Read, a blog by Larry Ingram, to get the latest news about lies and bias in the news and media. Larry's blog exposes leftist culture, skewed thinking about race, privilege, and tolerance.

Racism in Planned Parenthood gets no disrespect from Black Congressional Caucus

One can count the number of pro-life members of blacks in congress on either hand, which means it's fewer than five. The figure is actually probably one or two. Since the black legislators are Democrats, it seems they must hold the party line and support an organization like Planned Parenthood.

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood was one of the groups in the early in the 20th century that labeled blacks, and other races of people, imbeciles. They wanted them to be removed from the general population via sterilization and other means. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was also in favor of sterilizing young black mothers.

Unfortunately, This history of Planned Parenthood as one that has portrayed blacks as needing to be “weeded out’ of the general population, has generally been ignored by black legislators in the Black Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. Most, if not all of these legislators are Democrats. As the Democratic Party platform, supports abortion rights and Planned Parenthood, these legislators get in line, to support the organization.

There is plenty of evidence for this attitude of racism, as researched and presented by Life Dynamics, through their two hour documentary, Maafa 21, produced in 2009. It is mostly narrated by two black actors, Marcus Lloyd and Michelle Rene, both of whom agree with the conclusions of the documentary. The film points to common stone markers remembering the lives of slaves in the South, in this case, Georgia. The film is also narrated by Mark Crutcher, of Life Dynamics, Inc.

While the research into the subject is extensive, there are a few points that Crutcher makes that are questionable. One is that every aspect of the economy was dependent on the slave trade. The reality is that the South was far more invested in the Slave Trade than was the North. Even before the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the U.S. Constitution, Northern leaders were in general opposed to slavery, and those in the South, were in favor of it. The North could take a stance against slavery, when the South could not and did not, because there were far fewer slaves far more freed slaves in the North. To make it sound like all enterprises were equally invested in the slave trade is simply inaccurate.

Further, it makes it sound like no whites were opposed to slavery, a stance that is also inaccurate. The use of the word elites, to describe people who were invested in the salve trade is also not true. Slave owners in the South were more interested in opposing the abolition movement because their economy, which included commodities like cotton and tobacco, were more labor intensive, and thus depended more on slaves.

Many delegates, prior to adopting the U.S. Constitution, were opposed to giving representation based on the population of slaves, because they did not have the right to vote. Delegates from slave states were opposed to this, since it would mean their interests, of favoring slavery, would be grossly underrepresented. The compromise was that slaves were counted three fifths in determining delegate population, even though slaves could not vote. As a result, the Southern pro-slavery bloc had 47 of 105 total delegates, instead of 33 delegates they would have had without the 3/5ths rule. Alexander Hamilton was one leader who was opposed to the 3/5ths rule. Others (in the North) were as well, including John Adams. He, along with his wife, Abigail, were adamantly opposed to slavery.

Crutcher talks about the elite, but what he is really referring to is the Southern elite, and even then, they did not represent elites, but mostly plantation owners, whose business depended on free slave labor. Elites in states like Massachussetts, like Adams, were opposed to slavery, and readily adopted at least one black child, and provided them with a free education.

In the north, while there may have been a fear of blacks migrating to the north, there was common acceptance of the idea of free education for former slaves in many states.. As can be seen by the film “Twelve Years a Slave,” the fact that slaves were still considered property in the South, made kidnapping free slaves and selling them to slave brokers a profitable enterprise. Once in the South, even free slaves had a difficult time proving they were free.

Unfortunately, the thinking of Charles Darwin and the slave trade intersected during the 19th century with the idea of decreasing the population of slaves in the U.S. and England, to benefit the entire gene pool of humans on the planet. One of the main proponents of decreasing unfavorable races or populations was Francis Galton. Galton was Darwin’s cousin, and proposed and supported the idea of eugenics, or determining the usefulness of any one race via their perceived racial characteristics. By his estimation, the Negro or black race was inferior.

Crutcher also claims that there were as many as 4 million slaves in 1860, before the Emancipation Proclamation, but the total population of the U.S. in 1860 was 4.5 million. There were an estimated half a million slaves at the time, primarily in the South.

There is a lot of truth presented, however. Most of it has to do with the racist quality of Darwin’s writings, which gave rise to eugenics, the idea that the entire gene pool should be cleansed from inferior races that would pollute or corrupt the pool. Although it may sound insidious, both Darwin and Galton were completely serious about their ideas. Galton was simply a more outspoken proponent of eugenics. Darwin rarely ventured outside of what he published to promote his book or his ideas.

The film also mentions that the original title of his Origin of the Species book was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The fact that Darwin thinks one title can be substituted for, or is as meaningful as the another is telling. Later copies of the book eliminated the latter title of the book, as a way of getting rid of the more controversial title, while keeping the main thrust of the book. The reason, as mentioned in the film, is that Darwin was concerned with the upshot of the second title, because of the obvious reference to the white race being favored, and the black race, as the one that would or should die out.

There is a great deal of denial in regard to what Darwin said, mostly because he effectively eliminated the need to pay any attention of God, or Christianity. The idea goes, since all that we are and see is because of natural selection, we don’t really need the Bible, or the creation story. At the same time, the second title of the book, which is racist, is rarely or never mentioned by liberal scientists who are devotees of evolution.

The same can be said of Democrats and member of the Black Congressional Caucus, all of whom support the pro-abortion policies of the party. It is simply too politically inconvenient for them to align themselves with pro-life Republicans, when it may mean they could be discarded by the Democratic Party and their financial support.

© 2016 Larry Ingram

Eugenics ideas resulted in more suffering for blacks during 20th century

Hamilton: the Revolution: brilliance or down and dirty disrespect and offense?