The following is based on part nine of Jacob Bronowski’s BBC series on the history of science and invention, “The Ascent of Man” (1973). This one is about evolution:
The theory of evolution was discovered independently by two men: Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.
Both loved the English countryside, both loved beetles and both in their twenties found a way to make a living as a naturalist. There was a ready market in England for specimens of plants and animals from parts foreign. Both went to South America to pursue their profession.
Darwin went in 1831. For five years he served as the ship’s naturalist on board the Beagle, a survey ship of the British navy.
Wallace went in 1848 to the Amazon and for four years lived among the natives gathering plants and animals rare or unknown back in Europe. He set foot in a part of the world that no white man had ever seen before. He found 40 different kinds of butterflies in 40 days. But then, on the way home, the ship caught fire and he lost everything, the 40 butterflies, all of it, except for his watch, some shirts and a few notebooks – and his life. But two years later he set out for the Malay archipelago (Indonesia) and started all over.
Darwin saw the natives in South America as beastly while Wallace could imagine himself becoming one, living the rest of his days in the Amazon where his children would be “rich without wealth, and happy without gold!”. To him they were not just a little above apes but just a little below philosophers.
Both Darwin and Wallace came back from South America persuaded that the species change: that lions and tigers, for example, were once just cats way back in time. But neither knew how the change came about.
Then one day Darwin read “Principles of Population” (1798) by Robert Malthus. Malthus said that more people are born than can possibly be fed, so some must die. That was it: only the fittest live to give birth to the next generation. That is how the species change.
In 1844, at age 35, Darwin wrote it all down in a book and told his wife to print it should he die and left it at that.
But then 14 years later, when Wallace himself was 35, lying sick on the island of Ternate in the Spice Islands, he read the same book and had the same idea. He wrote it up and sent it to Darwin for advice. Darwin’s hand was forced. He came out with his book, “Origin of Species”, a year later in 1859.
Neither Darwin nor Wallace had any idea of genetics. That came later. But in their time Louis Pasteur did prove that life is based on chemistry.
No one knows how life began but we do know that the chemistry that life is made from forms easily under the early conditions of the earth – and even, to a degree, in outer space where you can find, of all things, formaldehyde.
See also:
Neither Darwin nor Wallace had any idea of genetics.
This is the most amazing part.
On the other hand:
Darwin saw the natives in South America as beastly while Wallace could imagine himself becoming one, living the rest of his days in the Amazon where his children would be “rich without wealth, and happy without gold!”.
This is interesting. Wallace was obviously into noble savage stereotype.
But I must add Darwin never wanted his theory of evolution (survivor of the fittest) to be tested in human societies. Other people did it.
LikeLike
A 13th-Century Darwin? – Tusi’s Views on Evolution
http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/92_folder/92_articles/92_tusi.html
LikeLike
With regard to:
But I must add Darwin never wanted his theory of evolution (survivor of the fittest) to be tested in human societies. Other people did it.
This is not true – even though it is very rarely admitted to:
Darwinist Theory and Racism
“Another well-referenced argument for racism was given by Charles Darwin. Darwin himself was an unapologetic white supremacist. In fact, his treatise on evolution is titled in full The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin believed blacks were the least among all races, more ape than human, although to be fair this notion was in line with the prevailing racist assumptions of the Victorian era (sic – my emphasis). Wrote Darwin:
‘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 a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2]’
Darwin’s trailblazing work in evolutionary theory, colored by his own racial biases, fueled the racism and intolerance of the day…”
http://fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Racism
LikeLike
It is fascinating that my comments are so many times more compelling than the research of one of history’s biggest names.
LikeLike
Darwin was racist, but he didn’t believe this theory could work for human societies, he saw it as a biological process.
However, “ordinary man” saw this theory as a proof he could do whatever he wants, because “only fittest survive” and others should die- after all, nature does it all the time, right?
This was applied not only to non-white people, but also to poor, uneducated whites, especially in England. Wild capitalism out of control on one, and colonial mind on other side. Rich people thought they were naturally stronger and better at survival than the poor people and non-white people. It’s their fault, they thought, for not achieving more.
They obviously thought their wealth made them “winners” in the survival game, in a way that they were better than those poor people. They even discussed if poor people should be allowed to have kids. After all, they were not “the fittest”, so maybe nature wouldn’t let them survive?
LikeLike
Mira said:
“Rich people thought they were naturally stronger and better at survival than the poor people and non-white people. It’s their fault, they thought, for not achieving more.”
Wow, where have we heard that before?!! I wonder.
LikeLike
There are a few like Diop, Ani, Cress Welsing etc who suggest that there is something within the Western psyche that gravitates toward ‘competitiveness’.
And it is against this back-drop ie the spirit of the times that some suggest Darwin derived his theory viz. Instead of seeing ‘co-operativeness’ he saw
a ‘dog-eat dog world’ from ‘Mother Nature’.
Notwithstanding that there are Western traditions that have focused on ‘co-operativeness’.
Even though the ‘back-drop’ may have been for the ‘poor’. I have not seen – though there may well be quotes – of a similar position regarding the poor of England. Though his position on the higher races (Whites) exterminating the lesser races (People of Color) is very clear and explicit.
LikeLike
And if we are following the historical trail. Then Darwin’s Cousin, Francis Galton creates the ideology of ‘eugenics’
“Scientific Racism” in Enlightened Europe:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1852
And via Galton there is a tenuous link to subject areas in psychology of ‘intelligence and IQs
“In 1925, Lewis Terman promulgated Galton’s theories of natural ability by defining mental ability and genius in terms of scores on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test. In doing so, “Galton’s belief in the adaptive value of natural ability became thereby translated into widespread conviction that general intelligence provides the single most critical psychological factor underlying success in life” (Simonton, 2003).”
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/galton.shtml
LikeLike
I love posts such as these. I had no idea Darwin was racist. I knew he was a Christian though (of course I know there are many “Christians who do all sorts of foolishness not condoned in The Bible). Another gd one!
Would you pls do a post about the number of hits ur blog gets and where most ppl r from pls? I’ve been meaning to ask u for a while… 🙂
LikeLike
Of course he was racist. He was a child of his own time. It was impossible to live in his time and culture and not be racist.
LikeLike
With regard to:
Of course he was racist. He was a child of his own time. It was impossible to live in his time and culture and not be racist.
However, this view can be believed when looking back retrospectively.
However, at the time the theory of racism was still develping and Darwin like any human being had a ‘choice’ which path he would choose, or at least choose to say.
Was it not the Western nations who said to the German public…’How could you allow Hitler to rise??’ And in fact many in the West held the German masses accountable
Are we now going to utilise the same yardstick and say the German were a victim of their time??
As I have said most of our outlooks are down to our ‘perspectives’
LikeLike
Darwin lived in XIX century. It was the best time to be racist.
Most of the bad things in western society – as well as, I must admit, most of the best things- were developed in XVIII and XIX century. What we do now, is trying to unlearn those bad things.
I am not defending Darwin, but it’s not the same thing to share his beliefs in XIX and XXI century.
Most, if not all the people are children of their own time. So are we.
Hitler rising to power isn’t the same sort of situation. Hitler rose to power because humans in general are weak, easily exploitable and it’s really, really easy to make them hate. Really easy.
On the other hand, I am strongly against seeing Hitler as some kind of ultimate evil that was so unique in its horror. Wrong. There’s nothing unique about him and his ideas. Nothing. World war II happened because the whole world was ready for it, the circumstances were right. That is the true horror.
LikeLike
There still remain a a few important questions to be resolved :
1. Are individuals in society responsible for their own actions if they choose to support racism in whatever guise (present situation)??
2. Is it acceptable for the future generations looking back to account for this racism, merely by suggesting ‘they were a product of their times??
And hence my question are the ‘German people’ just like Darwin (who reflected his own cultures and times) merely the product of circumstances when the extermination of Jews took place in their country??
The real problem from my perspective is that Darwin is a hero in Western pantheon thought, and many do not want to admit this side of his writings.
So they attempt to separate the man from his racism by ignoring and/or or minimizing it. And it is for this reason you see others being ‘scapegoated’ but not Darwin in Western academic thought
LikeLike
It is fascinating that my comments are so many times more compelling than the research of one of history’s biggest names.
Fascinating to whom, your alter ego? LOL!
LikeLike
Individuals are always responsible for their actions. However, what we see as right or wrong is, more often than not, not absolute. It’s cultural. We live in a time and in a culture and we learn what is right and what is wrong and what is, well, “normal” and “natural”.
In 100 years, maybe people we’ll…, I don’t know, realize it’s “natural” for everybody to be bisexual (not saying it will really happen, but just for the sake of discussion). And they will look at stupid us here, and our pitiful attempts to stop discrimination against bisexual people. And they won’t see us as progressive, because no matter what, we were children of our time, and our time doesn’t support the idea of bisexualism as the norm. Even people who are against discrimination, even bisexuals themselves, even those who see bisexualism as something natural- believe heterosexuality is the norm.
Yes, Germans were children of their time and place. And I must remind you it wasn’t just Germans, and even with Germans, it wasn’t that simple: there were many Germans who didn’t believe in Hitler’s ideas. Just like there were many non-Germans who support Hitler or did nothing to prevent him. To blame German nation on WWII is pretty simplified view, it’s a “single story” case.
The problem is, things like racism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, xenophobia- don’t prevent a person from being intelligent and capable of doing good things.
However, I still believe it’s not the same thing to share Darwin’s beliefs in XIX and XXI century.
LikeLike
I love posts such as these. I had no idea Darwin was racist. I knew he was a Christian though (of course I know there are many “Christians who do all sorts of foolishness not condoned in The Bible) so I never thought of him being so narrow minded. Another gd one!
Would you pls do a post about the number of hits ur blog gets and where most ppl r from pls? I’ve been meaning to ask u for a while… :-
LikeLike
With regard to:
” Yes, Germans were children of their time and place. And I must remind you it wasn’t just Germans, and even with Germans, it wasn’t that simple: there were many Germans who didn’t believe in Hitler’s ideas. Just like there were many non-Germans who support Hitler or did nothing to prevent him. To blame German nation on WWII is pretty simplified view, it’s a “single story” case.
In spite of this and I am not speaking of conjecture here. Some in the West held Germans per se responsible.
In other words if you did not do anything pro-actively to stop Hitler’s regime. Then you were in effect giving your support.
It is on this basis many in the West could blame Germans per se, irrespective of teh cultural relativity of good or bad and/or right or wrong.
There is another issue here and it is also important.
I think utilising an African-cenntred perspective makes it difficult if impossible to ‘let Darwin off the hook’.
However, utilisiung another ‘perspective’, then it is possible to ‘let him off the hook’.
This conversation highlights for me one of the difficulties of discussing race etc, and why i am not optimistic generally speaking.
From the Western perspective their ‘difficulty’ is
how do you throw out the water (ie racism) without throwing out the baby (Western culture – Darwwinism )?
The problem here is that the water and the baby are ‘inseparable’ because as much as it is not like to be stated.
A vast amount of Western ascendency in the world is based directly upon the negation of ‘Peoples of Color’.
And further and yet at the same time the West must celebrates their own achievements within a cultural context, as all people do.
LikeLike
A vast amount of Western ascendency in the world is based directly upon the negation of ‘Peoples of Color’.
True.
But it looks like you don’t get what I’m saying. I am not saying Darwin was a good person and that we should forget about his racism, for example. What I am saying is: Did you expect him to be anti-racist? How could you? That man lived in XIX century. Of course he was racist, that’s given. On the other hand, many people of XX and XXI century were, are, and will be racist- however, their racism is of a different kind. Because culture changes.
On the other hand, yes, I do believe a white person who refuses to, say, shake hands with black person or sit next to a black person on bus/cinema today is more racist than a person who did the same in 1910. Maybe “more” and “less” are not the best words. Perhaps it’s not about quantity, it’s about quality. But it’s different.
There’s no need to let Darwin “off the hook”. Last time I checked, many, many great minds in world history were bad human beings. (Not to mention they were all “children of their own time”) Do their great discoveries make them better people? No way. Do the fact they were bad people make their discoveries any less important? Well, depends on the discovery, but in many cases, no.
PS-Western world watched Hitler rise and did nothing for Jews, Slavs and Roma people, until things started affecting west. Many, many things that US government does today “in name of peace and democracy” are pretty ugly (not on Hitler level, of course, but not precisely fair and just), and yet, many Americans (not all of them evil human beings) support them with all their hearts, or don’t see anything problematic in these actions. Because they are children of their own time.
LikeLike
Lincoln was born on the very same day as Darwin (February 12th 1809). If he lived in our time and said the stuff he said back then, he would seem shockingly racist. I think even most whites would have little to do with him. Yet he freed the slaves – which in world history is amazing. How many ages have gone by where people just took slaves as a given? So we give him high marks for that.
LikeLike
Thanks!!
I hope – well in my mind at least – I did understand what you say:
With regard to:
But it looks like you don’t get what I’m saying. I am not saying Darwin was a good person and that we should forget about his racism, for example. What I am saying is: DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO BE ANTI-RACIST? HOW COULD YOU??D
Why not?
Did not many of the Quakers who were White refuse to have slaves and campaigned against it
and then you have the revolutionary John Brown.
LikeLike
Lincoln was born on the very same day as Darwin (February 12th 1809). If he lived in our time and said the stuff he said back then, he would seem shockingly racist. I think even most whites would have little to do with him. Yet he freed the slaves – which in world history is amazing. How many ages have gone by where people just took slaves as a given? So WE give him high marks for that.
I am afraid I cannot be part of that royal WE – ha ha hah a
I think ‘Africa’s Gift to America’ by JA Rogers is a good place to start on this. From what I can remember, the freeing of the slaves was nothing but ‘political expediency’.
Therefore no marks for Lincoln, who is the same a sDarwin, in my own little cocoon he ehe eh ehe eh
LikeLike
Right, what his motives were is a question. I was just going by his actions.
By the “WE” I meant our time as opposed to his. But personally I tend not look gift horses in the mouth. I know that if I were a slave then I would not care too much about why he did it.
LikeLike
I am against labeling historical figures as “good” and “evil”, because that kind of classification tells us nothing about those people or even their actions. It only shows what kind of views our culture and time have about them.
On a more personal level, however, I can’t help thinking of Hitler as “evil”. On the other hand, people like Darwin or Lincoln or Tolkien… I don’t see them as bad people, even if they did/wrote some things that, if done today, would seem bad (racist). On the other hand, people like this- and I am pointing at Tolkien right now- did so many things out of good heart and with best and honest intentions. Today, we review their actions and see things that make us uncomfortable, and we think bad of those people (by calling them racists, for example). But I’d rather see these people as children of their own time. Was Tolkien racist? Yes he was, but it seem to me he was racist because he was a child of his own time- not because he was an evil man. His racism was different than Hitler’s, or KKK racism.
If we look at the world today we see many people are racist, ethnocentric, xenophobic etc. Some of those people are mean and bad, just hiding their racism because of political correctness and what not. Some are not even hiding it.
And there’s another kind of racism (colourblind kind), which is unique to our time, and it’s most evident in American culture. Is that racism? Yes it is. Is it the same racism that was going on in XIX century, in 1920s? No, it isn’t.
LikeLike
About Lincoln: No, his intentions weren’t “pure” as some would call them. Plus, he was racist. That doesn’t change he did some good things. Just like good things he did don’t change the fact he was racist.
However, I am unable to see him as racist as a person who would share some of his beliefs today.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Right, what his motives were is a question. I was just going by his actions.
By the “WE” I meant our time as opposed to his. But personally I tend not look gift horses in the mouth. I know that if I were a slave then I would not care too much about why he did it.”
I was only joking my friend – well to a degree…I understood the point what you were getting at
LikeLike
With regard to:
“I am against labeling historical figures as “good” and “evil”, because that kind of classification tells us nothing about those people or even their actions. It only shows what kind of views our culture and time have about them. …
I understand what you are trying to say here and if I have understood correctly you are looking and assessing this solely from your position as a ‘human being’.
However, there are other people – and hence perspective – that has meant that other individuals and/or people
cannot utiise the same ‘perspective’ as you.
An African centred perspective and perhaps even more radical a ‘race first’ perspective brings to individuals a different perception and perspective to the world..
This point about egocentricism – seeing the world from our own perspective(s) – should not be forgotten, and that there are other schools of thoughts due to teh way that they are inherently constructed will bring a different emphasis.
For the person holding an African centred or Race First perspective would point to the fact that Darwin thought the Negro was nearer to Ape (ie sub-human)
LikeLike
Of course. It’s impossible to be fully objective. Different people have different views (different readings) of… Basically anything.
To me, as a white person, fact that Darwin was racist might not be the most important thing about him. To a black person, this could be the most important.
On the other hand, to me, as an archaeologist, is very important to know both theory of evolution AND its use, its impact on world cultures, and, very important!- its misuse and misinterpretation.
LikeLike
…Now for the first time I think we both have a ‘full’ understanding of what we have been trying to say to each other (smiles)
LikeLike
The idea that species can evolve has been around since the Antiquity. Darwin and Wallace’s original idea was not evolution as such, but rather the mechanism through which it operates: natural selection.
Darwin himself was an unapologetic white supremacist. In fact, his treatise on evolution is titled in full The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
“The Origin of Species” does not deal with human evolution. “Races” in the book’s subtitle is not a reference to human races but rather to varieties of flora and fauna.
When Darwin wrote about the future extinction of some races of humans in his book “The Descent of Man”, he did not say this is something he hopes will happen. As far as I remember, he discusses it in the context of the fossil record, pondering if and how one could detect such extinction events in the fossil record.
Darwin had beliefs about races that are not politically correct today, but I wouldn’t say that he was “an unapologetic white supremacist”. For example, he was opposed to slavery, and spoke out against the mistreatment of native Americans by the Europeans. His claim that all humans are descended from common ancestors was opposed by many racial theorists of the time.
LikeLike
I am afraid cousin J-ack there are a few things you need to be aware of here.
The support for the abolition movement does not preclude that individuals did not view Blacks as sub-human.
For instance it has been shown that this was William Wilberforces’s position.
If you re-read his quote it is clear taht he felt the Caucasian race had risen from the common ancestor that man and apes shared but the Negroes and the Australian Aborigines had not.
It was Diop who correctly stated its one thing to read the empirical data. Its completely something else to draw inferences from that data that does not actually exist.
To be honest the list of White theoriticians who are racist, using biblical talk, would not be able to hold on this page.
From the top of my head, Kant, Marx, David Hume, John Locke.
All great minds who spoke of humane concepts like freedom etc. were not speaking of or to Black people since they were sub-human in those days.
This is the reality that Western academia chooses to ignore and at the same time to projects as not being so.
Nothing could be further from the truth…
LikeLike
If you re-read his quote it is clear taht he felt the Caucasian race had risen from the common ancestor that man and apes shared but the Negroes and the Australian Aborigines had not.
No, that is not correct, J. There is no question that Darwin was, unlike most of his contemporaries, a monogenist, i.e. he believed that humans of all races were descended from common ancestors. While it’s perhaps possible to argue that he was a white supremacist in some ways, I don’t think such an indictment does justice to his views, which in many ways went against the grain.
Darwin’s works are often willfully misinterpreted and misquoted by creationists who want to discredit the theory of evolution. For this reason it is important to always check the context in which Darwin made his various arguments.
I will quote at length from “The Descent of Man”. Please read it, and judge for yourself if these are the words of a white supremacist:
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.
He who will read Mr. Tylor’s and Sir J. Lubbock’s interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters.
While on board the HMS Beagle in 1834, Darwin wrote in a letter:
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 abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and 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; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
In his autobiography, Darwin reminisced:
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.
At the very least, one should not think of Darwin as being of a piece with bona fide racial supremacists of his era like, say, Gobineau.
LikeLike
Thanks Cousin J-ack!!
Just a few thoughts and I l repeat my position from another
source, which probably encapsulates the point better than I could:
As he got older (IE AFTER 1834), especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”:
‘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 a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla’.
In his view, the “civilized races” (IE CAUCASIANS) would eventually replace [here read ‘EXTERMINATE’] the “savage races (IE PEOPLES OF COLOUR] throughout the world.” Darwin’s earlier and most famous book was entitled: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
In such influential and momentous writings Darwin applied his evolutionary idea of natural selection not only to animal development but also to the development of human “races.”
He saw natural selection at work in the killing of indigenous peoples of Australia by the British, wrote here of blacks (some of the “savage races”) being a category close to gorillas, and spoke against social programs for the poor and “weak” because such programs permitted the least desirable people to survive.
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/02/12/charles-darwin-did-he-help-create-scientific-racism/
For me there is no difference between de Gobineau
and Darwin. They both believed in the superiority of the Caucasians. The only difference is Gobineau began to make distinctions of superiority between the White races, that had up to that point never existed whereas Darwin did not.
So one could easily also argue that de Gobineau was expressing the culture of his time but did not necessarily advocate its practice but others took that up.
And while we on de Gobineau he is usually painted in a worst light than Darwin because until his book
‘An Essay on the Inequality of the Human races’ only all peoples of colour were inferior to Caucasians.
Gobineau erred in Western academic thought because although he felt Caucasians were still superior to peoples of colour. He also felt that certain Whites were superior to others, which would subsequently lead on to Hitler, World War 2 and so on.
So what we have here in my humble opinion is the recognition of racism within one of the great western minds and a reluctance to admit it.
For many its too difficult to accept. However, as I said earlier if you utilise an ‘African centred’ or ‘Race first’ perspective, then you will get a completely different response to what ‘orthodoxy’ is pushing out.
LikeLike
As he got older (IE AFTER 1834), especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”
Nope. Did you read my previous comment? The long quote above is from “The Descent of Man” (1871), where Darwin forcefully makes the argument that all humans are descended from common ancestors and are very similar to each other mentally. There is no question that he rejected the polygenism of Gobineau and others.
Like I already explained, when he discusses the future extinction of “savage races”, he is not making a normative statement, or presenting a political program. He is simply explaining what is happening in the world. At the time of Darwin’s writing, European colonial powers were expanding in many parts of the world, subjugating and even exterminating “savage peoples”. Europeans, of course, were not the first to do such things: from his readings of history, Darwin knew that numerous peoples described in ancient sources had vanished without a trace. When a group of people replaces another group of people biologically, it is indeed an instance of natural selection. It is no different from what happens to prey populations when predator animals are introduced into new habitats. One can argue that Darwin should have opposed imperialism and campaigned against it, but it seems that aside from his anti-slavery efforts he had little interest in politics. He was a scientist, not an ideologue.
spoke against social programs for the poor and “weak” because such programs permitted the least desirable people to survive
While Darwin thought that the “weak and helpless” have a bad effect on society, he also believed that we have an ethical duty to nevertheless help them survive:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage. (from “The Descent of Man”)
While Darwin had racist ideas, I don’t think it makes sense to say that there’s no difference between him and someone like Gobineau. One could also argue that because Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill were both anti-Semites, there’s no difference between them, but I think it would confuse more than clarify.
LikeLike
The problem with so-called “western academia” of XIX and early XX century is the fact it’s 100% racist. The other problem is: most of today’s western culture (especially in terms of technology and invention, but also science, and cultural norms) was built by those people. Sure, there are thousands of years of history behind them, but “the era of West” is relatively young phenomenon- it’s only 200-300 years of western supremacy.
And no, it has nothing to do with Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece was an important Europan civilization, and I love it (I’m majoring in archeology of Greece), but it wasn’t western in today’s sense of the word. It’s geographical and cultural position wasn’t “western” at all.
So, “west” is a new phenomenon. Because western culture (let’s face it) rule the world today, this culture shapes world events (not just in political sense)- it’s norms and values are those considered to be “the best”. Its scholars are those considered the most important, and those who matter the most. Since most of them were children of the West of XVIII, XIX and XX century, they were racist. I am not defending their racism. I am just saying nobody should be surprised about it. Yes, even those people who did many good things, even for non-white people, were racists. I do hope at least some of them would be different in our time, but I guess we’ll never know.
@J
I just want to add that, although I (as a white person) might not see Darwin’s racism as the most important thing about him, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about that part of his personality (or his work).
LikeLike
Thanks and for the correction too.
I see you agree at least to the point that Darwin had racist ideas. This is a fact we are both agreed upon:
You have said in your dialogue with me thus far:
1. “Darwin had beliefs about races that are not politically correct today.”
2. “While it’s perhaps possible to argue that he was a white supremacist in some ways.”
3. “At the very least, one should not think of Darwin as being of a piece with bona fide racial supremacists of his era like, say, Gobineau”.
4. “While Darwin had racist ideas, I don’t think it makes sense to say that there’s no difference between him and someone like Gobineau”.
So we can see that our ‘differences’ lies in the emphasis of racism, how we define the term, how it impacts on people, ??
From an African centred perspective I cannot excuse Darwin. In a similar way that I cannot see any ‘differences’ between Churchill and Hitler. Since Churchill was also a virulent racist, which may then leads us back full circle on to what degree was Churchill racist since afterall did he not save the Western world (sic)
LikeLike
“the era of West” is relatively young phenomenon- it’s only 200-300 years of western supremacy.
Remember Mao’s famous comment when the French Ambassador asked him what he thought about the French Revolution?
“It’s really too soon to say.”
LikeLike
Also Gandhi on what he thought about Western Civilization: “I think it would be a very good idea.”
LikeLike
Also Gandhi on what he thought about Western Civilization: “I think it would be a very good idea.”
One of my favourite quotes.
LikeLike
Thanks Mira.
You raise some important points here. I will choose not to comment upon them because it may lead us away from the subject matter a little bit more.
However, I think I will if you permit me, address your your postscript.
I referred to it earlier in my analogy using the phrase ‘throwing out the baby (western culture) with the bath water (racism).
I hope you can bear with me here since this is going to be ratehr difficult to convey in words.
Much of what we call history and culture etc is essentially the ‘manoeuvrings’ of Western people it bears little relevance to the lives of ‘people of colour’ generally speaking.
So take World War 2 for at instance, although many different ‘races’ participated, in essence this was an ‘imperialist war’ to see what Western nation would dominate the world. There was no chance of a ‘Third World’ nation (even though the term did not exist then) coming out the ‘victor’.
It is this understanding from an African centred’ perspective that compels an individual to assess his position in the world and how things actually relate to him
So using this perspective its impossible for me to differentiate between degrees of racism. This would in essence for me is trivialising the whole affair.
However, at the same time, I do fully understand that an individual who has a love for archeology etc still might like Darwin – and may choose not to focus on his racism and/or still be abhorent to his views
And again
Someone who is proud of Western civilization achievements would be reluctant to put down one of its greatest mind, in our conversation here, Darwin. And so they may choose to ignore and/or minimise his racism and suggest it his racism is NOT as bad as another historical figure.
I do not have a problem with that because it is all about ‘perspectives’.
The thing about these perspectives are that they are often ‘irreconciliable’ but there is another feature and that is for the past few hundred years there was only the ‘Western academia perspective’ which remained unchallenged up until now.
So I guess I am saying there are different ways of looking at the world. Arab-centred, Jewish-centred, African-centred, and do not expect there to be a meeting point and or convergence toward agreement when you bring it out from the world of academia and you try to adress the injustices and imbalances in the world..
I hope this makes some sense, I know what I want to say in my mind. i am just not sure if it has come out appropriately
LikeLike
@J
While I am white, and European, I am not “white” in a western meaning of the word. I live in the Balkans.
So, my perspective isn’t western white perspective- but I do see myself as white and I will never say otherwise, because I do not want my people to be seen as some rejects that are inferior, unimportant and not fully European. I am as much as an European as someone from UK or Sweden, but my views are not western-centered.
My grandmother was fighting in WWII, and I know people who lost many family members in WWII. So trust me, I am not trying to make it a “no big deal” thing. Being in the middle, between East and West is was never a fun experience (just ask people who live in countries west of Germany and east of Russia).
So take World War 2 for at instance, although many different ‘races’ participated, in essence this was an ‘imperialist war’ to see what Western nation would dominate the world. There was no chance of a ‘Third World’ nation (even though the term did not exist then) coming out the ‘victor’.
I know exactly what you’re talking about. And we all know what happened after the war. (Are you perhaps familiar with The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries?)
On the other hand, western supremacy is present in today’s world, whole today’s world. Even if you don’t live in a western country, you’d be affected by it. This goes for general views as well as education.
That’s why- and this is very important- movements such as Afrocentrism are, in many cases, pretty Eurocentric.
Oh, and another very, very important point:
However, at the same time, I do fully understand that an individual who has a love for archeology etc still might like Darwin – and may choose not to focus on his racism and/or still be abhorent to his views
I never said I liked Darwin. In fact, I don’t. Darwin isn’t actually the best person for an example here, but I’ll try to illustrate my point. I do believe that a person can be evil, xenophobe, misanthropic, misogynist, racist, etc, and yet- and this happens surprisingly often- be a great scientist, artist, etc. Bad people can make great inventions and great work of art. They can also be intelligent and even help make world a better place. But they are still bad people.
LikeLike
Thanks!!
I sense a difference in our writing styles…Its all good still.
The archeologist liking Darwin and wanting to ignore or minimise… or the archeologist liking Darwin but is abhorent to his views was not directed at you per se.
I only used it as a metaphor to get the point across. that I do understand why those perspectives might be adopted.
Maybe I should have used a different example but I did not want to lose clarity.
You raise an important point here, and I think it is one for some people to consider that nations that is referred to as
‘Eastern Europe’ (Serbia, Albania etc) have a different history from ‘Western nations’.
If we being honest ‘Western nations’ viewed them as inferior.
Perhaps one day we may also see a political thought/idea, if it does not exist already to challenge the ‘Western nations’ outlook and perspective on the world
LikeLike
The archeologist liking Darwin and wanting to ignore or minimise… or the archeologist liking Darwin but is abhorent to his views was not directed at you per se.
I understand. 🙂
You raise an important point here, and I think it is one for some people to consider that nations that is referred to as
‘Eastern Europe’ (Serbia, Albania etc) have a different history from ‘Western nations’.
If we being honest ‘Western nations’ viewed them as inferior.
They still do. They still view Eastern Europe, especially Balkans as inferior, uncivilized and not fully European. On the other hand, west (especially America) often use(d) us as an example of its alleged fairness, because hey, we’re white and they threat us as garbage- implying that US isn’t racist- they just don’t like “wrong sort of people”. Balkan nations are often seen as acceptable targets. We are white and in many cases, Christian. PC don’t apply to us.
LikeLike
j, you wrote:
“So I guess I am saying there are different ways of looking at the world. Arab-centred, Jewish-centred, African-centred, and do not expect there to be a meeting point and or convergence toward agreement when you bring it out from the world of academia and you try to adress the injustices and imbalances in the world..”
Let’s see. The arab-centered view creates an environment in which everything is subordinated to Islam. Therefore, the advance of science ends. Art is killed and literature is non-existent. Math? Forget it. Nothing new under the Islamic sun. Civil society? Does not exist. The arab-centered view is a blue-print for failure.
African-centered view? Primitive, anti-intellectual and tribal. Another recipe for failure.
The Judeo-Christian tradition? That’s the one that has led a significant portion of the world out of darkness, and into enlightenment and prosperity.
LikeLike
The Judeo-Christian tradition? That’s the one that has led a significant portion of the world out of darkness, and into enlightenment and prosperity.
What about the no_slappz-centric view, can you explain this? On second thought, don’t bother!
LikeLike
Darwin was an abolitionist and came from abolitionist stock. It is true that he thought Victorian civilization superior, and he was repelled by what he considered the backwardness of the Tierra del Fuegans. However, he treated them as though they were equals and invited them to eat at his table with his wife and children when they visited Britain. Most of his contemporaries, both in Britain and the United States would not have done this.
During Darwin’s lifetime the theory of scientific racism became widespread and was held by many, including Darwin’s cousin Galton, who were out an out racists. There is no evidence that Darwin was of their number.
I don’t think it is fair to judge Darwin himself by our standards. In the context of his time he was quite enlightened. Of course, Wallace, who was shunned by his contemporaries and considered something of a kook, was far ahead of his time.
LikeLike