Clinton accepts award named in racist’s honor

Last night Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. The award is the organizations “top honor” and is named after their founder.

I find some irony that the Secretary of State serving the first black U.S. President is accepting an award named in honor of Margaret Sanger considering her racist views.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The mostsuccessful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
— Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

“Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
— Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5.

Sanger advocated forced sterilization of African-Americans (among others). She believed African-Americans were “unfit”. Not only would she have not voted for Barack Obama, she believed he should not have even been born. Yet President Obama’s Secretary of State accepted an award in honor of her.

Why there is no outcry over this racist award is scandalous.

Jane Hargrove

I agree that any thoughts to try and 'breed out' people of different races is using eugenics is terrible and racist. However it is also proof that she (along with most other humans on this planet) are complicated people with good and bad sides. I think one has to look at her in the context of her time. Her arc though life was at a time when racism was rampant in the US. Agreed it does not excuse her of her actions, it does help to consider that she was a product of her time. While her bad angels are evident, her good angels propelled her to become a strong advocate of free speech and woman's rights. Interestingly Martin Luther King himself was a recipient of the award Ms. Clinton has just received and his wife graciously accepted it on his behalf. (” target=”_blank”>http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-… Seems the world is not quite as black and white as you might want to paint it. This brings me to a question that I wonder if you can answer. I just can't understand Americans. The extreme right people (like yourself) and the extreme left people seem to go though life with rose coloured shades. Each 'side' seems to find *everything* of fault in the other ideology yet seems to be blissfully unaware of their own 'sides' shortcomings. While you are so excited to pounce on Ms. Clinton for receiving an award from a somewhat obscure historical figure whom is controversial, there are many instances of other public figures (both right and left) getting awards or interacting with figures far more frightening than Ms. Sanger; how come you never provide balanced commentary on *both* sides. For goodness sake, that Limbaugh guy recently played the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his right wing radio show. How come no indignant "I am insulted" posting from you on that one? I am sure like Ms Sanger, Mr. Limbaugh has his good and bad angels. You would never know he has any bad angels from 'the right'. I just cannot understand why you Americans are so dichotomic.
Jane Hargrove

I agree that any thoughts to try and 'breed out' people of different races is using eugenics is terrible and racist. However it is also proof that she (along with most other humans on this planet) are complicated people with good and bad sides. I think one has to look at her in the context of her time. Her arc though life was at a time when racism was rampant in the US. Agreed it does not excuse her of her actions, it does help to consider that she was a product of her time. While her bad angels are evident, her good angels propelled her to become a strong advocate of free speech and woman's rights. Interestingly Martin Luther King himself was a recipient of the award Ms. Clinton has just received and his wife graciously accepted it on his behalf. (” target=”_blank”>http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-… Seems the world is not quite as black and white as you might want to paint it. This brings me to a question that I wonder if you can answer. I just can't understand Americans. The extreme right people (like yourself) and the extreme left people seem to go though life with rose coloured shades. Each 'side' seems to find *everything* of fault in the other ideology yet seems to be blissfully unaware of their own 'sides' shortcomings. While you are so excited to pounce on Ms. Clinton for receiving an award from a somewhat obscure historical figure whom is controversial, there are many instances of other public figures (both right and left) getting awards or interacting with figures far more frightening than Ms. Sanger; how come you never provide balanced commentary on *both* sides. For goodness sake, that Limbaugh guy recently played the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his right wing radio show. How come no indignant "I am insulted" posting from you on that one? I am sure like Ms Sanger, Mr. Limbaugh has his good and bad angels. You would never know he has any bad angels from 'the right'. I just cannot understand why you Americans are so dichotomic.
Jane Hargrove

I agree that any thoughts to try and 'breed out' people of different races is using eugenics is terrible and racist. However it is also proof that she (along with most other humans on this planet) are complicated people with good and bad sides. I think one has to look at her in the context of her time. Her arc though life was at a time when racism was rampant in the US. Agreed it does not excuse her of her actions, it does help to consider that she was a product of her time. While her bad angels are evident, her good angels propelled her to become a strong advocate of free speech and woman's rights. Interestingly Martin Luther King himself was a recipient of the award Ms. Clinton has just received and his wife graciously accepted it on his behalf. (” target=”_blank”>http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-… Seems the world is not quite as black and white as you might want to paint it. This brings me to a question that I wonder if you can answer. I just can't understand Americans. The extreme right people (like yourself) and the extreme left people seem to go though life with rose coloured shades. Each 'side' seems to find *everything* of fault in the other ideology yet seems to be blissfully unaware of their own 'sides' shortcomings. While you are so excited to pounce on Ms. Clinton for receiving an award from a somewhat obscure historical figure whom is controversial, there are many instances of other public figures (both right and left) getting awards or interacting with figures far more frightening than Ms. Sanger; how come you never provide balanced commentary on *both* sides. For goodness sake, that Limbaugh guy recently played the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his right wing radio show. How come no indignant "I am insulted" posting from you on that one? I am sure like Ms Sanger, Mr. Limbaugh has his good and bad angels. You would never know he has any bad angels from 'the right'. I just cannot understand why you Americans are so dichotomic.
Jason

When looking at the context of the time, Sanger is still a racist. There are no other public figures from that time who advocated racial eugenics who are celebrated. That she was an advocate of free speech does not excuse or compensate for the evil she advocated and acted for. King's wife accepting their award was a political coup for Planned Parenthood. It helped to excuse Sanger's racist background and provide cover for Planned Parenthood's continued assault on the black population. Blacks are about 12% of the U.S. population but they account for 37% of abortions. This brings me to a question that I wonder if you can answer. I'll be glad to answer your questions. First a clarification. I do identify as conservative politically (that is on the right in the U.S.) but I am far from the extreme end of that spectrum. I have more faith in free markets than I do in government control, I believe in limited government and that private charities are much more effective at helping people in need but that is not extreme – at least not here in the States. As for Rush, I'm not a Rush listener and I don't follow him. I hadn't heard of the parody you mentioned until I read your comment. I had to look it up in Wikipedia. The song was prompted by an article written in the (left leaning) L.A. Times. It criticizes what Rush would call "liberal hypocrisy." You have to understand what the term "Magic Negro" means to fully understand the parody. Rush has faults, being a racist isn't one of them. Even so, the idea that conservatives don't see shortcomings among their own is just not accurate. There are conservatives who criticize Rush Limbaugh including a number of writers on Hot Air and other places. Now I haven't heard of any conservatives in federal office or those who are in the public eye receiving awards in honor of eugenic racists. It would be a dream of the news media for such a story. Journalism is dominated by the left in this country (over 80% of journalists here are registered Democrats). They wouldn't miss a chance for a scandal like that. You see us as dichotomic. We see it as moral clarity. Racism is wrong now and it was wrong in the 1920s and 30s. That is why those who held racist views should not be honored and our political leaders shouldn't be accepting awards in their name.
Jason

When looking at the context of the time, Sanger is still a racist. There are no other public figures from that time who advocated racial eugenics who are celebrated. That she was an advocate of free speech does not excuse or compensate for the evil she advocated and acted for. King's wife accepting their award was a political coup for Planned Parenthood. It helped to excuse Sanger's racist background and provide cover for Planned Parenthood's continued assault on the black population. Blacks are about 12% of the U.S. population but they account for 37% of abortions. This brings me to a question that I wonder if you can answer. I'll be glad to answer your questions. First a clarification. I do identify as conservative politically (that is on the right in the U.S.) but I am far from the extreme end of that spectrum. I have more faith in free markets than I do in government control, I believe in limited government and that private charities are much more effective at helping people in need but that is not extreme – at least not here in the States. As for Rush, I'm not a Rush listener and I don't follow him. I hadn't heard of the parody you mentioned until I read your comment. I had to look it up in Wikipedia. The song was prompted by an article written in the (left leaning) L.A. Times. It criticizes what Rush would call "liberal hypocrisy." You have to understand what the term "Magic Negro" means to fully understand the parody. Rush has faults, being a racist isn't one of them. Even so, the idea that conservatives don't see shortcomings among their own is just not accurate. There are conservatives who criticize Rush Limbaugh including a number of writers on Hot Air and other places. Now I haven't heard of any conservatives in federal office or those who are in the public eye receiving awards in honor of eugenic racists. It would be a dream of the news media for such a story. Journalism is dominated by the left in this country (over 80% of journalists here are registered Democrats). They wouldn't miss a chance for a scandal like that. You see us as dichotomic. We see it as moral clarity. Racism is wrong now and it was wrong in the 1920s and 30s. That is why those who held racist views should not be honored and our political leaders shouldn't be accepting awards in their name.
Jason

When looking at the context of the time, Sanger is still a racist. There are no other public figures from that time who advocated racial eugenics who are celebrated. That she was an advocate of free speech does not excuse or compensate for the evil she advocated and acted for. King's wife accepting their award was a political coup for Planned Parenthood. It helped to excuse Sanger's racist background and provide cover for Planned Parenthood's continued assault on the black population. Blacks are about 12% of the U.S. population but they account for 37% of abortions. This brings me to a question that I wonder if you can answer. I'll be glad to answer your questions. First a clarification. I do identify as conservative politically (that is on the right in the U.S.) but I am far from the extreme end of that spectrum. I have more faith in free markets than I do in government control, I believe in limited government and that private charities are much more effective at helping people in need but that is not extreme – at least not here in the States. As for Rush, I'm not a Rush listener and I don't follow him. I hadn't heard of the parody you mentioned until I read your comment. I had to look it up in Wikipedia. The song was prompted by an article written in the (left leaning) L.A. Times. It criticizes what Rush would call "liberal hypocrisy." You have to understand what the term "Magic Negro" means to fully understand the parody. Rush has faults, being a racist isn't one of them. Even so, the idea that conservatives don't see shortcomings among their own is just not accurate. There are conservatives who criticize Rush Limbaugh including a number of writers on Hot Air and other places. Now I haven't heard of any conservatives in federal office or those who are in the public eye receiving awards in honor of eugenic racists. It would be a dream of the news media for such a story. Journalism is dominated by the left in this country (over 80% of journalists here are registered Democrats). They wouldn't miss a chance for a scandal like that. You see us as dichotomic. We see it as moral clarity. Racism is wrong now and it was wrong in the 1920s and 30s. That is why those who held racist views should not be honored and our political leaders shouldn't be accepting awards in their name.
Jane

I should clarify where I meant to use the term dichotomic. I did not mean it in the context of racism; I agree with you that it is wrong no matter what timeframe or age. Hence ‘moral clarity’ in the case of racism is certainly something I fully agree with. Agreed Sanger was a racist. However I think you can take almost any historical figure and pull out dark sides to them. I am not making excuses for her, rather I choose not to see the world from a black and white perspective. (Obviously some figures like Hitler and Stain would be the exception to that…) By definition my own parents were racist as they were a product of the 1950’s and were uncomfortable with black/white integration. While I hate that aspect of them, It would be hard for me to label them fully racist and reject all that I am from them. True they were not ‘eugenicitians’ (is that a word?), however I am willing to bet that they, along with many others of their generation, had very dark thoughts about race. I more meant dichotomy in the sense of your society and how it seems to be cleaved into ‘right’ and ‘left’. I unfortunately get inundated with US news and the level of animosity between the two sides is incredible. To me it seems that nobody says ‘well I don’t agree with his policies, but he did make a good point in this area;. It seems to be burn and slash from one side to the other. Headlines and commentary seem to be ridiculously twisted to present the ‘opposite side’ is as bad a light as possible. For example your last president, George Bush, got assailed by the ‘left’ as bumbling evil idiot, however as a leader I think the US (and any other country) could do much worse. Your new president is now drawing the fire of ‘right’ (not as bad, but my guess is just give it time…). I guess your post just reminded me of that dichotomy. To twist a headline regarding Ms. Clinton receiving an award from a institution (with a past both good and bad) that was most likely recognizing her efforts to advance the rights and position of woman into “Clinton accepts racist award” just seems to me to be a ‘reaching’ attempt to discredit her rather unfairly. You have to admit that at face value the title seems to suggest that she is accepting an award because she is so effective at being a racist. I think that even you can agree that is most likely not the case. PS. To your point that you “haven't heard of any conservatives in federal office or those who are in the public eye receiving awards in honor of eugenic racists”: To be fair, that is a *very* narrow spectrum… eugenics is not the most common thing around. I too have never heard of many people getting awards in honour of eugenic racists either (who really has?), however I have heard of many ‘conservatives’ getting awards from universities and individuals who very actively discriminate homosexuality for example. Do I judge them? No. My point is that no politicians ‘wear clean sheets’ and I think you can dig up and make up headlines about anybody and anything if you are so sadly motivated. If politicians or people stopped receiving awards from *any* institution that was not crystal clean, then I believe that no awards would be given…ever.
Jane

I should clarify where I meant to use the term dichotomic. I did not mean it in the context of racism; I agree with you that it is wrong no matter what timeframe or age. Hence ‘moral clarity’ in the case of racism is certainly something I fully agree with. Agreed Sanger was a racist. However I think you can take almost any historical figure and pull out dark sides to them. I am not making excuses for her, rather I choose not to see the world from a black and white perspective. (Obviously some figures like Hitler and Stain would be the exception to that…) By definition my own parents were racist as they were a product of the 1950’s and were uncomfortable with black/white integration. While I hate that aspect of them, It would be hard for me to label them fully racist and reject all that I am from them. True they were not ‘eugenicitians’ (is that a word?), however I am willing to bet that they, along with many others of their generation, had very dark thoughts about race. I more meant dichotomy in the sense of your society and how it seems to be cleaved into ‘right’ and ‘left’. I unfortunately get inundated with US news and the level of animosity between the two sides is incredible. To me it seems that nobody says ‘well I don’t agree with his policies, but he did make a good point in this area;. It seems to be burn and slash from one side to the other. Headlines and commentary seem to be ridiculously twisted to present the ‘opposite side’ is as bad a light as possible. For example your last president, George Bush, got assailed by the ‘left’ as bumbling evil idiot, however as a leader I think the US (and any other country) could do much worse. Your new president is now drawing the fire of ‘right’ (not as bad, but my guess is just give it time…). I guess your post just reminded me of that dichotomy. To twist a headline regarding Ms. Clinton receiving an award from a institution (with a past both good and bad) that was most likely recognizing her efforts to advance the rights and position of woman into “Clinton accepts racist award” just seems to me to be a ‘reaching’ attempt to discredit her rather unfairly. You have to admit that at face value the title seems to suggest that she is accepting an award because she is so effective at being a racist. I think that even you can agree that is most likely not the case. PS. To your point that you “haven't heard of any conservatives in federal office or those who are in the public eye receiving awards in honor of eugenic racists”: To be fair, that is a *very* narrow spectrum… eugenics is not the most common thing around. I too have never heard of many people getting awards in honour of eugenic racists either (who really has?), however I have heard of many ‘conservatives’ getting awards from universities and individuals who very actively discriminate homosexuality for example. Do I judge them? No. My point is that no politicians ‘wear clean sheets’ and I think you can dig up and make up headlines about anybody and anything if you are so sadly motivated. If politicians or people stopped receiving awards from *any* institution that was not crystal clean, then I believe that no awards would be given…ever.
Jason

Your comment that you don’t choose to see the world in black and white is interesting. Sanger’s work has led more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined in the United States alone. Even if you don’t see abortion as murder, your previous comments indicate that you understand Sanger’s views on eugenics were comparable to Hilter’s. Worse actually, Hilter only targeted Jews and political enemies. She targeted Jews, Blacks, and pretty much anyone who wasn’t of Western European descent.

Regarding your family, having dark thoughts about race is not the same as working for the elimination of other races.

The right vs. left dichotomy you see is the result of our two-party political system. The parties differentiate themselves by choosing opposing positions. The perception that the entire country is that way isn’t accurate though. Truth is there are maybe 20% of U.S citizens who are true conservatives, 20% who are true liberals (very over-represented in academia and journalism) and 20% who fall somewhere in the middle. These last are those who change votes between parties. The other 40% simply don’t care – they don’t even vote.

Hmm. I see your point on the title but it wasn’t what I was trying to imply. I’ll edit to see if I can clarify.

And while it is true that most people have their faults, I know of no other award that is socially accepted that is given in honor of someone that had similar views on racial eugenics as Sanger.

P.S. Do you have a blog? I’d be curious enough to pop on over and take a look.
Jason

Your comment that you don't choose to see the world in black and white is interesting. Sanger's work has led more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined in the United States alone. Even if you don't see abortion as murder, your previous comments indicate that you understand Sanger's views on eugenics were comparable to Hilter's. Worse actually, Hilter only targeted Jews and political enemies. She targeted Jews, Blacks, and pretty much anyone who wasn't of Western European descent. Regarding your family, having dark thoughts about race is not the same as working for the elimination of other races. The right vs. left dichotomy you see is the result of our two-party political system. The parties differentiate themselves by choosing opposing positions. The perception that the entire country is that way isn't accurate though. Truth is there are maybe 20% of U.S citizens who are true conservatives, 20% who are true liberals (very over-represented in academia and journalism) and 20% who fall somewhere in the middle. These last are those who change votes between parties. The other 40% simply don't care – they don't even vote. Hmm. I see your point on the title but it wasn't what I was trying to imply. I'll edit to see if I can clarify. And while it is true that most people have their faults, I know of no other award that is socially accepted that is given in honor of someone that had similar views on racial eugenics as Sanger. P.S. Do you have a blog? I'd be curious enough to pop on over and take a look.