3040

.docx

School

University of Missouri, Columbia *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3040

Subject

Anthropology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChefDragonPerson1004

1. Why does the author propose Social Mendelism as the motivator and driver of Nazi Race ideology and policy, rather than social Darwinism (as proposed by other scholars)? This is because Jews traits were prominent over other races when they were “crossed” and therefore breed over the superior race. This is Mendelist views. 2. Where did the basic assumption that complex traits are monogenic arise? This came from Mendel’s pea plant experiment led them to believe that genes were inherited as one. 3. Mendel’s laws never addressed purity. He ascribed no value to the traits in question. What was the rationale for distorting the interpretation of Mendelism to include value associated with a particular trait? They believed all members of a race had to be uniformly homozygous in alleles for the race to be pure. They believed that the Nordic race descended from Proto Arians and according to Nazi’s, Arians were considered superior, however there was no actual basis for this. Historical prejudices compounded over time, time and time again to form this. 4. How does the thesis that Mendelism was central to Nazi thinking relate to what you have learned about eugenics? This relates because Eugenics is largely based on the goal of a superior human race. Nazis believed that to achieve a superior race, they also had to weed out those who would racially impure. Racial purity was one step closer to this ultimate superior race. 5. What led the drive to define race? Was addition of Mendelian rules a posthoc attempt to legitimize this effort? I would argue that the addition of Mendelian rules attempted to legitimize the effort of defining race. They argued black people had inferior genes to white people, while not understanding what melanin was in that time. I would say the drive to define race would be to group people, and outcast those who don’t fit. By creating outcasts, you can use them, and treat them as inferiors, using them further as tools in the capitalist reigime.

6. What was the rationale behind equating unrelated traits? How could blood type equate to race? I believe the ratione to equating unrelated traits stems from the desire for answers even with lack of evidence. Throughout every single book we have read there has been corners cut by scientists in research where things may not have made sense but false information 3was accepted out of convenience. A prime example of this was lobotomies. After scientists cut corners, they became the newest and best scientific discover and procedure, and similarly, these false genetic advancements and information was spread because it was “the new and best information and technology.” People like answers, and when opportunity arises to give them answers, people take short cuts. 7. Is social Mendelism (and/or social Darwinism) a thing of the past, or is it relevant today? I would argue it is still very present today, and it would be naïve to say it does not at all. One could argue that marrying within the family in certain cultures to keep the “blood line pure” feels very mendelian, as well as Southern American white families telling their kids they can’t marry a person of color to keep their “pure white lineage clean.” Racism, antisemitism, and oppression are still very much prominent today, and though it may be less widely accepted, social Mendelism is surely still present. 8. What role did scientists and physicians play in propagating social Mendelism and social Darwinism in Nazi Germany (and the US)? I know that Haber was a Jewish German scientist, and he resigned, and most Jewish ones did, however many other scientists did field work and truly believed in the Eugenic and Social Mendelist research and motive. 9. What led psychiatrists to believe that something as complex as mental health could be looked at as the sum of individual parts? I would argue what led this is the idea of heterozygosity, and that would rather find something to blame versus looking at the issues within society at large and ho that plays into mental health. The idea of heterozygosity for no gene related things (ex: feeblemindedness) was so simple and failed to consider environmental factor that also effect mental health. 10. Why are mutations only considered negative? Is this more a reflection of humans being a terminal branch of primate? I would argue that humans hate the idea of us not being the end if ecological evolution. Acknowledging that we are mutated, and imperfect is

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version