Filed with Race · Related: Social Issues MOC · 60.23 History

AI genealogy research

Ghost in the Machine (PBS Documentary) contains the full PBS transcript and a supplementary claim audit of the argument that AI “has its roots in eugenics.” It separates the documented Galton–Pearson–Fisher history from the further claim that modern systems inherit eugenic purposes, and identifies the evidence needed to establish real continuity.

Eugenics against white people 20th Century+

Here are several historical examples where eugenics policies or practices were explicitly applied against populations that would traditionally be categorized as “white” or “European,” either through forced sterilization, marriage restrictions, or other interventions. These often targeted poor, disabled, criminalized, or otherwise “undesirable” groups within majority-European populations:

---

1. United States – Forced Sterilizations of Poor and “Unfit” Whites (1907–1970s)

• The first eugenics sterilization law was passed in Indiana in 1907, and by the mid-20th century, over 60,000 people had been forcibly sterilized across the U.S.
• While racial minorities and immigrants were often targeted, a large portion of those sterilized were poor rural whites, particularly in states like Virginia, North Carolina, and California.
• Targets often included:
  • Women deemed “promiscuous” or “feebleminded.”
  • Poor Appalachian and rural Southern whites.
  • Institutionalized people with disabilities (physical or mental).
• The Carrie Buck case (1927) in Buck v. Bell (Virginia) exemplified this—Buck was a poor white woman institutionalized and sterilized, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously writing, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

---

2. Nazi Germany – Eugenics Applied to “Racially Inferior” Germans (1933–1945)

• Although Nazi eugenics is usually associated with Jewish, Romani, and Slavic populations, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans were sterilized or killed for not meeting “racial fitness” standards.
• Programs included:
  • The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (1933) – led to over 400,000 forced sterilizations of Germans with disabilities, mental illnesses, or traits deemed hereditary (including alcoholism and epilepsy).
  • The Aktion T4 program (1939–1945) – euthanized over 70,000 disabled Germans, including children, most of whom were “Aryan.”
  • Individuals with hereditary illnesses, the poor, and even those considered “socially deviant” were sterilized despite being ethnically German.

---

3. Scandinavia – Sterilization of “Undesirable” Whites (1930s–1970s)

• Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland ran eugenics programs well into the late 20th century.
• Sweden (1934–1975) sterilized roughly 63,000 people, primarily poor, unwed mothers, the mentally ill, or those labeled as socially unfit—nearly all ethnic Swedes.
• Norway and Denmark similarly sterilized women considered “feebleminded” or “asocial.”
• These policies were largely aimed at preserving the “quality” of Nordic populations by excluding the poor and disabled from reproduction.

---

4. Canada – Sterilization Laws in Alberta and British Columbia (1928–1970s)

• Canadian eugenics programs sterilized thousands, with a significant number being poor or institutionalized white women and men, in addition to Indigenous people.
• Most sterilizations occurred without full consent, targeting those judged “unfit” based on mental health, poverty, or morality.

---

5. Eastern Europe – Eugenics and Social Cleansing under Communist and Fascist Regimes

• Although not always labeled “eugenics,” some regimes used policies resembling it to control “undesirable” white populations:
  • In Romania under Ceaușescu (1966–1989), a form of reverse-eugenics emerged, where contraception and abortion were banned to force population growth, but orphanages were filled with neglected, poor, disabled white children, many later subject to neglect and death.
  • In fascist regimes like Italy under Mussolini, policies encouraged reproduction of the “fit” while discouraging or penalizing reproduction by the poor or disabled (though not as systematized as in Nazi Germany or Scandinavia).

---

6. Britain – Eugenics Societies and Proposals (Early 20th Century)

• While Britain never passed large-scale sterilization laws, many prominent intellectuals (including Winston Churchill at one point) supported sterilization or segregation of “mental defectives,” who were largely poor whites.

• Local councils sometimes implemented quasi-eugenic practices, such as institutionalizing poor, disabled, or unmarried mothers to prevent reproduction.

• Switzerland – Eugenics Programs (1920s–1970s)

  • Cantonal authorities sterilized hundreds (possibly thousands) of poor and mentally ill individuals, most of them Swiss, often without full consent.
  • Similar to Nordic programs but less well-known.

• France – Institutionalization and Sterilization (1890s–1940s)

  • While not as systematic as the U.S., some regions promoted the institutionalization and occasional sterilization of poor, disabled, or “degenerate” whites, inspired by Lamarckian and Galtonian eugenics.

• Soviet Union – Targeting “Degenerates” and Ethnic Cleansing (1930s–1950s)

  • While not explicitly called eugenics, policies included deportations and reproductive controls on “unreliable” ethnic groups (e.g., Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans) and harsh restrictions on the mentally ill.
  • Stalinist policy mixed social engineering and demographic reshaping.

Eugenics against white people before 20th Century

If we go before the 20th century, the concept of “eugenics” as coined by Francis Galton (1883) didn’t yet exist, but societies in Asia and the Middle East engaged in practices that functioned as proto-eugenics—aimed at controlling population traits, excluding “undesirable” lineages, or manipulating reproduction to favor certain groups. Here are notable examples:

---

1. Ancient Sparta (Greece, ca. 7th–4th centuries BCE)

Although not Asia or the Middle East, it’s one of the earliest examples of proto-eugenics among Europeans:

• Spartan newborns were inspected by state elders. Weak or deformed infants were exposed (left to die) at Mount Taygetus.
• The goal was to maintain a population of physically strong, militarily capable citizens.
• Spartans also arranged marriages to encourage physically ideal offspring, prioritizing warrior traits over wealth or status.

---

2. Imperial China – Marriage and Reproductive Controls (Han Dynasty onward, ca. 2nd century BCE–19th century)

China had recurring state-driven practices resembling eugenics, often justified as maintaining “order” and social harmony:

• Marriage restrictions:
  • Various dynasties (including the Tang and Qing) forbade marriages for people labeled as criminals, slaves, or members of “debased” groups, such as jianmin (despised classes), including entertainers, prostitutes, and certain non-Han ethnic groups.
  • Goal: prevent these groups from reproducing into the general population.
• Selective breeding of scholars and officials:
  • The imperial examination system indirectly acted as a eugenics mechanism—families of successful scholars often intermarried, concentrating intellectual and social capital.
• In some cases, emperors and elites practiced concubinage with women selected for beauty and health, consciously excluding traits considered “undesirable.”

---

3. The Ottoman Empire – Devshirme and Social Engineering (15th–17th centuries)

While not “eugenics” in the Galtonian sense, the devshirme system functioned as a selective human-engineering program:

• Christian boys (often Slavs, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians) were taken, converted to Islam, and trained as Janissaries.
• Only the healthiest and most intelligent were chosen; many were castrated to prevent family lines unless the state permitted marriage.
• Though not aimed at eliminating a trait, this system reshaped populations by redirecting their reproductive futures (limiting biological continuity for some groups, enhancing Ottoman military-administrative lines).

---

4. Islamic Law and Prohibitions on “Defective” Marriages (Medieval Middle East, ca. 7th–15th centuries)

Islamic jurists (in some schools of fiqh) debated and sometimes upheld restrictions on marriages involving:

• People with severe congenital defects or hereditary illnesses, including blindness or leprosy, on grounds of preserving family integrity and avoiding “harm to offspring.”
• Consanguinity (close-kin marriages) was debated but often allowed; however, some rulers or jurists discouraged it for elites to avoid inherited weaknesses.
• These were not universal, but functioned as proto-eugenic measures to maintain healthy lineages in elite and tribal families.

---

5. Mongol Empire – Breeding Policies for Conquered Peoples (13th–14th centuries)

• The Mongols often deported skilled artisans and women of specific traits (beauty, intelligence, or craft skills) from conquered territories to intermarry with Mongol elites or serve in the khan’s household.
• Populations considered rebellious or “weak” (physically or militarily) were sometimes deported, enslaved, or culled, reducing their genetic continuity.
• This selective incorporation of people served a deliberate demographic engineering purpose—strengthening Mongol bloodlines and weakening subject populations.

---

6. Safavid and Qajar Persia – Eunuch Systems and Elite Breeding (16th–19th centuries)

• Eunuchs, often captured from Caucasian or African populations, were sterilized to prevent their genetic lines from continuing, while still serving in powerful court roles.
• Persian elites selectively bred within certain Turkic and Persian families, excluding “undesirable” tribal groups or converts from elite lineages.

---

7. Ancient India – Varna and Hereditary Purity Laws (from ca. 500 BCE onward)

• The caste (varna) system functioned as a social eugenics mechanism, restricting intermarriage to maintain “purity” of Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya lineages.

• “Mixed-caste” offspring (known as varna-sankara) were considered socially inferior and sometimes barred from inheritance or political roles.

• These rules effectively constrained gene flow between social groups for millennia, reinforcing traits tied to class and occupation.

• Ancient Rome – Exposure and Infanticide (ca. 5th century BCE–4th century CE)

  • Roman law (Patria Potestas) allowed fathers to expose infants (abandon them to die) if they were deformed, weak, or simply unwanted.
  • While not framed as state eugenics, elite Romans often used it to avoid raising disabled children, maintaining “fit” family lines.
  • Plutarch and Seneca comment approvingly on this as a way to ensure “healthy citizens.”

• Medieval and Renaissance Europe – Marriage Bans on the “Unfit”

  • Certain city-states and guilds (e.g., in Florence, Venice, and German principalities) had ordinances barring the “feebleminded,” epileptics, or chronically ill from marrying to avoid “bad offspring.”
  • Though sporadic, these were early civic efforts to prevent “undesirable” hereditary traits.

• Byzantine Empire – Castration and Eunuch Systems (4th–15th centuries)

  • Eunuchs were a major political class; castration was often imposed on captives or rivals to prevent their bloodlines from continuing, while still exploiting their administrative skills.
  • This amounted to a deliberate demographic limitation of certain conquered or rival groups.

• Khmer Empire (Cambodia, 9th–15th centuries)

  • Royal edicts selectively relocated or executed rebellious populations; skilled artisans or attractive women were forcibly relocated to Angkor for elite reproduction, while “inferior” or conquered males were enslaved or culled.
  • This was less about race and more about selectively incorporating talent and eliminating rivals.

• Tibetan and Mongolic Societies – Monastic Celibacy (11th–19th centuries)

  • In Tibet and parts of Mongolia, large segments of the male population were encouraged or compelled into celibate monastic life, limiting their reproductive potential.
  • This indirectly functioned as a demographic control tool, ensuring only certain lineages (often elites or warrior classes) reproduced.

Timeline