Skip to comments.Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution
Posted on 12/10/2011 5:45:05 AM PST by Perdogg
Charles Holt, 62, spreads a cache of vintage government records across his trailer floor. They are the stark facts of his state-ordered sterilization.
The reports begin when he was barely a teenager, fighting at school and masturbating openly. A social worker wrote that he and his parents were of rather low mentality. Mr. Holt was sent to a state home for people with mental and emotional problems. In 1968, when he was ready to get out and start life as an adult, the Eugenics Board of North Carolina ruled that he should first have a vasectomy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Warning to the future?
Yet we have a democratic supported life style of single moms with 10 kids on public assistance.
Not surpised to see Margaret Sangers name as a supporter of this.
Note, this all started around the same time the Nazis came to power in Europe.
Throw in a few million 3d generation brood sows, random sperm donors and pedophiles and you’ve got a good start.
I saw something on the history channel how this was practiced by the Nazis.
this is not all a bad thing here, needing gene pool cleaned
When are the welfare slave owner/creators going to give restitution for the burden on society they create?
No, it started before, in the teens and twenties, and inspired the Nazis to some extent, who then took it to an industrial scale to the point of killing those deemed undesirable outright.
State eugenics boards were fairly common as were state-ordered sterilizations. It was regarded as a progressive, enlightened thing at the time, but is painted as being anything but now. The progressives have now progressed to just killing them in the womb, and are horrified at the actions of their ideological predecessors, feigned by the knowledgable among them, genuine among the naive.
Low mentality and masturbating in public? I thought the story was about Rosie O’Donnell there for a minute.
-——this is not all a bad thing here, needing gene pool cleaned-——
Certainly you fogot the sarcasm tag?
Are saying that what these states did was okay? I thought freepers were pro-life anti-death panels maybe I was wrong.
Everything I’ve read says that consent was signed, either by self or parent. They got free sterilization surgery; mine cost over $4000.
“... not all a bad thing here, needing gene pool cleaned”.
Who would decide if someone was sterilized or not? Would it be some government committee? If so, do you think that rural people, people who are Christian, people who have moral values... won’t be targeted? This type of power should never be given to a government nor should it be seen as a good thing. IMHO.
,,,,,,, like I said
There was actually a medical journal, “Journal of Eugenics” published in the early 1900s. One university I attended had the entire publication run of that journal in the library. I remember picking one up and thumbing through it; unfortunately, I do not remember what I read there.
Eugenics was considered the wave of the future, until the Nazis came along. Its adherents then changed its name, but the belief system is still with us.
“... consent was signed, either by self or parent”.
Did you read the article? One so called “Dad” signed the permission form for his daughter. The same daughter he had been sexually abusing since 12. Were you sterilized before you had children or at 18? Or, did you willingly choose to go through a medical procedure based on your own free will and nothing else held above your head?
This has the telltale marks of Margaret Sanger thinking all over it. Nowhere in the article is the ethnic background of the subject mentioned, but given the times and the location, almost certainly he was of African descent.
Margaret Sanger was a great proponent of curbing or even eliminating the “taint” of African blood from America, and confining any who were still “tainted” to Africa. Which was probably one of the great motivations for creation of the country of Liberia on the west coast of Africa.
Liberal “progressive” ideas appear to resemble mental derangement more and more all the time.
There was a series of letters exchanged, between a contributor to that journal and the Nazi regime. I forget the names. But, there is a clear indication that the eugenics movement in the United States was regarded as a model by the Nazis, who implemented it themselves and then some, eventually to a monstrous scale of killing outright. That’s why eugenics is now a dirty word among those who still advocate it, and why the name “Planned Parenthood” came into being. Look into the name of that organization before.
I’m a North Carolinian born and bred, lived here most of my life and know the family names pretty well. Holt is and was a prominent name in the Alamance County region. Textiles. If there are any black people with that surname there aren’t a lot of them. They weren’t notable for slaveholding in the antebellum era.
In any old, large family, even a prominent, wealthy one, there will be branches that fell into poverty, some hanging on as genteel poor but some just ground into the dirt by circumstance with the attendant ignorance, destructive behavior and all the generational consequences of that. The Civil War and the depressions that followed certainly helped the process along. So, I’m not at all certain Mr. Holt is black.
The state eugenics board in NC did not focus solely on black people. There were homes for “wayward girls” run by or affiliated with the board and the state mental institutions had a hand as well. I would be surprised if it even showed a preponderance of sterilizations among black people on a percentage basis.
NC was one of the early “leaders” if you can stomach calling it that, trying to shed the Rip Van Winkle image of the state as a sleepy backwater that time had passed by. This they did with a vengeance. But, California put the efforts of NC to shame. Many other states were avidly into eugenics as well.
“... I thought freepers were pro-life anti-death panels.. maybe I was wrong”.
I think secretly that many so called freepers would support this type of activity today simply as a way of limiting undesirables. IMHO, what they are failing to see if the term “undesirable” is not set in stone... it can be expanded to include anyone the government doesn’t want. I am all for limiting welfare so that people don’t keep having children in order to obtain more government money. What I will never support is a panel or agency that sterilizes people. Planned Parenthood relies on some of the same sentiment that I read here this morning. A consent form was signed by the person or parent, and a child born to a poor person is destined to be a drain on society. Hence, some people are “better” than others and the ones who don’t fall into a approved category are better off not being alive.
I used to go to a great site called “Blackgenocide.org”
I see it has fallen down the memory hole...
hold on, hold on, hold, what the frig is NC doing with a Eugenics Board? Has anyone ever heard of this? Do other states have these?
WTF......is this Nazi Germany? America should NEVER have a Eugenics board!!!!!!
Then it becomes...your not pretty enough, you don’t have good grades, you are not open minded enough, you are predisposed to cancer...etc.....................................
My sentiments as well...
In times past society practiced a form of "eugenics" in the fact those persons called "father" (I know archaic nowadays) would not allow their daughters or sons to marry potential "undesirables" and procreate a line of dysfunctional offspring or misfits ...I know I've tossed a few out the front door myself...
Also the lack of a massive welfare state in times past lent itself to some self control except for the really ignorant or stupid...
Giving ANY level of government ANY control over our ability to procreate is evil ...
It’s not convenient for the left to highlight their historic complicity with genocide. Eugenics must be painted as right wing, and so must Nazism. And so they are.
You’re absolutely right.
A more ethical solution is to require Norplant or an IUD immediately placed in any woman of child bearing age and teenaged female dependents when she seeks any food stamps, welfare or Section 8 housing. If you cannot support the children you have, you cannot be allowed to have more.
If you get off the welfare teat, the implant comes out. No abortions, no permanent sterilizations, no more “I can’t work because I just had another baby”.
Reverse able of course. If you later can afford to have it reversed, you will be fiscally able to support children. This doesn't stop procreation, it limits it to a sustainable rate. Uncontrolled growth is a characteristic of cancer. Over breed your resources and war, mass disease, starvation, and death are sure to follow
Is it better to prevent horrid misery on a massive scale, or just let em have at it?
Is that the same “Dad” folks want to be legally required to give permission for a minor female child to buy RU486?
(don’t bite down hard on every shiny thing that floats by. I’m just playing the devil’s advocate. )
I wanted to get sterilization from the moment I became aware. This was in NC. Being “unbred”, I would have been required to attend several expensive “counseling sessions” that I could not afford. I had to wait some 20 years for mentality to change. In 1989 my employer’s insurance company paid in full.
No child that I would have produced would have had a chance of becoming a productive member of society. I know that because I was blessed with a relatively high I.Q. Not every female has good motherhood opportunity, potential or inclination. Women who love being mothers don’t seem to understand or accept that fact.
It started before the Nazis. The Germans adopted it about the same time as most everyone other civilized country. It was very in vogue as a science right then. It still exists, but no longer as a unified science.
There are two sides to Eugenics. The first is the elimination from the human genetic pool of serious defects, which is a very attractive idea to the medical community, because they are the ones who have to deal with the human casualties and suffering caused by bad genes.
For example, the last recent effort at wiping out bad genes was not done through sterilization, but by homicide, in France. Hemophilia, the “bleeding disease”, is genetic, and expensive, requiring human blood clotting factor injections. So quite consciously, the head of the French medical authority exempted HIV screening from the preparation of human blood clotting factor injections.
This ended up killing the vast majority of the hemophiliacs in France with AIDS. France is now hemophilia free. The man responsible was sent to prison, but he considered his actions “worth it”, to rid France of that disease.
The problem with such efforts is that they are very prone to corruption. In the US, “sterilization courts” were instantly corrupted, both sterilizing poor people with no real political representation, with an emphasis on, but not limited to black people; while those who were textbook examples of people who needed to be sterilized by the rules, but whose families had wealth and influence, would be free to keep and use their fertility.
The most extreme examples of this form of Eugenics are found in socialist and national socialist genocidal schemes, one of the more recent by Paul R. Ehrlich, whose “The Population Bomb” was an earlier version of Man Made Global Warming. He wanted to sterilize most of the people in the world, hoping to do so by contaminating food and water. He “conscientiously” decided against this idea, because it could harm farm animals, which he liked.
The other side of Eugenics is much less well known. It is the selective breeding of people to produce better people, howsoever that is defined.
One of its most successful examples was not based on science so much as by the good guesses of the leader of an idealistic commune of northwest European immigrants in western New York State in the 1840’s. By distancing marriage and reproduction, he was able to breed several dozen American leaders in diverse fields before his commune disintegrated.
They were fortunate in that they had also quickly reached the saturation point for inbreeding, resulting in a bunch of bad recessive traits coming out, if they had continued.
More recently, the Chinese have attempted selective breeding among their elite classes, but this is not doing well, as their genetic pool is too small, and genetics is far from being understood well enough to intentionally breed for intelligence, strength or health, without guessing.
I’m deaf. Damn straight they didn’t focus on just blacks. They focussed on ‘undesireables’, of which I am one.
Why don’t we just pay for their abortions?
So let me ask you a personal question. If you didn’t want to be a mom, why did you need an operation to get yourself fixed?
Well, no, to fall into the chillingly blunt, utilitarian language of those times, you would have been termed a “defective.”
“Undesireable” pertained more to behavior.
That, btw, is what made me a Christian. I read Darwin’s essay on human sex selection, he spares no bones about how my defect should be purged from the gene pool. What matters little is the how, only that it was done.
Good to know who your enemies are, but gosh if that wasn’t a wakeup call.
“Not every female has good motherhood opportunity, potential or inclination”.
What you chose may be good for you. However, YOU chose this. No government group or state board of “undesirable eliminators” chose for you. You weren’t “selected for sterilization” based on race, religion, I.Q., family history, medical predispositions etc... “Women who love being mothers don’t seem to understand or accept that fact”.... I do. I understand that motherhood/fatherhood isn’t for everyone. However, that decision should be made by the individual NOT by another group.
“A more ethical solution is to require Norplant or an IUD immediately placed in any woman of child bearing age and teenaged female dependents when she seeks any food stamps, welfare or Section 8 housing. If you cannot support the children you have, you cannot be allowed to have more.
If you get off the welfare teat, the implant comes out. No abortions, no permanent sterilizations, no more I cant work because I just had another baby.”
You gotta have sex with me. Even if you get preggers, the state will just give you contraceptives, and support you. What’s the downside?
Great policy, btw.
It’s really Machiavellian, the way the left is going about these things in the wake of having the curtain pulled back on them during the Nazi era. Now, it’s all subterfuge, beneath the radar, say one thing and do another. Trying to collapse the hated existing order with elaborate and costly accomodation regardless of logic or consequence and turning to kind euphemisms in order to create the impression of actual support for those with physical handicap, while all the while advocating the abortion of infants with any indication of those same handicaps.
Yes, they want to destroy people with limitations, but are restrained by public opinion. That opinion is being successfully shaped, though. We’re witnessing the extension of this nihilist philosophy, from abortion to euthanasia, from euthanasia to withholding medical care from the aged, and food from the incapacitated. The day is coming when political and religious belief will be in the crosshairs as well. It certainly has been in the not-so-distant past.
Well the religious will get the crosshairs for standing up to the state and for the weak and the helpless, because the left knows that if we rely on God, then we don’t rely on them.
I remember growing up, how unusual it was that I was even schooled, because the thinking at the time was that I was better off not being educated. My mother had to fight for years just to get me admitted.
Now I’m not sure she made the right decision, but I am thankful for my education. I think I would have done better at home, but my sacrifice helped my brothers and proved that folks with disability could be integrated successfully into the classroom.
But I won’t say that it wasn’t a struggle. I think they only time I was ever HAPPY was when I was in grade 11 and 12, when I finally got taken out of the regular folks and put in the equivalent of advanced placement. They said they would consider anyone based on merit. This was a huge way out for me.
This view, however, is becoming more prevalent as time goes on. I’m seeing increased hostility towards anyone ‘rising above their station’. People are happy with the disabled folks stuck in a little box off to the corner. They are LESS happy seeing one use his God-given talents to help other people in a very visible fashion.
The Nazis actually admired the American version and mainstreamed it.
Some history here.
I've met several at the door while wearing a well-filled shoulder holster -- and no jacket.
For undesirable suitors, that was usually the last visit. The "winners" greeted me with. "Hey, is that a H-K?" '-)
They did not have the intellectual capacity to understand the procedure. I would suggest you read all of the article to se that they were threatened, were you?
There are a multitude of REAL Issues/Problems related to this subject, some of which are:
(1) irresponsible behavior by certain people leading to unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies tends to be passed on to their offspring, thereby creating even more unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies
(2) not having an inverse relationship between number of unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies and public provided financial support nor any sort of serious prevention procedures has created a whole sub-culture of baby factories for $$$ (”welfare”) which is promoted by those well meaning but mentally deficient liberals who have legislated increasing benefits vs number of unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies (ie “reach the threshold of 3 kids and we’ll upgrade your housing allowance from a two bedroom apartment to a three bedroom house”).
(3) I fail to understand how reproducing is a fundamental human right, if it is going to infringe seriously on others. If a person has no obvious ability, (mentally, morally or financially), to successfully create a productive, contributing member of our society, who will NOT need assistance from the rest of us for their entire life, then why should we NOT have the ability to withhold that activity for the sake of us all?
There was a time when frivolous procreation was frowned upon and even discouraged. The great Liberal movement of the 20th century eliminated those restrictions and now we live in a society that freely kills millions of human beings annually.
Isn’t it a FAR better thing to PREVENT unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies than it is to kill millions of unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable HUMAN BEINGS?
We're already doing that. I prefer to prevent unwanted uncared for fertilizations BEFORE they happen
Why bother? Isn’t the outcome the same?