Derby Trail Forums - Letter to the Pres, from Bob, the stem cell

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Letter to the Pres, from Bob, the stem cell (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14374)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

It just occurred to me that I should post this in this particular thread since this thread is what I was referring to earlier:

I have not used the appropriate tone towards GR here. While we may not agree on much wrt politics, I still find her to be a kind and funny person. I have nothing against her personally, and I apologize to her for not using a tone that reflects what I think of her (ie one of my favorite folks here). Sometimes, my attempts to be funny in a sarcastic way just turns out as me simply being a sarcastic a$shole...not that it excuses my tone, far from it...just trying to explain how it is not intended to be offensive. Sorry, GR.

B; it's okay. It's kind of you to post in both threads. I started responding to your nice PM, got distracted and then plumb forgot to finish it and hit "send." My apologies for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well now, I just googled "Sanger" and "all children are mentally ill" and nothing comes up. Want to give specifics, Timm? Where did you find that quote?

Ah yes ..the great Google! I read this in a book around 30 yrs ago...sorry if I can't give specifics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Ah yes ..the great Google! I read this in a book around 30 yrs ago...sorry if I can't give specifics.

Timm,
It's OK...everybody is getting all smoochie.
Sanger really wasn't involved in Bush's veto, though I think Mengele was.

Wet SMOOCH! MWAHHH!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oh my Gods and Goddesses, could you be taking that phrase any more out of context? (B would be very angry with you right now for that). What say you read the entire piece from which you took that quote and get back to me:

http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/ab...sanger_03.html

In case you don't feel like actually reading the woman in her own words- I'll fill you in. "Physically and mentally below par" is referring to the fact that these kids were malnourished and under-educated because they had to leave school at a young age and go work in mills and things that kids had to do before liberals pushed for child-labor laws, NOT that they were mentally retarded. Sanger's point was that if women could control their reproduction, they would have fewer children BY CHOICE, which would then make available a larger share of limited resources on each individual child. Have you ever ben on birth control, Danzig? You can thank Sanger going to jail several times over it- birth control was illegal for MARRIED COUPLES until the 1960's. She was a trailblazer in believing women should be allowed to choose when to have kids- and in recognizing lower birth rates also means lower rates of poverty. Which is why she set up centers in poor neighborhoods. Not because she was racist.

Here's more from that same piece I linked to. Boy, she sure hated kids, doesn't she?

"It is a truism that children are the chief asset of a nation. Yet while the United States government allotted 92.8 per cent. of its appropriations for 1920 toward war expenses, three per cent. to public works, 3.2 per cent. to ``primary governmental functions,'' no more than one per cent. is appropriated to education, research and development. Of this one per cent., only a small proportion is devoted to public health. The conservation of childhood is a minor consideration. While three cents is spent for the more or less doubtful protection of women and children, fifty cents is given to the Bureau of Animal Industry, for the protection of domestic animals. In 1919, the State of Kansas appropriated $25,000 to protect the health of pigs, and $4,000 to protect the health of children. In four years our Federal Government appropriated--roughly speaking--$81,000,000 for the improvement of rivers; $13,000,000 for forest conservation; $8,000,000 for the experimental plant industry; $7,000,000 for the experimental animal industry; $4,000,000 to combat the foot and mouth disease; and less than half a million for the protection of child life."

Excuse me while I go rest my head on my desk for a while. Oy vey.

i didn't post it as a way of showing that she thought 'all children were mentally ill' ---it was to show that the most she ever spoke of being so was 75%...whatever her context was. i wasn't coming down on either side of any argument about her quote, i was just posting the quote.

i don't know enough about her to say whether i agree or disagree about much of anything that she did, but from what i saw thus far, well, i won't say what i think-i don't know enough.

gimme a break. people sure are quick to jump on others around here anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

Right, and I was saying that she never said 75% were mentally ill- she was saying they were not what they could have been, due to poor education and poor nutrition. Here's what you said, exactly:

<<"Authorities tell us that 75 % of the school-children are defective. This means that no less than fifteen million schoolchildren, out of 22,000,000 in the United States, are physically or mentally below par."

i found the above---not all children, but she certainly had a dim view of 3/4ths of them!>>

You said she had a dim view of kids; can you see how I would interpret that as saying Sanger had a dim view of kids in general, not a dim view of the conditions that led to them?

Sanger believed that poverty and excessive child-bearing were inextricably linked, and she was right about it- as countries' wealths increase, their birth rates drop. And remember, in the late 19th Century, early 20th Century, the slums in cities were a thousand times' worse than what they are now (and they're still pretty bad)- they were jammed full of poverty-stricken people who continued to have babies, many of whom didn't survive. Sanger believed women weren't bearing this many kids by choice and that if they were given access to birth control, they'd bear fewer kids and their economic chances would improve (not to mention their health). And this was anathema to Big Business- lots of poor kids meant an unending supply of dirt-cheap labor (reminding me, once again, that it all comes back to money). And of course, it also flew in the face of women's proper roles, as society saw it, at the time. And she got jailed a lot for it.

Again, not a saint- she was a product of her times, even as she was a rebel against them- she bought into eugenics, and believed mental retardation was almost always genetic. I've read some people think she had a personal dislike of sex (poor thing ;) ). But she did a great deal in trying to improve the lives of the desperately poor and in standing up for the revolutionary concept that women are more than walking incubators- that we should have a choice in when and how often we get pregnant. That was a huge societal shift, one from which we all still benefit, men and women alike.

Seriously, read the link I posted. It's just her- no commentary attached to it. Interesting stuff.