Was Darwin a Racist?
EDIT: This thread has been spun off from a discussion in a thread about Creation, a film about Charles Darwin's life. The post below is a response to this post.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 541997)
Oh please, not that old canard. Darwin was no more racist (or misogynistic etc) than anyone else of his time. But there is evidence he was anti-slavery, and his work on the joint heritage of all races, of a 'brotherhood' of man, suggests he was a fair bit less racist than the average Victorian.
Regardless, though On the Origin of Species doesn't contain anything too overt (though, as you've noticed, significant qualifiers like "no more racist than anyone else of his time" are necessary), it does make reference to "savages," which he examines much in the same way one would an animal. Things become more overt in his next book on the subject, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which was published 12 years later. In it, he has a chapter on race where he talks openly about how the "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world," and specifically notes the difference in "intellectual faculties" among races. Darwin also says that mankind will evolve to the point where the gap between the next-lowest rung will widen. He helpfully offers up examples of this gap, saying the gap will be wider than that between "even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." There are, of course, plenty of examples like this where he explicitly states his belief in a racial hierarchy. And, of course, there's simple logic. Whether or not the theory is owed to a desire to justify an existing racism is obviously difficult to demonstrate, I see little doubt that it has that effect. That's certainly where the thinking leads; if we are merely the products of evolution, how would one avoid the notion that some are more "evolved" than others? It's the logical conclusion of what he was postulating, and he seems to have made this direct observation many times. So, yeah, kudos for not liking slavery, but I don't know that that actually tells us much about his racism. He just might have been a bit more intellectual and above-the-fray about it. I'm not sure that isn't worse, in some ways. I prefer ignorance to sound as ignorant as possible, for easy identification. ;) |
Originally Posted by Yoda
That would depend on the aims of the brotherhood, wouldn't it? If it's all kumbaya and campfires, then sure, very nice. If it's part of a "here, let's help you poor dark-skinned people become civilized like us," then not so much.
He still talks the talk of the time, and does seem to believe in the superiority of white cultures, this is true. But surely you'd agree that patronising benevolence and recognition of 'brotherhood' is preferable to sanctioned exploitation and accusations of inherent inferiority?
Originally Posted by Yoda
it does make reference to "savages," which he examines much in the same way one would an animal.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Things become more overt in his next book on the subject, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which was published 12 years later. In it, he has a chapter on race where he talks openly about how the "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world," and specifically notes the difference in "intellectual faculties" among races.
The latter mini-quote needs context:
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.
(Any evolutionary forces he might then ascribe to these 'distinct' traits could turn down an uglier path, but without further context i can only speculate. His focus in 'Relation to Sex' was partially on the role of partner-selection in driving variety & non-adaptive traits, so I dare say he could go on to say that taciturnity in South Americans has been selected in this way. That's still a far cry from the 'you are inferior and you cannot change' mindset of his time, which is still inherent in the views of modern racists.)
Originally Posted by Yoda
Darwin also says that mankind will evolve to the point where the gap between the next-lowest rung will widen. He helpfully offers up examples of this gap, saying the gap will be wider than that between "even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." There are, of course, plenty of examples like this where he explicitly states his belief in a racial hierarchy.
Originally Posted by Yoda
And, of course, there's simple logic. Whether or not the theory is owed to a desire to justify an existing racism is obviously difficult to demonstrate, I see little doubt that it has that effect. That's certainly where the thinking leads; if we are merely the products of evolution, how would one avoid the notion that some are more "evolved" than others? It's the logical conclusion of what he was postulating, and he seems to have made this direct observation many times.
Firstly, your logic is awry. Evolution isn't considered a 'rising scale' of superiority (but rather an ebb & flow of 'suitability' to an environment - the other meaning of 'fittest' so conveniently forgotten by many who read 'power politics' into evolution). The physical 'plasticity' inherent in all species means each one can sustain numerous iterations which may have an incremental advantage in any given environment (& these advantages often are extremely minimal). Conceptually, it seems more accurate to suggest that individuals may be superior in certain circumstances, but inferior in others. And that's before we actually get to the modern science. 'Racial' (read regional) genetics currently works under the following mantra: "most genetic differences between individuals occur within traditional racial groups, not across racial divides". This is a conceit that will be tested as the science progresses, but for now no key or 'superior' trait has been found to reside within one race but not another. (Mind you, we haven't really found any 'superior trait genes' full stop ;)) Which leads to the question... how much did Darwin's views shape his science, and the science that came out of it...
Originally Posted by Yoda
So, yeah, kudos for not liking slavery, but I don't know that that actually tells us much about his racism. He just might have been a bit more intellectual and above-the-fray about it. I'm not sure that isn't worse, in some ways. I prefer ignorance to sound as ignorant as possible, for easy identification. ;)
(Incidentally I'd recommend reading this amazon review for a particularly convincing counter-argument to some of the broader claims being made for the influence of the 'brotherhood' aspect, and Darwin's tempered-racism) The question then is, what legacy did this 'ignorance' leave? Modern versions of evolution don't lend support to racism. Are they products of their time? Most likely. Are the scientific discoveries that have emerged from Darwin's work flexible and far-reaching enough to touch on large swathes of human existence? Seems that way. Can they be abused? Yep. Do they show any signs of Victorian racism? No they don't. --- Another question we could ask is: Did he have any other notable drives or beliefs that did leave a legacy. Well, we could look to his insistence on repeated, long-term, inventive experiments to test his key theories, and his wide-ranging interest in the work of others. And at how the theories that survived these approaches spawned many core principles & facts that are held as true to this day. Those traits could be worth looking at too ;) |
Found an interesting section in 'Descent' which conflicts with the vitriolic racist that you're trying to portray Yods. (And at the very least, seems to further discredit the 'intellectual faculties' argument you've put forward.)
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
We're still cherrypicking here. There's plenty more 'savagery' & sordid Victoriana lurking within his works, I'm sure. But that quote should surely give you pause for thought. No? It's hardly a standard racist sentiment. --- EDIT --- And here's a little more on the 'negro' in question...
Originally Posted by Darwin (aged 18) ~ The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin
By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.
--- OTHER EDIT --- (PS, you might wanna shuttle these posts off to their own thread ;). How about 'Was Darwin a Racist?') |
Just stumbled on a quote backing up the assertion that Darwin saw all races as of the same species (putting him well ahead of the game for the time)
Originally Posted by Descent of Man ~ Chapter 21
Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species. Nevertheless all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterised would probably deserve to rank as man.
Taken within the context of his time, and given his anti-slavery, 'one of my best friends is black', 'equal intellectual capacity' stances, even his cultural racism seems to be of a lesser order than the norms of the time. On those grounds I reckon the big D comes out looking about as 'unracist' as you could get for that period of history. (And given that his remit is the biological, his theories on evolution don't contain any racism per se). |
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
It's a mixture of both, from what I understand. The 'kumbaya' bit is that he promoted the idea of all humans being one species (& hence any potential 'fitness' is achievable by members of any racial group). On these grounds he's way ahead of his time.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
He still talks the talk of the time, and does seem to believe in the superiority of white cultures, this is true. But surely you'd agree that patronising benevolence and recognition of 'brotherhood' is preferable to sanctioned exploitation and accusations of inherent inferiority?
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
That's a rather vague sentence. Do you mean he examined their teeth like a horse and kicked the backs of their legs to check sturdiness? Or do you mean he viewed them from the perspective of humans being of the animal kingdom, as he did with his own children's behaviour, for example? (This is, after all, the man who called his wife-to-be the "most interesting specimen in the whole series of vertebrate animals" ;))
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
That quote was a worry of his, not a desire. Such a concern is patronising, but not without precedent (the Spanish extermination of the Aztecs etc).
This is the central argument, I think: the claim that Darwin clearly believed black people (and Australians, incidentally, which now sounds so random as to almost be amusing) to be inferior to whites. The defense is that lots of people back then did, and by acknowledging their humanity at all, he was ahead of his time. I imagine we agree so far. This may all be true, but I'm not sure it gets us nearer an actual answer. Being awarded humanity, only to be simultaneously deemed an inferior form of it, seems like a bit of a booby prize to me, and on net I'm not sure it's even much of a positive. Whatever gain may come from being recognized as some generic brand of humanity would seem to be lost by such a claim being scientifically codified. In other words, I'll take people who think I'm sub-human through their own ignorance over a man who thinks I'm just flat-out inferior through his own scientific deduction. The former affords me a much better chance of changing minds, for one. It's not unlike the old Lewis quote that "of all bad men religious bad men are the worst." Similarly, I'd say the worst kind of ignorance is that which comes from educated men. Not only because they should know better, but because their ignorance almost invariably comes with a kind of self-assurance -- and likely authority -- that have ideological consequences for people around them. If a guy on a street corner holds up a sign that says the world is ending, nobody cares and nobody panics or gets hurt. If a guy in a lab coat does it, more people listen. So, what we really have are two branches of argument: whether Darwin's beliefs were morally superior or inferior for his time, and whether or not they're harmful, regardless of his intention. You bring this up later, anyway, so onward...
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
The latter mini-quote needs context:
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.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
He does seem to be talking about non-Caucasians as taxonomically 'lower' there, which would seem to be at odds with the 'all are Homo Sapiens' stance. I'd appreciate any other 'racial hierarchy' quotes you have to hand. (Incidentally, he's not actually talking about evolution here, but extinction - IE the removal of 'living links' in the evolutionary 'chain').
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
And of course, this is where you were leading all the time. It's only a miracle you haven't mentioned Hitler yet.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
Firstly, your logic is awry. Evolution isn't considered a 'rising scale' of superiority (but rather an ebb & flow of 'suitability' to an environment - the other meaning of 'fittest' so conveniently forgotten by many who read 'power politics' into evolution). The physical 'plasticity' inherent in all species means each one can sustain numerous iterations which may have an incremental advantage in any given environment (& these advantages often are extremely minimal). Conceptually, it seems more accurate to suggest that individuals may be superior in certain circumstances, but inferior in others.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
And that's before we actually get to the modern science. 'Racial' (read regional) genetics currently works under the following mantra: "most genetic differences between individuals occur within traditional racial groups, not across racial divides". This is a conceit that will be tested as the science progresses, but for now no key or 'superior' trait has been found to reside within one race but not another. (Mind you, we haven't really found any 'superior trait genes' full stop ;))
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
From the reading I've done around this now, it seems that Darwin did indeed entertain many racial prejudices (even if we could say he was more enlightened than many around him on several fronts).
(Incidentally I'd recommend reading this amazon review for a particularly convincing counter-argument to some of the broader claims being made for the influence of the 'brotherhood' aspect, and Darwin's tempered-racism) The question then is, what legacy did this 'ignorance' leave? Modern versions of evolution don't lend support to racism. Are they products of their time? Most likely. Are the scientific discoveries that have emerged from Darwin's work flexible and far-reaching enough to touch on large swathes of human existence? Seems that way. Can they be abused? Yep. Do they show any signs of Victorian racism? No they don't. It's fair to wonder, I think, given the proximity of his thoughts on natural selection to his thoughts on cultural superiority, whether or not he regarded civilization and culture as the next form of evolution. IE: in the same way intelligence is a very different form of progress than strength or speed, so to is culture a very different use of intelligence than mere survival. There's nothing explicit here, just speculation on my part. By the by, I'm a firm believer in "never judge a belief system by its abuses" (with exceptions for the outliers, perhaps), so I'm not suggesting that any of this has much to do with the validity of his work. The discussion started when I wondered aloud if the film would touch on the racial aspects of the book. It's not so much that I think he was a fire-breathing racist (again, relative to his time), as that I'm perturbed by how rarely the racial aspect of natural selection gets talked about. It's a very dehumanizing theory, and it lends itself so naturally to prejudice. I don't believe we should cease to teach things because they can be abused, but who do you hear even talking about this outside of Christians looking to take the guy down a peg? It's an important aspect of the theory and the circumstances under which it was formed, but we've whitewashed even the book's title in many instances to tiptoe around it.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 542067)
Another question we could ask is: Did he have any other notable drives or beliefs that did leave a legacy. Well, we could look to his insistence on repeated, long-term, inventive experiments to test his key theories, and his wide-ranging interest in the work of others. And at how the theories that survived these approaches spawned many core principles & facts that are held as true to this day. Those traits could be worth looking at too ;)
|
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
By the by, I read your more recent posts and figured my response covered the same sort of ground, but let me know if you think I missed anything.
|
Wow, Yoda. I just got through reading your lengthy post and there's pretty much nothing I can add to the discussion that hasn't already been addressed. I have to say I agree with virtually every point you made, and even gained some new perspective on the argument. Race, with its debated existence, its vagaries in definition, its historical significance, and in particular its social implications is always a delicate topic. I think you managed to make reasonable, sound observations on Darwin and his theories without falling into the trap of simply dismissing his work on the basis of its admittedly racist implications.
I mean...just...damn... There's literally nothing I can say that would sustain the quality of discourse here. I do have a question, though, that you need not answer. What is your 'race,' or since one can hardly be categorized in such a way, what is your ethnicity? Again, that wouldn't change my thoughts on your responses and you don't have to tell me, but I'd just be interested to know. In the interest of equal exposure, I'm African-Irish (dad's side) Filipino-Chinese (mom's side) American. |
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
Ah, very kind of you, C&W. Indeed, any discussion I have with Gol is always an enlightening experience. As I've often said, tongue-in-cheekly: it's annoying that he takes such reasonable positions, and I often take forever to reply because I can't swat the things he says out of the air, as is possible with people who are more careless in what they believe (and say). Things would be simpler and easier if he weren't so thoughtful about it all.
Re: my own race. Don't mind you asking at all. German-Scot-Irish, so I fall under the big heading of "WHITE," though beyond that I don't look definitively like any of those three. By the by, though I doubt it's an issue, I hope that no one took any of my comments to insinuate, by arguing hypothetically in the first person about prejudice, that I was a minority, or suggesting I have been persecuted for my own race. If anyone thought that, my apologies; it wasn't my intent. Re: your own race. African-Irish on your dad's side? Now there's a pairing you don't see everyday. Quite a varied heritage. If you don't mind me asking (and not to get too far off-topic), but are you predominantly one of the four, or is it a fairly even mix? Have you traced your heritage back at all? Because that could be one wild family tree, insofar as genealogies can be wild. :laugh: |
I agree, many of Golgot's arguments were nearly impossible to debate because of their sound logic. But I think you managed to 'win' that discussion (whatever that means). And to be clear, I actually assumed you were white because your argument didn't seem to be emotionally motivated. It never, and I mean never, slipped into a personal discussion on race.
Not to get too far off the discussion, but yeah, I've traced my family tree back to the early 1800's for a school project I did years ago, and it is wild. My ancestors f*cked liked bonobos, with little regard for skin color or social mores on miscegenation. My dad's grandfather was a light-skinned Louisiana Creole (which I suppose also makes me a little French), which I guess looks kind of white, and he moved to Chicago and married an Irish woman. I wonder if she knew he was black? Anyway, my dad's as dark as Denzel, his brother's as light as, say, Rock Hudson, and I resemble a tanned Cary Grant in flesh tone. My mom's side is much simpler: Her father was born in China, 100% Chinese; her mother was born in the Philippines, 100% Filipino. She was born in the Philippines and moved here at a young age and married my father-a black man, which her family frowned upon and still does. Yeah, way off topic for this thread, but there you have it. ;) |
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
Hopefully one day, the idea of what race we belong to will be singular, that is to say human.
Maybe the day after that the flying car dealership will open in my neighborhood as well. |
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
Originally Posted by Cries&Whispers (Post 638378)
I agree, many of Golgot's arguments were nearly impossible to debate because of their sound logic. But I think you managed to 'win' that discussion (whatever that means). And to be clear, I actually assumed you were white because your argument didn't seem to be emotionally motivated. It never, and I mean never, slipped into a personal discussion on race.
Then again, it really depends on what we're arguing about -- it's getting hard to tell. If it's just about whether or not there are elements of racism in Darwin's work, and whether or not those should be addressed by the film, I feel I'm on solid ground, and Gol (Tom, by the by) would probably agree with me, anyway. The degree to which I'm right or wrong depends on the degree to which I want to use the word "racist" to apply to a man who lived in a time where most people were racist, and to be honest, I don't know the answer. It's a fair label, but misleading without a caveat or two. The argument has kind of evolved, anyway, from "should they talk about racism in the movie?" to "was Darwin a racist considering the time he lived in?" to "was Darwin's work harmful even if he wasn't particularly racist for his time?" I think Tom makes a very good case in regards to the second of those questions, though I feel pretty firm on the first and third. But this is how he and I argue, anyway: we're kind of all over the place and as soon as we agree on something or concede a point it goes right on to the next thing, so that we invariably end up talking about the most nebulous, hardest-to-prove stuff anyway. It's a form of argumentative natural selection that weeds out the weakest, easiest-to-disprove arguments and leaves us with the impossible ones. :D
Originally Posted by Cries&Whispers (Post 638378)
Not to get too far off the discussion, but yeah, I've traced my family tree back to the early 1800's for a school project I did years ago, and it is wild. My ancestors f*cked liked bonobos, with little regard for skin color or social mores on miscegenation. My dad's grandfather was a light-skinned Louisiana Creole (which I suppose also makes me a little French), which I guess looks kind of white, and he moved to Chicago and married an Irish woman. I wonder if she knew he was black? Anyway, my dad's as dark as Denzel, his brother's as light as, say, Rock Hudson, and I resemble a tanned Cary Grant in flesh tone.
My mom's side is much simpler: Her father was born in China, 100% Chinese; her mother was born in the Philippines, 100% Filipino. She was born in the Philippines and moved here at a young age and married my father-a black man, which her family frowned upon and still does. Oh, and re: discussion turning personal. Couldn't agree more about the importance of that. Though I concede that, from time to time, I do wonder about the role that the personal has in such sensitive discussions. I've no idea whether or not it clouds, or informs, things like this. Probably both. How's that for taking a position? :) |
Originally Posted by DexterRiley (Post 638382)
Hopefully one day, the idea of what race we belong to will be singular, that is to say human.
Maybe the day after that the flying car dealership will open in my neighborhood as well. And what exactly is race, for that matter? How can one be distinguished from another? What makes a black person different racially from a white person? Skin color? Because then where does the line separate the two? I don't know, random thoughts that don't require a response. |
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
I dunno...Tom and Chris are sort of the Twin Towers of debate here on the site. Both have extremely well-tuned debate machines chugging along in their heads.
I can bring a pretty decent debate to the table, but in comparison to these guys, I am rarely informed enough/a match for either of them. I like this fact, because it's a constant reminder that people of diametrically opposed politic can both put forth solid, intelligent argument. Not what the news media would have us believe... |
So true, Sedai, the problems with news media outlets requires a thread of its own. And I assume Chris and Tom are Yoda and Golgot?
|
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
You can't apply modern standards of equality to a historical figure. Darwin sounds a lot like Abraham Lincoln who also expressed what we would now consider racist attitudes, but whose perception about Blacks during the Civil War as he interacted with them by meeting leading Black figures of the time changed quite a bit. Unlike today, racist attitudes was the norm and you had to be thinking way out of the box to get away from it. Even many of the more liberal anti-slave thinkers of the time expressed some racist attitudes as we would now call it in their speeches and writings. But it's pretty mild compared to what the leading overt white supremacists were saying.
|
Originally Posted by will.15 (Post 638403)
You can't apply modern standards of equality to a historical figure. Darwin sounds a lot like Abraham Lincoln who also expressed what we would now consider racist attitudes, but whose perception about Blacks during the Civil War as he interacted with them by meeting leading Black figures of the time changed quite a bit. Unlike today, racist attitudes was the norm and you had to be thinking way out of the box to get away from it. Even many of the more liberal anti-slave thinkers of the time expressed some racist attitudes as we would now call it in their speeches and writings. But it's pretty mild compared to what the leading overt white supremacists were saying.
|
I think I'm going to have start with your last point here, as it's the one I disagree with the most, and it percolates throughout the other issues...
Originally Posted by Yoda
It's not so much that I think he was a fire-breathing racist (again, relative to his time), as that I'm perturbed by how rarely the racial aspect of natural selection gets talked about.
All the 'cultural superiority' perspectives that appear in his work seem to arise in the more conjectural and conversational areas, in keeping with the style of the time. I'm not aware of him focusing any of his scientific skills on the theme of cultural difference (in terms of creating experiments & comparing with the literature of the time - the backbone of his rigorous approach to biology/archaeology for which he's known etc).
Originally Posted by Yoda
It's a very dehumanizing theory, and it lends itself so naturally to prejudice.
Originally Posted by Yoda
...but we've whitewashed even the book's title in many instances to tiptoe around it.
(a) That book didn't deal with human evolution (deliberately so, as he knew it'd be controversial). (b) 'Race' at that time was a term used for all 'sub species' and applied to cabbages, cows, what have you. So there's nothing to whitewash. The fact that people normally only mention the catchy main title is far from unusual.
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 638354)
I'd like to flesh this out a little. I don't know with great specificity just what the "norms" were in that time (I'd actually imagine they're more divergent than they are now, and harder to pin down), but I've been frequently surprised by how old-school racism often seemed perfectly willing to accept that the supposedly-lesser races were human, just of an inferior sort.
Originally Posted by Yods
The idea that one race is superior to another culturally, or something of the sort, is a lot harder to disprove, and it's the type of racism that persists to this day. It's a much tougher sort of weed. I call this progress in only the vaguest, most abstract sense of the word.
If you ask anyone who's been on racially abused, you'll often find that it's the 'biological' defamation that stays with them the longest (IE being told 'Your food stinks' / 'Your country is backward' is bad, but being told 'You stink' / 'You're inherently lazy' etc comes with the subtext of it being an ingrained / unchangeable part of yourself).
Originally Posted by Yods
The full context of the quote doesn't convey any worry to me at all. Whether or not it contains a desire is admittedly arguable (I'm on the fence myself), though he clearly seems to regard it as factual.
Further he was also a fan of flora and fauna, so to interpret the quote as being desirous of these extinctions would imply he looked forward to the 'anthropomorphous apes' being wiped out too. Seems unlikely.
Originally Posted by Yods
He also unveils a clear racial chain-of-command at the end of the passage, which I already quoted in the last post (it's the "...some ape as low as the baboon" one).
Originally Posted by Yods
This is the central argument, I think: the claim that Darwin clearly believed black people (and Australians, incidentally, which now sounds so random as to almost be amusing) to be inferior to whites. The defense is that lots of people back then did, and by acknowledging their humanity at all, he was ahead of his time. I imagine we agree so far.
Originally Posted by Yods
Well, the important part is whether "intellectual faculties" refers to innate intelligence or just education. These days it certainly reads like the former. I don't think the context really leans in either direction, though; he clearly seems to favor the "light-hearted, talkative negroes" as superior to the "taciturn, even morose, aborigines," no?
Originally Posted by Yods
Well, it's a debate about racism and survival of the fittest. It was inevitable. :) Screw Godwin; it's a stupid law. ;)
Originally Posted by Yods
Technically, yes, but in practice there's not a lot of debate about things like intelligence always being more useful. It is the dominant trait of importance, far and away. Given that intelligence is the chief thing that makes us more "evolved" than animals, I don't think it's unreasonable to operate under the assumption that more "evolved" versions of ourselves would chiefly be smarter, rather than faster or stronger.
Originally Posted by Yods
Ah, here we are: back to the "what were the effects?" line of thought. This is admittedly very nebulous. Darwin is, for all his importance, probably just cup out of the bucket rather than a lowly drop, so we can't parse out all the effects of his work. But we can probably agree that Darwin clearly regarded "civilized" man as significantly superior to the "savages," which has tremendous implications for British imperialism. Indeed, you could hardly custom-build a more convenient justification for it.
Originally Posted by Yods
It's fair to wonder, I think, given the proximity of his thoughts on natural selection to his thoughts on cultural superiority, whether or not he regarded civilization and culture as the next form of evolution. IE: in the same way intelligence is a very different form of progress than strength or speed, so to is culture a very different use of intelligence than mere survival. There's nothing explicit here, just speculation on my part.
Originally Posted by Yods
Oh, sure. I didn't mean this as an indictment of the totality of the man, and I wouldn't expect Creation to dwell on this one topic. I would simply hope it would address it in some form. Perhaps it does; has anyone here seen it?
And as it happens, no, they don't touch on it that I recall. But given that it's very much focused on his family life, they don't touch on a huge swathes of his life or science all told. (Mind you, if a more sci/social-focused version were made, I'd want it to show his peers outraged at being not only descended from apes but, the trappings of society aside, no different from a black gentleman too :D) |
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
Ah yes, sorry to use actual names - I need to stop doing that!
As to the point count on this particular issue, I think both of you are nailing some issues down pretty well, but as I mentioned earlier, you are approaching the material from diametrically opposed standpoints that have inherent differences for which there is no middle ground. You could try to keep it in a strictly political arena, but theology is invariably going to emerge as an important (and necessary) touchstone to the discussion. I mean, if one debater (Damn you The Toy for forever discoloring the word debater for me) is a man of faith while another is a man of science, you will eventually reach an stalemate on the validity of Darwin's entire works. Good luck with this one! ;) So as Donnie Darko once said "If you can't know...well, I just don't debate it anymore, cause why bother??" Why, Donnie? You were clearly never a MoFo, mister! :D Oh and, on the whole inferior/superior human issue. Does this fall under Humanism? I know there is a specific school of thought centered around the concept... maybe it's part of nihilism? I think it's also important to classify some of Darwin's conduct under Xenophobia, more so than racism. |
http://www.vimooz.com/festivalticker...7/creation.jpg
Creation Awash in dramatic license, this is still an interesting attempt to humanise Darwin by focusing on his family life. The religious divides inherent in the tale are pretty much polarised into silliness, so don't expect any great subtlety there (or accuracy). It's mainly baby's hands touching molecules and facile preachers on both sides. What you do get though is a very genial portrayal of Darwin by Bettany, and a tale more about dealing with loss, and differences that could tear a family apart, than the sexual activities of molluscs. Not that there aren't forays into stop-motion nature and the like, but the most effective uses of his theories emerge as wonderful bedtime stories for his children, or in the simple symbolism of time spent studying a young ape destined to die. The direction is quietly competent, although the shifts between ghostly reminiscences & ongoing dramas are sometimes a bit muddled. Connelly is also particularly austere as the wife, which leads to some archetypal 'lack of chemistry' moments between the genuinely married couple, but none of this is enough to stop it being a gently touching pic. + (Here's that there review) *EDIT* And yes Mikey stop doing that ;) *DOUBLE EDIT* Cheers for the kind words knocking around y'all, to both me and his Yodness. We do like the odd set to about news and taboos and what have you. Always good to have other people involved too tho :) *TREBLE EDIT FOR LUCK* Mikey Seds...
I mean, if one debater... is a man of faith while another is a man of science, you will eventually reach an stalemate on the validity of Darwin's entire works.
The point being, I'm hopeful we'll add more nuance to each other's views as much as force ourselves back into our respective pews :)
Originally Posted by Mikey-Sedz
Oh and, on the whole inferior/superior human issue. Does this fall under Humanism? I know there is a specific school of thought centered around the concept... maybe it's part of nihilism?
I think it's also important to classify some of Darwin's conduct under Xenophobia, more so than racism. |
Re: Was Darwin a Racist?
Maybe I missed it or it's a reference that somehow got lost somewhere, but I am interested in the part about Australians and where Yoda got that from because to me, at least in the context of Yod's argument, it seems clear that "Australians" refers to dark-skinned aborigines. Golgot rebuts this but once again there's no citation. I don't have a horse in this race (at least yet; what do you expect? I have a Biology degree), but this part I'm interested in hearing some clarification with backing evidence, if possible.
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:55 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums