"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." (qtd. in Facing History 198)
In the midst of the eugenics movement, Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voiced the
opinion of most Americans. The eugenics movement was
based on the science that contained within itself
the possibility of improving the human race using
selective breeding. Lisa Lindquist Dorr, professor
of American History, contends that eugenics
advocates applied their scientific beliefs to
influence class, race, and gender stereotypes and
construct a social crisis, the contamination of the
Anglo-Saxon race, and that the solution could only
be found in eugenic policies. Thus, the American
eugenics movement reflected the prejudices of the
time. While prejudices differed slightly by region,
the solutions to the social crisis were marriage
restriction, segregation, sterilization, and
immigration restriction.
While there have been social hierarchies for
hundreds of years, eugenics gave scientific backing
to these hierarchies. This science rested on the
evolutionary theory presented in 1859 in Charles
Darwin’s The Origin of Species: every
organism developed from other creatures over
thousands of years. Darwin concluded that a struggle
for the survival of the fittest existed. The outcome
of the struggle would decide which organisms would
become extinct and which would procreate. Darwin’s
theory motivated his cousin, Sir Francis Galton to
apply the theory of evolution to humans. He deduced
that humans were a changing species, and it was
unavoidable for the human race to alter in the
future. Galton began to question whether men
themselves could improve the human race by allowing
only the fittest to reproduce (Whitaker 43). His
quest for the answer would begin a time when science
rationalized dislike.
Galton published Hereditary Genius in 1869
contending that all human characteristics developed
from nature, not their environment. Thus,
encouraging the humans with the best qualities to
reproduce would improve the human race. Galton’s
conclusion rested on his study of the families of
the English elite. He traced the preceding
generations of 1000 English leaders and found that
they came from an exclusive group. To Galton, this
proved that aptitude and leadership were inherited
(43). This idea would not become immensely popular
in England, but it would flourish in America.
At the turn of the twentieth century, America
experienced a great change in the ethnicity of its
population. Earlier waves of immigration brought
white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), but the early
twentieth century witnessed a new tide of incoming
migrants. Yearly immigration increased more than
five-fold from 225,000 to 1,300,000; the principal
composition of this immigration was no longer of
WASPs, but of Italians, Slavs, and Jews (Quinn).
Numerous WASPs felt their societal domination to be
in jeopardy. They saw America as “becoming less
Protestant, less English, and less white” and
America as committing “racial suicide” (Whitaker
45). This provided the perfect atmosphere for
eugenics to proliferate throughout the country.
The advocates of WASP supremacy took on the job of
distinguishing the fit from the unfit, and their
decisions exhibited classism and racism. The leading
American eugenicists provided statistics to the
public that the poor, criminals, and immigrants were
a drain on the rest of society. In the 1880s,
Richard Dugdale studied the Jukes family and found
that the family was plagued with feeblemindedness,
poverty, and crime. Moreover, the birthrates were
different between the natives and foreigners,
creating another reason to worry about racial
suicide. While immigrants were having many children,
the WASP birthrate was decreasing, and the alleged
problem was with women. “White, middle-class,
American women were responsible for the decline in
the white birth rate through their entry into higher
education and the paid labor force, their increased
use of birth control, and the allegedly growing
numbers of women delaying marriage” (Dorr). With the
main exhibitors of such behaviors being college
women, there was an increase in sentiment that a
woman’s role should be in the home. On the other
hand, the Journal of Heredity published many
articles focusing on the spread of inferior genes;
the unfit were “multiplying rapidly” (Whitaker 48).
Eugenicists pointed out if nothing would be done,
then soon the low birthrates of WASPs would lead to
extinction.
The Progressive Era, in the early twentieth century,
sought to solve society’s problems using science and
one of the answers was found in eugenics. The
eugenics movement overlapped with progressivism in
two areas: helping the unfit and improving the human
race. Mark Haller, professor of history, points out
that “society had a responsibility to care for the
dependent and delinquent but society had, at the
same time, a responsibility to see that such persons
did not contaminate generations to come” (qtd. in
Geetter). Whether it was segregation or
sterilization, eugenicists argued that these
measures offered the best life for the unfit.
Accordingly, progressivism fit well with eugenics,
since eugenic laws claimed to care for the less
fortunate while really helping the dominant class.
The Great War amplified eugenic sentiments. While
the most fit went off to fight and die in the war,
the less fit were left to reproduce (Whitaker 52).
This increased fears for the country’s germ plasm
and set off a wave of nativism. WWI generated a
nationalistic zeal from which the expression “100%
American” was developed (Harris). To begin with,
refugees were coming to America in addition to the
regular immigrants, increasing xenophobia.
Furthermore, immigrants serving in the American army
were discriminated against. Doctor David H. Marlowe
noted that the diagnosis of mental disorders in
America after World War I was racially biased, with
Italian, Greek, and Polish soldiers being diagnosed
at much higher rates than white soldiers (39). WWI
saw an increase in eugenic statues around the
country. The apogee of popularity for eugenics came
after WWI because “it seemed to make dislike for
those peoples a matter of science, not prejudice or
ill-will” (Geetter). The time period would see the
biggest wave of eugenic statues due to the increased
nativism after the Great War.
American isolationism of the late 1930s impacted the
eugenics movement as well. There was an increased
attitudinal imperative to stay away from the sordid
troubles of Europe for Americans who wanted to
improve their lives. Americans were no longer
willing to risk their most fit to solve Europe’s
problems. Also, they were not willing to take in the
thousands of refugees that emerged when Hitler’s
army invaded Europe. Nativists were concerned that
the arrival of immigrants from the Old World would
intensify the troubles America already faced with
other minorities (Hasian). The St. Louis, a ship of
Jewish refugees from Germany, was not allowed to
port in America in 1939 on account of the strict
immigration restrictions for Jews. This
anti-Semitism and discrimination against other
groups of people continued through WWII. As in WWI,
anti-Japanese sentiment flared at its climax when
90,000 Japanese were interned in camps solely based
upon their ethnicity.
Unfortunately, this would just be one of many
measures against the Asian immigrants living in
America. Germans would also experience the
prejudices of Americans during the war when schools
prohibited the teaching of German (Harris). In this
time of war, the eugenics movement was promoted as
patriotism such as any “ideal to be followed like a
flag in battle without thought of personal gain” (Hasian).
WWII would end Germany’s eugenics program, but it
would mark four decades of eugenic practices in the
United States that would continued to be applied to
America’s unfit.
The revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the early
twentieth century occurred at the same time as
messages of WASP superiority spread throughout the
country. The panic after WWI over immigrant radicals
and the reappearance of the racist and nativist KKK
indicated an extensive eagerness to significantly
reduce immigration (Quinn). The KKK revival in the
South made this notion more popular than ever
before, but this time the KKK broadened its
discrimination to Jews and Catholics. This inclusion
increased eugenics’ appeal in the South. However,
the KKK did not depart from its traditional hatred
of African-Americans because “the theory of natural
selection had the benefit of providing a method with
which to rationalize the widely held belief that the
Negro was inferior to the Caucasian” (Reilly 5). The
popularity eugenics gained in the United States was
strongly influenced by the historical events of the
time that created prejudices against female
independence, African-Americans, immigrants, the
mentally and physically disabled, criminals, and the
poor.
The American prejudices first manifested themselves
in marriage restrictions. Fueled by the threat of
degeneration, the conception of marriage as forming
stable households was transformed into a procreative
institution that made marriage the state’s means to
a superior end. By the Progressive Era, marriage
served the “public good” as a method toward a fit
citizenry (Lindsay). The many limitations on who
would make good parents were influenced by the
preconceptions of the lawmakers and eugenicists.
Class and racist fears produced those exclusions
from the gene pool.
Many marriage restrictions focused on keeping the
white and black races from mixing. Southerners
feared the African American population because they
could potentially slip into and procreate with white
society. By the turn of the century, many mulattos
could pass for white due to the many generations of
interracial marriage in their families. Some people
also feared that African Americans would claim to be
Native American to marry into the white race because
there would be less of a bias against them (Dorr).
The Racial Integrity Act of Virginia rendered it
illegal for the two races to marry and reproduce.
Dorr reports that Virginians “worried that social
contract between the races would lead to sexual
relationships and result in the destruction of the
traditional white civilization.” Many states adopted
legislation similar to the Virginia act. These
eugenic policies would strengthen present racial
hierarchies in the South. African Americans would
continue to be denied equal citizenship based on the
eugenic evidence that their race was inferior to
WASPs.
However, African Americans weren’t the only ones to
be denied equal rights; women were also given second
class citizenship. While class and race notions
about sexual behavior formed these policies, they
also “reflected fears of changing gender roles and
increasing female sexual agency and independence”
(Dorr). White women had long been considered
inferior to males, but they were finding
independence, living in urban locations, driving
cars, and working. The low birth rates of
college-educated women added to the fears of
Americans. With the threat of racial suicide, Dorr
explains that “eugenicists also reified traditional
gender distinctions and sought to reduce white
women’s social roles to their primary role as
mothers.” Women would have to wait with African
Americans until the 1960s to receive greater
equality.
Other groups of people also lost their right to
marry during the eugenics movement. 39 states
adopted legislation prohibiting the marriage of
feebleminded people by the 1920s (Facing History).
Proponents of this legislation claimed that the
marriage of two feebleminded people would produce
children with the same traits, citing the Jukes
family as proof. The cost of caring for the
feebleminded encouraged many states to turn to
prevention of the birth of feebleminded people;
marriage was only one method. The high immigration
rate into Northern cities by Eastern Europeans led
to increased diagnoses of feeblemindedness (Reilly
26). Marriage was also used to discriminate against
Asians. New laws prohibited the marriage between
whites and Asians sending the message that “you can
work here, but you can’t stay on after the job is
done”. Asian women were also restricted from
migrating to America to encourage Asian men to move
back if they wanted to get married (Reilly 25). The
South was prejudiced against African Americans, the
North against Eastern Europeans, and the West
against Asians. Marriage restrictions, however,
proved ineffective and stronger measures were deemed
necessary. The offspring of the original couple cost
society over 2 million dollars; on the other hand,
it would have cost 150 dollars to sterilize the pair
and 25,000 dollars to segregate one of them for life
(Jasanoff). The Jukes were not the only family to be
studied, and news of the cost of degeneracy spread
like wildfire across the country. These studies
seemed to prove to the WASP ruling class that they
were paying for the costly actions and institutions
of the unfit.
With the invention of the Binet IQ tests,
distinguishing the fit from the unfit became a
simple task. These tests also reinforced the
prejudices of society against African Americans and
immigrants. There were two versions of the test: the
alpha test for English speaking readers and the beta
test for immigrants or illiterate people. Carl
Brigham, president of the American Psychological
Association, claimed according to the Stanford-Binet
army tests, “American intelligence is declining …
owing to the presence here of the Negro” (qtd. in
Facing History 160). These tests also demonstrated
that people from Eastern Europe were “intellectually
inferior” to WASPs (Kevles 82-83). Although some
people argued that the tests reflected class
divisions by asking test questions about the
location of Cornell University or the color of a
sapphire, but these people were virtually ignored
(Quigley). The majority of the public just saw the
statistics as proof that the WASPs were a superior
race, and that they were committing racial suicide.
Eugenicists found more evidence to support their
theory that WASPs were becoming extinct in America’s
institutions for the unfit. Between 1850 and 1880,
the United States census counted that the occurrence
of insanity increased from one out of every 1,345
people to one out of every 554 people (Whitaker 46).
When word spread that the insanity rate had more
than doubled in only thirty years, eugenicists went
in search for the source. They believed they had
found it in immigrants. In 1848, the Charity
Hospital of New Orleans had admitted 11,945
patients, of whom 10,280 were foreigners (Reilly
23). This kind of data created a panic in the
mainstream WASP community because eugenicists had
found proof that Europe was sending its unfit to the
United States (Quigley). The bias towards immigrants
from Eastern Europe increased with the increasing
data that they were threatening the germ plasm of
America.
Segregation was advocated by many eugenicists to
keep the feebleminded separated by gender and ensure
celibacy during their reproductive years. Public
institutions were built to house the insane and
feebleminded around the country. The Minnesota
Institute for Defectives had the responsibility “to
keep the persons entrusted to our care until they
are past the reproducing age” (Reilly 25). Between
1880 and 1929, eugenicists were able to increase the
number of unfit segregated in asylums four-fold;
from 31,973 to 272,527 people (Whitaker 57). State
mental institutions became home to the “social
wastage” of America (69). While middle class
families had the funds to pay for private
institutions that provided better living conditions
or choose for the patient to leave the institution,
poor families had no choice about where their
relatives would live or whether they could leave
(Castles). Classism was noticeably evident in
segregation of the unfit. Only half of those housed
in public asylums actually had a mental disorder. In
New York state hospitals in the 1930s, the mortality
rates for the age group twenty to twenty-four was
fifteen times higher than that for those living
outside the institutions; these were the same people
that eugenicists wanted to stop from procreating.
Some of these institutions “averaged one doctor for
every 277 patients” (69). Segregation became known
as “euthanasia through neglect” (69). The advocates
of WASP supremacy had unintentionally created their
own “concentration camps” to keep the unfit from
reproducing, but the American Medical Association
intentionally covered it up to save its reputation
(70). State institutions had proved to be more
effective than marriage restrictions in dealing with
the unfit.
Though these conditions were horrible, many
eugenicists saw segregation as representative of
their duty to help the unfit. Similar to the
paternalism evident in slavery and female labor
before the industrial revolution, state institutions
claimed to assist those who could not care for
themselves. According to Henry H. Goddard’s
paternalistic sociology, “paupers diagnosed as
‘defective dependents ought to be granted the social
status of permanent children’” (qtd. in Geetter).
Just like children, eugenicists saw the feebleminded
as in need of supervision and help. This treatment
went further with patients of all ages being
referred to as “boys” and “girls” while staff
members were called “momma” and “daddy” (Castles).
This paternalism was based on the preconceived
notion that some people were inferior to others.
The costs of segregation became too high, and soon
this notion of paternalism was transformed into
money-saving sterilization. States began to enact
sterilization statues to get out of paying for the
care of those who years before seemed to need it (Geetter).
Institutions began to allow their patients to leave
if they conceded to being sterilized. However, most
patients who did concede never understood they were
going to be unable to have children for the rest of
their life. Other times the doctors explained to
their patients that sterilization would be a type of
therapy. For men, the conservation of sperm was said
to increase their mental health because it was the
“elixir of life”. For women, their mental health
increased when they no longer feared the process of
childbirth or motherhood (Whitaker 61). This
humanitarian effort that eugenicists advocated was
supported by the general public. In 1927, the United
States became the first eugenic nation when the
Supreme Court upheld the decision to sterilize the
unfit in Buck v. Bell by an 8-1 majority
(59). Though this decision seemed to be inconsistent
with American principles, many people at the time
did not believe that the unfit had the right to
equal treatment. Dr. William J. Robinson wrote:
"It is the acme of stupidity… to talk in such cases
of individual liberty, of the rights of the
individual. Such individuals have no rights. They
have no right in the first instance to be born, but
having been born, they have no right to propagate
their kind." (qtd. in Kevles 94)
Buck v. Bell spurred many states to pass
their own compulsory sterilization laws.
This practice was based on pure prejudice. The 1920s
and 1930s reflected a prejudice against poor whites
(Castles). Buck v. Bell was passed because as
eugenicist Harry Laughlin said, Carrie Buck was part
of those “people [who] belong to the shiftless,
ignorant, worthless class of antisocial whites of
the South” (qtd. in Sutcliffe). However, by the
1950s, as more black families went on welfare, the
ratio of sterilized black women increased
significantly (Castles). In 1948, 40 percent of the
forced sterilizations carried out in the United
States were performed in Puerto Rico (Powell). While
the sterilization of white women decreased with the
second half of the century, the sterilization of
colored women increased, showing the racism inherent
in eugenics. Classism was also evident in criminal
sterilizations when white collar criminals were
never sterilized for “offenses arising out of the
violation of prohibitory laws, revenue acts,
embezzlement, or political offenses,” but thieves
were (Lombardo). California also passed
sterilization statues to deal with the immigration
of Chinese and Mexicans (Powell). Sterilization
policies were biased from their conception, picking
and choosing the unfit from the fit based on
characteristics absolutely unrelated to mental
illness.
Eugenicists argued that it was not enough to
sterilize America’s unfit if more were entering the
country from Ellis Island. Thus, the 1924
Immigration Act was an integral part of the eugenics
movement. “The economic problems caused by the
influx of immigrants… and fears for the impact that
these millions of strangers would have on America’s
racial stock” convinced the Congress and President
Calvin Coolidge to pass the 1924 Immigration Act
(Reilly 24). While the East and North focused on
Southern and Eastern Europeans; the West worried
about Asians (Hasian). The shift in the 1920s from
immigration restrictions that targeted individual to
those that afflicted whole ethnicities “expressed
patent racial prejudices… celebrating WASPs and
denigrating non-WASPs” (Kevles 95). Representative
Robert Allen of West Virginia stated, “the primary
reason for the restriction of the alien stream is
the necessity for the purifying and keeping pure the
blood of America” (Hasian). President Coolidge
agreed, “American must be kept American” (Lombardo).
Politicians never denied the purpose for keeping
immigrants out, but this racism in the immigration
law portrayed only one of the many ways that the
American eugenics movement exhibited nativism,
racism, and classism.
The United States has a great reputation for
democracy and equality before the law, and terrible
examples of inequality such as the enslavement in
the Confederate South of Africans and the coercive
treatment of Native Americans and Mexicans by
certain divisions of the U.S. Army. However, one
untold story remains; the American eugenics
movement. It was a perfect example of the racist,
nativist, and classist fears of Americans getting
the best of them. Based on this bigotry, methods
emerged for dealing with those deemed unfit using
marriage restrictions, segregation, sterilization,
and immigration restriction. While, the federal
courts struck down forced sterilization, Buck v.
Bell has never been overturned, allowing the
promulgation of laws that would permit the
sterilization of the “mentally retarded.” While
immigration was reopened, there are still
restrictions today on many Hispanic countries
forcing Mexicans to sneak into America for the
American dream of moving into the middle class.
America has long been known as a place of liberty
and justice for all, but the American eugenics
movement is another example of the progress it has
yet to make. |
|
|
| |
Anna
Kaluzny is a contributor to The Rational Argumentator.
This TRA feature has been edited
in accordance with TRA’s
Statement of Policy.
Click here to return to TRA's Issue
XII Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel,
Eden against the Colossus, here.
Read
Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise,
A Rational Cosmology,
explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time,
sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at
http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/rc.html.
]
|
