Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

78 Years Later, Neighbors Realize They're Sisters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 06:55 PM
Original message
78 Years Later, Neighbors Realize They're Sisters
OMAHA, Neb. -- Two little girls were separated by a desperately poor family before the Great Depression, and last week they realized they were neighbors.

Ruth Babcock and Mabel Pangle started life in West Point, Neb. For the past 1 ½ years, they've lived as neighbors in a Lincoln assisted living facility, completely in the dark about just how close they were.

"We've met on the hall several times," said Babcock. "Just never dreamed she was my sister."

"It hasn't soaked in," said Pangle.

The women live two doors down from each other. They were two of 12 siblings placed in a home for dependent children in 1926 when their parents came on hard times.

<snip>

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/3751147/detail.html?subid=22100461&qs=1;bp=t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. now thast just interesting and freaky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. 12 children?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Small family in those days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. No, 12 children was *never* a small family
Certainly, families of that size weren't as abnormal back then, but, wow!, 12 kids would be tough.

(I'm only a generation removed from farming and so understand the need for a large family -- Mom has 6 siblings.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. yes
nothing surprising at all, my grandparents both grew up in families like that. I would assume that they were Catholics or some other faith that doesn't promote birth control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheLiberal Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Birth Control
I believe that back then birth control was illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. You're right, sorry for my ignorance
I do know they had illegal abortions back then but I dont know how old condoms are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UCLA Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Yup. Most women probably wouldn't want 12 kids if given the option
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. Illegal, unavailable, and not affordable anyway
to most poor people.. Remember how poor lots of folks were then..and if you lived on a farm, MORE kids meant more unpaid farmhands..

The "pill" was not even "invented" until the 1960's.. Until then they rhythm method or condoms were about it..Married people usually saw no reason for family planning, as children were considered a normal consequence of being married..

Breastfeeding staved off pregnancy for a couple of years , in most cases..and that was about it for "birth control".. (warning: this method is not foolproof..It only worked for 3 months for me :eyes:)..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Now, John, in those days birth control wasn't readably available.
And large families, not necessarily with twelve children, were not uncommon, says a lady from a family of eight children with a husband from a family of nine. Now, we don't have nearly that many, however, it wasn't from any method of birth control, just a matter of happenstance. Just a little heads up on the sociology of the American family. It wasn't always a matter of religion or a refusal to use birth control. It was just what people did in their particular situation. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Then how did the protestants have smaller families than Catholics
It's a proven sociological fact that Catholic families are larger than Protestant ones, I dont know, maybe protestants were prunes and gave up having sex :D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Maybe they used their heads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clydefrand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Well, I can tell you for a fact
If you use just your heads, there ain't gonna be no babies!!!

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Every sperm is saaaacred, every sperm is great....

Python's bit in Meaning of Life on the subject was classic.

Birth control was frowned-upon by the Catholic church (i.e. Rome); and may still be. Also, farmers often had large families for support on the farm, and, in some cases, may have kept having children until a male heir or two had sprung forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I think it's because we Catholic girls are just sexier and more
fun...hahahaha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. You can joke about it, but...........
Yes, they gave up sex. At least a lot of women did. I imagine their husbands often sought it elsewhere. Separate twin beds were not unusual among married couples of that generation in my family. Girls were often taught (if they were taught at all) that sex was dirty, but they had a duty to submit to their husbands. You can imagine how pleasant that must've been for the guys.

The sexual revolution in the US was about much more than reproductive freedom for women...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. Could be, that Calvinist thing can be quite inhibiting.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Bad "assumption" (Catholic Pun?)
I remember hanging out on our street with my Dad one evening, and having one of the neighbor dads say something regarding Catholics, my Dad told him we weren't Catholic, and the guy said "Sorry, with all those kids, I just assumed...."

My Dad said, "Nope, not Catholic, just horny Episcopalians". I don't think my mother was invited over to their house for bridge...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calico1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. A lot of couples had large families in those
days. Its nice that they found eachother after all these years, but sad it took so long and that they were all seperated so many years ago. That happened to a number of families during the depression. I think its very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. There were more family farms back then...bigger families meant....
...being able to plow faster, plant faster, and pull in the crops faster.

The depression was a disaster for everyone but the very wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. My mother was born in 1917 and was the 10th of 12 children
My husband's mother and father each came from families of 12 children

All were Protestant

It's just that back then large families were common. Farm children were seen as assets, not liabilities. The majority of people lived in rural areas at the turn of the 20th century.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marthe48 Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. Rhythm method
was the primary method of birth control, also abstinence. A lot of mothers died in childbirth or after, from infection --childbed fever. If you look in old graveyard, you'll see men who had several wives who died young. Alongside the young women, you'll also see several children who didn't live long lives. Just a crying shame that ignorance caused so much sorrow.

My mother and mother-in-law both in their 80's talked about their honeymoons and neither of them had a clue about sex. I think if they didn't know about sex, they were probably naive about how/why they got pregnant. However they both wanted big families, so we weren't totally acts of God:)

Margeret Sanger began a crusade to teach women about birth control and also supported realistic methods in the 1920's or 30's and people thought she was a radical so-and-so.

If you want to return to the bad old days, vote for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wabeewoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. And having to give up your kids
wasn't that uncommon before social security and welfare. My Great grandfather died and his wife had to adopt out part of her family because she couldn't support them and she only had 6.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. Many Children Died An Early Death Back Then
often mothers might have 12 kids but only half might live. :(

This is a wonderful story though. I think these 2 women's parents are smiling in heaven. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. My grandmother gave birth to SIX before ONE lived..
Edited on Thu Sep-23-04 12:26 AM by SoCalDem
She was pregnant 14 times and ended up with only 3 living.. I cannot IMAGINE going through all that :cry:

When I was about 11, I found a dusty box in the basement with pictures of babies dressed up and in carriages..They looked like they were sleeping.. My mother told me that those were her dead brothers and sisters.. they would dress them up and have a ppicture made of them before they were buried.:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Bless her grieving heart. And, yes, they did that.
Sad memories. Heartbreak. And they probably never mention the miscarriages and still births. Even today, some folks don't understand that those are such painful losses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-04 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. That's a sweet story.. I'm happy for them! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC