Murica 2.0 Dan Carpenter Creative non fiction Even though it seems to be a global path in the late 19th and early 20th century, America took a strikingly early lead in translating eugenic ideas into actual policy.
While Sir Francis Galton in Britain coined the term "eugenics" in 1883, and the concept certainly spread internationally, the U.S.
was a pioneer in enacting eugenic legislation.
This push began even before the 1920s; for example, Connecticut passed a eugenic marriage law restricting who could marry as early as 1896.
Then, in 1907, Indiana passed the world's first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law, setting a grim precedent.
Virginia infamously fought for and won the right to sterilize those deemed "idiot, moron or imbecile" in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v.
Bell.
This landmark decision tragically solidified the state's power to enact such measures.
And yes, these laws were then picked up by many states, including Kansas of all places, building on that earlier legislative foundation laid by states like Indiana.
So, while the mid-1920s, with cases like Buck v.
Bell, was a period of intense eugenic activity and legal consolidation, the groundwork for America's "wholesale" adoption of these practices was laid even earlier.
It would then take roughly another decade for these eugenic principles to be 'perfected' with horrifying efficiency by the Nazis in Germany, who, it's documented, drew some inspiration from American programs.
Through much of this, America, having already established its own extensive eugenic systems, was quite content to sit and watch, seemingly with admiration.
Until Pearl Harbor, I believe we would have just sat on the sideline, perhaps hoping for validation from the master, as it were.
I am a self-proclaimed cynic, so I will apologize now and only once.
That puts these American eugenic laws and court decisions just under, and in some cases, just over, one hundred years ago.
To people my age, this was a short time ago, but for the younger generations, it seems like ancient history.
This could very well be their downfall.
They seem to believe that could not happen in this day and age.
The problem with that is that a hundred years ago, when these eugenic laws were being passed and celebrated by some as "progressive" and "scientific," the prevailing sentiment among many was likely also one of confidence that their actions were for the betterment of society, not the horrors we now recognize.
The very idea that "That would never happen this day and age..." was tragically absent for those who became victims.
This is the biggest mistake they can make.
Marginalized people have never known what or who, for that matter, fought the good fight so they could have this philosophy.
My generation (Gen X, and the decade preceding did the hard work breaking the ice of the last cycle for those that came after.
The problem I see is they have not known the struggle and take for granted the voice they now have.
The voice that could very well be their downfall if they are not careful.
There has been a drastic shift in the early 21st century back to the values that led to that horror.
It hides behind a thin veil of traditional values.
The problem with traditional is that it is not synonymous with moral values.
They call it self-preservation while the majority of the world would call it self-serving.
I do not really know where I actually stand on the Socialism vs.
Capitalism argument.
Both are required for an advancing society.
The problem will always be where to draw the lines.
There does need to be some incentive to produce and improve, but there also must be something more than the failed safety net approach we seem to be fixated on today.
That in itself is misleading, as the current iteration believes that a safety net does not mean ability to live in anything but squalor.
Even then, those traditional values mumble that everyone in the net is a drain on society and should be {fill in your favorite punishment here}.
Of course, they are the exception.
"...And so, as if on some grim, pre-ordained schedule, we arrive at the immigration and isolation chapter of this recurring nightmare.
Having laid the 'scientific' groundwork for defining who was fit or unfit within our borders a century ago, with states like Indiana and Virginia leading that chilling charge, the machinery now seems to be grinding away at defining who is fit to even approach them, or indeed, who is allowed to remain among us.
The rhetoric is chillingly familiar, isn't it?
This talk of an 'invasion' at our southern frontier, a term that so easily strips away humanity, is now being used to justify suspending entry and tearing down asylum principles as if they were mere suggestions rather than foundational ethics.
As we see in early 2025, these aren't just words; they're backed by aggressive executive actions, a push for 'self-deportation' through daily fines and the revocation of social security, and an ever-watchful eye on who 'deserves' to be here.
This isn't just about the border, either.
The planned expansion of travel bans, categorizing entire nations and their people into color-coded threat levels, feels like a grotesque echo of the old quota systems, which were themselves born from that same eugenic impulse to pick and choose based on prejudiced notions of 'desirability' and 'threat.' Back then, it was the Irish, the Germans, the Southern and Eastern Europeans, or the Chinese who were the designated contaminants; now, new names fill those old, hateful slots, but the underlying nativist script barely needs a rewrite.
The scale of enforcement, the sheer billions poured into it, dwarfs anything seen in those earlier eras, perfecting the tools of exclusion.
And all this unfolds as the drums of 'America First' isolationism beat louder, a siren song that has lured us onto the rocks before.
Just as we watched, perhaps with that grim admiration while Germany 'perfected' eugenic horrors in the 1930s, a resurgent isolationism today risks creating a similar vacuum.
It fosters an environment where domestic anxieties, skillfully manipulated, can justify turning inward and demonizing the outsider, all while convincing ourselves it’s for our own protection, our own 'purity.' It’s a dangerous delusion, this idea that we can seal ourselves off from the world's troubles, or that those troubles aren't, in part, of our own making or amplified by our disengagement.
The generation that doesn't remember, or was never taught, how swiftly 'progressive' ideals were twisted into tools of oppression a mere century ago, how easily science was perverted to justify sterilizations under Buck v.
Bell, might not see the threads connecting that past to these present maneuvers.
They might not hear the dissonant chord when 'traditional values' are invoked to demand conformity or exclusion, failing to distinguish them from true moral imperatives.
They might believe, with a tragic naivety, that the system has too many safeguards now, that the world is too interconnected.
But the architects of those past horrors also believed they were acting for the betterment of society, blinded by their own contemporary 'certainties.' This current chapter on immigration and isolation – it's not a separate story.
It's the logical, terrifying progression if we fail to see the pattern.
The 'othering,' the fear-mongering, the legislative and bureaucratic mechanisms of control, the nationalist fervor that demands allegiance to a narrowly defined 'us' while casting out 'them' – these are the familiar specters.
And the most dangerous part, as always, is the quiet creep, the normalization, until one day we wake up and find the unthinkable has become the status quo, championed by those who, of course, will always consider themselves the noble exception to the very rules they impose on others." That very hypocrisy, that self-serving exceptionalism, becomes the fertile ground for the next stage of this unfolding tragedy.
"...championed by those who, of course, will always consider themselves the noble exception to the very rules they impose on others.
And amidst this grim march, you see the defiant ones, don't you?
The marginalized, those who have always known the sharp end of the stick, many still raising their voices – a cacophony of dissent against the encroaching silence.
That fire, the legacy of generations who fought for every inch of progress, hasn't been entirely extinguished.
It's a flickering, precious flame in a gathering storm.
But then comes the more insidious fear, the one that gnaws at the edges of this fragile hope: that even among those who have the most to lose, or indeed across the wider populace, many are being swayed.
Pulled toward what I call the 'dark side.' Perhaps it's the allure of simplistic answers in an age of overwhelming complexity, or the insidious whisper of propaganda that preys on economic insecurity and cultural anxieties, twisting legitimate grievances into fuel for resentment and division.
Maybe it's the exhaustion of the constant fight, or the way digital echo chambers can amplify the most corrosive narratives, making them seem like undeniable truths.
The 'traditional values' I spoke of earlier, with their veneer of respectability, offer a seductive comfort to those unsettled by change, even if those traditions are steeped in the very injustices the marginalized have fought against.
And this is where the gravest fear takes root, the one that keeps people like us awake at night: the chilling question of whether this growing traction, this 'swaying' of hearts and minds, could indeed gain enough momentum.
Enough to tip the scales.
Enough to place us, not in some abstract dystopia, but solidly within the chilling shadow of historical precedents like Nazi Germany.
It’s a terrifying thought, because it means recognizing that the path to such horrors isn't necessarily a sudden plunge, but a gradual erosion – of rights, of empathy, of truth – facilitated by the active participation or passive complicity of ordinary people, many of whom might even believe they are acting for the 'greater good.' The idea that 'it could not happen in this day and age' is the lullaby that allows the monsters to creep closer.
The mechanisms of that past horror – the scapegoating, the state-sanctioned discrimination, the silencing of dissent, the creation of an 'enemy within,' the fervent nationalism demanding absolute loyalty – these aren't ancient relics.
They are patterns of human behavior and political manipulation that can, and do, re-emerge when conditions are ripe.
When a populace is sufficiently frightened, or divided, or has simply forgotten the bitter lessons of what came before.
The fear that we are not just flirting with that history, but potentially paving a road back to its darkest chapters, is the alarm bell that needs to sound, especially when the voices of the past, and the struggles of those who fought against such tides, are fading from living memory."
Archive Assistant
Welcome. I am the Archive Assistant. You can ask me questions about the content above.