The Conclusion of "Killing the Black Body" and Economy

Dorothy Roberts' reading ends with an intriguing conclusion, stating that the underhanded motives for coercing Black females to undergo female sterilizations was done to "divert attention away from the political, social, and economic forces that maintain America's racial order." The class discussion regarding the overpopulation pamphlet and the socialist perspective of the pamphlet's authors were reminiscent of Roberts' conclusions.

Roberts establishes race as an underlying motive in the initial acceptance and implementation of birth control. As time progresses, Roberts portrays birth control as a tool, exploiting America's social, political, and economic systems in place in order to maintain African American's status as inferior. The author states how the more profitable hysterectomies were done on poor Black women, often "without informed consent and for no valid medical reason" with the doctors retrieving money through Medicaid. In addition, she states that "government funding policy continues to encourage sterilization of poor women...[but] it does not make available information about and access to certain other contraceptive techniques and abortion." It is interesting how the government restricts funding and information when there are potentially cheaper methods of contraceptives than sterilization and the financial motives for performing sterilizations. This potentially demonstrates how a money-oriented, capitalistic society facilitates the suppression of certain groups of individuals, whether that is directly the intent or not.

What does this have to do with the overpopulation pamphlet? The pamphlet makes similar claims, saying that the fear of overpopulation helps perpetuate negative stereotypes of individuals who are not as well of. My background regarding the topics I will attempt to talk about is quite limited, so I may be wrong on multiple accounts regarding the terminology that I use or even in the foundation behind my ideas. The in-class discussion raised some issues regarding socialism and how it is no longer a viable method to build a country around. As such, it seems as though most countries either turn to capitalism or are moving towards it. Even in examining the United States, where social and economic mobility is often championed, there will always be someone who is more rich than someone else (at least relatively). Otherwise, there would be no social mobility. Extending this view to a more worldwide perspective, with the greater relations between countries and the seemingly global movement towards capitalism, it is interesting to note allows a country like the United States to use a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, since they are globally, the "upper class" of the world, automatically creating a "lower class." Basically, capitalism allows for an unequal distribution of wealth and puts an emphasis on money. Although I have always viewed capitalism as a progressive movement allowing for social mobility, Robert's reading and the in-class discussion spurred me to think about the potential disadvantages of capitalism and a money-oriented world.

In addition, the discussion also brought up a great point that despite all of these progressions movements, the United States and the world in general still battle with many issues that Native Americans, as a hunter-gatherer society, did not have. Less issues may have been present with early hominids as well. The more simply we live, the less complex issues we would have to deal with. Although it is clear that humans have come a far way from their ancestors, perhaps progress comes at the expense of some of these global issues that must be dealt with today, maybe similar to how the laws of conservation govern energy in the physical sciences.