Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So true. And the War on Drugs (Harrison Act of 1914) and Empire America, constantly meddling in the affairs of nations on the other side of the globe (Woodrow Wilson and WWI). The Wilson admin was a watershed.
1914!!!
Libya 1801-05!!
Mexico 1846
Japan 1853
Chile, and Haiti 1891
Nicaragua 1984
China 1894-95
Korea 1894-96
Panama 1895
Nicaragua II 1895
China II 1898-1900
Cuba 1898
Philippines 1898
Samoa 1899
Panama II 1901
Honduras 1903
Dominican Republic 1903
Prior to that was too busy spreading its continental empire.
Now that's just military interventions, if I were to point out all non-military foreign policies from the Civil War to the first Roosevelt administration we would be here all year round. Now I know for the most part the period between the Civil War and the first world war are largely a mystery to most Americans, you might take some time to acquaint yourself with the period, there is a lot more to it than covered wagons, cowboys and gunfighters.
Massive translation fail. The words you stick in my mouth are not remotely close to what I said. LOL. If you want to argue against what I said, argue against what I said, not some made up string of words that is completely different.
Oh, let's do argue.
This thread is an attempt to tie the progressive movement from over a century ago to progressives/liberals today. It fails. Why?
First, because the progressive movement of the early twentieth century necessarily reflected the values of that time period. Progressives weren't more racist than conservatives in 1915. Their ideology didn't include more racism than other political groups of the time. As has been pointed out, Charles Lindbergh subscribed to many of the same beliefs as Margaret Sanger regarding race and eugenics, and Mr Lindbergh fell solidly in the conservative camp politically. The premise to tie together the racism of 1915 to progressive racism of 2011 would rest on racism being a defining characteristic. If everybody's a blonde, then the fact that you are also a blonde is meaningless. It's not a distinction.
Second, because what was progressive in 1915 is not progressive today. The changes in values, beliefs, and policies is so dramatic that a comparison between the two renders the attempt to assert continuity invalid. Just as Abraham Lincoln would not be representative of the Republican Party today, because the Republican Party has changed so much over time.
Third, because Mrs Sanger's racism is simply an interesting historical footnote. Mrs Sanger didn't define progressivism in 1915. She simply spearheaded the expansion of women's rights during that time period by organizing protests against laws that made the use of contraception illegal. Yes, legalizing contraception was a progressive idea. But it in no way was key to progressive ideology. There were certainly men and women who would have considered themselves progressive and who did not support Mrs Sanger.
Fourth, because the repeated attempts to malign Mrs Sanger with the accusations of eugenics and racism aren't intended to hurt Mrs Sanger at all, since she is dead and beyond being hurt. They are intended to hurt Planned Parenthood. Which uses the overwhelming bulk of its resources to educate women about their reproductive health and to provide services such as gynecological exams, birth control, STD treatment to allow men and women to maintain their sexual and reproductive health. Evidently, there are people that find this to be anathema.
Margaret Sanger was a terrible, racist, hateful woman. The fact that someone of that nature created Plan Parenthood just proves that it is bad. It was created to breed out blacks, not to give women a choice as most people think. This world became a better place, at least a little bit, the day she died.
Margaret Sanger was a terrible, racist, hateful woman. The fact that someone of that nature created Plan Parenthood just proves that it is bad. It was created to breed out blacks, not to give women a choice as most people think. This world became a better place, at least a little bit, the day she died.
Drunk on kool-aid????
Planned Parenthood was created to provide women, all women, with access to contraceptives. And, you are using "choice" as a euphemism for abortion? Planned Parenthood was established long before abortion became legal, and they weren't in the business of providing illegal abortion services, ever.
Margaret Sanger was a terrible, racist, hateful woman. The fact that someone of that nature created Plan Parenthood just proves that it is bad. It was created to breed out blacks, not to give women a choice as most people think. This world became a better place, at least a little bit, the day she died.
Margaret Sanger was a reflection of the times she lived in with all its flaws and its ideas that today are shocking on face value, but they reflected the extreme racism of a time in history when black men coming back from WWI and still in uniform were lynched for the mere offense of thinking they were good enough to serve their country.
Martin Luther King did not share your characterization of what Sanger was trying to do for the black race. If you think otherwise how do you explain the very complimentary speech he made in 1966 in front of Planned Parenthood? Here's a tiny snippet of what he said that day:
Quote:
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger...............
This idea of the decoupling of 'reprehensible' someone's thought action/thought/speech from alledged good deeds is interesting. Is there a period of time that has to pass before someone's 'bad' activity can be minimized, or even disregarded? When I ask that I am thinking of the WV Senator Byrd (KKK past)and, of course MS' senator Trent Lott (praise of Strom Thurmond). Your take on those two, or any others will be interesting to hear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I don't excuse Sanger's prejudices. I think her ideas about race were reprehensible. I think the prevalent ideas of Americans at that time regarding race were reprehensible.
I think it's reprehensible for you, today, to try to demonize Sanger and her advocacy for women's rights by referring to her views on race, because the simple truth is that her advocacy for women is separate from her opinions on race. And her advocacy for women was, indeed, a courageous position that she took in the historical era that she adopted it. Whereas her opinions on race were unexceptional in her historical period.
This thread is an attempt to tie the progressive movement from over a century ago to progressives/liberals today. It fails. Why?
First, because the progressive movement of the early twentieth century necessarily reflected the values of that time period. Progressives weren't more racist than conservatives in 1915. Their ideology didn't include more racism than other political groups of the time. As has been pointed out, Charles Lindbergh subscribed to many of the same beliefs as Margaret Sanger regarding race and eugenics, and Mr Lindbergh fell solidly in the conservative camp politically. The premise to tie together the racism of 1915 to progressive racism of 2011 would rest on racism being a defining characteristic. If everybody's a blonde, then the fact that you are also a blonde is meaningless. It's not a distinction.
Second, because what was progressive in 1915 is not progressive today. The changes in values, beliefs, and policies is so dramatic that a comparison between the two renders the attempt to assert continuity invalid. Just as Abraham Lincoln would not be representative of the Republican Party today, because the Republican Party has changed so much over time.
Third, because Mrs Sanger's racism is simply an interesting historical footnote. Mrs Sanger didn't define progressivism in 1915. She simply spearheaded the expansion of women's rights during that time period by organizing protests against laws that made the use of contraception illegal. Yes, legalizing contraception was a progressive idea. But it in no way was key to progressive ideology. There were certainly men and women who would have considered themselves progressive and who did not support Mrs Sanger.
Fourth, because the repeated attempts to malign Mrs Sanger with the accusations of eugenics and racism aren't intended to hurt Mrs Sanger at all, since she is dead and beyond being hurt. They are intended to hurt Planned Parenthood. Which uses the overwhelming bulk of its resources to educate women about their reproductive health and to provide services such as gynecological exams, birth control, STD treatment to allow men and women to maintain their sexual and reproductive health. Evidently, there are people that find this to be anathema.
First, I don't take issue with you on the Planned Parenthood angle, so we can dispense with that. I disapproved of the hidden cam 'call them racist' stings run by anti-abortion groups on PP.
But regarding the larger angle of racism and progressivism I disagree. Maybe the conservatives were racist too at that time--I confess ignorance on that count. But they weren't out there actively pushing and promoting grand theories of racsim like the progressives were. Who was the 'conservative' equivalent to Mary Lease, advocating global separation of the races? How do you explain the fact that Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal work force, including the military, after Republicans had integrated it?
Of course things have changed, but there are still principles in common between early 20th and 21st century progressivism: collectivism/socialism, nannyism, and top down control by 'experts' who know better than the unwashed masses. And, just my opinion, it is no accident that they had overt racism, while we have the soft racism of low expectations.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
That's the thing with these 'progressive' racists -they always believe themselves to be superior.
Kinda like them morally superior family values folks who are so full of family vbalues (among other things) they can't keep their values confined to one family, eh?
Margaret Sanger was a reflection of the times she lived in with all its flaws and its ideas that today are shocking on face value, but they reflected the extreme racism of a time in history when black men coming back from WWI and still in uniform were lynched for the mere offense of thinking they were good enough to serve their country.
Martin Luther King did not share your characterization of what Sanger was trying to do for the black race. If you think otherwise how do you explain the very complimentary speech he made in 1966 in front of Planned Parenthood? Here's a tiny snippet of what he said that day:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
