Was Darwin Racist?

[InToTheRain]

Pretty obvious answer if you ask for my opinion, read article below:

[PIE]Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
March 2004 - 3[4]:12-R

In the News: Was Darwin a Racist?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.


Printer version | Email this article


The title itself evokes an emotional response that spans the spectrum. Some view Charles Darwin’s famous opus, The Origin of Species, as a negative turning point for human society; others revere it as practically sacrosanct. While both the author and the book have become historical icons, few people likely are aware of the full title of Darwin’s most famous work: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The Oxford English Dictionary denotes that, historically speaking, the term “race” referred to a group of persons, animals, or plants connected by common descent or origin—in other words, similar to the way it is used today.

While many have argued that Darwin himself was not a “racist” (referring specifically to the fact that The Origin of Species did not include much discussion about Homo sapiens), his second book left little question about his personal views. Titled The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to “The Races of Man.” In that book, Darwin wrote:


At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).
While some have argued that Darwin was simply “predicting the future,” the chapter on human races makes painfully clear his beliefs on the subject. For instance, a few pages later in chapter seven, he noted:


Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.
While Darwin may have maintained an outward concern for social justice, Thomas Henry Huxley, a close personal friend of Darwin’s and an indefatigable champion of evolution (who frequently referred to himself as “Darwin’s Bulldog”) observed:


No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).
The point is obvious: if man evolved, then so did the various races. But more than that, Darwin and Huxley argued further that the “caucasian” race was farther along in the evolutionary process, and thus superior to all the other races.

However, evolutionists do not exactly revel in the thought of being associated with racism (which is one reason that the title of Darwin’s Origin of Species book has been truncated). Most would argue that these views are ancient, and are simply reflections of the culture of that age. Yet the stigma of an “inferior race” took root, and has from time to time continued to spring up in the literature. More than fifty years after Darwin released The Origin of Species, Henry Fairfield Osborn remarked:


The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens (1980, 89:129).
The most recent addition in this evolutionary theory of human races comes from two prominent scientists—Vincent Sarich (one of the founding pioneers of the molecular clock) and Frank Miele (senior editor of Skeptic magazine). Robert Proctor reviewed their 2004 book, Race: The Reality of Human Differences, in the February 5, 2004 issue of Nature. The first six words of his review were: “This is a very disturbing book” (2004, 427:487). Disturbing indeed! The authors categorized people according to race, thereby reinforcing the contemporary ideas of racial hierarchy. How many individuals have ever stopped to fully grasp the true extent of evolutionary beliefs? And yet, the foundations for this racist thinking are being taught in classrooms all across the country. The Bible is clear—God created simply the human race—not a multiplicity of races.


REFERENCES
Darwin, Charles (1874), The Descent of Man (New York: A.L. Burt Co.), second edition.

Huxley, Thomas H. (1871), Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York: Appleton).

Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1980), “The Evolution of the Human Races,” Natural History, 89:129, April; reprinted from Natural History, 1926.

Proctor, Robert N. (2004), “Racial Realities or Bombast?,” Nature, 427:487-488, February 5.

[/PIE]

[Trumble]

Probably. Just about everybody sharing his time and culture were.

[Keltoi]

Darwin probably did believe in the genetic inferiority of certain races of people, but as Trumble mentioned, that was the cultural norm of the time.

[Philosopher]

Darwin was racist. So what?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

I'm sure many people would point to his apparent racism as a means to ignore his body of research.

[Philosopher]

I'm sure many people would point to his apparent racism as a means to ignore his body of research.

And they may have a valid point.

[Joe98]

And they may have a valid point.

So, if he were a racist it means "survival of the fittest" is nonsense?

[Philosopher]

So, if he were a racist it means "survival of the fittest" is nonsense?

He assumed blacks were the least fittest and prophesied that they will be wiped via naturalism (aka genocide).

Of course I respect his opinions, but its a problem when it becomes "science."

[InToTheRain]

Probably. Just about everybody sharing his time and culture were.

So it would be safe to assume that the biggest motivation for Darwins theories was his arrogance in trying to prove how superior/evolved his race is to others?

[Joe98]

So it would be safe to assume that the biggest motivation for Darwins theories was his arrogance in trying to prove how superior/evolved his race is to others?

No it would not.

There is natural calamity amd the trees grow a little taller than before. The animals with the longer necks survive and those with shorter necks die.

The local animals evolve longer necks.

Do you believe that a racist Darwin means the above is false?

[Md Mashud]

Yes it would, and secondly - Do you guys not feel ashamed by trying to justify his racism? Be realistic, if that was how it was back then, then obviously those people don't deserve to have credit at all. It shows the filth that they was.

[Trumble]

So it would be safe to assume that the biggest motivation for Darwins theories was his arrogance in trying to prove how superior/evolved his race is to others?

No. There is no evidence that that was part of his 'motivation' at all, let alone the biggest part of it. Although Darwin was obviously wrong in his interpretation of how his theory had operated in this particular instance, and that interpretation may well have been culturally (racism) influenced, the theory itself is unaffected if that interpretation is ignored.

Yes it would, and secondly - Do you guys not feel ashamed by trying to justify his racism? Be realistic, if that was how it was back then, then obviously those people don't deserve to have credit at all. It shows the filth that they was.

It is not a case of being ashamed of or 'justifying' anything; in a past culture where most people are racist to some degree or other (that racism being based primarily on ignorance) you cannot judge one member of that society for accepting the values of his culture and not yours. The Greek city states and Roman Empire embraced slavery, as have many subsequent cultures - nobody condemns every member of those cultures as 'filth', nor sees it as reason to ignore their intellectual and artistic achievements. Moral standards change over time, and societies change.

[Md Mashud]

What are you implying? Whatever it is its wrong. Past culture/future culture whatever, racism exists in masses - you can't say there was more in the past or future - You just don't know. There is just more restriction on freedom these days, doesnt mean now the societies have become MORE Understanding or somthing, thats just pie in the sky.

[Keltoi]

Darwin's theories were based on his research in the animal kingdom, not on the human race. Ignoring his findings on the basis of his racial opinions is like ignoring Einstein because he had bad hair. Yes, Darwin was more than likely a racist, but his scientific research is sound.

[InToTheRain]

No. There is no evidence that that was part of his 'motivation' at all, let alone the biggest part of it. Although Darwin was obviously wrong in his interpretation of how his theory had operated in this particular instance, and that interpretation may well have been culturally (racism) influenced, the theory itself is unaffected if that interpretation is ignored.

How about his ideas that "negroes" are inferior to Europeans? Is that scientific? is that not evidence enough? How was comparing races and trying to prove why the European race is superior then the "Negros" therefore adding to racism scientific? He is just giving those who follow his "THEOIRIES" (not facts, THEORIES :)) reasons to be arrogant and making it seem its natural for the enferior race to suffer while the superior race prospers...

[Philosopher]

Darwin's theories were based on his research in the animal kingdom, not on the human race. Ignoring his findings on the basis of his racial opinions is like ignoring Einstein because he had bad hair. Yes, Darwin was more than likely a racist, but his scientific research is sound.

You cant be Christian and an evolutionist at the same time.

[ummAbdillah]

salaam
[49.13] O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
w/salaam :)

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:salamext:

Excuse me, but I believe the title of the thread is 'Was Darwin Racist?', not 'Was Darwin's theories correct?'. Please stay on topic.

[Keltoi]

You cant be Christian and an evolutionist at the same time.

Actually I can, but that is not the issue in this thread.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:salamext:

All off-topic posts will now be deleted from now on. Again, please stay on-topic.

[Keltoi]

This thread isn't about whether you believe Darwin's theories. However, since you addressed your statement to me, I, and the vast majority of the scientific community, find Darwin's evidence to be more than compelling. There are a limited amount of resources on the planet, and species are in competition to take advantage of these resources. Those species with distinct advantages are more likely to succeed and reproduce at a higher rate than those species with disadvantages. This can be witnessed throughout the animal kingdom. From the color of fur, the length of the neck, the ability to defend itself, etc. While I don't think Darwin's theories answer the question about the origin of life, I believe his theories are backed up by solid evidence.

Now, back on topic. Was Darwin racist? Of course I believe the point of bringing this issue up was to diminish his findings based on his racist attitudes.

[Trumble]

How about his ideas that "negroes" are inferior to Europeans? Is that scientific? is that not eveidence enough? How was comparing races and trying to prove why the European race is superior then the "Negros" therefore adding to racism scientific? He is just giving those who follow his "THEOIRIES" (not facts, THEORIES :)) reasons to be arrogant and making it seem its natural for the enferior race to suffer while the superior race propers...

Not that old chestnut again. Gravity is a theory, not a fact. Electro-magnetism is a theory, not a fact. Quantum mechanics is a theory, not a fact. And so on, and so on., and so on. For some reason only evolution is 'just' a theory.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. 'Evidence' that Darwin was racist? Possibly, but it isn't evidence that his scientific world is somehow automatically invalidated as a consequence. Whether Darwin was racist or not, no credible evolutionary scientist shares the opinion shown in the quoted passage, or would try to apply the theory in that way, yet they are still evolutionary scientists and accept the theory.

[InToTheRain]

Not that old chestnut again. Gravity is a theory, not a fact. Electro-magnetism is a theory, not a fact. Quantum mechanics is a theory, not a fact. And so on, and so on., and so on. For some reason only evolution is 'just' a theory.

I wouldn't put something I have felt and seen for my self such as gravity (How our weight varies according to how far we are from centre of earth etc thus giving it some credibility) on the same boat as Evolution which has no credibilty...just my opinion :)

[Pk_#2]

:threadclo














i agree with WNB he has good opinions you know, and yeah you tell them umm abd, STAY ON TOPIC.

[Fishman]

:sl:
It doesn't really matter whether Darwin was racist. Accusing him of racism is attacking the person, not the argument. It's like an evolutionist accusing Harun Yahya of being a holocaust denier (an accusition that they have used before). It might mean that Harun Yahya is not that nice a person, but it does not prove him wrong.
:w:

[InToTheRain]

:sl:
It doesn't really matter whether Darwin was racist. Accusing him of racism is attacking the person, not the argument. It's like an evolutionist accusing Harun Yahya of being a holocaust denier (an accusition that they have used before). It might mean that Harun Yahya is not that nice a person, but it does not prove him wrong.
:w:

On the contrary had Darwin been writing about anything other then the existence of Humanity it wouldn't be under such scrutiny, he also shows his racism in some of his work, had he showed a natural standpoint in his work it might have been a diffrent story.

It is very likely that Darwin was trying to justfy his racism/slavery etc by brushing it off as something that happened due to natural selection and the fittest survive while the weak get crushed.

So we have concluded that Darwin was indeed Racist. While his work remains a theory his diabolical work only adds to the racism and widens the gap from a peaceful coexistence of all humanity... Just my opinion :)

[Md Mashud]

If you didnt know darwin didnt come to any conclusion. Later on, some people got paid to just research on alot of crap to disprove religion.

These days, all that "science" which you think is true, is actually just used as a political/propaganda war. People get paid to make up stuff basically, twist truth - some even get threatened if they don't tag along.

One recent example is on World Global warming - Which is one of the most stupid thing ever. Fishman, how can you believe us humans make a noticeable effect on the environment via CO2 when we only contribute to like single figure digits?

People, general public, are indeed uneducated in alot of matters - and are susceptible to propaganda/crap, so ye, if people can make people believe in a fake moon land, or osama did 9/11

WHY NOT MONKEYS TURNED INTO HUMANS?

k i rest my case.

[Keltoi]

On the contrary had Darwin been writing about anything other then the existence of Humanity it wouldn't be under such scrutiny, he also shows his racism in some of his work, had he showed a natural standpoint in his work it might have been a diffrent story.

It is very likely that Darwin was trying to justfy his racism/slavery etc by brushing it off as something that happened due to natural selection and the fittest survive while the weak get crushed.

So we have concluded that Darwin was indeed Racist. While his work remains a theory his diabolical work only adds to the racism and widens the gap from a peaceful coexistence of all humanity... Just my opinion :)

Darwin was actually an abolitionist, just to clear that up.

I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place." -- Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313

[Trumble]

It is very likely that Darwin was trying to justfy his racism/slavery etc by brushing it off as something that happened due to natural selection and the fittest survive while the weak get crushed.

You have nothing to support that. The 'slavery' element is nonsense and he would have felt no need to 'justify' racism in what was a racist society. Again, you are judging him by today's standards - and without going into details muslims are quite happy to proclaim how inappropriate that is in another context.

So we have concluded that Darwin was indeed Racist.

A fairly useless conclusion when, as has been said, most of his contemporaries were as well.

While his work remains a theory his diabolical work only adds to the racism and widens the gap from a peaceful coexistence of all humanity... Just my opinion :)

Perhaps you could point out where, in 2007 (as opposed to 1937), it is used to promote racism? Even if it was so used that is no reason to bury it, particularly in view of it's importance as a scientific idea. That would take us far further down the road of tyranny and repression than any distortion of Darwin's ideas by racists. Such ideas are simply no longer taken seriously, and gained little extra credibility by association with Darwin's ideas even when they were.

[InToTheRain]

Perhaps you could point out where, in 2007 (as opposed to 1937), it is used to promote racism?

In fact many places have stoped distributing his work because they know it promotoes racism which is quite obvious looking at his work.

[PIE]"Be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others," reads the Legislature's statement, which was approved 9-5 Tuesday by the state's House Education Committee. It will soon go before the full House.

Yet Louisiana is not alone. Since the beginning of the year, a handful of states -- including Montana, Washington, Georgia and Michigan -- have proposed legislation and other measures against the teaching of evolution, using tactics that have taken a number of twists and turns.

Source: http://archive.salon.com/news/featur.../05/04/darwin/
[/PIE]

[IbnAbdulHakim]

there is actually a documentary which was shown on TV proving that darwin was racist.


its too bad i didnt watch it eh

[Trumble]

Full story HERE

In early May, a resolution came before the Louisiana Legislature which caught the eye of a number of observers of the continuing debate over creation and evolution.The resolution condemned the writings of Charles Darwin as racist and said that Hitler and others had exploited Darwin’s theories to justify the genocide of millions during the Holocaust.Sharon Weston Broome, an African-American state representative who introduced the measure, said it was designed “to shed a light on the racist tenets that consistently have flowed from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution taught in Louisiana’s public school systems (as well as those across the nation).”[1]On May 1, the resolution was approved by the state’s House Education Committee by a 9-5 vote.“Be it revolved,” read the resolution, “that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others.”

By the time Broome’s resolution reached the floor of the House one week later, it had attracted national media attention, elicited protests from liberal watchdog groups such as People for the American Way, and caught the eye of the state’s governor, who called the measure “weird.”The full House stripped the measure of all references to Darwin, and passed instead a resolution condemning racism in general.One of the co-authors of the amendment removing the anti-Darwin language from the resolution remarked, “I don’t know if it is our place to be making the determination that Charles Darwin was a racist.”[2] Broome, meanwhile, blamed the media for “demonizing” her and misinforming the public about the intent of her resolution.“The press has had their heyday,” she remarked after the references to Darwin were removed.

I am unable to find any reference to Louisiana, or anywhere else, "stopping distributing" anything. Perhaps you can clarify?

[InToTheRain]

Full story HERE



I am unable to find any reference to Louisiana, or anywhere else, "stopping distributing" anything. Perhaps you can clarify?

[PIE]Yet Louisiana is not alone. Since the beginning of the year, a handful of states -- including Montana, Washington, Georgia and Michigan -- have proposed legislation and other measures against the teaching of evolution, using tactics that have taken a number of twists and turns.[/PIE]

[Keltoi]

The legislation proposed in some states, highly unlikely to pass I might add, are more about stopping the teaching of evolution for religious reasons, not on racial grounds, although they will use any tool at their disposal.