State of Virginia apologises for eugenics policy.

May 3, 2002 3:37 AM

State of Virginia apologises for eugenics policy. I'm not American, so perhaps it's understandable that I'd never heard of the scale of such policies, but I'm pretty well-informed, and I'm astonished that it isn't better known-of. I guess I'm mostly posting because I'd be interested in learning how well-known and understood the issue is in the US. There's also an image archive on the subject here.
posted by jonpollard (18 comments total)

I think we tend to forget now how widespread interest in eugenics was, even among people who we'd otherwise think of as progressive (such as the British socialist H G Wells), before it was discredited (and rightfully so) by its association with Nazi Germany.

There's some debate, for instance, over whether Marie Stopes' efforts to make family planning accessible to women had more sinister motivations behind it. (FYI, she's said to have cut her son out of her will because he married a woman who wore glasses.)

The Swedish government has also compensated victims of eugenics quite recently, covering a period from 1934-1975.
posted by CatherineB at 4:18 AM on May 3, 2002

Here's more about the 2001 resolution mentioned in the lead post.

I wrote about this in my own blog (here). Some choice bits:

Virginia passed its Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924 -- which targeted "socially inadequate offspring" -- on the same day it passed the Racial Integrity Act prohibiting marriage between whites and nonwhites.


The U.S. Supreme Court upheld forced sterilization at the Lynchburg facility in a case involving a woman named Carrie Buck, who had become pregnant as a teenager. In allowing her sterilization in 1927, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes assessed Buck, her mother and her daughter, then declared, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Thematicaly similar is the entry just below that on my blog, concerning the modern history of lobotmies. It's disturbing material.
posted by NortonDC at 6:14 AM on May 3, 2002

This points to the most sinister flaw in pro-life political philosophy. If the government can order a pregnant woman to have a baby, even if she doesn't want to, the government also has the right to order a woman to have an abortion, or to submit to forced sterilization. On the other hand, if our reproductive decisions are none of the government's business -- well, they're none of the government's business.
posted by Holden at 6:18 AM on May 3, 2002

This is a major step for Virginia. Just last year our General Assembly (backed by then-governor Jim Gilmore) refused to issue an apology. They felt an apology offered a connotation of guilt the contemporary government didn't deserve and that an expression of "regret" was sufficient.

I'm proud of our new governor today.
posted by junkbox at 6:35 AM on May 3, 2002

both of the articles i read say it's an expression of regret, and, specifically, not an apology.
posted by tolkhan at 6:49 AM on May 3, 2002

d'oh! read. more. carefully.
posted by tolkhan at 6:50 AM on May 3, 2002

They felt an apology offered a connotation of guilt the contemporary government didn't deserve and that an expression of "regret" was sufficient.

And I would agree. It seems a pointless excercise in platitudes and pandering to apologize for something for which you are not responsible, be it slavery, displacement of the Native Americans, or the Big Bang. By definition, an apology is an expression of contrition and regret over an act that one has committed. To apologize on someone else's behalf is meaningless grandstanding.
posted by rushmc at 7:20 AM on May 3, 2002

Virginia isn't alone. The province of Alberta sterilized around 3,000 so-called "mental defectives" between 1928 and 1972. Some of the people sterilized were still seeking redress in the late 1990s. Here are two links about it: Eugenics in Alberta; Sterilization and Eugenics. For a book on the history of eugenics in Canada, seek out Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945 by Angus McLaren.
posted by mcwetboy at 7:35 AM on May 3, 2002

Though surely, rushmc, if it was a State that was responsible for an action, it's entirely 'allowed' by your definition for that State's representative to apologise on its behalf. (I'm not saying that a State isn't just a collection of people in practice, but in principle, it's the same State today as the one that sterilised those people, and it's the State that's apologising.)

From the article I originally linked: "The state of Virginia has become the first American state to apologise...."

I know - that was five uses of the 'S' word in my two sentences, but I tried every variation on the pronouns I could and it just got worse and worse....
posted by jonpollard at 7:50 AM on May 3, 2002

The Commonwealth of Virginia continues to bask in the glory of the Founding Fathers who hailed from this state. If we're going to embrace the accomplishments of one era, then we must also take responsibility for the shortcomings of another.

To say that an apology "second-guesses" the General Assembly of the 1920's (as one delegate suggested) is to imply that the State of Virginia is a collection of lawmakers and not a collection of laws (PDF link). Jon's right - the state today is the same as it was yesterday, and those victims deserve an apology.
posted by junkbox at 8:09 AM on May 3, 2002

"This points to the most sinister flaw in pro-life political philosophy. If the government can order a pregnant woman to have a baby, even if she doesn't want to, the government also has the right to order a woman to have an abortion, or to submit to forced sterilization. "

Um, no. Although I am pro-choice, your description of the philosophy is flat out wrong. The position is NOT that the government may direct reproductive choice, but rather, that abortion is NEVER a legitimate choice, whether the decision is made by the individual or by the government. Government is as equally prohibited from engaging in abortions as citizens are.

Both positions are, in my opinion, incorrect, but that distortion of the pro-life position simply is disingenuous.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:55 AM on May 3, 2002

Though surely, rushmc, if it was a State that was responsible for an action, it's entirely 'allowed' by your definition for that State's representative to apologise on its behalf.

The question, it seems to me, is who is generating the "apology?" Can a machine apologize meaningfully? Can a rock? Can a corporation? Can a state? I would argue that only human beings can meaningfully generate an apology, and only with regard to their own prior actions. Therefore, to attribute the apology to the political unit, "state," renders it meaningless, and to attribute it to the people who currently represent the state but had no responsibility for any of the now-condemned eugenics practices renders it inappropriate.
posted by rushmc at 10:02 AM on May 3, 2002

... to attribute it to the people who currently represent the state but had no responsibility for any of the now-condemned eugenics practices renders it inappropriate.

Even if it is inappropriate because it's not being issued by the same people who passed the initial law; it is a recognition that something wrong was institutionalized and readily practised for years. The people who were sterilized deserve this apology for what was done to them.

On a smaller scale, it's along the same lines as the Catholic Church apologizing for it's role in WWII. I don't remember anyone saying that apology was inappropriate despite the fact that the current leaders of the Church had no responsibility for what happened.

I too am glad to see Govenor Warner issue this apology.
posted by onhazier at 12:51 PM on May 3, 2002

your description of the philosophy is flat out wrong. Government is as equally prohibited from engaging in abortions as citizens are.

And the world is flat.
posted by stbalbach at 1:53 PM on May 3, 2002

I would like to join in the proud tradition of apologizing for stuff I didn't do, assuming my apology carries no responsibility for me to actually *do* anything to pay back or be punished or anything.
I apologize for slavery. So stop whining about reparations.
I apologize for the holocaust. So it should no longer be taught in US schools.
I apologize for the Rape of Nanking. The Chinese should feel better now. And the Crusades. And the Neaderthals.
I apologize for all the other stuff that should be apologized for, so I did it first, and anybody else who apologizes doesn't mean it and is just being hypocritical. Me me me.
I get the stage and the credit for the apology, too. And everybody has to say I'm a nice guy for apologizing.
Let me reiterate that you are getting nothing else out of me other than an apology. Zilch. Nada.

Hey, dude. I *feel* your pain. More than you do.

It's for the kids.
posted by kablam at 2:57 PM on May 3, 2002

Even if it is inappropriate because it's not being issued by the same people who passed the initial law; it is a recognition that something wrong was institutionalized and readily practised for years. The people who were sterilized deserve this apology for what was done to them.

It is one thing to recognize in a public statement that "something wrong was institutionalized and readily practised for years." That's great--and appropriate, and possibly even useful. But an "apology" takes it a step further, and a step too far. I can make a press release condemning the hunting of the dodo to extinction, listing all the reasons why this was a bad thing. But for me to add an apology would be absurd.

Perhaps those people indeed deserve an apology, but in many cases it is impossible for them to receive a meaningful apology because those who did the deed (and approved it) are long gone, from the system and in many cases from the earth.
posted by rushmc at 3:14 PM on May 3, 2002

Oh my god.
posted by delmoi at 5:38 PM on May 3, 2002

So, then the state is not a contiguous entity for you, rush? I don't get it. By the same logic, I would be immune to prosecution for any violation of any statute passed before - when? The year I moved to Virginia? The year I became eligible to vote? The year I was born?
posted by Irontom at 10:27 AM on May 7, 2002