{"id":56644,"date":"2018-07-06T04:00:13","date_gmt":"2018-07-06T04:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mixedracestudies.org\/?p=56644"},"modified":"2018-07-06T04:02:56","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T04:02:56","slug":"how-the-use-by-eugenicists-of-family-trees-and-other-genealogical-technologies-informed-and-reflected-discourses-on-race-and-race-crossing-during-the-era-of-moral-condemnation-mixed-race-in-1920s-and","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mixedracestudies.org\/wp\/?p=56644","title":{"rendered":"How the Use by Eugenicists of Family Trees and Other Genealogical Technologies Informed and Reflected Discourses on Race and Race Crossing during the Era of Moral Condemnation: Mixed-Race in 1920s and 1930s Britain"},"content":{"rendered":"

How the Use by Eugenicists of Family Trees and Other Genealogical Technologies Informed and Reflected Discourses on Race and Race Crossing during the Era of Moral Condemnation: Mixed-Race in 1920s and 1930s Britain<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Genealogy<\/a>
\nVolume 2, Issue 3 (September 2018)<\/a>
\nSpecial Issue “Genealogy and Multiracial Family Histories<\/a>”
\n2018-07-05
\n15 pages
\nDOI: 10.3390\/genealogy2030021<\/a><\/p>\n

Peter J. Aspinall<\/strong><\/a>, Emeritus Reader
\nCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

In the 1920s and 30s, significant empirical studies were undertaken on mixed-race (\u2018hybrid\u2019) populations in Britain\u2019s<\/a> seaport communities. The physical anthropologists Rachel Fleming and Kenneth Little drew on the methods of anthropometry<\/a>, while social scientist Muriel Fletcher\u2019s morally condemnatory tract<\/a> belongs to the genre of racial hygiene<\/a>. Whether through professional relationships, the conduct of their work, or means of disseminating their findings, they all aligned themselves with the eugenics movement<\/a> and all made use of pedigree charts or other genealogical tools for tracing ancestry and investigating the inheritance of traits. These variously depicted family members\u2019 races, sometimes fractionated, biological events, and social circumstances which were not part of genealogy\u2019s traditional family tree lexicon. These design features informed and reflected prevailing conceptualisations of race as genetic and biological difference, skin colour as a visible marker, and cultural characteristics as immutable and hereditable. It is clear, however, that Fleming and Little did not subscribe to contemporary views that population mixing produced adverse biological consequences. Indeed, Fleming actively defended such marriages, and both avoided simplistic, ill-informed judgements about human heredity. Following the devastating consequences of Nazi racial doctrines<\/a>, anthropologists and biologists largely supported the 1951 UNESCO<\/a> view that there was no evidence of disadvantageous effects produced by \u2018race crossing\u2019.<\/p>\n

Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n