This is a post I submitted a few moments ago to TheBlaze.com regarding their posting: “NC to Recommend Compensation for Eugenics Victims,” in which they stated the following:
State officials sterilized more than 7,600 people in North Carolina from 1929 to 1974 under eugenics programs, which at the time were aimed at creating a better society by weeding out people such as criminals and mentally disabled people considered undesirable.
. . . a black woman with four children, was sent to a psychiatric hospital in 1953 after showing signs of what [Delores] Marks [60 of Durham] thinks was probably post-partum depression. She returned to her family after a few months at the hospital, where she was sterilized. . . .
Many states ended their eugenics programs because of associations with Nazi Germany’s program aimed at racial purity, but North Carolina in fact ramped up sterilizations after World War II. The state’s sterilizations peaked in the 1950s, with about 70 percent of all sterilizations performed after the war, according to state records. The program didn’t officially end until 1977. It is one of about a half-dozen states to apologize for eugenics programs.
Most victims were poor, black women deemed unfit to be parents. People as young as 10 were sterilized for reasons as minor as not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous. Although officials obtained consent from patients or their guardians, many did not comprehend what they were signing.
There are more than 60,000 victims of forced sterilization in the U.S., and though several states have apologized for such programs, North Carolina would be the first to compensate victims. . . .
Elaine Riddick, who was 14 when the state eugenics board ordered her sterilization, has railed against the compensation amounts proposed so far and called the task force “a new face of the eugenics board.”
Riddick had given birth after being raped. She sued the state in the 1970s, seeking $1 million, and said that figure should increase with time.
“They took away my right to be a complete woman,” she said. “What do you think it is worth?”
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 10:10am [8:10am MST] [Revised]
Thanks, The Blaze, for this article. I had no idea that Americans actually participated to this level in the application of eugenics. Just goes to show you what extent elitists of any ilk will go to.
Progressives are behind eugenics, but there are other forms of cleansing out the “little people” through an elitist’s God complex. Those of any political party, in my view, who consider their agendas sacred, seek to cleanse out the full voice of the people in a representative government. I think that parties should define and clarify the issues of the right or left without endorsing, certainly not attempting to dictate, who the right or left should vote for.
As an alumni member of the college where I completed my BA, I received an email one day, addressed to all alumni members, which informed us how we should vote toward a specific ballot initiative. I responded to the alumni official, asking how they could educate students toward critical thinking–toward deciding on our own how to vote–yet they could send out such an email basically telling us how we must vote. In response, I was invited to discuss the issue over a soft drink. I chose not to.
Parties now, essentially, filter out all of the “little people’s” voices in favor of the party voice, the elitists’ voice–and that of their deep pocket supporters. Dr. [Ron] Paul’s platforms, a perfect example, clash in a behemoth way with the core, mainstream, business-as-usual, center-right party. The center-right wants more power in the hands of their deep-pocket supporters–cleansing out the voice of the “little people.“ Paul wants no cleansing of any kind, only adherence to the Constitution.
Eugenics is preventing undesirables from procreating. Partisan politics, in this sense, are preventing undesirables from procreating their beliefs and ideas through our representative government. –SB
When is a party not a party? When you’re not invited.