Скачать или смотреть #MoreToKnow

#DidYouKnow

Even though North Carolina struggles toward reparations for its victims of forced sterilizations, the social beliefs and thought patterns that led to eugenics continue to this day. Evidence can be found on the internet - there are existing websites run by people who still remain strong believers in eugenics. Beyond that, however, many of the core principles can be found in society at-large.

Enduring Stereotypes of Women on Welfare:
Considering that many believe that women dependent on government assistance should have mandatory long-term birth control. This speaks to a mythology that those who are living in poverty are unable to control their sexual urges and need control from external sources. Other ideas that would work to control personal freedoms for those dependent on government aid include limits on food choice and random drug tests.

——-“Welfare checks should come with mandatory birth control. (Advertisement Campaign Poster)——-

Are these limitations reasonable?
How do you measure success and how can it be achieved?
Is personal choice an important factor in success?
What are other alternatives? Are they viable?

Another example exists in a group called Project Prevention. Project Prevention offers women who suffer from Substance Use Disorder (SUD) $300 in exchange for implantation of long-term birth control methods or permanent sterilization.

Project Prevention was started by a couple who adopted a number of babies who were born with addiction.

After seeing their children suffer from addiction they started the program in order to prevent harm to future children.

They also argue that their program offers relief to women suffering from SUD because they prevent the roller coaster of emotion that comes with being unable to care for an infant and having that infant removed.

Furthermore, they argue that these women do not have the ability to make an active decision to become pregnant and care for a child.

Does the payment help justify the sterilization? If not, why not?
If so, is it enough?
Does the fact that they also offer long-term birth control make the sterilization option reasonable?
If the women cannot actively choose to have a child, are they able to make the decision for sterilization?
What other alternatives exist to solve the problem of babies born with addiction?
Should this group offer reparations or sterilization reversals if a woman succeeds in getting sober and regrets a sterilization decision?

The Genome Project and Genetic Purity:
A third example lies in the possibilities that come with mapping the human genome. Scientists are in the process of identifying the entire genetic map of humanity. So far, very little differentiation has been found between people from different regions.

However, identifying the genetic causes of difference has already affected our population. People who use "assisted reproduction" technologies are currently able to choose the gender of their child as well as to avoid some health conditions that will affect their child's well-being.

Although it currently feels like science fiction, some fear that mapping the genome will allow people to "design" their babies according to valuable genetic traits.

The further assumption is that this trend will eliminate difference and disability in our
population.

How does difference in populations relate to eugenics?
How can difference in populations benefit society?
What are the risks of promoting homogeneity among the population?
Does this possibility affect our thinking on race and gender issues?

WS Journal:
John Railey, of the Winston-Salem Journal, offers historical insight to the sterilization program and the state of North Carolina's attempts to create restorative justice.

At one point he addresses the argument made by some people that the program administrators were wrong, but not deliberately so - that is, that they were only "misguided."

He argues that after the 1940s, when many other states were reducing or eliminating their sterilization programs, North Carolina's use of forced sterilizations became "criminal" rather than misguided. How so? How does this change affect North Carolina's obligation to affect justice?

John also brings up that social workers would pester families until they received consent for the procedure. He also states that it is "not real consent" - what does that mean? What is real consent and what would it look like? How was consent compromised?

John also brings up a point about how normal this practice was in its time. Can you think of other examples of practices or views that were once accepted but are now viewed as wrong? Are there current practices in our society that may be considered unjust in the future?

He notes that when North Carolina wanted to sterilize people, authorities had no trouble finding candidates. Conversely, the state has been unable to find many of the people who are eligible for reparations.