February 26: Disabled citizens?
Read:
1) In The New Disability History: Douglas C. Baynton, “Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History,” pp. 33-57
2) Douglas C. Baynton, “‘The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes’: American Immigration Policy and Deaf Immigrants, 1882-1924,” Sign Language Studies 6, no. 4 (Summer 2006): pp. 391-415 (Blackboard)
3) Examples of “ugly laws” from Susan M. Schweik, The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public (New York University Press, 2009), pp. 201-206 (Blackboard)
Choose one of the following questions to answer:
1) How has disability been used to define what makes a “good citizen?” Your answer should draw on at least two (preferably three) of the readings.
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences (or possibly a short paragraph each) your “muddiest point(s)” in the two pieces by Baynton.
Baynton begins this discussion in “Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History.” On page 33, he states: “When categories of citizenship were questioned, challenged, and disrupted, disability was called on to clarify and define who deserved, and who was deservedly excluded from, citizenship.” He goes on to state that natural/normal define good and right (not natural/not normal, thus, define the evil and wrong). Since the nation was focused on becoming a nation of “quality” citizens, those evil and wrong were automatically excluded. Baynton goes a step further and describes abnormality as being akin to animal origins (which, in turn, justifies the lack of citizenship since animals cannot be citizens) and are uncivilized. The ideas of disregarding those with disabilities continues on to describe slaves, women, and ethnic immigrants. In “The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes,” Baynton focuses on the idea that education was a right for only those who went to public/common schools and not deaf students (where education seemed to be more about charity than creating a proper citizen). He also addresses the idea that deafness led to immoral behavior which was caused by mental defect (402).
Both of these articles clearly displayed the looseness surrounding ideas of disability. The lack of clearly defined parameters allowed the examining officer to decide on their own the mental status of immigrants. Since many had views grounded in eugenics, this ultimately meant that any minor discretion to result in immediate deportation and denial of citizenship.
Bayntor
The concept of disability has been used to justify discrimination against people who were not really disabled. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century disability was used against normal people who were excluded from citizenship because of their political leanings. This was mostly in women’s suffrage, civil rights, and immigration restrictions. The immigration regulations against disability included function and physical appearance. This meant disability was linked to visage, which in turn excluded people from Southern Europe. The average man from this part of Europe was usually short in stature with a poor physique, probably due to a poor diet.
Disability among deaf immigrants became very significant in entering the United States from 1882-1924. In most cases, the immigrant had families to help them enter through Ellis Island. This paragraph centers on deaf persons and their problems of entering the US. Deafness was considered a disability on entering the country. The problems were minimalized if the alien had a family and a lawyer to help appeal a denial to enter the country. The appeal stated that the immigrant was able to support himself. Usually if the family could post a bond saying that the immigrant could support himself, he would be allowed to enter the country. The problem that surfaced with deaf children was that immigration regulations believed that deafness was hereditary. Some were allowed with families and others were sent back to Europe.
Disability has been used to propagate a discriminative culture against disabled people for centuries. “Disability has functioned historically to justify inequality for disabled people themselves… Disability was a significant factor in three great citizenship debates of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: women’s suffrage, African American freedom and civil rights, and the restriction of immigration.” (Bayton pg, 33). There are numerous examples of disabled people that were barred entry in the United States or deported for being disabled according to the article, ‘‘The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes’’: U.S.Immigration Policy and Deaf Immigrants, 1882–1924. Incidentally, most of the disabled people that got turned away had careers they could use to earn a living. It is clear from the assigned readings that to be “a good citizen”, a person needed to be without ‘physical blemishes’ or any condition(s) that could suggest limitations to thrive in the social- economic endeavors of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Immigration officers at the ports of entry diagnosed who was or not ‘fit’ to enter the United States. “The initial screening of immigrants was mostly a matter of detecting visible abnormality. Inspectors, who prided themselves on their ability to make a “snapshot diagnosis,” had only a few seconds to detect the signs of disability or disease as immigrants streamed past them in a single file.”(Bayton pg, 48). Those immigrants suspected to have “abnormal appearance” were ‘chalked’ on their backs for further analysis. This ‘chalking’ on the back reminds of people with internal-metallic prosthetics who get set aside in airports for further screening when airport metal detectors go off. The article on “Ugly Laws” is a clear fallacy that early Americans held: ‘keep disabled people out of sight and imagine disability is non-existent.’
A “good citizen” is a relative term whose definition is dependent upon the definer. From reading Baynton’s “The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes,” I believe the federal government of the United States would define a “good citizen” as someone who will become or is a contributing member of society. One that is self sufficient, maintains employment, pays their taxes, as well as someone who complies with federal, state, and local laws. As Baynton explains, the Immigration Act of 1882, denied entry to any lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge. He further explains that the provision barring immigrants “unable to take care of themselves without becoming a public charge was intended to screen out those considered “physically defective,” but the Immigration Act of 1891 excluded not just a person “unable to take care of themselves without becoming a public charge but anyone judged likely to become a public charge (393). This allowed immigration officials to use their own biases of disabilities to determine who would be an “ideal” or even permissible citizen.
I also believe that society would define a good citizen as someone who conforms to the social “norm” in appearance and behavior from the reading “Ugly Laws”. In The Ugly Laws, we learn that in many cities across America disable individuals were discriminated against based upon their visible appearance and the discomfort it caused members of the community. “To prohibit the exhibition of physical and mental deformities. Be it enacted that whoever shall exhibit any physical deformity…” “Any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person to be allowed in or on the streets, highways, thoroughfares, or public places in the city, shall not therin or theron expose himself to public view…(Ugly Laws 294).” This discrimination against those that were disable based upon their physical appearance was simply enforced by regional lawmakers who used their biased judgment about what was a permissible “good citizen”.
The ideal, perhaps mythical, “good citizen” synthesized from a variety of historical actors’ opinions expressed in these works seems to be male, Anglo-Saxon, protestant, economically productive, and without any physical deformities. According to Baynton, the language for classifying people as “good ” citizens and, by implication, “bad” citizens has been couched in terms of disability. For instance, he points out that arguments against suffrage for African-Americans and women rested on the perceived physical and (especially) mental weakness of those groups. Stretching back to the Jeffersonian era, the ideal citizen needed to be informed to be part of the Republic and discussing disenfranchised groups in terms of the perceived lack of ability to participate in this system conveniently justifies their exclusion. On a less abstract level, both Baynton and Schweik’s works show that economic productivity remained firmly entrenched as one of the key components to a “good” citizenry. In the case of immigration, admittance remained inextricably linked to the ability of that individual to care for themselves or at least not become a public charge. The same holds true in Schweik’s examples of the ugly laws. Practically all of them focused on limiting begging and entailed a method for the local constabulary to either harass or detain such people, thus allowing them a mechanism of control. Furthermore, many of these ugly laws display efforts to control the appearance of the overall population by forbidding people with physical deformities from being visible in public. Overall, these three selections show an effort to standardize the citizen in such a way as to dwarf previous efforts and all of these were couched in the language of disability.
I am reminded in these readings that exclusion from a group, in all walks of life, typically comes down to what the group deems to be normal. This can mostly be summed up in the reading where it states that the opposite of normal is defective. Justifications were being made to exclude those that lacked the qualities possessed by those the community called normal. Those that didn’t belong were excluded so much so that many states passed “ugly laws” to rationalize the mistreatment and isolation of those not belonging. African Americans were denied equality and labeled disabled because of their physical differences. Women and immigrants were denied opportunities at employment and voting because they too were labeled inferior because of their differences. To be disabled was to be different and many groups argued against the label. Normality meant inclusion and those that strayed from the normal group were often excluded from the good citizen group.
The readings show how disability has been used to describe the qualities of a good citizen. In the article, “The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes: American Immigration Policy and Deaf Immigrants,” we learn of the struggle of deaf mutes to enter the country during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The article begins by telling the story of Moische Fischmann, a Russian immigrant. Moische, a deaf mute, had supported himself since he was fourteen as a blacksmith in Russia. Because of political issues in Russia, he chose to immigrate to the United States to join his brother and sister. Even though his brother and sister were employed and able to “vouch” for him and guarantee employment, Moische was turned away to return back to Russia because he had a physical defect and because he had a “certified condition such that he would have considerable difficulty in acquiring or retaining employment.” Later in the article, Moische returns again to the United States and was allowed to stay because war time conditions would not allow safe travel. During this time period, exclusion of any person that was defective or deemed unable to care for themselves was an accepted practice. In other words, “disability” was viewed as the inability to work productively or care for oneself. Baynton gives many examples of cases where individuals with disabilities were separated from family members, detained, and returned to uncertain conditions in their homelands because of their disability. Persons with a disability were not viewed as valuable or “good” citizens.
In, “The Ugly Laws” by Schweik we learn of many laws passed during the mid to late 1800’s to prevent those with disabilities from being seen or asking for help in public. The wording of the laws is very offensive and clearly demonstrates how disabled individuals were viewed. An 1889 Lincoln, Nebraska law prohibits “any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person to be allowed in or on the streets, highways, thoroughfares, or public places in this city, shall not therein or thereon expose himself to public view, under the penalty of fine for the offense.”
Americans believed, or considered people with disabilities a joke, a root of shame and embarrassment for the country. This attitude or perception I believe is the reason why us Americans treat people with disabilities the way we do today. Disability is everywhere in history, once you begin looking for it, but conspicuously absent in the histories we write,” says author Douglas C. Baynton in his article, Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History.
Baynton’s article brought light to the fact that in the past the disabled were shunned from the “normal society” and were not considered “good citizens.” Being an immigrant myself I can be witness to some of the discriminating behavior that the American society have on the disabled. When I was moving here five years ago It was required that i took multiple physicals and medicals. I remember asking the nurse why do I have to do this and she told me that if I have some disease or disabled I won’t be granted a green card and would have to leave the country immediately. Many people are un aware of the history lingering around the disabled community. I feel that Baynton’s article needs to be shared, and media can play a large part in this sharing. With so many mediums at our disposal, more integration is key. We can’t change the past, but we are always shaping the future
In both Baynton articles disability was anything that made the person look different than what they expected. Disability in both articles covered a wide range of things from mental to physical. They decided anybody who would become dependent on the society was disabled. This even included women and children because they depended on the father to have them take care of them. They felt that if they kept out all of the people who they considered disabled they would have a better society.
Based on the Baynton reading on American immigration policy, it appears that a “good” citizen is defined as someone who is capable of work and not dependent on any sort of additional aid. The best example of this in the book is Charles McHardy. He seemed to really shake the definition of what inspector’s considered disabled. Since he was deaf they had a hard time seeing him as anything other than dependent. When asked why he should be allowed citizenship, his response was “I am capable of work and I am a man” (404). However, his ability to converse intelligently through writing and fully represent himself as a person capable of work, made it difficult for the inspectors to undeniably restrict his access to the U.S. During the appeal process and with the aid of a bond, he gained admittance. However, he is an example of how the definition of disability was challenged in regards to citizenship.
In the Ugly Laws, it appears over and over again that anyone that was in some form “diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person”, should be kept out of view of the public (291). They also seem to be concerned with keeping anyone that fits in this category from using their “deformity” to gain sympathy or charity. Should they be caught begging, they could end up imprisoned, fined, or on their way to the poor house. In the above quote, they use the word “object”. To me an object is an unfeeling and inanimate possession. It is not a person. So, it really points toward the idea that these people weren’t worthy of citizenship.
There was next to no room in historical society for differences. Different often meant disabled, and disabled meant dependency. Anyone who had even the slightest chance of becoming dependent was put down and had no chance of becoming a full, model citizen. Basically, minorities were all discriminated against and the excuse that the minorities were “disabled” in some way was one of the main reasons for the argument.
While natural-born US citizens may have had the chance of someone helping them whether from within the family, community, or in an asylum, this was not always the case for immigrants. Even if the disabled immigrant had a job offer and family member willing to take care of them, there was still a chance of them being sent back to wherever they came from rather than the US officials acknowledging that they were not “dependent.”
Effectively, according to Baynton’s The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes and Schweik’s Ugly Laws, the determining factor in what qualifies a person as “a good citizen” is whether or not they have a disability. In many of the cases presented by Baynton, deaf mutes were turned away from the United States regardless of whether or not they were able to support themselves, whether they had someone able to support them, or whether they had money and/or had a job prepared to take them. Most often, people are turned away after the board hears and understand that all three of the aforementioned criteria have been met. The board, according to Baynton, even goes as far as declaring they hate admitting deaf-mute children that are supported by family. Additionally, for disabilities that are visible, there are Laws in place that prevent a person from appearing to be anything the public might find disturbing. To quote Chicago Law, “Any person who is diseases, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person… shall not therein or thereon expose himself to public view.” If in any way you are “unsightly” in the public view, you are then excluded from this category of “a good citizen,” deemed a public charge, and fined and/or sent to an Alms House. In this way, it would seem that all “good citizens” are citizens without a disability, visible or invisible.
Disability has been used to measure the kind of citizen a person is. In the Bayton article, it was described how a person was often turned away, at the dock, and denied access. Just as Glennda pointed out, in Bayton, how if a person’s citizenship or anything was called into question; that person’s disability would be looked at. Another part she pointed out was how a “normal” child’s education was a right but a disabled child’s education was a charity case. I look at this as calling to question that the disabled child’s education cost way more than a conventional one so, in fact, they were forced to fork over tons of money for private schools and tutors because this was the only way. In the “Ugly Laws,” it was a crime to be disabled. One had to look aesthetically pleasing to the eye otherwise they were fined. This is a big indicator that a person who didn’t look like the “standard” was not considered a full person or citizen.
To be actively defined as a “good citizen” in the nineteenth century it appears as though a certain set of parameters must be met. In Baynton’s “Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes” it appears as though the customs agency on Ellis island had a major concern with the idea of people with disabilities becoming a burden on the American populace. I understand that during this time period social norms were very different, but what bothered me more than the turning away of obviously capable deaf mutes because of their perceived ineffectiveness was the widely accepted fact that the need for help at any time in your life automatically disqualifies you as a “good citizen”. This view is confirmed in Schweik’s discussions of the ugly laws enacted during this time period as well. Although “normal” beggars and were looked upon as lower class citizens, no criminal charges were pressed upon them for the act of begging in itself. Only when these beggars were deemed to be “crippled, maimed, or deformed” was it acceptable to punish them. This view once again establishes the fact that a person is automatically assumed to be a bad citizen when they physically or mentally differ from the norm.
In reading the assignments by Baynton, my take on it was that you can not be disabled and be a good citizen at the same time. These immigrants who had been self reliant and sufficent their whole lives were being denied access to the country because they were disabled in some way. And even though they met the criteria to enter the country the Immigration Board would find some reason to have them deported. Although many immigrants were blacksmiths, sculptors, stonecutter and other prosperous business men, they were looked upon as the likely hood that they would become a “public charge”. Their past experiences or their willingness to start a new life in a new country was not enough to consider them to be a “good citizen”. It was their disabilities that led other people to believe what type of citizen they would possibly be. Disability was also used to discriminate against women and african americans. The thought is crazy to me that women were not allowed to participate in politics because they were seen was to feable or they were prone to passing out, that politics and managing properties were too much to handle for their weak minds. The idea that women were put in the same category as people with actual disabilities, alongside the lunatics and idiots was disturbing to read.
It was also disturbing to read the “ugly laws”. It is almost as if if you had a disability they wanted to lock you away so no one else had to be exposed to you. As if having a disability was not bad enough, you could not be seen in a public place exposing yourself without being jailed or fined.
The Ugly Laws of the late 19th, early 20th centuries were not merely aesthetically driven ordinances, as their colloquial label suggests. Rather, the goal of these laws was uniformity and the ability to be productive. The physical deformities of an individual became symbolic of their presumed inherent status of dependent and their assumed inability to contribute to society. Baynton clarifies this position when he writes of the deaf, like others with disabilities and women and those of certain races as “culturally defined as social dependents” (p394). He goes on to write that “It was at heart,… not an empirical question but rather a long-standing cultural assumption that disability meant inability to work productively or to support oneself,” (p394). In this we see the social model of disability at work. Regardless of their actual abilities and/or potential, cultural perceptions and understanding of “disabilities” and dependency made these individuals with physical and mental differences “disabled.” This persisting definition of what we now label “disabilities” represents not only a continuity of the connection or link between the conceptual notions of able-bodied and productivity, but the emerging concepts of “the disabled” and the “good citizen.” The cyclical logic required to declare the “disabled” as inherently not good citizens, was made simpler by the wide-spread acceptance of the aforementioned cultural definitions of disability as well as by these city ordinances which dehumanized those with deformities, declaring them damaged and therefore denied them those rights granted to the rest of the populace.
It seems to me that the notion of disability in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is extremely subjective. According to Douglas Baynton African-Americans were considered solely because of their race. I agree with Susanna’s statement that disability merely means difference. There are numerous examples in “The Undesirability of Admitting Deaf Mutes” of people who clearly were not in danger of becoming dependent on the public who were deported simply because they were not normal. Even by the so-called standards of the day these deportations were not justified The laws, clearly state that anyone who is in any way deformed and in danger of becoming dependent on society cannot be a productive citizen. I do not believe that race or or or deafness necessarily makes someone liable to become a public charge. In fact, Baynton proves this is not true through the example of Moische Fischmann. Here Baynton paints a picture of someone who is clearly capable of earning a living as a blacksmith and has a family to support him. If this is the case he is not in my opinion truly disabled.
The articles have a continuous theme of an afflictions being placed on the individual as if what has happened (the impairment) is a flaw in their character rendering them helpless and even pathetic to society. “The Immigration Act of 1891 excluded not just a person ‘unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge’ but also anyone judged ‘likely to become a public charge’” (Banton, 393). Which shows that exactly what society wanted at the time and that they judged and controlled who could have access to America based on how one looks and seems.
Also based on the Illinois Poor and ugly laws that says “Any person maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed, so as to be unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person to be allowed on the streets, highways, thoroughfares, or public places in this city” (p. 192). Which pretty much covers enough to say that if an officer thinks that someone is not attractive enough they can arrest them on the spot or that they could fine a beggar who was already poor an ungodly amount of money that they don’t have in the first place because they where begging for money.
So I believe that it is safe to say that at the time a “good citizen” was one that had no visual or audible impairment, one that is physically attractive and not “disgusting”, on that is not a burden on society and that contributes to society, and finally one that minds their own business because if everything was swept under the rug and stayed out of sight out of mind then everyone could have their own little perfect world where everything looked good and was fair and if you didn’t make through hard work then it was your own fault.
In Baynton’s reading, during the mid-19th Century, nonwhite races were connected to disabilities. All minority groups were accused of being physically disabled. He states “disability was a significant factor in three great citizenships debates of the Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century: women’s suffrage, African Americans freedom and civil rights and restriction of immigration” (p33). Deaf children were more “normal” by forbidding sign language than looking like “savages.” I found it interesting how free African Americans were “prone to become disabled” among those who were slaves in the southern states. Overall, the definition was used to deny all minorities from their rights. For example, they denied them from women’s rights, African American freedom, ethnicity, and even homosexuality. It is very interesting because you were not normal if you desired something out what they considered norm. They misused the word and it was very degrading when they would use it simply because minorities desired thing just like the white males.
Schweik, The Ugly Laws, a person who was disabled was considered of making a crime and would need to be “locked” away. During class we had talked about how you would have pity for someone who was disabled. In the article, it mentions how it was forbidden for people with disabilities to use sympathy as one of their advantages. They had certain standards to which each individual would have to meet in order for them to become a “good citizen.”
A “good citizen” was one that was not going to become a public charge and could provide a finical responsibility to themselves and their dependents. Although, they did allow some individuals to enter from Ellis Island that had depends that were disabled and some adults that where of educated back grounds, more often individuals with any kinds of disability where denied and forced to return to their home country. Although, in Baynton reading it seems to matter more of what the disability was instead of if they could provide financial for themselves. There was several stories of individuals with employments offers that where refused entry because they where deaf. It seems that no matter what the employer said that it was still a concern that those individuals would have dependent and those dependents would need financial assistance. However, as Baynton pointed out, if the individuals with disabilities looked neatly dressed and where of the American standard of being “oral” than they would overlook the disability and grant the entry that was requested. As Longmore pointed out this was the start of the idea of eugenics. Not only did a “good citizen” need to be free of any tip of physical or mental disability, they also required that their was a physical appearance standard that was being upheld. If a person appeared to be weak or frail with less stamina and had any moral issues they would be denied. Longmore stated it best, “…not only has it been considered justifiable to treat disabled people unequally, but the concept of disability has been used to justify discrimination against other groups…”. The Ugly law again showed that people where being forced to be socially isolated due to physical appearance, or face fines and/or be placed into a poor house. The fear of these individuals being included into the general population and work force drove these laws and again a physical difference meant that those individuals could not be “good citizen” and these laws prevented those individuals from being able to show that they would provide for themselves. A “good citizen” at the time had to be able to prove that they could provide for themselves and with any type of disability these laws prevented those individuals from attempting to provide for themselves and their families.
A good citizen has been thought of as one who is fully at human potential, thus, likening being females (New Disability History, p. 43) or African-Americans (New Disability History, p. 38) with being disabled was one of the ways that these two groups were denied the full privileges of citizenship for many years. To overcome this, these persons sought to dissociate themselves from the idea that they were disabled, still arguing that capability was the true test needed, only broadening the scope of who might be considered capable (New Disability History, p. 44). Immigration officials did not want any persons with disabilities into the United States (New Disability History, p. 49).
Looking at the Baynton article, it is plain that for immigration officials, there was no desire to include among the few disabled persons let into the country, deaf-mute persons were not high on the list at all. They were “undesirable elements to our population (Desirability, p. 410).” By barring these undesirable elements out of the breeding pool in the United States, the hope was to build a greater race, without defective persons inhabiting it. Deafness, as well as other disabilities, were seen as threats to the race, and through prohibiting persons with disabilities from immigrating, the hope was to keep the country more pure by having fewer disabled persons.
Citizenship had to do with more than just capability, and breeding, however. “Any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person to be allowed in or on the streets…shall not…expose himself to public view…(Schweik, p. 293).” Aesthetics played a role as well. After all, did the city really want to be exposed to such ugliness? A person with physical disabilities was considered on the same level as “an improper person,” (a euphemism for prostitute?), thus making persons with visible disabilities a person in the lowest rungs of society.
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences (or possibly a short paragraph each) your “muddiest point(s)” in the two pieces by Baynton.
Normally I do not have any muddiest points on the blogs, however, I am a little confused this time.
After reading the required material, I have a few muddy points I would like to touch upon.
For starters, in Bayton’s reading of Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History: he states on p.37 ” …Because of their inherent physical and mental weaknesses, African Americans were prone to become disabled under conditions of freedom and equality.” This was particular interesting since on p.38 he later suggest that slaves who were suffering from mental disease was caused by physical signs and “lesions on the body” by overseers who disciplined their slaves. So which one is it? Do slaves become more disabled by being slaves, or by being free? Very muddy points to me.
Bayton also is very contradictory in his statements about being disabled and being very capable. I mean I get overall what he is trying to say, but he is very muddy in I guess backing up what he says.
Overall I enjoyed the readings, but am still left with feeling unclear about certain things.
When reading Baybton’s articles the concept of disability was used to justify discrimination against people who were not technically disabled. In the nineteenth century disability was used against normal people who were excluded from citizenship sometimes due to their individual scale of society and politics. The immigration regulations against disability included physical appearance. To be deemed as a “citizen,” was a subjective ordeal. When reading the “Ugly Laws,” it became clear that these decrees were meant to also bar people and right to a normal state of citizenship. They were meant to stop and further prevent the exploration of those deemed unfit for society due to disfigurement and or mental in capabilities. These laws also prevented people from gaining monetary charity from the public. This was odd to me because society at this point seemed more involved in these issues that the unfit persons could not control their individual situations. Only one laws (New Orleans 1879) talks about the consequences of “lewd women.” With people at this time being so involved with religion, it is hard to believe that “ugly people,” and immigrants we’re more of a problematic issue rather than people with “ugly immorality,” so to speak.