What many people do not know is that the use of standardized tests has its origins in the Eugenics movement, where basic tenets assert that certain races are inferior to others biologically and intellectually.
— 

Karen Lewis, President of the Chicago Teachers Union

Standardized testing and the Eugenics movement »

A MUST read by Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis. Standardized testing isn’t about improving education, it’s a way for the system to sort out which kids are meant to succeed and which are destined failure.

Nazi eugenicists frequently observed that their laws to bar Jewish-Aryan mating were more liberal than were American laws to separate people of African descent from the white genetic pool. Germans held that a person who was one-quarter Jewish was a legal Aryan and thus fit to marry a German, but parallel marriages and mating between whites and Black people were illegal in much of the United States and, in effect, punishable by death — lynching. The “one-drop” laws of many southern states counted anyone who had even one thirty-second African heritage as Black. Other laws, such as the 1924 Virginia Racial Integrity Act, denominated anyone with any “Negro blood” at all as Black. Editors of German medical journals learned a great deal about eugenic proscription by studying American medical journals, whose charts precisely detailed which racial mixtures were tolerable in marriages to whites, who was “white” enough to vote, and so on. In fact, a cordial rivalry characterized the relationship between German and American eugenicists: “The Germans are beating us at our own game,” Virginian eugenicist Dr. Joseph S. Dejarnette sighed in a thinly veiled admiration during a 1934 speech in which he urged the Virginia legislature to expand its sterilization laws.
— 

Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present by Harriet A. Washington

Americans were so good at medicalized racism that the Nazis learned from us.

No one is “anti-science” for opposing eugenics.

Opposing efforts to eradicate people like you because doctors don’t consider people like you to be valuable is not being “anti-science”. It’s being anti-eugenics.

Everyone should be anti-eugenics.

3

The Fate of Black People in Nazi Germany

The fate of black people from 1933 to 1945 in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied territories ranged from isolation to persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder. However, there was no systematic program for their elimination as there was for Jews and other groups.

After World War I, the Allies stripped Germany of its African colonies. The German military stationed in Africa (Schutztruppen), as well as missionaries, colonial bureaucrats, and settlers, returned to Germany and took with them their racist attitudes. Separation of whites and blacks was mandated by the Reichstag (German parliament), which enacted a law against mixed marriages in the African colonies.

Following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles (1919), the victorious Allies occupied the Rhineland in western Germany. The use of French colonial troops, some of whom were black, in these occupation forces exacerbated anti-black racism in Germany. Racist propaganda against black soldiers depicted them as rapists of German women and carriers of venereal and other diseases. The children of black soldiers and German women were called “Rhineland Bastards.” The Nazis, at the time a small political movement, viewed them as a threat to the purity of the Germanic race. In Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler charged that “the Jews had brought the Negroes into the Rhineland with the clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily-resulting bastardization.”

African German mulatto children were marginalized in German society, isolated socially and economically, and not allowed to attend university. Racial discrimination prohibited them from seeking most jobs, including service in the military. With the Nazi rise to power they became a target of racial and population policy. By 1937, the Gestapo (German secret state police) had secretly rounded up and forcibly sterilized many of them. Some were subjected to medical experiments; others mysteriously “disappeared.”

The racist nature of Adolf Hitler’s regime was disguised briefly during the Olympic Games in Berlin in August 1936, when Hitler allowed 18 African American athletes to compete for the US team. However, permission to compete was granted by the International Olympic Committee and not by the host country.

Adult African Germans were also victims. Both before and after World War I, many Africans came to Germany as students, artisans, entertainers, former soldiers, or low-level colonial officials, such as tax collectors, who had worked for the imperial colonial government. Hilarius (Lari) Gilges, a dancer by profession, was murdered by the SS in 1933, probably because he was black. Gilges’ German wife later received restitution from a postwar German government for his murder by the Nazis.

Some African Americans, caught in German-occupied Europe during World War II, also became victims of the Nazi regime. Many, like female jazz artist Valaida Snow, were imprisoned in Axis internment camps for alien nationals. The artist Josef Nassy, living in Belgium, was arrested as an enemy alien and held for seven months in the Beverloo transit camp in German-occupied Belgium. He was later transferred to Germany, where he spent the rest of the war in the Laufen internment camp and its subcamp, Tittmoning, both in Upper Bavaria.

European and American blacks were also interned in the Nazi concentration camp system. Lionel Romney, a sailor in the US Merchant Marine, was imprisoned in the Mauthausen concentration camp. Jean Marcel Nicolas, a Haitian national, was incarcerated in the Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps in Germany. Jean Voste, an African Belgian, was incarcerated in the Dachau concentration camp. Bayume Mohamed Hussein from Tanganyika (today Tanzania) died in the Sachsenhausen camp, near Berlin.

Black prisoners of war faced illegal incarceration and mistreatment at the hands of the Nazis, who did not uphold the regulations imposed by the Geneva Convention (international agreement on the conduct of war and the treatment of wounded and captured soldiers). Lieutenant Darwin Nichols, an African American pilot, was incarcerated in a Gestapo prison in Butzbach. Black soldiers of the American, French, and British armies were worked to death on construction projects or died as a result of mistreatment in concentration or prisoner-of-war camps. Others were never even incarcerated, but were instead immediately killed by the SS or Gestapo.

Some African American members of the US armed forces were liberators and witnesses to Nazi atrocities. The 761st Tank Battalion (an all-African American tank unit), attached to the 71st Infantry Division, US Third Army, under the command of General George Patton, participated in the liberation of Gunskirchen, a subcamp of the Mauthausen concentration camp, in May 1945.

see also: Hanns Massaquoi 

& German science and black racism—roots of the Nazi Holocaust

People With Down Syndrome Disrupt Screening Conference (June 6, 2003)

On May 19th, a group of people with Down’s Syndrome and their supporters disrupted the International Down Syndrome Screening Conference at Regents Collage in London. This is the first time people with Down’s Syndrome have made such a protest and is a major new step in the debate about genetics, eugenics and the rights of disabled people.

As a result of the protest, the conference organisers allowed Anya Souza to speak from the platform. Ms Souza, who is a trustee of the Down Syndrome Association, told the doctors that she opposes Down’s Syndrome screening and that people with Down’s Syndrome are people not medical problems. Her speech was warmly applauded by the conference delegates

The protesters consisted of three people with Down’s Syndrome, another disabled person with learning disabilities and their families and supporters. They had written to the conference organisers in advance and asked to speak, but were refused by the main organiser, Professor Howard Cuckle. It is unacceptable that doctors discuss better ways of preventing people with Down’s Syndrome being born, whilst excluding their voices from the debate. This runs directly counter to one of the main demands of disabled people: ‘Nothing about us without us’.

The protesters expect that their action will persuade the conference organisers to ensure a full debate at next years conference with proper representation of disabled people with learning difficulties. This should be the start of a national debate on prenatal screening.

In her speech, entitled ‘Everything you ever wanted to know about Down’s Syndrome… but never bothered to ask’, Anya Souza said: I can’t get rid of my Down’s Syndrome. But you can’t get rid of my happiness. You can’t get rid of the happiness I give others either. It’s doctors like you that want to test pregnant women and stop people like me being born. You can’t abort me now can you? You can’t kill me…sorry!

Together with my family and friends I have fought to prevent my separation from normal society. I have fought for my rights. I have the right to a job, to services when necessary, to a decent standard of living, to know about my medical problems, to speak my mind, to make choices about my friends, whether to have sex, and so on. To do this you have to be independent when you grow up and not get separated from society… I may have Down’s Syndrome, but I am a person first.

Kitty Gilbert, who also has Down’s Syndrome, said: ….. I enjoyed watching the conference although I was a bit scared of what the conference people were saying. I think screening pregnant mothers with Down’s Syndrome babies is wrong. They are wanting their offspring to be able to enjoy their world around them and have endless happiness. I for one gave my mum pride and joy and I will continue to do so. I think that we should be treated fairly and equally, not being getting rid off because there is so much more in life that we can do. We are what we are and ask our opinion.

— 

LDOnline

I remember when this happened.  Nobody expected that people with Down syndrome could even have an opinion on genetic screening, even though they’re more affected by it than most people.  When they weren’t allowed to speak the regular way, they barged in and made sure people listened.

Payments Start For N.C. Eugenics Victims, But Many Won’t Qualify

BY ERIC MENNEL

Debra Blackmon was about to turn 14 in January 1972, when two social workers came to her home.

Court and medical documents offer some details about what happened that day. Blackmon was “severely retarded,” they note, and had “psychic problems” that made her difficult to manage during menstruation.

Her parents were counseled during the visit, and it was deemed in Blackmon’s best interest that she be sterilized.

Blackmon is among the more than 7,000 people in North Carolina — many poor, many African-American, many disabled — who were sterilized between 1929 and 1976 in one of the country’s most aggressive eugenics programs.

North Carolina passed a law to compensate victims of the state-run program last year. This week, the state sent out the first checks to qualified applicants. But Blackmon, like many others who are fighting for restitution, is not among them.

[Continue reading article and listen to the story on NPR.]

I'm not even surprised.

Once you’ve been sorted into the category of Nonperson by abled people, there is literally NO HUMAN RIGHT that you have that can’t be violated for the convenience of abled people.

Don’t like your kid’s screaming? Cut out his vocal cords.

Think having breasts and menstruating is “undignified”? Have those parts cut out.

Annoyed by your child? Chemically castrate them!

Hell, why not just murder your kid? You’ll get a lot of sympathy!

Because abled people’s convenience is valued infinitely higher than disabled people’s lives.

Google Cloud and Autism Speaks

Most of you know that Google Cloud is working with Autism Speaks to gather and track autistic DNA.  If you want to learn why this is bad through facts, click here.  For stories, click here.  People with a bad track record are being creepy for a more homogenous humanity.  If you have something to say about that, look at this:

image

[The image reads #GCPOffice Hours/ Join us for Office Hours with the team from Google Cloud Platform.  On June 12 at 11 am PT, we will be answering questions on Twitter.  Ask us anything using #GCPOfficeHours and we will respond then].

Every time a pregnancy is intervened upon to prevent disability, eugenics is operating. Every time someone is sterilized or administered birth control against their will or without their knowledge, eugenics is operating. Eugenics is insidious and pervasive and continues to be a threat to disabled people, especially racialized disabled people and/or disabled women.
—  A.J. Withers, Disability Politics and Theory

Now we enter the age of genetics, which offers such hope for advancing healthcare but has also sparked a new form of eugenics, with scientists talking of eradicating disabilities at birth from the human condition.

…Those preaching this new eugenics conflate health and disability, harm and difference. They dismiss how diversity enriches the world, reject complex issues of choice, ignore implications of inferiority. They sweep aside Stephen Hawking writing about how motor neurone disease focused his work, or studies showing people with Down’s syndrome to be far happier with their lives and looks than the average person.

Sorry kid. That guy you’re with accidentally helped eugenicists rank races like Pokemon.

6 Geniuses Who Saw Their Inventions Turn Evil

#6. Alfred Binet’s IQ Test Got Hijacked by Eugenics-Obsessed Racists

First, Binet himself knew his test wasn’t all that scientific. It came with tons of disclaimers stressing that the test does not measure static intelligence and should not be used to label people in any way. And, for the single purpose of figuring out a kid’s level of development, it worked pretty well. But then American eugenicists got hold of his work. The eugenicists loved the idea of intelligence tests because they wanted to use them to identify and weed out “the idiots” from the gene pool, which, by sheer coincidence, all happened to include anyone who wasn’t a white American. Never mind that the score can absolutely be improved with education — why burden the system with teaching children when we can just breed superior intelligence into them!

Read More

Unlike horror and fantasy, however, SF is kinda obsessed with stories of “cure,” and other medical stuff like prosthetic technologies and genetic engineering (a.k.a., eugenics). Because of that technological (and medical) focus, SF opens up spaces to question/challenge/explore what it means to human, and, perhaps more importantly for this conversation, who gets to be counted as human. Since SF is a genre where writers set out their visions of what may come, it’s essential that care is taken in how they create their idealized (or dystopic) futures: if disability is “cured” in the future, a very common notion in SF, then what does that tell people with disabilities of how they are valued today? I really believe that SF holds the potential to be a leading genre in re-imagining disability in creative ways that challenges the reductive and harmful stereotypes that society currently holds…it’s just going to take a while for a good chunk of SF writers to identify their (often able-bodied) assumptions about what it means to live with a disability and to start writing three-dimensional, realistic characters who have a disability. Also, we need a plurality of voices in SF creating visions of the future and that must include people with disabilities (visible and invisible, physical and mental)!
—  from my interview with Kathryn Allan, co-editor of Accessing the Future 

anonymous asked:

I think what that question means is like... Idk I don't think ppl think ppl with disabilities are Risky I think the thing is that they're asking themselves could they take care of said disabled person if it came to that. Like esp if ur physically disabled u may have serious health issues and I don't think u should date someone that has the possibility to be very unwell if ur just gonna dump them when they get unwell

Wooooow. Here is Ableism 101, right here, in response to this

I don’t know that this even deserves a response, but here goes.

Many disabled people do not require any “special” care from partners. Many abled people do require “special” care from partners. Most good relationships, romantic or otherwise, are built on some degree of interdependence, wherein each person provides the other with love, care, and assistance in a generally egalitarian way.

Disabled people often overcompensate for the things we “can’t” do, yet our contributions are undervalued

For disabled people who need significant daily care, we would generally prefer that that not come from one person/partner, for the same reason that it’s dangerous for anyone to be completely reliant on one person: it’s setting us up for abuse. Sometimes we don’t have a choice. But we are working toward independent living and making sure that everyone has the resources they need to live independently, regardless of whether they have a romantic partner, sibling, parent, friend, etc. to care for them.

But if that’s what you’re afraid of, I’ve got news for you: anyone can become disabled at any time. Anyone can get very ill. Dating the healthiest, most abled person you see is no guarantee of anything.

It’s a serious fucking problem that you hear “disability” and think "burden," in a post about how that conflation is wrong.

Disabled people are not burdens. We are not burdens to society, we are not burdens to our friends, we are not burdens to our families, we are not burdens to our partners.

With that said, Anonymous, you don’t have to want to date us. I’d really rather you didn’t.

The lives of disabled people are not acceptable collateral damage for “the advancement of science”.

Eugenics is not a goal anyone should be working towards.

The lives of disabled people are not acceptable collateral damage for “the advancement of science”.

Autism speaks is evil.

The lives of disabled people are not acceptable collateral damage for “the advancement of science”.

The lives of disabled people are not acceptable collateral damage for “the advancement of science”.

  • The lives of disabled people are not acceptable collateral damage for “the advancement of science”.
I think we can objectively say that people with disabilities, people with chronic illnesses or chronic pain, and women who cannot have children are defective. People in these groups will challenge that idea, but they’re wrong, they’re too subjective in this matter. I’m not part of any of these groups, I’m removed from the matter, making me objective and better suited to make this judgment.
—  Junior Philosophy Major