How tens of thousands of women were sterilized against their will, in the freest country in the world, in the name of racial purity.
More than a century ago, Alexander Graham Bell stood before the National Academy of Sciences and proposed that deaf couples should not be allowed to have children. His main claim was that deaf couples have a higher than normal chance of giving birth to hearing-impaired children. It is doubtful whether he himself realized what a Pandora's box he had opened, but anyone with eyes open to the future could see the potential slippery slope in such a proposal. Bell's proposal was met with thunderous applause from the audience - pure white gentlemen, most of them.
It is difficult to know what the scope of Bell's intention was. As a kind person who worked a lot with deaf children and observed the problems they encountered, he surely wanted to prevent unnecessary suffering, and reduce the chance of deaf children being born. But his proposal formed the basis for the sterilization laws imposed on the residents of the United States in the first half of the twentieth century.
Contrary to the long-standing American tradition, it was not only African Americans and immigrants who were discriminated against. The model of the law, as proposed by the eugenics registry office, permitted the forced sterilization of the 'unfit' - those people who are a burden on society. The law included people who were "feeble-minded, insane, prone to crime or epilepsy, drunkards, sick, deaf, blind, deformed, and supported," including "orphans, orphans, prostitutes, the homeless, and the destitute."
In 1924, the forced sterilization law was passed in the state of Virginia, based on the model proposed by the ministry. The first person to undergo sterilization in Virginia was Carrie Buck, a young single mother, only seventeen years old. Her mother was a permanent resident of an insane asylum in Virginia, and the law officials determined that the mother's insanity would also be inherited by the daughter. As the first person to be sterilized in Virginia, Carrie was put on a show trial - a modern witch trial - designed to justify the new law.
Prosecutors called various character witnesses who testified about the flawed nature of Carrie and her mother. The colony's superintendent, Dr. Albert Freedy, testified that Carey's mother had, "a past of immorality, prostitution, unreliability, and syphilis." In general, he did not see the Buck family in a favorable light, and believed that, "These people belong to the class of anti-social southern whites, who are pleasant and moody, ignorant, and worthless."
The eugenics registration office also sent its representatives to the trial. A sociologist and a Red Cross nurse individually examined Carrie's youngest daughter, and determined that she was "below average" and "not quite normal." Considering these facts, and after an appeal to the Supreme Court which was rejected, Carrie Buck was sentenced not to bear children again and was executed immediately.
Almost sixty years later, in an in-depth investigation, the comprehensive legal distortion in the trial was revealed. Some of the character witnesses have never met Carey. The defense attorney and the attorney cooperated in trying to enforce the law in Virginia. Carrie herself was not 'tainted with immorality and fornication', as she was accused, but was raped by her adopted nephew.
Last but not least - Kari's daughter, who was diagnosed as a 'below average' baby - was by all accounts a regular student at school, receiving scores ranging from eighty to one hundred in most subjects. She was included in the list of outstanding students of the institution, until her death from a childhood illness, when she was eight years old.
Carrie Buck - the antisocial, ignorant and worthless woman - was admitted to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Remyencephalics after her sterilization, but was released after a short time. She married and remained married for 25 years, until her husband's death. According to all her acquaintances, including researchers she visited over the years, she was a completely normal woman, who read newspapers and solved crossword puzzles every day. After her husband's death, she spent the rest of her life in the company of her sister, Doris, who was unknowingly miscarried during medical anesthesia, and never understood why she was unable to have children.
Bell may have been motivated by the desire to reduce human suffering, but the result was monstrous in its dimensions. Over 64,000 Americans were sterilized against their will, and some even without their knowledge. Like Doris, many women came to hospitals to receive routine treatment, or even to give birth to their children, and left the gates of the institution without knowing the fate that was imposed on them at the hands of the caring doctor they trusted. The main criterion the doctors relied on in these cases was, quite simply, the color of the skin. Native American and African-American women's bodies were abandoned, under the protection of the law, which robbed them of their unborn children.
A dozen years after Carrie's forced sterilization, and several thousand other sterilizations in the state of Virginia, the eugenics registry was given a dubious honor. Harry Laughlin, the member of the office that proposed the model for the forced sterilization law that was passed in many countries, received an honorary degree from the University of Heidelberg, as evidence of his blessed work in the "Science of Racial Purification". Indeed, his work provided the legal basis for the sterilization of over 350,000 people in Germany, even before the outbreak of World War II.
The return to sanity began in 1942, with the determination of the Supreme Court that there was a moral flaw in sterilization imposed on habitual criminals. Until that point, the law allowed the reproductive organs of criminals convicted of blue-collar crimes only, such as robbery and murder, but denied the sterilization of criminals repeatedly convicted of white-collar crimes - such as accepting bribes and appointing relatives.
The court ruled unanimously, that the forced sterilization law is not equal for all citizens, and it must be constantly monitored. Under these conditions, we would expect the supporters of forced sterilization to agree to generalize the law to white collar crimes as well, out of their vision for the betterment of humanity. But the policy makers - the politicians - opposed this idea, and their reasons are reserved with them.
Only after World War II and the publication of the horrors of the Holocaust, public opinion in the United States changed its direction. The forced sterilization laws gradually and slowly disappeared. In the state of Oregon, the last forced sterilization occurred in 1981, and the eugenics office (or in its new name, the social protection office), was closed two years later.
In many countries, public apologies were made by the governors for their part in the sterilizations, but all alike refused to offer compensation to the sterilized. The popular claim is that only a few have remained alive since those years, and their descendants have nothing to speak of, for obvious reasons.
The case of the forced sterilizations forces us to take a direct look at the law and justice, and to recognize that they are not always fair and sane, and will forever be tainted by the mindset of the public and the opinion of the generation. But we must also criticize ourselves, and always make sure that the horrors of the past do not repeat themselves. Carrie Buck's most natural right, side by side with the rights of thousands of other human beings, was usurped in the witch trials of the twentieth century.
Who will give and won't come back again.
51 תגובות
Itzik:
Although you didn't explain anything about your relationship to religion, of course that shouldn't stop you from writing no matter how much you explain and all. Of course I, for my part, don't have to listen to nonsense.
By the way - did I say something about your attitude to religion? Why did you even think it was appropriate to write about it - just because you didn't find any error in the things I did say?
As mentioned - science did not lead people to any action and whoever did something "in the name of science" is a clear example of the meaning of the phrase "blasphemy" because it is not possible to do something in the name of someone who is not at all interested in what is being done by whom.
The tendency to treat science with all kinds of accusations of the kind you treat it with mainly exists among religious people. They - at least - have a reason to do this because science shows that their entire lives are based on a lie. what is your motivation
It reminds me of a story about a cannibal who comes to Europe and hears about the millions of people killed in World War II.
He asks his hosts: "What is this? Who eats so many people?" And when his haughty hosts tell him that "we don't eat humans" then he asks in bewilderment: "So what? Did you just kill them?".
That's why I ask you - so what? Are you just making up false stories about science and you don't even have a purpose in doing so?
I did not try to discredit any science in the name of any religion. Apparently, Michael, no matter how inmate, there will be people who will not understand.
Science, as you said, is nothing more than a very defined set of rules for defining investigation, theory, experiments and essays that gives a certain way to those who follow its path to understand the world.
Of course, a rifle is also nothing more than a few metal parts and a spring, and a prison is nothing more than a few rooms and bars, and the torture machines that you see in all kinds of crazy movies about medieval dungeons are nothing more than a few ropes and trees (and maybe a bolt).
But just as humans invented all these for their own benefit, the laws of science were also invented by humans for their own benefit, and the laws of religion were also invented by humans for their own benefit.
I am not in favor of any religion and I am not against skepticism and empirical experiments. I am against the sanctification of science as a religion and treating any other religion as a religious war...
No more than a set of rules... but the things done in the name of science... oh oh...
Indeed - I also alluded to this in the last sentence of this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/bermuda-tringle-240305/#comment-183374
Allow me, gentlemen, to remind you of the story of "Paradise",
Which in my opinion expresses, in the most ideological, direct and clear way, the relation of religion to science.
Well what is the same ratio?
The innocent believers are guaranteed eternal life, while the secular, the intellectuals - death.
But that's not all.
The "idea" is presented in the story as an "original sin", i.e., an act that is done and cannot be undone. When a person ate from the "tree of knowledge" he also bequeathed for all his descendants, for generations, to be "people of knowledge". This, in my understanding, means "raising a white flag" and surrendering religion in its ideological struggle against science.
Itzik:
You have indeed proved that it is possible to explain endlessly and there will always be someone who will not understand.
I will explain for the thousandth time:
Science does not tell people what to do. He doesn't even tell them to be scientists. He does not tell them what to do with the discoveries, nor does he command them to investigate this or that and refrain from investigating other things.
Science only outlines the way of investigation (and I won't go back and detail it here. There is a limit to every trick).
Therefore, it was not science that decided to use the atomic bomb, nor was it the one that decided to develop it in the first place. Capish?
Science has also not decided to investigate evolution (the same theory on which you base racism, you only prove that you have no green idea what it is).
All the exercises to discredit science will not help you at all because you will not be able to put a stain on it.
Of course, there is nothing to talk about that even if you managed to confuse people by discrediting science, it would not purify the creep of religion in any way.
To say that science is pure and all its actions are in the name of science (something recursive?) is... Not accurate.
It's like saying "so what if the United States government spent billions of shekels on research and development of the atomic bomb, they didn't have to use it"
To remind you, the people who invented the atom - stayed there all that time when they knew what its cruel results were.
Equally you can say "so what if Darwin tried to find a scientific justification for racism for many years? That does not mean that in the name of his research people should be exterminated"
Hi, just the other day I read a fascinating article about the technological development in the coming years. The same scientist who wrote the article, his eyes sparkled when he described with such excitement that in the future it will be possible to choose your children and make a selection for them and even improve them genetically. How wonderful would that be? As he wrote a paragraph later "It will advance us towards the creation of a superior human race!" I'm sure he didn't mean to exterminate Jews when he said that, in the name of science....
Science, from a historical point of view, is always there in the interest of the time. and always serves her. It was not for nothing that Darwin invented his theory during the Renaissance and not, say, in the Middle Ages. It's not just that there was no sterilization of blacks during slavery. (There were other show trials - all in the name of science)
loyalty? Isn't this the one who salutes the flag every morning? If you are not like that - you will end up in a dungeon!
There is a basis for this, look at where the population is exploding today when instead of improving the standard of living we are struggling to survive not far from animals (although there are several countries in Europe that have caught the trend and also closed immigration)
You cannot educate people and expect them to be able to behave positively for themselves statistically because statistically we are stupid.
Why is there AIDS, tuberculosis, herpes, and all this shit?
The danger in mass stupidity is the empowerment of evil who will use them to make money and fame. (IE the corporations, totalitarian regimes, etc.)
to me:
You are welcome to contact the Language Academy and suggest that they add the words det and mada to the dictionary.
I don't think anyone will use them, but a place in the dictionary doesn't cost much.
People don't tell you in the name of science to brush your teeth.
They tell you that not brushing your teeth leads to the development of tooth decay and you are still free to do as you please with this information.
You're telling me that if I don't agree to call a secular person who doesn't observe a religious mitzvot then it will derail the debate, but you should know that I don't care at all to derail the debate. At all - the debate does not interest me; I'm only interested in understanding what benefits us and what harms us.
By the way, factually, those secularists who believe in God actually do act under the influence of their faith by legitimizing some of the injustices committed by others who are ostensibly acting according to religious laws.
Scientists do not behave badly in the name of science. Some tell you to brush your teeth in his name.
Even rabbis who behave badly is not a problem, but those who invent mitzvot on the right and the left are.
Among the secular public there are many people who believe in God (or another being), but do not follow these or other mitzvot, you can argue that it is not a religion, because it does not tell you what to do, but that will derail the debate. If you define religion as "one that calls you to do things in its name" and science as "one that does not make you do things in its name" then okay, religion and science are not the same thing.
But if you think a little further, then let's define "det" as something that tells you to do something "in the name of the supreme being that the religion believes in" and "meda" as something that tells you to do things "in the name of the discovery that the contact just made", so "det" and "meda" not so different from each other.
I guess the main thing is that there are many people who call you to do things in the name of science, although you got used to doing it, and it seems very logical to you, but even to a religious person it seems very logical what he does.
By the way, an interesting fact is that in Hebrew, the word "religion" also expresses "law" (remember the phrase "one religion..."?).
This clearly expresses the fact that every religion - more than it is related to faith, it is related to a system of laws (and of course we are not talking about the "laws" of physics here, but about laws of behavior).
Every second article in science is dragged into science religion debates 🙂
to me:
It's just not true.
Scientists can also be bad drivers and that does not make their driving part of the scientific enterprise.
If there are scientists who work in the name of some religion and cause harm to others - this does not belong to science either.
Science - by definition - does not call for any activity, including no harmful activity.
That's why I repeat - all attempts to attribute wrongdoing to science are a deliberate distortion of reality.
I also allow myself to claim that in most cases these claims are made from religious motives in terms of "the wrongdoer is wrong" or "the hat burns on the thief's head".
In my words about religion, I also made it clear that I really don't care what someone's general definition of the word "religion" is, as long as they agree with me that the existing religions are all ones that call for activity - including harmful activity.
If you want to define as a religion also what Roy described as a belief that does not call for activity, it does seem to me to be ineffective because there is no such religion in the world, but it has no importance because it does not diminish the guilt of the religions that exist in the world.
Michael, I understand your arguments
The problem is that, as you mentioned, "this is my personal definition in general"
By "people make use of religion" I was completely referring to all those commentators who exist in all religions, who use it to control the laity.
In the same way, there are also scientists (add quotation marks as you wish) who, in the name of science, tell you what is good and what is true, and some of them do this in a sufficiently convincing (?manipulative?) way to, again, control the actions of the other laymen (others, I don't know...).
In this respect, I quite agree with Roy in "both science and religion can be pure in themselves". And in both cases there are the commentators ({rabbis, priests...}, {scientists, professors, interns...}) with the aim of controlling people's actions. (Brushing your teeth twice a day, and putting on tefillin are probably not really different from each other).
This calls to me by the way, a few days ago I saw a program (E-8) about the atheists in the USA, and that it breathed new life into this movement. And I got the impression that among the movement there is a kind of worship towards her, and about her making a pilgrimage to her grave, etc.. and I felt like they had created a new religion. It's a little strange to me, but I really called this discussion.
And just to complete the picture - if we have already entered the definition of religion - in my opinion - any indoctrination of humans to act out of faith that is not based on critical thought is religion - even if it is not based on God.
In this sense - Nazism was also a religion and the crimes of the Nazis not only were not the crimes of science but they are added to the endless list of the crimes of religion.
By the way - in continuation of what I said about Shai's response - I tried to understand what really led him to write the disgusting collection of slanders that he wrote in response 32.
My conclusion is that he wrote this only because in response 4 I dared to disagree with his opinion.
Some people do it to them.
Roy:
If we have already talked about it, then I must have said that an ethereal belief that there are no actions derived from it is not a religion.
This is my personal definition in general, but even if we do not enter into the definition of the term "religion" in general - it is still clear that neither Judaism, nor Christianity, nor Islam, and probably not the religions of the East either - are not religions of "aerial faith that does not affect a person's actions"
gift,
Regardless of the response style, Michael is, in my opinion, one of the only ones who really reads all the messages in the forum, thinks about them deeply and responds accordingly. He is far from being a spammer, as you claim.
Michael,
I think we've already had this discussion, but it's worth noting that both science and religion can be pure in themselves (absolute logic, as opposed to ethereal faith that doesn't affect a person's actions), and both can be corrupted through human institutions.
to me:
You have a fundamental error in the interpretation of the scientific enterprise and in the interpretation of religion (yes - religion!)
The scientific enterprise is designed to discover the truth. There is nothing in it that resembles a "mitzvah" that tells people how to act except the "mitzvah" to test the hypotheses experimentally and draw conclusions through logic.
Therefore, science cannot be blamed at all for the actions of people - whatever they may be.
More than that - by placing in front of the people a final arbiter in the form of nature who can decide any meaningful question about the truth - he instills in them honesty and humility.
Religion, on the other hand, actually tells people what to do.
Generally it is not true to claim that people make use of religion but on the contrary - religion makes use of people.
Of course this is not accurate because religion itself has no desires but it is used by a minority group (the religious establishment) as a tool through which that establishment makes use of people.
Therefore, it is safe to say that in most interactions between a person and a religion - it is the religion that makes use of the person.
This fact is of course also known to the terrorists who, in order to train suicide terrorists, wash their minds through religion.
In short, as mentioned, my words are completely accurate.
gift:
dandruff
To Michael and Ethan:
The argument regarding the "covering of his name" by science through no fault of his own... is a problematic argument.
Reminds me a bit of the well-known argument:
There are no religious criminals. Whoever transgresses does not fulfill the religious mitzvot, therefore he is not religious M.S.L.
which is often heard by the geniuses of this generation and others who think that only in the secular public there are criminals.
What to do, even in science you can make the same cynical use that is made in religion.
gift
Michael actually writes well here, even if I don't agree with everything.
Sarcasm is often intended to show people how stupid their opinions are
It is to what extent the things they wrote here from their "expertise" on the subject, are debunked.
This is something that is very necessary in response to scientific articles, that anyone can come and respond in a very foolish way.
Your attack on him, on the other hand, includes many components that are not related to anything at all ("Or he is just a bored and lifeless pensioner" for example) and mainly indicate a strange kind of anger you feel towards him. And not at all related to the content of his comments and their form.
Michael is a professional spammer
Responds with bites to all comments without writing anything down
And I think there is something that is interested in reading them
More interesting is how much time he spends a day on these spam messages
Does he get paid for it?
Or is he just a bored and lifeless pensioner
I personally do not support eugenics but do not see anything wrong with denying people the ability to have children under certain conditions.
Protecting the basic rights of people is a good and correct slogan, but we must think carefully about the basic rights of which people do we prefer to protect?
Is it about the right of a mother (regardless of her socioeconomic status) who has already brought one child into the world (and managed to destroy him with abuse and neglect) or about the right of her children who have not yet been born and who will most likely receive the same treatment.
Is it the right of the father with Down syndrome who is barely able to take care of himself and make decisions regarding his bank account let alone raise a child (and who is actually raised by the same team of caregivers who "raise" his father) (the fact that people with Down syndrome are infertile is not relevant since the argument in it to illustrate a claim).
Are the human rights of a mother who wants to have 8 more children in order to gain publicity but lacks any means or ability to raise them (and who has already proven it) greater than the human rights of those 8 children?
Of course, the cases that justify this step in my opinion are very limited and it will be a last step taken by a responsible company after all other steps (psychological and other assistance) have been found.
Like anything man-made, this idea can also be abused (and eugenics is a good example of this) if it is a society that is willing to sentence its citizens to life imprisonment or an indefinite psychiatric hospitalization in order to protect society (and many times for much less "noble" reasons such as revenge ) can also learn to use this means in an effective, measured, supervised and responsible way which will help to maintain human rights and will serve as the voice of those people who do not yet have the opportunity to speak.
Thank you Roy - this is an interesting and important article. Eugenics is a subject that interests me personally and I am always happy to read more about it. On that occasion, I mention the book "Factory for Geniuses" which tells the strange but true story of a sperm bank that was established on the basis of the theory of eugenics and was supposed to contain sperm donations from Nobel Prize winners, successful athletes and other "quality" people, when the goal was to improve the human race.
At the time I wrote a short article about the book, about eugenics and how genetic engineering might bring eugenics back in the back door:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/ViewEntry.asp?EntryId=843085
I also agree with Eyal that such things must be taught in schools. It is strange that 12 years of study go by and eugenics is not referred to even in one word, and on the other hand there are many other scientific and historical topics that are not referred to unfortunately, so it is not really surprising...
Roy:
Although I said this to Gillian in a response that she ignored, but the very act of attaching the tag eugenics (in fact you wrote eugenics) to the article places it in the right context and even allows for an expansion on the subject.
I don't think there was any truth to her claim.
Nadav, you are a fascist of the worst kind. "Loyalty to the country" is one of the ugliest and most evil slogans invented in the history of this unfortunate country, perhaps together with "a real Israeli does not dodge". It's hard to explain to people with no conscience and minimal understanding of human rights what's wrong with these kinds of proposals...but I'll somehow try.
Sterilization is a denial of one of the basic human rights, and an injury to the most precious asset we have - our bodies. Not everyone even supports the sterilization of rapists or pedophiles, because it is a very serious violation of human rights that even in such cases it is not clear from which it is a proper act. If the sterilization of criminals of this type is justified, then it is because of the blatant harm they have done to other people, and this is intended to protect potential victims, there is a violation of moral values, etc...
But "loyalty to the country"? what the hell is this?! It's a meaningless airy concept with a very strong fascist flavor. Is he who does not like the prime minister disloyal to the country? (You will get a positive answer in countries like North Korea for example...). Or maybe someone who doesn't want to serve in the army? (And we have already deteriorated to the point where we condemn people who are not willing to risk their safety for the "state", in the tradition of fascism). The new mutation invented by Lieberman and Co. is that disloyalty is someone who does not agree with the oxymoron "democratic Jewish state". People who want to live in an egalitarian country for all its citizens will answer, they have no right to hold citizenship.
One last thing, what is the connection between sterilization and political loyalty? Why don't we cut off their right hand for example, or take out their eye...? Why sterilization? Or is it because people who are disloyal to the country pass on genes of disloyalty to their offspring?
A citizen who violates the laws of the state (among other things, participates in acts of terrorism and hostility, or a spy for someone's benefit, etc.) is sentenced to prison for such and such a period, the punishment exists anyway, why do we need the whole "loyalty" thing? The citizen owes nothing to the state except to uphold the law and pay taxes (and in fascist countries he is also obliged to serve in the army...), and certainly not "loyalty".
Gillian,
A. Witch trials is a meaningful term in itself, and it does not necessarily mean a trial or witches (just as an anteater is neither a bear nor ants). In the witch trials of the 17th and 18th centuries, innocent people fell victim to hearsay, unfounded scientific ideas (for example, that the witch could link her life force to the victim's) and miscarriages of justice on the part of the authorities.
Since a similar thing happened in terms of the issue of forced sterilization, I believe the term 'witch trials' is appropriate here.
B. I mentioned that these are 64,000 cases of forced sterilization, in the name of racial purity. 64,000 forced sterilizations are not 'spot cases in the USA'.
As for eugenics, I did not explain the concept or the movement in depth, and I may have had to dwell more on this point, but I don't see how from here you arrive at 'passing false information'.
L 23 I hope you speak in the language of Segi Nahor as long as the citizen is loyal there is no right to uproot even if he thinks differently than you.
Roy - I will be happy to explain, and I will try to summarize:
A. The definition "witch trials" in my opinion already distorts the whole issue, it is not about trials or witches, nor about a "witch hunt", it is about a movement with a certain (and obviously distorted) worldview that has a decisive influence.
B. The whole issue of eugenics (or racial purity if you wish) - does not receive the proper emphasis and the correct meaning, it is implied from the article as if these are specific cases in the USA, which it is not.
I hope I managed to make my point clear.
Excellent article
The kind of subjects that should be taught in school
Because it's too late at university...
It's all a question of timing and conformism
The story with Carrie and her daughter
There are humans who managed to take Darwin's theory of evolution and try to adapt it to humans
And it's quite simple to mobilize the theory
But as in nature, the very fact that to this day there are millions of types of animals and some kind of food chain exists, this is the magic of the balance in nature
If they were all monkeys of one kind, the situation would be very serious
The problem is that there are many people who fail to internalize the fact that there are differences between people, despite the common basic logic of the property of all of us
And when little people start comparing people, terrible conclusions happen
What is surprising is that Bell, the inventor of the telephone of all, also claimed the difficulties of the deaf in the future
Since he was convinced and addicted to his invention, he could not see those deaf people getting along in the future without the telephone, which is absurd
If we can say that today many of them use third generation technology to talk
Anyone who doesn't think like me should be sterilized
Raanan and Nadav,
Michael tried to explain to you (in response 21) that not everything the majority thinks is necessarily what is right.
Of course, even if the majority of people were in favor of sterilizing disloyal people in Israel (thank God that is not the case) this would not be done. (inhuman, legal, democratic)
And if this fact annoys you, you may choose one of our neighboring countries where the situation is perhaps a little more in line with your worldview (although even in Iran Jews are not being sterilized yet...)
Not if we implement Nadav's recommendation...
Nadav:
And as you know, thanks to demographics, in a few years the majority will be ultra-Orthodox or Arab.
There are also those who define a loyalist to a country (which country) as someone who carries out terrorist attacks... so what? I mean the definition of loyalty to the country that is accepted by the majority.
single-minded:
The nickname is the result of a number of impersonation attempts in the framework of which several people who did not find a logical way to deal with word-of-mouth arguments.
This happened several times under the name Michael, but since there are other Michaels as well, it was not correct to accuse everyone who identified as Michael.
So I chose this nickname that, on the one hand, anyone who uses it except me is surely an impostor and therefore deserves every insult, and on the other hand, it allows a reference to history.
I don't like people changing their nickname because this behavior usually involves dishonest intentions (either to make an impression on many people or to free yourself from the image you created for yourself in your comments). That's why I chose a nickname that betrays the previous nickname so that no one can accuse me of such things.
The letter R is simply the first letter of my family name - Rothschild.
To Michael R. ,
Curiosity urges me.
Michael R. (formerly Michael) ???
What crown does she have for R. The other one who pushed the previous Michael into the bars (brackets)?
And why mention again and again your "dark" past?
Sorry for the nosy - and luckily I'm not really the cat out of curiosity..
Amazing that in 1981 they still performed such sterilization.
The issue is related to a close and much more burning issue today - genetic information as a consideration in terminating a pregnancy, including the issue of family planning. For example, there was criticism of the eighth born recently after they did not dilute the embryos, which brings many risks to the safety of the embryos and their integrity and health if they survive, and it becomes clear that the mother will not be able to take care of the children, added to the many she already had.
For example, the question that will only worsen with the improvement of genetic knowledge - what types of defects justify abortion? I am not at all directed at the religious issue, but at social considerations in general.
In my opinion, this issue may lead to "racial cleansing" much more dramatically than has already been done throughout history.
Nadav:
As mentioned - anyone can define loyalty according to his definition of the essence of the state.
There are those who will define as disloyal the settlers of the hills who sing "Advise and sew" and their rabbis who condemn democracy and the rule of any law that is not the law of the Torah. A call that challenges every element of the human rights convention to which Israel is a signatory.
volunteer,
You are on the right track. One or two more in-depth thoughts and you will come to the clear conclusion that it is a waste to invest in sterilization - money, hospitalization time, etc.
destroy.
And it's a shame to invest in morality and humanity.
Shamelessly - Sha the flag.
I just hope it will be a procession of one.
Hope - but not sure...
Gillian,
Thanks for the review, but the article mentions several times the fact that it is the beginning of the twentieth century, and even more detailed dates are indicated (1924 - the sterilization law passes in Virginia, etc.). The connection to eugenics is also mentioned.
I would appreciate it if you could explain what in the article causes the 'transmission of incorrect information', so that I can correct it if necessary.
The fact that there are citizens of a certain origin who do not carry any security burden and are a security threat in themselves on the one hand and on the other hand burden the public purse is not just my opinion but a fact that is beyond any doubt. And that they think the others are the ones who are unfaithful is just funny, reminiscent of the bully who complains that the victim kicked him in the leg with his nose... reverse gutta...
Acupuncture:
Ok.
So you told us in so many words that you are a misanthrope.
By the way, it is not clear to me from your words if you think New Age is a good thing.
Nadav:
It's shocking to think that you propose to sterilize people who you think are disloyal to the country.
It is possible, by the way, that according to some, it is you who are not loyal to the state.
Gillian:
The first thing written in her letter is that it began more than a century ago.
The word eugenics is mentioned in the tags of the article.
What else did you want?
Man is a particularly cruel animal.
He is cruel to the environment, to other animals and no less to himself.
Apparently this evil to exterminate is part of what brought about his success
Ultimately as a winning breed.
If not cruelty then aggressiveness. For us Israelis, at least the aggressiveness is extroverted
In Europe and America, aggressiveness is repelled and bubbling under the surface.
I doubt the waves of New Age-style openness, spirituality and globalization
can repel hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
It's shocking to think that just because someone or even her mother was mentally unstable and engaged in an unconventional profession they were sterilized, but it's important to remember that there are situations in which there is justification for sterilizing people, for example, in my opinion, it is desirable that citizens who are disloyal to the state receive such adequate treatment, because it is impossible for a democracy to allow the existence of of a process that endangers the very democracy itself, a process such as disloyalty, etc. We have already seen what happened in Europe when the Nazis grew out of democracy.
It is not about "witch trials" at all, it is about what is called "eugenics" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) and in a movement that started in the USA as early as last century (and by the way exists to this very day) - the article, which does not mention either of the two, is very flawed because it rips the whole issue out of context in a way that causes the distortion of reality and the transfer of false information.
I wrote my response at the same time as Eitan and of course I did not mean to claim that Eitan is wrong, but that Shishi and Isaiah are wrong.
You're both wrong:
It is true that the systems of law, justice and morality need to be perfected, but the blame for the acts of insanity in question is not the fault of science and tying his name to a phenomenon that is equivalent to tying the name of the inventor of the hammer to murders committed with a hammer.
Isaiah Abed Hashem:
Anything without ethics and morals can be a rampaging monster.
There is no connection between science and the actions mentioned in the article, it is possible that the name of science was used without justification.
There are more serious problems that require attention (even today) such as religion without ethics and morals, millions of people were killed in the name of religion, and even today the killing continues because of and in the name of religion.
We Jews have also killed entire nations in the name of religion!
Commentator Yishai is right, in my humble opinion. Along with the progress of science, moral thinking must be perfected and developed and give correct, fair, just and humane answers to all the ethical problems that the development of science creates. Science without ethics and morality is nothing more than a raging monster.
This is not about witch trials, witchcraft and religion
Those in the laws of science and race (Darwin's evolution)
In simple words, domesticating people
For the sake of racial purity, about 50 million people died in World War II
To this day, science abuses monkeys because they are inferior
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3681969,00.html