Directions for homework follow:
- Read the article “Controlling the Unfit” from Facing History (received in class).
- Click here to explore the archive on the American Eugenics Movement hosted by Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory. Read about a minimum of four different areas, including “Sterilization Laws” and “Eugenics Popularization.
- Post a comment on your investigation to the blog, signing with your initials or first name only for privacy. Comment on the question below AND share an observation on something you saw in the archive. Strong responses will also refer directly to a previous post in the discussion. The question I would like you to consider is:
Laws requiring sterilization violated the basic rights of the victims. How did eugenicists and their supporters seem to justify those civil rights violations? What arguments might you offer in support of the victims?
Source: Facing History.
Posts are due before class begins on Friday.
Eugenicists and their supports try to justify their actions stating that they are doing a favor to the human race by attempting to rid the "burden" of abnormal people. Eugenicists also pressed "the belief that 'criminalism' is inherited [and] saw sterilization as a deterrent to crime," in order to steer the public in the right of their belief. Eugenicists manipulate the idea of sterilization through convincing the public that the eugenicists are only trying to create a normal nation, not infected with "socially inadequate" people. I think that the eugenicists try to morph public opinion by feeding off the fear in people of being different from others. The article brings up two Amendments in which sterilization violates, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment "grants every citizen due process and equal protection under the law." Therefore, the eugenicists idea of cleansing the United States would not be lawful because every citizen, including those who were less "normal" would not be treated equally. Also, the Eighth Amendment defends the victims because this Amendment "bans 'cruel and unusual punishments.'"
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel on many of her points. I think that the eugenicists justified their actions by presenting the positives; their work would make our society one of only the best – it would rid our nation of many of its problems, including crime and excessive spending. I also agree with Rachel’s analysis of the 14th amendment. I think that, in terms of the 8th amendment, the eugenics movement could be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it was not regulated properly. The article discussed how the laws made it more likely for someone in a state institution to be sterilized than “other individuals who were mentally defective alone.” Because people outside of initiations may have had the same degree of “feeblemindedness,” but were less likely to be sterilized, the punishment was unusual.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the article and exploring the website, I kept thinking of a much more contemporary issue. In the 1960s and 70s, children born with disorders of sex development that caused ambiguous genitalia would be operated on without their knowledge. This was not a procedure aimed at preventing the spreading of these disorders to future generations, but it was aimed at “normalizing” these children without their consent.
I agree with Ellery that "the eugenics justified their actions by presenting the positives" and that "their work would make our society on of the best." This reminds me a lot of what Hilter did to spread his ideas of ridding Jews from Germany. Hilter presented his ideas in a way that made it seem like ridding Jews would result in a better, more stable country. Moreover, these ignorant laws were seemingly passed on a whim without any sort of structural support. Those who made up these laws clearly do not understand that many diseases are a direct result from some sort of mutated gene that is passed on as a recessive trait. Therefore, the chances of that disease being passed on to their offsrping is very low.
ReplyDelete-Cherelle
As the previous three posters have mentioned, those supporting the eugenics movement defended it by claiming that it was for the best of society. I would also like to point out that although the movement is mostly a social philosophy, it also has roots in medical beliefs. Pages 5 and 6 on list 2 describe how medicine contributed to the movement; the eugenics movement was described "disease prevention", which again is eugenicists trying to frame the movement in the most positive way. The doctors in favor of the movement were even pursuing the most ‘humane’ ways to help “people who could not help themselves.” The doctors had favored procedures, thinking that they were truly doing what was for the best. Personally, I question what makes people who consider themselves to be ‘normal’ feel that they can decide what is best for people who are ‘abnormal’ if the ‘normal’ people have never been ‘abnormal’. How can a person know what is right for another person if they have no direct experience with the other person’s problem? It should be the people deemed ‘abnormal’ who decide, as they would know the most about the experience of being ‘abnormal’. Eugenic legislation restricts the freedom of the ‘abnormal’, and prevents more ‘abnormal’ from being born; both of these are the desired effect of the eugenics movement but no reasonable person would wish these effects on somebody they cared about, thus the eugenicists do not actually care about the ‘abnormal’. I would say that eugenics and the defenses for it are simply excuses to eliminate the ‘abnormal’ population, not for the betterment of the ‘abnormal’, but rather because eugenicists consider them a burden on society. Counter arguments for the eugenics movement are as simple as citing the overall principle of our country’s founding, that each person has a right to live how they choose. Also, because eugenicists consider the ‘abnormal’ to be a burden on society, they are hypocrites—all people begin and end their lives as burdens to society, unable to work or contribute much of value to society, simply taking resources from others. In fact, the handout we were given to read said that children and the elderly were both exempt from the eugenics movement for this reason. That means that even supporters of eugenics are inevitably going to be a burden on society at some point, just like the people they are attempting to sterilize. Eugenics is self-serving and hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry that this is so long. I got a bit carried away. I was also going to reference the movie Gattaca, but I think I have already said enough.
Cherelle makes a great point that the lawmakers that made up the laws clearly did not understand that most diseases are the results of mutated genes. I guess some credit could be given to the fact that the technology might not have been available at that time to know that sort of scientific information. But that still doesn’t give lawmakers the right to interfere with the physical parts of other people. I noticed throughout the article that eugenicists justified those civil rights violations by stating that preventing lower people from being born, that a more high race of people may flourish (whites). I think that most of the scientists who aided the lawmakers in creating these laws must have been racist and wanted a larger amount of white people in America and less “defective” people. Another point that eugenicists made in the article was that “criminalism [was] inherited”. The lawmakers saw preventing unworthy people from giving birth would reduce the amount of criminals in the country. After reading this statement, I was shocked and couldn’t believe that there were people years ago who assumed that a criminal was a criminal because of their genetic influence. One major argument that I would offer for the victims of these uncivil violations would be that the lawmakers were biased against who they chose were “unfit” to have children. I bet that the law chose mostly minorities to sterilize because they treated them as inferior to society.
ReplyDelete-Sandhya
Along with what Cherelle said, that "This reminds [her] a lot of what Hilter did to spread his ideas of ridding Jews from Germany," I think these laws are very similar. He strongly encouraged those with disabilities not to have children, leading up to encouraging and forcing Jews to not have children.
ReplyDeleteWith these Eugenics laws, people with disabilities or people who were "feebleminded" were not allowed to wed, nor have children. In the archive, it also said how Eugenicists "warned that Racial mixing was 'a social and racial crime,'" and that "racial intermarriage would lead America toward '"racial suicide,' resulting in a 'disappearance of white civilization.'" Picture #460 under "Marriage Laws" shows a simple diagram of skin color inheritance, which showed "that a 'Pass-For-White' person married to a Pure may have a negro child.
~TW
These laws do seem very absurdly strict, and I keep forgetting that this was so recent.