# Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021 "2008-08-14T20:13:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/41 "2008-08-15T01:36:21Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] As I said, Pope Leo XIII had the Roman Catholic Church take a clear stand on the issue. It’s in his encyclical, _Rerum Novarum_, which affirms the right of every human being to freedom and dignity, and rejects any attempt to punish people for their genes. [/QUOTE] Could you quote this bit too? I’ve had a brief lookover, but the language is throwing me off a bit.[Source](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/42 "2008-08-15T01:45:31Z")
Maybe. So? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/43 "2008-08-15T02:13:22Z")
[QUOTE=don’t ask] All right I agree with the article **Darwin’s Finch** linked to. Refute each point that it makes. [/QUOTE] With pleasure. Let me begin by noting that despite it’s title, the article is only mildly interested in defending Charles Darwin and is much more interested in hurling insults at Christians. That part of the article I’ll ignore after saying one thing. R. G. Price grouses about “mis-portrayal” of Darwin, but he’s up for a little mis-portrayal of his own. For instance he takes a little snippet from Augustine’s _City of God_ as proof that the Fathers of the Church were advocates of slavery. In fact he edits carefully to make it seem that way. Anyone who reads the actual book will know that Augustine did not view slavery as part of the will of God, but instead wrote that God would eventually abolish slavery. So with that note on Mr. Price’s intellectual honesty, let’s proceed to the small portion of the article that does mention Darwin. Price ascribes the following beliefs to Darwin: ``` * People cannot be classified as different species * All races are related and have a common ancestry * All people come from "savage" origins * The different races have much more in common than was widely believed * The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races * Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects * Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races * Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together ``` On the first, Darwin was ambiguous. He listed arguments for and against classifying races as separate species. In the end he appears to settle for “sub-species”, but admits that there is reasonable ground for dispute. On the second, third, and eight points, Price is correct. On the seventh, it certainly doesn’t fit with chapter 7 of _The Descent of Man_. He ascribes the inability of the Polynesians and Maori to survive directly to biology. It’s possible that in other case, he put a greater emphasis on culture. I haven’t read every single word that Darwin wrote. On the sixth, Price is flatly wrong. Darwin said that people of mixed race are more likely to be sterile and unhealthy, and mentally inferior in a number of ways. On the fourth, it of course depends on what you classify as widely believed, and I’ve addressed that elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/44 "2008-08-15T04:39:51Z")
I understand Isaac Newton didn’t know about fission. What a doof! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/45 "2008-08-15T04:58:43Z")
You know who else was a racist? Hitler, that’s who. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/46 "2008-08-15T08:33:12Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Let me begin by noting that despite it’s title, the article is only mildly interested in defending Charles Darwin and is much more interested in hurling insults at Christians. [/QUOTE] I have similarly concluded that despite the thread title, the OP is only mildly interested in disparaging Charles Darwin and is much more interested in defending Christianity against a perceived affront by Darwinists. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/47 "2008-08-15T09:54:33Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] On the sixth, Price is flatly wrong. Darwin said that people of mixed race are more likely to be sterile and unhealthy, and mentally inferior in a number of ways. [/QUOTE] What he really said is as follows: > [@Charles Darwin](#): > > A much more probable view is suggested by the analogy of the lower animals. **The reproductive system can be shewn to be susceptible to an extraordinary degree (though why we know not) to changed conditions of life; and this susceptibility leads both to beneficial and to evil results.** A large collection of facts on this subject is given in chap. xviii. of vol. ii. of my Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, I can here give only the briefest abstract; and every one interested in the subject may consult the above work. **Very slight changes increase the health, vigour, and fertility of most or all organic beings, whilst other changes are known to render a large number of animals sterile.** One of the most familiar cases, is that of tamed elephants not breeding in India; though they often breed in Ava, where the females are allowed to roam about the forests to some extent, and are thus placed under more natural conditions. The case of various American monkeys, both sexes of which have been kept for many years together in their own countries, and yet have very rarely or never bred, is a more apposite instance, because of their relationship to man. It is remarkable how slight a change in the conditions often induces sterility in a wild animal when captured; and this is the more strange as all our domesticated animals have become more fertile than they were in a state of nature; and some of them can resist the most unnatural conditions with undiminished fertility. Certain groups of animals are much more liable than others to be affected by captivity; and generally all the species of the same group are affected in the same manner. But sometimes a single species in a group is rendered sterile, whilst the others are not so; on the other hand, a single species may retain its fertility whilst most of the others fail to breed. **The males and females of some species when confined, or when allowed to live almost, but not quite free, in their native country, never unite; others thus circumstanced frequently unite but never produce offspring; others again produce some offspring, but fewer than in a state of nature; and as bearing on the above cases of man, it is important to remark that the young are apt to be weak and sickly, or malformed, and to perish at an early age.** > **Seeing how general is this law of the susceptibility of the reproductive system to changed conditions of life** , and that it holds good with our nearest allies, the Quadrumana, **I can hardly doubt that it applies to man in his primeval state.** Hence if savages of any race are induced suddenly to change their habits of life, they become more or less sterile, and their young offspring suffer in health, in the same manner and from the same cause, as do the elephant and hunting-leopard in India, many monkeys in America, and a host of animals of all kinds, on removal from their natural conditions. Again, one can argue the truth of his premise - that “changes in the conditions of life” result in sterility, poor health, etc. But his conclusion, based on that premise, is that if “savages” are removed from their natural conditions, ill-health and sterility will likely result. What he is _not_ saying “people of mixed race are more likely to be sterile and unhealthy”, etc. In fact, he gives an example to the contrary: > [@Charles Darwin](#): > > **It appears that a cross with civilised races at once gives to an aboriginal race an immunity from the evil consequences of changed conditions.** Thus the crossed offspring from the Tahitians and English, when settled in Pitcairn Island, increased so rapidly that the island was soon overstocked; and in June 1856 they were removed to Norfolk island. They then consisted of 60 married persons and 134 children, making a total of 194. Here they likewise increased so rapidly, that although sixteen of them > returned to Pitcairn Island in 1859, they numbered in January 1868, 300 souls; the males and females being in exactly equal numbers. What a contrast does this case present with that of the Tasmanians; the Norfolk Islanders increased in only twelve and a half years from 194 to 300; whereas the Tasmanians decreased during fifteen years from 120 to 46, of which latter number only ten were children. Hardly the picture of sterility and ill-health; indeed, the “mixed-race” population was doing quite a bit better than the “pure-blood” Tasmanians. ETA: Any emphases in the above quotations is mine… ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/48 "2008-08-15T10:11:07Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I will also remind the OP that Christ sanctioned slavery. [/QUOTE] Y’all have a cite for this, naturally. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/49 "2008-08-15T12:40:39Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] The debate is my position vs. the position in the New Scientist article. I claim that Darwin was a racist and a eugenicist, they claim he was not. I’m willing to take on anyone who defends their positions. [/QUOTE] Okay then. Perhaps you need to find the author of that article to debate. I do not see anyone here arguing that Charles Darwin would not be considered racist by modern definitions. There is debate on whether this is significant in any way. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/50 "2008-08-15T12:44:53Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Y’all have a cite for this, naturally. :dubious: [/QUOTE] I don’t know about “advocated”, but he didn’t appear to do or say much against it. He didn’t tell the centurion to free his _pais_ (or stop having sex with him, for that matter). ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/51 "2008-08-15T13:01:21Z")
Anti-abortionists cite Margaret Sanger’s views on race. Since she was a racist, the women’s movement should not exist. If you know Henry Ford’s views on Jews, then you should refuse to buy anything made by the factory assembly method ever again. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/52 "2008-08-15T14:20:21Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist Maybe. So? [/QUOTE] So, it’s like important, and stuff! For some reason. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/53 "2008-08-15T14:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas] Anti-abortionists cite Margaret Sanger’s views on race. Since she was a racist, the women’s movement should not exist. If you know Henry Ford’s views on Jews, then you should refuse to buy anything made by the factory assembly method ever again. [/QUOTE] Yeah, and because Walt Disney was an (alleged) anti-semite, the Disney corporation is evil and should be eradic… actually, you can have that one. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/54 "2008-08-15T16:37:01Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] This is a spectacularly impressive piece of misreading. Darwin compares, not white-skinned to dark-skinned, but civilised to savage, though you may of course argue that these are merely code words. And most importantly, he does not “advocate” sitting back and allowing nature of “kill them off”, but pointed out that inter-group conflict between other “savages” or civilised nations often led to wiping someone out. It is no more _advocation_ of allowing such to happen than a study of polio in hospital is an advocation to allow polio to spread unmitigated. I’m afraid i’m going to have to ask you for a direct quote showing this “advocation”; [here’s the online source](http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1) i’ve been using, to make it easier for you. [/QUOTE] My last statement there was a bit of snarkiness. The important part is Darwin’s attitude towards the “savage races”, as I summarized it in three points. That attitude fills the entire second half of chapter seven. He says that people cannot teach savages facets of civilization such as agriculture because “they cannot, or will not, change their habits.” Later in the same paragraph he says that savages will become alcoholic, “bewildered and dull”, and so forth, whenever they come in contact with white people. Then he plunges into a long list of examples to prove the point. Tasmanian natives went extinct despite several attempts to keep them alive. The Maori were in the process of dieing out despite attempts to bring them into civilization. And so forth. And he puts considerable emphasis on the claim that these things happen because of biology, as opposed to merely cultural differences. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/55 "2008-08-15T16:44:38Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Maybe. So? [/QUOTE] So firstly we have fought some ignorance. Secondly we now know more about history, and particularly about the origins of the eugenics movement. Thirdly, in contrast to the common claim that Darwin made extremely accurate predictions, we can now develop a new perspective. He may have been good at understanding finches and tortoises, but his predictions about humanity, race, psychology, and society were almost totally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/56 "2008-08-15T17:04:02Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] My last statement there was a bit of snarkiness. The important part is Darwin’s attitude towards the “savage races”, as I summarized it in three points. That attitude fills the entire second half of chapter seven. He says that people cannot teach savages facets of civilization such as agriculture because “they cannot, or will not, change their habits.” Later in the same paragraph he says that savages will become alcoholic, “bewildered and dull”, and so forth, whenever they come in contact with white people. [/quote] Again, to the contrary; your points revolved around Darwin believing that some races are genetically inferior, and here he does not say whether or not the various unpleasant affects he says occur are due to innate differences in genetics or to cultural differences. And i’ll point out once again that he’s comparing “civilised” to savage, not white-skinned to dark, thereby suggesting he’s talking about cultural differences. As for it being a bit of snark, I do not consider; > [@](#): > > Darwin did not advocate genocide. In the case of dark-skinned people, he advocated sitting back and relaxing while nature killed them off. The entire second half of chapter 7 is devoted to laying out this line of reasoning at great length. To be anything like a mere throwaway bit of snarkiness. You put forth an argument, which you now appear to be backtracking on while trying to appear not to do so. > [@](#): > > Then he plunges into a long list of examples to prove the point. Tasmanian natives went extinct despite several attempts to keep them alive. The Maori were in the process of dieing out despite attempts to bring them into civilization. And so forth. And he puts considerable emphasis on the claim that these things happen because of biology, as opposed to merely cultural differences. Where? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/57 "2008-08-15T17:53:27Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] So firstly we have fought some ignorance. Secondly we now know more about history, and particularly about the origins of the eugenics movement. Thirdly, in contrast to the common claim that Darwin made extremely accurate predictions, we can now develop a new perspective. He may have been good at understanding finches and tortoises, but his predictions about humanity, race, psychology, and society were almost totally wrong. [/QUOTE] But again, so? It’s only in the most simplistic interpretation that Darwin writes the first and last word on evolution (and can be cast by creationists as a cult called “Darwinism” where he is revered and can do no wrong). Rather, Darwin had a very good idea, backed up by very good research, and if he speculated on what the idea meant, in directions we now know to be false - big deal. Marie Curie probably had some loopy theories about radiation, too. This doesn’t require a “new perspective” on Curie or Darwin; it just acknowledges the rather banal fact that they were pioneers who opened up vast horizons of research for others to explore in detail. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/58 "2008-08-15T19:19:54Z")
And Newton was into astrology and alchemy. Big hairy non-gold-transformin’-deal. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/59 "2008-08-15T20:02:57Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] So firstly we have fought some ignorance. Secondly we now know more about history, and particularly about the origins of the eugenics movement. Thirdly, in contrast to the common claim that Darwin made extremely accurate predictions, we can now develop a new perspective. He may have been good at understanding finches and tortoises, but his predictions about humanity, race, psychology, and society were almost totally wrong. [/QUOTE] You say that like it’s a bad thing: > [@Charles Darwin](#): > > Many of the views which have been advanced are highly speculative, and some no doubt will prove erroneous; but I have in every case given the reasons which have led me to one view rather than to another. > […] > False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened. Darwin does, indeed, get many of the facts wrong, relative to what we now understand about the relationships of various human populations. But you still have not demonstrated that Darwin was either a) racist, or b) a supporter of eugenics. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021/60 "2008-08-15T20:38:53Z")
I’ll concede that Darwin’s views would be considered racist by today’s standards. I’d like to see ITR concede that Darwin’s views were fairly progressive for a 19th century Brit, and concede that Darwin was not a Eugenicist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-darwin-was-a-racist-and-eugenicist/460021.md?page=4)