Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist

[ITR_champion]

This thread originates from an article in New Scientist, originally linked to in the recent thread by j666. Apparently new scientists are still trying to deny that Charles Darwin promoted racism and Eugenics. j666 wanted me to move my discussion to a new thread. My goal here is to get the facts laid down.

Darwin’s book The Descent of Man is littered with fun facts about race. Did you know that Negro women and naturally promiscuous and incapable of the proper modesty practiced by European women? Are you aware that people of mixed race lack vitality and ambition? (I bet Barack Obama’s supporters would be surprised to learn that.) These are not lone examples. Almost every page of the book has something that will make you cringe, assuming your beliefs about race are reasonably close to the mainstream.

But Darwin went beyond merely collecting anecdotes about the races. He wanted a serious scientific investigation of the topic. In chapter 7 he considers a question: is humanity one species, or are the dark-skinned races a separate species between apes and humans on the evolutionary scale? He acknowledges good arguments from both sides and seems to prefer classifying certain races as sub-species. His ultimate view on race relations is well known.

@Charles Darwin

At some future period, not very distant as measured in centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

Lest there be any confusion, he’s kind enough to clarify who the “savage races are”. Blacks, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Maori, and Polynesians. He also explains that trying to bring these people into civilization is a waste of time, because they’re incapable of civilized behavior.

So that’s Darwin on race. Now what does he propose to do about it?

@Charles Darwin

We civlised men do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be injurious to the race of man.

In the following pages, Darwin lays out his stance on moral issues relating to issues of evolution. Outright murder of the unfit would be wrong. Instead, we should focus on social institutions and habits and their effect on evolution. Any person or thing that helps the poor and sick to survive and have children is “evil”; he uses the word many times. It’s bad that:

@Charles Darwin

the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but as shewn by Dr. Duncan, they produce many more children. … Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members.

Darwin consoles the reader with the thought that disease and starvation wipe out a sizable percentage of the urban poor.

So to summarize, Darwin opposed genocide, but he leaves the door wide open for sterilization, castration, imprisonment of the “unfit”, interracial marriage bans, and other policies typically gathered under the name of eugenics.

Darwin did not invent the idea of racial supremacy and the removal of the unfit, but he did a great deal to make it mainstream and give it intellectual pedigree. His works were often quoted by supporters of eugenics, and the things he wrote certainly did not help anyone who was fighting for racial equality. One might defend Darwin by saying that everybody in his time believed the same things, but this is untrue. Many people in the second half of the 19th century proudly stood up for the equality of all human beings, including Pope Leo XIII, Bishop Wilhelm von Ketteler, Jean-Baptiste Lacordaire, Lord Acton, and many others. Darwin followed the intellectual life of his times, so he must have been aware of some of their arguments. Yet he chose to reject those arguments in favor of his own supposedly scientific understanding.

Lastly, some might say that we should focus on Darwin’s contributions to biology, and politely cover up his feelings about humans and social policy. But given the large effect that his thinking had on history, this is morally wrong and also impossible. We can’t understand the history of the eugenics movement without understanding where it came from. And if we don’t understand it, we’ll be at risk the next time it returns.

[ivan_astikov]

If mentioning Nazis is called ‘Godwinism’, can we now call mentioning racists ‘Darwinism’? I think it’s got a nice ring to it.

[levdrakon]

Why do we hold a scientist from the 1800’s to our current standards? How many 200+ year old “scientists” could hold up under a modern lens?

[DrFidelius]

Okay, uh so?

So Darwin was not able to transcend what we recognize as one of the greatest cognitive blocks of his age. Heck, racial inequality was a major part of the mind-set of almost everyone until about fifty years ago.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln also expressed opinions about the relative worth of different races which we find naive and repugnant today. I reiterate, so what?

[Czarcasm]

Creationists like to refer to those who follow the science of evolution as “Darwinists”, and think that if they can disparage him it somehow will bring people to their side of the debate.

[DrFidelius]

If I recall correctly (and I am afraid I have no cites at hand) Lamarck had extremely enlightened views of race. He considered racial differences to be just minor variations and refused to rank human races as “higher” or “lower.”

His ideas about the inheritance of aquired characteristics was still wrong, however much we would agree with his other ideas.

[Der_Trihs]

@Czarcasm

Creationists like to refer to those who follow the science of evolution as “Darwinists”, and think that if they can disparage him it somehow will bring people to their side of the debate.

They don’t think in terms of beliefs supported by facts, but of Believers following a Leader. A guru, a priest, whatever. The idea that people might believe something simply because the facts support it is unacceptable to them.

[kaylasdad99]

Is there a debate here, Great or Otherwise?

[Indistinguishable]

So was William Shockley. Doesn’t mean he was wrong about the transistor.

[XT]

@kaylasdad99

Is there a debate here, Great or Otherwise?

I think the debate is…should we hold people from past generations responsible because their beliefs aren’t in line with our own, more modern and enlightened ones?

I think the answer is…no. It’s silly to ping Darwin because he wasn’t a modern and enlightened individual by our standards today. Be like someone 2 hundred years from now criticizing us because we don’t believe apes should have human rights or something to that effect.

-XT

[VinylTurnip]

Newton was an infamous prick who believed in the existence of the luminiferous aether. It doesn’t mean bowling balls fall upward.

[Czarcasm]

@Vinyl Turnip

Newton was an infamous prick who believed in the existence of the luminiferous aether. It doesn’t mean bowling balls fall upward.

You’ve never seen me bowl, then.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You should see some of the garbage that Thomas Jefferson wrote about race.

The OP didn’t cite anything and I’m willing to bet he’s never read a page of Descent.

While Darwin was a product of his time and sometimes, by 21st century standards, might not seem politically correct, he was, by the standrds of his own time, a progressive who challenged pervading ideas about race. He was an abolitionist who argued that the various “races” not only had a common ancestor but also had the same “mental and physical faculties.”

He was also quite opposed to eugenics.

Now, having said all that, it wouldn’t make a whit of difference if Darwin had been the most virulent racist of his time (which was the opposite of the truth). Evolution is not an ideology and Darwin’s personal character (which was actually unusually enlightened for his time) is of no consequence whatever. Darwin also had zero to do with either Nazi ideas of eugenics or “social Darwinism.” The fact that people have misused jhis name and misunderstood his work is no fault of his own.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Columbus was a racist. Therefore the American continents don’t exist.

[John_Mace]

@ITR

So that’s Darwin on race. Now what does he propose to do about it?

@Charles Darwin

We civlised men do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be injurious to the race of man.

I’ll just focus on this one thing. Nothing in what you quoted is a proposal to do anything. It is, at most, an observation.

[Harborwolf]

@xtisme

Be like someone 2 hundred years from now criticizing us because we don’t believe apes should have human rights or something to that effect.

Over my dead body. Damn dirty apes.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

Presented as a contra to the OP:

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist.

[John_Mace]

I will also remind the OP that Christ sanctioned slavery.

[Der_Trihs]

@John Mace

I’ll just focus on this one thing. Nothing in what you quoted is a proposal to do anything. It is, at most, an observation.

And, it’s an accurate observation. We DO propagate defective genes by preserving the individuals that carry them. That’s the price we pay for valuing sentient individuals over some abstract concern for the species. At least, until we finally perfect genetic engineering and can just correct the genes.

And, in fact it’s very old news - we’ve been doing that ever since we developed tools. The guy with genetically inferior muscles and a spear beats the guy with better muscles who’s not smart enough to make and use one.

[Stealth_Potato]

@Der Trihs

They don’t think in terms of beliefs supported by facts, but of Believers following a Leader. A guru, a priest, whatever. The idea that people might believe something simply because the facts support it is unacceptable to them.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterize all creationists this way, but I have seen this attitude in quite a few whom I’ve argued with over the years. They try to identify the whole idea of evolution with Darwin, and then act as though attacking Darwin’s personality is the same thing as attacking the credibility of evolution.

Some go a little farther, and try to say that Darwin had a racist motive in coming up with his theory, and that therefore its foundations are unscientific, but they still conveniently ignore the century and a half of biological study and independent verification. And in any case, you’d think that saying we’re all part of the same family tree is a little less racist than saying something like “God created the Negroes along with the rest of the animals.” :dubious:

I mean, it’s not like we don’t know that almost everyone in that era had ideas about race we wouldn’t consider sane today. I respect Thomas Jefferson’s role in the founding of this country, but I wouldn’t even feel comfortable sitting down to have lunch with him because 1) he’s dead, and 2) his ideals (though enlightened for his day) make him a racist hypocrite by my standards.