000536-140 Riaz

How did Eugenics shape the 20th century in America and Nazi Germany and in what way does it affect the modern world?

Burhan Riaz
Candidate Number: 000536-140 Word Count: 3,810

000536-140 Riaz

Abstract
Eugenics is the western worlds shameful secretive reason behind a century of manipulation and unjust treatment of minorities. In American schools, history books no longer cover the reason or the motive behind the western worlds history of minority cruelty but rather focus on the fact minorities were subjugated. The theory of eugenics is not something to be taken on lightly. It has impacted the world in so many ways but is nevertheless overlooked. This paper will identify some of the consequences of using Eugenics for political needs in the past century in America and its influence on Germany. More importantly, it will investigate how a theory hijacked by governments can demonize its own citizens who are either from a different race, have a mental illness, or a physical disability. Furthermore, the paper will explore the implications of eugenics in the modern world and what society can expect from it in the near future. In particular, the practices of mandatory human sterilization and euthanasia will be explored in both countries. The aim of this investigation is not intended to be bias and will not be used to prove or disprove the concept of eugenics. Instead, the crucial effects of eugenics will be examined in the 20th century.

Word Count: 206

000536-140 Riaz

Table of Contents

Essay Appendix Bibliography

Pages 1-13 Page 14-17 Page 18-19

000536-140 Riaz

The intention of this document is to discuss the various implications of the theory of eugenics in the early 20th century to the turn of the millennium. Due to the fact the theory of eugenics is an ethically sensitive issue in the present day, the purpose of this document is not to investigate whether eugenics can be proven through science and evidence or whether it is morally unjustifiable, but rather to discuss why and how eugenics has been used throughout German and American history as an acceptable argument and how it impacts us in the modern world. There has been much contemplating this century about what exactly can be considered as eugenics since its meaning continues to change (Humanities Press, 1995). For some, it is synonymous with practices such as sterilization or pre-meditated euthanasia. For others, it means controlling favorable or unfavorable genetic traits in the name of science. However, supporters of eugenics as well as skeptics agree the best way to describe the theory of eugenics is to put it in context with its history; the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding (Larson, 2004a). It can be widely applied to any historical event aimed to control the gene pool or to alter it in order to satisfy self-interests of a country or a people. Events like these are associated with large-scale genocides, selective slavery, and any other act of isolating a person with certain genetic qualities such as color of skin, mental state, or physical disabilities. The term eugenics was created in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a half-cousin to Charles Galton Darwin. Darwins theory of evolution provided the framework of Sir Galtons newly inspired theory of eugenics. Evolution teaches us that species tend to change due to variable conditions such as climate, resources, food supply, etc. Those that survive are said to have the

000536-140 Riaz greatest genetic qualities. Darwin described it as The survival of the fittest. With this theory, Sir Galton applied the notion of natural selection on the human race. He compared the many different races in the human population through measuring everything from body height to mental abilities and established a large-scale collection of data that created a foundation of the modern day Human Genome Project. From his collection of data, he created mathematical models representing how people of various backgrounds were different (MacKenzie, 1981). Galton expressed his views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British society into groups. One of his diagrams claimed that different social classes represented different genetic values (See Appendix A). This diagram suggested that negative eugenics (sterilization) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. He associated the genetic value of the higher working classes to society and industry which can be illustrated by the comic (See Appendix B) which outlines the life of two boys in different social classes). In theory, his intention was fair but his procedure was not. Sir Galton assumed that the Caucasian race was already the predominate race which of course is a bias. A man of his time would justify this reasoning through the fact that the only world superpowers were controlled by the Caucasian race and that other races were either inferior to them or were controlled by them. Sir Galtons research established broad generalization such as Africans being more prone to certain diseases than Caucasians or that Mongolians are shorter in height than Caucasians. White supremacists would consider these generalizations as another way to demean a race. In reality, Sir Galtons collection of data cannot be used in a way to characterize a race as being of lesser quality or of better quality since there is no way to determine whether one race is truly better than another. Instead, eugenics only confirms one thing that we already know; people from

000536-140 Riaz different areas have different traits. However, the true meaning eugenics never mattered as best demonstrated by the Nazis who are best known for applying the theory of eugenics. Throughout the last century, there have been three ways of implanting eugenics (Nikolas, 2007): Mandatory Eugenics; in which a government forces a eugenics plan onto a people. This can include segregation so that a person from an inferior race cannot spread genes to the superior race. In extreme occasions genocide can also be used so that the inferior race has absolutely no method in spreading their genes. Promotional voluntary eugenics; in which interracial marriages are not practiced by the general public but, is not restricted by the government. Privatized Eugenics; in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced by individuals but is not a mainstream concept. In human civilizations, Galton noticed that evolution was hindered. Natural selection usually requires that the weak die early but humans instead are compassionate and actually help protect the poor and the sick. This sympathy for the weak works against evolution and creates a reversion towards mediocrity. Galton, and many other prominent figures of that era, thought that, by practicing selective breeding, human societies could clear out those who were prone to illness or other undesirable traits, thus allowing evolution back on track (Larson, 2004). After all, who didnt want an improved genetic pool? Mandatory Eugenics is the most notorious and infamous form of the theory. A classic example would be Adolf Hitlers eugenics program in which we tried to control the gene pool to create a pure Aryan race. Eugenics was the cornerstone of Hitlers racial hygiene programs. In his program many people who could possibly hinder the purity of the Aryan race were

000536-140 Riaz affected. This includes most Jews, Jehovah witnesses, Gypsies, the mentally ill, and people with physical disabilities. German doctors took this chance to their advantage. Josef Mengele and Otmar von Verscheur, the two most infamous Nazi eugenics doctors, would experiment on these people and stress their bodies and minds to see how much a human could resist torture in the name of science. These types of scientists werent the only problem; German citizens contributed to most of the hysteria at that time by believing non-perfect people were a disease and needed to be dealt with. The government handed out posters depicting a doctor and a physically disabled man with the big title saying 60,000 Reichsmark. This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime. Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too (See Appendix C). So by stating that people who could not take care of themselves wasted taxpayers money, civilians felt that it was wrong for these people to be able to reproduce and spread their genes or better yet, be alive. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime isolated hundreds of thousands of these so called unfit people and forcibly sterilized them, which they said was for their own good. In three years alone, they sterilized 400,000 people between 1934 and 1937. They did not stop there, during this time they killed tens of thousands of institutionalized disabled people through euthanasia just so they could save money and have a purer race (Kuntz, 1988). The Nazi regime also applied some so-called positive eugenics policies. This included awarding the pure Aryan women that have had several pure children by allowing these women to have illegitimate children (Crossland, 2006). In other words, these women could not legally defend themselves if they were raped. There have been numerous allegations that SS soldiers (Stormtroopers) impregnated such women. Nazi Germany believed in purity so much that they removed Aryan

000536-140 Riaz children from their families in occupied countries and gave them to German parents that were willing to adopt them. The Germans not only killed and sterilized people who they thought were inferior. Hitler regarded the Jews as being intelligent but thought of them as inferior spiritually, morally, physically, and artistically (Black, 2003). Seymour W. Itzkoff wrote that the Holocaust was "a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority". Therefore, according to Itzkoff, "the Holocaust was the very antithesis of eugenic practice"(Glad, 2006). After the incident of Nazi Germany, many opinions about "racial hygiene" and "unfit" members of society were openly denounced by politicians and members of the scientific community. The trials in Nuremberg against the previous Nazi leaders exposed to the world many of the administrations genocidal routines and this resulted in the formation of new policies of medical ethics and the 1950 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) statement on race. Over the years, many scientific societies released their own "race statements" and in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formed, as a result due to the eugenics-implemented genocide during the Second World War. UNESCO stated, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." This was not achieved until later in the century. In response to Nazi maltreatment of minorities, eugenics became a universally despised idea in many of the nations where it had once been popular (although, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, would continue secretly for decades). Many pre-WWII eugenicists were busy in what they later labeled "crypto-eugenics", purposefully taking their eugenic viewpoints "underground" and becoming respected anthropologists. For example, Californian eugenicist

000536-140 Riaz Paul Popenoe started marriage counseling during the 1950s, in which he used the theory of eugenics to promote "healthy marriages" between "fit" couples (Barkan, 1992). It is important to note that Germany was not the first or the only country to apply eugenics policies. In fact a German propaganda poster (See Appendix D) titled We do not stand alone depicts 12 different flags of various eugenic supportive countries as well as a man and a woman holding an inscribed shield with the title of Nazi Germanys 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (the compulsory sterilization law). In actuality only five of those countries depicted had compulsory sterilization laws; United States (1907), Denmark (1929), Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), and Finland (1935). The largeness of the Nazis eugenics program made one American eugenics promoter want to expand the United States sterilization laws and even complained the Germans are beating us at our own game" (Selgelid, 2000). The United States was the first to pioneer the use of eugenics in politics. Alexander Graham Bell, an American inventor and scientist, discovered the likelihood of having hereditary deafness. He discovered that if both parents were deaf, the offspring would likely be deaf as well. Hastily, he suggested that deaf people should not marry (Bell, 1883). Bell proposed controlling immigration based upon the grounds of eugenics. He warned America that boarding schools for the deaf were a hazardous breeding place for a deaf human race. Connecticut in 1896, became the first state that prohibited people who were considered epileptic, imbecile, feeble-minded to marry (Osborn, 1937). Woodrow Wilson, a proud believer in eugenics, helped Indiana to become the first state to support a law that made it mandatory for certain citizens to be sterilized in 1907. 30 more states followed in Indianas footsteps. Several years later, America had its own Eugenics Record Office where U.S. citizens

000536-140 Riaz who were deemed abnormal, would have their medical history stored for research (Knopf, 1985). During this time, researchers were intrigued by the idea that children could inherit mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. This led them to perform numerous of reports on the hereditability of mental illnesses and this gave more of a reason to the eugenics movement to continue their endeavors. The American IQ promoters persuaded the Army in WWI to give IQ tests to 1.7 million inductees. This was the world's first mass processing of an intelligence test, and many of todays methods of standardized tests can be traced back to it. The test used the simple technique of calculating intelligence primarily by asking vocabulary questions (analogies, antonyms, synonyms, reading comprehension). On the basis of IQ tests given to immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, eugenicist Henry Goddard "deduced" that more than 80 percent of the Polish, Hungarian, Jewish, Russian, and Italian immigrants were mentally substandard, or unintelligent. Goddard believed that such a deficiency was a condition of the brain or mind, which is simply transmitted as a genetic trait. There was no consideration paid to other factors that may have had an effect on the test scores. Tests were all given in English and under a very vigorous environment to the immigrants after traveling across the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, it would be unfeasible to rate the real intelligence of the immigrants by using a test that is based on only verbal skills to someone in a language in which they are illiterate. High school and college textbooks from the 1920s through the 1940s often had chapters publicizing the scientific progress that could occur when applying eugenic programs to the population. By 1928, the American Genetics Association bragged that there were 376 college courses devoted solely to the theory of eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed the lead by the mid-1930s, with most containing material approving to the idea of controlling

000536-140 Riaz reproduction. Therefore, it would have been difficult to be an even fairly educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known the benefits of implementing mandatory eugenics programs. Many early scientific journals dedicated to heredity were in fact run by eugenicists and featured eugenics articles about humans alongside studies of heredity in other organisms. After eugenics fell out of scientific eye, most references to eugenics were removed from textbooks and edited from scientific journals. Even the names of some journals changed to fight off controversy. For example, Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969, and still runs today (Berkleu, 2005). Americas policies on eugenics were not abolished till the mid-twentieth century. By that time, over 60,000 American citizens were already forcibly sterilized and forbidden to marry (Khl, 1994). California conducted the most mandatory sterilizations as recorded by proeugenics biologist Paul Popenoe. Popoenoe observations were frequently referred to by Nazi Germany, who justified his work as proof that broad-reaching sterilization programs were practicable and humane since they were doing the imbeciles a favor as well as to the general population. In fact, when the Nazi criminals went on trial in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass killings and sterilizations of people by referring to the U.S. as their inspiration (Khl, 1994). At state and local fairs during the 1920s and 1930s, the AES (American Education Services) funded lectures and exhibits intended to display principles of heredity and the threat of unchecked breeding among the unfit (Judge, 2002). "Some people are born to be a burden to the rest," read one sign notably displayed in a discussion (See Appendix E). Another sign said, While a new child is born in America every 16 seconds, every 48 seconds a feeble-minded child is born, every 50 seconds comes a criminal ("Very few normal persons ever go to jail"), but only

000536-140 Riaz every seven and a half minutes is a truly creative and capable person born. As for the pocketbook, every 15 seconds, $100 of each taxpayer's money goes to support the mentally and morally defective. The threat to American society, according to eugenicists, was clear: the dangerous and defective people were reproducing too quickly, while the normal and advantaged of this nation reproduced too little. William Graham, who founded the America Sociological Association, stated that if the government interfered with the social classes by enforcing eugenics programs, a new generation of genius would rise to the top. The rest of the society would be working for the elite class. He also went on to say those people who were regarded to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) left a harmful effect on society by utilizing necessary resources that could be used by the elite people (Watson, 2003). They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society ("Folkways", 1907). William Grahams words closely resemble the justification of Nazi Germany executing hundreds of thousands of people. Oregon was the last state to repeal its forced sterilization law in 1983, with the last known forced sterilization having been done in 1978. There were other methods of eugenics that helped keep the gene pool sanitary such as laws banning interracial marriages or the infamous Racial Integrity Act of 1924 or antimiscegenation law. This of course led to the justification of keeping namely African-Americans segregated from the rest of America. A poster promoting this law illustrated a man sowing land with the title, Only Healthy seeds must be sown (See Appendix F). The miscegenation law was not overturned until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. For the first time in history, eugenicists played a significant role in the American Congressional debate as advisors on the treat of immigrants

000536-140 Riaz infiltrating the gene pool. This lead to a 15 percent decrease in immigration from the previous years due to the government preventing unfit foreigners from entering America (Gould, 1981). Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin presented arguments that some immigrants would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted. This created a hierarchy of immigration, Anglo-Saxon or Nordic people were preferred rather than to Chinese or Japanese immigrants, who had little chance of being accepted into America The decrease in immigration and the ant-miscegenation law consequentially abolished laws prohibiting incest so that white Americans could protect their genes by mating someone with similar genes (Watson, 2003). People who disagreed with the idea of eugenics in general, argued that eugenics legislation still had its benefits. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood of America, found it a handy device to urge the legalization of contraception. Modern eugenics seeks to portray a nicer, gentler face. Eugenics of today isnt about government officials in state offices deciding whether someone can or cannot marry. Instead, Its supporters argue it is about mothers and fathers who want to protect their children from devastating family diseases. Who would not want their baby girl or boy to be as healthy as possible? Unfortunately, this reasonable yearning has led to the destruction of numerous embryonic human beings. With genetic screening, parents now know before their child is even born whether or not it has unfavorable handicaps, like Down syndrome. A 2002 study found that, when tests determine that a pre-born child has Down syndrome, the parents choose abortion four-fifths of the time. The desire for healthy children is leading humans to destroy those with actual or

000536-140 Riaz probable handicaps and is thus continuing the same discrimination that started a hundred years ago. With todays technological advancements, Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (P.G.D.) can screen embryos for genetic defects. With P.G.D., children are created in a lab, tested, and graded. Those who fail the test are destroyed. In the New York Times article, a teacher named Denise Toeckes, who has a genetic mutation that puts her at a higher risk for breast cancer, says, Its like children are admitted to a family only if they pass the test...Its like, If you have a gene, we dont want you; if you have the potential to develop cancer, you cant be in our family. Articles promoting P.G.D. often will state that, thanks to the technology, a child is saved from a genetic disease, but that is simplifying the truth. As many handicapped and at-risk children are produced today as ever before. The only change is that now, when the handicap or risk is discovered, the unborn child is likely to be destroyed or discarded. Ideological social determinists that have acquired college degrees in fields pertinent to eugenics often will describe eugenics as a pseudoscience (Nikolas, 2007). Modern exploration into the potential use of genetic engineering has led to an increase of the history of eugenics in discussions of bioethics. In modern bioethics literature, the past of eugenics presents many ethical and moral questions. Analysts have theorized the future of eugenics will come from reproductive technologies that will able parents to create their own "designer babies". It has been debated that this non-mandatory form of biological enhancement will be chiefly motivated by individual competitiveness and the wish to create the best opportunities for children, rather than a desire to improve the species as a whole, which describes the early 20th-century forms of eugenics. Because of this non-mandatory nature, lack of participation by the state and a difference in goals, some critics have argued whether such activities are eugenics or something

000536-140 Riaz else altogether. But commentators remark that Francis Galton, did not advocate coercion when he defined his theory of eugenics. In other terms, eugenics does not necessarily mean coercion. It is, according to Galton, the proper label for bioengineering of better human beings. Supporters argue that eugenics and the protection of natural resources are similar ideas. Both can be practiced unwisely and exploit individual rights, but both can also be practiced safely. However, many disability activists dispute that, although their disabilities may cause them discomfort or pain, what really disables them as part of society is a socio-cultural system that does not recognize their right to genuinely equal treatment and is therefore bias. They convey skepticism that any shape of eugenics could be to the advantage of the disabled considering their treatment in the 20th century. Nobel Prize-winners James Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it") and John Sulston ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world") support genetic advancement. Which ideas should be expressed as "eugenic" are still controversial in both scientific and public worlds. One of the most significant ideas that this country was built upon is the idea that we are all created equal. This is a hard principle to truly attribute to America because tomorrow there might actually be an error in that statement. There are of course basic differences in the way each person is created and the key question is should a person have the same freedoms as the next person? Equal rights will be a whole new controversy in the future when humans can be designed by other humans. Whoever controls the influence of genetic research that will be used in the future, for good or for bad, will control history. The way that society uses its knowledge of genetics will be formed by the everyday choices its citizens make, and who they choose as their leaders. The advancement in eugenics will continue, and before we make rash

000536-140 Riaz decisions such as in the past, we have a duty to be educated about our world, our society, our government, and to actively use that knowledge to increase the quality of life for all.

000536-140 Riaz Appendix A.

This diagram implies that the poor are genetically defective while the rich are superior. B.

This diagram promoted social eugenics. It asserts that if a boy is in a bad environment, he will become a criminal and die early. A boy grown in a proper environment would become educated and be healthy.

000536-140 Riaz C.

60,000 Reichsmark. This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime. Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too

D.

000536-140 Riaz

The countries which had enacted compulsory sterilization laws were:

United States (date illegible; Indiana enacted first laws in 1907) Denmark (1929) Norway (1934) Sweden (1935) Finland (1935?)

The countries where were considering compulsory sterilization laws were:

Hungary United Kingdom Switzerland Poland Japan Latvia Lithuania

E.

000536-140 Riaz

This poster suggests that people of non-white descent, mentally ill, physically disabled, are a burden to the rest of the world. F.

To promote sanitary marriages this poster served to humiliate those who would otherwise choose to marry someone with a physical defect or from a different race.

Works Cited

000536-140 Riaz Barkan, Elazar. "The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars." Cambridge University Press 1992. Black, Edwin. "A Weak Case." The Occidental Quarterly. 2003. <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/rl-black.html>. Crossland, David. "Himmler was my godfather." Times Online. 6 Nov. 2006. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article626101.ece>. Glad, John. Future Human Evolution : Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Hermitage, 2006. Gould, Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton, 1981. Graham, Alexander. "Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race." Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. 1883. Hansen, Nil. "Eugenics And the Welfare State and Alexandra Stern, Eugenic nation: faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America (." University of California Press 2005. Khl, Stephan. "The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism." Oxford University Press 1994. Knopf, Alfred. "In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity." Rutgers University Press 1985. Kuntz, Dieteer. "Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis." Harvard Universit Press 1998. Larson, Edward. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. 2004. MacKenzie, Donald. "Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge." Edinburgh University Press 1981. Osborn, Frederick. "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy." Review. American Sociological Review June 1937.

000536-140 Riaz Paul, Diane. "Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the present." New Jersey: Humanities Press (1995). Rose, Nikolas. The Politics of Life Itself : Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the TwentyFirst Century. New York: Princeton UP, 2006. Selgelid, Michael J. "Monash Bioethics Review." Review. Neugenics 2000. Watson, James D., and Andrew Berry. DNA : The Secret of Life. New York: Knopf, 2003.