The "I *Heart* Eugenics" Thread

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I suspect if I could find an affidavit which Ms. Sanger signed in her own blood swearing that she was a eugenicist, you'd find some reason to pretend that it doesn't really say what it obviously says.

you seem to have a reading comphrehension issue. should I rewrite my post in simpler terms for you?

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist -- she may have been at the forefront of the women's rights movement, but she was a eugenicist at the forefront of the women's right movement. She was a eugencist pitching a eugenicists' means to a eugencist end.

Sure, eugenicists such as Ms. Sanger and her ilk had other arguments for birth control, but reducing fertility rates of the 'feeble−minded, the mentally defective, the poverty− stricken' was always at the front and center of the plan.

I'm afraid you're the one spreading the misinformation here by denying the centrality of eugencism in Sanger's world.

you are not a very well versed person in the history of women's rights, nor of sanger.

let's see...her first writing was a column for a nyc rag titled "what every girl should know". uh, it wasn't titled "what every strong, intelligent, wealthy girl should know". it was directed to all girls, rich and poor, smart or not smart.

no eugenic philosophy there.

then there was the "the woman rebel", from wikipedia: "with the slogan "No Gods and No Masters" (and coining the term "birth control"[6][7]) and that each woman be "the absolute mistress of her own body."

let's see, if a woman is in total control "of her own body", how can there be any support for someone other than that woman deciding if she would reproduce or not? and if there is no person other than the woman making these decisions- a role critical to the philosophy of eugenics, where another person decides for the woman if she can reproduce or not- how can there be any link to a eugenic ideal in the writing? answer is there can't.

then there was the writing "what every mother should know". again, it's "every mother", not "what every genetically acceptable mother", not "what every well endowed mentally mother"....it's every mother. no eugenic thought there either.

sanger's embracing of eugenic occurred late in her career, and it was not the basis for her campaign for women's reproductive rights which began decades prior to her advocating the eugenic ideal.

nor was it the basis of the many men and women who worked in the late 1800s and early 1900s to provide women the right to sex education and access to contraceptives.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

let's see...her first writing was a column for a nyc rag titled "what every girl should know". uh, it wasn't titled "what every strong, intelligent, wealthy girl should know". it was directed to all girls, rich and poor, smart or not smart.

no eugenic philosophy there.

then there was the "the woman rebel", from wikipedia: "with the slogan "No Gods and No Masters" (and coining the term "birth control"[6][7]) and that each woman be "the absolute mistress of her own body."

She made some statement somewhere along the way that weren't unmistakeably eugenic, therefore she really wasn't a eugencist. This is your argument?

How about something else from The Pivot of Civilation(1922):

There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.

"Feeble-minded" here is a catch-all phrase commonly used by eugenicists of the day...sort of means everything from really dumb to learning disabilities to mentally retarded...anyhoo...I think it's fair to say that someone who advocates the possibility of improving the qualities of human population by discouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits is, by definition, a eugenicist.

That she may not have always made her arguments on starkly eugenic lines doesn't mean she wasn't a eugenicist, it just means she didn't always make her arguments on strictly eugenic lines.

The main point of the book-->

The great principle of Birth Control offers the means whereby the individual may adapt himself to and even control the forces of environment and heredity....Birth Control must be recognized...not "merely as the key of the social position," and the only possible and practical method of human generation, but as the very pivot of civilization. Birth Control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science. As a matter of fact, Birth Control has been accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.

Which is to say, if we can keep the dummies and darkies from breeding so much we won't have to deal with all the damn problems they create.

It's a compelling argument and she argues it well. No wonder that the eugenics movement made such headway and that Sanger was such a prominent figure....

That's not to say it isn't morally repugnant, but give the devil it's due so to speak.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Which is to say, if we can keep the dummies and darkies from breeding so much we won't have to deal with all the damn problems they create.

I think you have a bit of disconnect in your logic here, in that you are conflating birth control with abortion. Your logic implies that Sanger believed that darks and dumbs would be more likely to use birth control than, well, not dark and not dumb. The opposite would seem to be the case. If anything, birth control would seem to increase--by proportion--the amount of darkies and dumbies in the gene pool, given that whities and smarties would be more likely to avail themselves of said method.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The opposite would seem to be the case. If anything, birth control would seem to increase--by proportion--the amount of darkies and dumbies in the gene pool, given that whities and smarties would be more likely to avail themselves of said method.

Actually...Sanger was very much cognizant of this point--her first clinic was set up in Harlem. She was very much a malthusian who believed that good white folks were good white folks precisely because they kept their numbers low and (accordingly) it's necessary to make sure the darkies and dummies follow suit.

for what it's worth...this is taking my mind off the game tonight.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Actually...Sanger was very much cognizant of this point--her first clinic was set up in Harlem. She was very much a malthusian who believed that good white folks were good white folks precisely because they kept their numbers low and (accordingly) it's necessary to make sure the darkies and dummies follow suit.

for what it's worth...this is taking my mind off the game tonight.

harlem was not an african american enclave then, mostly newly landed immigrants (jews and italians, with irish as well).

your channeling of sanger seems to be defective on facts. maybe you should seek out a different clairvoyant.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

harlem was not an african american enclave then, mostly newly landed immigrants (jews and italians, with irish as well).

your channeling of sanger seems to be defective on facts. maybe you should seek out a different clairvoyant.

I think Jews, Italians, Irish, etc. were all considered different races/ethnicities then.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

She made some statement somewhere along the way that weren't unmistakeably eugenic, therefore she really wasn't a eugencist. This is your argument?

no, not at all, the point being the work done earlier had no eugenic ideals in them.

you seem to believe that somewhere I've said she wasn't a eugenist, which is not the case in her later years.

and clearly your argument is that due to sanger (and quite a few of the people in the 1920s) embracing eugenics later in life, all their work decades earlier must have been based on that philosophy.

retroactive thought? that's a new concept.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, not at all, the point being the work done earlier had no eugenic ideals in them.

Horseshit

The argument you make might have a little merit if something in her actions changed between her early career (ca 1915) and her later career (1920+), but nothing changed. That is....your argument suggests some disconnect between her early and later career - but there is no disconnect. She was pushing the same agenda and the same actions -- an agenda and actions which were entirely consistent with her avowedly eugenicist arguments presented in The Pivot of Civilation and elsewhere over her long career.

harlem was not an african american enclave then, mostly newly landed immigrants (jews and italians, with irish as well).

you might (I'm sure you don't, but you might) note that this is no way rebuts my point -- instead it reinforces my point.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Horseshit

The argument you make might have a little merit if something in her actions changed between her early career (ca 1915) and her later career (1920+), but nothing changed. That is....your argument suggests some disconnect between her early and later career - but there is no disconnect. She was pushing the same agenda and the same actions -- an agenda and actions which were entirely consistent with her avowedly eugenicist arguments presented in The Pivot of Civilation and elsewhere over her long career.

you sure like to hang your theory on "the pivot of civilization", which as has been said repeatedly came years after sanger began her campaign for sex education and the availability of contraception.

in sanger's own words from "what every girl should know":

"my object in telling young girls the truth [about reproduction] is for the definite purpose of preventing them from entering into sexual relations, whether in marriage or out of it, without thinking and knowing. Better a thousand times to live alone and unloved than to be tied to a man who has robbed her of her health or of the joy of motherhood, or welcoming the pains of motherhood...every girl should first understand herself; she should know her anatomy; she should know the epochs of a normal woman's life and the unfoldment each epoch brings; she should know the effect the emotions have on her acts, and finally she should know the fullness and richness of life when crowned by the flower of motherhood."

that is without doubt NOT the words of a person advocating the ideals of eugenics. it is a person who seeks liberty for women to be educated about sex, their reproductive system, and to be empowered to make their own decisions about childbirth.

you might (I'm sure you don't, but you might) note that this is no way rebuts my point -- instead it reinforces my point.

you mean this point?

She was very much a malthusian who believed that good white folks were good white folks precisely because they kept their numbers low and (accordingly) it's necessary to make sure the darkies and dummies follow suit.

nope, it shows that this point about "darkies" is baseless and contrary to the facts.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you sure like to hang your theory on "the pivot of civilization", which as has been said repeatedly came years after sanger began her campaign for sex education and the availability of contraception.

in sanger's own words from "what every girl should know":

"my object in telling young girls the truth [about reproduction] is for the definite purpose of preventing them from entering into sexual relations, whether in marriage or out of it, without thinking and knowing. Better a thousand times to live alone and unloved than to be tied to a man who has robbed her of her health or of the joy of motherhood, or welcoming the pains of motherhood...every girl should first understand herself; she should know her anatomy; she should know the epochs of a normal woman's life and the unfoldment each epoch brings; she should know the effect the emotions have on her acts, and finally she should know the fullness and richness of life when crowned by the flower of motherhood."

FYI, UPenn also lists "What Every Girl Should Know" as one of Sanger's 1920s+ publications, and thus clearly not indicative of anything. Link