patrick.net

Dan8267 says

He did however kill many Americans in order to let slavers continue to own, beat, murder, and rape slaves including children.

Dan, you've already been owned on this point by many direct quotes, and historical data. Your false beliefs matter little in the face of truth. You should spend less time attempting to re-write three month old threads, and more time reading what people who RESEARCHED this topic have written.

Think about this. If I'm right, then you have been suckered into one of the biggest government propaganda efforts in this countries history. I don't think your ego could take the hit, so continue burying your head on this one.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

@Rew @Bob

I want to hear their Yes or No answer.

@TwoScoopsMcGee, On what? What question? (I infer the question is that posed in the OP)

This should not be hard for anyone in America to answer. If it is, I'd just ask that one honestly think about the reasons behind your desire to seek ambiguity or an equivalence to other symbols.

My Answer:

A "yes no" answer is included. But "yes" or "no" appears inadequate as I believe the "why" is what you seem to be struggling with.

Just like there are no memorials to Hitler in Germany, there should be no memorials to enemy leaders, failed ideas, hate, inequality, and enemy armies, within our borders. We put enemies in museums, not enshrined on pedestals in public spaces of honor. Memorials and pedestals are for the dead who gave all, those brave enough to give their lives for country and citizen, and also those things which most embody the ideals of the United States.

So is the question really what Washington and Jefferson represent to us? Or is the question why doesn't Lee/confederate generals represent the same?

No, obviously, you don't remove Washington and Jefferson memorials. They fought FOR the U.S. and for the equality of all men, despite being slave owners themselves. We don't overlook that by their memorials either.

Contrast with Lee's legacy of leading an army against the United States, to try and create a separate nation, which required slavery as one of its chief tenants. Lee is famous for opposing the ideals of the United States. Lee fought to ensure blacks remained enslaved in the South and preserve being what would have essentially been the last modern nation upholding slavery. He should not be visible, on horse and pedestal, anywhere in the country: except museums, and maybe battlefieds as a recognition of 'honor thy enemy'.

Things I think people might think about to help understand what these "confederacy monuments" and celebrations of the "lost cause" actually are:

- When were the majority of memorials to the confederacy erected? In what states and historical context? Why?
- Do they include any greater scope of what those historical figures did? How were they interpreted by members of the community then? How about now?
- Do any memorials in America celebrate slave ships, stockades, whips, lynchings, and put them on pedestals? Why not?
- What types of things would you oppose being put in your town/public spaces? What things would make you oppose it?

Some additional nuance, if really required:

My great-great-Grandfather started a full blow Indian war ... himself. It doesn't mean there should be a statue of him. There are history books that describe it. I understand it, the conflict, and the "why". It's not something I celebrate as "American" in ideal and principal. It's something I understand as being part of my family and American history.

My Grandfather fought in WWII and Korea. He would be considered racists today by a good many. Also a good many would also claim he is not racist. There are memorials dedicated to him for what he did but not what of all he may have said or believed.

Memorials and statues are for the best things about America and humanity. It's for what we have pride in and what we as a nation, and people, wish to emulate. Museums, books, records help us remember the things which we must confront in our past. But these things we do not elevate in public symbols as something to aspire to.

There is a place for the mistakes and failures of humanity. Failed ideas, and those statues encompassing them, are relegated to spaces designed so that we may remember them in the context of being just that: failures and mistakes.

YesYNot says

It doesn't mitigate the effects of his use of slavery. I differ from Dan in that I don't judge individuals like Jefferson as harshly as I would someone who wanted to have slaves today.

And this brings up the great philosophical debate regarding moral relativism. That's a big enough subject to warrant it's own thread.

YesYNot says

If you accept that slavery is bad, but that there are many great things about our constitution and government, then you should be able to see the difference between memorials of Lee and Jefferson.

It is true that Jefferson wrote many good things. It is also true that he never remotely lived up to his ideas. And some failings are deal killers.

This is why we should have monuments to ideas rather than monuments to individuals.

But yes, there are material differences between Lee and Jefferson and equating the two is incorrect.

YesYNot says

Slavery is not what the US and our flag represents.

The problem with flags, especially the U.S. flag, is that they represent countries not idealized whitewashed images of countries. The American flag is not a symbol of freedom. America has always had the exact same flaws that the nations we criticize have and then some. America did not start out as a free nation. It did not become a free nation after the Civil War. It is still not a free nation today. Per capita, we incarcerate the most people, and they are mostly political prisoners. America is not even close to the most free nation in the world.

It is ridiculous and harmful to call America a symbol of freedom. At best, this country's history has been a very slow and painful march towards freedom with conservatives, particularly those from the south, fighting it every step of the way. The most optimistic and flattering position you can take on America that is also honest, is that America has made a lot of progress towards freedom over the past 240 years.

However, all flags, including the U.S. flag, carry with them the entire history of the country they represent, and this history includes every genocide, every enslavement, every political prison, every body cavity search, every act of torture, every lethal medical experiment, and every miscarriage of justice. If you find that thought unpleasant, then do your best to see that more emotional baggage isn't added to our flag by the USA Patriot Act, the Trump administration, the countless undeclared wars, the militarized police, and the lack of transparency and accountability in government.

The sins of the past are never forgotten and should never be forgotten. The best you can do is to acknowledge them, apologize for them, condemn them, and make sure they never happen again. The failure of Americans to take these steps is exactly why we are still fighting the Civil War and still pouring salt on the wound today.

Rew says

Just like there are no memorials to Hitler in Germany, there should be no memorials to enemy leaders, failed ideas, hate, inequality, and enemy armies, within our borders. We put enemies in museums, not enshrined on pedestals in public spaces of honor. Memorials and pedestals are for the dead who gave all, those brave enough to give their lives for country and citizen, and also those things which most embody the ideals of the United States.

We have the statue of Eugenicist and Racist Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonian. Does her Birth Control advocacy erase the fact that she wanted Blacks, "That Unhappy Race" to disappear from the Earth? She also advocated mandatory sterilization for "morons", Blacks, and poor people generally.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/13/smithsonian-refuses-to-remove-statue-of-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

I take it you support the removal of her Statue from the taxpayer-funded (2/3rds of budget) Smithsonian, yes? African-American Community Leaders asked and were rejected by the Museum. No AltLeft groups have taken up this cause.

She is also outside the Old South Meeting House, a public property, where the outspoken racist eugenicist is portrayed as a Victim of the Evil US Government:

http://pennycolman.com/margaret-sanger/

Rew says

Contrast with Lee's legacy of leading an army against the United States, to try and create a separate nation, which required slavery as one of its chief tenants. Lee is famous for opposing the ideals of the United States. Lee fought to ensure blacks remained enslaved in the South and preserve being what would have essentially been the last modern nation upholding slavery. He should not be visible, on horse and pedestal, anywhere in the country: except museums, and maybe battlefieds as a recognition of 'honor thy enemy'.

The Shawnee Indian, Tecumseh, not only fought the Government of the United States, he worked with a Foreign Power (Britain) to destroy the USA in a war (1812). So by your standards, we should remove his statue from public places as an enemy of the United States. Here is just one of his many statues on public display.

Violent Enemy of the United States who incited others to fight the USA and allied with a Foreign Power.

http://www.vincennescvb.org/attractions/16/historic/261/tecumseh-statue

Rew says

Just like there are no memorials to Hitler in Germany, there should be no memorials to enemy leaders, failed ideas, hate, inequality, and enemy armies, within our borders.

So you agree the Democrat Party, the founder of the KKK, defenders of slavery, opposers of female suffrage,should just be disbanded? We could probably throw Islam in there too as a failed ideology full of hate and inequality.

Dan8267 says

And this brings up the great philosophical debate regarding moral relativism. That's a big enough subject to warrant it's own thread.

I agree. At the moment, though, I'm at maximum bandwidth digesting current events..Dan8267 says

It is true that Jefferson wrote many good things. It is also true that he never remotely lived up to his ideas. And some failings are deal killers.

This is why we should have monuments to ideas rather than monuments to individuals.

I agree in that his use of slaves was completely contrary to what I think were his best ideas. The interior of his memorial in DC focuses on his words (his ideas), which I like. These days, Monticello focuses on the lives of slaves, writings, scientific and agricultural experiments, and his profligate romantic and impractical lifestyle (building a house on a hill, spending himself into debt, relying on slaves for his lifestyle, etc). As a living monument, it can change to reflect our current understanding of things.
Dan8267 says

However, all flags, including the U.S. flag, carry with them the entire history of the country they represent

I agree. It represents the country, which is imperfect. The important thing is to recognize the bad with the good. As you wrote: Dan8267 says

The best you can do is to acknowledge them, apologize for them, condemn them, and make sure they never happen again.

IMO, taking the statues down is recognizing a wrong and correcting what we can still correct today.

YesYNot says

I agree in that his use of slaves was completely contrary to what I think were his best ideas.

I hate to chalk up this contradiction to mere hypocrisy, but I have no alternative explanations.

YesYNot says

The interior of his memorial in DC focuses on his words (his ideas), which I like.

Then it should be a monument to those ideas, not the person. No statue of the man should be there. Instead the ideas should be written, but with the acknowledgment that the man who wrote them did not live by them.

Perhaps they will dig up the graves next?

--------------

Logically, this will have to happen sooner or later. Let's get on with it. Demolish the churches and bury the cemeteries, let's put all that prime land to good use, rather than the most inefficient use imaginable that it's being wasted on now. Or at least stop subsidizing them, make them pay their way in this world

We can't just pile graveyards and statues all over our most valuable land. It's stupid

TwoScoopsMcGee says

We have the statue of Eugenicist and Racist Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonian. Does her Birth Control advocacy erase the fact that she wanted Blacks, "That Unhappy Race" to disappear from the Earth? She also advocated mandatory sterilization for "morons", Blacks, and poor people generally.

But she is a womyn and not a white fucking male!!! That makes everything completely different!!!

So, based on your response, I guess we agree on the fate of Jefferson and Washington monuments?
Do you have a defense of Lee/other confederates being able to remain after local votes to remove them? I'll assume you surrender the field there.

Off to the fringes now ...
TwoScoopsMcGee says

Shawnee Indian, Tecumseh

Why and when was the statue put there? What does it represent as a public symbol? I'll help ... Here are the actual pictures of it:

Pay attention to this phrase ... "... defended the rights of his people in meetings in Vincennes with William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory."

A very American ideal? No? An honorable voice of civic opposition and further a warrior that we look to as a symbol of fighting against the oppression of a people. He has many Warships named after him. Interesting, no? He is seen was upholding American ideals relevant to the communities and things that bear his name and image.

Confederate peak KKK era statues were not built and erected to celebrate warrior ideals and history.

Get it yet?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Margaret Sanger (in the Smithsonian.)

I've seen plenty of symbols of hate and racism in museums. I'm not crying out for their removal. Location matters and, just as above, the context trappings around the statue look very appropriate to me from what I read.

As to asking for it's removal, sometimes there isn't a big enough outcry to get momentum in a direction. Change is often slower than one wishes. The predominant outcry for it's removal appears to be highly tinged with religious anti-abortion sentiment as well. She is a very conflicted symbol for us in current times.

And again, there is no such thing as alt-left. It's like Covfefe: gibberish.

Goran_K says

So you agree the Democrat Party, the founder of the KKK, defenders of slavery, opposers of female suffrage,should just be disbanded? We could probably throw Islam in there too as a failed ideology full of hate and inequality.

@Goran_K

I don't think this is a very rational statement or genuine. If it is, please learn as much as you can about the GOP under Lincoln, and where that party was on the political spectrum.

Rew says

I don't think this is a very rational statement or genuine. If it is, please learn as much as you can about the GOP under Lincoln, and where that party was on the political spectrum.

Why don't you explain? Why are you running away from even presenting your counter-point?

According to the website of the New Mexico Office of the State Historian, Juan de Oñate killed hundreds and “severely punished” the survivors, including women and children. “Men over 25 had one foot cut off and were sentenced to 20 years of personal servitude to the Spanish colonists … young women over 12 years of age were given 20 years of servitude; 60 young girls were sent to Mexico city to serve in the convents there, never to see their homeland again.”

Despite this cruel legacy, the New Mexican government paid tribute to Oñate in 1991, erecting a statue of the conquistador on horseback in the town of Alcalde.

This outraged many Native Americans. During the state’s quadrennial celebration in 1998 someone sawed off Oñate’s bronze left foot. An anonymous letter sent to a local newspaper claimed that the protest was “on behalf of our brothers and sisters of Acoma.”

In a deja-vu-all-over-again moment, the city fathers of El Paso, Texas, later shelled out several hundred thousands dollars for an even more mammoth statue of Oñate. So far, both feet remain intact.

But this is different as he qualifies as Hispanic and due to him not being a Fucking White Male, his statues do not have to be removed.

Edit: this shows the statues, which are not in museums, but in extremely public space. https://storify.com/haimerej/juan-de-onate-a-man-worthy-of-celebration-or

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

He did however kill many Americans in order to let slavers continue to own, beat, murder, and rape slaves including children.

Dan, you've already been owned on this point by many direct quotes, and historical data. Your false beliefs matter little in the face of truth. You should spend less time attempting to re-write three month old threads, and more time reading what people who RESEARCHED this topic have written.

Think about this. If I'm right, then you have been suckered into one of the biggest government propaganda efforts in this countries history. I don't think your ego could take the hit, so continue burying your head on this one.

As much as I disagree with Dan, this is one of the few times he is right.

Rew says

Pay attention to this phrase ... "... defended the rights of his people in meetings in Vincennes with William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory."

A very American ideal? No? An honorable voice of civic opposition and further a warrior that we look to as a symbol of fighting against the oppression of a people. He has many Warships named after him. Interesting, no? He is seen was upholding American ideals relevant to the communities and things that bear his name and image.

Rew, do you know jack shit about the War of 1812? And his battles with US Forces?

Tippecanoe? and Tyler Too? That at least one US President got to the White House largely on their record of fighting his forces?

He fought the US Government, with violence, leading an armed force, and received aid for the main enemy of the US in that war, the United Kingdom.

So did General Lee (well, the UK almost sent him aid, but a well-timed friendly visit from the Russian Baltic Fleet scared off the UK and France from helping the CSA).

If Lee comes down, so should Tecumseh, if you go by the Armed Insurgent against the USA rationale, no?

If the White Male Southern Rebel comes down, so does the Native American Male Rebel. It's a way of signalling unity, anything less is "Picking and Choosing", seemingly about Skin Color.

As for Margaret Sanger, she spent much of her time pushing for mandatory involuntary sterilization, and pseudoscience like anthropometry (somebody is a criminal because their brow shape is a certain way, or their ears abnormally large or whatever). She was incredibly influential in the Government involuntarily sterilizing people, most of whom were poor whites and blacks. Her close associates included Lothrop Stoddard, who praised the Third Reich's eugenics policies, and ABCL (later merging into Planned Parenthood) Dr. Laughin who said "bad strains" had to be purified from America, including the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

In 30 States, Margaret Sanger and her cronies got involuntary Eugenics laws passed in 30 states. Most "Coastal Elites" of the time loved Eugenics and thought opposition to it (correctly) mostly came from Religious Fanatics and those who would destroy the country over excessive adherence to annoyances like Civil Liberties.

"Freeze Peach" "No right to hate Speech" "Three Generations of Idiots Imbiciles is enough"

Nevermind the idiot was an ace student who married and entered the middle class from bone-grinding poverty, only to find she was infertile after she got married.

Some victims didn't even know they were sterilized until they unsuccessfully attempted to have children and saw a doctor; they sterilized girls as young as 11.

Hamilton star open to removal of Jefferson and Washington statues. That was quick. What is next renaming Washington D.C and Washington state-liberals have reached the edge of craziness.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/08/17/hamilton-star-leslie-odom-jr-open-taking-statues-washington-jefferson/

Liberals taking advantage of the Mentally ill.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

As for Margaret Sanger, she spent much of her time pushing for mandatory involuntary sterilization, and pseudoscience like anthropometry (somebody is a criminal because their brow shape is a certain way, or their ears abnormally large or whatever). She was incredibly influential in the Government involuntarily sterilizing people, most of whom were poor whites and blacks. Her close associates included Lothrop Stoddard, who praised the Third Reich's eugenics policies, and ABCL (later merging into Planned Parenthood) Dr. Laughin who said "bad strains" had to be purified from America, including the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

In 30 States, Margaret Sanger and her cronies got involuntary Eugenics laws passed in 30 states. Most "Coastal Elites" of the time loved Eugenics and thought opposition to it (correctly) mostly came from Religious Fanatics and those who would destroy the country over excessive adherenc...

Well you've managed to bring ignorance of the subject to an art form. Clearly you know nothing about Sanger other than some crap you read on some blog or a wiki post. Don't let the facts like compulsory sterilization laws were passed between 1907 and 1915 while Stanger didn't even address eugenics until after WWI when she joined the Birth Control Review enter into your world. She either was in school, a suburban housewife or a nurse on the east side when most of the laws were passed. She spent very little time pushing for involuntary sterilization. It was a small part of her career. Eugenics was a concept supported by many very prominent people, as well as a big part of the general population, at the time. You do know Sanger was highly praised by Martin Luther King for her work in the black community don't you?

Should her statue come down because of writing in support of a popular concept at that time in history as a small part of her career? Maybe. . Should it happen because you and the right wingnuts in congress are desperately casting around to prove somehow Sanger writings are morally equivalent to taking up arms and actively going to war to further the institution of slavery in the last place in the civilized world slavery was practised. Look she is just as bad because we say so. I don't think so.

I have a copy of Kennedy's biography Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger on my bookshelf. If you ever want to actually know what you are talking about then pick up a copy. But why would you want that?

Curiosity overwhelms me. Why is it that right wingnuts have so much trouble with proportion. Breitbart just makes a bunch of shit up it's a minor editing error. CNN misplaces a comma and it's a major fake news conspiracy. Going to war, killing and maiming millions of people, destroying billions of dollars in property to keep millions of people enslaved is pretty much the same as writing in favour of eugenics. Interesting phenomena. Is it something you are born with or did you take some kind of special training?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Here's your chemical sprays. I see a fat guy who seems to fit a white supremacist, and a black guy who I have a feeling isn't a White Supremacist.

Those 2 opposites aren't fighting, they are working together like brothers, trying to swat away some mosquitos.

Rural whites: Those liberals in the cities should stop telling us how to live in our states.
Rural whites: Those liberals in the cities better not take down the statutes in their cities.

YesYNot says

Rural whites: Those liberals in the cities should stop telling us how to live in our states.

Rural whites: Those liberals in the cities better not take down the statutes in their cities.

More and more these statues and monuments are being torn down because cities are afraid of being seen as racists. Over the decades Washington and Jefferson statues will be torn down too. If that's what the future generations want, that's what the future generations will get.

Strategist says

Over the decades Washington and Jefferson statues will be torn down too.

The only reason we are even talking about that is because Gingrich said it on Fox news, and Trump repeated it in his outburst. Now, it's on the table. The right is arguing that Washington and Jefferson are to Lee. Crazy. You may or may not be right that the left will eventually want that, but it's clear why we are talking about it today.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

It's important to banish ignorance

Strategist says

Your false beliefs matter little in the face of truth.

G.W. Bush & Republicans killed American servicemen & innocent women & children based on the LIE of WMD.
Now many are less ignorant than before & no longer have to believe Republican LIES,which are not false beliefs but simple LIES. Retard Republicans believe anything they are told?

Trolling with facts is fun & Republicans have nothing.
Nothing after they are all boycotted.

Strategist says

cities are afraid of being seen as racists.

I think you mean that politicians are afraid of being seen as racists.

This speech explains exactly why the statues are coming down. I think it's very arrogant to assume that Landrieu thinks that the statues should remain, but he's afraid of being seen as a racist, so he comes up with this. Not everybody who agrees with 'liberal' politically correct ideals is virtue signaling or afraid of being judged. Some people just think this is the right thing to do.

www.youtube.com/embed/csMbjG0-6Ak

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

He did however kill many Americans in order to let slavers continue to own, beat, murder, and rape slaves including children.

Dan, you've already been owned on this point by many direct quotes, and historical data. Your false beliefs matter little in the face of truth. You should spend less time attempting to re-write three month old threads, and more time reading what people who RESEARCHED this topic have written.

I'll call your bluff. Show me the evidence the American slavers did not beat, murder, or rape their slaves including children. Show citations.

NuttBoxer says

Think about this. If I'm right, then you have been suckered into one of the biggest government propaganda efforts in this countries history. I don't think your ego could take the hit, so continue burying your head on this one.

The government is incentivized to whitewash it's history, not to bring attentions to state-sponsored and state-protected atrocities.

bob2356 says

Don't let the facts like compulsory sterilization laws were passed between 1907 and 1915 while Stanger didn't even address eugenics until after WWI when she joined the Birth Control Review enter into your world.

MUHAHAHAH

Compulsary Sterilization laws were passed state by state continuously throughout the first chunk of the 21st Century.

Sanger wrote multiple pieces praising Eugenics after WW1:

Seemingly every new approach to the great problem of the human race must manifest its vitality by running the gauntlet of prejudice, ridicule and misinterpretation. Eugenists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The most intransigent and daring teachers and scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity

Heh. Notice the Triumph of the Will style glorification of Physical Fitness. "Great Racial Diseases" appears later in the Text.

That's just the first paragraph. "Eugenics - All the Smart People Support it, WW1 proved it was necessary, Subjected to ridicule of the stupid and ignorant".

Racial Health, "Great Racial Diseases", "Great Race" all the marks of a Racist Eugenicist is in there. There's even a tally of Non-Whites to scare her listeners in one of her speeches.

Yes, Coastal Elite Smarties CAN fall for horrific Pseudoscience and Fads AND call those who oppose them ignorant. "Daring Teachers and Scientists" are not immune, history has shown.

The rest can be found here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/

From the Sanger Project, at that irresponsible, unhinged tinfoil website maintained by NYU.

Here's some more bits, c'mon feel the Social Darwinism.

↑1↓ In the great movement of Social reform of the 19th century, it has been concerned with the conditions of life, and not with the quality of life itself. The expectations of this movement have not been fulfilled and its result is that it has increased the burden it was intended to remove.

Bad conditions kill off the unfit, leaving room and space for the fit to survive.

↑2↓ In the desire to protect the unfit from nature’s cruel consequences and to render the fit fitter, we have cast a burden upon the fit, which has rendered him unequal to the task. In allowing the unfit to reproduce their kind we are doing our best to lower the level of life.

The way lies open to the next great step in social regeneration (reform) which is the deliberate control of life itself.

The new social feeling which has been generated by the task of improving the conditions of life and of caring for those who are unable to care for themselves, has made possible a new conception of our responsibility to the race. We are not only our brother’s keeper, We are the keepers of our children and of the children of the race that are to come after us. Our sense of social responsibility has become a sense of racial responsibility and from this we may build upon the task of regenerating the race.

This isn't a call for Condoms. It's about society allowing the ufit to reproduce, those imbiciles, idiots, and sufferers of racial disease.

Her frightening Conclusion:

The next step will be the effort to breed for those qualities in human beings that are basic principles in any civilization. We may not know yet how to breed for the highest qualities inhuman beings, but certainly we do know how to breed out detrimental qualities, which science tells us are inheritable and transmissible. We can begin with the most obvious and say children should not be born when either parent has a transmissible disease of any kind. To adhere to this single principle alone for one generation would do more to wipe out criminality, prostitution and disease, than all the combined palliative efforts directed by church and state. This could be done by a vigorous educational campaign and a request to those who have such taint to present themselves for consultation. There could then be commissions of authorities to investigate the case and advise according to circumstances either sterilization of methods of contraception.

In case of refusal such persons should have a choice of sterilization or isolation. Under no circumstances should the state allow such parents to cast their diseased and demented progeny upon society for the normal and fit to provide for.

When she says Birth Control or Contraception, she doesn't mean just educated people buying condoms, but people being forced by government authorities to get sterilized.

It happened all over America, including Puerto Rico where a third of women were found to be sterilized under a 1937 Law - passed well after WW1 and just before WW2.

See also:
LEBENSBORN

Some 8,000 children were born in Germany and around 12,000 in Norway as part of Lebensborn, formed by SS leader Heinrich Himmler to encourage women of “pure blood” to bear blond, blue-eyed children.

Seriously there is so much in Sangers writings I can spend all day posting in-context quotes about Racial Health and Mandatory Sterilization.

.bob2356 says

t. Don't let the facts like compulsory sterilization laws were passed between 1907 and 1915

I mentioned Puerto Rico's sterilization law of 1937. But there were plenty of States, encouraged by Eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, passing involuntary sterlization laws after WW1.

Thousands of people were sterilized in California, and the peak period was the 20s and 30s. Virginia imitated California with Sterilization Laws in 1924. This is well after WW1, Bob.

As a college Freshman, I attended a lecture and later read a book by Steven Jay Gould on this very topic; it's really a hidden part of US history, and many of the victims were Rural Whites whom Sanger and others loathed as Unfit. They were the biggest danger because Poor Rural White Women might pollute the racial strain of Whites in a way the Niggers and Chinks could not.

In 1927, Buck vs. Bell, that SCOTUS recognized the Constitutionality of sterilizing the Handicapped. Oliver Wendell Holmes writing the decision:
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

Carrie Buck was a poor white teen from... Charlotesville, VA - and as I mentioned before, was no idiot but an ace student, yet diagnosed as "Feebleminded" by authorities. She later rose into the middle class. Looks like the back-patting Coastie Elites who understand everything and fight ignorance made a big mistake again.

People like Sanger got 30 States as well as US Territories to implement these laws. The 1910s-1950s were her peak years.

Do you think there should be taxpayer-funded memorials to this Eugencist? Do condoms outweigh the support of forcible sterilization of tens of thousands of people, many of whom were merely poor and not at all disabled? Her Racial Purity aspect?

Many believe General Lee's personal non-ownership of Slaves AND his aggressive campaigning for National Reconciliation don't mitigate his role as a Confederate Rebel General.

If so, Margaret Sanger's aggressive promotion of involuntary birth control for the "unfit" and obsession with Race Health, surely outweighs her promotion of voluntary birth control for the "Better People".

BTW I agree with sterilization for repeat Welfare bastard factories and repeat vio/lent felons as a requirement to recieve aid and as punishment for crimes You don't have an inexhaustible right to burden Society with endless children you can't care for, nor do we need violent assholes siring or birthing children.

You realized that at least one of the spikes in increased monument building might also correlate to when Civil War veterans started dying off en mass.
I wonder what a similar chart for Union monuments would show.

There's a great few sentences in Sanger re: Hypergamy, the wisdom of letting young women chosing "hawt guys" to sleep with, but not the other way around. Unfortunately I lost it when I cut and pasted something else after I cut it out for being superfluous.

jazz_music says

You know what?

If you have a town that owns a statue and a park, you can have a vote in that town and pretty much replace it or rename it to whatever is agreed upon by voting.

This is really nobody else' business. It is that simple!.

BOOM!

Yes - vote on it.

Don't allow crazy left-wing mobs to unilaterally tear shit down when their passions are all whipped up.

Down with all icons! Cannibal anarchy!

HEY YOU says

G.W. Bush & Republicans killed American servicemen & innocent women & children based on the LIE of WMD.

Perhaps monuments to Bush have to come down as well.

jazz_music says

Well? Didn't they vote on it?

Who - the members of the extremist pro-North Korean Communist "World Workers Party" that tore down Confederate Soldiers memorial in Durham this week?
http://abc11.com/politics/who-are-the-workers-world-party-and-why-durham/2314577/

jazz_music says

You know what?

If you have a town that owns a statue and a park, you can have a vote in that town and pretty much replace it or rename it to whatever is agreed upon by voting.

This is really nobody else' business. It is that simple!.

BOOM!

I disagree. Majority rule does not overrule minority rights.

For example, a town votes to erect a statue showing Jews being gassed with the caption "the only good Jew is a dead Jew". One could easily take that as a threat. Glorifying slavers and confederates is another way to threaten the rights and well being of the descendants of slaves. It promotes a culture of oppression, which materially affects those descendants even till this day.

Put simply, majority rule does not justify state sponsorship of different classes of citizens or any kind of attacks on people including attacks on the civil rights and equality under law of citizens.

How many time did W. & J. commit the traitorous & treasonous act of succession?