![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
...
We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that Sanger held these beliefs her entire life, but she did at one point, at least.
"It is alleged that she believed in "free love", an idea which is compatible with some of the contemporary theories of eugenics."
This is a silly sentence without some more documentation, and a silly one nonetheless. What is meant by free love? and what has that to do with eugenics? If by free love we mean permissible attitudes to change of sexual partners, I don't believe we have to allege that. If it's something more, well, say it! Vintermann 13:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
May I remove this from the category "Articles without sources"? I think that due to these discussions, there has been alot of fruitful change to the article and it seems to me to be sourced better than many wiki articles. I don't want to remove it from that category unless I asked you all first... Jporcaro 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Otherwise it's hard to tell who said what, and when. Denni ☯ 22:50, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
They took out War Against the Weak when Sanger is one of the biggest figures in the book. This really makes me lose respect for Wikipedia. —This unsigned comment is by Frankp36 ( talk • contribs) .
You're a liar. It's hard to do citations correctly with the weird format. Instead of correcting it you just delete it because you don't want it there. Anyway, what I wrote is so obvious anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it. The reason it means something to me is things haven't changed much and you're proof of this. Today's feminists aren't much different than Sanger and you're still Nazis. —This unsigned comment is by Frankp36 ( talk • contribs) .
Frankp36, please refrain from personal attacks. Let's just calm down. As I stated earlier, I'm interested in improving this article and making it more WP:NPOV. But we need to work together on this; bickering and throwing insults is not productive. Let's discuss any further changes on this page, instead of removing the work of other contributors and adding more uncited POV content. -- JerryOrr 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of you are completely biased and repeated have removed factual information about Sanger if it portrays her in a negative manner. You have repeatedly added POV comments that don't even fit in the sections, like info on women's rights in the eugenics section.
I have no interest in collaborating with you and find it interesting you use that word. I believe you are bigoted people and am not going to be censored into not saying that. Also, the "reference" you "cite" comes from Planned Parenthood, an organization Sanger founded. What sort of objectivity is that? -- FrankP36
Alright, I've attempted to tone down the pro-Sanger POV and add some cited criticism of Sanger to the Eugenics and Euthanasia section. Please do not revert or blank these changes; I'm sure more work can be done, but I think this is a first step in neutralizing this article.
And for the record, I am NOT bigoted; I find Margaret Sanger's views on eugenics (and the whole eugenics movement itself) absolutely deplorable, and I am actually considering getting a copy of Black's book The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. The work of the American eugenics movement was a major influence in the growth of Nazism and the Holocaust, and I think that it needs to be brought to light. But I will not support turning this page into a Sanger slam-fest. She a major factor in women's rights and the birth control movement, and whether or not you feel those are admirable accomplishments, the are very important to our culture, and should be noted accordingly. -- JerryOrr 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is now sufficiently neutral, so I'm going to remove the notice at the top of the page. KrJnX
Who is this MFNickster? They go through and cut out anything they don't like when it is clearly referenced. Sounds like an obvious reference to Old Nick---ie. Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfdjtuygifgkk123 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
She did support euthanasia and this is in the book War Against the Weak, and you can find it by entering euthanasia and Sanger in google. —This unsigned comment is by Frankp36 ( talk • contribs) .
I have added some much-needed biographical information to this article as well as other material, and created three main sections: Life, Philosphy, and Legacy. Also, I removed these two paragraphs:
Although I think this is useful information, and I hope that it is included somewhere in Wikipedia, I do not believe it belongs in an article on Sanger.
I also removed this:
Presented out of context it is essentially meaningless. If someone wants to investigate why she was there, what she said, etc, that would be a different matter.
One thing I think the article is still lacking is her views on abortion. -- Viajero 13:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Viajero, can you provide sources for the quotes you added to the "Philosophy" section? I am having trouble locating them outside of pro-life web sites. I also think the claim that she was a "fervent" believer in eugenics is heavily biased; the actual sources I've located show her as a marginal supporter of eugenics at best, and I think it's mostly the anti-Sanger contingent that is trying to paint her as more "fervent" than she actually was. Let's try to make the article a bit more factual and NPOV. I will let you know what else I come up with. Thanks!
Aside from the technical issues ("Margaret Higgins Sanger was an avowed racists..."), and the lack of cites in the section on "Psychology of sexuality", this article still seems to be very biased. "Margaret Sanger was instrumental in opening the way to universal access to birth control, and planned parenthood in every minority neighborhood." Huh? Cites, please, that "planned parenthood (sic)" is in "every minority neighborhood? This article needs to be seriously re-worked. nmw 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
i fixed some speling erors in the quotes. this would indicate that it wasn't copied and pasted, though, so there might be other transcription errors... - Omegatron 05:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Viajero (Talk | contribs)...stuff on Nazis not dirtectly relevant"
This was stated by Viajero upon deleting the following:
"A USA Today article [[2] ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-14-book-usat_x.htm)] explains that Adolf Hitler greatly admired the eugenic philosophy and that Nazi scientists collaborated at length with American eugenicists."
but saying nothing about:
"In addition, Prescott Bush, the patriarch of the Bush family, was a well-known supporter of the eugenics movement and an open supporter of Planned Parenthood."
Oh heavens. Are you concerned about relevance or holding Sanger in a light you prefer? Let's be honest and either include relevent relationships (one of which is substantiated) or make a case to include neither. plain_regular_ham 13:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I tried to separate the attributions from the quotes, but the formatting needs work, it's very awkward. I can't seem to find a description of the Wiki standard for this.
I also deleted the "Reprinted in Woman and the New Race" attributions for two quotes:
Because those quotes don't appear in Woman and the New Race. I have a suspicion that they don't appear in The Woman Rebel either, but I have to locate a copy to verify this and to examine the context.
I must say that I have reservations about including a "quotes" section at all, because Sanger is so often quoted out of context for propaganda purposes. The alternatives seem to be adding context (which fattens up the section), balancing the quotations with some positively-slanted ones, or removing the section. I'm leaning toward just removing the section, what do you guys think? MFNickster 28 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)
One more thought: I have seen many many sites using the quote "the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Every single instance seems intended to give the impression that Sanger was advocating infanticide - which, if you have read the whole passage or know anything at all about her, is very far from the truth. I think it would be worth commenting on this issue outsite of the Quotes section, anyone agree? MFNickster 03:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Not being an expert of history or Sanger, but simply as a lay-reader of the article, I think it would be best to meld the quotes section into another section concerned with how her words are taken out of context. PeterKLevy 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
'popular progressive idea'-pejorative language much? Although it is interesting to see a leftist (almost) admit that Hitler was essentially a progressive. I think perhaps a section on how Sanger's organisation has long been the primary factor keeping down birth rates among African Americans would be relvant.
In reading over the page, I've noticed the timeline is incorrect. For example, Sanger fled to Europe when she was arrested for her activities with The Woman Rebel, not after she was arrested for opening the clinic.
"What Every Girl Should Know" was originally published in column between 1912 and 1913, not in 1916.
This timeline is incorrect on so many levels. Do not refer to it.
I think the Eugenics section (and much of the rest of the article)is almost in the form of a debate and seems schizophrenic at times. For instance, in the paragraph that discusses her word choice in saying: "moron", "imbecile", and "feeble-minded", the paragraph seems sloppy in some way that I cannot quite put my finger on. I am new to Wiki and this has been my first experience with a controversial topic (and basically my first experience). What are the guidelines for such an intense topic as this? I personally take a very strong pro-life stance, yet would still like this article to be more NPOV. I am very familiar with the many associations between Margaret Sanger and the KKK, but even I can see the bias in the sources for most of the information like that. I guess my purpose in saying this is to ask how I can contribute while maintaining professionalism and following wiki guidelines? -- Bkcraft 07:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph (which was added by User:70.136.198.121):
Because it is largely commentary, has some parts which are redundant to other parts of the article, and some that directly contradict other parts (e.g. the call for mandatory sterilization). I would be okay with a modified version that irons out the discrepancies and fits the context of the section, but I don't think it would add much more than a simple link to the Eugenics article. What say ye? - MFNickster 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
According to "The Book of Distinguished American Women" (By Vincent Wilson, Jr. Printed 1992), Margaret Sanger "coined the term birth control" and was arrested eight times. H.G. Wells also hailed her as "the greatest woman in the world". Apparently her husband, William, also persuaded her to elope. I didn't know if these facts would help in any way.
Of course, the book also doesn't mention any of her racist or socialist views (whether they were temporary or not). Despite these flaws, Sanger remains a very large part of the feminist movement. User:209.204.87.129 18:44, 22 January 2006
User:MChiBro brought up an interesting point by adding "with help from Katharine Houghton, [Sanger] was the founder of the American Birth Control League" to the introduction. From the sources I have (Gray's biography of Sanger and Chesler's Woman of Valor), it appears that Houghton was a heavy supporter of the Birth Control movement in Connecticut, and ran a NBCL office there, but that she had little to do with the founding of ABCL in 1922. I don't believe she was on the Board of Directors or held an office in the organization. If she did help, does anyone know if her contributions were any more or less important than the others who assisted Sanger in the effort? And does it merit a mention in an article on Sanger herself, or only in the ABCL article? It might be enough to simply credit Sanger as a "co-founder" of the organization in that case. Thoughts? MFNickster 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is woefully under-cited. Specifically, the sections Life and Legacy have virtually no citation. Considering how controversial this article has been at times, I would think some primary sources would be beneficial. -- JerryOrr 13:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Jerry, do you have a source that says that anti-family planning groups "often" misquote Sanger? If not, that needs to go. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 12:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The last few sentences under Family Planning clinics are certainly point-of-view and have no business in the article.
"The letters included in this collection are both heart-wrenching and eye-opening. These desperate and pleading letters remind us of a time when women were not trusted with their own bodies and decisions about family-planning, and to a degree are still today not fully able to decide when and if they become pregnant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.182.162 ( talk) 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The eugenics section is all wrong. She did not only support "good" eugenics. This is blatent POV. Read her own quotes. She plainly stated what she believed and this article basically says she didn't mean what she said and instead she meant what is politically correct in 2006. The part about a woman's right to chose doesn't belong in that section. It doesn't explain her position on eugenics at all. She did not only want to prevent people with Downs Syndrome from having children. People with Downs Syndrome probably can't have children! Downs Syndrome was not an issue. She went after the blind and deaf, after their relatives, and after minorites. And she didn't just find "support" among eugenics supporters. She was a leader. Plus she supported euthanasia, which is closely tied to eugenics. Even with the political correctness there's plenty of bigotry left over there just in the way the history of what happened to disabled people is denied so women's rights can prevail. Women's rights leaders are a bunch of bigots today and only get away with it cause they have power and use it.
"Sanger clearly cannot be blamed directly for these deplorable occurrences"
No, not for nazism, but perhaps she must share the blame for the swedish and american forced-sterilization programs. Although she did not believe in inferior races, she did believe in segregation/sterilization of less wanted individuals, according to [4]. It's from a pro-choice site, but it's a complete article, and I haven't found any sites contesting its authenticity. (I have found sites correcting commonly attributed misquotations, but never this one) —This unsigned comment is by 71.107.249.66 ( talk • contribs) .
Since we are making an effort to better cite this article, and the current method for creating footnotes can be difficult to maintain (all the subsequent numbers need to be manually changed when we add a new one in the middle), I'm considering reformatting the notation for this article according to WP:FN. Any objections? -- JerryOrr 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've converted the references in this article according to WP:FN. Please attempt to follow those guidelines for future citations.
Also, I added some cited content taken from the introduction to Edwin Black's The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book; my additions came from some online excerpts [6]. If anyone with a copy of the book would like to cite the actual pages, I would appreciate it! -- JerryOrr 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Jerry, I know you removed the uncited addition on Ernst Rüdin, but I nevertheless found myself wondering about his relevance. As far as I know, Sanger wasn't close to Rüdin (his article was published in Birth Control Review years after she resigned as editor). Maybe the anon was thinking of Lothrop Stoddard. Do you have any info on him in your sources? MFNickster 03:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
i know that there was a movie aobut her but i don't remember the name.
Does anyone have a copy of the entire text of Sanger's Dec. 10 letter to Clarence Gamble re: the "Negro Project"? I can only find the excerpt recently added by User:134.121.126.133, which seems to be consistently quoted in isolation to give the impression that the project was in fact intended to "exterminate the negro population." As far as I know she never stated such a goal elsewhere (specifically referring to "negros"), and my impression is that she was trying to prevent a mistaken impression from taking hold. Obviously she was not successful if that's the case.
I find the cited reference (Blessed are the Barren, quoted at BlackGenocide.org) to be questionable at best, especially since it castigates Sanger for "character assassination, personal vilification and old-fashioned bigotry," and then goes on to recommend George Grant's book Killer Angel, which employs the very same tactics against Sanger. MFNickster 17:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the misleading section, per the consensus of this discussion. -- JerryOrr 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
A new section was recently added that I believe had some serious problems. Aside from being a block of text just thrown into the article (it didn't flow with the rest of the content), it had parts which were redundant and/or POV. I felt it was easier to just remove it than try to fix it, but there was some good info in there (that actually had citations!) that I think we can re-incorporate into the article with a little work. Let's see what we can do! -- JerryOrr 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
--BEGIN NEW CONTENT--
Eugenics is a theory of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Eugenicists, including the Nazis, were opposed to the use of contraception or abortion by healthy and "fit" women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger's books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning ("Sanger on Exhibit," 1999/2000). (Sanger helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany ("Margaret Sanger and the 'Refugee Department'," 1993).)
Sanger, however, clearly identified with the broader issues of health and fitness that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s — decades in which treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown. But Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently and firmly repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that effected passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other inherited traits vary by individual and not by group (Chesler, 1992).
Though she tried for years, Sanger was unable to convince the leaders of the eugenics movement to accept her credo that "No woman can be free who does not own and control her body (Sanger, 1920)." Her on-going disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:
Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother. . . .Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment (Sanger, 1919a).
Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored
* incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions
* the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.
* placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct
Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves.
--END NEW CONTENT--
Did Sanger really say stuff like this?
Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me, but what does the Population control article say?
And Red China admitted that Mao Tse-Tung murdered 20 million Chinese civilians (other sources say 60 million), so democide and mass murder are not without precedent.
Anyway, can someone give me a better source than radio liberty? -- Uncle Ed 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In Woman and the New Race, chapter V, (available at [Bartleby.com]) Sanger wrote that, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." This would seem to contradict the article's statement that Sanger "did not support active euthanasia." For that matter, according to ALL she did in fact single out "Negroes" (as well as Southern Europeans and Hebrews, but I don't have a source for them) as being inferior races, saying on 10/19/1939 that, "the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members," which would also contradict our text. I didn't want to put these up myself, because it's a stable text and big changes to the core meaning of what a section says should be Talk-paged approved, and also because the second source, at least, could draw some (I think unjustified) NPOV fire, so it should be discussed here. Thoughts?
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not editing this myself, I haven't really done much editing on here ever. I just thought someone would like to know that this article links to the army of god website here:
"The previous year she had addressed a Ku Klux Klan rally in New Jersey.[1]"
This website contains pictures of dead babies, essays such as "why shoot an abortionist", and refers to abortion clinics as "babykilling abortion mills".
Delete it or move it to wikiquote. It's just her saying women in the Klan are stupid. JeffBurdges 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no support for the statment:
Notice how the reasons "advances in genetic" have no bearing on the disputed outcome "prevent the disabled"?
Its just someone pushing a POV. JeffBurdges 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see yor point, if its partially heritable, i.e. some other genetic factors influence the probability of the extra chromosome, then how you can say the race definitely wont be improved by eliminating one risk factor? Seems more complex than that. If Margaret Singer had an excessively simple minded view of eugenics, fine qoutes to that effect should be included. Heck, everyoby living in her time had an excessively simple minded view towards something technical, it was called moernism But keep in mind, Sanger's support for eugenics is not that of any irrational racist. And she would likely change her position to account for any new information presented to her. So you are essentially just attacking a strawman, when the reality is simply that our understanding of biology was nieve at the time. Also the modern opposition to eugenics is not based upon such technical difficulties. Modern opposition to eugenics is due to the fact that every single time it has been tried, the people implementing it applied it in a racist way. Even if you sterilize people who carry a segregation disorder gene, history suggests that a racist politician will see to it that many many more blacks are sterilized than whites. This was simply not known at Sanger's time. JeffBurdges 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it known why her daughter died? -- CecilK 12:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
it seems the PC police are trying desperately to walk the tightrope on this one. Surely, they have to make M sanger out to be a hero since she introduced Birth Control issues and the like, but alos , they know she was a hatef illed racist who openly advocated murder, sterilization and racial cleansing. The fact is, her views, even by todays lack of standards, are horrifying if one reads them in their entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phil Franco ( talk • contribs).
The quotes used in the section on eugenics are patently false and taken out of context to mis-portray the idea of Margret Sanger.
The section say that Margret Sanger supported eugenics, yet her own writings flatly contradict this, for example:
"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother." - Margret Sanger; The Birth Control Review, 1919
This page has become just a vehicle for Christian fundamentalists to attack abortion.
65.240.227.45 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the discussion of eugenics in this article violates the neutral point of view objective because it is sexist. This can be demonstrated quite easily by searching for male eugenics supporters' Wiki entries and seeing how eugenics is applied to their histories. It is rarely mentioned in the introductory paragraph, and I have never found an entry on a male proponent which suggested his reputation or work had somehow been "tarnished" because of a belief or disbelief in eugenics. The presentation of eugenics material in this article is a direct, sexist attack on Sanger's history. Peacocksandlilies ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This page has become a vehicle for abortion mill employees & anti-baby activists to mask the truth of Margaret Sanger.—Preceding unsigned comment added by American Law School ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In Europe (or at least the German speaking countries) Margaret Sanger is a more or less unknow person nowadays. The first time I heard/read about her was through the Times Magazine (Top 100 selection) and I stumbled accidently and years later across that article. I got interested and read some of her books. Then I found the article here and noticed that there is none about her in de.wikipedia. So I wrote it based on this article, the paper project, her books and what I found on the web.
Two weeks ago 'my' article passed the nomination for good article. Now my next goal is to make it a featured article and I think the part it is most lacking is the whole controversy which seems still to be active. It seems to be a cultural problem so I have a little problem understanding it. I read her books but I never found her supporting abortion (more the opposite: in her biography she writes that birth control is the only cure for abortion). But as far as I read on several websites abortion antagonists regard her as 'bad' person. So how did that happen and is it still topical? Is she still a known person or just remembered by people who are active in the field of her work?
I hope somebody here is willing to help improving the German article about her and tells me more. E-mail or messages on my discussion page are very welcomed. -- CecilK 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In the section on Eugenics, it is written as if it were established fact that Sanger was a eugenicist. This is not true, there is currently a great debate over this very subject with support for both sides in great abundance. If you believe that she was a blatant eugenicist that's fine but I believe that mention should be made that not everyone is in agreement on this particular topic. Several prominent figures dispute the eugenic claims. I happen to believe she is a eugenicist but I don't think you can accurately portray her legacy without a mention of the opposing viewpoint and why they feel that they have substantial evidence to refute eugenic claims 68.48.4.151 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)S. Nelson
This entire article is very biased and tries to paint Margaret Sanger in as negative a light as possible, with some inflammatory and otherwise not-neutral-enough language. The entire article needs an overhaul. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.28.213.114 (
talk)
19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is one revealing quote from her: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."(Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts)
MFNickster, I am not sure if you have ever had any exposure to argumentative fallacies, but just because she did not write about "exterminating the Negro Population" in her biographical accounts does not mean it was an idea she was wholly against. There seems to be enough evidence out there to warrant a section in the article re: this topic. I am not sure why you have such a hard on for her. Was she your grandmother or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.255.27 ( talk) 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
At least as civil as M. Sangers philosophy regarding "inferior" races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.255.27 ( talk) 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You can choose to take my argument-free reply in a variety of ways, as long as it does not harm the blessed reputation of the deified M. Sanger. It is not an association fallacy. Have you read the webpage under the discussion heading "Negro Project"? Does this not deserve some mention on the wiki page? Seriously are you related to her? You must have some connection to her, Time magazine, or some other organization where her reputation is important enough to control her wiki page religiously. You are obviously educated, and have a brain on your shoulders. This makes the question of your servitude to M. Sanger all the more perplexing.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.195.158 ( talk) 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.
– Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
In an article by F. William Engdahl, "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic. Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t, Engdahl quotes Sanger writing in a letter: "we want to exterminate the Negro population." He backs up the quote with the article The Negro Project which appears to be identical to the article linked at the beginning of this section. There the text is a little different, significantly so: "The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members". This is to give a heads-up in advance in case somebody comes wanting to back up any inappropriate claims using the Engdahl quote. __ meco ( talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing some recent additions by User:Gman992 that are inaccurate. My explanations:
Sanger called for the assassination of Rockefeller by writing an article called “A Defense of Assassination.” Ironically, it ould be the Rockefeller that was the source of many grants to Sanger's birth control clinics. (Flynn, p. 146).
Additionally, Sanger used her newsletter, The Woman Rebel to call for the assassination of key social and political figures that she believed were a threat to her vision of America. When terrorists tried to assassinate John D. Rockefeller, the head of Standard Oil, Sanger used The Woman Rebel to honor those terrorists and call for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. The terrorists failed to kill Rockefeller with a homemade bomb because it blew up in their faces when they were constructing it. Rockefeller, it seems, became a target for Sanger because he sat the board of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. Sanger wrote:
“Even if dynamite were to serve no other purpose than to call forth the spirit of revolutionary solidarity and loyalty, it would prove its greater value.” (Flynn, Daniel J. Intellectual Morons, Crown Forum, New York, New York, 2004, p. 146-147)
Throughout her life, Sanger continued was a staunch proponent of the “Negro Project” by writing to Dr. Clarence Gamble, The Southern regional director of the Birth Control Federation of America, “We do not want to the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who ca straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their most rebellious members.” (Flynn, p. 154.)
One can read Sanger’s positions in her original writings for The Woman Rebel. But, you may have trouble finding them. A thief stole of all the remaining copies of her newsletter from the New York Public Library, but if you contact her grandson or read them through New York University’s Margaret Sanger Project. (Flynn, p. 147)
I'm honestly a little skeptical about some of the other sections that cite the Flynn book; it already seems to have taken some "liberty with the truth". But I'm too tired to work further on it... someone else is more than welcome to. -- JerryOrr ( talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Left them where? with whom? — SlamDiego ←T 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Shocked by the inability of most women to obtain accurate and effective birth control, which she believed was fundamental to securing freedom and independence for working women, Sanger began challenging the 1873 federal Comstock law and the various "little Comstock" state laws that banned the dissemination of contraceptive information. In March 1914, Sanger published the first issue of The Woman Rebel, a radical feminist monthly that advocated militant feminism, including the right to practice birth control. For advocating the use of contraception, three issues of The Woman Rebel were banned, and in August 1914 Sanger was eventually indicted for violating postal obscenity laws. Unwilling to risk a lengthy imprisonment for breaking federal laws, Sanger jumped bail in October and, using the alias "Bertha Watson," set sail for England. En route, she ordered friends to release 100,000 copies of Family Limitation, a 16-page pamphlet which provided explicit instructions on the use of a variety of contraceptive methods. |
Sanger separated from her husband, William, in 1914, and in keeping with her private views on sexual liberation, she began a series of affairs with several men... |
I think it needs some work or to be removed.
Being arrested for speech (even often) does not prove / make one a proponent of 'free speech'. If there is some evidence she supported free speech for everyone (vs. just people supporting her causes), then that should be presented / added. Otherwise, the section makes a claim that is unsupported. I don't want to pull a Godwin, but the next step in my argument would be to list off all the worst people (as examples) arrested for their speech... who didn't support ‘free speech’... but I'll spare you as you probably get what I mean without it.
Sanger invited Georges Vacher de Lapouge, a French anthropologist and racialist to the 6th International Congress of the Birth Control which was held in New York in March, 1925. [1]
I had rewritten that line so it would read a bit better, but then I looked closer and realized that this stand-alone sentence is unrelated to anything around it, not relevant to the section it appears in, not significant to the overall article, and supported by only a single ref that isn't in English. I'm going to simply remove it pending a more thorough rewrite. Doc Tropics 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently the second footnote refers to Current Biography 1945. What is this? We can't have citations like that. I'm leaving it in place in case somebody knows what is missing and can complete it, otherwise it should be removed and the statement it is supposed to source tagged with {{ fact}}. __ meco ( talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd read of it or seen a documentary explaining that when the police raided Sanger's clinic in Brownsville, they took--illegally even then--her patient list with them. I think I also heard/read that many of those names(and perhaps addresses)were false, perhaps because those visiting her clinic were doing so on the q.t., so taboo was the subject of sex and contraception then. I also read that the captain in charge of the raid in Brownsville had been asked to do so by his parish priest. A PBS documentary several years ago showed how a birth control clinic in Connecticut in the 1930s was legally harassed out of town: every petty municipal ordinance and fine that could be summoned against it was done so.POV: perhaps she deserved criticism, but so did her critics. 132.156.43.8 ( talk)opusv5 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood".
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
"Woman and the New Race", pp. 62-63: “Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl100 ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger editors may be interested in the new Negro Project page that was recently created. — Noah 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Negro Project stub article is redirected to this one. In one year's time there has been no unique content other than the following NPR audio, in which Johnny Hunter, Director of L.E.A.R.N., Inc. [11] makes this accusation without evidence.
Any new, encyclopedic information on the Negro project can probably be developed in this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Given all the misleading claims on the internet about the Negro Project, it is important that the Margaret Sanger wikipage address this issue directly. I twice tried to add a link (found on the old Negro Project page) to an article from the newsletter of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University. [2] Both times this link addition was reverted. Perhaps the people who removed the link didn't actually read the article? It describes in detail Sanger's involvement in the Negro Project and explains some of her quotes which have been taken out of context. The article concludes (emphasis added):
This is a well-researched article from the official Margaret Sanger archives at NYU. It gives details about Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project, a topic of great current interest (I came to this wikipage looking for objective information after reading an anti-abortion website). I'm going to add this reference back shortly, please give an explanation here if you disagree with including this reference. 80.212.50.12 ( talk) 13:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that regardless of the posthumously labeled intent, Sanger had a very racist view of Blacks in America. Despite the supposed lack of intent to follow up on the principle of minimizing procreation among Blacks, the belief is still there. While it is far more preferable to have racist beliefs than to act on racist beliefs, it would behoove readers to know about the racism exhibited by Sanger. I also believe, with respect to hearsay, if we are going to fall on one side, we should keep to it. Treating posthumous speculation and framing of Sangers' own words as canon (regardless of credentials) leaves a decidedly unfair leaning to the article. Also, I find the condescension of some of the users unamusing when the "context of the article" that the users refer to actually comes from external speculation rather than actual clarification by the author herself. 98.114.206.148 ( talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Margaret Sanger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Well written and fairly well-referenced. "Philosophy" and "Psychology of Sexuality" sections in particular require better referencing, however. Badbilltucker 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
...
We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that Sanger held these beliefs her entire life, but she did at one point, at least.
"It is alleged that she believed in "free love", an idea which is compatible with some of the contemporary theories of eugenics."
This is a silly sentence without some more documentation, and a silly one nonetheless. What is meant by free love? and what has that to do with eugenics? If by free love we mean permissible attitudes to change of sexual partners, I don't believe we have to allege that. If it's something more, well, say it! Vintermann 13:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
May I remove this from the category "Articles without sources"? I think that due to these discussions, there has been alot of fruitful change to the article and it seems to me to be sourced better than many wiki articles. I don't want to remove it from that category unless I asked you all first... Jporcaro 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Otherwise it's hard to tell who said what, and when. Denni ☯ 22:50, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
They took out War Against the Weak when Sanger is one of the biggest figures in the book. This really makes me lose respect for Wikipedia. —This unsigned comment is by Frankp36 ( talk • contribs) .
You're a liar. It's hard to do citations correctly with the weird format. Instead of correcting it you just delete it because you don't want it there. Anyway, what I wrote is so obvious anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it. The reason it means something to me is things haven't changed much and you're proof of this. Today's feminists aren't much different than Sanger and you're still Nazis. —This unsigned comment is by Frankp36 ( talk • contribs) .
Frankp36, please refrain from personal attacks. Let's just calm down. As I stated earlier, I'm interested in improving this article and making it more WP:NPOV. But we need to work together on this; bickering and throwing insults is not productive. Let's discuss any further changes on this page, instead of removing the work of other contributors and adding more uncited POV content. -- JerryOrr 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of you are completely biased and repeated have removed factual information about Sanger if it portrays her in a negative manner. You have repeatedly added POV comments that don't even fit in the sections, like info on women's rights in the eugenics section.
I have no interest in collaborating with you and find it interesting you use that word. I believe you are bigoted people and am not going to be censored into not saying that. Also, the "reference" you "cite" comes from Planned Parenthood, an organization Sanger founded. What sort of objectivity is that? -- FrankP36
Alright, I've attempted to tone down the pro-Sanger POV and add some cited criticism of Sanger to the Eugenics and Euthanasia section. Please do not revert or blank these changes; I'm sure more work can be done, but I think this is a first step in neutralizing this article.
And for the record, I am NOT bigoted; I find Margaret Sanger's views on eugenics (and the whole eugenics movement itself) absolutely deplorable, and I am actually considering getting a copy of Black's book The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. The work of the American eugenics movement was a major influence in the growth of Nazism and the Holocaust, and I think that it needs to be brought to light. But I will not support turning this page into a Sanger slam-fest. She a major factor in women's rights and the birth control movement, and whether or not you feel those are admirable accomplishments, the are very important to our culture, and should be noted accordingly. -- JerryOrr 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is now sufficiently neutral, so I'm going to remove the notice at the top of the page. KrJnX
Who is this MFNickster? They go through and cut out anything they don't like when it is clearly referenced. Sounds like an obvious reference to Old Nick---ie. Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfdjtuygifgkk123 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
She did support euthanasia and this is in the book War Against the Weak, and you can find it by entering euthanasia and Sanger in google. —This unsigned comment is by Frankp36 ( talk • contribs) .
I have added some much-needed biographical information to this article as well as other material, and created three main sections: Life, Philosphy, and Legacy. Also, I removed these two paragraphs:
Although I think this is useful information, and I hope that it is included somewhere in Wikipedia, I do not believe it belongs in an article on Sanger.
I also removed this:
Presented out of context it is essentially meaningless. If someone wants to investigate why she was there, what she said, etc, that would be a different matter.
One thing I think the article is still lacking is her views on abortion. -- Viajero 13:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Viajero, can you provide sources for the quotes you added to the "Philosophy" section? I am having trouble locating them outside of pro-life web sites. I also think the claim that she was a "fervent" believer in eugenics is heavily biased; the actual sources I've located show her as a marginal supporter of eugenics at best, and I think it's mostly the anti-Sanger contingent that is trying to paint her as more "fervent" than she actually was. Let's try to make the article a bit more factual and NPOV. I will let you know what else I come up with. Thanks!
Aside from the technical issues ("Margaret Higgins Sanger was an avowed racists..."), and the lack of cites in the section on "Psychology of sexuality", this article still seems to be very biased. "Margaret Sanger was instrumental in opening the way to universal access to birth control, and planned parenthood in every minority neighborhood." Huh? Cites, please, that "planned parenthood (sic)" is in "every minority neighborhood? This article needs to be seriously re-worked. nmw 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
i fixed some speling erors in the quotes. this would indicate that it wasn't copied and pasted, though, so there might be other transcription errors... - Omegatron 05:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Viajero (Talk | contribs)...stuff on Nazis not dirtectly relevant"
This was stated by Viajero upon deleting the following:
"A USA Today article [[2] ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-14-book-usat_x.htm)] explains that Adolf Hitler greatly admired the eugenic philosophy and that Nazi scientists collaborated at length with American eugenicists."
but saying nothing about:
"In addition, Prescott Bush, the patriarch of the Bush family, was a well-known supporter of the eugenics movement and an open supporter of Planned Parenthood."
Oh heavens. Are you concerned about relevance or holding Sanger in a light you prefer? Let's be honest and either include relevent relationships (one of which is substantiated) or make a case to include neither. plain_regular_ham 13:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I tried to separate the attributions from the quotes, but the formatting needs work, it's very awkward. I can't seem to find a description of the Wiki standard for this.
I also deleted the "Reprinted in Woman and the New Race" attributions for two quotes:
Because those quotes don't appear in Woman and the New Race. I have a suspicion that they don't appear in The Woman Rebel either, but I have to locate a copy to verify this and to examine the context.
I must say that I have reservations about including a "quotes" section at all, because Sanger is so often quoted out of context for propaganda purposes. The alternatives seem to be adding context (which fattens up the section), balancing the quotations with some positively-slanted ones, or removing the section. I'm leaning toward just removing the section, what do you guys think? MFNickster 28 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)
One more thought: I have seen many many sites using the quote "the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Every single instance seems intended to give the impression that Sanger was advocating infanticide - which, if you have read the whole passage or know anything at all about her, is very far from the truth. I think it would be worth commenting on this issue outsite of the Quotes section, anyone agree? MFNickster 03:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Not being an expert of history or Sanger, but simply as a lay-reader of the article, I think it would be best to meld the quotes section into another section concerned with how her words are taken out of context. PeterKLevy 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
'popular progressive idea'-pejorative language much? Although it is interesting to see a leftist (almost) admit that Hitler was essentially a progressive. I think perhaps a section on how Sanger's organisation has long been the primary factor keeping down birth rates among African Americans would be relvant.
In reading over the page, I've noticed the timeline is incorrect. For example, Sanger fled to Europe when she was arrested for her activities with The Woman Rebel, not after she was arrested for opening the clinic.
"What Every Girl Should Know" was originally published in column between 1912 and 1913, not in 1916.
This timeline is incorrect on so many levels. Do not refer to it.
I think the Eugenics section (and much of the rest of the article)is almost in the form of a debate and seems schizophrenic at times. For instance, in the paragraph that discusses her word choice in saying: "moron", "imbecile", and "feeble-minded", the paragraph seems sloppy in some way that I cannot quite put my finger on. I am new to Wiki and this has been my first experience with a controversial topic (and basically my first experience). What are the guidelines for such an intense topic as this? I personally take a very strong pro-life stance, yet would still like this article to be more NPOV. I am very familiar with the many associations between Margaret Sanger and the KKK, but even I can see the bias in the sources for most of the information like that. I guess my purpose in saying this is to ask how I can contribute while maintaining professionalism and following wiki guidelines? -- Bkcraft 07:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph (which was added by User:70.136.198.121):
Because it is largely commentary, has some parts which are redundant to other parts of the article, and some that directly contradict other parts (e.g. the call for mandatory sterilization). I would be okay with a modified version that irons out the discrepancies and fits the context of the section, but I don't think it would add much more than a simple link to the Eugenics article. What say ye? - MFNickster 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
According to "The Book of Distinguished American Women" (By Vincent Wilson, Jr. Printed 1992), Margaret Sanger "coined the term birth control" and was arrested eight times. H.G. Wells also hailed her as "the greatest woman in the world". Apparently her husband, William, also persuaded her to elope. I didn't know if these facts would help in any way.
Of course, the book also doesn't mention any of her racist or socialist views (whether they were temporary or not). Despite these flaws, Sanger remains a very large part of the feminist movement. User:209.204.87.129 18:44, 22 January 2006
User:MChiBro brought up an interesting point by adding "with help from Katharine Houghton, [Sanger] was the founder of the American Birth Control League" to the introduction. From the sources I have (Gray's biography of Sanger and Chesler's Woman of Valor), it appears that Houghton was a heavy supporter of the Birth Control movement in Connecticut, and ran a NBCL office there, but that she had little to do with the founding of ABCL in 1922. I don't believe she was on the Board of Directors or held an office in the organization. If she did help, does anyone know if her contributions were any more or less important than the others who assisted Sanger in the effort? And does it merit a mention in an article on Sanger herself, or only in the ABCL article? It might be enough to simply credit Sanger as a "co-founder" of the organization in that case. Thoughts? MFNickster 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is woefully under-cited. Specifically, the sections Life and Legacy have virtually no citation. Considering how controversial this article has been at times, I would think some primary sources would be beneficial. -- JerryOrr 13:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Jerry, do you have a source that says that anti-family planning groups "often" misquote Sanger? If not, that needs to go. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 12:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The last few sentences under Family Planning clinics are certainly point-of-view and have no business in the article.
"The letters included in this collection are both heart-wrenching and eye-opening. These desperate and pleading letters remind us of a time when women were not trusted with their own bodies and decisions about family-planning, and to a degree are still today not fully able to decide when and if they become pregnant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.182.162 ( talk) 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The eugenics section is all wrong. She did not only support "good" eugenics. This is blatent POV. Read her own quotes. She plainly stated what she believed and this article basically says she didn't mean what she said and instead she meant what is politically correct in 2006. The part about a woman's right to chose doesn't belong in that section. It doesn't explain her position on eugenics at all. She did not only want to prevent people with Downs Syndrome from having children. People with Downs Syndrome probably can't have children! Downs Syndrome was not an issue. She went after the blind and deaf, after their relatives, and after minorites. And she didn't just find "support" among eugenics supporters. She was a leader. Plus she supported euthanasia, which is closely tied to eugenics. Even with the political correctness there's plenty of bigotry left over there just in the way the history of what happened to disabled people is denied so women's rights can prevail. Women's rights leaders are a bunch of bigots today and only get away with it cause they have power and use it.
"Sanger clearly cannot be blamed directly for these deplorable occurrences"
No, not for nazism, but perhaps she must share the blame for the swedish and american forced-sterilization programs. Although she did not believe in inferior races, she did believe in segregation/sterilization of less wanted individuals, according to [4]. It's from a pro-choice site, but it's a complete article, and I haven't found any sites contesting its authenticity. (I have found sites correcting commonly attributed misquotations, but never this one) —This unsigned comment is by 71.107.249.66 ( talk • contribs) .
Since we are making an effort to better cite this article, and the current method for creating footnotes can be difficult to maintain (all the subsequent numbers need to be manually changed when we add a new one in the middle), I'm considering reformatting the notation for this article according to WP:FN. Any objections? -- JerryOrr 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've converted the references in this article according to WP:FN. Please attempt to follow those guidelines for future citations.
Also, I added some cited content taken from the introduction to Edwin Black's The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book; my additions came from some online excerpts [6]. If anyone with a copy of the book would like to cite the actual pages, I would appreciate it! -- JerryOrr 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Jerry, I know you removed the uncited addition on Ernst Rüdin, but I nevertheless found myself wondering about his relevance. As far as I know, Sanger wasn't close to Rüdin (his article was published in Birth Control Review years after she resigned as editor). Maybe the anon was thinking of Lothrop Stoddard. Do you have any info on him in your sources? MFNickster 03:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
i know that there was a movie aobut her but i don't remember the name.
Does anyone have a copy of the entire text of Sanger's Dec. 10 letter to Clarence Gamble re: the "Negro Project"? I can only find the excerpt recently added by User:134.121.126.133, which seems to be consistently quoted in isolation to give the impression that the project was in fact intended to "exterminate the negro population." As far as I know she never stated such a goal elsewhere (specifically referring to "negros"), and my impression is that she was trying to prevent a mistaken impression from taking hold. Obviously she was not successful if that's the case.
I find the cited reference (Blessed are the Barren, quoted at BlackGenocide.org) to be questionable at best, especially since it castigates Sanger for "character assassination, personal vilification and old-fashioned bigotry," and then goes on to recommend George Grant's book Killer Angel, which employs the very same tactics against Sanger. MFNickster 17:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the misleading section, per the consensus of this discussion. -- JerryOrr 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
A new section was recently added that I believe had some serious problems. Aside from being a block of text just thrown into the article (it didn't flow with the rest of the content), it had parts which were redundant and/or POV. I felt it was easier to just remove it than try to fix it, but there was some good info in there (that actually had citations!) that I think we can re-incorporate into the article with a little work. Let's see what we can do! -- JerryOrr 13:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
--BEGIN NEW CONTENT--
Eugenics is a theory of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Eugenicists, including the Nazis, were opposed to the use of contraception or abortion by healthy and "fit" women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger's books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning ("Sanger on Exhibit," 1999/2000). (Sanger helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany ("Margaret Sanger and the 'Refugee Department'," 1993).)
Sanger, however, clearly identified with the broader issues of health and fitness that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s — decades in which treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown. But Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently and firmly repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that effected passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other inherited traits vary by individual and not by group (Chesler, 1992).
Though she tried for years, Sanger was unable to convince the leaders of the eugenics movement to accept her credo that "No woman can be free who does not own and control her body (Sanger, 1920)." Her on-going disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:
Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother. . . .Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment (Sanger, 1919a).
Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored
* incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions
* the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.
* placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct
Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves.
--END NEW CONTENT--
Did Sanger really say stuff like this?
Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me, but what does the Population control article say?
And Red China admitted that Mao Tse-Tung murdered 20 million Chinese civilians (other sources say 60 million), so democide and mass murder are not without precedent.
Anyway, can someone give me a better source than radio liberty? -- Uncle Ed 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In Woman and the New Race, chapter V, (available at [Bartleby.com]) Sanger wrote that, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." This would seem to contradict the article's statement that Sanger "did not support active euthanasia." For that matter, according to ALL she did in fact single out "Negroes" (as well as Southern Europeans and Hebrews, but I don't have a source for them) as being inferior races, saying on 10/19/1939 that, "the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members," which would also contradict our text. I didn't want to put these up myself, because it's a stable text and big changes to the core meaning of what a section says should be Talk-paged approved, and also because the second source, at least, could draw some (I think unjustified) NPOV fire, so it should be discussed here. Thoughts?
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not editing this myself, I haven't really done much editing on here ever. I just thought someone would like to know that this article links to the army of god website here:
"The previous year she had addressed a Ku Klux Klan rally in New Jersey.[1]"
This website contains pictures of dead babies, essays such as "why shoot an abortionist", and refers to abortion clinics as "babykilling abortion mills".
Delete it or move it to wikiquote. It's just her saying women in the Klan are stupid. JeffBurdges 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no support for the statment:
Notice how the reasons "advances in genetic" have no bearing on the disputed outcome "prevent the disabled"?
Its just someone pushing a POV. JeffBurdges 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see yor point, if its partially heritable, i.e. some other genetic factors influence the probability of the extra chromosome, then how you can say the race definitely wont be improved by eliminating one risk factor? Seems more complex than that. If Margaret Singer had an excessively simple minded view of eugenics, fine qoutes to that effect should be included. Heck, everyoby living in her time had an excessively simple minded view towards something technical, it was called moernism But keep in mind, Sanger's support for eugenics is not that of any irrational racist. And she would likely change her position to account for any new information presented to her. So you are essentially just attacking a strawman, when the reality is simply that our understanding of biology was nieve at the time. Also the modern opposition to eugenics is not based upon such technical difficulties. Modern opposition to eugenics is due to the fact that every single time it has been tried, the people implementing it applied it in a racist way. Even if you sterilize people who carry a segregation disorder gene, history suggests that a racist politician will see to it that many many more blacks are sterilized than whites. This was simply not known at Sanger's time. JeffBurdges 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it known why her daughter died? -- CecilK 12:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
it seems the PC police are trying desperately to walk the tightrope on this one. Surely, they have to make M sanger out to be a hero since she introduced Birth Control issues and the like, but alos , they know she was a hatef illed racist who openly advocated murder, sterilization and racial cleansing. The fact is, her views, even by todays lack of standards, are horrifying if one reads them in their entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phil Franco ( talk • contribs).
The quotes used in the section on eugenics are patently false and taken out of context to mis-portray the idea of Margret Sanger.
The section say that Margret Sanger supported eugenics, yet her own writings flatly contradict this, for example:
"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother." - Margret Sanger; The Birth Control Review, 1919
This page has become just a vehicle for Christian fundamentalists to attack abortion.
65.240.227.45 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the discussion of eugenics in this article violates the neutral point of view objective because it is sexist. This can be demonstrated quite easily by searching for male eugenics supporters' Wiki entries and seeing how eugenics is applied to their histories. It is rarely mentioned in the introductory paragraph, and I have never found an entry on a male proponent which suggested his reputation or work had somehow been "tarnished" because of a belief or disbelief in eugenics. The presentation of eugenics material in this article is a direct, sexist attack on Sanger's history. Peacocksandlilies ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This page has become a vehicle for abortion mill employees & anti-baby activists to mask the truth of Margaret Sanger.—Preceding unsigned comment added by American Law School ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In Europe (or at least the German speaking countries) Margaret Sanger is a more or less unknow person nowadays. The first time I heard/read about her was through the Times Magazine (Top 100 selection) and I stumbled accidently and years later across that article. I got interested and read some of her books. Then I found the article here and noticed that there is none about her in de.wikipedia. So I wrote it based on this article, the paper project, her books and what I found on the web.
Two weeks ago 'my' article passed the nomination for good article. Now my next goal is to make it a featured article and I think the part it is most lacking is the whole controversy which seems still to be active. It seems to be a cultural problem so I have a little problem understanding it. I read her books but I never found her supporting abortion (more the opposite: in her biography she writes that birth control is the only cure for abortion). But as far as I read on several websites abortion antagonists regard her as 'bad' person. So how did that happen and is it still topical? Is she still a known person or just remembered by people who are active in the field of her work?
I hope somebody here is willing to help improving the German article about her and tells me more. E-mail or messages on my discussion page are very welcomed. -- CecilK 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In the section on Eugenics, it is written as if it were established fact that Sanger was a eugenicist. This is not true, there is currently a great debate over this very subject with support for both sides in great abundance. If you believe that she was a blatant eugenicist that's fine but I believe that mention should be made that not everyone is in agreement on this particular topic. Several prominent figures dispute the eugenic claims. I happen to believe she is a eugenicist but I don't think you can accurately portray her legacy without a mention of the opposing viewpoint and why they feel that they have substantial evidence to refute eugenic claims 68.48.4.151 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)S. Nelson
This entire article is very biased and tries to paint Margaret Sanger in as negative a light as possible, with some inflammatory and otherwise not-neutral-enough language. The entire article needs an overhaul. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.28.213.114 (
talk)
19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is one revealing quote from her: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."(Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts)
MFNickster, I am not sure if you have ever had any exposure to argumentative fallacies, but just because she did not write about "exterminating the Negro Population" in her biographical accounts does not mean it was an idea she was wholly against. There seems to be enough evidence out there to warrant a section in the article re: this topic. I am not sure why you have such a hard on for her. Was she your grandmother or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.255.27 ( talk) 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
At least as civil as M. Sangers philosophy regarding "inferior" races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.255.27 ( talk) 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You can choose to take my argument-free reply in a variety of ways, as long as it does not harm the blessed reputation of the deified M. Sanger. It is not an association fallacy. Have you read the webpage under the discussion heading "Negro Project"? Does this not deserve some mention on the wiki page? Seriously are you related to her? You must have some connection to her, Time magazine, or some other organization where her reputation is important enough to control her wiki page religiously. You are obviously educated, and have a brain on your shoulders. This makes the question of your servitude to M. Sanger all the more perplexing.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.195.158 ( talk) 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.
– Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
In an article by F. William Engdahl, "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic. Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t, Engdahl quotes Sanger writing in a letter: "we want to exterminate the Negro population." He backs up the quote with the article The Negro Project which appears to be identical to the article linked at the beginning of this section. There the text is a little different, significantly so: "The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members". This is to give a heads-up in advance in case somebody comes wanting to back up any inappropriate claims using the Engdahl quote. __ meco ( talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing some recent additions by User:Gman992 that are inaccurate. My explanations:
Sanger called for the assassination of Rockefeller by writing an article called “A Defense of Assassination.” Ironically, it ould be the Rockefeller that was the source of many grants to Sanger's birth control clinics. (Flynn, p. 146).
Additionally, Sanger used her newsletter, The Woman Rebel to call for the assassination of key social and political figures that she believed were a threat to her vision of America. When terrorists tried to assassinate John D. Rockefeller, the head of Standard Oil, Sanger used The Woman Rebel to honor those terrorists and call for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. The terrorists failed to kill Rockefeller with a homemade bomb because it blew up in their faces when they were constructing it. Rockefeller, it seems, became a target for Sanger because he sat the board of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. Sanger wrote:
“Even if dynamite were to serve no other purpose than to call forth the spirit of revolutionary solidarity and loyalty, it would prove its greater value.” (Flynn, Daniel J. Intellectual Morons, Crown Forum, New York, New York, 2004, p. 146-147)
Throughout her life, Sanger continued was a staunch proponent of the “Negro Project” by writing to Dr. Clarence Gamble, The Southern regional director of the Birth Control Federation of America, “We do not want to the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who ca straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their most rebellious members.” (Flynn, p. 154.)
One can read Sanger’s positions in her original writings for The Woman Rebel. But, you may have trouble finding them. A thief stole of all the remaining copies of her newsletter from the New York Public Library, but if you contact her grandson or read them through New York University’s Margaret Sanger Project. (Flynn, p. 147)
I'm honestly a little skeptical about some of the other sections that cite the Flynn book; it already seems to have taken some "liberty with the truth". But I'm too tired to work further on it... someone else is more than welcome to. -- JerryOrr ( talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Left them where? with whom? — SlamDiego ←T 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Shocked by the inability of most women to obtain accurate and effective birth control, which she believed was fundamental to securing freedom and independence for working women, Sanger began challenging the 1873 federal Comstock law and the various "little Comstock" state laws that banned the dissemination of contraceptive information. In March 1914, Sanger published the first issue of The Woman Rebel, a radical feminist monthly that advocated militant feminism, including the right to practice birth control. For advocating the use of contraception, three issues of The Woman Rebel were banned, and in August 1914 Sanger was eventually indicted for violating postal obscenity laws. Unwilling to risk a lengthy imprisonment for breaking federal laws, Sanger jumped bail in October and, using the alias "Bertha Watson," set sail for England. En route, she ordered friends to release 100,000 copies of Family Limitation, a 16-page pamphlet which provided explicit instructions on the use of a variety of contraceptive methods. |
Sanger separated from her husband, William, in 1914, and in keeping with her private views on sexual liberation, she began a series of affairs with several men... |
I think it needs some work or to be removed.
Being arrested for speech (even often) does not prove / make one a proponent of 'free speech'. If there is some evidence she supported free speech for everyone (vs. just people supporting her causes), then that should be presented / added. Otherwise, the section makes a claim that is unsupported. I don't want to pull a Godwin, but the next step in my argument would be to list off all the worst people (as examples) arrested for their speech... who didn't support ‘free speech’... but I'll spare you as you probably get what I mean without it.
Sanger invited Georges Vacher de Lapouge, a French anthropologist and racialist to the 6th International Congress of the Birth Control which was held in New York in March, 1925. [1]
I had rewritten that line so it would read a bit better, but then I looked closer and realized that this stand-alone sentence is unrelated to anything around it, not relevant to the section it appears in, not significant to the overall article, and supported by only a single ref that isn't in English. I'm going to simply remove it pending a more thorough rewrite. Doc Tropics 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently the second footnote refers to Current Biography 1945. What is this? We can't have citations like that. I'm leaving it in place in case somebody knows what is missing and can complete it, otherwise it should be removed and the statement it is supposed to source tagged with {{ fact}}. __ meco ( talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd read of it or seen a documentary explaining that when the police raided Sanger's clinic in Brownsville, they took--illegally even then--her patient list with them. I think I also heard/read that many of those names(and perhaps addresses)were false, perhaps because those visiting her clinic were doing so on the q.t., so taboo was the subject of sex and contraception then. I also read that the captain in charge of the raid in Brownsville had been asked to do so by his parish priest. A PBS documentary several years ago showed how a birth control clinic in Connecticut in the 1930s was legally harassed out of town: every petty municipal ordinance and fine that could be summoned against it was done so.POV: perhaps she deserved criticism, but so did her critics. 132.156.43.8 ( talk)opusv5 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood".
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
"Woman and the New Race", pp. 62-63: “Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl100 ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger editors may be interested in the new Negro Project page that was recently created. — Noah 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Negro Project stub article is redirected to this one. In one year's time there has been no unique content other than the following NPR audio, in which Johnny Hunter, Director of L.E.A.R.N., Inc. [11] makes this accusation without evidence.
Any new, encyclopedic information on the Negro project can probably be developed in this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Given all the misleading claims on the internet about the Negro Project, it is important that the Margaret Sanger wikipage address this issue directly. I twice tried to add a link (found on the old Negro Project page) to an article from the newsletter of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University. [2] Both times this link addition was reverted. Perhaps the people who removed the link didn't actually read the article? It describes in detail Sanger's involvement in the Negro Project and explains some of her quotes which have been taken out of context. The article concludes (emphasis added):
This is a well-researched article from the official Margaret Sanger archives at NYU. It gives details about Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project, a topic of great current interest (I came to this wikipage looking for objective information after reading an anti-abortion website). I'm going to add this reference back shortly, please give an explanation here if you disagree with including this reference. 80.212.50.12 ( talk) 13:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that regardless of the posthumously labeled intent, Sanger had a very racist view of Blacks in America. Despite the supposed lack of intent to follow up on the principle of minimizing procreation among Blacks, the belief is still there. While it is far more preferable to have racist beliefs than to act on racist beliefs, it would behoove readers to know about the racism exhibited by Sanger. I also believe, with respect to hearsay, if we are going to fall on one side, we should keep to it. Treating posthumous speculation and framing of Sangers' own words as canon (regardless of credentials) leaves a decidedly unfair leaning to the article. Also, I find the condescension of some of the users unamusing when the "context of the article" that the users refer to actually comes from external speculation rather than actual clarification by the author herself. 98.114.206.148 ( talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Margaret Sanger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Well written and fairly well-referenced. "Philosophy" and "Psychology of Sexuality" sections in particular require better referencing, however. Badbilltucker 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)