Hey guys, so after our guest speaker on Thursday (H Block) I thought that I would do a little bit of recapping of our class/discussion and see what your reactions were to what we learned and discussed during the class. Although our discussion ended somewhat abruptly, feel free to respond about your reactions, thoughts, or whatever you feel is missing from my brief summary.
Our guest speaker, Milton, came to talk to us about the subject of race science and eugenics and how they have influenced how we interpret the idea of race today. Milton began by addressing the importance of thinking critically when studying eugenics and answering the question of "How does the past frame the way we think of things today?" After some introduction to the subject of eugenics, we broke up into groups of three and each read one of three different articles pertaining to eugenics. Together the articles explored the science behind the study of eugenics, the idea of "race improvement", as well as the idea of ranking humans according to race. From these articles we learned that eugenics is basically the term used to describe "race betterment". In the late 1800's the idea of "race betterment" implied finding a way to breed Europeans with Europeans to create more of the "superior race " and slowly weed out the "lesser races (Africans, Asians, Native Americans)". From our short discussion of the articles we came up with questions such as "Can science be totally objective?", "What is normal?", and "What does the environment have to do with how the data is interpreted (i.e. homogeneity vs. heterogeneity)?" We were just scraping the surface of some of these questions when class ended so hopefully Milton will be able to come to our class again so that we can continue exploring these ideas!
Feel free to respond in any way but here are some questions you can use to guide your responses:
- How has our study of eugenics influenced your interpretation of race? Has it changed?
- How is the idea of eugenics related to genocide in general?
- Are any, if at all, of the key assumptions in eugenics valid or true? How so?
- What were your reactions to Milton and the study of eugenics?
1 comment:
As we were talking with the very articulate and rad Milton I was struck by one large question: Why do we believe that evolution is right? In this question I am aware that I am making a generalization with my use of "we," but am assuming that many people in our class believe in evolution. Evolution is in fact a theory. Although there might be substantial evidence that points to it being a correct way to describe how humans came onto the earth and how they have changed throughout the years, it is only a theory. The action of evolution began to far in the past to have incontestable proof of it happening. And really, what is "incontestable proof"? Some of my fellow students were using the term evolution as if it were truth, I include myself in that category, but I have not stopped to think how can I be so sure. I am appalled by the actions of many eugenics "scientists," but can not conclude that their belief in eugenics is any less legitimate than my strong belief in evolution. I leave you with this, how can I (and many of us) be so sure that evolution is the correct way to describe humans on earth? Where can we find this incontestable information can can cement the belief in evolution?
Post a Comment