Watch the following 10 minute video on eugenics, and then tie what you viewed/learned to some of the concepts in Ch. 9 of Sturken & Cartwright: “Scientific Looking, Looking at Science.”
War on the Weak: Eugenics in America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaH0Ws8RtSc
ENG 350: Visible Rhetoric (Fall 2010) 
I’m glad you posted this, since it seemed to me that the chapter only touched on eugenics and did not deal in detail with its nefarious history in the United States.
Eugenics is part of what made me concerned when the Human Genome Project began. I fear that misuse of science could lead us into the same sort of discrimination and abuse. The idea of using the human chromosome (as show on page 376) has always bothered me because it also has the effect of reducing people to their genetic material in a dehumanizing way. I watch this and think about how it could have effected my own family, had it continued; though her diagnosis was later withdrawn, my grandmother was at one time labeled schizophrenic in the early 1930s. She would have been a prime target, which would have meant my mother would not have born, nor would I, had sterilization continued. Perhaps I have a gene for panic disorder (which is often linked to PTSD) and if that’s mapped and misused…hmm…scary thought.
I think this goes back to what I brought up in class: that perhaps the desire for certainty. It’s human nature to want definitive answers about the mystery of life. Perhaps the two most prominent examples of that desire can be seen in two things that are often painted to oppose each other: religion and science. Science has an advantage that religion does not have access to: photography and related technology. (Unless you count the image of the Virgin Mary and Jesus appearing on and in things)
I’m all for science, but in thinking on this chapter it increases my concern that people will not question it as much as they should because of the impact images have on acceptance. Many want to believe and seeing is believing for many. Certainty can be damning, but its an urge that drives many. Science and its images could provide an opportunity for those who seek it to feel justified.
This is not directly related, but I meant to share this blog link weeks ago. It’s a powerful response to Juan Williams’ (formerly on NPR) statement that he was afraid to get onto planes when he saw Muslims in their garb. Not only does it show the true garb of Muslims, but the diversity of those who practice Islam. Go visual rhetoric!
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/
After watching the video and comparing it with the reading, I am at a bit of a loss at where to begin. I am appalled really at the concept of Eugenics and wonder how collectively this could have been an accepted process. To begin with I have to wonder where the line would be drawn. In the video they talked about a young girl that was termed an imbecile but had received B’s on her repeort card. In “Practices of Looking” they mention looking in prisons for undesirable traits such as “beady eyes”. I find it difficult to believe that these traits are so undesirable that those carrying them must be sterilized.
The irony of it all is that Eugenics was based on the wish to eliminate undesirable traits such as ignorance, yet the ignorance of how to properly treat disease or mental illness is a result of the ignorance of the supposedly “higher race”. I can’t understand how they believe that they could wean out poor genes when there are other circumstances that can result in undesirable traits or deformities. For example, two seemingly healthy (or fit) parents may carry recessive genes that will result in a mentally ill child, or there could be a complication with a pregnancy that may result in a malformed child.
I was especially sickened by the quote in the movie, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.” It seems to me that in their effort to create the perfect race the only thing they were accomplishing is the spread of ignorance, evil, and hate.
What I think is most interesting about the issues surrounding eugenics in this video, and that still exist today, is that scientists began pushing eugenics because they believed that the “deformed,” “mentally ill,” or “undesirable” people were the reason for violence and poverty in the country—and this is an assumption based on misunderstandings of why so many of these people committed crimes and lived in poverty and a misrepresentation of the reality of how many of them are a danger to society. Much of this misrepresentation and misunderstanding is based on a lack of research and awareness of mental illness, physical deformities, and other traits considered “undesirable.”
Therefore, the ignorance of what people who have mental illness or are physically differently-abled can give to society is based on the fact that they seem different from what is “normal”—a term that is impossible to define and problematic towards anyone who sticks out a little bit more than some others. The fact is that people that people with mental illness and other “abnormal” traits are not any more abnormal than anyone else, and they can contribute and be valued in society as much as anyone else, but this fact is often not seen because many are too focused on finding differences and negatives than positives. A great deal of scientific study is built around trying to discover what is normal by defining what is abnormal. And while this can help cure and prevent diseases when it comes to researching genetic and other diseases that can be recognized by determining what is “abnormal” within genes, through projects like the Human Genome project, it can also have problematic effects when we are ignorant about other aspects of humanity.
For example, the question of what makes someone “human” and the kind of value and rights we attach to that label is an issue that scientists, theorists, and philosophers often explore to continuously increasing complexity that leads to more questions and less answers—but scientists often ignore the unanswerable and focus on the provable. It is an over simplification and reduction of the complexity that is “humanity” to think that all of the ways we catalogue and define our bodies by using scientific tools and methods must lead to one unified and easily expressible answer to this question. The tools we use to explore the inside and outside of our bodies can be used for positive and helpful ends if used in ways that do not dehumanize and by people who respect and understand that the human body and mind is much more complex than a strand of DNA.
All of the tools discussed in Chapter 9, from the ultrasound to the x-ray, have many positive and helpful uses, but they have to be understood more fully by scientists and the public before we embrace them as cure-alls for society’s and our own ills.