Talk:Racial Integrity Act of 1924

message: Cadwallader 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded one of the sections, it being my opinion that "suffered under" and "cut out by a government scalpel" could be made a wee bit more neutral, and never mind my personal opposition to the concept of eugenics. InitHello (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Revision 

message: I cleaned up the Talk Page, removing discussions that were over two years old and evidently did not pertain to the current wording of the article.  Moved the relevant discussions to the bottom of the talk page.
Cadwallader 00:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned Up Talk Page

message: These words are from the original author in 2004.
Since involuntary sterilization was the harshest feature in the law, the law was a mild 
thing when compared to the earlier American laws governing slavery.  There is no reason to examine the law in detail.  It took the "kinder, gentler" approach towards eliminating people who were deemed to be "unfit."  The laws covering 
slavery permitted the execution of rebellious slaves.  In 1800, a Virginia slave named Gabriel 
and his followers were arrested after Virginia's Governor James Monroe issued an order. 
Gabriel and his followers were executed according to the law.  Another Virginia slave named Nat Turner (c.1800-31) had claimed to hear voices and see visions.  On August 13, 1831, an unusual event involving the sun took place.  (Perhaps it was merely an eclipse of the sun).  Nat Turner believed that he had seen a sign from God, so four or five conspirators and he  killed five members of his master's family in their beds. 
After about one month, 55 whites had been killed.  Negroes who had conspired with Nat Turner were killed.  Other suspected Negroes were killed or mutilated.  Nat Turner was captured on October 30th and hanged on November 11th.  More stringent slave codes were passed in many states.  Slavery was extended, not abolished. 
I am certain that the Racial Integrity Law of 1924 was of little significance when viewed in the light of various laws which had preceded it and laws which were in effect from 1880 to 2000 in many or most parts of the world.  It is better to view the Integrity Law of 1924 as a single nail helping to attach a plank to a beam of a great ship.  In the 20th century, Adolf Hitler was a Captain of that great ship.
More from another editor in 2004...
Here are some descriptives which may serve to describe the law when it is compared  with other severe laws.  [A] "piddling" [B] "small potatoes" [C] "peanuts" [D] "a  snort in a windstorm" [E] "not a big deal" [F] "a flash in the pan" [G]  "unremarkable" [H] "niggling" [I] "of little consequence" [J] "a peculiarity." 
I know that there is at least one web site which contains the specifications of the law.   Since about 8300 people were sterilized under the specifications, I will attempt to  create a link to a suitable web site wherein interested individuals may peruse the  specifications.  I have been unable to extract the specifications from the Commonweath  of Virginia's archives.  My web browser is not the most popular one, so it may be the  reason why I cannot access their archives.
Dr. Walter A. Plecker (1861-1947) was a key figure in the promoting of the law.  His father had been a slaveowner.  Dr. Plecker became a dutiful civil servant (1912-46).  In the wake of the War Between the States (The American Civil War {1861-65}), only one sort of people were capable of holding the United States together.  White men became the functionaries or (in modern terminology)"bureaucrats" all across the United States. They served in leadership roles above white women and other white men who worked in subservient positions such as bookkeepers or typists.  Dr Plecker was not a violent man. A great deal of information is available on the Internet.
Cadwallader 00:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: what was the relationship between the eugenicists in the US and the Nazis/Fascists in Europe?.  I don't think it was a coincidence that they came to power at the same time.  Just saying that "WW2 made the Nazi eugenecists the bad guys" is putting in mildly.  There must have been more of a connection between the groups than that.  2001:558:6011:1:E406:4A65:5CD1:785C (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial Integrity Act: Harsh or Benign?

message: FastfissionI removed the section on Erasmus Darwin and Violetta Galton, etc. It has nothing to do with this law. At best it had to do with eugenics, one part of the law, but even then it had more to do with evolution in general and with the specific history of Francis Galton, both of which are better covered in their own articles. I suspect their initial role here was part of general attempts by Creationists to make everything unpleasant in the world point back to Darwin.
As I understand it, the Sterilization Act in Virginia and the Racial Integrity Act were two separate things, though both passed in 1924. I could be wrong about this, but I've never seen them claimed to be the same piece of legislation. They both had obvious eugenic components and eugenicists were involved in pushing both of them, but they should be confounded as being on and the same piece of legislation. --Fastfission 17:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin, Galton, Evolution and Racism, etc.

message: The image :Image:Carrie Buck.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:James H Bell.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Carrie Buck.jpg

message: The article is almost entirely about the Sterilization Act, with very little about what the title of the article says it is about. Why isn't the Sterilization Act a separate article, with this one just about the Racial Integrity Act? TechBear (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's such a problem. Except for the Carrie Buck discussion, the article is fairly evenly balanced between the two laws. All of the the material on American Indians is related to the Racial Integrity act, for example. They do appear to have been closely connected so there's a good reason to treat them together.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the material about the Racial Integrity Act of 1924? You know, what the article is supposed to be about? 

message: I removed the lengthy poem by DeJarnette - while offensive, it is beside the point, as his attitude was already established. It would be helpful to have fewer primary quotes by such outspoken leaders and more data and assessments by valid historians about their programs and effects, more context from history, as well.--Parkwells (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: This article is perhaps the most ridiculously off-topic Wikipedia article I've ever encountered. It fundamentally errs twice -- first in combining the two acts (under the title of one of them), and then using the article as a platform for an unsupported personal political essay on a plot to exterminate all U.S. minorities through sterilization. This reaches it epitome with the flagrantly unreferenced claim:
 ' The statement "By '12 million defectives', DeJarnette was almost certainly referring to ethnic minorities, as there have never been 12 million mental patients in the United States. ' 
This is:
# An inaccurate personal supposition — there were more like 20 million minorities in the U.S. at this time (DeJarnette is probably referring to lower IQ scores, which as you know have never skewed by race in any IQ study ever conducted)
# An inaccurate personal supposition, about a personal opinion of DeJarnette, who is not the Virginia sterilization law
# An inaccurate personal supposition, about a personal opinion of DeJarnette, who is not the Virginia sterilization law... in an article about the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
Now if you want to retitle the article the "Virginia Race and Sterilization Laws of 1924" then you can treat both together. But they're quite different. The sterilization law is not race-based, either in language or application -- white individuals were definitely sterilized, it had no impact on Virginia Indian identity, didn't have any segregating effect. In any case you still need to stick to the specifics of the actual Virginia sterilization law, and its actual (multiracial) application in Virginia. With a brief mention of, and links to, the sterilization laws of other states, and the general eugenics movement, which this article is most definitely not about.
::There is no seperate Sterilization Act article because these two acts were Virginia's implementation of model eugenics legislation, which included the seperation of races, adjudication of "mixed" as inferior, and allowing sterilization of the "unfit" to uplift the race. (The unsigned edits of 10 July 2013 by IP User 98.180.3.178 added Multiple Issues template and this talk head; no edits by that IP since 10 July 2013.) --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two acts may make sense to describe together, but the article needs more clarification on whether the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 or the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 is being discussed.Waters.Justin (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Multiple Issues" Template to Article (July 2013) 

message: That's pretty much my question. Does anyone have any information on how Hispanics were treated under the Racial Integrity Act? There are a lot of factors here, of course. Hispanics can look like very white Europeans or look as if they have Native or Black ancestry in numerous combinations. Did treatment depend on appearance, wealth, or birthplace? Were they exempt. I know it's a relatively small population at the time in Virginia, but I have family that came over in the 60s and they were not the first Hispanics here. Ileanadu (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have any information on how Hispanics were treated under the Racial Integrity Act? 

message: This is a CONTENTFORK of Racial Integrity Act of 1924#History leading to the laws' passage: 1859%E2%80%931924. There's material/sources that can be used to expand the target, but it's not able to be transferred wholesale, in part because the forked section is more comprehensive. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[The Pocahontas Clause]]