'Glenn Beck': Segregation in the 20th Century

Over 100,000 Japanese-Americans alone were forced into camps called war relocation camps. It sounds pleasant. Can we go?
There were separate camps for German-American citizens to relocate.
OK. So, we got that. Oh, and here's science.
You have Margaret Sanger. Science lauded by the left for her family planning. Evil! Read her words. Evil!
She was an open proponent of eugenics, who wrote something to a congressman called in 1932, "a plan for peace," in which she proposed keeping the doors of immigration closed to all of those who would be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as the feeble-minded idiots, morons, insane, criminal and others.
She advocated abortions to stop from creating socially undesirable people. Oh! Who were they?
You see how the forces are beginning to move? The government, segregating. Commerce, segregating. Science, breed, the perfect race.

надо почитать повнимательнее

NEW LEGISLATION, NEW PILL, OLD PROBLEM FOR AMERICAN WOMEN

For OpEdNews: Elayne Clift - Writer

The recent success of mega-wealthy, so-called Pro-Life Republican women in their political campaigns for U.S. Senate and several gubernatorial seats, coupled with new legislation by some states to curb abortion, and the conservative right's attempts to stop a new contraceptive pill, are reason for concern. For women of childbearing age, and those who care about them, it's déjà vu all over again as they try to keep abortion available, legal, and punishment-free, and to keep contraceptive choices available.

The use of ultrasound to stop a woman having an abortion has been mounting for the past several years. To date twenty states have enacted legislation to encourage or require the use of ultrasound to this end. For example, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi require abortion providers to use ultrasound in order to give women a chance to peek into their wombs prior to terminating a pregnancy.

Oklahoma went a step further. The Republican-controlled legislature there forced through a law over the governor's veto requiring that women be shown an ultrasound image and that they be given a detailed verbal description of the fetus's developmental stage. While women needing an abortion for emergency medical reasons are exempt, victims of rape or incest are not. The law has since been suspended because of a pending legal challenge. Limited research on this practice shows that while women may well choose to view what's going on in their uterus, it does not alter their abortion decision. Sometimes it reinforces it.

Ultrasound isn't the only way to stress out women who have made one of life's most difficult and private -- decisions. In Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who could be a Republican presidential candidate in 2012, signed a bill that bars insurance companies from covering abortion in insurance exchanges as called for under new federal health regulations. In Oklahoma, Gov. Brad Henry's veto was overridden by a zealous Republican legislature which now requires doctors who perform abortions to answer a set of more than three dozen questions about each procedure they do, including the woman's reason for ending her pregnancy. Arizona, which has a conservative woman governor, passed a law banning coverage of abortion in the state employees' health plan while in Nebraska all abortions are banned after twenty weeks even though the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that viability occurs at twenty-six weeks. In view of that, the Nebraska law is likely to face a legal challenge.

According to the well-respected Guttmacher Institute, close to 400 state bills regulating abortion have been introduced this year and at least two dozen of them have passed. These bills are "of serious consequence" according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which describes the onslaught of new legislation as "an avalanche." The Center has filed suits against six of the laws to date while the National Right to Life Committee calls 2010 "a good year" in a "friendlier climate."

Meanwhile a battle was mounted recently against a new "morning after" contraceptive pill developed by a French company and currently available in 22 countries. The drug, called Ella, works for 120 hours after sexual intercourse, notably longer than Plan B's 72 hours. But Ella is chemically similar to the controversial RU-486 in that it also acts to block the action of progesterone. While RU-486 can induce abortion, it is unclear whether Ella would do that; still, "Pro-Lifers" wanted to see it banned. The Food and Drug Administration convened an advisory panel to consider Ella in June. The panel voted unanimously that the FDA should approve the drug, which it did last month.

American women have been fighting for the right to reproductive privacy and self-determination ever since Margaret Sanger began her struggle to provide sex education and contraception to women in the early 20^th century. They've made many gains since then, to be sure. Still, ten years into the 21^st century women continue to confront forces that present serious challenges to their human right to bear children if and when they choose. The latest challenges, whether from repressive state legislators or misguided individual zealots, are a reminder that the task is far from complete.

www.elayneclift.com
Elayne Clift is a writer,lecturer, workshop leader and activist. She is senior correspondent for Women's Feature Service, columnist for the Keene (NH) Sentinel and Brattleboro (VT) Commons and a contributor to various publications internationally

колорадские пионэры

In 1967, Colorado became the first state in the US to legalize abortion.
Colorado’s bill was carefully steered through the lower house by then Denver Representative Richard D. Lamm. Lamm was the abortion bill’s principle sponsor. The abortion bill was the first one to pass a state legislature in the United States setting off a domino effect of other bills in various other states. It was signed into law by then Governor John A. Love.
Richard D. Lamm is Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver, and the former three-term Governor of Colorado, (1975-1987).
Today Lamm sits on the boards of several anti-immigration organizations the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and (PFIR), Progressives for Immigration Reform, and (CAPS), Californians for Population Stabilization.

source

Without women's voice in government, these laws might not exist

If in 1920, the 19th Amendment had never been ratified, many rights and laws that women (and in many cases men) enjoy today may never have passed.

If in 1920, the 19th Amendment had never been ratified, many rights and laws that women (and in many cases men) enjoy today may never have passed. Here are some of the most significant rulings that may have always been “What Ifs” if it weren’t for early suffragists.

The Pill (1960)

Prior to 1960, women used Lysol and lemons to stop procreation. Almost 50 years before that, Margaret Sanger became the voice of birth control. She began trying to overturn the Comstock Law — birth control legislation that outlawed contraceptives — as early as 1916.

In 1936, she helped bring the case of United States v. One Package to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision allowed physicians to legally mail birth control devices and information throughout the country.

In May 1960, the Federal Drug Administration approved the birth-control pill. On Aug. 18, 1960, it was sold for the first time. By 1963, 1.2 million women were on the pill.

Finally, in 1965, the Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut overturned the Comstock Law, ruling that the private use of contraceptives was a constitutional right.

Title IX (1972)

At the time it was passed, fewer than 30,000 female students participated in sports at NCAA member institutions. To put that in perspective, that’s the average amount of students in total that attend Texas Tech — and that was nationwide. Today, thanks in large part to Title IX, that number has increased six-fold. At the high school level, the number of girls participating in athletics has increased ten-fold.

The origins of Title IX arose from the feminist movements of the late 1950s and 1960s. However, sports were not the only arena the law affected. Research shows that females in the classrooms of colleges and office environments felt its rippling effects across America.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Fought and won by two female lawyers, this historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States is still one of the most controversial verdicts by the court. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy. The alias “Jane Roe” was used for Norma McCorvey, on whose behalf the suit was originally filed, alleging the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights and the rights of other women.

Sexual harassment (1986)

A law that gave women the right to fight back against workplace cat calls and indecent proposals, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Vinson v. Meriton Savings Bank that sexual harassment can be illegal sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court held that sexual harassment is illegal when the workplace is permeated with “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult” that changes the conditions of the victims’ employment and creates an abusive working environment.

Family Leave Act (1993)

Thank this law if you announced you were pregnant to your employers and didn’t lose your job. The FMLA is a labor law requiring larger employers to provide employees job-protected unpaid leave due to a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform his or her job, or to care for a sick family member, or to care for a new child (including by birth, adoption or foster care). Prior to its passing, the provision of leave for family or medical reasons (i.e., a hysterectomy, breast cancer) were up to the discretion of the individual employers. At the time, if you announced you were expecting, you could be expecting to find a new job.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act (2009)

It was passed, but it hasn’t truly kicked in yet. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law by President Obama as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It all began when Lilly Ledbetter, a production supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, filed an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination.

The ruling ensures that women everywhere can effectively challenge unequal pay for doing the same job as a man.


To comment on this story:

shelly.gonzales@lubbockonline.com • 766-8747

Engineering Oblivion: Eugenics, the Remaking of Man and Unmaking of Morality

The year is 1941, and the Nazis are in the midst of their Lebensborn program. Men of pure Aryan stock — especially members of the Waffen-SS, thought the cream of the crop — have a special purpose. In many occupied countries, they are encouraged to mate with blonde-haired, blue-eyed women — those reflecting the very picture of the Aryan ideal themselves. And “mate” is the word; romance is not necessary here, nor marriage, nor moral constraints. For the program is to serve as a baby factory that will produce future Aryan supermen for the Third Reich.


Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Lebensborn grows out of what is central to the Nazi philosophy: eugenics, which is the improvement of the human race through the process of selective breeding. And the Nazis embrace it for a very interesting reason: They have a penchant for indulging ancient myths, and one of these is that they are descended from a race of Aryan supermen who lost their superhuman capabilities because they procreated with inferior races, thus visiting upon themselves a kind of biological devolution. And they aim to reverse the process by jump-starting and accelerating evolution in a sort of hothouse environment.

Of course, talk of breeding supermen based upon an ancient template sounds kooky; speaking of inferior races disgusts the modern palate; and “eugenics,” now joined at the hip with the Nazis, has become a dirty word. Yet it is not at all accurate to say that the Nazis created eugenics. It is more correct to say that eugenics created the Nazis.

Eugenics, at least in a more primitive form, dates back to the time of the Greek philosopher Plato, who, inspired by the Spartans, advocated murdering “weak” children. It wasn’t until 1883 and the theory of evolution’s ascendancy, however, that the word “eugenics” was coined by English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. It was at this time that the field was catching on like wildfire, and it would gain increasing acceptance during the next few decades. For, while it may be hard to believe today, eugenics was considered to be Science with a capital “S,” a “thinking man’s” philosophy, the politically correct theory of the age, only finding opposition from those shackled by faith and fancy. And although German Nazis made it infamous, in the United States in the early 20th century, it was downright popular.

Eugenics Breeding Grounds
Helped by well-heeled benefactors such as the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune, the eugenics movement was already roaring in the Roaring ’20s. And it sometimes manifested itself in relatively innocuous ways. For instance, writes Carol Squiers in Perfecting Mankind: Eugenics and Photography:

“Fitter Families” contests were staged at state agricultural fairs throughout the U.S. in the 1920s. They judged the eugenic worth of local families. Mary T. Watts, the co-organizer of the first contest at the 1920 Kansas Free Fair, explained that when anyone inquired what the contests were, “we say, ‘while the stock judges are testing the Holsteins, Jerseys, and whitefaces in the stock pavilion, we are judging the Joneses, Smiths & the Johns.’” The American Eugenics Society supported the contests, which grew out of a “Better Baby” competition at the 1911 Iowa State Fair. The family contests were featured at seven to ten fairs yearly and were held in the “human stock” sections.

As is always the case when man is reduced to animal, however, the eugenic mindset inspired darker actions as well. Edwin Black treated this subject in The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics, writing:

Elements of the [eugenics] philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies,” and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

… Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California’s quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations — which functioned as part of a closely-knit network — published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Yet it would be a mistake to place the United States in the same league as Nazi Germany; rather, it’s more correct to say that many Germans embraced the same fallacy as most of the secular world. For eugenics’ popularity knew few borders. Sure, while Theodore Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research Council were supporters, eugenic policies were instituted in Australia, Japan, Canada, China, Sweden, France, and many other nations as well. In fact, among its most prominent advocates were two foreigners: famed English writers H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw.

For example, we could note that The Time Machine, perhaps Wells’ most famous work, has a eugenicist message. Yet we need not interpret symbolism to understand his position on the matter, as he said quite explicitly, “This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and sensual, is possible. On the principles that will probably animate the predominant classes of the new time, it will be permissible, and I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved.” As for Shaw, he echoed these sentiments, saying, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

Yet, in the early 20th century, the United States was a burgeoning power, and as such, it was often at the forefront of the sciences. And eugenics was no exception. In fact, many German eugenicists looked to America’s policies as a model; Hitler himself said to a fellow Nazi that he had “studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” And, truth be known, the spoiled fruits of eugenics still plague America to this day.

Spoiled Fruits of a Movement
One of these would be the Planned Parenthood organization. While many are unaware of the fact, the organization’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist with some particularly odious views. For example, in her work Women and the New Race, she wrote, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” And this culture-of-death spirit certainly lives on. Planned Parenthood affiliates perform more than 300,000 abortions a year, turning a profit of more than $100 million and collecting more than $300 million of your tax money in the process. Sanger also expressed Nazi-like views long before the National Socialists took power. For example, in her 1922 book The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote, “Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.” (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps it is passions such as the above that inspired Sanger to create the “Negro Project,” an organized campaign to limit — and some say exterminate — America’s black population. Black author Tanya L. Green sheds some more light on Sanger’s motivations in her piece “The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans,” writing:

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

It is easy for pro-life people, such as I, to look askance at the Margaret Sangers of the world, just as it is easy for anti-American bigots to place the onus on America, or blacks to place it on whites. While there certainly are villains in this story, however, it is more important to expose destructive ideas than deluded people. After all, ideas live on long after idealists pass on.

Certainly, the desire to have strong, vibrant citizens and children is nothing new. The aforementioned Spartans would kill a male infant if he was perceived to have any defect whatsoever, and parents typically hope and pray for healthy, intelligent, and strong sons and daughters. And, of course, offspring’s characteristics can most assuredly be influenced through selective breeding. For example, consider the dogs we have as pets today. The breeds many of us know and love — the Rottweiler, cocker spaniel, Neapolitan Mastiff, etc. — never existed until they were bred by man. Their unique characteristics are the result of taking a group of canines, breeding the ones that exhibit desired traits, and killing those that do not. And repeating this proc-ess generation after generation yielded unique beasts ideally suited to whatever purpose they were to be used for.

And this is the problem with eugenics. We must not “use” people or view them as objects that serve a “purpose.” Yet why does the science endeavor to create a better human? It is for that very reason: so that they will serve the purpose of being better soldiers, citizens, scientists, producers, etc. But, then, what happens once you’ve reduced people to objects, to cogs in the machinery of the state? Well, when it seems that a baby will be insufficient for his purpose, you give him the Spartan treatment; and when a cog gets too old to serve its purpose, you euthanize it — for the good of society. And you then have embraced the eugenicist position that there are “human beings who never should have been born,” as Sanger said; or that there is “life unworthy of life,” as the Nazis said. The point here is that you don’t value people based on what they can do. You value them based on what they are.

Yet this brings us to a very interesting question: What are they? And is it just a coincidence that eugenics took hold in the wake of evolution’s acceptance? Is it possible that classical evolution’s conception of “what they are” engenders a eugenicist mindset? Let us examine the matter.

Evolution’s Ties to Eugenics
Traditional Christianity and classical evolution involve very different conceptions of man’s nature. Christianity teaches that man is the culmination of God’s creation, His sixth-day triumph. Man is not merely a steppingstone on the way to some superior being but a finished product. Sure, he is fallen as well as finished and needs to be perfected, but this is not a matter of improving the flesh but of transcending it. And this is done with knowledge of what is good and the gift of God’s grace. Moreover, even if the flesh is broken, hampered by crippling limitation, the person’s soul bears the beauty of the Ultimate Beholder. The person is valuable not because of what he can do but because of what he is: a child of God with a soul from Heaven.

In contrast, evolution tells us that we are just one stage in a long line of creatures experiencing change in a process that is often, amusingly, called improvement, even though we’re moving toward we don’t know what without knowing why. But evolutionists take it as doctrine that it is improvement, and all people want to improve the human condition. For Christians, this means spreading the faith; for evolutionists, it means improving the genes. Ergo, eugenics.

Of course, many evolutionists will protest, saying that they find eugenics abhorrent. Yet the link between evolution and eugenics is undeniable, as it was made by none other than Sir Francis Galton himself. Galton only developed his eugenic principles after reading his cousin Charles Darwin’s work The Origin of Species, which inspired him to build on Darwin’s work. And this should surprise no one. Sure, today eugenics is thought ill-considered, but it is not illogical. If evolution is improvement and improvement is good, and if the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, it makes sense to facilitate evolution. And because it is logical, at least on the surface, it is necessary to look a little deeper.

Eugenics is an outgrowth of classical evolution, which presupposes that we are a cosmic accident and thus implies atheism. The problem with this worldview is that it makes many assumptions, fails to ask the most basic questions, and then contradicts itself. For one thing, if there is no God, no Truth — no standard for determining good that transcends man — on what basis can we determine what constitutes improvement? Why is it better for man to survive and “evolve” than to perish? After all, ask some of the nature-worshipping misanthropes amongst us, and they will tell you that the world would be better off if mankind disappeared entirely.

Yet, even if you accept — based on consensus opinion and nothing more — that what evolutionists say is improvement is indeed improvement, what purpose does it serve? To illustrate this point, I’ll use a variation on a criticism G.K. Chesterton made of H.G. Wells when the latter suggested that the purpose of life was to beget children. It is as if you asked, “What is the use of hammers?” and the answer was, “To create better hammers.” And then you asked, “And what is the use of those hammers?” and the answer was “To create better hammers still.” It doesn’t answer the most basic questions: “Why create hammers in the first place” and “What is the good of having hammers?” The eugenicist philosophy not only reduces man to animal, it reduces man’s existence to meaninglessness. The Christian knows that he is trying to improve — which he calls growing in holiness — so he can spend eternity with God. The atheist may try to improve, and he may actually succeed. But if his worldview were correct, it would mean that he would spend eternity as dust, indistinguishable from a “defective” some eugenicist might have wanted to exterminate.

Of course, if atheists were right, dust is essentially all we would be, some pounds of chemicals and water. We would merely be organic robots — tools, much like a hammer. And, then, why trouble over how we manipulate these automatons’ circuitry? And what could be wrong with terminating the function of robots that cannot serve their “purpose”? Besides, without Truth and thus without objective right and wrong, nothing could be “wrong” in any real sense, anyway.

Why does this philosophy matter? It’s not because eugenics will rear its ugly head once again, because eugenics, strictly speaking, will not. But it has not been trumped by morality, only technology. With genetic engineering, we no longer have to select people for breeding; we can now select the genes themselves. This science holds the promise of eliminating birth defects, but it can also be misused. It finally gives modern-day utopians a tool with which they can create supermen, Aryan or otherwise, in a laboratory. And unless we want to end up as test subjects, we had better realize that man’s value lies not in his ability to become or create a superman, but in being born of the supernatural and possessed of the eternal.

Photo: Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term "eugenics"

ещё 1 Сэнгер

13 августа 1918 года — Фредерик СЕНГЕР (Frederick SANGER) — английский биохимик. В 1958 году он получил Нобелевскую премию по химии «за установление структур белков, особенно инсулина», а в 1980 ему вместе с американцем Уолтером ГИЛБЕРТОМ была присуждена половина Нобелевской премии по химии «за вклад в установление основных последовательностей в нуклеиновых кислотах» (вторая половина досталась еще одному американцу — Полу БЕРГУ).

Little white pills that may end the abortion impasse

link

Could the decades-long global impasse over abortion worldwide be overcome - by little white pills costing around 60p each?
That seems possible, for these pills are beginning to revolutionise abortion around the world, especially in poor countries. One result may be tens of thousands of women's lives saved each year.
Five-sixths of abortions take place in developing countries, where poor sterilisation and training often make the procedure dangerous. Up to 70,000 women die a year from complications of abortions, according to the World Health Organisation. But researchers are finding an alternative that is safe, cheap and very difficult for governments to restrict - misoprostol, a medication originally intended to prevent stomach ulcers.
"I feel like people must have felt when they discovered the nuclear bomb," said Dr Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Projects, a non-profit research institution on reproductive health. "This technology is world-shaking."
This pharmaceutical approach is called "medical abortion". In Europe and the US, it typically consists of two sets of "M" pills. The first is mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486, and then a day or two later the misoprostol. Using the drugs in combination produces a miscarriage more than 95 per cent of the time in early pregnancy. But mifepristone is difficult to obtain in much of the world as it is used only to induce abortions. In contrast, misoprostol is widely available and can't easily be banned because it is also used for ulcers and can save lives of women with postpartum haemorrhages. Whatever one thinks of misoprostol for abortions, it also is a potential lifesaver.
Researchers are finding that if women take misoprostol alone, effectiveness drops to 80 to 85 per cent. That may sound low, but it's typically far better and safer than alternatives that women turn to, Dr Winikoff noted.
"Medical abortion represents a revolution in women's reproductive health," said Dana Hovig, chief executive of Marie Stopes International, which provides women's reproductive health services in 43 countries. "It saves women's lives and has potential to increase access to safe abortion."
Medical abortion causes a miscarriage that is indistinguishable from a natural one. That's important for women in countries where they risk arrest if they seek hospital aid after a botched abortion. The risks to a woman seem no greater than with a natural miscarriage, and there's no known harm to a woman who turns out not to have been pregnant after all. One serious downside is that misoprostol is suspected of causing birth defects, perhaps 1 per cent of the time, but only if it fails and the pregnancy continues to term.
It's not clear how late in pregnancy medical abortion is feasible.

Source: Nicholas Kristof, The Scotsman, 3 August 2010

статья про Эмму Голдман

оч хор и с картинками
видео оттуда


ссылка

5 Most Influential Nurses in History

There is no denying that nurses have made a huge impact on our society and on so many of our lives, whether they were famous or not. Although every nurse is sure to make an impact on many people during his or her lifetime, the following women are considered the 5 most influential nurses in history.
Florence Nightingale: The most famous figure from nursing history is definitely Florence Nightingale who cared for the weakest members of the population and fought to improve medical conditions while mentoring others to do similar work. She served in the Crimean War and helped make the conditions more sanitary and later worked with Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell to open the Women’s Medical College.
Margaret Sanger: The legalization of birth control can largely be attributed to Margaret Sanger who fought to spread the word about women’s health topics ranging from birth control to menstruation to sexuality. She got in trouble with the law in the U.S. and had to flee to Europe for a time as a result. She founded the organization that eventually became Planned Parenthood and opened the first legal clinic in the United States where women could get birth control.
Clara Barton: Soldiers in the Civil War would not have had the medical care they did if it weren’t for Clara Barton who started out organizing medical supplies and eventually braved the battlefields to provide care for soldiers as the Lady in Charge of Union hospitals appointed by Lincoln himself. She went on to begin the American Red Cross.
Mary Eliza Mahoney: As the United States’ first African American nurse, Mary Eliza Mahoney is an important part of history for many reasons. In addition to her many years of nursing and work to form new hospitals and African American orphanages, she also co-founded the National Association of Colored Graduate Nurses.
Anna Caroline Maxwell: She was to the U.S. what Florence Nightingale was to Europe. Anna Caroline Maxwell was in charge of Army nurses in the Spanish-American War, founder of the Army Nurse Corps, recipient of the Medal of Honor for Public Health in WWII and first director of what is now the Columbia School of Nursing.

5 Most Influential Nurses in History

Бернард Шоу поддерживал Гитлера

George Bernard Shaw, “ I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

Shaw wrote, “ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”

Interviewed on Germany Shaw declared:
“Germany’s contention of ‘race pollution’ was ‘despicably unscientific.’” But he said he “appreciated” Hitler’s political sagacity and the courage with which he has rescued Germany from the gutter,, and placed her once more at the head of Central Europe.”
( SOURCE: GEORGE BERNARD SHAW Approaches His 82d Birthday Anemic But Still Vociferously Aware of His OwnJJnique. Significance, Galveston Daily News: 7/24/1938)

It is important to note that George Bernard Shaw was a Eugenicist who supported Planned Parenthood Founder, and eugenicist Margaret Sanger and others in the eugenics movement.

What many people do not know is that Shaw was a contributor to Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control Review”.

Shaw endorsed Sanger, Birth Control, and EUGENICS..

In the June 1929 Birth Control Review, George Bernard Shaw supports Sanger’s efforts to promote birth control when he, ” We are up against an overpopulation problem created by Capitalism…Socialists say quite truly that Socialism can get rid of it…But it cannot wait for Socialism…”

In Margaret Sanger’s Autobiography, Sanger writes, ” Jane had lnvited literary luminaries and their wives George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Sir Arbuthnot Lane, Professor E W MacBride of the Eugenics Education Society, Walter Salter of the League of Nations, and Lord Buckmaster.

“It had been my experience that personages gave little of themselves on formal occasions So many people expected these lions to roar bravely, forgetting that they preferred to save their sparkling sallies for the pages of their books.”

Sanger continues, “I was back In New York by the end of October, and soon came a letter from Shaw cheering me w~th his point of view.”

Sanger reads the letter from George Bernard Shaw and says Shaw compares the “more evolved people” or “White Elitists” to “lower classes who need to be taught to control their populations calling them “amoeba” ,

‘ Birth control should be advocated for its own sake, on the general
ground that the difference between voluntary, irrational, uncontrolled activity IS the difference between an amoeba and a man, and if we really belleve that the more highly evolved creature is the better we may as well act accordingly. As the amoeba does not understand birth control, it cannot abuse it, and therefore its state may be the more
gracious, but it is also true that as the amoeba cannot write, it cannot commit forgery yet we teach everybody to write unhesitatingly, knowing that if we refuse to teach anything that could be abused we should never teach anything at all .’

Margaret Sanger Autobiography Pages 371-372

At the end of this post is a preview for the film: Maafa21, and if you order this movie and watch all 2 hours of it, you will also learn who helped fund the Nazi’s, develop the gas they used in their concentration camps, and fund the development of the abortion pill RU-486 – for the purpose of population control. And how they had ties to Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger.

источник

Когда человек чего хочет – он не может быть счастлив

Если сильно упростить картину, то в антропологии XIX века существовали две теории происхождения человека. Сторонники полигенизма рассматривали расы человека как разные виды, имеющие различное происхождение. Моногенисты считали, что все люди, независимо от расовых различий, восходят к одному предку и составляют один вид. Полигенизм основывался на теории эволюции и позволил подвести под теории расового неравенства научную базу. Будучи завороженными поисками недостающего звена между человеком и обезьяной, Геккель и его последователи строили филогенетические ряды, ведущие от обезьяны к белому человеку через представителей черных рас. Тогда считалось, что это загадочное звено должно непременно реально существовать. Надо только как следует поискать. Так ученые, вооруженные передовой теорией, оказались вдохновителями расистских идеологий и практик, которые вполне соответствовали политическим задачам колониальных держав.
Моногенисты, со своей стороны, утверждали, что все расы восходят к общему предку, т.е., что все люди – братья. Позиция вполне демократическая, но уж слишком близка к креационизму и происхождению народов от сыновей Ноя. Ситуация была очень не простой. Если ты прогрессивный дарвинист, то оказываешься в рядах империалистов и расистов, если придерживаешься антиэволюционных взглядов, то, с одной стороны, оказываешься в лагере прогрессивных гуманистов (вместе с Чернышевским, который однажды что-то пробормотал о равенстве всех рас), а с другой – могут обвинить в мракобесии. Советские историки науки нашли выход из положения и объявили Миклухо-Маклая гуманистом-дарвинистом. Если не нонсенс, то уж точно удивительный вид гоминида.
Сам Маклай, надо сказать, от каких-либо определённых высказываний по этому поводу воздерживался, предпочитая беспристрастное собирание фактов обобщениям. Он «наблюдал людей по возможности без предвзятого мнения относительно количества и распространения человеческих племен и рас». Чуть ли не единственное теоретическое положение, которое у него находим, сводится к тому, что беспристрастное наблюдение устанавливает, что неодинаковость природных условий в разных частях света не допускала повсеместного распространения какой-либо одной расы, а потому «существование различных рас совершенно согласно с законами природы». Его научные наблюдения работали на обе «партии».
Академик Бэр, мировая величина в биологии и антропологии того времени, и последовательный моногенист, не признававший Дарвина, посоветовал М-М. разобраться с точкой зрения, которой придерживались полигенисты, что папуасы принадлежат к особому виду, сильно отличающемуся от людей, на том основании, что волосы у них растут пучками, а кожа отличается особой жесткостью. Маклай разобрался и заблуждение опроверг.
Из всех своих открытий Маклай больше всего ценил явление, которому он дал название «макродонтизм» (большезубость). Практически у всех аборигенов Островов Адмиралтейства передние зубы отличались большими размерами и выдавались наружу даже при закрытом рте. Маклай решил, что эта гипертрофия вызвана некоей спецификой местной пищи и настолько укоренилась среди местного населения, что стала наследственной. Об этом явлении Маклай написал в ведущих европейских научных журналах, включая английский «Nature». Открытие немало способствовало установлению его научной репутации в Австралии. Позже выяснилось, что с зубами у аборигенов все в порядке, а их огромные размеры – вызваны отсутствием зубных щеток и привычкой жевать разновидность местного ореха бетель с соком лайма, что приводит к образованию зубного камня.
От ошибок никто не застрахован.
Однако главный просчёт М-М. был в том, что он считал папуасов прародителями человеческого рода, прямыми потомками обитателей сгинувшей Лемурии. Они же – оказались одной из самых смешанных рас в мире.

источник