May 4, 2017

"This Jigsaw Puzzle Was Given to Ellis Island Immigrants to Test Their Intelligence."

"The Feature Profile Test... constituted an idealistic effort to be fair—while at the same time being cruelly unjust... The puzzle represented a progressive reform of sorts. Before it, the public health service measured intelligence with traditional I.Q. tests, whose questions required cultural and linguistic knowledge that many immigrants did not have, causing perfectly intelligent people to test as 'imbeciles.' The Feature Profile Test relied on more universal knowledge—around the world, noses and ears are in the same places.... [But] the stakes were high, and... the test-takers had just arrived after a long voyage aboard ship.... They might be sleep-deprived, depressed or ill. And they might never have taken a test before. If they did not complete the puzzle in five minutes, that failure... could lead to a mother being ripped from her family and shipped back to the Old World."

From Smithsonian.com.

86 comments:

TestTube said...

1) Is there any evidence that a mother WAS actually ripped from her family for failure to complete this five-piece jigsaw puzzle?

2) Would it be possible to require that every elected official successfully complete this test to hold office? Could we make such a requirement retroactive?

mockturtle said...

It would be very wrong to screen out stupid people. Someone has to be MSM 'journalists', after all.

rhhardin said...

Immigration is a deal. Both sides have to come out ahead.

The US decides if it comes out ahead; the immigrant decides is he comes out ahead.

If both do, the deal is made. If not, not.

That's what Trump's America first is -- he's dealing for our side. The foreigner deals for his side.

If agreement, then deal.

America isn't an involuntary charity.

MadisonMan said...

Better the mother is shipped back than the father -- how easy would it have been for the mother (v. the father) to have found gainful employment and thereby support the family?

buwaya said...

.1% rejection rate was not enough to be useful for the purpose of human quality control. From the point of known range of human variation it should have rejected much more than 30%, probably.

And a test can be imperfect while still being useful.
The article is far more emotional than analytical.

Paul from Decatur, GA said...

So many "progressive" reforms or programs have turned out to be loaded with unintended, and negative, consequences. I am so glad that all of my ancestors arrived in the US before Ellis Island opened, but some of them just made it.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

That article is so full of emotive words. Settle down, Smithsonian author!

I mean, 'inquisition?' Yikes.

John Tuffnell said...

What further proof do we need to do away with borders and all immigration standards?

Fernandinande said...

eugenics, the pseudoscience

To believe that you have to believe that humans have no characteristics influenced by genes, and also that animals can't be bred so as to select for certain characteristics.

Since nobody believes those things, the Smithsonian is lying.

Wiki:
"Goddard established an intelligence testing program on Ellis Island during 1913. The purpose of the program was to identify "feeble-minded" persons whose nature was not obvious to the subjective judgement of immigration officers, who had previously made these judgements without the aid of tests.[4]

When he published the results during 1917, Goddard stated that his results only applied to immigrants traveling steerage and did not apply to people traveling in first or second class.[5] He also noted that the population he studied had been preselected, omitting those who were either "obviously normal" or "obviously feeble-minded", and stated that he made "no attempt to determine the percentage of feeble-minded among immigrants in general or even of the special groups named – the Jews, Hungarians, Italians, and Russians"; a qualifier omitted in works by opponents of the study of intelligence such as Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Kamin.[4]"

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

American immigration policy of the time was grounded in eugenics, the pseudoscience of trying to uplift humanity by preventing the “unfit” from having children

Lol. Not to throw out n.n bait or anything, but I wonder what Mr. Adam Cohen thinks of Margaret Sanger and her great gift to humanity, Planned Parenthood.

madAsHell said...

Is the puzzle made of plywood??

I'm looking at the unassembled picture, and the square block appears to have been made of plywood. Plywood was invented in 1865, but wasn't widely accepted until the 1920's. Just sayin'....

madAsHell said...

My daughter lives in a house that is vintage 1905. There isn't any plywood in that house.

Nonapod said...

Raw intelligence isn't the best way to determine a persons quality. Some of the best people I've known are idiots, and conversely I've known a fair number of high IQ jerks.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Feature Profile Test relied on more universal knowledge—around the world, noses and ears are in the same places....

Well, that should keep that imbecile Picasso out...

Fernandinande said...

madAsHell said...
Is the puzzle made of plywood??


The dishonest Smithsonian article showed the back of it; the front has facial features drawn on it.

mockturtle said...

Goo one, IIB! :-)

The Drill SGT said...

Fernandinande said...

wins the thread

buwaya said...

Picasso was a fine, well trained academic artist.
He deliberately compromised his style, but his technical abilities were not in question.

mockturtle said...

Buwaya, we know that and appreciate Picasso. The above was an example of sarcastic humor, which you may not recognize.

BDNYC said...

The test is meant to screen out the "mental defectives," not to measure relative intelligence. You just had to be smart enough. Honestly, if a person is unable to complete that puzzle, he's going to end up unemployed with welfare or possibly institutionalized.

stever said...

Margaret Sanger was unavailable for comment

Ignorance is Bliss said...

stever said...

Margaret Sanger was unavailable for comment

Margaret Sanger, and millions of people she considered inferior, were unavailable for comment.

FIFY

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

mockturtle said...
Buwaya, we know that and appreciate Picasso. The above was an example of sarcastic humor, which you may not recognize.


Painted at age 15.

Maybe his later pictures were visual sarcasm.

Bay Area Guy said...

"American immigration policy of the time was grounded in eugenics, the pseudoscience of trying to uplift humanity by preventing the “unfit” from having children"

I wouldn't say eugenics was pseudoscience, it's probably sound science. Ask any dog-breeder or horse-breeder. You breed the best, you discard the rest.

As a matter of humanity and empathy and public policy, eugenics has major, horrible problems. But not as a matter of science.

Hagar said...

Actually, at that time, if your intelligence was that defective, you would just not survive unless your relatives took care of you.
I do not know why they were testing for intelligence, unless it was just for "scientific curiosity."
I always thought Ellis Island was established to screen out infectious disease carriers, especially tuberculosis.
And I believe I have read it was run by the New York Harbor Commission, not by the Federal Government.

Fritz said...

And yet, both of my wife's paternal grandparents made the cut.

David said...

So how many people were actually screened out on basis of "intelligence tests?" My guess is very few. According to this article, over the entire history of Ellis Island about 12 passed through. Two percent were screened out. This for all causes, including illness, criminality and the like. http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-ellis-island

Not a bad record, if you ask me. But we have a whole group in our present who have an overwhelming interest in telling us how awful our past was.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"over the entire history of Ellis Island about 12 passed through"

That would be "12 million."

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

B students teach. C students hire A students to do the tedious work.

Comanche Voter said...

Eugenics a "pseudo science". Be careful what you say climate alarmist breath. There's always a lot of pseudo science of one type or another out there; only the subject of the pseudo science changes.

David said...

Anyway, the purpose of our immigration policy in those days was to get people in, not exclude them.

It's the same today, but with a more specialized society, just being able to labor is no longer enough. And of course the biggest difference, the welfare state. In an era where immigrants had to work to survive (and labor was scarce), less screening was needed. An immigration policy which attracts significant numbers who will live off the wealth and production of the existing society is not going to be successful.

Balfegor said...

Eugenics isn't even a science as such, let alone a "pseudo" science. In the same way that engineering is more or less applied physics, eugenics (like breeding programmes in general) is just applied biology.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I wouldn't say eugenics was pseudoscience, it's probably sound science."

It seems pretty imperfect to me. Think of the many brilliant people who rose from utter obscurity. Could eugenics have predicted a Giotto, a Shakespeare, a Dickens, a Lincoln, or for that matter, a Hitler? On the flip side, look at Chelsea Clinton. As much as I despise Hill and Bill, I wouldn't call either of them stupid. Their daughter seems pretty thick despite her expensive education. In fact, it's almost axiomatic that the sons of great men are frequently mediocre and frustrated because they cannot live up to the family name: Robert Lincoln and Randolph Churchill come to mind.

Nonapod said:

"Raw intelligence isn't the best way to determine a persons quality. Some of the best people I've known are idiots, and conversely I've known a fair number of high IQ jerks."

A lot of our problems are due to the fact that we have a lot of highly credentialed people who probably aced their SATs but have no common sense whatsoever running things.

Robbie Mook's dad was a Dartmouth physics professor and Mook went to Columbia. He's not going to win the "Best Political Strategist of 2016" award now, is he?

CWJ said...

Fernandinande@10:27,

Wow! Dishonest indeed! I see that Smithsonian Magazine has fallen even deeper into maudlin PC mode than when I cancelled my subscription a decade and a half ago.

Great catch!

Balfegor said...

Also, the basis of America's late 19th century immigration laws was principally economic, not eugenic. If you look at the 1882 act or the 1891 act, it's all about blocking immigration by (1) criminals and (2) people unable to support themselves (e.g. unemployable persons, lunatics and morons). The exception to the general pattern is the Chinese Exclusion act, which was designed to block immigration by employable persons precisely because they would outcompete the natives.

MaxedOutMama said...

Okay, a person who couldn't put four pieces into the one big piece (they are showing the back of the puzzle - the front has drawings on it of eye, ear, nose & mouth) in five minutes would be severely retarded, or merely blind. Sleeplessness would have jack all to do with it. One can either claim that they shouldn't have screened out those with acute disease or grant that they had to right to do so, but to claim that this test was "unfair" as a test of very basic mental ability is an astonishing misrepresentation.

I'd like to see the same standard applied to Australia TODAY- try to immigrate there as an older person, or a person with an illness, or with a retarded child, and you'll rapidly discover that the US and Ellis Island represented a high point in humane behavior toward immigrants still not exceeded by the average nation that our elite believes to be infinitely superior to our own. If one is over 50, emigrating to Canada is practically impossible without being exceedingly wealthy. Why? Because it would impose costs on the social networks of these countries.

If you are young, and want to immigrate to Canada, and you qualify as having a skill in demand, they still won't let you in without a medical exam, proof of a high level of literacy in either English or French, and MEDICAL EXAMS FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY. Okay? So, yes, they are so wonderful, they let gays get married a few years before we did - but if you have HIV, you ain't getting in. They can't afford it. Oh - and they certify the doctors who can do the exams. You're not getting in if you have liver disease, or a wife or child with cystic fibrosis. You're not getting in if you or yours would represent anything but an economic gain to Canadian society.

The hypocrisy of our time is beginning to sicken me. There seems to be no attempt at imposing basic standards of honesty within public discourse. Is "We're all Pravda now" our new motto? Can't we just let the NYT occupy that niche, and leave some space in Realityville for the rest of us?

No wonder the left is seeking to get rid of the First Amendment! They haven't got anything left that appeals to a sane person! For causes, they're down to the claim that individuals who don't want to sleep with a man who says he's a woman but has breasts and a penis are hateful beasts who must be rooted out of polite society.

We've done this to ourselves; Trump's successful presidential run was a rebellion against it. It would be nice if we could all accept the truth that it is not vicious to speak the truth and move on to overcoming our problems.

Balfegor said...

Re: exiledonmainstreet

It seems pretty imperfect to me. Think of the many brilliant people who rose from utter obscurity.

I suppose there might be some people who would argue that if you breed talent to talent 100% of the resulting offspring will be smart, but by the early 20th century, I doubt many eugenicists would have believed as much. I'm pretty sure dog and horse breeders knew that inheritance doesn't work like that. And in any event, Mendelian genetics was known by the early 20th century.

CWJ said...

I have no doubt that the puzzle was a huge improvement over using standardized IQ tests.
But that can't be acknowledged. Rather, the author focuses upon the remaining presumed imperfections. I'm continually amazed at the ability of politicized thinkers to find the black cloud behind every silver lining. It would appear that the only "fair" test would be one with a 100% pass rate.

Balfegor said...

Re: CWJ:

But that can't be acknowledged. Rather, the author focuses upon the remaining presumed imperfections. I'm continually amazed at the ability of politicized thinkers to find the black cloud behind every silver lining. It would appear that the only "fair" test would be one with a 100% pass rate.

Yes . . . even a 99.9% pass rate won't satisfy them:

Over a fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, nearly one immigrant per 1,000 of the more than one million examined—957 individuals—were deported as mentally defective.

Balfegor said...

I will say, though, that the modern system is rather more humane -- make them take the tests etc. at the US consulate overseas before they go the time and expense of leaving home. The ocean liner companies collecting fares for unfit would-be immigrants are the ones whom we really ought to be excoriating here.

mockturtle said...

Our southern border has been notably unhindered by such measures.

buwaya said...

"Our southern border has been notably unhindered by such measures."

Crossing the line (or getting to the line at all, for non-Mexicans) is its own sort of test of courage, will, survival skills, resourcefulness/intelligence, ability to get family funding to pay coyotes, family relationships in general, etc. Not too many hopelessly incompetent people get across.

Long term, not a sufficient test, probably, for the long term health of a high-tech modern polity even leaving aside the cultural issues. But its certainly a test. I know it would screen out a great number of natives.

buwaya said...

"The Wall" will I think increase the severity of the selection filter of line crossers. So besides reducing labor competition it should improve the quality of those who succeed in getting over the line.

Bay Area Guy said...

I think all Leftists should do this social experiment.

Host a party at their apartment. Clean it, have good music, serve free beer and food.

Invite anyone to attend. Not friends, not family, not neighbors. Anyone. Be real, real open about it.

Do this every Saturday night. Pay for all of it, clean it up before and after each time.

After a couple of months, tells us how it went and whether you'd continue to do it.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

the pseudoscience of trying to uplift humanity by preventing the “unfit” from having children

That would be Sanger here, Saleeby in the UK. Plus colleagues, of course. Interesting to hear them described as "pseudoscientists," though not exactly new. But when will Planned Parenthood acknowledge that it was founded by a pseudoscientist? One whose journal was for many years in favor of summary deportation of the "unfit"?

I like Chesterton on this. He says (paraphrasing here, because I can't find the text) that if he holds up an object and says "this is unfit," no one can know whether it's unfit to eat, or unfit to wear, or unfit to be the centerpiece of an Easter parade. The word is literally (and I don't mean that figuratively) meaningless.

mockturtle said...

Crossing the line (or getting to the line at all, for non-Mexicans) is its own sort of test of courage, will, survival skills, resourcefulness/intelligence

By those criteria, El Chapo more than fills the bill. Those tunnels are quite ingenious. So what if they were used for drug trafficking.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I think a better test might be:

"Do you believe that people in America have the right to belong to different religions, or to profess no religion?"

"Do you want to see Sharia law implemented throughout the world?"

"Do you believe non-believers should have the same rights as you?"

"Do you believe anybody who lives in America is entitled to receive welfare, healthcare, education and to vote in US elections even if they are not citizens?"

"If you do not speak English, do you intend to learn it within 5 years of arrival?"

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Just in time to discourage emigration reform, encourage social justice adventurism, and deflect scrutiny from demographic replacement of Planned Americans.

tcrosse said...

Presumably the Mother was already Ripped From Her Family when she chose to leave the Old Country for America.

mockturtle said...

I don't think intelligent people are superior people. There are high IQ folks who are contemptible and amoral and many unintelligent people who are kind and industrious.

buwaya said...

"By those criteria, El Chapo more than fills the bill."

He does. Such a man would probably have made quite a success of himself had his obviously dominant personality, his talent, even genius, been turned in a legitimate direction.

Criminals are usually inadequate types, but certainly not all of them.

TestTube said...

Also, this puzzle has five pieces. Five lousy pieces! Of which one is the head, and a second blatantly obvious. So you must figure out how to fit THREE pieces? In five minutes?

And that is supposed to be a challenge?



Francisco D said...

Intelligence testing had to start sometime and somewhere. Early methods were crude, just as in every field. Why write about these efforts as cruel and unfair?

Several hundred years ago, "doctors" used to bleed their patients as a cure for illnesses they did not understand. That was cruel, I suppose. Medicine had a crude start as well as psychological testing. Both have advanced tremendously over time and will continue to do so.

Paco Wové said...

Good find, Mr. F. I've posted a comment on the original article asking why they didn't show the front of the puzzle – we'll see if it gets through moderation.

We dumped our Smithsonian subscription about a decade ago, but even so the level of dishonesty on display here is remarkable. Pravda indeed.

Balfegor said...

Re: TestTube:


Also, this puzzle has five pieces. Five lousy pieces! Of which one is the head, and a second blatantly obvious. So you must figure out how to fit THREE pieces? In five minutes?

And that is supposed to be a challenge?


That's probably why it seems to have had a 0.1% reject rate -- it's not supposed to be hard.

Also, as others have pointed out, the relevant features are actually drawn on the pieces (the photographer flipped them over, presumeably to make the test look harder than it really is).

gadfly said...

For those who failed the feeblemindedness test, perhaps a short trip to a state-run lunatic asylum for a series of electric shock treatments might have been in order. Cruelty begins and ends with physical pain.

Angel-Dyne said...

These days I wouldn't waste time reading anything Smithsonian puts out. What used to be an enjoyable, conventional middle-brow publication is now (like everything else?) an excruciatingly dumbed-down, preachy PC-pamphlet. I would be shocked if they had anything interesting, informative, or even historically accurate (beyond context-free, scrupulously cherry-picked, dogma-supporting fact-lets) to say about immigration.

(OT, but what happened to middle-brow pubs, anyway? As in, basic, interesting, enjoyable reads that, if they didn't tax your intelligence, didn't insult it, either, or make you feel like you'd wandered into a revival tent or a struggle session? The painfully clodding PC-ness of the pubs that once filled this cultural niche is really an embarrassment.)

AReasonableMan said...

Angel-Dyne said...
(OT, but what happened to middle-brow pubs, anyway? As in, basic, interesting, enjoyable reads that, if they didn't tax your intelligence, didn't insult it, either, or make you feel like you'd wandered into a revival tent or a struggle session? The painfully clodding PC-ness of the pubs that once filled this cultural niche is really an embarrassment.)


Two possibilities:
1. By and large only liberals read these magazines.
2. The magazines have decided to commit financial suicide.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

"By those criteria, El Chapo more than fills the bill."

Buwaya asserts: He does. Such a man would probably have made quite a success of himself had his obviously dominant personality, his talent, even genius, been turned in a legitimate direction.


We have enough intelligent sociopaths now. We don't need more. Those unimpressed by the rule of law don't belong here.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"By and large only liberals read these magazines."

By and large only liberals write these magazines. Financial outcomes are the problem of the Republicans down in Accounts Receivable.

Angel-Dyne said...

Angel-Dyne: ...the painfully clodding...

Angel-Dyne, what the hell is "clodding"? Is that even a word?

Maybe I meant "plodding"? "Painfully plodding"? That's some shit writing there, self.

Bay Area Guy said...

The nub of it is that culture matters, much more than race.

Regardless of your race, if you want to come to America, work, raise your kids, speak English, be part of the community, most sane people have no problem with that.

But if your culture is violent, or wants to impose Sharia law, or doesn't want to work, or just wants federal benefits, sorry, we don't have a deal.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Not only is the Smithsonian article hysterically histrionic, it is deceptive and purposely misleading because the author or editors are only showing the BACK side of the puzzle. The front side has drawn on the features. Truly....only a complete idiot would be unable to do this puzzle.

I was at the dentist yesterday and National Geographic is literally intolerable to read. It is crammed full of global warming, man is ruining the planet, etc etc etc bull crap. Is there NO publication that hasn't been warped by the politically correct virus?

Paco Wové said...

"what the hell is "clodding"? "

Something so stupefying it be-clods the reader? Works for me.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The true puzzle

exiledonmainstreet said...

"(OT, but what happened to middle-brow pubs, anyway? As in, basic, interesting, enjoyable reads that, if they didn't tax your intelligence, didn't insult it, either, or make you feel like you'd wandered into a revival tent or a struggle session? The painfully clodding PC-ness of the pubs that once filled this cultural niche is really an embarrassment.)"

Back in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, Dwight McDonald and other intellectuals decried “middlebrow culture.” McDonald used examples like Hemingway’s “Old Man and the Sea” and the Book of the Month Club as examples of “midcult” and said “(Midcult) pretends to respect the standards of High Culture, while, in fact, it waters them down and vulgarizes them." Macdonald recommended a separation of the brows, so that "the few who care about good writing, painting, music, architecture, philosophy, etc. have their High Culture, and don't fuzz up the distinction with the Midcult."


Now there’s another example of a snotty intellectual being disastrously wrong. Now we have Masscult and a desiccated “High Culture” that borrows freely from trashy mass culture, but Midcult has pretty much vanished. What McDonald sneered at brought a bit of high culture into the homes of ordinary people. I remember seeing classical musicians and opera singers on Ed Sullivan. We belonged to Book-of-the Month Club and while many of the books weren’t high literature, they helped get me in the habit of reading. Same with the old Time and Life magazine.

Better the Masscult of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s than the pc pap that magazines like National Geographic offer now.


Guildofcannonballs said...

"The word is literally (and I don't mean that figuratively) meaningless."

I am unfit to concur.

buwaya said...

"Now there’s another example of a snotty intellectual being disastrously wrong."

Indeed. A lot of that was snottiness for the sake of snottiness, as mid-cult was not mid at all, merely not over-invested in being esoteric for the sake of being esoteric. A lot of the arts were well into the period of messaging the aficionados, forgetting the general principles of truth and beauty.

A stage of decadence. We are well past that stage.

Lem said...

Scaling the Trump wall, if they get around to building it, would show that the new immigrants want to join the marines?

I don't know what Althouse is up to with this post.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"He does. Such a man would probably have made quite a success of himself had his obviously dominant personality, his talent, even genius, been turned in a legitimate direction."

Along with God, he would have had to turn himself in a legitimate direction, not been turned, in order for me to believe he "probably" would have made himself successful without all the murder. In fact, I wouldn't doubt if he were at times turned in a legitimate direction, think of the C.S. Lewis quote about do-gooders never even for a moment allowing a different conclusion than their own any legitimacy (hence any and all means to even nominally becoming a whim of a notion are allowed and encouraged if it be in service of The Cause, including famine, conflagration, genocide, and apocalypse whether through intent or intent neglected) and extrapolate to a do-eviler. This bride at every wedding corpse at every funeral would probably take offense at anyone trying to turn him and use the (presumable) attempts as a reason to be even more murderously evil. He chose the free will to go to Hell.

Francisco D said...

Gadfly,

ECT is the preferred treatment for severe depression. It's neither cruel nor painful.

Sometimes it works wonders.

Fernandinande said...

"I am inclined to believe that a large proportion of our present-day criminals are the brightest and boldest members of families living under impossible conditions, and that in many desirable qualities the average criminal is above the average of the law-abiding poor and probably of the average respectable person.

Many eminent criminals appear to me to be persons superior in many respects--in intelligence, initiative, originality---to the average judge." -- H.G. Wells

After that damning-with-faint-praise, he adds: "I will confess I have never known either."

Guildofcannonballs said...

"But if your culture is violent..."

I wonder if anyone has ever noticed any areas of the world that have a culture or cultures we could consider violent, and if race has or is any, any at all, correlation to where violence is epi-centered globally?

Myself, like Dwight Yoakum in one of his songs,I just gave up trying to figure out why and what and how. For me it was when I discovered George Clinton intro-ing a Tupac song by saying "You must be going blind" not "You must be color blind" although I'm sure nobody here relates to that.

Lem said...

I can't pass the UPS Sort test. I know where the packages 📦 belong and I put them there, in reasonable time. But when I sit down to do a test via a computer simulation I do terribly. The simulation entails a pop up of the package label and I have a few seconds to click on the correct color belt. In the real world situation, I seem to have more time to accomplish the task. It's puzzling to me and the test supervisor that the opposite should be true. Meaning, It should be easier on the computer.

TestTube said...

Not sure the puzzle shown in the links DustBunny and Fernandinande found is the same set of objects as the puzzle shown in the Smithsonian article. The Ear Square in the Smithsonian article appears to be one square, while the Ear Square DB and F found looks like the square is cut up into four smaller squares.

However, the profile of the puzzle shown in the Smithsonian article is mirror image of the profile of the painted puzzle, so it is definitely suspicious.

Megaera said...

You know, I could swear (had the so-obliging Smithsonian not made it clear that this must have been some savage, protectionist, Conservative anti-immigration measure imposed by the dreadful governmental force-for-evil of the time) that the great Progressive President Woodrow Wilson was in the White House during most of this period (1912-1916)... ehrm, Uh-oh.

n.n said...

Whether it (e.g. male, female, etc.) is a burden or not viable may be a consideration for Planning purposes, but the prevailing interest today is to assess character (e.g. principled alignment) and to unveil the first-order forcings of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform (CAIR).

Balfegor said...

Re: Guildofcannonballs:

I wonder if anyone has ever noticed any areas of the world that have a culture or cultures we could consider violent, and if race has or is any, any at all, correlation to where violence is epi-centered globally?

Well, as Americans we are not really in a position to cast stones here, since history knows us as a savagely violent people. Well, the Whites anyway. Here is an entertaining illustration of our national character, from Anburey's Travels Through the Interior Parts of America (1779):

As I was walking with some officers, I was shewn a gentleman of the town, a Mr. Fauchee, a surgeon and apothecary, who had the misfortune to have one of his eyes gouged out, it was happily in time replaced, and there were hopes that he would recover the use of it. I shall relate the way the accident happened, to shew the ferociousness of the lower class in this country; this gentleman was at play in the billiard-room, where there were a number of gentlemen, and several of our officers: a low fellow, who pretends to gentility came in, and in the course of the play, some words arose, in which he first wantonly abused, and afterward would insist on fighting Mr. Fauchee, desiring at the same time, to know upon what terms he would fight, as the lower sort have various modes; Mr. Fauchee declined any, saying, that he was totally ignorant as to boxing, but the other calling himself a gentleman, he would meet him in gentleman-like manner; he had scarcely uttered these words, before the other flew at him, and in an instant turned his eye out of the socket, and while it hung upon his cheek, the fellow was barbarous enough to endeavor to pluck it entirely out, but was prevented. You can easily imagine what the officers who were present, must have felt, as spectators of such a scene who were obliged to suffer such a wretch to go off with impunity, their hands being restrained, by their parole, from any interference.

This most barbarous custom, which a savage would blush at being accused of, is peculiar to the lower class of people in this province; at one time it was so prevalent, that the Governor and Assembly were obliged to pass a law which made it criminal, and that law is now in force, but the rabble are such a lawless set, especially those in the back woods,
that they are little restrained by any laws the State can pass, and in the back settlement, this savage custom prevails. --- I have seen a fellow, reckoned a great adept in gouging, who constantly kept the nails of both his thumbs and second finders very long and pointed; nay, to prevent their breaking or splitting, in the execution of his diabolical intentions, he hardened them every evening in a candle.

It is universal opinion, that death is preferable to loss of sight, and as every occasion of quarrelling with the officers is greedily sought after, we seldom go out without our side arms. What pity it is, that a country where the superior class are of such an hospitable and friendly disposition, should be rendered almost unsafe to live in by the barbarity of the people.


That's Virginia for you.

Bad Lieutenant said...

gadfly said...
For those who failed the feeblemindedness test, perhaps a short trip to a state-run lunatic asylum for a series of electric shock treatments might have been in order. Cruelty begins and ends with physical pain.
5/4/17, 12:56 PM


You are a fool of the highest order, made of pure fooltanium. In fact you might be feeble-minded yourself if you believe that.

Gretchen said...

Of course the article shows the back of the puzzle. The front had the features drawn on, google images of "The Feature Profile Test" and you'll see. Got to show American history as one of terrible oppression.

mockturtle said...

Megaera points out: the great Progressive President Woodrow Wilson was in the White House during most of this period (1912-1916)

He was also easily the most racist President in US history.