Nathan Newman wrote:
> >On Behalf Of Marta Russell
> >
> > Of course Margarent Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood was
> > a eugenicist. Recently I learned that Helen Keller supported it
> > too. As you can imagine that is a real downer for disability
> > activists. Now we have to have some separation
> > from her too, a lefty crip.
>
> Is there only one version of eugenics? What was the definition used by these
> left-oriented eugencists?
Those who sought to perfect the "human stock" through eugenic means. This would include the unworthy poor who were considered genetically inferior as well as disabled people. Disability themes include the use of contemporary technology (medical castration in the case of the eugenicists) to cure or prevent disability; the notion that disability is a burden to the society, families, and the individuals themselves; unquestioned assumptions about social and cultural ideals of beauty and perfection; and a refusal to accept the idea that human diversity (as applied to disablement) enriches society. Rather the eugenic idea was to "progress" beyond disability.
The state socialist eugenicists were interested in unloading the burden of caring for the incurables. Many socialists identified eugenics with state planning and the rationalization of the means of production; many thus found the idea of a "planned genetic future" an attractive one. . .Alfred Grotjahn, for example, today considered the father of German social medicine and one of the leading architects of Weimar Germany's progressive health reforms, saw racial hygiene as a legitimate concern of medicine. He was one of those who defended the use of the term eugenics (rather than racial hygiene) in order to avoid confusion with racist notionsof the political-anthropological variety.
Emerging evidence makes it clear that eugenics is more deeply rooted in the world than previously thought. From 1935 until 1976, the democratic socialist government in Sweden sterilized 60,000 women to rid society of the "inferior," those with learning difficulties who were from "poor or mixed racial quality" not of Nordic stock. Although the sterilization was called voluntary, victims reported that they were forced to agree or risk losing other children and benefits.1 The Swedish government 's rationale was doublefold, to improve the racial stock and to save the costs of providing welfare.
Following this revelation about eugenic history, the Finns confessed to sterilizing 11,000 people and to performing 4,000 involuntary abortions between 1945 and 1970. The Danes admitted to having eugenic laws in effect before the Nazis through 1967 and to the sterilization of about 11,000, more than half against their will. The Swiss conceded to compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped until the 1970s. While these nations condemned their past actions, Japan, which had eugenics laws on the books until 1996, allowing doctors to sterilize 16,000 physically and mentally disabled women without their consent, offered no apologies for its laws or actions.
>
> Most interesting, what did it mean that someone like Helen Keller was a
> eugenicist? She obviously did not mean denying resources and help to
> "undesireables", so did she oppose breeding by specific individuals?
A friend of mine who is a historian is working on a book now about Keller that will, no doubt, explain her position fully. I would only be guessing as I am not doing the research but really look forward to reading this one when it is published!!
>
>
> I am curious if there are distinct versions of these thoughts and whether
> this discussion is talking about an abstraction - the word "eugenics" -
> where different strains of thought and action are being lumped together.
There is a distinct difference -- there was a "right" and "left" side to the eugenics movement. The right's association was in alignment with social Darwinism. The left's with progress and state planning.
Marta