Born of Racism and Misogyny

[Felicity]

What kind of idiotic eugenicist gives an award to Dr. Martin Luther King?

One that thinks a pretty, shiny trophy will blind the stupid morons and mental defectives from seeing her agenda.

 

[Felicity]

She did not say that. I have addressed this: there has been no direct evidence that Margaret Sanger was specifically racist in the articles you have posted on here. Her letter to the minister referred to her desire to keep his congregants from getting the WRONG idea, not keeping them from discovering her evil plot to eliminate the black race.

How do you misinterpret the word "rebellious" in that quote? I know Planned parenthood left that out of their explanation...why do you suppose that was? Because there IS NO misinterpreting what she was saying.:roll: WOW :shock: you so want this not to be true don't you...sorry...dems da facts...Ol' Maggie was a racist, eugenicist slut. Check out her personal history...when I say slut, I'm not exaggerating either.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Nor is "it's not practical to expect people to have adequate self-control" a good argument for allowing the killing of human individuals that are powerless against the attack. With the current state of abortion "propaganda"--who wants to listen to the message that "if you have some self-discipline, you can avoid pregnancy" When the opposition tells you "naw...go ahead...pop this pill and you'll be okay...and if it fails we can take care of it with a simple little procedure...no biggie..."

I never said anything like that in this debate, nor have I said it to a person. I said that telling people they should have discipline does not reflect reality; people do not have discipline, and they will not gain discipline just because the consequences are dire. How many people die from smoking? From drinking? From drug use? The list goes on, and on, and on, of the stupid and dissolute things people do to themselves, while fully cognizant of their fates. There are two ways to handle this: one is to say, "You made your bed; now lie in it!" The other is to try to help people to avoid the consequences of their stupidity. I understand completely that you consider the second to be a vile and heinous choice to make, that you believe it encourages murder; but your idea simply will not work, in my opinion. It will save fetuses, yes. It will do terrible things to our society. That is my opinion, and that is our debate. But never have I said that I encourage irresponsible sexual activity, so please do not accuse me of it.

Again--I don't se this as justification for killing. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The "rhythm Method" is not the "Sympto-Thermal" method. This is innacurate and hyperbole.

So when you said this to Vergiss, you were -- which, lying or exaggerating?

The point was that you don'r NEED contraception. You don't NEED to medicate or have surgery done on a healthy body. All you need to do is have some self-control a week a month. In context, Sanger was all about birth control and how women where oppressed under their prolific fertility. There is nothing WRONG with fertility. If you know it well, you can avoid pregnancy by listening to your body and being disciplined about choosing not to have sex when the signs say you are likely to get pregnant WITHOUT resorting to the artificial hormones and surgery.

Note that I used the same wording you did: self-control a week a month. Listening to your body. Note that I did not call this the "rhythm" method.
I am not callling the sympto-thermal method ineffective; I am repeating that most people do not have the discipline to follow it.

I think it might be a good place for pro-choicers to start the study of the history of the abortion indistry. You don't need an "open mind", you just need eyes to see the roots of their modern movement.

I do not care, in the least, why some people may have supported abortion 100 years ago. I care why we should have it today.
You do, of course, realize that the documents whose words we fight over so much were written by slaveholders? Who disenfranchised women, and children, as well as men without property, as well as men of any race but Caucasian? If, as you seem to be saying here, a study of the history of the abortion movement would change people's perceptions on the issue, shouldn't we start with a study of those men who encoded the freedoms that allowed abortion to take root in this country in the first place?
The "roots" of the modern abortion movement are planted, firmly, in the Constitution of the United States, and the paradigm it helped to create. If you want to blame anyone, blame them. Had they been the Christian men they have been purported to be, abortion would surely have been illegal right from the start. All it would have taken would be the inclusion of the word "conception" somewhere in the description of a person, or a citizen. They didn't do it. So whose fault is this, really?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

How do you misinterpret the word "rebellious" in that quote? I know Planned parenthood left that out of their explanation...why do you suppose that was? Because there IS NO misinterpreting what she was saying.:roll: WOW :shock: you so want this not to be true don't you...sorry...dems da facts...Ol' Maggie was a racist, eugenicist slut. Check out her personal history...when I say slut, I'm not exaggerating either.

Rolling your eyes? Really? Okay, fine. Now we are down to ad hominem attacks on Margaret Sanger, the "slut." And I'm the one who's emotionally invested in this.

Back to the "racist" quote:

It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.

The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs (1939).


Please note the very last sentence....It appears like that was the last word of her sentence...HOWEVER....

THIS is what she ACTUALLY said:

" the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

All you need to do is look at the last line: "The minister can straighten out that idea," the idea that Sanger's groups, and the white doctors, mean to wipe out the black race through abortion. Straighten it out. It is a crooked idea, i.e., the WRONG idea. Not their secret, but a mistaken impression. She said "rebellious" meaning "Ones who might rise up and shoot the white doctors," not "Dem uppity negroes we need to keep in their places." Planned Parenthood left it out because it was a stupid word to use in this context, but it doesn't change what she meant: it could very well be dangerous to send a white doctor into a black area, to put his hands on a black woman, and possibly abort a black child. You could say exactly the same thing about a black doctor in a white area, in the time and place that she wrote this.

She's talking about training doctors, for criminy's sake. Black doctors, who would be trusted more by blacks; she says they should work with black nurses, black hospital and social workers -- is this the goal of someone who wants to wipe out the black race? To educate, train, and empower them? She wanted to use the ministers to spread the TRUTH: that her group was NOt trying to eliminate the black race.
That's how I read that. Do you have ANY other quote, from this woman's voluminous writings, that refer to this racist intention to eliminate all blacks? Or have you quote-mined just this one statement, that you have misinterpreted, as your sole piece of evidence?

This has nothing to do with what I want to be true; as I said, if Margaret Sanger had spent her entire life worshipping Adolph Hitler and Satan, it would not change my feelings on the issue. I have my own ideas, not hers. But as it turns out, Sanger was not a racist, and so I will try to correct you when you say she was. That's it.

 

[Felicity]

Her association with eugenicists does not make her a racist, any more than it is logical to accuse every German of anti-Semitism because of the Nazis. She published their articles; she did not write them, nor inspire them. Racially insensitive, yes, as your articles have pointed out; racist, and evidence of intent to eliminate the race? No.

In Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger, Ms. Sanger refers to “human undergrowth” in the “garden of humanity.”

“ At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing talent and genius, the
bearers of the torch of civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking human
undergrowth,4 which, as all authorities tell us, is escaping control and threatens to
overrun the whole garden of humanity” (pg. 404).

This idea is clearly demonstrated in a story she published by Richard Connell (yes—THE Richard Connell of the famous short story “The Most Dangerous Game” which has some racial overtones as well...) called “Weeds.” She published this racist story in The Birth Control Review in 1922 in the same year she published her manifesto “Pivot of Civilization”....

In order to “weed out” the “human undergrowth” she believed in “segregating the mental defectives” and dealing with them in places outside of the regular population... Connell’s story is set in such a segregated population.

www.inklingbooks.com/inklinguniversity/pdf_files/11_pivot.pdf

Story begins on page 330.

EDITOR
The same year that Sanger authored The Pivot of Civilization, she also published
the following short story in her magazine, Birth Control Review. It has been
added to this new edition of Pivot because, as fiction, it exposes the prejudices of
Sanger and many of her supporters far more vividly than their more veiled factual
statements.
The story is set on a state-run poor farm in New Jersey. Note the number of parallels
the writer draws between the people at the farm and animals. Old Man Eggers
has fingers “like a crab’s legs,” their conversation resembles “the buzzing of
flies,” a beard gives an old man “a simian aspect,” and a new-born baby cries “as if
someone had trod on the tail of a cat.”
In this story, a wide variety of once scientifically impeccable bigotries are
blurred together. The conversation is intended to convey an impression of feeblemindedness.
Bit by bit, the little group is linked to other inferior groups and races.
Those in a mental asylum are joined to backwoods “piners,” babies born with odd-
23. Margaret Sanger, My Fight for Birth Control (Farrar & Rinehart: New York, 1931),
12–13. The fact that her sympathies lay with the ill-tempered father rather than his
unfortunate child illustrates how she often regarded a child as little more than a “nuisance.”
330 The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective
shaped heads, black people, Wops (Italians), Chinks (Asians) and the Irish. True,
the inmates themselves do display some prejudice, but far too little from the
author’s perspective, definitely not enough to prevent breeding across racial lines.
Such people, Sanger was telling us, are good targets for birth control. The story
leaves uncertain just what the Chairman wanted done with Nettie, perhaps sterilization
or placement in a sexually segregated state institution. But he (and by
extension Sanger’s readers) were clearly not happy to discover what the farm’s
dull-witted but somewhat religious superintendent had done.


“Weeds” by Richard Connell
Richard Connell, “Weeds.” Birth Control Review
(March & April 1922), 38–39, 61–62.
The paupers huddled around the fire in the drafty kitchen, trying to keep
warm. Old Man Eggers, from time to time, stirred the smouldering drift-wood
with a cane held in fingers gnarled by rheumatism until they looked like a crab’s
legs.
A raw wind, so salt and moist one might have gargled with it, swept from the
sea across the dank, rotting sedge-marsh and soughed through the joints of the
loose-knit old farm house that served to shelter the destitute of the town—a rich
town in one of the great Eastern states. It was a brutal fall night in the year of
1921.
The dozen inmates—old men and old women—were engaged in a desultory
conversation; their voices were like the buzzing of flies. But there was an air of
expectancy in all the drabness of their tone. Occasionally an old woman would
go and stand near door that opened off the kitchen; she’d listen there, her hand
cupped to her ear, and then return, muttering, to her place near the fire. The others
would search her face for news.
“The last one came at three o’clock in the morning,” said Mrs. Purley, from a
toothless mouth. “I helped.” Mrs. Purley was the aristocracy of the poor farm;
she was the widow of a once prosperous barber.
“A boy wasn’t it?” asked Old Man Eggers, stirring the smoking fire, till his
eyes smarted.
“It was not,” replied Mrs. Purley.
“Ah, a girl then?” said Old Man Eggers, nodding sagely. “Drat this wet
wood.”
“A little girl,” confirmed Mrs. Purley, emphasizing the adjective as if newborn
children were, as a general rule, enormous.
A very old man, bent and bleary, with a fringe of white beard that gave him a
simian aspect, who had been drowsing in a corner, suddenly remarked, in a high,
faltering voice:
“I dug nigh onto twenty thousand claims in the summer of ninety-one.”
“Drat you and your clams,” cried Old Man Eggers, turning on the speaker with
an impotent viciousness. “We don’t care how many clams you dug, you old
fool.”
4 . The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded 331
“I did though,” said the clam-digger, mildly, and lapsed into somnolence
again.
An old woman returned from listening at the door.
“She’s a-groaning and a-moaning’” she reported.
“Ah” exclaimed Mrs. Purley, brightening perceptibly, “she’s beginnin’. We’ll
hear some fine moanin’ and groanin’ before she’s through.” . . . .
“Where’s the little girl now?” asked a thin, tride, middle-aged woman, on the
outer rim of the circle about the reluctant fire. She was, plainly, a newcomer.
“’Sylum” answered Mrs. Purley, briefly, as one who does not wish to encourage
familiarity. She had her dignity to preserve; the woman was just a common
‘piner,’ and not the social equal of the widow of a barber. A ‘piner’ is a dweller
in the squalid settlements among the scrub pines, a descendant, if local history is
correct, from the pirates who once ravaged the coast. The stock is enfeebled and
decadent from generations of inbreeding.
“’Sylum?” quavered the piner. “Sylum? Why?”
“Buggy?” the piner’s tone was puzzled. “But she was only a baby?”
“You should have saw her head,” retorted Mrs. Purley, with finality.
“Why? Was they anything wrong with it.” The piner was fascinated by the
thought.
“Was they?” Mrs. Purley lowered her voice. “It was shaped just like a peanut!”
“And it wasn’t no bigger than a potato,” collaborated Old Man Eggers, pottering
with the fire.
The lean piner woman nodded comprehendingly.
“How many did ya have,” asked the fat man. A spurt of flickering light from
the fire made him seem to leer.
“Eleven, or maybe it was twelve. I disremember,” the woman answered.”
“All livin’?” asked the fat man.
All dead, ’ceptin’ Luke,” she replied, dully.
“Where’s Luke,” he inquired.
“’Sylum,” she replied, in her colorless voice. The moan of a human being,
now faint, now louder, came from behind the door. . . .
“It won’t be long now,” said Mrs. Purley, with the air of an expert. “She’s a
quick one, Nettie is.”
A fat man sniggered and spat into the flames.
“I wonder if it’ll be black,” he said.......

read the rest of this story at the link cited above...

 

[Felicity]

Eventually, Ms. Sanger put her own Eugenic plan in a concise outline and published that in her “Birth Control Review”.....

The following (A Plan for Peace, Margaret Sanger) was published in Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108):
A Plan for Peace
by MARGARET SANGER
First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.
Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.
The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.
Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities.
The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.
The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.
With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.
There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.
In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

 

[Felicity]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/581902/posts
"THE REPACKAGING OF MARGARET SANGER"
Wall Street Journal | May 5, 1997 | Steven W. Mosher
Posted on 12/01/2001 12:28:35 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse
I was personally offended when Planned Parenthood recently announced plans to give its Margaret Sanger Award to the BBC documentary "The Dying Rooms."
Don't get me wrong: The documentary is a wonderful and courageous piece of work. An undercover camera crew managed to gain entry to China's state-run orphanages and videotape the mistreatment and murder of the girls there. I appeared in the documentary, testifying that this tragedy is a direct consequence of the country's one-child policy.
It was the award, named after Planned Parenthood's founder, to which I objected. For Sanger had little but contempt for the "Asiatic races," as she and her eugenicist friends called them. During her lifetime, she proposed that their numbers be drastically reduced. But Sanger's preferences went beyond race. In her 1922 book "Pivot of Civilization" she unabashedly called for the extirpation of "weeds .... overrunning the humnan garden"; for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and the maladjusted"; and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races." It was later that she singled out the Chinese, writing in her autobiography about "the incessant fertility of [the Chinese] millions spread like a plague."
There can be no doubt that Sanger would have been wildly enthusiastic over China's one-child policy, for her "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children," published in 1934, decreed that "no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit ... no permit shall be valid for more than one child." As for China's selective elimination of handicapped and abandoned babies, she would have been delighted that Beijing had heeded her decades-long call for exactly such eugenicist policies.
Indeed, Sanger likely would have turned the award on its head, choosing to praise publicly rather than implicitly criticize China's government for its dying rooms. Even the inhuman operators of Chinese orphanages might have gotten an honorable mention, in order to underline the importance of their front-line work in eliminating what she called the "unfit" and "dysgenic." Sanger was not one for subtlety in such matters. She bluntly defined "birth control," a term she coined, as "the process of weeding out the unfit" aimed at "the creation of a superman." .......

 

[Felicity]

as I said, if Margaret Sanger had spent her entire life worshipping Adolph Hitler and Satan, it would not change my feelings on the issue.

It was the other way around--HITLER followed Ms. Maggie and her ilk!

http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace", Birth Control Review; see 'appendix' for this full unabridged seminal article). Which country pioneered forced sterilization in the 20th century, Germany or the United States of America? The German program began in January 1934, but the U.S. state of Indiana passed a forced sterilization law (for mental defectives) in 1907 (when Adolf Hitler was 18 years old). Before the German program began, at least seventeen U.S. states (including California) had 'forced sterilization' laws. Before 1930 there were 200-600 forced sterilizations per year (in the U.S.A.) but in the 1930s the rate jumped to 2,000-4,000 per year. (1)

Who 'Inspired' the architects of the German Sterilization law?

"The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to understake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere." (2) Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article 'Eugenic Sterilization' in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. "The situation [in the U.S.A] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results." (3)


To see more of the influence of US Eugenics (of which MS. Sanger was a big player) on Nazi Eugenics go to the link above.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

In Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger, Ms. Sanger refers to “human undergrowth” in the “garden of humanity.”

“ At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing talent and genius, the
bearers of the torch of civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking human
undergrowth,4 which, as all authorities tell us, is escaping control and threatens to
overrun the whole garden of humanity” (pg. 404).

...

read the rest of this story at the link cited above...

She was not a racist. She didn't write the story.
She was an elitist. She promoted the idea that the "feebleminded" and the "degenerate" should be sterilized, because she believed that "morons" would breed more "morons." Reading her writing makes one feel slightly dirty.
It still has little to do with Planned Parenthood. It has nothing to do with the modern pro-choice movement, or any modern argument for, or against, abortion.
But she was a nasty piece of work in a lot of ways; you're right about that.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/581902/posts
"THE REPACKAGING OF MARGARET SANGER"
Wall Street Journal | May 5, 1997 | Steven W. Mosher
Posted on 12/01/2001 12:28:35 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse

It was later that she singled out the Chinese, writing in her autobiography about "the incessant fertility of [the Chinese] millions spread like a plague."
COLOR]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the one part of this that would show it was a racist statement is the one part that was not in the original quote? Doesn't it make this seem part of a large smear campaign against one of the symbols of the pro-choice movement?
I couldn't find the original, to see what she actually said; can you?

Once again: Sanger was an elitist. She had serious problems with "mental defectives." But I can show you several million people who routinely use the word "retarded" to describe something they don't like; are they any less slimy than she? Note, also, that America does sterilize "mental defectives" with fair regularity, with the guardian's consent, of course. And we certainly do segregate people along the lines she described, don't we?
Her statements are ridiculous at times, and reprehensible at others. It's still misleading to refer to her as a racist, unless you want to argue that "morons" are a race. It is extremely misleading, to the point of an outright lie, to refer to her as a misogynist, as the title of the thread does; her entire life's work was dedicated to empowering women in the manner she thought best. You disagree with the manner, yes, but that doesn't change her goals.

 

[Felicity]

She was not a racist.

She wanted to breed a superior "race"--what does it take to be "racist"? Thinking specific qualities inherent in a race are superior seems racist to me.

She didn't write the story.

You lie down with dogs--you get up with fleas. Ms. Sanger was in a den overwrought with fleas and not ONCE did she condemn her cronies. As the editor of her magazine that never claimed objectivity--she PROMOTED the hatred. She is therefore culpable.

She was an elitist. She promoted the idea that the "feebleminded" and the "degenerate" should be sterilized, because she believed that "morons" would breed more "morons." Reading her writing makes one feel slightly dirty.

And again...isn't racism just elitism based on racial superiority? Sounds like Sanger to me!

It still has little to do with Planned Parenthood. It has nothing to do with the modern pro-choice movement, or any modern argument for, or against, abortion.

http//www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf
PG.48
International Planned Parenthood continues to act as a leader of the population control
movement and to exert great worldwide influence. Planned Parenthood publicists have
attempted to gradually downplay Sanger’s eugenics ideology in an attempt to preserve,
what Planned Parenthood today calls the “unassailable reputation of PPFA and the
contemporary family planning movement.”176
For instance, Faye Wattleton, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America
(PPFA) from 1978 to 1992, claimed that, “No one can really interpret what Sanger meant
because she’s dead.”177 Yet, the organization has gone to great lengths to memorialize
Sanger’s name with PPFA by naming its most prestigious award after Margaret Sanger,
naming its last major fundraising drive in 1996 “Maggie’s Millions,” placing a photo
album devoted to her life on its website,178 and writing on its website in glowing terms
about Sanger’s “visionary accomplishments as a social reformer” and her “outreach to the
African-American Community.”179
Planned Parenthood’s leaders have expressed their devotion to Sanger. Alan Guttmacher,
who immediately succeeded Sanger as President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, exclaimed that “We are merely walking down the path that Mrs. Sanger carved
out for us.”180 Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander C. Sanger, the current chairman
of the International Planned Parenthood Council, proclaimed while in charge of Planned
Parenthood of New York City in 1991, “Right now, we have three clinics in this city and
I want ten more. We currently have a small storefront office in central Harlem, and it is
my first priority to see if we can transform that into a clinic... With all her success, my
grandmother left some unfinished business, and I intend to finish it.

 

[vergiss]

She wanted to breed a superior "race"--what does it take to be "racist"? Thinking specific qualities inherent in a race are superior seems racist to me.

The way I've always understood it is that eugenics only beccomes racism when specific ethnicities are considered "inferior". From the way it looks, she only considered the less intelligent to be inferior... which is unfair, but not racist.

 

[Felicity]

The way I've always understood it is that eugenics only beccomes racism when specific ethnicities are considered "inferior". From the way it looks, she only considered the less intelligent to be inferior... which is unfair, but not racist.

Well you might want to consider what Maggie's friends wrote about Jews et al..... If you were the Lady Sanger, and you did not share those views--or minimally think that they had some validity--would you associate with such people? Would you place them on the board of organizations you head? Would you publish their works in your personal propoganda machine?

 

[vergiss]

Well you might want to consider what Maggie's friends wrote about Jews et al..... If you were the Lady Sanger, and you did not share those views--or minimally think that they had some validity--would you associate with such people? Would you place them on the board of organizations you head? Would you publish their works in your personal propoganda machine?

Guilty by association now, huh?

I have friends who are homophobic and anti-Islam. I certainly disagree with those views, but still associate with them.

 

[Felicity]

Guilty by association now, huh?

I have friends who are homophobic and anti-Islam. I certainly disagree with those views, but still associate with them.

As the saying goes...you lie down with dogs...


Despite what you think...your "friendship" gives tacit approval. However. Ms. Sanger did more than give tacit approval. She PROMOTED the views of her associates. And did you see her "Plan for Peace?" Who do you think she is talking about in "c" and "f" of her "plan?"


c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

(HEY! There's your "pro-choice"!)

What was the immigration laws of 1924? Well....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_immigration_act

And this from the ACLU...a group I abhor, but agree with their facts on this one point...
http://www.aclu-or.org/legislature/national/immigrants1.htm
But back in the 1920s, the majority didn't see it that way. Immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were seen as alien races -- yes, races -- and a threat to what it meant to be American. Many were said to be criminals seeking to feed off hardworking Americans. Almost no one saw the achievements that lay ahead.

The government reflected this prejudice. Between 1910 and 1920, the Palmer Raids (named after U.S. Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were responsible for the deportation of thousands of immigrants -- seized suddenly from their beds or jobs and deported without hearings, based on little more than prejudice and fear of people who looked and sounded different. And in 1924, Congress passed and the President signed the National Origins Quota Act of 1924, which by design and operation virtually eliminated immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe.

The conceded purpose of the Act was to preserve the racial and ethnic makeup of the United States as it had existed in 1890. There was no attempt to deny this purpose or to sugarcoat it. The day the Act became law, The New York Times announced it with the following headline: "Chief aim . . . is to preserve racial type as it exists here today."
.........The 1924 Act passed because people were blinded by their prejudice .....Immigration policies during the 1920s are now universally regarded as a descent into hysteria, prejudice, unconstitutionality and cruelty. .....

Now, why is Margaret Sanger not held accountable for her CLEARLY expressed views? Why is she hailed as some sort of "hero?" Perhaps it is because her supporters want their precious right to kill the unborn and to hell with the facts that prove her movement is born of racist ideologies.