6 ms·

Birth control is also rooted in eugenics. From 1909: "The Family and the Nation" by Arnold Gessel is published. In it he expresses the intentions of the The Am

Birth control is also rooted in eugenics. From 1909: "The Family and the Nation" by Arnold Gessel is published. In it he expresses the intentions of the The American Birth Control League that: "society need not wait for perfection of the infant science of eugenics before proceeding upon a course which will prevent renewal of defective protoplasm contaminating the stream of life." He also advocates for "eugenic violence" in dealing with inferiors. According to him, "We must do as with the feebleminded, organize the extinction of the tribe."

eesmith 3y ago
Arnold Gessel wasn't Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about Margaret Sanger: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Oppos... Sanger's views were not that of the mainstream eugenics movement. Eg, she writes "Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state." Further, Planned Parenthood writes: > Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds [the views Sanger shared with 'the "progressives" of her day'] objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves. This is repudiation of those views of Sanger. What's the equivalent for the Cato Institute and Charles Koch?
- waterbadger 3y ago
  Yeah, I wasn’t trying to imply that they are the same. As a Catholic we don’t condone artificial birth control (or believe in divorce!) so it’s very different than the general 20th century perspective on things. I do think it is important to historically understand where things most people take for granted come from because sometimes it can be pretty eye-opening. There are many aspects of the modern world (birth control and related issues are just one) that were invented by people with intentions I think 90% of people would strongly disagree with if the they understood them.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    You said "Birth control is also rooted in eugenics." That is a tough argument to make. Eugenics and birth control have been around for a very long time. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_developmen... . Galton, an early eugenicist, coined the term in 1883. I'll use ~1880 as the start date for that strain of eugenics. The history of birth control page points out "The Malthusian League was established in 1877 and promoted the education of the public about the importance of family planning and advocated for the elimination of penalties against the promoters of birth control.[38] It was initially founded during the "Knowlton trial" of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh in July 1877" It also points out how "In the United States, contraception had been legal throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s the Comstock Act and various state Comstock laws outlawed the distribution of information about safe sex and contraception and the use of contraceptives". Which means birth control, and family planning, predate Galton, so cannot be rooted in eugenics, in the way you likely mean "eugenics" to mean. Modern statistics was invented by eugenicists and "race scientists", like Galton.
    - waterbadger 3y ago
      Uh, I would consider something called the “Malthusian League” close enough to eugenics from my point of view. But you are right, birth control itself predates modern era eugenics. What I meant was “modern” birth control. A lot of the people who have shaped this cultural stuff are just very disturbed. In the past they were pretty open about their perspective before talking about it openly became somewhat taboo. As an example of the “Malthusian mindset” in 1954: Nuclear scientist Harrison Brown publishes his book "The Challenge of Man’s Future". In the book Brown examines carefully the probability that the human carrying capacity of the planet is between 50 and 200 billion people, before summarizing the reasons this fact is best kept secret: “If humanity had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.” Here is the papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” by the way if you are interested in why the Church considers birth control to be harmful: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume...
eesmith 3y ago
I think you have learned this incorrect statement from 'An Underground History Of American Education' by John Taylor Gatto. What you described matches what's published at https://archive.org/details/AnUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanEducationJohnTaylorGatto/page/n255/mode/2up?q=%22perfection+of+the+infant+science+of+eugenics%22 https://archive.org/details/AnUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanEd... . However, 1) Arnold Gessel did not write "The Family and the Nation". That 1909 book was written by Whetham and Whetham - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.22800/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.22800/page/n7/... . 2) That book does not mention the American Birth Control League, though it is definitely in favor of eugenics. 3) Gessel's eugenics quote comes from "The Village of a Thousand Souls" in The American Magazine, October 1913, at https://archive.org/details/american-magazine/American%20magazine%20v76%20%281913%29%20%28de-googled%29/page/n321/mode/2up?q=%22infant+science+of+eugenics%22 https://archive.org/details/american-magazine/American%20mag... . > ... there is a real possibility that the State will soon make a systematic attempt to secure a registration of the unfit and prevent the mating of the unfit. Only the rankest pessimists and believers in noninterference will condone the increase of feeble-mindedness and insanity which is occurring everywhere in the villages of the land. We need not wait for the perfection of the infant science of eugenics before proceeding upon a course of supervision and segregation which will prevent the horrible renewal of this defective protoplasm that is contaminating the stream of village life. The entire article is a call for state-controlled eugenics, and proposing that what is now called "negative eugenics" should start soon, without waiting until the field of eugenics is fully fleshed out. See also "ARNOLD GESELL’S PROGRESSIVE VISION: Child Hygiene, Socialism and Eugenics", August 2011, History of Psychology 14(3):311-34 at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ben-Harris-6/publication/51660018_Arnold_Gesell's_Progressive_Vision_Child_Hygiene_Socialism_And_Eugenics/links/584731f908ae8e63e6308c06/Arnold-Gesells-Progressive-Vision-Child-Hygiene-Socialism-And-Eugenics.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ben-Harris-6/publicatio... for a biography, historical context, the effect of the publication, and the distortions Gesell made in his telling. 4) That article does not mention the American Birth Control League. 5) Because it couldn't ... Sanger didn't found the American Birth Control League until 1921. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Birth_Control_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Birth_Control_League How could a 1909 book or 1913 article refer to something that wouldn't happen for years? 6) Sanger was against the state-imposed negative eugenics advocated by Gesell. This makes your source highly suspect, and strongly suggests you do not know much about the history beyond that source.

eesmith 3y ago

Arnold Gessel wasn't Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about Margaret Sanger: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Oppos... Sanger's views were not that of the mainstream eugenics movement. Eg, she writes "Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state." Further, Planned Parenthood writes: > Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds [the views Sanger shared with 'the "progressives" of her day'] objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves. This is repudiation of those views of Sanger. What's the equivalent for the Cato Institute and Charles Koch?

waterbadger 3y ago
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to imply that they are the same. As a Catholic we don’t condone artificial birth control (or believe in divorce!) so it’s very different than the general 20th century perspective on things. I do think it is important to historically understand where things most people take for granted come from because sometimes it can be pretty eye-opening. There are many aspects of the modern world (birth control and related issues are just one) that were invented by people with intentions I think 90% of people would strongly disagree with if the they understood them.
- eesmith 3y ago
  You said "Birth control is also rooted in eugenics." That is a tough argument to make. Eugenics and birth control have been around for a very long time. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_developmen... . Galton, an early eugenicist, coined the term in 1883. I'll use ~1880 as the start date for that strain of eugenics. The history of birth control page points out "The Malthusian League was established in 1877 and promoted the education of the public about the importance of family planning and advocated for the elimination of penalties against the promoters of birth control.[38] It was initially founded during the "Knowlton trial" of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh in July 1877" It also points out how "In the United States, contraception had been legal throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s the Comstock Act and various state Comstock laws outlawed the distribution of information about safe sex and contraception and the use of contraceptives". Which means birth control, and family planning, predate Galton, so cannot be rooted in eugenics, in the way you likely mean "eugenics" to mean. Modern statistics was invented by eugenicists and "race scientists", like Galton.
  - waterbadger 3y ago
    Uh, I would consider something called the “Malthusian League” close enough to eugenics from my point of view. But you are right, birth control itself predates modern era eugenics. What I meant was “modern” birth control. A lot of the people who have shaped this cultural stuff are just very disturbed. In the past they were pretty open about their perspective before talking about it openly became somewhat taboo. As an example of the “Malthusian mindset” in 1954: Nuclear scientist Harrison Brown publishes his book "The Challenge of Man’s Future". In the book Brown examines carefully the probability that the human carrying capacity of the planet is between 50 and 200 billion people, before summarizing the reasons this fact is best kept secret: “If humanity had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.” Here is the papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” by the way if you are interested in why the Church considers birth control to be harmful: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume...

eesmith 3y ago

I think you have learned this incorrect statement from 'An Underground History Of American Education' by John Taylor Gatto. What you described matches what's published at https://archive.org/details/AnUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanEducationJohnTaylorGatto/page/n255/mode/2up?q=%22perfection+of+the+infant+science+of+eugenics%22 https://archive.org/details/AnUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanEd... . However, 1) Arnold Gessel did not write "The Family and the Nation". That 1909 book was written by Whetham and Whetham - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.22800/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.22800/page/n7/... . 2) That book does not mention the American Birth Control League, though it is definitely in favor of eugenics. 3) Gessel's eugenics quote comes from "The Village of a Thousand Souls" in The American Magazine, October 1913, at https://archive.org/details/american-magazine/American%20magazine%20v76%20%281913%29%20%28de-googled%29/page/n321/mode/2up?q=%22infant+science+of+eugenics%22 https://archive.org/details/american-magazine/American%20mag... . > ... there is a real possibility that the State will soon make a systematic attempt to secure a registration of the unfit and prevent the mating of the unfit. Only the rankest pessimists and believers in noninterference will condone the increase of feeble-mindedness and insanity which is occurring everywhere in the villages of the land. We need not wait for the perfection of the infant science of eugenics before proceeding upon a course of supervision and segregation which will prevent the horrible renewal of this defective protoplasm that is contaminating the stream of village life. The entire article is a call for state-controlled eugenics, and proposing that what is now called "negative eugenics" should start soon, without waiting until the field of eugenics is fully fleshed out. See also "ARNOLD GESELL’S PROGRESSIVE VISION: Child Hygiene, Socialism and Eugenics", August 2011, History of Psychology 14(3):311-34 at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ben-Harris-6/publication/51660018_Arnold_Gesell's_Progressive_Vision_Child_Hygiene_Socialism_And_Eugenics/links/584731f908ae8e63e6308c06/Arnold-Gesells-Progressive-Vision-Child-Hygiene-Socialism-And-Eugenics.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ben-Harris-6/publicatio... for a biography, historical context, the effect of the publication, and the distortions Gesell made in his telling. 4) That article does not mention the American Birth Control League. 5) Because it couldn't ... Sanger didn't found the American Birth Control League until 1921. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Birth_Control_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Birth_Control_League How could a 1909 book or 1913 article refer to something that wouldn't happen for years? 6) Sanger was against the state-imposed negative eugenics advocated by Gesell. This makes your source highly suspect, and strongly suggests you do not know much about the history beyond that source.