This week continues with a series of posts examining the anthropological assumptions and philosophical underpinnings of Margaret Sanger’s world view. It is every bit as unrelenting and unsparing as her Planned Parenthood.
One of the commenters in the comboxes challenged Sanger’s treatment here, suggesting that the scholarship being done at NYU ought to merit serious consideration. The reader went on to challenge another reader for not being an ‘expert’ in matters pertaining to Sanger.
One need not be expert in order to see Sanger for the wretched creature that she was. One need only consider her words in context. Her famous book, The Pivot of Civilization is available as a PDF online.
Margaret Sanger in her own words:
Page 28
Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism. It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease.
Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the «failure» of philanthropy, but rather at its success.
Page 29
Statistics now available also inform us that more than a million dollars are spent annually to support the public and private institutions in the state of New York for the segregation of the feeble−minded and the epileptic. A million and a half is spent for the up−keep of state prisons, those homes of the «defective delinquent.» Insanity, which, we should remember, is to a great extent hereditary, annually drains from the state treasury no less than $11,985,695.55, and from private sources and endowments another twenty millions. When we learn further that the total number of inmates in public and private institutions in the State of New York−− in alms−houses, reformatories, schools for the blind, deaf and mute, in insane asylums, in homes for the feeble−minded and epileptic−− amounts practically to less than sixty−five thousand, an insignificant number compared to the total population, our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste.
Organized charity is thus confronted with the problem of feeble− mindedness and mental defect. But just as the State has so far neglected the problem of mental defect until this takes the form of criminal delinquency, so the tendency of our philanthropic and charitable agencies has been to pay no attention to the problem until it has expressed itself in terms of pauperism and delinquency. Such «benevolence» is not merely ineffectual; it is positively injurious to the community and the future of the race.
Page 31
This rapid survey is enough, I hope, to indicate the manifold inadequacies inherent in present policies of philanthropy and charity. The most serious charge that can be brought against modern «benevolence» is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. Philanthropy is a gesture characteristic of modern business lavishing upon the unfit the profits extorted from the community at large.
It has to be undestood that Sanger was working to aadvance birth control at a time when birth control, even among married couple was illegal and discussions on sexualitity were considered obscene. She used other, more prominent movements to promote her cause. These included women’s rights and, unfortunately Eugenics. This does not mean that her cause was aligned with their causes nor her philosophy the same.
Her association with other groups and her words can be taken out of
context. An example Gerard would be your use of the photo at the KKK meeting on your earlier post and also your first quote below it. I assumed by “cleaner race” you were using this as evidence of alleged racism againt blacks. Is this what you intended? Because when you go to the source you see she was referring to the human race and the quote actually has nothing to do with blacks.
Unlike what many think, Sanger was far from a friends of the poor.
Welcome to the Catholic Blogger Directory. I’d like to invite you to join us for Sunday Snippets–A Catholic Carnival, a place where a bunch of Catholic bloggers share their weekly best with each other. This week’s edition is at http://rannthisthat.blogspot.com/2010/01/happy-new-year-to-another-edition-of.html
Asitis,
” These included women’s rights and, unfortunately Eugenics. This does not mean that her cause was aligned with their causes nor her philosophy the same.”
How do you square that statement with the extensive, in-context, excerpts quoted in this post?
Easily Gerard. Sanger, may be saying that people with hereditary disablilities should not be encouraged or even permitted to reproduce, but that is something different then killing people who are deemed “unfit” and promoting those deemed superior to reproduce. She was against both these aspects of eugenics, was she not?
Certainly some of her language and opinions are offensive to us today. But we must also realize that she was of a different time when people with disabilities and even delinquents were viewed quiet differently than they are today.
As will be made evident on this blog in short order, Sanger and Planned Parenthood embraced abortion as a means to their perverted ends from the outset. So she did advocate killing those deemed undesirable. And who is Sanger, or anybody to intrude upon one’s right to reproduce as they see fit (Planned Parenthood DOES advocate for the right to privacy in reproduction, no?)? If I were one of those she deemed unfit, I’d be asking, “by what right does this nursing school dropout, red-headed adulterous, bisexual whore come into my community and tell us that the world needs less of me and more of her?”
As for people being genetically unfit, as a molecular biologist I am still waiting for the puplication of a body of literature that demonstrates a clear genetic etiology for noxious behaviors that is devoid of any environmental explanation. Right up until the last 13 years of Sanger’s life, scientists didn’t even know if protein or DNA was the genetic material. It was Hershey and Chase who demonstrated this in the early 1950’s. Watson and Crick wouldn’t even deduce the double-helix of DNA for a few more years after that. So genetics was and remains for bigots a blank canvas onto which they paint the ugly portraits of their essential selves.
“She was against both these aspects of eugenics, was she not?” Actually she was for both. Until 1929 the masthead of her paper stated “To create a race of thoroughbreds”.
As for Margaret being a product of her times, I suggest that you take a look at her quotes in this post. Society at every level, government, church, private philanthropy took a different view of the poor, the handicapped.
Eugenics laws were enacted to the extent that an illiterate public were fed the garbage peddled by Sanger and the anarchists.
Really Gerard? Sanger advocated killing the “unfit”? She advocated encouraging the “fit” to reproduce in an effort to outnumber the “unfit”? You’ll have to show me this.
As for the rest of what you just wrote:
“red-headed adulterous, bisexual whore”…. Wow. Okay, not quite sure what you have against red heads but being one myself I find that mildly amusing rather than offensive. Adulterous isn’t something to aspire to, but there certainly have always been plentywho are so she’s not rare in tha smear. Bisexual… well, back in her day that would have been an insult but today thankfully it’s not except for by a minority. Whore? Was Sanger a prostitute? I didn’t know this. Really?
And again, it bears keeping in mind our view and understanding of the “disabled” (and the criminal too) has changed considerably since Sanger’s time.
Asitis,
Kindly stick with a frame of reference. You started by excusing Sanger as a product of her time. That’s the frame for the discussion. Yes, coming from a family with redheads, I’ll get thrashed for that one. Nevertheless, that’s how the dark skinned people of her day would have responded, had they her full body of quotes. As for adultery, I’m not referring to the garden variety dalliance with a paramour. She had a list that was LONG and distinguished, but you’ll have to read Killer Angel, linked in a post below for yourself.
Hmmm, funny how you ignored my reply to your bisexual “insult”. Not to mention, my request for evidence that she actually advocated killing the “unfit” and promoting reproduction by the “fit”.
And by the way, I get it Gerard why you would be opposed to what this woman believed, how she lead her life and what she accomplished, regardless of her intentions. I see how it must be hard for you to view anything she said or wrote in a positive light.
The comment about Sanger’s bisexuality points to her moral depravity. Bear in mind that you are on a Roman Catholic blog. No compromise here. If you’re insulted by statements bearing witness to moral truth, that’s your baggage.
In the future, I’m not allowing replys containing such sarcasm as Hmmmm. Clean it up.
Yes, I do oppose the way this woman led her life. Not because she sinned, we’ve all done that. I oppose it because of its unrepentant evangelization of the gospel of depravity. You’re right, it’s not only hard, it’s impossible for me to see what she wrote in a positive light because she was a depraved monster who thought the world needed to look more like her. She was sick and twisted, and her writings reflect that.
I’ve spent a good part of my life in low-income neighborhoods, so I have a good grasp on how much wasted potential there is for reasons having nothing to do with genetics. Lack of capital, lack of childhood nutrition, lack of parental time and presence to do the real work of bringing up children in the way they should go, demands of employers of low-wage labor to “put the company first” (and I don’t want to hear about your kids), the subcultures which arise when some portion of adults and adolescents absorb the stereotypes imposed upon their grand-parents, all have to be considered primary. I read The Bell Curve when I had to for an article on racism, and I am now reading The Mismeasure of Man. Intelligence is far too complex a matter for eugenics.
On the other hand, having driven a paratransit bus for five years, I can say with a clear conscience that there were, among my passengers, some people of whom I could say, it would have been a great mercy if they had never been born. I’m not specifying a great mercy for whom, that is a broad general statement. I’m not talking about the people who, at age 40, are half my height, talk and think like ten year olds, but can walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom for themselves, run up to give me a big hug or high five me when they see me… I am talking about the ones who would prefer to sit all day in a sunny corner, or who can barely speak, and on arrival at a day program get dragged off to the bathroom crying “No, no, no.” I mean, that is essentially their entire life. There is such a thing as genetic conditions or physical damage (including ravaging infections) which cause permanent deformity. If I were a prospective father of such a person, I would fully support my wife’s decision to have a sixteenth-week abortion, just as surely as I would abhor cutting their throat as a newborn. There is, in my seldom humble opinion, a huge difference.
The quotes from Margaret Sanger, which may, as Asitis says, be taken out of context, but are horrible enough if she even considered them valid arguments, are devoid of the history of how sanitariums and asylums came to be. These are people who, throughout history, were kept at home, and if they were too far gone to be helpful around the house, tended to be chained up in basements because overworked families simply didn’t have time to provide constant supervision. Asylums were a merciful alternative for people who were already very much a part of the community.
Of course those who were a bit short in their comprehension but were nonetheless able to be left alone for periods of time, help a little in the kitchen, sing to their nieces and nephews, were not in such dire straits. There was a wide range of conditions. Today, we have all kinds of people thrust “out in the community,” some of whom darn well should be, some of whom would be much happier in asylums, but our culture insists on one size fits all. I do admire the woman with Down’s syndrome who, upon getting married (obviously one of the less seriously limited women with Down’s syndrome), chose to have her tubes tied. She cried about it, she had made the best of her life, but she knew that what she had to cope with was nothing she would wish upon another child. She made a wise and compassionate decision.
Siarlys,
Welcome. Though we are far apart on many issues, I’ve enjoyed your posts elsewhere for their reasoned and respectful engagement. Welcome again!
See my post on Genetics: Nature v. Nurture, which may answer some of this. We can pick up the conversation there.
“To apply a stern and rigid policy of sterlilization to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted..to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons here they would be taught to work under competent instruction for the period of their entire lives.” Margaret Sanger, “Plan for Peace, Birth Control Review, Vol. XVI, Number 4, April 1932, pp. 107-108
How many should be segregated? “…nearly half – 47.3 percent have the mentality of twelve-year old children or less – in other words that they are morons.” p. 263, Pivot of Civilization
Hitler was a fan (his chief eugenicist, Dr. Ernst Rudin, wrote for the Birth Control Review, Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need, April 1933, Birth Control Review):
“This is in keeping with the humanitarian, which, to avoid hurting one individual, lets a hundred others perish. The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the most humane act of mankind.” Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, chapter 10, 1925
If you trouble to read Sanger’s “A Plan for Peace” you will see its influence over the Immigration Act of 1924
Still poo-pooing Sanger and the KKK connection? Try reading Dr. Lothrop Stoddard’s utterly VILE, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy.” Dr. Stoddard was a board member of the Birth Control League.
Google Dr. Ernst Rudin and Dr. Paul Popenoe. Please consider yourself shown.