DOCSLIB.ORG

Eugenics, Pt. 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eugenics, Pt. 2 Eugenics, Pt. 2 8.31 Lecture - LPS 60 Review: Eugenicists claim to be supported by which two scientific theories? Scientific theory Application by Eugenicists Natural Selection -----------> Darwinian Morality (“Might makes right”) Hard Heredity ------------> Genetically-determined Social fitness Review: Eugenicists claim to be supported by which two scientific theories? Scientific theory Application by Eugenicists Natural Selection -----------> Darwinian Morality (“Might makes right”) Hard Heredity ------------> Genetically-determined Social fitness 1. Darwinian Morality “One of the effects of civilization is to diminish the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection. It preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands.” “The question was then forced upon me: Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?” - Francis Galton, "Hereditary Talent and Character" in MacMillan's Magazine Vol. XII (May - October 1865). London Poster, 1910s 2. Genetically-determined social fitness The following groups are deemed socially ‘unfit’: epileptics, depressed, poor (paupers), criminals, alcoholics, blind, deformed, deaf, feeble-minded Galton (1869) focuses on intelligence. Laughlin (1922) includes all of these groups and more under the label “socially inadequate”. London Poster, 1910s “Eugenics...is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties… Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future” - Julian Huxley, Eugenics Review (28:1), 1936 Huxley was a biology professor at King’s College London & the Royal Institution as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society of London; he’s said to be the founder of the “modern evolutionary synthesis”. Some Foundational Scientific Texts Galton’s Hereditary Genius (1869), Record of Family Faculties (1884) Dugdale’s The Jukes: A Story in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity (1877) Pearson’s The Groundwork of Eugenics (1909), Davenport, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (1911) Goddard, The Kallikak Family (1912) and Feeble-Mindedness (1914) 3 minutes with your neighbor: What is an historical example of each of the four legal methods used in the U.S. to enforce negative eugenics? Eugenics Laws 1. Marriage Laws 2. Segregation Laws 3. Sterilization Laws 4. Immigration Laws Eugenics Laws 1. Marriage Laws 2. Segregation Laws 3. Sterilization Laws 4. Immigration Laws 1924 Immigration Act The 1924 national quotas restricted Jews, Italians, Africans, and outright banned Asians and Arabs. In 1920, the “Expert Eugenics Agent” of the U.S. House Committee on Immigration & Naturalization, biologist Harry H. Laughlin, testified that the American gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually ‘defective’ immigrants as shown by “scientific research” like Goddard’s. Hitler on the U.S. in 1927: “There is currently one state in which one can observe at least weak beginnings of a [race-based] conception [of citizenship]. This is of course not our exemplary German Republic, but the American Union… The American Union categorically refuses the immigration of physically unhealthy elements, and simply excludes the immigration of certain races. In these respects America already pays obeisance, at least in tentative first steps to the characteristic völkisch conception of the state.” - Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1927 Institutions U.S.-sanctioned Eugenics 1903 - Willet M. Hays founds American Breeders Association “to study [Mendel’s] laws of breeding and to promote the improvement of plants and animals by the development of expert methods of breeding.” 1906 - Hays (Ast. Sec. of Agriculture) founds the Heredity Commission, an advisory group to Roosevelt. “Race suicide” In 1905, Roosevelt gave a speech called “On American Motherhood” in which he warned of “race suicide” among Anglo-Saxons. “Race suicide” In 1905, Roosevelt gave a speech called “On American Motherhood” in which he warned of “race suicide” among Anglo-Saxons. White women were encouraged to give birth, and birth control came to be seen as unpatriotic. U.S.-sanctioned Eugenics 1903 - Willet M. Hays founds American Breeders Association “to study [Mendel’s] laws of breeding and to promote the improvement of plants and animals by the development of expert methods of breeding.” 1906 - Hays (Ast. Sec. of Agriculture) founds the Heredity Commission, an advisory group to Roosevelt. U.S.-sanctioned Eugenics 1903 - Willet M. Hays founds American Breeders Association “to study [Mendel’s] laws of breeding and to promote the improvement of plants and animals by the development of expert methods of breeding.” 1906 - Hays (Ast. Sec. of Agriculture) founds the Heredity Commission, an advisory group to Roosevelt. 1907 - Heredity Commission adds a Eugenics Section including Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, and the president of Stanford. Harry H. Laughlin and Charles Davenport at the ERO in Cold Spring Harbor, NY. U.S.-sanctioned Eugenics 1903 - Willet M. Hays founds American Breeders Association “to study [Mendel’s] laws of breeding and to promote the improvement of plants and animals by the development of expert methods of breeding.” 1906 - Hays (Ast. Sec. of Agriculture) founds the Heredity Commission, an advisory group to Roosevelt. 1907 - Heredity Commission adds a Eugenics Section including Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, and the president of Stanford. 1910 - Davenport founds the Eugenics Record Office to do the eugenics research for this commission. Harry H. Laughlin and Charles Davenport at the ERO in Cold Spring Harbor, NY. Who is Charles Davenport? Charles Davenport (1866-1944) Harvard Professor of Zoology; 64 scientific societies 1910 - At the Eugenics Record Office he studies inheritance of alcoholism, feeble-mindedness, criminality, intelligence, depression, race crossing 1911 - Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, which becomes a standard college and med school textbook 1912 - Elected to the National Academy of Sciences 1925 - President of Intrntnl Fed. of Eugenics Orgs 1930s - Editor of Nazi scientific journals Eugenics Record Office (1910) Funded by railroad money and the Carnegie Institute after Roosevelt started his Heredity Commission. The Eugenics Record Office (1910) was seen as the center of scientific research on eugenics by most scientists until the late 1930s. Collection of Trait Pedigree Records at Eugenics Record Office, NY (1921) (Records on 100,000s of U.S. citizens; Instrumental in passing many sterilization laws.) 1910 Example of Trait Pedigree Record ERO (MSC77, SerI, Box 38, A:3164) Harry H. Laughlin Charles B. Davenport Field Worker Training Class of 1913 Field Workers would get jobs in state hospitals, colonies, and asylums, but would come back for the Annual Meeting of the ERA Eugenical News was the central journal of the U.S. eugenics movement, 1916-1953 Second International Eugenics Congress, NY, 1921 Hosted by Eugenics Record Office, gave rise to American Eugenics Society American Eugenics Society Founded 1922 after Second International Congress on Eugenics in New York. Harry H. Laughlin, president of AES American Eugenics Society Founded 1922 after Second International Congress on Eugenics in New York. Publisher of many books and journals, placed displays at State Fairs, awarded prizes for best eugenics sermons; main advocate for eugenics laws in the U.S. Letter from Field Secretary, American Eugenics Society to Fair Associations asking education exhibit space State Fair Display in Philadelphia State-sanctioned Eugenics State-sanctioned Eugenics State-sanctioned Eugenics Model Eugenical Sterilization Law The American Eugenics Society president published a book in 1922, Eugenical Sterilization in the U.S. Harry H. Laughlin “The Pope and Eugenics: A Reply to the Encyclical” by Roswell H. Johnson, eugenicist, Human Betterment Foundation, 1931 1907: Roosevelt’s Heredity Commission 1910: Eugenics Record Office, NY 1921: International Eugenics Congress, NY 1922: American Eugenics Society 1928: Human Betterment Foundation, CA Eugenics Journals 1. Eugenical News (1916-1953; began with ERO, moved to AES in 1922) 2. Eugenics, A Journal of Race Betterment (1928-1931) 3. Eugenics Quarterly (1954-1970) 4. Eugenics Review (1909-1914) 5. Bibliographica Eugenica (1927-1934) State-sanctioned Eugenics 1. Roosevelt’s Heredity Commission (1907) Willet M. Hays (Ast. Sec. of Agriculture; president of American Breeders’ Association) founds this eugenics advisory group. In 1907, Charles B. Davenport and many others join the group. In 1910, Carnegie Institute founds the Eugenics Record Office, where Davenport can do the research for this commission. 2. “Expert Eugenics Agent” for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization 1921-1931 - Harry H. Laughlin, a top figure at the American Eugenics Society and Eugenics Record Office, is given this title. U.S. Laws Eugenics Laws 1. Marriage Laws 2. Segregation Laws 3. Sterilization Laws 4. Immigration Laws Eugenics Laws 1. Marriage Laws 2. Segregation Laws 3. Sterilization Laws 4. Immigration Laws Eugenical Marriage Laws Eugenical Marriage Laws In 1896, Connecticut banned marriage for people who were “epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded… when the woman is under forty-five years of age.” Eugenical Marriage Laws In 1896, Connecticut banned marriage for people who were “epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded… when the woman is under forty-five years of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yasha Gall, Julian Sorell Huxley, 1887-1975
    Julian Sorell Huxley, 1887-1975 Yasha Gall Published by Nauka, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2004 Reproduced as an e-book with kind permission of Nauka Science editor: Academician AL Takhtajan Preface by the Science Editor The 20th century was the epoch of discovery in evolutionary biology, marked by many fundamental investigations. Of special significance were the works of AN Severtsov, SS Chetverikov, S Wright, JBS Haldane, G De Beer JS Huxley and R Goldschmidt. Among the general works on evolutionary theory, the one of greatest breadth was Julian Huxley’s book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). Huxley was one of the first to analyze the mechanisms of macro-evolutionary processes and discuss the evolutionary role of neoteny in terms of developmental genetics (the speed of gene action). Neoteny—the most important mechanism of heritable variation of ontogenesis—has great macro-evolutionary consequences. A Russian translation of Huxley’s book on evolution was prepared for publication by Professor VV Alpatov. The manuscript of the translation had already been sent to production when the August session of the VASKNIL in 1948 burst forth—a destructive moment in the history of biology in our country. The publication was halted, and the manuscript disappeared. I remember well a meeting with Huxley in 1945 in Moscow and Leningrad during the celebratory jubilee at the Academy of Sciences. He was deeply disturbed by the “blossoming” of Lysenkoist obscurantism in biology. It is also important to note that in the 1950s Huxley developed original concepts for controlling the birth rate of the Earth’s population. He openly declared the necessity of forming an international institute at the United Nations, since the global ecosystem already could not sustain the pressure of human “activity” and, together with humanity, might itself die.
    [Show full text]
  • Race and Membership in American History: the Eugenics Movement
    Race and Membership in American History: The Eugenics Movement Facing History and Ourselves National Foundation, Inc. Brookline, Massachusetts Eugenicstextfinal.qxp 11/6/2006 10:05 AM Page 2 For permission to reproduce the following photographs, posters, and charts in this book, grateful acknowledgement is made to the following: Cover: “Mixed Types of Uncivilized Peoples” from Truman State University. (Image #1028 from Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Archive, http://www.eugenics archive.org/eugenics/). Fitter Family Contest winners, Kansas State Fair, from American Philosophical Society (image #94 at http://www.amphilsoc.org/ library/guides/eugenics.htm). Ellis Island image from the Library of Congress. Petrus Camper’s illustration of “facial angles” from The Works of the Late Professor Camper by Thomas Cogan, M.D., London: Dilly, 1794. Inside: p. 45: The Works of the Late Professor Camper by Thomas Cogan, M.D., London: Dilly, 1794. 51: “Observations on the Size of the Brain in Various Races and Families of Man” by Samuel Morton. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. 4, 1849. 74: The American Philosophical Society. 77: Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, Charles Davenport. New York: Henry Holt &Co., 1911. 99: Special Collections and Preservation Division, Chicago Public Library. 116: The Missouri Historical Society. 119: The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit, 1882; John Singer Sargent, American (1856-1925). Oil on canvas; 87 3/8 x 87 5/8 in. (221.9 x 222.6 cm.). Gift of Mary Louisa Boit, Julia Overing Boit, Jane Hubbard Boit, and Florence D. Boit in memory of their father, Edward Darley Boit, 19.124.
    [Show full text]
  • World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy Part 1
    World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy Part 1 Brent Jessop - Knowledge Driven Revolution.com May 19, 2008 Sir Julian Sorell Huxley "That [fundamental] task [of UNESCO] is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species. And it is necessary, for at the moment two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East, and not only impede the achievement of unity but threaten to become the foci of actual conflict. You may categorise the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms; or as individualism versus collectivism; or as the American versus the Russian way of life; or as capitalism versus communism; or as Christianity versus Marxism; or in half a dozen other ways. The fact of their opposition remains and the further fact that round each of them are crystallising the lives and thoughts and political aspirations of hundreds of millions of human beings. Can this conflict be avoided, these opposites be reconciled, this antitheses be resolved in a higher syntheses? I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen - only I do not know whether it will happen before or after another war." – 61 As the first Director of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975) wrote a paper entitled UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1946) [1] in which he outlined his vision for the newly created international organisation (which grew out of the League of Nations' Institute of Intellectual Co-operation).
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Asian Traditions in the Philippines1 Lawrence A
    Southeast Asian Traditions in the Philippines1 Lawrence A. Reid University of Hawai`i Introduction The Philippines today is home to over one hundred different ethnolinguistic groups. These range from the Arta, a tiny group of Negrito hunter-gatherers with only about a dozen remaining speakers, living under highly adverse conditions in Quirino Province, to the 12,000,000 or so Tagalogs, a very diverse group primarily professing Catholicism, centered around Metro-Manila and surrounding provinces, but also widely dispersed throughout the archipelago. In between there are a wide range of traditional societies living in isolated areas, such as in the steep mountains of the Cordillera Central and the Sierra Madre of Northern Luzon, still attempting to follow their pre-Hispanic cultural practices amid the onslaught of modern civilization. And in the Southern Philippines there are the societies, who, having converted to Islam only shortly before Magellan arrived, today feel a closer allegiance to Mecca than they do to Manila. These peoples, despite the disparate nature of their cultures, all have one thing in common. They share a common linguistic tradition. All of their languages belong to the Austronesian language family, whose sister languages are spread from Madagascar off the east coast of Africa, through the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, scattered through the mountains of South Vietnam and Kampuchea as far north as Hainan Island and Taiwan, and out into the Pacific through the hundreds of islands of the Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian areas. The question of how all these languages are related to one another, where their parent language may have been spoken, and what the migration routes were that their ancestors followed to bring them to their present locations has occupied scholars for well over a hundred years.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitler's American Model
    Hitler’s American Model The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law James Q. Whitman Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford 1 Introduction This jurisprudence would suit us perfectly, with a single exception. Over there they have in mind, practically speaking, only coloreds and half-coloreds, which includes mestizos and mulattoes; but the Jews, who are also of interest to us, are not reckoned among the coloreds. —Roland Freisler, June 5, 1934 On June 5, 1934, about a year and a half after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich, the leading lawyers of Nazi Germany gathered at a meeting to plan what would become the Nuremberg Laws, the notorious anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi race regime. The meeting was chaired by Franz Gürtner, the Reich Minister of Justice, and attended by officials who in the coming years would play central roles in the persecution of Germany’s Jews. Among those present was Bernhard Lösener, one of the principal draftsmen of the Nuremberg Laws; and the terrifying Roland Freisler, later President of the Nazi People’s Court and a man whose name has endured as a byword for twentieth-century judicial savagery. The meeting was an important one, and a stenographer was present to record a verbatim transcript, to be preserved by the ever-diligent Nazi bureaucracy as a record of a crucial moment in the creation of the new race regime. That transcript reveals the startling fact that is my point of departure in this study: the meeting involved detailed and lengthy discussions of the law of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangerous Law of Biological Race
    THE DANGEROUS LAW OF BIOLOGICAL RACE Khiara M. Bridges* The idea of biological race—a conception of race that postulates that racial groups are distinct, genetically homogenous units—has experienced a dramatic resurgence in popularity in recent years. It is commonly understood, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the idea that races are genetically uniform groupings of individuals. Almost a century ago, the Court famously appeared to recognize the socially constructed nature of race. Moreover, the jurisprudence since then appears to reaffirm this disbelief: within law, race is understood to be a social construction, having no biological truth to it at all. Yet upon closer examination, the Court’s apparent disbelief of racial biology is revealed to be as mythical as racial biology itself. This Article argues that the Court treats “race” as a legal term of art, using the term in a “technical,” legal way to reference populations of people who are not presumed to be biologically or genetically homogenous. In treating race as a legal term of art, however, the Court essentially hedges its bets by leaving open the possibility that race, in its “scientific” usage, describes persons who are united by biology or genotype. In other words, while the Court has rejected racial biology in law, it has never rejected the possibility that, outside of law, race is actually a biological entity. By not shutting the door completely to biological race, the Court, and the law more generally, is complicit in the resuscitation of one of the most dangerous inventions of the modern era.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America
    Voces Novae Volume 11 Article 3 2019 Engineering Mankind: The oS ciopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Megan Lee [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae Part of the American Politics Commons, Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Genetics and Genomics Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Megan (2019) "Engineering Mankind: The ocS iopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America," Voces Novae: Vol. 11, Article 3. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Voces Novae by an authorized editor of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lee: Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Megan Lee “It is better for all 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…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”1 This statement was made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. while presenting the court’s majority opinion on the sterilization of a seventeen-year old girl in 1927. The concept of forced sterilization emerged during the American Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century. In 1909, California became one of the first states to introduce eugenic laws which legalized the forced sterilization of those deemed “feeble-minded.” The victims were mentally ill patients in psychiatric state hospitals, individuals who suffered from epilepsy and autism, and prisoners with criminal convictions, all of whom were forcibly castrated.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving on Nature: Eugenics in Utopian Fiction
    1 Improving on Nature: Eugenics in Utopian Fiction Submitted by Christina Jane Lake to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English, January 2017 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright materials and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approve for the award of a degree by this or any other university. (Signature)............................................................................................................. 2 3 Abstract There has long been a connection between the concept of utopia as a perfect society and the desire for perfect humans to live in this society. A form of selective breeding takes place in many fictional utopias from Plato’s Republic onwards, but it is only with the naming and promotion of eugenics by Francis Galton in the late nineteenth century that eugenics becomes a consistent and important component of utopian fiction. In my introduction I argue that behind the desire for eugenic fitness within utopias resides a sense that human nature needs improving. Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) prompted fears of degeneration, and eugenics was seen as a means of restoring purpose and control. Chapter Two examines the impact of Darwin’s ideas on the late nineteenth-century utopia through contrasting the evolutionary fears of Samuel Butler’s Erewhon (1872) with Edward Bellamy’s more positive view of the potential of evolution in Looking Backward (1888).
    [Show full text]
  • From Colonial Segregation to Postcolonial ‘Integration’ – Constructing Ethnic Difference Through Singapore’S Little India and the Singapore ‘Indian’
    FROM COLONIAL SEGREGATION TO POSTCOLONIAL ‘INTEGRATION’ – CONSTRUCTING ETHNIC DIFFERENCE THROUGH SINGAPORE’S LITTLE INDIA AND THE SINGAPORE ‘INDIAN’ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY BY SUBRAMANIAM AIYER UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY 2006 ---------- Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 3 Thesis Argument 3 Research Methodology and Fieldwork Experiences 6 Theoretical Perspectives 16 Social Production of Space and Social Construction of Space 16 Hegemony 18 Thesis Structure 30 PART I - SEGREGATION, ‘RACE’ AND THE COLONIAL CITY Chapter 1 COLONIAL ORIGINS TO NATION STATE – A PREVIEW 34 1.1 Singapore – The Colonial City 34 1.1.1 History and Politics 34 1.1.2 Society 38 1.1.3 Urban Political Economy 39 1.2 Singapore – The Nation State 44 1.3 Conclusion 47 2 INDIAN MIGRATION 49 2.1 Indian migration to the British colonies, including Southeast Asia 49 2.2 Indian Migration to Singapore 51 2.3 Gathering Grounds of Early Indian Migrants in Singapore 59 2.4 The Ethnic Signification of Little India 63 2.5 Conclusion 65 3 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLONIAL NARRATIVE IN SINGAPORE – AN IDEOLOGY OF RACIAL ZONING AND SEGREGATION 67 3.1 The Construction of the Colonial Narrative in Singapore 67 3.2 Racial Zoning and Segregation 71 3.3 Street Naming 79 3.4 Urban built forms 84 3.5 Conclusion 85 PART II - ‘INTEGRATION’, ‘RACE’ AND ETHNICITY IN THE NATION STATE Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Against-Eugenics-And-Anthropocide-1
    Against eugenics and anthropocide AN APPEAL TO ABOLISH ANY1 ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTION OF THE HUMAN BEING A crime against humanity is taking place before our eyes. This crime, born in the brains of biologists2 and committed through the means of medicine and genetics, presents itself outwardly as a good deed and an emancipation for mankind. A good deed for victims of sterility (organic or due to the chemical and industrial poisoning of the environment), for single women and couples of the same sex who are naturally infertile. Emancipation from the living - spontaneous, autonomous and unpredictable - from the constraints of nature from which derives birth with all its uncertainties. This crime is eugenics (at first called viriculture or aristogenics), the artificial selection of the human species, renamed this way in 1883 by Galton, a cousin of Darwin and also co-inventor of biometrics together with Karl Pearson (1857-1936). Or again race hygiene (Rassenhgyiene) in 1904, by Alfred Ploetz and Ernst Rüdin, two Nazi doctors. A crime supported and spread by countless scientists, businessmen (Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller), thinkers (Renan, Teilhard de Chardin), political leaders (Trotsky, Churchill, Hitler). It was again renamed transhumanism in 1957 by Julian Huxley - Aldous Huxley’s brother (Brave New World), biologist and director of UNESCO - after the Nazis had revealed the true nature of eugenics. The creation in a laboratory of an Übermensch, a “master race” of “enhanced” supermen. Machination of the human (artificial production, genetic modifications), this is the means employed by eugenic transhumanism. That is, by this racism coming from laboratories, which its promoters disguise today as pseudo-egalitarianism3.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Great Is Darwin and Bergson His Poet': Julian Huxley's Other
    This is a repository copy of ‘Great is Darwin and Bergson his poet’: Julian Huxley's other evolutionary synthesis. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/124449/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Herring, E (2018) ‘Great is Darwin and Bergson his poet’: Julian Huxley's other evolutionary synthesis. Annals of Science, 75 (1). pp. 40-54. ISSN 0003-3790 https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2017.1407442 (c) 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Annals of Science on 04 Jan 2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00033790.2017.1407442 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ “Great is Darwin and Bergson his poet”: Julian Huxley’s Other Evolutionary Synthesis. Emily Herring School of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Address: School of Philosophy, Religion and History of Science, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom Orcid id: orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-6319 1 “Great is Darwin and Bergson his poet”: Julian Huxley’s Other Evolutionary Synthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth of Color and California's Carceral State: the Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility
    Youth of Color and California’s Carceral State: The Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility Miroslava Chávez-García The Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility, originally known as Whittier State Downloaded from School when it opened in 1891, lies dormant as a result of massive California state budget cuts in the early 2000s. Though the facility is closed, its history remains alive, intimately tied to the early practices of the emerging carceral state in California. Beginning in the 1910s, with the support of Gov. Hiram Johnson and under the guidance of the progres- sive reformer and newly appointed facility superintendent Fred C. Nelles, Whittier State http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/ School used a rigorous science- and scientific-research-based approach in determining the causes of delinquency among its young incarcerated population. Relying on leading thinkers and practitioners in the nascent fields of psychology, education, social work, and eugenics, state officials implemented the latest tools and techniques—namely, intel- ligence testing and fieldwork—to understand and contain the sources of juvenile crime. To aid in the interpretation of the research, officials also drew on the latest ideas about and ideologies of race, intelligence, heredity, and crime. Those Whittier State School resi- dents classified through this process as “normal” and “borderline normal” remained in by guest on June 17, 2015 the institution and received individualized attention, while those considered beyond the assistance of the program were labeled “feebleminded” and “defective” and farmed out to alternative sites of imprisonment or simply returned home, leaving Nelles with what he considered a group of pliable juvenile inmates.
    [Show full text]