Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "FORGOTTEN HISTORY"
channel.
-
51
-
26
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
@debbied7035 If, as you say, she said, "over and over how bad she thought blacks and other races were", then you should be able to cite at least one book in which she writes that, or one lecture in which she said it. Date, and location, of the lecture, or, title, and chapter, of the book, please, no un-sourced quotations. I'll wait.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@grimjoker5572
RE: "You didn't take an action you knew would make another person dependent on your circulatory system. There for this is a false analogy. "
It's not an analogy at all! You brought up the issue of not losing your uterus. My point is it doesn't matter whether you lose part of your body by sustaining the other person. Lose or not lose, it's your body and you get to decide whose life to sustain and shelter inside it, and when, and how long.
You keep trying to portray the aborted fetus as a victim of wrongdoing. That's wrong. An aborted fetus gets a few days or weeks of womb-time, during which its life is supported by the insides of another person's body, without it (the fetus) having to put in any effort or do any work. That's not a harm; that is an affirmative benefit. If the woman gets an abortion, the time from conception to abortion is still an affirmative benefit, a gift to the fetus, just not as big a one as you might like. So you are like someone who gets a gift of ten dollars, and curses the giver for not having given a hundred. "But I needed a hundred dollars, you bastard!" The right answer is : that may be, but you're only getting ten dollars from me. My gift, from inside my body, so my rules.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ellielynn8219 Yes, you can look up her quotes, and when you do, you will see that in context they mean something entirely different from what they appear to mean when quoted out of context. For instance, the line about "the most merciful thing a large family does with a newborn baby is to kill it" is a sarcastic comment about the enormous child-mortality rate in families which have more children than they can afford to raise and look after. You wouldn't know that unless you read the essay it appeared in. And the line "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the N* population" doesn't mean that she wants to exterminate anyone; it means that she is concerned that someone might think, wrongly, or say, falsely, that she wanted to. (As this video does!) There were plenty of people who did want to, in her time, and she didn't want to be mistaken for one of them. This is obvious in context.
Real history. Just imagine that!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you.
Margaret Sanger was an abortion-opponent. She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious,", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here are a few corrections to common lies about Margaret Sanger:
1. She OPPOSED abortion. She was pretty outspoken about it. Planned Parenthood didn't start doing abortions until she had been dead for more than three years.
2. She didn't want to exterminate any racial or ethnic group.
3. She didn't want government to forcibly sterilize anyone for being a member of any racial or ethnic group; also didn't want government to forcibly sterilize poor people for being poor.
4. She didn't like the Third Reich; she was writing about how awful they were as early as 1933.
5. She didn't speak at any KKK rally, and did not like the KKK. She addressed an indoor meeting of the women's auxiliary KKK once, in spite of her misgivings about them, because she was willing to try to find common ground with anyone, and she reported having the impression that her audience were all half-wits. She received numerous invitations to address them again, but declined all of them.
6. She didn't hate black people. The purpose of the N*gro Project was to help black Americans, by making birth control available to them and to inform them about it, so that they could stop having more children than they could afford to raise, which was the same agenda she had for everyone. The black community was insular and mistrustful of outsiders, so, bringing knowledge of birth control and its benefits to them presented a special challenge, so, they got a special project. Members of the N*gro Project's board of directors included W. E. B. DuBois (one of the founders of NAACP), Adam Clayton Powell (first black congressman to represent New York State in the US Congress) and Dr. John W. Lawlah (the Dean of the medical school at Howard University).
7. She didn't advocate any general policy of coercive eugenics. She argued that when birth control was widely available, people would choose freely how many children to have, and the results of their free choices would be eugenically beneficial to society, as more successful people, who could afford larger families than less successful people, would choose to breed more, increasing the occurrence of heritable traits conducive to success, in future generations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@katie7748 What murderer? What murder? If you are thinking of abortion, you should know that Margaret Sanger was an outspoken, loud opponent of abortion. No fooling, she really was. She described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grimjoker5572 No it is not your place to prevent anything or protect anyone, inside another person's body, unless you have permission from the owner of that body to do so. Protection of the weak depends on where the weak are located. If the weak are located inside my body, than even if the weak were fully conscious humans, sitting up and solving heretofore unsolved classic math problems, or writing award-winning poetry, you would have no business trying to protect them unless I, the owner, sovereign, and arbiter-of-everything inside my body, gave you permission to conduct a rescue mission inside it.
If all the human beings in the whole world were located inside my body, then I would be entitled to holocaust them. Or, just kill the ones I didn't like, and spare the ones I do like.
If God were located inside my body, then I would be entitled to kill God.
(For inside my body, I am like a refiner's fire.
The arbiter and owner, whom none may defy.)
1
-
1
-
@User-qo5pw She didn't advocate for "eradication". And the "human weeds" were anyone whose parents already had more children than they could afford to raise properly. A "human weed" meant a neglected child, neglected because the parents already had so many children that they couldn't look after all of them. A family (Margaret Sanger said) should be like plants in a garden, spaced, timed to season, and attentively watered and pruned, and given fertilizer. Not like an untended bit of weedy soil with children competing like wild animals for food, clothing, and attention.
"Human weeds" had nothing to do with race, skin-color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. It was entirely a matter of how big your family was, and how many children your parents could afford to raise.
1
-
@grimjoker5572 RE: "You took an action you know could result in somebody being dependent on you for a period of time."
The kind of obligations you are talking about - agreeing to take care of a child - only obligate you to provide external goods (food, diapers, money, etc.), not any part of the insides of your body. That is why we don't force you to donate blood or tissues or organs to your children, no matter how pressing their need may be. In other words, if the only food the child could eat were part of the inside of your body, then you would be entitled to let the child starve to death, if that were your preference.
RE: "This means you consented to the consequences of said action."
The consequence you consented to is that if you get pregnant, you must choose whether to complete your pregnancy and give birth, or whether to abort it. Your obligation is to choose wisely. The government's obligation is to leave you (and your doctor) alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grimjoker5572
RE: "Her position that she'd work with literal Klans members to advance her cause?"
Pretty much, yes. She had what you might call a "cooperative personality". She was kind of a polar opposite of someone like Donald Trump or the late Senator John McCain - two men whose first impulse on meeting someone new is to pick fights, whose response to every problem is to find a target and then try to establish dominance. Margaret Sanger was the opposite: she was a serial bridge-builder, a seeker-of-common-ground. Her impulse on encountering someone new was always to try to find areas of agreement. That is one of the main reasons (maybe the main reason) she was able to accomplish so much in her lifetime. Bill Clinton is the same way - he wants you to like him, not fear him.
Margaret Sanger expressed this in her autobiography in the section about speaking to the Women's Branch of K^3 by writing: "Always to me any aroused group was a good group...." She meant, anyone who could be motivated to join in the project of making birth-control legal, well-known, and generally available, was worth the effort at least exploring and assessing. Including even K^3, notwithstanding the misgivings she had about them.
From her autobiography (which you should read, the whole thing, if you are serious about wanting to know more about her and cut through the garbage you see on videos like this one):
"All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, religion, or economic status. Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the [K^3] at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alperdue2704
Oh brother, this lame argument again??? PP locates in poor communities, because that is where the demand for minimal-cost, no-frills GYN care is greatest. Just as Salvation Army locates in poor communities, too, because that is where the customers are. Not as any conspiracy to keep poor people down by making them dress in shabby, ill-fitting, second-hand clothes.
And however the German Nazis felt about her, there's no argument about the fact that she didn't like them. She made this very clear in a private letter written in 1933. Same with KKK: the women's auxiliary branch of KKK invited her to give a secret night-time lecture, she reluctantly agreed, and she reported having the impression that they were all half-wits and kooks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twoEARSoneMOUTH247 LOL funny, but I'm not lying. But go ahead and prove your point, by citing the source for that line about Blacks, Jews, and Soldiers. What book, speech, article, or essay, by Margaret Sanger, is it from? (Page number, too, ,please.) You can't, because she never said or wrote it.
1
-
1
-
RE: "Abortion should only be a decision to make understand the most dire of circumstances."
That's what Margaret Sanger thought! She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious,", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lupusdeum3894 Hardly. Margaret Sanger turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid”, “abhorrent”, “terrible”, “barbaric”, "vicious", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ac1045 I read Dan Kevles' review of it. He said it had a lot of historical facts right, but misinterpreted the overall meaning very badly, because the author wrote with a particular political agenda, with biased sponsors whom he had to please. A kind of a good-at-the-trees-but-bad-at-seeing-the-forest kind of complaint. Maybe "cherry-picking" is the phrase I'm looking for.
That's Professor Daniel J. Kevles, currently emeritus, on the faculty of Yale and Columbia, formerly a history-of-science big-shot at CalTech, is generally considered the leading world expert on this subject; also, on the history of nuclear physics, and on history of modern environmentalism, and on history of scams and pseudoscience, and on a few other key issues in history of modern science. His book on history of eugenics is In the Name of Eugenics - Genetics, and the Uses of Human Heredity. Published by Harvard University Press. (Full disclosure: I dated his daughter when we were undergrads, four decades ago.) Kevles is beholden to nobody, having been a name-your-own-salary-level big-shot in this stuff for half a century. He has no political agenda and just does straight-up history.
1
-
@liberality I have read her autobiography many times. She advocated for forced sterilization of people with some heritable illnesses, especially mental illnesses which rendered the patients unable to decide for themselves whether to get sterilized or to remain fertile, but never for forced sterilization based on race, skin-color, national origin, religion, or income or wealth.
And she never addressed any "rally", only a secret, indoor, members-only meeting of the Women's Auxilliary of KKK. She agreed to lecture to them in spite of her misgivings about them, and afterwards, she called the experience "weird", and came away with the impression that her audience were all half-wits, and never had anything to do with KKK again after.
That is very different from addressing a "rally". Try to get the facts right!
1
-
1
-
1
-
RE: "She referred to Blacks as 'Human Weeds'.".
That's a lie. The people she analogized to human weeds were "... feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." (From "A Plan for Peace", Birth Control Review, April 1932, pp. 107-108.)
Also, in the same essay: "... illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends..."
Nothing about race, ethnicity, national origin, or skin-color.
She used the metaphor of "human weeds" to refer to families having more children than they could afford to raise, just having sxx whenever they felt like it and making no effort to use birth-control. A family should be like a GARDEN, planned, tended, organized, sized to fit into the garden bed, not growing at random and out of control like a patch of weeds.
"Just think for a moment of the meaning of the word kindergarten--a garden of children! To me, that is just what the world ought to be--a garden of children. In this matter we should not do less than follow the example of the professional gardener. Every expert gardener knows that the individual plant must be properly spaced, rooted in a rich nourishing soil, and provided with sufficient air and sunlight. He knows that no plant would have a fair chance of life if it were overcrowded or choked by weeds. To grow into maturity, to bud, to blossom, to produce beautiful sturdy flowers in its own season, each plant must have constant attention, incessant care and tender devotion. If plants, and live stock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts.
How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.
In a home where there are too many children in proportion to the living space, the air and sunlight, the children are usually overcrowded and underfed. They are a constant burden on their mother's overtaxed strength and the father's earning capacity. Such homes cannot be gardens in any sense of the word."
--Radio WFAB Syracuse, 1924-02-29, transcripted in "The Meaning of Radio Birth Control", April 1924, p. 111.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysoldier68 No, PP and abortion clinics generally are not "two peas in a pod". PP has a particular charter, which specifies that its purpose is to provide no-frills, minimal-cost care for patients who cannot afford better. For this reason PP tends to locate in poor neighborhoods, just as Salvation Army outlets do - because that is where the demand for their service is, not because of any conspiracy to keep poor people down by dressing them in shabby, ill-fitting, second-hand clothing.
As far as sources go, I already spent time verifying what I say, some time ago, and I don't feel like doing it all again. That leaves you with three options: 1. you can take my word for what I tell you, OR, 2. you can go verify it all yourself, OR, 3. you can go on being ignorant, stupid, deluded, gullible, and wrong, for the rest of your life. I don't much care which you choose.
It's a little silly to be talking about abortion clinics in the context of a discussion of Margaret Sanger anyway. Margaret Sanger opposed abortion, pretty vigorously. She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid”, “abhorrent”, “terrible”, “barbaric”, "vicious", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steviewonder417
I forgot: you haven't read what she wrote. (It's funny how Sanger-bashers almost never know what she actually wrote.)
Go read her essay "America Needs a Code for Babies", which was published May 27, 1934 in American Weekly. ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. Do NOT rely on the fake summaries and lies which your mendicant propagandists (including the folks who made this propaganda-for-idiot-viewers video) promote; read what she ACTUALLY WROTE. You will see that she rejected the idea of enforcing the requirements of eugenics by means of any kind of punishment or force:
"Society could not very well put a couple into jail for having a baby without permission; and in the case of paupers a fine could not be collected. How then should the guilty be punished? ... [Since] punishment is not practicable, perhaps we can go the other way around and consider awards. If it is wise to pay farmers for not raising cotton or wheat, it may be equally wise to pay certain couples for not having [more] children."
You see? Eugenics, promoted by the government, but with no punishment for disobeying the government and doing the wrong thing. In fact, the opposite: a reward for doing the right thing, which is: only have as many babies as you can afford to raise properly. A mandate with no punishment for disobeying is generally called a VOLUNTARY mandate.
(I should not have to explain this to you. If you're gonna express an opinion about Margaret Sanger, you should already know what she wrote, and what she did not write. If you're gonna express an opinion about eugenics, you should already know the difference between voluntary eugenics and coercive eugenics. (Also the difference between affirmative eugenics and negative eugenics, and between scientifically unsound eugenics and scientifically sound eugenics.) You should not be basing your position on ignorance, and you should not be so stupid. LEARN first, THEN form an opinion, then learn MORE, then CHECK your opinion against what you have learned, and ONLY THEN post your opinions.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion. Loudly. She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious,", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A fake version is taught these days: the one in this video. Here are a few corrections to common lies about Margaret Sanger:
1. She OPPOSED abortion. She was pretty outspoken about it. Planned Parenthood didn't start doing abortions until she had been dead for more than three years.
2. She didn't want to exterminate any racial or ethnic group.
3. She didn't want government to forcibly sterilize anyone for being a member of any racial or ethnic group; also didn't want government to forcibly sterilize poor people for being poor.
4. She didn't like the Third Reich; she was writing about how awful they were as early as 1933.
5. She didn't speak at any KKK rally, and did not like the KKK. She addressed an indoor meeting of the women's auxiliary KKK once, in spite of her misgivings about them, because she was willing to try to find common ground with anyone, and she reported having the impression that her audience were all half-wits. She received numerous invitations to address them again, but declined all of them.
6. She didn't hate black people. The purpose of the N*gro Project was to help black Americans, by making birth control available to them and to inform them about it, so that they could stop having more children than they could afford to raise, which was the same agenda she had for everyone. The black community was insular and mistrustful of outsiders, so, bringing knowledge of birth control and its benefits to them presented a special challenge, so, they got a special project. Members of the N*gro Project's board of directors included W. E. B. DuBois (one of the founders of NAACP), Adam Clayton Powell (first black congressman to represent New York State in the US Congress) and Dr. John W. Lawlah (the Dean of the medical school at Howard University).
7. She didn't advocate any general policy of coercive eugenics. She argued that when birth control was widely available, people would choose freely how many children to have, and the results of their free choices would be eugenically beneficial to society, as more successful people, who could afford larger families than less successful people, would choose to breed more, increasing the occurrence of heritable traits conducive to success, in future generations.
1
-
1