Posted on 02/07/2007 4:29:18 PM PST by wagglebee
No, I can probably find many of the documents online (as could you); the Margaret Sanger papers are at NYU and are available online. However, you have shown that you're willing to accept the edited version because it's from an organization which you support, and about a person you don't like. That's really all I need to know. ;)
Nonetheless, expediency caused Sanger to distance herself from her radical past; for instance, she used soft phrases such as "family planning" instead of her original, more pointed argument that the poor were being manipulated into producing an endless supply of cheap labor. She also adopted the mainstream eugenics language of the day, partly as a tactic, since many eugenicists opposed birth control on the grounds that the educated would use it more. Though her own work was directed toward voluntary birth control and public health programs, her use of eugenics language probably helped justify sterilization abuse. Her misjudgments should cause us to wonder what parallel errors we are making now and to question any tactics that fail to embody the ends we hope to achieve.
*That is Gloria Steinem writing in Time mag in 1998.
How "mainstream" was she if she had to fake it for the, um, mainstream?
Well, if you won't trust a Catholic organisation, maybe you'll trusts an organisation comprised of blacks.. Are they ok
http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html
Interesting you should mention that; their veracity is already being questioned on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781480/posts?page=23#23
My background is in historical research. It's not a matter of not "trusting" organizations because they are Catholic or Black. It's a matter of knowing that everyone has an agenda, and the primary source materials are what you should trust.
Of course,Ms. Steinem,radical feminist,had her own agenda to promote and is going to try to sanitize Sanger.
Now, you may have a background in historical research, but I hope, for your reader's sake, you were accurate back when you were doing research because you just erred badly in real time on thi sthread
So far, I have YET to see anyone prove the Am Life League was quoting Sanger against what she actually intended to say whereas I now have evidence you have erred.
Cest la vie, sister :)
I was referring to questioning the editing of her remarks in general, and said the blackgenocide site was being brought into question. Since you are determined to pick a fight, I'll let you take that as error. :)
47 posted on 02/08/2007 6:50:49 AM PST by linda_22003
*Huh, ok. I get it :)
When selected quotes are rhetorically reframed in an attempt to make Sanger look less culpable, you do not demand a link to a documented citation, but when selected quotes from Sanger are incontrovertibly damning, then the demand for a documented citation is requested - and then rejected because it comes from a cite which opposes abortion.
Remind me, sister..when a citation is rejected because of its source, what is that logical fallacy labelled?
Happy researching, sister. I don't have to do anymore. I got the answer I was looking for :)
I didn't question that one because, unlike the others, I have seen it before and have seen the entire letter. It is not because of its origin.
Please do not use the term "sister" when referring to me; there is, fortunately, no possibility of any familial relation between us. Thanks. :)
Now, I will say goodbye...
I am baptised, and accept your interpretation. It sounded more Raymond Chandler-esque than Biblical, though. ;)
Check out the link in Sittnick's #52.
Speaking of Chandler..I thought your objection was as substantial as "a thought trying to form itself on the edge of consciousness"..:)
Ugh, I did. Now, I can't wait for Lent
Ditto, I am also black, married and the mother of two, in my thirties. My parents however, voted Democrat, even though they had very conservative social values. I broke away from the pack and realized that the Democrats aren't really interested in black people being successful. They have profitted from black self-imposed victimhood. I refuse to be a victim, nor will my children or one day, my grandchildren.
* I loved Chandler - especially after I had read him and an English Prof called him a "hack"
The urban black problem stems from having no father in the home. Which in turn causes high drop out rates, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies and a host of other problems. It is a viscious cycle that needs to be broken. It has escalated with the rise of welfare. In 1890 approximately 80% of all black families was headed by a married couple, currently the figure is only about 38%. This is terrible.
If I were asked why there is no father at home, I might say it's because the welfare check requires there be no man about the house. It keeps coming back to welfare. Abortion is merely a sidelight, which I've been saying throughout the thread.
I'll check out the university library. It ought to have quite a collection of Sangerabilia.
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.