A Historiography of Eugenics and Hereditarian Thought
In 1883, Sir
Francis Galton, a cousin to Charles Darwin, coined the term eugenics.[1] But for many years scientists had been
searching for a scientific answer that explained the differences of man. In
1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species.
The main thrust of Darwin’s theory was that beneficial traits were passed to subsequent
generations in a hereditarian process. This caused a dilemma for those who
studied human society. Biological processes according to Darwin resulted in
survival of the fit and elimination of the "unfit”, but as Darwin stated,
“[we] do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for
the imbecile…we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.”[2] Darwin goes on to say, “Thus the weak members
of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to
the race of man.”[3]
For many
eugenicists, the solution was simple. By
preventing the “unfit” from producing progeny it would keep the undesirable
traits like, poverty, feeble-mindedness, intemperance, and other undesirable
traits from manifesting. At the same time by encouraging propagation among fit
individuals.[4]
Eugenicists were
not the only group to take much from Darwinian ideas. Herbert Spencer who is
responsible for applying Darwinian ideas to society at large as a way to
endorse the laissez-faire policies of conservatives in both England and the
United States. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “As a phase in the history of conservative
thought, social Darwinism deserves remark. In so far as it defended the status
quo…social Darwinism was certainly one of the leading strains in American
conservative thought for more than a generation.”[5]
The movement of
social Darwinism and eugenics both emerged from the intersection of Darwinian
ideas and society trying to deal with the problems of a rapidly industrializing
society; however, both eugenics and social Darwinism have had long effects.
Today the world again finds itself in the midst of rapid societal change. We
have unlocked the human genome and our understanding of genes have grown
exponentially and yet as late as last July (July 11, 2013) an NPR (National
Public Radio) report documented the illegal sterilization of 148 female
prisoners in California. In the same story, one of the doctors that was
involved stated that the state would, “save in welfare paying for those
unwanted children-as they procreated more.”[6] This mirrors the attitudes found almost 100
years ago at the height of the eugenics movement. Until recently, eugenics has not received the
attention of other subjects such as progressivism or the gilded age. Even
though eugenics is still relevant, this is by no means a comprehensive
historiography but does provide a very representative sample of scholarship on
the subject.
In
1944, Richard Hofstadter wrote Social
Darwinism in American Thought: 1860 to 1915, primarily about the doctrine
of social Darwinism and application of Darwinian thought to American society.
Hofstadter states, “while eugenics has never since been so widely discussed, it
has proved to be the most lasting aspect of social Darwinism.”[7] This at least in Hofstadter’s opinion puts
eugenics under the heading of social Darwinism though only a part of the larger
social phenomenon of social Darwinism it was a major part of the movement.
Within social
Darwinism eugenicists had diverse interests and motives that Hofstadter
documents such as how anti-colonization forces used eugenic arguments. To demonstrate this Hofstadter writes, “Once
the martial fever of the short… war with Spain had subsided… [American people]…was
surprisingly nervous… Encouraged by…the eugenics movement, men talked of racial
degeneracy, of race suicide, of the decline of western civilization…”[8]
Hofstadter wrote, “early eugenicists tacitly accepted that identification of
‘fit’ with the upper classes and the ‘unfit’ with the lower that had been
characteristic of the older social Darwinism.”[9] Originally written in 1944, Hofstadter is one
of the first American historians to write on eugenics and its effect on
American society. As a Marxist, he spent
far more time discussing the economic effects of social Darwinism, but by
putting eugenics under the heading of social Darwinism, he opened the door for
historians such as Mark Haller and Donald Pickens. Who followed and wrote two of the first
monographs exclusively on eugenics, so the study of the history of eugenics was
greatly influenced by Hofstadter.
In 1963, Mark Haller
wrote the first monographs devoted solely to the eugenics movement in the
context us of a social history, Eugenics:
Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought.
In this work, Haller concentrated on scientists and policymakers
acceptance of theories that explained degenerate behavior in hereditarian terms.
This is seen when Haller wrote, “early eugenicists were convinced that, through
selective breeding, man could produce progeny who were… moral or licentious…”[10]
Another main
thrust of Haller’s work was that eugenics was a movement that shared much with
social Darwinism. This could be seen when Haller wrote, “eugenics was, of
course, but one of the many currents stemming from evolutionary thought. Obviously it belongs to the same climate of
opinion that produced the conservative social Darwinism associated with the
names of Herbert Spencer…and William Graham Sumner.”[11] Haller argued that eugenicists believed that
if unaided by the government the unfit would succumb to poverty intemperance
and disease, and the fit would be assured survival.[12]
Haller also
demonstrated that the American eugenics movement could be divided into three
distinct stages. The first stage which
went from 1870 to 1905, Haller saw as, “a period of preparation during which
hereditarian attitudes took root.”[13] It was during this time when those
responsible for the care of the feeble-minded, criminal, or insane came to
believe that their condition was due to heredity. It was also that portion of
American society that began to urge immigration restrictions due to the effects
on genetic makeup of the United States. The second stage was 1905 to 1930; it
was then Haller argued, “Eugenics entered upon its period of greatest influence.”[14] It was during this period that laws allowing
for the sterilization of “unfit” individuals were passed as well as laws
designed to reduce the influx of “inferior races”. The last stage, 1930 to
present (1963) “has therefore been characterized not by… continued and careful
research into the hereditary of man.”[15]
In 1972, Kenneth
Ludmerer wrote, Genetics in American Society:
A Historical Appraisal, which examined the relationship between genetics
and eugenics. In which Ludmerer’s main argument is that in America geneticists
supported the eugenics movement early on but soon became disillusioned by eugenicist’s
propensity to make claims not substantiated by genetic research. This can be seen
in the passage that reads, “Still, the end result was the same as if they had,
since a compromise with legitimate standards of proof and methodology might
have marked the end of their sciences autonomy. Thus, though many geneticists
had been losing interest in the eugenics movement since the beginning of World
War I...”[16] Ludmerer also writes, “to understand the
social history of genetics, it is necessary to discuss the eugenics movement.”[17] Ludmerer
goes on to define eugenics for the purpose of this book as strictly the
American social movement.[18]
Ludmerer centers
his discussion of eugenics on Haller’s second stage (1905 – 1930) during which
Ludmerer examines how eugenicists use genetic theories to get legislation
passed ranging from birth control to the 1924 Johnson Reed Act. Another focus is
what drove Americans to look to science specifically genetics as a guide for
legislation and lastly the use by eugenicists of genetics as a justification
for social programs of “dubious” scientific and ethical value.[19]
In 1994, William
Tucker wrote The Science and Politics of Racial
Research, in which his main thesis is, “that the political exploitation of
scientific results is a misuse of
science, the following chapters demonstrate that the effort to prove the innate
intellectual inferiority of some groups has led only to oppressive and antisocial proposals; it has no other use.”[20] Tucker substantiates this thesis by examining
the work of those throughout history that have sought to demonstrate the use of
science and inherent difference in the races. Tucker then shows how that work
was used to justify slavery, segregation and nativism.
Tucker’s primary
concern is the politics of racial science and to this end in relation to eugenics
states, “basically, Galton did for Herbert Spencer’s ideas what John Maynard
Keynes’s had done for Adam Smith’s: he justified the intrusion of public policy
into a competitive arena in which it was previously claimed to have no place.”[21] Though Tucker puts much of the blame on Galton
in going so far as to state, “Galton set the tone for the ‘eugenics era,’ and
many of its excesses were committed in his name.”[22] Tucker is in the minority even though Galton
is credited with the “discovery” of eugenics.
Hs place in the “movement” is generally thought to be on the periphery.
In 1995 Diane Paul
wrote, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865
to the Present, a brief work written for a general audience, however in
spite of this it is a very useful book for anyone interested in eugenics. Paul
argues that because of the chaos caused by industrialization, immigration, and
urbanization the professional class sought a “scientific” way to ensure social
order. Paul demonstrates this by stating, “While we will see that the early
geneticists divided on many specific issues, they were virtually united in
their view that social ills such as poverty and crime resulted from defects in
heredity.”[23]
Paul writes that
this book arose from the experience of teaching a course on “The Darwinian Revolution”
to a wide array of students, ranging from biology majors knowing little social
history to history majors knowing little about evolution. This fact and the
fact that the book is just over 100 pages means the history of eugenics must be
simplified and sacrifices much of the historical arguments but much of the history
is retained. The only place the history
is lacking is that Paul does not make clear the fact that eugenics never gained
more than a small elite following and its successes were more the result of inaction
by opponents than action by eugenicists.
In 1995 Edward
Larson wrote, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics
in the Deep South, one of the few books that addresses eugenics as
practiced in the Deep South. Larson defines the Deep South as the six
southeastern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
South Carolina. Larson states “…the six southeastern states of the United
States responded to eugenics in a distinctive way, and eugenicists recognized
it.”[24]
The southern
supporters of eugenics borrowed concepts and laws from other regions because of
the weakness of higher education and as a result the social sciences, this was
a major roadblock to the dissemination of eugenic ideas. Thus eugenic ideas
largely found its niche among hospital superintendents and officials associated
with state mental hospitals.[25] The main concern of eugenically minded
officials as Larson states, “First, concern focused on protecting and purifying
the Caucasian race. Second, the eugenically
unfit—particularly the ‘insane’ and ‘feeble-minded’—were blamed for a multitude
of social problems. Third, eugenic
marriage restrictions, sexual segregation, and compulsory sterilization…became
the proposed solution for these problems.”[26] Ultimately the south used eugenics to
rationalize the segregation and disenfranchisement of African Americans and the
sterilization of “poor white trash”.
In his 2002 work The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe
Draper and the Pioneer Fund, William Tucker examines the Pioneer fund, and its
alleged purpose to finance studies to prove differences between
African-Americans and Caucasians and to provide “ammunition” for those that
believed in the inherent superiority of Caucasians. This can be seen when
Tucker writes, “Although the record is not complete—and no doubt will remain
so…The evidence available now strongly indicates that Pioneer has indeed been
the primary source of scientific racism.”[27]
By examining the
various works funded by the Pioneer fund and the funds publication the “Mankind
Quarterly” as well as other primary sources that demonstrate the Pioneers funds
racist agenda. By demonstrating the Pioneer’s funds ongoing racism and drawing a
line to its founding in 1937 and the funds first president Harry Laughlin[28] who
was also responsible for the majority of eugenics legislation written in both
the United States and Nazi Germany. By demonstrating an unbroken connection to
such a major eugenicist, Tucker now only demonstrates the inherent racism of
the eugenics movement in the United States but also how research on this issue
can be shaped by individuals with resources and agendas. “In 2001 [Richard]
Lynn authored the [Pioneer] fund’s own… account of its past, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (Lanham, Md.:
University Press of America)…”[29]
In 2003 Nancy
Ordover wrote, American Eugenics: Race, Queer
Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism, a study in eugenic ideology which
is both wide-ranging and provocative. Ordover looks at three main subjects. The
first topic is the rise of the eugenic movement, during which she, like Tucker,
draws associations between eugenics, the eugenics movement, and the Pioneer
fund. Also during this section of her book she examines efforts to restrict
immigration. “Eugenicists had been able to make a common anti-immigrant cause
with large segments of organized labor...”[30] “For over sixty years, the Pioneer Fund had
bankrolled academics with explicitly racist research imperatives…The Pioneer
fund was… Founded and maintained by some of the same men who led eugenicists to
victory in 1924…”[31]
In the second
section, Ordover concentrates on the eugenics of homosexuality, which is an
area of study that has not received much attention until recently (last twenty
years). Though as Ordover argues homosexuals
were seen as deviants that eugenicists sought to purge from society. “Hereditary
notions that tied homosexuality, among other ‘propensities,’ to other
manifestations of compromised bloodlines abounded in the late nineteenth
century.[32]
Lastly, Ordover
examines eugenic sterilization, and Margaret Sanger’s birth control advocacy, in
which Ordover argues cannot be divorced from eugenical thought. “Her [Sanger]
warnings about the ‘feeble-minded peril’, her [Sanger] belief in ‘inborn
character,’ her [Sanger] declaration of the inseverability of eugenics and
birth control… all secure her place among the ranks of U.S. eugenicists.”[33]
In 2008, Victoria
Nourse wrote, In Reckless Hands: Skinner v Oklahoma and the Near Triumph of
American Eugenics. In this detailed
history of Oklahoma’s eugenics legislation and the litigation that came as a
result and researching the book, especially the papers of the Supreme Court
justices, Nourse is able to revise Skinner’s place in the development of modern
constitutional law. Nourse argues that “Skinner’s innovation was not the
invocation of right, but the idea that rights married to inequality could
trigger ‘strict scrutiny’...”[34] This book written for a general audience is a
very good source of information on opposition to the eugenics movement which is
something that is generally lacking in most books of this type on the subject
of eugenics.
In Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v Bell
(2008), Paul Lombardo places the seminal case of Buck versus Bell into a more
general context of the eugenics movement by connecting the forced sterilization
of Carrie Buck in Virginia to the Nazi war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg. Like Nourse, Lombardo also examines the
Skinner v. Oklahoma case. By painting
the picture of the differences in the two landmark legal cases, to eugenics,
one successful and the other not. By
pointing out not only the major changes in public opinion in the United States
as well as the major change in the makeup of the Supreme Court that heard both
cases, only one judge was on both courts.
The fact that both cases were on the right of the state to sterilize. One main difference was the intent of the law. In Buck v Bell there was no punitive
component, it was for the public good.
Whereas in Skinner v Oklahoma, the law is inherently a punitive measure
and to weaken the Oklahoma law it was not applied in a universal manner.
In 2008, Gregory
Michael Dorr wrote Segregation Science Eugenics
and Society in Virginia. In this
Dorr traces the history of racial and class segregation from Thomas Jefferson
through the, “fruit of his intellect”,[35] the
University of Virginia. Dorr’s thesis is that the university was the epicenter
of racial/eugenic thought in Virginia.[36] By examining the curriculum[37]
and even the term papers,[38]
Dorr was able to demonstrate the importance of the university in disseminating
the eugenic message to the rest of the state of Virginia.
Like Lombardo,
Dorr examines the Buck v Bell case, which Dorr contends is the high watermark
for eugenics public policy. Because
within a little more than a decade of the US Supreme Court decision; the
eugenics records office was closed depriving Virginia of a viable institutional
base for the dissemination of eugenic ideas; however, it would be years before
the eugenics policies of Virginia ran their course.[39] The last “therapeutic” sterilization in Virginia
occurred in 1979.[40]
In 1981 Stephen
Gould, professor of scientific history at Harvard, wrote the New York Times
bestseller, The Mismeasure of Man. This book like the work of Hofstadter relates
to eugenics by association; however, there are two very strong associations.
The first is found in Gould’s stated purpose for writing the book, “this book
seeks to demonstrate both the scientific weaknesses and political contexts of
determinist arguments,”[41]
or to put it another way Gould seeks to show that theories such as Eugenics,
Social Darwinism and other theories that seek to demonstrate the superiority of
one race over the other are inherently flawed.
The other key association
is in Gould’s examination is of the misuse of IQ testing especially by Cyril
Burt, H. H. Goddard, and R. M. Yerkes, the latter two American eugenicists that
were instrumental in the sterilization of thousands based on the misuse of
Binet’s IQ test. In Goddard’s own words, “…the feeble-minded must be identified
and kept from breeding.”[42]
Gould himself
states, “Biological determinism is too large a subject for one man and one book—for
it touches virtually every aspect of the interaction between biology and
society since the dawn of modern science.”[43]
In 1975, Allen
Chace wrote, The Legacy of Malthus. In this thoroughly researched volume, Allen
takes somewhat of a Marxist slant in that his thesis is that Anglo-American
scientific racists were far more concerned with class than race, religion, or
national origin. This can be seen when Chase writes,
Scientific racism is, essentially,
the perversion of scientific and historical facts to create the myth of two
distinct races of humankind. The first of these “races” is, in all countries, a
small elite whose members are healthy, wealthy… and educable. The other “race”
consists of the far larger populations of the world who are vulnerable, poor…
and allegedly uneducable.[44]
Chase goes on to say, “…most of
the…physiological ailments, anatomical defects, behavioral disorders, and—above
all else… poverty are classified as being caused by the inferior hereditary… of
people...”[45] Allen’s view is far from being the consensus,
but it is intriguing and if not 100% accurate it has the “ring" of truth.
In 1994, Allan
Kraut wrote, Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes
and the Immigrant Menace. Though
primarily concerned with the history of medicine and social health as seen
through the lens of mid-nineteenth century to early twentieth century
immigration in the United States. Kraut deals primarily with four groups: the
Chinese, Irish, Italians, and Jews. While nativist attempts to exploit health
care concerns in reality are a small part of this book, however, in Kraut’s
work, we find the influence of the eugenics office and its support of the 1924
Johnson Reed Immigration Act.[46]
As can be seen the
study of eugenics and social Darwinism can take a wide variety of courses.
While this historiography is far from being comprehensive, it does provide a
very representative sample of the scholarship on eugenics. There are, however,
some areas that were not covered in this historiography such as women’s roles
in the eugenics movement. This area
provides many areas of study from prominent women such as Margaret Sanger, to
how eugenics affected the everyday lives of women. Until recently, this area
has not been well covered.[47] Although, some works in this area include Building a Better Race: Gender Sexuality in
Eugenics from the Turn of the 20th Century to the Baby Boom (2002)
by Wendy Klein. Another publication
dealing with women is Alexandra Stern’s Eugenic
Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (2005)
which chronicles the movement for better breeding by researching
family-planning organizations and tracing the eugenics movement well into the
1970s.[48] Another area that has been understudied is
the LBGT (lesbian/bisexual/gay/transsexual) community, this has become even more
relevant in light of current research and the 1994 announcement of the
discovery of the “gay gene".[49] In addition to Ordover’s work mentioned
earlier there is also an article by Garland Allen titled “The Double-Edged
Sword of Genetic Determinism: Social and Political Agendas in Genetic Studies
of Homosexuality, 1940- 1994”.[50]
The study of
eugenics and social Darwinism is much more than the study of a science, it is
the study of how a technological advancement interacted with society and had a
profound effect on society. Today we are living in a world where society and
technology are changing at perhaps the fastest pace in over a century. By
learning from the mistakes of the past, scholars of today, can be better
equipped to deal with the challenges yet to come.
Bibliography
Chase, Allan. The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1980.
Dorr, Gregory Michael.
Segregation’s Science: Eugenics & Society in Virginia.
Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2008.
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1981.
Haller, Mark. H. Eugenics:
Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1963.
Hofstadter, Richard. Social
Darwinism in American Thought 1860-1915.
Philadelphia:
University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1945.
Hofstadter, Richard. Social
Darwinism in American Thought.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.
Kraut, Alan M. Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes, and the ‘Immigrant Menace’. New York:
Basic Books, 1994.
Larson, Edward J. Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore:
The Johns
Hopkins University Press: 1995.
Ludmerer, Kenneth M. Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University
Press: 1972.
Nourse, Victoria F. In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near Triumph of
American
Eugenics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008.
Ordover, Nancy. American
Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the
Science of Nationalism.
Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
Paul, Diane B. Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the
Present. Atlantic Highlands,
NJ:
Humanities Press International Inc,
1995.
Tucker, William H. The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press: 2002.
Tucker, William H. The Science and Politics of Racial Research. Chicago:
University of
Illinois Press, 1994.
Notes
Mark. H. Haller, Eugenics:
Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963), 10.
Ibid, 4.
Ibid, 4.0
Ibid, 4.
Richard Hofstadter,
Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1992), 7.
Bill Chappell,
“Prison Sterilization Report Prompts Call for Inquiry in California,” NPR,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/11/201247649/prison-sterilization-report-prompts-call-for-inquiry-in-california
(accessed May 6, 2014).
Richard Hofstadter,
Social Darwinism in American Thought 1860-1915 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945), 138.
Richard Hofstadter,
Social Darwinism in American Thought 1860-1915 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945), 159.
Ibid, 140.
Mark. H. Haller,
Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in
American Thought (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1963), 71.
Mark. H. Haller,
Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in
American Thought (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1963), 5.
Ibid, 5.
Ibid, 6.
Ibid, 6.
Ibid, 7.
Kenneth M. Ludmerer,
Genetics and American Society: A
Historical Appraisal (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press: 1972),
132.
Ibid, 2.
Ibid, 2.
Ibid, 3.
William H. Tucker,
The Science and Politics of Racial Research (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 8.
Kenneth M. Ludmerer,
Genetics and American Society: A
Historical Appraisal (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press: 1972),
52-53.
Ibid, 53.
Diane B. Paul,
Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International Inc, 1995), 4.
Edward J. Larson,
Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the
Deep South (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press: 1995), 3.
Ibid, 40-45.
Ibid, 1.
William H. Tucker,
The Funding of Scientific Racism:
Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Chicago: University of Illinois Press: 2002), 9.
Ibid, 3
Ibid, 214.
Nancy Ordover,
American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy,
and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 15.
Ibid, 45.
Ibid, 71.
Ibid, 157.
Victoria F. Nourse,
In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma
and the Near Triumph of American Eugenics (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008), 152.
Gregory Michael
Dorr, Segregation’s Science: Eugenics
& Society in Virginia (Charlottesville, VA:
University of Virginia Press, 2008), 33.
Ibid, 93.
Gregory Michael
Dorr, Segregation’s Science: Eugenics
& Society in Virginia (Charlottesville, VA:
University of Virginia Press, 2008), 105.
Ibid, 170.
Ibid, 106.
Ibid, 222.
Stephen Jay Gould,
The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1981), 21.
Ibid, 168.
Stephen Jay Gould,
The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1981), 23.
Allan Chase, The
Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of
the New Scientific Racism (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1980), xvii.
Ibid, xvii.
Alan M. Kraut,
Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes, and the
‘Immigrant Menace’ (New York: Basic
Books, 1994), 74-76.
David Cullen, “Back
to the Future: Eugenics—A Bibliographic
Essay,” The Public Historian 29 (Summer 2007):
172.
Ibid, 173.
Ibid, 173.
Ibid, 174.
[1] Mark. H.
Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, 1963), 10.
[2] Ibid, 4.
[3] Ibid, 4.0
[4] Ibid, 4.
[5] Richard
Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 7.
[6] Bill
Chappell, “Prison Sterilization Report Prompts Call for Inquiry in California,”
NPR, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/11/201247649/prison-sterilization-report-prompts-call-for-inquiry-in-california
(accessed May 6, 2014).
[7] Richard
Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American
Thought 1860-1915 (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945), 138.
[8] Richard
Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American
Thought 1860-1915 (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945), 159.
[9] Ibid,
140.
[10] Mark.
H. Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, 1963), 71.
[11] Mark.
H. Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, 1963), 5.
[12] Ibid,
5.
[13] Ibid,
6.
[14] Ibid,
6.
[15] Ibid,
7.
[16] Kenneth
M. Ludmerer, Genetics and American
Society: A Historical Appraisal (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 1972), 132.
[17] Ibid,
2.
[18] Ibid,
2.
[19] Ibid,
3.
[20] William
H. Tucker, The Science and Politics of
Racial Research (Chicago: University
of Illinois Press, 1994), 8.
[21] Kenneth
M. Ludmerer, Genetics and American
Society: A Historical Appraisal (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 1972), 52-53.
[22] Ibid,
53.
[23] Diane
B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865
to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Humanities Press International Inc, 1995), 4.
[24] Edward
J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 1995), 3.
[25] Ibid,
40-45.
[26] Ibid,
1.
[27] William
H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific
Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer
Fund (Chicago: University of
Illinois Press: 2002), 9.
[28] Ibid, 3
[29] Ibid,
214.
[30] Nancy
Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of
Nationalism (Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 15.
[31] Ibid,
45.
[32] Ibid,
71.
[33] Ibid,
157.
[34]
Victoria F. Nourse, In Reckless
Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near
Triumph of American Eugenics (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 2008), 152.
[35] Gregory
Michael Dorr, Segregation’s Science: Eugenics & Society in Virginia (Charlottesville,
VA: University of Virginia Press, 2008),
33.
[36] Ibid,
93.
[37] Gregory
Michael Dorr, Segregation’s Science: Eugenics & Society in Virginia (Charlottesville,
VA: University of Virginia Press, 2008),
105.
[38] Ibid,
170.
[39] Ibid,
106.
[40] Ibid,
222.
[41] Stephen
Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1981),
21.
[42] Ibid,
168.
[43] Stephen
Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1981),
23.
[44] Allan
Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism
(Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 1980), xvii.
[45] Ibid,
xvii.
[46] Alan M.
Kraut, Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes, and the ‘Immigrant Menace’ (New
York: Basic Books, 1994), 74-76.
[47] David
Cullen, “Back to the Future: Eugenics—A
Bibliographic Essay,” The Public
Historian 29 (Summer 2007): 172.
[48] Ibid,
173.
[49] Ibid,
173.
[50] Ibid,
174.
No comments:
Post a Comment