Talk:Racial Integrity Act of 1924
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem with this write-up is that astoundingly little of it is actually about the Racial Integrity Law of 1924. Eugenics has its own article already. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Integrity Law of 1924
[edit] These words are from the author.
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.
[edit] Integrity Law of 1924
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.
[edit] more
On February 9, 1926, an article appeared in the Washington Post which related the fact that the General Assembly at Richmond, Virginia was debating an amendment to the State integrity law which would classify as "colored" or "nonwhite" any admixtured person who had any Indian or negro blood at all except for two groups of persons: (A) descendants of Indian/White marriages which had occurred prior to 1619, and (B) descendants of the Indians from Oklahoma and Texas who were living in Virginia as citizens of Virginia. The Richmond News Leader reported that 20,000 of the most distinguished citizens would be classified as "colored" under the amendment. A marriage had occurred about 1644 and another one in 1684 between an Indian and a white person. The marriages had produced numerous progeny. I do not know whether or not the amendment was adopted. The newspaper article cannot be legally transmitted by any means whatsoever because it is under the protection of an October 27, 1998 law called Public Law 105-298 which extended the years of copyrights from 75 years to 95 years. The effect of the new law is to generate a wider blanket of protection which now extends backwards 95 years instead of 75 years, as before. Under the old law, newspaper articles written prior to 1929 would have entered the "public domain" in 2004. The Clinton Administration produced a large number of new laws, including this one which is also called "The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act." (Sonny Bono was a well-known former entertainer who was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1994 and re-elected in 1996. He was killed while skiing on January 5, 1998). I intend to seek more information in the public domain, hopefully from the State archives, which may be freely transmitted and reproduced.
[edit] Cleanup!
Was this a U.S. law or a Virginia law? That isn't clear. Next, we should move the text over to Wikisource, and quote no more than a sentence or phrase from it. Also, can whoever is making contributions to this Talk page sign their username (using four tildes "~")? It will make it much easier to follow the discussion. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Act or Law?
It appears that the more common term for this legislation is the "Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924."[1] Unless anyone objects, I'll move it. -Willmcw 06:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Hearing no objection, I'm going to move the article to "act." -Willmcw 07:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History, etc.
I 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)
