics movement. The Methodist Church would host Fitter Family contests and Methodist Bishops endorsed one of the first eugenics books circulated to the US churches. The professor of Christian ethics and founder of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, Rev. Harry F. War, writing in Eugenics, the magazine of the American Eugenic Society, said eugenics and Christianity were both compatible because both pursued the challenge of removing the causes that produce the weak.[13]

However, other Christian churches were strongly opposed to eugenics, particularly the Catholic Church and conservative Protestants. Catholics disliked eugenic laws that allowed for sterilization; Protestants viewed eugenics as a threat to a reliance on god to cure social ills.[17]

Because of eugenics' association with Nazi Germany, a common bullshitting tactic is to declare some historical figure that endorsed eugenics a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer (see, e.g., Margaret Sanger). This is ahistorical as not every eugenics proponent supported the measures of Nazi Germany (or were even around to see it). Indeed, if this were the case, that would make Teddy and Silent Cal Nazis as well.

Galton divided eugenic practice into "positive" and "negative eugenics." The positive variety consisted of political and economic incentives (such as tax breaks and sex education) for the "fit" to reproduce and the negative type consisted of disincentives such as birth control or forced sterilization. "Dysgenics" refers to the deterioration of the human stock -- many eugenicists concentrated on "improvement" of the human race by reversing alleged dysgenic forces. There is also a split between "liberal eugenics" and "authoritarian eugenics."[18] Liberal eugenics promotes consensual eugenic practice while authoritarian eugenics promotes state-mandated and enforced programs. Proponents personally emphasized different aspects of eugenics, positive, negative, dysgenic forces, etc. Thus, they often disagreed on matters of policy, much less were they all Nazis.

Whilst eugenics is based, in theory, in the perfectly valid science of genetics, its application is always far from scientific. For obvious reasons the room to experiment is limited in the extreme. Furthermore, whereas it is (relatively) easy, for example, to breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a "better" human being is a very difficult question. At this point eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that. Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of the period.

The most obvious flaw with application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Any species that looks fit on the outside may carry recessive traits that don't exhibit themselves but will be passed on and vice versa. The development of the field of epigenetics,[wp] i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

There is no reason to believe that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans could not achieve the same results that plant and animal breeders have achieved for centuries (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out). Odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred dogs are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of "purity" is flawed in that it creates many of the same problems as inbreeding a loss of biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness.[19] An example of this would be deer populations. A long time ago, natural selection selected for fitter males with antlers, but cue the rise of sport hunting and antlered populations plunged down fast. Another example of concentration is haemophilia, which became the plague of the royal families.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as "pauperism" and the vaguely defined "feeble-mindedness," could be traced back to a single genetic disorder according to eugenicists. Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[20]

While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century (even within the scientific community) of a number of nations, there was also strong opposition during this period.[21] The biologist Raymond Pearl, for example, once a supporter of the movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[22] The geneticist Lancelot Hogben argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" and that it infected science with political value judgments;[23] Hogben was asked by William Beveridge (the then-director of the London School of Economics) to create a "Chair of Social Biology" department on campus, gave him the finger and prevented any of his eugenic ideas from being taken seriously in the formation of the British welfare state.[24]Clarence Darrow famously denounced it as a "cult."[25] The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939 (before the Holocaust even became public record).[26]

Stephen J. Gould was strongly opposed to eugenics. He wrote extensively on the topic, including his treatment on intelligence in The Mismeasure of Man.

See original here:

Eugenics - RationalWiki

EUGENICS

Five items appear below:

1 Editorial 72 2 A Brief History of the Eugenics Movement (Dr Bergman) 72 3 Reply to Bergman on Eugenics (Dr Potter) 73 4 Is the Orthodox History of Eugenics True? (Dr Bergman) 77 5 Reply to Bergman: Some Tangential Points (Dr Potter) 77

EDITORIAL: INVESTIGATOR 72; 2000 May

Jerry Bergman has donated the article A Brief History of the Eugenics Movement. Dr Bergman's conclusion on Eugenics (= racial improvement by scientific control of breeding) are reminiscent of the conclusions of "Anonymous" on the related topic Social Darwinism. (Investigator 33)

Social Darwinism was the theory that "societies and classes evolve under the principle of survival of the fittest." With eugenics such evolution toward better/fitter societies could in principle be speeded up.

Dr Bergman shows that eugenic ideas were supported by many scientists, were contrary to the Bible, discouraged help to the poor, culminated in the Holocaust, and became untenable with newer scientific research. "Anonymous" showed the same of Social Darwinism.

A Brief History of the Eugenics Movement

(Investigator 72, 2000 May)

Dr Jerry Bergman

ABSTRACT

Eugenics, the science of improving the human race by scientific control of breeding, was viewed by a large segment of scientists for almost one hundred years as an important, if not a major means of producing paradise on earth. These scientists concluded that many human traits were genetic, and that persons who came from genetically 'good families' tended to turn out far better than those who came from poor families. The next step was to encourage the good families to have more children, and the poor families to have few or no children.

From these simple observations developed one of the most far-reaching movements, which culminated in the loss of millions of lives. It discouraged aiding the sick, building asylums for the insane, or even aiding the poor and all those who were believed to be in some way 'genetically inferior', which included persons afflicted with an extremely wide variety of unrelated physical and even psychological maladies. Their end goal was to save society from the 'evolutionary inferior'. The means was sexual sterilization, permanent custody of 'defective' adults by the state, marriage restrictions, and even the elimination of the unfit through means which ranged from refusal to help them to outright killing. This movement probably had a greater adverse influence upon society than virtually any other that developed from a scientific theory in modern times. It culminated with the infamous Holocaust and afterward rapidly declined.

THE HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT

The eugenics movement grew from the core ideas of evolution, primarily those expounded by Charles Darwin.1 As Haller concluded:

'Eugenics was the legitimate offspring of Darwinian evolution, a natural and doubtless inevitable outgrowth of currents of thought that developed from the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species.' 2

Eugenics spanned the political spectrum from conservatives to radical socialists; what they had in common was a belief in evolution and a faith that science, particularly genetics, held the key for improving the life of humans.3

The first eugenics movement in America was founded in 1903 and included many of the most well known new-world biologists in the country: David Star Jordan was its chairman (a prominent biologist and chancellor of Stanford University), Luther Burbank (the famous plant breeder), Vernon L. Kellog (a world renowned biologist at Stanford), William B. Castle (a Harvard geneticist), Roswell H. Johnson (a geologist and a professor of genetics), and Charles R. Henderson of the University of Chicago.

One of the most prominent eugenicists in the United States was Charles Benedict Davenport, a Harvard Ph.D, where he served as instructor of biology until he became an assistant professor at the University of Chicago in 1898.4 In 1904, he became director for a new station for experimental evolution at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. Even Edward Thorndike of Columbia University, one of the most influential educational psychologists in history, was also involved. His work is still today regarded as epic and his original textbook on tests and measurements set the standard in the field.

Other persons active in the early eugenics society were eminent sexologists Havelock Ellis, Dr F. W. Mott, a leading expert in insanity, and Dr A. F. Tredgold, an author of a major textbook on mental deficiency, and one of the foremost British experts on this subject. Nobel laureate George Bernard Shaw, author H. G. Wells, and planned parenthood founder Margaret Sanger were also very involved in the movement.5

As the eugenics movement grew, it added other prominent individuals. Among them were Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone who was 'one of the most respected, if not one of the most zealous participants in the American Eugenics Movement.' 6He published numerous papers in scholarly journals specifically on genetics and the deafness problem, and also in other areas.

Of the many geneticists who are today recognized as scientific pioneers that were once eugenicists include J. B. S. Haldane, Thomas Hunt Morgan, William Bateson, Herman J. Muller, and evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley.7 Professors were prominent among both the officers and members of various eugenics societies which sprang up in the United States and Europe. In virtually every college and university were professors 'inspired by the new creed,' and most of the major colleges had credit courses on eugenics.8 These classes were typically well attended and their content was generally accepted as part of proven science. Many eugenicists also lectured widely and developed new courses, both at their institutes and elsewhere, to help educate the public in the principles of eugenics.' According to Haller:

'the movement was the creation of biological scientists, social scientists, and others with a faith that science provided a guide for human progress. Indeed, during the first three decades of the present century, eugenics was a sort of secular religion for many who dreamed of a society in which each child might be born endowed with vigorous health and an able mind.' 10

The eugenics movement also attacked the idea of democracy itself. Many concluded that letting inferior persons participate in government was naive, if not dangerous. Providing educational opportunities and governmental benefits for everyone likewise seemed a misplacement of resources: one saves only the best cows for breeding, slaughtering the inferior ones, and these laws of nature must be applied to human animals. If a primary determinant of mankind's behavioural nature is genetic as the movement concluded, then environmental reforms are largely useless. Further, those who are at the bottom of the social ladder in society, such as Blacks, are in this position not because of social injustice or discrimination, but as a result of their own inferiority.11

THE FOUNDER FRANCIS GALTON, DARWIN'S COUSIN

The first chapter in the most definitive history of the eugenics movement12 is entitled 'Francis Galton, Founder of the Faith'. Influenced by his older cousin, Charles Darwin, Galton began his lifelong quest to quantify humans, and search for ways of genetically improving the human race in about 1860. So extremely important was Darwin's idea to Galton, as Hailer states, that within six years of the publication of The Origin of Species

'...Galton had arrived at the doctrine that he was to preach for the remainder of his life.., this became for him a new ethic and a new religion.'13

Galton openly stated that his goal was 'to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations'. 14In an 1865 article, he proposed that the state sponsor competitive examinations, and the male winners marry the female winners. He later suggested that the state rank people according to evolutionary superiority, and then use money 'rewards' to encourage those who were ranked high to have more children. Those ranked towards the bottom would be segregated in monasteries and convents, and watched to prevent them from propagating more of their kind.15

Galton concluded that not only intelligence, but many other human traits were primarily, if not almost totally, the product of heredity. He believed that virtually every human function could be evaluated statistically, and that human beings could be compared in a quantitative manner on many hundreds of traits. He was also fully convinced that the survival of the fittest law fully applied to humans, and that it should be under the control of those who were most intelligent and responsible. Galton himself coined the word eugenics from the Greek words meaning well born. He also introduced the terms nature and nurture to science and started the nature/nurture argument which is still raging today. His goal was to produce a super race to control tomorrow's world, a dream which he not only wrote about, but actively involved himself in promoting his whole life.

In 1901 he founded the Eugenics Education Society based in the Statistics Department at the University College of London.16 This organization flourished, later even producing a journal called Biometrika, founded and edited by Galton and later Pearson. It is still a leading journal today, but it has since rejected the basic idea behind its founding.

Galton, himself a child prodigy, soon set about looking for superior men by measuring the size of human heads, bodies and minds. For this purpose, he devised sophisticated measuring equipment which would quantify not only the brain and intelligence, but virtually every other human trait that could be measured without doing surgery. He even constructed a whistle to measure the upper range of hearing, now called a Galton whistle, a tool which is still standard equipment in a physiological laboratory. His work was usually anything but superficial much of it was extremely thorough. He relied heavily upon the empirical method and complex statistical techniques, many of which he developed for his work in this area.

In fact, Galton and his coworker, Karl Pearson, are regarded as founders of the modern field of statistics, and both made major contributions. Their thorough, detailed research was extremely convincing, especially to academics. German academics were among the first to wholeheartedly embrace his philosophy, as well as the theory of Darwinian evolution.

The idea that humans could achieve biological progress and eventually breed a superior race was not seen as heretical to the Victorian mind, nor did it have the horrendous implications or the taint of Nazism that it does today. All around Galton were the fruits of the recent advances in technology and the industrial revolution that had dramatically proved human mastery over inanimate nature. 17 They knew that, by careful selection, farmers could obtain better breeds of both plants and animals, and it was logical that the human races could similarly be improved. 18

Galton's conclusion was that, for the sake of mankind's future, pollution of the precious superior gene pool of certain classes must be stopped by preventing interbreeding with inferior stock. The next step was that we humans must intelligently direct our own evolution rather than leave such a vital event to chance. And Galton was not alone is this conclusion. All of the major fathers of modem evolution, including Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace (often credited as the co-founder of the modern theory of evolution), Edward Blyth, as well as E. Ray Lankester, and Erasmus Darwin, inferred that 'evolution sanctioned a breeding program for man'. 19

The route to produce a race of gifted humans was controlled marriages of superior stock.20 In an effort to be tactful in his discussion of race breeding, he used terms such as 'judicious marriages' and 'discouraging breeding by inferior stock.' He did not see himself as openly cruel, at least in his writings, but believed that his proposals were for the long term good of humanity. Galton utterly rejected and wrote much against the Christian doctrines of helping the weak, displaying a tolerable attitude toward human fragilities and also showing charity towards the poor. Although this response may seem cold the mind of the co-founder of the field, Karl Pearson, has often be described as mathematical and without feeling and sympathy it must be viewed in the science climate of the time.21 Galton received numerous honours for his work, including the Darwin and Wallace Medals, and also the Huxley and the Copley Medals. He was even knighted by the British government and thus became Sir Francis Galton.

Understanding the eugenics movement requires a knowledge of how evolution was viewed in America and Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many scientists had concurrently applied Darwinian analysis to various racial' groups, concluding that some 'races' were more evolutionarily advanced than others. If this claim was valid, the presence of certain racial groups in the United States and Europe constituted a threat to 'the long-run biological quality of the nation.' Consequently, it was concluded that 'selective breeding was a necessary step in solving many major social problems'.22

We are today keenly aware of the tragic results of this belief; most people are now horrified by such statements when quoted by modern day white supremacists and racist groups. Many of the extremist groups today often quote from, and also have reprinted extensively, the scientific and eugenic literature of this time.

THE MAKING OF GALTON

From this point on, Galton's ideas about eugenics rapidly catalyzed. The knowledge he obtained from his African travels confirmed his beliefs about inferior races, and how to improve society. This conclusion strongly supported the writings of both his grandfather and his first cousin, Charles Darwin. Galton, highly rewarded for his scientific contributions, likely felt that his eugenics work was another way that he could achieve even more honours. He concluded that his work was more important than that which he had completed for the various geographical societies, and more important than even his research which helped the fingerprint system become part of the British method of criminal identification.

The history of eugenics is intimately tied to the history of evolution. Hailer, the author of one of the most definitive works on the history of the eugenics movement, stated

Galton called the method of race analysis he developed 'statistics by intercomparison.' It later became a common system of scaling psychological tests. This scale permitted Galton

'very nearly two grades higher than our own that is, about as much as our race is above that of the African Negro'. 27

Around the turn of the century, eugenics was fully accepted by the educated classes. As Kelves states:

'Galton's religion [became] as much a part of the secular pieties of the nineteen-twenties as the Einstein craze.' 28

Books on eugenics became best-sellers Albert E. Wiggam wrote at least four popular books on eugenics, several were best-sellers29-32 and the prestigious Darwinian family name stayed with the eugenics movement for years the president of the British Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1928 was Major Leonard Darwin, Charles' son.

The impact of the eugenics movement on American law was especially profound. In the 1920s, congress introduced and passed many laws to restrict the influx of 'inferior races,' including all of those from Southern and Eastern Europe, and also China. These beliefs were also reflected in everything from school textbooks to social policy. American Blacks especially faced the brunt of these laws. Inter-racial marriage was forbidden by law in many areas and discouraged by social pressure in virtually all. The eugenicists concluded that the American belief that education could benefit everyone was unscientific, and that the conviction that social reform and social justice could substantially reduce human misery was more than wrong-headed, it was openly dangerous.34

According to Hailer, it was actually between 1870 and 1900 that

ENTER KARL PEARSON

The second most important architect of eugenics theory was Galton's disciple, Karl Pearson. His degree was in mathematics with honours from Kings College, Cambridge, which he completed in 1879. He then studied law and was called to the bar in 1881. A socialist, he often lectured on Marxism to revolutionary clubs. He was later appointed to the chair of applied mathematics and mechanics at University College, London, and soon thereafter established his reputation as a mathematician. His publication The Grammar of Science also accorded him a place in the philosophy of science field.

Pearson, greatly influenced by Galton, soon began to apply his mathematical knowledge to biological problems. He developed the field now known as statistics primarily to research evolution specifically as it related to eugenics. Pearson vigorously applied the experimental method to his research. Kevles concludes that Pearson was cold, remote, driven, and treated any emotional pleasure as a weakness. Challenging him on a scientific point invited 'demolishing fire in return'. Pearson 'like so many Victorian undergraduates, was beset by an agony of religious doubt'.38

Pearson concluded that Darwinism supported socialism because he assumed that socialism produced a wealthier, stronger, more productive, and in short, a superior nation. And the outcome of the Darwinian struggle results in the ascendancy of the 'fittest' nation, not individuals. Achievement of national fitness can better be produced by national socialism, consequently socialism will produce more fit nations that are better able to survive. Pearson carried his conclusions of heritability far beyond that which was warranted by the data. He stated to the anthropological institute in 1903 that

When Galton died in January of 1911, the University College received much of his money and established a Galton eugenics professorship, and a new department called applied statistics. The fund enabled Pearson to be freed from his 'burdensome' teaching to devote full time to eugenics research. The new department blossomed, and drew research workers from around the world. Pearson now could select only the best scientists and students who would immerse themselves in eugenic work. His students helped to manage the dozens of research projects in which Pearson was involved.

Pearson's students and those who worked under him had to be as dedicated as he was or they soon were forced to leave. Some, trying to emulate Pearson's pace, suffered nervous breakdowns.43 The laboratory's goal was the production of research, and produce they did.

Between 1903 and 1918, Pearson and his staff published over 300 works, plus various government reports and popular expositions of genetics. Some of his co-workers questioned the idea that the only way to improve a nation is to ensure that its future generations come chiefly from the more superior members of the existing generation, but if they valued their position, most said nothing." As Kevles added,

CHARLES DAVENPORT, THE AMERICAN LEADER

The next most important figure in the eugenics movement was an American, Charles Davenport. He studied engineering at preparatory school, and later became an instructor of zoology at Harvard. While at Harvard, he read some of Karl Pearson's work and was soon 'converted'. In 1899 he became an assistant professor at the University of Chicago. During a trip to England, he visited Galton, Pearson and Weldon, and returned home an enthusiastic true believer.

In 1904 he convinced the Carnegie Institute to establish a station for 'the experimental study of evolution' at Cold Spring Harbor, some thirty miles from New York City. Davenport then recruited a staff to work on various research projects ranging from natural selection to hybridization. He argued that hereditability was a major influence in everything from criminality to epilepsy, even alcoholism and pauperism (being poor).

Among the many problems with his research is that he assumed that traits which we now know are polygenic in origin were single Mendelian characters. This error caused him to greatly oversimplify interpolating from the genotype to the phenotype. He ignored the forces of the environment to such a degree that he labelled those who 'loved the sea' as suffering from thalassaphilia, and concluded that it was a sex-linked recessive trait because it was virtually always exhibited in males! Davenport even concluded that prostitution was caused not by social, cultural or economic circumstances, but a dominant genetic trait which caused a woman to be a nymphomaniac. He spoke against birth control because it reduced the natural inhibitions against sex.

He had no shortage of data for his ideas when the Cold Spring Harbor was founded in 1911 to when it closed in 1924, more than 250 field workers were employed to gather data and about three-quarters of a million cases were completed. This data served as the source of bulletins, memoirs, articles and books on eugenics and related matters. Raised a Congregationalist, Davenport rejected his father's piety,

'replacing it with a Babbitt-like religiosity, a worship of great concepts: Science, Humanity, the improvement of Mankind, Eugenics. The birth control crusader, Margaret Sanger recalled that Davenport, in expressing his worry about the impact of contraception on the better stocks, "used to lift his eyes reverently, and with his hands upraised as though in supplication, quiver emotionally as he breathed, "Protoplasm. We want more protoplasm"'.49

AND THE MOVEMENT GREW AND PROSPERED

There are few individuals more important in the field of educational psychology and educational measurement and evaluation than Edward Lee Thorndike. He wrote many of the college texts which were the standards for years (and many still are), not only in educational psychology but also in measurement and child psychology. Yet, he was largely unaware of, or ignored, the massive evidence which had accumulated against many of the basic eugenic views.

When Thorndike retired in 1940 from Columbia Teachers' College, he wrote a 963-page book entitled Human Nature and the Social Order. In it, he reiterated virtually all of the most blatant misconceptions and distortions of the eugenicists. As Chase states,

'at the age of sixty-six, he was still peddling the long discredited myths about epilepsy that Galton had revived when Thorndike was a boy of nine... Despite Thorndike's use of such twentieth-century scientific words as "genes" and his advocacy of the then current Nazi eugenics court's practice of sterilizing people who got low marks on intelligence tests and for "inferior" morals, this [book] was, essentially, the 1869 gospel of Galton, the eugenical orthodoxy that all mental disorders and diseases were at least eighty percent genetic and at most twenty percent environmental.' 59

THE REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF EUGENICS

Part of the reason that the eugenics movement caught on so rapidly was because of the failures of the many innovative reformatory and other programmes designed to help the poor, the criminal, and people with mental and physical problems. Many of those who worked in these institutions concluded that most people in these classes were 'heredity losers' in the struggle for existence. And these unfit should not be allowed to survive and breed indiscriminately. Evolution gave them an answer to the difficulties that they faced. Charles Loring Brace

The translation of the eugenics movement into policy took many forms. In America, the sterilization of a wide variety of individua1s who were felt to have 'heredity problems,' mostly criminals, the mentally retarded, mentally ill and others, were at the top of their list. The first sterilization laws in the United States were in Indiana. They required mandatory sterilization of

Although the American courts challenged many of the eugenic laws, only one case, Bell versus Buck, reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

In an eight to one vote, the high court upheld sterilization for eugenic reasons, concluding that 'feeblemindedness' was caused by heredity and thus the state had a responsibility to control it by this means! The court's opinion was written by none other than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who used his no small knowledge of science in his erudite opinion. He forged a link between eugenics and patriotism, concluding that eugenics was a fact derived from empirical science. A rash of sterilization laws which were passed in half of the states soon followed, many of which were more punitive than humanitarian.53

Many eugenicists also believed that negative traits that one picked up in one's lifetime could be passed on. The theory of acquired characteristics was widely accepted, and was not conclusively refuted until the work of August Weismann of Germany. The new view, called neo-Darwinian, taught that acquired characteristics could not be inherited, and thus

And much of this research was on the so-called simple creatures such as the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster). Secondly, it was realized that, as a human is produced from between 50,000 and 100,000 genes, it is extremely difficult to determine if any one is 'superior' to another. At best, one could try to make judgments relative to the superiority of one specific trait compared to another. This is most easily done in the case of a mutation. A person who had the mutation for hemophilia could be considered inferior for that trait compared to the person who does not.

On the other hand, this method considers only one gene, which means that a person without the genetic defect for hemophilia will be genetically inferior in some other way compared to the one with it. He may have the mutation for retinoblastoma, for example, and develop eye cancer later in his life.

Even a person who has certain traits, such as below average intellect, may as a whole be genetically superior, a determination which we cannot make until all 100,000 genes are mapped and then compared with the whole population. And even then comparative judgments cannot be made except on simplistic grounds, such as counting the total number of 'inferior' and 'superior' genes.

This falls short in that certain single genes can cause far more problems than others, or conversely, can confer on the person far more advantages than most other genes. It would then be necessary to rate each individual gene, something that is no easy task. In addition, many so-called inferior genes are actually mutations which were caused somewhere in the human genetic past, and were since passed on to the victim's offspring. Of the unidentified diseases, about 4,000 are due to heritable mutations and none of these 4,000 existed in our past before the mutation for it was introduced into the human gene pool. This is de-evolution, an event which is the opposite of the eugenics goal of trying to determine the most flawless race and limit reproduction to them. This goal is flawed because the accumulation of mutations tends to result in all races becoming less perfect.56

Although the validity of many of the eugenic studies and the extent of applicability to humans were both seriously questioned, the demise of the eugenics movement had more to do with social factors than new scientific discoveries. Haller lists

Many of the people involved in the eugenics movement can best be summarized as true believers, devoted to the cause and blissfully ignoring the evidence which did not support their theories. Yet many knew that its basic premise was unsound, and often tried to rationalize its many problems. Galton

The importance of studying the eugenics movement today is not just to help us understand history. A field which is growing enormously in influence and prestige, social biology, is in some ways not drastically different from the eugenics movement. This school also claims that not only biological, but many social traits have a genetic basis, and exist from the evolutionary process. Although many social biologists take pains to disavow any connections, ideologically or otherwise, with the eugenics movement, their similarity is striking. This fact is a point that its many critics, such as Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, have often noted.60

In the late nineteenth century, 'when so many thought in evolutionary terms, it was only natural to divide man into the fit and the unfit.' 61 Even the unfortunates who because of an unjust society or chance, failed in business or life and ended in poverty, or those who were forced to live from petty theft, were judged 'unfit' and evolutionarily inferior.62 There was little recognition of the high level of criminality among common men and women, nor of the high level of moral virtuousness among many of those who were labelled criminals. They disregarded the fact that what separates a criminal from a non-criminal is primarily criminal behaviour. Because they are far more alike than different is one reason why criminal identification is extremely difficult.

The eugenicists also usually ignored upper class crime and the many offenses committed by high ranking army officers and government officials, even Kings and Queens, all of whose crimes were often well known by the people. They correctly identified some hereditary concerns, but mislabelled many which are not (such as poverty) and ignored the enormous influence of the environment in moulding all of that which heredity gives us. They believed that since most social problems and conditions are genetic, they cannot be changed, but can only be controlled by sterilization.63, 64

CHRISTIANITY AND EUGENICS

In contrast, the teaching of Christianity presented quite a different picture. It declared that anyone who accepted Christ's message could be changed. The Scriptures gave numerous examples of individuals who were liars, thieves, and moral degenerates who, after a Christian conversion, radically turned their life around. The regeneration of reprobates has always been an important selling point of Christianity. From its earliest days, the proof of its validity was its effect on changing the lives of those who embraced the faith. Helping the poor, the weak, the downtrodden, the unfortunate, the crippled, and the lame was no minor part of Christianity. Indeed, it was the essence of the religion, the outward evidence of the faith within. If one wanted to follow Christ, one was to be prepared, if necessary, to 'go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor' (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21).

The rest is here:

A History of the Eugenics Movement - Tripod.com

Sir Francis Galton first defined the term eugenics in 1883, eventually describing it as the "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race" as well as those that "develop them to the utmost advantage." In the early twentieth century, eugenics movements thrived across the globe, in dozens of countries as diverse as Argentina, Japan, India, and Germany. Although the scope of eugenics differed from place to place, its proponents shared the belief that directing reproduction and biological selection could better, even perfect, society.

California was home to an extensive eugenics movement in the twentieth century. Convinced that ideas of better breeding and genetic selection were central to settling the Pacific West, many European American migrants to California supported practices such as involuntary sterilization, immigration restriction, and racially-biased IQ testing. Indeed, 1/3 or 20,000 of the 60,000 sterilizations performed in the United States from 1900 to 1980 occurred in California under the aegis of the state government.

See the original post here:

Eugenics in California - CSHPE - CSUS