Eugenics Everywhere!

Although the ideas of ultra-nationalists are not new and are even studied in high school, making the jump and tying that into eugenics is a somewhat small step or at least that's what the author wants you to believe.  So far I'm somewhat doubtful and like last weeks post I find myself questioning the content/main premise of the book.  Is it really a small step from saying Americans in the late 1800's viewed Mexicans as lazy and dirty, and then saying this is proof that these same Americans wanted to create a master race?  Although Stern's evidence seems consistent and numerous, I still find myself having doubts.

Furthermore although these books separate the science from the history purposefully, I feel that more science would be helpful in understanding many of the issues investigated in the book.  One part I find myself confused over is when on pg. 67 El Paso's Chief inspector Tappan states the differences between working the Canadian border and the Mexican border by stating that on the Mexican border they have to "contend with an alien race: one with a different language, different customs, different moral standards and different diseases."  At first this seems like direct proof of racial foundations of his work, but more information on the science of diseases in differing climates would be helpful.  From experience I know that when traveling to many tropical areas certain vaccines are needed leading me to believe that heat and climate do play an important part, but how much I'm really unsure of.  In the end one can take away the fact that by including "different moral standards" in with his observations" that racial tensions has obviously played a large part in our immigrant policies.   Without a doubt Stern's arguments are clear and compelling, my only concern is are they as strong as she would have us believe?

Late again! Sorry!

Hi everyone - sorry this is extremely late, but I just can never remember this thing!

I was interested in the use of hygiene as a way of marking difference in race between white and Filipino people during early 20th century seemed to me to have some parallels to the first contact between the Spanish and native people in the 16th century. An article by Rebecca Earle, entitled "If You Eat Their Food...:" Diets and Bodies in Early Colonial Spanish America," deals with a similar issue, where Spanish colonialists feared that they would 'become' native - get darker skin, coarser hair, different behavior - if they ate the same food as the native people. This same concern is reflected in Colonial Pathologies, through food, but also early on through the environment, then through the 'dirtiness' of the peoples themselves. It is interesting to see that the same fears existed over hundreds of years: white people were healthy, from healthful climates, with healthy habits; whereas 'others' were sick, from dangerous climes, with non-hygenic habits.

Have to run - time for class! :)

imperialist medicine

Warwick Anderson deftly captures the additional narrative of the colonization of the Philipines by the U.S. military at the turn of the twentieth century; that of medical imperialism. Catagorizing the colonized as "other" while stratifying the population along arbitrary lines are basic imperialist strategies. However, in the Philipines in addition to these stategies "physicians extended their power to inspect and regulate the personal cleanliness and the social life of naturally erring Filipinos" (106). Thus hygiene worked to define Filipinos as "other" (unhealty and unclean), while while establishing a hierarchy of health (for example: the "health index" set up for each child in a particular class.

The fludity of race is also once again demonstrated through the U.S. military and medical establishment's belief that through proper training natives could attain proper citizenship. However, Anderson is carefull to point out the self-fulfilling prophecy of imperialist ideology. Even though many believed Filipinos could be so trained, few believed that their inherent character would allow them to.

Also, how about that 1908 float on page 126.

Science in the Context of Social Prejudices

Chapter 3 demonstrates how science and disease were framed by the Americans residing in the Philippines. Originally the Americans blamed their illnesses on the hot environment in the islands, which they believed they were not accustomed to physically, since they originated from a different climate. The need to stay in one's climate of origin was termed, "ethnic moral topography."

Later it was thought that the natives had acquired immunity to the local diseases, and when it was discovered that some natives did suffer from certain diseases, most Americans blamed the illness on the Filipino's depravity and moral failings, instead of looking for outside causes, such as socioeconomic factors. Filipinos were later blamed as being infected disease carriers, even if they were healthy. Eventually, the Americans turned to improving the personal habits of the Filipinos, by teaching them to replace traditional lifestyle choices with the "spirit of hygienic thoughtfulness."

While the Americans hoped to improve their own health, and also understand and treat the maladies of the Filipinos, they viewed things through a different scope than we use today. They thought it legitimate to blame the issues on not only the perceived biological differences, but also the moral differences between the races. Today we view disease as something that happens to someone due to physical causes, rather than moral failings, and most people would agree that morality does not directly impact one's health. The people at this time had a heightened sense of racial differences, and today racial differences, if considered at all in disease treatment, are (in theory at least) based on purely physiological differences.

The book provides some intriguing insight into how cultural upbringing and perceptions can influence scientific thinking in society.

The Progression of Medicine in Battle

I found the progression of medicine and how the army dealt with it very interesting. The fact that the people who were sent with the army to care for them according to Anderson "after a few weeks in the military "we found our ignorance was sublime"" is amazing due to the fact that these people were trained medically, but obviously not specifically enough as Anderson goes on to point out. It was interesting to see how the surgeons and medical personnel learned as time went on. The way that hygiene was taught and how people such as Lieutenant Kemp taught the other soldiers how to keep wounds clean and to keep the hospital corps out of the way is important. It shows that no one was really prepared for what they found on the battlefield. The conditions were obviously not the best to deal with so to see how things progressed grabbed my interest. This is also important due to the fact that every war is different and no conditions were ever the same.

Colonial Pathologies

I found it odd how Americans in the Philippines tried to use hygiene, or lack of hygiene as justification for the inferiority of the natives. Then how because of the Americans tried to civilize the Filipino’s mainly by reforming Filipinos’ personal hygiene habits and by implementing other measure that would improve hygiene, specifically through the “sanitary pail” and latrines. I find this interesting for two reasons. First of all, it’s odd that by modifying hygiene practices, the Filipinos were being colonized in a very personal matter. But I also find it interesting, that as Filipinos began to practice these habits and welcome hookworm treatment and the building of latrines, people began to lament the extent to which Filipinos were just imitating the colonizers. It just seemed that no matter what Filipinos did or how they reacted, they had immense difficulty coming out father ahead. And health just became on mechanism which Americans could just to justify their prejudices, first by denouncing Filipinos hygiene and then by claiming all Filipinos are healthy carriers.

Colonial Pathologies

I was really intrigued about the concept in Chapter 2 regarding the concept of laboratory. To quote Anderson, the laboratory began to stand for, "a symbol of control, purity, and precision..." in colonial times. I imagine a spotless room with various activities taking place under scientific examinations by men in white lab coats. Andreson then goes on to explain the nature of the Philippines as a tropical laboratory and my picturesque image of the lab is skewed. The meaning of this term at the time, in essence, stood for a 'hygenic space for experimental practice.'
Personally, I have a difficult time reconciling the two meanings. As we are lead to believe, the Philippines was not exactly the poster child for purity or precision and the element of control certainly depends on the controlling body. The idea that Filipinos were subject to experiments essentially for their own good is unsettling. Again, we see the stigmatizing of an entire group (or race as the case may be).