FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2612070779> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2612070779 endingPage "289" @default.
• W2612070779 startingPage "287" @default.
• W2612070779 abstract "Reviewed by: Bad Girls at Samarcand: Sexuality and Sterilization in a Southern Juvenile Reformatory by Karin L. Zipf Rebecca Kluchin Bad Girls at Samarcand: Sexuality and Sterilization in a Southern Juvenile Reformatory. By Karin L. Zipf. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2016. xii + 242 pp. Cloth $39.95. North Carolina’s sterilization program became national news in 2010 when the legislature voted to offer reparations to victims of the state’s eugenic sterilization program. In 2014, the state began making payments of $20,000 each to qualifying individuals, the majority of whom were sterilized in the post–World War II era. Scholars, journalists, and politicians have dissected North Carolina’s postwar sterilization program, focusing in particular on its efforts to reduce welfare costs by rendering poor black women infertile. Karin Zipf, however, starts her story of sterilization and eugenics in the state earlier, in the late 1910s, when Victorian-era reformers successfully pressed state legislators to establish [End Page 287] institutions for “fallen” girls, who they believed could be redeemed through state intervention. Of course, in the era of Jim Crow, the opportunity for redemption existed only for white women; reformers did not invest in “wayward” black girls whom they deemed unworthy of public support. The North Carolina legislature created Samarcand Manor in 1917 to rehabilitate white adolescent girls, a process steeped in white supremacy. Reformers believed that all white girls embodied southern womanhood, even if they had strayed from its central tenets of piety and gentility. The state invested in the rehabilitation and training of white women regardless of background as part of its efforts to ensure white dominance. In 1931, a fire set by residents at Samarcand destroyed two buildings on the property and led to the arrest of sixteen girls for the crime of arson, then a death penalty offense in North Carolina. Their trial proved a catalyst for major changes in North Carolina’s handling of delinquent white girls as it intersected with the rise of eugenics and the influence of mental hygienists—social workers who embraced and practiced eugenics. In the wake of the trial, which concluded with the judge sentencing twelve of the girls to five years in prison (they served only one), mental hygienists assumed control of Samarcand and other state institutions. Applying “scientific” techniques to juvenile reform, they implemented a classification system based upon eugenic constructs and measured by IQ tests. Using IQ scores, inmates’ sexual history, and the presence or absence of venereal disease (believed to be a symptom of lack of reproductive fitness), mental hygienists diagnosed, treated, and paroled inmates in an orderly, “scientific” manner. Institutional policy encouraged sterilization for all girls with IQ scores of sixty-five and below upon release; between 1929 and 1950, nearly three hundred Samarcand residents underwent sterilization (131). Like Victorian reformers, mental hygienists continued to infuse their approach to juvenile reform with white supremacy, but unlike their predecessors, who believed all white girls embodied the possibility of reform, “modern” reformers believed many girls were genetically unable to be reformed and as such, the state held a responsibility to control their reproduction in order to preserve white supremacy. Poor, “unfit” girls could drag down the white race, diluting its bloodlines and causing social instability unless their “destructive” behavior could be neutralized. Sterilization offered a solution to this problem, and while the North Carolina reformers who assumed control of Samarcand ended the practice of indefinite sentences and vicious whippings, they replaced these methods of control with a surgical one that had an equally destructive effect on the lives of its victims. Zipf is an expert storyteller and a first-rate scholar. She creatively employs a range of sources to tell the story of juvenile reform and eugenics in North [End Page 288] Carolina before 1950 and presents humane, complicated profiles of the main actors in her narrative. Zipf is equally attentive to reformers, politicians, judges, and inmates. She spends a chapter recounting horrible stories of abuse towards Samarcand residents under the leadership of superintendent Agnes MacNaughton, but reminds the reader that MacNaughton remained Victorian in her approach to juvenile reform, always believing in the ability of her charges to change. In another chapter..." @default.
• W2612070779 created "2017-05-19" @default.
• W2612070779 creator A5077153817 @default.
• W2612070779 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W2612070779 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2612070779 title "Bad Girls at Samarcand: Sexuality and Sterilization in a Southern Juvenile Reformatory by Karin L. Zipf" @default.
• W2612070779 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hcy.2017.0036" @default.
• W2612070779 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2612070779 type Work @default.
• W2612070779 sameAs 2612070779 @default.
• W2612070779 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2612070779 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2612070779 hasAuthorship W2612070779A5077153817 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C140610115 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C148761745 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C2779949451 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C2983132609 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C536366893 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C53813258 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C556758197 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C107993555 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C140610115 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C144024400 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C148761745 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C162324750 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C17744445 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C199539241 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C2779949451 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C2983132609 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C536366893 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C53813258 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C556758197 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C83009810 @default.
• W2612070779 hasConceptScore W2612070779C95457728 @default.
• W2612070779 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2612070779 hasLocation W26120707791 @default.
• W2612070779 hasOpenAccess W2612070779 @default.
• W2612070779 hasPrimaryLocation W26120707791 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W1533775835 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W1606014856 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W1943088017 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W1974042006 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W2037586348 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W2081069108 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W2742269282 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W3110453636 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W3157400701 @default.
• W2612070779 hasRelatedWork W3186754355 @default.
• W2612070779 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W2612070779 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2612070779 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2612070779 magId "2612070779" @default.
• W2612070779 workType "article" @default.