Margaret Sanger a Racist or Not?

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Fugazi, Jul 31, 2015.

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    116,478
    Likes Received:
    44,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Margaret Sanger a Racist or Not? "

    it's like asking if our founders were racists or not

    or if the writers of the bible were racist or not

    .
     
  2. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually you are wrong, the method employed by Nazi Germany is what was discredited, not eugenics itself. Neither does your dismissal of her 1945 interview explain her stance against Nazi Germany in 1939, neither does your dismissal prove anything other than your need, yet again, to adhere to your confirmation bias.

    already answered numerous times, repeating the question will not change the answer.

    Prove that she did, show me any correspondences or meeting minutes where Sanger appoints him.

    - - - Updated - - -

    already answered, why don't you read the exchanges instead of asking questions that have already been answered?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I have no idea, do you?
     
  3. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no I do not, stop attempting to put words into my mouth .. Sanger advocated Eugenics, that does not imply or equate to her being a racist, your misrepresentation, out of context quotations, lies and zealous need to confirm your bias is plain to see.

    She fought AGAINST the Comstock Act. please do your research.
     
  4. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing in the item you have linked to shows any form of racism from Sanger.
     
  5. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Firstly if you are going to respond to me then quote me, to not do so is just impolite.

    I explained the reason, the fact you ignore it makes me question your honesty.

    In an isolated indecent people as assuming the same of Trump as you do of Sanger, what it requires is further examples of things they have said to confirm such assumptions, we have that for Trump, not so for Sanger. To base an accusation of racism on a single item is disingenuous to say the least.


    Actually no I didn't go out of my way, I didn't need to, and none of those sources you cite give any evidence to their assertion .. show me the evidence that it was Sanger who asked Stoddard or appointed him.
     
  6. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except that there is nothing that points to Sanger being racist.
     
  7. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you even read the source? Clearly not. Eugenics around the time of the formation of the American Birth Control League was focused the the differences of the races and in particular how the colored races were inferior to the Nordic races and the Asiatic races. Eugenics didn't even switch to genetics till the 1960s.

    It clearly states that Margaret Sanger went out of her way to link the eugenics movement and the birth control movement together.

    You and your desperate crusade of defending Sanger are fooling absolutely no one. You don't get to appoint a nationally published racist to your board of directors of your organizaton and continuously court and try and combine forces with a movement that determined that colored races were inferior to whites and a lesser extent Asians. If she wasn't a racist then she wouldn't have appointed Stoddard nor would she have courted the eugenics movement which was overwhelmingly a racist movement especially at this point in time.

    You are fooling absolutely no one.
     
  8. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not attempting to fool anyone, unlike you with your guilt by association and assuming the premise fallacies. When you can show me that Sanger endorsed Eugenics as a race based ideology you might have something, until then you have nothing but your own desire for confirmation bias, and yet again you make a claim you cannot substantiate, show me in correspondences or meeting minutes where Sanger appointed Stoddard.

    The simple fact of the matter is you, and your ilk, have nothing that shows Sanger was racist, not a single word from her that you do not have to misrepresent, take out of context or lie about.

    Oh and by the way I read ALL sources provided, something people like you would do well to follow. Anyone can make a naked claim, which is what ALL your sources do. Ultimately, a little research effectively proves the far-right's obsession with demonizing Margaret Sanger seems to have a lot less to do with her attitudes about race than the fact that she founded Planned Parenthood, an organization they have long attempted to dismantle. Sanger fought the inherently misogynistic and racist attitudes of her day to support the intersection of women of colour and women in poverty, and that's arguably more than a lot of her conservative political critics can say.

    Sanger was many things, she was not however a racist.
     
  9. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    furthermore, even IF you could prove that Sanger appointed Stoddard (which so far your cannot) it still does not equate to her being racist, to assume she is based on that flimsy so called "evidence" is still a guilt by association fallacy .. what you and others like you have to do is provide evidence where Sanger herself endorses Eugenics based on race and I know you cannot do that as there is nothing to show it.

    All you have, and all you have ever had, is guilt by association and assuming the premise fallacies.
     
  10. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://books.google.com/books?id=5...toddard american birth control league&f=false

    Another book. In fact that book somes it up better than I did. It is PDF so you will have to read it there because I can't copy/paste but its all there on the first page and the relevant stuff is highlighted for you. She appointed Stoddard and others to her board. She published their works and she fraternized with racists constantly. She tried to build ties between her organization and racist eugenics organizations.

    If one of the Presidential candidates hired the guy in charge of Stormfront to be their internet PR manager that would mean that they are fine with racist views of Stormfront. Racism is something you either oppose or support, there is no middle ground on that issue. She hired and published racists herself.
     
  11. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The book is wrong, there is no article from Stoddard in any of the Birth Control Reviews in 1933 - check for yourself

    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-01 January.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-02 February.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-03 March.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-04 April.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-05 May.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-06 June.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-07 July.pdf
    There was no editions of The Birth control Review published in Aug or Sept of 1933
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-10 October.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-11 November.pdf
    http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-12 December.pdf

    Harry Laughlin has one article included in the Birth Control Review as follows

    April 1933 - Eugenical Aspects of Legal Sterilization - Page 87, nothing in that article mentions specific races - http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth Control Review/1933-04 April.pdf

    The article by Rudin starts off with the following - "THE following essay 1s concerned only with sterillzatlon as a voluntary practice, that is, when undertaken with the consent of the patient himself or his statutory guardians" and again there is nothing in that article that points to a specific race, what Rudin became after this article was published has no bearing on whether Sanger was racist. (emphasis is mine)

    There is an expert review of the book you have linked to as follows;

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajh/summary/v092/92.3goldman.html

    It notes that " Michael's book would give the reader unfamiliar with the topic a distorted picture of American Jewish history"

    The so called book you have cited as evidence, firstly is wrong in it's assertion that Stoddard contributed to ANY of the 1933 Birth Control Reviews, he did not. Secondly the article by Laughlin contains NOTHING aimed at a specific race, thirdly the article by Rudin deals primarily with sterilization on a voluntary basis, and again has nothing in it that points to a specific race and finally the expert review of the book you cited calls into question how unbiased the book actually is.

    The repeated assertion that Sanger appointed Stoddard is again a naked claim, it gives no evidence to support it and as such can be treated as nothing more than an opinion of the writer, along with pretty much everything else on that page.

    Again you are just creating a guilt by association and assuming the premise fallacy, what matters is the persons actual statements, either in writing or speaking, that show racism.

    Sanger was generally quiet on racism, though when she did speak of it she showed without exception that she deplored it. I doubt very much if prominent "black" leaders of her time would have worked with her if there was any suspicion of her being racist.

    IF one of the Presidential candidates hired the guy in charge of Stormfront to be their internet PR manager I would certainly look upon it as a misguided thing to do, I would not assume that the candidate was racist, I would research the things they had said and done in order to see if there were any racist items among them, I would not assume the premise that because the candidate appointed this person who is racist that they must also be racist, neither would I assume their guilt simply because of the association .. furthermore you have yet to produce anything credible to show that Sanger did, in fact, appoint Stoddard, your scenario above quite specifically states that the candidate appoints the guy in charge of Stormfront.

    Perhaps my required level of evidence is higher than yours before I start accusing others.
     
  12. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Literally took me five seconds to google.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=q...birth control review lothrop stoddard&f=false

    It didn't go unnoticed that you had to literally pick 1933 as a year. Nice try but everyone saw through it immediately. This is just amateurish at this point.

    And I forgot if you were STILL denying that Sanger appointed Stoddard to the board so I found this not long ago. Just one more thing to throw on my GINORMOUS pile of evidence.

    http://www.amazon.com/Rising-Color-Against-White-World-Supremacy/dp/1410208168

    Regarding the Stormfront thing I would agree with you IF the candidate fired them after it was made public. The problem with Sanger is that she knew about Stoddard and the other racists and she actively sought out their support. Once again if someone is constantly seeking out the help and publishing the works of and appointing to their board of directors a nationally known racist you don't get to play the "But I don't really agree with him" card. Its collusion and people that colluded with Nazi's during WW2 were shot for doing less.
     
  13. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suggest you actually read the sources you cite.

    Your source as follows - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...toddard american birth control league&f=false - states the following "In 1933, Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Review published a special edition devoted entirely to Eugenics, with contributions from Dr. Lothrop Stoddard ... "

    What was it you were saying about being "amateurish", the only thing "amateurish" here is the fact you don't even read what you claim as evidence.

    I did not say Stoddard did not contribute to the Birth Control Review, merely that he did not contribute any articles in 1933 which is what your very own source claims . .try a little harder to actually read what you cite in future, it will make you look a little less "amateurish"

    Stoddard actually contributed just one article to The Birth Control Review and that was not in 1933

    Please do quote where I deny Sanger appointed Stoddard, all I have done from the very start of this is to ask you to provide proof that she did and what do you do,
    yet again, is to produce another naked claim with no evidence to support it, you just keep doing the same things over and over again, it doesn't change the reality that so far you have nothing that factually supports your opinion, content as you are to rely on guilt by association, naked claims and assuming the premise.

    It's noticed that you evaded the fact that NONE of the articles cited in the link YOU provided have anything to do with targeting a specific race.
     
  14. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The book was clearly wrong then as you say. Bad source and a poor author.

    I will even give you a chance to defeat me on the issue of Lothrop Stoddard being appointed to the board of directors. Since I couldn't find a specific year for when she appointed Stoddard and you found a complete archive of all the issues, if you want to go through all of the different publications for every month and every year and you don't find Lothrop Stoddard's name then I will do a complete mea culpa. I assume that someone else will also do that as well so there will be checks and balances. I just can't be bothered to read all that old timey print. I didn't see a listing of the board of directors for 1917 so you can probably skip that but I did see them listed in 1940 so at some point they did start listing the officers and the board.

    While those pages are most likely microfiche and probably not tampered with, I am not entirely sure that "Lifedynamics" is a really trustworthy site.
     
  15. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why did Margaret Sanger generally oppose abortions?
     
  16. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you

    Stoddard was certainly appointed to the board of directors of that there is no doubt, what I am trying to establish is who asked him and who (or whom) appointed him, so far my research does not give any indication as to who (or whom) that was. I see many naked claims that it was Sanger but nothing that confirms it. So in essence I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that there is no evidence (as far as I can find) to support that she was the one who appointed him.

    What I am waiting for is a reply to an email I have sent to The New York University who run and maintain this site - https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/search.php as to whether they have any information regarding who nominated and who appointed Stoddard. If it comes back that it was Sanger then I will have no issue with citing that email here and conceding that it was her .. however, I will add to that-that even if it does come back that she appointed him that does not mean that she was herself a racist, after extensive research I can find nothing in any of her writings that shows her Eugenic ideology was directed at a specific race.. I find plenty that shows it was extreme discrimination against disabled, ill educated people .. but nothing that shows it was directed at a specific race.

    As far as I am aware the copies of the Birth Control Review kept on that site are true, unaltered copies of the actual papers produced at that time.

    The reason I use Lifedynamics for those citations is that it is a pro-life site and as such is a lot less likely to be accused of bias by pro-life people, in fact if anything they would be more inclined to change things to suit their own ideology.
     
  17. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What has that got to do with the accusation of her being a racist?
     
  18. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had the opposite response about that site. I immediately went into "red flag" mode and my concern was that they might alter it to make it look more like she was racist. I like to win arguments but not if they are wrong.

    Please do post what the New York University says. Cheers. :smile:
     
  19. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    normally I would as well, I try to source my information from sites that don't have a bias .. but in this instance lifedynamics seem to have the most complete records of Sangers works (there are others such as the NYU but it is not as complete), and I have fallen into the trap of having my sources questioned by pro-lifers because they have seen them as biased, using a pro-life site, as far as Sanger is concerned, heads off that questioning before it begins.

    I certainly will regardless of how they reply.
     
  20. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why did Margaret Sanger generally oppose abortions?
     
  21. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What has that got to do with the accusation of her being a racist?
     
  22. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why did Margaret Sanger organize her Negro Project as a separate organization from her Birth Control League?
     
  23. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    already answered . .repeating the question does not change the answer.

    BTW The Negro Project was part of the Birth Control League. The Birth Control League was involved in many projects to educate people (especially women) on the advantages of birth control.

    Another point you always try to gloss over, Sanger had nothing to do with the actual running of The Negro Project, she instigated it's start and helped source it's initial funding after that it was removed from her control. Public Health Services at that time were mostly segregated.
     
  24. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What posts are you referring to?

    You seem very knowledgeable about all things dealing with abortion and birth control. What caused your focus on those subjects. By the way, let's see your proof that the Negro Project was part of Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League.

    Inter Alia.

    Why did Margaret Sanger come up with the name "The Negro Project" instead of simply calling it the Birth Control League?
     
  25. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pretty much every single thread you bring the question up in.

    none of your business

    The Negro Project, instigated in 1939 by Margaret Sanger, was one of the first major undertakings of the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA), the product of a merger between the American Birth Control League and Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/bc_or_race_control.php

    It was it's primary goal.

    You tell me, you seem to think you know all the answers. Though I suspect it was called that simply to show it was a project designed to help Negro's.
     

Share This Page