posted
The I.Q debate which has lasted for many years proposes that people of certain "races" are superior in intellect and therefor better suited for success. Proponents propose that the highest most intelligent people are Asians and American Jews, followed by Europeans and Euro-American respectively, Latinos, then African Americans and Arabs, and finally Africans who are the least intelligent.
Proponents will usually try to "Sugar-Coat" their movement with statments that blacks are Superior physically, that blacks can have high Social skills etc. Thus giving the impression that they trully care for or about black people.
In my opinion however these people are ALL proponents of Eugenics, a movement branched off from Darwinism. The whole Idea that blacks are Physically superior is a mere modern day sugar coating of comparing blacks to Dumb animals such as the Gorilla which they claim we "Evolved" from.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
During the first three decades of this century, a small but influential social/scientific movement known as the eugenics movement extrapolated from the new science of human genetics a complex set of beliefs justifying the necessity for racial and class hierarchy. It also advocated limitations on political democracy. The eugenicists argued that the United States was in immediate danger of committing racial suicide as a result of the rapid reproduction of the unfit coupled with the precipitous decline in the birthrate of the better classes. They proposed a program of positive and negative eugenics as a solution. Positive genetics would encourage the reproduction of the better-educated and racially superior, while a rigorous program of negative eugenics to prevent any increase in the racially unfit would include compulsory segregation and sterilization, immigration restriction, and laws to prohibit inter-racial marriage (anti-miscegenation statutes).
I will argue that the eugenics movement of the early 20th-century was primarily a political movement concerned with the social control of groups thought to be inferior by an economic, social, and racial elite. I reject the contention that the movement was primarily scientific and apolitical. I have looked here primarily at the organized eugenics movement and its leading figures, rather than at the average rank-and-file follower within the movement.
My interest in the eugenics movement stems from my fear that the basic principles of the eugenics debate, even its most discredited aspects, are resurfacing in the 1990s. To revisit the eugenics movement of the early 20th-century is to be reminded of the harm the movement intended toward those members of society least able to defend themselves. History, in this case, may help to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of eugenicist arguments--the I. Q. debate and the right's anti-immigrant campaign.
Any historical appraisal of the eugenics movement needs to step carefully to avoid imposing the values of the late 20th-century upon eugenicists, especially concerning the question of motivation. The legitimate, scientific framework of the eugenics movement, a mainstream view at the beginning of the century, has been for the most part abandoned by scientists in the years since then.
Similarly, to a great extent, racialist thinking, and in particular white supremacy, was neither questioned nor challenged among the white-dominated intelligentsia of the time. At the same time, the fact that white supremacist views were more acceptable in white society at the turn of the century still allows for gradations of focus and virulence; the question of the extent to which hereditarian arguments may have functioned as a pretext for a movement primarily concerned with the continuation of social and political dominance by upper-class, Protestant men of Anglo-Saxon background is unavoidable.
The roots of the eugenics movement have been traced variously to social Darwinism; social purity, voluntary motherhood, and the perfectionists; the naturalist tradition; Malthus and the neo-Malthusians; and the Progressive political and social movement.
This paper emphasizes instead that the roots of the eugenics movement can be traced to the 19th-century scientific racism movement. "Scientific racism" is a term capable of diverse definitions. For this discussion, I have adopted a slightly modified version of historian Barry Mehler's definition:
"[Scientific racism is] the belief [often based on skin color, country of origin, or economic class] that the human species can be divided into superior and inferior genetic groups and that these groups can be satisfactorily identified so that social policies can be advanced to encourage the breeding of the superior groups and discourage the breeding of the inferior groups."
It is possible to argue that notions of control by a racial and economic elite were key to the eugenics movement without embracing reductionist or conspiratorial theories that do damage to the diversity and scope of the movement.
It has been the diversity of the eugenics movement--the wide range of followers it was able to encompass--that has proved most difficult to explain. The eugenics movement was not monolithic: conservatives, progressives, and sex radicals were all allied within a fundamentally messianic movement of national salvation that was predicated upon scientific notions of innate and ineradicable inequalities between racial, cultural, and economic groups.
These scientific notions tended to maintain the status quo by obscuring the racial and class basis of poverty and advancement in the United States. The middle- and upper-class professionals of Anglo-Saxon descent who were leaders in the eugenics movement acted in and out of their own interests.
Those interests led to the development of a political program in which an extreme economic conservatism was marked by a virulent anti-communism linked to an embrace of the untrammeled, unregulated capitalist state. Some eugenicist leaders rejected democracy in favor of the corporate state and, in the 1920s and 1930s, several leaders of the eugenics movement were active in the promotion of German and Italian fascism.
The eugenics movement put forth a coherent, consistent social program in which eugenical sterilization, anti-immigrant advocacy, and anti-miscegenation activism all played crucial roles in the primary eugenicist goal of advancing social control by a small elite. Particularly now, when familiar eugenicist arguments echo within contemporary scientific and political circles, questions of motivation and intent are compelling. Background of the Movement
The American eugenics movement came into being primarily through the efforts of Charles Benedict Davenport, a biologist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University. While at Harvard as an instructor in the 1890s, Davenport became familiar with the early eugenicist writings of two Englishmen, the independently wealthy Francis Galton and his protégé Karl Pearson.
By 1869, Galton had published several articles and a book, Hereditary Genius, which argued that human traits, and particularly great ability, can be inherited from previous generations.
It was not until 1883 that Galton coined the term "eugenics," and it was 1904 before he formulated his classic definition of eugenics as "the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally."
Galton had been tremendously influenced by his cousin, Charles Darwin, whose study of human evolution, The Origin of Species, was published in 1859. The eugenicists, led by Galton in England and Davenport in the US, were fascinated more by the idea of the inheritability of human traits than by Darwin's focus on the evolution of species over time.
Charles Darwin thought highly of his cousin's book on the inheritance of genius; he wrote, "I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original."
Eugenicists originally believed in the inheritability of virtually all human traits. Charles Davenport's work provided a typical list of hereditary traits: eye color, hair, skin, stature, weight, special ability in music, drawing, painting, literary composition, calculating, or memorizing, weakness of the mucous membranes, nomadism, general bodily energy, strength, mental ability, epilepsy, shiftlessness, insanity, pauperism, criminality, various forms of nervous disease, defects of speech, sight, hearing, cancer, tuberculosis, pneumonia, skeletal deformities, and other traits.
Davenport is reported to have hypothesized that thalassophilia, love of the sea, was a sex-linked recessive trait because he only encountered it in male naval officers.
For the most part, the eugenicists emphasized inheritance and trivialized the importance of environment. Stanford University president David Starr Jordan, an important American eugenicist, was typical in his dismissal of environmental arguments:
"No doubt poverty and crime are bad assets in one's early environment. No doubt these elements cause the ruins of thousands who, by heredity, were good material of civilization. But again, poverty, dirt, and crime are the products of those, in general, who are not good material. It is not the strength of the strong, but the weakness of the weak which engenders exploitation and tyranny. The slums are at once symptom, effect, and cause of evil. Every vice stands in this same threefold relation"
In the same vein, another eugenicist wrote:
"The. . .social classes, therefore, which you seek to abolish by law, are ordained by nature; that it is, in the large statistical run of things, not the slums which make slum people, but slum people who make the slums; that primarily it is not the church which makes people good, but good people who make the Church; that godly people are largely born and not made. . . ."
The US eugenics movement grew out of the American Breeders' Association (later the American Genetics Association), which was founded in 1903 to apply the new principles of inheritance to the scientific breeding of horses and other livestock. In 1906, at Davenport's urging, the ABA established a Eugenics Section (later the Committee on Eugenics). Stanford University president David Starr Jordan chaired the committee and Davenport was its secretary. These men and others active in the Committee on Eugenics (including the founders of the Nativist Immigration Restriction League, Robert DeCourcey Ward and Prescott F. Hall; Henry H. Goddard and Walter E. Fernald, who both joined a subcommittee on feeble-mindedness; Alexander Graham Bell; and Edward L. Thorndike) would form the core of the eugenics movement for the next 25 years.
The organized eugenics movement revolved around Davenport's Station for Experimental Genetics, at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, New York, which itself came increasingly to focus on eugenical studies. In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office was established with Davenport as director and Henry H. Laughlin, key eugenicist and leader of the eugenical sterilization movement, as its superintendent. Two other important eugenics organizations were the Eugenics Research Association (with Davenport and Laughlin as its key members) and the American Eugenics Society (AES).
The Eugenics Research Association described itself as a scientific rather than political group and the AES, established in 1921, was visualized as the propaganda or popular education arm of the eugenics movement.
The eugenics movement advocated both positive and negative eugenics, which referred to attempts to increase reproduction by fit stocks and to decrease reproduction by those who were constitutionally unfit. Positive eugenics included eugenic education and tax preferences and other financial support for eugenically fit large families. Eugenical segregation and, usually, sterilization (a few eugenicists opposed sterilization); restrictive marriage laws, including anti-miscegenation statutes; and restrictive immigration laws formed the three parts of the negative eugenics agenda.
Virtually all eugenicists supported compulsory sterilization for the unfit; some supported castration. By 1936, when expert medical panels in both England and the US finally condemned compulsory eugenical sterilization, more than 20,000 forced sterilizations had been performed, mostly on poor people (and disproportionately on black people) confined to state-run mental hospitals and residential facilities for the mentally retarded. Almost 500 men and women had died from the surgery. The American Eugenics Society had hoped, in time, to sterilize one-tenth of the US population, or millions of Americans. Based on the American eugenical sterilization experience, Hitler's sterilization program managed to sterilize 225,000 people in less than three years. Eugenics' Racial Bias
From the beginning, the eugenics movement was a racialist (race-based) and elitist movement concerned with the control of classes seen to be socially inferior. In proposing the term eugenics, Galton had written, "We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving the stock. . .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 had."
Galton believed that black people were entirely inferior to the white races and that Jews were capable only of "parasitism" upon the civilized nations.
Karl Pearson, Galton's chief disciple, shared his racial and anti-Semitic beliefs. For example, in 1925, Pearson wrote "The Problem of Alien Immigration into Great Britain, Illustrated by an Examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children," which argued against the admission of Jewish immigrants into England.
In the US, the eugenics movement started from a belief in the racial superiority of white Anglo-Saxons and a desire to prevent the immigration of less desirable racial stocks. In 1910, the Committee on Eugenics solicited new members with a letter that read, "The time is ripe for a strong public movement to stem the tide of threatened racial degeneracy. . . .America needs to protect herself against indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and. . .race suicide." The letter also warned of the impending "complete destruction of the white race."
Eugenical News, which was published by the Eugenics Research Association and edited by Laughlin, welcomed racist and anti-immigrant articles. At the Second International Congress on Eugenics in 1921, one of the five classifications of exhibits was "The Factor of Race."
Similarly, the American Eugenics Society's "Ultimate Program," adopted in 1923, placed "chief emphasis" on three goals:
1. a brief survey of the eugenics movement up to the present time; 2. working out and enacting a selective immigration law; 3. securing segregation of certain classes, such as the criminal defective.
The Eugenics Research Association included among the major issues its members addressed "[im]migration, mate selection. . .race crossings, and. . .physical and mental measurement."
When the World War I-era IQ testing of all soldiers indicated that almost half of all white recruits were morons according to the newly developed Stanford Binet test, as were 89 percent of all black recruits, the eugenics movement seemed more important and believable.
Although some commentators questioned the validity of the test, and noted that questions on such topics as the color of sapphires and the location of Cornell University might reflect qualities other than intelligence, the statistics, when released, created great anxiety and gave the eugenics movement a substantial boost. 19th-Century Scientific Racism
The scientific racism movement of the mid-nineteenth century provided a number of important legacies to the eugenics movement. American scientific racism was primarily preoccupied with the attempt to establish that blacks, Orientals, and other races were in fact entirely different species of "man," which the scientific racists claimed should be seen as a genus, rather than a species. The theory that the integrity of the human species derived from the creation of one Adam and one Eve was called monogenism or specific unity; monogenists believed that the races arose as a result of the degeneration of human beings since creation. The separate races were essentially the same human material, but different races had degenerated to different extents. Polygenists, by contrast, believed that the races were created separately in a series of different creations. The separate races were entirely different animals. The mid-century theory of polygenism, or specific diversity, was one of the first scientific theories largely developed in the US and was approvingly called "the American School of anthropology" by European scientists.
Harvard Professor Louis Agassiz, a prominent natural historian of the 19th-century, was the most important promoter of polygenism. Agassiz, an abolitionist, insisted that his adoption of polygenism was dictated by objective scientific investigation. Nevertheless, historian Stephen Jay Gould's translation of Agassiz's letter to his mother in 1846 shortly after his emigration to the US, reveals a profound, visceral aversion to blacks.
Not surprisingly, Agassiz was also passionately opposed to racial miscegenation. He believed that racial inter-mixture would result in the creation of "effeminate" offspring unable to maintain American democratic traditions. Agassiz wrote:
"The production of half-breeds is as much a sin against nature, as incest in a civilized community is a sin against purity of character. . . .No efforts should be spared to check that which is abhorrent to our better nature, and to the progress of a higher civilization and a purer morality."
In part because the classic definition of a species revolved around the ability to mate and produce children with each other but not with others, and in part because of a drive toward racial hierarchy, the questions of hybridization and fecundity were of great import to the early American scientific racists. For the eugenicists, these questions were also tremendously important. Much of the early scientific racist rhetoric on hybrids later reappeared in eugenicist writings where it came to form the basis of eugenicist arguments against racial miscegenation. The early concern with fecundity fueled later eugenicist claims that differential racial fecundity was leading to white racial suicide.
The eugenicist recapitulation of earlier scientific racist arguments was not cursory, but deep and enduring. In one of many examples, a 1925 bibliography on eugenics published by the American Eugenics Society recommended the book, Uncontrolled Breeding, Or Fecundity versus Civilization.
At the First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912, author V. G. Ruggeri, despite his concern with race-mixing, put forth Mendel's monogenism to bolster his own argument in favor of monogenism; and Lucien March spoke on "The Fertility of Marriages According to Profession and Social Position." The opening of Raymond Pearl's lecture on "The Inheritance of Fecundity" made clear his position within this tradition:
"The progressive decline of the birth rate in all, or nearly all, civilized countries is an obvious and impressive fact. Equally obvious and much more disturbing is the fact that this decline is differential. Generally it is true that those racial stocks which by common agreement are of high, if not the highest, value to the state or nation, are precisely the ones where the decline in reproduction rate has been most marked."
Family Studies, Social Darwinism, and Race Suicide
Eugenical family studies were an important component in the movement's political development; family studies functioned as an objective, scientific basis for the twin myths of a feeble-minded menace and an impending white race suicide. The invention of feeble-mindedness, typically used as a term of art to cover broader issues related to social control, allowed the eugenicists to claim that social (and racial) classes were biological and hence immutable.
The first important eugenicist works in the US were a series of studies of American families supposedly plagued by hereditary feeble-mindedness, beginning with Richard Dugdale's exposition of the Jukes family, published in 1877.
All of the family studies claimed to prove that a single feeble-minded ancestor could (and did) result in generations of poverty-stricken and degenerate offspring. The families in the studies were rural families, of Anglo-Saxon, Protestant descent, and for the most part, their lineage dated to the colonial settlers. The families were remarkably similar to the eugenicist activists in these traits; the main difference between the two was the poverty of the rural families. The equation by the eugenicists of poverty with degeneracy was quite explicit. Eugenicists believed that poverty was no more than a manifestation of inner degeneracy. Charity was therefore unlikely to lead the pauper out of poverty and, in fact, misguided charity might prove very costly to society. In the heightened tone that is common to writers in the family studies, one eugenicist wrote, "It is impossible to calculate what even one feeble-minded woman may cost the public, when her vast possibilities for evil as a producer of paupers and criminals, through an endless line of descendants is considered."
Another writer said, for example, "A habit of irregular work is a species of mental or moral weakness, or both. A man or woman who will not stick to a job is morally certain to be a pauper or a criminal."
In the same vein, a third wrote, "Pauperism and habitual criminality are respectively passive and active states of the same disease."
Feeble-mindedness for the eugenicists was a designation that created a difference between the eugenicists and the families they studied. One group of social reformers described in detail the nature of the feeble-mindedness which they had found characterized prostitutes:
"The general moral insensibility, the boldness, egotism and vanity, the love of notoriety, the lack of shame or remorse. . .the desire for immediate pleasure without regard for consequences, the lack of forethought or anxiety about the future--all cardinal symptoms of feeble-mindedness--were strikingly evident."
Thus the prostitute's failure to adhere to social conventions of behavior for women is here called feeble-mindedness.
The deliberate and even fraudulent misrepresentations of the people in the family studies have been established. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, has shown that H. H. Goddard, author of The Kallikak Family, retouched photographs to make the Kallikaks appear mentally retarded.
Family studies were used to support the myth of the "feeble-minded menace," which claimed the US was in imminent danger of being swamped by the degenerate and dangerous masses of the feeble-minded. When the feeble-minded menace was linked at the end of the 19th-century to the idea that the better stocks were failing to produce enough children, the idea of race suicide emerged. Race suicide captured the US imagination and lent support to the entire eugenics agenda.
The "race suicide" theory which developed during the first decade of the new century claimed that the greatly lowered birthrate of the better classes, coupled with the burgeoning birthrates of immigrants and the native-born poor, endangered the survival of "the race." "The race" was clearly a term that referred to the white, Anglo-Saxon race and a deep racism permeated the racial suicide period from its beginning in 1900 to 1910. One classic racial suicide work is Robert Reid Rentoul's Race Culture; or, Race Suicide? (A Plea for the Unborn), published in New York and London in 1906. Rentoul speaks of the "terrible monstrosities" created by racial intermarriage and points out that the Americans are "poor patriots" for repealing their racial miscegenation statutes.
The concept of the feeble-minded menace provided a way to make the rural families, who were neither institutionalized, foreign, nor "colored," into people who were "different" from the eugenicists. Underlying the family studies and the myth of the feeble-minded menace was the theory of Social Darwinism, which assumed the existence of a struggle between the individual and society, and of an adversarial relationship between the fit and unfit classes. Eugenical family studies and social Darwinism both involved a transmutation of nature into biology and the eugenics movement frequently acknowledged its debt to Social Darwinism.
The deeply conservative implications of such philosophies included the rejection of government welfare programs or protective legislation on the grounds that such reforms as poorhouses, orphanages, bread lines, and eight-hour days enabled the unfit to survive and weakened society as a whole. From the beginning, the eugenics movement accepted the regressive implications of Social Darwinism. Karl Pearson believed that "such measures as the minimum wage, the eight-hour day, free medical advice, and reductions in infant mortality encouraged an increase in unemployables, degenerates, and physical and mental weaklings."
Pearson's friend, Havelock Ellis, known as a sex radical and free thinker, shared Pearson's elitist views, writing in his 1911 eugenicist book, The Problem of Race Regeneration, "These classes, with their tendency to weak-mindedness, their inborn laziness, lack of vitality, and unfitness for organized activity, contain the people who complain they are starving for want of work, though they will never perform any work that is given them." Ellis suggested in the same book that all public relief be denied to second generation paupers unless they "voluntarily consented" to be surgically sterilized.
One American eugenicist said harshly:
"The so-called charitable people who give to begging children and women with baskets have a vast sin to answer for. It is from them that this pauper element gets its consent to exist. . . .So-called charity joins public relief in producing stillborn children, raising prostitutes, and educating criminals."
The economic conservatism of the movement was very clear. Faced with a social problem, the eugenicist leapt to the conclusion that it was the individual who must change to accommodate society (which is one reason why conservative commentators frequently argued that eugenics was a liberal movement committed to the supremacy of the community over the individual). The prevalence of the appeal to economics in eugenics writings led G. K. Chesterton to claim that the eugenicist was, at heart, the employer. Chesterton wrote:
"[N]o one seems able to imagine capitalist industrialism being sacrificed to any other object. . . .[the eugenicist] tacitly takes it for granted that the small wages and the income, desperately shared, are the fixed points, like day and night, the conditions of human life. Compared with them, marriage and maternity are luxuries, things to be modified to suit the wage-market."
The eugenicists' family studies were one aspect of the movement's domestic program of scientific racism. The eugenics movement concentrated on differences: its roots in scientific racism looked to the differences between the white and other races, while the family studies created a distinction between fit and unfit white folks. At the same time, eugenicists and other scientific racists were discovering many different "races" among the foreign immigrants, all previously conceived as members of a single, "white" race. The Eugenicist Role in Anti-Immigrant Organizing
The involvement of the organized American eugenics movement with the advocacy of immigration restriction was deep and long-standing. Although the organized anti-immigrant movement predated eugenical organizations by a few years, immigration restriction was from the beginning a key component of the eugenics program. For example, the American Eugenics Society published a wide variety of materials on immigration restriction and the 1923 "Original Ultimate Program to be Developed by the American Eugenics Society" listed immigration restriction as one of the top three goals of the society.
The first organized anti-immigrant group, the Immigration Restriction League, was founded in 1894 in Boston by a small group of Harvard-educated lawyers and academics; Prescott Hall and Robert DeCourcey Ward were the driving forces behind the League. The Immigration Restriction League was based on a belief in the superiority of the white races. Ward summed up the group's philosophy when he wrote "the question [of immigration] is a race question, pure and simple. . . .It is fundamentally a question as to what kind of babies shall be born; it is a question as to what races shall dominate in this country."
Most eugenicists agreed, and Yale Professor and prominent eugenicist Irving Fisher's comment that "The core of the problem of immigration is. . .one of race and eugenics" was typical of the eugenicist position.
In the first decade of the century, the men of the Immigration Restriction League became active members of the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders' Association and other eugenics organizations, focusing their attention primarily on immigration issues. The connection was so compatible that the Immigration Restriction League almost changed its name to the Eugenic Immigration League. Hall and Ward even had sample stationery drawn up with the new name, but found the Board of Directors was unwilling to adopt the name of a movement younger than its own.
In 1918, Davenport and his fellow eugenicist, and virulent racist, and anti-immigration activist Madison Grant (author of The Passing of the Great Race and The Alien in Our Midst) set up the Galton Society. The Society was established for "the promotion of study of racial anthropology" and from the beginning, immigration restriction was "a subject of much interest."
As John Higham has noted, one strand of nativism in the US derived from a conviction that the immigrant was a political and social radical, importing communistic or anarchistic ideas into the United States. Grant and Davenport both shared this conviction and established the Galton Society in part to bar such foreign radicals. The independently wealthy Grant wrote to the other organizers, "My proposal is the organization of an anthropological society. . .confined to native Americans, who are anthropologically, socially, and politically sound, no Bolsheviki need apply."
Other prestigious members of the Galton Society included Henry Fairfield Osborn (who wrote the introduction to Grant's book) and Grant's friend and protégé, Lothrop Stoddard. Like his friend Grant, Stoddard was a strong anti-communist. His book The Rising Tide of Color argued that Bolshevism was a dangerous theory because it advocated universal equality rather than white supremacy.
H. H. Laughlin, of the Eugenics Research Association and Eugenics Record Office, was also very involved in anti-immigrant work. He produced many pamphlets on immigration, including "Biological Aspects of Immigration," "Analysis of America's Melting Pot," "Europe as an Emigrant-Exporting Continent," "The Eugenics Aspects of Deportation," and "American History in Terms of Human Migration." Because Laughlin had been appointed the Expert Eugenics Agent for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization by the committee's chair, Congressman Albert Johnson, many of these nativist pamphlets were published by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. In 1923, Johnson, a confirmed eugenicist, was appointed to the presidency of the Eugenics Research Association, a post held before him by Grant.
The immigration restrictionists were motivated by a desire to maintain both the white and the Christian dominance of the US. A year after the eugenicists' victory in securing passage of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act, which established entry quotas that slashed the "new immigration" of Jews, Slavs, and southern Europeans, Davenport wrote to Grant, "Our ancestors drove Baptists from Massachusetts Bay into Rhode Island but we have no place to drive the Jews to. Also they burned the witches but it seems to be against the mores to burn any considerable part of our population. Meanwhile we have somewhat diminished the immigration of these people."
Similarly, the racial nature of the anti-immigration position was not veiled. In 1927, for instance, three years after the restrictive act of 1924 was passed, Grant, Robert DeCourcey Ward, and other eugenicists were still anxious to cut non-white immigration further. They signed a "Memorial on Immigration Quotas," urging the President and Congress to extend "the quota system to all countries of North and South America. . .in which the population is not predominantly of the white race."
The early 20th-century eugenics movement, often dismissed as a fad, provided a coherent and consistent political program to enforce the racial, class, and sexual dominance which was perceived to be under attack in American society. Its program has, in large part, reasserted itself in the late 20th-century, at a time when racial and economic elite dominance of US society is again under attack. The continuing vigor of scientific racism in the United States is in part a testimony to its strong, deep roots.
This is by a man Dr. Herowitz and its a long series about the Vaccine industry not mainly Eugenics but he points out that Black people as well as some Puerto Ricans were targets of these programs.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe those black AEs should have gone over to Europe and dropped a few IQ tests on those part Neanderthal cavemen.
Even Aristotle remarked that the people from Europe were high-spirited(undisciplined, etc.)made good slaves but were dumb.
Well, it could be that if blacks are seen as superior physically and they are also deemed to be equal in brains then everybody else--except blacks--would start running scared. So you gotta keep up that tired low IQ BS!
Interesting though how they threw a backhand at their favourite caucasoids in Africa--all those over there sitting on the Horn.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Maybe those black AEs should have gone over to Europe and dropped a few IQ tests on those part Neanderthal cavemen.
Even Aristotle remarked that the people from Europe were high-spirited(undisciplined, etc.)made good slaves but were dumb.
Well, it could be that if blacks are seen as superior physically and they are also deemed to be equal in brains then everybody else--except blacks--would start running scared. So you gotta keep up that tired low IQ BS!
Interesting though how they threw a backhand at their favourite caucasoids in Africa--all those over there sitting on the Horn.
Lets make it clear the I.Q theory is not about anything other than getting the dumbed down bamboozled public to support the idea of Eugenics. That is the Eradication, subjugation and control of people of color. These people have spent so much, time energy, money and research into eliminating the black population on Earth esp. those of West and Sub-Sahran decent.
The same can be said in their efforts to control the Arab and Hispanic populations but due to the culture of Hispanics and Arabs who oppose Birth Control its almost impossible for them to work their Agenda so they use War, Drug Cartels, poverty, and radical Islam to control them.
Like I said the ONLY PEOPLE really Pushing I.Q are White Europeans. Maybe a couple of Asians here and there but its almost exclusively WHITES pushing this Agenda becuase the I.Q debate originated with Darwinism and Eugenics.
This sort of Genocide has never been enacted by no other race EXCEPT white people.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari, This thing about high Asian IQ is just overblown. India and Pakistan--according to the IQ boys--score 81 on IQ tests. And East Asia from the Philippines downwards and Westwards does not come off looking too hot either. China--overall is below 100 and Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, etc. hardly crack 90. It's just Japan, Korea and Taiwan that exceed 100. The average Asian(both East and South) probably average just 85.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ Test: Where Does It Come From and What Does It Measure?
BY JAN STRYDOM, M.A., H.E.D., D.Ed. & SUSAN DU PLESSIS, B.D., B.A. Hons (psychology) [Alfred Binet]
The most important criterion in diagnosing a child as learning disabled is the IQ test. The aim of an IQ test is to measure the intelligence of a child, which supposedly is an indication of the child's potential. But where does the test come from and does it really measure potential?
Intelligence testing began in earnest in France, when in 1904 psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to find a method to differentiate between children who were intellectually normal and those who were inferior. The purpose was to put the latter into special schools where they would receive more individual attention. In this way the disruption they caused in the education of intellectually normal children could be avoided.1
This led to the development of the Binet Scale, also known as the Simon-Binet Scale in recognition of Theophile Simon's assistance in its development. It constituted a revolutionary approach to the assessment of individual mental ability. However, Binet himself cautioned against misuse of the scale or misunderstanding of its implications. According to Binet, the scale was designed with a single purpose in mind; it was to serve as a guide to identify children in the schools who required special education. Its intention was not to be used as “a general device for ranking all pupils according to mental worth.” Binet also noted that “the scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.”2 Since, according to Binet, intelligence could not be described as a single score, the use of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as a definite statement of a child's intellectual capability would be a serious mistake. In addition, Binet feared that IQ measurement would be used to condemn a child to a permanent “condition” of stupidity, thereby negatively affecting his or her education and livelihood:
Some recent thinkers…[have affirmed] that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing.3
Binet's scale had a profound impact on educational development in the United States — and elsewhere. However, the American educators and psychologists who championed and utilized the scale and its revisions failed to heed Binet's caveats concerning its limitations. Soon intelligence testing assumed an importance and respectability out of proportion to its actual value.
H. H. Goddard, director of research at Vineland Training School in New Jersey, translated Binet's work into English and advocated a more general application of the Simon-Binet Scale.4 Unlike Binet, Goddard considered intelligence a solitary, fixed and inborn entity that could be measured.5
While Goddard extolled the value and uses of the single IQ score, Lewis M. Terman, who also believed that intelligence was hereditary and fixed, worked on revising the Simon-Binet Scale. His final product, published in 1916 as the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence (also known as the Stanford-Binet), became the standard intelligence test in the United States for the next several decades.6 Once American educators had been convinced of the need for universal intelligence testing, and the efficiency it could contribute to school programming, within a few years,
the Simon-Binet Scale, originally designed for identification of children requiring special instructional attention, was transformed into an integral, far-reaching component of the American educational structure. Through Goddard's and Terman's efforts the notion that intelligence tests were accurate, scientific, and valuable tools for bringing efficiency to the schools resulted in assigning the IQ score an almost exalted position as a primary, definitive, and permanent representation of the quality of an individual. Hence, intelligence testing became entrenched in the schools over the next several decades.7
Few people realize that the tests being used today — of which the IQ test continues to be the most popular — represent the end result of a historical process that has its origins in racial and cultural bigotry. Many of the founding fathers of the modern testing industry — including Goddard, Terman and Carl Brighan (the developer of the Scholastic Aptitude Test) — advocated eugenics.8 Eugenics is a movement concerned with the selective breeding of human beings. Selected human beings would be mated with each other in an attempt to obtain certain traits in their offspring, much the same way that animal breeders work with champion stock. The eventual goal of eugenics is to create a better human race. The Nazis took this idea to the extreme. All “inferior” humans, especially Jews, retarded children or adults, and any individuals with genetic defects, were to be destroyed; and so many ill and retarded people, and many Jews, were killed during World War II.9
The founding fathers of the testing industry saw testing as one way of achieving the eugenicist aims. Goddard's belief in the innateness and inalterability of intelligence levels, for example, was so firm that he argued for the reconstruction of society along the lines dictated by IQ scores:
If mental level plays anything like the role it seems to, and if in each human being it is the fixed quantity that many believe it is, then it is no useless speculation that tries to see what would happen if society were organized so as to recognize and make use of the doctrine of mental levels… It is quite possible to restate practically all of our social problems in terms of mental level… Testing intelligence is no longer an experiment or of doubted value. It is fast becoming an exact science… Greater efficiency, we are always working for. Can these new facts be used to increase our efficiency? No question! We only await the Human Engineer who will undertake the work.10
As a result of his views on intelligence and society, Goddard lobbied for restrictive immigration laws. Upon his “discovery” that all immigrants, except those from Northern Europe, were of “surprisingly low intelligence;” such tight immigration laws were enacted in the 1920s.11 According to Harvard professor Steven Jay Gould in his acclaimed book The Mismeasure of Man, these tests were also influential in legitimizing forced sterilization of allegedly “defective” individuals in some states.12
By the 1920s mass use of the Stanford-Binet Scale and other tests had created a multimillion-dollar testing industry.13 By 1974, according to the Mental Measurements Yearbook, 2,467 tests measuring some form of intellectual ability were in print, 76 of which were identified as strict intelligence tests.14 In one year in the 1980s, teachers gave over 500 million standardized tests to children and adults across the United States.15 In 1989 the American Academy for the Advancement of Science listed the IQ test among the twenty most significant scientific discoveries of the twentieth century along with nuclear fission, DNA, the transistor and flight.16 Patricia Broadfoot's dictum that “assessment, far more than religion, has become the opiate of the people,”17 has come of age. So What are We Actually Measuring?
If an IQ test is supposed to measure a person's intelligence, the question is: What is intelligence? Is it the ability to do well in school? Is it the ability to read well and spell correctly? Or are the following people intelligent?
* [Smoker]
The physician who smokes three packets of cigarettes a day? *
The Nobel Prize winner whose marriage and personal life are in ruins? *
The corporate executive who has ingeniously worked his way to the top and also earned a heart attack for his efforts? *
The brilliant and successful music composer who handled his money so poorly that he was always running from his creditors (incidentally, his name was Mozart)?18
The problem is that the term intelligence has never been defined adequately and therefore nobody knows what an IQ test is supposed to measure. In spite of this the futures of thousands of children are determined by the results of this test.
Already in the early 1920s the journalist Walter Lippmann maintained that IQ tests were nothing but a series of stunts. “We cannot measure intelligence when we have not defined it,” he said.19
In 1962 Banesh Hoffman told a shocked America about the “tyranny of testing” in his classic book of the same name. His book and others that followed stirred up much controversy, leading the National Education Association in 1976 to recommend the elimination of group standardized intelligence, aptitude, and achievement tests.20 Sarason quotes an advertisement that was placed by Psychology Today in the New York Times in August 1979, part of which appears below:
In the chaos of controversy, the standard IQ exam is flunking the test. Many educational psychologists feel that IQ testers have failed to answer two all-important questions: What is intelligence? What have IQ tests actually measured?
The National Education Association, with membership of almost 2 million teachers, has called for the abolition of standardized intelligence tests because they are “at best wasteful, and at worst, destructive.”
Yale psychologist Robert Sternberg says in P.T. that psychologists know “almost nothing about what it is that they have been measuring. The tests have proved overall to have only low to moderate power to predict such things as future job performance, income and status, or overall happiness and adjustment.”21
However, the dust soon settled after this uprising and the testing industry became more powerful than ever. The National Education Association has completely changed its stand and now “recognizes the need for periodic comprehensive testing for evaluation and diagnosis of student progress.”22 This is no wonder, says Dr. Thomas Armstrong, since it would have taken a major miracle to eliminate testing.23
Today, voices for the elimination of standardized tests are few. One is Linda S. Siegel, professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She proposes that we abandon the IQ test in the analysis of the LD child. According to most definitions — although they are not conclusive — intelligence is made up of the skills of logical reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking, and adaptation.24 This scenario seems reasonable, until one examines the content of IQ tests. The definition of intelligence, as is operationalized in all IQ tests, includes virtually no skills that can be identified in terms of the definitions of intelligence. To support her statement, Siegel gives a detailed analysis of the subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). This IQ test is composed of Verbal and Performance sections, and is nearly always used in LD diagnosis. In each subtest of the Verbal scale, performance is in varying degrees dependent on specific knowledge, vocabulary, expressive language and memory skills, while in the Performance scale, visual-spatial abilities, fine motor coordination, perceptual skills, and in some subtests speed, are essential for scoring.25 As Siegel rightly points out, IQ tests measure, for the most part, what a person has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing in the future (his potential).26
There is an additional problem in the use of IQ tests with individuals with learning disabilities. According to Siegel it is a paradox that IQ scores are required of people with LD because most of these persons have deficiencies in one or more of the component skills that are part of these IQ tests — memory, language, fine motor skills, et cetera. The effect is that they may end up having a lower IQ score than a person who does not have such problems, even though they may both have identical reasoning and problem-solving skills. The lower IQ score, therefore, may be a result of the learning disability, and IQ scores may underestimate the real intelligence of the individual with a learning disability.27
Another assumption of the discrepancy definition is that the IQ score should predict reading, so that if you have a low IQ score you should be a poor reader and that poor reading is an expected consequence of low IQ. However, there are individuals who have low IQ scores and are good readers.28
The unreliability of IQ tests has been proved by numerous researchers. The scores may vary by as much as 15 points from one test to another,29 while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance.30 In addition, Gould described the biasing effect that tester attitudes, qualifications, and instructions can have on testing.31 In one study, for example, ninety-nine school psychologists independently scored an IQ test from identical records, and came up with IQs ranging from 63 to 117 for the same person.32
In another study, Ysseldyke et al. examined the extent to which professionals were able to differentiate learning-disabled students from ordinary low achievers by examining patterns of scores on psychometric measures. Subjects were 65 school psychologists, 38 special-education teachers, and a “naive” group of 21 university students enrolled in programs unrelated to education or psychology. Provided with forms containing information on 41 test or subtest scores (including the WISC-R IQ test) of nine school-identified LD students and nine non-LD students, judges were instructed to indicate which students they believed were learning disabled and which were non-learning disabled.33
The school psychologists and special-education teachers were able to differentiate between LD students and low achievers with only 50 percent accuracy. The naive judges, who had never had more than an introductory course in education or psychology, evidenced a 75 percent hit rate.34 When Ysseldyke and Algozzine cite Scriven, they clearly show their belief that the current system is in trouble:
The pessimist says that a 12 ounce glass containing 6 ounces of drink is half empty — the optimist calls it half full. I can't say what I think the pessimist could say about research and practice in special education at this point, but I think the optimist could say that we have a wonderful opportunity to start all over!35
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Jari, This thing about high Asian IQ is just overblown. India and Pakistan--according to the IQ boys--score 81 on IQ tests. And East Asia from the Philippines downwards and Westwards does not come off looking too hot either. China--overall is below 100 and Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, etc. hardly crack 90. It's just Japan, Korea and Taiwan that exceed 100. The average Asian(both East and South) probably average just 85.
I agree, and just and FYI...I am not an advocator of I.Q, in my opinion the Asians are used by Eugnicists as a scapegoat to hide their Agenda. They know certian Asians due to their culture(Chinese for example) Come to America and are pushed to the Brink to become successful in Life. They know that the Chinese were innovators in many fields(though they don't give them all the credit)
Proponents of I.Q are Eugenicists.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your critique of the test lends credence to the test itself. Make up your mind sir. You can't have it both ways. It is either you accept or reject the test. Otherwise, you look like a blundering fool trying to rationalize the scores (which is what you are doing here.)
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Jari, This thing about high Asian IQ is just overblown. India and Pakistan--according to the IQ boys--score 81 on IQ tests. And East Asia from the Philippines downwards and Westwards does not come off looking too hot either. China--overall is below 100 and Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, etc. hardly crack 90. It's just Japan, Korea and Taiwan that exceed 100. The average Asian(both East and South) probably average just 85.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Your critique of the test lends credence to the test itself. Make up your mind sir. You can't have it both ways. It is either you accept or reject the test. Otherwise, you look like a blundering fool trying to rationalize the scores (which is what you are doing here.)
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Jari, This thing about high Asian IQ is just overblown. India and Pakistan--according to the IQ boys--score 81 on IQ tests. And East Asia from the Philippines downwards and Westwards does not come off looking too hot either. China--overall is below 100 and Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, etc. hardly crack 90. It's just Japan, Korea and Taiwan that exceed 100. The average Asian(both East and South) probably average just 85.
Why is it that the I.Q of Egyptians is 83 and A.A is 85, this means that AA are smart enough to build an Empire of Egypt.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
European contribution to modern AA admixture explain the 85 IQ. I sincerely doubt Neo African Negroes had an 85 IQ in pre-colonial America.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Why is it that the I.Q of Egyptians is 83 and A.A is 85, this means that AA are smart enough to build an Empire of Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: European contribution to modern AA admixture. I sincerely doubt Neo African Negroes had an 85 IQ in pre-colonial America.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Why is it that the I.Q of Egyptians is 83 and A.A is 85, this means that AA are smart enough to build an Empire of Egypt.
That is not what I asked, I said if AA have 85 I.Q and Egyptians 83, Do you concede AA have enough intellegence to produce an Empire like Egypt based on the score...YES OR NO...explain why or why not. Any strawman like what you just posted will result in your admission of defeat.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming there was no decrease in the Egyptian IQ from ancient to modern times, then the answer to your question is YES.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: That is not what I asked, I said if AA have 85 I.Q and Egyptians 83, Do you concede AA have enough intellegence to produce an Empire like Egypt based on the score...YES OR NO...explain why or why not. Any strawman like what you just posted will result in your admission of defeat.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Assuming there was no decrease in the Egyptian IQ from ancient to modern times, then the answer to your question is YES.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: That is not what I asked, I said if AA have 85 I.Q and Egyptians 83, Do you concede AA have enough intellegence to produce an Empire like Egypt based on the score...YES OR NO...explain why or why not. Any strawman like what you just posted will result in your admission of defeat.
So How would there be a decrease in I.Q as you contend the Modern Egyptians are the EXACT same as the ancient do you not. Typical of your constant contradictions in order to fit your ideals..
Now get off my thread bitch made peckerwood sucking fag.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
you one ignant dude. IQ can change over time. Uhhh like early humans had a lesser IQ than modern humans.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Assuming there was no decrease in the Egyptian IQ from ancient to modern times, then the answer to your question is YES.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: That is not what I asked, I said if AA have 85 I.Q and Egyptians 83, Do you concede AA have enough intellegence to produce an Empire like Egypt based on the score...YES OR NO...explain why or why not. Any strawman like what you just posted will result in your admission of defeat.
So How would there be a decrease in I.Q as you contend the Modern Egyptians are the EXACT same as the ancient do you not. Typical of your constant contradictions in order to fit your ideals..
Now get off my thread bitch made peckerwood sucking fag.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: you one ignant dude. IQ can change over time. Uhhh like early humans had a lesser IQ than modern humans.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Assuming there was no decrease in the Egyptian IQ from ancient to modern times, then the answer to your question is YES.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: That is not what I asked, I said if AA have 85 I.Q and Egyptians 83, Do you concede AA have enough intellegence to produce an Empire like Egypt based on the score...YES OR NO...explain why or why not. Any strawman like what you just posted will result in your admission of defeat.
So How would there be a decrease in I.Q as you contend the Modern Egyptians are the EXACT same as the ancient do you not. Typical of your constant contradictions in order to fit your ideals..
Now get off my thread bitch made peckerwood sucking fag.
prove this... and prove that Egyptians became dumber overtime..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
you gonna prove it afronut???
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic