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: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: loam
Like I said, you dismissed it.

It wasn't dismissed. I pointed out, based on the OP's posting history, why your interpretation missed the mark.


And many have pointed out, based on Sanger's many writings and statements beyond this single letter, why you're innocuous interpretation of her letter in this thread may have missed the mark.



Also, even if your "you are not allowed to be as bad as us" was right, what does that even mean. How is that argument any better?


The point being made was that there is a consistent double standard of attacking conservatives based on loose historical associations to racism, while liberals with the same loose associations cry foul when it's done to them.


edit on 11-8-2019 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: loam

Look, you need to see the bigger picture. in 1939 eugenics was mainstream intellectual fodder. Darwin's theory of evolution and the catch phrases "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" were all the rage in scientific, medical and social planning circles.


"Society must look upon the germ-plasm as belonging to society and not merely to the individual who carries it."

Study and Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the Defective Germplasm in the Human Population, 1912

Q. What is the most precious thing in the world?
A. The human germ plasm.
Q. How may one's germ plasm become immortal?
A. Only by perpetuation by children.
Q. What is a person's eugenical duty to civilization?
A. To see that his own good qualities are passed on to future generations provided they exceed his bad qualities. If he has, on the whole, an excess of dysgenic qualities, they should be eliminated by letting the germ plasm die out with the individual.

American Eugenics Society, A Eugenics Catechism, 1926
www.uvm.edu...



Historically, societies did not allow deformed babies to live. Poor women and widows committed infanticide so often that cities has specific dumping grounds for dead infants. Women were getting and self administering abortions. The infant and mother mortality was high. The United States was still mistreating First Nation people and blacks, looking for ways to keep their populations segregated and small.

Margaret Sanger was a nurse, an intellectual and an activist. She saw a problem and worked within the framework of the communities that had the influence to allow her to realize her goals, to get legal birth control and reproductive education to women of all social backgrounds.

Before Pearl Harbor, American corporations were on Hitler like Trump on Putin! They loved him and his policies. Prescott Bush? I'm looking at you! Metro Goldwin Mayer, Coca Cola and Dow Chemical prospered through their aide and support of Hitler. You can criticize Sanger for reaching across the pond and consulting famous German scientists, but you'd be hypocritical not to also condemn the USA for Project Paper Clip.

As far as Sanger's written statement on not wanting "word to get out" that they may want to exterminate the negroes, I think that's being misunderstood. I believe she was trying to say that they didn't want that perception to gain traction, because birth control isn't the same as gas chambers, nor does birth control, condoms, diaphragms and spermicide specifically, equal sterilization.




Slavery was also mainstream at one point.
Racism was mainstream at one point.

It would be very interesting if you now have the position that historical context is needed when judging people. If so, I wonder if you apply that equally? Hmm. I think not.

You're right - you were busted. Now you're just being a hypocrite in trying to defend yourself.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
And many have pointed out, based on Sanger's many writings and statements beyond this single letter, why you're innocuous interpretation of her letter in this thread may have missed the mark.

My point isn't about her position but about the use of that position by the OP.


The point being made was that there is a consistent double standard of attacking conservatives based on loose historical associations to racism, while liberals with the same loose associations cry foul when it's done to them.

I never said there wasn't, which is why I am not defending the "left". I said that that point bottoms out at "you are just as bad as us".



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: loam
And many have pointed out, based on Sanger's many writings and statements beyond this single letter, why you're innocuous interpretation of her letter in this thread may have missed the mark.

My point isn't about her position but about the use of that position by the OP.


So in other words, once you brand somebody as someone you don't like, they can never be permitted to say or do anything you might agree with?
edit on 11-8-2019 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The LIE is denying SANGER's written statements she was into GENOCIDE, and YOU SUPPORT HER.

Blacks today are overrepresented in abortions.

But your attitude is "who cares".


Lovely....



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
No, that is not what I'm saying.

I am commenting on the use of the position to make a weak argument. I'm attacking the argument not the OP, although I am using the OP's posting history to give context to the argument being made and to discuss your interpretation of it.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Then I'm honestly confused.

You seem to have agreed with this statement:


originally posted by: loam
The point being made was that there is a consistent double standard of attacking conservatives based on loose historical associations to racism, while liberals with the same loose associations cry foul when it's done to them.


So that was the main assertion by the OP, followed by the Sanger example to highlight the hypocrisy.

Is your real point that you don't think Sanger was a racist? That what has been presented in this thread to that effect is a weak argument?


edit on 11-8-2019 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




The LIE is denying SANGER's written statements she was into GENOCIDE.


No. The lie is in claiming that, while Sanger never participated in, or oversaw anything that could be construed as genocide, never advocated for the killing of anybody, she was "into genocide" because of your take of an out of context sentence she wrote over 100 years ago.


Blacks today are overrepresented in abortions.


So? How is that Margaret Sanger's fault? Sanger was virulently against abortion. She died in 1966. Abortion didn't become federally legal until 1973. Other than having founded the clinic called Planned Parenthood, what does Margaret Sanger have to do with abortion?

Are you trying to say that black women are unwittingly being coerced into having abortions, that they're not smart enough to make that choice on their own? And that's Margaret Sanger's fault for introducing legal birth control in 1939?




edit on 11-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
So that was the main assertion by the OP, followed by the Sanger example to highlight the hypocrisy.

That sounds like "you are just as bad as us".

Makes no difference if Sanger was a racist or not. I was not addressing the validity of that claim one way or the other.

I thought I was pretty clear in saying that "you idolize a racist too" doesn't make any side "look" good and that it is a weak argument.

Of course, the OP saying Sanger was a "real white supremacist" undermines even that idea and shows that what they really want to say is that "they" are worse than "us".


edit on 11-8-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
/smh

When a woman is pregnant..... who doesn't want to be pregnant.....

what ever colour she is ......surely abortion is not just the 'first' choice

but the only choice


Please learn to comprehend what people write...




originally posted by: eletheia
Surely speaks for itself

Would you open a Butchers shop or a burger joint in the middle of a

vegetarian area?



wow, so you are shown the fact that the majority of abortion clinics are still targeting minorities and your response is to make some asinine and stupid joke that is not in context with the topic?



originally posted by: eletheia
Contraception does reduce abortion however lax/improper use of

such leads to pregnancy and many women particularly the uneducated? or

minority? or poor? are in that catergory? (you cant legislate for stupid)

to answer your question .......

That is where the need is?


So i am guessing you are white, you just called minorities as uneducated and stupid... That's REAL racism...



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Look, you need to see the bigger picture. in 1939 eugenics was mainstream intellectual fodder. Darwin's theory of evolution and the catch phrases "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" were all the rage in scientific, medical and social planning circles.


Progressives, as it is understood today, were the ones who were racist. Progressives were the eugenicists. They, including Hollywood, sided with Hitler. Back then you would see newspapers like the New York Times puting Hitler in a good light because of his "progressive ideas on betterment of the race."

I don't see how you would think that the party, GOP, which was funded to fight for minorities and helped end slavery would side with the progressives whom wanted "racial purity" just like Margaret Sanger wanted.


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
As far as Sanger's written statement on not wanting "word to get out" that they may want to exterminate the negroes, I think that's being misunderstood. I believe she was trying to say that they didn't want that perception to gain traction, because birth control isn't the same as gas chambers,...




Except that what you claim is not what she wrote... She was not illiterate, she knew how to write. If what you claim was true she would have written that particular letter in a better context as to what you "claim" she was trying to say. Not to mention the fact that she kept speaking about "the betterment of the race." She was into racial purity just like the nazis were, yet here you are trying to defend her and trying to claim "she meant something else."



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...nor does birth control, condoms, diaphragms and spermicide specifically, equal sterilization.


She called for "the dysgenic" which includes the disabled, the blind, the deaf, the mute, etc to have only two choices, either be sterilized, or be isolated for life from society and made to work in...concentration camps. But now you also want to claim she didn't want "certain people" sterilized?...



...
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already 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 feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

(g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
...

MY WAY TO PEACE

Feebleminded/feeble-minded/feeble minded was one of the code words used by eugenicists to talk about black people.

Margaret Sanger was a socialist and white supremacist whom incited for violence and condoned terrorism. But the last two points are for another thread.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LordAhriman

No, actually it doesn’t.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Please learn to comprehend what people write...



I'll just remind you of what has been said at least three times already in this

thread

**Man, you have twisted that letter all to suit I don't know what. Read it again. She says they can lay their cards on the table better with black doctors than white doctors. Their ignorance and superstitions. She does not call them ignorant and superstitous but rather recognizes that they have ignorance on subjects and have superstitions. All people have ignorance and superstitions.
You have taken what she said looking for racism and you have found it, but only at the expense of our own ability to see beyond your own biases.**

Perhaps you should make yourself clearer and less obscure? The hundred year

old wording of the letter's wording is put in a way that would not be used today

after all in this pc culture of today nobody uses the word 'negro' either.






I hazard a guess you have never been pregnant? ......

When a woman is pregnant.....who doesn't want to be pregnant.....
what ever colour she is
......surely abortion is not just the 'first' choice


Parenting? ^^^who doesnt want to be pregnant


Adoption? Not all its cracked up to be I have seen people interviewed who had

horrendous experiences of adoption. (The adopted daughter of film star Joan

Crawford wrote a book on her experience) but that was probably before your

time.

Whats left?



wow, so you are shown the fact that the majority of abortion clinics are still targeting minorities and your response is to make some asinine and stupid joke that is not in context with the topic?


Since when can an area be targeted for potential pregnancy's, clinics

open where the need for them is shown. The well of book themselves into

*private* clinics they don't mix with the hoi polloi.




So i am guessing you are white, you just called minorities as uneducated and stupid... That's REAL racism...


Yes......And I think your reading comprehension could do with honing.....

The tiny word *OR* makes all the difference in what you are trying to

infer I meant.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Feebleminded/feeble-minded/feeble minded was one of the code words used by eugenicists to talk about black people.


No it isn't. Sanger wanted to get birth control to white women, just as much brown and black women. Sanger didn't need to use "code", because racism was an acceptable attitude, and there were plenty of doctors writing about negro inferiority.

What was not acceptable, in those days, was discussing women's health. Under the Comstock Law, talking about birth control, even periods, was illegal. Under the Comstock Law, even doctors were not allowed to discuss birth control, and sanitary pads were like contraband. You know who else was hard core behind the Comstock Law, and had an interest in making sure women remained ignorant to birth control and had as many babies as possible? The Catholic Church.

Sanger got the Comstock Law overturned by the Supreme Court. Not a small feat! That paved the way for sex education and legal birth control.

Margaret Sanger is a hero!



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

republicans were the the majority pushing eugenic sterilization.....20 out of the 32 governors who sighned eugenic sterilization into law were republicans...eugenics was EXTREMELY popular on BOTH sides



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Sookiechacha

republicans were the the majority pushing eugenic sterilization.....20 out of the 32 governors who sighned eugenic sterilization into law were republicans...eugenics was EXTREMELY popular on BOTH sides



Present proof of your claims.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

No it isn't. Sanger wanted to get birth control to white women, just as much brown and black women. Sanger didn't need to use "code", because racism was an acceptable attitude, and there were plenty of doctors writing about negro inferiority.


Including Sanger...
In the letter in the op she shows to be racist, labeling all blacks as ignorant


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Margaret Sanger is a hero!



For true racists and those whom like you want to ignore what she actually wrote...

She was into "race purity," I guess after you have found out she was after this racist goal you are demonstrating that you are as much a racist as she was?



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Please learn to comprehend what people write...



I'll just remind you of what has been said at least three times already in this thread


From people whom, like you, keep ignoring what Sanger actually wrote.


originally posted by: eletheia
Perhaps you should make yourself clearer and less obscure? The hundred year

old wording of the letter's wording is put in a way that would not be used today

after all in this pc culture of today nobody uses the word 'negro' either.


I wasn't obscure at all, but hey I am Hispanic and a minority which you have labeled as "ignorant and stupid..."

She was a racist, and so are you.



originally posted by: eletheia
I hazard a guess you have never been pregnant? ......

When a woman is pregnant.....who doesn't want to be pregnant.....
what ever colour she is
......surely abortion is not just the 'first' choice


Parenting? ^^^who doesnt want to be pregnant


Adoption? Not all its cracked up to be I have seen people interviewed who had

horrendous experiences of adoption. (The adopted daughter of film star Joan

Crawford wrote a book on her experience) but that was probably before your

time.

Whats left?


Again, you are trying to derail the topic. Planned Parenthood 99% of the time offers abortion as the only solution to women and don't really inform them as to other choices they might have.

Not to mention that the experience of just one person, or a small minority, doesn't mean every person/couple whom want to adopt are, or will be bad parents...


originally posted by: eletheia
Since when can an area be targeted for potential pregnancy's, clinics

open where the need for them is shown. The well of book themselves into

*private* clinics they don't mix with the hoi polloi.


Yet PP is supposed to offer knowledge, condoms, contraception, etc FREE OF CHARGE, but i guess it is either not working, or PP is not really teaching people how to avoid getting pregnant...


originally posted by: eletheia
Yes......And I think your reading comprehension could do with honing.....

The tiny word *OR* makes all the difference in what you are trying to

infer I meant.



My reading comprehension is just fine. There are more whites in this country, and as a majority they are also a majority of the poor people, which means more whites don't have a college degree, and more whites don't have even a high school diploma. But you labeled minorities as being ignorant and stupid. It's already too late, you have shown your true nature.







edit on 12-8-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
nationalvanguard.org...


this is the map of the states and I corrected my number it was 19 not 20, but still 19 out of 32 the MAJORITY were republican governors who signed eugenic sterilizations into LAW




originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: Sookiechacha

republicans were the the majority pushing eugenic sterilization.....19 out of the 32 governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law were republicans...eugenics was EXTREMELY popular on BOTH sides



Present proof of your claims.

edit on 12-8-2019 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Genetic manipulation in Italy is back in trend nowadays given their vast pool of migrant DNA. The Italian highest state institutions of course wouldn't want to be "behind" when it comes to fake science. Less-so when it comes to real science. Nonetheless, the search for "Das Uebermensch" or even better "Das UeberMigrant" as a mindless religious zealot ready to serve as cannon fodder has always been strong among Armed Forces and Intelligence para-scientists.
Of course, genetic manipulations and child tortures are all kinds of barbarisms used by EU intelligence and down in Rome they always want to be on par with the BEST ! At least they are trying really hard !!!



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join