Daily Archives: October 7, 2020

October 5, 2020 | :

Indiana University is removing the name of former President David Starr Jordan from places on its Bloomington campus because of his support for eugenics, the Kokomo Tribune reported.

David Starr Jordan

IUs Board of Trustees voted 8-1 Friday to strip Jordans name from a classroom building, a garage and a creek. The Jordan River will be Campus River temporarily; Jordan Hall will be Biology Building and Jordan Parking Garage will be East Parking Garage.

The move came as a recommendation from IU President Dr. Michael McRobbie.

Jordan was an IU zoology professor before becoming president from 1885 to 1891.

Eugenics is the practice of controlled selective breeding of humans often carried out through forced sterilization, and Jordan wrote about his belief that humanity would thrive only if the fittest were promoted, reportedThe Tribune.

Jordan promoted a branch of eugenic thought known as negative eugenics, which later sought, through marriage laws, forced sterilization practices, and immigration controls, to prevent breeding among those deemed to be of unfit stock, McRobbie told the board.

Jordan later became president of Stanford University.

Read the original:

Indiana University Removes Name of Former President From Campus Sites - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

President Donald Trump recently made a reference to the controversial "racehorse theory" of human breeding, which has become a subject of scrutiny by critics as many wonder whether the Republican actually endorses it. The "racehorse theory" is an offensive and dangerous notion that selective breeding can boost a particular nation in certain ways. The controversial "racehorse theory," infamously practiced by the Nazis when they massacred millions of Jews, involves selective breeding and eugenics. The theory, which was initially used for horses and breeding, was later used to justify the selective breeding of humans. The unfounded theory espouses that human race can be made better by selective breeding, a claim which has been widely discredited.

Trump, on September 18, the night Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, made a campaign appearance in Bemidji, Minnesota, and made an alarming reference to eugenics and the racehorse theory. "You have good genes, you know that right? the president said to a nearly all-white crowd. A lot of it is about the genes, isnt it? Dont you believe? The racehorse theory, Trump said. You think were so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."

Author of 'NeuroTribes', Steve Silberman, also slammed Trump's reference to the theory, likening it to the Nazis. Silberman tweeted: "As a historian who has written about the Holocaust, I'll say bluntly: This is indistinguishable from the Nazi rhetoric that led to Jews, disabled people, LGBTQ, Romani and others being exterminated. This is America 2020. This is where the GOP has taken us."

As a historian who has written about the Holocaust, I'll say bluntly: This is indistinguishable from the Nazi rhetoric that led to Jews, disabled people, LGBTQ, Romani and others being exterminated. This is America 2020. This is where the GOP has taken us. https://t.co/CHMLg804mp

President Trump also appeared to make a reference to eugenics during the first 2020 presidential debate against his political rival, Democratic nominee Joe Biden on September 29. Trump told Biden: "You could never have done the job we did. You dont have it in your blood."

The Republican has also referred to the "racehorse theory" before he won the presidency. Trump, while talking to CNN's Larry King in 2007, had said: "You can absolutely be taught things. Absolutely. You can get a lot better. But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes. And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot."

This is not the first time Trump's reference to eugenics has come under the scanner and has been analyzed. The Republican's biographer, Michael D'Antonio, the author of 'The Truth About Trump', had previously stated that the Trump family has a "very deep attraction" to eugenics. D'Antonio, while talking to Rolling Stone, had said: "The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development, that they believe that there are superior people, and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get superior offspring."

President Trump, who contracted the novel coronavirus last week, came back to the White House from the Walter Reed Medical Center on Monday, October 5. However, he is still believed to be infectious and received widespread backlash for removing his mask when he returned to the White House, and urged Americans to not to fear the COVID-19 disease that has killed over 209,000 people in the country.

Read the original:

Has Trump endorsed 'racehorse theory'? POTUS likely a believer in controversial notion about 'superior people' - MEAWW

[Editors Note: This is Part 1 in a four-part series on disability and horror.]

Watching horror films is a disabling experience, Angela M. Smith, Associate Professor of English and Gender Studies for the University of Utah and author of the book Hideous Progeny: Disability, Eugenics, and Classic Horror Cinema, said. Its a controlled encounter with discomfort, with the vulnerability of our minds and bodies to images and suggestions that opens us to unwilled transformations.

The horror film revels in the world of deformity and grotesqueness and, to a disabled viewer, that can be confusing in how relatable it is. For many, to be disabled is also to look different, so how does a person with a disability approach the horror genre when the presented thing to fear is themselves?

Smith said people werent ready for Freaks in the 1930s, and shes absolutely correct. Freaks, for better and worse, remains one of the only U.S. features to have a predominately disabled cast despite being released 88 years ago. Directed by Dracula helmer Tod Browning, Freaks tells the story of a circus troupe and what happens when they discover that little person Hans (Harry Earles) is being poisoned and duped by the able-bodied Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova).

RelatedRelated

Freaks, weirdly enough, feels like an authentic horror feature. Even now, the majority of films see able-bodied actors portraying disability that, coupled with able-bodied screenwriters and directors, presents a tableau of disability an imitation. Freaks is the story of a close-knit family, a group of outcasts who support and love each other.

I want to be part of that community, Salome Chasnoff, director of the documentary on disability in horror, Code of the Freaks said to IndieWire. I love the affection and commitment they have to each other. I want to live in a world where people are that committed to me.

Much of this comes from the fact that Browning himself was a part of a traveling circus in his youth. He saw the disabled people that commonly populated what were then called freak shows and wanted to find a way to pay tribute to them. So when star Earles brought up to Browning that he should adapt the short story Spurs by Tod Robbins, the director made MGM buy it for Browning to direct. The basic tenets of the story in Spurs remain, namely the relationship between Hans and Cleopatra, but Browning and a series of directors worked to create a depiction that, at the time, presented the circus performers as people.

Everett Collection (freaks1932-fsct08)

And that warmth is found in snatches throughout Freaks. Outside of the community Chasnoff refers to, there are various storylines showing the day-to-day world of these performers. Frances OConner, who has no arms, is seen casually eating with her feet while performer Prince Randian, known as The Living Torso, rolls a cigarette with his mouth. These scenes, presented so matter-of-factly, display disability as normal. What looks unconventional to an able-bodied person is basic and unspectacular. In these scenes Browning tries to destigmatize the disabled and remind them, in 1932, that theyre people.

Its one of the few films where we can see our disabled ancestors before they were excised from the movies, Carrie Sandhal, Associate Professor in the Department of Disability and Human Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago said. We got to see them as actors as well as people.

For many disabled people who grew up without others like them, Freaks became a gateway feature to champion. The shooting process was difficult, unaided by the fact that the circus performers were forced to eat outside the MGM commissary, due to complaints from the studios stars about seeing them. And once the film was finished, head of production Irving Thalberg was not happy with what he saw. Test screenings were rumored to have audiences fleeing the theater. One woman allegedly threatened to sue MGM because the sight of the disabled actors on-screen caused her to have a miscarriage. Its unclear whether much of this was created by MGM itself in order to better sell Freaks as a horror feature.

Regardless, the studio immediately excised 30 minutes out of the movie, much of which were scenes showing the circus performers in a positive light. Its a classic film tragedy that still stings today, especially for disabled performers like Adam Pearson who believe Freaks is a masterpiece.

Its so unfortunate that half of it is on the cutting room floor, he said. It got completely bastardized and diluted by the studio.

After further cuts, many of which are now lost, the feature was transformed into a horror movie aimed at able-bodied audiences. Reviews were negative and Freaks was a box office bomb. Not only did it effectively end Brownings career as a director, many of the able-bodied actors were blacklisted. The actors with disabilities, like the conjoined twins Daisy and Violet Hilton, were left purely making features that treated them as the freaks MGM wanted them to be.

Courtesy Everett Collection

As Smith lays out, the way Freaks turned out was par for the course in 1930s cinema. As she explained, eugenics was a huge element of not just horror films at the time but within society.

There wasa [belief] in external appearance as something thatcould reveal inner pathology, she said. So visible disability or difference was interpreted as a sign of this inner deviance, which was also interpreted in terms of immorality and criminality.

That theme is seen in 1930s features such as Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but its not so clear-cut in Freaks.

In the 1930s, audiences didnt want to confront difference and accept human variability, and so they condemned Freaks, Smith said.

The characters arent aesthetically conventional, but for over half the movie we see them as kind-hearted, normal people. In fact, the irony Browning presents is that for all of Cleopatras beauty she is so cold-hearted that shes willing to kill Hans for his money. The film languished for several decades until the 1960s when it was embraced by the counterculture as an example of oppression, injustice, and rebellion. And within the last few decades the movie has been the subject of fierce discussion by disabled advocates, critics, and movie lovers about whether its genius or exploitative.

It definitely exploits the sensationalistic thrills of the freak show, presenting these bodies as deviant and threatening, but only after it shows us that these performers are quite ordinary people, driven to defend themselves against supposedly normal individuals who prey on and harm them, Smith said.

But it also forces the viewer, more able-bodied than not, to confront the nature of difference and realize how we view those who are different, and disability by extension, has more to do with societal norms and our prejudices than the person themselves.

[Tod Browning] was a huckster. He had come from exploitation, Tommy Heffron, film and video artist and an Assistant Professorin the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications at Hampton University, said. But for all of Brownings hucksterism, Heffron said the director still created empathy in his characters while simultaneously making a film so shocking it was banned in England for 32 years. More importantly, for Heffron especially, the fact that audiences are still talking about it 88 years later speaks volumes. Its something Pearson seconds, especially factoring in that it remains the only U.S. film to have a predominately disabled cast.

Freaks is divisive, its dated, but its also groundbreaking, entertaining, and frustrating. Have we necessarily improved when it comes to disability in horror? The answer is uncertain. But this Halloween season it might be worth diving deeper into the world of horror to find out the disability narratives underneath.

Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.

See the rest here:

Freaks Is the Granddaddy of Disabled Horror, for Better and Worse - IndieWire

News broke last week of an official complaint filed against immigration officials alleging a pattern of hysterectomies without informed consent on women from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Georgia. Dawn Wooten, the nurse who blew the whistle on the allegations of abuse, and who legal advocacy groups filed the complaint on her behalf, had worked at the privately-operated Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia, for three years. During that time, she alleged multiple hysterectomies were performed on Spanish-speaking immigrants, many of whom said they did not understand the procedure. ICE has denied the claims, the doctor accused of performing the procedures has denied the claims through attorneys, and the hospital where the procedures would have taken place, said it only has records showing that two hysterectomies were performed on those in immigration custody since 2017, according to the Washington Post.

While the cruelty of the allegations came as a shock to many, coerced sterilization is not unprecedented in the broader history of reproductive injustice and violence against people considered "undesirable" in the United Statesoften disabled and indigenous people, people of color, and immigrants.

Racism has been part and parcel of American reproductive healthcare from its beginning. J. Marion Sims, the man known as the "father of modern gynecology," exemplifies this. Sims garnered acclaim for groundbreaking gynecological surgical techniques that he perfected after performing dozens of experimental surgeries on enslaved Black women in Montgomery, Alabama, beginning in 1845. Sims operated on Black women without anesthesia, even though he used it during surgeries on white patients during the period. Sims's decision to operate on Black women without anesthesia went beyond a lack of care for the women; it was tied to pernicious assumptions that Black people were not susceptible to pain. "There was a belief at the time that Black people did not feel pain in the same way," explained Vanessa Northington Gamble, a physician and professor of medical humanities, in an interview with NPR in 2018. "Their pain was ignored," Gamble says. Baseless theories like these continue to inform modern medicine in measurable ways. Racial biases and false beliefs are associated with Black patients receiving less pain medication for broken bones and cancer than white patients, according to research published in 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences.

A generation after Sims built his career on the backs of Black women, the eugenics movement was growing popular in the United States. With it, States began to pass laws mandating compulsory sterilization for specific populations. The state of Indiana is widely considered to have adopted the world's first eugenic sterilization law in 1907, and similar laws were later adopted in 31 other states across the country during the 20th century. The target populations of these laws were defined in legal or pseudo-medical terms"imbeciles," the "feeble-minded"but the laws were deployed in ways that disproportionately victimized poor women and women of color.

Rather than pushing back on eugenic policies during the progressive era that ensued, physicians, legislators, and social reformers further legitimized their prejudiced pseudo-medical norms. American magnates like the Carnegie Foundation and John D. Rockefeller shelled out to fund projects at the Eugenics Record Office, a private research institute that openly supported sterilization as a solution to what it called "defective and delinquent classes of the community." In 1927, when the constitutional legality of compulsory sterilization was questioned in Buck v Bell, the Supreme Court also affirmed that permitting compulsory sterilization of "those who are manifestly unfit" did not violate the constitutional rights of those persons, by a vote of eight to one. Carrie Buck, the plaintiff, was classified at the time as "feeble-minded," but as has been noted, it was actually societal prejudice that earned her this unclear label. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who authored the majority opinion in Buck v Bell, went so far as to claim that compulsory sterilization policies were "better for all the world." Rhetoric like this that framed eugenic sterilization as a positive public health strategy helped ensure the longevity and widespread impact of shameful coerced sterilization policies across the country.

Read more here:

History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States - Teen Vogue

Post Views: 385

Are we Nazi Germany? This is the incredulous response when people hear that an American detention facility has been accused of performing nonconsensual hysterectomies the surgical removal of the uterus on women. Because of the terror associated with Hitlers reign, people tend to connect any extreme systemic violence to that period of history. While it is certainly true that the human rights violations of Nazi Germany were abhorrent, there is just as much violent oppression throughout American history. In fact, the sterilization of women of color has been a huge problem in the United States since the 19th century. The sterilizations that took place at Irwin County Detention Center do not constitute a terrible exception; instead, such occurrences are the norm.

America is a country with a deeply racist past, built through the labor of slaves. While chattel slavery is the most obviously violent form that racism has taken throughout Americas history, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) have faced oppression in a multitude of ways throughout the decades.

Often undergirding the rationale for racist oppression is eugenics, the belief that reproduction should be encouraged in certain desirable groups and discouraged in other undesirable groups. Of course, desirable, in most cases, refers to white, particularly white upper-class people. On the other hand, undesirable generally refers to people of color. Essentially, eugenics calls for the population of people of color to be reduced or at the very least not increased by any means necessary.

Even before the term eugenics was commonly known, plantation owners during American slavery controlled the reproductive lives of their female slaves. Enslaved women were often beaten to the point of infertility, and those who did carry out successful pregnancies were often separated from their children. As the field of eugenics became more popular, doctors and scientists tried different methods to discourage certain groups from reproducing while encouraging others.

In the early to mid 1900s, they frequently blocked upper-class white women from accessing birth control or voluntary hysterectomies, due to their desirable genetics. Around the same time, large numbers of Black women who visited hospitals left without their reproductive organs intact. These women almost never gave consent to the procedure, and were often not even notified that it was happening. After coming to the hospital for routine checkups or minor emergencies, hundreds of women left confused and irreparably harmed by doctors who were supposed to care for them.

According to the whistleblowers report, the women at the Irwin County Detention Center reacted in much the same way when asked about what had happened to them: confused and hurt. Many of the women at the facility visited an outside gynecologist who performed hysterectomies even when the womens medical issues did not call for the surgery. One woman explained that she went into the gynecologists office to have a cyst removed, but he performed a hysterectomy and she left without her uterus.

The gynecologist sterilized women at the facility in other ways as well. One section of the report describes the predicament of a woman who was scheduled to have her left ovary removed, but the gynecologist removed the right one mistakenly. He then went back in to correct the mistake by removing the left one. By the end of her time in the gynecologists office, she was infertile. Whether by medical incompetence or intentional harm, the gynecologist destroyed her reproductive future. At the time of the report, he had become so notorious among the women of the detention center for his sterilizations that he had been nicknamed the uterus collector.

In the world of medicine, patients must be fully informed about what a procedure entails before they can consent to it. As written in the report, the women who visited the gynecologist often expressed that they did not understand why they needed a hysterectomy. In the case of the first woman described above, she went in for a cyst removal and yet received a hysterectomy. Her doctors were not clear with regard to what procedure she needed and why. These women did not and could not have given proper informed consent.

If such gross negligence occurred at a hospital in a predominantly white, upper-class neighborhood, there would be severe and swift consequences for the doctors involved. Yet the Irwin County Detention Centers gynecologist was permitted to continue practicing. Presumably, he was allowed to mistreat these women and perform these sterilizations because, as immigrants and women of color, they are undesirable. Essentially, the Irwin County Detention Center facilitated the practice of eugenics by preventing women of color from reproducing.

There is no doubt that the information coming from the Irwin County Detention Center is disturbing and horrifying. However, it is important to note that none of the atrocities detailed in the report are new or different from what has been happening all over America for centuries. In the last 100 years alone, tens of thousands of Black, Latina and Indigenous women have endured forcible sterilizations because people in power do not believe that they should be able to reproduce. The actions of the gynecologist at the Irwin County facility are not a blip, or an exception; they are part of a long pattern in the history of eugenics. Yet, perhaps the outrage that people are demonstrating in reaction to the whistleblowers report of the detention center sterilizations is exactly what is needed; it is, above all, vital that those fighting for justice never become numb to the racist atrocities of America.

Go here to read the rest:

The ICE Detention Facility Sterilizations Are Nothing New in US History - Study Breaks

Patrick Henry, Times columnist Published 5:01 p.m. CT Oct. 2, 2020

On Sept. 18, Donald Trump was in Bemidji,153 miles from here, but we were on his mind.

"From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Rochester to Duluth, and from Minneapolis, thank God we still have Minneapolis, to right here, right here with all of you great people, this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong."

Standard political oratory salute the audience with the narrative they like to tell about themselves (though thank God we still have Minneapolis refers back to his preposterous claim, earlier in the speech,that if Joe Biden wins, people will be saying of that city, It used to be over there. Its all ashes now).

Patrick Henry(Photo: Times photo)

But Trump didnt stop there. What he said next was not just a dog whistle, but as one commentator has noted, a train whistle.

You have good genes. You know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of its about the genes, isnt it? Dont you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. (The voice recognition software at rev.com, where the transcription of the speech can be found, misheard and produced resource theory. In the video of the speech its perfectly clear: racehorse.)

The audience at Bemidji Aviation Services was overwhelmingly white. Standing right behind Trump were people who are looking for our votes: Rep. Tom Emmer, for CD6;Michelle Fischbach, for CD7;Jason Lewis, for U.S. Senate. When the president made his genes remark, all three of them smiled approvingly and Fischbach applauded while grinning.

Earlier in the speech Trump had detonated his usual blast at recent arrivals to Minnesota. Dripping with sarcasm, he said, Lots of luck. Youre having a good time with the refugees. He then, of course, singled out Somalis.

By the time he got to genes, his meaning couldnt have been more evident. Its white people who are tough and strong, who deserve to build a better life for themselves and for their families. People of color are a threat.

Do we believe in the gene thing? I mean, I do, Trump is on tape saying on another occasion. And he also said this: "All men are created equal. Well, it's not true. Because some are smart; some aren't."

Youd think that conservative Americans, who pledge allegiance to the Founders, would recoil from such a blatant contradiction of a central theme of the Declaration of Independence.

Of course some people are smarter than others, but Thomas Jeffersons point is that in all matters of public policy, everyone is on an equal footing. IQ has nothing nothing to do with it.

Donald Trumps adherence to eugenics the racehorse theory of breeding for people is among the scariest of his authoritarian inclinations. We need to be wary of it the way Germans needed to be wary in the early 1930s. Its not just that You [white Minnesotans] have good genes. Its the clear implication that other peoples genes are bad, which easily slips over into dangerous meaning such people must be kept out, deported, eliminated one way or another.

Trumps gene theory, which grounds his admiration for the pioneers who braved the wilderness and the winters, spills over into his convictions about education.

He has recently condemned the New York Times 1619 Project, which brings into focus the central role of slavery in American history. He proposes withholding federal funding from California until it jettisons the 1619 Project from school curricula. He has decried what he calls ideological poison, that if not removed will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together,and has said that under his plan, Our youth will be taught to love America with all of their heart and all of their soul.

To say that the only way youth will love America with all of their heart and all of their soul is to be taught exclusively about the good things the good genes did to be Minnesota specific: overlooking the decimation of Native peoples; forgetting the Duluth lynching; disregarding the research of St. Cloud State professor Christopher Lehman in Slaverys Reach: Southern Slaveholders and the North Star State is to treat youth (and those of us no longer young, too) with condescension and contempt. The civic bonds that tie us together are threatened far more by Trumps 20,000+ documented lies than by the truth about our history.

Recent Times interviews with local candidates were instructive, but the questions thrown were mostly Wiffle Balls. Given Trumps total takeover of the GOP, every Republican candidate at every level, state and federal, must be asked on the record Do you endorse or repudiate Donald Trumps racehorse theory? There is no middle ground.

This is the opinion of Patrick Henry, retired executive director of the Collegeville Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research and author of the forthcoming Flashes of Grace: 33 Encounters with God. His column is published the first Sunday of the month.

Read or Share this story: https://www.sctimes.com/story/opinion/2020/10/02/trumps-racehorse-theory-divisive-and-dangerous/5886373002/

Continue reading here:

Trump's 'racehorse theory' is divisive and dangerous - SC Times