Did "the left" support forced sterilization?

[shadow]

In response to a FB friend's posting about the guy w/ 30 kids, one of his friends turned into a partisan issue by saying "I say forced sterilization. The Left supports this, so I say let's join 'em." So of course I had to jump in and say "They do? This is news to me." To which he responded, "Well, historically, yes. Read a bit about the "progressive" Left's origins in the U.S. and you'll see what I mean. What we have now is descended from that which started early in the 1900s."

I have a hard time believing this. Anyone know if this is true? I have limited time on my computer today, and really don't have the time to spend researching it. My gut reaction is "bullshit." What say you CEP?

[Deleted]

the right seems to paint margaret sanger as a eugenicist (sp?).

[msmerymac]

There were plenty of Pregressives and Dems who were eugenicists (Woodrow Wilson). That doesn't necessarily mean they have anything to do with the modern "left."

[ttt]

This is like the people who argue that the Republican party is pro civil rights because Lincoln was a Republican. Totally different world.

[Deleted]

Well, the far left circa 1935.

Now definitely not. I don't think there are any mainstream groups that support forced sterilizations.

[Deleted]

Every country was involved in eugenics, regardless of political stuff, until Hitler gave it a bad name. Then they all backed away quietly and pretended that it was nothing to do with them lol...

[LoveTrains]

Well sure part of the left/liberal movement was involved with sterilzation. If you look back into the forced sterilization programs in the southern states as late as the 1950s, most of the candidates for sterilzation were teen & unwed mothers, people with low IQs, etc. I think part of the thought was that you could lessen/lower poverty rates by preventing impoverished people from reproducing. It was a very paternalistic view that I think was shared by folks on both sides of the political spectrum.

[alleinesein]

I think that both parties were involved. If you want more info on Eugenics and California you can start here
www.csus.edu/cshpe/eugenics/sources.html

[overture]

May 20, 2012 12:29:27 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Every country was involved in eugenics, regardless of political stuff, until Hitler gave it a bad name. Then they all backed away quietly and pretended that it was nothing to do with them lol...

That's not really true. The US was practicing forced sterilization into the 1950s, and I think North Carolina was doing it into the 70s.

And unfortunately, Margret Sanger did support eugenics. But I think it was more a case of her trying to garner support for birth control with a "by any means necessary" approach. Regrettable.

But honestly, it's really, really easy to find otherwise admirable people from the first half of the 20th century who supported eugenics. They really thought they were doing good.

ETA: you really can't compare "the left" pre WW2 to "the left" today on any issue. It's like comparing Lincoln to GW Bush. They're just two different movements with completely different historical contexts.

[earlgreyhot]

You friend has been studying her glen beck. I think that's a big shtick of his, finding all the skeletons in the the progressive movment's closet as a way of delegitmatizing current "liberal" values such as health care, reproductive rights, etc.