Secrets behind state institutions (Eugenics)

Everyone has a couple of buried skeletons hiding behind their secret closet door. America is no exception. During the mid 20th century, state institutions for individuals with developmental disabilities began popping up all over the country, due in part to the Eugenics movement. These institutions were primarily human warehouses for the “feebleminded.” Eugenics actually began in America and was adapted by Nazi Germany and continued long after Hitler's genocide of 6 million European Jews.

It was believed, at that time, that those with “mental defectives” were inferior and polluting the gene pool. Under the movement, Eugenics attempted to keep these individuals from reproducing by sterilizing and locking them up in state institutions. During the 1920s, early “science” developed I.Q. tests that were used to place individuals into the state's hands, believing that intelligence was inherited.

As I.Q. testing gained social popularity, new research started to suggest that environment played a major role in the scoring process of the I.Q. tests. A child from an unloving, hectic family usually scored low on the test but when placed in a nurturing home, the child could flourish and raise their score. A lot of the children placed in these institutions were not mentally retarded but poor, uneducated with no family or home to call their own.

Today, we are fully aware of the significant role the environment plays in the development of a child.

Mentally impaired individuals and the socially disadvantaged were integrated together in these institutions, receiving much of the same care, deficient support, and cruel treatment. By the 1930s, this was very much socially acceptable and part of the legal system. Stigmas and stereotypes were placed on individuals with disabilities or low I.Q.s. Oftentimes, doctors would advise parents to hand newborns over to the state after birth if there were any disabilities. At that time in American history, little to no supports were available to meet the needs of children with disabilities in schools and homes.

A recent CNN article, “Families Get Help Finding Loved Ones Lost in Institutions,” by Lisa Cohen notes that by 1967, 100,000 children were institutionalized among the 162 state facilities across the United States. Stories of cruelty and mistreatment were rampant and are still remembered by those who survived the institutionalization of thousands of American children. Institutionalized children became victims of sexual abuse, neglect and cruelty. At times, these children were heavily sedated, isolated and restrained. These children grew up believing they did not belong on earth, and they weren't part of the species.

In 1994, Senate hearings established that the Fernald State School for the Feebleminded in Massachusetts institutionalized many children during the Eugenics era, using them as guinea pigs for an experiment conducted by MIT scientists. As part of a “science club,” a selection of children were fed radioactive oatmeal as a nutritional study by Quaker Oats. The children were never informed nore did they give consent to be part of the experiment, even though laws had been established just 10 years before stating the need for consent. Since the experiments became public knowledge, members of the science group have since sued MIT, Quaker Oats and the government, receiving $60,000.

Institutions or human warehouses have begun to close and shut down leaving “medical terms” such as imbecile and moron on state records. By sterilizing and imprisoning individuals with disabilities, America thought they were improving the future, creating a healthier, more intelligent society. Today, individuals with disabilities are living independently, playing strong, active roles in the community.

I made the comment that eugenics has been practiced "avant la lettre" which it has. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not illegal to marry your brother or sister? Is that not eugenics?

On paper, yes. I think most incest laws exist because incest squicks people our -- but squickiness is not a good legal argument, and the risk of genetic abnormalities is a good rationale, or rationalization. Politically, the prohibition on incest -- at least at the level of siblings -- is pretty much unassailable.

And just to be strictly on point, marriage and reproduction are not the same thing. Knocking up your sister could land you (or both of you) in jail, whether you said "I do" or not.

I'm totally against "selective breeding" and bizarre immoral aspects of eugenics, but I am very interested in natural eugenics, cultural eugenics and dysgenics because I honestly believe that there are specific cultural issues that affect societies throughout the world.

When you star talking about "natural eugenics" or "cultural eugenics," you're stretching the definition of the word. Even the process by which the strongest sperm gets to plant its flag on the ovum is a form of "natural eugenics," if you want to stretch it that far.

Just about every species practices partner selection. If people tend to prefer partners who are short or tall, fat or thin, light or dark, smart or dumb, funny or dull, beautiful or plain, tough-skinned or sensitive, and so on, is that "cultural eugenics?" The application of those rules from time to time and place to place is certainly influenced by culture.

For clarity, I define eugenics, de minimus, as a deliberate plan by a group of people who have a goal in mind, and who pursue it by force or fraud. I would not use that term to apply to the mating choices of individuals.

I gave an example of a cultural that has for generations subsisted for generations on a diet of coconuts and fish. Another example is lactose intolerant individuals.

Lactose intolerance is not selected against unless you live in a culture where dairy is central to survival. It's like observing that most Asians have more flaky and gray ear wax while most Europeans have more sticky and brown ear wax. So the F what?

There are places in China that have entire villages have inbred for generations. If the government encourages these people to not inbreed, are they not practicing eugenics?

If they encourage it, possibly. If they force it, absolutely.

There are certain cultural and religious issues in Islam that I know of that might be a factor contributing to their overall temperament. And if someone is genuinely interested then sure I would love to discuss it.

Are you claiming that those can be bred out? If not, I don't see how they're remotely germane.

What I am addressing is that we need to accept the fact that not all cultures and civilizations are equal or the same, and perhaps it might serve us well to recognize that fact.

Culture and civilization are not genetic. They are learned. Even proponents of eugenics say, at most, that they can breed people smart enough to appreciate the "better" culture, however defined. They do not claim that the culture is innate.

Apparently some of the members of FR define “eugenics” exclusively as the form advocated by Hitler and the nazis. They also identify it with abortion in the current era. I define eugenics as purposeful procreation which humans have practiced since they first discovered that characteristics can be inherited. Most people choose a mate and procreate based on instinct and emotion. For example, when a man marries a beautiful woman, her beauty reflects good health and the ability to bear healthy children. He is driven by the instinct even if the couple choose not to have children. Women in turn tend to choose men who are healthy and those that are best able to provide resources for her prospective offspring. I think that rational, responsible people should choose their mates more carefully and not simply let instinct and emotion rule such an important decision. This has nothing to do with socialism, the nazi creed, or abortion. I was discussing scientific reality, not policy prescriptions or government control of procreation. Being a conservative, I of course think that procreation is an individual right and responsibility.

Those of us who believe in God know that he controls who we love and who has the ability to love us.

Those of us who believe in a Christian/Judeo God know that he loves the poor and despises those who plot to destroy the poor.

Your plan would end in depopulation. Most of the sub geniuses I know have less than four children. They have children because they know the government will not be taking care of them when they age. Their kids have the deck stacked against them from the moment they are conceived. Evil people try to kill their kids through neglect and abuse thinking they will doing the world (themselves) a favor. Rich and intelligent women have few children. They are convinced (foolishly) that the society that has always cherished them will take care of them in their old age. In order to replace the poor/dumb kids the rich/intelligent women would need to be turned into breeding sows. Most of the prized breeding women I know love their bodies too much to give birth over and over again.

There were programs like this in just about every state. Two things that stand out are the radioactive treatments and the group of 7 year old boys with normal IQs, led by Freddie Boyce , did everything humanly possible to protest and escape.

Sadly the beatings, the boys covered with urine for punishment or stripped naked and paraded and the systematic sexual abuse were not unusual for these programs.

About the only thing possibly redeeming one can say is that most of the boys endured this because the alternative was the “loony bin” which was worse.

There is a good book, one of the most painful things I have ever read, called the State Boys Rebellion about this group.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.