Human Zoo's: Science's Dirty (BIG) Secret Revealed.

Here is a conference with Edwin Black author of War against the weak.

Sorry this is all I found, go to about 20 min in in the beginning its hard to hear.

There is literally a ton of evidence supporting that they have mostly renamed this program, what scares me is that we knew their agenda back then, but now.

Edwin Black unveils the latest research about eugenics in the Expanded Edition of his best-selling book, award-winning book "War Against the Weak" in a live event at North Carolina General Assembly's Legislative Auditorium April 25 at Noon ET. The event is sponsored by the Campbell University Law School in Raleigh, North Carolina, in partnership with the Urban League of Winston-Salem, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, North Carolina Holocaust Council, Jewish Life at Duke, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, the State of California Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, Human Rights and Tolerance, The Auto Channel, History Network News, The Cutting Edge News, Spero Forum, and the Jewish Virtual Library.
Broadcast takes place on in Raleigh NC at Noon ET, April 25, 2012.

www.ustream.tv...

Peace, NRE.

In case you cannot watch the video, here are just some of the things that are being discussed, and why I think that this is important, and hope that some members will participate in the conversation.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims. Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations. The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization. The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

hnn.us...


Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by buddha
They have done a good job of keeping this quiet.
it needs to be put on TV as a documentary.

There is indeed a documentary titled The Human Zoo: Science's Dirty Secret.

Here is part 1 of 4 (they follow on Youtube), mainly the story of Ota Benga, and sadly with little current content on the pygmy peoples.
In that sense, is it just re-exploitation?

What about the Belgian Congo, or the German genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples (now often seen as a direct precursor to the holocaust)?
Actually quite a lot is known of people like Ota Benga or Saartjie Baartman.
They became stars of their time, at least for certain periods.
So while it's all relevant in a greater context, let's not forget that there was much other suffering endured by totally voiceless, forgotten people.

reply to post by halfoldman


If there are some things that I have missed please post it here, as you can see I have been trying to stay on top of the thread, but am scattered a bit. I am not intentionally leaving anyone out.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

No, you haven't missed anything at all.
It's a fantastic thread and OP.
I'm sure it is new to many people.
It should be seen and known by many people.

What I aim to add is more footnotes and different vantage points, but that should not detract from the fact that there is a major truth to how certain bodies were used to make others look "superior" and "civilized", and I don't think we've ever shaken that off as a species.

Of course that too is now very easy to blame on certain scientists and "Nazis" of a certain racial type.
It can certainly be turned around to equally horrific effects.
Yet, entire societies thought like this.
In a sense, perhaps eugenics only targeted already unpopular minority groups that seemed "different".
Perhaps Eugenics became the fancy name for tribalism and in-group thinking that has always existed.

There was also always something that made one group feel more special than another.
Be it religion or the raced body, or class, gender and sexual orientation.

reply to post by halfoldman


I would love to see you add more things, I may have veered a bit, but it all fits together.

Though this happened to many groups, I wanted to add those that were easy to find if someone wanted to do their own research.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Oh man. I feel like I've had such a very sheltered life! This is really an educational thread for me that will help fill in some huge gaps, so thank you. I of course knew of circus side shows which I thought were mainly to show malformations I believe, but I only went to one and felt angry and humiliated for the person on display, and even though she gave a blank smile throughout, I was upset at the obvious exploitation going on.

I lived in a corner of the globe where people were busy trying to sort out language and religious differences as constant obsessions. I was eight when I first saw a dark skinned person at the same time I noticed pregnant women who fascinated me more. My city was so full of various nuns that I thought they really were a different kind of species. My parents did not purchase a television till I was in my teens. At age seventeen I met an aboriginal person, and learned about slavery around the same time. I read a whole lot about slavery but was not really aware of any eugenics until I read about Mengele. I never understood the eugenics program included racial aspects, as I thought it was limited to the mentally challenged.

The thinking in the late 20s and 30s in the society of the great depression must have considered that there was a problem involving the mentally challenged reproducing and being unable to work or provide for their progeny.

I have to say that I'm somewhat shocked that people could get away with the notion of human zoos though and I'm still digesting that.

The term "eugenics" and "genentics" should not be that far off. Today many of the papers that are written about this, are of course written in terms that a person who should be concerned with it would not understand, but there are a few out there that are trying to open the veil of what we once thought was done, has never stopped.


Is modern genetics the new eugenics?

In 1990, in a book describing his view of human genetics, Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster spoke about a back door to eugenics, one that is made up of “screens, treatments, and therapies,”3 and a few years later, Arthur Dyck, a professor of ethics at Harvard, wrote the following: Science, medicine and law at present willingly provide the information, rationale, and technical know-how for current eugenic practices in the United States, some of them quite coercive and arguably unethical… Eugenics is not simply a matter of history. Eugenics is practiced today… [and] the very ideas and concepts that informed and motivated German physicians and the Nazi state are in place. 4

Dyck and Duster were not alone in telling us that eugenics is actively being pursued in the practice of human and medical genetics. For example, Dorothy Wertz said it outright: “Eugenics is alive and well.”5 The basis for her assertion is that, whereas only some geneticists regard what they are doing as being eugenics, counseling for prenatal diagnosis is “pessimistically biased” or “slanted” and counselors have a “pessimistic view of persons with disabilities,”—perhaps not so much in the English-speaking countries, but certainly in the rest of the world. Similarly, Science, in reporting a survey on cloning, tells us that “eugenics is gaining broader acceptance overall,” in this instance equating eugenics with prenatal diagnosis for desirable traits and the use of genetic engineering to produce these traits. 6 And, in a comment cited in an article reporting that the governor of Virginia recently apologized for Virginia's 1924 law authorizing involuntary sterilization for eugenic purposes, Barbara Bieseker is quoted to the effect that prenatal diagnosis may be operating in a “milieu of personal eugenics.”7

The worst accusation that can be leveled against modern human genetics and medical genetics is that they are eugenic—if not a literal return to the eugenics of the past, at least a reincarnation of that eugenics in a new guise. The mere use of the word “eugenics” brings forth very visceral responses. Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, tells us that, “If cannibalism is our greatest taboo, positive eugenics… is a candidate for the second… In our time, the word [eugenics] has a chilling ring. If a policy is described as ‘eugenic,’ that is enough for most people to rule it out at once….”8 And, according to Diane Paul, “the term is wielded like a club. To label a policy ‘eugenics’ is to say, in effect, that it is not just bad but beyond the pale.”9

www.nature.com...


I know that I am running with this, as the more I search the more I find, while I am secretly hoping that this will find an end. Actually just a bit of research into a human zoo from 100 years ago has led me to all that I have written in this thread thus far.

I guess in all honesty I have had questions of my own, threads that I have written over the years, posts that I have read where members ask WHY? There seem to be no real answer, and I am damn sure hoping I havent found it here.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by aboutface


Nice subject, it reminded me of some history I learned here -- how the Americans took the indigenous people from here, termed "igorot" (by the Spanish) and put them on exhibit in American world fairs on their own large plot of land to resemble the culture of where they came from. Some of the people there were very confused and never returned home.

OHS - The Igorrote Tribe from the Philippines

Exhibitions of Igorot peoples at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair, the 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition, the 1907 Jamestown Exposition, and the 1909 Alaska-Yukon Pacific Exposition served largely to reinforce popular notions of Filipino inferiority. The displays stressed the “primitivism” of Igorot culture, particularly dog-eating, a common practice in many cultures, and head-hunting. Such practices functioned as gauges of the savagery of the newly conquered peoples of “Uncle Sam’s island domain.”

Those american's thought so highly of themselves..

Webster - DOGTOWN U.S.A.: AN IGOROT LEGACY IN THE MIDWEST

During the process of recruiting for the Philippine Exhibit, there was evident use of trickery on some occasions in order to gather tribal people for the Exhibit. Some of the recruits were not aware of their destination until they arrived in St. Louis. Similarly, a knowledgeable recruit had signed up as belonging to an Igorot tribe to which he does not belong in his desire to come to America. The trip from the Philippines to the United States was by ship across the ocean and by train across the main land. The trip was long and difficult for some. In general, the recruits were well treated and well fed. Some became ill during the train ride due to the cold weather to which they were not accustomed. At least two people died due to illness. The St. Louis World's Fair was the grandest of all Fairs and the Philippine Exhibit took the honor of being the largest and most popular one at this Fair. It occupied 47 acres of land, had 100 buildings and was the most expensive to build at a cost of two million dollars.

I'd like to think humanity has progressed beyond this, but I'm pretty sure much worse is going on today.

Everyone will have to answer for what they've done. Whether in Heaven or somewhere else.

If there is anything that I have left out, please feel free to add it here, there is still much more to come for this thread, and I am looking forward to more member participation.


Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


It's not that human zoos are bad per se, but that the vast majority of zoos are unethical in their methodology altogether (historically at least).

The very act of capturing a sentient creature from the wild for profit, placing it in a confined space, and presenting it for mere amusement, is illegal imprisonment as far as I am concerned. Sometimes it could also be torture, but many zookeepers are kind and caring so treatment could be very well in these "prisons".

Now there are instances where a Zoo was used positively to effect a good change in the animals that were held there in captivity, for example animals injured or displaced due to human negligence (oil spills etc), where we take our time to nurse them back to health and try to fix what we screwed up, that's the right thing to do and it's ethical.

But simply for profit and amusement? It's wrong.
And I have similar feelings about conducting unethical acts in the name of science.
(It's just like conducting unethical acts in the name of Holy Religions etc).
It's blasphemy and hypocrisy at it's highest degree.

Free the captives (not in the streets, back in the wild where they came from). There are exceptions like if the animal has no place to go to. Gotta take every situation individually one at a time when it comes to making the right ethical decisions, no one solution solves all problems.

We must respect the freedom of all creatures (within reason, don't take it too far), but at the same time we must act responsible and do the right thing and fix what we broke. And we break things all the time, so I see a place for an ethical rehabilitative zoo system in the future of mankind.

Some zoos are definitely good, whereas others are certainly bad.
This is a result of methodology primarily.

My strategy to this post:
Balanced approach for the win.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Everyone will have to answer for what they've done. Whether in Heaven or somewhere else.

I have no solid physical basis to agree with you, but I do have a strong mental and spiritual basis which compels me to agree with you wholeheartedly.

I am also convinced by my gut instinct, which has an uncanny accuracy rating of well over 95%. My mind usually ignores this instinct at it's own peril as it proves correct time and time again on even the most trivial of matters, much less the bigger ones.

I have a strong inclination, a great proclivity, a disposition leaning towards:
The statements made in your post.

Dunno why, but I bet it's factually true and utterly surprising when it happens.
Seems like a pretty safe bet to make actually, putting all things into consideration.

You can't mention eugenics without bringing up Margaret Sanger, though. While a lot of her current supporters try to handwave away her writings, they're out there for you to find, in the original print if necessary. Not pretty at all.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Must read hidden US history 101:

Eugenics in the United States

Did you know the Eugenics program in the USA inspired Hitler to model his program after it? Read Mein Kampf folks.

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and actually, U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]

Now check out this snow job here:

A hallmark of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population.

This is where they want to convince us that Eugenics and Genetic Design are NOT the same (Even though they totally ARE the same thing essentially). Had they this science back in that day, they would have utilized it to achieve their ends, no doubts about that.

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s.

Galton, one of the biggest jokers ever to exist. He honestly thought that black people were inferior humans, invented the IQ test to prove who was superior (utterly flawed and inaccurate testing concept), and pushed all sorts of extremely vile ideologies.

He believed he was superior to most people, yet he was impotent and couldn't have his own children. It's a freaking sick joke! How could the founder of eugenics and the coiner of the term itself be impotent? It's laughable.

Read his Wiki it's pretty disgusting to be honest about it.

Anyways, back to USA Eugenics hidden history:

The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage).

I am this race they believe is superior, and I know they are fools.
The true superiority is in accepting all humans and helping them while you help yourself. It's about treating humans with dignity and honor! This is the ultimate truth of life on Earth. Goodness and Love are superior human traits, whereas Hatred and Evil are inferior traits that all humans possess. Which traits you choose to express determines your standing in the real human hierarchy.

Galton's and Darwin's hierarchies are complete utter garbage seeking to justify subjecting other people or creatures to inhumane acts, while they pretend there is nothing wrong with it at all. This "system" is actually a system of "moral justification for atrocities".

Now, back to USA-Nazi-Eugenics:

Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of “fit” and “unfit.” By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one’s genetic fitness.[43] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominately white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of “superior strains.”[26] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that that those deemed “unfit” were predominately of the lower classes.[26]

Social mobility? That means how much money you have and what job you were lucky enough to land.
What garbage this belief system is!! It doesn't take any of the million other factors in life into account! So ignorant.

So today I got a good job, and my DNA is superior. Boss fires me, so tomorrow my DNA mutated and now I am inferior? What the hell are these people smoking?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Yes, all of that is in this thread, I know that it is lengthy, but it is thorough, what surprises me is that this is still going on, and no one seems to notice.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by Bedlam


I started reading this post earlier today and thought I'd wait until I could see where it was going.

Margaret Sanger - Planned Parenthood - Abortion clinics in the "poor" or (I am not racist, but this is the truth and people need to understand this as it pertains to eugenics - and the hitler regime) "black" part of towns and cities.

Please - see the new abortion - day after contraceptive - that any 15 year old can buy over the counter.

Who do you think this is targeting? How many silly teenagers are going to use this pill - not the day after - but when they're 2 months or more pregnant?

THIS IS EUGENICS - MODERN day - brought to you by the first half black president.

Compulsory Sterilization in the USA ::: FACTS :::

In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[46][47] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[48] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[49]

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[50] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[51]

"But say it isn't so Muzzle! I wanted to believe the USA had a nice clean history back in the "good old days"! "

Sorry folks, it's so true it's not even funny. It's sick, twisted, reprehensible, pure tyranny.
There never was a "Good old days", things have always sucked, and people have always been trampling innocent people's freedom (or any animal for that matter).

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[55]

Our grandparents supported this garbage.
I bet they don't even remember it. They probably didn't even know what it meant when they asked them about it at the time....sigh....

Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[58] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits.

I never heard about this actually until now. Sterilization abuse of Natives? Up to the 70s?
Gotta be kidding me!

Euthanasia in the USA

One of the methods that was commonly suggested to get rid of "inferior" populations was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report mentioned euthanasia as one of its recommended "solutions" to the problem of cleansing society of unfit genetic attributes.

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[61]

It dropped off over time in favor of other "more effective" methods.

Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[62]

A little more supplemental info:

The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[6][70]

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[62] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's.[7]

Germany couldn't have done it without our help!

Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[72] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler's 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the "science of racial cleansing". Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the "common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics."[73]

They were all very proud of their accomplishments (as murderers?).

reply to post by muzzleflash


The US is now trying to get DNA samples of every person.

MN was taking DNA samples of every newborn - until somebody sued - and won "Thank God".

Alabama was stopping and asking people to voluntarily give DNA samples - blood and saliva.

The PTB are very invested in these kind of procedures. Taking DNA samples of everyone arrested - whether they are convicted of a crime or not?

People need to wake up! EUGENICS is alive and very well in the US in this modern day. Link eugenics to the overly-broad psychological diagnosis - can anyone see where this is leading?