Eugenics Documentary on PBS’s American Experience

[Beancounter]

Did anyone else watch this documentary on Eugenics last night on PBS? It was the most fascinating show I’ve watched in a long time. It dealt with a part of American history about which I was totally oblivious.

 

Edit: Eugenics was an attempt to creat a superior race of people by cleansing society of undesirables.

[+ Avalon]

I didn't see it.

 

Was Margaret Sanger mentioned in it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

[Beancounter]

I didn't see it.

 

Was Margaret Sanger mentioned in it?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

She was mentioned in it.

[+ Avalon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

 

I had a friend - now deceased - who was in the (US) army and was stationed in Berlin in the 1950s. That was where he met his first wife. She was a product of Lebensborn.

[+ oldNbusted]

It's posted at

 

PBS: The Eugenics Crusade

[amused1]

I watched it with fascinated horror. It was disturbing to realize that progressive minds of the day, like Sanger and Kellog, embraced aspects the movement to further their own ideas. Kind of like the current cabal in DC.

[+ quoththeraven]

I watched it with fascinated horror. It was disturbing to realize that progressive minds of the day, like Sanger and Kellog, embraced aspects the movement to further their own ideas. Kind of like the current cabal in DC.

Actually the frightening thing is people deciding who should live and die, who is worthy and who is not. That's why I know that as soon as someone starts talking about how he earned everything he has through his own efforts and is therefore worthier and more moral than others, I should run fast in the other direction. It's wrong and biased, as wealth is a better indicator of future success than talent or giftedness. Meritocracy is largely a myth.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/?utm_term=.2512d7333362

[+ Pensant]

The eugenics movement was also popular in Sweden, of all places. 1920’s progressives were certainly a far different flavor of progressivism.

[+ quoththeraven]

The eugenics movement was also popular in Sweden, of all places. 1920’s progressives were certainly a far different flavor of progressivism.

Where in Europe and the Anglo world was eugenics not popular? And in what way is eugenics anything other than genocide based on physical characteristics?

[TruthBTold]

Where in Europe and the Anglo world was eugenics not popular? And in what way is eugenics anything other than genocide based on physical characteristics?

 

My guess (and it is really only a very limited guess as I know a limited amount about eugenics) is that eugenics attempts to build a "master race" from the ground up. I do not think that it mandates murdering those that are outside the master race. My guess (again) is that it might want to order that propagators that were not in the master race be subject to sterilization or perhaps even forced abortion. I do not think eugenics necessarily mandates (as the Nazis tried to do) to eliminate those they did not want in their master race which would be genocide. Both are disgusting practices but I think they can be differentiated.

[+ quoththeraven]

My guess (and it is really only a very limited guess as I know a limited amount about eugenics) is that eugenics attempts to build a "master race" from the ground up. I do not think that it mandates murdering those that are outside the master race. My guess (again) is that it might want to order that propagators that were not in the master race be subject to sterilization or perhaps even forced abortion. I do not think eugenics necessarily mandates (as the Nazis tried to do) to eliminate those they did not want in their master race which would be genocide. Both are disgusting practices but I think they can be differentiated.

Eugenics mandates sterilization and forced abortions for those deemed unfit - something Kavanaugh approved of as a Circuit Court judge. How do you describe the intentional weeding out of certain characteristics and the encouragement of state interference in decisions about medical treatment and reproductive rights other than a way to eliminate specified traits without regard to the people involved? How is that not a kinder, gentler version of genocide?

 

Same goes for wanting the US to be Eurocentric/white. What happens if people don't self-deport? The logical end of that is also genocide. Remember, it's still genocide even if it doesn't wipe out a population.

[TruthBTold]

Eugenics mandates sterilization and forced abortions for those deemed unfit - something Kavanaugh approved of as a Circuit Court judge. How do you describe the intentional weeding out of certain characteristics and the encouragement of state interference in decisions about medical treatment and reproductive rights other than a way to eliminate specified traits without regard to the people involved? How is that not a kinder, gentler version of genocide?

Same goes for wanting the US to be Eurocentric/white. What happens if people don't self-deport? The logical end of that is also genocide. Remember, it's still genocide even if it doesn't wipe out a population.

 

Please, please do not take this as approving of either of the policies I discussed - sterilization or forced abortion - (and mentioned so in my original post). As crazy as it may sound, these practices, while reprehensible, may not be genocide because they are not targeted toward a particular group or groups. The U.N. has defined what it considers "genocide" and I think that preventing births without targeting particular groups and without killing live human beings is not genocide. See http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html . It appears that the International Criminal Court has defined genocide in similar terms. In my eyes, trying to make sure that your "race" stays pure by eliminating all other cultural groups by preventing members of the other groups from being born should be genocide but I am not sure that under international law that it is. If I remember correctly, the U.S. forced sterilization on certain groups at various times, e.g., the developmentally disabled. Being that it is such a serious issue I truly apologize if my post is erroneous in any way.

[+ quoththeraven]

Please, please do not take this as approving of either of the policies I discussed - sterilization or forced abortion - (and mentioned so in my original post). As crazy as it may sound, these practices, while reprehensible, may not be genocide because they are not targeted toward a particular group or groups. The U.N. has defined what it considers "genocide" and I think that preventing births without targeting particular groups and without killing live human beings is not genocide. See http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html . It appears that the International Criminal Court has defined genocide in similar terms. In my eyes, trying to make sure that your "race" stays pure by eliminating all other cultural groups by preventing members of the other groups from being born should be genocide but I am not sure that under international law that it is. If I remember correctly, the U.S. forced sterilization on certain groups at various times, e.g., the developmentally disabled. Being that it is such a serious issue I truly apologize if my post is erroneous in any way.

It seems to me that disabled people are a specific class of people. They're the ones most often targeted by eugenics. (Racial classifications are used as a proxy for lower intellect and morals, hence a form of disabt.) How is breeding supposedly undesirable and unhealthy traits out of a population, including forced abortion and encouragement of suicide and lack of care, meaningfully different from directly murdering them, and what is to prevent it from resulting in that anyway?

[+ SundayZip]

I watched it. Yet another reason I crinch when I hear Americans claim that the US a moral superiority.

[TruthBTold]

It seems to me that disabled people are a specific class of people. They're the ones most often targeted by eugenics. (Racial classifications are used as a proxy for lower intellect and morals, hence a form of disabt.) How is breeding supposedly undesirable and unhealthy traits out of a population, including forced abortion and encouragement of suicide and lack of care, meaningfully different from directly murdering them, and what is to prevent it from resulting in that anyway?

 

I agree with you that such acts are deplorable in any way and I said in my post I am not condoning those acts. However, the U.N. states that genocide "means any of the following acts committed with intent too destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, religious group . . . " and then goes on to delineate the many ways this can be done. (The International Criminal Court adopted a similar definition in 1998.) I believe the definition was created because it was in direct response to the outright slaughtering of the Jewish population in WWII based on ethnical and religious considerations. Unfortunately, it does not include disabled people as a separate group.

[+ quoththeraven]

I agree with you that such acts are deplorable in any way and I said in my post I am not condoning those acts. However, the U.N. states that genocide "means any of the following acts committed with intent too destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, religious group . . . " and then goes on to delineate the many ways this can be done. (The International Criminal Court adopted a similar definition in 1998.) I believe the definition was created because it was in direct response to the outright slaughtering of the Jewish population in WWII based on ethnical and religious considerations. Unfortunately, it does not include disabled people as a separate group.

I'm not using the UN definition. That would be like using rape to mean only what is legally defined as rape when some jurisdictions require the use of force and not lack of consent.