“Race Cleansing in America” Peter Quinn Article Review 2.1 In Peter Quinn’s article, “Race cleansing in America”, he states that it was against the law for the mentally retarded, or the “feeble-minded” (Quinn, 82) to produce offspring. These people were looked down upon as criminals to society who should not bring into being a second generation of themselves. Quinn’s theory: the feeble-minded were weak and the rich, as well as society, stepped all over them. Sterilization was the method that was introduced to end “imbeciles” (Quinn, 82), which would lead to a greater America. “It is better for all the world,” Justice Holmes asserted in Buck v. Bell, “if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.
The evolutionary approach argues that gender role division is a consequence of the adaptation to the challenges and circumstances faced by our ancestors. This suggests that the role differences we observe are more a product of our biological inheritance and evolution than social factors acting on our behavior. As evolutionary theory is a biological approach to gender development, it suggests that our genes have coded aspects of human behavior because they were or are adaptive. However a debate to this approach is the nature vs. nurture approach, nature supporting the evolutionary approach being that we have evolved through survival and adaptation to the situations and therefore passing on the adaptive genes of the survivors. Nurture on the other hand is a view, is a view proposed by the social approach suggesting that behavior is affected by socialization and environment.
The nature-nurture debate is all about whether genetics (nature) or our environment (nurture) is responsible for our behaviour and development. Early theorists believed that our personality, intellect, behaviour and gender role were determined by our genes and therefore could not be changed. But an increasing amount of evidence has proved these theorists wrong, and our development as an individual is learnt through the environment we live in. One developmental stage of an individual that psychologists have the nature-nurture debate about is the intelligence stage. The nature side of that intelligence is present at birth and we already have a set amount of intelligence.
This statement was proven to be precise. Eugenicists helped to understand genetics and traits of humans while Frankenstein provided theories for new scientific practices. Conversely, both works brought more negative effects and situations than positive, even though either one was initially intended to do so. Both provided reason to believe that along with new scientific frontiers, also comes new sought out problems which could occur delivering the notion that new technology should be used with great care and a sense of
This demonstrates how Darwin’s ideals could be applied to other scientific fields outside the sphere of biology to include business progress and political science as well. Another example of this is can be shown from writers who used these theories to support the superiority of the Caucasian ethnicity as well as the dominion over, or eradication of non-white ethnicities, stating that they are “lower life-forms”. Of these writers Paul Rohrbach who was a German Colonial of South Africa wrote “No false philanthropy or racial theory can convince sensible people that the preservation of a tribe of South Africa’s kaffirs … is more important to the future of mankind than the spread of the great European nations and the white race in general. Not until the native learns to produce anything of value in the service of the higher race, i.e., in the service of its and his own progress, does he gain any moral right to exist (Perry. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society, Volume II, 9th Edition.
Are we programmed to care primarily for self, relatives and survival or to sacrifice for the strength of survival of our “group?” This question can be dated back to as early as Charles Darwin, August Comte and Richard Dawkins. Grossman adds that Richard Dawkins believed that people of evolution are the selfish ones and that altruism must be taught. This is saying that we as humans are born into a word of greed and deceit, but must learn to share and unite with others. Although both sides are argued throughout the article, it is not known which side is correct and the question will still continue to be a subject of numerous scientists and psychologists over the
Race and IQ – Evaluating the assumptions The purpose of this assignment is to discuss and evaluate the logic behind the assumptions below. You must locate scholarly sources to back your position. * IQ test scores indicate fundamental intellectual activity * It is scientifically valid to examine “racial differences” * Group differences in IQ reflect genetic differences * IQ is immutable * High IQ leads to socio-economic success The questionable validity of intelligence testing in the assessment of intellectual ability across a broad range of cultural, racial and genetic differences Abstract The study of intelligence has been in the spotlight for over 100 years, the definitions of intelligence vary widely through cultural, economic and social perspectives on just what intelligence defines while the ways of creating an objective, standardised way of paralleling the human experience of cross-cultural intelligence have always seemed to fall short of exact scalar quantities. This essay sets out to logically evaluate some common assumptions about intellectual ability and show why coming to a holistic, objective view of the subjective, multidimensional phenomenon that is human intelligence may be impossible. Introduction Since Alfred Binot first instrumented standardised intelligence tests in the schools of Paris to identify learning difficulties, there has been substantial questioning into the objectivity and validity of IQ testing.
Eugenics Paper Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage. Since the idea of eugenics was invented in the late 1800s, there have been numerous debates over whether it is morally, or even scientifically, acceptable. Some believe that the “science” of eugenics will help limit feeble-mindedness and make for a better genetic makeup of a population, while most feel that eugenics is simply immoral. The argument against eugenics is based around unnecessary sterilization and even racial extermination, like Hitler’s Final Solution. The first act of sterilization occurred in 1899 by Harry Clay Sharp in Indiana, who believed
Would requiring a certain sex to perform an action based on gender specifics be considered unity or oneness? Is preying on one type of persons fair? Should you reward your children according gender? Should not being able to choose who we are before we are born be a death sentence? According to the Selective Service laws it is.
Contrast Theories Explaining Altruism in Humans Altruism according to evolutionary theory is a behaviour that reduces the fitness of the altruistic individual but increases the fitness of the individual receiving help (Okasha, 2008). Fitness is a central tenet in evolutionary theory. It refers to an individual’s capacity to pass on copies of his or her genes to the next population (Rosenberg & Bouchard, 2008). On the face of it, altruism does not make much sense from an evolutionary point of view, as the behavior seems unlikely to have been transformed into an adaptation. Adaptations, which are driven by natural selection, are features especially important for an animal’s survival.