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: 11
39
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
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.


What you are arguing is that "by today standards the vision of Hitler and others seem warped..." You keep on making excuses to an abhorrent and evil woman and her evil vision. There isn't much difference between Sanger's vision and Hitler's vision... The only difference is that while Hitler's vision was stopped, although a bit too late for millions of people, Sanger's own approach to that vision is still alive today and millions of people are on board with her vision out of ignorance, and even unwillingness to accept the fact that her vision is just as evil as Hitler's own vision of the future...






edit on 21-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Aug, 21 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't think I am making excuses Electric, just attempting to understand more completely the mentality of that time. If you read my post again you will see that i understand their thinking to be at least insfuffiencent to achieve what postitive goals there may have been.

I guess that unlike you seem to think, I don't buy the simplicity of putting it all on the being evil. Some today put all of Trumps stuff on him being evil, yet I do not hold to that either. His recent notion looking into buying Greenland is being touted as stupid yet to me it was simply him trying to think outside of current boxes, not stupid and not evil. I see Sanger in the same manner, not evil, just wrong.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There are no positive goals in wanting to segregate and or sterilize people for having disabilities...
There are no positive goals in wanting to eventually exterminate people either for the color of their skin, their disabilities, for being poor, or for their political leanings...


...
Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.
...
We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. We hold that the world is already over-populated. Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state.'
...

www.nyu.edu...

Like Hitler Sanger thought that women's first duty was to the state, and in her mind the duty of a woman to herself is her duty to the state. She did not believe in granting women certain rights. She in fact even wrote about taking away the right of women and men to procreate and instead they could only procreate if they had the go ahead of the state. She wanted to take rights from everyone, including women, whom were/are disabled. She wanted "race purity" and as I have written before, with evidence, she only wanted ONE race. It wasn't "the human race." There was nothing humane about Margaret Sanger and her ideas/goals.

There are no positive goals in wanting the same goals as Hitler...

Did you know that Margaret Sanger even wrote that it was okay to not only use violence but as to use terrorism as well and even to murder people whom disagree/d with her political views?...


Margaret Sanger, "Tragedy," July 1914.

Published article. Source: The Woman Rebel, Vol. 1, No. 5, July 1914, p. 33 , Margaret Sanger Microfilm C16:547 .

TRAGEDY

Even if dynamite were to serve no other purpose than to call forth the spirit of revolutionary solidarity and loyalty, it would prove its great value. For this expression of solidarity and loyalty and of complete defiance to the morality of the masters, in a time of distress and defeat and death, is the most certain sign of that strength and courage which are the first essentials to victory. On July 4th, three revolutionists, Caron, Berg and Hanson, were killed by the explosion of dynamite--sacrificed because of their willingness to risk life for their convictions. This tragedy created a wonderful spirit of loyalty and solidarity among their comrades. It ought to have awakened the same spirit among all those who advocate the overthrow of the present system--at least among those agitators and leaders who urge direct and revolutionary tactics against the master class.
...
If the so-called revolutionary labor movement must justify its actions at the bar of the very public opinion and morality that have created and sustained laws against labor, it is a wishywashy, milk-and-watery, weakneed movement at best. If it cannot accept as possible and inevitable and valuable among its ranks such men as Berg, Caron and Hanson--if, in short, it is not moving in the direction of REVOLUTION, it is time for us to build up a movement that is.

www.nyu.edu...

She was praising 3 "revolutionaries" that were planting bombs to murder Rockefeller. Although I am against a lot of things Rockefeller did I do not condone any violence against such people. Ironically the Rockefellers later embraced Margaret Sanger's ideas and to this day are furthering the ideas of Sanger, such as sterilization of poor people in third world countries.

I have given in this thread direct evidence that shows Margaret Sanger was an evil, and uncompassionate woman.


edit on 22-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As I have mentioned somewhere else in this thread, my small knowledge of Sanger was gleaned from the popular myths about her. Your posts along with others intelligently presented have helped me to entertain opposing views and find these concerns valid. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

As I have mentioned somewhere else in this thread, my small knowledge of Sanger was gleaned from the popular myths about her. Your posts along with others intelligently presented have helped me to entertain opposing views and find these concerns valid. Thank you.


I'd like to commend you on your open attitude to looking at things 3 dimensionally

prepared to look at things that are sometimes 'lost in translation' ......


Although the eugenics movement included some who had racist ideas, wanting to create some sort of master race, "only a minority of eugenicists" ever believed this, according to Ruth Engs, professor emerita at the Indiana University School of Public Health and an expert in the movement.
At the time that Sanger was active, Engs wrote, "the purpose of eugenics was to improve the human race by having people be more healthy through exercise, recreation in parks, marriage to someone free from sexually transmitted diseases, well-baby clinics, immunizations, clean food and water, proper nutrition, non-smoking and drinking."


With todays technology every woman could be considered an eugenicists as

scans can throw up heredity diseases and deformaties and she has the choice

to terminate or not, it is her choice and not imposed on her by some

medic intent on a 'super race.' I for one am grateful for the choice of not

having to inflict a life of suffering on another human.


Sanger was indeed a birth control activist, which means that she wanted women to be able to avoid unwanted pregnancies. She worked for women of all classes and races to have that choice, which she believed to be a right.
Jean H. Baker, author of Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion, said Sanger actually opposed prejudice.

Sanger "was far ahead of her times in terms of opposing racial segregation," wrote Baker, a history professor at Goucher College, in an email. She worked closely with black leaders to open birth control clinics in Harlem and elsewhere."


Some people would call that racially motivated and targeting minorities and poor areas




Even authors who treat Sanger critically don’t believe she held negative views about African-Americans. Edwin Black wrote a comprehensive history of the eugenics movement, War Against the Weak, and is no fan of the activist’s beliefs. Ultimately, though, he writes, "Sanger was no racist. Nor was she anti-Semitic."


Finally, in 1966 Planned Parenthood gave its Margaret Sanger award to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The civil rights leader accepted, and sent his wife, Coretta, to accept. The speech he wrote for the occasion stated that ""There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."

Sanger was still alive at that point, and her history and statements were well known (she had published an autobiography in 1938 and was never shy about sharing her opinions). If she had, in fact, been a supporter of eliminating black people, it’s doubtful King would have accepted that award.



www.politifact.com...






edit on 23-8-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Now THIS is more in line with my own limited understanding of not only her life and work but the overall development of explorations into harnessing human potentials. This has been for me at least that historically we have lived by the whims of nature coming and going, migrating and settling according to environmentally driven needs for survival.

For me, our goal is consciousness. I think that we are far short of that goal, even now. Yet our understanding of how to promote humanity in a fuller expression of our potentials is being laid out before us as we speak. Our psychologies, our neuro-sciences, our comprehension of social groupings are bringing us to a fuller understanding of how we work.

It's been my take that we could be the masters of our own destiny rather than merely a product of environmental forces. That somehow a threshold has been crossed and that to go on blindly without grasping the reigns of our own futures is tantamount to self inflicted genocide.

If, as many hold to be the case, we are products of ages long unconscious reproduction yet have come, as other species seem to have not, to the realization that this course of unconscious evolution has a dead end looming before us, then it should be mandatory that we begin to take conscious action to prepare ourselves for that future.

The thing about that though is that that can so easily be seen as elitist. And in seeing it as elitist, pioneers in the fields of human behavior and development can also be seen as elitist. And in that I applaud those who are concerned about her and those like her. There are after all plenty of historical examples of elitism and it's tendency to squash anyone that displeases it.

Politically I think that elitism infects both sides of the of the political spectrum yet both sides are almost blindly concerned with the elitism of the other side while almost being blind to it on their own. I don't know, I 'm just trying here to stretch my thinking a little more. That is why I try to see both sides, to see from a 3d perspective, because in the past I have been drawn into the farther reaches of both ends of the political spectrum only to find that both are cul-de-sacs of mental stagnation.

So thanks for listening and again thank you for a well placed addition to this thread. Some times I think that there is just to much to think about but you know what? What else are we going to do.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia
The only class I ever failed in my entire life time of studies was "Statistics". I was thrown out of the class because I felt that it was just a tool to push whatever you wanted someone to believe. I showed on numerous occasions how the same set of statistics could be manipulated to prove and disprove the same point. My professor became as frustrated with me as I was with him and barred me from his class.

History is exactly that. His story. Even the truth can be manipulated to make others believe the story you are telling. I am not pushing any agenda. The past is gone. It cannot be undone. We can learn from it and hopefully prevent repeating it, but only if we continue to move forward and not let ourselves get stuck in the whitewashing, sugar coating, and the deliberate obfuscation.

It would be wonderful if everything came in pure black and white. It does not. Almost everything falls along a spectrum, and depending on where you are standing, we will all look at the same thing and see or hear something different. You hear Yanny. I hear Laurel, and the world keeps going around and around.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The problem with man is that he is not always as intelligent as he thinks he is. Nature responds to elements and changes on our planet that may take us centuries to even become aware of. We are always "finding" "new" organisms, and I laugh at our ignorance and pride. An element, a life form, that has been around millions of years is accidentally discovered, and we proudly name it after ourselves and think that we have accomplished something.

We can't protect future generations by reproductive selection. All those imperfect lifeforms that they want to destroy may just be the link to the necessary mutations to ensure our survival on this ever changing planet. For all of those that believe in evolution, it would be ridiculous for them to also believe in selective genetics.

Wiping out the imperfect may be the destruction of all human life in the distant future. Nature has done an excellent job of adapting the species to survive conditions that we aren't even aware of. What makes us believe that we can do a better job? Especially since we have managed to screw up almost everything we touch.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

so then, I guess we should do away with our healthcare system and let nature get at it then!! matter or fact, I kind of doubt if nature has as much influence on us when it comes to evolution as it did when we were living in caves and vulnerable to all of nature's elements.
for some reason, I don't think that allowing women to have control over their reproductive systems via birth control is really hindering our evolution as much as the ability to overcome nature's forces have.
what is done is enabled women to remain healthy as well has have healthier children.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I think you are looking at it from a shorter view point then I am. It is not my goal to encourage or discourage anyone from thinking or doing whatever they please. My comments are intended to shed a little light in the corners that most overlook or ignore.

We do live in a vacuum and the Butterfly Effect has more validity than we want to believe. Even if the impact we make on our planet and species will not always show its immediate affect, much like fossil fuels, massive forest destruction, and genetics. The long term effect will be felt, even if we are not around to feel it.

About 10 years ago it was mandatory that all working in medical facilities attend an emergency class in the proper way to dispose of medical waste. For decades we simply washed them down the sink or flushed them in the toilet. Years later we found out that larger and larger amounts pf these medicines were being detected in our drinking water. Birth control pills were at the top of that list.

Again, my comments are not an attempt to change your mind or your beliefs, and you are free to disagree or reject anything that I post. I will not be angry with you. I am so used to it.

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

was it the estrogen from birth control, or the pollutants that are so similar to estrogen that are turning male fishies into female fishies?
I don't know how much of an effect the estrogen from birth control pills are actually having, or weather it is any greater than it would have been when all the women peeing in the same river that their villages were drinking from... because yes, women have a natural source of estrogen and it more than likely is present in their pee.

I do know that women using birth control as a means to space their children further apart has resulted in a decrease of birth defects since it gives their body time to build their iron levels back up and the level of iron, or lack of it, is links to some birth defects. healthier women, healthier kids...



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Ahh, so ignore what Margaret Sanger HERSELF wrote and instead accept the views of liberals whom agree with her and misrepresent whom she actually was and what she wanted... How convenient...

Margaret Sanger was an eloquent speaker which is part of the reason to this day millions of people still believe she wanted to help women, but I wonder, did MLK actually read her magazine? Did he know she spoke to KKK women whom kept inviting Sanger? I doubt it since back then there was no internet and getting information about Margaret Sanger was passed by word of mouth, unless you had all her Birth Control Review magazines, and the letters she wrote you would believe every word her followers told you about her.

Margaret Sanger was born in 1879 and died in 1966. MLK was born in 1928 (49 years after Sanger was born) and was assassinated in 1968. MLK most probably had no idea about what Sanger wrote and instead he believed the claims that "she wanted to help women and the poor" when in fact she wanted to help "the race," "her race" meanwhile she wanted the segregation and/or the sterilization of disabled people, poor people, minorities including women, and she wanted to get rid of the "unfit" which Hitler and the nazis also wanted...





edit on 23-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: eletheia

Ahh, so ignore what Margaret Sanger HERSELF wrote and instead accept the views of liberals whom agree with her and misrepresent whom she actually was and what she wanted... How convenient...
Margaret Sanger was an eloquent speaker which is part of the reason to this day millions of people still believe she wanted to help women, but I wonder, did MLK actually read her magazine? Did he know she spoke to KKK women whom kept inviting Sanger? I doubt it since back then there was no internet and getting information about Margaret Sanger was passed by word of mouth, unless you had all her Birth Control Review magazines, and the letters she wrote you would believe every word her followers told you about her.
Margaret Sanger was born in 1879 and died in 1966. MLK was born in 1928 (49 years after Sanger was born) and was assassinated in 1968. MLK most probably had no idea about what Sanger wrote and instead he believed the claims that "she wanted to help women and the poor" when in fact she wanted to help "the race," "her race" meanwhile she wanted the segregation and/or the sterilization of disabled people, poor people, minorities including women, and she wanted to get rid of the "unfit" which Hitler and the nazis also wanted...



I have no intentions of going around in ever increasing circles and contortions

like you have been doing on the subject of Margaret Sanger. I have made my

feelings on the subject quite clear........You can't compare the 'yesteryear'

by the standards of today




Apples to oranges? I'll just leave this on the thread from about the same period.



Al Jolson May 26, 1886 – October 23, 1950) was an American singer,
comedian, and actor. At the peak of his career, he was dubbed "The
World's Greatest Entertainer".




Final Black and White Minstrel Show. Other than the brief opening title, this is
a complete off-air recording broadcast on BBC 1, Friday July 21st 1978. The
programme had aired on the BBC for over twenty years, with UK viewing figures
peaking at over 20 million



IT WASNT OFFENSIVE THEN?.......IT IS NOW



edit on 25-8-2019 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
she spoke kkk women.....about BIRTH CONTROL...so did she teach them/give them birth control???? if so did they have fewer children??? fewer children meant fewer children to grow up to become kkk members...How is that a bad thing????"??




originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: eletheia

Ahh, so ignore what Margaret Sanger HERSELF wrote and instead accept the views of liberals whom agree with her and misrepresent whom she actually was and what she wanted... How convenient...

Margaret Sanger was an eloquent speaker which is part of the reason to this day millions of people still believe she wanted to help women, but I wonder, did MLK actually read her magazine? Did he know she spoke to KKK women whom kept inviting Sanger? I doubt it since back then there was no internet and getting information about Margaret Sanger was passed by word of mouth, unless you had all her Birth Control Review magazines, and the letters she wrote you would believe every word her followers told you about her.

Margaret Sanger was born in 1879 and died in 1966. MLK was born in 1928 (49 years after Sanger was born) and was assassinated in 1968. MLK most probably had no idea about what Sanger wrote and instead he believed the claims that "she wanted to help women and the poor" when in fact she wanted to help "the race," "her race" meanwhile she wanted the segregation and/or the sterilization of disabled people, poor people, minorities including women, and she wanted to get rid of the "unfit" which Hitler and the nazis also wanted...








top topics



 
39
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join