Podcasts about charles davenport

What are chemical reactions like in space? Neil deGrasse Tyson and Chuck Nice team up with Kate the Chemist to explore how cesium helps us tell time, the elusive quest for the periodic table's “island of stability,” how AI is revolutionizing chemistry, and more!NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here:https://startalkmedia.com/show/explosive-science-with-kate-the-chemist/Thanks to our Patrons moe shannon, Shaye S, Nic Chappell, Brandon Gibson, Ernest Carducci, Andrew Kidder, Aidan Beaney, Maurice, Erin Murphy, Robin Guo, Szymon Środa, Richard Brounstein, Jayant Dhawan, Ernesto Medina, Javier Lee, micheal stucker, Leslie Ekker, Steven, Ramkumar Agnihotram, Andrew Carl, Takashi H, Jasper, Lacie, and Linda, Kevin Contreras, ScarlettMoose, Sophia & Nick Sestrac, Earl Gleason, Jabari, the Dark and Not-All-That-Powerful Wizard, Bostjan Pisler, Rich Culbertson, Jeroen Allebé, Jack Black, Lauren New, Kevin Curry, Zs_cience94, Rich Dercheimer, Ned, Charles Davenport, Jenna Noeller, Nick Dragan, Simon Coulson, Andrii Pronkin, Andrew Coffey, D G, sai, and Ben Barzilay for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus.

We discuss the impact of genetics on society, touching on both the positive and dark aspects of the field. We reflect on the work of Dr. Anthony Fauci in combating infectious diseases like HIV-AIDS, Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19. Dr. Fauci's dedication to saving lives and his experiences with various administrations are highlighted, along with the unfortunate security threats he faces due to political tensions. Then we delve into the history of eugenics, citing examples of how genetics was misused to justify atrocities such as sterilizations and discriminatory practices. We share insights from a lecture by Dr. Adam Rutherford on the dark history of genetics, emphasizing the shift from simplistic Mendelian inheritance patterns to the complex interplay of multiple genes and environmental factors in shaping traits. He critiques the perpetuation of outdated monogenic deterministic thinking in education and media, leading to racial essentialism and misunderstanding of genetic concepts. Rutherford challenges the inaccurate portrayal of genetics in popular culture, debunking sensationalized claims about genes determining complex human behaviors and characteristics. The discussion extends to the distorted application of genetics in eugenics, with examples from Nazi Germany where pseudo-scientific racial hygiene policies led to widespread atrocities. The fraudulent foundation of eugenics, propagated by influential figures like Charles Davenport, is exposed, showcasing how flawed interpretations of genetics can have catastrophic consequences. Rutherford emphasizes the importance of revising genetic education to align with current scientific understanding and avoid reinforcing harmful ideologies rooted in eugenic thinking. By shedding light on the intersection of genetics, eugenics, and societal beliefs, we encourage critical thinking and a nuanced approach to genetic concepts to prevent the reemergence of harmful practices. Through historical analysis and modern perspectives, we underscore the impact of accurate genetic education in shaping informed discussions and ethical considerations surrounding genetic research and applications. This is our 80th episode - thanks for listening all this time. Full Show Notes Subscribe to our free newsletter Check out our merch --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/glasscityhumanist/message

The Bucks interview Agnes Schipper, journalist, lawyer,  mother, grandmother, daughter of a survivor. Listen as Agnes tells the story of her mother as a young girl in the 1930s-40s as she and her family are forced to flee Germany to escape capture by the Nazis. Sabine hides in nine different locations in Holland and England and fears she has been discovered when a strange man comes to the door looking for her.You can find the hard copy of Sabine's Odyssey here. Or here.  We think you can get the e-book here.  Just google the title and you'll find plenty of places to buy it. Learn more about eugenics, the Nazi pseudoscience that was popularized by an American, Charles Davenport.Many thanks to Agnes for sharing her story.  Here's our parting shot- a song we can live by. Acoustic version, of course.Give us your thoughts: BUCKSTWOOLD@GMAIL.COM Find us on Twitter: @twooldbucks1Leave a Voice message - click HERE

"You will not replace us" was the battle cry of white supremacists at a rally in Charlottesville in 2017. They were expressing an old fear - the idea that immigrants and people of colour will out-breed and replace the dominant white 'race'. Exactly the same idea suffused American culture in the first decades of the 1900s, as millions of immigrants arrived at Ellis island from southern and eastern Europe. The 'old-stock' Americans - the white elite who ruled industry and government - latched on to replacement theory and the eugenic idea of 'race suicide'. It's all there in The Great Gatsby - F.Scott Fitzgerald's novel set in 1922 - which takes us into the world of the super-rich - their parties and their politics. Amidst this febrile period of cultural and economic transformation, the Eugenics Record Office is established. Led by Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, it becomes a headquarters for the scientific and political advancement of eugenics. By 1924, the eugenically informed anti-immigrant movement has triumphed - America shut its doors with the Johnson-Reed Act, and the flow of immigrants is almost completely stoppped. Contributors: Dr Thomas Leonard, Professor Sarah Churchwell, Professor Joe Cain Featuring the voices of David Hounslow, Joanna Monro and Hughie O'Donnell Music and Sound Design by Jon Nicholls Presented by Adam Rutherford Produced by IIan Goodman Clips: BBC News, coverage of Charlottesville protests, 2017 / CNN, coverage of buffalo shooter, 2022 / MSNBC, coverage of buffalo shooter, 2022 / Edison, Orange, N.J, 1916, Don't bite the hand that's feeding you, Jimmie Morgan, Walter Van Brunt, Thomas Hoier / BBC Radio 4 Great Gatsby: Author, F Scott Fitzgerald Director: Gaynor Macfarlane, Dramatised by Robert Forrest.

Michelle Ferrari's “The Eugenics Crusade,” which originally aired in 2018 on PBS, tells the story of the rise and fall of eugenics in American scientific, social and political spheres, and.  James Keys and Tunde Ogunlana discuss what stood out most in the film and how many themes in the story echo what we still see today. The Eugenics Crusade (PBS)The Eugenics Crusade (Amazon Prime)The Eugenics Crusade (Apple TV)

"You will not replace us" was the battle cry of white supremacists at a rally in Charlottesville in 2017. They were expressing an old fear - the idea that immigrants and people of colour will out-breed and replace the dominant white 'race'. Exactly the same idea suffused American culture in the first decades of the 1900s, as millions of immigrants arrived at Ellis island from southern and eastern Europe. The 'old-stock' Americans - the white elite who ruled industry and government - latched on to replacement theory and the eugenic idea of 'race suicide'. It's all there in The Great Gatsby - F.Scott Fitzgerald's novel set in 1922 - which takes us into the world of the super-rich - their parties and their politics. Amidst this febrile period of cultural and economic transformation, the Eugenics Record Office is established. Led by Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, it becomes a headquarters for the scientific and political advancement of eugenics. By 1924, the eugenically informed anti-immigrant movement has triumphed - America shut its doors with the Johnson-Reed Act, and the flow of immigrants is almost completely stoppped. Contributors: Dr Thomas Leonard, Professor Sarah Churchwell, Professor Joe Cain Featuring the voices of David Hounslow, Joanna Monro and Hughie O'Donnell Music and Sound Design by Jon Nicholls Presented by Adam Rutherford Produced by IIan Goodman Clips: BBC News, coverage of Charlottesville protests, 2017 / CNN, coverage of buffalo shooter, 2022 / MSNBC, coverage of buffalo shooter, 2022 / Edison, Orange, N.J, 1916, Don't bite the hand that's feeding you, Jimmie Morgan, Walter Van Brunt, Thomas Hoier / BBC Radio 4 Great Gatsby: Author, F Scott Fitzgerald Director: Gaynor Macfarlane, Dramatised by Robert Forrest.

Mike Isaacson: Reproductive rights are inmates' rights apparently. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. I'm joined today by Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean of Undergraduate Studies at Michigan State University, Mark Largent, who is with us today to talk about his book Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States. This slim volume tells the story of the historical enthusiasm for depriving certain classes of people the ability to reproduce and the efforts towards making that a reality. Really happy to get to read this book a second time for this podcast. Welcome to the show Dr. Largent. Mark Largent: Thank you for the invitation and for your kind words. Mike: So I want to start today by talking about what you start the book talking about, which is a discussion of your historical method of storytelling, your historiography. So you make a very deliberate choice of vocabulary that really does have a powerful effect in exposing, kind of, the grittiness of the whole issue. Can you talk about that and what effect you intended to have? Mark: So I was trying very hard to work in an anti-presentist mode. Presentist mode is most commonly what's used in exploring issues like eugenics, things that have become recognized as problematic for a variety of reasons. What often happens when you take a presentistic view like that is you fail to understand how something that seems so obviously problematic to you could have been acceptable to large numbers of people in the past. The danger, of course, is that you fall into the trap of becoming an apologist. So it's a fine line to walk between being a presentist and being an apologist when you're dealing with issues like this. You don't want to explain away past people's beliefs and assumptions and actions as merely products of their time because that doesn't treat them fairly; it doesn't treat them as equals; it sort of lets them off merely because they lived before you. On the other hand, you need to understand the world as it was understood by them. So I think in graduate school is where I first heard the term “doing violence to the historical subject”. That is if you view them through your own eyes, you are doing violence to them. If you view them in such a way as to not hold them to any real standards simply because they came before you and therefore operated in a space of naivete relative to what you think you know, you're doing violence to them. You're treating them as somehow less than you and your present day colleagues. So to walk that line really requires that you use their language and you try to understand and discuss the world the way that they may have understood and discussed it. Now, the problem, of course, when you're dealing with something like this is that many of the things that they held true, many of the assumptions on which their work is based, are deeply problematic to us today, or we at least on the surface claim that they're deeply problematic. Because one of the real dangers of presentism is that it allows you to imagine that you're somehow better than the historical subjects were, that you're above whatever it was that they were dealing with, when in fact, you may simply rationalize some of the very same problematic assumptions that they held differently, holding them in a different way. So as a historian, I feel like it's my responsibility to treat the historical subjects fairly, and that means holding them to the same standards that I hold present-day people to, but also respecting the fact that their contexts were different in some ways. Mike: Right. So one of the interesting things that you do is you also use the terminology that they were using at the time, and I think it gives a really good sense, not only of, I guess, how distasteful it is today, but also it gives a good sense of the logic that they're working with. Mark: Yeah, their language matters. I mean, I really do think words matter, and unpacking words so that you understand what is within them is critically important. And one of the big ones, I address it right from the very start, is the concept of eugenics itself. Eugenics to us is by and large a slur, that if you call a person a eugenicist, you are by and large disparaging them in some way. And that was not held to be true by the subjects that I look at, which the story runs from about 1850 to about 1950, with the most intense period being in the first 25 years of the 20th century or about 1900 to about 1925. And the idea here is that they didn't have a slur in mind when they said eugenics. In fact, eugenics as a slur didn't really even emerge until about the 1960s, I tried to show in the book. Mike: Okay. So let's get a little into the terminology and the procedures involved. What kind of sterilizing interventions were physicians making, and what were they called at the time? Mark: So at the beginning of the story, so from about 1850 to about the 1880s, they were what they would've called “desexing.” They were performing castrations or orchidectomies [Mike's note: they're actually called orchiectomies] as they came to be called. For men, a complete removal of the scrotum and testicles. So, neutering would be the closest concept that we have. These were not widespread, it wasn't common. It was sufficiently brutal that it was considered problematic. But by the time you get into the 1880s and 1890s, a progressive new surgery, the vasectomy, had emerged. Vasectomization had first developed as a rejuvenating activity, a notion that you could rejuvenate a person by eliminating the pathways for sperm to leave the body, so by tying off or cutting the vas deferens. But it was seen from its original holders, and these were by and large the heads of psychiatric hospitals, as a way of managing a couple of complex problems. One of them was what they called chronic masturbation. They thought that the vasectomy would somehow reduce the urge of the men in their charge to masturbate. There was also the notion that it would somehow calm them and be a management tactic. But there'd been a broader effort both before the vasectomy and after it to cut off the inherited characteristics from one generation to another so as not to pass along what were largely seen as problematic traits that followed family lines. So all the way back to the 1850s, you have physicians, the first one that I can identify is in the 1850s Gideon Lincecum in Texas, who brings out in public conversation something that he said physicians widely discussed. And that was that there were families that were just no good, and that they produced children who themselves were no good who would grow up and have children who were no good. And so this notion of good breeding was well aligned with notions of artificial selection and plant and animal breeding. So this is pre-Darwin or pre-Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is published in 1859–this notion that you could artificially select for different traits in plants and animals being applied to the reproduction of human beings. And so what Gideon Lincecum, and other physicians like him, began talking openly about first castration and then by the end of the century vasectomies was intended to sort of stop these problematic lines of parenthood and then eliminate the problematic social behaviors and poverty that they believed were somehow rooted in the very biology of who procreates. At near about the same time near the end of the 19th century in the 1880s, the operation of hysterectomy came into being and then vogue. The idea is that you could, by removing a woman's ovaries or fallopian tube or uterus or all of it, control reproduction with potentially a positive therapeutic effect to women themselves by removing these usually described as diseased organs, the women themselves would be healthier, happier for it. But more importantly or at least equally importantly, you could prevent the passage of these deleterious social traits from parent to child, they believed, by preventing the parent from having children. So you're sort of removing from a community whatever deleterious social traits they believed were associated with the very biology of the parents who would otherwise have children. Mike: Okay. So I tried to get Daniel Kevles to talk about this a bit when we had him on, but he didn't seem familiar too much with the pre-eugenic history. So your story of coerced sterilization doesn't start with the eugenics movement, and you briefly mentioned that. So talk a bit about the origins of the movement for sterilization in the United States. Mark: Well, it really was focused on this analogy to plant and animal breeding which really did preceed both Darwin in 1859 and the emergence of the eugenics movement, which is a progressive era movement shortly after the turn of the 20th century. People generally associate coerced sterilization with the eugenics movement, and they certainly were closely aligned. The eugenics movement began in the very late 19th or early 20th century depending upon which historians you're looking at. But the movement for coerced sterilization had begun much earlier. And in fact, there were even common calls to it being pressed all the way back to Aristotle and his discussion about how certain traits seem to follow in family lines. And so by the mid-19th century when there was widespread interest in artificial plant and animal breeding, the application of it to human traits became an interesting element. And there were advocates for sterilization to prevent the passage of these deleterious traits that even preceded the invention of the word eugenics by Francis Galton in the 1860s. But this pressure had really been focused around thinking about therapy for deleterious traits, that you could avoid them if you could somehow prevent the people who would possess them from coming into existence or from them being passed from a parent to a child. There also was no really hard line to biology proper. And in fact, there was a lot of discussion all the way through the end of the 19th and 20th century about not just eugenics, but also a thing called euthenics, which was the study of the effect of the environment on the development of certain kinds of traits. And so in the same way that you could have a biological transfer of traits, you could have a social transfer of traits. And the thing is you can't separate. We talk about nature and nurture, you can't separate. You can't have nature without nurture and nurture without nature. The widespread analogy that was given was that seeds grow in the soil, and you can have a plant only if you have both seeds and soil. You can't have a seed that grows without soil, and you can't have a plant that grows without a seed. So these two, nature and nurture or eugenics and euthenics, were entwined in most of the conversation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We tend to really focus on the latter, the eugenic issues, but euthenics was an important part of it. And that's the same way, if you prevent a parent from having a child who they might pass along either biologically or socially some deleterious trait. You prevent them from becoming a parent, you prevent the passage of that trait. It's really only the eugenics movement and a real narrow focus on the biological transfer of these traits that you lose that nature-nurture symbiosis. But in the 19th century, they were talked about both really hand in hand, there wasn't this sort of hard line of nature over nurture. The place that it started to fall apart was when they began discovering genetic diseases. So Huntington's was the first genetic disease to be identified, and it was Charles Davenport himself who did some of the work to help identify that. And then you realize that that's a purely genetic trait that a parent passes along to a child, and if you prevent a parent from having a child, then you prevent the passage of that trait. So you could actually get rid of diseases if you prevented everyone who's a carrier for that disease from passing along from parent to child. And so there was a kind of either curative or preventative medicine notion in play in this early part. But the idea of genetic disease really helped create some distance in between the people who were thinking about eugenics and euthenics as hand in hand and those who began to think primarily about just eugenics. Mike: I do want to deviate here. So one of the things that you mentioned in the book was that even at the time they recognized that there was a flaw in the eugenic program insofar as, because they didn't have access to genetic testing, when you try to eliminate bad traits, you don't eliminate all the carriers, you only eliminate those that have dominant expressions. So they said it would take about a hundred generations to actually eliminate any of these traits, right? Mark: Yeah, and of course mathematical geneticists came to help us understand why it was that as traits became less and less frequent it became harder and harder to reduce their frequency because they showed up so infrequently. So I think from being fair to the historical subject's point of view, I think there's sort of two responses to it. One is, “Well, if we can substantially reduce the amount of disease by reducing the number of carriers that we know of who carry genetic disease, that's progress. So if you go from some number to a smaller number from one generation to the next of people who are likely or probable to have a genetic disease, that's progress. So you can't say, ‘Because we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything,' that's a foolish position to take.” So that's one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is that, “While you're correct that lacking genetic testing we can't see the genome in an individual, we can infer a great deal about a person's genome if we have elaborate family histories.” So that's why the real burst of activity in and around eugenics is with Davenport's and Laughlin's Eugenic Record Office and the establishment of this elaborate effort to build very sophisticated family trees, because that was the way that you could infer a genome with some accuracy. Mike: Okay. So one thing that you point out about the early physicians that were sterilizing people was that their reasons for sterilization were not necessarily eugenic, and early on they often weren't. So what were the other motivations of these physicians in sterilizing their patients? Mark: Yeah, they run a gamut, and I'll start with the darkest motives: clearly punitive. There's a significant punitive aspect to it, especially when you're doing something as brutal as castration or as invasive as a hysterectomy. I mean, you have to keep in mind the relatively crude state of surgery in the late 19th and early 20th century. So these are pretty significant things. There was one person in the state of Washington who had argued that a vasectomy was really not much worse than having a tooth pulled. And to imagine that without anything like sophisticated anesthetics makes you realize that having a tooth pulled is probably a pretty miserable experience in the early 20th century. So you're not comparing it to something that's not that big of a deal, but you were probably comparing it to something that was relatively common in an era before fluoride and dental health. So they were trying to sort of normalize it as something that could happen. The use of castration continued well into the 20th century for decades after the vasectomy was invented. So when I looked really closely at the state of Oregon, for example, they were using both castrations and vasectomies. And when we looked at why they were using one rather than the other, what we found was that when people were convicted of offenses that were associated with what we would today consider homosexuality, they were more likely to be castrated. But for men who were in prison for crimes of rape against women, those men would be more likely to receive vasectomy. And so you see this interesting difference in the application of which surgery is used, and it clearly has a punitive aspect of it in the use of castration. When you get later into the 20th century, you'll see this applied increasingly to women. And there's some very ugly stuff that happens in the 1960s and 1970s around women in poverty in which they are coerced to either have their tubes tied or to receive hysterectomies. There's a great book Fit to Be Tied by Rebecca Kluchin that is really the complement to my book. She takes it to the next set of decades, to the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties, and looks really closely at the ways in which there's punitive aspects of it all the way through the 20th century. But it's not just punitive, there were also therapeutic measures that were in place. There were clearly people involved who sought access to control of their own reproduction because they didn't want to pass something along or because they didn't want to have children. So keep in mind, especially with the more recent decisions around abortion and privacy rights that we're dealing with right now, until you get to the late 1960s, the guaranteed access to birth control is not a fundamental right in the United States. And so how do you control your own fertility without access to reliable birth control? There are cases, and Christine Manganaro has written about one such case with a physician in Washington State who was using eugenic arguments to justify and get through the bureaucracy necessary to sterilize women, and the women themselves wanted that sterilization and were collaborating with him to do the things necessary to get access to be sterilized. And so in control of your own fertility, there was some of that that you can find examples of. You also find examples of where it has therapeutic uses for people who are suffering from mental or emotional trauma. And again, Christine Manganaro does a nice job in this with looking at women who suffered severe postpartum depression. If you suffer from postpartum depression, what is the only real way in a relatively crude medical environment, what's the only really effective way to avoid postpartum depression? Well, avoid postpartum. Don't get pregnant and have a child. And so that same physician was using sterilization as a way of preventing the postpartum depression that would then follow birth being given by women who had suffered from this previously. Now, I will tell you those cases are relatively rare. By and large, the history of coerced sterilization in the United States is one of either eugenic justification or punitive measures or it's in order to allow for easier control over people, that there's a manipulative aspect of it. So it might be if you sterilize them you can release them because you believe that they will no longer commit the crimes or no longer perpetuate whatever genetic shortcomings those people are believed to have, or a notion that if you sterilize them you can release them because they have paid for their crime, that it's cheaper to sterilize them and release them than it is to keep them incarcerated. But what I think is important to understand here is that it's not a single simple answer to this. It's a pretty complex set of things that are all based on a pretty simplistic notion, and that is that somehow located in the testicles and ovaries of these citizens is a problem that you could surgically remove, that it could be excised from society by taking it out of these people's bodies. And lots of different people were using that to promote lots of different notions. Mike: Right. To me, it was interesting that it wasn't just about like doing things to prevent them from reproducing, but it was also sometimes used as a behavioral control method, they thought sterilizing people would actually change their behavior. Mark: Yeah, I mean, Harry Sharp, the guy who invented the vasectomy, firmly believed that he would reduce the problems of the young men in his mental hospital and their masturbation, what you call chronic masturbation problems. Mike: Right, okay. So now obviously a major factor of the movement for sterilization of the so-called unfit was the eugenics movement. So, like I said, we had Kevles on, so my listeners are familiar with the general history of the eugenics movement as far as its kind of intellectual development. So talk about some of the ways that the eugenicists were instrumental in turning sterilization practice into sterilization policy. Mark: Well, the biggest was what now is pretty normal in American politics, and that is what the founders referred to as states as the laboratories for democracy. The idea that the founders had all the way back to the Federalists was a notion that you had a federal government, but then you also had originally 13 grown to 50 states, each of which was a kind of individual laboratory for democracy. So an individual state could come up with new legislation and enact it, and the other states could see how it went. They could see what value there might be in that legislation. And then you'd have all of these different little experiments going on, and the good ones would spread to other states. And the early proponents of eugenics in the United States seized on this structure of governance that we have to individually, state by state, go to the legislatures with model legislation. And that model legislation came out of the Eugenic Records Office, and this is really Harry Laughlin's push to get states to adopt very similar eugenic laws. And you could state by state use these sort of models for it, so that legislators wouldn't even have to do the work of writing these things. Rather, the bills could be handed to them as a model bill that could be debated and put into place. And the promise on all of them is that if you adopted this legislation, you would have a healthier body of citizens. You would have a safer community of people who live there, that the state would save money because it wouldn't have to put so many people in prison or mental health facilities, and that by and large the public good would be advanced. And it was all leveraged on a set of prejudices against people who were not seen as sufficiently fit, that they didn't meet whatever kinds of standards that there were for human goodness. Mike: Okay. So on the subject of model legislation, so you talked about that and you also talked a bit about how court arguments were replicated across state lines as well. So how early was the eugenics movement to this game of pre-fabricated policy? Mark: Well, I can't find anybody who is earlier. I mean, this really seems like one of the real novel contributions of the proponents of this. And it's because it leverages certain characteristics of the way in which federalism works in the United States with the very nature of eugenics itself which is operating at this intersection of human biology and education and public health and medicine and the punitive aspects of mental health facilities or of prisons, and all of these things are under control of the state, individual states. They are powers that either explicitly or implied in the US Constitution are of state import. And it really only is until you get Buck v. Bell in the mid-twenties that you have any kind of federal sanctification of this. But prior to that, it had been going on at lower and lower courts, the big advance being made in the Michigan case two years before Buck v. Bell. And that Michigan case, everything that ultimately would be tested in the Buck v. Bell case was all sort of laid out and sorted in a much more complex case. But Buck v. Bell was the Supreme Court's sanctification of it. Mike: Okay. So one of the things I liked about your book was that it's rich with data, but it's not bogged down with it. So what are some of the key statistics about sterilization in the US that people should know? Mark: Well, I think one of the biggest is that it peaks in the 1930s and begins to fade prior to World War II. Another one is who is it that's advancing it at any given time? So what you see are really interesting lineage of professions who are advancing first sterilization and then eugenic sterilization in the 20th century. And one of the things that I find most fascinating is one of the last groups to get on board and one of the last groups to get off of this train are American biologists, and that American biologists really used this as a way to help professionalize them in the early 20th century because it allowed them to demonstrate the public value of basic scientific research. And then really are among the last ones off. You don't see biologists turn against eugenics until the late sixties and early seventies, which is really late relative to other professional groups. I mean, the psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists, many of the other social scientists, they are beginning to turn against it in the thirties. But American biologists sort of continue replicating a set of base assumptions that were first made in biology textbooks in the teens and twenties. They continue restating those assumptions all the way through the sixties. Mike: So for a while, the eugenics movement was largely unopposed in it's crusade to sterilize the so-called unfit. I mean, there were parts of the Catholic Church that were opposed and individuals here there, but there wasn't any sort of organized resistance. Now you claim that all changed with Buck v. Bell, so talk about that ruling and the reactions to it. Mark: Yeah. And again, it's funny to talk about this, funny in a like slow down and look at the car accident funny, funny weird and a little scary funny, it's funny to look at this right now in the context of, again, recent Supreme Court decisions about abortion because I do say in the book and I have said elsewhere that there really is no pro-life movement in the United States until Roe v. Wade. And in that same way, there really was no organized opposition to eugenics in United States until Buck v. Bell, that these court cases represent pivotal moments in the emergence of opposition because they crystallized something that until then really didn't have full state sanctification. And so in both the case of eugenics in Buck v. Bell in the twenties and Roe in the seventies, you have the crystallization of something to push against. And Buck creates for an increasingly large number of professionals and social commentators something very specific against which they can push and they can begin leveraging their sets of arguments. What I always find interesting is that the original arguments against eugenics in the 20s are very different than what are made later. That is, they often are rife with many of the same prejudiced assumptions that proponents of eugenics had. The issue for many though becomes the notion of whether or not the state has the power to do it and has the authority or is smart enough to know how to do it well.n ot really addressing the underlying civil liberties issues, which I think by the late 20th century are much more prominent in our minds. Mike: Okay. So eugenics began to decline starting in the 30s, as you said. The Pope came out against it, there was organized resistance to it, and advances in biology were beginning to unwind some of its core claims. But according to your book, eugenics took quite a while to finally lose public respect. So talk a bit about the decline of eugenics and what sort of documentation you used in the book to gauge support for the theory. Mark: Yeah, so that's actually my favorite part of the book, was the part that I found most interesting. For years, I had collected biology textbooks, hunting bookstores for them and libraries. And in every time I would find one, I would record if it talked about eugenics and how it talked about eugenics. And the thing that we see very clearly is that there's no systematic turn against eugenics in biology textbooks until you get into the 1970s, and then you start seeing this sort of shift in the discussion of it. First you see a decline in any discussion, you start seeing in the fifties eugenics falls out of the textbooks. And then as you get into the sixties, seventies, and really into the eighties, you start seeing some criticism of it emerge. But up until the 1960s, there's almost no textbook published that doesn't include eugenics, and there's almost none of the ones that do talk about it are critical. You don't see the real explosion of criticism until you get into the early and mid-sixties, and then by the time you get between the mid-seventies and 1980, it's overwhelmingly critical and overwhelmingly common to talk in negative ways about eugenics. So I used the textbooks as a marker for the state-of-the-art sort of received wisdom. And until the sixties, the received wisdom that every college kid is taught is that eugenics is good and possible, and biology can tell us how to do it right and well. Mike: Okay. So sterilization laws did start to also be repealed or overturned at the state level in the latter half of the 20th century with the decline of eugenics. Can you talk a bit about the decline of sterilization policy? Mark: Yeah. So a couple of things happened, and again, I point you to Rebecca Kluchin's work which I think is very good in this regard. So my story is mostly a story about white people and disproportionately a story about men. And so from the late 19th century through the first third of the 20th century, the majority of people who were targeted for sterilization were white men. And my argument was that this was a very racist activity because these men were being sterilized because they did not meet the ideals of white masculinity. That is, they were involved in activities that we associate with homosexuality; they were developmentally delayed; they stole or were violent. These are all unacceptable expressions or unacceptable activities of white masculinity. Violence or thievery or lower intelligence are acceptable for other races, but they're not acceptable for the white race. And so these people had to be cleaned up, they had to clean up the white race. And I talk explicitly about how racist it was and how it focused almost entirely on white men. That began to shift first with an increasing emphasis on women, and then by the mid-20th century, an increasing emphasis on people of color. And that shift happens at the same time that eugenics itself becomes increasingly problematic. And again, Kluchin does a much better and more thorough job of looking at that latter period. But my earlier work or my work in the earlier period makes clear that it's no less racist, that is, that targeting white men because they weren't upholding the expectations of white masculinity is a racist activity. And the latter work looks at what happens to minoritized communities and women, especially minority women, which by the time you get to 1970s, the vast majority of people who were being targeted for compulsory sterilization or coerced sterilization are minoritized women. Mike: Okay. Now despite the general revulsion of the public to eugenics programs, the ghosts of the movement for sterilization still linger in many ways reflecting the origins of the movement. In particular, you point to legislation that was passed in four states authorizing the sterilization of certain classes of criminals in exchange for more lenient sentences as well as sort of vigilante judges who attempted to implement these sort of schemes in their own rulings. So where is sterilization still policy? Mark: You see interesting popping up in interesting and problematic ways in certain either court cases or legislation that seems to get at the same underlying assumptions. And I guess if you were to ask simply, “What do you see as an overall historiographic trend to which you want to contribute?” One of the things that I want to argue, because I try to work very hard to not be either an apologist or a presentist, is that many of the same assumptions that led to things that we would consider deeply problematic are still present in our public discourse or our underlying assumptions today. And so making the people in the past make more sense to us isn't an effort to apologize for them. It's an effort rather to show that today we still have some deeply problematic underlying assumptions in how we look at people and we think about issues like equity or equality that future historians will look back on and perhaps point out our own shortcomings. So ways in which you may look at how it is that, for example, we would be much more inclined to be motivated to invest in sex ed or in birth control opportunities for people of poorer means, making investments in communities where we would allow for greater access because of a recognition that poor people should be encouraged to use birth control in ways that wealthier people don't need to be encouraged to use birth control. And I think as you're challenging some of those assumptions, you start confronting awkward concerns about what we think is happening in poorer communities, why they have larger numbers of children, and why that might be bad or problematic for us. You certainly see it now in an increasing set of conversations about pedophilia and about how you might need to have some biological intervention in men especially who are convicted of pedophilia, and that's in some strange segment of our popular discourse right now out there. But I think the biggest place for it is in the way in which we can very easily dismiss people in the past as merely eugenicists and oversimplify their views. Well, we would say when we are challenged for our own views that, "Oh, well, it's complicated actually," and you try to unpack it in more ways. Mike: Right, okay. So one interesting thing you pointed to was the involvement of these private sector non-profit activist organizations in kind of a new movement for sterilization. In particular, you point to this organization called CRACK, so tell us what CRACK was doing. Mark: Well, CRACK, and there's been others that have emerged like them that are philanthropic organizations or privately funded organizations that seek to provide access to sterilization in poor communities. Now, on the surface, there is undoubtedly both inequity in access to medical care between wealthier and poorer communities and a greater capacity for a person to have control over their own fertility if they have greater access to medical care. So you really can't deny the benefits of it. CRACK is interesting because not only are they providing access to medical care, but they're providing stipends to people. They were offering economic payments to people in order to be sterilized in addition to the sterilization procedure. And an economic incentive like a hundred dollars means something radically different to a poor person than it does to a wealthy person. So it would've a disproportionate impact on swaying a person's decision to be vasectomized or to receive a tubal ligation if the hundred bucks mattered to them in ways that it didn't matter to a wealthier person. But this is part of a larger movement away from state-sponsoredred eugenics to what Diane Paul talks about as a neoliberal approach to thinking about human reproduction. And this moves away from state coercion to social coercion or away from state coercion to economic coercion. The issue here is if you sort of turn this over to the marketplace and you're allowing for social coercion or economic coercion to take the place of government coercion, are you any less coercive? That's why when I use the language in the book, I talk about coerced sterilization, not just compulsory sterilization or eugenic sterilization, but coerced sterilization, the idea that a person could be offered a shorter prison sentence or offered money or offered access to something if they were willing to be sterilized. And that coercion, whether it's in the hands of the state or in the hands of a philanthropic organization, is equally coercive and is equally problematic and is based on some of the very same underlying assumptions that there are good people who have good genes and there are bad people who have bad genes and we can figure out which are which and that we are somehow morally empowered to encourage the good people to have more children and discourage the bad people from having children. And so that commonality, whether you're on the philanthropic side of this coercion or the legal side of this coercion, shares too many similarities for me to be comfortable. Mike: Okay. So somewhere in the book you state that while it hasn't been directly overturned, Buck versus Bell was essentially overruled by other rulings such as Griswold versus Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. So now your book was published in 2008, since then a lot of has happened in the courts. So how do things look now that we have rulings like Dobbs versus Jackson's Women's Health Organization on the books? Mark: Well, I tell you, I'm extraordinarily happy that people understand that the recent abortion decision undermines the foundation for things like Griswold and all the way up through gay marriage. And recognizing that the legal foundations on which Roe was decided while weak–undoubtedly weak, I think any careful scholar on this is going to tell you that simply a privacy argument for Roe was liable for being overturned–but not only does the overturning of Roe on the basis of privacy threaten Roe, but it threatens all of these other things that we take absolutely for granted right now like access to birth control, like interracial marriage, like gay marriage. This is deeply problematic.  But it also tells us that we were relying on something that was not sufficient and perhaps not trustworthy. That is, there was work to be done to more carefully explicate why it is that in progressive modern society access to birth control, access to the legal recognition to marry the person you love regardless of their sex, gender, race, or ethnicity, and access to control of your own reproduction, those are all critical to a modern progressive society. And we had founded it on too tenuous a basis with Roe, and so we have good work to do, critical and important work to do to really further solidify these rights. I think the fact that these appear so important to the election of 2022 and to the election of legislators suggests that we're no longer willing to rely on just the court to preserve and protect these rights, but that we want a deeper and more binding commitment of legislation. Mike: All right. So finally, one thing that you say in the book which I liked is that history exists to teach us about ourselves. So what can we learn about ourselves through reading this book? Mark: So I'm a rather pessimistic historian. I like a quote attributed to Mark Twain, almost every witty thing is attributed to Mark Twain. There's a quote from Mark Twain that says, "History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme." And I've always really liked that because I think people who study history know that to a certain degree we are doomed to repeat the past, that there's a certain similarity with things that seem to happen over and over and over again. But like that movie Groundhog Day, the act of learning over and over and over again does change you. And we know that reading history and reading fiction generates in a person a sense of both empathy and a broader sense of why and how people do things. And so I think these kinds of histories are critical for us to look back at the ugliest, most challenging aspects of our own society's histories so that we can do a little bit better as we confront the same sorts of things generation after generation after generation. Mike: All right. Well, Dr. Largent, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about coerced sterilization in the United States. The book again is Breeding Contempt, out from Rutgers University Press. Thanks again. Mark: Thank you, Mike, I appreciate the opportunity. Mike: You missed Breeding Contempt with us in The Nazi Lies Book Club. Join us weekly on Discord as we discuss the books of upcoming guests of the show. Sign up on Patreon or shoot us a DM. Thanks for listening. [Theme song]

This week on Givers, Doers, & Thinkers, Jeremy talks to historian and journalist Christine Rosen about how American religious leaders, in partnership with philanthropy, helped grow the American eugenics movement in the first part of the 20th century.Christine Rosen is a senior writer at Commentary Magazine, a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, and senior editor at the New Atlantis. Christine holds a Ph.D. in history from Emory University. Her writing has appeared in our most prestigious periodicals, from the New York Times Magazine to the Washington Post, the MIT Technology Review to the New England Journal of Medicine, often covering the science/bioethics/technology beat. Her books include Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, My Fundamentalist Education, and the forthcoming book, The Extinction of Experience.Jeremy and Christine kick off this conversation with a bang, diving right into the eugenics movements in America. Christine shares the key figures involved, like Charles Davenport, Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and Margaret Sanger, along with religious leaders, and the influence of eugenics on charity versus philanthropy, the rhetorical uses and misuses to which science is often put, and the dark side of American progressivism. Christine highlights some of the evil bargains made in the name of "charity" by eugenicists, like financial support in exchange for sterilization. This fascinating yet deeply troubling history is well worth your time and was very likely never part of your American history lessons. What is a feasibility study, and why do you need it? American Philanthropic's Dan Folta shares the key deliverables that offer insurance against failure in any sort of capital campaign. If you are about to embark on a campaign or already have started, you'll want to listen to this practicalities segment.You can find Givers, Doers, & Thinkers here at Philanthropy Daily, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Buzzsprout, and wherever you listen to podcasts.We'd love to hear your thoughts, ideas, questions, and recommendations for the podcast! You can shoot Katie Janus, GDT's producer, an email anytime!

Today's ID the Future again spotlights The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Historian Richard Weikart and host Casey Luskin discuss Weikart's contribution to the new anthology, his essay “How Evil Has Been Done in the Name of Science.” As Weikart explains, over the past century and a half, science has been misused to fuel racist policies and undermine human rights. Darwinian ideas helped lay the groundwork for Nazi ideology in Germany. And we shouldn't imagine the problem was restricted to Nazi Germany. Scientific racism also reared its head in the United States, including in the long-running and infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment. More broadly, a marriage of scientism and evolutionary thinking continues to undermine the idea of inherent human worth Read More › Source

Today we celebrate a woman who became a renowned floral artist late in life. We'll also learn about an English poet and politician who loved nature. We’ll recognize some of the final sentiments about the wonder of nature from a television dramatist, screenwriter, and journalist. We hear an adorable excerpt about growing a mitten tree. We Grow That Garden Library™ with a book about a botanist who loved the gardens, landscapes, and ecology of the Southern Coastal Plain. And then, we’ll wrap things up with the story of the scientist who helped with the first color photograph.   Subscribe Apple | Google | Spotify | Stitcher | iHeart To listen to the show while you're at home, just ask Alexa or Google to “Play the latest episode of The Daily Gardener Podcast.” And she will. It's just that easy.   The Daily Gardener Friday Newsletter Sign up for the FREE Friday Newsletter featuring: A personal update from me Garden-related items for your calendar The Grow That Garden Library™ featured books for the week Gardener gift ideas Garden-inspired recipes Exclusive updates regarding the show Plus, each week, one lucky subscriber wins a book from the Grow That Garden Library™ bookshelf.   Gardener Greetings Send your garden pics, stories, birthday wishes, and so forth to Jennifer@theDailyGardener.org   Curated News How Constance Spry radicalized the art of floristry | House & Garden | Fiona McKenzie Johnston    Facebook Group If you'd like to check out my curated news articles and original blog posts for yourself, you're in luck. I share all of it with the Listener Community in the Free Facebook Group - The Daily Gardener Community. So, there’s no need to take notes or search for links. The next time you're on Facebook, search for Daily Gardener Community, where you’d search for a friend... and request to join. I'd love to meet you in the group.   Important Events May 17, 1700 Today is the birthday of the botanical tissue paper decoupage artist Mary Delany. Mary Delaney led an extraordinary life. When she was 17, her family had forced her to marry a sixty-year-old man. Mary soon discovered he was an alcoholic. To make matters worse, when he died, Mary’s husband forgot to include her in his will. Despite her lack of inheritance, Mary quickly realized that, as a widow, she had much more freedom than she had had as a young single woman. Fate brought fortune for Mary, met and fell in love with an Irish doctor and pastor named Patrick Delany. They married in June 1743. Although her family wasn't thrilled with the idea of a second marriage, Mary did it anyway. She and Patrick moved away to his home in Dublin. Patrick’s garden was a thing of beauty, and Mary wrote to her sister: "[The] fields are planted in a wild way, forest trees and … bushes that look so natural... you would not imagine it a work of art ... [There is] a very good kitchen garden and two fruit gardens which ... will afford us a sufficient quantity of everything we can want. There are several prettinesses I can't explain to you — little wild walks, private seats, and lovely prospects. One seat I am particularly fond of [is] in a nut grove, and [there is] a seat in a rock … [that] is placed at the end of a cunning wild path. The brook ... entertains you with a purling rill."  After twenty-five years of wedded bliss, Patrick died. Mary was widowed again, this time at the age of 68. But Mary's life was not over. In another stroke of luck, Mary hit it off with the wealthy Margaret Bentinck, the Duchess of Portland, and together they pursued botanical activities. The two women loved to go out into the fields and collect specimens. Through the Duchess that Mary got to know Joseph Banks and Daniel Solander. When Mary was in her early 70s, she took up decoupage - which was all the rage at the time - and she created marvelous depictions of flowers. Today, historians believe Mary probably dissected plants to create her art. Botanists from all over Europe would send her specimens. King George III and Queen Charlotte were her patrons. They ordered any curious or beautiful plant to be sent to Mary when in blossom to use them to create her art. Her paper mosaics, as Mary called them, were made out of tissue paper. Mary created almost 1000 pieces of art between the ages of 71 and 88. If you ever see any of her most spectacular decoupage pieces, you'll be blown away at the thought of them being made from tiny pieces of tissue paper by Mary Delany in the twilight of her life in the late 1700s.   May 17, 1824 On this day, the diaries of the English Romantic poet, satirist, and politician, Lord Byron, are burned by six of his friends. The act intended to protect his privacy has also been described as “the greatest crime in literary history.” The loss likely impacted botanical literature as Lord Byron also wrote about gardens and nature. Lord Byron famously wrote: There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more.   May 17, 1935 Today is the birthday of the English television dramatist, screenwriter, and journalist Dennis Potter. Best known for his two hit movies, Pennies from Heaven (1978) and The Singing Detective (1986),  Dennis sat down for an interview with Melvyn Bragg, and it was titled Seeing the Blossom.  At the time. Dennis was at the end of his life. He was dying from pancreatic cancer. And in a brave and incredibly candid move, he spoke about what his life was like, knowing that the end of his life was near and how it gave him a heightened appreciation for what was going on around him.   He said, “. . . Now at this season, the blossom is out in full now, there in the west early is a plum tree, it looks like an apple blossom but it's white. And looking at it, instead of saying "Oh that's nice blossom" ...Now, last week looking at it through the window when I'm writing, I see it is the whitest, frothiest, blossomest blossom that there ever could be, and I can see it. Things are both more trivial than they ever were, and more important than they ever were — and the difference between the trivial and the important doesn't seem to matter. But the nowness of everything is absolutely wondrous.”   Unearthed Words Finding missing mittens is hard work. It would be easier to grow new ones! Let’s try planting the other mitten right here in the garden. Next spring, when the snow melts, a little mitten tree might sprout. Miss Seltzer and I would take good care of it all summer long. In the fall, we’d pick the ripe mittens. Then I’d give mittens on Christmas. And mittens on birthdays. And mittens on Valentine’s Day! ― Steven Castle Kellogg, American author, and illustrator of over 90 children's books, The Missing Mitten Mystery   Grow That Garden Library On Harper's Trail by Elizabeth Findley Shores This book came out in 2008, and the subtitle is Roland McMillan Harper, Pioneering Botanist of the Southern Coastal Plain. In this book, Elizabeth shares the first full-length biography of the accomplished botanist, documentary photographer, and southern coastal plain explorer Roland McMillan Harper who was born in 1878. The celebrated plant scientist of the New York Botanical Garden, Bassett Maguire, said that Roland had "the greatest store of field experience of any living botanist of the Southeast.” And yet, the years obscured Roland’s scientific contributions, including his unique insights on wetlands and fire. Along with his brother Francis, Roland traced William Bartram's route through Alabama and the Florida panhandle. And in his work describing plant species and writing papers, Roland corresponded with the leading botanists of his time, including Nathaniel Britton, Hugo de Vries, and Charles Davenport. This book is 296 pages of the life story of a maverick botanist from the north who fell in love with the gardens, landscapes, and ecology of the Southern Coastal Plain. You can get a copy of On Harper's Trail by Elizabeth Findley Shores and support the show using the Amazon Link in today's Show Notes for around $25   Today’s Botanic Spark Reviving the little botanic spark in your heart May 17, 1861  On this day, the first color photograph was taken. The picture was of a tartan ribbon displayed by Scottish scientist James Clerk Maxwell to the Royal Institution in London. Maxwell is remembered for his formulation of the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation. In 1922, when Albert Einstein visited the University of Cambridge, his host announced that he had done great things because he stood on Isaac Newton's shoulders. Einstein corrected him when he replied, "No, I don't. I stand on the shoulders of Maxwell." In 1879 James Clerk Maxwell wrote a letter to his friend William Thompson. It's a letter gardeners can delight in, and it was titled Peacocks as Gardeners. We got our original stock from Mrs McCunn, Ardhallow. At that time (1860), the garden there was the finest on the coast and the peacocks sat on the parapets & banks near the house. Mr. McCunn was very fond of his garden and very particular about it, but he also cared for his peacocks... Whenever he went out, he had bits of bread and such for them. Mrs. Maxwell (my wife) always gets the peacocks to choose the gardener and they have chosen one who has now been seven years with us. At seed time (in the garden) they are confined in a [little house] where they have some Indian corn and water. When the hen is sitting, she is not [confined], for she keeps to her nest and nobody is supposed to know where that is, but she comes once a day to the house and calls for her dinner and eats it and goes back to her nest at once. The peacocks will eat the young cabbages, but the gardener tells them to go... They find it pleasanter to be about the house and to sit on either side of the front door.”   A professor and researcher, James, once likened the work of academia to the life of bees, writing, “In a University we are especially bound to recognise not only the unity of science itself, but the communion of the workers in science. We are too apt to suppose that we are congregated here merely to be within reach of certain appliances of study, such as museums and laboratories, libraries and lecturers, so that each of us may study what he prefers. I suppose that when the bees crowd round the flowers it is for the sake of the honey that they do so, never thinking that it is the dust which they are carrying from flower to flower which is to render possible a more splendid array of flowers, and a busier crowd of bees, in the years to come. We cannot, therefore, do better than improve the shining hour in helping forward the cross-fertilization of the sciences.” Isn’t that a grand way to look at the legacy of your work? This past week, I’ve been putting together my roster of student gardeners for 2021. As we work together during the summer, we end every session with 10 minutes of photography. The kids capture incredible color images with their phones. James Clerk Maxwell would be delighted. I am delighted at how easy it is for them to share their images of my garden with my iPhone using the airdrop feature. But in terms of legacy, think for a moment of the typical teenager’s camera roll on their phone. It’s loaded with memes, selfies, pets, and friends. Maybe a sibling or two. But after a summer of working in my garden, these kids will have hundreds of images of flowers, landscapes, leaves, stones, water, raindrops, insects, and Sonny. How do we get kids interested in horticulture? We have to change what they see every day. We have to get flowers on their phones.   Thanks for listening to The Daily Gardener. And remember: "For a happy, healthy life, garden every day."

What's up Thomas Jane fans!? Richard and Nate sat down with horror author Charlie Davenport to discuss Thomas Jane's influence on his writing and on the horror genre as a whole. Apparently Charlie somehow missed he was to be a guest on the internet's most popular Thomas Jane fancast but that's really no one's fault but his own, right? You could listen to Charlie's wonderful story Big Man - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSF4gHWFGb8&t=26s but, honestly, if you're looking for horror entertainment, look no further than The Mist or 1922 starring Thomas Jane. Those were awesome. Find more of Charlie's work here - https://t.co/ranvThS75k?amp=1 or, instead, keep up with the ever-evolving release schedule for the world's most talented actor Thomas Jane: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005048/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Charles Davenport Jr. has been an op-ed columnist at the News & Record (Greensboro, North Carolina) for 15 years. His debut novel, The Closure Committee, was published in 2018, and he is working on a sequel. His favorite scribbler is George Gissing, an English novelist of the Victorian era. Charles and his wife live in Kernersville, N.C. with their three spoiled “kids”: a giddy Golden Retriever and two haughty felines.

It's episode 19 of Season 13, our 2019 Halloween Episode. On this week’s show we have seven tales celebrating the Halloween Season. "Family Familiar" written by A.B. Cooper (Story starts around 00:09:34) Produced by: Phil Michalski TRIGGER WARNING! Cast: Narrator – David Cummings, Nate/Steve – Elie Hirschman, Suze/Mae/Tooth Fairy – Erika Sanderson "Halloween in the Suburbs" written by Manen Lyset (Story starts around 00:24:52) Produced by: Phil Michalski Cast: Narrator – Dan Zappulla, Derek – Matthew Bradford, Suburban Dad – Jeff Clement, Ghost Kid – Jessica McEvoy, Ellie – Nichole Goodnight "Pork n’ Stuff" written by Charlotte Ledville (Story starts around 00:42:00) Produced by: Phil Michalski Cast: Narrator – Addison Peacock, Black-haired Girl – Sarah Thomas, Pig Man – David Cummings, Teenage Boy – Kyle Akers "What Halloween Left Behind" written by S.H. Cooper (Story starts around 00:59:52) Produced by: Phil Michalski TRIGGER WARNING! Cast: Narrator – Mary Murphy, Alec – Erika Sanderson, Police Officer – Atticus Jackson "Masks" written by Charles Davenport (Story starts around 01:17:54) Produced by: Phil Michalski TRIGGER WARNING! Cast: Judd – Mike DelGaudio, Head Doctor – Mick Wingert, Molly – Nikolle Doolin, Bob Strickland – Atticus Jackson, Brenda – Erin Lillis "How Not to Get Rid of a Body" written by Gemma Amor (Story starts around 01:37:00) Produced by: Jeff Clement Cast: Norman – David Ault, Steve – James Cleveland "The Halloween Children of Old Harrington" written by D. Williams (Story starts around 02:11:09) Produced by: Jesse Cornett TRIGGER WARNING! Cast: Haylee– Jessica McEvoy, Ada/ Old Harrington Girl – Addison Peacock, GPS Voice – Nikolle Doolin, Bobby – Elie Hirschman, Delilah/Little Boy – Erika Sanderson, Little Girl – Nichole Goodnight, Man – Mick Wingert, Old Harrington Boy – Kyle Akers Click here to learn more about the voice actors on The NoSleep Podcast   Click here to learn more about Manen Lyset   Click here to learn more about S.H. Cooper   Click here to learn more about Charles Davenport   Click here to learn more about Gemma Amor   Click here to learn more about D. Williams   Executive Producer & Host: David Cummings Musical score composed by: Brandon Boone "Halloween 2019" illustration courtesy of Abby Howard Audio program ©2018-2019 - Creative Reason Media Inc. - All Rights Reserved - No reproduction or use of this content is permitted without the express written consent of Creative Reason Media Inc. The copyrights for each story are held by the respective authors.  

It's episode 11 of Season 12. On this week's show we have tales about the jobs and hobbies which seem to invite chaos into our lives. "Callback"† written by Charlie Hughes and performed by David Ault & Erika Sanderson & Andy Cresswell. (Story starts around 00:02:25) "The Earworm"† written by Jake Lam and performed by Kyle Akers & Matthew Bradford & Elie Hirschman & Peter Lewis & Nikolle Doolin. (Story starts around 00:12:30) "Twist of Damnation"‡ written by P. F. McGrail and performed by Jeff Clement & Mick Wingert & Erika Sanderson. (Story starts around 00:37:45) "Rolling Meadows"† written by Brad Tucker and performed by Atticus Jackson & Dan Zappulla & Jessica McEvoy & Kyle Akers. (Story starts around 01:07:00) "Life in Retail"¤ written by Charles Davenport and performed by Graham Rowat & Mick Wingert & Addison Peacock. (Story starts around 01:32:00) Click here to learn more about the voice actors on The NoSleep Podcast   Click here to purchase "50 Shades of Purple" By P.F. McGrail   Click here to learn more about P. F. McGrail   Click here to learn more about Charlie Hughes   Click here to learn more about Charles Davenport   Executive Producer & Host: David Cummings Musical score composed by: Brandon Boone Audio adaptations produced by: Phil Michalski† & Jeff Clement‡ & Jesse Cornett¤ "Life in Retail" illustration courtesy of Naomi Ronke Audio program ©2018-2019 - Creative Reason Media Inc. - All Rights Reserved - No reproduction or use of this content is permitted without the express written consent of Creative Reason Media Inc. The copyrights for each story are held by the respective authors.

It's episode 11 of Season 12. On this week's show we have tales about the jobs and hobbies which seem to invite chaos into our lives."Callback"† written by Charlie Hughes and performed by David Ault & Erika Sanderson & Andy Cresswell. (Story starts around 00:02:25)"The Earworm"† written by Jake Lam and performed by Kyle Akers & Matthew Bradford & Elie Hirschman & Peter Lewis & Nikolle Doolin. (Story starts around 00:12:30)"Twist of Damnation"‡ written by P. F. McGrail and performed by Jeff Clement & Mick Wingert & Erika Sanderson. (Story starts around 00:37:45)"Rolling Meadows"† written by Brad Tucker and performed by Atticus Jackson & Dan Zappulla & Jessica McEvoy & Kyle Akers. (Story starts around 01:07:00)"Life in Retail"¤ written by Charles Davenport and performed by Graham Rowat & Mick Wingert & Addison Peacock. (Story starts around 01:32:00)Please visit www.thenosleeppodcast.com for full show notes and links to learn more about our authors, voice actors, and producers.Executive Producer & Host: David CummingsMusical score composed by: Brandon BooneAudio adaptations produced by: Phil Michalski† & Jeff Clement‡ & Jesse Cornett¤"Life in Retail" illustration courtesy of Naomi RonkeAudio program ©2018-2019 - Creative Reason Media Inc. - All Rights Reserved - No reproduction or use of this content is permitted without the express written consent of Creative Reason Media Inc. The copyrights for each story are held by the respective authors.

In Genetics in the Madhouse: The Unknown History of Human Heredity (Princeton University Press, 2018), Theodore Porter uncovers the unfamiliar origins of human genetics in the asylums of Europe and North America. Rather than beginning his story with Gregor Mendel or 1909, the date when Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene,” Porter takes us back to King George III. After a political and medical crisis, doctors and researchers began to record and collect data on the causes of mental illness. In so doing, they increasingly investigated and theorized phenotypic heredity. Using paper technologies and demographic research, from asylum admissions records to census cards, largely unknown individuals helped establish the study of human inheritance. Excavating these figures' contributions to the history of heredity, Porter sheds new light on the work of Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

In Genetics in the Madhouse: The Unknown History of Human Heredity (Princeton University Press, 2018), Theodore Porter uncovers the unfamiliar origins of human genetics in the asylums of Europe and North America. Rather than beginning his story with Gregor Mendel or 1909, the date when Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene,” Porter takes us back to King George III. After a political and medical crisis, doctors and researchers began to record and collect data on the causes of mental illness. In so doing, they increasingly investigated and theorized phenotypic heredity. Using paper technologies and demographic research, from asylum admissions records to census cards, largely unknown individuals helped establish the study of human inheritance. Excavating these figures’ contributions to the history of heredity, Porter sheds new light on the work of Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Genetics in the Madhouse: The Unknown History of Human Heredity (Princeton University Press, 2018), Theodore Porter uncovers the unfamiliar origins of human genetics in the asylums of Europe and North America. Rather than beginning his story with Gregor Mendel or 1909, the date when Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene,” Porter takes us back to King George III. After a political and medical crisis, doctors and researchers began to record and collect data on the causes of mental illness. In so doing, they increasingly investigated and theorized phenotypic heredity. Using paper technologies and demographic research, from asylum admissions records to census cards, largely unknown individuals helped establish the study of human inheritance. Excavating these figures’ contributions to the history of heredity, Porter sheds new light on the work of Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Genetics in the Madhouse: The Unknown History of Human Heredity (Princeton University Press, 2018), Theodore Porter uncovers the unfamiliar origins of human genetics in the asylums of Europe and North America. Rather than beginning his story with Gregor Mendel or 1909, the date when Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene,” Porter takes us back to King George III. After a political and medical crisis, doctors and researchers began to record and collect data on the causes of mental illness. In so doing, they increasingly investigated and theorized phenotypic heredity. Using paper technologies and demographic research, from asylum admissions records to census cards, largely unknown individuals helped establish the study of human inheritance. Excavating these figures’ contributions to the history of heredity, Porter sheds new light on the work of Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Genetics in the Madhouse: The Unknown History of Human Heredity (Princeton University Press, 2018), Theodore Porter uncovers the unfamiliar origins of human genetics in the asylums of Europe and North America. Rather than beginning his story with Gregor Mendel or 1909, the date when Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene,” Porter takes us back to King George III. After a political and medical crisis, doctors and researchers began to record and collect data on the causes of mental illness. In so doing, they increasingly investigated and theorized phenotypic heredity. Using paper technologies and demographic research, from asylum admissions records to census cards, largely unknown individuals helped establish the study of human inheritance. Excavating these figures' contributions to the history of heredity, Porter sheds new light on the work of Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

The post Deacon Ordination – Charles Davenport and Jerry Surrett appeared first on Meadowbrook Baptist Church.

Charles Davenport concludes Senior Preaching Week with a recognition of hopelessness in life and encourages believers to find hope in the Lord's love and mercy. The post Senior Preaching Week: But This I Call to Mind appeared first on DTS Voice.

Charles Davenport concludes Senior Preaching Week with a recognition of hopelessness in life and encourages believers to find hope in the Lord's love and mercy. The post Senior Preaching Week: But This I Call to Mind appeared first on DTS Voice.

Elite Ancestry, "Great Leap Forward" - Eradication of "Lesser Species" - Genetic Research to Create New Perfected Slave. Charles Davenport, Carnegie, Mandatory Sterilization - Poverty "Gene" - Genetic Modification - 7th Generation "Perfect Hybrid". Darwin and Wedgwood Family Intermarriage - Mendel's Peas - Sir Thomas, Julian and Aldous Huxley, Scientific Takeover, UNESCO - Hitler - Samson Complex. Patricide - Alexander the Great - Elite Life of Leisure - A. C. Clarke's "2001", "2010", "3001" - David Rockefeller - Lust for Power, Blood - Control Freaks. "Zardoz" movie, Elite Immortals, Culling Commoners, "The Wizard of Oz", Brain Chip Crystal, Central Computer, Roving Bands. Laptop Computers, Sterilization. Paid-Off Nurses, Teachers, Doctors - Blackmail. Food "Shortage" - Irish Potato "Famine" - Forbidden Access to Food - IDEA of Money. CFR, Integration of Americas, Fall of Dollar - Europe, Euro, Currency Devaluation - Lord Rothschild, Gold Price. Psychopaths, Positions of Power, Hitler. Societal Changes, No Quick Fix - Individual Action - Conquered Countries, Communism, Popular Movements - Fighting for Everything - Public Acquiescence - Power to Say NO. Isis, 1000 Faces - The Owl, Sees in Dark - Horus, the Hawk. Terrorism: Technique of Warfare - Law, Coercion and Force. Counterintelligence - Group Takeover - Provocation.