4 ms·

>“to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites White

>“to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would compete like dogs or livestock for who were the best breeding stock. It wasnt a white vs colored, it was a tall, intelligent, hard-working, disease-free, group of mostly northern europeans vs anyone short, stalky, diseased, epileptic, mentally deficient, criminal, promiscuous, obsessed with art, etc. For instance, Irish were considered a problem because they didnt work hard, were obsessed with art and music, were short, and susceptible to tuberculosis. Mind you, this is not scientific fact, this is just the nonsense they spouted at the time. They also believed in a thing called "Germplasm" which roughly translated to gene pool, but of course even today we're not exactly clear on what's genetically inheritable and what isnt. I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america. Using what they thought was superior scientific understanding of the natural world, the IQ test, birth control, the gifted student program, the use of performance metrics in school and workplaces to justify glass ceilings, firings, mass deportation, and mass sterilizations of anyone deemed deficient in any way by society. The work americans did to create a legal framework for eugenics would be borrowed by the Nazis to create their own legal framework for the deportation and final solution of the jews.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> White was also not considered a race in the 20's. Yes, it was. > There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s. > I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america. No, it wasn't. Oh, deeply disturbing it was, but it wasn't the origin of the progressive movement in America. It's true that the eugenics movement occurred within one of many (often overlapping in time) movements that took the name “progressive” in US history, but it wasn't the first, nor one historically strongly connected to any of the modern groups with the name.
- Braggadocious 7y ago
  I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong. The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. We were going to improve the human race through science, technology, and industrialization. Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research. Carnegie and Stanford created the scientific studies that would help support hundreds of new eugenics laws. UC Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, etc would teach eugenics to students. We wiped the history clean of all this during WWII, but if you do some keen wikipedia'ing, or go oldschool and read some books, it's all there for you. And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong That’s hilarious but... > The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as: > And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo. I don't think it ever happened; even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. But, no, white racists that saw the race they favored as the “white” race did not first show up in the 1960s-1970s, as evidence by the Cornerstone Speech in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens laid out his view of the central case for the Confederate cause in 1861: “...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. ...”
    - Braggadocious 7y ago
      The progressive era was between the start of the industrial revolution and the start of WWII. >even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. You are so committed to this modern liberal partisan revisionist historiography that you are willing to admit the narrative doesn't make any sense, and yet equally willing to keep at it. That's commitment. Irish, Italians, russians, and other "inferior" whites were always considered white. "White" has never and will never be the barrier to entry into this country or into the american hierarchy. Looks, charm, stature, sharpness of mind, focus on meaningful pursuits like work, not being too interested in "meaningless pursuits" like art and music. Not being promiscuous, no criminality, no epilepsy, no "feeble-mindedness" or imbecility. This is what race was about. Virginia aristocracy, the Boston Brahmins etc, were spurred on by the leading science and technology of the day, to believe these attributes were genetically inherited and "selected" by nature, which meant they could also be selected with Mendelism. We were not interested in a "white race." Since race was something you could control, we were interested in a "superior american germplasm" a genepool of the best of the best while the rest were sterilized, aborted, deported, or imprisoned in jails, asylums, or reservations. American eugenicists were interested in "building a race." A concept Hitler adopted and was quoted talking about fairly often. Racism was not white vs black. Its nowhere near that simple
lasagnaphil 7y ago
I'm currently reading about this now on Wikipedia, and holy crap this a chunk of US history that I've not looked before. It seems that the eugenic movement was fully developed in California, way before the Nazis imported it from them and used it to their advantage... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
- Braggadocious 7y ago
  California sterilized more Americans under the eugenics movement than any other state. Virginia is second. This was not a small movement. I suggest reading the book "Imbeciles" by Adam Cohen. Most historical societies downplay a lot of what happened, so you can find things on wikipedia but to get a full picture, books are better. I'm right now looking to find what exactly the eugenics curriculum was at UC Berkeley and Stanford since it was an entire area of study at many universities at the time.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> White was also not considered a race in the 20's. Yes, it was. > There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s. > I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america. No, it wasn't. Oh, deeply disturbing it was, but it wasn't the origin of the progressive movement in America. It's true that the eugenics movement occurred within one of many (often overlapping in time) movements that took the name “progressive” in US history, but it wasn't the first, nor one historically strongly connected to any of the modern groups with the name.

Braggadocious 7y ago
I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong. The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. We were going to improve the human race through science, technology, and industrialization. Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research. Carnegie and Stanford created the scientific studies that would help support hundreds of new eugenics laws. UC Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, etc would teach eugenics to students. We wiped the history clean of all this during WWII, but if you do some keen wikipedia'ing, or go oldschool and read some books, it's all there for you. And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong That’s hilarious but... > The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as: > And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo. I don't think it ever happened; even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. But, no, white racists that saw the race they favored as the “white” race did not first show up in the 1960s-1970s, as evidence by the Cornerstone Speech in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens laid out his view of the central case for the Confederate cause in 1861: “...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. ...”
  - Braggadocious 7y ago
    The progressive era was between the start of the industrial revolution and the start of WWII. >even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. You are so committed to this modern liberal partisan revisionist historiography that you are willing to admit the narrative doesn't make any sense, and yet equally willing to keep at it. That's commitment. Irish, Italians, russians, and other "inferior" whites were always considered white. "White" has never and will never be the barrier to entry into this country or into the american hierarchy. Looks, charm, stature, sharpness of mind, focus on meaningful pursuits like work, not being too interested in "meaningless pursuits" like art and music. Not being promiscuous, no criminality, no epilepsy, no "feeble-mindedness" or imbecility. This is what race was about. Virginia aristocracy, the Boston Brahmins etc, were spurred on by the leading science and technology of the day, to believe these attributes were genetically inherited and "selected" by nature, which meant they could also be selected with Mendelism. We were not interested in a "white race." Since race was something you could control, we were interested in a "superior american germplasm" a genepool of the best of the best while the rest were sterilized, aborted, deported, or imprisoned in jails, asylums, or reservations. American eugenicists were interested in "building a race." A concept Hitler adopted and was quoted talking about fairly often. Racism was not white vs black. Its nowhere near that simple

lasagnaphil 7y ago

I'm currently reading about this now on Wikipedia, and holy crap this a chunk of US history that I've not looked before. It seems that the eugenic movement was fully developed in California, way before the Nazis imported it from them and used it to their advantage... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Braggadocious 7y ago
California sterilized more Americans under the eugenics movement than any other state. Virginia is second. This was not a small movement. I suggest reading the book "Imbeciles" by Adam Cohen. Most historical societies downplay a lot of what happened, so you can find things on wikipedia but to get a full picture, books are better. I'm right now looking to find what exactly the eugenics curriculum was at UC Berkeley and Stanford since it was an entire area of study at many universities at the time.