Eugenics in the United States

Eugenics supporters hold signs criticizing various “genetically in-

ferior” groups. Wall Street, New York, c. 1915.
Winning family of a Fitter Family contest stand outside of the
Eugenics Building[1] (where contestants register) at the Kansas
Free Fair, in Topeka, KS.
positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[11] Early
proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective
Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims breeding, the human species should direct its own evo-
at improving the genetic quality of the human popula- lution. They tended to believe in the genetic superior-
tion[2][3] played a significant role in the history and cul- ity of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; sup-
ture of the United States prior to its involvement in World ported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws;
War II.[4] and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, dis-
Eugenics was practiced in the United States many abled and “immoral”.[12] Eugenics was also supported by
years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany,[5] African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois,
which were largely inspired by the previous American Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee
work.[6][7][8] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus University, Howard University, and Hampton University;
between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in however, they believed the best blacks were as good as
other countries, including the United States, and points the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races
out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and mea- should mix.[13] W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks
sures as the realization of their goals and demands.[9] should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral
iniquity.”[13][14]
During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th
century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving The American eugenics movement received extensive
and improving the dominant groups in the population; it funding from various corporate foundations including the
is now generally associated with racist and nativist ele- Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the
ments as the movement was to some extent a reaction to Harriman railroad fortune.[7] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg pro-
a change in emigration from Europe rather than scientific vided funding to help found the Race Betterment Founda-
genetics.[10] tion in Battle Creek, Michigan.[11] The Eugenics Record
Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New
York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Dav-
enport, using money from both the Harriman railroad for-
1 History tune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s,
the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the
1.1 Early proponents American eugenics movement.[11][15] In years to come,
the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and con-
The American eugenics movement was rooted in the bi- cluded that those who were unfit came from economi-
ological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which cally and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as
originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H.
of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well

1
2 1 HISTORY

respected in their time) began to lobby for various solu- variety of state and local feminist organization that at
tions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[23]
immigration restriction and sterilization as primary meth- One of the most prominent feminists to champion the
ods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the
Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger
entertaining the idea of extermination.[16] The Eugenics saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted chil-
Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Lab- dren from being born into a disadvantaged life, and
oratory. incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the
movement.[24][25] Sanger also sought to discourage the re-
production of persons who, it was believed, would pass on
mental disease or serious physical defects. She advocated
sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use
birth control.[24] She rejected euthanasia.[26] For Sanger,
it was individual women and not the state who should de-
termine whether or not to have a child.[27][28]
In the Deep South, women’s associations played an im-
portant role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform.
Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence
of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used
them to help implement eugenics across the region.[29]
U.S. eugenics poster advocating for the removal of genetic “de- Between 1915 and 1920, federated women’s clubs in ev-
fectives” such as the insane, “feeble-minded” and criminals, and ery state of the Deep South had a critical role in estab-
supporting the selective breeding of “high-grade” individuals, c. lishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by
1926 sex.[30] For example, the Legislative Committee of the
Florida State Federation of Women’s Clubs successfully
Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally
community.[7] By 1928, there were 376 separate univer- retarded that was segregated by sex.[31] Their aim was
sity courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent
enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eu- them from breeding more “feebleminded” individuals.
genics in the curriculum.[17] It did, however, have sci-
Public acceptance in the U.S. was the reason eugenic leg-
entific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one
islation was passed. Almost 19 million people attended
of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics),
the Panama–Pacific International Exposition in San Fran-
though most of these focused more on what they consid-
cisco, open for 10 months from 20 February to 4 Decem-
ered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the char-
ber 1915.[32][33] The PPIE was a fair devoted to extolling
acterization of almost every human characteristic as be-
the virtues of a rapidly progressing nation, featuring new
ing hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[18]
developments in science, agriculture, manufacturing and
By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of sci- technology. A subject that received a large amount of
entists, reformers, and professionals engaged in national time and space was that of the developments concern-
eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legis- ing health and disease, particularly the areas of tropi-
lation. The American Breeder’s Association was the cal medicine and race betterment (tropical medicine be-
first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 un- ing the combined study of bacteriology, parasitology and
der the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The entomology while racial betterment being the promotion
ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report of eugenic studies). Having these areas so closely inter-
on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value twined, it seemed that they were both categorized in the
of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior main theme of the fair, the advancement of civilization.
blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Thus in the public eye, the seemingly contradictory areas
Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Bur- of study were both represented under progressive banners
bank.[19][20] The American Association for the Study and of improvement and were made to seem like plausible
Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first or- courses of action to better American society.[34]
ganizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates
Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted
in terms of eugenics.[21] They promoted government in-
marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone
tervention in attempts to promote the health of future
who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded"[35] from
citizens.[22]
marrying.[36]
Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eu-
The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill
genic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s
was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to
Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and
garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight
the National League of Women Voters were among the
1.2 Immigration restrictions 3

years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a ster-

ilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana
became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in
1907,[37] followed closely by Washington and California
in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were rela-
tively low (California being the sole exception) until the
1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized
the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for
the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations per-
formed per year increased until another Supreme Court
case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the le-
gal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if
the equal protection clause of the constitution was vio-
lated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it
could not exempt white-collar criminals.[38] The state of
California was at the vanguard of the American eugen-
ics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or
one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until
the 1960s.[39]
While California had the highest number of sterilizations,
North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from
1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that
had eugenics programs.[40] An IQ of 70 or lower meant
sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina.[41] The Anthropometry demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics
North Carolina Eugenics Board almost always approved conference.
proposals brought before them by local welfare boards.[41]
Of all states, only North Carolina gave social workers the
power to designate people for sterilization.[40] “Here, at goals and in 1909 established a Committee on Eugen-
last, was a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies by ics chaired by David Starr Jordan with members Charles
an acceptable, practical, and inexpensive method,” wrote Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Vernon Kellogg,
Wallace Kuralt in the March 1967 journal of the N.C. Luther Burbank, William Ernest Castle, Adolf Meyer, H.
Board of Public Welfare. “The poor readily adopted the J. Webber and Friedrich Woods. The ABA’s immigra-
new techniques for birth control.”[41] tion legislation committee, formed in 1911 and headed by
League’s founder Prescott F. Hall, formalized the com-
mittee’s already strong relationship with the Immigra-
1.2 Immigration restrictions tion Restriction League. They also founded the Eugenics
Record Office, which was headed by Harry H. Laugh-
The Immigration Restriction League was the first Ameri- lin.[43] In their mission statement, they wrote:
can entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in
1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the
League sought to bar what it considered inferior races Society must protect itself; as it claims
from entering America and diluting what it saw as the the right to deprive the murderer of his life
superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners so it may also annihilate the hideous serpent
of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sex- of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is
ual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized where appropriate legislation will aid in eugen-
races would pose a biological threat to the American pop- ics and creating a healthier, saner society in the
[43]
ulation. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immi- future.”
grants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low
among “inferior races”. Literacy test bills were vetoed by Money from the Harriman railroad fortune was also given
Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President to local charities, in order to find immigrants from spe-
Wilson’s second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. cific ethnic groups and deport, confine, or forcibly steril-
Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Low- ize them.[7]
ell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, presi- With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugeni-
dent of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of cists for the first time played an important role in the Con-
Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of gressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “in-
Stanford University.[42] ferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe.[44] The
The League allied themselves with the American new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial supe-
Breeder’s Association to gain influence and further its riority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the
4 1 HISTORY

"Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened states would soon follow their lead.[53][54] Although
the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[45]
the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court
Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of in 1921,[55] the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell,
incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization
many anti-miscegenation laws.[46] Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of
[56]
Stephen Jay Gould asserted that restrictions on patients of state mental institutions in 1927.
immigration passed in the United States during the Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th
1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration century. Although compulsory sterilization is now con-
and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of sidered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was
eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its ster-
States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of ilization law until 1974.[57] The most significant era of
Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when
eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under
(who was appointed as an expert witness for the House eugenic legislation in the United States.[58] Beginning
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percent-
presented arguments they would pollute the national age of women sterilized, and in a few states only young
gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[47][48] It women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, steril-
has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the izations were performed on many more institutionalized
United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy women than men.[31] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162
of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were per-
Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and formed on women.[31] A favorable report on the results
Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely of sterilization in California, the state with the most ster-
banned from entering the country.[45][49] ilizations by far, was published in book form by the bi-
ologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi
government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization
1.3 Unfit vs. fit individuals programs were feasible and humane.[59][60]
Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for dif-
Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of
ferent reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their ag-
“fit” and “unfit.” By using intelligence testing, American
gression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while
eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of
women were sterilized to control the results of their
one’s genetic fitness.[50] This reaffirmed the existing class
sexuality.[31] Since women bore children, eugenicists held
and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-
women more accountable than men for the reproduction
middle class was predominantly white. Middle-to-upper
of the less “desirable” members of society.[31] Eugenicists
class status was a marker of “superior strains.”[31] In con-
therefore predominantly targeted women in their efforts
trast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of
to regulate the birth rate, to “protect” white racial health,
genetic inferiority, which meant that those deemed “un-
and weed out the “defectives” of society.[31]
fit” were predominantly of the lower classes.[31]
A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respon-
Because class status designated some more fit than oth-
dents supported eugenic sterilization of “mental defec-
ers, eugenicists treated upper and lower class women
tives”, 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only
differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procre-
15% opposed both.[61]
ation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle class
women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, In the 1970s, several activists and women’s rights groups
Eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to discovered several physicians to be performing coerced
become more “family minded,” and to help better the sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All
were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded
race.[51] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and
upper class women sterilization and birth control.[52] women, while no abuses against white or middle-class
women were recorded.[62] Although the sterilizations
Since poverty was associated with prostitution and “men-
were not explicitly motivated by eugenics, the steriliza-
tal idiocy,” women of the lower classes were the first to
tions were similar to the eugenics movement because they
be deemed “unfit” and “promiscuous.”[31]
were done without the patients’ consent. Several court
cases such as Madrigal v. Quilligan, a class action suit
regarding forced or coerced postpartum sterilization of
1.4 Compulsory sterilization
Latina women following cesarean sections, and Relf v.
Weinberger,[63] the sterilization of two young black girls
See also: Compulsory sterilization § United States
by tricking their illiterate mother into signing a waiver,
helped bring to light some of the widespread abuses of
In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based sterilization supported by federal funds.[64][65]
compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S.
1.6 Better baby contests 5

In 1972, United States Senate committee testimony various forms of lethal neglect.[7]
brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary steriliza- In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic
tions had been performed on poor black women without “mercy killings” in American film, newspapers, and mag-
their consent or knowledge.[66] An investigation revealed azines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine As-
that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and sociation began lobbying for the right to euthanize “im-
were all performed on black welfare mothers with mul- beciles” and other defectives.[69] The Euthanasia Society
tiple children.[66] Testimony revealed that many of these of America was founded in 1938.[70]
women were threatened with an end to their welfare ben-
efits until they consented to sterilization.[66] These surg- Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the
eries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term ap- U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and
plied to any sterilization performed without the consent sterilization programs as a means for keeping the “unfit”
or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is from reproducing.[7]
pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds
used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office
of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised 1.6 Better baby contests
older suspicions, especially amongst the black commu-
nity, that “federal programs were underwriting eugeni-
cists who wanted to impose their views about population
quality on minorities and poor women.”[31]
Native American women were also victims of steril-
ization abuse up into the 1970s.[67] The organization
WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that
Native American women were threatened that, if they
had more children, they would be denied welfare bene-
fits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused
to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in
labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native Ameri-
can women unknowingly gave consent, since directions
were not given in their native language. According to
the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 In-
dian women were sterilized.[67] The General Accounting
Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not fol- Contestants get ready for the Better Baby Contest at the 1931 In-
lowed the necessary regulations, and that the “informed diana State Fair.
consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the
United States Department of Health, Education, and Wel- Mary deGormo, a former classroom teacher was the first
fare (HEW).”[68] person to combine ideas about health and intelligence
standards with competitions at state fairs, in the form of
“better baby” contests. She developed the first such con-
1.5 Euthanasia programs test, the “Scientific Baby Contest” for the Louisiana State
Fair in Shreveport, in 1908. She saw these contests as a
See also: Euthanasia in the United States contribution to the “social efficiency” movement, which
was advocating for the standardization of all aspects of
Edwin Black wrote that one of the methods that was sug- American life as a means of increasing efficiency.[21] de-
gested to get rid of “defective germ-plasm in the human Garmo was assisted by the pediatrician Dr. Jacob Boden-
population” was euthanasia.[7] A 1911 Carnegie Insti- heimer, who helped her develop grading sheets for con-
tute report explored eighteen methods for removing de- testants, which combined physical measurements with
fective genetic attributes, and method number eight was standardized measurements of intelligence.[71] Scoring
euthanasia.[7] The most commonly suggested method of was based on a deduction system, in that every child
euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers.[7] How- started at 1000 points and then was docked points for hav-
ever, many in the eugenics movement did not believe ing measurements that were below a designated average.
that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale The child with the most points (and the least defections)
euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever was ideal.[72]
ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in vari- The topic of standardization through scientific judgment
ous medical institutions.[7] For example, a mental institu- was a topic that was very serious in the eyes of the scien-
tion in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk in- tific community, but has often been downplayed as just a
fected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit in- popular fad or trend. Nevertheless, a lot of time, effort,
dividuals would be resistant), resulting in 30-40% annual and money was put into these contests and their scientific
death rates.[7] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through backing, which would influence cultural ideas as well as
6 1 HISTORY

local and state government practices.[73] United States to give them the chance to have a better life
The National Association for the Advancement of Col- than what the group had been experiencing in the United
ored People promoted eugenics by hosting “Better Baby” States.[82] She also noted that the project was proposed to
contests and the proceeds would go to its anti-lynching empower women. The Project often sought after promi-
campaign.[13] nent African American leaders to spread knowledge re-
garding birth control and the perceived positive effects it
would have on the African American community, such
as poverty and the lack of education.[83] Because of this,
1.7 Fitter family for future Sanger believed that African American ministers in the
South would be useful to gain the trust of people within
First appearing in 1920 at the Kansas Free Fair, Fit-
disadvantaged, African American communities as the
ter Family competitions, continued all the way up to
Church was a pillar within the community.[83] Also, po-
World War II. Mary T. Watts and Dr. Florence Brown
litical leaders such as W.E.B. Dubois were quoted in the
Sherbon,[74][75] both initiators of the Better Baby Con-
Project proposal criticizing Black people in the United
tests in Iowa, took the idea of positive eugenics for babies
states for having many children and for being less intelli-
and combined it with a determinist concept of biology to
gent than their white counterparts:
come up with fitter family competitions.[76]
There were several different categories that families were “…the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed
judged in: Size of the family, overall attractiveness, carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase
and health of the family, all of which helped to deter- among Negroes, even more than the increase
mine the likelihood of having healthy children. These among Whites, is from that part of the popu-
competitions were simply a continuation of the Better lation least intelligent and fit, and least able to
Baby contests that promoted certain physical and men- rear their children properly.” [82]
tal qualities.[77] At the time, it was believed that cer-
tain behavioral qualities were inherited from your par- Even though The Negro Project received a lot of praise
ents. This led to the addition of several judging cate- from white leaders and eugenicists of the time, it is im-
gories including: generosity, self-sacrificing, and quality
portant to note that Margaret Sanger wanted to clear con-
of familial bonds. Additionally, there were negative fea-
cerns that this was not a project to terminate African
tures that were judged: selfishness, jealousy, suspicious-
Americans.[83] To add to the clarification, she received
ness, high temperedness, and cruelty. Feeblemindedness, support from prominent African American leaders such
alcoholism, and paralysis were few among other traits that
as Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell
were included as physical traits to be judged when look-Jr.[82] These leaders and many more would later serve on
ing at family lineage.[78] the Negro National Advisory Council of Planned Parent-
Doctors and specialists from the community would of- hood Federation of America in 1942.
fer their time to judge these competitions, which were Still, many modern activists criticize Margaret Sanger for
originally sponsored by the Red Cross.[78] The winners practicing eugenics on the African American community.
of these competitions were given a Bronze Medal as well Angela Davis, a leader who is associated with the Black
as champion cups called “Capper Medals.” The cups were Panther Party, made claims of Margaret Sanger targeting
named after then Governor and Senator, Arthur Capper the African American community to reduce the popula-
and he would present them to “Grade A individuals”.[79] tion:
The perks of entering into the contests were that the com-
petitions provided a way for families to get a free health “Calling for the recruitment of Black min-
check up by a doctor as well as some of the pride and isters to lead local birth control committees,
prestige that came from winning the competitions.[78] the Federation’s proposal suggested that Black
people should be rendered as vulnerable as pos-
By 1925 the Eugenics Records Office was distributing
sible to their birth control propaganda.”[84]
standardized forms for judging eugenically fit families,
which were used in contests in several U.S. states.[80]
1.9 Influence on Nazi Germany
1.8 Planned Parenthood and the African See also: Nazi eugenics
American community After the eugenics movement was well established in
the United States, it spread to Germany. California eu-
Concerns about eugenics arose in the African Ameri- genicists began producing literature promoting eugenics
can community after the implementation of the Negro and sterilization and sending it overseas to German sci-
Project of 1939, which was proposed by Margaret Sanger entists and medical professionals.[7] By 1933, California
who was the founder of Planned Parenthood.[81] In this had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than
plan, Sanger offered birth control to Black families in the all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization
1.10 Compulsory sterilization prevention 7

and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Af-

terwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues,
remarking that he felt that it symbolized the “common
understanding of German and American scientists of the
nature of eugenics.”[87]
Henry Friedlander wrote that although the German and
American eugenics movements were similar, the United
States did not follow the same slippery slope as Nazi eu-
genics because American “federalism and political het-
erogeneity encouraged diversity even with a single move-
ment.” In contrast, the German eugenics movement was
more centralized and did not contain as many diverse
ideas as the American movement.[88] Unlike the Amer-
ican movement, one publication and one society, the
German Society for Racial Hygiene represented all Ger-
man eugenicists in the early 20th century.[88][89]
After 1945, however, historians began to attempt to por-
tray the US eugenics movement as distinct and distant
Wir stehen nicht allein: “We do not stand alone”. Nazi from Nazi eugenics.[90] Jon Entine wrote that eugenics
propaganda poster from 1936, supporting Nazi Germany's 1933 simply means “good genes” and using it as synonym for
Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (their
genocide is an “all-too-common distortion of the social
compulsory sterilization law). The couple is in front of a map
history of genetics policy in the United States.” Accord-
of Germany, surrounded by the flags of nations, including the
United States, which had enacted (to the left) or were consider- ing to Entine, eugenics developed out of the [91]
Progressive
ing (bottom and to the right) similar legislation. Era and not “Hitler’s twisted Final Solution.”

program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by 1.10 Compulsory sterilization prevention
California’s.[8]
The 1978 Federal Sterilization Regulations, created by
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund
the United States Department of Health, Education and
various German eugenics programs,[85] including the
Welfare or HEW, (now the United States Department of
one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to
Health and Human Services) outline a variety of prohib-
Auschwitz.[7]
ited sterilization practices that were often used previously
Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than to coerce or force women into sterilization.[92] These were
5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, intended to prevent such eugenics and neo-eugenics as re-
the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a sulted in the involuntary sterilization of large groups of
colleague: poor and minority women. Such practices include: not
conveying to patients that sterilization is permanent and
You will be interested to know that your irreversible, in their own language (including the option
work has played a powerful part in shaping to end the process or procedure at any time without con-
the opinions of the group of intellectuals who ceding any future medical attention or federal benefits,
are behind Hitler in this epoch-making pro- the ability to ask any and all questions about the proce-
gram. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions dure and its ramifications, the requirement that the con-
have been tremendously stimulated by Ameri- sent seeker describes the procedure fully including any
can thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, and all possible discomforts and/or side-effects and any
to carry this thought with you for the rest of and all benefits of sterilization); failing to provide alter-
your life, that you have really jolted into action native information about methods of contraception, fam-
a great government of 60 million people.[7] ily planning, or pregnancy termination that are nonper-
manent and/or irreversible (this includes abortion); con-
Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that ditioning receiving welfare and/or Medicaid benefits by
his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been imple- the individual or his/her children on the individuals “con-
mented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[86] senting” to permanent sterilization; tying elected abor-
In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at tion to compulsory sterilization (cannot receive a sought
Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the an- out abortion without “consenting” to sterilization; using
niversary of Hitler’s 1934 purge of Jews from the Hei- hysterectomy as sterilization; and subjecting minors and
delberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his the mentally incompetent to sterilization.[92][64][93] The
work on the “science of racial cleansing”. Due to financial regulations also include an extension of the informed con-
limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony sent waiting period from 72 hours to 30 days (with a max-
8 3 REFERENCES

imum of 180 days between informed consent and the ster- [3] Galton, Francis (July 1904). “Eugenics: Its Definition,
ilization procedure).[64][92][93] Scope, and Aims”. The American Journal of Sociology.
X (1): 82, 1st paragraph. Bibcode:1904Natur..70...82..
However, several studies have indicated that the forms doi:10.1038/070082a0. Archived from the original on 3
are often dense and complex and beyond the literacy November 2007. Retrieved 27 December 2010. Eugenics
aptitude of the average American, and those seeking is the science which deals with all influences that improve
publicly funded sterilization are more likely to possess the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop
below-average literacy skills.[94] High levels of misin- them to the utmost advantage.
formation concerning sterilization still exist among in-
dividuals who have already undergone sterilization pro- [4] Susan Currell (2006). Popular eugenics: national effi-
ciency and American mass culture in the 1930s. Ohio Uni-
cedures, with permanence being one of the most com-
versity Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-0-8214-1691-4. Re-
mon gray factors.[94][95] Additionally, federal enforce-
trieved 18 July 2011.
ment of the requirements of the 1978 Federal Steriliza-
tion Regulation is inconsistent and some of the prohib- [5] Lombardo, 2011: p. 1.
ited abuses continue to be pervasive, particularly in un-
derfunded hospitals and lower income patient hospitals [6] Kühl, Stefan (14 February 2002). The Nazi Connection:
and care centers.[64][93] Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Social-
ism. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-19-534878-1.

[7] Edwin Black (9 November 2003). “Eugenics and the

2 See also Nazis -- the California connection”. San Francisco Chron-
icle. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
• International Federation of Eugenics Organizations [8] Murphy & Lappé, 1994: p. 18.
• Franz Boas [9] [Kühl, Stefan (14 February 2002). The Nazi Connection:
Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Social-
• Human experimentation in the United States ism. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-19-534878-1.]
• Racism in the United States [10] Mukherjee, Siddhartha (2016). The Gene. Scribner. pp.
82–83.
• American Eugenics Society
[11] Selden, 2005: p. 202.
• North Carolina Eugenics Board
[12] Ordover, 2003: p. xii.
• Racial Integrity Act of 1924
[13] Marilyn M. Singleton (Winter 2014). “The 'Science' of
• Kallikak Family
Eugenics: America’s Moral Detour” (PDF). Journal of
• Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) American Physicians and Surgeons. 19 (4). Retrieved 23
January 2015.
• Sterilization law in the United States
[14] Dorr, Gregory; Logan, Angela (2011). “Quality, not mere
• Stump v. Sparkman (1978) quantity counts: black eugenics and the NAACP baby
contests”. In Lombardo, Paul. A Century of Eugenics
• Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human
(1981) Genome Era. Indiana University Press. pp. 68–92. ISBN
978-0253222695.
• Nazi human experimentation
[15] Bender, 2009: p. 192.
• Tuskegee syphilis experiment
[16] Kevles, 1986: pp. 133–135.
• Eugenics in California
[17] Selden, 2005: p. 204.

[18] Hamilton Cravens, The Triumph of Evolution: Ameri-

3 References can Scientists and the Heredity-Environment Controversy,
1900–1941 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1978): 179.
3.1 Notes
[19] Stern, 2005: pp. 82–91.
[1] “A social register of fitter families and better babies” The
Milwaukee Sentinel . 26 May 1929. [20] Elof Axel Carlson (2001). The Unfit: A history of a bad
idea. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-87969-587-3. Retrieved 14
[2] “Eugenics”. Unified Medical Language System (Psycho- July 2011.
logical Index Terms). National Library of Medicine. 26
September 2010. [21] Selden, 2005: p. 206.
3.1 Notes 9

[22] Cameron, M. E. “Book Reviews.” The American Journal [39] Stern, 2005: pp. 84, 144.
of Nursing 13.1 (1912): 75–77. JSTOR. 10 April 2010.
[40] Severson, Kim (9 December 2011). “Thousands Steril-
[23] Ziegler, Mary (2008). “Eugenic Feminism: Mental Hy- ized, a State Weighs Restitution”. New York Times. Re-
giene, The Women’s Movement, And The Campaign For trieved 10 December 2011.
Eugenic Legal Reform, 1900–1935”. Harvard Journal of
Law & Gender. 31 (1): 211–236. [41] Helms, Ann Doss and Tomlinson, Tommy (26 September
2011). “Wallace Kuralt’s era of sterilization: Mecklen-
[24] “The Sanger-Hitler Equation”, Margaret Sanger Papers burg’s impoverished had few, if any, rights in the 1950s
Project Newsletter, #32, Winter 2002/3. New York Uni- and 1960s as he oversaw one of the most aggressive ef-
versity Department of History forts to sterilize certain populations”. Charlotte Observer.
Archived from the original on 13 April 2012. Retrieved
[25] Carole Ruth McCann. Birth Control Politics in the United
10 December 2011.
States, 1916–1945. Cornell University Press. p. 100.

[26] Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization. [42] McWhorter, 2009: p. 204.
Brentano’s. pp. 100–101. Nor do we believe that the
[43] McWhorter, 2009: p. 205.
community could or should send to the lethal chamber the
defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unin- [44] Watson, James D.; Berry, Andrew (2003). DNA: The Se-
telligent breeding. cret of Life. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 29–31. ISBN 0-375-
41546-7.
[27] Sanger, Margaret (1919). Birth Control and Racial Better-
ment (PDF). Birth Control Review. p. 11. We maintain [45] Lombardo, Paul; “Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigra-
that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her tion,”, Eugenics Archive
reproductive functions is the best judge of time and con-
ditions under which her child should be brought into the [46] Lombardo, Paul; “Eugenic Laws Against Race-Mixing”,
world. We maintain that it is her right, regardless of all Eugenics Archive
other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear
children or not, and how many children she shall bear if [47] Contagious Diseases Among Immigrants: Hearings Before
she chooses to become a mother. the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House
of Representatives, Sixty Sixth Congress, Third Session. 9
[28] Sanger, Margaret (1920). Woman and the New Race. February 1921. By setting up a eugenical standard for ad-
Brentano. p. 100. mission demanding a high natural excellence of all immi-
grants regardless of nationality and past opportunities, we
[29] Larson, Edward J. (1995). Sex, Race, and Science: Eugen-
can enhance and improve the national stamina and abil-
ics in the Deep South. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-
ity of future Americans. At present, not inferior nation-
sity Press. p. 74.
alities but inferior individual family stocks are tending to
[30] Larson, p. 75. deteriorate our national characteristics. Our failure to sort
immigrants on the basis of natural worth is a very serious
[31] Kluchin, Rebecca M. (2009). Fit to Be Tied: Steriliza- national menace.
tion and Reproductive Rights in America 1950–1980. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. pp. 17–20. [48] Statement of Mr. Harry H. Laughlin, Secretary of the Eu-
genics Research Association, Cold Spring Harbor, Long
[32] “1915 San Francisco Panama-Pacific International Expo- Island, N. Y.; Committee on Immigration and Natural-
sition: In color!". National Museum American History. ization, House of Representatives, Washington D.C., 16
11 February 2011. Retrieved 14 July 2011. April 1920.
[33] “The Panama Pacific Exposition”. Retrieved 14 July
[49] Gould, Stephen J. (1981) The mismeasure of man. Nor-
2011.
ton:
[34] Stern, 2005: pp. 27–31.
[50] Dorr, Gregory (2008). Segregation’s Science. Char-
[35] “Public Health”. JAMA: the Journal of the American Med- lottesville: University of Virginia Press. p. 10.
ical Association. American Medical Association: 1138. 6
June 1896. doi:10.1001/jama.1896.02430750040011. [51] Kline, Wendy (2005). Building a Better Race: Gender,
Sexuality, and Eugenics From the Turn of the Century to
[36] Lombardo, Paul A. (2010). Three generations, no imbe- the Baby Boom. University of California Press. p. 4.
ciles : eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (John
Hopkins pbk. ed.). Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Uni- [52] Critchlow, Donald T. (1999). Intended Consequences:
versity Press. ISBN 9780801898242. Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in
Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. p.
[37] The Indiana Supreme Court overturned the law in 1921 in 15.
Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at
[53] Lombardo, 2011: p. ix.
[38] On the legal history of eugenic sterilization in the U.S.,
see Paul Lombardo, “Eugenic Sterilization Laws”, essay [54] Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series,
in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www. “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:"Reflections
eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html. on 100 Years of Eugenics in Indiana, at In.gov
10 3 REFERENCES

[55] Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at [75] “Fitter family contests” eugenics archive.ca

[56] Larson 2004, pp. 194–195 Citing Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. [76] “Fitter Family Contests.” Eugenics Archive. Web. 2
200, 205 (1927) March 2010. .

[57] Dorr, Gregory Michael. “Encyclopedia Virginia: Buck v [77] Boudreau 2005:
Bell”. Retrieved 3 May 2011.
[78] Selden, 2005:
[58] Lombardo, Paul; “Eugenic Sterilization Laws”, Eugenics
Archive [79] Selden, 2005: p. 211.

[59] J. Mitchell Miller (6 August 2009). 21st Century Crimi- [80] Bender, 2009: p. 207.
nology: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1. p. 193. ISBN
978-1-4129-6019-9. Retrieved 15 July 2011. [81] The Margaret Sanger Papers Project (Fall 2001). “Birth
Control or Race Control? Sanger and the Negro Project”.
[60] Tukufu Zuberi (2001). Thicker than blood: how racial New York University.
statistics lie. University of Minnesota Press. p. 69. ISBN
978-0-8166-3909-0. Retrieved 15 July 2011. [82] Peter C. Engelman, ed. (2001). ""Birth Control or Race
Control? Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project"". New
[61] McWhorter, 2009: p. 377. York University.
[62] Gordon, Linda (2003). The Moral Property of Women: [83] “Opposition Claims About Margaret Sanger” (PDF).
A History of Birth Control Politics in America. Urbana: Planned Parenthood. Katherine Dexter McCormick Li-
University of Illinois Press. p. 345. ISBN 0-252-07459- brary. 2004. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017.
9. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
[63] “Relf v. Weinberger: Sterilization Abuse”. The Southern [84] “You Know Which Right Winger Accused Planned Par-
Poverty Law Center. enthood of Racism?". Frontpage Mag. 22 August 2015.
Retrieved 7 March 2017.
[64] Bowman, Cynthia Grant; Rosenbury, Laura A.;
Tuerkheimer, Deborah; Yuracko, Kimberly A. (2010). [85] Kühl, Stefan (10 February 1994).
Feminist Jurisprudence Cases and Material. St. Paul, “Rockefeller+Foundation"+eugenics The Nazi Con-
MN: West Publishing Company. pp. 413–419. ISBN nection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German
978-0314264633. National Socialism. Oxford University Press. p. 21.
[65] Stern, Alexandra Minna (2005). “Sterilized in the Name ISBN 0-19-508260-5. Retrieved 13 April 2015. Lay
of Public Health: Race, Immigration, and Reproductive summary (18 January 2015). The Foundation continued
Control in Modern California”. American Journal of Pub- to support German eugenicists even after the National
lic Health. 95: 1128–1138 – via NCBI. Socialists had gained control of German science.

[66] Ward, Martha C. (1986). Poor Women, Powerful Men: [86] Jackson, John P.; Weidman, Nadine M. (2005). Race,
America’s Great Experiment in Family Planning. Boulder: Racism, and Science: Social Impact and Interaction. Rut-
Westview Press. p. 95. gers University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-8135-3736-8.

[67] Lawrence, Jane (2000). “he Indian Health Service and [87] Lombardo, 2008: pp. 211–213.
the Sterilization of Native American Women”. The
[88] Friedlander, Henry (2000). The Origins of Nazi Genocide:
American Indian Quarterly. 3. 24 (3): 400–419.
From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Univ of North Car-
doi:10.1353/aiq.2000.0008.
olina Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0807846759. Although the
[68] Bruce E. Johansen (September 1998). “Sterilization of German eugenics movement, led until the Weimar years
Native American Women”. Native Americas. by Alfred Ploetz and Wilhelm Schallmayer, did not dif-
fer radically from the American movement, it was more
[69] Pernick, Martin (1999). The Black Stork: Eugenics and centralized. Unlike in the United States, where federal-
the Death of “Defective” Babies in American Medicine and ism and political heterogeneity encouraged diversity even
Motion Pictures since 1915. Oxford: Oxford University with a single movement, in Germany one society, the
Press. p. 161. ISBN 978-0195135398. German Society for Race Hygiene (Deutsche Gesellschaft
fue Rassenhygiene), eventually represented all eugenicists,
[70] Pernick, 2009: p. 161. while one journal, the Archiv fur Rassen- und Gsellschafts
[71] Selden 2005: p. 207. Biologie, founded by Ploetz in 1904, remained the primary
scientific publication of German Eugenics.
[72] Crnic, Meghan. “Better babies: social engineering for 'a
better nation, a better world'.” ScienceDirect 33.1 (2008): [89] Rubenfeld, Sheldon; Benedict, Susan (2014). Human
Web. Subjects Research after the Holocaust. Springer. p. 13.
ISBN 978-3319057019. Considering America’s strong
[73] Pernick, 2002 interest in eugenics, it is reasonable to ask why America
did not slide down the same slippery slope as Germany.
[74] “A social register of fitter families and better babies” The
Milwaukee Sentinel . 26 May 1929 [90] Kühl 2001: p. xiv.
 11

[91] Let’s (Cautiously) Celebrate the “New Eugenics”, Huffin- • Murphy, Timothy F. & Lappé, Marc, eds. (1994).
gton Post, (30 October 2014). Justice and the human genome project. University of
California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-08363-9.
[92] US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 42
Code of Federal Regulations. 441.250-259 (1978). • Ordover, Nancy (2003). American eugenics: race,
queer anatomy, and the science of nationalism.
[93] Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack (1990). Abortion and
Woman’s Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-
Freedom (revised edition). Lebanon, NH: Northeastern 3559-7.
University Press. ISBN 978-1555530754.
• Pernick, Martin S. (1999). The Black Stork: Eugen-
[94] Borrero, Sonya; Zite, Nikki; Creinin, Mitchell D. (2012). ics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in American
“Federally Funded Sterilization: Time to Rethink Pol- Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915. Oxford
icy?". American Journal of Public Health. 102: 1822– University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513539-8.
1825 – via NCBI.
• Pernick, Martin S. (2002). “Taking Better
[95] Borrero; et al. (2011). “Racial Variation in Tubal Steril- Baby Contests Seriously”. American Jour-
ization Rates: Role of Patient-Level Factors”. Fertil Steril. nal of Public Health. 92 (5): 707–708.
95: 17–22 – via NCBI.
doi:10.2105/ajph.92.5.707. PMC 1447148 .
PMID 11988430.
3.2 Bibliography • Selden, Steven (2005). “Transforming Better Ba-
bies into Fitter Families: Archival Resources and
• Bender, Daniel E. (2009). American abyss: sav- the History of the American Eugenics Movement,
agery and civilization in the age of industry. Cornell 1908–1930”. American Philosophical Society. 149
University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-4598-9. (2): 199–225.
• Black, Edwin (9 November 2003). “Eugenics and • Stern, Alexandra (2005). Eugenic nation: faults
the Nazis -- the California connection”. San Fran- and frontiers of better breeding in modern America.
cisco Chronicle. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-
24444-3.
• Boudreau, Erica Bicchieri (2005). "'Yea, I
have a Goodly Heritage': Health Versus Hered-
ity in the Fitter Family Contests, 1920–1928”.
Journal of Family History. 30 (4): 366– 4 Further reading
87. doi:10.1177/0363199005276359. PMID
16304739. • Allen, Garland E. (1987). “The role of experts in
scientific controversy”. In Engelhardt, Hugo Tris-
• Engs, Ruth C. (2005). The eugenics movement: an tram & Caplan, Arthur L. Scientific controversies:
encyclopedia. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313- case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes
32791-9. in science and technology. Cambridge University
Press. pp. 169–202. ISBN 978-0-521-27560-6.
• Kevles, Daniel J. (1986). In the Name of Eugenics:
genetics and the uses of human heredity. Harvard • Barkan, Elazar (1993). The Retreat of Scientific
University Press. ISBN 978-0-520-05763-0. Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and
the United States Between the World Wars. Cam-
• Kühl, Stefan (2001). The Nazi Connection: Eugen-
bridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45875-7.
ics, American Racism, and German National Social-
ism. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19- • Bashford, Alison & Levine, Philippa, eds. (2010).
514978-4. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537314-
• Lombardo, Paul A. (2008). Three generations, no 1.
imbeciles: eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v.
Bell. JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9010-9. • Bauman, Zygmunt (2000). Modernity and the Holo-
caust. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-
• Lombardo, Paul A. (2011). A Century of Eugenics 8719-4.
in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Hu-
man Genome Era. Indiana University Press. ISBN • Black, Edwin (2004). War against the weak: eugen-
978-0-253-22269-5. ics and America’s campaign to create a master race.
Thunder’s Mouth Press. ISBN 978-1-56858-321-1.
• McWhorter, Ladelle (2009). Racism and sexual op-
pression in Anglo-America: a genealogy. Indiana • Cuddy, Lois A. & Roche, Claire M., eds. (2003).
University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-22063-9. Evolution and eugenics in American literature and
12 5 EXTERNAL LINKS

culture, 1880–1940: essays on ideological conflict • Reilly, Philip R. (1991). The Surgical Solution:
and complicity. Bucknell University Press. ISBN A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United
978-0-8387-5555-6. States. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-
0-8018-4096-8.
• Currell, Susan (2006). Popular eugenics: national
efficiency and American mass culture in the 1930s. • Rosen, Christine (2004). Preaching eugenics: reli-
Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0-8214-1692-1. gious leaders and the American eugenics movement.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515679-
• Dowbiggin, Ian Robert (1997). Keeping America 9.
sane: psychiatry and eugenics in the United States
and Canada, 1880–1940. Cornell University Press. • Ross, Loretta (2000). “Eugenics: African-
ISBN 978-0-8014-8398-1. American Case Study--Eugenics and Family Plan-
ning”. Routledge International Encyclopedia of
• Gould, Stephen Jay (1996). The Mismeasure of Women: Education: Health to Hypertension. Vol. 2.
Man (2nd, revised ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. Psychology Press. p. 638. ISBN 978-0-415-92089-
ISBN 978-0-393-31425-0. 6.

• Haller, Mark H. (1963). Eugenics: Hereditarian At- • Schoen, Johanna (2005). Choice and Coercion:
titudes in American Thought. Rutgers University Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public
Press. Health and Welfare. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0807855850.
• Hansen, Randall and King, Desmond (eds.), Steril-
ized by the State: Eugenics, Race, and the Population • Solinger, Rickie (2005). Pregnancy and Power:
Scare in Twentieth-Century North America. New A Short History of Reproductive Politics in Amer-
York: Cambridge University Press. ica. New York, NY: NYU Press. ISBN 978-
0814798287.
• Hasian, Marouf Arif (1996). The rhetoric of eugen-
• Smith, J. David. (1993). The Eugenic Assault on
ics in Anglo-American thought. University of Geor-
America: Scenes in Red, White and Black. George
gia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-1771-7.
Mason University Press. ISBN 978-0-913969-53-3.
• Kline, Wendy (2005). Building a Better Race: Gen- • Spiro, Jonathan P. (2009). Defending the Master
der, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of
Century to the Baby Boom. University of California Madison Grant. University of Vermont Press. ISBN
Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24674-4. 978-1-58465-715-6.
• Kohn, Marek (1995). The Race Gallery: The Return • Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of Sci-
of Racial Science. London: Jonathan Cape. entific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer
Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-
• Larson, Edward J. (1996). Sex, Race, and Science: 252-07463-9. Lay summary.
Eugenics in the Deep South. JHU Press. ISBN 978-
0-8018-5511-5.

• Lusane, Clarence (2002). Hitler’s black victims: the 5 External links

historical experiences of Afro-Germans, European
Blacks, Africans, and African Americans in the Nazi • The Color of Democracy: A Japanese Public
era. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-93295-0. Health Official’s Reconnaissance Trip to the U.S.
South Takeuchi-Demirci, Aiko. Southern Spaces 18
• Maxwell, Anne (2010). Picture Imperfect: Photog- March 2011.
raphy and Eugenics, 1870–1940. Sussex Academic
Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-415-4. • “Eugenics”, Scope Note 28, Bioethics Research Cen-
ter, Georgetown University
• McCann, Carole Ruth (1999). Birth control politics
in the United States, 1916–1945. Cornell University • Plotz, David. “The Better Baby Business”, Wash-
Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8612-8. ington Post, 13 March 2001. Web. 25 April 2010.
.
• Mendelsohn, Everett (March–April 2000). “The
• Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American
Eugenic Temptation: When ethics lag behind tech-
States, Kaelber, Lutz (ed.)
nology”. Harvard Magazine.
• Eugenics: A Historical Analysis
• Rafter, Nicole Hahn (1988). White Trash: The
Eugenic Family Studies, 1877–1919. Northeastern • Eugenics in the United States and Britain, 1890–
University Press. ISBN 978-1-55553-030-3. 1930: a comparative analysis
 13

• Eugenics in the United States

• “Buck v. Bell (1927)" by N. Antonios and C. Raup

at the Embryo Project Encyclopedia
14 6 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

6.1 Text
• Eugenics in the United States Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States?oldid=770631302 Contributors:
Shii, Edward, Jengod, Chealer, Auric, Alan Liefting, Tom harrison, Bumm13, Rich Farmbrough, Edgarde, Bender235, RJHall, Ly-
curgus, Laurascudder, Madler, Tony Sidaway, Woohookitty, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Eldamorie, Jrtayloriv, Bgwhite, Wavelength, Nawl-
inWiki, Grafen, Welsh, Gadget850, Rwalker, Maunus, SmackBot, FloNight, Wegesrand, Hmains, Jprg1966, OrangeDog, Roscelese,
Gregs US, Kleuske, Aftertheend, ThurnerRupert, Orasis, Mathsci, Lord mortekai, ONUnicorn, DumbBOT, NaLalina, Satori Son, Head-
bomb, Nick Number, Sonicsuns, Magioladitis, MastCell, KConWiki, JoDonHo, Uncle Dick, Trilobitealive, DadaNeem, AzureCitizen,
Metal.lunchbox, Mark v1.0, Falcon8765, Dawn Bard, Toddst1, Jdaloner, Kumioko (renamed), ClueBot, Binksternet, Mild Bill Hic-
cup, Grandpallama, V7-sport, Njdude2000, Shadow600, Addbot, Jarble, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Quebec99, The Banner,
Smallvillefanatic, Carrite, Dunc0029, FrescoBot, Trappist the monk, Tbhotch, RjwilmsiBot, NameIsRon, EmausBot, John of Reading,
WikitanvirBot, GoingBatty, Marfinan, Tommy2010, Dcirovic, WeijiBaikeBianji, RocheHamilton, Drdodgeball, ClaudioSantos, Jesanj,
Ebehn, 87v7t76fc4iguwevf7657436253yd4fug754ws67dtfugiy67t8576, ClueBot NG, Ddnixx, EdSaperia, Mesoderm, Exadrid, Helpful
Pixie Bot, Mophedd, Bibcode Bot, BG19bot, Dancingpenguins123, Northamerica1000, PhnomPencil, Riddled aeon, Virago250, Hari-
zotoh9, Stephen Balaban, BattyBot, Mollskman, E.N.Stanway, Gnrshawn, Robevans123, JaconaFrere, Monkbot, Gouncbeatduke, Asus-
parkyEP, Progressingamerica, Waters.Justin, PaulBustion88, Srednuas Lenoroc, DirtyRotten, InternetArchiveBot, GreenC bot, Bender the
Bot, Lmauldwin, Eunice gonzalez, Nick M-PS489, TDFergus, Cbshier, Kakurokuna and Anonymous: 18

6.2 Images
• File:Anthropometry_exhibit.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Anthropometry_exhibit.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Better_Baby_Contest_-_1931_Indiana_State_Fair.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Better_Baby_
Contest_-_1931_Indiana_State_Fair.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
“Do better babies make better Hoosiers?", Indiana University News, September 22, 2010. Original from Indiana State Archives. Original
artist: ?
• File:Eugenics-Fitter-Families-Contest-Winners-Topeka-Kansas.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/
Eugenics-Fitter-Families-Contest-Winners-Topeka-Kansas.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
[1] Original artist: ?
• File:Eugenics_supporters_hold_signs_on_Wall_Street.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Eugenics_
supporters_hold_signs_on_Wall_Street.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
Schultz, Stanley K. William P. Tishler, Shane Hamilton, eds. “American History 102”. University of Wisconsin. Archived from the original
on 18 April 2012. Technical description and copyright holder information quoted from archived page sidebar. Original artist: ?
• File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg License:
PD Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Lock-green.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg License: CC0 Contributors: en:File:
Free-to-read_lock_75.svg Original artist: User:Trappist the monk
• File:United_States_eugenics_advocacy_poster.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/United_States_eugenics_
advocacy_poster.jpg License: Fair use Contributors:
Screenshot taken from image on p. 219 of Steven Selden’s “Transforming Better Babies Into Fitter Families” (2005, Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 149(2)). Rights to image owned by American Philosophical Society.
Original artist: ?
• File:Wiki_letter_w.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
• File:Wir_stehen_nicht_allein.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Wir_stehen_nicht_allein.png Li-
cense: Public domain Contributors: Scan taken from Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press), page 96. Originally from Neues Volk, March 1, 1936, p.37. Original artist: Un-
known<a href='https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4233718' title='wikidata:Q4233718'><img alt='wikidata:Q4233718' src='https://upload.
wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/20px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png' width='20' height='11' srcset='https://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/30px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/40px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png 2x' data-file-width='1050' data-file-height='590'
/></a>

6.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0