To start, I noticed that during the peak of the American eugenics movement (1920-1929) that anti-evolutionary bills and eugenical bills were being passed in the same 37 states (well, just about), particularly in the midwest and southern states. I suspect that this also correlates to the treatment of A Civic Biology during the Scopes trial, and it's reprint in 1926, A New Civic Biology, both by George W. Hunter. Wherein, the word evolution was removed and the chapters dealing with heredity were moved to the back sections of the book, as I noticed when I got a hold of these texts. The chapter on Eugenics was left where it was, but during the 4th printing, according to Adam Shapiro, American Book Company's publishers pushed Hunter to remove the language dealing with STD's, and sex itself.

What I think is happening is was a defense of this weird contradiction, like "It's for the family/kids/future." I was told to find No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, I got it in [yesterday now] and have read as much of it as I could in one sitting. This book doesn't seem to be enough though, it introduces me to some interesting concepts of family and children, but it's not solid enough to use as support for my argument.

Are there times in the United States when legislators, the law, and the "Establishment" are particularly protective of children?

  • 6
    Welcome to HistorySE :) Do you have an actual question? It's difficult to understand what you are trying to ask here. Please read through the faq for more information. Dec 2 '12 at 10:01
  • I've got the same question as colepterist. Your question is not entirely clear, and you list quite a bit of information (not all of which I think is relavant). Dec 2 '12 at 11:29
  • 1
    Okay, yea, causation. Sorry, I'm not being very helpful here am I. I mean causation, not correlation.
    – AMoore
    Dec 2 '12 at 22:13
  • 3
    I also don't see a question. However, that is an intriguing correlation, considering the two concepts (eugenics and darwinisim) go hand-in-hand. It doesn't make much sense from a pure scientific standpoint to support the former and decry the latter.
    – T.E.D.
    Dec 3 '12 at 20:29
  • 1
    @T.E.D. - not really. Eugenics is merely a human form of atrificual selection that farmers have been practicing empirically for millenia before Darwin (or for that matter, Spartan ideas about throwing sick kids off the cliff, would be a crude form of Eugenics). Evolution is helpful to bringing scientific explanation to the practice, but not required.
    – DVK
    Mar 28 '13 at 4:43