Downfall of Eugenic Policy: Difference between revisions
(30 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''Leaders and Pioneers of Eugenics- | '''Leaders and Pioneers of Eugenics- | ||
[[File:darwin2.jpg|200px|thumb|left|alt text]] | |||
[[File:galton2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|alt text]] | |||
'''Positives of Eugenics-''' | '''Positives of Eugenics-''' | ||
Line 13: | Line 17: | ||
'''Downfalls of Eugenics-''' | '''Downfalls of Eugenics-''' | ||
''' 3 Examples''' | |||
1. German and Nazi Rassenhygiene | 1. German and Nazi Rassenhygiene | ||
2. Eugenics and Science | 2. Eugenics and Science | ||
3. Development of Social Markers in Society | 3. Development of Social Markers in Society | ||
Line 25: | Line 35: | ||
'''Foundations of Modern German Eugenics:''' | '''Foundations of Modern German Eugenics:''' | ||
[[File:Hitler_darwin.jpg|200px|thumb|right|alt text]] | |||
In recent history the most noted large scale implementation of eugenics took place in Germany in the early half of the 19th by the Nazi regime. Germans prior to Nazism and the Nazi’s themselves however did not refer to what is defined above as eugenics rather they have their own word and a slightly different definition. The Germans and Nazi’s called eugenics '''Rassenhygiene''' in German or “Race Hygiene”. To the Germans Race Hygiene has a slightly broader definition to eugenics than did Galton. It included Galton’s basic eugenic beliefs of improving hereditary through the quality of population but in addition to this race hygiene included an absolute increase in population. The foundations of these German eugenic ideas which can be traced the to the principals of Nazism philosophy and thought were the writing of a Bavarian and German physician Wilhelm Schallmayer (1857-1919) | In recent history the most noted large scale implementation of eugenics took place in Germany in the early half of the 19th by the Nazi regime. Germans prior to Nazism and the Nazi’s themselves however did not refer to what is defined above as eugenics rather they have their own word and a slightly different definition. The Germans and Nazi’s called eugenics '''Rassenhygiene''' in German or “Race Hygiene”. To the Germans Race Hygiene has a slightly broader definition to eugenics than did Galton. It included Galton’s basic eugenic beliefs of improving hereditary through the quality of population but in addition to this race hygiene included an absolute increase in population. The foundations of these German eugenic ideas which can be traced the to the principals of Nazism philosophy and thought were the writing of a Bavarian and German physician Wilhelm Schallmayer (1857-1919) | ||
Line 41: | Line 54: | ||
There are many different opinions about how the exact form of Race Hygiene was instituted by the Nazi’s. One belief by many scholars is that they believed Schallmayer’s writings were inconclusive and that to full reach maximum efficiency the only true weight to cut the dead weight lost was genocide. Another belief taken by scholar Robert Proctor is that the Nazi simply interpreted statistics the way they deemed in their best interest. Proctor traces this belief back to the works of a Russian scientist N.W. Timofeeff-Ressovsky who worked in Germany prior to the Nazi regime taking power and worked throughout their control. Timofeeff’s research showed that “there is a real medical and social problem involved in the increase of genetic load carried by a population, and insisted that thought should be given to remedial measures” (179). To the Nazi’s this work of Timofeef statistical work proved that for Schallmayer’s writings to be perfected measures needed to taken to prevent the dilution of society. | There are many different opinions about how the exact form of Race Hygiene was instituted by the Nazi’s. One belief by many scholars is that they believed Schallmayer’s writings were inconclusive and that to full reach maximum efficiency the only true weight to cut the dead weight lost was genocide. Another belief taken by scholar Robert Proctor is that the Nazi simply interpreted statistics the way they deemed in their best interest. Proctor traces this belief back to the works of a Russian scientist N.W. Timofeeff-Ressovsky who worked in Germany prior to the Nazi regime taking power and worked throughout their control. Timofeeff’s research showed that “there is a real medical and social problem involved in the increase of genetic load carried by a population, and insisted that thought should be given to remedial measures” (179). To the Nazi’s this work of Timofeef statistical work proved that for Schallmayer’s writings to be perfected measures needed to taken to prevent the dilution of society. | ||
[[File:nazi eugenics.jpg|200px|thumb| | [[File:nazi eugenics.jpg|200px|thumb|left|alt text]] | ||
The Nazi’s then began to take measure to make sure this dilution did not occur through sterilization laws. Hitler in 1933 created the Mass Sterilization law which was coauthored by Arthur Arthur Gütt, a physician and director of public health affairs, Ernst Rüdin a German a psychiatrist and Falk Ruttke a German lawyer. This law stated that “Individuals who were subject to the law were those men and women who “suffered” from any of nine conditions assumed to be hereditary: feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, genetic epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea (a fatal form of dementia), genetic blindness, genetic deafness, severe physical deformity, and chronic alcoholism.”**were forced to become sterilized an unable to reproduce. This took place on an estimated 400,000 Germans. | The Nazi’s then began to take measure to make sure this dilution did not occur through sterilization laws. Hitler in 1933 created the Mass Sterilization law which was coauthored by Arthur Arthur Gütt, a physician and director of public health affairs, Ernst Rüdin a German a psychiatrist and Falk Ruttke a German lawyer. This law stated that “Individuals who were subject to the law were those men and women who “suffered” from any of nine conditions assumed to be hereditary: feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, genetic epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea (a fatal form of dementia), genetic blindness, genetic deafness, severe physical deformity, and chronic alcoholism.”**were forced to become sterilized an unable to reproduce. This took place on an estimated 400,000 Germans. | ||
Line 50: | Line 63: | ||
In conclusion it is believed by scholars such as Proctor that the reason the German’s were unsuccessful in World War II was because they broke Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model. Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model had three pillars and the Nazi’s only really implemented two and neglected the idea that the larger the population, the more effective the society can be. By killing so many Jew’s and others despite their slave labor in concentration camps hurt the Nazi’s efforts as they put too much effort into trying to destroy what they believed to be the pollution of society when in fact if they had tried to potentially “cure” their problem by altering some of their beliefs they would have had a larger work force at a more efficient level ultimately reaching the beliefs of Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model and a better shot to improve society and win the war. | In conclusion it is believed by scholars such as Proctor that the reason the German’s were unsuccessful in World War II was because they broke Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model. Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model had three pillars and the Nazi’s only really implemented two and neglected the idea that the larger the population, the more effective the society can be. By killing so many Jew’s and others despite their slave labor in concentration camps hurt the Nazi’s efforts as they put too much effort into trying to destroy what they believed to be the pollution of society when in fact if they had tried to potentially “cure” their problem by altering some of their beliefs they would have had a larger work force at a more efficient level ultimately reaching the beliefs of Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model and a better shot to improve society and win the war. | ||
Related Video Links | '''Related Video Links''' | ||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qrLGhXch0&feature=related | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qrLGhXch0&feature=related | ||
Line 63: | Line 76: | ||
The problem with Darwin’s theory of heredity was that he did not have much evidence to back some of his findings. Also, it was not clear in his explanation how advantageous traits were actually passed on. Thus, some elites still believed in the “blending” inheritance theory and that traits could be inherited biologically, absent of environmental influences. | The problem with Darwin’s theory of heredity was that he did not have much evidence to back some of his findings. Also, it was not clear in his explanation how advantageous traits were actually passed on. Thus, some elites still believed in the “blending” inheritance theory and that traits could be inherited biologically, absent of environmental influences. | ||
[[File:racism cropper.JPG|200px|thumb|left|alt text]] | |||
One of the most important advocates for the eugenics movement was Francis Galton, who happened to be Darwin’s cousin. Galton popularized the phrase “nature vs. nurture”, and heavily emphasized the nature portion of the phrase. Like most of the eugenicists proved their theories, Galton was a strict adherent to induction, where he could move from specific examples to a general rule. Galton’s mode of eugenic thinking was made solely possible through the scientific research of Karl Pearson. Pearson liked to used mathematics, particularly statistics, in his work in order to enumerate and thus hopefully further legitimize his theories. Pearson became quite influential in biometrics, the idea that biological traits could be directly measured and tabulated. He obviously proved that white races, especially the northern Europeans, were superior to the others. He determined that mental ability was inherited. He continued with this to say that heredity and not environmental factors were the cause of genius. Interestingly, many religious leaders detested this because they objected this thinking to unapologetic naturalism, leaving no room for God’s grace or people’s control over their own salvation. | One of the most important advocates for the eugenics movement was Francis Galton, who happened to be Darwin’s cousin. Galton popularized the phrase “nature vs. nurture”, and heavily emphasized the nature portion of the phrase. Like most of the eugenicists proved their theories, Galton was a strict adherent to induction, where he could move from specific examples to a general rule. Galton’s mode of eugenic thinking was made solely possible through the scientific research of Karl Pearson. Pearson liked to used mathematics, particularly statistics, in his work in order to enumerate and thus hopefully further legitimize his theories. Pearson became quite influential in biometrics, the idea that biological traits could be directly measured and tabulated. He obviously proved that white races, especially the northern Europeans, were superior to the others. He determined that mental ability was inherited. He continued with this to say that heredity and not environmental factors were the cause of genius. Interestingly, many religious leaders detested this because they objected this thinking to unapologetic naturalism, leaving no room for God’s grace or people’s control over their own salvation. | ||
The science of heredity soon shifted as the result of two main influences. First, a German August Weismann argued that the body contained two types of cells, somatic and germ cells. Germ cells, he said, were the units of heredity. He concluded that these cells were immune to environmental influences by an experiment in which he cut the tails off of mice. These mutilated mice were then bread, but their offspring were born with tails. This was the death of the acquired characteristics theory, as Weismann proved that a beings’ perception of being inferior was mainly environmental and not genetic. Secondly, Gregor Mendel’s theory of heredity in the 1860s detested the blending inheritance theory. Mendel proved that there existed units of inheritance and factors. Crossing these factors brought mathematically precise and predicable patterns of inheritance. He did this by breeding tall and short pea plants, resulting in a 3:1 ratio. This was the beginning of speculation of dominant and recessive genetic traits. While these two findings should have detested eugenic thinking and policy, much attention was not paid to them until more valuable and concrete results were found much later. | The science of heredity soon shifted as the result of two main influences. First, a German August Weismann argued that the body contained two types of cells, somatic and germ cells. Germ cells, he said, were the units of heredity. He concluded that these cells were immune to environmental influences by an experiment in which he cut the tails off of mice. These mutilated mice were then bread, but their offspring were born with tails. This was the death of the acquired characteristics theory, as Weismann proved that a beings’ perception of being inferior was mainly environmental and not genetic. Secondly, Gregor Mendel’s theory of heredity in the 1860s detested the blending inheritance theory. Mendel proved that there existed units of inheritance and factors. Crossing these factors brought mathematically precise and predicable patterns of inheritance. He did this by breeding tall and short pea plants, resulting in a 3:1 ratio. This was the beginning of speculation of dominant and recessive genetic traits. While these two findings should have detested eugenic thinking and policy, much attention was not paid to them until more valuable and concrete results were found much later. | ||
Mainstream eugenics began to be scrutinized by many academics around the late 1920s. It becomes apparent that many witnesses do not support the general belief that there is any progressive physical degeneration among those races or classification of people deemed undesirable. Along with this, there is also evidence that there is no progressive intellectual deterioration either. Walter Lippmann is the first person to claim that the I.Q.-test results do not determine some concrete entity called “intelligence” that can be unambiguously measured. He in fact believes that intelligence is exceedingly complicated, and that nobody actually has succeeded in defining it. Like Lippmann, Edward Thorndike thought that these mathematical and verbal tests said little about a person’s ability to understand and manage things as they exist in concrete reality; however this was contested more in the U.S. than in Britain. | Mainstream eugenics began to be scrutinized by many academics around the late 1920s. It becomes apparent that many witnesses do not support the general belief that there is any progressive physical degeneration among those races or classification of people deemed undesirable. Along with this, there is also evidence that there is no progressive intellectual deterioration either. Walter Lippmann is the first person to claim that the I.Q.-test results do not determine some concrete entity called “intelligence” that can be unambiguously measured. He in fact believes that intelligence is exceedingly complicated, and that nobody actually has succeeded in defining it. Like Lippmann, Edward Thorndike thought that these mathematical and verbal tests said little about a person’s ability to understand and manage things as they exist in concrete reality; however this was contested more in the U.S. than in Britain. | ||
It is now, in the 1930s, that the discussion of nurture and nature is explored; a somewhat more social issue. Lancelot Hogben attributed the rise in those deemed as mental deficient to the brutalizing impact of poverty, an obvious social impact. Kevles discusses the statistics of the mental deficient as being strongly class-biased. He pointed out the strong link of income to members of society labeled as mentally deficient. Herbert Jennings was the next to suggest the effects of poverty, ignorance, and lack of English as one’s first language to performance on the I.Q.-test. The new ideology suggested the theme of the chapter, false biology; there was no possible way that even all members of one national group were biologically uniform. | It is now, in the 1930s, that the discussion of nurture and nature is explored; a somewhat more social issue. Lancelot Hogben attributed the rise in those deemed as mental deficient to the brutalizing impact of poverty, an obvious social impact. Kevles discusses the statistics of the mental deficient as being strongly class-biased. He pointed out the strong link of income to members of society labeled as mentally deficient. Herbert Jennings was the next to suggest the effects of poverty, ignorance, and lack of English as one’s first language to performance on the I.Q.-test. The new ideology suggested the theme of the chapter, false biology; there was no possible way that even all members of one national group were biologically uniform. | ||
[[File:science one.jpg|200px|thumb|right|alt text]] | |||
Furthering this argument, J.B.S. Haldane concluded that the “absence of equal environmental opportunity” could easily produce these innate racial differences mainline eugenicists were giving a biological basis to. Also, psychologists were now recognizing the varied results of I.Q.-testing among given racial or ethnic groups. Again, Lippmann comes into the discussion, arguing that the emotional disturbances of migration might lead to the lower test scores of immigrants. | Furthering this argument, J.B.S. Haldane concluded that the “absence of equal environmental opportunity” could easily produce these innate racial differences mainline eugenicists were giving a biological basis to. Also, psychologists were now recognizing the varied results of I.Q.-testing among given racial or ethnic groups. Again, Lippmann comes into the discussion, arguing that the emotional disturbances of migration might lead to the lower test scores of immigrants. | ||
Line 77: | Line 97: | ||
Interestingly, many of the eugenicists attempting to prove this new theory wrong used flawed and biased studies, often manipulating the results. It was Herbert Jennings that produced studies of low-income, low-I.Q. children that proved that when placed in a stimulated environment, these children repeatedly tested higher. This was extremely instrumental in proving that genes were variable, and that one’s parents labeled as feebleminded did not necessarily mean that they would turn out the same. Nurture acted upon nature to shape the organism. There was also a strong link between ample nutrition and elevated I.Q. scores. Also, it was proven that an ample amount of those thought to be a member of the lower reaches of society had produced enough geniuses. The science of heredity now leaned more towards the conclusion that partner’s genes combined in an infinite variety of unpredictable ways, and that social and cultural influences on environment lead to the variance in intellectualness. | Interestingly, many of the eugenicists attempting to prove this new theory wrong used flawed and biased studies, often manipulating the results. It was Herbert Jennings that produced studies of low-income, low-I.Q. children that proved that when placed in a stimulated environment, these children repeatedly tested higher. This was extremely instrumental in proving that genes were variable, and that one’s parents labeled as feebleminded did not necessarily mean that they would turn out the same. Nurture acted upon nature to shape the organism. There was also a strong link between ample nutrition and elevated I.Q. scores. Also, it was proven that an ample amount of those thought to be a member of the lower reaches of society had produced enough geniuses. The science of heredity now leaned more towards the conclusion that partner’s genes combined in an infinite variety of unpredictable ways, and that social and cultural influences on environment lead to the variance in intellectualness. | ||
== Development of Social Markers in Society == | |||
Charles Davenport was the leader on eugenic thinking and discourse in the United States in the early part of the twentieth-century. He was given the head position at the Carnegie institution of Washington, where he and others researched biometry and genetics. However, there was a major focus on furthering the notions of inferior beings and what should be done. Like many leading eugenicists, Davenport equated national and racial identity, and concluded that race determined behavior. He also upheld the notion that all European whites were of different racial categories, allowing for “races” such as the Irish to be labeled as a | |||
subordinate race. Like Galton and Pearson, Davenport identified good human stock | |||
[[File:Eugenics-7078951.jpg|200px|thumb|left|alt text]] | |||
with the middle and upper classes; those more likely to be intellectuals, artists, scientists, or musicians. He also gave particular worth to white Protestants. Davenport supported the procreation of the good stock and believed that the lesser should be denied the right to reproduce. While he believed in the procreation of the good stock, Davenport emphasized “negative” eugenics more. With that being said, the policies put in place in America reflected his thinking. For instance, many states incorporated sterilization laws for the non-white and inferior races, in addition to criminals. Marriages between whites and blacks were illegal. Also, there were immigration exclusion laws passed (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Immigration Restriction Act in 1924). There was also the introduction of intelligence testing to determine who was inferior and who was not. This was later heavily detested as discussed prior. Davenport, like most eugenicists, excluded all environmental and social factors that might hinder one’s ability to act as a first-class citizen or be as intelligent as superior beings. | |||
Related Video's | '''Related Video's''' | ||
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9014940408212321489&ei=4pcWS_2VJ5PaqwLz6bR4&q=eugenics&hl=en#docid=3831037143578204334 | http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9014940408212321489&ei=4pcWS_2VJ5PaqwLz6bR4&q=eugenics&hl=en#docid=3831037143578204334 | ||
Line 92: | Line 128: | ||
== Sources/Citations == | == Sources/Citations == | ||
'''1.''' | |||
Title: The Origins of Scientific Racism | |||
Author(s): John P. Jackson, Jr.; Nadine M. Weidman | |||
Source: The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 50 (Winter, 2005/2006), pp. 66-79 | |||
Publisher(s): The JBHE Foundation | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25073379 | |||
'''2.''' | |||
Title: Wilhelm Schallmayer and the Logic of German Eugenics | |||
Author(s): Sheila Faith Weiss | |||
Source: Isis, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 33-46 | |||
Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/232500 | |||
'''3.''' | |||
Title: Review: The Roots of Nazi Eugenics | |||
Author(s): Bentley Glass | |||
Reviewed Title(s): Race Hygiene and National Efficiency. The Eugenics of Wilhelm Schallmayer | Der Griff Nach der Bevölkerung. Aktualität und Kontinuität nazistischer Bevölkerungspolitik. Schriften der Hamburger Stiftung für Sozialgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Band 1 | Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis | |||
Reviewed Authors(s): Sheila Faith Weiss | Heidrun Kaupen-Haas | Robert Proctor | |||
Source: The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 175-180 | |||
Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2830528 | |||
'''4.''' | |||
Title: The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany | |||
Author(s): Sheila Faith Weiss | |||
Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 3, (1987), pp. 193-236 | |||
Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301759 | |||
'''5.''' | |||
Title: Social Psychology and the Problem of a Higher Nationality | |||
Author(s): Harold Chapman Brown | |||
Source: International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Oct., 1917), pp. 19-30 | |||
Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2377504 | |||
'''6.''' | |||
Title: Impending Problems of Eugenics | |||
Author(s): Irving Fisher | |||
Source: The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1921), pp. 214-231 | |||
Publisher(s): American Association for the Advancement of Science | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/6348 | |||
'''7.''' | |||
Title: The Origins of Scientific Racism | |||
Author(s): John P. Jackson, Jr.; Nadine M. Weidman | |||
Source: The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 50 (Winter, 2005/2006), pp. 66-79 | |||
Publisher(s): The JBHE Foundation | |||
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25073379 |
Latest revision as of 21:20, 8 December 2009
Introduction:
Definition of Eugenics- Literally, meaning normal genes, eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding.***
Leaders and Pioneers of Eugenics-
Positives of Eugenics-
The use of Albert Einstein's sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at positive eugenics.***
Downfalls of Eugenics-
3 Examples
1. German and Nazi Rassenhygiene
2. Eugenics and Science
3. Development of Social Markers in Society
Germany and Nazi Eugenics
Foundations of Modern German Eugenics:
In recent history the most noted large scale implementation of eugenics took place in Germany in the early half of the 19th by the Nazi regime. Germans prior to Nazism and the Nazi’s themselves however did not refer to what is defined above as eugenics rather they have their own word and a slightly different definition. The Germans and Nazi’s called eugenics Rassenhygiene in German or “Race Hygiene”. To the Germans Race Hygiene has a slightly broader definition to eugenics than did Galton. It included Galton’s basic eugenic beliefs of improving hereditary through the quality of population but in addition to this race hygiene included an absolute increase in population. The foundations of these German eugenic ideas which can be traced the to the principals of Nazism philosophy and thought were the writing of a Bavarian and German physician Wilhelm Schallmayer (1857-1919)
The foundations of Schallmayer’s writings are based off of three principals that have been interpreted in many ways, one of which was instrumental into the Nazi belief of having an “Aryan Race”. The first of these three principals that Schallmayer addressed were the social problems as a result of going through the industrial revolution in Germany at that time and how to resolve them. The second was resolution on how to evaluate intellectual thinking and its influences on society from a medical perspective. Finally, the third was “selectionist” theory of Darwinism. Schallmayer used these three pillars as a way to evaluate and improve the efficiency of not only Germany but Western Europe.
The two most influential pillars of Schallmayer to be picked and evolved by the Nazi’s were the last two regarding medical influences and his intertwined view on “selectionist” theory of Darwinism. Schallmayer believed that for Germany to be truly efficient in the post industrial revolution that there needed to be changes to the way medical patients were to be taken care of. Schallmayer very educated in this field as a doctor himself believed that Germans and Western Europeanist were diluting society by keeping those alive who were genetically inferior and unable to survive. By this he meant that as technology was increasing doctors had the ability to save more patients. As a result of this these patients would go on to breed with either other inferior humans or worse healthy humans and dilute the population.
This dilution of society he saw to have multiple negative effects on society both short term and long term. The short term problems he identified were through this method doctors were wasting their time curing for people who will only father or mother children whom will have the same problems wasting future doctor’s time. He believed it would be in best interest instead for doctors to attempt to find cures for these diseases so that they can prevent people from contaminating the blood stream and creating more and more inefficiencies in the future. The long term affects of this he saw was that if there was no reducing the rate of what he deemed genetically inferior people they would continue to increase as a part of the population causing many more inefficiencies in society. This basic belief had a large influence on Nazi regime and to the development of their laws and policies. However it needs to be noted that Schallmayer did not suggest that Germans take the path of genocide as a method to cure these problems. Schallmayer insisted that although the feeble minded and genetically inferior people who could not take care of themselves were drains on society, to simply rid them would be inhumane. Schallmayer supported therapeutic medicine for these people in addition to public hygiene. However he ultimately insisted that for society to reach its maximum efficiency it was best to have doctor’s spend their time trying to cure these illness’s and diseases and prevent them in the future rather than to simply appease those who are infected and inferior
Nazi Beliefs and Influences of Race Hygiene
“The tale of what happened in Germany is a special example of how wrong a road can be taken when a political philosophy grasps scientific findings and warps their meaning to suit its own bias. “(pg177)
There are many different opinions about how the exact form of Race Hygiene was instituted by the Nazi’s. One belief by many scholars is that they believed Schallmayer’s writings were inconclusive and that to full reach maximum efficiency the only true weight to cut the dead weight lost was genocide. Another belief taken by scholar Robert Proctor is that the Nazi simply interpreted statistics the way they deemed in their best interest. Proctor traces this belief back to the works of a Russian scientist N.W. Timofeeff-Ressovsky who worked in Germany prior to the Nazi regime taking power and worked throughout their control. Timofeeff’s research showed that “there is a real medical and social problem involved in the increase of genetic load carried by a population, and insisted that thought should be given to remedial measures” (179). To the Nazi’s this work of Timofeef statistical work proved that for Schallmayer’s writings to be perfected measures needed to taken to prevent the dilution of society.
The Nazi’s then began to take measure to make sure this dilution did not occur through sterilization laws. Hitler in 1933 created the Mass Sterilization law which was coauthored by Arthur Arthur Gütt, a physician and director of public health affairs, Ernst Rüdin a German a psychiatrist and Falk Ruttke a German lawyer. This law stated that “Individuals who were subject to the law were those men and women who “suffered” from any of nine conditions assumed to be hereditary: feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, genetic epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea (a fatal form of dementia), genetic blindness, genetic deafness, severe physical deformity, and chronic alcoholism.”**were forced to become sterilized an unable to reproduce. This took place on an estimated 400,000 Germans.
The next sterilization law, the Marital Health Law came in October 1935. This law banned marriages and intercourse between any “hereditary healthy” individuals and those who were deemed to be genetically inferior. Hitler believed that this would be a good first stride into weeded out the inefficiencies and turning Germany into what he deemed a “healthier nation”. Later sterilization laws came down against homosexuals and other forms of minorities. In 1938 Hitler and the Nazi’s finally attempted their last form of sterilization by segregating the Jew’s. His efforts in this form were almost successful as he as he was able to force them to move into ghettos and concentration camps killing over 6 million of them in concentration camps, over 1/3 of the world wide Jewish population.
In conclusion it is believed by scholars such as Proctor that the reason the German’s were unsuccessful in World War II was because they broke Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model. Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model had three pillars and the Nazi’s only really implemented two and neglected the idea that the larger the population, the more effective the society can be. By killing so many Jew’s and others despite their slave labor in concentration camps hurt the Nazi’s efforts as they put too much effort into trying to destroy what they believed to be the pollution of society when in fact if they had tried to potentially “cure” their problem by altering some of their beliefs they would have had a larger work force at a more efficient level ultimately reaching the beliefs of Schallmayer’s Rassenhygiene model and a better shot to improve society and win the war.
Related Video Links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qrLGhXch0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEasqSx-Pxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVhE3Muh3co
Discussion of Eugenics and Science
The discussion of eugenics and the formation of eugenic policies cannot be possible without uncovering how the different sciences, both biological and social, played a role. Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species prompted scientists to develop theories about genetic racial superiority and inferiority. Herbert Spencer originated the popular idea in the early twentieth-century that evolution was a struggle between races rather than individuals. With such profound conclusions concerning race and evolution arising, the actual scientific facts behind them were both skewed and oftentimes wrong. The new evolutionary thinking was eventually labeled “scientific racism” and was the result of two lines of scientific thought combining. First, new ideas concerning heredity provided support that traits could be held stable from generation to generation. Second, ideas rose about the superiority of north European races, known as Aryanism or Nordicism. These two ideas merged strongly in the eugenics movement and ultimately confirmed the belief that heredity was fixed and immune from environmental influences.
The problem with Darwin’s theory of heredity was that he did not have much evidence to back some of his findings. Also, it was not clear in his explanation how advantageous traits were actually passed on. Thus, some elites still believed in the “blending” inheritance theory and that traits could be inherited biologically, absent of environmental influences.
One of the most important advocates for the eugenics movement was Francis Galton, who happened to be Darwin’s cousin. Galton popularized the phrase “nature vs. nurture”, and heavily emphasized the nature portion of the phrase. Like most of the eugenicists proved their theories, Galton was a strict adherent to induction, where he could move from specific examples to a general rule. Galton’s mode of eugenic thinking was made solely possible through the scientific research of Karl Pearson. Pearson liked to used mathematics, particularly statistics, in his work in order to enumerate and thus hopefully further legitimize his theories. Pearson became quite influential in biometrics, the idea that biological traits could be directly measured and tabulated. He obviously proved that white races, especially the northern Europeans, were superior to the others. He determined that mental ability was inherited. He continued with this to say that heredity and not environmental factors were the cause of genius. Interestingly, many religious leaders detested this because they objected this thinking to unapologetic naturalism, leaving no room for God’s grace or people’s control over their own salvation.
The science of heredity soon shifted as the result of two main influences. First, a German August Weismann argued that the body contained two types of cells, somatic and germ cells. Germ cells, he said, were the units of heredity. He concluded that these cells were immune to environmental influences by an experiment in which he cut the tails off of mice. These mutilated mice were then bread, but their offspring were born with tails. This was the death of the acquired characteristics theory, as Weismann proved that a beings’ perception of being inferior was mainly environmental and not genetic. Secondly, Gregor Mendel’s theory of heredity in the 1860s detested the blending inheritance theory. Mendel proved that there existed units of inheritance and factors. Crossing these factors brought mathematically precise and predicable patterns of inheritance. He did this by breeding tall and short pea plants, resulting in a 3:1 ratio. This was the beginning of speculation of dominant and recessive genetic traits. While these two findings should have detested eugenic thinking and policy, much attention was not paid to them until more valuable and concrete results were found much later.
Mainstream eugenics began to be scrutinized by many academics around the late 1920s. It becomes apparent that many witnesses do not support the general belief that there is any progressive physical degeneration among those races or classification of people deemed undesirable. Along with this, there is also evidence that there is no progressive intellectual deterioration either. Walter Lippmann is the first person to claim that the I.Q.-test results do not determine some concrete entity called “intelligence” that can be unambiguously measured. He in fact believes that intelligence is exceedingly complicated, and that nobody actually has succeeded in defining it. Like Lippmann, Edward Thorndike thought that these mathematical and verbal tests said little about a person’s ability to understand and manage things as they exist in concrete reality; however this was contested more in the U.S. than in Britain.
It is now, in the 1930s, that the discussion of nurture and nature is explored; a somewhat more social issue. Lancelot Hogben attributed the rise in those deemed as mental deficient to the brutalizing impact of poverty, an obvious social impact. Kevles discusses the statistics of the mental deficient as being strongly class-biased. He pointed out the strong link of income to members of society labeled as mentally deficient. Herbert Jennings was the next to suggest the effects of poverty, ignorance, and lack of English as one’s first language to performance on the I.Q.-test. The new ideology suggested the theme of the chapter, false biology; there was no possible way that even all members of one national group were biologically uniform.
Furthering this argument, J.B.S. Haldane concluded that the “absence of equal environmental opportunity” could easily produce these innate racial differences mainline eugenicists were giving a biological basis to. Also, psychologists were now recognizing the varied results of I.Q.-testing among given racial or ethnic groups. Again, Lippmann comes into the discussion, arguing that the emotional disturbances of migration might lead to the lower test scores of immigrants.
The trend of arguing this false biology was given much stimulus by Fraz Boas and the people who followed him. He argued that those who passed the test were merely proficient at taking the test, and that it really did not have much bearing on actual intelligence. Otto Klineberg, a close follower of Boas, began to incorporate a more anthropological approach to his research. Klineberg issued performance tests, and concluded that there was a strong link to cultural values and performance. He did this by comparing more urban or industrial people to those of the same race or ethnicity in rural areas. The increased test scores are more linked to length of time spent in the improved environment of cities with more educational opportunities.
Interestingly, many of the eugenicists attempting to prove this new theory wrong used flawed and biased studies, often manipulating the results. It was Herbert Jennings that produced studies of low-income, low-I.Q. children that proved that when placed in a stimulated environment, these children repeatedly tested higher. This was extremely instrumental in proving that genes were variable, and that one’s parents labeled as feebleminded did not necessarily mean that they would turn out the same. Nurture acted upon nature to shape the organism. There was also a strong link between ample nutrition and elevated I.Q. scores. Also, it was proven that an ample amount of those thought to be a member of the lower reaches of society had produced enough geniuses. The science of heredity now leaned more towards the conclusion that partner’s genes combined in an infinite variety of unpredictable ways, and that social and cultural influences on environment lead to the variance in intellectualness.
Development of Social Markers in Society
Charles Davenport was the leader on eugenic thinking and discourse in the United States in the early part of the twentieth-century. He was given the head position at the Carnegie institution of Washington, where he and others researched biometry and genetics. However, there was a major focus on furthering the notions of inferior beings and what should be done. Like many leading eugenicists, Davenport equated national and racial identity, and concluded that race determined behavior. He also upheld the notion that all European whites were of different racial categories, allowing for “races” such as the Irish to be labeled as a subordinate race. Like Galton and Pearson, Davenport identified good human stock
with the middle and upper classes; those more likely to be intellectuals, artists, scientists, or musicians. He also gave particular worth to white Protestants. Davenport supported the procreation of the good stock and believed that the lesser should be denied the right to reproduce. While he believed in the procreation of the good stock, Davenport emphasized “negative” eugenics more. With that being said, the policies put in place in America reflected his thinking. For instance, many states incorporated sterilization laws for the non-white and inferior races, in addition to criminals. Marriages between whites and blacks were illegal. Also, there were immigration exclusion laws passed (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Immigration Restriction Act in 1924). There was also the introduction of intelligence testing to determine who was inferior and who was not. This was later heavily detested as discussed prior. Davenport, like most eugenicists, excluded all environmental and social factors that might hinder one’s ability to act as a first-class citizen or be as intelligent as superior beings.
Related Video's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A
Sources/Citations
1. Title: The Origins of Scientific Racism Author(s): John P. Jackson, Jr.; Nadine M. Weidman Source: The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 50 (Winter, 2005/2006), pp. 66-79 Publisher(s): The JBHE Foundation Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25073379
2. Title: Wilhelm Schallmayer and the Logic of German Eugenics Author(s): Sheila Faith Weiss Source: Isis, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 33-46 Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/232500
3. Title: Review: The Roots of Nazi Eugenics Author(s): Bentley Glass Reviewed Title(s): Race Hygiene and National Efficiency. The Eugenics of Wilhelm Schallmayer | Der Griff Nach der Bevölkerung. Aktualität und Kontinuität nazistischer Bevölkerungspolitik. Schriften der Hamburger Stiftung für Sozialgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Band 1 | Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis Reviewed Authors(s): Sheila Faith Weiss | Heidrun Kaupen-Haas | Robert Proctor Source: The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 175-180 Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2830528
4. Title: The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany Author(s): Sheila Faith Weiss Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 3, (1987), pp. 193-236 Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301759
5. Title: Social Psychology and the Problem of a Higher Nationality Author(s): Harold Chapman Brown Source: International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Oct., 1917), pp. 19-30 Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2377504
6. Title: Impending Problems of Eugenics Author(s): Irving Fisher Source: The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1921), pp. 214-231 Publisher(s): American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/6348
7. Title: The Origins of Scientific Racism Author(s): John P. Jackson, Jr.; Nadine M. Weidman Source: The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 50 (Winter, 2005/2006), pp. 66-79 Publisher(s): The JBHE Foundation Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25073379