Skip to comments.Angry White Female: Margaret Sanger's Race of Thoroughbreds
Posted on 12/07/2008 7:25:46 AM PST by GonzoII
Sanger's plans for genetic cleansing for the sake of "racial health" were racist as well. She was horrified by the fertility of the immigrant "Slavs, Latins [i.e., Italians], and Hebrews," ...As for the black population in the United States, Sanger "did not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
(Excerpt) Read more at victorclaveau.com ...
Angry White Female: Margaret Sanger's Race of Thoroughbreds
BENJAMIN J. WIKER
While Planned Parenthood has been very careful to keep its founder's sexual and especially eugenic views from the light, they are a matter of public record, boldly and clearly expressed throughout Sanger's writings.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was one of the lead architects of the culture of death. Not only was she a major contributor to the liberation of sexuality from all restraint, but sexual liberation was for her part of a larger program of eugenics. While Planned Parenthood has been very careful to keep its founder's sexual and especially eugenic views from the light, they are a matter of public record, boldly and clearly expressed throughout Sanger's writings.
Sanger's dedication to the propagation and legalization of birth control was part of an overall eugenics program. Her journal, The Birth Control Review, was filled from cover to cover with the strongest and crudest eugenic propaganda. One of her favorite slogans, adorning each issue, was "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds."
For Sanger, the "lack of balance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,'" was "the greatest present menace to civilization," so that "the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." As with the other eugenicists of the early 20th century, Sanger was particularly upset by the presence of the "feeble-minded," a vague term which seemed to encompass everyone from the insane and those with nervous disorders, to those hitting low marks on the newly developed IQ tests. (By her estimate, some 70% of the population was feebleminded.)
To deal with the great "menace," Sanger advocated a new kind of philanthropy, claiming that traditional philanthropy only succeeded in making the problem worse "it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents," she said, who were "the most devastating curse on human progress and expression." True charity, by contrast, should not both coddle and perpetuate the "dead weight of human waste," but weed out these undesirables at the source through birth control. Nor did Sanger shrink from advocating the use of force if necessary: "We prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded."
Sanger's plans for genetic cleansing for the sake of "racial health" were racist as well. She was horrified by the fertility of the immigrant "Slavs, Latins [i.e., Italians], and Hebrews," and her first birth-control clinic was set up in the Brownsville section of New York City, where such racially defective immigrants predominated.
Nor was she innocent of connections to the eugenic policies of Hitler's Germany. Her Birth Control Review published numerous articles by leading American eugenicists who lavished envious praise on the Nazi eugenic programs. As for the black population in the United States, Sanger "did not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she wrote; therefore, the eugenic effort had to be carried out "through a religious appeal."
She suggested that the birth-control movement should "hire three or four colored ministers" as traveling preachers of the gospel of birth control.
Sanger's zeal as a prophet and missionary of birth control was rooted in her evolutionary beliefs. Without birth control, the "dead weight" would continually drag humanity back down the evolutionary slope. But, no less important, she believed sexuality to be a dynamic, creative power which, if released from its traditional restraints, would bring about the development of "genius," thereby allowing the "more fit" to make great leaps up that same slope.
Sanger's rather strange notion of the creation of "genius" through sexuality was based on a combination of current evolutionary thought, pop psychology and the writings of famed "sexologist" Havelock Ellis. Human beings were formed, socially and psychologically, by internal and external "forces the greatest and most imperative of which are Sex and Hunger," she claimed. While "Hunger has created 'the struggle for existence,'" the "dynamic energy" of "the great force of Sex" was the evolutionary force which created genius.
The creation of genius will only come about with the "removal of physiological and psychological inhibitions and constraints which makes possible the release and channeling of the primordial inner energies of man into full and divine expression," she wrote. "The removal of these inhibitions, so scientists assure us, makes possible more rapid and profound perceptions."
Since the release of sexual energy was creative, and therefore the repression of sexual energy was destructive, it followed, in Sanger's logic, that the traditional approach to sexuality had to be replaced. That meant, of course, the necessity of breaking down the "codes that have surrounded sexual behavior in the so-called Christian communities, the teachings of the churches concerning chastity and sexual purity, the prohibitions of the laws, and the hypocritical conventions of society."
As a consequence, Sanger became a direct opponent of Christianity, especially the Catholic faith, for the Church was the greatest obstacle opposing the release of the "dynamic energy" of sexuality, and such obstruction for Sanger was "nothing less than foolhardy."
"Instead of laying down hard and fast laws of sexual conduct, instead of attempting to inculcate rules and regulations," as the Church had done, "the teacher of Birth Control seeks to meet the needs of the people," she wrote.
What do people need?
As we have seen, the wrong sort of people need to be taught (or forced) to quit breeding altogether. The right people need to be taught "the power to control this great force" of sexual energy "to use it," she wrote, "to direct it into channels in which it becomes the energy enhancing their lives and increasing self-expression and self-development."
Sanger longed to create an earthly paradise, one in which the free expression of sexuality would replace the need for religion by creating a new religion. "Through sex," she wrote, "mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise. So must we necessarily and inevitably conceive of sex-expression."
No longer would humanity foolishly yearn for a world to come, for "in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization, already suggested, that there close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity."
Sanger not only preached this new religion; she practiced it as well. Sexual fulfillment had been, from very early on, the criterion by which she thought marriage should be judged. When marriage proved sexually unsatisfying, it should be dissolved. Even better, marriages should be "open" to sexual fulfillment elsewhere.
Following her own advise, she carried on at least six unconcealed premarital and extramarital affairs. As contemporary Mildred Dodge wrote of her: "She was the first person I ever knew who was openly an ardent propagandist for the joys of the flesh."
Even though she was an advocate of "more children from the fit, less from the unfit," she had only three children, and paid relatively little attention to them.
As her son Grant stated, "Mother was seldom around. She just left us with anybody handy and ran off we didn't know where."
Although Sanger died in 1966, her legacy lives on in Planned Parenthood. The liberation of sexuality from all traditional moral restraints is still central to its agenda, as is clear from International Planned Parenthood's recent Youth Manifesto, which states that "young people must be able to have pleasure and confidence in relationships and all aspects of sexuality." This demands that "society must recognize the right of all young people to enjoy sex and to express their sexuality in the way that they choose."
As with Sanger, contraception is the means to bring about this sexual paradise.
But with the release of sexuality from procreative ends, and making of it merely a "creative" means for "enhancing lives and increasing self-expression and self-development," abortion has become a necessity. It is no accident that Planned Parenthood is both the largest educative force for Sangerian sexuality, and the largest abortion provider. Furthermore, with the advent of prenatal screening, abortion is bringing about Sanger's eugenic "dream" of eliminating "the mentally and physically defective," "the dead weight of human waste," as she called them.
Sanger's "great spiritual illumination" did indeed "transform the world" but in such a way as to usher in not an "earthly paradise," but the culture of death.
Ben Wiker. "Angry White Female: Margaret Sanger's Race of Thoroughbreds." National Catholic Register. (June 24, 2001).
This article is reprinted with permission from National Catholic Register. To subscribe to the National Catholic Register call 1-800-421-3230.
Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA). He is now a Lecturer in Theology and Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville (OH), and a full-time, free-lance writer. Dr. Wiker writes regularly for a variety of journals, including Catholic World Report, New Oxford Review, and Crisis Magazine, and is a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. He has published three books, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (InterVarsity Press, 2002), The Mystery of the Periodic Table (Bethlehem Books, 2003), and Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius, 2004). He is currently working on another book on Intelligent Design for InterVarsity Press called The Meaning-full Universe. He lives with his wife and seven children in Hopedale, OH.
Copyright © 2001 National Catholic Register
Racism was very fashonable until the Left decided to oppose it in the 1930’s for political gain.
Sanger was right in style with her racist views.
Politics by the way will never end racism. No human force can destroy it. All the “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in the world ala 1920’s style “Prohibition” isn’t the way to go in a free country.
Since there’s always going to be racism, the racism feeds support for Planned Parenthood’s agenda of destroying human life.
That’s something the Leftist hypocites will never admit.
“Sanger was right in style with her racist views.”
Not with her eugenics views.
Has anyone ever even attempted to make a movie about this woman? Not that I think Hollyweird would let it happen. Just a thought that struck me as I read this.
Try renting the original Tarzan of the Apes movie. By today's standards quite appallingly and unashamedly racist.
Tarzan, though he can't even talk coherently, is just assumed by Jane and her associates to be far advanced over the natives, since he appears to be 100% white.
“Jane and her associates to be far advanced over the natives, since he appears to be 100% white.”
He’s like us...only different.
I don't know, I actually think a lot of people would be interested in a movie about her, it would have to be done by the right person though.
Thanks for the post. I had no clue. You could put the name Hitler in there and it would still be the same (almost).
Assuming one accepts evolutionary views, I find her logic to be impeccable. In today’s advanced societies, the most successful people have the fewest children.
Even if you don’t believe in evolution presumably you believe in heredity. Assuming a hereditary component to intelligence, which seems impossible to deny, we are most definitely breeding for lower intelligence.
The race horse equivalent would be breeding more from the race losers than the race winners. After a few generations your horses are going to be running a lot slower.
This is, BTW, the opposite of past generations. Upper class and successful people often had larger familes and due to better nutrition and medical care more of their children survived. In particular, upper-class men spread their genes widely.
Too bad she didn't leave a few decades earlier.
Well, I already knew most of this but it’s always a provocative and interesting subject. Maybe Mel Gibson should try it. They’ve already unsuccessfully attempted to take him out and he’s not getting any younger. What does he have to lose? Of course, it’s the only thing that could make that bunch crazier than any Jesus movie.
I just can’t help it!:
Don’t assume anything!;
Or you will make an ass out u and me.
See you did it!
..ass out OF u and me.
I would like to see him make a movie about the Battle of Lepanto.
Just in case there are any doubts: I AM NO RACIST!!
Take care, ugly!...............humor!
If there is any doubt about her racist views, consider this. She spoke to a group of wives of Klan members and commented on it in her writings. She was somewhat condescending about it, as most would be, and did not pretend they were paragons of intellect. But she didn’t encourage them to reduce their reproduction rates.
In other words, it’s OK for dumb white people to reproduce, but no non-whites should. She may have disguised her racism as evolution, but her actions show the truth.
She’s the Hitler of our times, in terms of eugenics. And she succeeded where he didn’t in making the vague notion of the eugenic aspect socially acceptable on a grand scale while hiding the true eugenic nature of what was going on all the while enacting the plan. And now liberated feminazis carry the torch for her. Not just carry, but storm and force it on us. Especially if we are poor or uneducated or other than white...
There was a made for TV movie about her, starring the hideous Bonnie Franklin. It was called Portrait of a Rebel, and it was broadcast in 1980.I watched it, and IMO it was over the top and (unintentionally) made Sanger look like a total insensitive bitch (she asked her husband for a divorce at their child’s funeral, etc.).
BWAHAA! Bonnie used to do the "Save the Children" commercials when I was a kid, long before Sally Struthers.
Yes she was in style with her eugenics views. Many notable people, even presidents, governors, etc. were on board with the eugenics campaign. Involuntary sterilization laws were rampant during the 19200s through the 1940’s. Many, many people were on board with the eugenics agenda.
She looks like she would fit right in with “Code Pink”.
“Many, many people were on board with the eugenics agenda.”
Not enough, witness the secrecy:
“As for the black population in the United States, Sanger “did not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...”
Ben Stein included a major segment about her and Planned Parenthood in his movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
If you want to know more, alot more, read: “America’s War Against the Weak.”
>>>>Sanger longed to create an earthly paradise, one in which the free expression of sexuality would replace the need for religion by creating a new religion. “Through sex,” she wrote, “mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise. So must we necessarily and inevitably conceive of sex-expression.”
No longer would humanity foolishly yearn for a world to come, for “in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization, already suggested, that there close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity.”<<<
Wow. If only her real views were widely broadcast.
Thanks, I’ll keep it in mind.
To tell you the truth I’ve had my fill, for now, this craziness is hard to contemplate.
You are welcome.
It is all overwhelming.
The book demonstrates quite clearly that Hitler was not an anomaly. He was part of a world-wide elitist movement that took birth in Michigan and Cold Spring Harbor during the early 20th century. Their attitudes were/are very similar to the KKK. Yet, the KKK gets smeared by the press, while the elitists get free passes.
It is an amazing, revealing book.
“He was part of a world-wide elitist movement.”
Right, “elitist”, I can not imagine that this could have come about in an overt manner as regards the general public at large, it would have been repugnant to “Joe six-pack”, right?
I don’t know. Most people succumb to social pressure pretty quickly when tested. The 20th century worldwide eugenics movement, though, was elitist, and our US Supreme Court endorsed and approved of it-using elitist language- something along the lines of: “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”(Buck v. Bell)
Buck v. Bell was nothing more than a sneak-preview of what was to come with Roe v. Wade.
More Blacks are killed in abortuaries EVERY DAY than have been killed in race-crimes (lynchings, etc.) since the end of the Civil War.
Beautiful baby and great poster. I hope it’s a billboard somewhere (or many wheres).
As her son Grant stated, "Mother was seldom around. She just left us with anybody handy and ran off we didn't know where."
Why am I NOT surprised?
They really weren’t all that secret about it. Lots of information about the Eugenics movement in the USA. Sanger was far from alone.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
In the USA, eugenic supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the National Research Council. Research was funded by distinguished philanthropies and carried out at prestigious universities. It was taught in college and high school classrooms. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood of America to urge the legalization of contraception for the lower classes. In its time eugenics was touted by some as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the realization of death camps in World War II, the idea that eugenics would lead to genocide was not taken seriously by the average American, though Sanger’s books and letters clearly outlined these ultimate social-engineering goals to include selective contraception, forced sterilization, and even forced euthanasia on “the feeble minded” or “ignorant”. If the government was not about to force such measures on women, Sanger believed it was her duty to provide these options to the ‘lesser’ of society in an effort to stay off their cycle of breeding ignorance.
Eugenics was supported by Woodrow Wilson, and, in 1907, helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals. Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.
Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded” from marrying. In 1898 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910 while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.
One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenics (before it was labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell. In 1881 Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and, through noting that congenitally deaf parents were more likely to produce deaf children, tentatively suggested that couples where both were deaf should not marry, in his lecture Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race presented to the National Academy of Sciences on 13 November 1883. However, it was his hobby of livestock breeding which led to his appointment to biologist David Starr Jordan’s Committee on Eugenics, under the auspices of the American Breeders Association. The committee unequivocally extended the principle to man. Like many other early eugenicists, Bell proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics, and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.
During the 20th century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the “passing on” of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized. All in all, 60,000 Americans were sterilized.
In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.) Though their methodology and research methods are now understood as highly flawed, at the time this was seen as legitimate scientific research. It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.
Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.
A pedigree chart from The Kallikak Family meant to show how one illicit tryst could lead to an entire generation of imbeciles.The idea of “genius” and “talent” is also considered by William Graham Sumner, a founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association). He maintained that if the government did not meddle with the social policy of laissez-faire, a class of genius would rise to the top of the system of social stratification, followed by a class of talent. Most of the rest of society would fit into the class of mediocrity. Those who were considered to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) had a negative effect on social progress by draining off necessary resources. They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society (”Folkways”, 1907).
However, methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such “anti-miscegenation” legislation was Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this law in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of “unfit” individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers. The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the “Nordic race” (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race- mixing. Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.
Anthropometry demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics conference.Various authors, notably Stephen Jay Gould, have repeatedly asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted. It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country. However, several people, in particular Franz Samelson, Mark Snyderman and Richard Herrnstein, have argued, based on their examination of the records of the congressional debates over immigration policy, Congress gave virtually no consideration to these factors. According to these authors, the restrictions were motivated primarily by a desire to maintain the country’s cultural integrity against a heavy influx of foreigners. This interpretation is not, however, accepted by most historians of eugenics.
Oregon repealed its forced sterilization law in 1983, with the last known forced sterilization having been done in 1978 .
Oh, and she assigned her husband an apartment in the house somewhere so she could entertain her “friends,” including, I believe, O. G. Wells?
If they did, they wouldn’t tell the truth about it. they did a movie on Kinsey who abused babies, and never came out with the truth. Horrible man.
Interestingly, in many way, her vision produced the opposite of what she intended. The people she would deem unfit, are reproducing at higher rates than people she would deem fit. We are contracepting ourselves out of existence, to such a degree that our politicians seem to think we need a large influx of immigrants both legal and illegal, many of whom again,Sanger would also deem unfit.
Yeah, as for the immigrant issue, I can't see how some EU countries, some day, will be able to exist without an healthy influx of immigrants. -Of course unless there is a “Baby boom”.
Sanger was a slut, too!?
Well, this is exactly correct...it just doesn't have anything in particular to do with race. ;)
Does this surprise you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.