Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 5:31 AM GMT
    What will not be emphasized by the media is that this was a program implemented under the Democrats who were in control of the state at the time.

    http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-victims-speak-out-about-north-carolina-sterilization-program-which-targeted-women-young-girls-and-blacks

    Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

    “I have to carry these scars with me. I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.

    Riddick was never told what was happening. “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said. “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.”

    Riddick’s records reveal that a five-person state eugenics board in Raleigh had approved a recommendation that she be sterilized. The records label Riddick as “feebleminded” and “promiscuous.” They said her schoolwork was poor and that she “does not get along well with others.”

    “I was raped by a perpetrator [who was never charged] and then I was raped by the state of North Carolina. They took something from me both times,” she said. “The state of North Carolina, they took something so dearly from me, something that was God given.”

    It wouldn’t be until Riddick was 19, married and wanting more children, that she’d learn she was incapable of having any more babies. A doctor in New York where she was living at the time told her that she’d been sterilized.

    “Butchered. The doctor used that word… I didn’t understand what she meant when she said I had been butchered,” Riddick said.

    North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program. By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.

    Eugenics was a scientific theory that grew in popularity during the 1920s. Eugenicists believed that poverty, promiscuity and alcoholism were traits that were inherited. To eliminate those society ills and improve society’s gene pool, proponents of the theory argued that those that exhibited the traits should be sterilized. Some of America’s wealthiest citizens of the time were eugenicists including Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble fortune and James Hanes of the hosiery company. Hanes helped found the Human Betterment League which promoted the cause of eugenicists.

    It began as a way to control welfare spending on poor white women and men, but over time, North Carolina shifted focus, targeting more women and more blacks than whites. A third of the sterilizations performed in North Carolina were done on girls under the age of 18. Some were as young as nine years old.

    For the past eight years, North Carolina lawmakers have been working to find a way to compensate those involuntarily sterilized in the state between 1929 and 1974. During that time period, 7,600 people were sterilized in North Carolina. Of those who were sterilized, 85 percent of the victims were female and 40 percent were non-white.

    “You can’t rewind a watch or rewrite history. You just have to go forward and that’s what we’re trying to do in North Carolina,” said Governor Beverly Perdue in an exclusive interview with NBC News.

    While North Carolina’s eugenics board was disbanded in 1977, the law allowing involuntary sterilization wasn’t officially repealed until 2003. In 2002, the state issued an apology to those who had been sterilized, but the victims have yet to receive any financial compensation, medical care or counseling from the state. Since 2003, three task forces have been created to determine a way to compensate the victims. Officials estimate that as many as 2,000 victims are still alive.

    Riddick was one of several victims to speak at a public hearing this summer. It was the first time that many survivors had told their stories publicly and that others heard of North Carolina’s tarnished past.

    “To think about folks who went in…and their doctor told them this was birth control and they were sterilized…the folks who didn’t have the capacity to make the decisions, the uninformed consent,” said Perdue. “Those types of stories aren’t good for America and I can’t allow for this period in history to be forgotten, that’s why this work is important.”

    Only 48 victims have been matched with their records, something necessary for them to eventually be compensated. State Representative Larry Womble has been advocating for the survivors of the state’s sterilization program for nearly 10 years. He helped fight for the repeal of the state’s law.

    Womble said that if the government is “powerful enough to perpetrate this on this society, they ought to be responsible, step up to the plate and compensate.”

    In August, a task force created by Gov. Perdue recommended that the victims be compensated, but they were unsure how much to award the victims. Previous numbers pondered range between $20,000 and $50,000. The task force also recommended mental health services for living victims and a traveling museum exhibit about North Carolina’s eugenics program.

    Perdue said it’s a challenge to determine how much money each victim should be given.

    “From my perspective, and as a woman, and as the governor of this state, this is not about the money. There isn’t enough money in the world to pay these people for what has been done to them, but money is part of the equation,” she said.

    Riddick once sued North Carolina for a million dollars. Her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the court declined to hear the case. “I would like for the state of North Carolina to right what they wronged with me,” she said.

    Some victims and their advocates have questioned whether North Carolina is procrastinating in compensating them, hoping they’ll die before a solution is reached. “It’s an ugly chapter in North Carolina’s book, we have a wonderful book, but there’s an ugly chapter,” Womble said. “We must step up to the plate and we must realize and take responsibility.”

    Perdue, for her part, said that she is committed to helping the victims.

    “I want this solved on my watch. I want there to be completion. I want the whole discussion to end and there be action for these folks. There is nobody in North Carolina who is waiting for anybody to die,” Gov. Perdue said.

    Despite the state social workers who declared Riddick was “mentally retarded” and “promiscuous”, she went to college and raised the son born moments before she was sterilized. Her son is devoted to his mother and a successful entrepreneur.

    Elaine is proud of her achievements.

    “I don’t know where I would be if I listened to the state of North Carolina,” she said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 5:53 AM GMT
    Maybe because it's not a partisan issue, just horrifyingly disgusting by anyone's measure.

    Oh, and the current governor is a Democrat whose committed to compensating - as much as can be - the women to whom this was done.

    Oh, and 31 other states - not all run by Democrats - did the same thing.

    The real question is why are YOU trying to make it a partisan issue. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 6:29 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidMaybe because it's not a partisan issue, just horrifyingly disgusting by anyone's measure.

    Oh, and the current governor is a Democrat whose committed to compensating - as much as can be - the women to whom this was done.

    Oh, and 31 other states - not all run by Democrats - did the same thing.

    The real question is why are YOU trying to make it a partisan issue. icon_rolleyes.gif


    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 10:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidMaybe because it's not a partisan issue, just horrifyingly disgusting by anyone's measure.

    Oh, and the current governor is a Democrat whose committed to compensating - as much as can be - the women to whom this was done.

    Oh, and 31 other states - not all run by Democrats - did the same thing.

    The real question is why are YOU trying to make it a partisan issue. icon_rolleyes.gif


    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.


    Do you ever tire of making false assumptions of other members on RJ? All you do is create straw man arguments where you assert someone holds a belief or position that they have never put forth and then argue against your own supposition. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 2:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 2:57 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 4:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.


    No you didn't. Is there a slew of people arguing that Republican governors are pro-eugenics and sterilization?

    If not, like your comrade SB you're inventing an entire issue where there is none. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 4:29 PM GMT
    Maybe sterilization programs should be encouraged for all people who are not in positions to properly take care of children... Were these people literally being forced into this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 4:59 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidMaybe sterilization programs should be encouraged for all people who are not in positions to properly take care of children... Were these people literally being forced into this?

    That is the most demented thing I have ever read here -- involuntary sterilization, eugenics. And yes, the evidence points to forcing underage minor victims into this, who didn't even realize what was happening to them when they were dragged unwillingly into hospitals. Read their stories.

    Well at least we know what kind of a person mocktwinkie is. A true right-winger. Sterilize those who aren't like the rest of us right-wingers so no one but right-wingers can breed. Absolutely disgusting.

    Or, do we get to limit family size, like the Chinese do, in order to prevent overpopulation by irresponsible parents who keep pumping out children that stress our society? You know, those religious types who think birth control is a sin, and keep having children without end? Should they be sterilized, too, when they get to say, 5 or 6 kids?

    Or is there a means test? The rich can have as many kids as they like, but the poor are limited by the government? Please explain this, mocktwinkie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 5:23 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidMaybe sterilization programs should be encouraged for all people who are not in positions to properly take care of children... Were these people literally being forced into this?

    That is the most demented thing I have ever read here -- involuntary sterilization, eugenics. And yes, the evidence points to forcing underage minor victims into this, who didn't even realize what was happening to them when they were dragged unwillingly into hospitals. Read their stories.

    Well at least we know what kind of a person mocktwinkie is. A true right-winger. Sterilize those who aren't like the rest of us right-wingers so no one but right-wingers can breed. Absolutely disgusting.

    Or, do we get to limit family size, like the Chinese do, in order to prevent overpopulation by irresponsible parents who keep pumping out children that stress our society? You know, those religious types who think birth control is a sin, and keep having children without end? Should they be sterilized, too, when they get to say, 5 or 6 kids?

    Or is there a means test? The rich can have as many kids as they like, but the poor are limited by the government? Please explain this, mocktwinkie.


    Art, I said "encouraged", not forced. Don't go twisting my position. Also, I am somewhat partial to some sort of cap on how many children are eligible to receive welfare. Everyone would be free to have as many children as they like, but the amount of children per family that can receive benefits would be capped to a certain amount (3 as an example). I think this would limit the amount of children born into poverty. Of course, this type of approach would have some problems because if another child is born beyond that limit and the mother can't afford it you can't just let it starve to death. But something has to be done.

    And Art, this has nothing to do with rich vs poor having kids, it has to do with whether or not you can afford to have kids without relying on someone else having to pay for them.

    Anyway, this is totally getting off track. I looked at the video and read more on the story. Absolutely tragic. Social workers were basically determining who should be sterilized and who shouldn't based on the perception of "promiscuity". Craziness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidArt, I said "encouraged", not forced [people to be sterilized]. Don't go twisting my position.

    [The truth is, these victims were forced against their will to be sterilized. Please bother to read the history. Your semantics change nothing]

    And Art, this has nothing to do with rich vs poor having kids, it has to do with whether or not you can afford to have kids without relying on someone else having to pay for them.

    [Umm... isn't this definition of rich vs poor?]

    You are totally batshit crazy. But the Nazis in the 1930s would have loved you. I can't believe there are supporters of involuntary sterilization eugenics in the 21st Century. Republicans, perhaps?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidArt, I said "encouraged", not forced [people to be sterilized]. Don't go twisting my position.

    [The truth is, these victims were forced against their will to be sterilized. Please bother to read the history. Your semantics change nothing]

    And Art, this has nothing to do with rich vs poor having kids, it has to do with whether or not you can afford to have kids without relying on someone else having to pay for them.

    [Umm... isn't this definition of rich vs poor?]

    You are totally batshit crazy. But the Nazis in the 1930s would have loved you. I can't believe there are supporters of involuntary sterilization eugenics in the 21st Century. Republicans, perhaps?


    Who believes in involuntary sterilization?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 6:33 PM GMT
    Man, notice how racism only exists when conservatives think they can twist it against liberals? This is just as bad as the "MLK was a republican!" meme.


    Look up the Tuskegee experiments and then get back to me, otherwise you homocons are looking even more stupid than ever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidMan, notice how racism only exists when conservatives think they can twist it against liberals? This is just as bad as the "MLK was a republican!" meme.


    Look up the Tuskegee experiments and then get back to me, otherwise you homocons are looking even more stupid than ever.


    You think that this Congresswoman is racist?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 7:50 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
    Uh there is no "explanation" from you.. just a cut n paste.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 7:52 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
    Uh there is no "explanation" from you.. just a cut n paste.



    There doesn't have to be an explanation. Its all in the video. It screams racism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 7:55 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidMaybe sterilization programs should be encouraged for all people who are not in positions to properly take care of children... Were these people literally being forced into this?

    That is the most demented thing I have ever read here -- involuntary sterilization, eugenics. And yes, the evidence points to forcing underage minor victims into this, who didn't even realize what was happening to them when they were dragged unwillingly into hospitals. Read their stories.

    Well at least we know what kind of a person mocktwinkie is. A true right-winger. Sterilize those who aren't like the rest of us right-wingers so no one but right-wingers can breed. Absolutely disgusting.

    Or, do we get to limit family size, like the Chinese do, in order to prevent overpopulation by irresponsible parents who keep pumping out children that stress our society? You know, those religious types who think birth control is a sin, and keep having children without end? Should they be sterilized, too, when they get to say, 5 or 6 kids?

    Or is there a means test? The rich can have as many kids as they like, but the poor are limited by the government? Please explain this, mocktwinkie.


    Art, I said "encouraged", not forced. Don't go twisting my position. Also, I am somewhat partial to some sort of cap on how many children are eligible to receive welfare. Everyone would be free to have as many children as they like, but the amount of children per family that can receive benefits would be capped to a certain amount (3 as an example). I think this would limit the amount of children born into poverty. Of course, this type of approach would have some problems because if another child is born beyond that limit and the mother can't afford it you can't just let it starve to death. But something has to be done.

    And Art, this has nothing to do with rich vs poor having kids, it has to do with whether or not you can afford to have kids without relying on someone else having to pay for them.

    Anyway, this is totally getting off track. I looked at the video and read more on the story. Absolutely tragic. Social workers were basically determining who should be sterilized and who shouldn't based on the perception of "promiscuity". Craziness.
    LOL Did not you just state above "mocktwinkie basically determines who should be sterilized and who shouldn't based on the perception of who can afford kids"

    Sure reads like that to me!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 7:57 PM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
    Uh there is no "explanation" from you.. just a cut n paste.



    There doesn't have to be an explanation. Its all in the video. It screams racism.
    Your name is NOT Riddler.

    buzz off bozo. No one is discussing anything with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 7:57 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
    Uh there is no "explanation" from you.. just a cut n paste.



    There doesn't have to be an explanation. Its all in the video. It screams racism.
    Your name is NOT Riddler.

    buzz off bozo. No one is discussing anything with you.


    Thanks for the insult.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 8:08 PM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    TropicalMark said
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
    Uh there is no "explanation" from you.. just a cut n paste.



    There doesn't have to be an explanation. Its all in the video. It screams racism.
    Your name is NOT Riddler.

    buzz off bozo. No one is discussing anything with you.


    Thanks for the insult.

    Your intelligence level isn't high enough to 'insult'..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 8:10 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    TropicalMark said
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    For you it's never a partisan issue unless a Republican is involved. Yes it is horrifying - but that's the point - the idea that Democrats are naturally to be trusted more is a ridiculous idea on its face. And that's the failing of your ideology that sees government as a solution to cure what ails society - you seek greater interventions, greater spending and greater regulations.

    And that's why you get things like this when government officials and politicians think they know better than their people.
    Riddler.. it was YOU that made this 'partisan' within the first sentence in the OP..

    Get off your high horse. You have absolutely NO room to talk.


    Coming from you that is for all practical purposes meaningless. I also explained why it was a double standard.
    Uh there is no "explanation" from you.. just a cut n paste.



    There doesn't have to be an explanation. Its all in the video. It screams racism.
    Your name is NOT Riddler.

    buzz off bozo. No one is discussing anything with you.


    Thanks for the insult.

    Your intelligence level isn't high enough to 'insult'..


    Another one. Thanks dude. Watch the woman in the video again. Your just like her. Keep up the good work. Your a good liberal.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 8:55 PM GMT
    I don't even know where to begin in this thread... conservatism is so surreal these days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2011 9:24 PM GMT
    Fountains saidI don't even know where to begin in this thread... conservatism is so surreal these days.
    You noticed? LMAO
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Nov 08, 2011 11:46 PM GMT
    People seem to be confused on the issue, so history lesson:

    Eugenics was a strong movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Forced sterilizations took place until the late 1970s in the US and was particularly strong while Nazism was strong. It was to be "the self-direction of human evolution” with positive eugenics.

    "The superficially sympathetic man flings a coin to the beggar. The more deeply sympathetic man builds an almshouse for him so that he need no longer beg: but perhaps the most radically sympathetic of all is the man who arranges that the beggar shall not be born." This quote by Havelock Ellis shows you better.

    This is not a partisan issue, but it was a rich/poor issue, it even won in SCOTUS in Buck v. Bell. The majority opinion wrote: " It is better for all the world...Three generations of imbeciles is enough." Thomas Maltus was one of the early proponents of the eugenics movement. He proposed that “moral restraint” was needed to limit population growth, including limiting support of the poor.
    You also had evolutionists like Herbert Spencer who coined the term "survival of the fittest.
    There were statisticians like Francis Galton who identified these people who "corrupted" the human race and introduced "hereditary genius" and conducted experiments to prove that intelligence was hereditary.

    It came to the US with Charles Davenport who sought to establish evidence for the inheritance of human behaviors, focusing on a cognitive disorder known at the time as feeblemindedness.

    The concept that human behaviors like criminal behavior, pauperism, vagrancy and others were heritable diseases had emerged form a series of family studies.

    These studies provided support for eugenic concepts of racial superiority, and
    the need to prevent reproduction of defectives, who could corrupt the
    eugenically superior humans. Naturally Nordics were the superior humans and results showed that brown-haired Irish, Alpines, Mediterraneans, Jews and Eastern Europeans displayed significantly higher rates of feeblemindedness

    Intelligence Quotient exams were conducted. Henry Goddard introduce the family who proved the inheritance of feeble-mindedness, who scientists now believe was a fictional family.

    Thus sterilization began to happen initially as a cure for masturbation, but later as a way to defect the corrupted people from the human race.

    Massive support from Churchill, Balfour, Graham Bell. In US, it came from John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and many prominent hundreds of scientists. A Human Betterment Foundation was organized with funding from many of these people.

    Immigration quotas were set by Congress that limited what national and how many of them will be admitted to the US.

    The selection of a superior human race was on. The premises was that within three generations, corruption from the human race will over if pure marriages were selected carefully against feeblemindedness, epilepsy, promiscuity, alcoholism, and pauperism amongst others. There were posters popular in the US that promised this. There were posters that predicted the match of children produced between marriages amongs tainted, pure, and abnormal.

    Also came the idea of lethal chambers that the Nazis used. The Americans thought it to be too inhumane. “The Germans are beating us at our own game” was the response of a hospital director to reports of sterilization of non-Aryans, including Jews.

    As someone mentioned, 31 states went on to have compulsory sterilization measures. 35,878 were sterilized under these programs with California having almost 40%. Forced sterilizations were conducted into the 1970s, estimates are that almost 60,000 were victimized.

    Eugenics was described as a pseudoscience. However, it is perhaps more accurately described as a perversion of science in the name of racism. Powerful (almost exclusively white), rich, politically motivated men (and some women) saw Eugenics as a means for ensuring the propagation of their own race. Eugenics provided “data” that “proved” that other races were less fit and more degenerate and thus should be eliminated.

    The eugenics movement became the modern Human Genetics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2011 7:53 PM GMT
    I love how when the right gets proven wrong here on RJ, everyone runs away with their tail between their legs. Thanks commoncoll