Daily Archives: July 10, 2017

STEVENS POINT If youre looking for some light summer reading, dont pick up Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck.

Author Adam Cohen treats the humorless subject with appropriate seriousness in his 2016 book as he explores the American eugenics movement and bogus science that supported it in the early 20th century. Eugenics supporters preached that the improvement of the human species was best achieved by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable.

We took it much further in the first four decades of the last century, using eugenic science to seek to eliminate through sterilization undesirables like epileptics and those labeled through bogus testing morons, idiots and imbeciles. These included poor people, those labeled sexual perverts, alcoholics, criminals and just about anyone else deemed to be capable of passing on undesirable traits. Eugenics supporters took it a step further, too, successfully limiting the immigration of undesirables such as Jews and Italians.

If it all sounds a bit like Nazi Germany, it should. The U.S. eugenics movement inspired the Nazis on their brutal racial purification journey, as author Cohen points out. And if it sounds a bit like some of the nationalistic fervor racing across the U.S. today, there are some unfortunate parallels, he notes.

A major difference between then and now is that progressives and conservatives alike embraced eugenics the last time around, if for different reasons. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt believed sterilization and other eugenic activities would prevent unfit people from breeding and saw it as part of efforts to improve the lot of the majority of Americans. Conservatives were drawn to it in the belief that there was a natural elite, and that differences among people couldnt be eradicated by improving their environment.

The story of Carrie Buck is one of a young Virginia woman institutionalized in one of the states institutions for the feeble-minded. Using bogus science to establish she was a low-grade moron, eugenicists used her case to test the legality of their sterilization law. Her mother was labeled similarly with the same test, as was her infant daughter, born after Buck was raped. The case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, where justices ruled 8-1 that the law was legal. None other than the revered Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion, proclaiming among other things: Three generations of imbeciles are enough. It apparently didnt matter to Holmes that Buck was labeled a moron, a less feeble-minded category than imbecile.

His ruling set the stage for tens of thousands of state-sponsored sterilizations across the country, most of them women.

Wisconsin has its own eugenic history. Lutz Kaelber, a historical sociologist at the University of Vermont and on the faculty committee of the Miller Center for Holocaust Studies, writes that of more than 1,800 recorded sterilizations in Wisconsin, almost 80 percent were women. This started in 1913, when the state passed its first sterilization law, and continued until 1963. Sterilizations increased dramatically after the Supreme Court ruling. Criminals, insane, feeble-minded, and epileptics were the chosen, he reports. All of this was facilitated by state law, with many of the procedures carried out at the Wisconsin Home for the Feeble-Minded in Chippewa Falls, now known as the Northern Wisconsin Center for the Developmentally Disabled.

It was progressives, dominant in Wisconsin politics at the time, who pushed the concept in the Legislature and Wisconsin's public arena, notes Kaelber.

All of this was a long time ago, so there is no need to be concerned today, right? Maybe we should be. For one thing, the Supreme Court ruling was never overturned. Public sentiment, led by the Catholic Church, turned states away from sterilization, but it is still technically legal in some cases.

Sterilization wasn't the only method used by proponents of eugenics. The desire to "improve" humankind fueled anti-immigration sentiment, and since Jews were among those considered undesirable, many thousands were turned away during the Nazi years. Todays anti-immigrant sentiment carries some of the same prejudices and dangers.

And while mass sterilization doesnt seem likely again soon, does denying medical care to the least among us amount to a 21st-century version of eugenics?

Bill Berry of Stevens Point writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times. billnick@charter.net

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Read this article:

Bill Berry: Eugenics not a proud aspect of American history | Column ... - Madison.com

Dorothy Canfield Fisher. Photo courtesy of Manchester Historical Society

(This story is by Cherise Madigan, of the Bennington Banner, in which it first appeared.)

Dorothy Canfield Fisher was a prolific local writer, and her namesake rests at various institutions in Arlington today including Fisher Elementary School. In 1957 a Vermont childrens literacy program was established in the authors honor, and the Dorothy Canfield Fisher Book Award has recognized outstanding childrens writers over the last 60 years.

Fishers reputation has been questioned in recent weeks, as Essex educator and artist Judy Dow has led the fight for the removal of Fishers name from the award. Dow, who has both French Canadian and Abenaki roots, claims that Fisher not only stereotyped French Canadians and Native Americans in her extensive works, but played an active role in the eugenics movement.

In an address to the Vermont Department of Libraries in April, Dow presented evidence of Fishers ties to Vermonts eugenics movement and argued for the removal of Fishers name from the award.

The reason I started this was because our children are our most precious gift, said Dow. To name an award for a childrens book after someone who was a eugenicist is so wrong.

Now, the decision rests with State Librarian Scott Murphy, who will hear a recommendation from the Board of Libraries on July 11 and make a final decision thereafter.

Its a touchy situation and its really hard to look at these issues with our current morals and values and to judge history based on that, said Murphy. Im trying to get as much input as I possibly can from citizens before I make any decision. I have to be very careful to make sure we are taking the proper steps for Vermont.

The allegations of Fishers eugenicist entanglements stand in stark contrast to the authors identity as an accomplished writer and social activist, promoting adult education programs and prison reform alongside her organization of World War I relief efforts. Fisher was honored as one of the 10 most influential women in the United States by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, a trailblazer in her own right.

Though Fisher made valuable contributions to society and literature, her ties to Vermonts eugenics movement raise questions. While some argue that her involvement was tangential, others claim Fisher was more deeply involved.

The Vermont eugenics movement, led by University of Vermont professor Henry F. Perkins, insisted upon the reality of a racial hierarchy in which degenerate classes of people including Vermonts French Canadian population, native peoples including the Abenaki, and African-Americans were doomed by heredity. These degenerates, Perkins insisted, posed a threat to Vermonts way of life and cultural identity in an era when a declining population and economic stagnation topped the list of challenges faced by the state.

She was a progressive, but it was the progressive party that was running the eugenics program, said Dow. She was a product of the time, and the product of the time was eugenics.

The eugenics movement resulted in the creation of the Vermont Eugenics Survey, running from 1925 to 1936, as well as the formation of the affiliated Vermont Commission on Country Life.

The VCCL was created by Perkins in 1928 to provide a comprehensive survey of the rural regions of the state, with the Eugenics Survey at its center and core. Fisher was among the more than 70 individuals recruited to contribute to chapters of the organizations 1931 publication, Rural Vermont: A Program for the Future. In this survey, contributors were charged with answering the question, What is happening to the old Vermont Stock?

Fisher was most heavily involved in VCCLs Committee on Tradition and Ideals, focusing heavily on increasing the number of tourists and second home owners in Vermont. In 1932, just one year after a sterilization law sponsored by Perkins and the Eugenics Survey was passed by Vermonts Legislature (through which at least 250 feeble minded Vermonters were sterilized between 1933 and 1960, according to the Department of Health), Fisher accepted a position on the commissions executive committee.

It is not surprising that a writer from an earlier time might have beliefs and opinions that we now condemn, said state Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington. This is not just evidence of prejudice: The possible connection to the eugenics movement that had unjust and tragic consequences is of concern.

Many of Fishers writings contain problematic racial stereotypes that may have been a byproduct of her era, though many of Dows critics argue that authors should not be judged by their fictitious works. It is not certain that all of Fishers representations are pure works of fiction, however.

Dorothy Canfield Fishers book Bonfire was based on a study the Eugenics Survey of Vermont did on Sandgate, said Dow. You can go through the report and pull out the names, and match the names used in Bonfire to the names in the report.

A 1928 study by the Vermont Eugenics Survey titled Key Families in Rural Vermont Towns, featured Sandgate as an example of rural degeneracy. Indeed, many of the names mentioned in the Town Gossip section of the report can be found in Fishers novel Bonfire, which is set in a fictionalized Vermont town entrenched in poverty and populated primarily by French Canadians and French Indians. In Bonfire, residents of this community are depicted as primitive, and irresponsible sub-normals. At one point, a character is described as half-hound, half-hunter, all Injun.

Outside of her fictional works, Fisher was the author of a state tourism pamphlet produced by the VCCL which aimed to recruit superior, interesting families of cultivation and good breeding. Additionally, in a 1941 commencement address, Fisher praised the residents of Manchester for taking in the nomadic Icy Palmer, a Tuscarora Indian abandoned at a local sugarhouse in 1924. Though her intentions seem valiant, Fisher denies in the address that Vermont was home to any measure of ugly racial hatred and oppression, while insisting that no Native American populations ever found a true home in the state.

I am, of course, deeply disturbed by the allegations concerning Dorothy Canfield Fisher. We always hope that those we honor have an honorable past, but almost always they do not, said Melissa Klick, a native Vermonter with both French Canadian and Abenaki heritage, and the owner of the Icy Palmer Candle Co. Icy Palmers funeral was not allowed to be held in a church, and she bowed to white people as they passed; she was assisted but not socially accepted by the Manchester community.

While a heated debate rages on whether Fishers name should remain on the book award, Murphy will ultimately rely on the feedback of Vermonts residents and libraries to decide the issue.

The whole point of this award is childrens literacy, and if this name is going to deny a certain group of people that involvement, then thats significant. Theres somebody thats feeling pain, and Im cognizant of that, said Murphy. On the opposite side is the idea that judging history by todays point of view can be dangerous, and can sometimes do more harm than good.

Regardless, Fishers complex history has opened the door for a meaningful dialogue on Vermonts troubling history with eugenics.

I feel we must use historiography to keep examining our past to improve our understanding of the future, said Klik. Lets move forward to make sure that the ignorance that shaped Canfields prejudices no longer has a place in Vermont, nor any other corner of America.

We change everything thats outdated as time goes on, so why wouldnt we change this if its offensive? said Dow. Its time that the oppressor listens to the stories of those that were oppressed, and thats a good start.

Link:

Author under scrutiny for long-ago ties to eugenics - vtdigger.org

Author Dorothy Canfield Fisher.

(Jon Margolis writes political columns for VTDigger.)

Some of her novels and stories were about children, and she was obviously writing those for young people. No wonder, then, that Vermont librarians call their best-kids-book-of-the-year prize the Dorothy Canfield Fisher (or just the DCF) award.

Fisher was also politically active, and her politics were decidedly left of center. Eleanor Roosevelt admired her. The daughter and granddaughter of fierce abolitionists, Fisher devoted much of her professional life to combating intolerance, bigotry and authoritarianism, in the words of a 1997 article in the Journal of the Vermont Historical Society by historian Hal Goldman. In 1943 she urged Gov. William Wills to try to persuade Vermont resorts to drop their policy of being restricted, the euphemism for no Jews allowed.

Now comes a request to the state librarian that he drop Fishers name from the annual award because she was a racist.

Specifically, in the view of Abenaki educator Judy Dow, of Essex Junction, Fisher stereotyped Abenaki and French Canadians in her fiction and was part of the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s that sought to sterilize those considered degenerate or feeble-minded.

The second of these allegations is complicated, not because there is anything complicated about Vermonts eugenics initiative it was a truly shameful episode but because it is not clear that Fisher played any part in it, or even that she thought it was a good idea. Goldman, who is an adjunct professor of history and a provosts teaching fellow at Minnesotas Carleton College, said he found the evidence of the ties between Fisher and the eugenics movement very attenuated.

Thats academic for weak.

But there is nothing complicated about the charge that Fishers novels and short stories display negative views of racial or ethnic minorities. That charge is nonsense.

Fiction is fiction. Characters in fiction speak as those characters, not as their author. If a character in Fishers novel Bonfire describes another as half-hound, half-hunter, all Injun, thats how that character at that time and in that place would talk. If in Seasoned Timber a bigoted headmaster scorns a students awful Jewish mother, well, thats how bigoted Vermont headmasters talked back then.

Considering that starting in 1939 a steady stream of Jewish refugees from Hitlers Germany found refuge with Fisher and her husband in Arlington (this from Ida H. Washingtons biography of Fisher, published by New England Press in 1982), the headmaster clearly was not reflecting the views of his creator.

The task of a fiction writer is to portray the world as it is, not as the writer would like it to be. Any effort to discern a writers opinions through the words of his or her fictional characters is worse than foolish; it misconstrues the purpose of literature. It is barbaric.

So was the Vermont eugenics movement, which ended up sterilizing an unknown number of people, disproportionately Abenaki or French Canadian. Patients consented to the operations, but often that consent was the only way they could be released from prison.

Fisher was not part of the eugenics operation. It is not certain that she supported it. The worst that can be said about her with any confidence is that it is not certain she did not support it.

Perhaps she was a bit of a snob. She wanted Vermont to attract those who earn a living preferably by the trained use of their brains, rather than those who buy or sell material objects or handle money.

Well, la di da, and no wonder some suspect she might have harbored bigoted thoughts. But there is no reason that an Abenaki, a French Canadian, a Hutu or an Eskimo cant earn a living with the trained use of his or her brain, and no grounds for concluding that Fisher thought otherwise.

Removing Fishers name from the award would do little harm. She was hardly a giant of 20th century American literature a la Hemingway, Faulkner or her friend Willa Cather (and lets not inquire too deeply about some of their ethnic prejudices). Though someone checked her most famous book, Understood Betsy out of Burlingtons Fletcher Free Library just two months ago, most of todays teens and preteens dont read her and know her name only because of the award.

But that doesnt answer the question of whether changing the name of the award would do any good, beyond easing the sensitivities of those who care about it.

Needless to say, this anti-Dorothy flap has to be viewed in the context of other efforts to remove the names and symbols of people and causes once admired, now scorned.

Some of this has been beneficial. The Confederate States of America and its leaders and symbols should not be honored. Their secession was the greatest act of treason ever committed against the United States, and it was motivated (this is beyond debate because the traitors said so at the time) by a belief in slavery and white supremacy.

But not much about the past including its flaws is that clear-cut, and it might be wise to guard against the temptation to go out in search of new dragons to slay.

Especially dragons as unthreatening as Dorothy Canfield Fisher appears to be.

The rest is here:

Margolis: Fact and Dorothy Canfield Fisher's fiction - vtdigger.org