Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist

Great Debates
61

I’m sorry? You are attempting to make some sort of association between Darwin and eugenics?

I think we need to point out a number of problems with your claims in this thread.

First, you have twice claimed that Darwin believed that some groups of people were “genetically” inferior. Unfortunately for that opinion, Darwin had no knowledge of genetics and had no possible way to consider anyone “genetically” anything. Now, probably, you actually meant that he considered them constitutionally inferior, (for which a case might be made), but your failure to recognize that he had no opinion of genetics, at all, points up a serious lack of understanding that you demonstrate throughout.

You make much of the fact that he considered various peoples inferior. However, you have provided no evidence that Darwin pursued a campaign similar to that of Agassiz or Rushton that began with a distate for various groups that he then went out to find data to support his dislike. Instead, we find when we look at the actual text of Descent of Man that Darwin relied heavily on the most current information coming in from field studies. It is hardly his fault–and clearly not any deliberate malice on his part–that the field studies he read were tainted by both the ethno-centric biases and the actual ignorance of the field researchers. Throughout the world, as pre-literate societies were encountered, they did, indeed, fall prey to alcoholism, low birth rates, a diminution of vigor, and all the other failings to which he ascribed them. In retrospect, we can see that the disruption of the cultures meant that courtship and mating rituals were abandoned and that any number of factors could cause declines in births. However, I do not recall ever seeing a study that included that sort of information prior to 1900 (or, really, the 1930s), so why is it some great crime of Darwin’s to fail to see what no one else saw?

If you mean that it was not “universal” because you can go through a thousand monographs and find a dozen that argue for a biological or cultural equality, you might be correct. In claiming that it was not a “standard” belief, (as in: the opinion most widely held by the largest number of authors), you are simply mistaken. There was a very clear “understanding” among European thinkers that Europeans were the acme of humanity and actually spent a fair amount of energy “explaining” why Northwestern Europeans were superior to Southern and Eastern Europeans.

This seems to be the crux of the issue. You appear to wish to project onto Darwin a personal malevolence in which he dismissed clear evidence contradicting his position for the specific purpose of denigrating certain peoples. Nothing you have posted supports that assertion. You further wish to assert (without having provided a simgle scintilla of evidence) that he actually promoted the ideas that would later develop into eugenics.

On the first point, you are, as I have noted, in error.
On the second point, I would point out that Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, actually called for programs of eugenics six years before Darwin published Descent of Man, yet in his work Darwin explicitly rejected eugenics as a valid approach in the passage quoted earlier by Darwin’s Finch.

Thus we have no evidence for actual racism (other than accepting the prevalent view of 19th century European society and science to simply assume that Europe had produced the finest examples of humanity and human culture) and we have direct contradiction of a claim that he supported eugenics.

I would also point out that despite your dire claims, Darwin had few expressed views on “social policy” and he steadfastly refused to be drawn into the many discussions of politics and social engineering that swirled around him in his later years. He was, basically, a biology geek who spent his entire life in research and the promotion of science.

62

Pope Leo’s ideas on equality are implicit througout. He begins by noting that since the start of the industrial revolution, the poor have been crammed into cities, overworked, and subjected to bad conditions. He notes that socialism is on the rise but predicts (correctly) that dreams of a socialist utopia won’t become reality. He then calls for the creation of a new order in which the poor will have freedom, finanical security, and self-sufficiency.

He always simply assumes that the reader agrees that the poor are being abused, and that their conditions are not their fault. He also says that there is an obligation for those in power to help the poor. “Some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.” He also makes clear that this applies to all humans everywhere, though the main focus of this work is on the situation in Europe. “The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man.” Then he discusses marriage, says that everyone has the rights to marry and have children (in direct contradiction to the eugenicists). “The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error.”

All of this makes the strongest possible contrast with Darwin’s attitude towards the poor. He calls them “vicious”, “wretched”, “lowly”, “violent”, and anything else he can think of. He looks positively on the fact that their poor conditions contribute to disease and starvation, thereby preventing them from propagating bad traits. And he does not, at any time, suggest that issues of freedom, fairness, and dignity should affect how we look at human beings.

(For what it’s worth, I chose to mention Rerum Novarum because it’s one of the most famous Catholic publications, and is considered the Vatican’s diffinitive statement on social policy at that point in history. Hence it’s a good representative of Catholic thought at large, and we can be almost certain that Darwin had heard of it. In any case, I’m definitely not cherry-picking a lone example here. Leo’s writings represent a strain of thought popular at the time, though unfortunately not popular enough.)

63

Are you aware that in that period, people who called themselves “progressive” were in favor of eugenics? That the Catholic Church and others who opposed eugenics were bashed for being regressive and backwards and for blocking science and progress?

It took almost a century of progress before the progressives caught up to the Catholic Church.

64

Err, no. This is just an incorrect supposition.

Rerum Novarum wasn’t promulgated until May 1891. Regardless of how well read Darwin was, we can be certain he never heard about it. Because he was dead by then.

For that matter, In Plurimis is a far, far, far clearer - and earlier - example of an encyclical where Leo XIII asserts that the “lesser races” have only been disadvantaged because of history and circumstances rather than biology. To the extent that I wonder why you bothered with mentioning Rerum Novarum at all. But it was published in 1888 and so Darwin couldn’t have read that one either.

65

But he also promotes prosperity theology as fact. Thereby assuming those who are poor are so because they’re morally inferior. He also claims that problems in society cannot be fixed without the Church, which is less surprising since he was the Pope, but still.

First off, “and anything else he can think of” suggests you believe he rooted around for all the bad words he could think of to call them. Which seems rather vindictive of you, since he also mentions good points, and promotes the idea of very little difference between groups cultural matters aside, which doesn’t seem like the work of a man trying to fit in as many nasty insults as he could.

He does not look positively on those conditions; rather, he simply mentions observations, either his or others. Nowhere does he express glee or indeed any kind of approval of disease or starvation, and neither does he attribute the approval which he does not show to genetic traits which he does not attribute. Unless i’ve misunderstood, of course, and you were simply being "snarky’, like when you accused him of advocating genocide.

And he does not suggest that issues of freedom, fairness and dignity should affect how we look at human beings because he’s writing a book from a scientific point of view. Generally you tend not to find moralistic viewpoints inserted between tables in a Lancet study; merely because such notions aren’t addressed, does not mean he does not believe them especially when you wouldn’t expect such notions in the midst of a an attempt to look at matters entirely scientifically. After all, you yourself did not talk about the importance of freedom in your last few posts; should I take this to mean that you are against it? Or should I take it to mean that you were simply making observations as to what Darwin and the posthumous Pope talked about?

Certainly there were many good things in the Pope’s writings. On the other hand, there was the idea that the poor are so because of moral deficiency, so there’s something we can pretty much agree on it’s good wasn’t more popular.

66

Certainly not deliberate on your part but your post struck me as the ugliest racist remark I have ever heard. Its as if we whites as a species have gradually accepted full human rights for blacks and as we continue to get enlightened we’ll accept the other apes for full human rights as well. Like blacks are one step ahead of bonobos.

67

It was not even accidental on his part. The connection that you have inferred appears to be one that you alone have made. I think I understand where you drew your inference, but I am pretty sure that it has no serious basis in the actual words to which you are replying.

68

That’s ridiculous. They’re three or four steps at least.

69

You need to get out more - it’s not even even the ugliest racist remark I’ve heard this week.

70

The Bible was often quoted to support slavery. Are you prepared to denounce the entire Judaeo-Christian religious movement with equal zeal?

Look, people don’t talk as much about Darwin’s prejudices for the same reason they don’t discuss what he liked on his toast – neither is particularly relevant to the central idea of natural selection. And natural selection is manifestly true – logical, observable, reproducible. So we do keep talking about it. Darwin mostly just gets “credit” because he framed the idea first (by a hair) for something we know is true in and of itself, and it would be true even if he had never lived.

Sailboat

71

Pretty much – all human beings are members of one species of chimpanzee; bonobos are another species of chimp. We’re essentially one species removed from bonobos, all of us, blacks, whites, asians, everyone.

Sailboat

72

You really have to reach to twist words into supporting your notions, don’t you? Moderators, would I be out of line in pointing out that replies like this are not found in honest debates?

I didn’t say that people of that period said he was progressive, I myself said his views were fairly progressive for a 19th century Brit, so a reasonable person would figure that I was using the modern idea of the word.

73

Did they copyright the term? Could someone who wasn’t a promoter of eugenics still call himself a progressive, or was belief in eugenics a requirement for membership in the progressives club?
Anyway, the significance of Darwin’s social and political beliefs continues to elude me. Were I predator and it prey, I’d’ve been selected out long ago.

74

Well, not quite. We’re certainly more closely related to Chimps than any other primates, but we’re not a type of Chimp. We may even be more than one species removed from Bonobos, given our evolutionary forebears that can be classified as different species such as Homo Erectus, which were also not chimps.

75

Out of line? I dunno. Saying that an opinion is not consistent with honest debate might be just far enough removed from “you are lying” to slip under the radar–IF you refrained from calling attention to the comment or following it up with similar accusations.

OTOH, the statement to which you objected is pretty much irrelevant to the debate and can be more easily dismissed as a red herring or a straw man (depending on its interpretation) without getting into the tricky question of poster honesty.

Stick to demonstrating that the conclusions do not proceed from the facts or that the facts are in error and just leave poster motivation or honesty off the table.

[ /Mod response ]

76

This is precisely what drives me nuts about these people, also.

I can’t find it now, but I saw a news video on-line recently about some Christian High School suing the University of California because UC denied the teens some credits. The person speaking on behalf of the students was saying something like “California wants to deny the existance of God, blah, blah, blah.”

What a big, fat lie.

Disgusting.

77

ITR isn’t a creationist. I think he just tends to believe that all things that are good in the world can be traced back to Christianity - and that things which appear to be good but appear to not come from Christianity must therefore be tainted and flawed in some way.

78

And “kimono” is originally Greek.

79

And yet at the same time was what we’d call a Fundamentalist- something of a religious fanatic in fact.
I’ve never quite understood the “it’s all or nothing” stuff with the historical people. Aristotle owned slaves, hated commoners and probably shagged adolescent boys all while championing the geocentric theory and other dead wrong beliefs, but he also propelled science forward more than almost anybody to that time. Thomas Edison was an abusive husband and a cut-throat bastard of a businessman, but changed the world more in his lifetime than it had changed in history. Tesla was AC/DC, and terrified of pearl necklaces which I mention just for the puns and possible accuracy.
But science isn’t holy scripture- it’s fine to say “this part’s wrong” or even “the whole thing’s gotta go”, and the biographical stuff is complete trivia. Aristotle was completely wrong about the earth being the center of the solar system, but he was wrong for excellent (even “the right”) reasons; there were cults who believed the sun was the center but it was for religious or mythical reasons you couldn’t build upon. A

80

It’s a news story not a video, but this may be what you are talking about. Basically, the religious schools taught these students from textbooks that are full of religiously motivated errors and are actively hostile to science ( “if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong” is a quote from one ). Then, they scream when the University doesn’t consider their mis-education worth course credit.