It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Margaret Sanger Letter to Doctor C. J. Gamble 12-10-39

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

Strange, i just picked up a random name and did a search to see what eugenics program he started, nothing came up.

I searched for: "Ephram F. Morgan eugenics" And nothing, zero, nada.



edit on 16-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

just picked another name randomly and again nothing came up when searching: "Theodore Christianson eugenics." Even their biographies don't say anything about eugenics.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

So from where did you get that list? i keep searching for different names and "eugenics", or "sterilization" and nothing comes up.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...
Sangers goals were to provide legal accessible sex education and birth control to all women, of all colors, cultures and social circles.

Nothing Sanger did promoted genocide of any race.



Sangers was a racist, a white supremacist who was into "racial purity," and to this day you left-wingers idolize her and continue her legacy of murder. Women don't get power by murdering their unborn or newborns. How many millions of children have you denied the right to live and instead sentenced to death?

These days many of you make false claims about "USBP/ICE are puting children in cages," which is false since Obama/Biden did the same, yet you all ignore the millions of children you have denied their right to live. Sangers made you believe that "killing the unborn/newborns makes women powerful," meanwhile you all ignore her racist past and the reason she wanted eugenics implemented in the U.S.

Those of you in the left are so desensitized to the evil of abortions that many of you now say it's more than okay to murder newborns whom survive abortions and are born alive. In fact you leftists even celebrated the laws passed in states like New York as if it was something to celebrate at all.


edit on 16-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I am adding this link www.uvm.edu... I have it set for west Virginia the Governor at the time was Ephram F. Morgan you can look up any/all the states it says when the bill was signed into law and how many were sterilized..The Governor names are not mentioned..but as I said below look up the date and look up see who was governoer when the bill was signed






as you have found googling...there is NOT very much into that comes up so I MADE this list...you can google a state and the date....Minnesota April 24 1925 . I took the state and the date the bill was signed into law..then I looked up each state to see who was governor at the time because they would be the one to sign it into law I found a PDF history of Minnesota eugenics

collections.mnhs.org...

go to the fifth page 2nd paragraph under the photo in the right column.....

it says "On April 8 1925, Governor Theodore Christianson signed a bill making Minnesota the seventeenth state to legalize eugenic sterilization..The law permitted the sterilization of a feeble minded person committed to state guardianship, or an insane person who had been hospitalized for 6 months"


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: research100

So from where did you get that list? i keep searching for different names and "eugenics", or "sterilization" and nothing comes up.

edit on 17-8-2019 by research100 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2019 by research100 because: added more info and another link



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

Let's dig in a bit closer and see what can be ascertained from all of this.

I chose two Governors from 1929 randomly.

West Virginia and it's Republican governor Ephram F. Morgan.


In total, 98 individuals were sterilized in West Virginia under its compulsory sterilization law.
...

www.uvm.edu...

If we scroll down a bit we also find this.


...
Precipitating factors and processes

Given that the West Virginia sterilization law drew its legitimacy directly from the affirmation of legality of compulsory sterilization and the Virginia Sterilization Act through the pro-sterilization ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the infamous Buck v. Bell case, sterilization in West Virginia failed to gain significant momentum. According to the American Neurological Association, slowness in sterilization in the state could be attributed to the complexity of legal process required in the state law (Paul, p. 535). With the exception of the sterilization “revival” in the mid 1950s (50 operations between 1954 and 1956) caused by an influx of requests to sterilize from superintendents of institutions to the State Board of Health, the rate of sterilizations per year remained below ten (Paul, pp. 535-8).
...

www.uvm.edu...

What's more, you give starting dates, but don't take into account that compulsory sterilizations weren't constant and didn't start on those dates the law was written on compulsory sterilizations.

From the graph in the above link we find this.



So the compulsory sterilizations did not start in 1929, but rather began in 1933. So the law was written in 1929, but it wasn't implemented until a Democrat was governor.

In March 4th 1933 is when the administration of Democrat governor H. Guy Kump began, and that's the same year when compulsory sterilizations began. From 1933 - January 13, 1969 ALL governors were Democrat. So the compulsory sterilizations occurred under Democrat rule.

In contrast in North Carolina ruled in 1929 by Democrat governor Oliver Gardner.


Over 8,000 sterilizations were approved by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. The total number of victims actually sterilized is estimated to have been over 7,600 (Winston-Salem, “Lifting the Curtain on a Shameful Era”).
...
Process of the Law

Under the sterilization law, the North Carolina General Assembly gave the governing body or executive head of any penal or charitable public institution the authority to order the sterilization of any patient or inmate whose operation they considered would be in the best interest of the individual and of the public good. It also gave the county boards of commissioners authority to order sterilization at the publics expense of anymentally defective or feeble-minded resident upon receiving a petition from the individuals next of kin or legal guardianoutside state institutions (State Library, “History”, p. 1) - thus applying potentially to every resident in North Carolina.
...

www.uvm.edu...

On contrast in North Carolina with a Democrat governor there were over 8,000 compulsory sterilizations, and they were not just conducted in mental institutions, but was also "applied potentially to every resident in North Carolina."

From the above link we find this graph.



Both were governors in 1929.

However, from 1905-1973 ALL governors of North Carolina were Democrat. From then on almost every year it was split from Democrat to Republican, and back and forth.

List of governors of North Carolina

According to "wikipedia" in the 1970s compulsory sterilizations began to decline.


...
1971-1977

In the 1970s the Eugenics Board was moved around from department to department, as sterilization operations declined in the state. In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the then newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board.[13]
...

en.wikipedia.org...

So we can't be certain of when was it that compulsory sterilizations began to decline and whether under which governors the decline occurred.

So we can see by the above more in depth information that you can't simply give a date of when laws of compulsory sterilizations began with the governor of that state on that same year since the enforcement of those laws might not have happened until years later when another governor was in place.







edit on 17-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...
Sangers goals were to provide legal accessible sex education and birth control to all women, of all colors, cultures and social circles.

Nothing Sanger did promoted genocide of any race.



Sangers was a racist, a white supremacist who was into "racial purity," and to this day you left-wingers idolize her and continue her legacy of murder. Women don't get power by murdering their unborn or newborns. How many millions of children have you denied the right to live and instead sentenced to death?

These days many of you make false claims about "USBP/ICE are puting children in cages," which is false since Obama/Biden did the same, yet you all ignore the millions of children you have denied their right to live. Sangers made you believe that "killing the unborn/newborns makes women powerful," meanwhile you all ignore her racist past and the reason she wanted eugenics implemented in the U.S.

Those of you in the left are so desensitized to the evil of abortions that many of you now say it's more than okay to murder newborns whom survive abortions and are born alive. In fact you leftists even celebrated the laws passed in states like New York as if it was something to celebrate at all.



This is what you do. You create a thread on a controversial topic, that makes some conspiratorial, outrageous and false claim, so that you can ambush, attack and assassinate the character of those posters who call you out on your hyperbolic and ridiculous claims.

The only reason I post in your threads is to make sure you don't go unchallenged. I don't expect to change your mind, but give readers insight into your less than honest assertions.

ETA: It's also quite amusing to watch you perform your mental gymnastic backflips and contortions, as you twist reality to meet your evil fantasies.

edit on 18-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

This is what you do. You create a thread on a controversial topic, that makes some conspiratorial, outrageous and false claim, so that you can ambush, attack and assassinate the character of those posters who call you out on your hyperbolic and ridiculous claims.
The only reason I post in your threads is to make sure you don't go unchallenged. I don't expect to change your mind, but give readers insight into your less than honest assertions.

ETA: It's also quite amusing to watch you perform your mental gymnastic backflips and contortions, as you twist reality to meet your evil fantasies.



I have read that letter...... and re read it.

Looking at it from the point of view of how language has changed in the hundred

years since it was written, I couldn't see racism...... the word negro was ringed

as proof of racism, however in my lifetime firstly negro was the word correctly

used at that time for Africans, then coloured was used and now black is what

has become acceptable.

(Another word used at that time was 'crippled' and instead today it has

become disabled?)

Sanger called for a negro doctor to deal with the women and she mentioned

ignorance and superstition. A hundred years ago there was no compulsery

education never mind sex education and there were what was referred to as

*old wives tales* in other words superstition!!

I can personally see nothing wrong with people being made to feel more

comfortable in certain circumstances ......myself in many instances would rather

see a woman doctor does that make me sexist?



We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population
and the minister is the man to straighten out that idea


I take ^^^that^^^ to mean contraception OR sterilisation to limit the size of

families for those who had already had all the children they wanted....NOT

eugenics.


A cousin of mine was sterilised in her very early 20's against medical advice

because she never wanted children.


As I said in another post, Yesterdays language has to be understood in the terms

of yesteryear!!


Some people make a career out of being offended on other peoples behalf!!

















edit on 18-8-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here you go, attacking the messenger again. The ones trying to do "mental backflips" keep being you, and the rest of the pro-Sanger crowd. She was into "race purity," she was into "segregate and or sterilize disabled people," she was into exterminating people she deemed unfit, just like Hitler did. But despite the fact that she wrote it, you keep on trying to excuse her. BTW if you want to look into evil just look in a mirror. Ironic how you left-wingers always claim "the right are all nazis" when it is left-wingers like yourself whom still excuse and are continuing the legacy of a white supremacist and her agenda of exterminating people for her "racial purity" agenda.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Of course you couldn't... You made the racist remark that PP still targets minority neighborhoods because they are stupid, uneducated, poor, etc... Except for the simple fact that whites are a majority of people in the U.S. and as such there are more poor white people whom haven't graduated even from high school, much less from college. Yet they are not targeted by PP. We are told that PP offers education on how not to get pregnant, yet somehow it is not working at all in the areas they target, almost 80% in minority neighborhoods.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
I first heard of Margaret Sanger, when I was in Nursing School, back in the late 70's. What I found out about her and Florence Nightingale, changed my view on a lot of things.

I agree that the spin that they put on it makes it sound like she was just a Negro loving compassionate woman, going out of her way to help Negroes.

That is not what I came away with on my research into her back then, and I have seen nothing that has changed my original view. That is just me. I encourage everyone to do their own research to find their own truth.



edit on 20-8-2019 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Heck, she went to talk to the KKK and they loved her so much that she wrote they wanted her to go back to talk to them more about "birth control..."

You think the KKK women were thinking about their own abortions?...





edit on 20-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Everything that we know, we know, because someone has told it to us, or we have personally experienced it. Unfortunately, even when we have personally experienced something, we often have to rely on what someone has told us, to believe or understand, what it is that we experienced.

Before the Internet, our resource pool was very small and less contaminated. With the Internet, our resource pool is vast, polluted, and often very, very toxic.

Google, Wikipedia, and many other internet tools, are resources that tells us what they want us to know and to believe. Of course they have a course of action for those of us that are rebellious and a bit of a nuisance.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




You think the KKK women were thinking about their own abortions?...


Maybe. Maybe their daughter's abortions. Abortions surely were happening in those days. Birth control would surely be a better option, if it was available.

Nut, as you know, Sanger didn't preach for abortion. She was virulently opposed to abortion. She was on a mission to get sex ed and birth control to all women, not just negroes and Hispanics, but rich white women (as well and their daughters) too.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Originally, I had only the popular Sanger myth floating in the back of my brain to reference when she was mentioned. With all the other people and movements in our past I have had little reason to challenge that pop myth I referenced and so just let it float.

I think that dis-assembling those myths that have lodged in our minds can be a good thing, though we also have examples of people who go off the chart into anarchic chaos when over doing it.

I have diss-assembled the myth of our Founding Fathers. See how that is capitalized? It has become a ''title'' and in so doing, that popular myth is cataloged in the popular mind in that manner, a singular group of men of genius caliber who managed to organize the foundations of our nation, and then we move on in our thinking having referenced that sound byte meme. But now I know that they were flawed individuals with a variety of motives and impulses that colored all that they did yet somehow managed to find between them a checkered outline for a new nation that remarkably has held together for all these years.

I think that what I am trying to get to here, as I speak to both you and myself, is that these guys were attempting something that had never been done before, nor I imagine had hardly even been considered other than in the minds of a few thinkers of the past. Most of them had been educated with the philosophies of the past yet when before had anyone ever had the opportunity to put all those philosophies into one action plan and make it work. It was really astounding.

I think that in the same manner, Sanger could have been the same. The notion of notion of ''over population '' had first been broached by the ancient Greeks who spoke of it in abstract terms. By the warnings of Malthus about a hundred years prior to Sanger, the idea of over population had come to be a meme for those who sought to entertain an idea that humans could be in charge of our own destiny rather than just blow through history on the wings of fate and fortune.

Challenging concepts, new concepts that few were even willing to consider let alone even know about. The very idea of population control as a practical endeavor, one that humans might be able to put into action was astounding. After all, this experiment taking place in the west offered in many minds an unlimited scope of possibilities for humans to achieve.

The first and simplest image that comes to me is like Lewis and Clarke pushing their way into unknown frontiers with almost no maps and only the magnitude of human endurance to carry them on. Or better yet the explorers chopping their way though underbrush and foliage with deadly snakes and predators at every turn ready to devour them.

That's how I see Sanger and others who sought to take control of how humans could grasp the reigns of humanities future.
She was flawed, and her thinking was very limited. Not only limited but conditioned by social conditions that would not even allow so many others of her time to even think about the things she was thinking about.

So I don't condemn her nor do I hold her as a myth of light, but rather as a pioneer of the future. Had it not been her, it would have been someone else making the same mistakes and achievements.

Now I don't really know how real any of that I just posted is even close to being true, it's just the best I can put together in my own head on how to reference her in my future considerations.

Thanks for that post NIght. When I find replies to older posts, I assume that it might be an opportunity to really discuss rather than just argument or banter and so have replied to the best of my ability. That is without spending a lot of time totally diss-assembling the Sanger myth that resides in my head.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think the important thing here is that we don't get distracted by the crumbs while the cake is being consumed. The real issues are being drowned, or pushed further out into the depths, by the wake being created by the splashing along the shore.

This may have started with Sanger, but it did not end with her. Whether she was a racist or not, whether her original goal was genocide or not, is not what we should be arguing about. Each will come to their own conclusion about that. I came to my conclusion based on information gathered before the waters were muddied, and before it became a meme or a myth.

I worked in a PP clinic "1" day back in 1976. It was a requirement of my studies to do a rotation through the clinics. I was successful in getting that requirement changed or it would have been the end of my career, before I even started. I would suggest to anyone that has doubts about what used to go on, I will be happy to give you an accurate, detailed and honest report of what I experienced. I can't speak for what they do today, but I doubt that it has changed much in spirit.

The issue here is that PP has decided they wanted to take a stand in this manner to make a political point, that they will not bend to the will of this government. They are really saying that they will continue operating as planned without Federal dollars. They will use this to their advantage and they either have another plan for how to deal with the lost of funding, or they feel strongly enough about their political position that they are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


edit on 20-8-2019 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wrong, Sanger was in favor of "the eventual extermination" of certain humans.

On Paragraph 8 of the following link Sanger wrote:



The whole paragraph says this.


...
Meanwhile Birth Control, as the slogan of the movement, not only spread through the American press from coast to coast, but immediately gained currency in Great Britain. Succinctly and with telling brevity these two words sum up our whole philosophy. Birth Control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practised. It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks--those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
...

www.nyu.edu...

Again, Margaret Sanger was into "racial purity" and "getting rid of certain humans" which the KKK also hate. That's why the KKK women loved her and wanted to hear more from her...

For crying out loud in the first part of that paragraph she stated: "Birth Control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practised..." Which means Birth Control is discriminately practised, and to this day it is still being practised discriminately because they target almost 80% minority groups.




edit on 20-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Sanger a pioneer for the future... a future in which millions of innocent human lives were/are exterminated because Sanger made women believe that the unborn, and even babies and adults with disabilities, black people, and others do not deserve to live...

Sanger the pioneer who even published in her Birth Control Review the writings of nazi Ernst Rudin, the mastermind of the holocaust...

If that's the future you have envisioned, and that's the future we are heading towards to somebody stop this damn planet, I want to get off and not be a part of a program idolized by morons whom see the extermination of innocent humans as "something to look forward to..."




edit on 20-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I suspect that it might be the latter, that they believe that they continue to be the spear head of women's rights and thus must forge straight ahead despite the grasping tentacles of bygone times.
I agree that this current administration has tossed many who feel themselves to be forgers of the future into a tizzy, I feel that tizzy myself. The blatant ignorance posing as the greatest hero of all time and supported by a cadre of those who would take us back to a ''better time'' should demand proper vigilance on the part of those who vision a better future not only of the helmsman and his crew but first and foremost of they themselves.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree that by todays standards the vision of Sanger and others seems warped. It seemed warped even then. However the vision that some of them held, those eugenists who sought to have humanity take hold of humanities future were thinking in ''uncharted waters'' of how to improve the species. And indeed all to often their solutions, though possibly altruistically motivated were dramatically insufficient to bring about the world they sought to achieve.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join