From late 2016, before a lot of others started to wonder why they thought they owed so much to the ol’ Brit toff:
Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201). Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human…
… Now I understand why I’ve never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwin’s theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwin’s gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.Austin Anderson, “The Dark Side of Darwinism” at Philosophy for the Many (December 16, 2016)
Anderson cites several attempts to airbrush that stuff but he doesn’t find them convincing.
Note: Darwin, to his credit, certainly was gentlemanly. For example, he was in a position to enable Alfred Russel Wallace to get a pension from the Crown. But then he was a gentleman at a time when that was a class distinction. Put another way: Wallace was more likely than he was to end up needing the pension.
Anyway, it’s interesting to see people start to see Darwin without the pop science halo.
Anderson will probably never read this but he might have been interested to know that, even at New Scientist, they are reconsidering Darwinism—on scientific grounds.
See, for example,
Recently, New Scientist published 13 rethinks of evolution, this being the 13th: (Reformed) New Scientist 13: We can stop evolution. New Scientist: “Today, evolution remains one of the most powerful ideas in science but, as with all good ideas, it is evolving ” Sure, but if evolution is evolving, Darwinism is dead. Which is fine with us. It’s a big world out there. Making everything sound like Darwin said it is not the way to explore that world. The others are also linked there.
At New Scientist: Questioning the idea of species It’s good news that they are thinking this way. If we’re going to vote money and legislation for environmental protection, we do need useful working classifications. Why waste time, money and energy “saving” a “species” that doesn’t really exist as a separate entity when some whole ecologies are critically endangered? And it doesn’t matter how we choose to classify the “species” within them. At least these are more constructive discussions to be involved in than attacking or defending Darwinism.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
14 Replies to “An academic discovers the “dark side” of Darwinism”
“Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178)”
Amongst social scientists doing studies of criminality and education analyses of American communities, this was fully proven back in the 1970s. (i.e., people of Black African descent commit more crimes and score lower on intelligence tests) Read anything by Charles Murray. Also note there is a defined, “Urban Contemporary” lifestyle based on the following principles: 1) drop out of school without graduating, 2) produce children without the benefit of marriage, 3) refuse work when it is offered, 4) supplement welfare income by committing crimes. (There’s a 5th principle, but I haven’t had enough coffee yet to remember it.)
And the same is true in Africa where Bantus taking political control of established, successful Westernized countries like Rhodesia has consistently resulted in mass murder and a collapse of the economy.
The only reason there is still any discussion of these facts is that there are people who do not WANT this to be true, and so they refuse to discuss it.
Up until the start of the 1950s, the black community in America was a shining example of strong marriages, strong families, strong work ethics, low dropout rate, and everything else you could possibly desire from any segment of a given society. The 1950s mark the start of the decline of the black family.
Nigeria has become the economic powerhouse of Africa. They are within 10 years of launching a Nigerian into space. A couple of decades ago, everyone thought of themselves from a tribe or clan or tribe perspective; as opposed to thinking of themselves as Nigerians. If you take the time to speak with any young Nigerian today, they speak of themselves as Nigerian.
Race has nothing to do with ability. Everything comes down to what people are conditioned to believe from an early age. The inner-cities of the United States are filled with people, like teachers, who tell black children they will never succeed. If you tell anyone they won’t succeed no matter what they do, that person will give up in time with very few exceptions.
What changed beginning in the 1960s was that public aid for “widows and orphans” was changed to “women with dependent children.” This specific thing that changed was that previously an unmarried woman who gave birth to a bastard child was on her own, dependent on her relatives, church, social and fraternal organizations. She was expected to be ashamed for what she’d done.
What changed was the qualification for “public aid”. Unmarried women with bastard children could now receive FULL benefits for themselves and their children. So there became an advantage to having SEVERAL bastard children because your monthly welfare income went up. And of course you now got subsidized housing, so you didn’t have to live with your parents. Again this is all fully explained by Professor Murray.
Murray does note with concern that by the 1980s White people had begun to realize that THEY could also live comfortably without ever working if they followed the example of the Blacks.
Oh, and of course you do understand that the standard IQ scale where 100 is the Mean and 15 us the Standard Deviation is for White North Europeans. For Blacks the Mean IQ is only 85 and the Standard Deviation is 10. So a Black with just 1 Standard Deviation below the Black average comes out something like “Moron” on the White People scale. There are of course Blacks with IQs of 130 and above. They’re just VERY very rare.
On the flip side, North Asians apparently have their own, higher IQ scale. So “geniuses” are more common amongst the descendants of the early humans who made the long trek East.
Given these facts, it’s hard to argue AGAINST Inheritance of Intelligence during “descent with modification”.
Oh, also note that as compensation, Blacks of Kenyan descent produce the best long distance runners. Although I don’t think an Olympic medal does you much good at an office job.
🙂 All darwinian evolutionists unequivocal believe in race supremacy: “whites are more evolved than blacks”. All scientists who accept evolution believe in a master race, in a more evolved race.
All christians believe that all people are equals under God because all have same root :Adam &Eve
The racism is linked with naturalism, materialism, darwinism, atheism.
Each Race evolved DIFFERENTLY. The “best” Race depends on what you want to optimize.
But it is stupid and dangerous to require identical social outcomes with no regard for personal differences.
I don’t know of ANY connection between racism and materialism or atheism. I don’t know what you mean by “naturalism”. If you refuse to accept the fact that people of the same race share similar attributes that they do not share with people from another race, then you need to read more, starting with Murray’s “Bell Curve” (which became one of the Forbidden Books when I was in college in the ’70s, man).
Removing statutory restrictions on schools and jobs and such in the 1960s did NOT result in the groups who had previously been discriminated against suddenly getting new jobs or admission to new schools because the talent wasn’t there. So we went through Tokenism, where 5 (or something) spots were reserved for members of officially recognized “minority groups”. And this still doesn’t work. Do you really wanna get operated on by a guy who passed Med School because he was the Token that year?
The Irish are called, amongst many other insulting terms, the “Niggers of Europe”. And while EVERYBODY wants a Scotch engineer for THEIR ship, Irishmen are only known for getting drunk and then singing, badly. And when one of the boyos, like Arthur Conan Doyle (ya simply CAN’T get more Irish than THAT) goes to the big city and wins fame on his merits alone, the guy is said to be an ENGLISH author, begora.
But fact is facts, and WISHING there were no differences between Races of humans ain’t gonna make it true.
Out of curiosity, just who is Austin Anderson and what are his academic credentials?
Earth to seversky- It doesn’t matter who Austin Anderson is. Either you can refute what he said or you can’t. Stop being such a coward that you have to attack the messenger instead of the message
Even if is true there are differences between races -a naturalist would look at people same way as cattle because sees only the material dimension (body) and come with a caliper for lenght, height, IQ, speed, etc..
A theist will see first a God’s creation and a brother and after that looks at physical attributes.This type of theistic “view ” is fundamentaly different from a naturalist view.
You say is bad for affirmative actions because is positive discrimination (become a political circus not a fair selection of qualities). This is true but this type of politics are promoted also by naturalists( but other factions -leftist ,progressive type ). Naturalists take always the extremes and both are wrong, because have a wrong perception about the purpose of this world and from this wrong ideea follow also wrong ideeas :garbage in – garbage out.
This sort of imperial racism is universal when Tribe A intends to conquer Tribe B, or has already conquered Tribe B. Tribe B is always seen as subhuman and displeasing to the eyes of God or Evolution. The same sort of casual dismissal happened among the old American tribes. The Tonkawa were called cannibals, then the other tribes united to obliterate them.
We hear similar not-my-species talk from American and British neocons describing Muslims, or American Mascoids describing Trumptards.
I am Irish.
When I read literature of the 1700’s and 1800’s and 1900’s I read the exact same stuff you are writing about us. Low iq’s, superstitious, dirty, lazy, irresponsible and so on. Punch cartoonists depicted Irish as ape-like, hulking and stupid.
So you will pardon me if I tell you plainly, you are talking tripe.
Austin Anderson is fully entitled to express his views on evolution or anything else that takes his fancy. He is not entitled to credit on the grounds of being an academic if he is not one. I read the article on the website but I could not find any biographical information about him which makes me a little suspicious, especially taken in conjunction with the paper reading more like anti-Darwinian propaganda than an academic paper.
LoL! @ seversky- Darwinism, and its modern offspring, are nothing but propaganda.
Darwin and Marx both contributed to the rise of one rather unpleasant person who put his views of being beyond such things as good and evil. Nietzsche created the idea of a super person who ruled by force based on the whims of someone willing to use strength of action. The person who personified Nietzsche’s belief in the super human ruling in such a way, with good and evil removed and only force remaining, was Mussolini.
Mussolini spent much of his life writing and editing socialist papers, and learned early on how to write effective propaganda. Marx and Darwin drove his early life, but it was Nietzsche who ultimately gave him something to live by. His hatred for Italian socialists came from their refusal to see war as a means to bring about revolution. They weren’t radical enough for him.
Mussolini did not rule with race in mind. He wasn’t a eugenicist. He had a Jewish mistress, which no eugenicist would have done. 80% of Jews in Italy survived his bloody reign.
Everything Darwin touched, and continues to touch, results in horrific outcomes. Without Darwin’s 1st and 2nd book, Marx would not have the foothold it has.
Nietzsche’s devout follower, Mussolini, was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Another who viewed himself as one of Nietzsche’s super humans was Mengistu Haile Mariam, who was responsible for over 2,000,000 deaths in Ethiopia. He was Soviet backed and Soviet armed. One of the worst dictators in all of Africa over the course of the entirety of the last century was a devout communist.
Among those he sought to slaughter were the remaining Jews who had been their from the time of Solomon. Another holocaust was underway. Between Israel and the United States, 3 operations were carried out to save as many lives as possible. Only about 1500 survived and are living in Israel today.
Where was the outrage? Not a single socialist country did anything to help. Not a single communist country did anything to help. Not a single democracy, except Israel and the United States, did anything to help.