This map highlights how Canada's population is heavily concentrated in just a few key regions.

Although Canada is the second-largest country in the world by land area, more than 70% of its 40 million residents, or 28 million people live within the coloured zones:

The Quebec City-Windsor Corridor
Stretching between Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa, this region alone accounts for over 55% of Canada's population, with more than 20 million people and seven of Canada’s 12 largest metropolitan areas.

Greater Vancouver
Canada's third biggest city, Greater Vancouver is home to around 2.6 million people - despite its relatively small footprint on the map. It contains around 6-7% of Canada’s population.

The Calgary-Edmonton Corridor
Alberta's primary population belt, this corridor houses over 3 million people, representing roughly 7-8% of the country's total population.

In terms of total area the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor covers 230,000 km2 (90,000 sq mi), Greater Vancouver just 2,882.68 km2 (1,113.01 sq mi) and The Calgary-Edmonton Corridor is 38,323.18 km2 (14,796.66 sq mi).

This means in total all 3 areas cover a combined 271,206 km2 (105,910 sq mi) which sounds like a lot but represents just under 3% of the country’s land area or about the same area as the US state of Colorado (population 6 million).

For similar maps see:

• 50% of Canadians Live South of The Red Line
• Canada Divided Into Four Equally Populated Regions

What do you think?

This is a campaign leaflet issued by the Likud party of Israel during the 1977 elections, an important turning point in the nation’s political history.

On one side is a map of Israel with all of the West Bank colored an ominous grey.

The caption in bold red text reads “An Arafat State Will Not Be Created!”

On the verso is the same map with bright red crescents showing that the range of weapons based in the West Bank extended to most major Israeli cities.

The caption at the top reads “The Likud Will Prevent It!”, and below the title, “2,500,000 of Israel's residents could be within range of enemy artillery if an Arafat state is established.”

Likud achieved a landslide victory, the first time that a conservative or center-right party had ever gained power in Israel.

Likud (from HaLikud, The Consolidation), was founded by Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, joining with several right-wing parties, in 1973.

The party’s logo is at the lower left of each map, with characters in black above it expressing the election year theme, “One Power” or “One Force.”

The initials of the party’s official ballot name (National Freedom Party) are at the lower right.

The Likud party is a major political force in Israel, identified primarily with right-wing politics, nationalism, and conservative policies.

Its history, particularly the dramatic 1977 electoral victory, marked a significant turning point in Israeli politics.

Here’s a detailed historical overview, with a focus on the pivotal 1977 election:

Origins and Ideological Background:

• Founded in 1973, Likud emerged as a political alliance formed primarily from parties like Herut (founded by Menachem Begin, rooted in Ze’ev Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism), the Liberal Party, and smaller right-wing factions.
• Likud inherited Revisionist Zionism's emphasis on Jewish sovereignty over all historic Land of Israel (including the West Bank), market-oriented economic policies, a tough security stance, and skepticism about land-for-peace negotiations.

Political Context Leading to the 1977 Election:

• Before 1977, Israel was dominated politically by Labor Party (initially Mapai), whose left-wing ideology and socialist policies shaped the early state.
• Menachem Begin, who had long served as an opposition leader, became the charismatic figurehead leading Likud's challenge against Labor's hegemony.

The Earthquake Election: 1977

• The May 1977 election, famously called “the upheaval” (HaMahapakh), was a landmark event-Likud under Menachem Begin won a historic victory, marking the first time since Israel’s establishment in 1948 that the Labor Party lost power.
• Likud won 43 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, forming a coalition government. Labor, under Shimon Peres, gained only 32 seats, an unprecedented defeat.
• This election symbolized a seismic shift in Israel's electorate-reflecting public dissatisfaction with Labor's handling of economic issues (inflation, corruption scandals), and perceived failures during and after the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

Causes of Likud’s Victory:

• Social and Ethnic Shifts: Likud successfully attracted the support of Mizrahi Jews (immigrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries) who felt marginalized under Labor’s Ashkenazi-dominated establishment.
• Security Concerns: Ongoing security anxieties and frustration with perceived Labor weakness following the traumatic Yom Kippur War boosted Begin's harder stance.
• Economic Frustration: Growing economic hardships, inflation, and scandals under Labor leadership led to disillusionment among traditional Labor voters.

Impact and Policy Shifts:

• Begin’s tenure marked significant policy changes:
  • Peace Process: Surprisingly, Begin initiated peace talks with Egypt, culminating in the historic 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (Camp David Accords), underlining Likud's capacity for pragmatism in foreign policy despite ideological hardlines.
  • Settlement Expansion: Begin accelerated Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, cementing Likud's long-term legacy and stance on settlements.
  • Economic Liberalization: Economic reforms aimed at reducing the dominance of the socialist economy, emphasizing privatization and free-market policies.

Legacy and Significance:

• Likud's 1977 electoral triumph restructured Israeli politics, solidifying a lasting right-left rivalry with Labor and reshaping Israel’s social and political landscape.
• Menachem Begin, previously considered a political outsider, became one of Israel’s most influential leaders, dramatically shifting Israeli policy both domestically and internationally.

Likud's Evolution Post-1977:

• After Begin’s resignation in 1983 and subsequent successors like Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, and others, Likud remained a dominant force, maintaining its conservative, nationalist orientation.
• Likud's continued significance is demonstrated by Benjamin Netanyahu's multiple premierships, reflecting lasting impacts of the 1977 turning point.

Conclusion:

The Likud Party's 1977 victory, often labeled Israel's "political revolution," profoundly changed the nation's political trajectory, marking the rise of conservative-nationalist politics, shifting Israeli policies, and redefining the landscape of Israeli political competition for decades to come.

What is the meaning of the term an “Arafat state”?

The phrase “an Arafat state” refers to a hypothetical Palestinian state as envisioned or led by Yasser Arafat, who was the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from 1969 until his death in 2004, and later the first President of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

However, this phrase is often used critically, especially by Israeli leaders, conservative politicians, or commentators who opposed Palestinian statehood under Arafat’s leadership.

For those critics, “an Arafat state” usually implied:

1. Security Concerns: Fear that a Palestinian state under Arafat would be used as a platform for terrorism or violence against Israel.
2. Corruption and Governance Issues: Allegations of corruption, authoritarianism, or chaotic governance within the Palestinian Authority led by Arafat.
3. Ideological Opposition: Scepticism about whether Arafat was genuinely committed to a peaceful two-state solution or whether he still harboured goals of eventually dismantling Israel.
4. Political Rhetoric: The term served as shorthand in Israeli political debates for expressing distrust or opposition to the peace process and later peace initiatives that involved granting Palestinians greater autonomy or statehood under Arafat.

In short, calling a potential Palestinian state “an Arafat state” wasn’t merely descriptive.

Instead, it was usually meant pejoratively to express doubt or outright hostility about Palestinian self-rule under Arafat’s leadership.

The map above looks at the population of Greece compared to Turkey between 1927 and 2024. Turkey went from having just over double the population of Greece in 1927 to being more than 8 times larger than Greece today.

You can see the numbers for the 4 years shown in the map below:

The data for the two tables come from Wikipedia pages for the demographics of Greece and Turkey.

Here’s a short demographic history of Greece and Turkey, starting from the post-WWI population exchanges to the present, highlighting key demographic factors:

Greece

Population Exchange and Interwar Period (1920s-1940)

• 1923 Population Exchange: Following the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and Treaty of Lausanne (1923), approximately 1.2 million Greeks were expelled or migrated from Asia Minor (Turkey) to Greece, and around 400,000 Muslims moved from Greece to Turkey.
• Result: Dramatic demographic shift; the sudden influx of refugees increased Greece’s population significantly (~25% increase).

Post-WWII to 1970s

• Strong population growth post-WWII with fertility rates around 2.5-3.0 children per woman.
• 1960s-1970s: Significant emigration, primarily to Germany, the U.S., Australia, and Canada, due to economic hardships.

Demographic Transition (1980s-2000)

• Rapid demographic transition: fertility rates dropped sharply from 2.2 in 1980 to 1.3 by 2000, among the lowest in Europe.
• Population aging accelerated due to low birth rates and higher life expectancy.

21st Century Trends

• Fertility rates remain very low: about 1.3-1.4 children per woman.
• Population growth has stagnated and begun declining; the population peaked around 2010 (~11 million), declining slightly since then.
• Greece has seen significant immigration since the 1990s, initially from Albania and Eastern Europe, and more recently from Middle Eastern and African refugees (especially post-2015 migration crisis).

Current Demographic Snapshot (2025)

• Population: 10.4 million; -0.4% annually.
• Fertility rate: ~1.3.
• Significant aging: median age ~45 years.
• Immigration partially offsets natural decline but not entirely.

Turkey

Population Exchange and Early Republic (1920s-1950)

• 1923 Treaty of Lausanne exchange: About 400,000 Muslims migrated to Turkey from Greece, complementing the outflow of Greek Orthodox minorities.
• Early Republic (1923-1950): High birth rates (over 6 children per woman) and rapidly increasing population.

Rapid Growth Period (1950-1990)

• Turkey's population growth remained very high through mid-20th century, averaging 2-3% annually, with fertility rates around 5-6 children per woman in the 1950s-1970s.
• Rural-to-urban migration accelerated significantly from the 1960s onward, fueling rapid urbanization.

Demographic Transition (1980-2000)

• Fertility rates dropped significantly from about 4.5 in 1980 to 2.5 in 2000, driven by urbanization, increased education, and female employment.
• Emigration peaked in the 1960s-1980s, with millions moving primarily to Western Europe (Germany, Netherlands, France).

21st Century Trends

• Continued urbanization: more than 75% of the population urbanized today, primarily around Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir.
• Fertility rates continued declining steadily: approximately 2.0-2.1 children per woman today.
• Immigration became notable since 2011, largely due to Syrian refugee influx (3.6+ million Syrian refugees currently reside in Turkey).

Current Demographic Snapshot (2025)

• Population: ~86 million, still slowly growing (~0.7% annually).
• Fertility rate: ~2.0, nearing replacement level.
• Median age rising steadily: currently about 34 years, younger than Europe but rapidly aging.
• Large refugee and immigrant communities (primarily Syrians), making up around 4-5% of the population.

What do you think?

Also see: Map Of The Territorial Expansion of Greece From 1832 To 1947

The map above was created using data from a Go Au Pair study that shows the most unique baby name in each state.

You can find the data here, as well as in the table below:

Annoyingly, I can’t find a post on the Go Au Pair website itself (big miss from their PR team), but thankfully Mental Floss has an article about the study.

They state that:

… they examined birth data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) between the years 2000 and 2023. Because the public SSA database excludes names used less than five times within a given geographic area to protect privacy, all the monikers cited in Go Au Pair's rankings were used in at least five instances between 2000 to 2023.

In addition to looking at the name itself, the agency compared the number of infants born in a particular state to how many across all 50 states had that same exact name. With each name, they also examined each state's share of the national total of infants with it.

Which unique name do you like best?

An area larger than India and if it were an independent country today it would be the 7th largest by land area.

It was also almost completely controlled by the Hudson’s Bay Company, the oldest company in North America, or at least it was until it announced it was likely going bankrupt in April 2025, ending it’s 355 year history.

More about it below:

Historical Overview

Rupert's Land was a vast territory in North America granted in 1670 by King Charles II of England to the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) (based out of York Factory).

Named after Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the land covered an immense area-approximately 3.9 million square kilometers-encompassing what is now central and northern Canada, and parts of present-day United States (Minnesota, North Dakota).

The region included all land whose rivers drained into Hudson Bay, stretching westward towards the Rocky Mountains and southward to the northern United States.

The territory remained under HBC’s control until 1870, when sovereignty was transferred to the newly formed Dominion of Canada, a move that eventually facilitated Canadian westward expansion and settlement.

Geography

Rupert's Land included extensive prairie grasslands, boreal forests, tundra regions, vast river networks, lakes, and portions of the Canadian Shield.

Key rivers like the Nelson, Saskatchewan, Red, and Churchill defined trade routes, shaping settlement and commercial interactions.

The geography was challenging-characterized by harsh winters, difficult terrain, and sparse populations primarily of Indigenous peoples and a small number of traders and fur trappers.

Economy

The economy of Rupert’s Land was dominated by the fur trade, particularly beaver pelts, highly prized in Europe for hat-making.

The Hudson's Bay Company had exclusive trading rights, significantly influencing local economies, politics, and indigenous relations.

HBC trading posts became critical economic hubs, facilitating the exchange of European goods (guns, blankets, tools) with Indigenous hunters who supplied furs.

The economy was essentially extractive, relying heavily on Indigenous knowledge and labor for trapping and transportation.

Relation to Hudson's Bay Company

Rupert's Land and the Hudson's Bay Company were intimately connected.

HBC held an exclusive trading monopoly over Rupert's Land granted by royal charter.

The company operated trading posts along rivers and coasts, acting not only as commercial enterprises but also as centers of colonial authority.

This relationship profoundly impacted Indigenous societies, altering their economic structures, social relations, and territories.

In 1869-1870, the HBC sold Rupert's Land to Canada for £300,000, marking a key transition leading to Canada’s expansion westward.

This sale precipitated the Red River Resistance led by Louis Riel, a significant event in Canadian history highlighting tensions between Indigenous, Métis, and European settlers.

History of the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC)

Early Period (1670-1821):

Founded on May 2, 1670, through a royal charter by King Charles II, the Hudson's Bay Company was initially established as “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay.”

Its early focus was on trading furs with Indigenous groups around Hudson Bay.

HBC quickly established a network of forts and trading posts, such as York Factory and Moose Factory, strategically located along waterways to facilitate trade.

Expansion and Competition (1821-1870)

HBC faced intense competition from the North West Company (NWC), leading to frequent conflict and even violence.

In 1821, the British government facilitated a merger between HBC and NWC, resulting in HBC dominating North American fur trade.

This merger vastly expanded HBC's territory into western Canada and the Oregon Country (now parts of the U.S. Pacific Northwest).

During this period, HBC functioned as a de facto government, exercising control over vast territories, managing law enforcement, governance, and Indigenous relations.

Sale of Rupert's Land and Transformation (1870-1930)

In 1870, Rupert's Land was transferred to Canada, marking a significant shift in HBC's role from governance to strictly commercial activities.

Post-sale, HBC diversified into retail operations, opening department stores and evolving into a major retailer across Canada, known colloquially as “The Bay.”

Modern Era (1930-Present)

Throughout the 20th century, HBC transitioned fully into retail, becoming iconic for its department stores across Canada.

In 1970, the company celebrated its 300th anniversary with nationwide events.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries brought significant restructuring and changes in ownership:

• 2006: HBC was purchased by American investor Jerry Zucker, becoming privately held.
• 2008: Ownership transferred to NRDC Equity Partners.
• 2013: Acquired by Hudson's Bay Company, now controlling several major retail chains including Saks Fifth Avenue.

Financial Collapse and Liquidation

In March 2025, HBC filed for creditor protection under Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) after accumulating nearly $950 million in debt to landlords, suppliers, banks, and government entities.

The company cited declining consumer spending, post-pandemic downtown retail challenges, and trade tensions as key factors in its financial distress. ?

Initially, HBC planned to liquidate 74 of its 80 Hudson's Bay department stores, along with all 13 Saks Off 5th and 2 of 3 Saks Fifth Avenue locations in Canada.

Six stores were temporarily spared due to stronger-than-expected sales during early liquidation phases. ?

However, by late April, the company announced it would close all remaining stores, including the six initially excluded, after failing to secure a viable bid to continue operations.

Liquidation sales began on April 25, with all locations expected to close by June 15, 2025. ?

Legacy and Cultural Significance

The closure of HBC marks the end of a 355-year-old institution that was deeply intertwined with Canada’s economic and cultural development.

Summary

• Bankruptcy Filing: March 2025 under CCAA
• Total Debt: Approximately $950 million
• Stores Affected: All 80 Hudson's Bay stores, 13 Saks Off 5th, and 3 Saks Fifth Avenue locations in Canada
• Final Closures: Expected by June 15, 2025
• Historical Impact: Marks the end of North America’s oldest company and a significant chapter in Canadian history

Also see:

What do you think?

Although it’s got some pretty notable misses like Montreal-style bagels (smoked meat is great), Donair and of course Kraft Dinner (although that’s a Canada wide thing).

As a Canadian expat living in the UK here are my top 5 Canadian foods I miss:

1. Kraft Dinner
2. Poutine
3. Coffee Crisp
4. Montreal Bagels
5. Maple Syrup

And here’s a very brief overview of the food from the map above:

1. Moose Stew - A hearty stew made with moose meat, often prepared by Indigenous communities.
2. Jellied Moose Nose - A traditional First Nations delicacy where moose nose is boiled, sliced, and set in its own jelly.
3. Muktuk - Whale skin and blubber, eaten raw or cooked, traditional to Inuit cuisine.
4. Caribou Stew - Stew made from caribou meat, common in Northern Indigenous diets.
5. Muskox Roast - Roast made from muskox meat, known for its rich flavor and lean texture.
6. Bannock - A simple fried or baked bread, widely associated with Indigenous peoples.
7. Cedar-Plank Salmon - Salmon fillets cooked on cedar planks, lending a smoky, woodsy flavor.
8. Pacific Smoked Salmon - Cured and smoked salmon, a staple on the West Coast.
9. Kubie Burger - A burger made with garlic sausage (kielbasa).
10. Nanaimo Bars - No-bake dessert bars with layers of custard, chocolate, and coconut-graham crust.
11. B.C. Roll - A sushi roll filled with barbecued salmon skin and cucumber.
12. Ginger Beef - Crispy strips of beef in a sweet and spicy sauce, invented in Calgary.
13. Saskatoon Berry Pie - Pie made from Saskatoon berries, which taste like a mix of blueberries and almonds.
14. Schmoo Torte - Rich torte made with whipped cream, caramel, and pecans, originally from Winnipeg.
15. Honey Dill - A sweet and tangy sauce made from honey, mayonnaise, and dill, common with chicken fingers.
16. Beaver Tails - Fried dough pastry shaped like a beaver tail, topped with sugar, cinnamon, or chocolate. One of my personal favourites as kid skating on the Ottawa canal.
17. Persians - Sweet rolls with pink icing, specialty of Thunder Bay, Ontario.
18. Butter Tarts - Small pastries filled with sugary, buttery syrup, sometimes with raisins or pecans.
19. Windsor-Style Pizza - Pizza known for shredded pepperoni and canned mushrooms, unique to Windsor, Ontario.
20. Peameal Bacon Sandwich - Sandwich made with pork loin rolled in cornmeal, known as “Canadian bacon” outside Canada.
21. Montreal Smoked Meat - Smoked, cured, and spiced beef brisket, typically served on rye with mustard.
22. Poutine - French fries topped with cheese curds and gravy, originating from Quebec.
23. Pâté Chinois - A French Canadian dish similar to shepherd's pie, with layers of ground beef, corn, and mashed potatoes.
24. Salmon Pie - A savory pie filled with salmon, popular in Quebec.
25. Fricot - Acadian chicken stew with dumplings or potatoes.
26. Fish and Brewis - Newfoundland dish made with salted cod and hard bread, softened and boiled together.
27. Touton - Fried bread dough, often served with molasses, from Newfoundland.
28. Poutine Râpée - Potato dumpling with pork filling, an Acadian specialty.
29. Garlic Fingers - Pizza dough topped with garlic butter and cheese, cut into strips and served with dipping sauce.

Food missing from the list above:

Donair

• What it is: A spiced ground beef (or sometimes lamb) meatloaf cooked on a vertical rotisserie, sliced thin, and served in a pita with diced tomatoes, onions, and sweet garlic sauce.

• Where it’s from: Originally inspired by the Turkish döner kebab and Greek gyro, but uniquely adapted in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The sweet sauce is what makes the Canadian Donair distinct.

• Fun fact: The Donair is so beloved in Halifax that it was officially declared the city's official food in 2015.

Montreal Bagels

• What they are: Smaller, denser, and sweeter than New York-style bagels, Montreal bagels are boiled in honey-sweetened water and baked in wood-fired ovens.

• Where they’re from: Montreal, Quebec, with famous bakeries like Fairmount Bagel and St-Viateur Bagel leading the way.

• Two classic types: Sesame (“white seeds”) and poppy seed (“black seeds”).

• Fun fact: Unlike New York bagels, Montreal bagels are typically hand-rolled and don't use salt in the dough.

Kraft Dinner (KD)

• What it is: Boxed macaroni and cheese made with elbow pasta and a bright orange powdered cheese sauce.

• Why it's Canadian: While Kraft Mac & Cheese exists elsewhere, Canada has the highest per capita consumption in the world. It's often referred to simply as “KD” here.

• Fun fact: KD is so culturally entrenched in Canada that it's considered a “national dish” of sorts, especially among students and young adults.

Coffee Crisp

• What it is: A chocolate bar made of layers of vanilla wafer and coffee-flavored foam, coated in milk chocolate.

• Where it’s from: Manufactured by Nestlé Canada; although Nestlé is international, Coffee Crisp is considered uniquely Canadian.

• Flavor profile: Light, crispy, and mildly coffee-flavored - not overpowering, so even non-coffee drinkers often enjoy it.

• Fun fact: Coffee Crisp has been around since the 1930s and has a cult following; many Canadians abroad miss it because it’s rarely available outside Canada (you can’t even buy it on Amazon in the US).

You can read more about Canadian foods on Taste Atlas here.

What do you think is missing from the list?

And before looking at the map I would not have had Morocco as doing so before France.

The UK would finally recognise the United States as being independent in 1783 following the signing of the Treaty of Paris.

From the map creator:

In the aftermath of its independence, the United States sought international recognition to legitimize its place on the world stage. he first country to acknowledge the fledgling nation was Morocco, whose Sultan Mohammed III opened Moroccan ports to American ships on December 20, 1777, making Morocco the first to formally recognize the U.S.

France followed soon after, becoming the first major power to do so by signing the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance on February 6, 1778. This recognition came with vital military and financial aid that proved decisive in the Revolutionary War.

The Netherlands offered formal recognition on April 19, 1782, accepting John Adams as U.S. minister and hosting the first American embassy in The Hague. Spain, though initially cautious, officially recognized the United States on February 20, 1783, shortly before the Treaty of Paris concluded the war.

Sweden became the fifth country to recognize the new nation, signing a Treaty of Amity and Commerce on April 3, 1783. These early alliances were not only symbolic victories for American diplomacy but also practical lifelines, helping to secure trade, military support and international standing for the new republic.

Here’s a list of when they either first recognised the United States and/or began formal diplomatic relations.

Which one surprised you the most?

From the notes on the map by Cornell:

The collection includes three folding pamphlets issued in the mid-1940s supporting the forced sterilization of criminals and variously defined “mental deficients.”

Included is a chart of state laws and a set of four maps dramatically demonstrating how widespread the practice had become in America.

Forced sterilization is a manifestation of “eugenics,” the “science” of improving the population by preventing those deemed to be “inferior” from reproducing.

Toward the end of the 19th century, some medical and scientific works proposed that criminal behaviour, mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy, and other diseases were largely inherited.

These reports coincided with a number of societal concerns: increased crime; difficulty in assimilating larger immigrant populations; growth in the number of those in prisons and mental institutions; and the lack of effective treatments of mental disability.

In 1907, Indiana adopted the nation’s first law providing for the involuntary sterilization of “confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists” in state institutions.

A number of other states followed, particularly after 1927, when the Supreme Court upheld state involuntary sterilization laws.

In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded for the majority that:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207.

The three pamphlets in the collection were published by the ironically-named “Birthright Inc.,” a well-funded organization that fostered new programs across the country and maintained sterilization statistics.

The first pamphlet, (which you can see here) discusses the number of “mental deficients” and “insane,” along with academic studies regarding their criminality and disease, and concludes that “Society cannot continue to support an ever-increasing number of socially inadequate persons.”

Accordingly, Birthright, Inc. “adopts selective sterilization as the only immediate and effective method of checking the increase of those who are least qualified to exercise the privilege of parenthood.”

Here’s the full text:

—-

PLATFORM OF BIRTHRIGHT, INC.

“There should be no child in America that has not the complete birthright of a sound mind in a sound body, and that has not been born under proper conditions.” THE CHILD'S BILL OF RIGHTS.

THE SITUATION

We are now supporting 1,500,000 mental deficients of whom only 100,000 are under institutional care while the remainder shift for themselves and receive some sort of help outside of institutions. There are 500,000 insane, and their care costs more than that of the mental deficients. Society cannot continue to support an ever-increasing number of socially inadequate persons. In a highly civilized community their presence gives rise to grave social and economic disturbances.

“The marked association between intelligence and infertility is bigger than has usually been thought. The very bright child whose father is in the lowest occupational group comes from just as small a family as does the very bright child of prosperous parents. The very gifted are, on the average, very infertile and this is true of ALL social classes. The dying out of the very gifted in the higher social categories cannot be partly compensated by greater fertility amongst the very gifted poor, who are themselves just as infertile.” (“Intelligence and Family Size” by J. A. F. Roberts, Eugenics Review, January 1939.)

“Low intelligence, low economic status, high incidence of disease and criminality, as well as high frequency of morons are associated in families of high fertility.” (“Heredity and Social Problems” by L. L. Burlingame, page 271.) This association of low intelligence with high fertility is neither a necessary nor a universal relation. It has arisen because the birth rate among this class has not fallen so rapidly as that among the more intelligent classes who are able to learn and to apply methods for controlling their fertility.

Professor C. C. Zimmerman of Harvard University said in 1941, “No American economic group with an income of over $1,000. a year is reproducing itself.” Yet this is the group upon whom we must depend to carry those who are too deficient to carry their own weight in a social order such as we are trying to maintain.

We cannot hope to put those able to plan their parenthood into competitive breeding with those who are unwilling or unable to restrict their fecundity. There remains but one realistic remedy and that is to place a check upon the ever mounting flood of human life that is produced in violation of the BIRTHRIGHT OF A SOUND MIND IN A SOUND BODY. To continue attempting to rectify the results of the fatal differences in our American birth rates merely by extended social services, socialized medicine, etc., will result in automatically raising the fertility of the lowest third in the population and thus hastening the deterioration we are trying to check. Emotionalism in our remedies only increases our problems.

The situation of an increasing proportion of defectives in our population rests on the difference in the fertility between those who constitute our social problems and those who carry them. The inadequacy of our present attempts to correct the results of this situation and the staggering and steadily mounting expenditures for the care of defectives demand prompt and vigorous measures for the good of the nation. Society can reverse this dangerous difference in the birth rates. The means to do it are available.

THE SOLUTION

There are but two ways to protect society from those who are too irresponsible or too defective to apply successfully the methods used by those who voluntarily restrict their parenthood.

1. Segregation during their reproductive lifetime.

Though many defectives need the protection of an institution, there is a far larger number who could safely live in the community if the possibility of parenthood were removed. For these segregation entails needless cruelty by preventing normal living and it seldom would be the choice of those concerned.

Any individual improvement gained by an improved environment or by training cannot improve the quality of the offspring and therefore is powerless to check the increasing burden on the next generation, which should be our chief concern.

1. Making parenthood impossible by means of a simple operation that is without danger.

This procedure leaves the personality intact and permits the full enjoyment of all the functions of normal living except parenthood. It is extensively used today by those able to pay a surgeon to perform the operation privately; it would be a boon to those less able financially if the county of their residence offered this service to them free of charge.

Treatment afforded the unfortunate should always have a two-fold aim; to increase the individual’s chances of living a useful and happy life and to protect the unborn from facing life with serious physical or mental handicaps. In so far as we succeed in this, society (which is merely the aggregate of the individuals composing it) will benefit and the future will be protected.

 THE PLATFORM

Standing on the principle that procreation is not a right to be unrestrictedly exercised but that it is a responsibility to be assumed by those capable of producing normal offspring and of giving them necessary care, BIRTHRIGHT, INC., adopts selective sterilization as the only immediate and effective method of checking the increase of those who are least qualified to exercise the privilege of parenthood.

Since social security has been made an obligation of government, met by granting huge sums in subsidies, it is essential that we control the quality of life which is to be made secure.

Administration-The indication for sterilization should be considered in each case on its individual merits after careful study of the personal traits of the candidate AND THE FAMILY HISTORY.

It should apply to persons both in and out of institutions, thereby preventing the necessity of some people ever being committed to institutions and permitting the release of many now under confinement.

It should be administrated by state boards among whose members are those thoroughly trained in the fields of medicine, psychiatry, and the laws of heredity as they pertain to man; with the privilege provided of consulting with competent persons in related fields, such as social case workers, educators, and officers of institutions. Appeal to the courts should be provided.

Where sterilization is indicated for an individual but is objected to by any organization

BIRTHRIGHT, INC., recommends the sterilization bills introduced in New Jersey in March 1942 (Assembly No. 170 and No. 171) as being most carefully conceived and expertly drawn. Abstracts can be had free upon request, copies at ten cents.

which is conscientiously opposed to the principle of sterilization, the patient may be paroled to the organization so long as it shall exercise such supervised care as will effectively prevent parenthood, and at no cost to any municipality, county, state or federal budget.

Legal Status-The Supreme Court of the United States in 1927 used these words in upholding the Virginia law: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped by incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

Twenty-eight states and Puerto Rico and eleven foreign countries now have sterilization laws.

We are expending our utmost in defeating the enemies of our way of life. Every day our best blood is being sacrificed in defense of the very institutions which must perish if we fail to stop the multiplication of our weakest stock at home. Dr. Alexis Carrel warned that “Modern society must promote, by all possible means, the formation of better human stock.” The purpose of BIRTHRIGHT, INC., is to foster, by educational means, a nationwide program of selective sterilization in order that the cost of national preservation may not have been spent in vain.

Adopted October 5, 1943.

The second pamphlet (which you can see here) is a “Summary of the Sterilization Laws of 28 States and Puerto Rico.”

This folding chart contains a wealth of information as to each state, in some 35 categories, including the classes of persons and conditions covered; the administrative and surgical procedures; and the presence or absence of various protections.

Among other things, the data show that three states required no notice to the patient, parent or guardian; only three states allowed a jury trial on demand; and the grounds for involuntary sterilization in California included “syphilitic disease, insanity of pregnancy, families already too large.”

The final pamphlet (map above) unfolds to a dramatic series of four “U.S. Maps showing the States having Sterilization Laws in 1910-1920-1930-1940?.”?

On each map, the states that had adopted these laws are shown in white and all other states are black.

The year the legislation was enacted is spelled out the first time any state appears in white.

The images show at a glance the steady growth of the movement each decade, from the three states in 1910 to 28 in 1940.

Just as this Suffrage Map showed the apparently undeniable progress toward votes for women nationwide, this series of maps suggest a similarly inevitable movement to forced sterilization.

It has been estimated that more than 60,000 people in 30 states were sterilized under these laws from 1907 to 1963.

In addition, “thousands of poor, mostly Black women were sterilized each year in the United States under federally funded programs.” Villarosa 2022.

The aggressive use of forced sterilization by the Nazis brought much increased criticism and reconsideration and a slowing of American programs.

At the same time, “already-entrenched programs continued to sterilize about 2500 institutionalized persons each year.”

Although many state laws have been repealed, the practice continues, and recent patterns of forced or coerced government sterilization were reported in California (2006 to 2010), in Tennessee (2017), and in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Georgia (2020). Villarosa 2022.

Note the The descriptive information in the "Collector's Notes" has been supplied by Mr. Mode and does not necessarily reflect the views of Cornell University.

What do you think?

The map above shows which of the 10 biggest cities in the world is closest to you (of course there’s a decent chance you may even live in one of them).

The author has gone with the 2018 estimates by the United Nations for their list of the 10 biggest.

The UN figures include a mixture of city proper, metropolitan area, and urban area and has a list of 81 cities with a population of over 5 million as you can see below:

Which one is closest to you?

The map above shows what percentage of Europeans think their government is hiding a cure for cancer.

It comes from Eurobarometer’s 2025 report on European citizens' knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology.

The question they asked was the following:

“The cure for cancer exists but is hidden from the public by commercial interests?”

Here’s the responses by country:

What do you think?

For more maps you can also visit amazingmaps.shop.