that is called the americas story of peaceful revolution and that gives you the sense that they, and by the way the revolution changes in the course of the 30s. he over and over emphasized we are anti-american, fundamental american tradition. an aside on this as we are not obliviousio to the failings of e tier and the democrats and the american people atme that time regarding refugees and the south and the tragedy of the internment of japanese-americans japanese americans. we should also remember that those very people who suffered or endured, most americans who they wanted greater refugee access, the african-americans whoff were suffering and japanese-americans they participated in the war effort

decidedly if not enthusiastically energetic and determined way. you can look in many books to remind yourself of it. >> when we think of this of the injustices that we experienced it doesn't negate what the aspiration or the move towards justice is. what it does is highlight the need to continue to agitate an advocate for that and that's what is what's coming in the spring we do see it as failings but what we also see which is even more powerful really the aspect of the story is that when opportunity is presented you organize and you move forward. you take that little door that's cracked open and you push your way into it and you keep on and

you keep on and that's true across-the-board for opportunity >> a. phillip randolph many of us know full well that a. r phillip randolph challenged fdr to open up the defense industries to african-american workers a and fdr felt compelled to do so and he signed two executive orders, one ordering the creation of the practice commission and the other one to make it stronger but what people don't realize is that randolph himself, actually developed that marginalizing of the movement. he told fdr 100,000 african-americans it he demands their place in the defense efforts in the war efforts and he did so because he heard the

four freedoms speech and that's the door to take advantage of and by the way after he was in the office of fdr and secured the opening of the defense industries he either wrote or said to someone i knew i'd get what i wanted or it never would have been invitedd to the white house to talk with fdr. hehe had darted into the white house and he was no stranger there necessarily but he knew the drama and he knew how to take advantage of that opening yes absolutely. >> this is why this moment in 1941 was a tradition which has beenhe occurring is a recognize thern external threat. he had clearly been busy addressing the internal threats security wise in terms of advancing as you say with the american peoplepl the ideas.

the other two are bedrock in the bill of rights so now looking at it nationally that is the threat that he sees lurking right there. now we have this feature ourselves and the world even beyond what he's been talking about previously here from want and fear. >> and if i can fantasize for a moment nothing especially in this very cold moment in green bay, wisconsin, nothing would warm my heart more this winter in light of what we have beenha going through then there were with -- with the rise of neofascism and american politicians who are scorning american history and literally denying the powers of the

declaration in and the constitution and the bill of rights it would be just great if we heard our leading figures, with whether it's biden, desantis or whoever else stand forth maybe together and remind the world that we remain committed how much we may be under the assault to the ideas of those four freedoms and they would be more fantastic to hear the democrats, is the progressive coalition come forth and talk about fdr's 1944 state of the union that he delivered hoping at wars and americans might be able to pursue and push congress basically to make sure that all americans have a right to a job with the living wage a right to a comfortable home, right to health care what they call universal health care and a right to good education.

it's funny fdr had said he ended the war to pursue the new deal ideals again and then he did it anyhow and the speech of january of 44. >> the thing about your book two is how this notion of reclaiming history in a way in reclaiming the idea of patriotism that certain aspects of the way in which we experienced memory and by the way in which the consideration was honored he collects the world in which the greatest generation grew out of and the sense of values they were fighting for that influenced the next 20 or 30 years of how our nation structured itself and found itself legislatively for that matter. >> i used to tell my students you may not understand the fact that this generation they were

15 years old in 1935 and may have ended up in the civilian conservation corps. they would have engaged in the labors to rebuild america with the rural electrification agency and i could go on and on, the rebuilding, the reconstruction ofam america. they experienced it and they knew it was possible. they fought a war against fascism in 1941 and in 1945 and they one in concert with their allies and at wars and they were a mere 25 years old. in 1955, 55 when the american economies were exploding and one in three workers was in a labor union and when taxes follow the wealthiest americans has never been higher.

they were 35 and in the 1960s which admittedly my generation it's on chauvinism thinks of as our decade they were 45. they elected this liberal progressive house and senate. the southern supremacists. nevertheless look at what they accomplished. again i will repeat medicare, medicaid, civil rights voting rights environmental laws and a number of other ones, educational opportunities, and expanded radically so if youou o back anything 15, 25, 35, 45 fdr in doubt that generation. they were already patriotic in their own way and he endowed them with the vision of who they were and what they could accomplish. >> it's fascinating how you hold accountable the left and the

right for how they approach the idea of the greatest generation and what the response was or what the purpose was and serving beyond honoring a generation. and frankly claims the victory for a set of ideals far removed from fascism. both on the extremist speech are kind of missing the overall point. >> conservatives have always been determined and they were determined to suppress the new deal and decidedly determined to suppress the memory of the achievements of a generation. if you look back and especially the late 80s and 90s into the n 2000's, the republican conservatives, they celebrated

that generation for their war efforts the heroism and bravery and the courage. for which that generation deserves accolades and deserves to be celebrated and deserves the monument on the mall in washingtonte d.c.. however we forget how close the fdr memorial is in the world war ii memorial is in the hall intimately linked those two moments are in americanin histo. the sadder part is i was angry enough about what conservatives were making it the greatest generation buty i don't colleagues and comrades on the left they literally were buying into it in a knee-jerk way the narrow understanding. some said we are celebrating the greatest generation because the conservatives the elite that are ready for another war. they completely miss the boat back on the fact that americans going through the trials and tribulations that we always seem

to go through werelo looking bak and trying to embrace a generation that truly save democracy and not just by defending the status quo. dramatically transforming the country in favor of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom fromti tyranny and the 30s and 40s let's not forget fdr didn't just sit t back and come back withhe a four freedoms to give a nice state of the union message he was empowered by americans had achieved during the 30s. for my generation to somehow fail to recognize literally not just the power but the capacity of the generation to transform america and to figure out what we might do. we were taking a critical and stance and then the tribune the

documented filmmaker confirms his name i just blanked on the course and tom brokaw were celebrating the greatest generation rarely and by the way in some cases never mentioned the four freedoms. somebody has to do something and that's why when i looked at the bigger picture with my editor is a brilliant scholar said i shouldn't and i said what we are missing out on is the power of that story and they said we are still looking at it. whenen i see the kinds of things that i've seen whether in the public discourse or twitter or anywhere else in the amnesia that americans have regarding what enables them today to appreciate what they have and what they now owe not that generation but their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren it scares

me. >> on a hopeful note we are talking to you about this book which is now a few years old and yet ever more essential to be reminding people that narratives aren't always one way or the other and there are complexities we had to remind ourselves and those like you and frankly the fdr library who are brokering the past in the way so people can formulate their views and not do it blindly. >> in the bill of rights there's an interesting piece in and only reactionarieswa notice. they wanted to assure americans the right to recreation or think about that, right to recreation and the commission that helped

fdr composed the economic bill of rights called it a right to adventure and i can tell you and them not doing this to patronize but i can tell you the adventure that i would urge for people to have is not only to find their way to washington and they loved the national mall. ever since i was 10 years old visiting the national mall, i never go to d.c. without walking there but i tell people to find their way to hyde park. i can't tell everyone to go to the library and do research. you guys at the overwhelmed that i can tell you there was nothing more thrilling to me when i was working on that book of the four freedoms than to hold the original of the drafts of the o speech of the four freedoms the seven drafts and i'm sure every historian that is ever bothered to do that kept hoping they would rob the dna of fdr as they touch those papers. i mean it's moving to visit justice is moving to visit

springfield, it's moving to visit the fdr home and library and i urge people to do that. >> i appreciate you saying that he imparted that is at the bin here for seven years and worked in the archives for a career in that physical connection to the past you were living in that moment every time you hold this document but when you think about whatad made fdr who he ultimately became, as we all evolved and changed we hope, or should and this is a perfect example of someone's thinking and continually evolving, that you walk the grounds. you don't even need to go into the building. i should encourage everyone to buy tickets that you can walk those grounds and in that place it seems rural and so far away

this young man and a series of ideas that were so much larger and broader than who he was and where he was there was a point and school schoolchildren would see him and right there at one point almost the center of the world fighting fascism. >> the face of democracy right there in those ideas in that generation and what we take with us forward, that's what empowers the future, all of that. >> that's what i love your book draws outut the memory in that idea too. >> and if i can just drop this and if anyone become so enthusiastic is to look at all ofm fdr's speeches. i've got my fdr four freedoms book up in this volume fdr

democracy and annotated it and all that kind of stuff. some speeches are worth reclaiming in the speech that he gave in cleveland ohio in october i think october 1940 as he running for his third term as president his third term in a speak toam americans about those who would deny them what they have achieved but he also speaks to them about what they have achieved and he doesn't say mike administration has done this but he reminds americans what he may have done and he lays it all out piece by piece what they have done and he's not exaggerating. he's talking about their labor, their energies, their struggles in reconstructing america or reforming america and creating a labor movement. a housewives movement in support

all of that kind of stuff and then he lays out and thise is where he really truly shows he's not just the liberal that they know him as but a social democrat that he never called himself. he lays out a vision in 1940 of what still remains and what americans can still achieve. it will bring tears to your eyes. if you read that speech and don't get enthused about the poilpossibilities but don't fort it isn't just that you wait on your president. he told the journalist in 1932 they never wanted to get get too far out in front of the citizens in what he meant to say was help me fellow citizens, push me along. that same story, i agree with you and now let's dosn it. what he meant is i need to show congress that you are all with me.

>> it's remarkable the four freedoms our deals. they are something to aspire to but also something to protect. and i think i will close on this in comments. what i find fascinating is when you don't patronize people when you speak to people about big things in a way that incorporates them into the conversation and doesn't set yourself above themm that wow a lot can be accomplished. >> you described fdr. >> well thank you harvey kaye is always just a pleasure we hope to have you at the library as you say soon and maybe in the spring and we advise everybody of course to come to the library and use our -- by appointment and come and join in everything

that is there for you. >> thank you and my best wishes and merry christmas to the staff. i may come out after that. merry christmas and a happy new year to all of you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> hello americans. our long national nightmare is over. is the irony about the whole speech whoever wrote it is typical. ford thought kicking a man when he was down and heartland made the case in effect this is the vice president and people need to hear this and they need to hear it from you.

the final surprise of course is it was far from over. good evening everyone and

welcome to -- my name is lauren and i'm one of the managers of engagement at the historical society. we will introduce to the programs will provide additional information in the chatq& and qa throughout our time together. at the indiana circle society we connect people to the past. it is our mission to collect and preserve indiana's great stories and bring hoosiers together remembering and cheering the past had inspired future values and principals. we fulfill this mission by collecting millions of objects including books, players, photographs and more. as well as other stories and mediums such as histories videos and content. the indiana historical society is a smithsonian affiliate and a member of the international

coalition. the only global network and historic site museum and memory initiativeth that connects a struggles to today's movement turning memory into action. the newer conversation-based series explaining a quality through history. indiana's constitution declares all people are created equal so this revolutionary idea is a foundational principle marred with a myriad of contradictions but but this ongoing experience started with the complexities of envision citizenship in the contextual history around title ix. and it continues today with the conversation. these interdisciplinary conversation examined our collective definition of equality to better understand who is considered a citizen who gets a seat at the table and who maintains power in our society.

before introduced the coal markina's grande who will moderate their conversation i have a few things to review. before this event jim jill and nicole will discover topics for about an hourr and 10 minutes ad after that we will open up for any specific questions. if you have questions you can go to the question and answer section. we will keep an eye on them and incorporate them into the last half of our discussion. as their conversation goes i may be dropping links for information into thean chat but don't worry if you miss any of them or aren't able to look at them at that time. you can include them in their follow-up after the program. this program is being recorded and you can check the replay later on on our web site through to want to take a moment termite is to be compassionate and understanding and navigating historical terminology meant to

go and physical health illnesses that we understand more completely and fully in the 21st century lens of technology and medical advances. i urge is to think holistic way about what medical knowledge was available and the intention actions with that knowledge. judge patient care 100 years later but we must think about what future historians and doctors were to say about us today. now would like to pass the mark on to my colleague nicole or curator and she will introduce our panelists in moderating tonight's discussion. nicole the floor is yours. >> thank you. i am nicole martinez legrand and i met the indiana historical society. we have great colleagues across united states. we have dr. james coming to us

from pennsylvania sarah halter from the indiana medical historical -- do want to talk -- do you mind my doing your introductions everyone? sarah is a medical historian and at the kid. sarah is the executive director of the indiana medical museum pass vice president of the league of women voters of indianapolis and secretary of the southern association of southern history. she served on the board of directors for the john shaw history of society at the indiana university school of medicine and the association of museums and initiative. also the advisory board and unit

and studies that i dui she has a b.a. in anthropology and in them a with leadership institute for the american association state and localca history. also fund-raising management from the school of philanthropy. dr. jim pepto is a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 25 years ofea experience ia wide range of treatments you his work focuses on team-based treatment novel oriented integration ofly service for the chronically mentally ill, medically ill homeless and disenfranchised. based in philadelphia this human development programs include a shelter basement to help case management unit and psychiatrist

for project homepage is a member of the pennsylvania psychiatric leadership committee of fellow of the apa and the 2014 recipient of philadelphia psychiatric societies robert joe's award honoring a psychiatrist for their lifelongt commitment for the chronically ill. a historian at the indiana historical bureau a division of the indiana state library where she has worked since 2008. she isga a founding organizer of the future women to bash women networkaw conference and the award-winning podcast kuchar writes regularly for the indiana history abroad and is especially interested in stories of immigrants and asylum-seekers. she's a lifelong hoosier and holds a b.a. at baltic university in m.a. in history from indiana university. in 2020 when she received twojo major words that hoosier historian award from the indiana

historical society and the indiana university graduate school of distinguished master speeches awards for humanities and fine art. jill is a musician and lives in irvington with her husband and many records as you can see. and i consider myself a communitymu collaborative firstn a professional second.' 2016 -- latino stories and so let's get started. let's talk about eugenics and before we start with questions and the discussion let's talk a little bit about the history of eugenics. in 1883 sir francis bolton and english social scientists statistician and psychologist term eugenics.

the practice of eugenics aims to improve the genetic quality of human populations through selective encouraging reproduction with the strongest humans while discouraging reproduction for the weakest l humans. therl late 19th century and early 20th century united states eugenics programs received widespread public support. it took two approaches positive and negative eugenics. positive eugenics encouraged healthy people to proceed to have above-average intelligence toth reproduce a negative eugens that predominant in the united states discourage reproduction and advocated for still a station of those perceived to have undesirable traits. eugenics programs were supported by legislation court rulings and powerful promoters. an early advocate of eugenics with harry h.ic mclaughlin director of the office of --

supported by sterilization laws and significantly shaped negative eugenics legislation policies in the united states. barbara singer a strong advocate for reproductive rights who was supporting eugenics known as the founder of the birth control league. she specifically supports sterilization of those considered mentally unfit. leslie during the 1920s 19 and 1930s the american eugenics society was founded in addition to many local societies across the country. the youngest competed in better baby competitions at exhibitions includingg the division of child hygiene in the better babies contest at of the indiana state fair from 1920 to 1932. the lowest kind of goes on. i want to thank you all for sitting through all of that.

let's get to the heart of this discussion. we no indiana was the first state in the entire union to pass the first eugenics sterilization law the united states. would anybody like to pick up the history of that and what did that mean at the time? >> sure. eugenics thinking was growing in many parts of m the country at e time of the -- the turn of the 20th century and it didn't become law so in 1907 indiana had a unique combination of medical factors synonymous to the forefront of eugenics legislation and i think one of the main factors was the same

leaders that were having successes in indiana's public health policies were also at the forefront of the eugenics movement so we have people like the indiana state board of health secretary john purdy. he led successful campaigns in tuberculosis and advocated for public sanitation. he believed marriage bans and sterilization would help to make a stronger human. this was not able to be separated from ideas about white supremacy which we will go back to. wers had leaders like oscar mccullough whose interest in eugenics came from his lifelong work with theor poor. he became a eugenics proponent

and he was. she this in his ministry. there's a long list of other people. we also had dr. perry sharp who had been conducting vasectomies at the indiana -- since 1899. all these leaders were able to spread their views widely to prominent citizens. they limited their ability their prestige to the movement and imbued it with scientific authority on one hand and moral authority on the other hand. they directly influence the general assembly and public support for the sterilization law. >> sarah the medical history museum in indiana can you talk about that and what does that look like? talkse about what your institutn used to be before it became a

museum. >> the museum is housed in what we call the old technology building the pathological department which is the state hospital which was the first state mental hospital in indiana in 1848. our building opened in 1896 with the cutting-edge research facility that was dedicated to studying the physical causes of mental thomas and hopefully curing and preventing that feature. doctors before people before them there for doctors who were pushing his ideas as early as the 1880s. they were seeking out there medical association meetings about the hereditary nature of insanity and this rediscovery

were renewed interest in mendelian genetic and this idea that traits like intelligence, criminality, poverty all these things were traits that were inherited. there was this growing sense that these things couldn't be cured by trying to control the environment for -- in which people lived so the way to prevent it was to prevent people from. doctors called for at times previously. that was universally an popular andes never passed in the united states would propose that there were people advocating for it and restrictions on marriage and isolation of people who were in institutions of various kinds.

there was a growing sense of vasectomies were seen as a more social alternative and were effective in preventing reproduction. >> that's great. i mean it's not great. the o think of forced sterilization of something that is done on women and these are greatst examples of male and female in terms of gender discrimination in this whole realm. it is important for us to understand the intentions behind the movement so we can better

discuss 19th and 20th century ideas through the lens of a 21st century medical category. how can we better understand how these leaders were approaching this to benefit society? do we think it was driven by biology and i would like to open the floor to everybody from pennsylvania as well to chime in on this. >> go ahead. >> i think the understanding of biological or scientific principals like the origin of species to these basic ideas of natural selection and genetics as well as sementilli and genetics sort of laid out an optimistic view that you know we really could have more

simplistic ways to improve our gene pool if you will. >> yeah they couldn't separate their ideas about social fitness from economic concerns at the time. they were applying those ideas about survival of the fittest to people without considering social factors like economic downturns or the loss of a job or an accident and those factors can lead to poverty crime and illness. and at the same time this shifted response to poverty and crime from the traditional charity to state-led sterilization.

they were considered a drain on society and sterilization was considered more progressive and more efficient and more economically charitable or care in an institution. >> there was this shift in thinking about charity and government services where people are starting to see insanity and mental deficiencies, criminality asth things that were inherited traits that a person couldn't help so was kind of hopeless to keep pouring money into care for these people. they were seen as, so like the services and charitable organizationslp were not only helping these people to survive, they were driving and people

believed they were reproducing at alarming rates. the result of fear-mongering but there was this idea that these services and charities were really just keeping these people going unnaturally and these were people who in nature you know, social darwinism, natural selection, survival of the fittest, those kindsds of things that ensure those lines died out so we were keeping them going unnaturally and it was a drain on the economy. they use a lot of language describing people as and costing taxpayers money and dangerous not only for society but even for our personal safety. there was a lot of language

being turned around that demonize people for their circumstances. it kind of helps get some of that through. >> i feel like we are scratching at the surface of this. what is the ideological framework with eugenicist to link with better babies and sterilization. we named some people and darwinian thoughts and what were some of the organizations or organizations are basic ideological framework? >> the better babies was a flip flipside of the coin for sterilization and away instead of focusing on restricting the undesirables.

thisis is more about being fit o reproduce and help children thrive. theco better babies organized by the state part of health and held at the indiana state fair and as these workers distributed scientific literature on childhood diseases and diseases there were a lot of educational it andnts that went with it linked some of their efforts to the infant mortality rate in the period that this was going on. you have true member it was only the hoosiers that have the time and resources to travel to the state fair that had these model healthy babies that were given information so it's entrenched ideas about white supremacy since the women and babies were always babies and middle to

upper class families. also it bidens the educational gap on childcare. >> that was primarily during the 20s and 30s. jumping back earlier to 1905 indiana was home to one of the first restrictive marriage laws in the country and again in 1905 passing or prohibiting mentally deficient persons with disease from marriage. it was at the legislativee forefront. can we talk more about that, sarah? >> well it all goes back to the idea of preventing people who

were thought to not be fit to contribute to the gene pool from reproducing. i figure it was pretty obvious to most people but that didn't prevent people from having kids. the isolation and segregation was the other side of that. there were restrictions on who could marry but there were a lot of people who ended up not just in mental hospitals. institutions for the minded and other kinds of institutions like that who were segregated from the rest of society and they were isolated and the idea was that if they wereer kept there t to the public and out of society that they would be prevented from reproducing.

you see the 1907 law comes after that where they say we should just start sterilizing. >> again in that legal framework literally people forming a union and producing families but also the immigration law. joe can you talk to us a little bit more about that? >> sure. hoosiers have always been concerned about policing who is and who is not american. it's not always white supremacy so looking at the laws leading up to the eugenics laws. the eugenics thinking behind a lot of these laws.

the first naturalization law passed by congress in 1790 excluded -- and in 1882 we had to act to legislate immigration which prevented immigrants who may be from a public charge from entering the united states and d.c. that eugenics language in their trying to prevent people who are it maybe in impoverished circumstances from coming in and you have the exclusion act which i think people are more familiar with which is the first lot in the united states to target an ethnic group. this kind of thinking in the johnson reedee act more populary the immigration act of 1944 which is the one that drastically limits immigration to united states through a system that targeted specific

groups for exclusion by their country of origin and the undesirable group language included eastern and southern european immigrant catholics and specifically singled immigrants. so these were directly influenced by eugenics with especially with superintendent harry loughlin that you stated in your summer in the beginning that collected data claiming immigrants from these areas were more likely to become charge. he lobbied for sterilization and in the t same breath as the exclusion doctrineal he claims specifically the jewish people had higher rates of

feeblemindedness and it would pollute what they called native american stock not referring to indigenous people. anglo-saxon immigrants themselves at some point. he testified about all of this in congress multiple times when they were looking to pass as 1924 immigration act in a drafted model sterilization laws at the same time they were adopted by states after indiana and it really isin a wording tht directly influences the laws of 1933 and fast-forwarding to our attempting to flee persecution in the late 30s he is still advocating for it. we have a direct line from

eugenics can eugenics lobbying to end the immigration laws and the laws in the 1930s to those "laws staying in place long enough -- >> and a lot of that work nicole had a public charges the united states at the repatriation movement and allow the eugenics were based on w that. you can lookup all as taylor and his work labor in the united states 1920s 1930s area. they talk about early latino early populations charities and public charge and all of that

stuff almost giving them more fuel to the fire for the repatriation originally 400,000 i think it's up to 1 million mexican people some who were native-born heritage. make another example we saw the shift in whether or not mexican immigrants aree, considered. and what we have needed them for labor and then they are classified ason and nonwhite. and were encourageden to come to build the railroads across the united states and once we didn't need them anymore suddenly they were basically kicked out.

>> really the immigration laws reactive. >> before we move beyond the progressive era certainly the four immigration there really was a movement of increased compassion care in the sense that people who couldn't take care of themselves or were in institutions there was a wave or a sense that they needed to be cared for compassionately inhumanely and regarding procreation was part of a longer-term solution so it least there was an idealism and the realizationee that some of the folks that needed institutional care were not in within genetic disorder and some of the understanding of diseases but that slight moral bright spot was there and it gets when you

get into where germany took it in the era. >> it failed overly because the treatment of the something that came out of the quaker reform efforts and originally was an attempt to keep doctors of what we now call psychiatry. they were doing more damaged. tn good so the quakers started opening these institutions where people would be caredey for humanely and given lots of fresh air and sunshine and the beautiful surrounding. they did have success. a lot of people improved because of that and then when the government started opening thes mental hospitals and the doctors get involved again with good intentions and high hopes and all of that but they were

limited in terms of the understanding of these diseases. we didn't have therapies and there were all kinds of problems related come money that very quickly overwhelmed hospitals. there was mismanagement of funds and appropriation of funds, political cronyism and nepotism and all these huge problems at these hospitals in the mid-to late 19th century. you see these hospitals filling up with patients who aren't being adequately cared for and the facilities are falling apart because they were well made in the first place and they are well staffed and staff are well-trained her well paid and not equipped to deal with all of this. so that contributed to the sense that mental diseases were not as as we thought because look at all these hospitals filling up

with patients and their going home and notot getting better. you start seeing that shift in ideas about charities. you see a decrease in state funding for these facilities at the same time when they needed it the most. there were a course of difference between dramatic injuries and things like congenital disorders that would not be hereditary but it's interesting how quickly that went down the toilet. >> and in philadelphia also with the quakers. regarding people who were incarcerated there were state that centuries which was this very idealistic idea in a belief in a spiritual transformation

and. part of the idea that something could be done with that. >> we have other state institutions that were becoming overcrowded and had challenges and they turn to sterilization as a condition. so trading consent or you're just trying to get out of an institution. trading consent in a way that sterilization increased even after and i think sarah after we hear about the atrocities in germany. >> yeah i mean they, i think

both of them were done between the early 30s into the 50s and there were periods as far as the state hospitals go through onthe 1940s, you don't really see them but the superintendent at the time did that. there was a lack of surgeons they were all of an anwar so there is no want toou perform ts sterilization so what is unfortunate about the information we have about the numbers of sterilization is we have an idea for some but we don't know who was there liked and we don't have specific data from the hospitals but he talked later with his wife about how

they were reporting zero during that period because there was no one there to perform them. not because they had gotten better at it. >> this is a great way to talk about theon institutionalizatio. in the field ofhe mental health care and institutionalization what were some of the common reasons for somebody to be institutionalized that are treatable today that wouldn't require that level of incarceration of these people and looking at a long-term. >> in the early years it fluctuates and how these things change and evolve in psychiatry becomes a specialty that you see a lot of diagnoses like mania

and dementia and schizophrenia. a lot of degenerative diseases that cause senility but in the early years you didn't get a diagnosis in the records that this person is obsessed with religion or this person wanders at night. you get more descriptions of the issues that they were facing rather than an actual diagnosis and it changes over time. after that maybe jim could take it there after the late 1940s. >> even before that probably weren't the turn-of-the-century, that century and before it's hard to find completely accurate data. institutions such as this had

tertiary syphilis syphilis was by far the most significant reason why people would be in institutions. at some pointt in time there was a sense of separation between adults who acquired the condition and children or youth that had a level of disability that families at home normally would absorb the farm family would absorb a slower individual that have what will be would call intellectual disabilities but there was a sense that they went to an institution and found some of the institutions that were the worst. the history of mental health institutions points to the 50s when early antipsychotic medications that it least helped

and certainly made them more manageable as well as the early part of the movement toward the institutionalization. that moves up into the 70s and 80s partly because of the conditions and overcrowding and one can really critique how we did with the institutionalizationon. >> a hold different panel discussion. >> in terms of things that you might be institutionalized for for things like acolla s'more epilepsy that was considered ass mentalal illness before was understood as aa neurological condition. and then there is things that were observed up until the 1970s. homosexuality was listed in the

dsm as an official diagnosis of meant to him as a note of a completely different understanding of that. >> when you get into the 40s and 50's we had a two class system of psychiatric or mental hospitals and some which were trust funds children or babies that were confined and there wasn't a lot of personal choice for autonomy that many women who had hysteria hospitalized against their will and then the same thing with mania and that kind of thing but it they weren't the public institutions that were the most hard to stomach. >> i wanted to circle back because you mentioned tertiary syphilis and can you talk about what thatha is? some of those have a basic

understanding of that so can you unpack and set for us? >> sure i mean so primaryth syphilis would be presentations and symptoms that people with syphilis now what have and then tertiary would be unidentified of the people knew whatt syphils was without knowing the specific cause and people would develop dementia, lots of confusion, basically it was a brain disease which now is easily prevented with antibiotics. but there wasn't and would often be misdiagnosed the course as dementia. >> we did talk about forced sterilization during world war

ii and there being a lack of sterilization. did this continued in the united states beyond 1945? c in indiana governor marshall once he came to office he said let's stop doing this. this makes me uncomfortable and to cut off funding for a it and then it wasn't declared unconstitutional until 1921 as the new law in 1927 sort of further narrowed the types of people who were targeted in the law but that law was not repealed in indiana and tell them so until that point you to see sterilization. their estimates between 1907 in

1974 in indiana they were about 2500 sterilizations that were reported. >> also you seen this time leading up to that the repeal of that law is shift in the language from hereditary defects and that original language around eugenics to ideas about bad parenting and failings so it's shifting from sterilization to other kinds of decision-making. >> okay. and just to bring it up to present day you know what our because other issues in health

care continued around the original ideas of dereliction in -- sterilization and medical care for the institutionalized incarcerated or other ideas so what does medical care for the institutionalized look like today compared to what it had been historically? what are the biggest concerns regarding safety autonomy and happiness? james i know you were currently working with that so it's a question directed more toward you. >> yeah so in terms of the treatment of lay out what are factors that it baldermack and i think the question of reproduction and reproductive rights and reproductive choices can layer on top of that.

into the 60s and the 70s there was this real civil rights emergence that included the mental health patients, people that deserve to have more autonomy or they would be better off with their family. oftenhi earlier they were highly encouraged to go to an institution and word always happen -- happy with that pressure that decision. hathe glass wall that kennedy -- before he was assassinated at the beginning which at its core changed the decision about reasons for involuntary hospitalization. it changed from it paternalistic model where the professional or

the psychiatrist thought it was in theirst best interest to be treated or held against their will or to needing evidence of danger to self or others are just being mentally ill and refusing medication not that medication always works. declining treatment could lead to involuntary treatment just because your spouse that it would be good for you or your doctor wasn't enough to get people hospitalized against intheir will. that was happening at the same time that more effective medical treatments were emerging for serious mental illness were a lot of folks were in institutions. those states like the idea of getting that money back a little too fast and there was a real movement towards the institutionalization with

obvious challenges. i think particularly with folks that had significant limited capacity sometimes you could even have legal capacity to make autonomous decisions and questions around reproduction changed and the emergence of birth control pills particularly in choices for birth control which were temporary birth control and not permanent entered the picture and changege the moral dilemmas that individuals and caregivers and family members had to wrestle with. still lots of problems but on the ground and even more recently i worked in a program where there were the housing first program for people who were, who had been homeless and met the criteria for the

wrap-around program along with housing and we had a woman who had lost children to dcf and she got pregnant twice during that ndtime and was supported in that choice and the second time you know she lost both children to dhs. once we had to be the reporter because she really was not in a position to do that with the resources we couldld come up wi. those are some of the gray areas i think. still where i see pressure, there might be somebody who's on a three month shot and their primary care provider or family member might make sure they make that appointment. to keep track of that and make

sure it's -- and if it's in the individual's's best interest. and if it's their stated goal of the past and those are just some thoughts on where we have come. >> are we qualified to have an opinion? >> we are all in the history round that the historical -- did historical markers throughout the state so there is a historical marker that marks the 1907 legislation and it's in front of the statehouse. you can't just create something in put it in. the very detailed process.

jill can you talk about the historical and what that looked like? >> so in the southern part of the centennial law a few different organizations recognized the marker was installed. the marker process is publicly driven. we are state agency we don't go into the communities and tell them what's important about their history and anyone can apply for a marker. our staff does research and make sure we get the text right and i don't know if people -- if you want to put the marker up so people can see it.

>> we tried to get a lot and they are so in this case applicants like william schneider is a professor of history and professor of medical humanities and health studies at 80 wide. he led the application for this marker as well as scholars having discussions kind of like what we are doing today. there was also an exhibit at the state library around this. there washe an issue of the indiana magazinea of history looking back on indiana's past. the marker explains the 1907 in 1927 law and the number of individuals impacted and provide some context in the thinking.

there you see it. it's actually on the lawn of the state library. i did market a year before he started in the circle bureau so i don't have all the information. it seems look at newspapers the intent was to put it on the statehouse grounds so with the library in the statehouse facing eac' other you can't see it from the statehouse grounds but i think the idea was for legislators to walk past it and it was blocked so the library -- >> the dedication, it may have been at tiny step towards healing people and the peoplema

that unveiled the marker was one of the less people sterilized in indiana when she was just 15. she was sterilized without her knowledge under the guise of having her appendix removed according to her story and the other person that unveiled the marker was a commissioner who offered a formal apology. >> one last question for everybody before we open up to a discussion to our attendees. start thinking about some questions and drop them in thee chat. put it in the q&a so doesn't get lost in the chatter put it in the chat. last question, we talked about wide variety of topics and different. but what do youou think is the most important thing that we should take away from this

conversation? anybody can attempt at answering this question. >> i have a couple of thoughts but first i think we need to look at ourselves but our most vulnerable citizens in legislation and policies that infringe on our individual rights to make our own health choices. also looking at healthy societies and looking at empathy first i think our decisions on how to help people as we have seen in the case of economics and politics or pseudo-science. we need to think of people not as unfit or worthy or unworthy. we definitely know that people cannot be those things that

people cannot be illegal. we have ali responsibility to people seeking asylum especially children i would argue and their past mistakes such as allowing these immigration policies shaped by eugenic thinking to shut the door and refugees should serve as a warning. it's policies impacting humans and not made humanely and the results can be devastating. it's just one last thought and xenophobic or other policies that are wrapped in patriotic language. a lot of the eugenic language was weapon i think ideas about america first. slogans like this and as we talked about today who is and who is not american and

protecting white supremacy. >> the idea is change over time to based on politics and other things. italians were considered. >> from the historical medical history what is the thing to take away from this? >> one thing thatt strikes me in all of this is how this happened slowly and was not about resistance. once the ideas coalesce it was alarming how these things progressede and you can argue that this happened because they are people who consciously wanted to hurt people. many of them did have good intentions and thought that they were doing good work and they

thought of themselves as progressive and they wanted to make positive changes in society. .. it was a very close-minded effort to make things better and sort of, like, it hurt people. and that's alarming to me. but also it was deemed to fail because it was just, it was -- [inaudible] ideas, you know in and it was something that people swallow easily because they had these misunderstandings and misinterpretations of data and oversimplification of genetics. they didn't really understand that it made sense to them, and it reinforced kind of their own

ideas about other people. and they've been fed these harmful and unfair stereotypeses about people that looked different. they were subjected to the fear mongering, these people were made to feel like their way of life, their culture, their religion or whatever was threatened. but not only that, like, people who were unfit were threatening the economy as well, is they're threatening people's financial well-being. and so, you know, all of these thingskn and, you know, ideas about their superiority that were so ingrained that they couldn't even see them. they were totally invisible to people, and we see that today too. it allowed -- the i'm trying to be diplomatic. [laughter] you know, it allowed people to very easily embrace this idea that people who were poor or people who were from someplace

else or looked different or who, you know, were suffering from illnesses or were labeled mentally deficient, you know, that they were less human, that they were entitled to few fewer rights and that they should be gratee requestful and happy to o contribute to to society by giving up their own bodily autonomy in the name of the greater good with, you know, to improve societye which, of course, meant for the most part, you know, middle and upper class white american society. i should stop. [laughter] >> it's okay. dr. pecktel, what do you feel our viewers can take away from this conversation from your perspective? >> yeah, i have two two thoughts. one that, in a way, when it comes to scientific information