-3
Old fashioned
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
-3 points (46.9% liked)
conservative
920 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's doesn't exactly support your claim, or at least not very well. That article is light on the details, but from the sound of it, Sanger's name was on a plaque of some sort, and her name isn't exactly super well known, nor is her racist history, so it's sounds like it was more or less forgotten. Second, a plaque within a single building doesn't automatically reflect the values of an entire organization.
There are still confederate statues around, does that reflect the values of all american cities? No, of course not.
There are Carnegie libraries all over my city. Do those libraries hold the values that Carnegie did? Not really.
It just doesn't make sense to label an entire organization as racist, let alone jump to the claim that "eugenics is still very popular" based off of one plaque on one building of one organization.
She was their founder and it took until 2020 for them to renounce her.
Repeating your argument doesn't make it any more valid.
It wasn't just a plaque on some wall they were removing, 2020 is when they finally denounced her.
Ok, that still doesn't address the root of my argument, so I will ask it in a different way.
Can you prove that planned parenthood was explicitly embracing Sanger for her eugenics beliefs, instead of her beliefs about the importance of reproductive rights?
For example, people in this country openly embrace George Washington. Yet he was a slaver. He had slaves. But the people who see George Washington as a source of good for our country typically don't include the slavery part as the good part.
Would you consider organizations that honor George Washington to be racist?
Your George Washington straw man misses the mark, he didn't fight for slaves. It's more like beatifying General Lee, slave owner and general for the confederacy. I would say people that support General Lee are racists.
I don't have to prove PP publicly approved of Sanger's eugenics. They knew about her past, celebrated her and tried to down play her racists ramblings up until 3 years ago. Their current statement on her should have happened 40 years ago.
That's not the basis for my comparison, and therefore not relevant. The basis for comparison was that he, just like Sanger, is a historical figure that did a lot of good, while also doing a lot of bad.
"I don’t have to prove republicans publicly approved of Washington's slavery and slaughter of the natives. They know about his past, celebrate him, and continue to this day to try to down play his racist actions."
Do you still not see the problem here?
Would you consider organizations that honor George Washington to be racist?
Washington did not fight for slavery, did not advicate for it, and infact freed all the slaves he owned. He was not a champion of slavery. Sanger viewed abortion and birth control as a means to stop the undesirables from reproducing. She championed eugenics, PP was just a side effect of her goals.
You still haven't answered my question.
Would you consider organizations that honor George Washington to be racist?
No because Washington didn't use the revolutionary war to enact slavery.
He had slaves. And that was racist regardless of his opinion on the matter. He explicitly called for the genocide of natives.
You are definitely going to need a source for that claim.
Cultural genocide:
Land theft:
The natives quite literally called him "Town Destroyer" because he burned their homes, land, crops, and kidnapped any native around:
I must have missed where in all those sources Washington "explicitly called for the genocide of natives."
Try reading some of these things then.
What things? None of your references have Washington explicitly calling for genocide. The only ones that do mention the word genocide are opinion pieces and don't have any references of Washington calling for genocide.