Francis Galton (1822-1911) was an English scientist who studied heredity and intelligence. He was the person who coined the word eugenics, using Greek words to express what was originally a Greek concept.
He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. Erasmus Darwin was Francis Galton's maternal grandfather and also Charles Darwin's paternal grandfather. Erasmus Darwin developed a theory of evolution that Charles Darwin later expanded and refined.
Galton defined his new word this way: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally." But he wanted more than a little study. In 1905, he wrote about the three stages of eugenics ã first an academic matter, then a practical policy, and finally "it must be introduced into the national consciousness as a new religion."
In Memories of My Life, Galton said that the publication of Darwin's book on evolution stirred a rebellion against religious dogma: "The publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science."
He became an openly anti-Christian bigot. For example, he wrote about prayer, dismissing the idea that God would ever listen to anyone's prayers for good weather, basing his argument on mockery, not data: "I do not propose any special inquiry whether the general laws of physical nature are ever changed in response to prayer: whether, for instance, success has attended the occasional prayers in the Liturgy when they have been used for rain, for fair weather, for the stilling of the sea in a storm, or for the abatement of a pestilence. The modern feeling of this country is so opposed to a belief in the occasional suspension of the general laws of nature, that most English readers would smile at such an investigation." Is English scorn a reliable measure of truth?
Galton's chief intellectual contribution was laying the foundations of eugenics. He described his ideas in an article entitled "Hereditary Character and Talent" (published in two parts in MacMillan's Magazine, vol. 11, November 1864 and April 1865, pp. 157-166, 318-327), expressing his frustration that no one was breeding a better human race:
If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create! We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred varieties.While the reader ponders who might be in charge of this breeding program which is supposed to produce geniuses and "prophets and high priests of civilization," Galton continued with chilling language:
The feeble nations of the world are necessarily giving way before the nobler varieties of mankind; and even the best of these, so far as we know them, seem unequal to their work. The average culture of mankind is become so much higher than it was, and the branches of knowledge and history so various and extended, that few are capable even of comprehending the exigencies of our modern civilization; much less of fulfilling them. We are living in a sort of intellectual anarchy, for the want of master minds. The general intellectual capacity of our leaders requires to be raised, and also to be differentiated. We want abler commanders, statesmen, thinkers, inventors, and artists. The natural qualifications of our race are no greater than they used to be in semi-barbarous times, though the conditions amid which we are born are vastly more complex than of old. The foremost minds of the present day seem to stagger and halt under an intellectual load too heavy for their powers.When Galton said that it is necessary for the "feeble nations" to give way before the "nobler varieties of mankind," was that a justification for genocide?
Further on, he wrote,
No one, I think, can doubt, from the facts and analogies I have brought forward, that, if talented men were mated with talented women, of the same mental and physical characters as themselves, generation after generation, we might produce a highly-bred human race, with no more tendency to revert to meaner ancestral types than is shown by our long-established breeds of race-horses and fox-hounds.It is interesting to note that the animals he mentioned were the same as those that Plato mentioned. He continued:
It may be said that, even granting the validity of my arguments, it would be impossible to carry their indications into practical effect. For instance, if we divided the rising generation into two castes, A and B, of which A was selected for natural gifts, and B was the refuse, then, supposing marriage was confined within the pale of the caste to which each individual belonged, it might be objected that we should simply differentiate our race - that we should create a good and a bad caste, but we should not improve the race as a whole. I reply that this is by no means the necessary result. There remains another very important law to be brought into play. Any agency, however indirect, that would somewhat hasten the marriages in caste A, and retard those in caste B, would result in a larger proportion of children being born to A than to B, and would end by wholly eliminating B, and replacing it by A.On Indians, he wrote:Let us take a definite case, in order to give precision to our ideas. We will suppose the population to be, in the first instance, stationary; A and B to be equal in numbers; and the children of each married pair who survive to maturity to be rather more than two and a half in the case of A, and rather less than one and a half in the case of B. This no extravagant hypothesis. Half the population of the British Isles are born of mothers under the age of thirty years.
The result in the first generation would be that the total population would be unchanged, but that only one-third part of it would consist of the children of B. In the second generation, the descendants of B would be reduced to two-ninths of their original numbers, but the total population would begin to increase, owing to the greater preponderance of the prolific caste A. At this point the law of natural selection would powerfully assist in the substitution of caste A for caste B, by pressing heavily on the minority of weakly and incapable men.
The customs that affect the direction and date of marriages are already numerous. In many families, marriages between cousins are discouraged and checked. Marriages, in other respects appropriate, are very commonly deferred, through prudential considerations. If it was generally felt that intermarriages between A and B were as unadvisable as they are supposed to be between cousins, and that marriages in A ought to be hastened, on the ground of prudential considerations, while those in B ought to be discouraged and retarded, then, I believe, we should have agencies amply sufficient to eliminate B in a few generations.
I hence conclude that the improvement of the breed of mankind is no insuperable difficulty. If everybody were to agree on the improvement of the race of man being a matter of the very utmost importance, and if the theory of the hereditary transmission of qualities in men was as thoroughly understood as it is in the case of our domestic animals, I see no absurdity in supposing that, in some way or other, the improvement would be carried into effect.
Excellent observers have watched the American Indians under all these influences, and their almost unanimous conclusion is as follows:-Amidst the condescending and insulting generalities, Galton states that the Negro is outgoing, and so his race is irrepressible. But Indians do not have good social skills, so their survival may be threatened. In fact, they are so lacking is social graces that infanticide is common, and has caused the demise of some tribes. He later returns to this idea, that their moral character, built into their being, is defective and threatens their survival:The race is divided into many varieties, but it has fundamentally the same character throughout the whole of America. The men, and in a less degree the women, are naturally cold, melancholic, patient, and taciturn. A father, mother, and their children, are said to live together in a hut, like persons assembled by accident, not tied by affection. The youths treat their parents with neglect, and often with such harshness and insolence as to horrify Europeans who have witnessed their conduct. The mothers have been seen to commit infanticide without the slightest discomposure, and numerous savage tribes have died out in consequence of this practice. The American Indians are eminently non-gregarious. They nourish a sullen reserve, and show little sympathy with each other, even when in great distress. The Spaniards had to enforce the common duties of humanities by positive laws. They are strangely taciturn. When not engaged in action they will sit whole days in one posture without opening their lips, and wrapped up in their narrow thoughts. The usually march in Indian file, that is to say, in a long line, at some distance from each other, without exchanging a word. They keep the same profound silence in rowing a canoe, unless they happen to be excited by some extraneous cause. On the other hand, their patriotism and local attachments are strong, and they have an astonishing sense of personal dignity. The nature of the American Indians appears to contain the minimum of affectionate and social qualities compatible with the continuance of their race.
Here, then, is a well-marked type of character, that formerly prevailed over a large part of the globe, with which other equally marked types of character in other regions are strongly contrasted. Take, for instance, the typical West African Negro. He is more unlike the Red man in his mind than in his body. Their characters are almost opposite, one to the other. The Red man has great patience, great reticence, great dignity, and no passion; the Negro has strong impulsive passions, and neither patience, reticence, nor dignity. He is warm-hearted, loving towards his master's children, and idolised by the children in return. He is eminently gregarious, for he is always jabbering, quarrelling, tom-tom-ing, or dancing. He is remarkably domestic, and he is endowed with such constitutional vigour, and is so prolific, that his race is irrepressible.
In strength, agility, and other physical qualities, Darwin's law of natural selection acts with unimpassioned, merciless severity. The weakly die in the battle for life; the stronger and more capable individuals are alone permitted to survive, and to bequeath their constitutional vigour to future generations. Is there any corresponding rule in respect to moral character? I believe there is, and I have already hinted at it when speaking of the American Indians.Galton wrote in 1864 that the American Indians were too reserved for their own good, and that their survival was threatened by their behavior. The following year, with the close of the Civil War, the American military turned its attention to the Indians. One of the tactics that Gen. George Sherman had used in Georgia, and which Gen. Philip Sheridan also had used in the Shenandoah Valley, was destroying supplies. They had attacked the power of the Confederacy by destroying the crops that fed the army (and the civilians). After that war, as the railroads and white civilization pushed west, the same tactic was used against the Indians. Sharpshooters began slaughtering the principal source of food for the Plains Indians ã herds of buffalo.
According to Gen. Sheridan, the buffalo hunters did more to settle "the vexed Indian question than the entire army has done in 35 years." In 1875, Sheridan addressed the Texas legislature on the matter of buffalo hunters, and had strong words of support:
For the sake of a lasting peace, let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle and the festive cowboy, who follows the hunter as a second forerunner of an advanced civilization.By 1890, the Plains Indians were subdued, pushed aside to make way for an "advanced civilization." In 1893, efforts began to rescue the buffalo from extinction, since there may have been fewer than one thousand left (down from 40 million in 1830).
Galton is not responsible for brutality against American Indians, attacking them by destroying their food supply. There is no evidence that buffalo hunters or even Gen. Sheridan ever read Galton's essay. But it is important, when evaluating his theories, to understand that he wrote about the Indians in 1864, noted that their very survival was endangered, and blamed them for their own problems. Then over the next 30 years, their problems increased dramatically, for reasons that had nothing to do with melancholy, reticence, or paddling techniques. During his life time, Galton had the opportunity to compare his theories to reality. In the face of miserable realities that might have shamed him, he stuck to his theories.
Galton started a "biometric laboratory" at London University, and funded a research fellowship. In his will, he also left money to found the Chair of Eugenics there.
He studied medicine, but never practiced as a physician. He traveled in Africa, but kept his distance from the people and studied them. He wrote about weather (coining the term "anticyclone"). His pioneering work on fingerprints led to their use in identifying people.
He devised new statistical methods, including correlational calculus. His work included use of a statistical tool called the "bell curve."
Galton's mathematical approach to life was sometimes absurd and offensive. Once, when he saw a woman in Africa with large breasts, he walked around her with a sextant, measuring angles. He kept track of how many pretty girls he saw as he walked down the street, grading them on a scale of one to ten, and later charting the results.
His books include Hereditary Genius (1869), English Men of Science (1874), and Inquiries into the Human Faculty (1883), Noteworthy Families (1906), Memories of My Life (1908) and Essays in Eugenics (1909).
"Nature vs. Nurture"
In three of his books, Galton studied what happened in families that were, in his view, desirable. He understood that a child who is raised among wealthy and educated people, among people who think and talk about ideas and about large plans for the future of the world, are likely to benefit from what they see and hear. They will benefit from their environment. But he was convinced that intelligence is inherited, and that brilliant parents were likely to have brilliant children. Some of his contemporaries believed that brilliant people were likely to have dull children, so he collected as much data as he could to make his point.
From Galton's time forward, there have been debates about whether heredity or environment plays the major role in shaping a child. Sometimes this is called the "nature versus nurture" debate. If a child is very smart, is that because the parents were smart and the child inherited intelligence? This would be the "nature" position. Or is the child shaped more by the good habits of the intelligent parents? This is the "nurture" position.
Galton and all of his followers have been very interested in "twin studies" as a way to sort out the effects of heredity and environment. Identical twins, of course, have the same genes. If a pair of identical twins are separated at birth and raised apart, then the similarities and differences between them can be very interesting. The similarities are more likely to be due to heredity, and the differences are more likely to be due to environment.
The nature-nurture debate may overlook the most important forces that shape human life: (1) the grace of God in the heart of the individual, and (2) human freedom, which responds to heredity and environment but is not bound by them.
Eugenics Society
Francis Galton wanted to make sure that people kept thinking about eugenics, so he took several steps to make sure that the study would continue after his death. As noted above, he left money in his will for research in eugenics at London University. Perhaps his most important legacy, though, was that he inspired the Eugenics Education Society, founded in 1907. In 1926, the name was simplified, and it became the "Eugenics Society." In 1989, the name was changed again, to the "Galton Institute."
The Eugenics Society brought together many powerful and influential people from various disciplines to exchange ideas about eugenics. Anyone who wants to understand the history of eugenics must study the Eugenics Society (ES). Even a quick look through the membership of the ES shows how far eugenics ideas spread. A more careful study of the membership shows how the pieces of the eugenics movement fit together. Some examples follow.
ES Member: Lord Beveridge
William Henry Beveridge (1879-1963) was a British economist who was interested in social security and full employment. During World War II, the government invited him to help make plans for a new approach to many problems in society ã to draw the blueprints for the new welfare state. The "Beveridge Report" (formally, Social Insurance and Allied Services) set a goal of making poverty a thing of the past, and it had a tremendous impact on all social services in Britain.
Anyone influenced by Malthus would have to give careful thought to a proposal to balance population and food. Malthus had taught that population growth would always tend to outstrip food. Did Beveridge disagree, or did he have some ideas about how to get around the Malthusian dilemma? In 1906, Beveridge had written a paper called "The Problem of the Unemployed," with a solution. Men who can't take their place in industry should be recognized as unemployable, and should be maintained as "the acknowl-edged dependents of the State." But the price for government support was "complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights ã including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood." In other words, if you couldn't work, the government would feed you, but would not allow you to have children.
The Beveridge Report does not call for forced sterilization of non-workers. But from the beginning, the men who designed the welfare state were thinking about how to balance jobs and population ã partly by lowering the population.
Beveridge was the Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science for almost 20 years, from 1919 to 1937. That position gave him the ability to influence the thinking of students preparing for careers in many different fields, including economics, government and foreign service. He was succeeded by Prof. Sir Alexander M. Carr-Saunders (1886 to 1966), also an officer of the Eugenics Society, who was director of the London School of Economics from 1937 to 1956.
Efficient Administration of an Empire
The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) was not just a fine little college turning out well-trained accountants. It is hard to grasp the grand scale of its ambition. The LSE was founded in 1895 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, leaders of the Fabian Society. It was then that the British, referring to their colonies and possessions around the globe, said proudly, "The sun never sets on the British Empire." Educated British citizens thought about how to run the world. The task of the LSE was to train people to apply scientific principles to global responsibilities.
Economics, like any science, must try to understand patterns. But economics looks at money and people, so there is a tremendous mental and spiritual struggle built right into its very core. It is very hard to make general statements about humans and at the same time to hold fast to the importance of individuals. It is even harder to study finances and hold fast to the dignity of individuals. It is possible, but it is hard.
To make matters worse, the founders of the LSE were Socialists, who were exploring ideas about society as a whole. They did not mean to ignore individual people, but the temptation was always there.
At the LSE, people thought about the problem of running the world, or at least a large part of it ã not the problems of individuals. The tools of economics deal with general principles, not individuals. Their politics were focused on society, not the individual. Into this fell eugenics, a new ideology that could work like a religion, and it too focused on society as a whole, not on the individual. Their questions, their training, their politics and their "religion" all tended to focus on the challenges of society as a whole, not on the dignity and worth of the individual.
When the LSE became a stronghold of eugenics, a curious and very important thing happened. The politics of the time were about money and the control of money. There were conservatives who still believed in some kind of aristocracy, and they adopted eugenics ideas because the ideology of arrogance fitted them. Eugenics told them that they were on top because they deserved to be on top. They were opposed by progressives, who talked about the working man and about a more just distribution of wealth. But the progressives talked about society as a whole, not about the individual. So the progressives at the LSE also adopted eugenics. From that time, people in both major British parties have supported eugenics.
ES Member: John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century. His ideas had a huge impact in the United States during and after the Great Depression, and in Britain after World War II. This influential economist was an officer of the Eugenics Society (Vice President in 1937, and a Director from 1937 to 1944).
Like Beveridge, he was concerned about full employment, balancing population and jobs. He argued for a national policy on population, and looked forward to a time when it would be possible to measure and improve the genetic qualities of a society, as well as controlling their size.
After World War II, the industrialized nations met to consider how to assist reconstruction and to stabilize global finances. Keynes represented Britain at the meetings, and helped to lay the foundations for the new World Bank. Over time, the World Bank became a powerful force for population control, providing funds but also putting pressure on governments to adopt national policies with population targets.
ES Member: Richard M. Titmuss
Richard Titmuss (1907-1973) taught Social Administration at the London School of Economics from 1950 until his death. He has been called the "high priest of the welfare state," and according to the Dictionary of National Biography he influenced an entire generation of social administration students, affecting university teachers, administrators and social workers from New York to Toronto to Mauritius and Tanganyika.
He wrote a report on Mauritius in the 1950s, and said that family planning should be the first priority. The government of Mauritius followed his advice, and Mauritius became a hotbed of activity for Planned Parenthood.
ES Member: Eliot T. O. Slater
Eliot T. O. Slater (1904-1983) was a psychiatrist, and editor in 1972 of the British Journal of Psychiatry. Slater was a student of Dr. Ernst R¸din in Munich, the founder of the German eugenics society (Society for Racial Hygiene), who received the Goethe Medal for Art and Science from Adolf Hitler "in recognition of his achievements in the development of German Racial Hygiene." Slater wrote in support of the German eugenics program in 1935-36. In later years, he promoted a change in the abortion laws and he signed "A Plea for Voluntary Euthanasia" in 1971.
Twnety-seven members of the ES were in the Abortion Law Reform Association, which worked to end the prosecution of abortionists in Britain, an effort that succeeded in 1967.
Journals edited by ES members have included:
Since eugenicists were writing and teaching in every corner of the social sciences, students either resisted it consciously, or absorbed some eugenics thought. But since 1945, there has been little or no organized resistance to eugenics. So it is fair to expect that everyone working in any social science in the English-speaking world has some taint of eugenics.
| Suppose it is true that tomatoes and horses and humans all progress into the future by natural selection. Suppose improvement depends on this "law of the jungle." What happens when a species disrupts natural selection? Charity keeps the poor alive, so that war and famine do not weed out the "unfit" in the human race. Eugenicists fear that charity can disrupt human evolution. One solution is to replace natural selection with artificial selection, so that thoughtful leaders of society can decide who should have children and who should not. |
This does not mean that every textbook in economics, sociology, psychology and all the rest must be scrapped. But it does mean that a student who wants to avoid eugenics must read textbooks with a critical eye. At each step, it is important to identify eugenics, and to ask, "What would change in this book if we replaced eugenics here with a firm commitment to the dignity of the individual?"
One more ES member: Lord Dawson
In 1936, King George V was weak and despondent, perhaps dying. He asked his physician, Lord Dawson, to kill him. The King of England is also the head of the Church of England, which frowned on killing anyone. But King George was not terribly keen on the teaching of the Church of England, and wanted euthanasia regardless. So Lord Dawson, according to his memoirs published years later, killed the king.
King George had not wanted a funeral at Westminster Abbey, but he got one anyway. The funeral procession included a carriage with his crown. As the carriage turned into the abbey, the crown was jostled and fell off into a gutter, and the cross broke off the crown.
From Positive to Negative Eugenics
Francis Galton was the Honorary President of the Eugenics Society for several years, and he spoke hopefully about persuading people with desirable genes to marry and have large families. Galton's successor at the helm of the Eugenics Society was Major Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), a son of Charles Darwin. Leonard Darwin, who ran the Eugenics Society until 1928, made the transition from positive to negative eugenics, and promoted plans for lowering the birthrate of the unfit.
Built into the idea of natural selection is a competition between the strong and the weak, between the fit and the unfit. The eugenicists believed that this mechanism was thwarted in the human race by charity, by people and churches who fed the poor and the weak so that they survived and thrived and reproduced.
To be effective, artificial selection had to consider two different questions. (1) How do you ensure that the strong and fit have more children? This is called positive eugenics. (2) How do you ensure that the weak and unfit have fewer children? This is called negative eugenics.
After a century of eugenics, it is fair to look back and draw some conclusions: positive eugenics is much harder than negative eugenics. Negative eugenics is easier, but is based on brutality. Sometimes, programs that started out promoting positive eugenics ended in negative eugenics. Galton himself preferred to emphasize positive eugenics.
In 1925, Leonard Darwin wrote an article for the journal of the Eugenics Society, Eugenics Review, pushing the idea of locking up everyone whose genes might be considered defective. To save the human race, he said, force or compulsion "would be necessary in many cases." He promoted a policy that he called segregation, but he did not mean separating whites from blacks; he meant separating the fit from the unfit. "Compulsion is now permitted if applying to crimi-nals, lunatics, and mental defectives; and this principle must be extended to all who, by having offspring, would seriously damage future generations," he argued. Leonard Darwin's ideas were not dismissed; one of the British leaders who supported segregation was Winston Churchill.
The leaders of the progressive movement in Britain also supported negative eugenics. The people who had founded the London School of Economics, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, were also leaders of the Fabian Society. (The Fabian Society later became one of Britain's major political parties, the Labour Party.) As early as 1909, the Fabians, led by the Webbs, said, "What we as eugenists have got to do is to 'scrap' the old Poor Law with its indis-criminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environ-ment as to discour-age or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness." In 1930, a Fabian leader, Archibald Church, introduced a bill for eugenic sterilization. The purpose of the bill was to make sure that "those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community" would be unable to have children.
If it was difficult to get more children from the fit, it might be easier to get fewer children from the unfit.
Eugenics Abroad
Britain was not the only nation affected by the eugenics movement. In 1912, delegates from around the world met for the First International Eugenics Congress. The second world eugenics congress met in 1921, and the third in 1932. Nations with eugenics activists included India, Australia, Canada, the United States, Germany, France, Japan, Mauritius, Kenya, South Africa.
In 1908, an American group called the Connecticut Society for Mental Hygiene was established, triggering a new international movement for mental hygiene. It had two aims: to improve treatment for the insane, and to safeguard the mental health of the public. No one would argue with the first goal. But how do you guard the mental health of the public? In practice, this sweet-sounding goal became eugenics. By 1930, there were mental hygiene associations devoted to protecting the public from mental problems in 24 countries.
The eugenics movement in Germany was very strong. In 1904 Dr. Alfred Ploetz founded a journal called the Archiv fur Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie, or the Archive for Racial and Social Biology. In 1905, Ploetz and Dr. Ernst R¸din founded a German eugenics society, called the "Society for Racial Hygiene." Later they changed the name a little, adding the word suggested by Francis Galton: the "Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics)."
In his book Fundamental Outline of Racial Hygiene, Ploetz called for the elimination of "counter-selective processes." He was concerned about social processes that reversed the work of natural selection by eliminating the strong and favoring the weak. He did not like war, because it eliminates the strong. And he opposed charitable programs to protect the weak and the ill. He suggested that doctors who were present at the birth of a weak or malformed child could provide an easy death with a small dose of morphine.
In 1922, a German lawyer named Karl Binding and a German psychiatrist named Alfred Hoche published a slim book with a clumsy title: Permission to Destroy Life Not Worth Living (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens). They argued in favor of euthanasia, or mercy killing. The cost of maintaining useless people was too high, and the government could spend the money on better things. Religious barriers should be pushed aside, so that the government could get on with the job of killing the physically and mentally defective (painlessly). Destroying useless lives was necessary for the survival of society as a whole, they wrote.
In 1935, a French-American Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Alexis Carrel, wrote Man the Unknown, in which he advocated building euthanasia institutions to deal with criminals and the mentally ill, using some suitable gas.
Step by step, positive eugenics gave way to negative eugenics. In 1910, Francis Galton and the President of the new Eugenics Society, Montague Crackanthorpe, gave a reception for Ploetz in London. Later, Ploetz and his colleague R¸din built the German racial hygiene program, and both were ardent supporters of Hitler.
Review of Chapter Two:
Galton and the Eugenics Society
1. Who was Francis Galton?
2. What is positive eugenics? What is negative eugenics?
3. Identify the Eugenics Society and explain its influence briefly.
4. What is the London School of Economics, and what is its relevance to eugenics?
5. Did the idea of a master race affect other nations as well as Britain?
Discuss: How much damage can ideas about a master race do?
