Christopher D. Green wrote:
Neither of these things, Mike. I was suggesting that Goddard's program
at Ellis Island didn't have the (negative) impact people often
attribute to it because it was short-lived (if I am correct in this
recollection). That doesn't make it "justified" (your term). It only
makes it not quite as horrific or important (to both the history of
psychology and the history of immigration) as is often made out.
Hi Y'all,
The reason why it is often cited as "horrific or important" was not a
result of the direct influence on those specific individuals tested but
rather the use of these data. These and other data were used by Congress
to pass the Immigrations Act of 1924 which set into place national
origin quotas. The Immigration Act was an extension of the Emergency
Quota Act of 1921. Several attempts had been made prior to 1921 to pass
the act but failed. Goddard was vocal about immigration laws and wrote
in his book Feeble-mindedness: Its Causes and Consequences that "our
immigration laws have failed to protect us" (1913, p. 238).
The national origin quotas allowed for the closed door policies of the
30's and 40's which contributed to the deaths of so many attempting to
flee Nazi-occupied Europe. This was a horrific tragedy for Jews and
others made desperate attempts to immigrate to the U.S. but found the
harbors closed--very few available visas except for those with high
professional standing (e.g., needed scientists, highly recognized
scholars), the S.S. St. Louis was turned away in Miami, and Congress
voted down emergency legislation to admit 20,000 refugee children.
All of these existed within the context of support for the eugenics
movement in the United States. Of course, eugenics really extended
beyond the realm of issues of genetic imperfections (e.g., disease) to
beliefs in the heritability of things such as crime and poverty. Of
course, all of this existed within the context of extreme "racial"
prejudice and anti-immigrant bias. It is the same rhetoric that one will
find on white supremacist hate websites today.
In terms of the 1917 article, folks might want to take a look at the
following:
Tucker, W. H. (1999). A scientific result of apparent absurdity': the
attempt to revise Goddard. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 162 - 171.
Best,
Linda
--
Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and International Human Rights
Past-President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence
(Div. 48, APA) <http://www.peacepsych.org>
Steering Committee, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)
<http://www.psysr.org>
Secretary, Raphael Lemkin Award Committee, Institute for the Study of
Genocide <http://www.isg-iags.org/>
Coordinator - Holocaust & Genocide Studies
Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights
Webster University
470 East Lockwood
St. Louis, MO 63119
Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's (and woman's) best friend. . . .
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
