Out of the Pile - Eugenics and North Carolina

Tonight I spent a few hours after work sitting on my tail and sorting through piles and piles of school paperwork. I have stacks of completed assignments, essays, research papers, and more that have been stacked up waiting for me to figure out what I should do with them. Quite a few of them are probably going to be posted here over time so that other people can read them, but I suspect most will be thrown away. While I was combing through the pile, I found this little gem. It is a copy of a pamphlet produced by the North Carolinian state government back in the 1950s. I did some research a few years ago on eugenics in the United States after I discovered the subject and jumped down that rabbit hole of awfulness for a few months. I still struggle to understand why this happened so many years ago, but why is still happening *now* in areas of our country. There are not only people still living who are dealing with the trauma of their involuntary sterilizations from the 1950s, but today some medical providers also use their position of power to force sterilizations onto women in their charge- in prisons, on reservations, or in hospitals. I found myself looking over this pamphlet and thinking of our current political situation and I can't help but wince. I am also bothered by the fact that so many people who believe in eugenics are also Christian and can worship and practice their faith and see no friction between Christian ideology and eugenics... whereas I can't see that eugenics can ever fit into any true Christian faith journey.

Without further ado, here is the pamphlet in its entirety. I will spend the rest of my evening continuing to shuffle through the copious quantity of paperwork at my disposal. I wonder what else I will find...

Here are links to previous blogposts on the subject: One, Two, Three.

"Primary Colors" and the Blurring of Vision

When the book first came out in 1996 by Anonymous, I was really not interested in reading it and I pretty much felt the same way when the movie came out. I had a gut feeling about both the movie and book that is a little convoluted, but came down to three thoughts; I don't really like films that seem solely political or are heavily about politics, I didn't want to watch a 'slam' movie about the Clintons even if I wasn't one of their biggest fans, and I felt like it would just be a waste of time. So I didn't think about it and the world moved on....

So... second week in class and I'm sitting watching another movie I had no interest in except that I had been intrigued by the movie clips shown in my first week of class so I was hopeful that I would learn something and have fun this time... and I did. I was really affected by the film - both emotionally and intellectually. I didn't sleep for several hours afterwards because I really needed to digest the feelings and thoughts it provoked. After much contemplation, I decided to write about the largest emotional paradox that I found when watching and analyzing this film.

This film gave a reporter's viewpoint....or a 'loose' biography about President Bill Clinton's first primary election and some of the challenges he faced: political, personal, and moral. These ideas were portrayed through characters named Jack and Susan Stanton.

Susan - "It's four in the morning- let's just tell the truth"

The underlying emotional theme that I felt throughout the film was how much all of us, and especially me, live in a paradox when we are politically active. To be informed and to try and make informed decisions, a person usually does some research, talks with friends and family, reads or listens to the candidates and their views... and then we hopefully make our choices on the ballot based on what we think is right for us, our neighbors and community, and what our moral and intelligent self believes to be the right choices for all. However, while we do all this, most of us understand that what we are told, read, hear in ads, etc... is not only biased, but sometimes not the least bit true. We know this, instinctively and intellectually... and yet we make our choices based on these 'truths' that we know to be wrong, biased or at least not totally truthful; or factual.

Henry - "I want to believe it."
"I'll take the liar"

So why do we make the choices that we do? Why do we believe any of it... why do we know about the paradox and yet yield and participate in it?

Libby - “...Without them, I'm dark and black and cold and dead and empty and airless for eternity....”

And that pretty much says it all. Inside all of us - we want to believe and we all want to feel a connection to greatness... or what we think is greatness. We want to believe in the person, in what they say, in their promises for better things. As proof of that we rarely elect the moral, truthful person. We understand and expect the phoniness of politics and our politicians. We see the bad, the ugly and we compartmentalize it in our minds and view the thoughts separately if we are still willing to give the person a chance. I'm loath to admit it, but charisma, acting, and good looks with a lot of money still go pretty far in this country...especially in both the professions of acting/theater and politics. In many ways they are bred of the same cloth and that is easily evidenced by some of our politicians - Reagan or Schwarzenegger to name two.

I have believed for many years that real politicians are true 'shape shifters' or maybe benign 'boggarts' (from Harry Potter.) They can make us feel good and right and cared for even as they do things that horrify and sicken us. We accept the worst in them that we wouldn't accept in ourselves or most others. This film brought that home very strongly for me as I found myself disappointed in and disgusted by Jack Stanton... yet rooting for him to win in the end. And I found myself almost crying at the death of Libby realizing that my idealism in politics is just as dead even if I am still breathing. An amazing film on some extraordinary lives.

My Thoughts on our Military Entering Syria....

One of the classes that I am currently taking is called Human Rights Violation: Torture, Trauma and its Effects on Society. I took this class because I thought it might be really interesting to really learn about how challenging and how people are affected by this treatment or affected by and/or deal with witnessing it, etc... In my first reading this week, I found that two sentences really stuck out and I found myself reading the paragraph that they were 'embedded' in and ask your thoughts on them.

The first sentence is: “The US Declaration of Independence state that “all men are created with certain inalienable rights” and makes the case that a people can reject the authority of a government that violates those rights....”

The second phrase is: “Thus, a major focus of human rights law is not only to describe rights that are legally protected but also to prohibit actions by governments that violate such rights...”

So I was hoping for your thoughts on them. When I read these two sentences, the thoughts that came to mind were actually on Syria. I was against the Iraq War and going into Afghanistan, but I have shocked a few of my friends when my pacifist non-violent self admits that I feel we should go into Syria and help. I know that my opinion on both equations is the opposite of what statistics showed of public opinion in 2011 and today. Yet when I was reading these two lines, I realized that these are my thoughts on the issue stated more clearly than I knew how to express. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for military intervention was not clear and diplomacy and sanctions and other methods probably would

have brought these countries more in line with human rights and would have improved the lives of those living there. As those governments were only breaking these rights mainly legally (according to their laws), I don't feel like we were likely to change them... and it doesn't really appear that we have made any changes except for who is running the country. In many ways I believe we have left these countries worse off and more likely to have severe human rights abuses without recourse. The people of Syria have been trying to get more rights for over two years now and have been fighting their government with everything as they have 'rejected the authority of a government that violates' their rights. We have 'in theory' been trying diplomacy for two years as well without success. The Syrian government has now used a weapon that single-handed killed over a thousand people- many of whom couldn't have really been fighters or a threat to the government – I'm thinking of the children. So if we as a nation believe in the later quote above, should we not attempt more wholeheartedly to stop these prohibited actions...?

I guess I wonder what is our place in human rights and our responsibility.... my responsibility, my community's responsibility, my federal government's... and the world's. Some of these questions seem so easy to answer unless I think about them long enough. So what do you think your responsibility is towards Syria... or even in your own communities?

Social and Political Consequences of the French Revolution

The act that we call the French Revolution was truly a world changing event with both social and political consequences. Attempting to determine whether the revolution was political with social consequences or vice versa can be difficult depending on what you study and whose viewpoint you look at. I really feel from my studies this semester that the French Revolution was a revolution that had both social and political consequences, but wasn't necessarily a political revolution or a social revolution either. There are a few reasons that I believe this to be the case which I will carefully outline. Looking back at the revolution and the changes that it inspired and propelled forward, we can see how some of the changes were quite revolutionary and how many changes were in some ways not really a change at all.

The revolution changed France in some ways politically and in some ways kept a bit of the status quo... just under different labels. Early supporters of the revolution did use an excuse that was political in nature for the revolt: that excuse was that power was monopolized in the form of a king and a corrupt and despotic system of government. This really appears to have been either an excuse or an incorrect perception as the reality of the governmental system was not that clean cut. Centuries before the revolution, the poor and disabled had been taken care of by the Catholic church. Many local governmental functions and education of those born to the upper and middle classes was also usually paid for by the church. In the years preceding the revolution, many of those jobs began to be taken on by the French monarchy instead of the church. This brought not only extra expenses, but with the ever growing and expanding populations... even more people who would need relief in emergencies such as famine. The government already had huge money issues due to costly rivalries with other countries (which included funding the American bid for Independence against England) and the monarch's inability to budget the governmental finances appropriately. The royal government had really developed a centralized administrative system that in theory was more streamlined than any other European countries, but in practice it was not smooth and didn't take into account laws from the smaller areas which might not agree with the 'national' laws. Before the Revolution, the monarchy had absolute control over the use of the military, development and implementation of law, and the collection and spending of public money.

With the coming Revolution, the monarchy was gradually removed from power. The National Assembly in 1791 set up a new regime which was a constitutional monarchy- this lasted only ten months. The next governing group was the National Convention whose members were called Jacobins, but that particular group splintered into other groups of like minded individuals that formed their own 'political parties'- the Montagnards and Girondins and also the San-culottes. The king and his family were imprisoned and then in late 1792 King Louis XVI was convicted of treason and executed early in the new year. The new government was now fully run by the National Convention... which was controlled by its largest and most powerful faction called the Montagnards... which was lead by Maximilian Robespierre. The country was then ruled by this man and a 'committee' that Robespierre and the Convention developed to attempt to stop the counter revolution... because by this time not everyone was satisfied with the path that the government was starting to tread. This group, known as the Committee of Public Safety, was charged with setting up revolutionary courts and executing criminals and anyone deemed treasonous or disloyal to the French state and/or the Revolution. This began the Reign of Terror and around 40,000 people were put to death by the guillotine- this included governmental leaders from the convention that didn't agree with Robespierre, women, and simple dissatisfied citizens. By 1794, the policy of 'Terror' had alienated so many people and Convention members that their leader, Maximilian Robespierre, was convicted of treason and, after a failed suicide attempt, he was put to death in July 1974.

The government was then run by the Convention which put down more uprisings with the help of the Army, tried to end the country's war with Spain and Prussia, produced a new constitution and developed a form of leadership called The Directory-it was a five man executive governing council. A two house-legislative assembly was developed and democratic elections were set up, however, the National Convention set up some rules in the new system to favor themselves and rioting began again. The government was ideological divided between members who wanted to bring the monarchy back and those who wanted even more democracy.
When The Directory realized that royalist supporters were becoming the majority in the government, they turned to a general named Napoleon Bonaparte for help. After elections, Bonaparte with the help of another general and large forces of soldiers, helped to take over the government. In this forced takeover, two members of the Dictators were removed, most of the election results were annulled, and power fell literally into the hands of a few members of the National Convention. This led to a fairly ineffective dictatorship until 1799 when a few members of the Convention chose Napoleon Bonaparte to be their leader- when a large amount of Convention members resisted, Bonaparte used the army to effectively take over and become the dictator of France.

So politically, many things didn't really change if you look at the situation with a wide angled lens. The Revolution threw out the absolute monarchy and executed their king... and then accepted Robespierre as almost a one man leader. Robespierre, known as 'the Incorruptible', was eventually thrown out and executed... so that power was transferred to a group of five called the Directory. When the five members of the Directory couldn't agree on public policy, Napoleon Bonaparte was brought in and two members were thrown out. Then, after some time and more infighting, Napoleon Bonaparte effectively took over and became a one man leader- by 1804, he was named hereditary emperor. No matter who was in charge, the government tended to be in many ways reactionary and would perform actions that were some of the people's biggest complaints under the governmental system before the Revolution; arrest warrants of any one without meaningful trials, government appointed and not
democratically elected leaders, special privileges to small percentage of the population, etc... So, while some things changed politically in France, many things remained close to the original status quo... only changing slightly as time moved forward and the society and government was stabilized.

French Society changed a bit in its social structure and culture with in the revolution. Before the revolution, every citizen from the poorest peasant to the wealthiest noble believed that they had rights and privileges that should be defended and this view was strengthened with the behavior and beliefs of the members of parlements... behavior that was unable to be controlled by the monarch due to the permanent circumstances of the parlement judges. Some of these thoughts came from ideas that became popular during the Enlightenment- a period of time where ideas on tradition, science, human reason and ability as well as religion changed and shifted in the minds of many. (And Paris was said to be the 'heart' of the Enlightenment movement.) Education became more important and more and more people were educated, literate and able to better participate in the world and politics around them. In short, most enlightenment thought was based on differing ideas of freedom and liberty... and was fairly secular in nature. French society had social divisions based on class as well as special privileges that came with belonging to different groups; the clergy and nobility enjoyed exemption from most taxes and many positions in the government were reserved for those of noble birth... or those who were wealthy enough to purchase a title.

With the beginning of the revolution, many changes to French society were attempted. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was discussed and written by the National Assembly. This document was an attempt to write out the hoped for rules for the new government; they included man's natural rights to their liberty, personal property, security, equal treatment under the law, etc... All of these ideas were revolutionary for their time. The privileges of special groups, such as the nobles or the clergy, which had been hereditary and traditional, were attacked and changed under reform. The laws of property ownership were changed and idea of private property was more respected and protected by law from extra fees and eminent property rights. Women, who had been excluded from politics in pre-revolution days, became open participators in political groups and societal change in the beginning of the revolution. Voting rights were given to all citizens by the Declaration. Divorce and marriage became state institutions and were no longer governed fully by the Catholic Church. Numerous constitutions were written to protect people and property from the government by guaranteeing rights, elections, etc... The Declaration also included the right of Freedom of Speech which was supposed to help end censorship and fear in oral and written expression.

However, many of the above mentioned changes were not necessarily constant or unchanging in themselves. While the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen declared man's natural rights to many things, the document was vague enough that its interpretation was actually quite limiting over time. The word 'man' in the document was usually interpreted to not include women and any gender minorities (Africans and Jews). This interpretation was so consistent that it caused on female writer to 'rewrite' the declaration and title it The Declaration of the Rights of Woman. Women were later excluded from much participation in politics by government bans on the ways they participated. Voting rights quickly became exclusive and limited to the small majority of property owners- Robespierre was quoted as saying “Can the law be termed an expression of general will when the greater number of those for whom it is made can have no hand in its making?” The National Convention and The Directory would openly violate the constitutional protections many times over their rule. Robespierre and the beginning of the Terror would put a large damper on all rights to free speech or expression... unless you were willing to die for your words.

So the revolution started with the dissatisfaction of the nobles which caused the King to call the Estates General into session, but then the revolution left the hands of the aristocracy and titled elite and the leading roles in events were handled by the bourgeoisie and the lower classes. With the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate and the King with the Estates General, the general dissatisfaction became a bit of class warfare and distrust. The appearance of the monarchy siding with the noble classes made the break between the groups even more hostile. Add a famine, rising bread costs and riots began to break out. Then the Bastille was rioted and captured by members of the third estate and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was completed. A constitutional monarchy was set up, abolished and then governmental rule by the National Convention and the 'Committee for Public Safety'- or, in actuality, rule by Maximilian Robespierre. After his 'overthrow', governmental power was held in the hands of five men who were known as the Directory and the National Convention, but in a short period of time we see power moving again to one man in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte. France had gone through many attempts at political and society change, but few were immediately lasting. Most social and political change really took time-such as decades- to really cement themselves into the culture, mindset, and behavior of the people of France. Some of these 'revolutionary' changes appear to have only really been possible to thrive in an environment that was not 'revolutionary'- i.e. an environment that was stable and relatively constant. The only thing constant about the politics and the society of the French Revolution was its inconsistency, reactionary manner, and fear. The National Assembly, National Convention, the several Constitutions... all of these were born in crisis and finding the way out of crisis seemed nearly impossible. Only with the coming of some forms of governmental stability did France have the lasting change that it had wished for early on causing the French Revolution.

Thoughts on the Document 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen'

I thought it was interesting to read this document and how different times and cultures would read and interpret it differently. One word that stuck out to me as up for varying interpretations was the word nation. The text of the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen' is in some ways vague about who actually makes up the French 'Nation.' The word is only used in the third declaration which is:

The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

This statement suggests that when the word (nation) is used, the meaning is 'everyone'- that no person or individual is to be excluded and so any time that the word 'nation' is used the assumption is that it includes all human beings. That said, a thorough reading of the rest of the document seems to suggest that certain rights seem to have been given to men only while others were given to all citizens (which I assume includes women, children, and those of other races- I recognize that is a false assumption based on my current culture.) Taking the time to read and assess other documents from the current environment as the 'Declaration' for answers didn't make the definition much clearer. For example, one document states that nobles “opposed measures that they feared would increase ministerial power and insisted that the French 'nation' be consulted about fundamental changes in its constitution. And they saw themselves as the natural spokesmen for the rest of the nation.”
So the word nation in this sentence really seems to be the nobles who believe that they speak for everyone economically lower than them... which is most of the population of France. Emmanuel Sieyes, another contemporary writer at that time, stated that the Third Estate (most of the population) “has... within itself all that is necessary to constitute a complete nation... If the privileged order were abolished the nation would be not something less but something more.” This statement clearly suggests that the average commoner or anyone not a member of the 'privileged order' should be the actual meaning of 'nation'. So it appears that the definition of 'nation' changed depending on who uses the words and what their motives were.

This 'Declaration' has many pieces of it that are quite forward thinking and revolutionary for that time. French society before this time period was very stratified in nature with a small percentage of privileged and the 'inherited' classes on top, a small layer of wealthy and landed families, and a large layer of serfs, peasants, etc... The first declaration in this statement is that all men are 'born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinction can be established only for the common benefit.' This statement recognized and started the process of abolishing the separate layers of this clearly stratified society. The second declaration states that all men have certain natural rights that no government can or should infringe on which are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression - in later declarations these terms are described. Free speech is allowed, only actually lawfully forbidden laws can be punished and punishments must be reasonable, the presumption of innocence, the public’s right to be able to have information from the government, etc... However, in many ways this document is not that revolutionary. Women have no actual rights declared (until recently and in some cases in this country we still do) and unless a law specifies women then the law doesn't necessarily include them when the law uses the word 'men'. How this has been interpreted is that if the law is a negative such as stealing, women can be prosecuted under the law and they are. However, laws that are positive and provide benefits (such as owning property) tend to have be interpreted as excluding anyone except for men. So while some men gained more rights in France during this time, no one else did. Property was now considered a sacred right that could not be taken away by the government without due cause, but the property still belonged to those who had been of the privileged class... leaving the vast majority to have freedom, but no property so they were still in some ways tied to the land. The Declaration also seems to have been interpreted to only give white males the rights and so minority men could still be slaves and not covered by the law... in fact they could still be considered property so the law gave them no rights except for the sacred right of 'being owned'. So the privileged order may at that time be considered 'not as privileged', but they still had the land, the money... and now that the government was overthrown, they had that power to. It was in their interests to keep as much as they could and still keep the 'Third Estate' happy. Some rights were given to citizens but the definition of what a citizen was is not in the document and was left for other people to determine- again being able to interpret it in the ways that suited the wealthy and the property owning classes.... and their own biases.

When reading this document and trying to decide what the writers envisioned in a society that was governed under the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man...', I feel like these individuals were hopeful to make good change but also wanted to really calm down the rebellion. By making the new basis of government so vague, everyone could feel satisfied and calm down and get back to their everyday lives. During this time, the laws and government could then be made and as long as there appeared to be some benefits, the majority of people wouldn’t have revolted again. Getting the violence stopped and everything back to 'normal' would have been a key thought in the mind of these writers. I do believe that the writers did want to make the world they lived in more equal and to move away from the absolute monarchy, but I also think that this document is still based on the assumptions and biases of these writers- all of whom were white males of good family and not wrung out in poverty. So I envision them looking for a country without violence, more equality and a more representative government... but a country where white men still ruled and had more benefits than anyone else.

If you take the time to read this document (it is only a few pages), what are your thoughts on it? How do you read it and what does it mean to you? What do you think it meant to its contemporaries and its authors? This document is very like the American 'Bill of Rights' as many of the writers and contemporaries who gave voice to both documents thought were the same... Does this change how you feel about either of these documents?

Thoughts on Revolution, Potential Causes, and Revolt

I did quite a bit of reading on the causes or potential factors of building a revolution- I am currently studying the French Revolution that started in 1789. There are many different causes that can be pointed to in hindsight for a revolution and during my studies I have certainly found several potential factors- poverty, lack of prosperity or hope for the majority of French constituents, poor economy and lack of jobs, huge governmental debt, perception (or reality) of the government being weak, unable to lead or create positive change, and ignorance or indifference (or at least perceived ignorance or indifference) by the few who had the most ability to create change.  All of these could be considered primary factors in creating an environment that sparks a revolution- I think that the more of these factors you add, the more you can actually bet on the spark being lit by a 'small' act and the revolution is now fully operating, so to speak. During my studies, I tried to think of factors that would make me as a person be willing to join in an overthrow of my country's government. As I thought I decided that all of the answers that I gave above would (at least in my case) really be secondary factors- all of them are bad, but I do think that to actually join or start a revolution, I would have to have one other defining factor. I think I would need to have pretty much all of the above, but I also would need to feel that the safety of my family and community are not only at risk, but the idea of the status quo being just as dangerous and life threatening as a revolution might be would be the primary factor that would get me to be involved. I think I would have to feel passionately that all of us (friends, family, community) might be dead unless I did something.... and most of the above factors would have to be in effect for most of that to happen I suspect. The thought that frightens me the most about this line of thinking is that I think many countries, including our own are in this sort of 'swimming pool'- the factors above are all in place and the pool is full and glistening in front of us... we are simply waiting for the one thing/person that gets us all going off of the diving board. I really think that most people will not join a revolt or cause one that becomes a revolution unless you have many factors that they feel passionately about, no ability to see that they will be fixed in the future and the very real possibility of the problems getting so much worse. If you have been suffering for awhile, even a small suggestion of more suffering could really be a breaking point.

I think that these factors are the same reasons that will continue to push for revolutions now and in the future on our planet. I think that as long as people feel hope that things can become better, they can feel help and that they have a voice for facilitating change... then we can as a people will continue to suffer with the economy, shrinking public safety nets and community services, and other difficulties and will do so looking for the light at the end of the recession, etc... But suffering for long periods of time, feeling 'dull' and hopeless, and finding no ways to move forward and only despair and suffering can and will eventually cause people to strike out in their frustration, anger and desire for something else.  I think that is why revolutions tend to be so bloody- the negative emotions cause people to do things that they might never do in any other circumstances. And that is one reason that I dislike the idea of revolution so much. People kill children and people who do not agree with them to up hold their virtue - whether it is change, human rights, etc.... and their virtue becomes in some senses a demon; harming and killing everyone in its wake until the fire of their passion and virtue is put out, contained or destroyed. Many die who had no part in making the problem, many die who wanted to fix the problem, and many die who may not have even understood what the problem was. I will admit that I don't feel comfortable with revolution – even non violent revolution- simply because of the ferocious pace. I prefer change that comes gradually but sure and brings people happily or confusedly into the group... not by force, or other negative means.

Do you think that America has many of the factors that I described above? What are your thoughts on this issue? What would you need to have to get involved in a revolt/revolution?