How fascinatingly our world is built! Starting with the incredible matter of planet Earth and the phenomenon of gravity, where stars flare up and burn out like magical wonders, the Moon where the Dreamworks boy with a fishing rod sits, the Sun, galaxies with aliens and predators, black holes… Meanwhile, on the third planet of the solar system, tiny creatures have their own events unfolding: thoughts develop, resources run out, and the hum of life stretches on. And no one knows which event will connect with another, where the dots will join, or how the map will be laid. But therein lies the mystery, the enigma. It makes life more exciting and death less sad. You never know what will connect with what—and so it happened this time, when jeans, blondes, and eugenics ended up in the same cycle. Undoubtedly, sometimes we are spun around in ways we could never predict!
In 1883, the English scientist Francis Galton introduced the world to a new term—“eugenics.” He defined it as “the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, physically or mentally.” Essentially, building on Darwin’s Origin of Species, where natural selection was introduced, Galton attempted to apply the idea of selection to humans. As he supposed, mental and physical abilities were hereditary. Therefore, society could “improve” the human race through selective breeding—replacing “natural” selection with controlled selection.
In our hyper-progressive times, the term “eugenics” is understood as a pseudo-scientific doctrine (and social movement) aimed at “improving” the genetic qualities of the human population by controlling the reproduction of people with “desirable” or “undesirable” traits. Looking back, it is worth remembering that this concept once had popularity here in the U.S., as well as in Britain, Germany, and other Western countries. Eugenics served as a convenient justification for discrimination, forced sterilization, and the legitimization of racism. Not that, in those times, people needed science’s approval to think this way—but it was far more pleasant to consider oneself intelligent, a person “in step with progress,” rather than a creature blinded by one’s own limitations.
Perhaps eugenics gained its greatest popularity in Nazi Germany. For Hitler and company, what began as twisted theories on paper became official state policy. As a result, the world’s history recorded “Action T4” (the extermination of people with disabilities) and the Holocaust. Across the ocean, there were also dark episodes. Beginning in 1907, the U.S. implemented programs of forced sterilization for people with mental illnesses or disabilities. And what’s most important—all these actions and ideas were actively supported by the press, conferences were held, and eugenics societies were established. This was perceived as something new, progressive, and correct—something that could potentially help humanity avoid terrible diseases in the future and allow us all to remain longer in this world. Even if at the cost of other people’s real lives—because “progress does not come without sacrifice.”
The decline of eugenics began after World War II. Confronted with the atrocities of the Nazi regime, humanity seemingly recognized its mistakes, transforming its once “progressive” beliefs into a symbol of inhumanity. Most countries abandoned eugenics as a science, and today its practices are treated as human rights violations. And although countless other inhumane, controversial, and brutal events still take place in the world, at least they are no longer regarded as scientific breakthroughs or ideas to “improve existence” and secure us a better future.
So, if eugenics is in the past, the world has acknowledged its mistakes, and humanity stands for humanism and equality, why do we still mention it—and what do blondes and jeans have to do with it? Well, on July 23, 2025, American Eagle released a new campaign. For those who don’t keep track of store names (I’m one of them), it should be added that this is a U.S. mass-market clothing brand aimed primarily at young people and teenagers. In the ad, the young, blonde, blue-eyed actress Sydney Sweeney, dressed in a denim suit, appears on screen saying:
«Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”
Then comes the bold slogan: “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” The central idea lies in the wordplay between “jeans” and “genes.” As part of the campaign, American Eagle released several ads using the same slogan—for example, in one video the word “genes” was crossed out and replaced with “jeans.”
The reaction came swiftly. Internet users immediately expressed outrage at the hyperbolized sexualization of Sydney (the camera angles, her tone, and voice timbre), although some saw it as a positive return to old-school advertising with skinny, half-dressed women. But others noticed the wordplay itself. Social networks quickly pointed out its inappropriateness—especially given the actress’s blue eyes, blonde hair, and the absence of other models in the video. The brand was accused of making allusions to eugenics, “white supremacy,” or even Nazi propaganda. American Eagle responded with a statement that the campaign was always about jeans, style, and confidence—not any other subtext.
Interestingly, many media outlets (including CNN) also recalled that in October 2024, Donald Trump, in a radio interview, claimed that immigrants who committed murders did so because of “bad genes,” and that “our country has a lot of bad genes.” The White House condemned these statements as hateful and unacceptable, noting that such rhetoric has no place in the nation.
Of course, everyone has the right to interpret the ad as they wish—so long as there is no direct propaganda, violence, or killing involved. And statistics speak for themselves: an Economist/YouGov poll conducted August 9–11, 2025, showed that only 12% of Americans were offended by the ad, 39% thought it was witty, 40% had no clear opinion, and 8% were undecided. No surprise that opinions diverged. For each person, the context differs depending on their information bubble, experience, and preferences. Blinded adoration of the actress may convince some to dismiss accusations of aggressive sexualization. Conversely, lack of fandom may make the wordplay more glaring. And how many people even think about eugenics, propaganda, or subtle insinuations anymore? Not everyone wants to draw parallels with historical contexts—it can be too painful and sad, or, conversely, too inspiring and hopeful. Impossible to predict.
The speed at which the spiral of our existence turns cannot be calculated! No theorem, axiom, or hypothesis of the world’s brightest minds will provide the right answer. Life rushes on, intertwines, divides, multiplies, flips, and lunges forward. Yesterday’s jokes may spark tomorrow’s quarrels, and today’s peace may become the beginning of war next week. At some point, we—tiny particles of the grand mechanism—may be overwhelmed by despair, pain, fear, and anxiety. Back then, eugenics could not save us from the “negative” component of human nature—our emotions. And so, we walk with them as a burden, glancing over our shoulder at every step. But somewhere in the distance a small glimmer appears—in the form of criticism of a controversial American brand’s ad campaign—that lights our path. Long ago, people could be made to believe anything with just a hint of imagined authority. Now, even in wordplay, we search for subtext and feel discomfort—even in the most comfortable jeans.
Who knows—perhaps one day we will reach a world where even wars will no longer be accepted as something normal, something we can ignore. Where gods of thunder will no longer be re-elected every year, and people will stop believing every sentence blaring from loudspeakers. Until then, all we can do is keep whirling in the chaotic spiral of all-connecting existence, hoping for disorder to cease and for order to finally arrive.
About Author:
