Third world women in the global economy are valuable as a cheap source of labor and as producers of additional cheap labor sources (children). This discussion focuses on the interrelationships between race, class, and gender bias in international population programs and the unequal power relationship between colonizers and the colonized. For example, USAID directs over 33% of its family planning (FP) service delivery funding and 50% of policy funds to Africa, and African women and women of color in general are blamed for their own poverty and underdevelopment. Madi Gray is cited as suggesting that African FP is the cure for "illegitimacy, misery in the ghettos, and rising crime." The paternalistic and racist population policies of the US are traced to a 1905 speech of President Theodore Roosevelt, who expressed concern about the Yankee stock being overwhelmed by immigrants, non-Whites, and the poor. In 1933, the US Birth Control Federation targeted Black women. Birth control and eugenic practices were integrated before the Second World War and shared the goal of reducing the immigrant and Black populations. The current South African equivalent to this situation is the White power rhetoric of "Black peril" which is said to threaten White power, safety, and profits. Structural changes in both the US and South Africa are creating large surplus labor pools comprised largely of Black Africans. When labor reserves are too large, poverty and underemployment are identified as the result of overpopulation. Unhealthy and unproved birth control technologies have been distributed to Africans while health care, economic resources, and social security have been neglected. Population control is used for selective population reduction.

So, let's talk about the racist subtext of population control and why such emphasis is put on reducing birth rates in brown countries.

Let's also talk about how the modern Left has been totally unaware of the motivation behind these policies because it's paid insufficient attention to the juncture between societal liberalism and colonialism.

Edited by mustang (June 15, 2013 14:16:30)

prikryl posted:

If only.

So what's your analysis of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation viz US imperialism?

The state-sponsored family planning programme officially began in South Africa in 1974 in the midst of rising unemployment among blacks, rapid urbanisation of the black population, and increasing militancy against the regime1. The government promoted family planning services as a measure to improve the health of women and their children; it also acknowledged that the programme was a way to place a check on the high population growth rate which was burdening limited resources. The government did not implement the programme on a racial basis. Services were provided free to any woman who sought them. However, the link between the family planning programme and white fears of growing black numbers was widely acknowledged. Accusations were lodged against family planning that it was a dubious programme of control with genocidal undertones while supporters prophesied an imminent (black) population explosion which demanded immediate and decisive action by the government. Yet while the political climate surrounding fertility control had been at best hostile prior to the early 1990s, the programme in fact had been 'successful' on several dimensions.

Black community leaders have been tremendously influential in mobilising or suspending action among their constituencies on a wide variety of issues. Their opinions about family planning had the potential of creating a conducive or hostile environment for reproductive decision-making. These leaders also have almost always been men. The complexity of gender relations in South Africa, varying considerably across regions and within urban and rural settings, and coupled with high levels of censorship, makes a detailed assessment of family planning at the community level challenging. Media reports, however, indicate a high level of hostility to family planning, both because of the concern over population numbers implied by the programme, and because many saw fertility control as an affront to (male) authority and counter to the 'African' way of life. Relatively little concern was expressed for the health or well-being of women and their children or for the role of men in the maintenance of their families. In 1982, for example, the African Communist, a paper issued from London by the South African Communist Party, ran an article entitled:

'Family Planning in South Africa-a Kind of Genocide': ...The so-called national family planning programme is being used to perpetuate White domination and the oppression and exploitation of the Black majority.. .In the South African context family planning tramples on rights of the oppressed Black majority and the hostility with which the oppressed majority have reacted to this policy is a direct result of the historical experience of racist White minority rule which has systematically robbed them of the land and the liberty and is now intent on restricting their right to reproduce themselves. The people's rejection of population control is part of their strategy for self-preservation. (Hansard 1983, c.283-4).

Several more specific controversies surrounding the family planning programme did not work to allay community suspicion. Depo-Provera, a long- lasting injectable contraceptive, was a major focus of criticism. Depo was received with enthusiasm by medical doctors in the late 1960s (Tyler 1968; Karstadt 1970; Ferguson 1974), and its convenience as a contraceptive method lasting for up to three
months was immediately recognised by the family planning programme. Striking differences in contraceptive method use patterns by race quickly appeared. In the late 1980s the injection was the method administered to over 50 per cent of all black users and 40 per cent of coloured, while the pill and sterilisation predominated among Indian and white users. The degree to which black and coloured women, especially in rural areas, had a choice of methods presented to them was questionable (see also Chimere-Dan 1993). With the Federal Drug Administration's ban on Depo in the United States, many critics of the programme accused it of subjecting black South African women to dangerous chemicals to achieve demographic objectives (SAIRR 1980). The national programme did not attempt to cancel or limit the use of the method.

The injection was a long lasting form of fertility control that did not require consent or co-operation of a woman's partner or in- laws. For women who feared disapproval, the injectable contraceptive was an ideal choice (Gready et al 1994; Kaufman 1994). Abuses of contraception related to employment were also a source of controversy. Employment opportunities were limited for black South African women and most positions were not suited to the 'inconveniences' of child-bearing or child care. Women who became pregnant often lost their jobs. As one worker commented (in Barrett, et al. 1985, p.142): 'If someone knows you are pregnant, they will run to the nursing sister and tell her - so that you are fired, and they know someone who can take your place.' While many women sought contra- ception to keep their jobs, others had no choice. In some instances contraceptive use became a pre- condition for hire and for continued employment. Women who did become pregnant had no guarantee of a job after the birth of a child. They were also susceptible to 'influx' control laws under which they could be judged 'unproductive' and sent to the appropriate homeland. Another widespread practice known as 'the fourth stage of labour', involved administering an injection immediately post-partum (Klugman 1993; Stockton 1995). The rationale for this practice is unknown, since women are usually anovulatory for several months after delivery. Nonetheless, nurses usually provided the injection as a matter of procedure. Permission from the patient was not sought generally, although sometimes the patient received the explanation that the 'baby will be healthier' (Mamosadi 1995). One young woman described her experience (in Klugman 1988:102): 'I used it after delivering my baby. I was taken there and given an injection without being told anything. They only took my blood pressure and gave me the next date for a check up.'

Sex, Death and the Fate of the Nation: Reflections on the Politicization of Sexuality in Post-Apartheid South Africa

This recent politicization of sexuality is unexpected and enigmatic.
It was not foretold in most, if not all, the major policy documents
and debates which accompanied South Africa's transition. The
Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), which was the
initial policy framework of the African National Congress affirmed on
its election to office in 1994, for example, made copious reference to
issues of gender, seen largely as the need to 'empower' women (extend

widen their access to social and economic opportunities)But there
was little sense of the political salience of the domain of sexuality,
other than reference to the need for improved mental healths services
for 'those affected by ... rape or child abuse' (ANC 1994: para.
2.12.7.2). By contrast, one of the public policy debates where the issue
of the politics of sexuality was raised- but then seemingly immediately
and strategically backgrounded- was in respect of a post-apartheid
population policy. The apartheid state's notoriously crude efforts to
manipulate black fertility made it difficult for the new regime to deal
with matters of sexuality within the rubric of a legitimate national
population policy;hence the concern in the post-apartheid White Paper
on Population Policy, which shaped the production of the new policy, to
frame issues of reproductive health and fertility with reference to their
wider 'developmental' parameter(sR SA 1998:p ara. 1.3).

your version of "shariah law" is some CIA-created bullarse you know

It's ironic for you to say that because liberal Islam came into existence in the 19th century as a product of colonialism. No conspiracy theories necessary.

At least you seem implicitly admit that the family planning policies of apartheid were, in fact, racist. Yet when the same policies continue today you suddenly support them. Why, what changed?

It's telling that you rightfully condemn the Native American genocide, yet you ignore the black genocide under apartheid because "oh, it happened in the past, it doesn't matter after all."

Edited by mustang (June 15, 2013 16:04:10)

lol, as if that isn't in colonial interests. and what does ataturk have to do with the ottoman empire there?

Do you, like, not know who Ataturk was or something?

It's also interesting that you brought up wahabbism because Islamists allied with Hitler during World War II to throw off British colonialism. Another uncomfortable fact for the first world, secular Left is that Hitler is adored in the Middle East to this day.

Israel has admitted for the first time that it has been giving Ethiopian Jewish immigrants birth-control injections, often without their knowledge or consent.

something a little more recent. Jews are eliminating black Jews.

i talked with a professor from Zambia once about the topic of family planning/less African kids, and he said it's definitely not as clear cut as population control advocates like to make it. He said really more kids for an impoverished family can be really useful, but he did admit that there are greater strains on resources then. Either way, he maintained it's a complex issue with no clear (as of yet) solution, iirc.