Black genocide- Margaret Sanger

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Quote:

According to LEARN (the Life, Education and Resource Network), an African-American pro-life organization, an astonishing 78% of all abortion clinics in this country are in or near minority neighborhoods. Black America is 12% of the general population, yet we account for a whopping 40% of the abortions. How did this come about?



We often have discussions on this board about race related issues. Police shootings of certain individuals and the motivations behind them, financial progress of the black community and affirmative action and so forth.



A chronic subtext to these discussion are that white men, Republicans, etc are largely responsible for the problems within the black community. The black community votes overwhelming Democratic as a result.



However, now that blacks have become the second largest minority in America, I have wondered how much longer it would take for that community to begin the question the solutions provided by those they vote for and support. Abortion for example appears to be used far more by members of minority communities than by whites. Some sites have suggested that the current population of blacks would be over 10+ million higher than it currently has become.



The language of choice is considered progressive, but the assumptions behind it are not. Becoming rich/earning respect means risking extermination/genocide of your group. Your black children might be poor/unwanted and thus should not be born. Society should not be responsible for insuring the well being of all, and thus your child should not be born, etc. Sanger spoke at length about how charities and social aid groups were terrible and took the efforts of the well off and gave them to the undeserving, undesirable, and unfit. Those who are unwanted or unable to care for their offspring should terminate their pregnancies and agree to sterilization.



Turns out that what she and often other progressives have meant, because we all know that outcomes are what count, not intentions, was that the poor, black, mentally unfit, etc. should not have children. By convincing them to abort their children, they have accomplished more deaths than the KKK could ever dream of.



Likewise others will take the thoughts and timeframes of today and judge the actions of others from different time frames. When you consider Margaret Sanger's timeframe well before true civil rights, before the New Deal, etc. It is obvious that blacks would appear less educated, more impoverished, etc. In otherwords she was speaking about charities at a time when people really could be malnourished, completely uneducated, and when there was next to no transfer of wealth/government programs in the United States. If a founding father should have known better regarding slavery, if they would have been able to see the true humanity in the 18th century, shouldn't Margaret Sanger have been able to see it in the 20th? Likewise I could be more likely to be impoverished, jailed, shot by the police, pulled over, have a lowered life expectancy, but are any of those worse than never being born? Choice has convinced the black community to do what white racists could never do. They have convinced them to use white definitions of respect and being rich to abort their future generations out of existance.



What do you think?



Nick
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    having not read any of the documentation....

    that 78% of abortion clinics are in Minority neighborhoods may be raising a false alarm. Many Black people live in Urban areas Therefore statistically they would be closeer to an Abortion clinic (planned parenthood and other ob-gyn places) than someone who lives in cow country. This idea is supported by the dramatically lower rate of abortion relative to proximity to abortion clinics. I'm not sure as to the overall rates of abortion but blacks are less prone to abort thier children. I suspect that in large part the data used in that quote is being misrepresented, like so called feminist who insist that practically every woman walking has been or will be raped, yet cannot explain why statistically rape victims account for less than 1% of the total US female population. Most black women I know that are in close contact with white women, especially those with or from money, tell me repeatedly about the high incidences of abortions that white girls in highschool and college have. I suspect that many of these white women go to those clinics in close proximity to minority neighborhoods.



    Anways.. if we assume the 40% rate to be correct (as of when?) A quick look at the poverty rates of AA's (who are most likely to go to "free clinics") we would note that the poverty rate among AA's has been around 30% for many years and has only recently gone down to 25% which is still rather high. So if we take into account that some "affluent" AA's will have abortions too. Then when adjusted for socioeconomics.. it is highly possible that the 40% number is not skewed at all but a reflection of the socio-economic relaties of AA's.
  • Reply 2 of 52
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Choice has convinced the black community to do what white racists could never do. They have convinced them to use white definitions of respect and being rich to abort their future generations out of existance.



    None of my black friends have ever had this complex. Just my observations.
  • Reply 3 of 52
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,448member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    None of my black friends have ever had this complex. Just my observations.



    Who said it was a complex?



    Nick
  • Reply 4 of 52
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    Anyway, more genocide is being done by the CIA, World Bank and IMF than any abortion clinic.
  • Reply 5 of 52
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,448member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Anyway, more genocide is being done by the CIA, World Bank and IMF than any abortion clinic.



    Yeah I mean genocide of 10 million blacks, what is that among friends?



    Genocide



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 52
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    It does seem to be true that blacks have abortions much more often than whites, about two or two-and-a-half times more often.



    Quote:

    Approximately 57% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were white ( Table 9 ). The abortion ratio for black women was 555 per 1,000 live births; this was approximately 2.7 times the ratio for white women (202 per 1,000 live births). The abortion ratio for women of other races (360 per 1,000 live births) was approximately 1.8 times the ratio for white women. In addition, the abortion rate for black women (31 per 1,000 women) was approximately 2.6 times the rate for white women (12 per 1,000 women).



    How you interpret that is another story. To suggest that it's a genocide perpetrated by whites is typical absurd nonsense spouted by pro-life extremists, and everybody but the pro-life extremists will see it that way. It's about on par with "the CIA sells drugs to keep the blacks down." [edit: heh, I wrote that before I saw Sonjata's post.)



    A couple of points:

    1. There is no forced abortion in the US. How in the world can you talk about genocide if it's not forced? Exercising reproductive freedom is genocide perpetrated by a third party? Uh-huh. You'd at least have a starting point if you suggested that the genocide was being perpetrated by the black women themselves.

    2. There are clear correlations to increased abortions, e.g., being unmarried: 10 times the number of unmarried women have abortions compared to married. Therefore, as marriage rates decrease, abortions should increase. Perhaps some factor like that is the underlying issue behind the disparity between blacks and whites.
  • Reply 7 of 52
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    the problem is that there are so many interacting variable involved in an equation like this that trying to tie it down to some single event/lifestyle is almost impossible.
  • Reply 8 of 52
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    So Black people who choose to have abortions are somehow being tricked by Whitey into killing their offspring?



    In other words, Blacks aren't smart enough to make their own decisions about terminating a pregnancy...that sounds rather bigoted to me.
  • Reply 9 of 52
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    what are the statistical correlations of urban poverty to abortion? what are the proportions of black vs white urban poor?



    there is your answer (or your question)...
  • Reply 10 of 52
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    It's about on par with "the CIA sells drugs to keep the blacks down." [edit: heh, I wrote that before I saw Sonjata's post.)





    well the whole crack epidemic in LA. California was already documented so....



    But what i meant by the CIA would be more along the lines of there are more Black people outside the US then there are inside the US. Brazil has the largest Black population outside of Africa. In Brazil there was/is a policy of "lightening up." where the government went to great extremese to encourage blacks to marry and breed with those persons lighter than themselves. So such an idea that a Eugenics program is afoot in the US is entirely feasable. In fact it is known that Hitler got his master race theories from the good ole US of A.
  • Reply 11 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    well the whole crack epidemic in LA. California was already documented so....









    It was? By legitimate news sources or just the LA Times?
  • Reply 12 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Does anyone find this kind of rhetoric plain old bigotry ... towards whites?
  • Reply 13 of 52
    I find both the ?black genocide? and ?CIA/IMF/Wall Street financiers' genocide? notions idiotic and revolting at so many levels that it would be a waste of my precious time and neurons to address them. So I won't.



    However, I will address some inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and confusions:



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Brazil has the largest Black population outside of Africa. In Brazil there was/is a policy of "lightening up." where the government went to great extremese to encourage blacks to marry and breed with those persons lighter than themselves.



    Which can only mean the same government would need to go ?to great extremese (sic) to encourage whites to marry and breed with those persons darker than themselves? as well, you make it sound sinister. I wonder why.

    Anyway, Brazilians have been merrily marrying with people of lighter or darker tones than themselves without needing some alleged government encouragement.



    Quote:

    So such an idea that a Eugenics program?



    You call it a ?Eugenics program?; some forty years ago some North-Americans would have called it a ?race-mixing programme? while making it sound very sinister.



    Quote:

    ?is afoot in the US is entirely feasable.



    And much good it would do to the U.S.A. to have more admixture between people of European, African, Asian, New World, and other origins.

    Quote:

    In fact it is known that Hitler got his master race theories from the good ole US of A.



    Nonesense.

    The theories of racial hieracrchy came from Europeans such as Gobineau and Chamerlain, which had of course influenced the North-American Eugenists and the U.S. interwar immigration policies. However, these theories proposed the complete opposite of having blacks marry lighter or whites marry darker; Hitler's goal was to completely separate people along the arbitrary categories of his lunatic racial theories (as well as within the ?races? to preserve the ?purity? of the upper social stratae). It was about all ?racial purity?: the very opposite of mixture.
  • Reply 14 of 52
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    I find both the ?black genocide? and ?CIA/IMF/Wall Street financiers' genocide? notions idiotic and revolting at so many levels that it would be a waste of my precious time and neurons to address them. So I won't.



    However, I will address some inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and confusions:





    Which can only mean the same government would need to go ?to great extremese (sic) to encourage whites to marry and breed with those persons darker than themselves? as well, you make it sound sinister. I wonder why.

    Anyway, Brazilians have been merrily marrying with people of lighter or darker tones than themselves without needing some alleged government encouragement.




    I guess you know little about history as any black person (who has any clue) knows that white men have never had a problem sticking thier penises into "native" women all the while claiming the virtues of white womanhood. Then those offspring were of course not "pure white" and left to the blacks to raised but were treated as better than the "full blooded negroes." A nice recent flick on this, rtabbit proof fence ought to school you enough on this particular fact.





    You call it a ?Eugenics program?; some forty years ago some North-Americans would have called it a ?race-mixing programme? while making it sound very sinister. [/b}



    again your ignorance of US history vis-a-vis AA's shows itself full bore.





    [b}And much good it would do to the U.S.A. to have more admixture between people of European, African, Asian, New World, and other origins.




    That's not what the "founding Fathers' thought when they wrote that little piece of hyprocritacl shyt called the Declaration of Independence, are the pernicious 3/5th rule in the Constitution. Oh yeah.... Lets not forget those nasty Virginia, Alabama, Missisipi slave codes.. among others..



    Nonesense.

    The theories of racial hieracrchy came from Europeans such as Gobineau and Chamerlain, which had of course influenced the North-American Eugenists and the U.S. interwar immigration policies. However, these theories proposed the complete opposite of having blacks marry lighter or whites marry darker; Hitler's goal was to completely separate people along the arbitrary categories of his lunatic racial theories (as well as within the ?races? to preserve the ?purity? of the upper social stratae). It was about all ?racial purity?: the very opposite of mixture.




    You ought to read more history. While the persons you mentioned did more to "codify" the idea of eugenics as we know it, any cursory glance at the litterature regearding Africa and Africans at the time of the Atlantic Slave trade and the arguments surrounding it's abolition would show the budding seeds that were the foundation. Bur of course you don't know that so, you posted the dumb Shyt you posted here figuring you knew more than everybody else.
  • Reply 15 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Brazil has the largest Black population outside of Africa. In Brazil there was/is a policy of "lightening up." where the government went to great extremese to encourage blacks to marry and breed with those persons lighter than themselves.



    Which can only mean the same government would need to go ?to great extremese (sic) to encourage whites to marry and breed with those persons darker than themselves? as well, you make it sound sinister. I wonder why.

    Anyway, Brazilians have been merrily marrying with people of lighter or darker tones than themselves without needing some alleged government encouragement.



    I guess you know little about history as any black person (who has any clue) knows that white men have never had a problem sticking thier penises into "native" women all the while claiming the virtues of white womanhood. Then those offspring were of course not "pure white" and left to the blacks to raised but were treated as better than the "full blooded negroes." A nice recent flick on this, rtabbit proof fence ought to school you enough on this particular fact.



    Are you talking about present-day Brazil? I hope not.

    While present-day Brazil is not yet a colour-blind society, it seems closer to it than the present-day U.S.A., and so married couples made of black men and white women, and of course, of white men and black women, are quite common there.



    Quote:

    Quote:

    You call it a ?Eugenics program?; some forty years ago some North-Americans would have called it a ?race-mixing programme? while making it sound very sinister.



    again your ignorance of US history vis-a-vis AA's shows itself full bore.



    How would you call people having partners of different skin tones? That's the very ?race mixing? some of your countrymen were railing against when I first visited your side of the Atlantic.

    ?Eugenics? referred more to the ideas promoting ?purity? rather than ?mixing?.





    Quote:

    Quote:

    And much good it would do to the U.S.A. to have more admixture between people of European, African, Asian, New World, and other origins.



    That's not what the "founding Fathers' thought?



    No, that admixture is more on the line of that alleged ?Brazilian programme? you were talking about in a much displeased tone.



    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    In fact it is known that Hitler got his master race theories from the good ole US of A.



    Nonesense.

    The theories of racial hieracrchy came from Europeans such as Gobineau and Chamerlain, which had of course influenced the North-American Eugenists and the U.S. interwar immigration policies. However, these theories proposed the complete opposite of having blacks marry lighter or whites marry darker; Hitler's goal was to completely separate people along the arbitrary categories of his lunatic racial theories (as well as within the ?races? to preserve the ?purity? of the upper social stratae). It was about all ?racial purity?: the very opposite of mixture.



    You ought to read more history. While the persons you mentioned did more to "codify" the idea of eugenics as we know it,?



    No, Gobineau and Chamberlain actually invented the psudeo-scientific theories of racial hierarchies, which in turn heavily influenced Eugenics.



    Quote:

    ?any cursory glance at the litterature regearding Africa and Africans at the time of the Atlantic Slave trade and the arguments surrounding it's abolition would show the budding seeds that were the foundation.



    Said racial theories were feeding on prejudices born out of the discovery by the peoples of North-Western Europe (whose physical features were by then quite homogenous) of very different, diverse, and varied physical human types from far a way lands. These prejudices preceded the U.S.A. of a few centuries, and so did not originate there, obviously.

    The theorists of racial hierarchy lived where these prejudices originated; they didn't need any input from some overseas peripheral provinces.



    So:

    a. You equate some alleged programme from Brazil, supposedly designed to have more marriages across colour barriers (which they are having anyway), with its opposite: theories promoting ?racial purity?; they are opposite hence not equivalent.



    b. You claim that the racial theories adopted by the Third Reich originated in the U.S.A. They did not, both the theories themselves, and the prejudices they fed upon, were common to the then Western civilisation, and originated in that civilisation's centre then: Western Europe.



    c. You then tell people how ignorant they are and what they ought to do.



    In the light of a. and b., c. is rather irrelvent.
  • Reply 16 of 52
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,448member
    You both are right. In the U.S. the large white majority made it very easy to control the minority black population. Thus rules like one drop made it so that you were purely black or white according to the law.



    The Brazil and other South American countries, you had a minority white population attempting to control a large black and indian population. Thus they arranged their laws/racial codes according to your degree of whiteness. The more you could prove your ties to being white the more privileged you were.



    I don't know if the government of Brazil encouraged race mixing per se. Studies I have read about economic equality there tend to show that the darker the skin, the more likely you still are to be poor. However I would say that since there was less/little punishment for interacial marriage and dating, (you can't get much more harsh than one drop) it might have been much easier to let love conquer all.



    Nick
  • Reply 17 of 52
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,448member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    the problem is that there are so many interacting variable involved in an equation like this that trying to tie it down to some single event/lifestyle is almost impossible.



    I would say it is impossible at all. The entire populations of Japan and Europe are declining as well. I'm sure the variables could be common. In the U.S. the decline just seems to be more targeted and disportionately being used/affecting one group more than others.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 52
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    Which can only mean the same government would need to go ?to great extremese (sic) to encourage whites to marry and breed with those persons darker than themselves? as well, you make it sound sinister. I wonder why.

    Anyway, Brazilians have been merrily marrying with people of lighter or darker tones than themselves without needing some alleged government encouragement.




    Again.. if you don't know the particular history of Brazil, then you don't know what you're talking about. The government did indeed have a programme to "encourage" lightening up.



    Are you talking about present-day Brazil? I hope not.

    While present-day Brazil is not yet a colour-blind society, it seems closer to it than the present-day U.S.A., and so married couples made of black men and white women, and of course, of white men and black women, are quite common there.




    Where did I say current day Brazil? And even if I did are you aware of all the mnovements by Blacks in Brazil to address the rampant discrimination they face? Oh I'm sorry, you color blind folks only concern yourself with who's bedding who.







    How would you call people having partners of different skin tones? That's the very ?race mixing? some of your countrymen were railing against when I first visited your side of the Atlantic.

    ?Eugenics? referred more to the ideas promoting ?purity? rather than ?mixing?.




    Clearly you failed to watch "Rabbit Proof Fence" or take the hint about how certain social and biological experiments have taken place on blacks. Eugenics is very much about mixing as it is about purity.













    Nonesense.

    The theories of racial hieracrchy came from Europeans such as Gobineau and Chamerlain, which had of course influenced the North-American Eugenists and the U.S. interwar immigration policies. However, these theories proposed the complete opposite of having blacks marry lighter or whites marry darker; Hitler's goal was to completely separate people along the arbitrary categories of his lunatic racial theories (as well as within the ?races? to preserve the ?purity? of the upper social stratae). It was about all ?racial purity?: the very opposite of mixture.[/QUOTE]

    You ought to read more history. While the persons you mentioned did more to "codify" the idea of eugenics as we know it,?[/QUOTE]

    No, Gobineau and Chamberlain actually invented the psudeo-scientific theories of racial hierarchies, which in turn heavily influenced Eugenics.




    Clue for you. There would be no "marrying of blacks and whites in the US since it was Illegal in most states where blacks were in the majority or near majority populations. All those shadrs of black people in the US were largely the results of white men breeding black women. Many of these men believed that they couold further civilize the Negro by introducing "White blood" into the population. This is a well documented fact. Just like Strom Thurma who believed in strict segregation has a "black" daughter. It's too bad you don't get it, that Most of the people who were staunch about racial purity were also greatly involved in creating the mixes they supposedly despised. In fact those mixed persons served their twisted minds by re-inforcing ideas of "mongrelization."



    Said racial theories were feeding on prejudices born out of the discovery by the peoples of North-Western Europe (whose physical features were by then quite homogenous) of very different, diverse, and varied physical human types from far a way lands. These prejudices preceded the U.S.A. of a few centuries, and so did not originate there, obviously.

    The theorists of racial hierarchy lived where these prejudices originated; they didn't need any input from some overseas peripheral provinces.




    Those "prejudices" actually did not develop until the dawn of the Atlantioc Slave trade. If you read the numerous manuscripts on the subject you would find that Europeans who started the slave trade were well familiar with blacks and didn't have particularly negatove views of them. It was not until the colonization of Brazil, the West Indies and the US and the cvarious attacks against slavery that arguments about the diminished mental capacity of Africans started to form a cohesive Ideology. Much of those ideas started from American Colonists and their English counterparts. This stuff is well documented.





    b. You claim that the racial theories adopted by the Third Reich originated in the U.S.A. They did not, both the theories themselves, and the prejudices they fed upon, were common to the then Western civilisation, and originated in that civilisation's centre then: Western Europe.



    Exactly common in Western Civilization as a result of the Trans Atlantic Slave trade and the arguments used to support it. No Slave trade no theories of inherent superiority of the "white" race. Lets not forget that The Nazis' Killed awhole lot of other people besides Jews.
  • Reply 19 of 52
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,448member
    So Sond, what about the actual topic of the thread though? I mean you have been pretty dismissive of it. I have shown sources that you likely would concur with and likewise BRussell posted numbers from the CDC. In a country like ours where there are no restrictions on abortion, it appears that there is societal coercion to have black women abort their babies at rates double those of whites. Lightening up policies may be bad, but having no children policies which means no future folks is much worse in my opinion, don't you think?



    Nick
  • Reply 20 of 52
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    Doing the math..



    Assuming the CDC's figures to be accurate:



    Black women having abortions @ 31 abort/1000 women

    White women having abortions@ 22 abort/ 1000 women



    There are approximately 33,000,000 AA's

    say half of them are old enough to have abortions (which is not true by a long shot) then were talking at most 16.5 million women

    If we divide that group by 1000 and multiply the result by 31 we get a total of



    511,500 abortions.



    There are approximately 230 million people in the US.

    if we remove the 33 million AA's

    and approxmately same numbers of Hispanics

    you get: 193.7 Million supposed White Americans (yes this figure is wrong because Asians and Native Americans are left out but it's a round enough figure). If you assume as above that half the population are women and all of them are of child bearing years (Which is also wrong but in line with our other assumptions so the errors are equal across examples) you get 96.85 Million white women.



    Dividing that number by 1000 and multiplying by 12 we get:

    1,162,200



    or 2.2 times the number of abortions by black women.



    One could look at these numbers and say (as the folks over at stormfront do) That there is a conspiracy to lower the population of white people ( By international Jews no less)



    the problem I have the the CDC report is as I indicated on the original post. Where are the Economic data? Where is the breakdown by the income of the women seeking these abortions? The CDC data shows that places with higher Urban populations have higher rates of abortion than more rural areas. In one instance the CDC reprt states that among hispanic women the rate of abortion fluxuated from 1% to 44% depending on where the data came from. Again since AA's tend to live in highly urbanized areas and by the data highly urban areas tend to have the most abortions it is highly likely that the lifestyles of those in Urban areas would lend itself to abortions more so than rural areas. And since many more white women live in Rural areas relative to Black women it would seem logical that the low numbers from rural areas serve to depress the rate of abortion among white women as much as black women living in largely Urban settings have their rates inflated.
Sign In or Register to comment.