Mostly sad to see her name get taken down by Planned Parenthood. But it doesn't take much independent investigation to see that her views related to Eugenics, the genetic basis of feeblemindedness and similar claimed maladies, are not the image we progressives want to invoke anymore. As such, I will agree, that it had to be done. Sad, but necessary. Sad because of what a heroic figure Sanger was in her other advocacy and deeds, and the heroic ongoing work by the institution she helped establish, Planned Parenthood.
I wouldn't put Sanger down with the likes of the war criminals that every US President has been, to a greater or lesser degree. I wouldn't put Sanger down with the Genociders like Colombus, the slavery defending Confederate Generals, or anyone like that. Sanger's "crimes" are primarily thought crimes that came about from freely expressing her views. They are simply out of step with better information and politics we could have today, among reasonable people (which excludes longtime Sanger smearers like Ted Cruz, who truly despise her for the wrong reasons--her advocacy for abortion, and we suspect would agree with her actual worst aspects, her smearing of the genetics and other intrinsics of poor people--which pretty much continues today among conservatives).
This unpublished essay probably reveals Sanger's views in their most politically incorrect formulation (which would explain why she left it as an unpublished draft).
Like most of her time, and many people still, she seemed to have some views not unlike social darwinism, that the poor are poor because of their own faults, including lack of "intelligence", not a problem with the utterly wrong organization and direction of society.
Marx and I have tended to the opposite tack. Speaking of Marx, Sanger attempted to debunk "Marxian Socialism." After reading this, actually published during her career, no leftist can gather much enthusiasm to protest the removal of her name from a progressive institution, however heroic her fight was for women's rights and limiting growth.
However, that would not be unique among progressive icons.
Sanger's calling Marx an anti-Malthusian is indeed correct. Funny, however, that a century later, the Marxist left was at the forefront, generally, of recognizing Limits to Growth, while the reactionary capitalist forces that used and abused Malthus' ideas in the 19th century had all become Cornucopians. That would seem to suggest that the Marxist claim to being scientific actually has some merit. Furthermore Marx's failure to see limits coincides with the lack of limits being felt for 100 years. So, the thinking of Marxists arcs toward scientific truth as it is better understood. Meanwhile, the direction of the reactionary arc never changes...all to the oligarchs and nothing to anybody else, either if that requires stinginess for the preservation of life of the proletariat or disregard for the consequences of growth, whichever best keeps the pyramid rising at the moment is the order of the day, and the ultimate truth.
I wouldn't put Sanger down with the likes of the war criminals that every US President has been, to a greater or lesser degree. I wouldn't put Sanger down with the Genociders like Colombus, the slavery defending Confederate Generals, or anyone like that. Sanger's "crimes" are primarily thought crimes that came about from freely expressing her views. They are simply out of step with better information and politics we could have today, among reasonable people (which excludes longtime Sanger smearers like Ted Cruz, who truly despise her for the wrong reasons--her advocacy for abortion, and we suspect would agree with her actual worst aspects, her smearing of the genetics and other intrinsics of poor people--which pretty much continues today among conservatives).
This unpublished essay probably reveals Sanger's views in their most politically incorrect formulation (which would explain why she left it as an unpublished draft).
Like most of her time, and many people still, she seemed to have some views not unlike social darwinism, that the poor are poor because of their own faults, including lack of "intelligence", not a problem with the utterly wrong organization and direction of society.
Marx and I have tended to the opposite tack. Speaking of Marx, Sanger attempted to debunk "Marxian Socialism." After reading this, actually published during her career, no leftist can gather much enthusiasm to protest the removal of her name from a progressive institution, however heroic her fight was for women's rights and limiting growth.
However, that would not be unique among progressive icons.
Sanger's calling Marx an anti-Malthusian is indeed correct. Funny, however, that a century later, the Marxist left was at the forefront, generally, of recognizing Limits to Growth, while the reactionary capitalist forces that used and abused Malthus' ideas in the 19th century had all become Cornucopians. That would seem to suggest that the Marxist claim to being scientific actually has some merit. Furthermore Marx's failure to see limits coincides with the lack of limits being felt for 100 years. So, the thinking of Marxists arcs toward scientific truth as it is better understood. Meanwhile, the direction of the reactionary arc never changes...all to the oligarchs and nothing to anybody else, either if that requires stinginess for the preservation of life of the proletariat or disregard for the consequences of growth, whichever best keeps the pyramid rising at the moment is the order of the day, and the ultimate truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment