Joshua Perkins
Matthew Gonzales, Friday 2-3
Eugenics in America
Eugenics is most commonly associated with Nazi Germany, but in the early 1900s the eugenics movement had a strong following in the United States where it reached its peak of popularity in the years following WWI. The movement focused on using science for the purpose of preserving “superior racial stock” by ensuring only those with beneficial, “fit” genes reproduced and never mixed with inferior groups. Eugenic scientists considered heritage and genetics as the root of all modern social problems and further more believed intelligence, behavior, criminality, cleanliness etc. were determined by one's race. As a scientific and social movement, eugenics was used to justify immigration restriction, forced sterilizations and the criminalization of interracial marriages.
Eugenics was championed by prominent biologists and politicians and it dominated racial discourse in the United States in the era between world wars. Madison Grant (notably, not a scientist) is largely credited with popularizing eugenics in America with his book The Passing of the Great Race (1916) To Grant, Nordic whites where seen as "higher racial types," and any genetic mixing with other "lower" races would inevitably result in the decline of the higher (white) race.
(U.S. eugenics poster advocating for the removal of genetic "defectives")
Immigration Restriction:
Vocal eugenics and immigration restriction groups such as the Immigrant Restriction League advocated fiercely for restrictionist policy and were ultimately successful with the Immigration Act of 1924, which was passed by majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. It set up strict quotas limiting immigrants from countries believed by eugenicists to have "inferior" stock, particularly Southern Europe and Asia. Echoing popular eugenic sentiments, president Coolidge, who signed the bill into law, had stated when he was vice president, "America should be kept American… Biological laws show that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races." Eugenic scientists viewed immigration as a social problem caused by the inferiority of the racial groups migrating to the United States. Such a mentality informed future amendments to the Immigration Act of 1924 that made immigration increasingly difficult for non-white groups.
Interracial Marriage:
The eugenics movement also supplied a new set of arguments to support existing restrictions on interracial marriage. These arguments incorporated a "scientific" brand of racism, emphasizing the supposed biological dangers of mixing the races, also known as miscegenation. Influential writers like Madison Grant, warned that racial mixing was "a social and racial crime." He said that acceptance of racial intermarriage would lead America toward "racial suicide" and the eventual disappearance of white civilization.
Eugenic advocacy pushed forward laws that criminalized “inter-ethnic” marriages, sexual relations and even co-habilitation. Such anti-miscegenation laws were common in many southern and western states before they were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court with the case Loving v. Virginia (1967).
Sterilizations:
Perhaps the most unsettling and radical results of the eugenics movements were compulsory sterilizations. Indiana passed the first sterilization law in the United States in 1907 and since then 33 States have had forced sterilization laws at some point. In an effort to "purify" the gene pool these laws mandated sterilization of the "feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent" – including "orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers." By 1924, approximately 3,000 people had been involuntarily sterilized in America; the vast majority (2,500) in California. The majority of these procedures were performed without patient or familial consent. Often patients didn't even fully understand the procedure they were undergoing. Under these laws people of color and women were disproportionately subjected to forced sterilization operations. 
Considering eugenics' popularity during the modernist era is it possible that some of these ideas regarding race and minorities were incorporated into the texts we are reading, either overtly or covertly?
How are immigrants and ethnic minorities regarded in modernist texts or are they represented at all and are their representations at all informed by popularized eugenic beliefs?
Work Cited:
Lombardo, Paul. "Eugenic Sterilization Laws." Eugenicsarchive.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.
Lombardo, Paul. "Social Origins of Eugenics: Eugenic Laws Against Race Mixing." Social Origins of Eugenics. Eugenics Archive, 12 Feb. 2008. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Remsberg, Rich. "Found In The Archives: America's Unsettling Early Eugenics Movement." NPR. NPR, 1 June 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Lombardo, Paul. "Social Origins of Eugenics: Eugenic Laws Against Race Mixing." Social Origins of Eugenics. Eugenics Archive, 12 Feb. 2008. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Remsberg, Rich. "Found In The Archives: America's Unsettling Early Eugenics Movement." NPR. NPR, 1 June 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
I find it really interesting how people can distort science to their benefit. We often regard science as an unbiased field, which gives us an absolute truth. We seldom allow for the possibility for error, bias, manipulation, etc in the world of science. I find it really interesting and informative that you bring such a little known movement (despite its substantial effects) to light. This post really gives a new perspective and understanding to sentiments in Modernist America.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting read... it strikes the note that Professor spoke about as science being a transformation of matter just as the arts... except here it is a transformation of the reputation/status of persons (normally a type of shift in thought caused by the arts?) It's harrowing that involuntary sterilization took place so widely across minorities of all sorts. With the theme of blending fiction and reality as posed by modernism, it is enticing to stretch the analogy of the non-racial minority groups sterilized as metaphorically representing the racial minority groups themselves (races of minority as blind, deaf, deformed, dependent). Very thought-provoking post and insight from an unexpected angle! Thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting read... it strikes the note that Professor spoke about as science being a transformation of matter just as the arts... except here it is a transformation of the reputation/status of persons (normally a type of shift in thought caused by the arts?) It's harrowing that involuntary sterilization took place so widely across minorities of all sorts. With the theme of blending fiction and reality as posed by modernism, it is enticing to stretch the analogy of the non-racial minority groups sterilized as metaphorically representing the racial minority groups themselves (races of minority as blind, deaf, deformed, dependent). Very thought-provoking post and insight from an unexpected angle! Thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really important topic that tends to be glazed over in accounts of American history. Social Darwinism, which was heavily tied to eugenics, justified intense racist sentiments in the US during the early twentieth century, which repressed voices of people of color. I'm taking a history class called "The History of Human Rights" and last week, we had a lecturer from the art history department discuss how the invention of photography allowed "scientists" to dehumanize black slaves by taking front and side profile pictures, much like the mug shots of today. For all its advancements, science has its dark moments that we should not forget in our broader discussion of modernism. Thank you for your post!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile many arguments and debates do necessitate scientific fact, eugenics twisted science to its own benefit. It is important to remember that while fact brings strength to an argument, it can also be just as manipulated as opinion and emotion. Eugenics, and the prevalence of social Darwinism in general, is often left unmentioned in history classes and discussions, and yet it influenced a whole generation of Americans and their perceptions of the international world. I find it ironic, though, how some people in the US today would still see the merit in eugenics despite the increasingly globalized world we live in. Some things never change.
ReplyDeleteVery thought provoking article. It is interesting to note that even though one can consider the Modernist period of America to be a time where there was a lot of change occurring in the day to day life of the average American, there was also a great movement of people trying to resist this change (as noted by the anti-immigration movements during this time period). The immigration of people coming into this country was one of the catalysts of change of the American culture, so it almost seems natural that there would be a group of people who would want to resist this change. One could argue that the Pro-eugenics movements of the time period were in fact, a retaliation of the Modernist movement. Much like other periods throughout history, when there is great change that occurs in a society (much like America between the wars) there is also always a group that tries to resist this change. Thank you for the article.
ReplyDeleteI really found your article interesting because many times, when we are reading texts or articles, we forget what is happening in society at that point of time. It is important and relevant with our readings to know that many people still had that frame of mind regarding the "superior" race. The image you provided really enhanced the blog because it illustrates that other races were seen as "tainted" or "abnormal." It is shocking to see how some individuals regarded outsiders, but I think it is important to understand why many writers introduced modern writings in order to make a statement about the social inequality.
ReplyDeleteI find it astonishing that these anti-miscegenation laws weren't deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until the late 60s. It just shows that people can and do alter what we know to be science to justify their thoughts and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt's so strange how "science" was used as the foundation for the study of eugenics. Just as we saw some references made in the 42nd Parallel about social darwinism, so we can see it in this text. Even though race is a social construct, it is so interesting to read how much people wanted to prove it was a real thing. I loved your blogpost and how it pointed out that eugenics was used to create a social hierarchy in the early 20th century.
ReplyDelete