Talk:Eugenics

Dysgenics section needs to be rethought or removed

Right now it just seems to be an oblique reference to Idiocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foobard (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has come to its defence, I have removed it. Foobard (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New edits on German colonies

A really important topic, but I'm concerned that there is far too much detail of German colonisation generally, not directly relating to eugenics. Also, a confusion of eugenic research and practices. These may well have gone hand in hand, but we need to establish that with references. What do others think? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree, there seems to be a confusion between racism and eugenics, which are actually separate issues. Ideas of "racial hygiene" clearly predate eugenics, and while eugenics in some countries was used as an excuse for racism, that doesn't mean that racism is eugenics. A lot of it seems to be unsourced, and a careful check of sourcing is needed. . dave souza, talk 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, racism and Eugenics (even genetics) are often confused. The best way to clear up the confusion is NOT by censorship (as our Neo-Nazi friends would have us believe - ask Wikipedia editors about this one), but by exposing the facts. Don't like racism confused with eugenics, then your argument is with history.Virago250 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying there is too much detail isn't censorship. Please see WP:V for the need to have good secondary sources. There are several good recent histories of eugenics, so if you want to include any other material the onus is on you to show you have good sources for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Virago250, you have brought to our attention some excellent sources, but they've got to be summarised accurately. Schmul makes no connection between Hauschild's research and the 1902-1903 German-American war in Venezuela, so we can't either. If you can find another historian making the link, then please re-add the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Virago, there is some really relevant and important stuff out there, and you are bringing it to our attention, but it will all be obscured if you don't take the right material from the right sources and add it to the right articles. Look for a minute about what is said about eugenics in other countries. There is no way that this article can include a simple listing of which parts of the world were colonised by Germany. That has to go elsewhere. What is positively known about eugenics in German colonies. There is reliably sourced knowledge, and it is so frustrating to see the wrong stuff dumped in here without sufficient thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The eugenics work of Rita Hauschild, associated with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Genetics in the area of Bastard studies (miscegenation) at the early German community of Tovar, Venezuela, has already been cited. To exclude this work on eugenics under the topic of eugenics sounds biased and without justification. The Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903, also a Wikilink (and inserted by someone else), that itsmejudith suggested be used, shows the attempt of Germany to establish itself as colonies in the New World. The countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America where Germany has its influence have already been established in the Wikilinks German colonization of the Americas and Colonia Tovar. Is there a reason why these links should not be used to show why Germany actually threatened war with the United States, as noted in Venezuela crisis of 1902-1903? It appears that itsmejudith is saying I should use this Wikilink to take out information, then saying when I add it to another place, that I shouldn't use the Wikilink.

Indeed, Eugenics is related to genetics (a subject I don't discuss for the most part), as well as racism. The fact that this is true, isn't a reason to exclude the information. The fact that German history is so closely tied up with both racism and eugenics is a historical fact not amenable to making believe it isn't so by saying that new information should not be added because there is so much information.

To summarize, it appears as though itsmejudith doesn't want information added and, furthermore, seems not to like the use of Wikilinks written by other people, to support the information being provided. If there is any question of citations, they have been given. For example, when referring to the Wikilink about Bartolomé de las Casas, this was written originally in Spanish, then abridged to the Summary version in Spanish, then translated into various languages (the version I used, in fact, being written in Middle English and published in London in 1587). If itsmejudith does not accept the citation, she should feel free to give her own, whether it be in Latin, Spanish or Middle English. If itsmejudith disputes what has been written in the various Wikilinks referred to, she should feel free to say why, rather than simply eliminating information. Bartolomé de las Casas is cited in reference to the Caribbean island (Isla Margarita), as Venezuela did not yet exist in de las Casas' time.Virago250 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm... you have yet to provide evidence for the relevance of, for instance, the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903, nor for that matter of any publication from 1587, well before the invention of the concept of eugenics, nor for German colonization attempts that were before the invention of eugenics. The possible fact (uncited) that Brazil almost went with the Axis is also not relevant. This is not an article about, for instance, the history of racism; perhaps the Racism article's History section should be split off and expanded with the cited information you have located? Allens (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the subcategories under the Eugenics page deals with eugenics in different countries. I am primarily responding (adding information) to these questions with respect to eugenics and its relationship with German colonies. The relationship of eugenics to German South West Africa (GSWA) is obvious and direct. (For example, one of the leading eugenicists, Eugen Fischer, did medical research related to eugenics in both GSWA under the Second Reich, and in Germany under the Third Reich.) Eugen Fischer as well as many other eugenicists worked with American eugenicists such as Charles Davenport, and also did work for the IFEO. Much of this work has been reviewed in Bastard studies ("bastard" being commonly used to refer to mixed-race people or miscegenation). The wikiarticle on Bastard studies lists eugenicists who did work in various German colonies. Other German colonies were in the south Pacific as well as in the New World. It is important to show that this racist-oriented version of eugenics was not an isolated event that took place only in Germany or in one particular German colony. In fact, eugenics research took place in several colonies. For example, Rita Hauschild did research in Tovar, Venezuela. Eugenics research was also done in some of the south Pacific islands, as well as in one of the most famous locations, German Reichsgau Wartheland under the Third Reich (Auschwitz). One might think there was a disconnect between the Second and Third Reichs, yet people such as Hannah Arendt have written books about this connection. Thus, it becomes very important to show the historical connection between Germany's colonies and eugenics research that took place there. By "historical connection", it is important to show that what Germany was doing was not something that just suddenly happened without any historical precedence. In fact, Germany's claim to have colonies in the New World was based upon not only the past history but its proto-colony in Tovar. It is to be noted that I used Wikilinks already written by others, to show that Germany's history runs back several centuries and that the Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903 was based on Colonia Tovar. (Germany entertained the idea of going to war with the United States; hence, this was viewed as a significant issue not only by Germany but by the United States as well.)

Regarding your idea of this material being more properly placed in the Racism article: this isn't simply racism, but was classified as eugenics. I think it's proper to deal with the subject matter under the appropriate heading. In the 21st century there is a clear distinction between genetics, eugenics and racism; however, this was not always the case. We cannot rely upon readers of Wikipedia to know the history before they look it up in Wikipedia; that's why I placed that material here.Virago250 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you essentially stating that one reason for German colonies was to carry on eugenics research? This is going to need to be made considerably clearer (with citations, of course) in the article. That Germany's history on colonies, racism, etc ran back several centuries, I still have difficulty seeing the relevance of; please clarify. (I've taken a look at the Bastard studies article, and have noted a couple places where references are needed plus added a couple of WikiProjects - note that I don't feel that articles should be rated above Start-class except based on a consensus of multiple users.) Allens (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fischer's and Hauschild's research is very much on-topic for Eugenics. We need more detail on both, as a priority. Also in respect to Fischer's connections to the American and international eugenics movement. Can you help find more sources on this stuff, can be in any language? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This article may be of help in resolving this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longsun (talk • contribs)

Origins of Eugenics

The opening description of the origins of eugenics is not consistent with the rest of the article. It states, "The origins of the concept of eugenics began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[4]" Galton coined the term in 1883, inspired by his cousin Darwin, as "the study of the Agencies under social control, that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally." Simply look at the jump from pre-Galtonian to Galton's theory and that clearly demonstrates the movement's beginnings.

As for Mendel, his work was not even rediscovered until 1900, though it was quickly pulled into the established movement. Just read Punnett's 1904 book Mendelism. In talking about the "lower strata" of society he wrote, "Permanent progress is a question of breeding rather than pedagogics; a matter of gametes, not of training." Weismann builds on Darwin, so I am sure he is referenced in the early movement. Yet scientific discoveries about evolution and inheritance used by the eugenics movement should in no way be confused with founding it; that was Galton alone. --Kris (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you want to suggest improved wording? The "stirpiculture" of Victoria Woodhull is also important in the earliest stages. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to just put this out here to be picked apart and better sourced. Here is what I am thinking. First, the opening now is far too long; it does not summarize. Second, I am thinking this should be focused mostly on the movement. There needs to be a section (maybe even an additional separate page) detailing the science of Eugenics that extends even to today. But the bulk of the article needs to focus on the many details of the social movement. Also, any references to other opposition movements would be good. With that said, here goes...

Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a [human] population.” [2] It was a significant social movement in the United States and Europe in late 19th and early 20th centuries started by Francis Galton, who first used the term 1883, based on the work of his cousin Charles Darwin. [Eugenics Archive]

The Eugenics movement became widely popular as society looked to science to help solve social problems like poverty and as the field of genetics emerged from the works of August Weismann and Gregor Mendel. By 1900 the United States had begun enacting eugenics laws, and by 1912 the first International Congress of Eugenics met in London with the support of many prominent scientists, politicians, and social activists. Opposition to the movement came mostly from the Catholic Church though with limited success. The Eugenics movement ended after WWII when the German eugenics laws eventually were used against the Jews during The Holocaust.

--Kris (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Something also needs to be clear is that Galton started a "positive eugenics" movement mainly focussed on encouraging marriage of the "best" social classes, and Davenport and others promoted "negative eugenics" on racial lines with sterilisation laws and laws on immigration. Not as simple as that, but there were several different "movements" rather than one movement. By the way, Galton was Darwin's half-cousin, and we seem to have lost Darwin's very cautious views on the concept: remember, On the Origin of Species does not discuss humanity. Must get back to editing this article sometime. . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the specifics on Galton need to be thoroughly discussed in the full article. I wonder how this positive and negative line can so easily be drawn? It Galton's first use of the word he wrote, "We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to the questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalised one than viriculture, which I once ventured to use." But he may have backed away from that as his ideas developed. See "The Progress of Eugenics" by Saleeby published in 1914 (full text in Google Books). It appears he defined "positive" and "negative" eugenics, as well as "preventative", in this work (see p. 20), and does imply that Galton would approve of SOME FORMS of mating discouragements. Perhaps how much discouragement is where there was controversy within the movement? --Kris (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It will be a lot of work, but I think the way to go is chronological. Because most of what we have here is history of science, and history generally. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on chronology. But I hesitate about putting a lot of detail about scientific development of modern eugenics because 1) that would make this very long, 2) two distinct articles could easily be made, and 3) some scientists whose work was important to the movement were themselves neutral to it. Mendel is certainly a good example. I don't know about Weismann, and other than Darwin mentioning to Galton that he liked the idea I don't know of him being significantly involved with it.--Kris (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked this a little to broaden it:

Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a [human] population.” [2] It was a significant International social movement in late 19th and early 20th centuries started by Francis Galton, who first used the term 1883, based on the work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. [Eugenics Archive]

The Eugenics movement became widely popular as society looked to science to help solve social problems and as the field of genetics emerged from the works of August Weismann and Gregor Mendel. By 1900 the United States had begun enacting eugenics laws, and by 1912 the first International Congress of Eugenics met in London with the support of many prominent scientists, politicians, and social activists. Opposition to the movement came mostly from the Catholic Church and from some within the scientific community, though with limited success. The Eugenics movement ended after WWII when the German eugenics laws eventually were used against the Jews during The Holocaust.

I think this is a succinct summary with which to open the article that leave plenty of room to expand the information within the article. --Kris (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that "The Eugenics Movement ended after WWII" is simply too blunt. Compulsory sterilisation programmes continued into the 1970s, journals such as "Eugenics Quarterly" continued to be published, and so on. I think a more reasonable statement might be "The Eugenics movement declined in popularity after the Second World War." Dave Earl (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I agree; it is even making a bit of a resurgence today. The opening should encompass the full expanse of the topic.--Kris (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Australia

The Australia section focuses too much on the Stolen Generations, which were arguably eugenic and are discussed at length elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'd like to shorten the stuff on the Stolen Generations and include information on eugenics in Australia more broadly. This would include sterilization (of mental defective) debates in Australian Parliaments, and the formation of groups such as the NSW Racial Hygiene Association. Anyone object? Dave Earl (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is dysgenics in the criticism section?

How is it a criticism of eugenics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.106.136 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture

I think Frank Herbert's "Dune" is worth mentioning here. Planned breeding was used there over years to breed a single person with godlike abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.34.250 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought, my recollection is that the novel's more about ecology, but we'd need verification from a reliable secondary source explicitly comparing it to eugenics to avoid original research. Also, don't forget that planned breeding of people long predated eugenics, so there's not a clear link. . dave souza, talk 07:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)