Thursday, November 09, 2006

Journal #5 - Eugenics and Social Darwinism

During this unit on immigration and the growth in American cities, we looked a lot and discussed issues concerning the poor in America, both back then and now. Social Darwinism was used as a philosophy to justify the inequality between rich and poor before the 20th Century, and denying charity or help of any kind to the poor was seen as interference w/ natural law.

Eugenics became popular enough so that over 30 states had eugenics / sterilization laws on the books by 1935. According to some of the research out there, 70,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by 1970 for reasons like laziness, promiscuity, mental "deficencies", and the like. This way, the poor could not pass on their bad genes to their children thereby making more children. The thinking went, fewer poor people now = fewer poor children in the future.

But who gets to decide who is fit to have children and who isn't fit?

Tell me your reactions to our discussion this week about social Darwinism, eugenics, the poor, and the articles you were given. (Minimum 150 words reply please).

Feel free to discuss or react to other comments posted by students on the blog.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

When we discussed social Darwinism, eugenics, and the poor our classroom seemed very open to disucssion. I felt like this was a very important issue and everyone seemed to have their own opinion. Personally, I really enjoyed having that discussion during class. I feel that if we are able to take the time to discuss it during class then we are capable of doing more. Everyone seems intrested in helping out and we could make a huge difference in our own community. We discussed the effects of the huricanne and what it did to our own country and there are many people that are suffering right here in Michigan that need our help. The thirty of us students in just 6th hour could make a huge difference. We could brainstorm many ways to help our community and really put forth an effort. We are the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow.

Evie C.
6th Hour

Get like me said...

I understand how eugenics works, and I know for a fact that people aren’t necessarily going to be poor if there parents our poor its all on how much potential they had to achieve what they want. If someone has cancer and has a kid it doesn’t mean the kid will have cancer. So if parents are poor it doesn’t mean that the kids will be poor and if parents are rich it doesn’t mean that the kids will be rich. People had a burden of not begging able to have kids because of their bad traits it was just wrong.

If people had the knowledge back then that we do now they wouldn’t be sterilizing people for their bad traits and not sterilizing people for there good traits. Well, if I would accept the fact if they sterilized rapist, molesters etc… Taking away the great gift of giving life to an innocent person is just wrong.



Joseph Elia
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I was really shocked about social Darwinism and the theories of Eugenics. I did not know that there were that much sterilization and that there were sterilization until the 1970s and nobody knew about it. I did not know that these Eugenic theories were an inspiration to the Nazis. I think that there could be nobody who can decide whether a person is fit or not. So how can you decide if somebody is the fittest and with that somebody who can survive. Perhaps there were some people who looked fit but they did not do anything good.
I think that it is really important that we had discussed this subject during class because it is important that we know what happened in the past and that we do not make the same mistakes in the future. I think like Evie that we can make a big difference in the future. We can help if we really want to. So I am really happy about having discussed the social Darwinism and the Eugenics.

Simone G.
5th hour

Anonymous said...

This philosophy is not only a disgrace to this country’s intelligence but is morally wrong for anyone to believe in. For anyone who thinks they have the right to decide who and how many children a person wants has no justification. I can think of so many people who came from nothing and worked their way up, one, for instance is Oprah. Not only is she one of the world’s billionaires, but she’s African American. Not only has she accomplished so much, but her story of where she grew up and started with nothing is truly incredible. For anyone to have ever told her when she was young that she has no hope of ever becoming anything and might as well just die is inexplicable. Another example is one who supports this philosophy, Andrew Carnegie. He worked his way up from the bottom and then decides that he should tell the rest of the world that he’s special and that’s why it worked for him but they shouldn’t even dream of it. In my opinion, I think that the ones who came from nothing and worked their way to the top through hard work and dedication should be the ones to be glorified, not ones already born. In some cases, if children don’t like their home life, they often choose for the opposite for the rest of their lives by learning from their parents mistakes.
-Stephanie Nagel, 5th hour

Anonymous said...

Eugenics is a terrible thing to have happened in our society. If someone is having some hard times, you should help them out rather than sterilize them. Sterilizing someone is like telling them they have hit rock bottom, and the government doesn't want to have other people like them in society. This is supposed to be America, where everyone is treated equally, and everyone has an equal chance. Forced sterilization is dangerously close to what Hitler was doing during the Holocaust. Everyone here thought that was terribly wrong, so why didn’t they see the connection to Eugenics in the U.S.? The idea of Social Darwinism is “survival of the fittest.” When it is linked to Darwin’s theory of evolution, however, it is a natural process of weeding out the good traits an animal has from the bad. If an animal is poorly adapted to their surroundings, then they will die out before reproducing. When this idea is applied to humans, it is about sterilizing those who are poor or lazy, when the children of that person could have been entirely different than their parents. Laziness or being poor is not a trait that is passed from parent to child. Tons of great people have risen to greatness from low places. I remember reading that one of the great industrialists came from a poor family, but eventually became a millionaire. If his mother had been sterilized because she was poor, a great and powerful person would never have been born.

Emily Fitzgerald
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I agree to Evie that the our whole class, 6th hour with 30 people, could make a big difference in the world, by helping people. A lot of people were really interested during the discussions that we had during class. Furthermore i think it is totally wrong to sterilize people that are dumb, lazy or any other people. People thought that if people hat mental problems or were dumb or lazy, that they will get children that are dumb and lazy. Its not true at all! Or they also sterilized poor people, because they thought if poor people get kids, their kids will be poor too. I think , the only people that should be sterilized are the rapists or the molesters, since they dont do any good to other people. To conclude it was a really bad idea to sterilize people, because the english philosophy, Social Darwinism wasnt good.

Ken M

Anonymous said...

My reaction to the discussion about Social Darwinism was " Wow, America is somewhat responsible for the torture and death of many Jews in Germany". Although Eugenic testing was bad, I can see why people did it at that time. Most people did it out of curiosity to see if mental and social behavior has to do with what type of life you and your descendants will live. The one thing that they overlooked was that nobody is perfect and that to rid the world of problems, you would literally have to kill every species on the planet, and by killing and torchuring other people, is also considered a sin. They also did put into perspective that if everyone was the same, life would be pointless because you wouldnt meet anyone new. Eugenics was made to create a "Superial world" but wasnt completely thought through.

Jasmine Montgomery
5th hour

Anonymous said...

when we discussed social darwin sim, and eugenics in our classroom. I felt like that everyone had an open mind especially ryan and joe they make the disscussions we have more interesting and more of our students can participate in. If we took our open mindedness intp the world we could make a huge difference in the community and change some of the ways people do things in our community

Eric wynns 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I feel that only the people thinking about having kids should be able to decide whether or not they are fit to have children. Yes many parents probably shouldn't have kids because they don't have the time to take care of them. But, is not up to the public. I thought that the article "A Shameful Little Secret" was very interesting. I don't see how one American could do that to another. Furthermore, I feel that the ideas of Social Darwinism and Eugenics are not very good. Instead of trying to eliminate a certain group (like the poor), we should help them. Sterilizing them so that they can't have more poor kids is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. America is known as the "land of opportunity", but yet many people in the history of the United States continued to take away from that statement. I felt the discussions we had in class were very helpful in my understanding of these topics.

John Ross
6th hour

Anonymous said...

The discussion in class was really good. I do not think that I had ever heard of social Darwinism or Eugenics before so I did not know what it really was. The article that we read on the woman who was a victim of Eugenics also shocked me. How could they do that to people just because of being lazy or someone who just does not fit in the community? Why would you give the power to people to decide who should be a victim of Eugenics? That is just wrong. The sad thing is that the girl's (in the article) parents did not really know what they were doing when they signed the papers. I also agree with Evie when she said that we are capable of doing much more than just discussing the problems. We can help our community if we put forth a good effort. We can make a difference.


Brittany C.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

When we discussed social Darwinism, eugenics, and the poor everyone seemed to have their own unique opinion. I think this issue is very important and has a huge impact on our future. I agree with Evie and also really enjoyed this class discussion. Even though everyone had their own opinion everyone felt that our community should help out more. I think that one classes help could even make a difference. We discussed how celebrities donate so much of their money to other places besides the United States,and how it seems people only help when something bad happens such as hurrican Katrina. We also discussed stereo types people have against the poor and the homeless. I think that everyone can do something and help out in their own way. We should all start by donating food for Thanksgiving to the food drive that GSC put together!

Shayna Stillman
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

When we discussed Social Darwinism in class, the first thing that came to mind was the scientist Darwin that I had learned last year in Bio. But as we discussed it I came to realize that they used his idea of "survival of the fittest" and compare it to the economics of life today. We also learned about eugenics. My reaction to eugenics is that it is a mean idea that they pair certain people up to get a certain type of kid. That is just not natural. Also the article on sterilization was very hard to imagine that they actually did things of that sort just to get a trait like laziness out of the gene pool. They should have thought about the outcome in the long run.
Emily Betts
5th

Anonymous said...

When we dicussed social darwinism and eugenics in class I had differnt reactions. My reaction to social darwinism was that it was a cheap excuse for the rich to be greedy and not to help out the poor. They want to say that since the poor people don't have a lot of money that makes them weak and the rich are the strong because the have a lot of money. Because every body was so caught up in the idea of Social Darwinsim they had came up with another idea(Eugenics). Eugenics when poor people could not have sex, so that they can't make more poor babies or pass down their bad genes. I really disagree with Eugenics. I can not beleive that they would stop people from having a physical relationship which each other because they were promiscuous, mentally impair, or even lazy. Just because a person might be like that, that does not mean their children will be like that.

Myles Williams
6th hour

Anonymous said...

After discussing Social Darwinism and Eugenics it doesn't seem like there is anything to debt about. Social Darwinism wasn't too far from being right it was just taken too far back then. Obviosly people who don't try to get on there feet and make life better for themselves will never have anything to get by in life, but those who do try eventually will get some lucky breaks. I don't think we should help people who aren't going to do anything with the help we give to them but you don't know who those people are unless you at least give those people a chance in the first place. As far as I am concerned about Eugenics, it's just wrong. No one has the write to judge people and decide weather or not they can have children due to their lifestyle. As far as we as humans know we only live once, and no one should be able to tell us how to live through this one chance to make our own happiness. Live and learn for yourself.

Ian Kohler said...

When we discussed Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and the issues concerning the poor in the United Sates of America, there were many students in the class that were interested in learning about these horrifying events which happened during the 1900s. Even I found the topic we were discussing about interesting, but unusual. There are many problems with Eugenics. First of all, it is contrary to civil rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no provision as to who makes these types of choices; the basis for these choices, and there are no standards on Eugenics.
On the other hand, Social Darwinism lets natural order control things which will take far too long to achieve necessary social change. In regard to the issues concerning the poor in America, I think that the bottom line is that the government of the United States of America should give them a little job, require them to get an education, and training in a job. This in turn, will hopefully lead the poor to a better job and life.
In conclusion, I think that during the 1930s the issue of the poor was handled improperly. Unfortunately, this issue still seems to not be handled the best possible way. Today however, Eugenics and Social Darwinism is illegal. I hope these poor decisions do not continue indefinitely. As we said during class, we can make a difference to be certain that this does not happen again because "we are the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow."

Anonymous said...

Social Darwinism was just an excuse to do terrible things to people you dislike. That most likely the reason Herbert Spencer came up with this concept. He was so bigoted that he wanted an excuse to do these things without being looked down upon. As we all know, being poor has nothing to do qith personal problems. Many things cause problems. Based on the situations, the cause of a person being poor himself varies. One possibility can be society and lack of jobs. Another reason is that it may be person's fault. The person may not be able to hold a job and keeps getting fired. Social Darwinism also fired out against people of different nationalites or ethnicities. It's pmost likely that the meathod of sterilization was away of limiting the population of those people. As for people like Hitler, it is unfotunate that they actually belived in this concept. It is scary that one man's idea can destroy millions of people and their hope to have children. I am sure that many people wish everyone could bigotry behind them but there is always bigotry and that is most unfortunate. However, let us try to make the world even more so, our country a better place. Let us never follow Socail Darwinism again let us never forget the terible events that took place.

Elise Lieberman
5th hour

Anonymous said...

This week during class we were very open with one another about social darwinism, eugenicies, and especially the poor. I dont think that its up to someone else whos the most fittest to be able to survive. I dont believe that if someone is weak and they cannot be strong in their society or something, that they arent able to live because of it. Thats not right. When we discussed the poor, that's when everyone had something to say. Being poor isnt about not having money its about how you became poor. People become homeless and poor when they have a lack of jobs, drug addiction, or if theyre a run away. Mainly, i agree with what Evie Chutz has said. We can help our community if we really try to.

Rhema S.
6th hour

Anonymous said...

When we discussed Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and the poor I thought there was a bunch of really good points that were brought up. Eugenics for example is really messed up in my opinion. Laziness isn’t a trait so it wouldn’t be passed down. That is a dumb reason for someone to not be able to have kids because they are sometimes lazy. Also Promiscuity shouldn’t be a big stopper for being a reason why you can’t have kids. That whole thing of eugenics and sterilizing people is stupid in my opinion. Now on to Social Darwinism, I think that it is terrible that you weren’t allowed to help the poor just because they were poor. It’s your money and you should spend it on whatever or whoever you would like. Giving money wouldn’t hurt the natural law and there really is no natural law because nothing is really natural anymore.

Jeff Kohl
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I agree with Evie in that it was very interesting to discuss this issue so thuroughly in class. It gave us time to state our opinions freely in class, and that's a good change of pace. I was disgusted by the article about the woman who was sterilized with out knowing it. I think it is wrong to do something like that, especially since having children is one of the greatest joys in a woman's life. I do not believe in social darwinism in the fact that says that helping the poor is getting in the ways of nature. i don't think that anyone, but the person, should decide wether they are suitable to have children or not. I know a woman who has history of schizophrenia in her family so she has decided to never have children because she would never want anyone to suffer with that disorder, let alone her own child. She, on her own, decided to end her family line with her so that her children wouldn't have to suffer if they had that disorder. People should be able to make their own choices, not outsiders telling them what they can and cannot do.

Colleen Moran Hr. 6

Anonymous said...

i believe that eugenics and the poor are good subjects to learn about. eugenics was good because it showed the evolution and hereditarial history in the world. it did however have a dark side because eugenics brought along the "final Solution" to the holocaust in ww2.
the poor is a good topic because it shows how real the world can be and how america is not all it looks like. the illusion of the "land of oppurtunity..." strikes all. i think that social darwinism is the most realistic thing to business.
this is because if you cant make it through the next step in the road then you are fine but if you cant't then you are left in the dust...

August orlow 5th hour

Anonymous said...

Like what Evie stated, My 6th hour class spent a lot of time speaking and making a discusion about eugenics. We talked about how poor people are poor and how they try very hard to be more like us (meaning well off people) but are crashing under the pressure. the thought that if we as a whole eliminated people of lesser opportunity and ability would help the future was just a crime. Everyone tried to help but we were all mugsrackers because we were stating the problem. in my opinion the chances of people in my actually helping out poor people would be very slim. it is much easier to state a problem then to find a resolutuion for it. I am not gonna lie i am also like the others in my class and don't do anything to help the poor. If we as the youth of america put ours brains together and our hands we could make an impact on the world. we could change the problem of poverty and make that a problem of just the past.

Michael McDonald
6th period

Anonymous said...

When we discussed Social Darwinism and Eugenics in class I thought it was a terrible idea. The thought of pairing up people because they have “good genes” to have rich good children is horrible. The worst part is that they were sterilizing people that were lazy, promiscuous, or poor just because they thought their children would be like that. Children don’t always end up like their parent, and even if they do that is okay because not everyone is rich, and smart. It was obviously a bad idea because you saw what happened in Germany with Hitler and the Jews. He took it to a whole different level then America did but he got the idea from us. Nobody really thought about what would happen in the future, and that their actions have consciences. I hope the people who supported this idea understood that they were wrong, and I hope that nothing like this happens again.

--Claire M
5th hour

Anonymous said...

My 6th hour class had a long, but good conversation about poor people and eugenics. I feel that it was necessary because it got many opinions out about what everyone thought. The whole eugenics thing should have never become so popular, but I agree with Jasmine too. I also think that people were curious about what would happen, because society is still like that today. When some new chemical experiment is thought of, people just jump on it. I still don’t think that the government can tell people how many children they can and can’t have. But at the same time, it is the person’s decision to get the surgery done to them. Just because we have poor people in our society does not necessarily mean the child will also be poor. An example of that would be Tyler Perry. He grew up on the streets and lived out of his car, until he started to do play productions. Now look at him, he’s practically a millionaire, maybe even a billionaire. I just hope that one day people will come to realize that they just need to worry about themselves and not the rest of the world.

Eboni Bell
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

Social Darwinism and Eugenics are theories that seem blatently stupid and inmoral today, and i agree. It's just that back when the theory was thought of and the sterilization began there was major problems with poverty and crime. They had to fix the problem and this was the easiest and best solution at the time I would believe at least. So i just believe that it is horrible that this had happened but they had a choice to make and they picked one that would solve best. I liked peoples opinion seeing nobody could find ways to solve these problems and that tells me they couldnt do any better than our goverment with these problems. And really if anybody can tell me different then go ahead prove me wrong because I believe Eugenics was racist and classist but it was the only option they had to solve these problems with poverty.

Anonymous said...

After discussing Social Darwinism and eugenics, in class I could not believe that it actually happened what kind of person would have the right to make up such things and force it on people mostly woman. I believe that it is the peoples own opinion to have children it should not be anyone else’s. Who has the right to make a choice for you? I can’t believe that it lasted for such a long time, and know people do even know that it happened. It is hush hush.
Ashley Bones
5th hour

Anonymous said...

Social Darwinism and Eugenics i believe is racist and classist and sexist in nature. But they are probably the best way our goverment could solve for the major problems we had with poverty. Now, If you were in the position where you were pressured to solve poverty in the country. What would you have choosen to do? To get ride of it almost completely, now it doesn't seem so out of place to try to remove those who show things that usually meen dyou'd be poor. But that still doesn't change the fact that you cant show symptoms of being poor its not in your genetics but in your thought process. But then it just isn't enough to just kill them or sterilize them and in turn killing their children. But then that is the exact opposite of what we are doing today. By giving charity we in turn actually could fuel their mind set that they could get by on charity and welfare creating more people that live worse and are poor.

Tyler Duvendack
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

When Social Darwinism, and eugenics, and the affects on the poor were discussed, that generated many opinions as a class. The concepts were very important parts of history. These concepts were morally wrong. It gave the rich an excuse for their great success and condemned the poor for being poor. The idea of eugenics was incorrect. The character of laziness and promiscuity are not genes that can be passed on. There are many people who come from poor families and still succeed in life. Social Darwinism is also incorrect. There shouldn’t be something that is against helping the poor. In many cases it isn’t peoples fault for being poor. There can be a number of circumstances that cause people to become poor. Sometimes these circumstances are unavoidable, and no faults of the individual, such as a natural disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, or accidents that occur and cause people to be physically or mentally disabled. Should people be sterilized or looked down upon because they became victims of circumstances beyond their control? Of course not!

~Brandi B.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

On Social Darwinism and Eugenics, I believe that everything should take its course, and nothing should interfere and take over on the way that it was made to be. Sterilizing people because of race, laziness, promiscuity, mental "deficencies", or anythign else should not be allowed. This is discriminating against and is extremely stereotypical. Also, I think that the children are not always like the parents, so that this idea could be extremely useless and also so many amazing people could have been born, but the government didn’t allow it. I could have understood if Social Darwinism was just an idea and was never acted on. Also eugenics was probably taken too far. I agree with Evie when she stated that the discussion in class showed how we all thought and showed the differences in personality and showed what we could do if we put all of our heads together. So many people don’t think about others and just themselves, tpday our world is very rushed and impersonal.

-Mariah Van Ermen
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

This is an embarrassment to the United States. The fact that the government believed they had any authority to do something so awful, is mind blowing. Nothing the government can do now, will ever make up for their stupidity then. What shocks me now, is that i've never heard of this happening, it's a dirty little secret that was brushed under the rug, so to speak. Noone except the individuals inflicted can decide whether they're "worthy" to reproduce. Overall, this should never happen again. It's a mistake to be learned from.

-Chelsea R. 6th Hour

Anonymous said...

Like Michael M. stated, it is much easier to state a problem then to find a resolution for it. Just like it is much easier to feel sympathetic for the poor and not help them out. And what good does our sympathy do? Does our sympathy get them jobs? Homes? Food? NO! It doesn’t. I see many poor young, old, middle-aged people among the streets of Italy and I give them enough money so they can grab a sandwich or something nice to eat. I admit I don’t give money to every person that needs help out there but I try the best I can to help them get something nice to eat or for their family. Poor people want to get better, want to have a home, money, enough food for themselves and maybe their families. It is the way that countries and states are built, that poor people can’t get a stable or decent job. I really liked how when we were discussing Social Darwinism, eugenics and the poor how the whole class really got involved and explained their position in class and their opinions. I don’t think I’ve ever seen our class talk together about one topic for as long as that. Everyone spoke their opinions and also argued a bit with someone else. People talked about different things I never even thought about and I thought this was very successful, un-wasted time. The life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by “survival of the fittest,” in Herbert Spencer's words. Wealth was said to be a sign of natural superiority, its absence a sign of unfitness. But I strongly disagree. Some teens have been kicked out of their homes and disowned for pregnancies, etc… The point is that most of these teens didn’t want to be kicked out in the streets but because of this most of them live on the streets, poor for the rest of their lives. Sterilization laws were passed in more than half the states because of eugenics. This was a ridiculous move in my eyes. Eugenics proposes to improve humanity's future by increasing the number of children produced by persons who are, as said to be, superior and by reducing the number produced by persons who are physically or mentally deficient. Attempts to encourage larger families from superior parents are called positive eugenics, attempts to reduce the number of children from defective parents negative eugenics. This is all wrong! Have we forgotten that it is written that everyone is equal and should be treated equally?! Well, this is certainly not the way to make all people feel equal is it? It just doesn’t make sense why you would want to reduce the number of mentally and/or physically disabled people. And this plan would never work either because “superior” parents can give birth to mentally and/or physically disabled children; we cannot take Gods place and choose to match “superior” people with other “superior people, and try to reduce the number of mentally and/or physically disabled people.

-Luciana D.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe that anyone should be able to decide who is fit or unfit to have children. It is wrong to say that a couple is not allowed to have a child. A child creates his or her own future by their choices. I agree that the child is at a slight disadvantage if their parents are poor and has a slight advantage if they are rich, but regardless, a child decides what he or she is to become. Just because two people made bad decisions and wound up being poor does not mean that a life should not be born. Many of the wealthiest people today in American are “self-made” and had little or no help from their parents financially and became wealth, influential people all on their own. If this theory of eugenics was still in place in America, then I believe that the population would be less than half of what it is now because many couples are not financially capable of having a child, but do so nonetheless.

Steven H.
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

I don't believe that anyone should be able to decide who is fit or unfit to have children. It is wrong to say that a couple is not allowed to have a child. A child creates his or her own future by their choices. I agree that the child is at a slight disadvantage if their parents are poor and has a slight advantage if they are rich, but regardless, a child decides what he or she is to become. Just because two people made bad decisions and wound up being poor does not mean that a life should not be born. Many of the wealthiest people today in American are “self-made” and had little or no help from their parents financially and became wealth, influential people all on their own. If this theory of eugenics was still in place in America, then I believe that the population would be less than half of what it is now because many couples are not financially capable of having a child, but do so nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

I beleive that i know how eugenics and social Darwinism works. The class discussion we had could have had a big impact on lives if we had that discussion a long time ago. People had many different opinionated answers and all of them mad sense. If we have a problem like this in the future now we know that people can think about it and come up wit a great idea to solve that proble.


~Ralph Godette 5th~

Anonymous said...

I think that social Darwinism and the theories of Eugenics are wrong, I think this because everyone should be able to choice if they want kids or not. No one should be able to tell them they are not responsible enough to do so. Also like Mariah said “that the children are not always like the parents” this is very true, and most of the time we want to do better than our parents. Over all I think the whole Social Darwinism and theories of Eugenics are very wrong.

-Kellie H.
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think that Eugenics is morally wrong because if your parents are poor, it doesn’t mean that you are going to be as poor as them. It has always been the American dream to make more money than your previous generation. I can think of so many people that where poor when they were young and grew up to be millionaires. Two examples of this would be Tupac Shakur and Oprah. Not only did they came from poor families but also they where African Americans which according to Eugenics was inferior to Caucasian Americans. I think that instead of being sterilized, poor people should be helped by the government. Forcing sterilization is like telling someone that they are worthless to their society and that’s just wrong. The study of Eugenics eventually led to the Nazis and the Holocaust. I believe that Eugenics was a way for both the US government and after for Hitler to get rid of a specific group of people.

Bruno Rodriguez, 5th hour

Anonymous said...

When our class had a disucssion about Darwinism, eugenics, and the poor, I felt like everyone had their own opinions. With the class getting more into the debate whether or not it is the poor's fault that they are homeless, I felt like each person brought a good opinion to the discussion. I think that all of these topics can get very personal when students discuss them. I believe that everyone has their right to their own opinion but sometimes I agreed with other people instead of others. With the topic of Eugenics arising, I thought that it was such a horrible era that the United States took a part of. With sterilization testes occuring in America, it is not right to deprive someone a child. I agree with Evie with the fact that our 6th hour class could make a difference in the United States.

-Leah C.
6th Hour.

Anonymous said...

I think that the poor people in society today have the choice of having children. Eugenics should have never become popular with today's society. The discussion in our class was worth while. It was very useful and it made me realize that I could make a difference in society. I could make a difference by making a petition and trying to stop the government from having eugenics as a law. The poor people's children will not necessarily be poor, like Eboni said. As I have said already, eugenics should have never become popular in today's society.

Martia Bender
5th hour

Anonymous said...

During our discussion on social Darwinism and the theory of eugenics all I could think about is how ridiculous this was. First off all Social Darwinism is untrue because today you have all sorts of races and ethnicities that are doing well and that are rich, so right there is showing that social Darwinism is false. Now the part that bothered me the most about our discussion is the Eugenics part because I found that completley outrageous because how are you going to tell be who can or cannot have children, that’s just is wrong and terrible. Also I agree with what Joe said, I’m pretty sure that I know for a fact that just because your dad was not rich or that wealthy does not mean at all that your going to be poor, or that your parents were not that smart and didn’t grow up to be famous, great, rich doctors or something doesn’t mean that, that your not going to be. I also believe that the choice of having kids or not should only be left up to the people who are thinking about having kids. Your telling me that there are people who make the choice to through away their lives by doing drugs, and sometimes we let them, but there are people who want to choice whether or not someone can have children but don’t care about people who do drugs or what not, that’s ridiculous.
-Jordan

Anonymous said...

If someone is having bad times, you should help them out rather than just start sterilizing everyone. Sterilizing someone is like telling them they are nothing, and we dont care about them. Americans say that they are all free, and they can choose who they are and what they want, but eugenics says otherwise. Holocaust is alomost the same as eugenics. Everyone here thought that was terribly wrong, so why didn’t they see the connection to Eugenics in the U.S.? Social Darwinism is known as the “survival of the fittest.” they say that it is breeding to be the best, they do two ofthe best animals to make an offspring of a good animal.


Ryan Day
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

we talked about social Darwinism, eugenics, and the poor in are our classroom and it seemed to be ery loud , everyone yelling out. I feel like this is a very important issue and it looked like everyone felt the same.really i liked doing that in class because it opens up discussion in which uyou know i like. i feel open discussion is a good way to get everyone idea out there in the open. Everyone seems intrested in this subject and seems willing to help. The number of people in just 6th hour could make a change we just have to think of ways and put some effort in it.
Gilbert C 6th Hour

ian l said...

i agree with some of what people have been saying. yes it is bad yes it is immoael but some observations. in our past we have had verious ways of dealing with "ill" people. in the 50's if you were sick you had lobotomies. now you have aborcations. the diffrece is i geuss chiose you can choise to have those operations but sretiaizitin was not a choise

Charles Stevens 5th said...

Poor and rich are different, obviously. But no just by the economic standard. It's the mentality of the rich and the poor that are so different. When we think about the rich we think big houses and the poor no house or small. But the wealthy mind set is what can I do next to make more money and spend it. A lot of rich families are very strucutred. But at the same time some are no and the parents are busy with work that the kids can do whatever. The poor can have bad families but there are a lot with strucutre. Since there is no money, they worry about the things that metter in life such as atitude, love, work-ethic. I think as a community we can work together and solve social darwinism and change it.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion social darwanism and eugenics are completly ridiculous. Laziness is a choice that that person makes. It is their choice to be lazy. I can understand where poverty could be your fault or the goverment. But, it is not a genetic trait. If you "sterilize" a person for him being lazy or being poor it is not going to do anything. you have to either find a person and get them to make better decisions with their life or fix the government that is causing the problem. And if the adult wants the kid to have a better life he can teach them to make better decisions and make better decisions him/herself.


Chris H.
6th hour

Anonymous said...

it was a while ago, but i do remember when we had the discussion on social darwinism and eugenucs. before that discussion i really didnt know what they were, but then i figured it out. i think that the survival of the fittest theory is correct. everybody in this world is trying to make it and to survive and the strongest will win. people are willing to do anything and everything they have to do to make it in the world, and if your weak then your just going to get stepped on.
*MiKE A.*
6Th HoUr
iM ReAllY LaTE WiTh THiS OnE

Anonymous said...

When we talked abouth this subject during class, everybody wanted express their own opinions and it was great. We know that in our community, we are all different and I also know that people in our class that express their own opinion about them wanted to defend who are they, I mean how they feel about it. I think it was a great discussion because everybody with all of their opinions seems to want to help each other.