Reviews for Eugenic Design: Streamlining America in the 1930s

The average rating for Eugenic Design: Streamlining America in the 1930s based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-07-13 00:00:00 Ernest Allen This report was based on Dr. Cogdell's book alongside "Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction" by Dr. Philippa Levine Eugenic Origins in the UK In 1883 Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" (meaning "well born"). This was the man who constructed a "beauty map" of the British Isles, classifying women he passed on the street as "attractive, indifferent, or repellent." He concluded that the ugliest British women were working-class and the most beautiful were wealthy. Beauty, he argued, was because of the biological superiority of the upper classes. Wealthy dudes like Galton were worried about the "decline of the West." They were anxious that upper classes weren't as fertile as "lower classes" and that they would soon lose their dominance. Galton proposed that society could be engineered into "improving" its genetic composition by controlling reproduction. He thought we should encourage "intelligent" people to bear more children with one another. His idea of hereditary didn't come from actual genetics, but instead from measuring body parts and arguing that people's outward appearance was a visible expression of their internal genetic character (not true). He measured 90 people a day and used this "data" to make claims about the "biological differences" between classes, races, and sexes. Galton's ideas became what we now call positive eugenics (promoting the reproduction of those considered most "fit"). Negative eugenics (preventing the reproduction of the "unfit" or "feeble-minded") became its counterpart. Eugenicists positioned themselves as divine architects who were helping to "uplift" modern civilization toward utopia. They used the sheen of "objective science" to disguise their insidious prejudice. Eugenics provided a convenient way to blame individuals for inequality (the reason you're poor is because you're genetically inferior, not because of systems of oppression) and naturalize inequalities between groups as "biological truths." US American Eugenics Eugenics was not a fringe ideology, it was mainstream by the early 20th century. The first eugenic organization in the US was the American Breeders Association in 1906. Between 1914 and 1947, the majority of US school textbooks upheld eugenics as a legitimate form of science. In 1928 Columbia University students lobbied for a required eugenics course and some schools implemented eugenic admissions policies. In order to guarantee the progress of the race, young white people were encouraged to make a "eugenic choice" of partner, instead of following "the emotional whims of falling in love." Eugenicists legitimized their social engineering projects using the rhetoric of "health," "hygiene," and "efficiency." American geographer Ellsworth Huntington argued that eugenics was a form of race hygiene because "it will do for the race what personal hygiene does for the individual." "Defectives may be compared to an insidious disease affecting the body politic." American eugenicists like Herbert Spencer manipulated the theory of evolution to argue that evolution was progressive, always improving toward an ideal civilization. From this perspective "degenerates" were people who had "arrested development" and hadn't appropriately evolved into the ultimate perfect form (white, cis, able-bodied, heterosexuals). In this view, humans were products that had to be manufactured. Real people were turned into "waste" that had to be disposed of for "national strength." While some had concerns with coerceive eugenic methods, they let them continue because they believed in the importance of "evolutionary progress." Some Examples of US Eugenics: Immigration Bans: Policy makers sought to protect the "Nordic breed" from the contamination of the "feeble-minded" by banning migrants from Asia in 1917 and 1924, alongside "homosexuals" and "idiots." Segregation: Policy markers justified racial segregation by labeling Black and Indigenous people as "feeble-minded." Banning Marriage: By 1929, 29 states had banned marriage between people with mental disabilities. Laws banning interracial unions justified on the basis of ensuring "blood purity" and the "fitness of the race" were on the books until Loving v. Virginia in 1967. SATs: In 1923 Eugenicist Carl Brigham - who created the SAT test -- used IQ tests to argue that intelligence was related to race and that Black people and Southern and Eastern Europeans were inherently less intelligent than native born whites. Disability colonies: In 1920 the Virginia State Epileptic Colony was established to incarcerate people with mental disabilities and other qualities regarded as unfit for reproduction. This colony was home to Carrie Buck, the subject of the Supreme Court Case Buck v. Bell that ruled that it was legal to sterilize people with disabilities. By 1926, the colony had almost 900 detained people. Colonies like this sprung up across the US where "unfit" populations were forced to do manual labor. Supporters of these colonies argued that inmates "enjoyed the menial tasks" and that the "discipline was good for the feeble minded." Birth Control: For eugenic "feminists," birth control not only relieved women of relentless pregnancy, it also reduced the incidence of "unfit births" among undesirable populations. In 1921 Margaret Sanger claimed that "the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Sterilization: People labeled as "moral degenerates" and "sexual perverts" (most often LGBTQ people, sex workers, and women who didn't comply with patriarchal authority) were forcibly sterilized. Originally sterilization was called "asexualization." It was most often women - and especially Black, Indigenous, and POC women - who were nonconsensual sterilized. Between 1929 and 1977, 85% of sterilizations in North Carolina were of women. In Puerto Rico, almost 17% of women of childbearing age had been sterilized by 1955. Contemporary Eugenics Many people think that eugenics ended after WWII. ThiBut actually, many eugenic institutions just changed their names, not necessarily their beliefs and practices. (For example: The Swedish Institute for Race Biology became the Department of Medical Genetics. The Hong Kong Eugenics League became the Hong Kong Family Planning Association.) People continued to justify eugenic practices in the name of "population control." While the US may condemn negative eugenics elsewhere, it still continues to allow non-consensual sterilizations of people with disabilities, immigrant detainees, and prisoners at home. Positive eugenics became generalized into mainstream US American culture where individuality is not about freedom of expression, but rather freedom to select pre-determined, idealized norms (like gender norms). The new eugenics look like pretending that traits like intelligence, character, and sexuality are controlled by a few genes, completely discounting genetic complexity and the role of the environment. It looks like emphasizing genetic engineering as a quick-fix, not actually addressing structural inequality. It looks like weaponizing "biology" to license discrimination against trans and intersex people. It looks like people dismissing the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic by regarding elders, people with pre-existing conditions, and people with disabilities as disposable. It looks like beauty norms requiring a continual aspiration for perfection. And so much more. We must learn from history to ensure that we don't make the same mistakes. There are enough resources in the world to create a society that is affirming and livable for everyone. People have worth regardless of their perceived "fitness." People matter for who they are, not what they should be.

Review # 2 was written on 2017-01-03 00:00:00 Curtis Golladay Save the date! We'll be discussing the book Wednesday, August 25th at Red Tettemer (1 South Broad St). Jon Kolko will be skyping in to discuss his thoughts on interaction design live, so have your questions and comments ready.