(August 15, 2016 at 11:24 am)Esquilax Wrote:
Continuing to defend Sanger are we? Let me address one of your earlier points directly.
(August 14, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and by the way, did you just skip over the earlier parts of the article, about how even people critical of Sanger don't hold that she was a racist?I believe you meant this:
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/...cans-shou/
Quote: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."
Let me give you a lesson in what constitutes misrepresentation. Starting at 32:57
Quote:Margaret Sanger was a famous eugenicist. You have to understand this was not just a movement of a of a couple weird guys this was entrenched national policy, and this was embraced and advocated by the by the power structure in the United States.
All the presidents of the of the United States; Theodore, Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, FDR, Harding and in the case of Margaret Sanger there is of course a huge controversy as to whether she is a racist or not a racist or anything of that nature, and the documentation shows that Margaret Sanger was not a racist but she was a bigot.
She was not a nazi or any kind of a Jew hater but she surrounded herself with the greatest Nazis and Jews haters in the United States, people so virulent they got to fan mail from Adolf Hitler and she did want to save humanity but only the top 30 percent, and so terms like human waste and human weeds populated her speeches and her publications as she tried to relieve the teeming masses by ensuring that they stop teaming.
So while it's true that Edwin Black said she was not a "racist" he did say she was a bigot, which was conveniently left out of that article.
What was it you said again...
(August 14, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, I have to ask: are you an idiot? Or are you deliberately lying by omission, skipping through everything else in the article and then taking one quote in the least charitable light possible? A light that, by the way, the article itself does not share?*emphasis mine*
Edwin goes on to say that Sanger only wanted to save the top 30 percent of humanity. Tell me how many black people do you think were in the top 30 percent in that era? :thinking:
Furthermore the article fully acknowledges Sanger was a eugenicist, which after world war two was considered a crime against humanity.
http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/encyc...dda4000001
Quote:GENOCIDE
The United Nations adopted a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. Under this Convention, genocide consists of certain enumerated act that, when committed, have the intent of destroying a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, in whole or in part. Of the enumerated acts that appear under Article II, (a) Killing members of the group can include the committal of murder or its equivalent; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group can include mutilation, torture or other forms of violence which might lead to death, as well as the intentional causing of mental suffering by methods that do not impair physical health, whether through narcotics or other means; © Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group, in whole or in part; prohibits the imposition of conditions which are likely to result in death; (d) Imposing measures to prevent births within the group encompasses castration, compulsory abortion, sterilization and the segregation of sexes; and (e) Forcibly transferring children from one group to another where they might be instilled with alien customs, languages, religions and values is considered the corollary to the prevention of births, and is tantamount to the eradication of the next generation. To carry out practices that fall under one or all of these enumerated acts can constitute genocide under international law.
Quote:Claims of genocide have been made by other groups who have been described as racially inferior and subject to violence and/or coercive interventions because of their group membership. However, because these instances are not always accompanied by the killing of large numbers of civilians, or because the intent to destroy the group as such is sometimes difficult to prove, they are not necessarily acknowledged as instances of genocide. For example, an element of the Black population in the United States has alleged genocide in response to state and other attempts at regulating the reproduction of African American women (see Weisborg 1975), attempts which were legitimized by the eugenics movement. For instance, out of approximately 7000 sterilizations performed under the eugenic sterilization policies enacted in North Carolina between the 1930s to the 1970s, about 5000 of these were performed on Black women. Other initiatives, like the Negro Project, which sought specifically to distribute birth control in African American communities, are often said to have been motivated by eugenic concerns or efforts to control the population of those considered a burden to the state. Policies like these are viewed as attempts to impose measures to prevent births within the group.
