DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter Seven

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter Seven Chapter Seven The Eugenic Hypothesis 1938- 19-40 There is good reason to question the notion of a "new eugenics" as presented by Mark Haller and Kenneth Ludmerer. The idea that the old eugenics "collapsed" and a new leadership had "rebuilt" American eugenics is too simplistic and far too extreme. I have traced the development of particular policies with regard to immigration and sterilization within the American Eugenics Society from its earliest days to 1940. Focusing on those two important issues I have shown that there was a good deal more continuity in policy between 1921 and 1940 than is usually supposed in the literature. I have also looked at the society's leadership from 1923 to 1935. It is quite clear that at least up to 1935 there was very little change in the ideology, philosophy, and leadership of the society. The idea of a "new" eugenics appearing between 1930 and 1940 was not created by Haller and Ludmerer. In the late thirties the AES leadership began to articulate an ideology which they themselves described as new. As we shall see, however, the essentials of the "new" eugenics had clear roots in the older philosophy and the differences have not yet been clearly articulated.! The notion of a "new" eugenics is not entirely without merit. Important changes occurred between 1930 and 1940. In 1934 Charles Davenport retired as Director of the Carnegie Institution's Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring arbor.^ Institutional changes as well took place within the AES beginning in the early thirties with the resignations of Davenport, Howe, Campbell, and others. In 1935 major changes in the institutional structure of the Society were inaugurated with the elimination of the advisory council and the reframing of the constitutional structure of the society. At the end of 1938 control of the ..Eugenical -" " ""..-News ". was transferred from the ERO to the AES.3 By What has been referred to in the literature as the "new eugenics" was not articulated until the late 1930s. A self-conscious expression of this newer philosophy of eugenics is not found in the AES papers or its publications until after 1935. For a full examination of the closing of the Eugenics Record Office see Garland Allen, "The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: An Essay in Institutional History," 0~~.1.,r..~~.s2nd series, 2: pp. 250- 253. Ml,nu-t.-e-s.,2/9/39. In February 1939 the Board of the American Eugenics Society met to consider policy regarding the N-eewws. It was agreed "that a severe editorial policy be adopted in publishing Eu.wn-i.c.a..!........ N.ee!s.and that definite methods of editorial control be adopted." A11 future material submitted to the Euqen !!!e.w-~ was to be sub ject to review by at least one of the directors of the society, the editorial committee and an outside authority. Scientific material would be stressed, all book reviews would be signed, biographical statements on the contributors be included, and as soon as possible, the society would begin paying for solicited materials. the end of 1939 Harry Laughlin was retired by the Carnegie Institution from the Eugenics Record Office which was subsequently closed down .4 Thus, by 1939 Frederick Osborn's position of leadership within the East Coast eugenics establishment had been consolidated and the center of eugenics activity had clearly transferred from the ERD at Cold Spring Harbor to the AES in New York. Osborn served as one of the Directors of the Society, generally presided at the meetings, and either wrote or supervised the composition of the society's most important platform statements. His 1940 monograph, A Pref,ce.-.." t..~ EEuug..eer!r!i..ccs 9 was cons i the mo st i mpo r t ant statement on eugenics of the period and still stands as the foundation of the "new" eugenics. Between 1937 and 1939, the AES was intensely active. Membership nearly doubled during these years and finances were table.^ The AES organized eight conferences on eugenics in relationship to recreation, nursing, education, medicine, publicity, birth control, housing, and the church AES leaders also participated in fourteen other conferences in which eugenics was included as part of the program.b In January 1940 Laughlin returned to Kirksville, Missouri. Membership was approaching five hundred by 1939. The gross income for 1937-38 was $7,156. The Society maintained two employees. M.inu.t.es 14th Annual Meeting (16 May 1940) P. 2- Recreation held January 37; Nursing, February 1937; Thus, the Society was assiduously engaged in defining its goals in relation to other social issues. A close examination of presentations given by the leadership of the AES during this period will illuminate the essentials of the so-called "new" eugenic^.^ "We are at a major turning point in human biology," Frederick Osborn told his colleagues at the blew York Academy of Medicine in April 1939. Speaking at a lecture in honor of Herman Biggs, Osborn told his audience that "European peoples appear headed for a serious decline." Between 1650 and 1930 Europeans achieved a "seven-fold increase" from one hundred million to seven hundred million at a time when the world population increased only four-fold. However, Osborn explained, for the past one hundred years the trend in the west had been towards a decrease in the number of births per married woman. This trend was most marked in Europe. By 1935 England had a net rate of reproduction which was 24 per cent short of replacement; Germany, France, and Sweden had similar rates.# By 1932, "for the first time in our history, the women of childbearing age in the United States Education, March 1937; Medicine, April 1937; Publicity, December 1937; Birth Control, January 1938; Housing, April, 1938; The Church, May, 1938. ? The material that follows has been taken either from AES pamphlets of the period or from statements by representatives of the Society at AES or other conferences. Frederick Qsborn, "The Significance to Medicine of Present Population Trends," Address before the New York Academy of Medicine, 6 April 1939. p. 5. 273 i were failing to replace their own numbers in the next generation."? The problem was even more serious than the gross numbers indicated. While the western world as a whole was losing ground to non-European populations, reproduction within the the U.S. and Europe was from the worst stocks. More than one-third of the births annually in the U.S. were occurring in families on relief, or with total incomes of less than 9750 per year.I0 Over half of the natural increase was contributed by that third of the population living in the poorest rural areas. In 1930, cities with populations of 25,000 or more inhabitants had an average fertility only 85 per cent of the amount required for replacement. Within each city fertility was highest among the poor, uneducated, and unskilled. "The Nation's new born citizens are somewhat fewer than the number required to maintain a stationary population," said Frank Notestein, a Princeton University demographer, at the PIES Conference on Birth Control, "and they are being recruited heavily from ? Frederick Osborn, "The Significance to Medicine of Present Population Trends," Address before the New York Academy of Medicine, 6 April 1939. See also, P.K. Whelpton, "An Empirical Method of Calculating Future PoP u 1 a t i 0n 9 " Jov. =.a .. 0.f ttth.ee..eee.~.mmerr~..c..caan.nnnnnSstt.a.t.t.I.I.I~.t..i.i.cc.aa1.. Association- A (September 1936) 31 #1?6, pp. 457-473; Frank Notestein, "Some Implication of Current Demographic Trends for Birth Control and Eugenics," Paper presented at the Conference on Eugenics and Birth Control of the American Eugenics Society (28 January 1938) AES Papers. l0 Eric M. Matsner, Medical Director of the American Birth Control League "Birth Control: Future Policies as Evidenced by Present Day Trends," Conference on Eugenics and Birth Control (28 January 1938). ... the most impoverished rural areas of the South and Warren Thompson, Director of Scripps Foundation and a member of the AES Board, summed up the problem at the AES Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Housing: The inverse relation between economic and social status and size of family has been found in practically all studies on this point in the United States of which this writer has knowledge. Unskilled laborers have larger families than skilled workers, and skilled workers have more children than professional and business men....Since there is good reason to believe that a large part of those who are on the borderline between hereditary normality and abnormality, as well as most of the hereditarily defective, are to be found in the lower income classes... it seems fair to assume that the groups whose reproduction is of least benefit to the community have larger families on the average than those who are of sound stock.. 12 Thompson pointed to Swedish studies which indicated that people adjust the size of their families to the size of available housing. He noted therefore, that public housing can have either a eugenic or dysgenic effect on the , population. If, for example, we wish to encourage the professional classes to have larger families the society must insure that adequate housing is available within the l1 Frank W. Notestein, "Some Implications of Current Demographic Trends for Birth Control and Eugenics," Conference on Eugenics and Birth Control of the American Eugenics Society (28 January 1938) p. 2. AES Papers. l2 Warren Thompson, "Housing and Population" Paper presented at the AES Conference on the Eugenic Aspects of Housing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SOHASKY-DISSERTATION-2017.Pdf (2.074Mb)
    DIFFERENTIAL MINDS: MASS INTELLIGENCE TESTING AND RACE SCIENCE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY by Kate E. Sohasky A dissertation submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Baltimore, Maryland May 9, 2017 © Kate E. Sohasky All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Historians have argued that race science and eugenics retreated following their discrediting in the wake of the Second World War. Yet if race science and eugenics disappeared, how does one explain their sudden and unexpected reemergence in the form of the neohereditarian work of Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Charles Murray? This dissertation argues that race science and eugenics did not retreat following their discrediting. Rather, race science and eugenics adapted to changing political and social climes, at times entering into states of latency, throughout the twentieth century. The transnational history of mass intelligence testing in the twentieth century demonstrates the longevity of race science and eugenics long after their discrediting. Indeed, the tropes of race science and eugenics persist today in the modern I.Q. controversy, as the dissertation shows. By examining the history of mass intelligence testing in multiple nations, this dissertation presents narrative of the continuity of race science and eugenics throughout the twentieth century. Dissertation Committee: Advisors: Angus Burgin and Ronald G. Walters Readers: Louis Galambos, Nathaniel Comfort, and Adam Sheingate Alternates: François Furstenberg
    [Show full text]
  • The Ideological Origins of the Population Association of America
    Fairfield University DigitalCommons@Fairfield Sociology & Anthropology Faculty Publications Sociology & Anthropology Department 3-1991 The ideological origins of the Population Association of America Dennis Hodgson Fairfield University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/sociologyandanthropology- facultypubs Archived with permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 1991 Wiley and Population Council. Link to the journal homepage: (http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padr) Peer Reviewed Repository Citation Hodgson, Dennis, "The ideological origins of the Population Association of America" (1991). Sociology & Anthropology Faculty Publications. 32. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/sociologyandanthropology-facultypubs/32 Published Citation Hodgson, Dennis. "The ideological origins of the Population Association of America." Population and Development Review 17, no. 1 (March 1991): 1-34. This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fairfield by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fairfield with permission from the rights- holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Ideological Origins of the Population Association of America DENNIS HODGSON THE FIELD OF POPULATION in the United States early in this century was quite diffuse. There were no academic programs producing certified demographers, no body of theory and methods that all agreed constituted the field, no consensus on which population problems posed the most serious threat to the nation or human welfare more generally.
    [Show full text]
  • Demographic Destinies
    DEMOGRAPHIC DESTINIES Interviews with Presidents of the Population Association of America Interviews Referencing Frederick Osborn PAA President in 1949-50 This series of interviews with Past PAA Presidents was initiated by Anders Lunde (PAA Historian, 1973 to 1982) And continued by Jean van der Tak (PAA Historian, 1982 to 1994) And then by John R. Weeks (PAA Historian, 1994 to present) With the collaboration of the following members of the PAA History Committee: David Heer (2004 to 2007), Paul Demeny (2004 to 2012), Dennis Hodgson (2004 to present), Deborah McFarlane (2004 to 2018), Karen Hardee (2010 to present), Emily Merchant (2016 to present), and Win Brown (2018 to present) FREDERICK HENRY OSBORN We do not have an interview with Frederick Osborn, who was the 13th PAA President (1949-50). However, as Andy Lunde and Jean van der Tak (VDT) were interviewing other past presidents, they regularly asked questions about those early presidents whom they had been unable to interview. Below are the excerpted comments about Frederick Osborn. CAREER HIGHLIGHTS Frederick Osborn was born in New York City in 1889 to a wealthy family. In 1910 he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University with a major in English. He then did a year of graduate study at Cambridge University. Following that, he worked in the family's railroad business until the outbreak of World War I. During the war he was a volunteer ambulance driver in the American Red Cross in France. Upon returning home after the war, he sold the railroad to Henry Ford, and invested the money in a variety of businesses, allowing him to retire from business shortly before age 40.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pioneer Fund and the Scientific Study of Human Differences
    RUSHTON.DOC 10/16/02 11:01 PM COMMENTARY THE PIONEER FUND AND THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF HUMAN DIFFERENCES J. Philippe Rushton* INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 209 A. For the Record ................................................................ 209 B. A Roster of Distinguished Americans............................. 212 C. Pioneer’s Contributions to the Science of Human Diversity.......................................................................... 217 I. ARE LOMBARDO’S CHARGES CREDIBLE?................................ 223 A. Is the Bell Curve really “Link(ed) to the Holocaust?”..... 224 B. Was Laughlin Really “Preoccupied” With German Eugenics? ........................................................................ 226 C. Did Pioneer Grants Really Support White Supremacy? .................................................................... 228 D. Did Laughlin Really Define “The American Breed” to “Exclude Jews”? .............................................................. 232 E. Is Truth About Race No Defense? A Personal Note....... 233 II. PROVIDING THE NECESSARY CONTEXT.................................. 235 A. The Scientific Context..................................................... 236 B. The Eugenics Context ..................................................... 238 C. The Historical Context.................................................... 242 III. UNDERSTANDING THE ANIMUS AGAINST THE PIONEER FUND ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenics in the Post-War United States
    Working Papers on the Nature of Evidence: How Well Do “Facts” Travel? No. 12/06 Confronting the Stigma of Perfection: Genetic Demography, Diversity and the Quest for a Democratic Eugenics in the Post-war United States Edmund Ramsden © Edmund Ramsden Department of Economic History London School of Economics August 2006 how ‘facts’ “The Nature of Evidence: How Well Do ‘Facts’ Travel?” is funded by The Leverhulme Trust and the E.S.R.C. at the Department of Economic History, London School of Economics. For further details about this project and additional copies of this, and other papers in the series, go to: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collection/economichistory/ Series Editor: Dr. Jon Adams Department of Economic History London School of Economics Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0) 20 7955 6727 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7955 7730 Confronting the Stigma of Perfection: Genetic Demography, Diversity and the Quest for a Democratic Eugenics in the Post- war United States1 Edmund Ramsden Abstract Eugenics has played an important role in the relations between social and biological scientists of population through time. Having served as a site for the sharing of data and methods between disciplines in the early twentieth century, scientists and historians have tended to view its legacy in terms of reduction and division - contributing distrust, even antipathy, between communities in the social and the biological sciences. Following the work of Erving Goffman, this paper will explore how eugenics has, as the epitome of “bad” or “abnormal” science, served as a “stigma symbol” in the politics of boundary work.
    [Show full text]
  • ~ H a I L~J-Qes
    Chapter One Introduction Part I: Historiography This is the first monographic study of an American eugenic institution. It is unique in several respects. First, this is an in-depth look at eugenics between the years 1921 and 1940, a period during which eugenics in America underwent considerable growth and c:hange. T offer here a new inttit-pt-etati~t3 nf that: chat-[ye wh i~h~hai l~j-qes t.hE cancei7Eu5 iFi tftE 1~k~r~it~i-eto date. Second, this study examines American eugenics in the context of the international eugenics movement. I show, for the first time, how American eugenics was influenced by eugenics in France. Norway, and Sweden. I also take a close laok at the relationship between American and Nazi eugenics during the thirties. Third, this dissertation contains the first prosopographical study of American eugenic leaders. This is the first systematic analysis of the leadership of American eugenics. All previous studies of eugenics in America deal with the leadership in a haphazard fashion, which has clouded our understanding of the influence of eugenics on American culture. The historical interest and importance of the eugenics movement is less well appreciated than it should be. The eugenics mavement had a significant impact on American society. Eugenics was an integral part of the Progressive movement, and the study of eugenics is inseparable from the study of genetics, public health, criminal justice, and the welfare state in general. Furthermore, it has had a lasting and pro-found impact 01-1American social attitudes and legislation. The eugenics movement played an important role in the passage of the 1924 immigration restriction act which established the "national origins" principle in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix: AES: Advisory Council and Board, 19Pb-194O.0
    306 0Appendix: AES: Advisory Council and Board, 19pB-194O.0 The following appendix includes aIl mernbers of the AES Advisory council from 19e3 to 1935 plus all members of the Board of Directors of the Society from 1ge3 to 1940 for whom biographical data could be found, The biographies focus on elernents that relate to the individuals activities as a Ieader in the Arnerican eugenics rnovement. I have I isted membership in professional organizationE which were clearly related to eugenics such as the American Social Hygiene Association or the American Genetics Association. I have also listed other organizational affiliation where the individual served as an officer. I have also concentrated more effort on those who are less we1 I known than those who are prorninent in the historical l iterature. Thusr I have a shorter entry for Charles Davenport than for Frank Babbott. Information on Davenport is available in numerous studies of eugenicsr while very littIe is available on Frank Babbott. Inforrnation for these biographies was collected from the _p_3*o.g;sp-bJ._._.end_.._-9en_ee.l_"o-gy*j!-B-F*t3J*..Ln.C_e_x ( Pnd ed i t i on r Detroit 19AO) and the 1981-1985 cu{nulation of the Index (De,troit 19AS). Further inforrnEtion was gathered from the Eg.qgn-l-g-*1._Neglaas well as other sources. The primary source rnaterial for this appendix was originally gathered into two three ring binders. Copies of this material will be deposited with the American Philosophical Society and will be available to scholars interested in the American Eugenics Society.
    [Show full text]
  • A Digital History of Anglophone Demography and Global Population Control, 1915–1984
    A Digital History of Anglophone Demography and Global Population Control, 1915–1984 EMILY KLANCHER MERCHANT THE WORLD’S POPULATION grew dramatically in the twentieth century, ris- ing from about 1.6 billion in 1900 to just over 6 billion in 2000, with 75 percent of that growth occurring after 1950. As population grew, it became the subject of a new science, demography, and the target of numerous in- terventions aimed at limiting its growth. While histories of global popula- tion have suggested that demography was integral to the creation of fer- tility control policies and programs (Connelly 2008; Hoff 2012; Robertson 2012; Bashford 2014), only a handful have explicitly examined this rela- tionship (Hodgson 1988; Demeny 1988; Szreter 1993; Greenhalgh 1996). Demography and population control were in fact co-produced and deeply imbricated with each other in the twentieth century: as policymakers in- creasingly turned to scientific expertise for guidance and authority (Porter 1995), advocates of fertility control drew heavily on demography to track population growth and to justify intervention (Demeny 1988). But that is only the beginning of the story. Reading the twentieth-century demogra- phy journal literature alongside the archives of the scientists who wrote it and the individuals and organizations that sponsored them indicates that American advocates of population control also provided the funding and institutional support that established demography as an interdisciplinary scientific field in the 1920s and 1930s and that stimulated its enormous growth after World War II, both in the United States and elsewhere. Through direct patronage, projects aimed at limiting fertility gave rise to the science that guided and legitimized them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Closer Look at the Pioneer Fund: Response to Rushton
    A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PIONEER FUND: RESPONSE TO RUSHTON William H. Tucker* INTRODUCTION Recently in the Albany Law Review, Professor Paul Lombardo described the origins of the Pioneer Fund, noting the Nazi sympathies of Wickliffe Preston Draper, its founder, and Harry H. Laughlin, its first president.' My own recent book-The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund-came to similar conclusions about Pioneer's early history and went on to document the role played by its key directors in opposing the civil rights movement on the basis of putatively scientific evidence of black intellectual inferiority.2 In response, Professor J. Philippe Rushton, the new president of the fund, denied all these charges as based solely on the distortion of "misleading pieces of evidence very selectively picked" and the use of "invective and name-calling."3 Rushton accused me in particular of taking the "low road" and characterized my work as "propagandistic. 4 Before offering my own reply to Rushton, let me first observe that I am pleased he has decided to air this issue in an academic journal. Even before reading my book-indeed, even before its publication- Rushton wrote to the executive editor at the University of Illinois Press and to the university president, with a copy to Pioneer's attorney, claiming, on the basis of the description on the Press web page, that I had defamed Pioneer, and suggesting that the Press "withdraw or amend" its advertisement.' This apparent attempt to *William H. Tucker is a Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, Camden.
    [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]
  • In February 1937 the American Eugenics Society Sponsored a Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing at the Hotel Delmonico in New York
    Chapter Six A Comparison of American and Nazi Sterilization Programs. In February 1937 the American Eugenics Society sponsored a conference on Eugenics in relation to Nursing at the Hotel Delmonico in New York. One of the featured speakers was Dr. Marie Kopp, (1888-1943)~who had toured Germany in 1935 for the Oberlander Foundation studying the administration of the Nazi eugenic sterilization laws. In his summary of Dr. Kopp7s paper, Frederick Osborn, then Secretary of the Society? had occasion to remark that "the German sterilization program is apparently an excellent one" and that "taken altogether, recent developments in Germany constitute perhaps the most important social experiment which has ever been tried."2 .. .- ................ -.. - - - ............ - ..-. - - .... - ....... - .... - - - ..... .-- ..... Very little information is availableon Dr. Kopp. A N~Y ..York Times obituary states that she was affiliated with the Rockefeller Foundation and a founder of the Pestalozzi Foundation. She was born in Lucerne, SW~tzer land . See 9 Mew Yo.!% ....... T..3..m.eess12/ 16/43, P . 27. I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Dr. Kopp. She apparently held a Ph.D. in sociology. Frederick Osborn, "Summary of the Proceedings" of the Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing, 2/24/37 AES Papers. The "Summary of the Proceedings" was also mailed to the AES membership in slightly revised form as a circular letter dated 2/24/37. See Mehler and Allen, "Sources in the Study of Eugenics *1 3 " News.let..ttee.rr (June 1977) note b on page 15. See also Dr. Kopp's presentation to the "Symposium on Sterilization" held at the New York Academy of Medicine in November 1936 entitled: "Eugenic Sterilization Laws in Europe," and pub 1 i shed i n the 5% J.e.ur.n-a_.~.---..0.f 0.b..s .t.e.t..(r ...~..~..s..~..~a~r!.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the First Edition, Mankind Quarterlyy 1 (1960): 1
    N o t e s I n t r o duction 1 . In accordance with the custom in the international eugenics movement, in this book, “eugenics” and “race hygiene” will be used synonymously. Although at various times there were discussions in some national eugenics organizations as to whether the two concepts were identical, in the realm of international cooperation of eugenicists, both were generally accepted as having the same meaning. On this, see Turda 2007: 1997 and 2010b: 64ff. 2 . F o r t his perspective in the early historical studies of eugenics, see Mosse 1964, 1978; Altner 1968; Gasman 1971; M ü hlen 1977. Splitting eugenics away from National Socialism has in the meantime become the established standard in historical writing. On this, see most recently Stern 2005: 2 and Turda 2010b: 1. 3 . See the early studies by Adams (1990a) on the Soviet Union, Dikö tter (1989) on China, Stepan (1991) on Brazil and other South American countries, and Suzuki (1975) on Japan. 4 . S e e for example the early studies by Schwartz (1995a, 1995b) and Weindling (1987) on socialist and liberal eugenicists, the book by Cleminson (2000) on anarchist eugeni- cists, and the works by Allen (1988, 1991) on feminist eugenicists. 5 . See, for example, Rosen (2004), particularly for the eugenics policies of the Protestants and Catholics in the United States; Leon (2004) in the American Eugenics Society; Richter (2001) on Catholicism and eugenics in Germany; L öscher (2009) on “Catholic eugenics” in Austria; and Falk (2006 and 2010), and Lipphardt (2009) on “Jewish eugenics.” John Glad’s book (2011: 112ff), which should be read not as an historical monograph but as a contemporary plea for a “Jewish eugenics,” has a collection of posi- tive statements by Jews about eugenics.
    [Show full text]