Was Margaret Sanger Racist ?

[weeone]

From www.plannedparenthood.org (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml)

Sanger's Outreach to the African-American Community

Harlem — 1930
In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city's health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community's elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois (Chesler, 1992).

Negro Project — 1939-1942
Beginning in 1939, DuBois served on the advisory council for Sanger's "Negro Project," which was designed to serve African Americans in the rural South. The advisory council called it a "unique experiment in race-building and humanitarian service to a race subjected to discrimination, hardship, and segregation (Chesler, 1992)."

In a letter to philanthropist Albert Lasker, from whom she hoped to raise funds for the project, Sanger wrote that she wanted to help


a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a 'caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation (Sanger, 1939, July).

In 1942, she wrote again to Lasker, saying


I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born (Sanger, 1942).

Other leaders of the African-American community who were involved in the project included Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women, and Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.

The Negro Project was also endorsed by prominent white Americans who were involved in social justice efforts at this time, including Eleanor Roosevelt, the most visible and compassionate supporter of racial equality in her era; and the medical philanthropists, Albert and Mary Lasker, whose financial support made the project possible (Chesler, 1992).

Division of Negro Service — 1940-1943
Sanger's Birth Control Federation of America, which became Planned Parenthood Federation of American in 1942, established a Division of Negro Service to oversee the Negro Project and to implement Sanger's educational outreach to African Americans nationally. Sponsored by Sanger's fundraising efforts and directed by Florence Rose, the division provided black organizations across the country with Planned Parenthood literature, set up local educational exhibits, facilitated local and national public relations, and employed an African-American doctor, Mae McCarroll, to lobby medical groups and teach contraceptive techniques to other black doctors.

Martin Luther King Jr.
In 1966, the year Sanger died, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said


There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her (King, 1966).

Was Sanger racially motivated?
Despite the admiration that African-American heroes like DuBois, Powell, and King held for Sanger, arguments continue about whether or not her outreach to the black community was racially motivated. The patriarchal racism of the social policy of the time and the well-intentioned paternalism of philanthropists to "lift up" African-Americans, may have influenced Sanger. But there is no evidence that Sanger, or the Federation, intended to coerce black women into using birth control:


The fundamental belief, underscored at every meeting, mentioned in much of the behind-the-scenes correspondence, and evident in all the printed material put out by the Division of Negro Service, was that uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest burden to the poor, and Southern blacks were among the poorest Americans. In fact, the Negro Project did not differ very much from the earlier birth control campaigns in the rural South . . . it would have been more racist, in Sanger's mind, to ignore African Americans in the South than to fail at trying to raise the health and economic standards of their communities ("Birth Control or Race Control," 2001).

I was listening to Tavis Smiley this morning and there was a woman on the show who proudly avered that she believed that Margaret Sanger was racist. I did a few papers back in college about Mags, and I remember this issue about her, but I also remember that I didn't find any weight to it, in her work as a humanitarian. I looked up some stuff just briefly a few minutes ago, and I still can't find any reason to determine that Margaret Sanger was racist. Was she motivated to limit the reproduction of African Americans to curb their "burden" to society ? I can't say this was/wasn't her intention - other than to cite the above The fundamental belief, underscored at every meeting, mentioned in much of the behind-the-scenes correspondence, and evident in all the printed material put out by the Division of Negro Service, was that uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest burden to the poor, and Southern blacks were among the poorest Americans. that I find pretty practical as a view. I suppose her intentions are debateable but I can't fathom how the issue of whether or not she was racist is a constructive debate. Any opinions ?

[jneale]

Is it fair to apply current day definitions to a period in time when the terms might have been defined differently? Putting things into proper perspective is difficult when you apply today’s standards with those of the past.

[ms. chevious]

the eugenics movement was always heavily promoted as a way to make sure only those "capable of supporting" children had children....as was family planning. african americans faced forced sterilization at times in us history.

angela davis's chapter "racism, birth control, and reproductive rights" (in her book "women, race, and class") gives a good history of this...i don't know if she explicitly mentions margaret sanger, but sanger is known to have buddied up with some of the craziest white-supremacist eugenecists later in her career.

[weeone]

Is it fair to apply current day definitions to a period in time when the terms might have been defined differently? Putting things into proper perspective is difficult when you apply today’s standards with those of the past.
This too. That's what annoyed me so much about this woman on the Tavis show.

[purple_octopus]

I don't think anyone should be discouraged to reproduce based on something as silly as race or ethnic background. But I'm completely in favor of birth control for the poor and stupid. If you can't support your kids, don't have them. If you're too stupid to understand what being a parent involves, don't be one. Seems kind of like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, most stupid people don't realize they're stupid. :p

Re: Sanger, it seems like the people who stick to the whole Sanger/eugenics/racism connection usually do so to push their pro-life agendas. In other words, abortion is racist because it preys on minorities. There's a grain of truth to that, statistically. But I think it's more coincidence than conspiracy.

[weeone]

the eugenics movement was always heavily promoted as a way to make sure only those "capable of supporting" children had children....as was family planning. african americans faced forced sterilization at times in us history.

angela davis's chapter "racism, birth control, and reproductive rights" (in her book "women, race, and class") gives a good history of this...i don't know if she explicitly mentions margaret sanger, but sanger is known to have buddied up with some of the craziest white-supremacist eugenecists later in her career.
Yeah, she was kind of a nut, that's certain. She condemned masturbation, and that, that's just *shivers*. Out of her effing mind as far as that's concerned.

[jneale]

I don't think anyone should be discouraged to reproduce based on something as silly as race or ethnic background. But I'm completely in favor of birth control for the poor and stupid. If you can't support your kids, don't have them. If you're too stupid to understand what being a parent involves, don't be one. Seems kind of like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, most stupid people don't realize they're stupid. :p
I agree 100% - but:

There is an entire culture of people who didn’t grow up in a family – had no adult guidance through life and have no point of reference of the responsibilities of being a parent. Somehow – having multiple baby mommas became not only acceptable but a badge of honor. I completely went off on someone the other day when they told me they wanted me to stop their support payments as they have no interest in the kid. “It is your kid – you created it – someone gave you a home when you were growing up – what makes you think you don’t owe that to this kid?”

The guy is 22 yrs old & no on has ever put the idea in his head that the child is a person & not just an inconvenience. I’ll admit that @ 22 a person ought to be able to realize that a child isn’t disposable – but he fathered the kid @ 18 & doesn’t have a father of his own.

Teach everyone sex education & pass out condoms when kids are 5 – get rid of the hang-ups about sex & stop all this BS of unplanned children.

[weeone]

the eugenics movement was always heavily promoted as a way to make sure only those "capable of supporting" children had children....as was family planning. african americans faced forced sterilization at times in us history.

angela davis's chapter "racism, birth control, and reproductive rights" (in her book "women, race, and class") gives a good history of this...i don't know if she explicitly mentions margaret sanger, but sanger is known to have buddied up with some of the craziest white-supremacist eugenecists later in her career.
Sanger's experience with an unhealthily large family played a huge role in her "planned family" activism. Her mother had a HUGE number of pregnancies of which 10 or so survived, before she died of cervical cancer, not to mention the ills the came (and still do come) with families who are larger than their means can support, including her own situation. Considering her first hand experience with the issue, her spearheading a family planning/tool for women to control the health of their sex lives and reproductive systems is pretty right on. The eugenics relation - that's a sign of the times in which the movement was born. Of course, in that period of history her ideas would be lent to support/contradict whatever political power was in momentem, as was white supremacy and heredity farming (whatever nazi-isms) in that era.

This is all jibberish but I'm working at the same time. Hard to make a decent sentence in English. Apologies.

[the happy prole]

I don't think anyone should be discouraged to reproduce based on something as silly as race or ethnic background. But I'm completely in favor of birth control for the poor and stupid. If you can't support your kids, don't have them. If you're too stupid to understand what being a parent involves, don't be one. Seems kind of like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, most stupid people don't realize they're stupid. :p

And fortunately, you don't get to make the call.

[back2vinyl]

And fortunately, you don't get to make the call.

At this point in time, the feds are actually subsidizing people, especially poor people, to have more kids via the earned income tax credit and other child tax credits.

http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tools/rate_tables/eic_ctc_tables.html

I think everyone below a certain income level gets $1000 child tax credit, but the earned income cap adds up to more than that for people who qualify if I understand it correctly. In any case, the credits phase out at higher incomes.

Our tax system is such a mess, I'd love to scrap it and start over. Maybe a flat tax rate of 20% with a personal deduction of $10,000 or so per person to make it progressive.

[weeone]

visa-vi
"vis-à-vis"

literally means face to face

usage dictates translation as "concerning or as to, in relation to/opposed to"

I'm trying to think of a more applicable term... via ? by means of ?

[back2vinyl]

"vis-à-vis"

literally means face to face

usage dictates translation as "concerning or as to, in relation to/opposed to"

I'm trying to think of a more applicable term... via ? by means of ?

Via would be better. I get most of my vocabulary from watching television. Plus, I got an F in Latin.

There, it's fixed.

[drougan]

At this point in time, the feds are actually subsidizing people, especially poor people, to have more kids via the earned income tax credit and other child tax credits.

http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tools/rate_tables/eic_ctc_tables.html

I think everyone below a certain income level gets $1000 child tax credit, but the earned income cap adds up to more than that for people who qualify if I understand it correctly. In any case, the credits phase out at higher incomes.

Our tax system is such a mess, I'd love to scrap it and start over. Maybe a flat tax rate of 20% with a personal deduction of $10,000 or so per person to make it progressive.


I doubt the poorer folks are having kids based on the tax potential. They're having kids cause they like to have sex, just like the most of us. Only they're not educated enough to actually know the nuts and bolts of reproduction/dont face as much of a social stigma from early parenthood as the middle class does. I'm gonna guess in this case the tax code is an exacerbating factor as opposed to a proximate cause.

[weeone]

In Louisville, it's common knowledge that women on welfare have more children because of the bigger checks. But this is not the debate I was going for... I wanted to talk about Margaret Sanger. :confused:

[ms. chevious]

In Louisville, it's common knowledge that women on welfare have more children because of the bigger checks. But this is not the debate I was going for... I wanted to talk about Margaret Sanger. :confused:


well, this is somewhat related to the overarching topic of feminism and reproductive rights...why is it that these women feel the only resource they have for income is their womb? tota muller in utero est (or something close to that...you know, that latin phrase beauvoir talks about in the intro to the second sex). why do we make it impossible for low-income workers to get affordable daycare? why will most doctors refuse to give younger (20s-30s) childless women permanent contraception? why is the only socially and economically valuable role available to most/many of these women motherhood?

[the happy prole]

We subsidize everyone for having kids. What is it-- like $3500 per kid plus child care expenses?

People ask how come we give poor people an "incentive" to have more kids, and no one seems to think that's a bad question. Yet, when I ask them why I should continue to subsidize their annoying breeding habits suddenly I'm the asshole.

Little Johnny jr.'s the joy of your life? Well to me, he's just another resource- consuming pain in the ass. I'm already paying his health care with my single dude premiums. Shouldn't YOUR taxes be subsidizing me?

Yeah, and you know how proud you are that little Johnny jr.'s in all those GT classes 'cause he knows his times tables? I was doing algebra when I was eight. If I start breeding little Asianbabygeniuses right and left, suddenly little Johnny jr.'s not so smart anymore, is he?

You ever seen an Asian kid? Even the three-armed are ones cuter then flaxen-haired, red-faced little Johnny jr. So you have me to thank for little JJ's high self-esteem, too.

One of these days you're going to piss me off and I'm gonna rig up some incubation test-tube thing and I'm gonna raise me a whole army of ten-armed Asian babygeniuses. So I suggest you start showing a little gratitude. Today, after you pick up little JJ from school, drop by my house and leave me a C-note and a six pack. Today, and everyday. At least a goddam fruit basket or something.

[weeone]

well, this is somewhat related to the overarching topic of feminism and reproductive rights...why is it that these women feel the only resource they have for income is their womb? tota muller in utero est (or something close to that...you know, that latin phrase beauvoir talks about in the intro to the second sex). why do we make it impossible for low-income workers to get affordable daycare? why will most doctors refuse to give younger (20s-30s) childless women permanent contraception? why is the only socially and economically valuable role available to most/many of these women motherhood?
I understand the issue, it's just that what you are saying has nothing to do with whether or not Margaret Sanger was racist.

[the happy prole]

I think it's unfair to judge Sanger by today's standards. A lot of well-meaning intellectuals fell victim to the eugenics movement, at least temporarily. Her attitudes towards race are a little backward, but probably on the progressive side for her time.

Most of the bad associations people have with eugenics are not things she agreed with. She did not endorse forced sterilization, only that birth-control could be used by families at high-risk of birth defect. I think even those who understand the risks and choose to have babies should be thankful they have the choice.

It's the same thing with race and the poor. I don't think her attitudes about the damage that can happen when poor young women have too many kids is out of step with liberal/feminist views today.

[weeone]

I share the same view ... I think her activism and progressiveness were also spun into the 'progressive' attitudes/actions that non-Whites should be exterminated by whichever means necessary. I really am not schooled enough on her repertoire to discuss which "white supremists" she worked with, though I must say that many studies have to forego ethics to make progess (I say this at the risk of FIE-AH !!)... I don't know if this was the case with Ms. Sanger, I'm just injecting ideas into why she may have worked with racists, as ms chevious noted.

[purple_octopus]

We subsidize everyone for having kids. What is it-- like $3500 per kid plus child care expenses?

People ask how come we give poor people an "incentive" to have more kids, and no one seems to think that's a bad question. Yet, when I ask them why I should continue to subsidize their annoying breeding habits suddenly I'm the asshole.

Little Johnny jr.'s the joy of your life? Well to me, he's just another resource- consuming pain in the ass. I'm already paying his health care with my single dude premiums. Shouldn't YOUR taxes be subsidizing me?

Yeah, and you know how proud you are that little Johnny jr.'s in all those GT classes 'cause he knows his times tables? I was doing algebra when I was eight. If I start breeding little Asianbabygeniuses right and left, suddenly little Johnny jr.'s not so smart anymore, is he?

You ever seen an Asian kid? Even the three-armed are ones cuter then flaxen-haired, red-faced little Johnny jr. So you have me to thank for little JJ's high self-esteem, too.

One of these days you're going to piss me off and I'm gonna rig up some incubation test-tube thing and I'm gonna raise me a whole army of ten-armed Asian babygeniuses. So I suggest you start showing a little gratitude. Today, after you pick up little JJ from school, drop by my house and leave me a C-note and a six pack. Today, and everyday. At least a goddam fruit basket or something.

I fucking love this post. If it weren't so long, I'd sig the whole damn thing.

[weeone]

Little Johnny jr.'s the joy of your life? Well to me, he's just another resource- consuming pain in the ass. I'm already paying his health care with my single dude premiums. Shouldn't YOUR taxes be subsidizing me?


Your insurance is expensive as a single male ? I just got married, and to add my husband to my policy is almost 5x my current rate. The explanation is that I am of child-bearing age and a cost risk. Yet, if I stay at my current rate without adding him to my policy, my rate will not go up. I'm still married, and I could still have kids at any time. In fact, I could even before we got married.

[purple_octopus]

Your insurance is expensive as a single male ? I just got married, and to add my husband to my policy is almost 5x my current rate. The explanation is that I am of child-bearing age and a cost risk. Yet, if I stay at my current rate without adding him to my policy, my rate will not go up. I'm still married, and I could still have kids at any time. In fact, I could even before we got married.
I'm thinking that part (if not most) of your healthcare premium is subsidized by your employer. I bet they don't subsidize any part of husband or family, especially if you work for a small to medium sized company. Usually, if you pay the entire premium yourself, it costs a set amount for one person, less than twice that for 2 people, and there is a set price just slightly more than that for a family (usually doesn't matter how many kids you have). So the more kids you produce, the cheaper your premiums per person. Single people pay the most.

[weeone]

I'm thinking that part (if not most) of your healthcare premium is subsidized by your employer. I bet they don't subsidize any part of husband or family, especially if you work for a small to medium sized company. Usually, if you pay the entire premium yourself, it costs a set amount for one person, less than twice that for 2 people, and there is a set price just slightly more than that for a family (usually doesn't matter how many kids you have). So the more kids you produce, the cheaper your premiums per person. Single people pay the most.
Nope, the family one is subsidized too by my employer, just not a lot. I hadn't taken that into account. However, even with the subsidy, it's still 5x more. And what's funnier is that my husband works here part time, and has worked here since before I knew him. He's left and come back, of course, as his band junk permitted, but on a side note, it's crap that my employer won't cut us some sort of deal. Anyhoo... back to Margie.

[back2vinyl]

We subsidize everyone for having kids. What is it-- like $3500 per kid plus child care expenses?

People ask how come we give poor people an "incentive" to have more kids, and no one seems to think that's a bad question. Yet, when I ask them why I should continue to subsidize their annoying breeding habits suddenly I'm the asshole.

Little Johnny jr.'s the joy of your life? Well to me, he's just another resource- consuming pain in the ass. I'm already paying his health care with my single dude premiums. Shouldn't YOUR taxes be subsidizing me?

Yeah, and you know how proud you are that little Johnny jr.'s in all those GT classes 'cause he knows his times tables? I was doing algebra when I was eight. If I start breeding little Asianbabygeniuses right and left, suddenly little Johnny jr.'s not so smart anymore, is he?

You ever seen an Asian kid? Even the three-armed are ones cuter then flaxen-haired, red-faced little Johnny jr. So you have me to thank for little JJ's high self-esteem, too.

One of these days you're going to piss me off and I'm gonna rig up some incubation test-tube thing and I'm gonna raise me a whole army of ten-armed Asian babygeniuses. So I suggest you start showing a little gratitude. Today, after you pick up little JJ from school, drop by my house and leave me a C-note and a six pack. Today, and everyday. At least a goddam fruit basket or something.

Can you wait until the 3rd for the C-note? That's when my disability check arrives.

As for Singer being a racist, people like to draw lines and say "This person is on this side of the racist line and this other person is not." It's a big gray area with some obviously racist behavior and some not with a lot in-between. I believe her motivation was to reduce the burden on the poor as well as reduce their ranks in the future, but how can I ever really know? The end result may have been the same thing that white supremacists were looking for - less black people. So what makes a racist? Motives or results? Often people hide behind one motive in pursuit of another. I agree with THP that we should judge her by the standards of her day, not by modern standards.

[DaHood]

Unfortunately, most stupid people don't realize they're stupid. :p
So sigworthy. :D

[the happy prole]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Sanger had a lot of messed up views that we find abhorrent nowadays and should be dismissed.

But to toss out the whole notion of birth control just because of some views of one person who advocated it is pretty dumb. If it's a good thing, it's a good thing regardless of how we got there.

It's also interesting to me that W.E.B. Dubois shared many of the same attitudes. In fact that same paper that people are always pulling racist Sanger quotes from was authored with Dubios. Yet he's a hero to the some of the same African-American groups/spokesmen and viewed as a "racialist" whereas Sanger is "racist."

[markalot]

If all the people who hated the breeders bred the world would be a better place. As it is, the worst have the most.

Is it any surprise that the poverty rate is increasing so fast? We are breeding people who have no fucking clue how to survive and those people are breeding even more people who have no clue how to survive.

I suppose it's racist to set an income level for being able to have a kid.

[the happy prole]

I would be totally down with a maximum income level... but I don't think that's what you mean. :D

[purple_octopus]

I would be totally down with a maximum income level... but I don't think that's what you mean. :D
How about a minimum *and* a maximum. Because I *definitely* see what you mean. :p

[the happy prole]

No, I got you totally covered with this one P_O. I actually have some spins and variations and techinal shit of how to make this work, but this is the basic framework:

First off, we completely eliminate welfare which I know you will dig. Second, the deal is the max income restriction only applies to YOUR kids. You adopt a kid, that's okay. Third thing is, the government (or government regulated entity like wall street or commidities market) handles the baby futures contract and it is totally legal to sell your kid.

So what this means is that if you are dirt poor and have no skills, you can still be of use to society. Just have a kid and sell it. Let's just say a 75-25 split with the woman getting 75 because of the extra effort involved. You're poor? Have a kid when you're 17, sell it and go to college. There's your way out of the ghetto and becoming a valuable member to society while enriching yourself. When you've got your degree and a stable income, have another kid and keep it if you want.

If you're a rich bastard, you have to pay for your kids. Which means that you really want them, they aren't some sort of vanity thing. Plus, the money will knock you back some which is also good. See because economics tells us that the more money you have, the less the marginal utility. So if you have like $3 million then the only reason you need more is because you're a greedy, power-hungry ass. Which means you really shouldn't be having kids. So you pay a couple million for the kids, all of a sudden you have an incentive to get more money which means you have to work harder.

Now let's say you are a truly power-hungry, greedy bastard. Well then no matter how much money you have, your marginal utility doesn't decrease. That's great. We will keep you working but you just can't have kids. Which is awesome for you because you now have a competitive advantage over people who do.

Okay, so what if you're poor and you don't want to sell your kids? No problem. Remember, there is zero welfare so you and your kids will have to work. And who's a better worker than the person that HAS to do it to survive? Them's cheap labor! WE NEED hungry workers!

It totally reduces the assholes having kids problem as well as reducing the problem of overpopulation. And it totally adheres to free market principles. The cost you pay for a kid will reflect the cost to society for you having a kid. Kids go to the person who values them most, and the level of care they receive will reflect that value. And hey, you want an abortion? You just flushed money down the toilet, my friend.

What do economists tell us to do when there is a societal goal to promote but we don't want nasty unfunded mandates taking away rights and screwing up incentives? They tell us we need tradable permits. Well, trade your kid. That's your permit.

I'm giving poor people power and the means to better themselves without punishment, which should please every liberal. I'm applying free market principles and eliminating welfare which should please the fiscal conservatives. And I'm vastly reducing the incentive for abortion which should please social conservatives. Everyone wins.

I hope you will vote for me in '08. I am counting on your support.

[weeone]

My husband says hibernation is the solution.

[markalot]

There are rich people who have worked their asses off for wealth that deserve to have kids. You know that though ;) So we need some kind of inheritance, oh lets call it a tax, that prevents kids from becoming rich off of their parents. In other words we have to force people to work for what they receive.

Face it. businesses that go through an inheritance chain always fail because the kids are too stupid to run it anyway.

[Duemellon]

As much as we say we should judge ppl's morality levels by the prevailent social attitude of their time, equality was not a novel idea nor unknown at the time.

To say that she was "just like everyone else" rewards dronism, sheepism, & other complicit forms when the better moral option is available & also widely known.

In the situation where she is just plain ol' ignant of the option, yah, we can't judge her, but when there are ppl saying "they deserve genuine sympathy" & have the facts to defeat the myths the immoral belief is based on.

Easy to chose the highground? not necessarily, but the idea that those who chose it were "ahead of their time" is also a mischaracterization.

They weren't ahead of their time, they were on time, everyone else was behind.
If it was possible for one individual to use the information available to come up with the progressive view, then the other people simply aren't using their brains/heart.

So, back to her...
Was the information available to her about how to treat other human beings & that AfrAm were indeed human beings? If so, then she can be held accountable, if not, then she's to be pitied.

Now, just as was brought up earlier that racism isn't so "black & white" (pun/irony intended) that every racist person is a cross burning KKK member who wants to kill Blacks & every non-racist is incapable of doing anything bad, it is applicable in her situation.

Her motivations for helping the AfrAm community in that day & time could've been motivated out of fear of it taking over, or a genuine desire to empower them to be able to chose. As for her association/w known racist entities in her lifetime...

the govnt was racist. If, at that time, any one who associated/w racist was a racist by proxy than anyone who paid taxes was.

[weeone]

They weren't ahead of their time, they were on time, everyone else was behind.

hear hear - I like this little quip.

Here's a question: has society benefited from Margaret Sanger's work ?