From p. 119 of William H. Tucker’s The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology:
Instead of the term genocide, which he wanted to reserve only for “a literal killing off” of all the members of a group, Cattell proposed the neologism genthanasia, for the more sensitive process of “phasing out” a “moribund culture...by educational and birth control measures, without a single member dying before his time.”
Well, it’s a move in the direction away from the murderous connotations held by genocide. And taken literally it is pretty descriptive of the goals of eugenics.
The problem is that “eugenics” doesn’t distinguish between positive and negative eugenics, nor does it imply anything about consent. The latter is serous, not just because consent matters, but because there’s been a history of involuntary and frequently covert sterilization of low status women.
I’ve heard the high level of incarceration of black men in the US called genocide because it takes those men out of the mating pool. It seems like overblown language to me, but the premise doesn’t seem totally implausible.
Personally, I tend to not use the term “eugenics” unless someone asks me if I support it, in which case I tell them that I only support it when it’s voluntary. This usually works well.
Relatedly, it’s interesting to note that some people object to eugenics even when it’s clear from context that there is consent, such as when some pro-choice people oppose abortion of fetuses with Downs or other defects.
The targets may not be convinced by this argument.
It’s probable that we need a range of words to cover different sorts of efforts at eliminating ethnicities and genetic sub-groups.
From p. 119 of William H. Tucker’s The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology:
Ethnic cleansing seems appropriate.
edit: That is, the term seems appropriate.
“Ethnic cleansing” usually implies causing people to leave an area.
Well, it’s a move in the direction away from the murderous connotations held by genocide. And taken literally it is pretty descriptive of the goals of eugenics.
Arguably, we already do—genocide for the first one, and eugenics for the second one.
The problem is that “eugenics” doesn’t distinguish between positive and negative eugenics, nor does it imply anything about consent. The latter is serous, not just because consent matters, but because there’s been a history of involuntary and frequently covert sterilization of low status women.
I’ve heard the high level of incarceration of black men in the US called genocide because it takes those men out of the mating pool. It seems like overblown language to me, but the premise doesn’t seem totally implausible.
Personally, I tend to not use the term “eugenics” unless someone asks me if I support it, in which case I tell them that I only support it when it’s voluntary. This usually works well.
Relatedly, it’s interesting to note that some people object to eugenics even when it’s clear from context that there is consent, such as when some pro-choice people oppose abortion of fetuses with Downs or other defects.