Hello everyone, welcome back to
video on module 11.
Alright, so now we're going
to talk about eugenics in
America. And if we want to do
that, we have to talk about
these two individuals.
Now they're not by far the
only people involved in the
American eugenics movement,
but they are probably the
most prominent of the group.
So the first one is doctor
Charles B. Davenport and the
other one is Harry Laughlin.
Davenport studied at the Harvard
University. And later on became a
professor of zoology at
Harvard. He pivoted away from
his work in zoology from two
different developments. One was
the discovery of Mendel's work
in the early 1900s. Got him
interested inheritance and
genetics and the other one was
his work with Carl Pearson.
Who was a very influential
statistician and developed
many statistical tools that
we still use today. And
after reading those work,
Devonport kind of pivoted
his study into
understanding inheritance.
Applying a statistical
model to the process.
He actually made a trip to visit
and met Galton in the early
1900s. In 1910, Davenport
established the eugenics records
office, ERO, while he was the
director for Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory. That is a private
research institution in New York
City, not in New York City in
New York. In the mid to late
30s? Uhm, the Nazi
regime rose to power in Germany.
And Davenport consulted with
them on the benefits of
eugenics, and one of Davenport's
main concern when he was running
the eugenics records office was
the prevention of miscegenation
So that is the
marriages between people of
different races. Laughlin was a
high school teacher and
principle before he started
working in sociology and he made
contact with Davenport. 
When Davenport established
the eugenics records office,
Laughlin was made director for
that office and basically the
entire time from its start in
1910 all the way till when
the Office closed in 1939.
Laughlin's main contribution in
the American eugenics movement
is his push for Compulsory
Sterilization Laws and for
immigration regulation laws.
The Nazi Regime ended up passing what
they called the law for
Prevention of hereditary
diseases, disease offspring
based on the anti immigration
law that Laughlin helped draft
in the United States.
So let's take a look.
So the early eugenics movement
in the US started in the
early 1900s, pretty much
catalyzed by the formation of
the eugenics records office by
Laughlin and Devonport.
They are. They were engaged in
several types of activities. One
of them was to promote the
science of genetics with regards
to heritable traits. They also
encouraged positive eugenics
through activities like fitter
family competitions. We'll get
to that in a second.
They also promote negative
eugenics policy, such as forced
sterilization, anti-miscegenation
and also opposition to
immigration of certain groups.
So let's take a look through
their list of activities.
Um, here's a display that they
would take to various events
like the world world fair or the
State Fair, County Fair. So they
would take these information to
these public events as a way to
educate the public.
And so here's a placard. That's,
uhm, you know, explaining the
benefits. Or and also the ill
effects of certain types of
marriages. So here is as pure
married to Pure produce a
great outcome, right? And then
a normal marriage, normal
people marrying abnormal people
will create undesirable outcome
and then you know if you look
down here tainted plus pure
right will cause the production
of impure and tainted outcome.
And so it is accompanied. It was
accompanied by one of these
slogans, which is, you know, how
long are we Americans to be so
careful for the pedigree of our
pigs and chickens and cattle?
And then leave the ancestry of
our children to chance or to
blind sentiment. So here they
are, advocating for a curation
for your procreation so that
you pick the parents of
children. You know the parents
of our future generation with
the same care.
As we picked breeding stocks
for animals, right? If we care
about the quality of our
chickens and now pigs and their
cattle, then should we not also
care the same for the for our
children the next generation?
Here's another display using
Guinea pigs as examples. So yes,
these are mounted Guinea pigs
bodies. Yes, they are displaying
the effects of breeding.
You know, here obviously the
pure white kind of Guinea pig
versus the pure black kind of
Guinea pig, and they're showing
the variations of color coat
color that you could get from
these breeding. A note that is
actually not what happens. You
don't get that kind of coat
pattern just from breeding
white and black Guinea pigs.
But that was the, UM, display,
uh, that they made to illustrate
a point this scientifically that
displays wrong. That doesn't
change the fact that they were
using it to illustrate the peril
of of race mixing.
Um, here's another placard. Uhm,
that has these flashing lights
on the board? Um, here on on
the up here is as every 15
seconds 100 of your.
Of your money, $100 of your
money goes towards the care of
persons who have basicallyare
insane, feeble minded criminals
or with other defects. So every
15 seconds or $100 of our money
is going towards the support the
lives of those people.
And then down here this light
flashes every 16 seconds every
16 seconds. One person is born
in the United States, right?
And then this light right
flashes every 7 1/2 minutes
every 7 1/2 minutes. A high
grade person is born in the
United States and they will
have the ability to do creative
work and be fit for leadership.
So essentially, they're saying
You know, every 16 seconds a
person is born, but only every 7
1/2 minutes would a great person
be born. In other words, most of
the people who are born are not
great, right? We get that right.
Um, an. You know the tagline
here is some people are born to
be a burden on the rest.
OK, and then similar types of
display were found all over the
country. Here's a very similar
display where lights are
blinking at different rates to
the indicate the frequency of
events happening right?
Here's one for immigration. This
light flashes every 50 seconds
every 50 seconds. A person is
committed to join the United
States. Right, so this is
different ways of showing the
concept that some people in
society are destined to be
great. Some people, most
people in society are destined
to be a burden and the
underlying message is we need
to do something about this
right. We need to help our
society by promoting this
great people and controlling
These not very good people.
And so at these state fairs.
Uhm, they would bring these
boards with flashing lights.
They will have this Guinea pigs
mounted mounted on the board and
to talk about heredity and
genetics now remembering the
1920s to 30s. The idea of
heritability. It was still quite
new. Remember that Mendel's work
was not discovered until right
after 1900. Now, of course,
Darwin's work was already known
by by then, because it's got
about 56. Oh, let's see it close
to 70 years.
For Darwin's idea to circulate.
And, uh, so they're talking
about genetics and heritability.
Is the new science and coming
with that New Sciences? These
ideas about traits that can be
heritage, which makes you a
great person, and you know this
is an education of the American
public with these ideas.
And at this US state fairs they
would also have these fittest
family competitions where
families will enter to be judged
by a panel of experts of some
sort scientists I guess as
whether they are genetically
fit. So what are the criteria
well? You probably don't need me
to tell you, but, um, they're
looking for families that looked
wholesome, right? They have lots
of kids that are high-quality.
You know, maybe they were
clergy or successful business
people, or doctors, or some
other notable vocation.
And you know they are physically
fit. They are, you know they
look nice. So these are the
Fittest family competitions. And
if you win sometimes you get a
medal. This is one of the medals
for the Fittest family
competition. This was from what
they called a group called
Race Betterment Foundation and
in this little medal you have.
Uh, two people, man and woman
passing down the torch to a
young child, signifying the
heredity, right? You're
inheriting these good traits
from your parents and on there
it has this line that yay I
have a goodly heritage and
that actually came from the
Bible from Psalms 16:6 says
the lines are fallen unto me
in pleasant places. Yay, I
have a goodly heritage.
So at this.
You know, promotion of these
ideas, it was.
Quite explicitly linked to the
Bible. Uh, and too many
religious views to support the
idea that the Fit amongst us
should be encouraged to
procreate and breed, and then
the less fit amongst us should
not be encouraged to procreate.
So that's kind of the positive
eugenics right. They're doing
these works to promote the idea
of individuals were fit should
procreate more. Now on the
negative eugenics side we have
come. Uh, a very prominent case
of Carrie Buck. Here's a picture
of Carrie. Carrie is on the left and
this is her mother Emma.
And this was taken in 1924.
Carrie Buck was committed to the
Virginia State Colony of
epileptics and feeble minded. At
age 18. She was committed by her
foster family. And her foster
family claimed. That Carrie was
feeble minded. And they could
not properly care for her any
longer. Carrie's mother, Emma
was also deemed to be feeble
minded and she was also
institutionalized which was one
of the reasons why Carrie was in
foster care. Carrie's mother
was also had a record of
prostitution, so that added to
the conclusion that Emma has
severe moral defects, moral
and intellectual defects.
Carrie was pregnant at the time
when she was committed, and then
she gave birth to her daughter
called Vivian. According to the
institution, Vivian was also
feeble minded and that's going
to be important as we look at
later on the outcome.
So when the institution
petitioned the state of Virginia
to sterilize Carrie.
Basically, to forcibly remove
Carey's ability to procreate
further. It was petitioned
under the law given to the state
by this eugenics law that was
passed in 1924.
Uh, that particular law in
Virginia was modeled after a law
that Laughlin had drafted. It
wasn't the first in the country.
The first one, actually. What
was the state?
I'm blanking on this, but, uh,
Virginia wasn't was not the
first state to have that law,
but the early versions of the
forced sterilization laws
were not very well written, so
the version that Virginia passed
was considered to be a much
better version of forced
sterilization law and so the
institution, the Virginia State
Colony of epileptics and feeble
minded petitioned the court to
allow them to forcibly sterilize
Carrie. Carrie's Guardian at the
time opposed this, and
they sued the Colony.
And the case eventually
ended up at the Supreme
Court of the United States.
So that lawsuit has come to
known as Buck v. Bell, Bell
being the Virginia State
attorney at the time. It was
ruled in 8:1 decision.
Uh. It ruled in a way
that permitted the forced
sterilization. The opinion of
the majority written by Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes became
quite infamous, and here's the
excerpt that was that is most
circulated. So Justice Holmes
wrote in the opinion.
We have seen more than once that
the public welfare may call upon
the best citizens for their
lives. It would be strange if it
could not ask Call up on those
who already sap the strength
of the state for these lesser
sacrifices in order to prevent
our being swamped with
incompetence. It is better for
the world if instead of waiting
to execute degenerate offspring
for crime, or to let them starve
for their imbecility.
Society can prevent those who
are manifestly unfit from
continuing their kind.
The principle that
sustains compulsory
vaccination is broad
enough to cover cutting
the fallopian tubes.
Three generations of
Imbeciles are enough.
Here, "3 generations of Imbeciles"
refers to Emma,
Carrie, and Vivian. And so here
there's some highlights that we
should pay attention to. Well,
first of all, is
the idea that if we do not stop
these unfit people from
Procreating the eventual outcome
would be to execute
the general offsprings for
crime. Or to let them starve for
the imbecility. Right, so those
are the options. Either we stop
them from Procreating, or their
offspring are going to be
criminals, or they're going to
be so incompetent they would
starve to death. So it's more
merciful to forcibly sterilize
these people now so we don't
have to deal with the negative
consequences later.
A second point 2 two note from
this short summary is that we
are justifying this as a kind of
sacrifice that these people
should make right.
But it's forced sacrifices in
it. I mean, in this particular
case Carrie's Guardian and I'm
sure Carrie herself objected to
this, so it's really peculiar
that in this opinion we're
calling it a sacrifice. It's not
really a sacrifice. If you force
someone to do it, is it?
Um?
So this those are some
points that jump out at me
when I read this excerpt.
And this phrase three
generations of Imbeciles are
enough, became very infamous. It
was used a lot in.
And later on when we review the
case and critique it right, it
became a very crystallising
point. To summarize this view.
So prior to this decision, we
the country averaged about 400
sterilizations per year after
the decision, it jumped all the
way up to about 3000
sterilizations. In total, the
United States would sterilize
over 60,000 individuals under
eugenics laws. Between 1906 and
1960. So in the span of roughly
54 years, we have forcibly
sterilized over 60,000 people.
And then later on from 1960 to
1970, we estimate about 80,000
sterilization. We estimate
because not every state 
maintained records of these
events, not every state defined
the action as forced
sterilization. Not every state,
especially prisons and mental
institutions, did not keep
records and so it is very hard
to get a good actual count. But
the estimation by scholars who
study this is put it at about
80,000 sterilization. The
targets of these sterilization
included those who are deemed to
be feeble minded or have severe
intellectual handicap as well as
sexual Deviants. So, uh.
You know, in today's language
feeble minded or severe
intellectual handicap would be
you know, individuals with
intellectual development
handicaps. Uh. The diagnosis
of these, however, are not what
we think of today.
So.
The way that people were
classified and institutionalized
were not always objective.
The people who were deemed to be
feeble minded were oftentimes
misclassified. There were
ulterior motives in doing this.
Uh, starting in 1970s, uh, the
states began revoking the
eugenics laws and to shut down
forced sterilization. However,
to this date the 
Buck V Bell.
Supreme Court decision has not
been vacated, which means
we haven't had a new lawsuit
that would go all the way to the
Supreme Court, where the
decision on the new lawsuit will
over will basically take over
this current decision.
Between 2006 and 2010,  146
female inmates in California
received tubal ligations that
violated the state law that
was in place at the time. After
the news of these events were
exposed, the state passed a
new stricter law that
prohibits forced
sterilization.
So from the from one of the
articles reporting on it, it
says the physician responsible
for many of these operations
blithely explained they would
save the state a great deal of
money. Compared to what you save
in welfare, paying for these
unwanted children as they
procreated more. I want you to see
the parallels in the rationale
here? Between that and the
Supreme Court decision?
The forced sterilization was
done as a way to prevent future
harm and notice the language
they used, which was very
revealing. It says unwanted
children and I want us to be
clear. These children are
unwanted by the physicians
making these decisions. They
these children. Were wanted by
their mothers, right? Otherwise
these mothers would have chosen.
Uh, uh, their own methods of
contraception. These future
children's that were prevented
were called unwanted children.
To make it sound like nobody
wanted them but somebody wanted
them, it's just not the the
people who want them were not
given the authority to make that
decision. That that decision was
taken away from these women who
were forcibly sterilized.
It is a great atrocity and it
happened all the way till 2010.
And that is the legacy
of negative eugenics.
So in 1985 there was an
investigator who was interested
in this case, a scholar and.
He revisited the Carrie Buck
case and he discovered many
interesting things. For
example, a Vivian was not
feeble minded at all. In fact,
Vivian attended elementary
school.
And, she was placed on honors
roll for two years.
Unfortunately, Vivian perished
from measles in the 30s, so she
did not actually grow up to be
an adult. Uh, the same
researcher also unearthed
evidence to suggest that Carrie
was raped by the step son of the
foster parents and the
commitment the. Reason why the
Foster family committed Carrie to
the institution was to cover up
the crime and so Vivian, then
right, was not a progeny as a
result of Vivians loose moral
character, as defined at the time.
It was actually the most likely
the product of rape.
And so the family committed
Carrie to the institution and
as a result, Carrie was forcibly
sterilized so that she would
never had another chance to.
carry a child of her
own on her own terms.
Alright, so that was the forced
sterilization angle of the
negative eugenics. There's
another angle here, which is the
rejection of immigration. So we
have to start this piece of
legislation called Virginia's
Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
It was a law that was helped
drafted by Laughlin and a group
of people and introduced the one
drop rule where a white person
is defined as someone who has
quote no trace whatever of any
blood other than Caucasian
Unquote. Or who is less than one
16th of Indian blood?
So this act prohibited the legal
marriage between the white and
the non white person.
The Virginia Racial Integrity
Acts of 1924 was overturned.
By the United States Supreme
Court in 1967, in a case called
Loving versus the Commonwealth
of Virginia. And in that case.
Um, a an interracial couple
sued Virginia for denying them
the legal right to marry. The
case, made all this way up to
the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court ruled that the
state has no authority to
prohibit interracial
marriages.
In 2001, the Virginia Assembly
issued a formal apology, and it
was signed by all but ten of the
state legislators at a time.
At the same year, when they
put that law into effect
1924, the Congress also passed
the immigration act.
So it the immigration act stemmed
from the eugenicists fear that
immigrant immigrants from
southern and Eastern Europe were
below average in intelligence.
So Laughlin helped draft the
immigration restriction act.
Which essentially scaled the
immigration flow to the racial
composition of the United States
in 1890. What that means is if
in 1890 there were, let's say,
you know hypothesis hypothetical
not, hypothesis. Hypothetically,
let's say there were only 2%
Italians in this country, then
no more than 2% of all
immigrants can be Italian.
So the new immigrants must be
scaled to the racial composition
of the United States in 1890.
It was supported by many
stakeholders, including the
labor unions who were fearful of
the influx of Labor cheapening
wages. So let's remember.
1924 is between the world wars,
right? And we were seeing
immigration influx from southern
Europe for example. The wave of
Italians. We also have Slavs
including Polish, Czech. So all
of these southern European
immigrants. At the time they
were considered lesser. They
were considered to be less
intelligent, less capable, and
so there was a push in
preventing more of them from
entering the United States.
So nativists were afraid of
immigrants bringing their own
culture and the cultural
practices which would dilute
the significance of the Anglo
Saxon culture.
So if that sounds really
familiar to some other things
going on today, well, because
they are. So the same kind of
rhetoric that we use today by
some fractions of our society
are essentially the same reasons
that they were using in 1920s
to discourage immigration from
countries that today we don't
really think of as worthy of you
know, being stopped from
immigrating into the United
States. These concerns about the
influx of New Labour lowering
wages, you know you can
basically read as they're taking
our jobs. And also that they are
of lesser intelligence of lesser
quality that their culture is
going to dilute our culture and
make us less are in the process.
All of these.
Ideas they were not new. They
were not new in 1924, right?
They were they were they were as
old as human race.
And so bring you up to date on
what's going on today. A little
bit. Uhm. Well, maybe not today,
but these ideas. They were not
the exclusive province.
Of people whom we might think is
lesser educated right these
opinions. Span the spectrum
of our society. We can't
just dismiss that as the
opinions of the uneducated,
because here's one example.
You remember Watson from Watson
and Crick right that he was part
of the team who discovered the
double Helix structure of the
DNA. And here you have him, uh,
making statement that Africans
are less intelligent than
Westerners. Yes, he did say that
and um, so this these ideas.
They're not restricted to one
particular group in our society.
Uh, he later on went on to
double down on the relation
between intelligence and race.
And so he was making the point
that. Different races have
different intelligence level and
he insisted that that's not
racism. Well spoiler alert. It
is. The literature and the
information on this is vast and
I deliberately chose not to
cover it in this course because
it would just be too much.
But uhm, the current scientific
consensus really is there is no
such correlation between race
an intelligence. And if you've
been paying attention to the
arguments about race in general,
about the genetics of race, you
can probably figure out why.
And, um, here's another
video.
For all the people out there who
want to touch you want to come
and stand by your building and
thinking? Perhaps maybe the
local run off all the people who
are reading art of the deal,
hoping to find some answer that
will satisfy their own desire
for success? Are you just a
phenomenon? Is it? Is it
possible for everybody to be
what you've become? No, it's
not, but it's possible for a lot
of people to become successful
and even very successful. I
mean, you have to be given and
this is where that comes in. You
have to be born lucky in the
sense that you have to have the
right, the right genes to go
out. And if it's in my business,
if it's making deals.
If it's to become Jack Nicklaus
or Chris Everett or
Martino, let me ask you, this
have to have a certain gene. Do
you think you would have done
this if you've been born in the
ghetto someplace? If you started
out with zip, I would like to
think that I would have been
successful. I mean, it's better
starting out. I had a father who
is in the real estate business
in Brooklyn and Queens, and I
had a little base and I have a
wonderful father, and I learned
a lot from so I had a certain I
had an advantage. I'd like to
think that I would have been
successful, whether it was
owning a chain of stores or or
even owning a store or doing
something. I think I would have
been successful ever even
thought about that. If I
started out with with a lot
less, where would I be? and I
think I'd like to say
proportionately I'd be as
successful, but who knows
really high youtubers.
Alright, so that was some his
words. Now that you know what
eugenics means, uhm, whether
his idea about the access to
greatness and success matches
the ideas of eugenics or not
I will leave it for yourself
to decide.
