Formula One Racing

Posts Tagged ‘Racist’

Eugenics: defeat a racist science

Eugenics: Thwarting a racist Science

At the time of scientific progress and development is achieved, scientists have devised some ways to use the selective breeding of animals and plants to improve the chances of survival of the species. Of course, do not throw the thought of ​​applying the same process of improving human and eliminate undesirable characteristics in them. British biologist Francis Galton (1822-1911) coined the term “eugenics” in 1883, although the underlying thoughts can be found in the earlier works of Plato, the Greek word literally means “excellent birth.” Because of these new scientific methods, eugenics has room for the spread of racism and other social divisions such as class systems. Galton believed that marriages between people of what he regarded as “brilliant genetic material” could be expected to produce offspring with the same or similar qualities (Last, 2007). But, the eugenics movement was frowned upon by many people, because it was used by the Nazi regime in Germany, pushed him to improve the human race by eliminating people who despised – the Jews (antisemitism). Therefore, eugenics and racism are linked by the fact that each person has their own rights and is prone to be abused by people who want to dominate the weak.

Charles Darwin’s cousin, who entered the world of the theory of evolution, Galton Darwin incorporated the thought of ​​survival of the fittest in the thought of ​​eugenics. The goal of eugenics was the improvement of the human species through careful selection of parents. Galton identified two main processes to achieve this end. positive eugenics encouraged individuals who were above average both mentally and physically to produce more offspring. negative eugenics proposes that people who were below average should have less children or not. This second approach could be achieved through institutional segregation, restrictions on marriage, or sterilization (Berson, and Cruz, 2001, p. 300). His exact words were targets for these processes eugenics’ first is “to check the birth rate of the unfit … the second object is to improve the race by furthering the productivity of the way.” Galton used the word “race” in its nineteenth century to designate the population of the nation state and not in the broadest sense of the twentieth century. Galton seems to have believed that the reason why it would be desirable to improve the genetic quality of the population of a nation is that it determines the quality of its civilization and economic and military strength of the nation. Lynn (2004) writes:

In his book, Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton proposed that the population of classical Athens had the highest intelligence of any human population and that this was responsible for the high level civilization. He also argued that when the intelligence and moral character of a company deteriorate through dysgenic fertility, declining quality of their civilization. He referred to the decline of Spain in the seventeenth century as an instance in which it had been the deterioration of intelligence, which he attributed to the celibate priesthood wide, head of the national decline in the quality of civilization and economic and military power. … [In this case,] Eugenics, Galton given, is primarily concerned with promoting the excellent of the people, not the individual. This thought that the welfare of the population is more vital than individuals increasingly fell out of favor in the second half of the twentieth century and is one of the main reasons that eugenics became nearly universally rejected (p . 48).

Since racism is a form of prejudice based on perceived physical differences and usually refers to unfavorable or hostile attitudes toward people perceived to belong to another race, eugenics certainly come into this category because racism usually results in a belief in the superiority of one’s own career. The trigger of prejudice and racism is the “human tendency to form stereotypes, generalized beliefs that associate whole groups of people with particular traits.” Racial stereotypes are “exaggerated or simplified” in the descriptions of any person “appearance, personality and behavior” (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).

In fact, Galton and his followers were well intentioned and progressive in its thought of ​​suggesting eugenics, because they were concerned only with the betterment of mankind. After all, this was during the Progressive Era, characterized as a time of hope and reform. Gerald Grob (1991) notes that proponents of eugenics were acting on behalf of a noble cause that would benefit humanity. They believed the medical and scientific knowledge, along with a new technology had reached a point in time that eradication was possible hereditary defects.

But what you intend, eugenics was well received in the United States. As Rosen (2004) writes:

From

in the early twentieth century and the decades spanning the years 1910, 1920 and 1930, eugenicists in the United States calls the control program human reproduction. It urged legislators to pass laws to segregate in colonies called feeble-minded state, where they could live their lives in celibacy, but supports the sterilization laws of state aimed at men and women whose “germplasm” in danger eugenic vitality of the nation that led the drive to restrict immigration from countries whose citizens can contaminate the American melting pot. His knowledge is filtered into well loved culture through books and manuals eugenics parenting advice, eugenics novels, plays and movies, and dozens of magazine and newspaper articles (p. 6).

With the increasing presence and virility perception of African Americans, immigrants in 1900, and the working class and the growing visibility of the working class “women adrift, this threatened the authority of middle-class white man, both in power and numbers, advocates of eugenics in the United States targeted a reduction factor of the middle class .. the limited fertility of this new woman as Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed in the early 1900′s, the middle-class white woman had voluntarily left their fertility The white birth rate was declining rapidly. while the average American family of 1840 had produced six children in 1900 generated only three children suicide prompted Roosevelt sociologist Edward Ross racial term into the public arena in a speech in 1901, “The causes of race superiority,” said Ross. that the advancement and progress of the “master race” could lead to his disappearance had manhood .. become more civilized, decadent and powerless, but, Roosevelt, significantly, he blamed white woman woman of “excellent deed” that chose not to have children, he said, were “career criminals” (Paul 1995, p. 102).

But, the participation of the eugenics movement was striking that in 1902, when an Illinois physician named Dr. Harry Sharp called for the adoption of compulsory sterilization laws that would require all men in prisons, reformatories and houses of the poor to be sterilized. Before the Act was passed in order to be, who had involuntarily sterilized more than five hundred men. Following the example of Dr. Sharp, in 1907 Indiana became the first state to enact a law based eugenic sterilization. In 1912, eight states had sterilization laws. With time nearly thirty states followed suit (Paul 1995, p. 81-82).

During the rise and fall of eugenics, we can see that there are obvious problems with it. The first is that more is at stake in making a superior human being in the creation of a higher plant species. Vegetables have no rights, but human these human rights are possessed by all people as human beings, human rights do not stop to exist if an individual is “imperfect” in one or more ways. In essence, eugenics tends to void the perfect individual child the existence and such alleged arrogance is intrinsically immoral and racist. A second negative outcome of eugenics could be that through screening programs privileged groups can act in their prejudices against, for example, Black people is linked to crime. Since Black is neither a crime nor a defect, it would be a grave injustice to the advocates of eugenics to try to eliminate those kinds of people in the human gene pool. Another possible hurt of eugenics is that those who do promote at the expense of the harmony of the human community. This community, as we know, is composed of people of all kinds, some more gifted than others, some more problematic than others. The solidarity and prosperity of the human community depend on cooperation and respect among all members, not a screening policy, as eugenics, through which some members lose their right to membership based on the values ​​and prejudices of those in positions of influence. The largest problem of eugenics is probably the fact that even if the program is embraced and used, it would be possible to do. Humans are the most complex of all species and, despite the carefully orchestrated breeding programs , people with physical, mental, social or psychological unborn.

Works Cited

Berson

, J. Michael, and Barbara Cross. “Eugenics Past and Present. “Social Education 65.5 (2001): 300

.

Grob, Gerald. Introduction, surgical solution: A history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, ed. Phillip R. Reilly, Baltimore, Maryland. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991

John Last, M. eugenics. A Dictionary of Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007

.

Lynn, Richard . Eugenics: A reassessment. Ed. Seymour W. Itzkoff. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001

.

Paul ,