[upnorthkyosa]

Lately, I've been pouring over NZ history books in an attempt to learn as much about the country and the culture as possible. One thing that struck me is the effect the Eugenics Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century had on the country. Many of the institutions that were developed for Health Care and Education and Emmigration were developed around the eugenic principle of preventing racial degeneracy and to create the perfect example of a Briton. Of course, we all know where all of that led, but still, my mind still made the leap from that to NZ's current emmigration policy. There are so many barriers if you are not at the top of the heap and then you have to pass the medicals. All of that smacks of latent eugenics. I have to wonder how much those old habits shape today's policy. I don't think you have people running around spouting eugenic philosophy anymore, but I think that it may be veiled. What do you think?

[miep]

I just wrote a really long reply to this one and when I tried to post the forum told me I wasn't logged in.
It came down to going with gut feel rather than trying to reseach a country to death, but I'm sure that in the short form it won't make any sense anymore.

[Sam B]

A friend of J's who was a top uni lecturer in his field got a job in NZ then couldn't go because his daughter has special needs. I thought that was a bit iffy.

[Tia Maria]

miep wrote:

I just wrote a really long reply to this one and when I tried to post the forum told me I wasn't logged in.

Miep, this happened to me to when I took too long! But if you log back in straight away your reply will still be there (mine was anyway).

Cheers

Tia

[DB]

... All of that smacks of latent eugenics. ... What do you think?
I think no.

It is very true there are selection criteria, but these are based on what you have to offer to NZ, and then theres the medicals and police checks to make sure you aren't about to be a significant cost to NZ, either medically or as a result of you being accomodated in klink.

Eugenics is about genetic selection, and these policies are not linked to genetics because people are more (both more "better" and more "worse") than purely genetic determinants. Life experience has a far greater role to play.

You could accuse the NZ policies of being brutal, and simplistic, but to suggest genetic discrimination is a leap too far.

[Oregonkiwi]

Well said, DB.

[Trigirl]

Fully agree with DB.

I was reading the Dom POst last week - front page news where the headline was "migrants lied about sick son". Gives a good idea of the potential costs NZ would have to bear if they didn't have medical checks - as well as why those checks have been made more stringent. Astonishingly they've been allowed to stay.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3952074a20475.html

[Sam B]

Hmm, but don't you think that with a country that has such a high amount of immigration (that is also very economically beneficial to the country) that you may end up with a disproportionately able-bodied, middle class community unless you also allow some children etc with health problems and disabilities in? Disabled people are not just about costing money, they can also enrich our society... just a thought.

[miep]

Miep, this happened to me to when I took too long! But if you log back in straight away your reply will still be there (mine was anyway).
No I didn't take that long and my reply had tatally disappeared, it might have had something to do with the upgrade?
Anyway DB more or less said the same thing so no harm done

[veronica]

sorry, but I can't see the sense in importing trouble, NZ has a pretty good proportion of lower IQ, lower income and disabled people. why bring in more. not everyone coming over here that fits the selection is white collar worker middle class, theres gardeners truckies plumbers and all sorts of building workers, come on. it sounds to me like you have too much time on your hands here.

The term special needs covers a multitude of sins from someone who is mildly dyslexic to someone who is totally incapacitated in a wheelchair., if its going to cost the state lots in the future to supply the needs of that person then, hard as it sounds, I think they have a right to refuse them entry. its a shame but there are a lot of disabled and poor health NZers to look after properly first.

[Sam B]

Yikes! Planning to be busier from tomorrow!

[StevieD]

I was about to say the same, there are disable people being born to the current NZ population surely? I don't think you can seriously think, that a modern society, democratically elected government and member of the world community would practice eugenics? It is not a totalitarian state, or lead by certain infamous people from the last centure...

No, simply put, it is a country not being soft, allowing every tom, dick and harry in who fancies settling there. It is a country that has a sensible immigration policy, or at least one that is attempting to control it's borders with some sort of framework.

As veronica said, I think you are reading a bit too much into it, and maybe you do have too much time on your hands!! :laugh:laugh:laugh

[upnorthkyosa]

I'm serious about moving to NZ and learning about her history is important to me. I think that in order to fit into a society and really understand how people think, you've got to do the homework. Even if some of it is unpleasent.

With that being said, NZ WAS a eugenics laboratory in the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th century. According to Phillipa Mein Smith a Professor at the University of Canterbury, many of NZ's leaders in both Liberal and Labour governments were very open about this fact. Thus it is no secret that they designed their immigration policy around their beliefs. I think that one of the things that surprised me most was that the original purpose of the All Blacks was to show off the verility of the New Zealand stock. The team was supposed to show the empire that NZ was a better Britain, capable of producing superior quality specimens.

And it was especially important to show that the Kiwis were better then the Aussies in this regard!

This isn't the only way NZ established eugenics policies. Health Care was another avenue. NZ has a proud tradition of supporting mothers in childbirth and of taking care of its babies...ie lots of midwives and high quality centers for birth. The country has also done alot to promote good health among its citizens and has traditionally provided lots of capital to bring all sorts of programs that did this into existence. The root of this was eugenics. The thought was that you couldn't produce superior stock without taking good care of them.

With all of that in mind, I can't help but think that part of the philosophy behind current immigration policies is at least influenced by the established history. By only letting in people who are going to be productive to society, NZ is engaging in a form of social engineering. They are selecting the "smartest" and "fittest" first. If this policy keeps up, you will see the health and education levels of NZ's population increase over time. The "quality" kiwis will get better and better.

Whether you call it eugenics or not, the end result is the same.

So, is this a bad thing? I don't think so and I think many other posters above agree. However, the main disagreement appears to revolve around my labeling of this as eugenics. This word leaves a bad taste in people's mouths because of its association with Nazi ideology. Thus, I would like to make it clear that I am in no way saying that Kiwis are Nazis. The comment above that "we don't live in some totalitarian state" leads me to believe that some may have thought that.

My only point is that the free and democratic society of NZ has chosen to implement a policy that will "artificially select" for people who are "smarter" and "fitter" when it comes to its immigration policy. This, IMHO, has got to be influenced, at least partially, by NZ's history...of which, eugenics is part.

Will this affect my choice to move my family there? No. I consider this debate more academic then anything else. And I hope that people will beleive me when I say that I am not trying to start trouble or bash NZ. These are just some thoughts to discuss in a friendly manner... :)

[stu70]

John,
Your point well taken. I for one did not think you were implying anything. Forums are for exchanging views in a civilized manner.

Historically speaking many countries had their policies with regard to immigration quite "draconian" to say the least. Canada once turned aways ships carrying jews. They used to have head tax on Chinese migrants who were brought to build railways (double whammy or what?). The policy of residential school for natives to teach them "civilized" ways of life is well known as well. South Africa thought blacks were not humans like whites. Brits were colonizing the world just coz they had better technology for the times. So my point is the world today is better than it was before. Some of the policies might very well be carrying the baggage from the past, I do not doubt it.

It is going to take some time but we will evolve as humans. Some things that are helping us change are called economic realities of the 21st century. The two asian nations together (china/india) will surpass ecomonies of the world in 40-50 years (in our lifetimes perhaps). Sooner or later that will make other "developed" countries (NZ/Canada,etc.)take a good look at their policies to keep their economies afloat. Mind you, none of that will come from the goodness of their hearts, it will all be driven by the economic realities. But then that is life. It is all a matter of time really.

[katiejay]

Excellent, intelligent posts....great reading.

I suppose what made my skin crawl somewhat was the reference to human beings as 'stock', but then to a nation, I suppose that is, after all what we amount to! NZ appears to be protecting itself and its peoples (of all cultures) from an influx of individuals who, rather than strengthening the economy, pose further burden. From the point of view of the State, this is a commendable stance. From the point of view of humanity, perhaps, not so. Life is all practicalities, when it's boiled down, however, and good intentions don't feed empty bellies!

Katie (hoping she's fit enough for the medicals!!)

[upnorthkyosa]

Something that would be interesting to find out would be statistics to show if this little social engineering project produced any results. Now, I'm not implying that NZ is consciously trying to "improve" the "quality" of its "stock", but immigrations policies like they have in place would definitely, even if by default, select for a smarter and healthier population over time. Therefore, I think a look at NZ's health and education statistics may show some rather interesting patterns.

[katiejay]

If the strategy has been running for two hundred years it should be easy to assess if you know what you're looking for........

[katiejay]

.....'though you'd have to factor in improvements in general medicine, housing, economy etc which would have happened in any event, so maybe it's not that easy!

[Trigirl]

and the fact that people emigrating from NZ to other countries are also likely to be fitter and smarter than average.

[veronica]

Being as I am a human being (or at least I look like one in the mirror) but regard myself as a mammal of animal origins I am all in favour of improving the stock. The more medicine can do to eradicate some of the things that ail us, to stop babies being born with crippling illnesses, to enable the people who carry genetic defects to have healthy babies the better.

Now this isn't meant to be offensive anyone out there so please don't take it so..........each individual has a place but I would go as far as saying that a healthy child is far more enriching that a disabled one. It is no fun changing the nappy of a 25 year old who does nothing but drool and needs 24 hour care and seeing yourself doing this for perhaps the next 30 years. I for one am in favour of the tests during pregnancy that show up genetic defects and would straight away consider abortion if they showed up.

I also approve of lifelong contraception for some people (ie. downs syndrome) who are mentally incapable of making an informed choice about having and looking after a child.

A good point about all those that leave N Z too. The best way and clearest evidence that would point to eugenics is if NZ were to up its wages to keep all these people and stop the 'brain drain'.

One of the prime reasons for medical research is to improve the lot of humankind. this will of course ultimately improve the stock and its a world wide movement so the whole world is then in carhoots to practise eugenics.

I think that if you were to look at the stats of NZ then you would find them little different to any other western country. the thing that doesn't lend itself to showing on stats is attitude and that is probably a result of being a country that HAS a strong immigration background. It takes a certain type of person to up sticks and go to an undeveloped country that is a long way away from anywhere else (and keep in mind for the south island its only 150 years ago) it takes a can do attitude and a lively mind to stay and succeed to be a pioneer and these type of traits can be inherited in future generations, whether its nature or nurture I am not qualified to say.

And as a country that is set on improving its population numbers Yes it does have good health care for pregnant mums and childbirth, after all it wants all its babies to survive to be healthy productive adults. Seems to be a very healthy attitude to me. the only thing I don't agree with is that contraception isn't free like it is in the UK. (apart from the hospitals) I feel it should be. Whether its free to low income families/people I don't know. would this be 'practising eugenics' or just plain common sense. After all, who amongst us wants more children than we can afford to feed and care for. In a country with a low population there is a limit to the proportion of providers and dependents in terms of social security and infastructure.

But NO, living here, seeing people on the street and observing the different social problems here I can see no more evidence of eugenics, overt or covert., not unless you class medical advances as that, and I would say that NZ is possibly behind other western countries in that.

[katiejay]

With my rose-tinted UK specs on, NZ looks to be a healthier place to live simply in terms of having more space per capita, fresher air to breathe and a relaxed lifestyle. So not eugenics then, but returning to a lifestyle closer to that our ancestors lived may improve the 'stock' (shudder!).
So much about the way we live now rails against our origins, and that must be stressful to the extent that lives are shortened by it??

[stu70]

Now this isn't meant to be offensive anyone out there so please don't take it so..........each individual has a place but I would go as far as saying that a healthy child is far more enriching that a disabled one. It is no fun changing the nappy of a 25 year old who does nothing but drool and needs 24 hour care and seeing yourself doing this for perhaps the next 30 years. I for one am in favour of the tests during pregnancy that show up genetic defects and would straight away consider abortion if they showed up.

I also approve of lifelong contraception for some people (ie. downs syndrome) who are mentally incapable of making an informed choice about having and looking after a child.





Agree 100%. But then these comments as you pointed out would be offensive to some. I have been shouted at by bible waiving crowd. I am all for pro choice. It is best to use science to our avantage. Sad that even in 21st century some here in North America would be against common sense. It has mostly to do with religion. Organized religion is as deadly as organized crime. Without it humans would seek compromises and look for similarities rather than captitalizing on differences. Religion NO spirituality YES.

[katiejay]

Absolutely - surely it's abhorrent to knowingly cause a child to suffer by allowing it to be born into severe disability? What god would sanction that? If 'God' gave us technology, he gave it to us for a reason.

[veronica]

Umm ........ can we steer away from religion a bit here. that and politics are something my mum taught me not to discuss in polite society.

You know if you look for it you can see a conspiracy theory in most everything.

[DB]

Whether you call it eugenics or not, the end result is the same.
Disagree, and disagree :)

To be playing the eugenics game, you are dealing with genetics and genetic effects. You select people based on either genotype or phenotype. Thus you require people with defined genetic characteristics. You know, eye colour, hair colour. You are, in effect, gambling on the future, as it';s only by putting together "desirable" specimens you breed a better specimen. Or worse, as genetics is always but a roll of the dice.

There is no gene for "useful member of society". Nor for "fit". Nor for "under 50". Nor "Potential All Black". Nor does NZ have any policy on who you may mix your genes with, once you are here, of course.

NZ practices social engineering in terms of who it lets in at it's borders, of that there is no doubt, but it's not in the same universe as genetic selection.

Historically, of course, NZ did get involved with the Eugenics movement in the early 1900s, in common with most other countries, lead by the USA. I don't believe NZ ever got as far as compulsory sterilization or other extreme consequences of this process.

[upnorthkyosa]

Disagree, and disagree :)

To be playing the eugenics game, you are dealing with genetics and genetic effects. You select people based on either genotype or phenotype. Thus you require people with defined genetic characteristics. You know, eye colour, hair colour. You are, in effect, gambling on the future, as it';s only by putting together "desirable" specimens you breed a better specimen. Or worse, as genetics is always but a roll of the dice.

There is no gene for "useful member of society". Nor for "fit". Nor for "under 50". Nor "Potential All Black". Nor does NZ have any policy on who you may mix your genes with, once you are here, of course.

NZ practices social engineering in terms of who it lets in at it's borders, of that there is no doubt, but it's not in the same universe as genetic selection.

Historically, of course, NZ did get involved with the Eugenics movement in the early 1900s, in common with most other countries, lead by the USA. I don't believe NZ ever got as far as compulsory sterilization or other extreme consequences of this process.

This type of social engineering, still artificially selects for smarter and healthier individuals and these policies are a direct reflection of other policies that NZ had in place when it WAS ACTIVELY practicing eugenics.

The bottom line is that these policies will have an effect of the gene pool if they are continued indefinitely. They are, whether intentional or not, a form of eugenics.

With that being said, I think we need to clarify what exactly eugenics is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering.

With that being said, Francis Galton, the Father of Eugenics, defined two ways that this philosophy could be implemented. Positive and negative. Positive measures encourage the betterment of the gene pool, while negative measures discourage degeneracy. BTW - the word "degeneracy" was quite commonly used by NZ leaders around the time of WWI.

Examples of negative eugenics would be sterilization, euthenasia, and sequesterization of individuals deemed unfit in a society.

Positive eugenics, on the other hand would include things such as controlled immigration and improving the health and welfare of the populous in general.

Galton believed that only positive measures should be used when implementing eugenics and he warned against the negative measures.

Taking all of that into account, I think the connection is clear. What do you think?

[Sam B]

I've just had my first day at work so I'm struggling to understand the last post upnorthkyosa, a bit too intellectual for my addled brain. I have read everyones' arguments and I respect all your points of view. I would never suggest that NZ practises eugenics. However, I am still left with a feeling that there is something wrong with any immigration policy that ALWAYS excludes people on the basis of disabilities despite what other skills they may have, but I KNOW I'm in the minority on this (a minority of 1 by the looks of it) so please don't be cross. I wish I could articulate a really good string of points to illustrate why I think this, but my brain is tired and it's just a gut feeling. I honestly don't have too much time on my hands - I've just emmigrated and started a new job, but I don't have a TV yet and that could be the problem- too much time to go on the forum in the evening!

[Avalon]

I would never suggest that NZ practises eugenics. However, I am still left with a feeling that there is something wrong with any immigration policy that ALWAYS excludes people on the basis of disabilities despite what other skills they may have, but I KNOW I'm in the minority on this (a minority of 1 by the looks of it) so please don't be cross.

I can actually see where you are coming from, and certainly no-one should be cross with you for having a minority point of view on this. Never feel you have to follow the crowd ;)

One thing I would ask you to think about though (whatever your views on this topic really), is that it is this very exclusion that allows US in.

New Zealand has a cap on Migrant numbers. That means - if they dont exclude on the basis of ill health etc - less "healthy" people would be allowed in.

I guess its like complaining (and I use the word loosely) that the policy is racist. But the sad fact is that most of us on here actually benefit from that policy as well. So if we find it uncomfortable or inconvenient - its still doesnt change the fact that we got in over the backs of "Less deserving" (in the eyes of NZIS) people, often based on no more criteria than where they come from.

Im not saying your POV is wrong - to be honest Ive never really thought about it in terms of "eugenics" - I just think - as migrants - we do need to be aware of how we are taking advatage of a possibly unfair system.

Hope that makes sense.

[Sam B]

It does, and I agree Avalon.

[Jo Jo]

This type of social engineering, still artificially selects for smarter and healthier individuals and these policies are a direct reflection of other policies that NZ had in place when it WAS ACTIVELY practicing eugenics.

The bottom line is that these policies will have an effect of the gene pool if they are continued indefinitely. They are, whether intentional or not, a form of eugenics.

With that being said, I think we need to clarify what exactly eugenics is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics



With that being said, Francis Galton, the Father of Eugenics, defined two ways that this philosophy could be implemented. Positive and negative. Positive measures encourage the betterment of the gene pool, while negative measures discourage degeneracy. BTW - the word "degeneracy" was quite commonly used by NZ leaders around the time of WWI.

Examples of negative eugenics would be sterilization, euthenasia, and sequesterization of individuals deemed unfit in a society.

Positive eugenics, on the other hand would include things such as controlled immigration and improving the health and welfare of the populous in general.

Galton believed that only positive measures should be used when implementing eugenics and he warned against the negative measures.

Taking all of that into account, I think the connection is clear. What do you think?

I think this is a very sensible post, and I completely agree with what you say. If what Sam B said is true, i.e. that families are excluded from being able to move to NZ simply because they have a disabled child, regardless of the contribution that family could make to NZ society, then that is very worrying.

As for what veronica said, i.e.


Now this isn't meant to be offensive anyone out there so please don't take it so..........each individual has a place but I would go as far as saying that a healthy child is far more enriching that a disabled one. It is no fun changing the nappy of a 25 year old who does nothing but drool and needs 24 hour care and seeing yourself doing this for perhaps the next 30 years. I for one am in favour of the tests during pregnancy that show up genetic defects and would straight away consider abortion if they showed up.


are you basing this on your experience of having had a disabled child and an able child? Obviously, if you have had a disabled child and still think this, then that is fair enough (and I have to wonder why you didn't have that abortion. Did your child's defects not show up in the screening? And having had that child, are you now glad his or her defects didn't show up and you therefore didn't abort it? Or do you wish the screening had been more effective and you had had aborted the child?) I know several people who have disabled children (cystic fibrosis, Down's Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy) and they completely disagree with your view that having able children is far more enriching than having disabled children. Easier, yes. Less enriching, no. All of them would prefer that their children hadn't been born with a disability, but now they are born, and do exist, none of them feel their children should have fewer rights than other people simply because they are disabled. And, funnily enough, all of them are glad they didn't abort their child now they have them.

Don't get me wrong - I am completely pro-choice, and completely support people's choice to abort their foetuses for whatever reason. But once children exist, I think they should have as many rights as anyone else. And I also think it's nicer not to say they should have been aborted, and also support women's choice NOT to abort.

Sam B - you are not in a minority of 1. Maybe we are a minority of 2. Or 3, counting upnorthkyosa. Or maybe just in a minority on this forum. But if we are in a minority, it doesn't mean we are wrong. :yes Personally, I don't think that just because a policy doesn't affect you, that makes it okay, or means you have to accept it is right.

[veronica]

I don't have a disabled child but I have spent time working with disabled, If someone knows they are having a disabled child and they decide to go ahead and carry the child full term thats great, its their choice. But it wouldn't be mine, having seen plenty of parents struggling to cope with a handicapped child to the detriment of the able children in the family, family holidays nearly impossible, and as the child gets older and becomes an adult to know that they have got to a point that they can no longer cope as they are too heavy to lift and the guilt they feel (mixed with relief) when the child has to go into institutional care. Its not what I would choose if it could be avoided.

Does anyone know the numbers of disabled people that the immigration allow in as opposed to worrying about the few (usually for medical costs reasons not eugenics) that are refused.
that they refuse.