History of Eugenics: How Those in Power Shape the Perfect Human Essay

Eugenics, the study of hereditary traits with the aim of producing an ideal human, and â€Å"on a societal level, programs that control human reproduction with the intent of changing the genetic structureof the population†, (Lewis, 299) are not a new concept. The history of eugenics reaches as far back as 400 B. C. , and extends to dates as recent as 1994. From Athens to Sparta, United States to Germany and China, the quest to improve the human race has spanned the world. ‘Improve’, however, is a highly subjective term. Who decides what an ideal human looks like? And what are the appropriate ways to build a race of such people? The answers to these questions have changed throughout the centuries. People considered ‘ideal’ by the eugenics program in one culture would be scheduled to be euthanized as ‘undesirable’ in another culture a few centuries later. Upon reviewing the history of eugenics, it becomes apparent that the section of a society in power at a particular time in history, usually seeks to eliminate those least like themselves, in order to impose not only their values, but their very phenotype on society at large. The first written accounts of eugenics reach back to 386 B. C. In his work â€Å"The Republic†, a description and plan for an Utopia, or ‘ideal society’, the Athenian philosopher Plato is said to have written that procreation should be controlled by the state. Through a state-sponsored selection of mates, â€Å"race would be strengthened by improved children†. (â€Å"Life of Plato†). Men aged 30-45 would be allowed to reproduce, as well as women aged 20-40. Any child born in violation of these laws would be abandoned outside the walls of the city. Some of Plato’s ideas had already been put into action in Sparta, around 431 BC. In line with the concept of ‘Eunomia’, weak male infants were left to die on slopes of Mt. Taygetus. (â€Å"The true story†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) â€Å"The Spartans practiced an uncompromising genetics programme. Newborn babies were raised only if healthy and perfect, so as not to be a burden to the state and to ensure genetic up-breeding. † (â€Å"Leonidas the Spartan†). It is worthy of noting that the Spartans were Greeks- with olive skin, dark curling hair, and brown eyes. To them, physical fitness was more important than moral virtues: â€Å"Sparta was hardly famous for chaste women,† according to Euripides, a then-contemporary writer. â€Å"Leonidas†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) The ideal person was a strong, fit male, and a woman who could reproduce often, bearing healthy children. This ideal was written into law by the Spartan King Leonidas, and adhered to until the eventual fall of the Spartan city-state. The next worldwide resurgence of eugenics occurred in the Victorian era. In 1863, Britain’s Sir Francis Galton, who was a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term ‘eugenics. ’ (Lewis, 300). He theorized that the mating of two talented people would produce better offspring. (â€Å"Eugenics Timeline†). His ideas rapidly spread to the United States and Germany. The concept of selective mating to achieve the elimination of undesirable traits became popular. â€Å"Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of â€Å"race and blood† in his 1902 racial epistle â€Å"Blood of a Nation,† in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. † (Black, Edwin. ) Soon after, in 1907, the US state of Indiana passed the world’s first mandatory sterilization law. (Smith, pg. 36-137). The aim of the law was to prevent the birth of children which might inherit such undesirable traits as ‘criminality, mental defects and feeble-mindedness’. In 1911, the â€Å"Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population†, a venture which was supported by Andrew Carnegie, one of the greatest philanthropists of that era, listed 18 solutions to resolve this problem. Number Eight was euthanasia of undesirables. A gas chamber was suggested as a possible option. (Black, Edwin). In 1918, Paul Popenoe wrote a widely used textbook, â€Å"Applied Eugenics†, which again recommended euthanasia: â€Å"From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution†¦ Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated. â€Å"(Black, Edwin). We may be tempted to believe that euthanasia as a form of genetic control never came to be used in the United States, but this is not the case. At the ame time Popenoe propagated his ideas, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois had a policy of feeding incoming patients milk from tuberculosis-infected cows. It was thought that an ‘eugenically strong’ individual would be immune. The institution had a 30-40% death rate of incoming patients. (Black, Edwin. ) But those deemed insane were only the first on the long list of people considered ‘genetically inferior’. They were closely followed by those deemed ‘feeble-minded’ or ‘licentious’. Most recent immigrants fell into the first group- IQ tests of the time determined that the average immigrant had a â€Å"moron-grade† intelligence level. Smith, John David. pg. 161) IQ was considered an innate characteristic, something that was definite, unchangeable and inheritable. Nevermind the fact that the IQ tests were administered in what usually the immigrants’ second language, by untrained secretaries or other flunkies , and skewed to favor Americans of ‘Nordic’ descent. Because of economic hardship during those times, many people in power sought to limit the tide of immigrants- which were coming mostly from Eastern European countries, as well as Italy. Eugenecists and their wealthy supporters shared an antipathy for [†¦] class struggle†, and considered ‘poverty’ another inheritable trait. In this way, they could successfully â€Å"blame the victims for their own problems†. (Allen, Garland E. â€Å"Social Origins of Eugenics†. ) Jews and Gypsies, in addition to African-Americans, were also considered of inferior genetic stock, because they did not represent the Nordic phenotype ideal that was most similar to those in the ‘ruling class’. Eugenic tests were conducted to support this agenda. The results were mostly skewed, and sometimes, as in the now-infamous Kalikak study, altogether manufactured. The Kalikak study was the basis of a book written in 1914 by Henry Goddard, titled â€Å"Feeblemindedness: Its Causes and Consequences. † The book became very influential, and led to many states adopting laws for the forcible sterilization of ‘feebleminded’ individuals, and other undesirable traits shuch as being ‘passionate’ or ‘sexually wayward’. In Sonoma, California, some women were sterilized because of ‘abnormally large clitoris or labia’, which doctors thought may lead to licentious behavior! Black, Edwin. ) Rapists and similar criminals were generally not subjected to sterilization; instead, most of the sterilized were women. It quickly becomes apparent that the less-than-ideal traits in the United States in this age were: being promiscuous, socially dependent, or from a non-Nordic country. These qualities are quite different from those considered undesirable a few centuries earlier, by the Athenians and Spartans. The spread of eugenics continued, from the United States to Germany. Germany was undergoing great economic hardship after WWI, and Hitler’s proclamation that they were of a superior ‘Germanic’ or ‘Aryan’ race and thus entitled to more of the world’s resources was very well received. In 1924, Hitler espoused his version of eugenics in his book ‘Mein Kampf’. Hitler even wrote a fan letter to US eugenics leader Madison Grant, calling Grant’s book ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ his ‘bible’. (Black, Edwin. ) Hitler’s ideas corresponded to the American eugenecists concepts of the superiority of a White Race. In the US, marriage between Whites and Blacks was forbidden by law in many states, with the aim of keeping the ‘superior’ White race ‘pure’. In fact, inter-racial marriage did not become universally legal in the United States until 1967. Because of their similar outlooks, American and Nazi eugenicists often corresponded and shared research. John D. Rockefeller even donated $410,000 ($4 million by today’s standards) to German researchers for eugenics research. The ‘research’ was done on Jews, Gypsies and others. In 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation gave additional funds for the Germans’ research on twins and â€Å"substances toxic to germ plasm†. In other words, human testing of lethal substances, or those causing infertility. As eugenics research continued, so did the collaboration of German and American scientists- in 1934 there was even a Nazi display in LA, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. (Black, Edwin). The Germans seized upon the American idea of sterilization of undesirables, and by 1934, were sterilizing 5,000 people per month. By 1939, they had moved on to euthanizing 5,000 children with birth defects or mental retardation, followed by 70,000 ‘unfit’ adults. (Lewis, Ricky. pg 300) As WWII swept over Europe and Hitler gained control of more lands, his armies and his doctors embarked on a quest of purging the lands of their native, ‘inferior’ populations. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, â€Å"in 1933, there were approximately 9 million Jews in Europe. By 1945, the Nazis had reduced that number to about 3 million. Roma (Gypsies) were also sent to the concentration camps, resulting in about 200,000 Gypsy deaths. Physically and mentally handicapped, homosexuals, and Polish intellectuals accounted for at least another 200,000. This totals about 6,400,000 victims of the concentration camps. The Nazis also killed between 2 and 3 million Soviet prisoners in labor camps or executions. Added to this toll should be the non-Jewish Poles and Soviets sent to forced labor who died due to malnutrition, unsafe work conditions, disease and â€Å"experimentation. † The experimentation in question was most notably conducted by Josef Mengele, an eugenicist who arrived in 1943 in Auschwitz. His aim was to conduct ‘anthropological testing’, which involved gruesome torture of his subjects. (Black, Edwin. ) Once again, the prerogatives of the class in power influenced the eugenics movement, by seeking ways to eliminate those not fitting the ‘Aryan’ ideal, which included men and women who were tall, blonde and blue-eyed, and of the ‘pure’ Germanic stock. After World War II, eugenics was declared ‘a crime against humanity’. (Black, Edwin. ) The American eugenics movement was renamed â€Å"human genetics† in 1949, and many of the same scientists continued their research. Meanwhile in Germany, Mengele’s boss and mentor became a dean of a university, and a member of the American Society of Human Genetics. The eugenics movement, though renamed, was not extinct. Eugenics laws were passed as recently as 1994 in China. â€Å"The Maternal and Infant Health Care Law’ proposed to â€Å"ensure the quality of the newborn population† and forbid procreation between two people if physical exams show ‘genetic disease of a serious nature’† including mental illness, seizures and other conditions that were ill-defined and not necessarily inherited. (Lewis, Ricky. g. 300) Given the oppression, infanticide, forced sterilization and genocide that resulted from humans’ attempts at eugenics over the course of history, it is difficult to see any positive aspects of the concept. Because the ruling class determines the ‘desirability’ of superior traits, any benefit to mankind in general is doubtful- the perceived benefit to some comes at the price of the suffering and death of many. Overall, eugenics seems to seek to negatively impact genetic diversity, which has long been a quality that has facilitated the survival of mankind. The presence of eugenics in modern times is the subject of much debate. Some interpret the assistance given to infertile couples in modern times as a form of eugenics, but this is hardly the case. These are merely the attempts of individual people to have a baby which looks like them, to fulfill their dreams of having a family. No one is paying them to reproduce any supposedly-superior genes (‘positive eugenics’), or trying to limit their reproductive rights (‘negative eugenics’), (Lewis, Ricky. g. 299) There is also the matter of the genetic research into the Human Genome, and by extension, into inherited genetic diseases. However, this research aims to limit human suffering, is non-invasive for the patient and leaves all decisions to the parents of the potentially-affected offspring. None of the aspects of ‘negative eugenics’, such as sterilization of the parents or the abortion of the fetus are mandated by any law, and any government at this time. Nonetheless, human rights activists and all citizens must remain alert, lest the ghost of eugenics should rear its ugly head again. Genetic history should never be a matter of public record, and a person’s genes should never be the basis of discrimination against them. Federal genetic anti-discrimination legislation was finalized in the US in 2008, and it is hoped that other countries will follow suit. We must always remember the injustices committed in the past, in the name of ‘creating the ideal human’, and strive to prevent them in the future.