@hightor,
I agree that Planned Parenthood is attempting genocide. It's guilty of other sins and crimes but not that one.
I don't agree however that the book is closed on Sanger, despite the official edict of Politifact
Quote:Although the eugenics movement included some who had racist ideas...
And one might have been Sanger. That she didn't display prejudice toward blacks that had already been born doesn't necessarily mean that she didn't think the world would be better off if they and their fellow blacks had not been.
Liberals are forever telling us that racism can take many forms, many of which can be subtle.
If Politico thinks the following statement somehow exonerates Sanger, I certainly don't:
Quote:Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin -- that people can -- can commit.
I don't know how you can interpret this statement in any way other than a belief that
delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, have their nature determined by their genes and that society would be better off if they were not allowed to be born. In fact, she suggested that to do so was criminal.
All sorts of things covers a very wide range of possibilities and if Mike Wallace did not follow up with her on that statement, he should have.
This one statement of hers is a far cry for the following assertion about the Eugenics agenda:
Quote:...the purpose of eugenics was to improve the human race by having people be more healthy through exercise, recreation in parks, marriage to someone free from sexually transmitted diseases, well-baby clinics, immunizations, clean food and water, proper nutrition, non-smoking and drinking.
The person who wrote it is clearly a Sanger apologist.
Sanger and the other members of the Eugenics movement may not have had a complete understanding of genetics, but they certainly knew enough not to think that behaviors like those listed would have anything but a slightly tangential effect on the gene pool.
I recently read the Nebula prize-winning novel, "Hominids" by Robert J. Sawyer. The story involves a world in a parallel universe where Neanderthals out survived Cro Magnons and developed a civilization that is roughly on par with that of the Cro Magnon civilization on our earth circa 2000.
The plot isn't exactly intriguing and the characters (particularly the Cro Magnons) are a bit one dimensional, but the virtue of the book is in the depth and detail of the Neandethal civilization Sawyer has imagined. "Hominids" is Sawyer's vehicle for not only critiquing the human civilization we currently live within but proposing a largely superior alternative.
The imagined criminal justice system of the Neaderthals is of relevance to this discussion. Every Neanderthal citizen, within a one-world society, is equipped at birth with an AI device called a
"companion" which monitors and records literally every second of an individual's life (including, somehow, video that is external to the individual) and is transmitted to a facility called
"The Alibi Archive." In this way no one can escape justice if they are guilty of a crime with which they have been charged, nor can they be convicted of a crime they have not committed.
As a result, crimes are very rare, but if any Neanderthal is convicted of a serious one (and virtually every act of violence is considered serious) there is only one punishment: the sterilization of the offender and all others who share at least half of his or her genes (parents, siblings and children).
The combination of the severity of the punishment and the cleansing of the gene pool has made violent crimes almost non-existent.
I suspect Margaret Sanger would have embraced such a system, and considering how many violent criminals have a long heritage of violent behavior in their lineage, it can be a tempting solution. Kudos to Sawyer for pointing out that for this sort of Eugenics minded solution to work innocent relations of the criminal must be punished as well. Still, the system is accepted with little to no resistance from the citizenry (any Neaderthal with libertarian notions is free to go
wild and live outside of society), but they in the past also voluntarily underwent a process of the sterilization of the least intelligent 10% of their population.
My point in relating the story of the
barasts (as the Neanderthals call themselves) is to provide an example of a society (albeit only a well-imagined one) in which Sanger would likely be very comfortable, and probably would have engineered if she could, in which assumptions and choices are not only made but revered, that for many of us are horrifying.
While it would be racist, by definition, for Sanger to believe that the human gene pool would be better off without the "ignorance, superstitions and doubts" (taken from her (in)famous letter) of "colored Negroes," she need not have reached that conclusion based on hatred or animosity.
How much separation is there in the thinking that the birth of children with the Mark of Cain is criminal and that the human gene pool would benefit from less pollution by any given race?
As for "The Letter," I'm not convinced that the infamous section referring to the
extermination of the Negro people, was an admission by Sanger that her "Negro Project" was genocide, but I am also not convinced by the arguments made by her apologists that it was an entirely benign endeavor. This is not to say that Sanger was necessarily malignant, but she would not have been the first person to embark on a malignant path for what she believed were ultimately benign reasons.